German Regional Court Rules Against Circumcision

[ChristianPFC]

I think you misunderstand my comment.

 

I did not misunderstand your comment, I just twisted it to my needs.

 

While I also don't like body piercings or tattoos, I hardly support governmental interference or regimentation involving personal choice issues. Unless a given action carries with it some significant harm to persons or society in general, government ought to stay the hell out of regulating it. And I think this concept is particularly true where there exists historical, religious, or cultural reasons for the conduct.

 

I think the fact that something has historical, religious or cultural reasons should not exempt it from applying current standards to it.

 

This applies to bullfight, circumcision, tattoos, smoking. Nothing of this would be thinkable/imaginable if someone came up with the idea now. Bullfight in Spain and Foie Gras in France are exempted from animal protection laws because it has a cultural and historical background. I find this unacceptable!

[Guest fountainhall]

I did not misunderstand your comment, I just twisted it to my needs.

 

I think the fact that something has historical, religious or cultural reasons should not exempt it from applying current standards to it

 

As I mentioned earlier, everything in our universe evolves with time. Nothing is constant. Just ask the dinosaurs! Human life evolved from simple cells over more than three billion years ago. Yet 53% of Americans - and probably a few others around the world - believe that "God created humans beings exactly how the Bible describes" (according to a 2005 Gallup Poll).

 

http://www.gallup.co...ent-design.aspx

 

Is this certainty perhaps one reason why the process of evolutionary change is so unacceptable to them?

 

Christian is absolutely correct in my view. As we have evolved over the last few millennia, the economic, social, cultural and other factors affecting the lives of peoples and countries have shifted as certainly as the tectonic plates under our feet. Religious beliefs of Jews and Christians surrounding circumcision come from the Old Testament. Yet that weighty tome also prescribes death for any man who has sex with another man! The wordings for both are very clear. Yet, in today's world, a large majority are outraged when a young man is killed simply for being homosexual. Who gave anyone a right arbitrarily to choose to ignore one edict and yet to insist a second must be obeyed?

[ChristianPFC]

I think circumcision is just a useless body modification, as are tattoos and piercings. If done properly, they do no harm (but have no health benefit, and I find them unaesthetic/unattractive), if they go wrong, they can even lead to death. There is no benefit, only risk. (Apart from adult circumcision for medical reasons.)

 

I assume circumcision is paid by your health insurance (at least I didn't anything that says the opposite) and therefore by all who pay health insurance. As there is no medical benefit, the parents should pay the circumcision if they want it for their son. I have no idea what a circumcision costs.

[Guest thaiworthy]

Without insurance my Hispanic ex-boyfriend paid about $700 to have it done, but that was 8 years ago.

 

I feel just the opposite of ChristianPFC. I find circumcised men very aesthetic and attractive. I think we both feel the way we do because we were brought up viewing other men who were or were not circumcised. I remember seeing other guys in high school locker rooms when I entered puberty and since they were all circumcised, that is how I became accustomed to appreciate the male body. I assume this is probably true for Christian and some others, too. In all my years as a teen, I actually had never even seen an anteater, and probably wouldn't have known what it was if I did!

 

Having been to Thailand so often, it doesn't make any difference any more. Either way is fine with me. I do not focus on any one particular feature anyway, and view young men as complete beings, with no one thing as a plus or minus. The personality is a big factor however, and overrides physical attributes as well.

[ChristianPFC]

I came across some material in the internet covering this court decision which I want to share with you:

 

http://www.feuerwaechter.org/2012/07/meine-vorhaut-gehoert-mir/ (in German)

 

https://eifelginster.wordpress.com/2012/07/21/297/ (German and English)

 

There we have some in-dept analysis of people who have significant background knowledge (about culture, religion, medicine and language) pointing out that there are moderate political and religious movements against circumcision in Arab countries and Israel. And they show that circumcision is not required according to Koran.

 

There are links that falsify the studies that show that the risk of transmitting HIV is lower for circumcised men. Anyway: would you have sex without condom because you are circumcised if you knew the risk is lower for you?

 

It is claimed that circumcision in North America was introduced by the church to prevent boys from masturbating and men from enjoying sex. Hygienic reasons were pushed forward later.

 

But what I found most interesting are galeries of pictures of botched circumcisions:

 

http://www.circumstitions.com/Restric/Botched1sb.html

http://www.circumstitions.com/Restric/Botched3sc.html

http://www.circumstitions.com/Restric/Botched3sc.html

 

http://www.circumcisionharm.org/gallery1.htm

http://www.circumcisionharm.org/gallery2.htm

http://www.circumcisionharm.org/gallery3.htm

http://www.circumcisionharm.org/gallery4.htm

http://www.circumcisionharm.org/gallery5.htm

 

Whereas potential later health benefits by circumcising boys at young age is highly hypothetical and statistical, these are real!

