Quantcast

German court rules religious circumcision on boys an assault. Agree or Disagree?

foxhound BN0 2012/06/27 02:21:41
Agree
Disagree
You!
Add Photos & Videos
Circumcising young boys on religious grounds amounts to grievous bodily harm, a German court ruled Tuesday in a landmark decision.
The regional court in Cologne, western Germany, ruled that the "fundamental right of the child to bodily integrity outweighed the fundamental rights of the parents", a judgement that is expected to set a legal precedent.
German court rules religious circumcision on boys an assault. Agree or Disagree?

Read More: http://news.yahoo.com/german-court-outlaws-religio...

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Jackie ... Robbb 2012/06/27 12:29:25
    Jackie G - Poker Playing Patriot
    They do not consider it mutilation, nor do I - it has been done for centuries and is part of Jewish religion - I assume it is part of Muslims too but do not know.
  • irish Jackie ... 2012/06/27 13:21:00
    irish
    The first records there are of circumcision come from the ancient Egyptians the Jews copied it from them
  • Robbb Jackie ... 2012/06/27 20:20:45
    Robbb
    +1
    Neither do the people that cut a girls genitalia consider it mutilation that however does not change the fact that it is. And why have they been doing it for century and why do they do it to their children, they don’t have to you know. their children can do it after they grow up. And if they drop dead before them the body can then be mutilated as they do with stillborns. By the way the same people think it is OK to stone people to death as well and they have been doing it for centuries.
  • Jackie ... Robbb 2012/06/27 20:33:16
    Jackie G - Poker Playing Patriot
    There is a vast difference but fine believe what ever you wish. What is your stand on abortion? Just curious since you are so overwrought over a 1/4" of skin
  • Robbb Jackie ... 2012/06/27 20:47:56
    Robbb
    +1
    Just what is the difference then?
  • Jackie ... Robbb 2012/06/27 20:53:33
    Jackie G - Poker Playing Patriot
    Women are in pain the rest of their lives and have no sexual pleasure - which is, of course, why it is done.

    Now answer the question - what is your stand on abortion?
  • Robbb Jackie ... 2012/06/28 10:18:29
    Robbb
    +1
    What has my opinion or stand on abortion have to do with this. I don’t think you have any idea why both male and female genital mutilations are done nor do you understand why women who have had their genitals mutilated insist on the same being done to their daughters. Perhaps you would like to explain that to me and then what would be a good way to combat the practice. Give me a reasonable and believable answer and I will give you my stand on abortion.
  • Jackie ... Robbb 2012/06/28 10:46:45
    Jackie G - Poker Playing Patriot
    You babble about a 1/4" skin that does no harm to a male - none, zero, zip. And multiple studies show a lessor degree of diseases (HIV for example) and no loss of sexual pleasure

    Then you bring up females - which is not the same and never has been - You ask me to explain women, as a woman I find many of them stupid beyond belief and many more who are vicious to other women at every turn. I cannot explain either of these behaviors because there is no reasonable or logical answer.

    Last, I do not care to hear any of your stands beyond this conversation - Have a good day
  • Robbb Jackie ... 2012/07/15 20:34:05
    Robbb
    Just reading over this thread and realised that I did not answer the last lot of nonsense you wrote. Just what multiple studies are you talking about? There are none. at least there are none that show that the foreskin is a health risk. On the contrary, circumcising an infant is both a health risk which includes the risk of death, and a mental health risk. But hen you are probably still seething about having been genitally mutilated yourself.
  • foxhoun... Jackie ... 2012/06/27 10:49:27
    foxhound BN0
    +2
    tsk tsk tsk
  • irish Jackie ... 2012/06/27 13:18:18
    irish
    it has NOTHING to do with religion.
    .
  • Jiorgia 2012/06/27 03:03:07
    Agree
    Jiorgia
    +5
    *somewhat agree

    I think that the right to live free from harm outweighs religious freedom.
    Religious circumcision is when a religious leader does it, you can still get your child circumcised, you just have to go to a medical professional.

    I don't think that this has anything to do with anti semitism, i could be wrong but i really dont think so.
  • David H... Jiorgia 2012/06/27 07:20:15
    David Hussey
    +2
    I don't think it does either Jiorgia, but many will see antisemitic motivations behind anything that questions anything done by a Jewish person.
  • foxhoun... David H... 2012/06/27 10:52:35
    foxhound BN0
    +3
    yeah we have a lot of zionist christians that think jewish people are perfect because the book written by them says so. lol
  • irish David H... 2012/06/27 13:21:34
    irish
    oh for goodness sake. it has NOTHING to do with religion!
  • David H... irish 2012/06/27 21:21:22
    David Hussey
    What does it have to do with?
  • irish David H... 2012/06/28 12:09:26
    irish
    sexual mutilation,duh!
  • David H... irish 2012/06/28 23:30:16
    David Hussey
    Did you see what the courts ruling actually was? "Religious circumcision"...

