German court bans circumcision

[MH]

Right... OK we are in the copy paste Internet bull stage....just look for something to paste that contradict your claims.
Better yet talk to all the secular people about how they feel about it..secular for preventing your suspicion of bias.
Make them look hard at their dick and tell you how they feel about it...ask some of their more experienced women which one they might prefer.

Its about fighting religion nothing more...as much heretic unbeliever as i am i can't agree with your vision of pluralism by wiping out traditions and cultural heritages in pursuit of some sort of tyrannic hegemony...
Male circumcision does not affect your rights does not hurt anyone and the "victims" have no regrets so stop all this mantra about child abuse.

"The First International Symposium on Circumcision:"
Thats gettin silly...

[Penguin]

In Germany the age to choose religion is 14.
Why not let them decide when they're old enough?
Does it make anyone a less believer if a little bit of skin is attached to the penis or not? Does a faith relate to a foreskin?

Some stuff to think about:
60% of all Swedish Jews have a little more skin on their dick, so? Are those no more people with faith, less worth, Untermenschen?
Some sane believers:
Muslims: http://www.quran.org/CIRCUMCISION.HTM
Jews: http://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org/

[Rockstar]

Just want to put your mind at ease Skybird and let you and The First International Symposium on Circumcision know that my foreskinless penis works just fine and I am extremely pleased with its performance. Oh, and my wife who calls it 'Sparticus' can attest that it keeps her VERY happy too. If you dont believe me I can have pictures sent for you and your fellow professionals at the U.N. to ogle over.

[MH]

I personally have no issues with choices still i have yet to see all this reasoning behind child abuse,sexual issues and all the rest in reality.
Something that would really out right parents to make those decision for silly traditional reasons or whatever.
So far i have seen claims on verge of bigotry or ignorance or some stretched arguments on this forum...still i don't deny that danger of complication may exists...after all it is sort of surgical procedure.
Also doing this at later age is painful and much more problematic as someone already mentioned here.

Jews against circumcision made their choice and this is fine with me...

[Penguin]

Originally Posted by MH

I personally have no issues with choices still i have yet to see all this reasoning behind child abuse,sexual issues and all the rest in reality.
Something that would really out right parents to make those decision for silly traditional reasons or whatever.
So far i have seen claims on verge of bigotry or ignorance or some stretched arguments on this forum...still i don't deny that danger of complication may exists...after all it is sort of surgical procedure.
Also doing this at later age is painful and much more problematic as someone already mentioned here.

Jews against circumcision made their choice and this is fine with me...

I think the "let them decide when they're old enough"-people in this discussion made their point clear that a male circumsition is not the same as cutting off a clitoris - which is violence and abuse, as they can't have any fun anymore when shagging, I think we all know enough men who say that it doesn't effect sexuality - and women who say the same

I once have commented a video on here of a 4 year old child who 'preached' religion as child abuse and got **** for it. The people who were upset about it didn't realize that I have nothing against teaching your kid the values/beliefs that you think are right. The problem is forcing someone into a role which they have no intellectual capacity to realize.

Of course you still have the choice to become an atheist when you are circumsised, but why shouldn't the opposite be also true: You can also become a believer no matter how many foreskins you have or not. I do not see the big fuzz about it and frankly I don't see anymore behind it than the fear of the religious crew to lose members. Maybe they would get less followers when they ask the kids at 14.
If it's more painful to a juvenile or adult than a baby is questionable, because you can't actively remember stuff before you were 3 years old. When you get a tattoo it hurts, so why can't religious people have the same commitment and say: I do it because I think it's worth it.

[MH]

As a matter of indoctrination i'm against schools which are purely religious...like orthodox.
The schools must be forced to teach some general sciences at some reasonable levels or denied money or closed if needs to be.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by MH

Right... OK we are in the copy paste Internet bull stage....just look for something to paste that contradict your claims.
Better yet talk to all the secular people about how they feel about it..secular for preventing your suspicion of bias.
Make them look hard at their dick and tell you how they feel about it...ask some of their more experienced women which one they might prefer.

Its about fighting religion nothing more...as much heretic unbeliever as i am i can't agree with your vision of pluralism by wiping out traditions and cultural heritages in pursuit of some sort of tyrannic hegemony...
Male circumcision does not affect your rights does not hurt anyone and the "victims" have no regrets so stop all this mantra about child abuse.

"The First International Symposium on Circumcision:"
Thats gettin silly...

As a secular atheist who already got clipped for ostensible* medical necessity (at ~3, not as an infant, and my penis was tender for a good while after it), I do mind somewhat.

*Ostensible, b/c with the zeitgeist surrounding circumstition, it is hard not to suspect they gave up trying to save my foreskin at the slightest sign of trouble.

First, whether someone gets hurt. Even if you assume our foreskin is "just a little flap" with no nerves at all, so it was absolutely painless when it was cut and no complications ever happen with the procedure (all of which are false), it still existed on the kid and now it is gone. There's no room for subjectivity in this, there's the objective fact that mass was reduced

2nd, as an objective fact, a fairly large family of nerves did reside on my foreskin. Now, I know that many studies say my sexual sensitivity won't be negatively affected, but there are some that do, and the one I read is more objective in actually measuring the theresholds or rates of sexual dysfunction.

http://www.circumstitions.com/Images/sorrells-cut.jpg
v
http://www.circumstitions.com/Images/sorrells-int.jpg
+
http://www.circumstitions.com/Images...s-coloured.gif

http://www.circumstitions.com/Images...ch-denmark.png

Considering that less sensitivity is a logical outcome of losing so many nerves, guess which I buy. They have a "prima facie" case. Besides Sorrells chart matches up well wiith my own experience

Besides, perhaps a crude analogy is appropriate. Every kid comes born with $2 million dollars. Due to religious reasons parents like to take away $1 million, though not for personal gain - it is thrown into the trash. Even with an infinite amount of studies to "prove" that kids are no less happy with $1 million than $2 million, I don't think it is possible to argue thus the kids did not really lose due to this practice, or that it should be continued for religious reasons.

3rd, the zeitgeist when it comes to circumstition is similar or worse to that of slavery in the early 19th century. Due to (religiously-motivated) tradition, progressives may consider it an anarchic, inefficient and/or immoral practice, but they won't look at a slaveowner as if he's a monster like we would today either.

It wasn't so long ago when having a foreskin was considered lumped into the category of pathology and circumstition is not even a surgical procedure - objective untruths!

Given this background, asking secularists is probably ... futile.

Nevertheless, objective indicators suggest something is being lost. Thus it is an objective wrong, and if we are to hold fast to the principle that ones rights stop where another's begin (with perhaps a narrow mutual-coordination zone), then religion or tradition MUST lose here. How many more foreskins do we have to lose, how many more accidents do we have to suffer while waiting for the zeitgeist to move up.

[MH]

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

Nevertheless, objective indicators suggest something is being lost. Thus it is an objective wrong, and if we are to hold fast to the principle that ones rights stop where another's begin (with perhaps a narrow mutual-coordination zone), then religion or tradition MUST lose here. How many more foreskins do we have to lose, how many more accidents do we have to suffer while waiting for the zeitgeist to move up.

The background means something....in theory you are correct in practice very few seem to mind.
If religion or tradition must lose is not for you to decide it a matter of people involved in this.
I don't think that turning the issue into some sort of crusade will do much good.