Germany bans circumcision

[snowychap]

It should not only be up to the child whether or not he owns a foreskin, but what religion, if any, he belongs to. When parents take the decision to circumcise for religious reasons, they are not only deciding on the matter of the foreskin, but taking one of the first steps in assuming that the child is theirs to indoctrinate into the religion of THEIR choosing.

Devil's advocate mode on (to an extent):

Who should decide things for children and how?

[PompeyVillan]

I think it's hard to say either way whether it is right or wrong to circumcise. By banning, Germany are essentially saying that Religion is wrong, as belief in the 'divine' is a choice and not a 'given'.

With respect, I think this is nonsense. By definition, a secular state is one that holds belief in the 'divine' to be a choice and not a 'given'. Germany is nothing if not a secular state. By passing such a law they are upholding a child's right to choose not only his religion, but how his pecker will appear to beholders (a somewhat important matter, I'm sure you'll agree).

Indeed, I see what you're saying. I'm not familiar with German law, are there many instances of the state ruling against Religious practices on ethical grounds?

It may be assumed by definition that a secular state favours choice over 'divine' , however to pass a law such as this it very much rams 'choice' down the throats of those that consider the practice sacred.

Those passing this law must understand that this practice is fundamental to the Jewish faith. There are (many, many) further implications to this, I think some Jewish people will feel this is anti Semitic.

Like I said, it's a minefield and it's a controversial decision to say the least. I don't think I can say whether it is right or wrong.

[PompeyVillan]

It should not only be up to the child whether or not he owns a foreskin, but what religion, if any, he belongs to. When parents take the decision to circumcise for religious reasons, they are not only deciding on the matter of the foreskin, but taking one of the first steps in assuming that the child is theirs to indoctrinate into the religion of THEIR choosing.

Devil's advocate mode on (to an extent):

Who should decide things for children and how?

I'll wear that cap too. And at what age do children become capable of making the decision as to whether they want to be circumcised?

18? 8? 12?

[CrackpotForeigner]

It should not only be up to the child whether or not he owns a foreskin, but what religion, if any, he belongs to. When parents take the decision to circumcise for religious reasons, they are not only deciding on the matter of the foreskin, but taking one of the first steps in assuming that the child is theirs to indoctrinate into the religion of THEIR choosing.

Devil's advocate mode on (to an extent):

Who should decide things for children and how?

I'll wear that cap too. And at what age do children become capable of making the decision as to whether they want to be circumcised?

18? 8? 12?

I don't know the answer to either question, but you'd think the child should at least be old enough to say "Yes, please" or "No, thanks", in all cases.

[Brumerican]

Most right minded people would say that the mutilation of an innocent child is hardly a great idea and the indoctrination of unedcuated children is a form of abuse IMO.

[limpid]

Germany has presumably decided to enact a specific law because tradition has made it acceptable for parents to mutilate their children. I'm sure Germany had perfectly adequate legislation under which prosecutions could have been brought, but even in secular nations iron age tradition makes some people think "these things are acceptable".

This law presumably reinforces that such assaults are illegal. It reminds people (police, prosecutors, public) that these are minors in care and ABH is ABH. I don't see how such acts can be defended on any basis.

Not having any way to check on German law and only reading about this in the press I suspect this is an amendment to their existing law on assault and not a new act.

[snowychap]

I don't know the answer to either question, but you'd think the child should at least be old enough to say "Yes, please" or "No, thanks", in all cases.

And when the child says, "No, thanks," to its parent what ought the parent to do?

At what point is the refusal judged as the result of a critical examination of the (only) option the child has been given and therefore a valid rejection of that option?

You widened it from circumcision (i.e. physical mutilation) to religious indoctrination but if you are widening it to that then why not any sort of indoctrination or any sort of imposition of values, ideas, beliefs or prejudices by a child's parents?

[CrackpotForeigner]

I don't know the answer to either question, but you'd think the child should at least be old enough to say "Yes, please" or "No, thanks", in all cases.

And when the child says, "No, thanks," to its parent what ought the parent to do?

At what point is the refusal judged as the result of a critical examination of the (only) option the child has been given and therefore a valid rejection of that option?

You widened it from circumcision (i.e. physical mutilation) to religious indoctrination but if you are widening it to that then why not any sort of indoctrination or any sort of imposition of values, ideas, beliefs or prejudices by a child's parents?

I don't know how to stop indoctrination at home by parents, or how to define it. But I think most people agree that where possible it should be prevented, and preventing parents from taking one of the first steps towards religious indoctrination by physical mutilation of their defenceless children is a pretty good place to start.

The point I was making about the "no, thanks" was really that nothing irreversible should be forced on children who are not even old enough to voice their objections.

[tonyh29]

You widened it from circumcision (i.e. physical mutilation) to religious indoctrination but if you are widening it to that then why not any sort of indoctrination or any sort of imposition of values, ideas, beliefs or prejudices by a child's parents?

It's an interesting point you raise , I know a child about the same age as my lad who is vegetarian because Mummy is and wished to impose this on her child...

The kid looks unwell and personally I believe the mother is wrong ... But end of the day it's the mothers wish and sod all anyone can do about it. .. Though I have been known to feed her ham pizza from time to time :-)

Just the thought of Circumcision makes my eyes water and brings me out in a cold sweat but I'm not sure I agree with a law banning it though as there is every chance it will just force these religious nutters into performing it on their children themselves in the kitchen ...

