Circumcision is a crime now in Germany

Which is exactly what my link discussed.

The studies were also all cut short, they were given prime medical care, not just to have the circumcision, but also afterwards, and as you just advised, were given condoms to use. The link I gave also discussed the fact that these men were given such good care because of the study being conducted and that such level of care is not normally available in the countries where these studies were conducted.

It also discussed how HIV is spread by men now rushing to be circumcised in African countries, because of the results of these studies, and contracting HIV from the procedure, since they do not have the ability and capacity to properly sterilise everything and it also did not take into consideration other means by which people contract HIV. But the worst thing is that the studies also clearly showed that women were now most at risk of contracting HIV/AIDS because of this...

Then it probably stands to reason that to discuss or compare the men's penis and using that as a point of contention about difficulty integrating in German society is a bit of a stretch.. Since you know, men rarely whip it out and compare when they first meet each other, just to compare and to see if they will speak to the other or allow them to enter society based on the state of the other's foreskin or lack there-of..

I mean, I don't know about you, but I don't view the penis as a defining factor in integration.

It clearly points out why we should remain cautious about relying on the flawed studies to openly declare that circumcision prevents the spread of HIV. It was quite an interesting read. Their point is that more research needs to be done before such a declaration is made and that proper studies need to be conducted, since the 3 studies everyone is relying on was not complete and tempered by the fact that the men who took part in it received above normal medical care during the course of the study and that the normal population in those African countries are unable to access even close to that level of care.

You do realise that many women want to have the hood of their clitoris removed for increased sexual sensation and it is illegal, don't you?

The point is that you can only say this if you do not view the male foreskin as being as important as the female clitoris. In short, you are more concerned in preserving the sexual bits of the woman than that of the man.

And it is inherently sexist.

One could say the same about those who make statements that the male foreskin is "a germ nursery and infection target" when it is clearly not, when such rhetoric is based on lack of knowledge or understanding about personal hygeine and basing such beliefs on flawed and incomplete studies conducted in African countries and attempting to apply it to modern Western countries.

Even more surprising is the rhetorical garbage that comes with the belief that Germans in Cologne are somehow abnormal and bad because they wish to ensure the bodily integrity of children and allowing those children to make the decision for themselves when they are able to.

Because the court ruling in Cologne is not banning circumcision, it is just saying that boys be allowed to decide for themselves when they are able to make such a decision about their own bodies.

And you are basing your opinion on flawed and incomplete studies.

The men who took part in those studies were given condoms and then the findings were that circumcisions reduced the spread of HIV and then the studies were ended early, and no follow up on those men and and their sexual practices after they were not getting free condoms from the study. This is what you are basing your beliefs on. This is the evidence you are looking at and basing your opinions on. I would say that would be more "Fox News style".. Incomplete and flawed..

You have never heard of FGM?

The WHO estimates that 100–140 million women and girls around the world have experienced the procedure, including 92 million in Africa.

--------------------------------------------------------

The WHO has offered four classifications of FGM. The main three are Type I, removal of the clitoral hood, almost invariably accompanied by removal of the clitoris itself (clitoridectomy);

--------------------------------------------------------

Around 85 percent of women experience Types I and II, and 15 percent Type III,


[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation]
​

I mean sure, we can assume it does not exist in any culture?:shrug:

Amnesty International estimates that over 130 million women worldwide have been affected by some form of FGM, with over three million girls at risk every year.[3] It is mainly practised in 28 African countries, in a band that stretches from Senegal in West Africa to Ethiopia on the east coast, as well as from Egypt in the north to Tanzania in the south.[4] Egypt passed a law banning FGM in 2008.[5]

In the Arabian peninsula, Types I and II FGM are usually performed, often referred to as "Sunna circumcision,"[6][7] especially among Afro-Arabs (ethnic groups of African descent are more likely to prefer infibulation). The practice occurs particularly in northern Saudi Arabia[8], southern Jordan[9], and northern Iraq (Kurdistan).[10][11] In the Iraqi village of Hasira, a study found that 60 percent of the females reported having undergone FGM.[10] There is also circumstantial evidence to suggest that FGM is practised in Syria.[12] In Oman, a few communities still practice it, though experts believe the number is small and declining annually. In the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, it is practiced mainly among foreign workers from East Africa and the Nile Valley. A 2009 study suggested that FGM had virtually disappeared among the Negev Bedouin.[13]

The practice can also be found among a few ethnic groups in South America.[4] In Indonesia, it is common in several districts; almost all are Type I or Type IV. Sometimes the procedures are merely symbolic, and no actual cutting is done.​

 

Type I as well as the other Types of female circumcision is actually quite prevalent in many cultures.

