Website Feedback
Closed Threads
IRC Chat
irc.quakenet.org #teamliquid
IRC Web ClientTeamSpeak 3 (81 users) | |
|
| yeint Estonia. June 28 2012 19:08. Posts 2327 | Profile # |
On June 28 2012 18:50 MattBarry wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 28 2012 18:48 Animzor wrote:
On June 28 2012 18:44 MattBarry wrote:
On June 28 2012 18:11 r.Evo wrote:
On June 28 2012 18:06 MattBarry wrote:
On June 28 2012 17:53 BrandFilt wrote:
On June 28 2012 03:50 CaptainCrush wrote:
I have it done and dont remember it. Plus my dick doesnt look like its in a sleeping bag all the time.... If I have a son, you can bet he will hae it done too. Pretty stupid ruling IMO
Let's hope you'll never be able to get a son then.
Goddamn it, shit like this makes me seriously question the mental integrity of people on the internet. It's a completely pointless cosmetic procedure which doesn't traumatize people mentally or physically. If religious people want to do it then why not? It hardly has a consequence. I can't say that I feel like less of a man for not having foreskin.
This is just running in circles. This is about putting the childs right to not get physically harmed above the rights of the parents to exercise their religious freedom.Actually I'd love to see that sentence somewhere in big red letters since most people who oppose this don't seem to understand that the above is what this is all about. Welp.
Why don't I sue my parents for the color they painted my room as a baby. After all, I had no choice in the matter. Both situations are equally as unimportant. Morality aside, this simply doesn't matter enough to warrant debate especially from supreme court. If people do it, who fucking cares.
We have to keep fighting religious shit like this. It's fine that you don't care, but I would never want to be circumcised, I didn't even want to be baptized. If it isn't a big deal, then why cant we just refrain from doing these obviously retarded religious things?
Because some people don't believe those things are retarded and as long as those things are basically harmless then it isn't my right to interfere with them.
Those people can take a chinese mandolin to their own genitals if they so please.
This is about the right of children to not be forced to endure ritualistic genital mutilation because other people (their parents) want them to. |
| | Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur. | DeMusliM * Thorzain * Taeja * HasHe |
|
|
| MajorityofOne Canada. June 28 2012 19:13. Posts 1487 | Profile # |
On June 28 2012 19:08 yeint wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 28 2012 18:50 MattBarry wrote:
On June 28 2012 18:48 Animzor wrote:
On June 28 2012 18:44 MattBarry wrote:
On June 28 2012 18:11 r.Evo wrote:
On June 28 2012 18:06 MattBarry wrote:
On June 28 2012 17:53 BrandFilt wrote:
On June 28 2012 03:50 CaptainCrush wrote:
I have it done and dont remember it. Plus my dick doesnt look like its in a sleeping bag all the time.... If I have a son, you can bet he will hae it done too. Pretty stupid ruling IMO
Let's hope you'll never be able to get a son then.
Goddamn it, shit like this makes me seriously question the mental integrity of people on the internet. It's a completely pointless cosmetic procedure which doesn't traumatize people mentally or physically. If religious people want to do it then why not? It hardly has a consequence. I can't say that I feel like less of a man for not having foreskin.
This is just running in circles. This is about putting the childs right to not get physically harmed above the rights of the parents to exercise their religious freedom.Actually I'd love to see that sentence somewhere in big red letters since most people who oppose this don't seem to understand that the above is what this is all about. Welp.
Why don't I sue my parents for the color they painted my room as a baby. After all, I had no choice in the matter. Both situations are equally as unimportant. Morality aside, this simply doesn't matter enough to warrant debate especially from supreme court. If people do it, who fucking cares.
We have to keep fighting religious shit like this. It's fine that you don't care, but I would never want to be circumcised, I didn't even want to be baptized. If it isn't a big deal, then why cant we just refrain from doing these obviously retarded religious things?
Because some people don't believe those things are retarded and as long as those things are basically harmless then it isn't my right to interfere with them.
Those people can take a chinese mandolin to their own genitals if they so please. This is about the right of children to not be forced to endure ritualistic genital mutilation because other people (their parents) want them to.
Children are forced to live because their parents want them to. Whether that's any kinder than forced circumcision is a matter of opinion.
