German court bans circumcision of young boys

[sadhatter]

So I just clicked on the tag and noticed that there are a number of threads on this forum on this issue!

Religion aside, as an atheist with a wife of basically no fixed religion, and as a circumcised man who just this spring had both of his baby boys circumcised (incidentally, I sat in on the procedure for both of the little guys)... can someone outline the essential problem to me? One of the deciding factors for me was that if they just get it done now, it's over and won't be an issue.

On the other side, I'm starting to get worried that as they grow up into the world people are going to start going around, making it an issue! We ran into a guy putting on a one-man show about his penis and circumcision. What was clear to us? He had bigger issues than his circumcision...

Here is why it is an issue.

Would you, as a grown man , let anyone else make a decision about what you do with your penis? If the answer is yes, you need to realize you just made this choice for your children when they are adults. As an adult they will not get to make the decision of whether they would like part of their penis removed. Seeing as that part is a part of their body, it is a decision that should be theirs.

Maybe they would want the procedure, maybe they wouldn't, but you just removed that choice for them. Your not just making a choice for your child, your taking away an important choice from them as an adult.

 

[Rolfe]

One of the deciding factors for me was that if they just get it done now, it's over and won't be an issue.

This just boggles my mind. What issue? What evidence were you considering as regards problems you thought this surgery might be needed to prevent?

You do realise that America is very very unusual among developed nations in having a lot of people who circumcise their sons for non-religious reasons? You have ample control populations to look at to see what the consequences of not doing it are. Britain - actually Europe in general, Australia, I suspect Canada, and I'm not really well up in this but I think lots of places.

What are the consequences of not carrying out routine infant circumcision? Why, none at all, as it happens. You might find the occasional individual with a problem that needs that particular surgery to solve, but we don't normally perform surgery on all babies just because a tiny minority might develop a problem in later life. As someone else said, we'd be taking out tonsils, and appendices, and even teeth. Maybe we should pull all their toenails out too, just in case someone might develop an ingrowning toenail in later life!

It's a simple verifiable fact that the vast majority of men who are not circumcised never develop "an issue" with this. While I appreciate you took what you believed to be the right decision at the time, I'm simply gobsmacked that any father would do such a thing to his son for what is in effect no reason.

Rolfe.

 

[Megalodon]

...speaking as one of two parents who spent a lot of time thinking and grappling with the decision, I have to say that I somewhat resent being compared to an abuser.

No need for a comparison, you are an abuser. You compromised your children's physical integrity because it was done to you.

You researched the issue, and somehow came down to the conclusion that it would be better to amputate an important part of your kids' penises... For **** sake, you can't even claim ignorance...

Here's hoping there's no other abuse you want to pass down the family line...

 

[rustypouch]

In summary:

• no benefits
• some risks, complications including hemorrhage and infection; rarely death
• long term problems including sexual dysfunction

Exactly, plus the ethics of performing such a procedure on someone who is unable to consent.

 

[tsig]

(incidentally, I sat in on the procedure for both of the little guys)... ...

Exactly, plus the ethics of performing such a procedure on someone who is unable to consent.

Hey, he personally watched it done so it's all OK.

 

[Rolfe]

I feel a bit uncomfortable criticising a father who obviously didn't intend any harm, and isn't driven by dogma, but if that's the level of critical thinking going on when considering the health of America's children, God help them.

Has any normal healthy baby ever died because he wasn't circumcised? No. We know that normal healthy babies have died as a direct consequence of the operation.
Has any adult man ever bitterly blamed his parents for not having him circumcised? If anyone has, I've yet to hear about it. We know there are many men who bitterly resent that they were mutilated in infancy.
What percentage of intact men later suffer medical problems that would have been prevented (I mean prevented, not just marginally reduced in frequency) by circumcision? Damn few, and for those that do, the operation is still available to treat them.

I would have thought that would have settled it. Woolly thinking about "just get it over with" as if it's something that would probably have to be done later in any case is absolutely jawdropping. "Be like Dad" is, too. I suppose explaining to son that Dad's parents lived in a different age and thought they were doing the right thing, but now we know there's no reason to mutilate baby boys so be glad you're intact, it too hard for some people?

