Summations Only

No, but parental rights are, so I would appreciate it if you'd answer my question instead of evading it. You are usually so forthcoming with your opinions; surely in this instance you could come up with a yes-or-no answer.

Well yes. You might say that it reflects their culture. But you have a growing movement in your country that agrees with them.Presumably, you wouldn't normally consider legislation against the sexual molestation of children to be pitiful. It may be that, all throughout history, when people have had a tendency to chop bits off other people's genitals, the underlying motive relates to the natural sexuality of the victims. This could be the case whether it has been incorporated into ancient rituals, or, as the paper I posted explains, it is a relatively modern movement.That doesn't mean that the people who want to chop bits off others consciously understand what they're doing. They can, as the examples from the 19th century show, perceive ordinary healthy behaviour as symptoms of sickness. And those from cultures in which the chopping has been incorporated as religious ritual might just see it as "God's will" or whatever.So, modern medical consensus, and medical ethics in Europe particularly, are questioning whether an individual's integrity should be compromised in this way. The German case may be the beginning of many around the world, and these will effect what happens in your country (where people have already been suing hospitals for a while).

Fortunately, circumcision has absolutely nothing to do sexual molestation and so that is totally irrelevant.Personally, I don't see any "right to bodily integrity", whatever that is.

To illustrate the importance of this concept, I'd amputate both your arms without your consent --- only then how would you post on these forums to admit that you were wrong?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

You could try.

I guess it would be easier if we removed your capacity to stop him.

Sexual interference might be a better phrase, but that's academic. But yes, the Euro-American non-ritual circumcision of the last two centuries definitely did, and that's a lot of what the paper I posted was about. The same thing, along with similar medical misconceptions may have been the underlying force behind some ancient cultures who developed the practice, as well.While it's much more obviously related to sexuality when done in women, there's a good case to be made that it's an important part of the story for men, also. Well that might certainly indicate a cultural difference between the Muslim world and places like Texas on the one hand, and modern Europe on the other. Germany's in Europe. It may be sitting on the long term future, but I don't expect outright bans on needless circumcision for some time. I suspect that discussion and gentle dissuasion will be the course of most European countries.However, the circumcisers are under pressure not to make any disastrous mistakes, which is difficult, because interfering with a delicate organ isn't easy (which is why Doctors usually only do it for good reasons, and leave perfectly healthy organs alone).

You could try that, but the comment was about as silly and irrelevant as so many others in this thread.A State, culture or society that amputate infants arms is self limiting; it simply wouldn't last very long. It was also completely irrelevant since the subject of the thread is circumcision.

And I have absolutely no problem with discussion and gentle dissuasion; but I don't see any reason that might justify imposition of a prohibition on circumcision by force of law.

The subject was on the right to bodily integrity, which is clearly related to this topic about a German judge who made a ruling regarding the right of an infant's bodily integrity.

And as I have said, I see no innate right to bodily integrity or how circumcision effects bodily integrity other than those established by a peculiar State, culture or society.His assertion was simply sophomoric and inane.

I'm not interested in getting into a discussion about the nature of rights with you, that would be irrelevant.So think of it like this: Does society have an interest in preventing Dr. A removing your arms? Or more broadly, does society have an interesting in preventing certain types of damage being done by one individual to another?It doesn't matter if you call it a 'right' or not.You are protected against assault, rape, murder, and various other non-consensual acts that affect your person. Even a newborn is afforded these protections.Do the general principles behind these protections lead to a de facto principle of protection against bodily modification without consent and could that lead to a re-examination of procedures which had previously been thought to be acceptable?

It depends on the State, culture or society. No innate interest and it depends on the State, culture or society.It is also totally irrelevant to the question of circumcision. There is simply no connection between the two acts.

What your theme seems to be is that you can understand some sort of bizarre right for people to choose to chop parts off other people's genitals on some sort of cultural basis, but you struggle with the concept of people developing a more civilized culture which includes the idea of individuals being left to decide the fate of their own genitals.Weird.

So the obvious adult thing to do is to start implying that your debate opponents are pedophiles right?