That wasn't a counterpoint or anything, just food for thought before we all get too rah-rah-rah about this stuff
User was warned for this post |
|
|
| Goozen Israel. June 28 2012 19:14. Posts 624 | Profile # |
On June 28 2012 18:35 Thurken wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 28 2012 04:07 DeathAngel[ro] wrote:
My dick is NOT circumcised.. and it feels good to have a ,,coverer'' for the cold and rainy days
But I always wondered how does if feel to be circumcised , always with your ,,head'' exposed .. doesn't that disturb you sometimes .. I'm just wondering since the only way I can imagine how would I feel circumcised is un-covering my dick from the skin .. and I must say that it bothers me sometimes
Plz only serious answers .
I didn't look the entire thread so please excuse me if what I'm gonna say has already been answered. I'm just gonna explain the practical consequences of circumcision: A circumcised penis is much less sensitive than an uncircumcised one. The practical drawback of that is that the sexual pleasure is less intense. Most people can't feel it because they had their foreskin removed when they were newborns, but the ones who did it as adults often complain that circumcision reduce their pleasure significantly. (On the other hand, it gives some protection against STI infection)
Pretty much this sums it up, although you can add to the benefits that it reduces the risk of a few types of cancer (Urinary tract in men, and virginal in women and is supposed to lower the risks of aids transmission as well) and due to this is being encouraged in some African countries. Also it not rare that older men (60+) can suffer from dry skin causing it to be painful to roll back the foreskin and in rare cases require a circumcision in later years. |
|
|
| PoisedYeTi Australia. June 28 2012 19:15. Posts 163 | Profile # |
On June 28 2012 18:11 r.Evo wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 28 2012 18:06 MattBarry wrote:
On June 28 2012 17:53 BrandFilt wrote:
On June 28 2012 03:50 CaptainCrush wrote:
I have it done and dont remember it. Plus my dick doesnt look like its in a sleeping bag all the time.... If I have a son, you can bet he will hae it done too. Pretty stupid ruling IMO
Let's hope you'll never be able to get a son then.
Goddamn it, shit like this makes me seriously question the mental integrity of people on the internet. It's a completely pointless cosmetic procedure which doesn't traumatize people mentally or physically. If religious people want to do it then why not? It hardly has a consequence. I can't say that I feel like less of a man for not having foreskin.
This is just running in circles. This is about putting the childs right to not get physically harmed above the rights of the parents to exercise their religious freedom.Actually I'd love to see that sentence somewhere in big red letters since most people who oppose this don't seem to understand that the above is what this is all about. Welp.
Also as this practice is mainly done because of religion it actually protects the childs religious freedom in a way too.
|
| | "Just read game like book" -WhiteRa |
|
|
| yeint Estonia. June 28 2012 19:17. Posts 2327 | Profile # |
On June 28 2012 19:13 MajorityofOne wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 28 2012 19:08 yeint wrote:
On June 28 2012 18:50 MattBarry wrote:
On June 28 2012 18:48 Animzor wrote:
On June 28 2012 18:44 MattBarry wrote:
On June 28 2012 18:11 r.Evo wrote:
On June 28 2012 18:06 MattBarry wrote:
On June 28 2012 17:53 BrandFilt wrote:
On June 28 2012 03:50 CaptainCrush wrote:
I have it done and dont remember it. Plus my dick doesnt look like its in a sleeping bag all the time.... If I have a son, you can bet he will hae it done too. Pretty stupid ruling IMO
Let's hope you'll never be able to get a son then.
Goddamn it, shit like this makes me seriously question the mental integrity of people on the internet. It's a completely pointless cosmetic procedure which doesn't traumatize people mentally or physically. If religious people want to do it then why not? It hardly has a consequence. I can't say that I feel like less of a man for not having foreskin.
This is just running in circles. This is about putting the childs right to not get physically harmed above the rights of the parents to exercise their religious freedom.Actually I'd love to see that sentence somewhere in big red letters since most people who oppose this don't seem to understand that the above is what this is all about. Welp.
Why don't I sue my parents for the color they painted my room as a baby. After all, I had no choice in the matter. Both situations are equally as unimportant. Morality aside, this simply doesn't matter enough to warrant debate especially from supreme court. If people do it, who fucking cares.
