Germany views circumcision as an assault

Wrong. You misunderstand religious freedom.

Here's what it doesn't mean: Certain religions aren't accountable to the same laws as everyone else because of tradition.

Here's what it does mean: The state will not unnecessarily prevent religious practice.

As I posted above, the circumcision ritual has already changed to meet modern legal and medical standards. There's no reason it can't change again. I don't particularly care how much bitching and moaning they want to do about it, because it's about as valid as arguing whether midichlorians are the source of force-sensitivity or if they just correlate with force-sensitivity. Meanwhile, there are actual consequences to consider. The Catholic Church accepts evolution. Mormons no longer practice polygamy.

Adapt or be slapped. Probably with a fine.

What HentaiGuy did was not a straw man argument. He took the logical justification you're utilizing to support a mohel's "right" to perform circumcisions and applied it to another example. That reluctance you're feeling to defend that point is not because he's not playing fair; it's because your point is a bad one.

Wow, this is cool, you've strawmanned my point by talking about the straw man fallacy.

You stated that "But they do have the right to practice their faith, the only time the state can step in is when there is an immediate threat to the child's life. I haven't heard anyone say circumcision threatens the child's life." (in point of fact, complications from circumcision CAN result in death, even if it is a rare occurrence, but that's neither here nor there). I asked you if you would support the practice of infibulation for religious purposes. I'm not seeing how that is a distortion.

Or, perhaps you're talking about the "beating heretics with sticks" part? I wasn't claiming that to be your argument, I was using it as an example where a person's bodily rights trump your right to practice your religion.

Maybe you were talking about the amputation part, mmm? That was more slippery slope than straw man. You stated, flat out, that "the only time the state can step in is when there is an immediate threat to the child's life." Quoted verbatim. I then asked if this would apply to other non-life threatening surgeries, such as a simple toe or finger amputation. I could have gone with tongue bifurcation, if you preferred.

Tell me, at what point did I misrepresent what you were saying exactly?

-----

EDUT: Ack! Accuser sharked me! But, yeah, what he said.

Interesting you should state that, but then what of religious belief imposed upon those who cannot object? A child has no choice in the matter, and surely seems to dislike what's being done to their body. Therein lies the rub I have with your argument, to simply say it is wrong to substitute your beliefs for the beliefs of others belies the fact that society does precisely this, all the time. Whether or not that is wrong is entirely relative.

Why God should care about a piece of skin on end of the male member seems utterly bizarre to me, and according to Judeo-Christian belief is man not supposed to have been made in his image? Why then should God require babies and men to sacrifice their flesh for his approval? Surely, there must be Jews who question the practice of circumcision?

Indeed, there are. Some have even argued that making exceptions for Jews places their babies in the awkward position of having less rights then others who otherwise would be protected from genital mutilation laws. I won't even entertain the slippery-slope arguments that follow that line of thought, but the point is valid - there are Jews who want to abolish the practice, and they've some valid theological and moral arguments to support their position. Is it therefore wrong should their local Synagogue pressure such parents of a newborn into having the procedure done on the 8th day?

Do you now see the flaw in your argument?

The real crime, here, is false identification of the straw man fallacy. The only cure is at least three dissections of such false identifications.

JoeatSG thinks it's a straw man because that he said "I think circumcision is okay" and that the response to that statement is "So you must be okay with cutting off babies' fingers". But that isn't what happened. What JoeatSG actually said was "I think circumcision is okay because X", and the response was "X also covers cutting off babies' fingers." You need a better X, Joe.

What laws prohibiting circumcision are you talking about? There are none.

And the key word is unnecessarily... who and how is that defined

No it hasn't changed to meet legal and medical standards. There are disagreements among different flavors of Judiasm but no changes due to legal or medical standards. A doctor performing a circumcision will do it differently than a Moehl, and different Moehls may have different practices as it is an apprentice learning experience. Moehls feel their method is better. Who knows but that is their opinion and their method meets all the legal and medical standards and never had to change.

This isn't an argument for circumcision but simply a statement of the legal standard the state must meet to overcome a parent's exercising their right to raise their child in the religion of the parent's choice. A parent can't prevent a blood transfusion to save a child's life because they feel prayer will work. But a parent can opt out of vaccinations becuase there is no immediate life threatening situation that results from their belief in prayer. To ban circumcision you would need to meet this standard.

It is a Straw Man because their is no religion that s advocating amputation of a toe or finger and we were talking about circumcision. It would be a slippery slope if you try and say we should overcome their religious rights because if we allow circumcision the next thing you know they will be amputing fingers and toes in the name of religious freedom.

I never gave any opinion on circumcision. I said a law banning the procedure would be illegal based on our current interpretation of the law and religious freedom.

As to the Straw Man see my answer above.

Just so you don't have to assume, my opinion is its none of my business. The current medical establishment view is there is no evidence of harm that would require the banning the procedure nor any evidence to mandate every have the procedure. Its the right of any adult to decide for themselves. As to parent's rights to impose their religion on their children that is another thread. The current view across the world is that the parents/family have that right.

Oh? What's this thread about?

The same way we define all rights - your right to extend your fist ends where another person's nose (or foreskin) begins. Parents don't own their children and aren't free to abuse them for religious reasons (oh god I can hear you already typing saying that it's ridiculous to suggest that circumcision is abuse - keep reading). That's our precedent. In cases of permanent, surgical, cosmetic procedures, society usually frowns. Tattoos. Earlobe cropping. Male nipple removal. Go read some earlier pages for other examples. Not toot my own horn, but I think my points about hypothetical infant vasectomies were particularly salient.

Yes it has.

The standard is not "life threatening," but "abusive." We have multiple pages of rational argument over whether or not circumcision should qualify as abusive. Perhaps you'd enjoy reading them.

Edit: nevermind, arguing semantics is not helpful, and is especially unhelpful when the other party doesn't understand what you're talking about even after it's been clearly explained several times in several ways.

Yup, I almost did it myself. But I'm trying to get better about that sort of thing.

I agree that parent's imposing their religion is a topic that would cause a lot of discussion, especially between those who have children and those that don't. It is a debate that rages across the country and one that the Republican Party exploits and wins on. Currently the law states the parents are right until proven wrong and that people have a right to practice their religion. The current legal standard will not allow the banning of circumcision. I have kids so I fall on the side of me making the call rather than some legislature.

We both assume babies don't like it because they scream but is that a reason to ban it? They scream when they get a needle at the doctor's, scream when they get blood drawn. Sometimes good things hurt, as a parent you accept the crying because the needle contains medicine and I believe that will help. Jews and others believe that circumcision will allow their child to meet a requirement of their god. I don't agree but I'm not Jewish and I have no right to deny them salvation in the eyes of their god.

I also don't understand why God cares about this, or why he doesn't want Sikh's to cut their hair, or christians to be baptized but then again that is their business not mine. There are Jews who question circumcision and how it is done, there are debates within the Jewish community but that is their right to determine what is right for them not the right of the state to dictate what is right.

There are no exceptions to be made for Jews as there are no laws against circumcision.

Is it therefore wrong should their local Synagogue pressure such parents of a newborn into having the procedure done on the 8th day?

That is for the parents to decide - listen to their local Synagogue or find one that matches their beliefs. It is certainly not up to you or me or the state to impose our view on their religious debate among themselves.

I will point out that the new law makes full allowance for religious circumcision. (I will also point out that it was passed for pretty much exactly the what-could-go-wrong posted by LeTranger.)

Except where it totally is if we have cause to believe their religious practices are abusive.

This thread is about a Judge's opinion not a law. There will be a law shortly that overturns that position. And while you have pages of rational argument over whether circumcision is abusive, your view is in the minority and not currently enacted into law. The chances of it becoming law are about as good as that judges opinion stnding and becoming National policy in Germany.

I guess Germany and America feel it is not abusive then since they allow the practice.

Thanks for the update. I was reading through the comments section and came across this exchange that had me cracking up for 30 seconds.

That's right - I guess everyone in the entire of both countries feels that way, since it is legal. Since we've established that, why don't you go play somewhere else? There isn't much for you here, since you aren't inclined to a) read the rest of the thread, or b) listen to valid, logical arguments and respond in kind.

If only that would actually work...here's hoping.

I thought this was an interesting article that I feel people involved in this discussion might find relevant. From NY Times, 9-13-12:

Board Votes to Regulate Circumcision, Citing Risks

Particularly interesting to me is the traditional Orthodox Jewish methods used in circumcision, in which the circumciser uses his mouth to remove blood from the incision. where it is stated that Between 2004 and 2011, the city learned of 11 herpes infections it said were most likely caused by the practice. Two of those babies died; at least two others suffered brain damage.

I must add, that this topic has been a discussion between friends and family lately, and my Mother and her friend who had this operation done to several of their children on the advice of Doctors both deeply regretted it, viewing it as a form of barbaric torture after seeing their children strapped to a table with their legs forced open screaming in agony...

In any case, I would recommend that no matter what your feelings are about this subject, do some more research on the fact that foreskin is a highly profitable operation that yields fertile skin grafts, as I suspect this is the significant motivation for the practice.

“In some cases, we can get four football fields of skin out of one baby foreskin,” said Dr. James McGuire, head of wound management at the Foot and Ankle Institute at the School of Podiatric Medicine at Temple University, in Philadelphia.

Seems this thread still is pretty much alive.

Public debate has died down in Germany after the usual media hype had been going on for some-thing like a couple of weeks. After after exchange of actual and serious arguments it had become more and more pointless and leading absolutely nowhere.

By the way, German Government to introduce a bill shortly formally legalizing circumcision of boys (only) on religious and medical grounds when performed under certain conditions.