• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Germany may prosecute Jew for performing Brit Milah (circumcision)

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Forcibly converting infidels appears to be a requirement of Islam, that doesn't mean that we let them do it.
You do understand the difference between a parental right to decide medical and religious issues for a child and war against other peoples, right?

Tell me you do, please do not let everyone think you are so stupid you cannot know the difference.
 

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
0
0
Correct. Good thing circumcision is no more child abuse than braces and ear piercings.
Ear piercings are child abuse. But at least they are to a less sensitive part of the body, fairly easily reversible, and usually done when the child is older. So they are not nearly as bad as genital mutilation.

The comparison to braces is inane. Braces are corrective appliances, almost always installed when the child is old enough to give consent or at least know what is going on, reversible, and most importantly, done for a medical reason.

They have nothing in common with penis mutilation done to helpless infants because of archaic religious customs.

You do understand the difference between a parental right to decide medical and religious issues for a child and war against other peoples, right?
Parental rights end before abuse.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Ear piercings are child abuse. But at least they are to a less sensitive part of the body, fairly easily reversible, and usually done when the child is older. So they are not nearly as bad as genital mutilation.

The comparison to braces is inane. Braces are corrective appliances, almost always installed when the child is old enough to give consent or at least know what is going on, reversible, and most importantly, done for a medical reason.

They have nothing in common with penis mutilation done to helpless infants because of archaic religious customs.
Ear piercing is child abuse? :D No wonder people do not take you seriously! :D

:D You honestly believe they only apply braces after a child turns 18? What planet do you live on?

The removal of an unneeded piece of skin is mutilation! :D Struck out, three for three! :D Priceless!



Parental rights end before abuse.
Good thing ear piercings, circumcision, and braces are not abuse.
 

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
0
0
Ear piercing is child abuse? :D No wonder people do not take you seriously! :D
That's not a very cogent counter-argument.

:D You honestly believe they only apply braces after a child turns 18?
No, that's why I said "or at least know what is going on". Do you not even read posts before you respond to them?

The most important difference between braces and genital mutilation, however, is that one is medically necessary and the other is not.

The removal of an unneeded piece of skin is mutilation!
"Unneeded" is debatable at best. There are lots of parts of the body that aren't strictly needed, but we don't allow parents to chop them out of their newborn infants.

If a man doesn't want a foreskin, he can decide to remove it at adulthood. There is no ethical justification for making permanent, unnecessary modifications to the genitals of an innocent baby.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Still snickering that Charles actually thinks that, as of 2006, over 50% of parents in the US are guilty of child abuse. :D
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
That's not a very cogent counter-argument.
It matches the statement you made rather nicely.


No, that's why I said "or at least know what is going on". Do you not even read posts before you respond to them?

The most important difference between braces and genital mutilation, however, is that one is medically necessary and the other is not.
Most people who get braces do NOT get them for medical reasons. We both know you knew this before you made that statement, since it is as obvious as water being wet.

"Unneeded" is debatable at best. There are lots of parts of the body that aren't strictly needed, but we don't allow parents to chop them out of their newborn infants.
Debate that it is needed then. All I see is you still smarting on striking out three out of three? :D
 

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
0
0
It matches the statement you made rather nicely.
You still have not provided even an attempt at justifying how sticking a painful needle in the ear of an infant is not child abuse. The fact that it is culturally accepted doesn't make it any less abusive. The fact that you use childish tactics like playing to the audience doesn't either.

Most people who get braces do NOT get them for medical reasons.
You'll have to back up that claim. Everyone I know who has gotten orthodontic treatment for their kids has done so because of medical reasons. If done for cosmetic reasons, it is at the behest of the child, and at an age when most are capable of making rational decisions.

I've never heard of anyone forcing their kids to get braces because of "commands" written in a book.

In no way is this at all comparable to genital mutilation of a newborn.

We both know you knew this before you made that statement, since it is as obvious as water being wet.
Making false comments about what I believe doesn't serve to substantiate your unsubstantiated claims.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
You still have not provided even an attempt at justifying how sticking a painful needle in the ear of an infant is not child abuse. The fact that it is culturally accepted doesn't make it any less abusive. The fact that you use childish tactics like playing to the audience doesn't either.
I also have not proven water is wet...do you not believe me when I say water is wet?

How about the American Academy of Pediatrics? Are they reputable enough for you?