I don't know why we aren't pulling out all babies' toenails while we're at it. Better get it over now and ingrowing toenails won't be an issue later on. And even better, he won't have to take the trouble to trim his toenails.

Rolfe.

 

[sadhatter]

I feel a bit uncomfortable criticising a father who obviously didn't intend any harm, and isn't driven by dogma, but if that's the level of critical thinking going on when considering the health of America's children, God help them.

Has any normal healthy baby ever died because he wasn't circumcised? No. We know that normal healthy babies have died as a direct consequence of the operation.
Has any adult man ever bitterly blamed his parents for not having him circumcised? If anyone has, I've yet to hear about it. We know there are many men who bitterly resent that they were mutilated in infancy.
What percentage of intact men later suffer medical problems that would have been prevented (I mean prevented, not just marginally reduced in frequency) by circumcision? Damn few, and for those that do, the operation is still available to treat them.

I would have thought that would have settled it. Woolly thinking about "just get it over with" as if it's something that would probably have to be done later in any case is absolutely jawdropping. "Be like Dad" is, too. I suppose explaining to son that Dad's parents lived in a different age and thought they were doing the right thing, but now we know there's no reason to mutilate baby boys so be glad you're intact, it too hard for some people?

I don't know why we aren't pulling out all babies' toenails while we're at it. Better get it over now and ingrowing toenails won't be an issue later on. And even better, he won't have to take the trouble to trim his toenails.

Rolfe.

See i'll criticism his actions till the cows come home, a harmful action is a harmful action, and as such, as an example, should be criticized just as much as any other example.

What i won't do is attack the guy specifically about it. If it was something he could change, yeah, i would probably jump on the train some of the other posters are on, and insinuate he is abusive. But that level of being a knob about something should be reserved for situations in which something can be changed.

As it stands, it is nothing more than a fine example of how **** like this gets perpetuated. "Its just what gets done." , " My dad had it so so do i." , etc. It is an absolutely silly way to view body modification, and it shows how even one who is a fan of critical thinking an inquiry, can make a rather large mistake simply though wanting to "Go with the flow.".

 

[sadhatter]

Hey, he personally watched it done so it's all OK.

I actually hear this a lot from parents. "But i stood by the whole time." as if via being there, they were somehow either mitigating the effects or suffering of the child, or physically feeling the pain ( sorry parents, you don't. This might sound nice on a get well card, but your not.) so they were not doing anything they wouldn't do themselves.

This would only convince me if the father was uncircumcised at the time, and chose to get one at the same time as the child. Even then, it wouldn't make it right, nor make the morality of the action any better, but at least then the whole implied "I went through just as much pain as they did." would have some weight behind it.

 

[Jimbo07]

I'm Canadian. I come from a generation where it was almost universally applied as, "medically necessary." Today in Canada it stands at being applied just under 50%. Overall, this may show a decrease, but still occurs in a significant portion of the population. These stats are from two M.D.s: our doctor and the performing doctor. A quick google search turns up some widely varying stats (and some from dubious sites).

The level of invective in this thread suggests to me that this isn't simply an academic discussion of human rights and the integrity of the person. It almost seems like a European/North American culture clash. Add in the mix the religious background and it's potentially explosive!

That's what I was interested in. I should have been more clear. I wasn't concerned about the academic arguments... I was curious about the passion!

 

[Rolfe]

I didn't know about Canada.

I'm a vet. We have to think about how to justify surgical mutilations we carry out on animals. We look at the harm, and there is always harm even if it's only an ear tag we're putting in, as opposed to the benefits. There is massive benefit to having animals individually identified by an ear tag, and little harm, so we allow it. But other things are coming increasingly under scrutiny. Far fewer lambs and calves (and almost no pigs) destined for slaughter are castrated than formerly. We stopped cutting horses' tails off a long time ago and we don't cut dogs' tails off any more.

In this context, I can't imagine why anyone in their right mind would want to cut the prepuce off a newborn human boy, unless it was for religious reasons. I was gobsmacked when I discovered some people actually did this. Why? I can find no sensible reason at all. There seems to have been something of a campaign to promote the operation in the early 20th century, and it seems to have something to do with making it more difficult to masturbate. This boggles my mind.

Rolfe.

 

[tsig]

I feel a bit uncomfortable criticising a father who obviously didn't intend any harm, and isn't driven by dogma, but if that's the level of critical thinking going on when considering the health of America's children, God help them.

Has any normal healthy baby ever died because he wasn't circumcised? No. We know that normal healthy babies have died as a direct consequence of the operation.
Has any adult man ever bitterly blamed his parents for not having him circumcised? If anyone has, I've yet to hear about it. We know there are many men who bitterly resent that they were mutilated in infancy.
What percentage of intact men later suffer medical problems that would have been prevented (I mean prevented, not just marginally reduced in frequency) by circumcision? Damn few, and for those that do, the operation is still available to treat them.

I would have thought that would have settled it. Woolly thinking about "just get it over with" as if it's something that would probably have to be done later in any case is absolutely jawdropping. "Be like Dad" is, too. I suppose explaining to son that Dad's parents lived in a different age and thought they were doing the right thing, but now we know there's no reason to mutilate baby boys so be glad you're intact, it too hard for some people?

I don't know why we aren't pulling out all babies' toenails while we're at it. Better get it over now and ingrowing toenails won't be an issue later on. And even better, he won't have to take the trouble to trim his toenails.

Rolfe.

I wonder what culture these guys live in where they always walk around with their penis hanging out so everyone can see and comment on it.

 

[Rolfe]

I come from a generation where it was almost universally applied as, "medically necessary."

But why? What reasons were being given? Necessary to prevent what?

Given that there are entire countries where nobody who isn't Jewish or Moslem circumcises their sons, where nobody would even think about it, and the men in these countries go through life blissfully unaffected by any dire consequences, how could any healthcare professional seriously take that attitude?

Like I said, it's almost exactly analogous to pulling out infants' toenails as "medically necessary" to save them the trouble of cutting the toenails in later life and prevent ingrowing toenails and onycholysis/onychodystrophy.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

The level of invective in this thread suggests to me that this isn't simply an academic discussion of human rights and the integrity of the person. It almost seems like a European/North American culture clash. Add in the mix the religious background and it's potentially explosive!

That's what I was interested in. I should have been more clear. I wasn't concerned about the academic arguments... I was curious about the passion!

Ah, that's interesting. I find it is often the mark of someone who doesn't have any intellectual argument to present, to resort to accusing his opponents of being emotional about the subject. I've had it often, from homoeopaths to Lockerbie guilters. "What is it about this subject that drives you to such passion?" As if that's a killer argument. "Never mind if I'm actually wrong, you're wrong because you're taking the trouble to argue with me."

Why is anyone surprised that some people come over as quite passionate when the subject is cutting the prepuce off tiny babies? A "body modification" as someone put it, that they can't consent to and can't reverse in later life if they feel they'd rather have the body granted to them by millions of years of evolution.

It may be a culture clash, but there are plenty people in the USA advocating for the practice to be banned. I don't see anyone at all in Britain advocating for it to be instituted. And it seems that it's interesting to look at why the culture of mutilating baby boys took root in America, outwith the religious communities. It seems it was part of a zealous drive to stamp out the evil of masturbation. And it's being perpetuated partly through habit and misinformation, and partly because some people are making a tidy little income from it.

It's a human rights issue, fundamentally. It's quite common to find people passionate about human rights issues. Why do you think people who are neither Jewish nor Moslem (nor Coptic Christian) are passionate about slicing bits off their baby boys?

Rolfe.

 

[Rasmus]

Why do you think people who are neither Jewish nor Moslem (nor Coptic Christian) are passionate about slicing bits off their baby boys?

I'd think that for a lot of people, they would simply have to admit to being terrible parents.

 

[Jimbo07]

Why is anyone surprised that some people come over as quite passionate when the subject is cutting the prepuce off tiny babies? A "body modification" as someone put it, that they can't consent to and can't reverse in later life if they feel they'd rather have the body granted to them by millions of years of evolution.

Except that every single decision we make for our kids cannot be consented to. As parents, we are forced to make choices for them. Jenny McCarthy aside, we choose to get our kids vaccinated. That modifies their body from millions of years of evolution.

It may be a culture clash, but there are plenty people in the USA advocating for the practice to be banned. I don't see anyone at all in Britain advocating for it to be instituted. And it seems that it's interesting to look at why the culture of mutilating baby boys took root in America, outwith the religious communities.

Once again, I'm not in "America." It's funny, because I often find myself arguing the European side of things to Americans (we Canadians being socialists and all )!

It seems it was part of a zealous drive to stamp out the evil of masturbation. And it's being perpetuated partly through habit and misinformation, and partly because some people are making a tidy little income from it.

The masturbation thing is interesting, I have to admit, although I don't understand that, because it seems to work just fine, but that's another conversation...

... also, I don't know too many MDs making a tidy little profit off circumcisions around here.


The reason I am asking about the passion of this issue, is that we've only really started to encounter it around here recently. The few occasions where we've run into an advocate (one I mentioned), it became obvious that the person had other issues. I'm sorry if it's a case of signal being lost in the noise.



It's a human rights issue, fundamentally. It's quite common to find people passionate about human rights issues. Why do you think people who are neither Jewish nor Moslem (nor Coptic Christian) are passionate about slicing bits off their baby boys?

Rolfe.[/QUOTE]

 

[Jimbo07]

Except that every single decision we make for our kids cannot be consented to. As parents, we are forced to make choices for them. Jenny McCarthy aside, we choose to get our kids vaccinated. That modifies their body from millions of years of evolution.



Once again, I'm not in "America." It's funny, because I often find myself arguing the European side of things to Americans (we Canadians being socialists and all )!



The masturbation thing is interesting, I have to admit, although I don't understand that, because it seems to work just fine, but that's another conversation...

... also, I don't know too many MDs making a tidy little profit off circumcisions around here.


The reason I am asking about the passion of this issue, is that we've only really started to encounter it around here recently. The few occasions where we've run into an advocate (one I mentioned), it became obvious that the person had other issues. I'm sorry if it's a case of signal being lost in the noise.

Why do you think people who are neither Jewish nor Moslem (nor Coptic Christian) are passionate about slicing bits off their baby boys?

Are there those? Not religious and passionate about it? A decision is not passion...

 

[Dave Rogers]

I'm Canadian. I come from a generation where it was almost universally applied as, "medically necessary."

It's ironic, I think, that all the evidence that suggests medical benefits of circumcision post-dates the timescale in which that generation was circumcised. It's a perfect example of a post facto justification; doctors had been carrying out circumcisions for many years and claiming medical necessity with no reason before they actually tried to justify the decision.

I wasn't concerned about the academic arguments... I was curious about the passion!

Circumcision is carried out, in the majority of cases it seems, for no reason whatsoever. Why shouldn't people feel passionately opposed to healthy tissue being permanently removed from babies who have no say in the matter, just because their parents had the same thing done to them?

Now, what I'm curious about is, why would anybody carry out such a practice in the first place? Jimbo, you're clearly a caring father who has his children's interests at heart, so I'd like to know more about why you chose to have this done. You've said that "if they just get it done now, it's over and won't be an issue," but that's not an argument for getting it done, it's just an argument about when to get it done. What were the reasons that led you to decide to have the circumcisions done at all?

Dave

 

[Orphia Nay]

And would those arguments lead you have another boy, should you have one, done?

 

[brazenlilraisin]

I sincerely hope he wouldn't be dissuaded by a bunch of irrational extremists. Circumcision = mutilation sure sounds a lot like meat = murder to me....

 

[Megalodon]

If the meat is that of human infants, then in all possibility it is murder.

It's funny that you find the people that put forth the medical evidence and ethical arguments to be the "irrational extremists", and get so easily put off by someone calling mutilation the non-consensual amputation of a healthy, useful part of someone's anatomy... guess what, that's exactly what the word is for...