We have to keep fighting religious shit like this. It's fine that you don't care, but I would never want to be circumcised, I didn't even want to be baptized. If it isn't a big deal, then why cant we just refrain from doing these obviously retarded religious things?
Because some people don't believe those things are retarded and as long as those things are basically harmless then it isn't my right to interfere with them.
Those people can take a chinese mandolin to their own genitals if they so please. This is about the right of children to not be forced to endure ritualistic genital mutilation because other people (their parents) want them to.
Children are forced to live because their parents want them to. Whether that's any kinder than forced circumcision is a matter of opinion.
What? |
| | Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur. | DeMusliM * Thorzain * Taeja * HasHe |
|
|
| Nizaris Belgium. June 28 2012 19:21. Posts 2185 | Profile # |
Good. I hope it will set the standard for all of Europe. The world could really use less blind religious stupidity.
I'm glad all of you that got circumcised enjoy having less pleasure during sex but I will not do that to my son.Last edit: 2012-06-28 19:21:59 |
|
|
| Manit0u Poland. June 28 2012 19:21. Posts 9847 | Profile Blog # |
On June 28 2012 19:13 MajorityofOne wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 28 2012 19:08 yeint wrote:
On June 28 2012 18:50 MattBarry wrote:
On June 28 2012 18:48 Animzor wrote:
On June 28 2012 18:44 MattBarry wrote:
On June 28 2012 18:11 r.Evo wrote:
On June 28 2012 18:06 MattBarry wrote:
On June 28 2012 17:53 BrandFilt wrote:
On June 28 2012 03:50 CaptainCrush wrote:
I have it done and dont remember it. Plus my dick doesnt look like its in a sleeping bag all the time.... If I have a son, you can bet he will hae it done too. Pretty stupid ruling IMO
Let's hope you'll never be able to get a son then.
Goddamn it, shit like this makes me seriously question the mental integrity of people on the internet. It's a completely pointless cosmetic procedure which doesn't traumatize people mentally or physically. If religious people want to do it then why not? It hardly has a consequence. I can't say that I feel like less of a man for not having foreskin.
This is just running in circles. This is about putting the childs right to not get physically harmed above the rights of the parents to exercise their religious freedom.Actually I'd love to see that sentence somewhere in big red letters since most people who oppose this don't seem to understand that the above is what this is all about. Welp.
Why don't I sue my parents for the color they painted my room as a baby. After all, I had no choice in the matter. Both situations are equally as unimportant. Morality aside, this simply doesn't matter enough to warrant debate especially from supreme court. If people do it, who fucking cares.
We have to keep fighting religious shit like this. It's fine that you don't care, but I would never want to be circumcised, I didn't even want to be baptized. If it isn't a big deal, then why cant we just refrain from doing these obviously retarded religious things?
Because some people don't believe those things are retarded and as long as those things are basically harmless then it isn't my right to interfere with them.
Those people can take a chinese mandolin to their own genitals if they so please. This is about the right of children to not be forced to endure ritualistic genital mutilation because other people (their parents) want them to.
Children are forced to live because their parents want them to. Whether that's any kinder than forced circumcision is a matter of opinion. That wasn't a counterpoint or anything, just food for thought before we all get too rah-rah-rah about this stuff
Did you even think for a second before posting that? |
| | Time is precious. Waste it wisely. |
|
|
| MajorityofOne Canada. June 28 2012 19:21. Posts 1487 | Profile # |
On June 28 2012 19:17 yeint wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 28 2012 19:13 MajorityofOne wrote:
On June 28 2012 19:08 yeint wrote:
On June 28 2012 18:50 MattBarry wrote:
On June 28 2012 18:48 Animzor wrote:
On June 28 2012 18:44 MattBarry wrote:
On June 28 2012 18:11 r.Evo wrote:
On June 28 2012 18:06 MattBarry wrote:
On June 28 2012 17:53 BrandFilt wrote:
On June 28 2012 03:50 CaptainCrush wrote:
I have it done and dont remember it. Plus my dick doesnt look like its in a sleeping bag all the time.... If I have a son, you can bet he will hae it done too. Pretty stupid ruling IMO
Let's hope you'll never be able to get a son then.
