In Germany, a court has ruled that circumcision is an assault and parents may NOT do this. Did the court get it right?

The government can keep their hands off my kid's dick.

Other then the anti-religious reasons, I cannot understand why anyone is opposed to this or even cares.

How do they feel about Abortion?

Seems like they are going after the Jews one more time.

Thats how it seems to me too.

I was circumcised for medical reasons (I am not Jewish).

That was exactly the point.

There is more than one religion in which this is a major component. It won't stop people from circumcising their children, otherwise there would be no FGM in Western countries - and there sure is. People will follow their religious beliefs no matter where they are.

I don't know German law.

Germany hates Jews - nothing new

http://webstation19.8k.com/ci...

http://webstation19.8k.com/da...

genital mutilation is fing weird!

Why do you consider it to be genital mutilation. Consider some facts before making such rash judgement.

The American Academy of pediatricians note in a study that circumcised men report more varied and enjoyable sex than their non circumcised counterparts.

Being circumcised reduces the chance for syphilis. http://pediatrics.aappublicat...

The National institute of health reports it can reduce the chances of a man contracting HIV, by 64% http://www.niaid.nih.gov/news...

Uncircumcised men have a 3 times greater risk of Penile cancer. http://pediatrics.aappublicat...

Circumcised penises reduce the rate of cervical cancer in women. http://www.biomedcentral.com/...

Sounds really the same as female genital mutilation. O_O

YOU consider the facts. Whacking off the end of a boy's penis IS GENITAL MUTILATION. Just because you like it, doesn't change that fact IN ANY WAY. Why don't you set your ego aside and just admit you are in favor of genital mutilation.

So you ignore the medical reasons for it. Blow off factual evidence that it has benefits. Call it a hyped up emotionally charged thing like genital mutilation. Sad really. Your logic is a terrible failure.

Sorry I hurt your feelings. Better luck next time.

However, it's kind of hard to have much respect for a religious practice that involves genital mutilation. Apparently it's good, clean medicine when it's infant boys in first world countries, but it's an atrocity when it's teenage girls in the Middle East and Africa.

You honestly compare the two? One makes sex painful for the rest of the womans life and prohibts her from ever experiencing orgasm. The other does not. In fact the American Academy of pediatricians note in a study that circumcised men report more varied and enjoyable sex than their non circumcised counterparts.

Being circumcised reduces the chance for syphilis. http://pediatrics.aappublicat...

The National institute of health reports it can reduce the chances of a man contracting HIV, by 64% http://www.niaid.nih.gov/news...

Uncircumcised men have a 3 times greater risk of Penile cancer. http://pediatrics.aappublicat...

Circumcised penises reduce the rate of cervical cancer in women. http://www.biomedcentral.com/...

Mkay. Do some research before acting like a fool.

1) The chance of which is virtually 0% when using a condom.

2) See above.

3a) By the study you have there(which even says there isn't enough data available on the subject to say for sure), compares nations not only from different continents, but different stages of development and environments and no investigation into the difference except correlation. Correlation is not causation.

3b) But for the sake of argument, let's go with the rates they have listed. Even at the widest difference between variables, it's 0.9/1.0 per 100,000 to 10.5 per 100,000. That's a jump from 0.00001% to 0.0001%. So we're talking a jump from "next to nothing" to "a tiny bit more than next to nothing".

4) The rates of increase in cervical cancer is within that same range(as well as the study trying to pass off correlation as causation). Respectable scientists like to call that range "statistically negligible". In other words, so small as to be insignificant.

Now, what was that you were saying about 'doing some research'? I believe it was something stupid.

No you stupidly compared it to female genital mutilation. Clearly there is a difference. If you can't see that then my comment stands.

Sorry, but all you did was admit that my facts were statistically accurate then tell me how it is "possible" they are wrong. You gae no links. Nothing verifiable. Just "most scientists" .

If that is your idea of provable research then we really have nothing left to discuss.

Now could you please name ONE medical benefit from female genital mutilation?

Also sometimes later in life men must be circumcised for medical conditions, such as: phimosis, paraphimosis, recurrent balanitis and posthitis (inflammation of the prepuce). So circumcision could be seen as preventative surgery by some. Once again your comparison fails.

My point is twofold and simple. 1) I only needed to READ the data you gave and use basic logic and arithmetic to understand that the dangers are over-exaggerated. I'm applying a little perspective.

2) Hacking off a part of a child's genitals because you think it makes your imaginary friend happy is HACKING OFF A PART OF A CHILD'S GENITALS BECAUSE YOU THINK IT MAKES YOUR IMAGINARY FRIEND HAPPY. Location, sex of the child, age, practical effects and what religion are irrelevant.

I say these things to challenge the idea on a sociological and intellectual level, not because I believe government should intervene. Just because I believe they should be allowed to do it without thugs absconding away with their kids doesn't mean I have to like, respect or support it.

Sorry, I presented fact. You presented nothing.

You presented disingenuous factoids you garnered from skimming a couple studies you found in five minutes on Google. I presented analysis and weighed the entirety of what paltry data you were able to find against an ethical issue.

Don't worry, I didn't expect to convince you.

You are more qualified than the American Academy of Pediatricians? or The National Institute of health?

LOL, your inflated ego is unbecoming.

Impeding the right to practice one's religion with a relatively benign procedure is an overstep of governmental authority.

so agree.

So the former land of the Nazis is claiming a major tenet of the Jewish faith is illegal?

Why is this not surprising?

I thought the same thing.

European socialists like to blow uncircumcised boys.

uh gross.

I agree...let guys decide after 18. I bet we will have very little of that practice left.

You don't think parents have a right to practice the tenents of their faith?

I think they have the right to teach it to their children but not to force it on them. So no I do not think they should have the right to do things like this to their children. But if the kid want to have it done when they grow up then that would be ok.

I am told by one of my jewish friends that the old circumcision practice was not done until 13. That sounds a little bit better but I think 18 would be best. You can put that back.

Medically, the Jewish chosen time frame to circumcise has been shown to cause the least amount of pain and the maxim speed in recovery. Adults getting circumcised is not the same thing.

I am sure that if you left it until 18 few men would want it done. I am not happy that it was done to me. But no one asked me so I am stuck with it.

So much for religious freedom, cleanliness or individual rights.

I know. Sad.

Germans, at it again...