 

Because clicking on the link and seeing which countries practice Type I is hard?

:shrug:

It wasn't that uncommon in the US either up to the mid 1970's.

And some are actually going back to have it done voluntarily now since they find it heightens their orgasms. Since the clitoral hood also builds up smegma, does that mean we should remove it from girls as well as removing the hood from boys? Because you know, since the foreskin is "a germ nursery and infection target" because of the smegma, and girls are more prone to UTI's and the like?

The only reason you would see the difference between FGM and male circumcision is because you do not view the penis and the vagina to be equally important. Instead you rely on flawed studies to try to support violating the basic human rights baby boys should have over their own bodies.

The court ruling in Cologne is simple. Boys should be the ones to determine the fate of their own bodily integrity and yes, that means that parents cannot remove their foreskins without their consent. In short, boys will now be left to determine for themselves in that region of Germany and that is how it should be. Relying on "well they have been doing it for thousands of years" means nothing, even if it is religious. Some interpret religious text to say that a man has the power over his wife and can have sex with her when he chooses, and that has been around for thousands of years. We call that rape if she does not consent. You don't see anyone using that as an excuse for marital rape, do you?

So please, can the moral indignation that one region in Germany has decided to allow boys to decide for themselves if they get "the cut"..

 

Then you don't know how to look..

Circumcision. A procedure analogous to that of the male, it consists of the removal of only the prepuce (hood, covering) of the clitoris. It is the variety most advocated by Islam authorities and is called Sunna circumcision in Muslim countries.​

It is also known by different names depending on the countries where it is practiced:

Several countries refer to Type 1 FGM as sunna circumcision.[13] It is also known as kakia, and in Sierra Leone as bundu, after the Bundu secret society.​

And your comments have not been?

'Mind my mouth'?

Who do you think you are? And who do you think you are talking to?

In some instances, it is exactly the same (ie Sunna female circumsions).. And yet, that is deemed FGM, but male Sunna circumcision is deemed acceptable.

It is very reasonable to expect that baby boys should be allowed to maintain their body's integrity instead of being forced, without their consent, to have healthy penile tissue removed because of their parents religious beliefs. The court's ruling in Germany states clearly, that boys can still be circumcised for religious beliefs. They just stated that the boys get to make that choice for themselves, not the parents.

There is no medical necessity to remove the foreskin for religious purposes. We aren't talking about medical conditions that requires a circumcision be surgically performed. We are talking about parents mutilating their son's in religious ceremonies because of their religious beliefs and doing so without that child's consent.

What atmosphere? Where someone disagrees with you?

Poor you.

 

You weren't ignored.

No one is saying that it should not be allowed if there is a medical reason for it to be performed (ie deformed foreskin or one that later fails to retract properly for example).

But in cases where parents are electing to have this done to their children because of their religious beliefs or for cosmetic reasons..? Children should be allowed to determine that for themselves when they are older. That is actually what the German court held. That boys should decide for themselves. It is illegal to do this to females, that same rule should also apply to male children. Removing the hood of the clitoris could also be deemed beneficial for female children as it would get rid of smegma build up which can lead to infections and also ensure that women would not get cancer there, but we don't do it to girls because it is deemed genital mutitlation. Women should determine that kind of 'cut' for themselves. The court in Cologne has stated that that rule should also apply to boys as well, especially baby boys (keep in mind that this case came about after a baby had to be rushed to hospital after complications arose during what appears to be a botched circumcision solely for religious reasons)..

Citing 'oh we have been doing this for thousands of years' is not a valid excuse. For thousands of years, people were under the assumption that a man actually owned his wife. We have moved on from such beliefs as a general rule. It's time religion caught up and recognised that children have a right to their own bodies and a right to determine if parts of their bodies can be removed for religious or cosmetic reasons.