German court bans circumcision

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Red October1984

HE [Obama] IS SCREWING EVERYTHING UP!!

This implies that things were working before he was elected.

[Red October1984]

Ok. Lets look at Obama's presidency and Bush's last.


Obama came rocketing into office early 2009. He hasnt kept any of his "promises for Change", he is trying to force healthcare onto us. He wants to take our money, and as a tax, force us to pay for birth control and contraception. His stimulus plan? FAIL.


Bush had some good days, and some bad days. He is one of my favorites. It wasnt him so much as it was Congress. His CONGRESS spent all the money that caused this recession.

I could go on......but i think this is enough for now. Mitt Romney wasnt my first choice for Republican, but, I think he'll do good for us. Its a shame that Rick Santorum dropped out. I really liked the guy. Hopefully he'll run in 2016

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Red October1984

Ok. Lets look at Obama's presidency and Bush's last.


Obama came rocketing into office early 2009. He hasnt kept any of his "promises for Change", he is trying to force healthcare onto us. He wants to take our money, and as a tax, force us to pay for birth control and contraception. His stimulus plan? FAIL.


Bush had some good days, and some bad days. He is one of my favorites. It wasnt him so much as it was Congress. His CONGRESS spent all the money that caused this recession.

I could go on......but i think this is enough for now. Mitt Romney wasnt my first choice for Republican, but, I think he'll do good for us. Its a shame that Rick Santorum dropped out. I really liked the guy. Hopefully he'll run in 2016

Then why do you not hold congress responsible for the spending under Obama's presidency?

In terms of Bush and spending, federal spending rose by 70% under his administration. Tax revenues were up by almost 14%. Defense spending alone rose by 107% in fighting a war that should never have been fought. He spent more on Medicare and Social Security than any president in history. These are all budget items. The executive branch makes the budget, not the legislative, remember?

And let us not even forget the so-called Patriot Act and the disasterous No Child Left Behind Act. Forcing upon us indeed. Obama is a bad president, but he is bad becuase he his actions are like a third Bush term. And you are right in that this is no change at all.

EDIT: And Santorum? Guy was my senator for 12 years; I know a whole lot about him. I'll pass on a Santorum presidency.

[Red October1984]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

Then why do you not hold congress responsible for the spending under Obama's presidency?

In terms of Bush and spending, federal spending rose by 70% under his administration. Tax revenues were up by almost 14%. Defense spending alone rose by 107% in fighting a war that should never have been fought. He spent more on Medicare and Social Security than any president in history. These are all budget items. The executive branch makes the budget, not the legislative, remember?

And let us not even forget the so-called Patriot Act and the disasterous No Child Left Behind Act. Forcing upon us indeed. Obama is a bad president, but he is bad becuase he his actions are like a third Bush term. And you are right in that this is no change at all.

EDIT: And Santorum? Guy was my senator for 12 years; I know a whole lot about him. I'll pass on a Santorum presidency.

I also completely hate the Obama Congress. And supreme court. I am not as well informed as you are. I think that if the Iraq war never happened and we just went after Bin Laden, things would be better.


We'll call it a draw.

[kiwi_2005]

I think it should be up to the parents whether they want their child circumcise. Ive read that an uncircumcised man has more chance of getting cancer around the penis area (yes it does exist!) than a man that isn't because with an uncircumsize man (warning if you read on, you may throw up) the mucus under the foreskin can over the years cause cancer later in life.

My mother wanted me circumcise but my father said no way, so the chop never happened. Back then the husband was still the boss of the household.

[MH]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Sorry, but it takes much more to ruin a thread in GT.

Let' say I'm getting easily passionate when it is about freedom versus religion, and equality of all before the law versus religious claim to get specially exempted from valid laws but to enjoy undeserved priviliges instead.

Be careful not to turn liberal democracy into your own sharia...

[Skybird]

Two GERMAN articles from a magazine site I know since longer, focussing on gender mainstreaming and social engineering, family, female emancipation and such issues. Good site, I recommend to visit it occaisonally for latest entries. It often puts social and family policies from head back on the feet.

