First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
Is circumcision child abuse?
734 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F / Toronto, Canada
Offline
Posted 6/27/12

DraiKofi wrote:




A grown man is not a child, so it's not child abuse. For a child, I would imagine that they wouldn't feel much of a loss, it goes with the 'you never miss what you've never had logic'. If anything, I feel it's much worse for a young adult to be circumcised, as opposed to a young child.



In my hypothetical explanation I said "if a normal healthy adult were forced into a circumcision against his will is that not abuse?"I didn't say child abuse. As for the 'you'll never miss what you've never had logic' supposedly, to you what if say, a child who gets on of his little fingers chopped off for no apparent reason after birth is that not child abuse as well? (Sorry if my hypothetical examples are rubbish =P) And what is your logic that you feel it is worse for a young adult to be circumcised than a child?

P.S Btw thanks for accepting my friend request Yay lets be friends!!




There's a difference between a finger and a foreskin. In public, you would more often expose your finger, than your foreskin. And fingers are also much more useful. There're more risks for a young adult than a child as well, in the 1800s many young adults who got circumcised died from the infection, whereas this risk is much decreased for babies.
4576 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / @England
Offline
Posted 6/27/12

polx
There's a difference between a finger and a foreskin. In public, you would more often expose your finger, than your foreskin. And fingers are also much more useful. There're more risks for a young adult than a child as well, in the 1800s many young adults who got circumcised died from the infection, whereas this risk is much decreased for babies.


I see Circumcision as mutilating the genitalia: an injury that causes disfigurement or that deprives you of a limb or other important body parts.
I stick by my idea that the decision to alter your important body should be your own choice.

2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 6/27/12 , edited 6/27/12

DraiKofi wrote:



THe word 'will' is inapplicable to a child simply because a child has no 'will'. A person with a 'will' has the power to deliberately choose what he wants, and to go against that would be to 'be against his will'. This is applicable to a grown man, because a Grown man is able to rationally deduce and choose what he wants, whereas the infant child does not have rationality, nor can he make any deliberations, for he is entirely an agent of instincts, his mind, being a blank slate, unable to choose or make any deliberate choices to his goal of what he wants. When he is hungry, he does not deliberately cry out- it is his instincts that drives him to cry, when he feels uncomfortable, it is his instinct, rather than any deliberation on his part that causes him to blindly alert his parents to care for him. Now, having said this, to 'abuse a child' would be to cause harm to said child, however, what has not been shown is how circumcision harms a child, ahd should also somehow justify the abridgment of the parent's liberty with respect to their own child.


Exactly, a child is defenseless, innocent and does not have the maturity to make his own decisions at that young age, which is all the more reason for the child to grow and be educated first before he should decide for himself what to do with his own private body parts.


Which is why the decisions are left to the parents. You say that the Child should be educated first- who does the educating? The parents, who, directly, or indirectly through their choice in tutors, chooses to mode the child into such and such shape, to think this and this way, and, based upon that, make so and so decision. It is foolish to even say that the Child should 'be educated before making his own decisions', because that education is derived, essentially, from the parents themselves. Yet, it is strange, is it not, that you have no objection to the parent's authority in this respect- you would be perfectly fine with the parent's choosing to send their child to Catholic School, to raise the child in piety to the Church, or if the parents decide to send their Child to a Yeshivah instead of a normal public school, surrounded by only Jewish friends in a Jewish neighbourhood- shouldn't the child have a choice in this matter too? It is far more important in the child's development than a small piece of skin. Yet, these things are left to the parents, because it is the parent's decision on what is best for their child.


Well isn't the foreskin amongst one the most sensitive parts of the body?


No, I would think that which is under the foreskin is far more sensitive. No evidence has been shown that the male penis decrease in sensitivity after circumcision.


In a new born baby it is attached to head of the penis, exactly the same way a nail is joined to a fingernail. At birth, apparently the splitting process of the foreskin from the head has just begun so the new-borns penis is, of course, not yet fully developed. Plus it’s going to hurt. You’re prob going to argue that a baby won’t remember to pain etc. Hypothetically say a baby would have his finger nails ripped off because it's "tradition", he isn't going to remember a thing is he? but it doesn't make it right. I don't know if I'm getting my point out properly but hope you understand what I mean :D.


