German court bans circumcision of young boys

[ddt]

I'm responding to the completely irrelevant parallels which are being dredged in my direction (labias, in the post you're quoting).


Obviously they do: repairing a harelip is a cosmetic body modification.

Since it's a surgery, and no surgery is free of risk, I'm sure there are probably tales of unfortunate complications which resulted from those too.

I would agree that there is more justification for repairing harelips than there is for circumcision, but neither surgery is, strictly speaking, necessary. In both cases (indeed, in all cases) I think the pros and cons should be weighed by the parents and physicians when deciding whether or not to authorize it.

Now there's an irrelevant parallel. Circumcision mutilates a perfectly normal body part, whereas corrective surgery of a cleft lip corrects an abnormality. And there are obvious problems with a cleft lip:

Cleft may cause problems with feeding, ear disease, speech and socialization.

and

Individuals with cleft also face many middle ear infections which can eventually lead to total hearing loss.

Another difference is that corrective surgery on a cleft lip is actually easier on an infant, whereas circumcision is harder.

 

[jdp]

There you go again, dredging up completely irrelevant parallels.

Exactly how (or why) do you find it an irrelevant parallel?

 

[zeggman]

Now there's an irrelevant parallel. Circumcision mutilates a perfectly normal body part, whereas corrective surgery of a cleft lip corrects an abnormality. And there are obvious problems with a cleft lip:

and


Another difference is that corrective surgery on a cleft lip is actually easier on an infant, whereas circumcision is harder.

It isn't clear what you're quoting here, and I think you may be conflating cleft lip with cleft palate.

I must also protest your use of "mutilates" for the umpteenth time, though I am mindful that this will no doubt provoke a cascade of "stop telling us you're not mutilated, and show some proper shame" posts.

 

[zeggman]

What's with this constant dredging up of completely irrelevant parallels relating to things which would never be done to newborn babies for no immediate therapeutic need.

Exactly how (or why) do you find

So the appropriate comparison might be having a child, and purposefully splitting his lip.

an irrelevant parallel?

Is it something that is done to newborn babies for no immediate therapeutic need? If not, we have deemed it an irrelevant parallel. Since experience shows that the in-group out-group dynamics which have not chided your post will inevitably chide my response, I choose not to rise to the bait.

 

[jdp]

Is it something that is done to newborn babies for no immediate therapeutic need? If not, we have deemed it an irrelevant parallel. Since experience shows that the in-group out-group dynamics which have not chided your post will inevitably chide my response, I choose not to rise to the bait.

I am still not following you. You try to draw a comparison of circumcision (which is non-therapeutic, isn't being done to correct a defect) to repairing a hairlip (which is correcting a defect and often may be therapeutic) clearly an irrelevant parallel. Yet when I correct your analogy and point out that circumcision essentially manufactures a birth defect, aposthia, which means the appropriate analogy is causing a hairlip (by splitting your son's lip at birth), you try and pass that off as an irrelevant parallel.

I am sorry but I am not following your logic, could you please try again?

 

[zeggman]

I [...] point out that circumcision essentially manufactures a birth defect, aposthia

Why do you insist on employing shaming language to describe a rare congenital condition which is simply a point on the spectrum of human variability, and no more a "defect" than blue eyes or red hair?

 

[Checkmite]

Oh for Christ's sake.

 

[jdp]

Why do you insist on employing shaming language to describe a rare congenital condition which is simply a point on the spectrum of human variability, and no more a "defect" than blue eyes or red hair?

To try and get you to better explain why you would try and draw an analogy between therapeutic procedures (such as correcting a birth defect) to non-therapeutic ones where it relates to the acceptability of proxy consent.

 

[zeggman]

To try and get you to better explain why you would try and draw an analogy between therapeutic procedures (such as correcting a birth defect) to non-therapeutic ones where it relates to the acceptability of proxy consent.

I think I've established that circumcision is marginally therapeutic. Whether it is sufficiently therapeutic to justify the potential risks of surgery in a given instance is a decision I think better left to the parents and physicians who can evaluate the specifics where we can only gesture at generalities.

 

[Checkmite]

I disagree. I don't think everyone accepts that as established.

 

[Rolfe]

I think I've established that circumcision is marginally therapeutic. Whether it is sufficiently therapeutic to justify the potential risks of surgery in a given instance is a decision I think better left to the parents and physicians who can evaluate the specifics where we can only gesture at generalities.

In a given instance? What sort of circumstances might sway a parent to consider surgical modification of a normal body part in a healthy newborn, I wonder?

Oh, in 18 years I predict he'll refuse to wear a condom and will engage in risky sex so I think a surgical modification now that reduces the chance of acquiring various STDs by about 2% is well worth it?

Oh, I know only a tiny percentage of boys get UTIs, and girls (who get far more) are easily treated, nevertheless in the case of my boy, I want surgery that will reduce the risk a little more?

Oh come on.

