GardenGuy

riellox,

Here in the USA the vast majority of circumcisions are done because of tradition, not religion. One would think that it would be easier to stop circumcision when it does not usually carry the force of religion behind it; when you can plainly show parents that this tradition unnecessarily robs the boy of an important part of his penis.

I understand that Muslims are relative newcomers to most of Europe, but in parts of the Balkans and Greece and a few isolated places in Spain they have been around for hundreds of years and Jews have lived in Europe for two millenia.
So it begs the question, why not make the rules apply only to natives and leave the ethnic minorities to their own devices?

For most of this time, these strangers in our midst have carried out their peculiar customs in their ghettos. Maybe the nature of modern life puts these ethnic groups more in conflict with native Europeans and modern transportation brings more of them into your midst.

Government in liberal social democracies takes a more active role in child welfare than in generations past. In some cases, I think it has gone too far. Here in the USA, naturists are sometimes falsely accused of child abuse because the entire family wears no clothes in the privacy of their home.
We don't want the government telling us to wear clothes until our own children leave the house at the onset of adulthood.

But naturism does not make irreversible changes in the bodies of children. Even our allover tans fade when winter arrives.

It seems to me that we can't give religions carte blanche to do whatever they please in the name of freedom. Even in a free society, one freedom (the right to raise your children as you see fit, comes into conflict with the freedom of the children to choose whether to allow cuts on their bodies.
Unless you want children to be taken away from parents at birth and raised entirely by the state, there must be some allowance for parents to teach their values to children.
But circumcision is by its very nature a unique change in the body of a fundamental nature. I know that some cultures engage in ritual scarification as a rite of passage.
That too permanently identifies you as a current or former member of some cultural group. But painful though they might be at the time, scarification does not affect sexual performance.

Millions will disagree with me, but religion has overstepped its bounds when it cuts off a functioning part of our reproductive system. And I want to give people as much religious freedom as possible, but this has gone too far.

insertrandomnamehere

GardenGuy = to say that it effects sexual performance is correct... to say whether that effect is good or bad is way to hard to determine. I have read a lot on this topic over the last few days and the best I can come up with is this:

1) There is no NECESSARY reason for it because of modern soaps and cleaning products
2) There is no conclusive evidence that is it harmful to have it done.

I know many people disagree with that last statement but I spent some time reading several studies and like I said in my last post, almost all of them say that they are not finished, do not have enough information, and they are not conclusive.

I actually respect the approach you took here though. Many people just go off bashing on religion in general, and it is nice to find people who focus on the issue at hand, and don't just blame all of religion as being horrible.

And I keep thinking of two other common practices in America: immunization and abortion. Both of these leave changes in the body, one in chemistry, and the other dead. Should we outlaw these as well?

Should we force people who are Christian Scientists to take their children to the doctor when they get sick? I personally think their practices are ridiculous and in some cases can be classified as child abuse, but this is part of the gray area. Where do we draw the line?

If we can prove that circumcision has a permanent "negative" effect, than we should do something about it. right now some evidence is there that it COULD cause negative effects, but so can vaccines, and I see medicines on TV every day that list negative side effects that even include death. So right now the research is just not there to outlaw it, and there is still research that shows that it can have beneficial effects.

cncracer

[QUOTE=insertrandomnamehere;7314167]GardenGuy =

And I keep thinking of two other common practices in America: immunization and abortion. Both of these leave changes in the body, one in chemistry, and the other dead. Should we outlaw these as well?

Should we force people who are Christian Scientists to take their children to the doctor when they get sick? I personally think their practices are ridiculous and in some cases can be classified as child abuse, but this is part of the gray area. Where do we draw the line?

'And I keep thinking of two other common practices in America: immunization and abortion. Both of these leave changes in the body, one in chemistry, and the other dead. Should we outlaw these as well?"
Immunization is to protect the greater population. We should force the issue. Abortion in my view would be a personal choice. I know no person who would do it as a form of birth control, but recognize there many cases where a person might choose abortion over having a child. It does not relate to circumcision in my view. One is a not needed surgery, the other is a person trying to control their life, or with immunizations trying to not negatively affect humanity in general.

"Should we force people who are Christian Scientists to take their children to the doctor when they get sick? I personally think their practices are ridiculous and in some cases can be classified as child abuse, but this is part of the gray area. Where do we draw the line?"
Yes, and we already do as well as charge them with child abuse if they don’t. draw the line where the childs health or life is in play.

PineMan

I totally agree with the reasons behind the outlawing of juvenile circumcision, and agree that the German Government were right to do so. However, I can't see that the enforcement is going to be quite so simple. After all, at best, it's obvious that the fanatics will simply take their children to be circumcised in a country that permits the procedure, and at worst you will get Rabbis / Imams performing the operations in the backs of cars, etc., using the same crude methods from the Biblical days when the whole thing first began.

Quite honestly, I find it hard to understand how anyone in this day & age can still be led so drastically by the superstition of imaginary 'Gods'.

GardenGuy

I think the problem is not that some people believe in the existence of a supreme being, but that their faith is constrained to a manner of worship that is no longer appropriate for our time and culture.

There is a book that I have been meaning to read: "Your God is too Small".
The key idea of the book is that God is not the problem, rather our small way of thinking about him is. Maybe God is way bigger than we imagine, perhaps bigger than we can even try to imagine.

So if there is a Supreme Being, why would he want the whole world (at least the male half) to cut off part of what this Being created?
But if practitioners of these tribal religions want to go against nature and cut off their foreskins, they can either do it in another country or wait until adulthood.

I know that Germany's history with non-ethnic Germans in their midst makes them an easy target for criticism when they pass a law against circumcision, but when you are defending the rights of minor children, you can't shy away from justice because it appears to discriminate against minorities.

insertrandomnamehere

[quote=cncracer;7330786]Immunization has also begun to show up in studies to correlate with health issues later in life. I will have to do my research again to get updated information, but there is a large population of people who are refusing to get the immunizations because of the side effects they can have on children.

And you say that they have abortions because they don't want to have the child? Isn't that a form of birth control? And you argue about the child's health and life in your next statement, yet advocate for killing it through abortion. The child has no choice in an abortion, yet it's life is ended. The research of when hearts start to beat and brain waves can be detected starts LONG before the baby comes out of his mother.

As for the statement above about believing in God, I wish I could defer you to a vast number of freinds of mine who are either scientists or atheists. They are strong enough in their beliefs to admit that is takes just as much FAITH to believe those views.

cncracer

[quote=insertrandomnamehere;7331612]Your post reflects the issue which clouds abortion laws worldwide, and which we will not solve here. Where life starts and at what point an abortion would be taking a life has been set in laws. I make my statement using those guidelines which allow for abortion. In the case of a living child, who is denied medical treatment based on religion, I do see that as child abuse.
I will go back when time allows and find the articles on immunization and the stats on problems with getting the required shots. Again I see it as protecting the masses, and not an option.

RooRshack

[quote=insertrandomnamehere;7331612]Another poster already addressed the abortion issue, and the problem with how you approach it.

If you have friends who are scientists or atheists who think it takes "faith", they are very poor excuses for scientists or atheists. There IS no faith in either, that's the whole point. You accept what can be proven or demonstraited to a high degree, you don't believe anything.

Just like all the "christians" with no idea what christ did or said, your friends are just "scientists" and "atheists" because it's the thing to do, in their circles.

As for immunization, it is meant SOLELY to protect the child, it is not cosmetic surgery with it's modern beginnings in anti-sex crusading. There are many who can personally attest to sexual dysfunction as a result of circumcision, while a nurse who gives an injection with little practice will not change the long-run effect of the drug administered.

Immunizations are obviously a choice of two potentially bad things, the parent must choose the lesser evil. Circumcision has NO medical benefit-if someose wants it to prevent HIV or because they do not shower or just because they're stupid (a condition that is also present with the previous two reasons), they may choose to have it done later in life, and if it is medically necessitated, it may be done whenever.

insertrandomnamehere

[quote=RooRshack;7337305]I'm glad to see your at least writing posts where your arguments are coherent.

I have said my piece on the benefits on circumcision and it's obvious we both believe different reports, and that the medical community at large can not make up its mind.

As far as my friends, you do not know them but thank you for your judgement on them. They are scientific enough to know that a lot of science is still theory, which means it is not proven. They are also smart enough to recognize that since it can not be proven, they have to put faith in the fact that it will be some day. Faith is simply believing the evidence of something that has not yet been seen.

On that note I have the same conclusions as always:

Germany is wrong for such a direct attack on faiths,
There is no proven medical benefit for circumcision, but also no know real problem with it
The medical community at large have not reached a clear conclusion
You and I will not agree on the subject.

So having stated my case, good day

RooRshack

[quote=insertrandomnamehere;7337570]All of science is theroy, that's the point. You don't have faith, you accept the most clear model, until you're able to improve on it.

There is a clear disadvantage to circumcision, you can quite literally have your dick cut off, you can have infections and such that are unwarranted and unnecessary. You can have life-long sexual problems if it removes too much skin. The medical jury is out about overall good, the main case for which is "it makes you not have to be a parent and tell your kid to wash his dick, and it makes you feel like you did all you could when your kid (remember, you're a shitty parent) gets HIV, because you never told him where not to stick his dick".

The STD case is pathetic, you're also not likely to get HIV if you cut your dick off, and it could be done in a "healthy" way-that does not mean that it is an acceptable practice. If someone is going to have unsafe sex, and wants their dick chopped on, they can have it done, it's not a parents place or job.

If it hurts nothing either way, it's unconsionable to be carving up newborns dicks in purely cosmetic surgery, without them having any say in it. If it is a neutral procedure, there is NO excuse for not requiring each person who wants it done to decide that, go do it, and have the full burden of responsibility on their shoulders.