ChatterBank4 mins ago
Germany has seen sense, they have banned circumcision on the grounds of religious beliefs. Why has it taken so long for a government to realise it is child abuse?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by dabees. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Circumcised babies have less chance of cancer of the penis than uncircumcised babies in adult life.
Smegma and phimosis are thought to be conditions of the penis which predispose to penile cancer and are not encountered in the circumcised penis.
There are medical indications that some have indicated.
Cancer of the penis is exceedingly rare both in the circumcised and un circumcised penis.
The circumcised penis is less sensitive than the uncircumcised penis and premature ejaculation is less sensitive than the former, making sexual intercourse for the woman more pleasurable.
Circumcision is a minor procedure......but an operation no less.
Seems harsh to ban this procedure...........parental choice seems to be adequate.
Smegma and phimosis are thought to be conditions of the penis which predispose to penile cancer and are not encountered in the circumcised penis.
There are medical indications that some have indicated.
Cancer of the penis is exceedingly rare both in the circumcised and un circumcised penis.
The circumcised penis is less sensitive than the uncircumcised penis and premature ejaculation is less sensitive than the former, making sexual intercourse for the woman more pleasurable.
Circumcision is a minor procedure......but an operation no less.
Seems harsh to ban this procedure...........parental choice seems to be adequate.
@Mike 1111
I wasn't initially going to post on this thread, since Kromo's statement very eloquently summed up my own view of male circumcision as a religious observance - but then I read this piece of drivel that you posted, and felt moved to comment.
Quite subtle of the Germans, really. Having realised that the gas chambers were not the final solution, what better way to attack the Jews than by undermining their customs, under the holier-than-thou umbrella of the Human Rights Act?[i
So are you really trying to say that the modern day german nation is essentially a bunch of closet nazis, holding hard to those repulsive racial ideology that characterised the Nazi party during WW2 characterised by the attempted genocide of the jews? What a truly repellent and offensive thing to post! -Exceptionally offensive to any German,mired in paranoid conspiracy theory, and just plain idiotic.
And then, in your follow up post, we can see exactly why you posted such drivel, because you feel prompted to defend a pointless, stoneage religious custom against what you see as an attack on religious privilege from the godless horde. ]/What a completely stupid thing to say. Utterly shameful/
The archetypical atheist response to anything to which they have no answer" [i]
Its truly pathetic how the defenders of religion privilege will adopt any paranoid, conspiracist or downright stupid worldview in defence of their belief.
I wasn't initially going to post on this thread, since Kromo's statement very eloquently summed up my own view of male circumcision as a religious observance - but then I read this piece of drivel that you posted, and felt moved to comment.
Quite subtle of the Germans, really. Having realised that the gas chambers were not the final solution, what better way to attack the Jews than by undermining their customs, under the holier-than-thou umbrella of the Human Rights Act?[i
So are you really trying to say that the modern day german nation is essentially a bunch of closet nazis, holding hard to those repulsive racial ideology that characterised the Nazi party during WW2 characterised by the attempted genocide of the jews? What a truly repellent and offensive thing to post! -Exceptionally offensive to any German,mired in paranoid conspiracy theory, and just plain idiotic.
And then, in your follow up post, we can see exactly why you posted such drivel, because you feel prompted to defend a pointless, stoneage religious custom against what you see as an attack on religious privilege from the godless horde. ]/What a completely stupid thing to say. Utterly shameful/
The archetypical atheist response to anything to which they have no answer" [i]
Its truly pathetic how the defenders of religion privilege will adopt any paranoid, conspiracist or downright stupid worldview in defence of their belief.
i was and am more concerned with FGM, as this has such horrendous consequences. When you read the procedures, and no one could do so without feeling absolutely sick, then wonder at the sheer inhumanity of it, and why this barbarous practice still goes on. Banned it might be in UK, that hasn't stopped thousands of young girls having it done, by back street doctors, or someone with little or no medical qualifications, or as has been reported endlessly, the child being taken out of the country.
Lazygun............the question that stands out from mike's thread is......"Does Antisemitism still exist in Germany?"
I don't know the answer to that OR the extent of the racism even if it does exist.
However, on a purely anecdotal level, from contacts i have in Germany, there still is an antisemitic attitude the degree of which,I cannot evaluate except to say that it is greater than one might imagine.
mike....may have overstated his case, but i have a certain amount of sympathy for his point of view.
What people say in public is not always what they think in private.
I don't know the answer to that OR the extent of the racism even if it does exist.
However, on a purely anecdotal level, from contacts i have in Germany, there still is an antisemitic attitude the degree of which,I cannot evaluate except to say that it is greater than one might imagine.
mike....may have overstated his case, but i have a certain amount of sympathy for his point of view.
What people say in public is not always what they think in private.
Thank you for the medical input, Sqad. I presume it is for the reasons you quote that so many American boys, irrespective of religion, undergo this procedure, unaccompanied by the weeping and wailing of those who perceive them to be innocent victims of some cruel assault prompted by stone age ideology.
@Sqad - Attempt to defend mike 1111's post if you must - are you, like him ,seriously suggesting a national conspiracy, a whole country still holding anti-semitic and racist nazi ideologies? Because thats what mike was suggesting.Mikes post was indefensible.
And nowhere in mikes drivel did he attempt to defend male circumcision on health grounds - grounds that you yourself have pointed out are at best equivocal in terms of the peer- reviewed evidence.
Mikes post was religiously inspired paranoid drivel, and they should be ashamed of posting such inflammatory rhetoric.
And nowhere in mikes drivel did he attempt to defend male circumcision on health grounds - grounds that you yourself have pointed out are at best equivocal in terms of the peer- reviewed evidence.
Mikes post was religiously inspired paranoid drivel, and they should be ashamed of posting such inflammatory rhetoric.
I am one of the 90% mentioned earlier. The procedure may have an ancient religious significance, but is based on sensible health reasons. In the hot and dusty middle-east cleanliness is important and circumcision ensures that this part of the anatomy is easier to keep clean. Other benefits are a definite bonus - as attested to by female partners!
Oh, if only I could be:
a. religiously inspired
b. paranoid.
I was trying to make two points:
1. The way in which the militant atheists leaped onto this post with glee as an example of the cruelty of religion.
2. The way in which the militant enemies of Margaret Thatcher bow down immediately to the utterances of the servants of the ultimate Brunhilde, Frau Merkel.
By the way, Muslims also practise male circumcision. Will they take this lying down as you expect the Jewish community to do?
a. religiously inspired
b. paranoid.
I was trying to make two points:
1. The way in which the militant atheists leaped onto this post with glee as an example of the cruelty of religion.
2. The way in which the militant enemies of Margaret Thatcher bow down immediately to the utterances of the servants of the ultimate Brunhilde, Frau Merkel.
By the way, Muslims also practise male circumcision. Will they take this lying down as you expect the Jewish community to do?
@ Mike - more drivel. There may well be some "militant atheists" posting in favour of this action, but that does not mean all those who posted are automatically atheist. More sweeping generalisations.
It bears repeating - this is the offensive posting we are all talking about :
"Quite subtle of the Germans, really. Having realised that the gas chambers were not the final solution, what better way to attack the Jews than by undermining their customs, under the holier-than-thou umbrella of the Human Rights Act?"
Nowhere in that post is there a hint of the defence of the practice of male circumcision on health grounds. Nowhere in that post is there a comment about trying to defend religious freedoms against militant atheism.
What is there, for all to see, is some xenophobic twaddle suggesting that the nation and government of Germany have held to a Nazi- derived, anti-semitic racial purity agenda since WW2 and are still practicing such measures now.You should be absolutely ashamed.
It bears repeating - this is the offensive posting we are all talking about :
"Quite subtle of the Germans, really. Having realised that the gas chambers were not the final solution, what better way to attack the Jews than by undermining their customs, under the holier-than-thou umbrella of the Human Rights Act?"
Nowhere in that post is there a hint of the defence of the practice of male circumcision on health grounds. Nowhere in that post is there a comment about trying to defend religious freedoms against militant atheism.
What is there, for all to see, is some xenophobic twaddle suggesting that the nation and government of Germany have held to a Nazi- derived, anti-semitic racial purity agenda since WW2 and are still practicing such measures now.You should be absolutely ashamed.
I can`t see why I would get excited by Germany banning circumcision to be honest. OK, it is done for religious reasons but it does (as others have mentioned) have health benefits. If one is going to ban circumcision then lets ban tribal facial markings on children in Africa, ear piercings in children in Asia and all manner of other cultural or religious practices that we don`t agree with. Considering the state that Europe and the EU is in, I`m surprised the powers that be haven`t got more pressing issues to deal with.
Sqad, and others who have raised the question, antisemitism is strictly illegal in Germany. There are neo-nazis, of course, who are generally unpopular with the majority (and can be very unpleasant people, it has to be said). I don't think this ruling has anything to do with anti Jewish, or even anti Muslem, feelings.
For what it's worth, circumcision for medical reasons is not seen as harmful to men (a very close relative went through it as a child), and I think the issue is more the fact that circumcision for religious reasons is carried out without anaesthetic by people who do it by reason of their religious status rather than their medical training.
Female "circumcision" is entirely a different matter. It is unnecessary and barbaric.
For what it's worth, circumcision for medical reasons is not seen as harmful to men (a very close relative went through it as a child), and I think the issue is more the fact that circumcision for religious reasons is carried out without anaesthetic by people who do it by reason of their religious status rather than their medical training.
Female "circumcision" is entirely a different matter. It is unnecessary and barbaric.
"Smegma and phimosis are thought to be conditions of the penis which predispose to penile cancer and are not encountered in the circumcised penis. "
You probably know more about this than I do, but surely this can be prevented just by washing under the foreskin regularly? That's certainly what most health professionals seem to recommend. I'm pretty sure buildup of smegma for instance isn't a problem if proper hygiene is followed.
Mike:
"A minor cannot give consent to any surgical procedure, necessary or otherwise. The consent of the parents is valid in law."
There is a world of difference between a minor having necessary surgery without consent, and a person having their body altered for life before they are old enough to make up their own mind about their spiritual beliefs (and whether they want a foreskin or not). The only thing this ritual is 'necessary' for is the raising of children into a particular faith. And the idea that parents have some kind of innate right to spiritually indoctrinate their children is repulsive. As is the contingent idea that parents have sovereignty over their child's bodies. You are confusing the responsibility of a parent to care for a child with some sort of right to own them.
And for the record - simply pointing to what it says in the law is not a valid argument when the whole point of this thread is discussing why the laws on the matter should be that way in the first place.
Finally - I'd like some evidence for your implication that this is part of some kind of anti-semitic plot. Some good evidence.
You probably know more about this than I do, but surely this can be prevented just by washing under the foreskin regularly? That's certainly what most health professionals seem to recommend. I'm pretty sure buildup of smegma for instance isn't a problem if proper hygiene is followed.
Mike:
"A minor cannot give consent to any surgical procedure, necessary or otherwise. The consent of the parents is valid in law."
There is a world of difference between a minor having necessary surgery without consent, and a person having their body altered for life before they are old enough to make up their own mind about their spiritual beliefs (and whether they want a foreskin or not). The only thing this ritual is 'necessary' for is the raising of children into a particular faith. And the idea that parents have some kind of innate right to spiritually indoctrinate their children is repulsive. As is the contingent idea that parents have sovereignty over their child's bodies. You are confusing the responsibility of a parent to care for a child with some sort of right to own them.
And for the record - simply pointing to what it says in the law is not a valid argument when the whole point of this thread is discussing why the laws on the matter should be that way in the first place.
Finally - I'd like some evidence for your implication that this is part of some kind of anti-semitic plot. Some good evidence.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.