Religionen sind zu schonen? Um jeden Preis? - 10 Thesen und Antithesen

Fragen und Antworten zu einem politischen Tabuthema

And while going over the headlines this morning, i stumbled over the latest poll. 88% of the asked individual expressed strict opposition to tolerance for religiously motivated circumcision.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by MH

Be careful not to turn liberal democracy into your own sharia...

Oh, I pretty much leave others alone - as long as they do their blakc magic stuff to themselves only, not to others, not to state or society - and not to their children. The right of parents to educate their children the way they want ends where they do violate the legitimate rights and interests of the child and abuse it. This issue in this thread is about a 3000 year-long era of intellectual darkness while this abscence of light should excuse to cut off body parts from children. Maybe this is because in darkness you cannot see?

BTW, what many people do not seem to know is: neither in Islam nor in Judaism the circumcision of babies and children is a religious "must". It is not.

[Skybird]

Oh, and this: the big Vogue of doing it thjat has been seen in the Us in recent decades, seems to be over, too. Numbers are in sharp decline. Note en passant, from the first German essay I linked: when it got introduced in the US, that was just 150 years ago - and the main argument was to prevent boys from masturbating. To prevent blindness and early mental retarding, you see.

http://www.examiner.com/article/circ...-to-33-percent

According to the CDC rates of circumcision performed on newborn males in the U.S. declined sharply from 56 percent in 2006 to just 33 percent in 2009. The decision to circumcise a newborn so that he will fit in with peers in the locker room is no longer valid.


Circumcision in the U.S. has been a controversial and hot button topic for years. Circumcision rates in 1970 were almost 90 percent. The credit for this incredible decline might be due to the ever increasing number of parents who are educating themselves about this unnecessary cosmetic procedure before making a choice.


No national health organization in the world recommends circumcision for healthy male infants, not the American Academy of Pediatrics or the American Medical Association. Nearly all European males are intact, with no epidemic of penile health problems, thus discrediting the American held believe that circumcision is healthy.


Another myth is that circumcision removes just a little flap of skin. The truth is that roughly 15 square inches of tissue is removed, amounting to anywhere from one-third to one-half of the skin covering a normal penis. Removed with this tissue are 240 feet of nerves and up to 20,000 nerve endings.


Activists spreading the word about circumcision call themselves intactivists. Their argument is that an intact penis is the default and natural condition. Don***8217;t fix it if it ain***8217;t broken. Risks and side effects can include hemorrhage and even death. The foreskin that is removed actually has a function.


Another argument against routine newborn circumcision is consent. An infant can***8217;t give it. It***8217;s his body; he should make the decision when he***8217;s older. Some circumcised men have even opted for foreskin restoration.


Many organizations have come out against routine infant circumcision. Just a few of which are: Doctors Opposing Circumcision, Mothers Against Circumcision and even Jews Against Circumcision.

[MH]

Originally Posted by Skybird

\BTW, what many people do not seem to know is: neither in Islam nor in Judaism the circumcision of babies and children is a religious "must". It is not.

Depends who you may ask...as been said its not only the religious people's choice.
Other than that you don't have any intellectual superiority to decide whether it is right thing or wrong...no more than next Jew.
Also pasting all the cons can be easily addressed with pasting a lot of pros which only illustrates haw insignificant is the medical issue...there is no concrete data just opinions.
Actually the pro circumcision data is widely accepted as for now.
On de facto level millions and millions of people have no medical problems.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by MH

Actually the pro circumcision data is widely accepted as for now.

Actually< -this is wrong. The medical mythology that gas been erected around this in defence of it, has been picked apart since longer time now. And the - also claimed - protection against sexual diseases and infections also plays no role relating babies. Like the Geman doctors for the most say and agree on: the claimed health benefits are very much in doubt, the gains, if they exist, are empircally so minor that they rank as almost natural statistic deviations too small to counter the risks and the severity and consequences of the surgery, and thus the whole thing stands on extre3mely weak legs when it is being done for the sake of disease preventions (again: why is sexually transmitted disease considered to be an argument considering babies and little boys?)

