To approve of a German courts decision re circumcision

[SlipperyNipple]

Apologies if this has already been covered.

I am Jewish by descent but an an agnostic. I think the time has come to say that being religious is not an excuse to carry out mutilation of small boys.

www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/27/circumcision-ruling-germany-muslim-jewish?newsfeed=true

Obviously Female circumcision is already illegal but the same protection should be given to boys.

Can you just explain how it improves quality of life?

I think a lot of women don't find a natural part of the human body so hideous and wrong that it must be surgically removed! I think that's a much better more inclusive, positive attitude to have. They also see a man as a person not just as a penis.

Circumcised men experience less sensitivity during sex.

For the sake of your sons future orgasms leave their foreskin alone!

I said IF it improves ...

You're pretending as if the sentence did not begin with the word "if" But that's okay. You can have that discussion with the pretend poster who made that particular comment.

Leaving VanCamps out of it for the moment, as she has "troll" written all over her, have a look at crescentmoon's and mejdool's arguments. Crescentmoon believes in circumcision because Mohammed says so. That really is the beginning and end of the argument - if Mohammed said shave all your hair off or cut off your little toe, then that would be enough. Medjool's argument is that circumcision represents a covenant between God and the Jews, because the Jews are God's chosen people.

There is absolutely no point in arguing against either of those positions with evidence about pain, risks of infection, human rights etc because they are not going to cut any ice with anybody who believes they are doing something because God tells them to.

Sadly, vancamps posts are confirming the stereotyped view
I have of Americans' attitudes to circumcision.

Vancamps, have you seen an uncircumcised one (close up, in the flesh)?

I've been up close and personal with a few male members. Some circumcised, some not. Some smelly, some not. There was no correlation between presence of foreskin and bad smell. It comes down to good hygiene. Most boys and men who have grown up with a foreskin know how to clean it adequately, just as you know how to clean your vulva. It isn't rocket science.

Nature intends it to be there so I don't believe man should interfere. (Unless for medical reasons of course).

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreskin_restoration

So you think it's worth having surgery based on an if?
It could make their quality of life worse.
So you do it knowing it probably wont have any positive effects but that it carries risk and those positive effects are very minimal IF at all.
Does it really seem worth it?

Lol allyours I'd much rather be minging than with some toss pot who thought I should chop bits of myself off because they didn't like it

Can you imagen a man comming on and saying labia should be removed or I won't sleep with you.

I think the reply would be do one then!

That didn't sound right at all, I didn't mean I'd rather be minging

TBH I don't understand all the fuss over a tiny bit of skin that a child will never remember having. Do men really mourn the loss of their foreskins? If it was socially acceptable and most men were circumcised I doubt they would care.

"Circumcised men experience less sensitivity during sex."

No - that can be a side effect. It is not the case of all circumcised men. As I said, neither my DH not previous circumcised BF have any issues whatsoever.

"i believe the benefits of circumcision FAR outweigh the risks. just as i do when i take my children to be vaccinated."

As has been said before - they are not comparable. There's no surgery involved for a start, and the risks of NOT having vaccination programmes are totally clear and demonstrable. Unlike the risk of not being circumcised, which is debatable.

Fourthdimension I believe it is because the skin hasn't fused properly in babies. The older the child, the more complicated the procedure.

I know of someone who was circumcised aged 4 because he kept getting UTIs so it's not just about sex.

I know a couple of guys who've been circumcised as their foreskin was too tight and hurt during sex.

Fourthdimension you made an incorrect statement. I corrected you. I didn't say that if you're not circumcised you will get UTIs.

This is the problem with threads like this. No one is willing to even consider an alternate position. It's just one massive bun fight.

crescentmoon: "all the evidence i put forward - not Muslim or Jewish but secular scientific authorities - to show the benefits of circumcision hackmum you said was a side issue. compared to the HPV vaccine circumcision has alot more benefits, so on a NON FAITH basis it makes alot of sense not to BAN it. but what is the main reason to your opposition"

OK, just briefly. The view of doctors in the UK is that the risks of circumcision outweigh the potential health benefits. A few of the health benefits you mention are unproven or very small (e.g. reduction in UTIs, penile cancer).

There are three main arguments against circumcision:

1. It is very painful for the baby, both at the time and for days afterwards.
2. It carries quite serious risks of infection and can occasionally lead to death.
3. It is performing an unnecessary and irreversible procedure on a baby who has no choice in the matter.

Two of the GPs in my own medical practice refuse to perform circumcisions on the grounds that they're unethical.

The point about your arguments on reducing HIV, HPV etc is that they support a view you already held. You already decided to circumcise your sons for religious reasons. I really doubt that you care very much about reduced HIV risk (Muslims, surely, aren't supposed to be promiscuous) or about the even smaller benefits relating to UTIs or penile cancer. You'd have had the procedure performed regardless, so trying to find scientific justifications to convince the rest of us is pointless because we know your own agenda is quite different.