Conclusions. Keloids are more likely to develop when ears are pierced after age 11 than before age 11. This observation holds true for patients with a family history of keloids. Given the difficulty and cost of treating keloids, prevention remains the best approach. Patients with a family history of keloids should consider not having their ears pierced. If this is not an option, then piercing during early childhood, rather than later childhood, may be advisable.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/115/5/1312.abstract

Unless you are saying the AAP supports child abuse, you have to admit your personal view and reality do not align.


You'll have to back up that claim. Everyone I know who has gotten orthodontic treatment for their kids has done so because of medical reasons. If done for cosmetic reasons, it is at the behest of the child, and at an age when most are capable of making rational decisions.
Additional Information

  • While orthodontics are commonly fitted for cosmetic reasons, braces are necessary in some situations.
I've never heard of anyone forcing their kids to get braces because of "commands" written in a book.
"you use childish tactics"

In no way is this at all comparable to genital mutilation of a newborn.
Agreed, good thing circumcision is not genital mutiliation of a newborn.

Making false comments about what I believe doesn't serve to substantiate your unsubstantiated claims.
Oh, so you are just stupid instead. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. I apologize for assuming you are not stupid. My mistake.


Still waiting for your debate on how the foreskin is needed.
 

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
0
0
Unless you are saying the AAP supports child abuse, you have to admit your personal view and reality do not align.
I'm not saying the AAP supports child abuse. They don't oppose it because it is relatively minor child abuse that is socially accepted.

Regardless, this is not about ear piercings. It is about genital mutilation.

Agreed, good thing circumcision is not genital mutiliation of a newborn.
Back to your usual word games. Not interested.

Unnecessary surgery is mutilation. If you want to do it to yourself, be my guest. You have no right to do it to anyone else.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,155
3,853
126
I believe this practice would quickly disappear if it could only be performed on a consenting adult. Do you want the best and most sensitive part of your penis cut off? Oh sure, Doc, hack away.
 

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
0
0
I believe this practice would quickly disappear if it could only be performed on a consenting adult. Do you want the best and most sensitive part of your penis cut off? Oh sure, Doc, hack away.
That's one of the reasons that it is done on helpless infants. It is a form of social control. This was especially the case thousands of years ago, when being "branded" in this way effectively made a man unacceptable in non-Hebrew society. That's less of an issue in modern society, but the practice still is based on the concept of parental ownership and indoctrination of their children.
 

_Rick_

Diamond Member
Apr 20, 2012
3,879
54
91
Ear piercing is child abuse? :D No wonder people do not take you seriously! :D
http://www.berlin.de/sen/justiz/gerichte/kg/presse/archiv/20120822.1900.374071.html

Summary:

A kid (aged three) had pain (trauma still present three days after procedure) after getting an ear piercing, the parents sued the piercer for 70 euros damages.
The judge announced he will closely examine the culpability of all involved, as the consent of the parents to have the procedure performed may not have been in the child's best interest.
Also the tattooist will be examined, why he performed the procedure on a small child.

Session is next week.


Hopefully this barbaric custom will be finally properly abolished, just like "traditional" circumcision.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,875
460
126
Oh come off it. It's not like it's female circumcision. The child will still be fully capable of a happy, healthy, enjoyable sex life. If you're somehow worried about pain, you can request or require that the mohel use an analgesic.

There's not much real medical need for circumcision, but that doesn't mean there's any reason to ban the practice, either.
This. For the life of me I can't understand why progressives have such an burning attachment to foreskins. Are there really men out there so self-centered that a significant concern is wishing their penises were even more sensitive?
 

Ryan

Lifer
Oct 31, 2000
27,518
1
81
I wish parents would stop worrying about dicks that aren't attached to their bodies.
 
Last edited:

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
0
0
For the life of me I can't understand why progressives have such an burning attachment to foreskins.
Well, I can't understand why conservatives, who claim to value freedom and self-determination, are so in favor of allowing someone to make a permanent, unnecessary modification to the genitals of another individual for no valid reason whatsoever, with no consent -- nor even anesthesia.

(Actually, that's not true. I can understand it -- most conservatives only pay lip service to the concept of freedom.)

It being less bad than FGM doesn't make it right. Your inability to understand the issue doesn't make it go away, either.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,875
460
126
Well, I can't understand why conservatives, who claim to value freedom and self-determination, are so in favor of allowing someone to make a permanent, unnecessary modification to the genitals of another individual for no valid reason whatsoever, with no consent -- nor even anesthesia.

(Actually, that's not true. I can understand it -- most conservatives only pay lip service to the concept of freedom.)

It being less bad than FGM doesn't make it right. Your inability to understand the issue doesn't make it go away, either.
Yeah . . . See, I'm not buying that the side that wants to control what size soft drink one can purchase and fights the school voucher system tooth and nail is all about freedom. You guys have an emotional attachment to little boys' foreskins that borders on fetishistic.

If it makes you feel any better, you still have the freedom to tear the little boy into pieces with no consent -- nor even anesthesia -- as long as you do so before birth. So foreskins still have more protection than does life.
 

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
0
0
Yeah . . . See, I'm not buying that the side that wants to control what size soft drink one can purchase and fights the school voucher system tooth and nail is all about freedom.
Small problem here: I spoke out against the soft drink law and I favor school vouchers.

Nice try. But what we really have is the opposite juxtaposition: someone who is willing to get up in arms over the size of soda he's allowed to buy, but has no problem with innocent babies being mutilated because of religious superstitions.

You guys have an emotional attachment to little boys' foreskins that borders on fetishistic.
I have an emotional attachment to liberty, including the right of each person not to have surgery on their private parts for no reason without their consent.

And while we're on the subject, thanks to that fetish comment, I'd have to say that you're a dick.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,875
460
126
Small problem here: I spoke out against the soft drink law and I favor school vouchers.

Nice try. But what we really have is the opposite juxtaposition: someone who is willing to get up in arms over the size of soda he's allowed to buy, but has no problem with innocent babies being mutilated because of religious superstitions.



I have an emotional attachment to liberty, including the right of each person not to have surgery on their private parts for no reason without their consent.

And while we're on the subject, thanks to that fetish comment, I'd have to say that you're a dick.
Dang, and here I was betting it was the abortion reference that would do it!

Conservatives believe it's the job of parents to make decisions for their children. As long as those decisions don't unduly constrict the child's ability to live a productive and happy life, we're content. It's once our children are adults that we object to their choices being constrained. And we'll just have to agree to disagree about the necessity of a foreskin in leading a productive and happy life.
 

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
Good, time to stop the genital mutilation of children by religious extremists of all stripes.

And for those defending having their dicks already mutilated. Guess what, it IS smaller. Thickness is where it counts if you are going to get into the biological aspect of pleasuring a women. (or man)

Also circumcised men do not last as long in bed.

But then the USA is a society that has a bunch of stunted manchildren literally frightened of real womens sexuality.

So it matters not I guess. Well except for those of us getting laid. And of course the women who know their orgasms/bodies. ;)
 
Last edited:

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,155
3,853
126
Yeah . . . See, I'm not buying that the side that wants to control what size soft drink one can purchase and fights the school voucher system tooth and nail is all about freedom. You guys have an emotional attachment to little boys' foreskins that borders on fetishistic.

If it makes you feel any better, you still have the freedom to tear the little boy into pieces with no consent -- nor even anesthesia -- as long as you do so before birth. So foreskins still have more protection than does life.
What are you saying, a woman can't decide not to carry a child but you get to cut off part of a boy child's dick? Surely if you get to make such a choice that only a few odd ball fetishistic folk would ban, then a woman should surely have a right to make a similar but truly major decision.

I fear we aren't talking fetishism here, but religious fanaticism. The religious fanatic, having determined himself moral in everything gets to dictate everything, even genital mutilation and will cede that power to nobody else. Maybe we should bind girl's feet. Oh no, that's illegal.

How about corporations paying to brand children's foreheads. That would be cool.
 
Last edited:

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
I'm not saying the AAP supports child abuse. They don't oppose it because it is relatively minor child abuse that is socially accepted.
:D Only you and other idiots like you feel it is child abuse.

Regardless, this is not about ear piercings. It is about genital mutilation.
Says the man who think ear piercings are child abuse. :D


Back to your usual word games. Not interested.

Unnecessary surgery is mutilation. If you want to do it to yourself, be my guest. You have no right to do it to anyone else.
You are lying about what is child abuse and you expect other people to not call you out on your lie? How silly of you. You should know better than that by now.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
I believe this practice would quickly disappear if it could only be performed on a consenting adult. Do you want the best and most sensitive part of your penis cut off? Oh sure, Doc, hack away.
Same would happen to abortion. Sure doc, kill me off.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Germans were never big fans of Jews historically, so it makes sense.
There was a long period of time where Germany was a safe haven for Jews - which is why there were so many German Jews. It was mostly because the ruler of Germany wanted to snub the Pope. Same reason Martin Luther was not imprisoned.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY