Parents can be the proxy for reasonable and necessary medical procedures. Not unnecessary and crazy ones like circumcision.

citation please. Be forewarned, I'm a lawyer, a damn good one, and I got an A in criminal law.

You're being deliberately obtuse and now you're just making retarded assertions. In many states, parents can authorize tattoos, for example.

I made this point before and everyone just changed the subject.

Dude, is this a brainfart or what? If that is your true stance you now nothing at all about evolution. It just doesn't work that way, especially with humans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schloen..._York_Hospital

Tatooing babies is just as nuts as circumcising them. If some states allow such a practice then I'm against that too. I understand that the law currently allows for parents to circumcise their children. It's wrong. Just as wrong as if the law allowed for parents to cut off a joint of their kid's little toe.

It is battery. Assault is putting someone in fear of great bodily harm. Which they do as well when they try and cut the kiddie penis.

Ah, yes.

You're both not even close. on either definition. Probably because you made them up out of thin air.

Battery (at common law) is the wilful application of offensive or harmful physical contact without consent (subject to all sorts of exemptions and restrictions outlined in the Criminal Code). It ranges from punching someone to grabbing their nuts, but the latter is generally included under one of the many exemptions, just like circumcision.

Assault (again, at common law) is the mere physical application of force without consent. Say, grabbing someone's finger or holding them down. Again, there are all sorts of restrictions and applications.

They are similar and often overlapping, but fundamentally different. and neither apply to circumcision.

But keep arguing. Its not against the law, and its not meaningless physical mutilation to the people that choose to do it.

You're defending an obnoxious attempt to force everyone to see things the way you do, and that's all you're doing at this point. If you don't want to snip your kid, don't. I'm not telling you what to do. But don't invent bull**** ways to tell me what to do.

Lol I understand that circumcision isn't currently assault under US law. I'm saying I agree with the German court's decision that essentially make routine circumcision for no medical reason assault.

Parents can give consent for reasonable medical procedures, but there are certain things they ought not be allowed to do. Like tattooing them or stretching out their earlobes, giving them a bunch of weird facial piercings or circumcising them .

Which "damn good" lawyer would cite university grades in criminal law as evidence of being an expert on the topic? That seems pretty strange. Sounds more like you're some lawyer fresh out of law school that might have done well in moot court.

Germany uses civil law not common law. Guess your post may still be relevant if you want to discuss the "what if this ruling was in the US" hypothetical.

Like I said I'd expect the process to be quite a bit more efficient when it comes to genitals than when it comes to the appendix. After all reproduction is pretty critical in the evolutionary process. I don't think "evolution seems to approve of foreskin so why mess with it" is a horrible position to hold. Certainly seems more reasonable than any faith based argument for messing with it. It's not the reasoning I would pick but I'd rank it higher than other reasons that have been fielded in the thread.
(I also don't see a reason to preemtively remove the appendix)

.

Me:
You: Me:
Me: It's not about wholeness of the body (whatever the **** that is), it's about uniform battery laws. Please just admit you're for circumcision because of your religion.

You: [I'm guessing here.] It's not about battery laws because PHILOSOPHY.

Me: Bringing philosophy into this is retarded, we can discuss Social Security without bringing Rawls into the thread, etc. Please admit you're for circumcision solely because of your religion. I'm cool with that even though I think it's akin to goat sacrifices.


I've made my point. I was responding to the YOU'RE A FUNDAMENTALIST TOO BECAUSE YOU'RE A FUNDAMENTALIST ABOUT WHOLENESS OF THE BODY which to put it mildly is the ****ing dumbest thing I've read today.

I'm not even saying I 100% want it illegal. I'm fine with goat sacrifices. But circumcision, just like goat sacrifices to lord Xenu of the galactic confederacy, is an unnecessary, stupid religious custom that people do either because an old book says so or because they're afraid that foreskin will scare people.

I've never, not once ever, seen a "damn good" lawyer buttress their lawyering ability by the grade they received in a certain class. What grade you received in a class your first semester says nothing about anything.

Just so everyone knows, attorneys stop bragging about law school grades roughly around the time they graduate. Only time I ever see it is when an attorney wants to sound authoritative to a lay person.