 

In all my years as a teen, I actually had never even seen an anteater, and probably wouldn't have known what it was if I did!

 

http://www.circumstitions.com/Different.html

[Guest thaiworthy]

Christian,

 

This post is overkill. Many farang have had circumcisions and your insistent and relentless protest is appalling. Circumcision, by its very definition is a scar and there are some men who actually do not view their bodies as an aberration. I find your insinuation highly offensive.

 

I don't know why you feel it is necessary to link 8 pages containing dozens of photos of imperfect circumcisions to prove your point. After reading this post, I have therefore concluded you have a morbid preoccupation with this subject.

 

Get over it.

[kokopelli]

Khristian; I love Kock; either Kut or un-Kut, Koko.

[Bob]

Whether somebody for whatever reason is or isn't circumcized, who cares? I don't. In my view, the "anti-circumcision" people are just as dumb with their views (and alleged scientific backup) as are the "pro-circumcision" people. Those that view people who are circumcized as "mutilated" are just being silly with their language and reflecting their own personal attitudes (much like me when I was about 6 or 7 years old and saw my first uncircumcized man and thought his dick looked rather hideous).

[Rogie]

As the male child suffers no long-lasting harm I still say in a tolerant society it should be allowed for religious reasons.

 

Some time after I said that, I read an article written by a man who'd been circumcised as a boy for religious reasons. He now has a son and had been agonising over whether to have him circumcised. He decided in the end not to. I am wavering somewhat as a result of reading that.

 

I haven't had a chance to look up Christian's links yet as my 'net connection's a bit slow. Maybe I'll get a chance later.

[Guest thaiworthy]

I haven't had a chance to look up Christian's links yet as my 'net connection's a bit slow. Maybe I'll get a chance later.

 

No need to view his private chamber of horrors, Rogie. But since we're posting links to pictures, I have a suggestion:

 

Christian, perhaps you will show us a photo of your penis, so we can see what perfection really looks like!

 

You show me yours and I'll show you mine. Here it is:

 

 

Note from moderator: Thaiworthy, board rules specifically state no pornographic images of any kind, including monstrous, grotesque, silicon-injected, deformed, and/or maligned appendages of the human body. You have been issued one warning point.

[Bob]

You have been issued one warning point.

 

You bad, bad, boy. And, given I haven't had breakfast yet, I award one "like" point to the moderator.

 

As for posting photos of one's penis, I won't be participating. Although my Mr. Happy is rather cute (well, I've always thought so!), I can't seem to get my camera to switch to the "macro" setting.

 

P.S. In reality, I'm jealous. Try as I may, I simply can't seem to earn any well-deserved warning points. I never win anything.

[Rogie]

Note from moderator: Thaiworthy, board rules specifically state no pornographic images of any kind, including monstrous, grotesque, silicon-injected, deformed, and/or maligned appendages of the human body. You have been issued one warning point.

 

So which of those was it? I didn't get to see it!!

 

Was it monstrous?

Deformed?

Grotesque?

Maligned? Not sure what that means - does it mean one that's been the victim of an SM attack?

 

Or, more likely, was it a perfect 10?

[ChristianPFC]

Christian, perhaps you will show us a photo of your penis, so we can see what perfection really looks like!

You show me yours and I'll show you mine.

 

My penis is fine for me, thanks. We could change to boards with different rules for posting pictures of our penises/peni. And link to there to satisfy other member's curiosity. Or exchange pictures by PM or email (just kidding).

 

I am not obsessed with circumcision, I just think it's a useless, usually harmless (but see the galeries if it goes wrong) body modification. I can even imagine having a boyfriend who is circumcised.

[kokopelli]

I saw "it" before it was censored; as fine a specimen as could be found in the Kingdom.

[Guest thaiworthy]

I saw "it" before it was censored; as fine a specimen as could be found in the Kingdom.

 

You have cataracts, don't you Koko?

[Rogie]

Consent Rule May Proceed for a Circumcision Ritual

 

"New York City health officials may proceed temporarily with a plan to require parental consent before an infant may undergo a particular Jewish circumcision ritual, a federal judge ruled Thursday.

 

City officials say 12 cases of herpes simplex virus have likely resulted from the procedure, known as metzitzah b’peh, since 2000, including one Brooklyn case reported this week. Two infants died, and two suffered permanent brain damage. Most Jews no longer practice metzitzah b’peh, in which the circumciser uses his mouth to suck blood from the wound, but it remains common among some ultra-Orthodox communities.

 

Citing the risk of infection, health officials in September introduced a regulation that would require parents to provide written consent stating that they were aware of the health risks. "

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/11/nyregion/parental-consent-rule-may-proceed-for-a-circumcision-ritual-a-judge-says.html?src=recg

[Guest thaiworthy]

Most Jews no longer practice metzitzah b’peh, in which the circumciser uses his mouth to suck blood from the wound, but it remains common among some ultra-Orthodox communities.

