Summations Only

It has gotten rather large news coverage, so I was surprised not to see a topic about it(or I happen to be blind).Anyway, here is the story for those who missed it: http://medicalxpress.com/...laws-religious-circumcision.htmlThis could have some implications for German laws on the matter in the long run, although higher courts may undo this. At the very least it's a rather unusual ruling that may cause other Judges to think about this, not being tied to politics.Is this the start of something big, or a storm in a glass of water?

It's under heavy debate, but I believe some studies have shown decreased sensitivity because the now exposed skin naturally grows tougher. The supposed advantage, easier hygiene, can also be met by proper washing.I agree none of this is really as horrible as female circumcision, which is far worse concerning negative effects. However, save for specific rare conditions, there is no reason to circumcise a male, aside from religous reasons. Which a child cannot judge yet.It's still viewed as radical by Jews and Muslims, and I don't like them being enforced in this very much. However, this operation cannot be reversed, and I agree with the German judge you can't really justify it with religous freedom. There already are borders to that, and it seems support is growing within certain countries to also place a border on this issue when it concerns newborns. It may not be as dehumanizing as female circumcision, but it still hits the same core principles.That being said, it still has extremely harsh implications for Judaism and Islam, and it's sad this collision has to happen. If it's not now, it will happen in the future.

That's a very odd statement if you take it at face value.Common sense makes me know you don't take exactly what you said to cliched extremes like human sacrifice and other nonsense. So what exactly do you mean by this? And if you do indeed place a border on it, like I think you would, why then ''no such thing as a human right''? Not to mention the German ruling that places priority on a child's body is pretty much '' established by a State'', yet in this topic you made arguments that seem to be pro-circumcision.

I'm noticing nobody really is discussion the court ruling that led me to creating the topic.I'm not fully a expert on this matter, although I have been receiving education on legal matters.I'm not sure what the USA constitutional law says about it, but the Dutch constitional law has a article giving people religious freedom, but, however, that specific law has a second section which explicitly states exceptions can be made for protection of health, or to fight or prevent disorganization. I consider removing a functional part of the body with some minor-but possible risk as a threat to ''health'' as the judge did. There's also another articles in the constitution which protects the sanctity of body.So we have a sensible limitation of religious freedom, and another article that forbids things being done by the body to consent.Main thing doesn't purely boil down ''religious freedom'' for us as a absolute right. It is for the most part, but clear limitations are in place. My personal opinion is that these limitations are usable to make a case against circumcision in the Netherlands, although as I said earlier, it's certainly a sensitive subject that should be debated with proper care and upsetting somebody may not be avoidable.I must admit to a culture barrier here. Freedom of speech and belief is very important, but in certain instances Europe may go less far in supporting this right vs other rights then the USA does. (To be slightly off topic, our constitution seems to have less of a binding national role then it does in the USA as well, which I also find a fascinating difference. Here we have a prominent politican with some support who is openly attacking a certain article of ours.)I'm curious what the USA constitution's laws state on the matter, but I don't have any book of USA law, and it's to late to look it up digitally for me, so if anybody is willing to comment on it, go ahead.

Okay, so.. naturally there's something wrong with a male's sexual desires, they being to uncontrollable?I am willing to partially agree to this, but I can't really see the logic in God designing our sexual behavior to be erratic enough that He must decree the removal of the foreskin, which plays a part in sexual enjoyment, to adjust to this effect to more desirable levels. Why didn't He design sexual attraction to work properly in the first place, instead of the current state of affairs. As of now, huge amounts of hormones causes unrestrained behavior, especially in human males who already have a impulsive personality. This is the base reason why rape is relatively common, sadly enough.And even then, wouldn't it be easier for God to solve it for the whole world populations behalf and simply adjust our DNA a little to make everything sexual work balanced in the first place?

Those are relatively trival procedures. It's still under debate, but arguments have been made in this topic that a circumcision may effect the sexual sensitivity of the penis. This shouldn't be just ignored. Meanwhile, it isn't reversible, and the advantages are situational at best. My personal conclusion is that the total sum is a negative for the child's benefit in the current timeframe.My conclusion is that it is against bodily integrity because there isn't any objective argument to do it that outweighs the negatives. The other removals you cited may not affect the child as much, and in some cases like the extra digit, there can be made a objective argument why it would be the child's benefit.The only one I can think of is that it's a important cultural practice that is needed to be recognized as part of that cultural group. However, many detractors would find this doesn't outweigh bodily integrity, especially since this will only remain a factor because it's self-feeding because things eventually go full-circle another for another generation.

I propose to specifically debate the pros and cons of circumcision instead of going around in circles about rights, clearly caused by a rift about how negative/neutral/positive the practice actually is. Jon and Jar are neutral, while the rest is negative. It's impossible to agree on parental rights like this.

Yeah, I've taken notice of it. However, since Jar and Jon brushed over specific counterarguments against circumcision, it seemed needed to specifically focus the subject. Especially since the last.. 5 pages or so can be mainly summarized as a yes/no argument that doesn't seem to advance in any way, although Modolous did a very good job stating the sore points of the controversy.I can imagine a adult who doesn't know any better may not really care, or have a very good motive to try not to, but there's both evidence that the lost foreskin forfeits some sexual sensitivity forever, and that, aside from religious reasons, this effect was a important goal to start with secular circumcision.I hope Jar and Jon will take note of this post and try to make a argument why the reduction of sexual sensitivity is a irrelevant factor. It's my stance(and of others) that this needless loss in function, combined with the lack of real advantages, make circumcision objectively undesirable, and as such, it violates bodily integrity and parents do not the right to inflict this on infants, unless there's a real medical condition that threatens the child.You could try to assert the parental freedom side again, but I'm personally requesting to review the arguments against circumcision as a purely neutral or positive procedure. Edited by Kairyu, : quote coding failEdited by Kairyu, : No reason given.

Due to my law background, I was interested in the clash of rights that this topic proposes, and also the topic of circumcision in general.I guess this topic gives a good overview how a circumcision debate can go. Overall, it disappointed me that a good deal of the topic devolved simple yes/no asserting of opinions.
I observed people who are okay with circumcision seemed to mirror the classic ''burden of proof'' debate concerning God. Even though arguments on this were brought up, in the end the opposing side firmly asserted the right of the parents, even when there was a lack of objective reasons to circumcise, it wasn't proven to be negative to them either.After a bit of a cooldown period, I see it fit to make a topic that specifically focuses on the effects and causes of circumcision alone, while explicitly enforcing burden of proof for the practice being positive, negative, or even neutral.