German court bans circumcision of young boys

[Alt+F4]

Circumcision is cutting off a part of their body, leaving them screaming in pain with a bloody wound.

I have no opinion on the circumcision issue but you are wrong about the "screaming in pain". All five of my nephews, when they got "the cut" were back in 5 minutes and not a single cry. Also, the wounds were not bloody.

 

[brazenlilraisin]

Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.

 

[ddt]

I think we need to leave zeggman alone, otherwise he's going to start sending us pictures testifying to that grand aesthetic marvel of his, and I really don't want that. Let him have his victory; I'm not prepared for the psychological damage.

LOL, yes. I wondered a couple of posts back already if he was an exhibitionist. Highlighting mine:

If you think it's accurate, just keep using it as your alpha and omega. I (or one of my minions) will be standing right there with a big old smirk on my face saying "Does this look mutilated to you?"

And while saying that, you open your raincoat to reveal you're not wearing anything under it?

 

[Megalodon]

As my eye drifts down the page, I see you prancing from your standard "mutilation" mantra to imply that circumcision is on par with branding a child with a hot iron. If anyone is flouncing into the conversation with overblown histrionics, it's you sweetie.

That wooshing sound you heard was my point going over your head.

But since you didn't like the comparison, let's explore it for a bit, comparing the common practice of circumcision with a hypothetical common practice of newborn branding.

Common to both:

Non-consensual;
Hideously painful;
Painful recovery;
High risk of complications, including death;
Permanent body alteration;
Child doesn't remember it;
Adult has a sense of belonging to the community due to the scar;
Parents easily coaxed into continuing the practice.

Restricted to circumcision:

Higher risk of sexual dysfunction.

Actually, branding comes out looking good when compared to circumcision.

 

[Megalodon]

I have no opinion on the circumcision issue but you are wrong about the "screaming in pain". All five of my nephews, when they got "the cut" were back in 5 minutes and not a single cry. Also, the wounds were not bloody.

Congratulations, you saw babies in shock. You can see videos of circumcisions online. You can hear them scream in pain, and then enter a state of shock and become very quiet.

But as someone else said "Never let the facts get in the way of a good story."

 

[Alt+F4]

Hideously painful;
Painful recovery;

I'm just going to address these two, because you are wrong. I've been there for 5 cuts and in 3 of them the baby didn't even wake up. Let's call this whole circumcision "debate" for what it is, don't ever go near my penis with a knife, just shut up and worship it.

There are so many more important things in the world to worry about other then this. War, cancer, being forced to go to a Bruno Mars concert. Those opposed to circumcision, well don't circumcise your sons. As for those who were circumcised as babies against their will, well deal with it. It ain't growing back. Hate your parents, go to grief counseling for your foreskin but please stop with the whining...what's done is done.

 

[Alt+F4]

You can see videos of circumcisions online.

Argument via YouTube never works with me. "I saw a video so it must be true!" is a weak argument.

 

[zeggman]

Good luck getting these folk to stop the circumcision ritual.

http://www.brentstirton.com/feature-xhosa.php

We may be able to outlaw circumcision in western countries, but i think the danger of this is driving the practice underground.

I don't think you'll probably be able to outlaw it in the United States.

I'm not sure you'll be able to outlaw it elsewhere, though in the UK they seem to have severely restricted freedom of speech, so you never know.

The simple fact that on occasion there are strong medical justifications for performing circumcision suggests that it would be counterproductive to ban it outright. With that said, it really comes down to a decision between the doctor and the patient, or the doctor and the parents in the case of a minor child.

With all the howling we're hearing today about government "getting in between doctor and patient" over America's affordable health care act (when, at most, that's merely the government getting the opportunity to pay the doctor instead of the patient paying the doctor directly) I can just imagine the outrage and chest thumping we'd see if the government ACTUALLY got in between doctors and patients.

Would people have to go to foreskin court and get a warrant to seize a foreskin, or would there simply be a Bureau of Foreskins at which one could check the proper box and pay a fee for the privilege?

All you circ crusaders would really have the best chance of reducing the practice by honestly educating doctors and parents in this country, if honest education led them to conclude that the practice was inadvisable in most cases.

If honest education doesn't lead to that conclusion (and I think it's an open question), then even if you convince legislators to pass a law, you may (as the post to which I'm replying suggests) only succeed in jeopardizing more children, as "back alley circumcisions" appear to fill a market demand, just as back alley abortions were the norm when abortion was illegal.

