The Student Room Group

Circumcision ban is the 'worst attack on Jews since Holocaust'

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/circumcision-ban-is-the-worst-attack-on-jews-since-holocaust-7939593.html
European Rabbis who made the Holocaust comments, added: "I see no future for Jews in Germany if the ruling is upheld"

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1
It does not seem very sensitive of the Germans after what they did to the Jews in the Shoah
Reply 2
Avatar for G56
G56
OP
I really dont see how the skin being removed from the end of somebodies penis is a means of concern for the German government.
Original post by G56
I really dont see how the skin being removed from the end of somebodies penis is a means of concern for the German government.


Because it's often done at such a young age without the consent of the person?

How can you mutilate a child without it's opinion for a belief ?
Reply 4
Original post by . .
Surely they have parents consent though.


But the child has no say in it and, phrase it delicately or not, it boils down to an irreversible genital mutilation.
Original post by . .
Surely they have parents consent though.


It's amazing though how people say the government have no right to mess with people's bodies, but yet the parents can based off religion?

It's not medical and it doesn't provide this huge benefit to health and the child might not even want to be a Jew upon growing up, so why should the parents be able to?

That's like saying they should be able to tattoo their children, because they have consent and they believe it the right thing to do.
Reply 6
Original post by . .
A child has no say in whether he/she wants a vaccination should we stop them too because the child cannot give consent? :rolleyes:


A vaccination is good for a child's health. A circumcision is a lifelong aesthetic commitment, that has no health benefits apart from slightly easier hygiene down there. How can you equate the two? :rolleyes:
Original post by . .
A child has no say in whether he/she wants a vaccination should we stop them too because the child cannot give consent? :rolleyes:


Vaccinations prevent potential life threatening diseases and illnesses, they are on health grounds, circumcision does not, and is done on the basis of a religion.
Reply 8
Original post by Agenda Suicide
It's amazing though how people say the government have no right to mess with people's bodies, but yet the parents can based off religion?

It's not medical and it doesn't provide this huge benefit to health and the child might not even want to be a Jew upon growing up, so why should the parents be able to?

That's like saying they should be able to tattoo their children, because they have consent and they believe it the right thing to do.


This! Thank you so much.
Reply 9
Bravo to the German Govt.
Reply 10
Original post by . .
A child has no say in whether he/she wants a vaccination should we stop them too because the child cannot give consent? :rolleyes:


There is good scientific evidence that the vaccination is in the child's best interest, and as a parent it is the responsible thing to protect your child with a vaccination. I could be argued that refusing your child a vaccination is child neglect.

There is no good scientific evidence that I know of that circumcision is in the child's best interest.
Original post by Agenda Suicide
Vaccinations prevent potential life threatening diseases and illnesses, they are on health grounds, circumcision does not, and is done on the basis of a religion.


it also has health benefits.
Reply 12
Original post by the bear
It does not seem very sensitive of the Germans after what they did to the Jews in the Shoah


The people responsible for the holocaust are not representative of german people.

Also i support this, its a step foward to stopping religion being forced upon children.


Haven't most of those been debunked?

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090501005837AAtaIzv

Top answer pretty much puts that website to shame.
Accusation is the "worst exaggeration since your mother".
Godwin's Law. Someone should tell these Rabbis that using arguments considered laughable even by the online community isn't going to get them anywhere. They look pretty pathetic to be honest.

Circumcision isn't a big deal. I was circumcised for medical reasons aged about 7 or 8 and it's never negatively affected my life. But anyone who tries to tell you it's OK to circumcise children for religious reasons because it's unlikely to cause much harm to the child is missing the point. The idea of performing an irreversible medical procedure on an infant to permanently brand them as part of your religion is, in the modern age, barbaric. If you think 'being traditional' alone is enough to justify an operation to forcibly remove part of someone's body when they're too young to consent, I fear for your understanding of what constitutes a just society.

Let Judaism keep its rather creepy obsession with cutting bits of skin of people's dicks - just do it at an age when the people whose dicks are being cut up can make the choice for themselves.
(edited 11 years ago)
Reply 16
Original post by Agenda Suicide
It's amazing though how people say the government have no right to mess with people's bodies, but yet the parents can based off religion?

It's not medical and it doesn't provide this huge benefit to health and the child might not even want to be a Jew upon growing up, so why should the parents be able to?

That's like saying they should be able to tattoo their children, because they have consent and they believe it the right thing to do.


In the UK, the Tattooing Of Minors Act 1969 prohibits anyone under the age of 18 having a tattoo done. Even if a parent gave consent to a tattoo artist, it would be illegal to carry it out (except for medical reasons under a medical practitioner).

I have no problems with being circumcised as a child, I actually think it looks better. :smile:
Reply 18
Original post by . .
See my previous post link.


That's not a dubious website at all...
Let's assume that all of those facts are true, and it does have health benefits. Removing a child's feet at birth would prevent a lot of fungal infections. Whilst this is an exaggerated analogy, the point remains the same: it should be the child's choice if the surgery will cause permanent physical changes to their body, unless it's a life-saving operation or something else very serious.
Original post by sukee
In the UK, the Tattooing Of Minors Act 1969 prohibits anyone under the age of 18 having a tattoo done. Even if a parent gave consent to a tattoo artist, it would be illegal to carry it out (except for medical reasons under a medical practitioner).

I have no problems with being circumcised as a child, I actually think it looks better. :smile:


Okay, I think you're completely missing the point? I'm aware of the law, it's the principle? Surely you don't think there's an issue of tattooing babies?


Do people take everything so literally lol?

Quick Reply