• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Germany - no religious circumcision

Texashiker

Texashiker

Lifer
We need to stop excusing child abuse in the name of religion

http://www.rt.com/news/germany-religious-circumcision-ban-772/

Religious circumcision of kids a crime - German court
Click to expand...

Why should we allow males to be circumcised, but not females?

Where do we draw the line between religion and abuse?

The court was considering a case against a Muslim doctor, who performed circumcision on a four-year-old boy at his parents’ request. Two days after the procedure bleeding started, after which the boy had to be taken to hospital.
Click to expand...
 
This is why the freedom of religion is part of our Constitution. To prevent the government from outlawing a major world religion.

And WTF is up with that picture? That kid is WAY too old to have the Brit Milah performed on him. It happens when the boy is 8 days old. Idiots put the picture in there for the same reason the picture of angelic young TM was shown - even though they know it is a lie.

The Brit Milah is so important to Judaism that the Sabbath Day is to be violated if the boy's 8th day of life falls on it.
 
Last edited:
Sure, it can be done correctly... but there are also cases of it being botched and causing harm. Do any possible benefits outweigh the risks?

I would not go so far as to ban it. Why should they?
 
cybrsage said:
Why are you for the banning of a religion?
Click to expand...

Hyperbole much. No one is stopping you to get your skin chopped off... give people choice to make their own decision. Leave the kids until they are old enough to make a choice for themselves.
 
Genx87 said:
Exactly. The comparison is asinine. Yet the pro foreskin crowd always trots it out.
Click to expand...

This is about the abuse of childrens genitals as a whole.

Do you remember the thread from a couple of weeks about about a jewish ritual spreading herpes? After the child was circumcised, the jewish rabi would put his mouth on the penis.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2250942

I guess sucking on the penis of a child is ok, as long as its done in the name of religion?
 
Texashiker said:
This is about the abuse of childrens genitals as a whole.

Do you remember the thread from a couple of weeks about about a jewish ritual spreading herpes? After the child was circumcised, the jewish rabi would put his mouth on the penis.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2250942

I guess sucking on the penis of a child is ok, as long as its done in the name of religion?
Click to expand...

I dont really care about the religious aspect of it. There are valid medical reasons for a male circumcision. I feel it should be left up to the legal guardians of the child to decide if it should be done.

But the male vs female aspect of it is ridiculous. Cutting off a foreskin is not the same as cutting off the clitoris.
 
CharlesKozierok said:
If it's done without the child being old enough to understand the procedure and give rational consent? Absolutely.



This is one of the weakest attempts at an argument I've seen online in ages. And that's saying something.
Click to expand...

My point was parents have the legal right to subject a child to medical procedures against their will and without their consent. Doing so doesnt make it child abuse.
 
Texashiker said:
This is about the abuse of childrens genitals as a whole.

Do you remember the thread from a couple of weeks about about a jewish ritual spreading herpes? After the child was circumcised, the jewish rabi would put his mouth on the penis.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2250942

I guess sucking on the penis of a child is ok, as long as its done in the name of religion?
Click to expand...


There never was a requirement to do the metzitzah b’peh (blood suction) when doing the Brit Milah (8th day circumcision as commanded by God to Abraham). It was started as a custom some time ago, since the mouth contains clotting agents...

Only the Ultra Orthodox do it - all other Jews do not. Yes, all other Jews still do the Brit Milah, but not the blood suction. I have no problem with banning the metzitzah b'peh, since it is not commanded by God anywhere (and was actually started because they thought the clotting action of the saliva would aid the child - like when you put your finger in your mouth after you cut it). Banning the Brit Milah due to the metzitzah b'peh is like banning cars because some people drink and drive.
 
Last edited:
Genx87 said:
My point was parents have the legal right to subject a child to medical procedures against their will and without their consent. Doing so doesnt make it child abuse.
Click to expand...

As long as the procedure is medically necessary, then it is not child abuse.


cybrsage said:
Banning the Brit Mila due to the metzitzah b'peh is like banning cars because some people speed.
Click to expand...

Any other time, an adult putting their mouth in the genitals of a child would be considered sexual abuse.

But as long as its done in the name of religion, then its ok?

I see a pattern of certain religions abusing the genitals of children.
 
Last edited:
Genx87 said:
I dont really care about the religious aspect of it. There are valid medical reasons for a male circumcision. I feel it should be left up to the legal guardians of the child to decide if it should be done.

But the male vs female aspect of it is ridiculous. Cutting off a foreskin is not the same as cutting off the clitoris.
Click to expand...

It should be left to the child to decide unless it is of immediate danger to his health.

AAP's policy on circumcision.

Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In the case of circumcision, in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision. It is legitimate for parents to take into account cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions, in addition to the medical factors, when making this decision. Analgesia is safe and effective in reducing the procedural pain associated with circumcision; therefore, if a decision for circumcision is made, procedural analgesia should be provided. If circumcision is performed in the newborn period, it should only be done on infants who are stable and healthy.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top