    Duh yourself, this story has everything to do with religion. Pay attention!
  • irish David H... 2012/06/29 11:52:51
    irish
    +1
    thats not what it says,its about the parents allowing mutilation of the child for religious reasons. basically assault. much like the faith healing parents are taken to court if the child dies without any medical intervention.they have been charged with murder.
  • David H... irish 2012/06/29 20:51:07
    David Hussey
    So why did you state "it has NOTHING to do with religion!"?
  • irish David H... 2012/06/30 11:19:17
    irish
    +1
    because it doesn't . it is mutilation based on someones religious dogma. calling it assault has nothing to do with the religion.
  • Z David H... 2012/06/27 15:08:31
    Z
    To be fair, I think it has more to do with the fact that it is Germany.
  • David H... Z 2012/06/27 21:22:29
    David Hussey
    So you think if an American court had issued the same ruling there would be no controversy?
  • Z David H... 2012/06/27 21:28:28
    Z
    I don't think there would be nearly as much.
  • David H... Z 2012/06/28 00:39:34
    David Hussey
    Probably not as much, but there would still be controversy I think.
  • Z David H... 2012/06/28 03:58:59
    Z
    Of course, but that would be less about Judaism and more about the fact that many Christians here still circumcise their foals, despite what the Bible says. It would be seen as an assault on religious freedoms.
  • David H... Z 2012/06/28 05:00:26
    David Hussey
    You're quite correct Z.
  • foxhoun... Jiorgia 2012/06/27 10:50:46
    foxhound BN0
    +1
    No. This whole case was about a doctor who circumcised a boy because his parents wanted it done for religious reasons.
  • Z 2012/06/27 02:46:36
    Agree
    Z
    +5
    I think it should be up to the child when they reach a certain age.
  • abycinn... Z 2012/06/27 06:33:57
    abycinnamon BN-1
    +1
    the only problem is that the surgery is much much worse when done when the kid is older. It's not a big deal for a baby - but it's a huge deal for an adult and it wouldn't be much better for a kid - there would be stitches and the whole thing would be a bit of a nightmare.
  • Robbb abycinn... 2012/06/27 09:46:31
    Robbb
    That is just not true. the surgery is much much worse when it is done to a child and there is no reason for doing it.
  • abycinn... Robbb 2012/06/27 17:35:22 (edited)
    abycinnamon BN-1
    sorry, but as a physician I'm actually qualified to make this statement. And if you are a believing religious person who wants to honor your contract with god, there is a reason to do it. There are also a couple of health issues - the most significant being a lower incidence of squamous cell carcinoma of the penis. The surgery is much easier on an infant.
  • ««Ginge... abycinn... 2012/06/27 12:45:24
    ««Gingey, the Master Debater of Þ|-|Дэ†»»
    +2
    Actually, it's not much worse when it is done older Babies are able to feel ten times the pain that an adult is.
  • abycinn... ««Ginge... 2012/06/27 17:38:05
    abycinnamon BN-1
    As a physician, I'm actually qualifed to make these statements. I don't know where you got that bit of "information", but that is absolutely not correct. The nervous system of a baby is not fully developed. Having observed and assisted in infant circumcisions, the infant suffers very little. On the other hand, for an adult, or even a child, surgery on the penis is very unpleasant.
  • ««Ginge... abycinn... 2012/06/27 17:42:53
    ««Gingey, the Master Debater of Þ|-|Дэ†»»
    Okay, so how do you explain the vast amount of babies that go into narcoleptic shock due to the immense pain of the procedure?
  • abycinn... ««Ginge... 2012/06/27 17:46:33
    abycinnamon BN-1
    where are you getting this information? Narcoleptic shock is not a medical term. It sounds like they go to sleep. I don't really see that as a problem. They do cry during the procedure, and then they go to sleep. Newborns do spend quite a lot of time sleeping. That's not a pathologic state. It's just sleep.
  • ««Ginge... abycinn... 2012/06/27 18:43:56
    ««Gingey, the Master Debater of Þ|-|Дэ†»»
    excuse me, neurogenic shock. i apologize.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?...
  • abycinn... ««Ginge... 2012/06/27 19:31:59
    abycinnamon BN-1
    okay, saw the video thanks. The baby in the film didn't look distressed to me. Distressed babies cry. I think the retired physician has decided to crusade against circumcision. I don't understand that, but I guess you have to be a man to understand being attached to a foreskin. The baby just looked calm.

    Shock has a medical definition which is inadequate perfusion of tissues and it's actually quite serious. It doesn't mean upset, or stunned, or any of the other states that it is used for in TV shows, or apparently by a particular doctor who objects to circumcision. That baby was not in any form of shock.
  • ««Ginge... abycinn... 2012/06/27 19:41:07
    ««Gingey, the Master Debater of Þ|-|Дэ†»»
    That baby looked really terrified to me, not peaceful at all. The penis is very, very sensitive, and so are babies.
  • abycinn... ««Ginge... 2012/06/27 20:06:03 (edited)
    abycinnamon BN-1
    babies do not have a fully formed nervous system. They don't even see particularly well as newborns. I really can't see terrified. He was lying quietly, breathing at a normal rate (newborns have a high respiratory rate) looking at the black blob - he probably couldn't really see the camera very well. He was paying no attention at all to his penis and he was not crying. He was not kicking. He was not squirming or struggling. Babies have a pretty limited vocabulary. They cry when something is wrong. He wasn't crying.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/11/27 20:50:24

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals