Quizzes & Puzzles59 mins ago
Germany has seen sense, they have banned circumcision on the grounds of religious beliefs. Why has it taken so long for a government to realise it is child abuse?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by dabees. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Kromovaracun, I think Mike's earlier point, and my own, is that this has nothing to do with religion in the USA: it's just something people do to their sons, and their sons, when they do grow up and think about it, are so unconcerned about it they do it to their own sons. People here are taking umbrage on behalf of babies who, when they grow up, couldn't care less about it.
That puts it a bit in line with (to take a popular myth) town councils banning Christmas so as not to offend Muslims who, when asked, have no problem with Christmas at all.
Tell Americans that most of them are being being oppressed and mutilated and they won't understand what you're talking about.
(But then I rather suspect, from reading the posts here, that for quite a few respondents this thread isn't about America, it's about religion.)
That puts it a bit in line with (to take a popular myth) town councils banning Christmas so as not to offend Muslims who, when asked, have no problem with Christmas at all.
Tell Americans that most of them are being being oppressed and mutilated and they won't understand what you're talking about.
(But then I rather suspect, from reading the posts here, that for quite a few respondents this thread isn't about America, it's about religion.)
I'm surprised this garnered such a response.
The argument of health benefits seem invalid to me. A clean penis is a healthy one and whilst it may become infected removing before birth seems a little drastic. We don't remove the appendix, just in case. Harming a child is wrong no matter what your religious beliefs are, the sooner mankind understands this the better.
Children are born atheist, it's only once their parents indoctrinate them do they have a religion, so why instil your beliefs upon them via mutilation? The protection of children should have nothing to do with religion, they don't have the ability to choose, so it's up to those that do to choose the best for them.
The argument of health benefits seem invalid to me. A clean penis is a healthy one and whilst it may become infected removing before birth seems a little drastic. We don't remove the appendix, just in case. Harming a child is wrong no matter what your religious beliefs are, the sooner mankind understands this the better.
Children are born atheist, it's only once their parents indoctrinate them do they have a religion, so why instil your beliefs upon them via mutilation? The protection of children should have nothing to do with religion, they don't have the ability to choose, so it's up to those that do to choose the best for them.
\\You probably know more about this than I do, but surely this can be prevented just by washing under the foreskin regularly? That's certainly what most health professionals seem to recommend. I'm pretty sure buildup of smegma for instance isn't a problem if proper hygiene is followed. \\\
Kromo.....I agree, that the above is not a MAJOR health issue, but cleaning and washing under the foreskin of an uncircumcised child can be extremely painful and distressing and if they have a degree of phimosis (can't retract the foreskin) can be impossible. Hygiene, like cleaning the teeth, is understood and performed by the educated, but is often missed out entirely by the ...................disinterested.
Kromo.....I agree, that the above is not a MAJOR health issue, but cleaning and washing under the foreskin of an uncircumcised child can be extremely painful and distressing and if they have a degree of phimosis (can't retract the foreskin) can be impossible. Hygiene, like cleaning the teeth, is understood and performed by the educated, but is often missed out entirely by the ...................disinterested.
"Children are born atheist" - dabees, that's not what Islam (to cite but one religion) believes. The Muslims I know are taught that all children are born Muslim. A new born baby probably knows a great deal more about the meaning of life than any of us - I've always felt that a child is born with innate wisdom.
People can believe what they like – but belief doesn’t make it so. No child is born with a belief in religion, and it’s nonsense to claim otherwise. Contrary to popular assumption, Atheism equates not to non-belief, but to an absence of belief - and that is precisely what babies are born with - an absence of belief.
-- answer removed --
Thanks Sqad for your response.
jno:
", is that this has nothing to do with religion in the USA:"
Perhaps not directly, but I think it'd be interesting to do some delving into the history of the practice in the US. I'm willing to bet the practice would not be anything like as prevalent in the United States without that culture's religious influence. As infundibulum's post points out, it's a cultural legacy inherited from Victorian drives for chastity and purity - drives which were unavoidably religious in nature.
But either way, this IS about religion in Germany and in the original link that the OP posted.
"People here are taking umbrage on behalf of babies who, when they grow up, couldn't care less about it."
Perhaps not as adults, no. But as far as I know circumcision is an extremely painful procedure. A friend of mine for various reasons had to do it later than it usually happens and remembers it being extremely painful - which makes sense, considering the number of nerves in the foreskin. But most people who are circumcised will have forgotten this by the time they are old enough to speak. A baby, however, will feel the pain. Just because they don't have the faculties to tell you how much it hurts, it doesn't mean they don't have the right to protection from people who want to mutilate its genitals.
"it's just something people do to their sons, and their sons, when they do grow up and think about it, are so unconcerned about it they do it to their own sons. "
As infundibulum points out, this is not an argument.
jno:
", is that this has nothing to do with religion in the USA:"
Perhaps not directly, but I think it'd be interesting to do some delving into the history of the practice in the US. I'm willing to bet the practice would not be anything like as prevalent in the United States without that culture's religious influence. As infundibulum's post points out, it's a cultural legacy inherited from Victorian drives for chastity and purity - drives which were unavoidably religious in nature.
But either way, this IS about religion in Germany and in the original link that the OP posted.
"People here are taking umbrage on behalf of babies who, when they grow up, couldn't care less about it."
Perhaps not as adults, no. But as far as I know circumcision is an extremely painful procedure. A friend of mine for various reasons had to do it later than it usually happens and remembers it being extremely painful - which makes sense, considering the number of nerves in the foreskin. But most people who are circumcised will have forgotten this by the time they are old enough to speak. A baby, however, will feel the pain. Just because they don't have the faculties to tell you how much it hurts, it doesn't mean they don't have the right to protection from people who want to mutilate its genitals.
"it's just something people do to their sons, and their sons, when they do grow up and think about it, are so unconcerned about it they do it to their own sons. "
As infundibulum points out, this is not an argument.
Ludwig....LOL
Kromo...just an inconsequential post to this thread.....an examiner in the surgical final examination delighted in passing a piece of surgical equipment to the candidate. It looked like a small thimble with a guillotine at the head, enabling the foreskin of the baby to be inserted and the guillotine enabled to cut off the foreskin. We all knew about this and the keenness of the examiner to show off this archaic piece of surgical equipment, so he didn't fool anybody.
Kromo...just an inconsequential post to this thread.....an examiner in the surgical final examination delighted in passing a piece of surgical equipment to the candidate. It looked like a small thimble with a guillotine at the head, enabling the foreskin of the baby to be inserted and the guillotine enabled to cut off the foreskin. We all knew about this and the keenness of the examiner to show off this archaic piece of surgical equipment, so he didn't fool anybody.
<<"...it's just something people do to their sons, and their sons, when they do grow up and think about it, are so unconcerned about it they do it to their own sons." ........... like joining the KKK ? or wifebeating? or........ >>
Sorry, that won't wash as a parallel. The argument being put forward here is that circumcision is something that does harm to its victims - not to others, which is the purpose of the KKK and wifebeating.
I'm arguing that the victims themselves don't mind. The victims of the KKK and wifebeating do.
Sorry, that won't wash as a parallel. The argument being put forward here is that circumcision is something that does harm to its victims - not to others, which is the purpose of the KKK and wifebeating.
I'm arguing that the victims themselves don't mind. The victims of the KKK and wifebeating do.
Its often reported that the jewish concept of justice is "an eye for an eye ..."
so by this criteria what is the penalty for these cruel butchers ?
Personally I can think of no better candidate for mutilation than the well-respected knifeman who goes around slicing up your children and expecting a free lunch .
so by this criteria what is the penalty for these cruel butchers ?
Personally I can think of no better candidate for mutilation than the well-respected knifeman who goes around slicing up your children and expecting a free lunch .
jno, // The argument being put forward here is that circumcision is something that does harm to its victims//
No, that is not the argument. The argument here is that the Human Rights of children are being violated. They have no choice in the matter, but are nevertheless subjected to unnecessary and irreversible surgical procedures in the name of religion.
No, that is not the argument. The argument here is that the Human Rights of children are being violated. They have no choice in the matter, but are nevertheless subjected to unnecessary and irreversible surgical procedures in the name of religion.
Latest Posts
How it Works59 mins ago
Food & Drink63 mins ago
Starmer & Lammy A Marriage Made In...
News75 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles100 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles117 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.