chrisp65 Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 just to chip in with the veggie diet thing, I was veggie for 15 years and was a lot healthier then than now on circumcision, will there be a policy of inspection and reporting? Gutten tag, Ich bin ein cock inpector, do you have a male child that I may inspect its genitalia? I'm not going to do the right thing and source this, but didn't I hear last week that the World Health Org announce that circumcision reduces the risk of HIV Aids spread by 60% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRS-T Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 Surprisingly bold move from Germany. We would never have the balls (excuse the pun) to do this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidlewis Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 Let's be honest we are talking about mutilating Children because religious text had DICKtated we should. It is a **** piss take! Thats said if you had your foreskin snipped you wouldn't be taking a piss too well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StanBalaban Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 All for the move from Germany. Quite right too in my opinion. Mutilation is mutilation no matter what the religious connotation. In fact, what constitutes the right of a religion, and it's separation from being a cult? I genuinely can't see the difference barring the number of years in practice. If I started a cult...sorry, religion, tomorrow, that required the amputation of the left leg, would that be considered acceptable? An extreme example, but I believe the precedent is the same, n'est pas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurtsimonw Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 I don't really see any arguement against this. If 1 individual ends up not getting it done, that would otherwise have been forced upon him by his family at birth, then it's a success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leviramsey Posted June 30, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted June 30, 2012 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. Right-minded meaning "agrees with Brumerican"? If so, a rather peculiar and/or subjective definition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leviramsey Posted June 30, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted June 30, 2012 Of course in practice, this probably won't actually do anything. If there's a medical exemption (as there seems to be), I'm fairly sure that parents that want to circumcise will have little trouble finding a doctor (esp. a co-religionist*?) to sign off that Mohammed Al Jafar or Hymie Rosenbloom has a medical need for a snip. *: would the posters in this thread then support a law barring Muslims or Jews from practicing medicine? I suspect that kurtsimonw would: If 1 individual ends up not getting it done, that would otherwise have been forced upon him by his family at birth, then it's a success. "Who cares what the costs are?!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurtsimonw Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 I don't understand your "who cares what the costs are" comment at all. What is there to be lost by this? Nobody is unfairly circumcised, those that want to be still can be. The fact that it pisses off religious types has no bearing on my opinion, it's just a nice bonus. Oh and if you feel that in practice it won't do anything, what's the problem then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legov Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 :? Mutilation's too strong a word imo, taken alone it's such a trivial issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legov Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 The fact that it pisses off religious types has no bearing on my opinion, it's just a nice bonus. Disagree. I don't see the need to unnecessarily alienate religious people - let's not forget most people in Europe are still nominally religious - over something so trivial. Now, if we were talking about bombing public buildings, then it'd be a whole different matter altogether, but male circumcision? Really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurtsimonw Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 The fact that it pisses off religious types has no bearing on my opinion, it's just a nice bonus. Disagree. I don't see the need to unnecessarily alienate religious people But I did say that wasn't the basis of my opinion, just an added bonus. I just look at it for what it is and find it odd that it's seemingly been deemed acceptable for so long that something like this can be forced upon someone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackpotForeigner Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 All kicking off in Germany. This could be a real test case for the issue of indoctrinating children into religion. I like to think it could even be a turning point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted July 12, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted July 12, 2012 It's just a pity that this is coming from Germany, given their track record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVFCforever1991 Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 Is this another shot at the Jews? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legov Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 The fact that it pisses off religious types has no bearing on my opinion, it's just a nice bonus. Disagree. I don't see the need to unnecessarily alienate religious people But I did say that wasn't the basis of my opinion, just an added bonus. I just look at it for what it is and find it odd that it's seemingly been deemed acceptable for so long that something like this can be forced upon someone. And for me it's a big part of why I don't like the law. It's practically pissing off religious folks for something that (in my view) is extremely trifling and insignificant. I really don't get it, why are you circumcised folks so hung up over foreskin "mutilation?" It's hardly cutting off a limb, is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted July 12, 2012 Moderator Share Posted July 12, 2012 Is this another shot at the Jews?We can say no if we want but it's blatantly obvious that banning religious circumcision quite clearly affects Jews. And is being done in Germany. I'll give them one thing. They have balls (pun intended). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted July 12, 2012 Author Share Posted July 12, 2012 The fact that it pisses off religious types has no bearing on my opinion, it's just a nice bonus. Disagree. I don't see the need to unnecessarily alienate religious people But I did say that wasn't the basis of my opinion, just an added bonus. I just look at it for what it is and find it odd that it's seemingly been deemed acceptable for so long that something like this can be forced upon someone. And for me it's a big part of why I don't like the law. It's practically pissing off religious folks for something that (in my view) is extremely trifling and insignificant. I really don't get it, why are you circumcised folks so hung up over foreskin "mutilation?" It's hardly cutting off a limb, is it? Apparently one in ten circumcisions ends with "complications" like the case that kicked off this ruling. Not sure I'd want complications down there for the sake of my parents religious beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackpotForeigner Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 The fact that it pisses off religious types has no bearing on my opinion, it's just a nice bonus. Disagree. I don't see the need to unnecessarily alienate religious people But I did say that wasn't the basis of my opinion, just an added bonus. I just look at it for what it is and find it odd that it's seemingly been deemed acceptable for so long that something like this can be forced upon someone. And for me it's a big part of why I don't like the law. It's practically pissing off religious folks for something that (in my view) is extremely trifling and insignificant. I really don't get it, why are you circumcised folks so hung up over foreskin "mutilation?" It's hardly cutting off a limb, is it? It's about being able to decide for yourself whether or not you want to be mutilated, which I'd say is fair enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted July 12, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted July 12, 2012 Would it be OK if I said my own special religion required me to cut off the last joint of the little finger of all my babies? Or maybe tattoo them with the magic sign of my religion? It's hardly cutting off a limb, is it? OK, it's irreversible, true. OK, it inflicts pain on a helpless infant. But, hey, it's my CULTURE, so I can do what I like! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LockStockVilla Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 Certainly think that parents should be able to choose circumcision or not. Once you get to the age where you can even realize you are circumcised there is certainly no longer any pain from the procedure. And say you did not get circumcised and then decided you did want to at an older age...well then it is going to hurt a hell of a lot more getting it done. For that reason, the choice should be up to parents in this case, imo of course. Also, on a sidenote, I read in a men's health magazine last week that foreskin removed from circumcision can be used to grow new skin for people like burn victims and that each one can produce 23,000 square meters of new skin. That is amazing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts