German court bans circumcision of young boys

[Megalodon]

Mm hmm, and removing a wart makes a nose imperfect.

A wart is an infection by a virus, not an organ or part of one.

I don't really care if Cindy Crawford decides to keep her mole as an adult, but if her parents had decided to remove it when she was a child I don't think I would have called it mutilation.

A mole is a (benign) skin tumour. It is not an organ or a part of one. No one in their right mind would call the removal of a tumour mutilation.

I don't think women in general admire penises as much as men think they should, but I've never had anything but compliments. When my undies hit the floor, no one's ever recoiled and said "My God, what happened to you?!?"

Congratulations for liking your penis. No one is defending general depression and lack of self-esteem for having been mutilated as a child. Just that people stop mutilating children.

 

[zeggman]

No one in their right mind would call the removal of a tumour mutilation.

I didn't say a tumor, I said a mole. How do you feel about removing freckles?

Congratulations for liking your penis. No one is defending general depression and lack of self-esteem for having been mutilated as a child. Just that people stop mutilating children.

What about surgery to "correct" a harelip? Isn't that non-essential mutilation undertaken solely to alter the appearance?

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

I didn't say a tumor, I said a mole. How do you feel about removing freckles?

But:

A mole is a (benign) skin tumour.

So...

 

[zeggman]

Originally Posted by zeggman View Post
I didn't say a tumor, I said a mole. How do you feel about removing freckles?
But:


Originally Posted by Megalodon View Post
A mole is a (benign) skin tumour.
So...

So nobody ever wrote about "Cindy Crawford's benign skin tumor". The fact that someone felt the need to RECAST a mole as a tumor to imply that there might be a valid medical reason for removing it just underscores how hysterical the language is on the part of the "ban it" crowd. And "mutilation"? Makes it sound like somebody got his johnson caught in the wood chipper.

It's just a bit of skin. There's probably no need to remove it, but there's also no need to lock up parents who circumcise their boys.

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

So nobody ever wrote about "Cindy Crawford's benign skin tumor". The fact that someone felt the need to RECAST a mole as a tumor to imply that there might be a valid medical reason for removing it just underscores how hysterical the language is on the part of the "ban it" crowd. And "mutilation"? Makes it sound like somebody got his johnson caught in the wood chipper.

Recast? That's like recasting an arm as a limb. It already is one, he just drew your attention to the fact that a mole is a benign tumour, as opposed to being a valuable piece of skin.

It's just a bit of skin. There's probably no need to remove it, but there's also no need to lock up parents who circumcise their boys.

But if there's probably no need to do it, why are you saying that we are making a fuss about removing it?

If it's just a bit of skin, you wouldn't care either way, and this discussion wouldn't interest you.

 

[Dave Rogers]

It's just a bit of skin. There's probably no need to remove it, but there's also no need to lock up parents who circumcise their boys.

Would that include the few whose boys don't survive this totally unnecessary procedure? Is it the inalienable right of a parent to risk their child's life for no reason whatsoever?

Dave

 

[Ryokan]

I guess this is what I don't understand. In my experience, skin is moveable everywhere. I have moveable skin on my forearm, and on the back of my heel. The skin on the front of my ears is moveable. The skin on the bridge of my nose is moveable. It seems to be the nature of the organ that skin moves.

There's varying degrees of movable.

Man, I'm just going by what I read on the internet, written for and by people who are circumcised. You say you easily and most commonly 'dry' masturbate. Are you so sure this is the most common way for circumcised men? Google searches on the matter leads me to believe it's not, and that 'dry' masturbation has complications of its own, like soreness, but I'm more than willing to be proven wrong. My own experiences with the matter is, logically, limited.

Mm hmm, and removing a wart makes a nose imperfect.

It's just a bit of skin. I don't really care if Cindy Crawford decides to keep her mole as an adult, but if her parents had decided to remove it when she was a child I don't think I would have called it mutilation.

I don't think women in general admire penises as much as men think they should, but I've never had anything but compliments. When my undies hit the floor, no one's ever recoiled and said "My God, what happened to you?!?"

Well, women you're likely to meet have probably seen an uncircumcised penis before. Women I'm likely to meet would probably have the reaction you describe, especially if the top of the shaft looked scarred like some circumcised penises tend to look (Lots of porn is American, so I've seen quite a few of them.).

Anyway, I think I can speak for the majority of those opposed to circumcision in this thread that we're willing to toss aside all other arguments in favor if this one: It's simply wrong to cut of bits of babies, whether it's a boy or a girl. It's wrong to modify a person's body in a way that he can never amend.

And to compare it to removing a mole looks like grasping at straws, really. But, whatever, I would gladly accept your ban on removing moles from children if it also meant a ban on cutting of parts of their genitals.

 

[Polaris]

One of us has obviously been watching the wrong kind of movies.

Dave

Ok, technically shows. It came up in episodes of Nip/Tuck and Sex In the City (yeah, I'll cop to it - when you don't get premium channels, you watch whatever's on them when you get the chance).

As far as those movies go...9 times out of 10 there isn't a penis in them at all, so it's a non-issue. I do sometimes see a woman with excess...lip, but I wouldn't suggest she have it cut off for aesthetics.

 

[Dave Rogers]

But, whatever, I would gladly accept your ban on removing moles from children if it also meant a ban on cutting of parts of their genitals.

Tell you what; how about we only do either of these things when a doctor says it's medically necessary? That works pretty well for me.

Dave

 

[Ryokan]

Tell you what; how about we only do either of these things when a doctor says it's medically necessary? That works pretty well for me.

Dave

Maybe I should've added, 'except for medical reasons', but I thought it went without saying.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Maybe I should've added, 'except for medical reasons', but I thought it went without saying.

Apparently some people believe that removing facial tumours is sometimes just done for the lulz.

Dave

 

[zeggman]

But if there's probably no need to do it, why are you saying that we are making a fuss about removing it?

If it's just a bit of skin, you wouldn't care either way, and this discussion wouldn't interest you.

There is no need to get a haircut or trim your beard either, but (outside of Sharialand) no one is proposing legislation mandating or banning it. No one is proposing legislation to prevent parents from removing moles, or restoring harelips.

I agree, there's no medical reason to do it, and (outside of those for whom it is a religious ritual) it's purely an exercise in aesthetics.

It is still just a bit of skin. If someone was arguing that we needed a law to prevent parents from removing moles, restoring harelips, or piercing ears, I'd be interested in that discussion too.

The argument that this irreversibly mutilates a child seems nonsensical. No one I know who is circumcised is clamoring to have foreskin restoration surgery, but it's available for anyone who feels the need.

 

[zeggman]

Would that include the few whose boys don't survive this totally unnecessary procedure? Is it the inalienable right of a parent to risk their child's life for no reason whatsoever?

Yes, just as it's the right of a parent to buckle a child into a car and drive to a restaurant rather than have food safely delivered to them at home.

Still, I would be interested in reading the list of boys who were circumcised in a hospital or doctor's office and didn't survive the procedure. It can't be a very long list.

 

[jdp]

There is no need to get a haircut or trim your beard either, but (outside of Sharialand) no one is proposing legislation mandating or banning it. No one is proposing legislation to prevent parents from removing moles, or restoring harelips.

Haircuts are not permanent alterations, hair can grow back as do toe and finger nails since that is typically the next step. A harelip is clearly a birth defect, which I think warrants correction. Your best argument might be the mole but even here I don’t see how it can compare, as others have pointed out, it's a benign tumor and even at that removal isn't typically considered as a matter of routine it's typically situational.

It is still just a bit of skin.

This is a subjective assement that only the indiviual can make. For some, it's erogenous tissue.

The argument that this irreversibly mutilates a child seems nonsensical. No one I know who is circumcised is clamoring to have foreskin restoration surgery, but it's available for anyone who feels the need.

I don't see how it's non-sensical, it's certainly irreversible and can fall under the definition of a mutilation just like the lighter forms of FGM fall under that definition, see the blogs I posted earlier. Restoration surgery is very rare, more often non-surgical techniques are used that take many years to complete. I've met those who manufacture and sell the devices and sales are brisk.

 

[jdp]

Yes, just as it's the right of a parent to buckle a child into a car and drive to a restaurant rather than have food safely delivered to them at home.

Still, I would be interested in reading the list of boys who were circumcised in a hospital or doctor's office and didn't survive the procedure. It can't be a very long list.

When it's non-therapuetic and non-consensual, does it matter how long the list is?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Yes, just as it's the right of a parent to buckle a child into a car and drive to a restaurant rather than have food safely delivered to them at home.

Which has well-understood benefits in terms of social interactions and personal enjoyment, neither of which is the case with circumcision.

Still, I would be interested in reading the list of boys who were circumcised in a hospital or doctor's office and didn't survive the procedure. It can't be a very long list.

(1) It's not zero length, and (2) death isn't the only known complication.

Dave

 

[zeggman]

I've met those who manufacture and sell the devices and sales are brisk.

Well, then, I guess I stand corrected.

I don't think my life is any better for having been circumcised, but neither do I think it's any worse. While I respect the argument that children should be allowed to choose, I also respect the argument that parents should be allowed to choose. If the practice should be ended, I prefer that it be done via education rather than legislation, which (since I'm neither German nor Norwegian) is I guess how it will be, at least where I live.

 

[ixolite]

Furthermore, I do not live in a jurisdiction where this is considered child abuse, so I'd appreciate it if everyone would abstain from that insult.

There are countries where honor killings aren't considered murder. Does that make them less so?

Here's where another educational discussion at the JREF descends into a semantic argument.

Male circumcision removes the prepuce, which in the vast majority of cases does not reduce or impede sexual performance or, despite unsubstantiated claims to the contrary, sexual feeling.

So one can cut 20000 nervendings off and there will be no ill effects? (The (outer) clitoris has less nervendings, btw.)

Female genital mutilation removes the clitoris and the external and inner labia. This removes the possibility of any sexual feeling for a woman and turns her entire genitalia into a gaping wound.

Call it what you want, but conflating the two as related is disingenuous and IMO reduces the horrific act of violence that is FGM. The two procedures are wholly, materially different.

Wrong.


Furthermore:

The group of 137 women, affected by different types of FGM/C, reported orgasm in almost 86%, always 69.23%; 58 mutilated young women reported orgasm in 91.43%, always 8.57%; after defibulation 14 out of 15 infibulated women reported orgasm

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17970975

 

[Dave Rogers]

I don't think my life is any better for having been circumcised, but neither do I think it's any worse.

If this were the attitude of everyone who had been circumcised, there might be less of a problem. As we have seen, though, it is not. There are people who think their life is no worse for having been circumcised, those who think their life is no worse for not having been circumcised, and those who think it is worse for having been circumcised. There may also be those who think it is worse for not having been circumcised, but they can choose to be circumcised. Those who have been, without giving consent, can't be un-circumcised.

So basically your argument boils down to "I'm OK, so why should I care about anyone else?"

Dave

 

[brazenlilraisin]

<snipped>

I was cut at 25 and can assure you and all who read this conflation of circumcision with FGM that you're trying to push...that your pushing a cartful of crap.

Edited by LashL: 

Edited for civility.