No, it doesn't hurt. For one, hospitals usually use analgesia to relieve the pain, and, according to them, at least, Mohels usually use specialised techniques which, even when performed on an adult without aid of anesthetic, is still painless and, more importantly, bloodless. Using this, not only do they not remember the pain...they never actually experienced it in the first place. Likewise, the removal of the nails is in no way analogous to the foreskin, for one, the foreskin is not attached as you claim it to be, while it is incompletely seperated, it is, however, not so tigthly connected as the finger nail and the fingers. It is absurd to even compare the two or even talk of the potential pain the baby might go through, and forget, because there was no pain to begin with.


http://www.circinfo.net/pdfs/MorrisSkepticCirc07.pdf
4576 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / @England
Offline
Posted 6/27/12

longfenglim
Which is why the decisions are left to the parents. You say that the Child should be educated first- who does the educating? The parents, who, directly, or indirectly through their choice in tutors, chooses to mode the child into such and such shape, to think this and this way, and, based upon that, make so and so decision. It is foolish to even say that the Child should 'be educated before making his own decisions', because that education is derived, essentially, from the parents themselves. Yet, it is strange, is it not, that you have no objection to the parent's authority in this respect- you would be perfectly fine with the parent's choosing to send their child to Catholic School, to raise the child in piety to the Church, or if the parents decide to send their Child to a Yeshivah instead of a normal public school, surrounded by only Jewish friends in a Jewish neighbourhood- shouldn't the child have a choice in this matter too? It is far more important in the child's development than a small piece of skin. Yet, these things are left to the parents, because it is the parent's decision on what is best for their child.


What I mean by educated first is by secularism where by the child will grow and learn all beliefs and values equally and then when mature enough make his own choices, I don't dispute that parents try to make the best options for their child, what I am saying is the procedure of circumcision is unnecessary and uncalled for towards a new-born baby.


longfenglim
No, it doesn't hurt. For one, hospitals usually use analgesia to relieve the pain, and, according to them, at least, Mohels usually use specialised techniques which, even when performed on an adult without aid of anesthetic, is still painless and, more importantly, bloodless. Using this, not only do they not remember the pain...they never actually experienced it in the first place. Likewise, the removal of the nails is in no way analogous to the foreskin, for one, the foreskin is not attached as you claim it to be, while it is incompletely seperated, it is, however, not so tigthly connected as the finger nail and the fingers. It is absurd to even compare the two or even talk of the potential pain the baby might go through, and forget, because there was no pain to begin with.


Yes it does hurt, any procedure to relieve pain means that there is pain involved.





2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 6/27/12

DraiKofi wrote:

What I mean by educated first is by secularism where by the child will grow and learn all beliefs and values equally and then when mature enough make his own choices, I don't dispute that parents try to make the best options for their child, what I am saying is the procedure of circumcision is unnecessary and uncalled for towards a new-born baby.


First off, the decision to snip a child is not unnecessary in a new born child precisely because he has no beliefs or values, but one which the parents is make for teh child. You use the word 'mature', and choose that as the time that a child should be free to make his own choices- that is pure nonsense, as there is no criteria for the 'maturity'. Indeed, the arbitrary age that the government deems a child an adult is no more an indication of maturity than the ownership of a Épée indicates the ability to fence.

You say that a child should have a secular education before he makes his own choice- yet, still, the parents make that decision for him. The parents choose to send their child to a public school, and they choose to send their child to so and so community- for example, in a deeply religious Catholic Community- and they choose to enforce certain values at home- for example, strict Catholicism, and they choose to live in a certain place, for example, a Catholic Neighbourhood. No amount of secularism can change the fact that the Child was raised in a thoroughly Catholic enviorment.

Yet, the Child have no say in any of this- they may not want to be surrounded by Catholicism, they may not want to attend a public school, they may want to go to a private school. But, still parents are allowed to do that, because they think that this is best for the child- why not circumcision? Is not being raised in such an enviorment much more important to the Child's development than the Foreskin? Don't they have even less of a choice?