 

[Megalodon]

I'm just going to address these two, because you are wrong. I've been there for 5 cuts and in 3 of them the baby didn't even wake up.

Earlier you were there when they brought them out. But regardless, I don't believe your little anecdote. That a baby would have his foreskin cut without waking up would be impossible without strong anesthetics or a coma. It just goes against the way the pain reflex works.

Let's call this whole circumcision "debate" for what it is, don't ever go near my penis with a knife, just shut up and worship it.

If you're going to call the circumcision debate for what it is, it would have to be child abusers trying to excuse and perpetuate child abuse.

There are so many more important things in the world to worry about other then this. War, cancer, being forced to go to a Bruno Mars concert. Those opposed to circumcision, well don't circumcise your sons. As for those who were circumcised as babies against their will, well deal with it. It ain't growing back. Hate your parents, go to grief counseling for your foreskin but please stop with the whining...what's done is done.

Yes we know, the old 'why can't you just let us keep doing [insert historic barbarity here]'.

Like with any kind of woo, just think why you repudiate other forms of child abuse, and you'll know why I repudiate yours.

Argument via YouTube never works with me. "I saw a video so it must be true!" is a weak argument.

You can keep your head buried in the sand as long as you want. By all means keep believing that your nephews magically didn't endure any pain, even as a scalpel cut through an enormous density of nerve endings, and the foreskin was ripped of the glans, leaving it bare. Keep believing that your siblings didn't mutilate their children while you sat there as an accomplice. Just rejoice in the memory of your bovine smiles as you perpetuated a Bronze Age ritual, to the sacrifice of your babies physical integrity. That will do the trick. After all, ignorance is bliss.

 

[zeggman]

Congratulations, you saw babies in shock. You can see videos of circumcisions online. You can hear them scream in pain, and then enter a state of shock and become very quiet.

But as someone else said "Never let the facts get in the way of a good story."

The fact is, anaesthesia can make the procedure painless, so that isn't why it bothers you.

 

[ddt]

I don't think you'll probably be able to outlaw it in the United States.

I'm not sure you'll be able to outlaw it elsewhere, though in the UK they seem to have severely restricted freedom of speech, so you never know.

The difference being that doctors in other countries are clear on the issue and see the operation for what it is - medically unnecessary in the vast majority of cases.

If honest education doesn't lead to that conclusion (and I think it's an open question), then even if you convince legislators to pass a law, you may (as the post to which I'm replying suggests) only succeed in jeopardizing more children, as "back alley circumcisions" appear to fill a market demand, just as back alley abortions were the norm when abortion was illegal.

For the vast majority of Americans who have their baby boys circumcised, it's only out of a faint cultural tradition, so they'd most likely just wouldn't do it. There's a vast difference in importance between having to raise a child (or not) or living with a foreskin or not.

On the other side of the spectrum, you have (ultra) orthodox Jews who already do the equivalent of a back-alley operation: they let the mohel suck the blood off the penis with his mouth. And then keep their mouths shut who the killer was.

So I don't see much room for the danger you sketch.

 

[Ryokan]

I'm not sure you'll be able to outlaw it elsewhere, though in the UK they seem to have severely restricted freedom of speech, so you never know.

What, did they introduce free speech zones?

 

[jhunter1163]

Address the argument, not the arguer, and remain civil and polite.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jhunter1163

 

[Megalodon]

The fact is, anaesthesia can make the procedure painless, so that isn't why it bothers you.

You're partially right, in that it is only part of what bothers me. My main objection is still one of the child right to physical integrity, and how flimsy religio-cultural excuses shouldn't trump it in any way.

 

[jdp]

I'm just going to address these two, because you are wrong. I've been there for 5 cuts and in 3 of them the baby didn't even wake up. Let's call this whole circumcision "debate" for what it is, don't ever go near my penis with a knife, just shut up and worship it.

Nope, it's more of a human rights and ethical practice of medicine issue.

There are so many more important things in the world to worry about other then this. War, cancer, being forced to go to a Bruno Mars concert. Those opposed to circumcision, well don't circumcise your sons. As for those who were circumcised as babies against their will, well deal with it. It ain't growing back. Hate your parents, go to grief counseling for your foreskin but please stop with the whining...what's done is done.

Why should they have to 'deal' with it? Is this the advice you'd give to those who under went FGM against their will? We should be showing them empathy and encouraging them to speak out, the more who speak out the more we'll hear from and the faster we'll stop this practice.

I don't think you'll probably be able to outlaw it in the United States.

For the time being, you're right. Doctors in the US are not willing to take a stand and protect boys today. Hopefully, that will change but it will no doubt take a long time.

I'm not sure you'll be able to outlaw it elsewhere, though in the UK they seem to have severely restricted freedom of speech, so you never know.

On this I disagree. I think we'll move closer to a potential or defacto ban in some European countries. Unlike the US, doctors in most European countries are well aware of the pointlessness of circumcision and have been making some increasingly interesting noise about it (it's only typically done there for silly religious or actual medical need). In the last two or three years, those that come to mind in particular: Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, the Netherlands, and now Germany where the issue has been discussed in their medical community, ethics groups and at various levels of government. In these cases typically very severe restrictions are proposed, some talk of bans. I am not sure who gets the prize for most progressive, perhaps the Netherlands since their medical association actually produced a policy statement that strongly discourages circumcision and encourages opening the door for the discussion of an eventual ban.

The simple fact that on occasion there are strong medical justifications for performing circumcision suggests that it would be counterproductive to ban it outright.

That has never been the goal. The goal is to ban routine non-therapuetic circumcision.

Would people have to go to foreskin court and get a warrant to seize a foreskin, or would there simply be a Bureau of Foreskins at which one could check the proper box and pay a fee for the privilege?

All you circ crusaders would really have the best chance of reducing the practice by honestly educating doctors and parents in this country, if honest education led them to conclude that the practice was inadvisable in most cases.

Do you have to go through hoops to get a diseased or damaged tooth pullled? Didn't think so, that's how it would look.

If honest education doesn't lead to that conclusion (and I think it's an open question), then even if you convince legislators to pass a law, you may (as the post to which I'm replying suggests) only succeed in jeopardizing more children, as "back alley circumcisions" appear to fill a market demand, just as back alley abortions were the norm when abortion was illegal.

Funny, this argument is never seriously considered with relation to FGM bans.

 

[Polaris]

The fact is, anaesthesia can make the procedure painless, so that isn't why it bothers you.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't anaesthesia not done on infants due to high risk of complication except in the case of emergency surgery?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't anaesthesia not done on infants due to high risk of complication except in the case of emergency surgery?

In any case, general anaesthesia has its own mortality rate. Wikipedia suggests that a minimal estimate is about 1 in 200,000, which is enough to be seriously concerned about on its own for a procedure with no adequate medical justification.

Dave

 

[zeggman]

[Banning all circumcisions] has never been the goal. The goal is to ban routine non-therapuetic circumcision.

Okay, but here in the United States we also have doctor-patient privilege. If it isn't an outright ban, I don't see how you're going to prevent people from saying that there is therapeutic justification when in fact it's the same cosmetic, cultural preference, or religious reason that exists today. So in practice, I don't see anti-circumcision activists really being satisfied with a legal ban on only non-therapeutic circumcisions.

Do you have to go through hoops to get a diseased or damaged tooth pullled? Didn't think so, that's how it would look.

We don't have to go through hoops to get ANY tooth pulled. Now that I think about it, in addition to having my wisdom teeth pulled, I had four other teeth pulled, for purely cosmetic reasons. Just counted - 12 top, 12 bottom. The "medical justification" was that I had too many damn teeth for my mouth, so to give the orthodontist room to work, I had four perfectly healthy teeth extracted.

My god, there was just no sating my parents' compulsion to remove healthy parts from my perfect little body!

I remember I cried when they pulled those teeth. Now, instead of being a bucktoothed big mouth, I have to flash "straight" teeth every time I smile.

The nerve of those bastards not letting me go through high school looking like Bugs Bunny. I could always have decided to have my teeth straightened when I became an adult.

There oughta be a law.

 

[Ryokan]

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't anaesthesia not done on infants due to high risk of complication except in the case of emergency surgery?

General anesthesia isn't used on infants, but local anesthesia often is. It isn't always used during circumcision on infants, though, especially among Jews.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Okay, but here in the United States we also have doctor-patient privilege. If it isn't an outright ban, I don't see how you're going to prevent people from saying that there is therapeutic justification when in fact it's the same cosmetic, cultural preference, or religious reason that exists today.

If an infant dies after a circumcision, there will be a lot of pressure on the doctor to justify the medical rationale for the procedure. If he can't, then there'll be a lawsuit, a prosecution and a big stink. Doctors are, on the whole, intelligent enough to realise that's not a situation they want to find themselves in, so they'll be reluctant to agree to a circumcision where there isn't a medical justification for it. In fact, that appears to be exactly what's happening in Germany right now.

Dave