Goddamn it, shit like this makes me seriously question the mental integrity of people on the internet. It's a completely pointless cosmetic procedure which doesn't traumatize people mentally or physically. If religious people want to do it then why not? It hardly has a consequence. I can't say that I feel like less of a man for not having foreskin.
This is just running in circles. This is about putting the childs right to not get physically harmed above the rights of the parents to exercise their religious freedom.Actually I'd love to see that sentence somewhere in big red letters since most people who oppose this don't seem to understand that the above is what this is all about. Welp.
Why don't I sue my parents for the color they painted my room as a baby. After all, I had no choice in the matter. Both situations are equally as unimportant. Morality aside, this simply doesn't matter enough to warrant debate especially from supreme court. If people do it, who fucking cares.
We have to keep fighting religious shit like this. It's fine that you don't care, but I would never want to be circumcised, I didn't even want to be baptized. If it isn't a big deal, then why cant we just refrain from doing these obviously retarded religious things?
Because some people don't believe those things are retarded and as long as those things are basically harmless then it isn't my right to interfere with them.
Those people can take a chinese mandolin to their own genitals if they so please. This is about the right of children to not be forced to endure ritualistic genital mutilation because other people (their parents) want them to.
Children are forced to live because their parents want them to. Whether that's any kinder than forced circumcision is a matter of opinion.
What?
As a certain blizzard community manager would say, "offtopic comments OP hay HAY" |
|
|
| MajorityofOne Canada. June 28 2012 19:22. Posts 1487 | Profile # |
On June 28 2012 19:21 Manit0u wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 28 2012 19:13 MajorityofOne wrote:
On June 28 2012 19:08 yeint wrote:
On June 28 2012 18:50 MattBarry wrote:
On June 28 2012 18:48 Animzor wrote:
On June 28 2012 18:44 MattBarry wrote:
On June 28 2012 18:11 r.Evo wrote:
On June 28 2012 18:06 MattBarry wrote:
On June 28 2012 17:53 BrandFilt wrote:
On June 28 2012 03:50 CaptainCrush wrote:
I have it done and dont remember it. Plus my dick doesnt look like its in a sleeping bag all the time.... If I have a son, you can bet he will hae it done too. Pretty stupid ruling IMO
Let's hope you'll never be able to get a son then.
Goddamn it, shit like this makes me seriously question the mental integrity of people on the internet. It's a completely pointless cosmetic procedure which doesn't traumatize people mentally or physically. If religious people want to do it then why not? It hardly has a consequence. I can't say that I feel like less of a man for not having foreskin.
This is just running in circles. This is about putting the childs right to not get physically harmed above the rights of the parents to exercise their religious freedom.Actually I'd love to see that sentence somewhere in big red letters since most people who oppose this don't seem to understand that the above is what this is all about. Welp.
Why don't I sue my parents for the color they painted my room as a baby. After all, I had no choice in the matter. Both situations are equally as unimportant. Morality aside, this simply doesn't matter enough to warrant debate especially from supreme court. If people do it, who fucking cares.
We have to keep fighting religious shit like this. It's fine that you don't care, but I would never want to be circumcised, I didn't even want to be baptized. If it isn't a big deal, then why cant we just refrain from doing these obviously retarded religious things?
Because some people don't believe those things are retarded and as long as those things are basically harmless then it isn't my right to interfere with them.
Those people can take a chinese mandolin to their own genitals if they so please. This is about the right of children to not be forced to endure ritualistic genital mutilation because other people (their parents) want them to.
Children are forced to live because their parents want them to. Whether that's any kinder than forced circumcision is a matter of opinion. That wasn't a counterpoint or anything, just food for thought before we all get too rah-rah-rah about this stuff
Did you even think for a second before posting that?
Maybe like half of one. A full second would be generous.
|
|
|
| yeint Estonia. June 28 2012 19:24. Posts 2327 | Profile # |
| Are you done being a pest now? |
| | Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur. | DeMusliM * Thorzain * Taeja * HasHe |
|
|
| nam nam Sweden. June 28 2012 19:27. Posts 4537 | Profile # |
On June 28 2012 19:22 MajorityofOne wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 28 2012 19:21 Manit0u wrote:
On June 28 2012 19:13 MajorityofOne wrote:
On June 28 2012 19:08 yeint wrote:
On June 28 2012 18:50 MattBarry wrote:
On June 28 2012 18:48 Animzor wrote:
On June 28 2012 18:44 MattBarry wrote:
On June 28 2012 18:11 r.Evo wrote:
On June 28 2012 18:06 MattBarry wrote:
On June 28 2012 17:53 BrandFilt wrote:
[quote]
Let's hope you'll never be able to get a son then.