 

Horrifying! Ghastly! Unbelievable! And any parents who sign that consent form ought to have their heads examined!

 

I had no idea such things were done. That is absolutely crazy! Religion is creeping up fast to win first place on my "I don't get it" list. Just what symbolic function does it serve for such a sick ritual? What is it supposed to mean?

 

More fuel to the fire for ChristianPFC, and in this particular case only, I might even agree with him.

 

Ultra-Orthodox? Oh, my God! " . . .an intrusion into the rights of freedom of religion and speech?" Ultra-bullshit! Not where infant death and brain damage is concerned, if you ask me!

[KhorTose]

Bob or Michael can correct me on this, but it is my understanding where religion, and the rights of children  are concerned, the welfare of the child takes precedent over any religious argument.  The problem with circumcision is that there really isn't any clear evidence that it does harm the child.  There are mistakes and some secondary evidence, but no one has ever proved to a US court's satisfaction that the welfare of the child is under threat by this health/religious act.

[Bob]

At least in the US, the overriding principle involved in any child-related matter is what is called the "best interests" of the child.  While a judge has to ultimately determine what a child's best interest is in a given matter, there are statutory guidelines as that the court needs to consider and weigh as part of that process.  Each state has its own laws but many are similar and, in Michigan, one of 12 factors the court must consider is:

The capacity and disposition of the parties involved to give the child love, affection, and guidance and to continue the education and raising of the child in his or her religion or creed, if any.

 

So, religious preference (if any) is part of one factor but I personally never saw any case turn on that issue alone. And, additionally, you've got the parent's freedom of religion rights surrounding this issue.

 

For thousands of years, various religions have espoused/mandated circumcision and I'm doubtful that any court (at least in the US in the foreseeable future) will rule that a parent cannot make this choice for his/her child.  What will be interesting, though (if it ever happens), will be a court fight over whether a child should be circumcized when the divorced parents have equal custodial rights.  That'd likely be a judge's nightmare.

[Guest Jovianmoon]

Since posting in the Hawking thread earlier tonight, I'm really warming to 'The Beer Bar' now! For better or worse...   

 

All other arguments aside, the one that matters to me most is the child's choice, which has been well expounded upon by Fountainhall and others. And a new born child is afforded none - I was afforded none.

 

I was born neither Jewish nor Muslim. My parents would claim that I was born a Christian, because they are Christian. That makes as much sense as claiming that a child is born Communist or Post-modern existentialist Keynesian whatever. It's all nothing but ideology, and a new born baby is born with none of that baggage - they either acquire it or it is forced upon them.

 

I have never told my parents, and probably never will (they're too old now that it would achieve nothing but to offend them), but I actually resent never having been given the choice.

 

It's my body, and I should have been allowed to grow old enough to have been asked "Would you like to be circumcised? Here are the pros and cons..."

 

It's done now, and I should have never been placed in the position of considering whether or not to undergo the questionable circumcision-reversal operation, whatever it's called.

 

Just my two-satang's worth...

[Guest bbillybb]

Well the way I see it, if I do at all. is that it is a religious thing that started way back. There may be some  reason they did  that but I understand that it was a spiritual message passed down from on high. But I do not understand what that would have to do with believing in a God. Such as the same craziness of sacrificing a lamb, what does it do but eliminate a food source? I do think it has health issues around it at some time. cut vs uncut, but not at 8 to 10 days it will not. 

So if I had a kid, I would not do it. I do prefer the cut version though.

[Guest fountainhall]

I don't understand why it's not just a Jewish thing. Why is also an Islamic rite? Is that because both religions, I believe, descend from Abraham? If so, why do Jews carry it out after birth, yet Moslems years later? And why in Africa is it a tribal rite of passage from childhood to manhood - which I think has nothing to do with religion? If so, why do the tribes in South America not practice it?

 

Personally, I'm against it. If you're going to amputate part of a tiny child's penis on the grounds of so-called beliefs, why not let yakuza lop off the ends of their children's little fingers to prove that they are the sons of gangsters? It makes zero logical sense.

 

To me, liking or disliking the end result is not the issue. It's the right of the child. I know some say the parents have the responsibility to bring up their children. Agreed. But not when it comes to lopping off parts of their bodies unless there is a very serious medical reason for doing so - e.g. acute appendicitis. The medical establishment and researchers have a habit of proving one thing one day, and then the opposite a few years later. Then they start arguing with each other. The vast majority of children are all born alike. Why disfigure some on a whim?

[kokopelli]

Body modification/disfiguration has been around for thousands of years in various forms. Circumcision is just one form which may have had some sort of practical reason way back when.