Tomorrow at school I will be speaking out against circumcision on my own child and I need some good arguments, which can possibly also be legally justified.
(3 votes)
Loading...Hello What should I do with the jacket?
Then the hairstyle will be ruined, which is crap, and you'll have to redo it! So the hairstyle isn't that good?
Hello, I have a cracked glans, but only where my foreskin covers it. Do you think it's caused by the foreskin? And if I don't have any pain or anything else, do I still need to have it cut away?
Hey people, I've been thinking about modeling for a while now, but I'm not sure if I'm attractive enough for it. What do you honestly think? I'd love to hear your opinions! 🙂 LG
Hello everyone, I'm currently unsure whether gender reassignment surgery is the right path for me, and I'm looking for opinions and experiences. Here's my situation: I've had traumatic experiences with men in my past that have had a very negative impact on my view of my own gender identity. These experiences have made me feel…
QUESTION IS ABOVE:) AND WHAT HAIRSTYLES DO YOU LIKE FOR MEN/WOMEN
The following arguments exist against circumcision on the (own) child:
All contra-arguments are, in particular, in the case of the acquiring of boys, as a result of the fact that it is a relatively small and unproblamic intervention, with corresponding pro-arguments which have the exact opposite wording. So something like “free choice of education, especially in religious terms” or “less HPV infections during circumcision” and the like. The clarification will have to be done more or less purely legally, I think.
Under the following link you will find a very good comparison of the positions: Argumentation circumcision
Homework should be done by yourself, but in principle the physical integrity of the child, the risks and the lack of self-determination when the surgery is carried out to children without indication.
Otherwise, just imagine you’d have a kid as you would argue.
That depends on
Against circumcision due to health reasons there are no arguments
Against circumcision for reasons that are not necessary for health speaks the cerebious integrity, the children can decide this badly themselves
You are circumventing fundamental rights, three to guarantee the Basic Law:
That’s the same genital mutilation. This must really not be any more in an enlightened, democratic society like ours.
Every year, everyone can naturally be responsible for it.
My main argument, however, is simply that it is an irreperable change on the body of your own child.
And for this type of change you need a good foundation after my view. Because this must be considered right to the physical integrity of the child here. The only one that’s good enough is medical. Say: if it is medically necessary.
All other foundations are in the end: Because I (the parent) want this out. And these reasons are not worth it. Bzw is the value of this thing not as high as those.
I would also like to refer to tatood and pircings. And the attitude of the society would be to miss his own baby bauchnabelpircing or let a Tatoo stab. You are already critical in terms of distances in the case of child and infants.
Wichitg is to be observed at the point but the spiritual maturity. I personally see here because it is often made for religious reasons, an age from 14 is considered justified because there is also religious tiredness. Who is almost old enough to be able to decide about his religion himself should also be old enough to decide about the rituals associated with religion.
So a 14-year-old who is not allowed to decide whether an adult is allowed to touch his genitals, should he very well decide that part of these genitals is irreversibly cut off?
At present, it may be 6 years old. Mostly Muslims.
And you said that’s not quite true. This applies only to persons over 21 and is not per se prohibited, but it must be established for the individual case that the person is not capable of sexual self-determination.
However, it is quite possible to apply a similar regulation.
I also know that it is a compromise. But it is more realistic to reach it than to raise it all to 18.
The Basic Law:
“Everyone has the right to life and physical integrity”
Unfortunately, the state has created a law that still allows. Nevertheless, everyone who respects the Basic Law should also respect this principle.
A circumcision is an intervention that carries risks like any other intervention. If it is not carried out by a doctor, the probability that complications will naturally come even higher.
What I had several times in the emergency room were infants with severe post-bleeding. In fact, the child can also bleed through the post-bleeding and colleagues of me had experiences with children who have survived relatively close.
There are also risks that can generally occur in interventions, such as
– Infection
– disturbed wound healing
– rarer, but also possible, formation of necroses, so tissue can die
And a few other things that are more “harmless” than that.
Obtaining physical integrity. There are no more arguments.
If there is no medical indication that makes removal of the precut absolutely necessary, there is no rational reason why this should happen.
And no, the practice of religion does not count as a rational reason, since the child is unable to agree.
A circumcision without medical cause is nothing but genital suppression. In such a case, it has only disadvantages that can never be eliminated again.
Legally, in such a case, it becomes clear about the self-determination of the baby. One takes the (later) man the choice to let himself decide to perform such an operation or not.
In addition, the physical integrity of the baby is violated and the potentially fatal consequences of such an operation are ignored. In the USA, about 100 babies die annually from the consequences of complications of circumcision.
A circumcision is about as absurd as a baby to amputate the ears. If you draw this comparison, the legal problems will also be clarified because there has been no (religious) vaccination on the subject in the ears.
A medically unnecessary intervention, with the consequences of which the child has to do for a lifetime. Violates the right to physical integrity.
For health problems, of course, this is different.
Undoubtedly removing body parts should generally be prohibited, but in any case it should be prohibited to roam around to unbroken children. This is body injury.