Goddamn it, shit like this makes me seriously question the mental integrity of people on the internet. It's a completely pointless cosmetic procedure which doesn't traumatize people mentally or physically. If religious people want to do it then why not? It hardly has a consequence. I can't say that I feel like less of a man for not having foreskin.
This is just running in circles. This is about putting the childs right to not get physically harmed above the rights of the parents to exercise their religious freedom.Actually I'd love to see that sentence somewhere in big red letters since most people who oppose this don't seem to understand that the above is what this is all about. Welp.
Why don't I sue my parents for the color they painted my room as a baby. After all, I had no choice in the matter. Both situations are equally as unimportant. Morality aside, this simply doesn't matter enough to warrant debate especially from supreme court. If people do it, who fucking cares.
We have to keep fighting religious shit like this. It's fine that you don't care, but I would never want to be circumcised, I didn't even want to be baptized. If it isn't a big deal, then why cant we just refrain from doing these obviously retarded religious things?
Because some people don't believe those things are retarded and as long as those things are basically harmless then it isn't my right to interfere with them.
Those people can take a chinese mandolin to their own genitals if they so please. This is about the right of children to not be forced to endure ritualistic genital mutilation because other people (their parents) want them to.
Children are forced to live because their parents want them to. Whether that's any kinder than forced circumcision is a matter of opinion. That wasn't a counterpoint or anything, just food for thought before we all get too rah-rah-rah about this stuff
Did you even think for a second before posting that?
Maybe like half of one. A full second would be generous.
It's funny because it's probably true... |
|
|
| Geo.Rion Hungary. June 28 2012 19:28. Posts 5350 | Profile Blog # |
| Not sure what to think of it, i mean i dont have it and i would never allow it on my kid if i had one, but then again I can kinda see that for some people this is about tradition/family value/religion/whatever and banning that might be a restriction to exercise freedom of religion but idk, im still kinda in favor of the ban. |
| | "Protoss is a joke" Liquid`Jinro Okt.1. 2011 |
|
|
| Grumbels Netherlands. June 28 2012 19:29. Posts 3415 | Profile Blog # |
Meh, it's a barbaric procedure. Under Jewish religion infant sons are marked for life, the symbolism of circumcision is that it's the mark of the covenant with their God. It does not respect the child's freedom to perhaps not be Jewish later in his life. (note that since women don't count there is no need for them to be marked)
Nevertheless, it's a court decision and courts should not concern themselves with policy. If German law indicates not making an exception for religion is the correct choice then it's up to the legislative body to change the law in such a way as to allow it. I'm honestly not in favor of not making a religious exception. Circumcision is so central to Jewish tradition that not allowing something as relatively harmless as circumcision probably harms religious freedom a lot more than it promotes individual freedom. A decision like this is just going to antagonize Jews that for whatever reason want to live in Germany and will drive them to, say, the Netherlands which I believe does allow parents to perform circumcision on their infants. If as an adult you really disapprove of being circumcised, go ahead and blame your parents, not the government.
Also, a comparison:
I read in this thread about some tribe where they scar infants to mark them as part of their tribe. (maybe it's back from when they would raid other villages and mark and steal infants) It's obviously a silly practice, but suppose that for whatever reason you're a parent in such a tribe and you have to make the decision whether or not to continue the tradition on your newly-born. If you neglect to have the procedure performed then your kid might not fit in with other children in the tribe, it might be mocked, ostracized and in this case having 'virgin' skin can lead to non-minor mental problems. Knowing that scarring your child is a fairly harmless cosmetic procedure, would you run the risk of your child ending up an outcast that doesn't feel like s/he has anything he belongs to?
The real issue is the tradition which leads you to making such trade offs. I would ask people in this thread to not be so quick to judge parents that had or are planning to have their children circumcised, because you can't just ask any single person to defy his/her culture for abstract long-term reasons.Last edit: 2012-06-28 19:41:21 |
| | suffer by myself in a pool of blissful misery |
|
|
 Sinensis United States. June 28 2012 19:29. Posts 2503 | Profile Blog # |
I am circumcised and I wouldn't have it any other way. Even if it's just a cosmetic surgery it's one I am very happy to have.