It is apperant that, liberty should be given to a minor piece of skin under the condition of maturity, then it should be given, likewise, to these greater things. The child should be let to choose his own schooling, and only then when he is mature enough, the child should be allowed to choose the enviorment around him. Having him go to a school in a certain community is uncalled for brainwashing and unnecessary.



Yes it does hurt, any procedure to relieve pain means that there is pain involved.




No, no it doesn't. I don't know about your own country, which I assume, from your own self-description, to be England, but in America, we have a little something called anesthetics. It is marvellous in getting rid of pain, in fact, we use it all the time here when performing surgeries.
2273 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / Toronto, Canada
Offline
Posted 6/27/12
Financial Times (Germany - Babelfish translation)
June 25, 2012

Personal injury
Court: religious circumcision is punishable

Exclusive A judgment of the District Court of Cologne [refers to] a widespread medical intervention, carried out for religious reasons: [according to it] the circumcision of boys is in the future as a personal injury. By Matthias Ruch

[Those who] trim boys for religious reasons, [make themselves] punishable because of injury. This decided the Cologne regional court, in a landmark ruling that the FTD [this paper, has received]. Neither the parents nor the freedom of religion guaranteed in the basic law can justify this intervention, in its judgment, the Court made it clear.


Thus, a German court for the first time [puts] the religious custom under penalty. Each year, several thousand boys in their first years of life at the request of the parents be cropped in Germany. In the United States, even the majority of all boys - is clipped largely independent of the religion - directly after birth. There formed but now massive resistance to this practice. Worldwide around a quarter of all men are circumcised.

For decades, doctors in Germany in a legal grey area had acts when they circumcised boys for purely religious reasons, without that there was a medical necessity. So far they could rely however, to have had no knowledge of the criminality of religious restrictions. Even if a court accepted the case later as personal injury, the doctor due to the so called [mistake of law] had to be acquitted. With the Cologne decision is now eliminated this possibility.

Holm Putzke from the University of Passau said "The decision is extremely important especially for doctors because they have legal certainty now for the first time." The jurist called for an explicit prohibition of religious circumcision for years. "The Court has let otherwise deter as many politicians - not of concern, as anti-Semitic and hostile to religion to be criticized", praised Putzke. "This decision could influence not only the future case law, but lead at best, even with the affected religions, to a change of consciousness, to respect fundamental rights of children."

Mainly Muslim and Jewish organizations reject so far the demands after a criminality of circumcision. [They] evaluate a ban as "serious interference in the right to free exercise of religion". To the Cologne decision they wanted to not comment initially on Monday on request. It was said that [they] would first consider the judgment.

The judgment is likely to provide for discussions. For years struggle politics and associations to improve the integration of the Muslim population. Wolfgang Schäuble convened to 2006 for the first time an own Islamic Conference as Minister of the Interior. The former German President Christian Wulff said: "Islam is one of Germany." His successor Joachim Gauck varied: "The Muslims who live here are Germany." Some Muslims are likely to now include the Cologne decision as a step backwards.

Experts assume that more cases will end up elsewhere before the Court. Finally the question could be regulated then probably after the criminality of religiously motivated restrictions by the Federal Constitutional Court.

In the Cologne case, a Muslim physician at a four-year old boy at the request of the parents had made a circumcision. Two days later it came to haemorrhage, the mother brought the boy in raising children's emergency. The public prosecutor's Office was informed of and pressed charges against the be cutter. After the District Court [ruled] the procedure [to be] legal she lodged an appeal. Now, the Court assessed [it] as "serious and irreversible impairment of physical integrity".





the Times of Israel
June 26, 2012
Outraged German Jews slam court for prohibiting circumcision

Community president says ruling marks 'unprecedented and dramatic interference,' calls on Bundestag to ensure religious freedom

By Raphael Ahren

The Central Council of Jews in Germany on Tuesday slammed the “outrageous and insensitive” decision of a regional court to prohibit circumcisions, calling upon the German parliament to pass a law that safeguards freedom of religion. [Beware what you wish for! A law that safeguards individual freedom of religion would certainly outlaw infant circumcision.]

