German court rules religious circumcision on boys an assault

[LastPoet]

A little psysics can't hurt anyone

[Thor]

I don't recall being "tied down" while being circumcised.

My point was that someone would have to tie me down because I would not consent to such a thing.

Obviously you know nothing of it.

Did you even look at the pictures I provided a link to?

Besides, it's not in our custom to circumcise a baby. We get circumcised around 6-7 years old.

Which actually makes it worse! At least a baby will have no recollection of the procedure.

These are only a few failed examples.

And how would you feel if you were one of those "failed examples"?

If these were commonplace, our lineage should have ended a thousand years ago.

It doesn't matter how "commonplace" botched circumcisions are. The procedure is completely unnecessary and the risks are great.

Our customs state that circumcision should not be performed on a baby, but on an adolescent who knows what is about to happen.

And does this adolescent have any choice in the matter? Or is he just told to drop his drawers so the smelly old man can take a knife to his privates?

[Minimalist]

It stands to reason that male children may be born with a prepuce that's too small to let the penis pass, let alone when there's wood, for that, due to the risk of infection its tottaly legitimate for a parent to make that decision. However, for any other reason it stands as unnecessary as cutting a dogs ears for the purpose of breed.

I don't think anyone here is against it if the situation legitimately calls for it.

No but such situations would be rare.

What the shitheads in funny headgear want is cultural conformity to their sick religions.

[Ashendant]

Given that atheist parents circumcise their children in Turkey, I'd say that you're incorrect.

Probably because of tradition and misinformation again

It stands to reason that male children may be born with a prepuce that's too small to let the penis pass, let alone when there's wood, for that, due to the risk of infection its tottaly legitimate for a parent to make that decision. However, for any other reason it stands as unnecessary as cutting a dogs ears for the purpose of breed.

There are better solutions to that than circumcision.

EDIT:While trying to remember where in wikipedia i read it, i found about penile subincision and i think my face is stuck in horror mode

[Reforged]

I don't recall being "tied down" while being circumcised.

My point was that someone would have to tie me down because I would not consent to such a thing.

Obviously you know nothing of it.

Did you even look at the pictures I provided a link to?

Besides, it's not in our custom to circumcise a baby. We get circumcised around 6-7 years old.

Which actually makes it worse! At least a baby will have no recollection of the procedure.

These are only a few failed examples.

And how would you feel if you were one of those "failed examples"?

If these were commonplace, our lineage should have ended a thousand years ago.

It doesn't matter how "commonplace" botched circumcisions are. The procedure is completely unnecessary and the risks are great.

Our customs state that circumcision should not be performed on a baby, but on an adolescent who knows what is about to happen.

And does this adolescent have any choice in the matter? Or is he just told to drop his drawers so the smelly old man can take a knife to his privates?

Who wants to bet that the answer to all of these questions will somehow relate to how great Turkey is and how horribly flawed our countries are?
Oh who am I kidding, I won't know. I pressed the ignore button long ago and haven't looked back since. :-)

[CliveStaples]

It seems like people aren't reasoning very carefully in this thread.

My point was that someone would have to tie me down because I would not consent to such a thing.

Why should the standard be what you personally would consent to?

Did you even look at the pictures I provided a link to?

Which actually makes it worse! At least a baby will have no recollection of the procedure.

But surely with age comes greater capacity for self-determination and informed choice, yes? Generally, the older a patient who undergoes the procedure is, the less the "they can't consent to it" argument applies.

And how would you feel if you were one of those "failed examples"?

Every medical procedure will have failed examples. That doesn't mean they shouldn't ever be performed.

It doesn't matter how "commonplace" botched circumcisions are. The procedure is completely unnecessary and the risks are great.

So is a lot of plastic surgery. Should that be outlawed, as well?

It seems like you're coming close to imposing your own personal decisions about elective medical procedures onto others.

And does this adolescent have any choice in the matter? Or is he just told to drop his drawers so the smelly old man can take a knife to his privates?

Your reasoning seems to be, "If an adolescent doesn't have a choice in the matter, the medical procedure shouldn't be performed." But it seems that there are counterexamples to this principle: a young child who is knocked unconscious by some physical trauma (say, being hit by a car) might require medical attention. Should surgery not be performed because the adolescent doesn't have a choice in the matter?

So it seems to me that "If an adolescent doesn't have a choice in the matter, the medical procedure shouldn't be performed" is a bad principle to argue.

Instead, I'd argue something like, "Only medically necessary procedures should be performed without the consent of the patient undergoing the procedure," where 'medically necessary' would be defined in terms of the likelihood of a good outcome should the procedure not be performed--the higher the chance of a good outcome without the procedure, the less medically necessary it is.

But that's just my two cents.

[toro]

So is a lot of plastic surgery. Should that be outlawed, as well?

It seems like you're coming close to imposing your own personal decisions about elective medical procedures onto others.

...

Your reasoning seems to be, "If an adolescent doesn't have a choice in the matter, the medical procedure shouldn't be performed." But it seems that there are counterexamples to this principle: a young child who is knocked unconscious by some physical trauma (say, being hit by a car) might require medical attention. Should surgery not be performed because the adolescent doesn't have a choice in the matter?

So it seems to me that "If an adolescent doesn't have a choice in the matter, the medical procedure shouldn't be performed" is a bad principle to argue.

Instead, I'd argue something like, "Only medically necessary procedures should be performed without the consent of the patient undergoing the procedure," where 'medically necessary' would be defined in terms of the likelihood of a good outcome should the procedure not be performed--the higher the chance of a good outcome without the procedure, the less medically necessary it is.

But that's just my two cents.

I agree with the last part - especially given that the medical community sees it as a largely useless process.

However, If we don't allow parents to tattoo their children (not allowed), I see no reason to allow them to give their children plastic surgery (allowed following psychological examination of the children and consent) or circumcision (allowed following a shrug from the parents). Both are permanent changes to their body that have no purpose other than cultural norms. Either we start telling parents they can't make unnecessary and permanent physical changes to their children's bodies or we tell them they can. We shouldn't simply be picking the changes based on cultural norms.

[CliveStaples]

However, If we don't allow parents to tattoo their children (not allowed), I see no reason to allow them to give their children plastic surgery (allowed following psychological examination of the children and consent) or circumcision (allowed following a shrug from the parents). Both are permanent changes to their body that have no purpose other than cultural norms. Either we start telling parents they can't make unnecessary and permanent physical changes to their children's bodies or we tell them they can. We shouldn't simply be picking the changes based on cultural norms.

Hmm. The only reasons I can think of to prohibit child tattoos is if it would be more likely to be abused--i.e., the expected harm from permitting circumcision is less than the expected harm from permitting child tattoos. Perhaps tattoos are more likely to deface the child--they are generally more noticeable than circumcision.

But I don't see why a parent can have their child circumcised for religious reasons but not give them a tattoo of, say, the Spirit God-King Mamoset. If one is permitted (or forbidden) by the free-exercise clause, why not the other?

[Epimethean]

The penis has a foreskin for a reason. Cutting it off for a religion is unreason.

[zentor]

I though circumsicing is healthier, my families Indian and I'm born here and circumsised
also uncircumirsed dicks looks gross