Ever seen a porn with an uncut penis? Neither have I. |
|
|
| MajorityofOne Canada. June 28 2012 19:33. Posts 1487 | Profile # |
On June 28 2012 19:24 yeint wrote:
Are you done being a pest now?
I don't know, are you guys done pretending to know what you're talking about
When an issue is complicated, treat it with caution. Certainty is the enemy. So is simplification.
Some guy calls circumcision "retarded" and gets a pass, another questions whether life is worth living and gets called a pest. This debate deserves better participants, but since I'm certainly not qualified to be one myself I'll let you gents get on with your enlightening conversation |
|
|
| turdburgler England. June 28 2012 19:33. Posts 4654 | Profile Blog # |
On June 28 2012 19:13 MajorityofOne wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 28 2012 19:08 yeint wrote:
On June 28 2012 18:50 MattBarry wrote:
On June 28 2012 18:48 Animzor wrote:
On June 28 2012 18:44 MattBarry wrote:
On June 28 2012 18:11 r.Evo wrote:
On June 28 2012 18:06 MattBarry wrote:
On June 28 2012 17:53 BrandFilt wrote:
On June 28 2012 03:50 CaptainCrush wrote:
I have it done and dont remember it. Plus my dick doesnt look like its in a sleeping bag all the time.... If I have a son, you can bet he will hae it done too. Pretty stupid ruling IMO
Let's hope you'll never be able to get a son then.
Goddamn it, shit like this makes me seriously question the mental integrity of people on the internet. It's a completely pointless cosmetic procedure which doesn't traumatize people mentally or physically. If religious people want to do it then why not? It hardly has a consequence. I can't say that I feel like less of a man for not having foreskin.
This is just running in circles. This is about putting the childs right to not get physically harmed above the rights of the parents to exercise their religious freedom.Actually I'd love to see that sentence somewhere in big red letters since most people who oppose this don't seem to understand that the above is what this is all about. Welp.
Why don't I sue my parents for the color they painted my room as a baby. After all, I had no choice in the matter. Both situations are equally as unimportant. Morality aside, this simply doesn't matter enough to warrant debate especially from supreme court. If people do it, who fucking cares.
We have to keep fighting religious shit like this. It's fine that you don't care, but I would never want to be circumcised, I didn't even want to be baptized. If it isn't a big deal, then why cant we just refrain from doing these obviously retarded religious things?
Because some people don't believe those things are retarded and as long as those things are basically harmless then it isn't my right to interfere with them.
Those people can take a chinese mandolin to their own genitals if they so please. This is about the right of children to not be forced to endure ritualistic genital mutilation because other people (their parents) want them to.
Children are forced to live because their parents want them to. Whether that's any kinder than forced circumcision is a matter of opinion. That wasn't a counterpoint or anything, just food for thought before we all get too rah-rah-rah about this stuff User was warned for this post
if this is food for thought this is the mcdonalds of critical thinking
closer to verbal diarrhea than a coherent argument
|
|
|
| Province United Kingdom. June 28 2012 19:33. Posts 289 | Profile # |
To play Devil's advocate, I wonder how much the procedure costs in the USA? Perhaps it's fiancial reasons that continue its propogation by U.S medical practitioners, afterall, someone must be advising the parents?
(Note: I specify the USA because it has no large religious/cultural catalyst for the high rates of circumcision) |
|
|
| Goozen Israel. June 28 2012 19:37. Posts 624 | Profile # |
On June 28 2012 19:29 Grumbels wrote:
Meh, it's a barbaric procedure. Under Jewish religion infant sons are marked for life, the symbolism of circumcision is that it's the mark of the covenant with their God. It does not respect the child's freedom to perhaps not be Jewish later in his life. (note that since women don't count there is no need for them to be marked)
Nevertheless, it's a court decision and courts should not concern themselves with policy. If German law indicates not making an exception for religion is the correct choice then it's up to the legislative body to change the law in such a way as to allow it. I'm honestly not in favor of not making a religious exception. Circumcision is so central to Jewish tradition that not allowing something as relatively harmless as circumcision probably harms religious freedom a lot more than it does individual freedom. A decision like this is just going to antagonize Jews that for whatever reason want to live in Germany and will drive them to, say, the Netherlands which I believe does allow parents to perform circumcision on their infants.