Today, BBC or a German newspaper reported that in British faith schools girls get denied to receive an immunisation injection against cervical cancer. They instead are expected to have no intercourse before marriage. What is the logfic here? To allow thosuands of girls getting cervical cancers in Europe every years in order to treach a mmoral lesson, a lesson basing on Catholic vlaues, not evenm values universially agreed upon? One got to love it with those religious hypocrites. Must be the same reason why they do not allow to fight AIDS by propagating the use of condoms, and to battle population explosion by using contraceptives. And this is the gang that wants to tell us about the morality to allow mutlaqtion of babies and boys?

HA...!

On de facto level millions and millions of people have no medical problems.

Which also in doubt in that various shares of questioned male populations reported that they regret that they got snipped, becasaue they feel their sexual sensitivity being effected. Which is no surprise when considering that in no way it can ba argued that it were just a piece of useless skin being cut off . This useless piece of skin is integral part of the organ, with hundreds of meters mof nerve fibres and a functional purprose in protecting the organ.

Alsop, statistics of doctprs ion Germany say that even those cuts done in hospitals and by doctors, ´cause problems in 1 of 50 cases, problems with conseqeunces that effect the organ´and the sexual behaviour of hte individual for the rest of his life. By these - proven empirical - numbers from hospitals, it is estimated that the number of medical complications when the procecdure being done outside hospitals and by non-mdical surgeons, is around 10%, some even estiumate up to 20%.

This is intolerable.

But it is not the only issue. The issue is that relgion shall be no excuse why parents should bve allowed to cut off body parts of depending, defenceless, vulnerable little babies and boys. It violates criminal laws. It violates basic prinmciples of the constittuioon, and the ethical value system of the West. It is somethign that the subject likely would not voluntarily agree to once grown up and being in full knoweldge and education oof the Why behind it. It is somethign that if it would be dopne by people not claiming relgion to be their mtoivation, would make the polcie show up immediately and the parents bein brought to court, possibly even loosing the right to raise children. Child abuse, we call it by law. Our laws are quite clear there - the court in Cologne was just guilty of for the first time ever indicating that these laws must be imposed on religions as well and that relgions shall be no safe heaven to escape valid laws.

One of the essay I linked above mentions that the issue sooner or later will end up at the human rights court anyway, and I think it will end like that indeed. Meanwhile, the duscissiopn has reached Austria as well, wehre also a majority of people are against this stoneage medicine practices on children and babies. I think it will not stop in Austria. With an official European capaign against female mutilation, it will be hard to explain why mutilation of boys and babies shall remain allowed, and how the abuse of children and babies can be argued not to be violating their right for pohysical integrity and a violation of their most profound human rights. With the number of circumcisions done for reasons of being en vogue declining, social arguments like boys falling out of their peer groups also lose the little teeth that they may have had.

Let people do to their bodies whatever they want - once they are grown up enough to know and to judge and to decide. Like it is being enforced by the law with other self-muztilating or body-alteration things as well.

Needless to say that religions will not give up their demand that they shall be allowed to brandmark their young prey as early as possible to mark their property claims. I said in the beginning it is about branding cattle on the meadow. And I'll stick to it. That'S all it ism about: power over people, control. Too bad if that happens with adult people, still. But something that really is intolerable and disgustoing when it is being done by absuing theweakest and innocent there are. One could as well carry out mutilations on the disabled, the elder, the mentally insane. But then one would call it Nazi-medicine, or euthanasia, if it is lethal. When mutilation is done on behalf of superstition and Abrakadabra, then it should be fine?

Not with me. What relgious people do to themselves, I take little interest in. But when they start to do it to others as well, to children, to the state'S legislation, to free secular society - then that brings me quicker into arms than many other things. I would feel dirty and honourless if I would just silently toleate it and do nothing. Because I think human freedom is precious, and human dignity is, like the German constitution says already in its very first sentence, untouchable.

