Circumcision ruling condemned by Germany's Muslim and Jewish leaders

[Vidi]

Oh, maybe V is looking for something to blame for his equipment not working!

Maybe you need to stop projecting.

 

[Unkotare]

I am ALWAYS opposed to other people making decisions for us.

You don't make decisions for your children?

Not ones that mutilate their bodies for no reason, no.

That's a dodge because you've got your axe to grind and can't think beyond it.

 

[Vidi]

You don't make decisions for your children?

Not ones that mutilate their bodies for no reason, no.

That's a dodge because you've got your axe to grind and can't think beyond it.

Its not a dodge at all. I chose my words carefully. if ,for example, my daughter needed her appendix removed because it was about to burst, I would choose for it to be removed. Does that remove an organ? Yes. Could it be seen as mutilation? Sure. Is it medically neccessary? Yes.


Just because you cant find a way to attack my position doesnt mean Im dodging the question. Again, stop projecting.

 

[Unkotare]

Not ones that mutilate their bodies for no reason, no.

That's a dodge because you've got your axe to grind and can't think beyond it.

Its not a dodge at all.

Of course it's a dodge. Instead of addressing the question you just looked for an excuse to reiterate your talking point.

 

[Vidi]

That's a dodge because you've got your axe to grind and can't think beyond it.

Its not a dodge at all.

Of course it's a dodge. Instead of addressing the question you just looked for an excuse to reiterate your talking point.

No you just didnt like the answer because it didnt slide into your next prepared fail argument.

 

[Unkotare]

Its not a dodge at all.

Of course it's a dodge. Instead of addressing the question you just looked for an excuse to reiterate your talking point.

No you just didnt like the answer .

Because it was a dodge.

 

[Vidi]

Of course it's a dodge. Instead of addressing the question you just looked for an excuse to reiterate your talking point.

No you just didnt like the answer .

Because it was a dodge.

In two seperate threads, youve degenerated into nonsense. You lose in both.

 

[Unkotare]

No you just didnt like the answer .

Because it was a dodge.

In two seperate threads, youve degenerated into nonsense. You lose in both.

That post was also a dodge.

 

[oldernwiser]

Why would I do that?

Why do it to a baby?

Aside from those who do it as a matter of religious ritual, it has long been considered a matter of hygiene and for the prevention of infections. The rate of circumcisions has dropped in recent years, but it has hovered around 60% in the US for several decades - certainly not all or even most a matter of religion.

And now for a dose of truth from one of my favorite talk-docs:
Dr. Dean Edell Statement on Circumcision

 

[Political Junky]

Why do it to a baby?

Aside from those who do it as a matter of religious ritual, it has long been considered a matter of hygiene and for the prevention of infections. The rate of circumcisions has dropped in recent years, but it has hovered around 60% in the US for several decades - certainly not all or even most a matter of religion.

And now for a dose of truth from one of my favorite talk-docs:
Dr. Dean Edell Statement on Circumcision

Dr. Edell's piece should be read by all.
Edell is Jewish and, as he said, didn't circumcise his youngest son.

 

[Noomi]

Can I just take one portion of the article and respond to it? Its not related directly to circumcision, but I think it is important to comment on it:

A judge at a Cologne court said that the circumcision of minors went against a child's interests because it led to a physical alteration of the body, and because people other than the child were determining its religious affiliation.

The bold portion is what I wish to comment on. Just because a child is circumcised doesn't mean they belong to a religion. Many people are circumcised, and many of those people have no religion.

Also, what of parents who have their young children baptised into their religion? While baptism isn't altering a part of the body, aren't these parents determining the religious affiliation of the child, while the child is too young to make their own decisions?

For the record, I am fine with circumcision, as long as it is performed by a trained professional - and I would also prefer that a general anaesthetic be used to prevent the child feeling pain.

 

[Intense]

Can I just take one portion of the article and respond to it? Its not related directly to circumcision, but I think it is important to comment on it:

A judge at a Cologne court said that the circumcision of minors went against a child's interests because it led to a physical alteration of the body, and because people other than the child were determining its religious affiliation.

The bold portion is what I wish to comment on. Just because a child is circumcised doesn't mean they belong to a religion. Many people are circumcised, and many of those people have no religion.

Also, what of parents who have their young children baptised into their religion? While baptism isn't altering a part of the body, aren't these parents determining the religious affiliation of the child, while the child is too young to make their own decisions?

For the record, I am fine with circumcision, as long as it is performed by a trained professional - and I would also prefer that a general anaesthetic be used to prevent the child feeling pain.

It's like the State is offended that the Parents have any Authority over the child.