The District Court of Cologne court ruled earlier this week that parents having their sons circumcised can be brought before a judge for causing bodily injury, even if they did so for religious reasons. The ruling means that neither the rights of parents nor the constitutional freedom of religion can justify acts such as circumcision, according to Financial Times Deutschland, which first reported the story.

In a statement released Tuesday, the German Jewish community’s Central Council called the court’s ruling an “unprecedented and dramatic interference in the right of self-determination of religious communities.” [... and an unprecedented and dramatic extension of the right of self-determination of defenceless individuals.]

“This judgement is outrageous and insensitive,” said the Council’s president, Dieter Graumann. “The circumcision of newborn boys is an inherent part of the Jewish religion and has been performed for millennia across the world. In every country in the world this religious right is being respected.”

The Council further called upon the German Bundestag to “create legal protection and thus safeguard freedom of religion from such attacks.”

Opponents of circumcision, meanwhile, welcomed the court’s ruling.

“As opposed to many politicians, the court was not deterred by fears of being criticized for anti-Semitism or hostility toward religion,” University of Passau jurist Holm Putzke told the FTD. “This decision could not only influence future jurisdiction, it could also lead the relevant religions to change their attitude with respect to the fundamental nature of children’s rights.”
...

Legal experts told the German newspaper they assume that other courts in Germany could rule along similar lines in further cases and that the question of religiously motivated circumcisions will end up in the country’s Supreme Court.

...



4576 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / @England
Offline
Posted 6/27/12

longfenglim
First off, the decision to snip a child is not unnecessary in a new born child precisely because he has no beliefs or values, but one which the parents is make for teh child. You use the word 'mature', and choose that as the time that a child should be free to make his own choices- that is pure nonsense, as there is no criteria for the 'maturity'. Indeed, the arbitrary age that the government deems a child an adult is no more an indication of maturity than the ownership of a Épée indicates the ability to fence.

You say that a child should have a secular education before he makes his own choice- yet, still, the parents make that decision for him. The parents choose to send their child to a public school, and they choose to send their child to so and so community- for example, in a deeply religious Catholic Community- and they choose to enforce certain values at home- for example, strict Catholicism, and they choose to live in a certain place, for example, a Catholic Neighbourhood. No amount of secularism can change the fact that the Child was raised in a thoroughly Catholic enviorment.

Yet, the Child have no say in any of this- they may not want to be surrounded by Catholicism, they may not want to attend a public school, they may want to go to a private school. But, still parents are allowed to do that, because they think that this is best for the child- why not circumcision? Is not being raised in such an enviorment much more important to the Child's development than the Foreskin? Don't they have even less of a choice?

It is apperant that, liberty should be given to a minor piece of skin under the condition of maturity, then it should be given, likewise, to these greater things. The child should be let to choose his own schooling, and only then when he is mature enough, the child should be allowed to choose the enviorment around him. Having him go to a school in a certain community is uncalled for brainwashing and unnecessary.

My personal opinion, is that every child should grow up secular learning all possible elements of life instead of being drummed by one particular faith or idea because their parents supports that belief or idea. Say a child has parents who are both scientists doesn't mean that the child should grow up to be a scientist. However social issues such as religion, politics, sexuality etc are all adult matters, which is why I support the idea that a child should not be deemed a certain faith at birth which is the case with circumcision because it is a traditional act of a religion at birth plus to me it is unnecessary disgusting and unethical. Until a child has grown up having a clear understanding of their life's purpose/morals only should he decided his own faith; that is what I believe is maturity is.



longfenglim
No, no it doesn't. I don't know about your own country, which I assume, from your own self-description, to be England, but in America, we have a little something called anesthetics. It is marvellous in getting rid of pain, in fact, we use it all the time here when performing surgeries.


Of course England has it, In England we write it as anaesthetic. If there is a need for anaesthetic that means there is a potential risk of pain.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.