Even the dignity of little, small humans still being young.

[MH]

Let go with the Muslim thinking then....
Lets outlaw alcohol because it does more damage to people than anything else including killing little children.
Again...culturally booze is so deeply rooted in western culture that even defining it as drug is out of the question.
Can you see here the cultural issue...let outlaw coke
The change if ever... should come from the community itself in particular in a case where ethics is of cultural debate,damage is totally matter of opinion and cultural importance is big issue.

Actually< -this is wrong. The medical mythology that gas been erected around this in defence of it, has been picked apart since longer time now

Depends who you ask...

[Penguin]

Originally Posted by Red October1984

If it is a matter of religion, I shall not stand in anybody's way. I shouldve read more closely.


I will never restrict anybody's religious beliefs if i ever became a government employee. Unlike this BS that Obama is tossing around here in America. HE IS SCREWING EVERYTHING UP!! I have yet to meet somebody who thinks he is a good president.

Thank you very much for your deep and profound analysis of the topic.
Hey, there's no need to read the thread or even the OP's article before replying. Why not inform the people in the other threads, too? I think the lolcat thread could also need an "Obama screws everything up" posting.
Protip: You can certainly convince more people if you don't only use capslock, also play a little with the font size. This way your message is clearly heard.

Please inform us in case you should ever work on a Sunday, so that we can put you to death. Exodus 35:2 says so and you don't want to stand in the way of religious beliefs, do you?

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Penguin

Please inform us in case you should ever work on a Sunday.

Well, technically speaking that would be Saturday.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by MH

Let go with the Muslim thinking then....
Lets outlaw alcohol because it does more damage to people than anything else including killing little children.

If alcohol were being injwected via injeciton hoses into children to intoxicate them to death, yes, then it woul dbe an option to ban lcohol. Or better: to ban alcohol being used this way on children. If you want to drink yourself to death, go ahead, I couldn'T care less. If you aise hcildren, the authorities will take them away from you sooner or later, according to the law which says children mjust be protected from their parents if these abuses them or do not treat them to their minimum bsic needs and interests.

Again...culturally booze is so deeply rooted in western culture that even defining it as drug is out of the question.
Can you see here the cultural issue...let outlaw coke
The change if ever... should come from the community itself in particular in a case where ethics is of cultural debate,damage is totally matter of opinion and cultural importance is big issue.

Circumcision: somethiong is being done to children, actively, violating them, absuing their weakness. It gets done to you. Alcohol, Coke, or, like in the essay I linked: giving a child a prescribed drugs against a a coronar problem with its heart - these are not the same thing at all.

Depends who you ask...

No, it is not an issue of interpretation, it is an iussue that stands or falls by empirical experience, by numbers. For example it is not interpretation whether or not there were medical complications in every 50th child after circumcision done in a hospital, it is fact. Counting events and getting a total number is no interpretatioin issue, it is empirical evidence.

It also is no interpretation only when questionaires result in total numbers on men reporting this or that experience, it again is - empiry. "Three in ten subjects say" means 30% - not more, not less, there is no interpretation.

The mythology of hygienics benefitting from circumcision, has been pretty much shown wrong EMPIRICALLY that way. Like we also know today for sure that masturbation does not blind you, that it does not kill your brain, and that it is a myth that men have only so and so many "shots" in life, and not more. We also know that it does not ain bread from heaven, that a shepard does not divide the seas by swinging a magical wand, and that mutilating the gentical of little children doe snothing to please or annoy any god. The only ones being annoyed are the kids and people like me, and the only ones being pleased are priests and parents who do to their kids what has been done to them by their own parents. One generation infects the next one.

The prescribed cure to heal this: education, and enforcing the right of children to grow up unmobbed by religions, and as adults decide by their own, in freedom and self-determination, whether they want to join the skinner-club, or not.

I mean I hope you would call the police when you learn that your neighbours use to cut off the left little finger from the hands of their children when they reach the age of 4, which means the age of holy fingerlessness, eh?