 

[konradv]

Liberal reasoning at it's best right here folks, now step right up folks and watch the free show, because these kind of people cannot be reasoned with at all, especially once they purchase land with an ocean view in Arizona, in which has been sold to them by whom they thought were their friends or allies in life.. B )

Conservative reasoning, actually. There's no "one size fits all". Just because some may have problems later, doesn't mean all should be affected.

The only people here advocating a one size fits all approach are those who insist circumcision be outlawed. I don't see anyone suggesting that all male babies be circumcised by law. The parents decide. That's it.

Then the parents should decide for cause. I'm not insisting that it be outlawed, just that people think before simply doing something out of tradition.

 

[Unkotare]

Conservative reasoning, actually. There's no "one size fits all". Just because some may have problems later, doesn't mean all should be affected.

The only people here advocating a one size fits all approach are those who insist circumcision be outlawed. I don't see anyone suggesting that all male babies be circumcised by law. The parents decide. That's it.

Then the parents should decide for cause. I'm not insisting that it be outlawed, just that people think before simply doing something out of tradition.

The parents can decide for whatever reason they want, including tradition.

 

[Unkotare]

Why do it to a baby?

Aside from those who do it as a matter of religious ritual, it has long been considered a matter of hygiene and for the prevention of infections. The rate of circumcisions has dropped in recent years, but it has hovered around 60% in the US for several decades - certainly not all or even most a matter of religion.

And now for a dose of truth from one of my favorite talk-docs:
Dr. Dean Edell Statement on Circumcision

I'm sure you've read the many, many links I've provided on this thread.

 

[oldernwiser]

Aside from those who do it as a matter of religious ritual, it has long been considered a matter of hygiene and for the prevention of infections. The rate of circumcisions has dropped in recent years, but it has hovered around 60% in the US for several decades - certainly not all or even most a matter of religion.

And now for a dose of truth from one of my favorite talk-docs:
Dr. Dean Edell Statement on Circumcision

I'm sure you've read the many, many links I've provided on this thread.

I have. Just pointing out that there are some conflicting views on this subject. Some have verifiable studies to back them up, some just refer back to "common knowledge".

My own thinking is that circumcision - both penile and clitoral - are barbaric throwbacks to when some religious zealot made the determination that sex was for procreation ONLY, and as such should not be something that was to be enjoyed. The 25 square inches of tissue removed from an organ which contains more nerve endings per square inch than any other part of the human body can ONLY be viewed as removing the enjoyment aspect from the human sexual act. Thinking in those terms, why would we knowingly ruin our children's potential happiness? Even though we are the parents, what could give ANYONE the right to make such a long term crippling decision on another human? Are we THAT ignorant, or just THAT arrogant?

It's mentioned that there are other issues that are being addressed beyond ritualistic mutilation. However, there are other parts of the body which tend to cause bigger problems and are never addressed until they actually do. Why don't we immediately remove the appendixes from our babies at birth? It's clearly a useless organ. It may even become inflamed, infected, or even rupture at some point in the child's life. Why do we attack our kid's genitals and not go after other potential threats?

The answer is that it's not ethical to remove a perfectly functional organ. Why would we ever consider circumcision an ethical thing to do without cause?

 

[Unkotare]

I have. Just pointing out that there are some conflicting views on this subject.

That much is fair enough.

 

[konradv]

The only people here advocating a one size fits all approach are those who insist circumcision be outlawed. I don't see anyone suggesting that all male babies be circumcised by law. The parents decide. That's it.

Then the parents should decide for cause. I'm not insisting that it be outlawed, just that people think before simply doing something out of tradition.

The parents can decide for whatever reason they want, including tradition.

Didn't say they couldn't, just that it was stupid.

 

[Unkotare]

Then the parents should decide for cause. I'm not insisting that it be outlawed, just that people think before simply doing something out of tradition.

The parents can decide for whatever reason they want, including tradition.

Didn't say they couldn't, just that it was stupid.

That is your opinion. That's why you can decide for your children and others decide for theirs. Simple enough.

 

[Political Junky]

Can I just take one portion of the article and respond to it? Its not related directly to circumcision, but I think it is important to comment on it:

A judge at a Cologne court said that the circumcision of minors went against a child's interests because it led to a physical alteration of the body, and because people other than the child were determining its religious affiliation.

The bold portion is what I wish to comment on. Just because a child is circumcised doesn't mean they belong to a religion. Many people are circumcised, and many of those people have no religion.

Also, what of parents who have their young children baptised into their religion? While baptism isn't altering a part of the body, aren't these parents determining the religious affiliation of the child, while the child is too young to make their own decisions?

For the record, I am fine with circumcision, as long as it is performed by a trained professional - and I would also prefer that a general anaesthetic be used to prevent the child feeling pain.

Not many people in Germany, or anywhere in Europe, are circumcised who aren't Jewish or Muslim ... it's extremely rare.