Germany discriminating against Jews or protecting children ?

[Formaldehyde]

It had nothing to do with "traditional culture". What barbarians those American, Canadian, and Australian witch doctors were. Fortunately, the foreskins are finally coming to their rescue and showing them how backward they were to not let children decide which elective medical procedures should be performed, instead of their parents and those with MDs.

 

[Snorrius]

Fortunately, the foreskins are finally coming to their rescue and showing them how backward they were to not let children decide which elective medical procedures should be performed.

Children parents' you mean? I doubt infant can decide anything on such issue.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Nope. Many are claiming that the children should decide for themselves at an apparently later age than newborn or infant when the procedure is typically performed for obvious reasons. Here is one example:

Sure, then you acknowledge the practice isn't being banned for religious reasons (a spurious accusation, honestly) but because the operation is seen as an abrogation of the child's right to decide.

Emphasis mine.

 

[Snorrius]

Nope. Many are claiming that the children should decide for themselves at an apparently later age than newborn or infant when the procedure is typically performed for obvious reasons.

Well, is not it is quite wise? I understand that teh modern drama about child rights and everything may be little annoying but cutting part of child penises for religious reasons (which is usually non-sense) is still quite cruel. Why do not wait for the age when they can approve or disapprove such decision by themselves?

 

[Formaldehyde]

So now you think everybody should wait until they become adults to have an elective medical procedure which many doctors recommend for health and hygienic reasons? And how exactly is this not just like effectively banning abortion until the baby is old enough to decide for itself?

I seriously doubt any doctor would recommend an adult having a circumcision unless it was a medical necessity. This is a procedure which should be done as early as possible for obvious reasons, which is why it is typically done to newborns.

 

[Snorrius]

So now you think everybody should wait until they become adults to have an elective medical procedure which many doctors recommend for health and hygienic reasons?

As I said, medical reasons were not ruled out. Go to German doctor, convince your child needs this for medical reasons and he is done. Another case if you want to demand this because of some otherworld being says you so. Here I think it should be up to individual in question - not necessary age of adulthood but certainly not in his zeroes.

And how exactly is this not just like effectively banning abortion until the baby is old enough to decide for itself?

First, there is no any baby when abortion is made. What we have on this stage is a part of future mother' body part.
Second, abortion is rarely made on the premises "God said me so". It is usually on a pretty solid basis: people do not want to take responsibility parenthood implies.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Sod off with religious justifications.

You would not like a court which relies on materialist metaphysics.

 

[Formaldehyde]

As I said, medical reasons were not ruled out. Go to German doctor, convince your child needs this for medical reasons and he is done.

Why should someone have to convince their doctor that many medical experts do indeed think there are numerous valid medical reasons for performing such a simple procedure?

 

[Snorrius]

Why should someone have to convince their doctor that many medical experts do indeed think there are numerous valid medical reasons for performing such a simple procedure?

Well, if many medical "experts" do indeed "think" there are numerous "valid" "medical" reasons it will be easy, so I do not think you should worry about this issue. In any case court's decision had nothing with medical reasons, only situations when someone wants cut a part of child's penis on the supernatural premises were affected by this ruling.

 

[Nares]

I think Germany is doing the right thing here.

Circumscison has many serious implications and I would hate that decison being made for me. Leave it till your 18 in my book; you can give informed consent then.

No one would do it at 18.

Truly disappointing, but maybe it's better if the Jews started moving out of Europe before the next round of continental-wide genocide.

Another case if you want to demand this because of some otherworld being says you so.

That's a crude characterization of the act.

Somehow, I doubt you would be so abrasive of Muslim or Chinese tradition. Do they even allow minarets in Moscow? Just curious.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Well, if many medical "experts" do indeed "think" there are numerous "valid" "medical" reasons it will be easy, so I do not think you should worry about this issue. In any case court's decision had nothing with medical reasons, only situations when someone wants cut a part of child's penis on the supernatural premises were affected by this ruling.

Sadly, that is not true for many countries where this elective medical procedure was abandoned long ago to save costs.

And I hardly think it is any of your business, or anybody else's, what harmless religious beliefs others decide to practice in any free and open society which claims to have religious freedom for all. While I certainly don't agree with many Muslims deciding to wait until past infancy to circumcise their children, I think it is their right to do so.

 

[Lillefix]

Truly disappointing, but maybe it's better if the Jews started moving out of Europe before the next round of continental-wide genocide.

That is so low. That is one of the lowest things I've ever heard.

And I hardly think it is any of your business, or anybody else's, what harmless religious beliefs others decide to practice in any free and open society which claims to have religious freedom for all.

You keep saying it's harmless. It's a surgical procedure. A surgical procedure always carries a risk. But even so, I agree with you. People should be able to carry out circumcision if it's their religious belief. But only on themselves. Not on others.

 

[Snorrius]

That's a crude characterization of the act.

Well, it is what it is. There could be rational reasons when they codified it in Judaic and Islamic traditions (though there is no unified opinion among Muslim is this operation required or just desirable) but in modern times cutting part of infant's penis to please supernatural entity is a little bit much. Another case if one decides do to this with his own penis - well, everyone has private hobbies and a secular state should honour indvidual's wish.

Somehow, I doubt you would be so abrasive of Muslim or Chinese tradition.

As someone who have visited Middle East and Southeast Asia not once - I assure you that I certainly would not want to have in Russia the Muslim tradition in its proper glorious fullness. Save God(s) us from such "honouring of religious rights".

As for Chinese tradition - they are either Buddhist or Confucian(esque) both of which is much more compatible with secular state than Muslim's.

Do they even allow minarets in Moscow? Just curious.

There are certainly mosques but not sure on minarets.

 

[Formaldehyde]

You keep saying it's harmless. It's a surgical procedure. A surgical procedure always carries a risk. But even so, I agree with you. People should be able to carry out circumcision if it's their religious belief. But only on themselves. Not on others.

It is effectively harmless as well as inexpensive when performed by competent medical personnel. It is only not so when the doctor was incompetent which is already covered by the malpractice laws.

 

[Snorrius]

Sadly, that is not true for many countries where this elective medical procedure was abandoned long ago to save costs.

Well, then it probably is not needed in such countries.

And I hardly think it is any of your business, or anybody else's, what harmless religious beliefs others decide to practice in any free and open society which claims to have religious freedom for all.

Changing irreversibly the configuration of someone's penis? "Harmless"? Well, it will be better if one decide for himself.

While I certainly don't agree with many Muslims deciding to wait until past infancy to circumcise their children, I think it is their right to do so.

In a country which has such ritual as a part of their cultural heritage.

 

[ParkCungHee]

I think I do, yeah. Plain simple legal reasoning. It isn't up to a judge to determine what is good after all, but rather, what is legal. And cutting off body parts of those you are legally required to protect can easily be understood as illegal. Which is what happens with circumcision. That is of course a rather abstract way to reason but well - this is law.

Do you think the law forbids other cosmetic surgeries on children and infants?

 

[Aroddo]

i wonder why Formaldehyde is so obsessed with foreskins .... without him the thread would still be on a single page.
Is Germany destroying his business model?

 

[Snorrius]

Do you think the law forbids other cosmetic surgeries on children and infants?

It is not cosmetic surgery. It clearly says it is bodily harm.

 

[Lillefix]

i wonder why Formaldehyde is so obsessed with foreskins .... without him the thread would still be on a single page.
Is Germany destroying his business model?

It's about to be afternoon in the US now. Perhaps there will be more activity then.

 

[ParkCungHee]

It is not cosmetic surgery. It clearly says it is bodily harm.

All surgery is bodily harm.