Nobody in their right mind would do something so drastic to a baby for minimal (if any) health benefits, if it weren't fashionable. I don't think fashion is a good enough reason to inflict a permanent surgical body modification on a newborn baby.

Rolfe.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Oh for Christ's sake.

Good point. Was he circumcised?

 

[zeggman]

Nobody in their right mind would do something so drastic to a baby for minimal (if any) health benefits, if it weren't fashionable. I don't think fashion is a good enough reason to inflict a permanent surgical body modification on a newborn baby.

People routinely do something so drastic to a baby when they fuse a cleft lip, simply because they prefer one sort of appearance to another. In that case, of course, most babies are born without a cleft lip, so you say one is "normal" and the other is not, but in fact they are both part of normal human variability. If the cleft lip is not going to cause health problems, fusing it is done strictly as a matter of fashion. I'm comfortable letting the parents decide whether to do it, delay it, or forego it altogether.

In the case of foreskins, most boys are born with one, so you feel justified in calling that "normal" and discouraging the operation that would change it into a different kind of "normal". I expect most parents would agree with you, but I'm comfortable letting the parents decide in this case too.

As I've been saying for hundreds of posts now, education will be the most effective deterrent. Well, maybe guaranteeing that insurance companies are not required to pay for circumcisions, and then education.

 

[zeggman]

Good point. Was he circumcised?

He was Jewish wasn't he? 'Nuff said.

 

[Rolfe]

Good point. Was he circumcised?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feast_of_the_Circumcision_of_Christ

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

People routinely do something so drastic to a baby when they fuse a cleft lip, simply because they prefer one sort of appearance to another. In that case, of course, most babies are born without a cleft lip, so you say one is "normal" and the other is not, but in fact they are both part of normal human variability. If the cleft lip is not going to cause health problems, fusing it is done strictly as a matter of fashion. I'm comfortable letting the parents decide whether to do it, delay it, or forego it altogether.

Exactly. If a baby is born with a minor abnormality which is not impairing health or function, it's absolutely possible to evaluate the specifics of that case and decide the best course of action for the child. That was precisely what I meant.

In the case of foreskins, most boys are born with one, so you feel justified in calling that "normal" and discouraging the operation that would change it into a different kind of "normal". I expect most parents would agree with you, but I'm comfortable letting the parents decide in this case too.

Oh, you've got as far as deciding that having an integral part of the body which is present in the overwhelming number of babies is only semantically "normal". Hint. If you have to change the meaning of actual language to defend your position, you're losing.

Just out of curiosity, is there any body part present in >99.999999999% of infants you wouldn't leave it up to the parents to decide to chop of for no readily apparent reason other than fashion?

"A different kind of normal."

As I've been saying for hundreds of posts now, education will be the most effective deterrent. Well, maybe guaranteeing that insurance companies are not required to pay for circumcisions, and then education.

Yeah, that's why they've legislated against FGM, because education works so well....

Oh wait....

Rolfe.

 

[ddt]

So what effect do the women say it has on their quality of life?

Why don't you do the research yourself? And are you going to do something about that huge bale of straw you built up?

t isn't clear what you're quoting here, and I think you may be conflating cleft lip with cleft palate.

Google is your friend; that was from the wiki page. The hearing problems may indeed be mainly associated with cleft palate, but there's plenty problems for cleft lip too. See, e.g., this WebMD page.

I must also protest your use of "mutilates" for the umpteenth time, though I am mindful that this will no doubt provoke a cascade of "stop telling us you're not mutilated, and show some proper shame" posts.

Boohoo, says the guy who uses the offensive term "harelip" instead of cleft lip. But I'll comply and change my wording to: "circumcision butchers a perfectly healthy body part".

I think I've established that circumcision is marginally therapeutic.

Given the quality of those studies, no, you have not established that.

 

[ddt]

Good point. Was he circumcised?

Luke 2:21:

21 On the eighth day, when it was time to circumcise the child, he was named Jesus, the name the angel had given him before he was conceived.

 

[zeggman]

Boohoo, says the guy who uses the offensive term "harelip" instead of cleft lip.

Yes, that was bad of me, and I apologize to anyone who was offended. Thank you for reminding me of the proper terminology, since I don't look for ways to be as offensive as possible without violating forum guidelines.

 

[jdp]

I think I've established that circumcision is marginally therapeutic. Whether it is sufficiently therapeutic to justify the potential risks of surgery in a given instance is a decision I think better left to the parents and physicians who can evaluate the specifics where we can only gesture at generalities.

You have not established that. You've established that some believe circumcision has some marginal prophylactic value not therapeutic value. Unless you believe that most boys are born with diseased or deformed foreskins.

In a given instance? What sort of circumstances might sway a parent to consider surgical modification of a normal body part in a healthy newborn, I wonder?

Typically social pressure and not knowing what the normal, healthy, body part looks like. Also a medical community who are not willing to stand up to parents.

People routinely do something so drastic to a baby when they fuse a cleft lip, simply because they prefer one sort of appearance to another.

And you continue to confuse the correction of a birth defect with correction for ....?