While you need to be circumcised to be Jewish being circumcised dosnt make you jewish. Not to mention Islam also dose this and its a much, much bigger religion. Not to mention due to all the tension in Germanay its more likely done as part of a anti Islam sentiment (such as minaret banning in other places in europe) but this is do to europe not properly trying to solve the problems and doing these smaller things. Also calling it barbaric without explaining why is pointless, there are documented benefits and draw back to circumcision as supposed to say ear piercing that has no medical benefits. |
|
|
| yeint Estonia. June 28 2012 19:41. Posts 2327 | Profile # |
On June 28 2012 19:33 Province wrote:
To play Devil's advocate, I wonder how much the procedure costs in the USA? Perhaps it's fiancial reasons that continue its propogation by U.S medical practitioners, afterall, someone must be advising the parents?
(Note: I specify the USA because it has no large religious/cultural catalyst for the high rates of circumcision)
The practice stems from 19th century anti-masturbation activists. At this point it's just become a cultural norm (although thankfully fewer and fewer children are being circumcised for non-religious reasons).
So while it was not specifically a religious ritual, the reason for promoting its use was religiously based anti-sexuality. |
| | Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur. | DeMusliM * Thorzain * Taeja * HasHe |
|
|
| Grumbels Netherlands. June 28 2012 19:44. Posts 3415 | Profile Blog # |
On June 28 2012 19:37 Goozen wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 28 2012 19:29 Grumbels wrote:
Meh, it's a barbaric procedure. Under Jewish religion infant sons are marked for life, the symbolism of circumcision is that it's the mark of the covenant with their God. It does not respect the child's freedom to perhaps not be Jewish later in his life. (note that since women don't count there is no need for them to be marked)
Nevertheless, it's a court decision and courts should not concern themselves with policy. If German law indicates not making an exception for religion is the correct choice then it's up to the legislative body to change the law in such a way as to allow it. I'm honestly not in favor of not making a religious exception. Circumcision is so central to Jewish tradition that not allowing something as relatively harmless as circumcision probably harms religious freedom a lot more than it promotes individual freedom. A decision like this is just going to antagonize Jews that for whatever reason want to live in Germany and will drive them to, say, the Netherlands which I believe does allow parents to perform circumcision on their infants. If as an adult you really disapprove of being circumcised, go ahead and blame your parents, not the government.
Also, a comparison:
I read in this thread about some tribe where they scar infants to mark them as part of their tribe. (maybe it's back from when they would raid other villages and mark and steal infants) It's obviously a silly practice, but suppose that for whatever reason you're a parent in such a tribe and you have to make the decision whether or not to continue the tradition on your newly-born. If you neglect to have the procedure performed then your kid might not fit in with other children in the tribe, it might be mocked, ostracized and in this case having 'virgin' skin can lead to non-minor mental problems. Knowing that scarring your child is a fairly harmless cosmetic procedure, would you run the risk of your child ending up an outcast that doesn't feel like s/he has anything he belongs to?
The real issue is the tradition which leads you to making such trade offs. I would ask people in this thread to not be so quick to judge parents that had or are planning to have their children circumcised, because you can't just ask any single person to defy his/her culture for abstract long-term reasons.
While you need to be circumcised to be Jewish being circumcised dosnt make you jewish. Not to mention Islam also does this and it's a much, much bigger religion. Not to mention due to all the tension in Germanay it's more likely done as part of an anti Islam sentiment (such as minaret banning in other places in europe) but this is due to Europe not properly trying to solve the problems and doing these smaller things. Also calling it barbaric without explaining why is pointless, there are documented benefits and drawbacks to circumcision as supposed to say an ear piercing that has no medical benefits.
I literally explained why it's barbaric in the next sentence. It's because the intent of circumcision is to mark your infant as Jewish without his consent. Last edit: 2012-06-28 19:46:27 |
| | suffer by myself in a pool of blissful misery |
|
|
| Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 Next | |
|
|
|
| |
|
Sidebar Settings...
|
Store
