New Circumcision law in Germany

Correct because by killing a fetus you have determined it will not become a child and thus you are not violating its interests it may have in the future because it wont ever have any. Double standard does not exist. See.

 

[video=youtube;T6JRNewjrFk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6JRNewjrFk[/video]

“One in four pregnancies in Israel ends in abortion”

The Central Bureau of Statistics recently released data that showed there were 117,000 Jewish births in Israel in 2008.
The number of abortions in Israel for the same year is estimated to be over 40,000. Thus in 2008, of the approximately 160,000 pregnancies in Israel, 120,000 led to births and 40,000 (one in four) ended in abortion.

http://www.prowomanprolife.ca/2009/03/17/one-in-four-pregnancies-in-israel-ends-in-abortion/

 

I'll correct you, instead - some abortions do constitute murder in this country, look it up for yourself.

However, if you would prefer to refer to it as killing children, that's fine with me.

Again, that has already been pointed out to you, and again, I don't feel compelled to repeat myself.

Uri hasn't erred at all, much less "seriously". The double-standard is plain to see.

As a living being, a fetus has just as much interest in life as a child. Got it?

It's true, as I pointed out above. Everything in nature has an interest in life.

Why the government?

You asked for my opinion and you got it.

Just consistent in my positions, unlike yourself.

 

That's almost as bad as Europe, Jack.

 

Where in Europe, Europe is not a country.

I can think of at least two nations in Europe, in which abortion is disallowed.

 

Abortion is not illegal therefore not murder. Exceptions are not being discussed here. Like I said, correct yourself.

No, killing a fetus. Killing children is infanticide, not abortion.

No, it hasnt and the fatc you cant point it out validates my claim that you guys have no case here.

What is the double stnadard. Actually point out the double stnadard instead of simply repeating what I said.

No it doesnt. Mate, you dont strike me as mentally handicapped so please listen. An interest is a preference sustained by a certain capacity of mental thought. Do you say a severed arm has an interest in being alive? Its certainly alive for a brief period of time. No, you say no it has no interest because it has no mind. The same is with the fetus. It has no mental faculties with which to sustain ANY interest in being alive let alone ANYTHING else. This only occurs AFTER birth. If you cannot comprehend this basic scientific fact, then I cant help you.

So a tree has a mind? A sperm cell, has a mind? Please, you are making yourself look like a fool.

Please answer my question, why only the parents? Once you do, I'll answer yours.

LOL My position is completely consistent - we consider the interest of beings with interests. A fetus has no interests, a mother does. A child has interests and a mother does. See the difference? A fetus can be killed because it has no interests. A child cannot be assaulted because it has an interest in its future, bodily integrity and is an autonomous being.

 

You were told why it should be illegal to alter someone elses body while they are helpless to resist.

What part of it is criminal don't you get??

 

Jews pronounced the magic word "Holocaust", and the spineless German politicians genuflected and neglected the German constitution that prohibits mutilation of children.

If religious rituals violate the human rights of children, then those religions must be reformed or outlawed.

 

Was there a muslim holocaust too?

 

The German Jewish community should welcome this new law which overturned the lower court's ruling which made religious circumcision illegal and the legislature came up with a compromise plan to satisfy naysayers by putting the new regulation in place to make sure that circumcisions are performed legally and safely in Germany.

 

Its a grossly immoral ruling.

 

Agreed. Uri's is the logical extention of my argument too. parents decide everything. they can even decide if a child gets to be borne but not if it gets to be circumcised. makes no sense at all. A 7 day old does not have any more awareness of life/circumcision than a fetus and I consider Magadeth's lines to be arbitrary ones.

No WE don't. You always do.

It is. see above.

Why indeed?

The double standard therein is laughable if it were not so sad. Taking away life entirely perversly becomes more just that making decisions over it - which is what we do LEGALLY and MORALLY every day as parents.

Yes I bet it was the joos. You must be sad that your vote wasn't enough to get the NPD in huh?

 

It is a law and not a ruling. Is circumicision illegal in Australia?

 

Yes, you can get your kids' ears pinned back, have birth marks removed, get their teeth pulled. Yes it is all possible - logically - because no one else can morally or legally make these decisions. Got it now?

 

At what age does that magically happen?

 

Then it is a grossly immoral law.

Not that I am aware of, unfortunately.

 

First, its not magic, its biology. And second, to answer your question, I gave the figure of around 28 days after birth before.

 

I fully understand the law, however it has not been shown why this law is correct. I have shown that it is highly immoral in almost every one of its implications for children.

 

Well then you just shot yourself in the foot because jews circumcise days after birth.

"Jewish religious law states that circumcision is a mitzva aseh ("positive commandment" to perform an act) and is obligatory for Jewish-born males and for non-circumcised Jewish male converts. It is only postponed or abrogated in the case of threat to the life or health of the child.[120] It is usually performed by a mohel on the eighth day of life in a ceremony called a brit milah (or Bris milah, colloquially simply bris), which means "Covenant of circumcision" in Hebrew. According to Jewish law, the foreskin should be buried after a brit milah"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision

 

No you have not shown that it is any more immoral than any of the other decisions parents make. You also ignore the practical realities of raising children and the decisions parents face all the time. You are still too young to know what I mean but you will.

 

I havent shot myself in the foot at all, since as I explained, the act of circumcision is an infringement on a being designed to affect them into the future - ie to breach their interests they will have in the future. If circumcision were reversible, then you might have a case, but it isnt, so you have no justification for such an infraction on the child. Incidentally, some tribes in Africa, if I recal correctly, also circumcise baby girls at that period, so I guess you dig that too eh?

 

Yes, I have, because it is an act entirely for fashionable and subjective desires of the parents with complete disregard for the autonomy and interests of the child.

And how would these alter my position if I (assuming I havent considered them, which I have) didnt 'ignore them'?

What a pathetic excuse to run away from debate. Tell me, at what magical age do you "know"?

 

Yes you did shoot yourself in the foot. You claim that a child only has an interest from the age of 28 days and that before that, like a fetus, it doesn't. On that basis you justify abortion and distinguish the two scenarios. Now suddenly it is the irreversibility that concerns you. Guess what? Abortion also isn't reversible.

I have already pointed out thet femal mutilation is entirely different and asked you to show where penises were cut off so that no sexual pleasure or urination was possible, as is the case in female circumcision - but I see that you are trying to muddy the waters again in an attempt to cover up for your 28 day cut-off misstep. Plus I am not the one who said that 28 days has any significance at all. You did. Now you try to explain what it means again.

 

If it is a fashion it has been one since Egyptian times, so I wonder if that still counts.

Birthmarks are also a fashion trend but you can get them lasered off your kid from a few months of age. No go huh? Non-reversible? Is that the issue or is it OK before 28 days and if so, why?

Raising kids makes you see how much you determine. Circumcising or not, is only one of the myriad of things you get to decide - many more can alter your child's life in so many ways. And you cannot always know how.

I haven't run away from this debate but I do have kids to raise and decision to make. Once you have them to raise, you will now how little you know.

 

Yes but abortion terminates the fetus' life, hence the fetus will never become a child and thus will not have interests. Because a child WILL grow to have interests, this means circumcising it violates these interests. Make sense now? What's more the child is an autonomous entity where the fetus is not.

No you didnt. You said 'I dont like female mutilation because it diminishes sexual pleasure', but male mutilation does EXACTLY the same thing. So either you have a complete double standard, or you are entirely sexist.

1. I gave you a study.
2. You can still urinate in the case of female mutiliation.
3. I have made no misstep - you are just trying to manipulate it to convince yourself I am wrong, but it wont work.

See above. I already have explained it.