[PompeyVillan]

It's hard to legislate for something that will be different for each individual.

[snowychap]

I don't know how to stop indoctrination at home by parents, or how to define it. But I think most people agree that where possible it should be prevented...

So you don't even know how to define it and yet you think that most people agree that it should be prevented?

Do any of these other people know what it is?

Edit: One concern with what you have said (beyond the circumcision bit as I don't disagree) is that some level of indoctrination is often inevitable (take Tony's example above for a different angle). Perhaps in some cases (the teaching of right from wrong as the stock phrase goes maybe), it is even desirable?

There may well become a point at which the parental influence moves from indoctrination to a rounded sensible discussion on the particular subject but until that point in the child's life arises what are you suggesting happens?

The point I was making about the "no, thanks" was really that nothing irreversible should be forced on children who are not even old enough to voice their objections.

Was it? It was part of a conversation that you had already expanded from the physical mutilation of circumcision to the wider subject of indoctrination.

[Bazdavies79]

It's an interesting point you raise , I know a child about the same age as my lad who is vegetarian because Mummy is and wished to impose this on her child...

Mothers doing nothing wrong if the child is eating a healthy balanced diet. It's not relevant to the debate.

[CrackpotForeigner]

I don't know how to stop indoctrination at home by parents, or how to define it. But I think most people agree that where possible it should be prevented...

So you don't even know how to define it and yet you think that most people agree that it should be prevented?

Do any of these other people know what it is?

The point I was making about the "no, thanks" was really that nothing irreversible should be forced on children who are not even old enough to voice their objections.

Was it? It was part of a conversation that you had already expanded from the physical mutilation of circumcision to the wider subject of indoctrination.

Bloody hell you're on the warpath tonight Snowy.

I don't see why anyone needs an exact, precise definition of something to agree that it is generally a Bad Thing. The fact that these definitions are not widely agreed on is part of the reason for having this discussion in the first place.

Second question: Yes, it was. You may not think that indoctrination can be irreversible. The Jesuits, for instance, famously disagree.

[tonyh29]

It's an interesting point you raise , I know a child about the same age as my lad who is vegetarian because Mummy is and wished to impose this on her child...

Mothers doing nothing wrong if the child is eating a healthy balanced diet. It's not relevant to the debate.

it isn't a Healthy balanced diet... children raised as vegetarians will not get enough nutrients, especially iron, zinc, copper, Vitamin D & Vitamin B12

and it was relevant to the debate as the previous poster rasied the question of parental ideas , beliefs etc being imposed on a child

[Bazdavies79]

It's not relevant to the initial subject of the debate, which has been taken on a tangent.

...And it is healthy. I've done a 12 year study into the vegetarian diet.

[snowychap]

Bloody hell you're on the warpath tonight Snowy.

No, I'm not.

It's a discussion, isn't it?

I don't see why anyone needs an exact, precise definition of something to agree that it is generally a Bad Thing. The fact that these definitions are not widely agreed on is part of the reason for having this discussion in the first place.

Ah, we are having a discussion - good.

You volunteered the fact that you didn't know how to define the thing that you believe most people agree on wanting to prevent.

I'm sorry but it's sounding either all rather confused or all rather centred around one type of indoctrination (i.e. religious).

Second question: Yes, it was. You may not think that indoctrination can be irreversible. The Jesuits, for instance, famously disagree.

I don't think that indoctrination is irreversible (I'm not sure the Jesuits disagree - I think they were putting foward a general principle rather than something absolute).

Wouldn't the histories of some of our posters on VT fully support this, too?

[tonyh29]

Surely your 12 year study isn't relevant to this thread. :winkold:

I'm sure we could argue til the cows come home (to be slaughtered for a nice juicy steak ) about the effects of excess salicylates on the human body and the lack of vitamins as I already referred to but then this thread really is going way off on one

[CrackpotForeigner]

Sorry Snowy, but I am getting serious warpath signals here. What you say makes sense, but what I say makes sense too. You don't seem to be able to realise this, so it's off to bed for me.

[snowychap]

Sorry Snowy, but I am getting serious warpath signals here.

Late night western on the telly?

[Davkaus]

It's an interesting point you raise , I know a child about the same age as my lad who is vegetarian because Mummy is and wished to impose this on her child...

Mothers doing nothing wrong if the child is eating a healthy balanced diet. It's not relevant to the debate.

it isn't a Healthy balanced diet... children raised as vegetarians will not get enough nutrients, especially iron (1), zinc(2), copper(3), Vitamin D(4) & Vitamin B12(5)

]

1) Soybeans, tifu, quinoa, lentils

2) Most seeds and soy

3) "Although copper was less efficiently absorbed from a vegetarian diet than from a nonvegetarian diet, total apparent copper absorption was greater from the vegetarian diet because of its greater copper content. "

4) Milk, eggs, soymilk

5) B12 is the only one you've listed that isn't available as standard in certain food tyypes, it's easily possible to have the recommended intake via fortified foods.

There are plenty of vegetarians/vegans who have shitty diets that don't intake adequate nutrition, but probably either a similar or lesser proportion than the rest of the general population. Eating meat gives you a greater variety of food to choose from, but there's a metric fucktonne of people who eat meat with shit diets. Eating meat is neither necessary to have a balanced diet, or indicative of being more likely to have a balanced diet.