German court bans circumcision of young boys

[zeggman]

Can anybody give me one single reason why pulling babies' toenails out could not be justified, in exactly the same terms circumcision is justified?

I'll give you two.

One reason which accords your completely irrelevant parallel the respect it deserves:
If you're skinny dipping, toenails make it more difficult for snapping turtles to nip off the ends of your toes. Sadly, the same cannot be said of foreskin.

And the real reason:
Nobody prefers the "no toenail" look. Lots of people prefer the "no foreskin" look.

 

[Rolfe]

And the real reason:
Nobody prefers the "no toenail" look. Lots of people prefer the "no foreskin" look.

Well, let the boys decide for themselves whether they prefer that "look" and want to have body modification surgery to achieve it.

Don't force it on them before they're old enough to decide whether they're "lots of people" or not!

And thanks for admitting that this is all about fashion and nothing else.

Rolfe.

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

I'll give you two.

One reason which accords your completely irrelevant parallel the respect it deserves:
If you're skinny dipping, toenails make it more difficult for snapping turtles to nip off the ends of your toes. Sadly, the same cannot be said of foreskin.

And the real reason:
Nobody prefers the "no toenail" look. Lots of people prefer the "no foreskin" look.

Social conditioning.

I begin to sound like a broken record.

Oh no wait, YOU sound like a broken record.

 

[zeggman]

And thanks for admitting that this is all about fashion and nothing else.

That isn't what I admitted.

I do think, for most people, it's mostly about fashion.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Nobody prefers the "no toenail" look. Lots of people prefer the "no foreskin" look.

Are you a troll?

 

[zeggman]

Are you a troll?

No, are you?

 

[pgwenthold]

Funny the aesthetic angle is heavily emphasized when dealing with orthodontia, and there is often questionable necessity (and sometimes efficacy), yet no-one insists that orthodontia is "mutilation".

Also done on older children.

 

[Rolfe]

That isn't what I admitted.

I do think, for most people, it's mostly about fashion.

Right. And it's still OK to allow parents to decide to have body-modification surgery performed on their infant sons, thus depriving them of the choice of whether to have that done or not, when they're old enough to decide? Just for fashion?

Rolfe.

 

[Rasmus]

And the real reason:
Nobody prefers the "no toenail" look. Lots of people prefer the "no foreskin" look.

So, if people did prefer the no toenail look, it would be okay? How big a community would that require?

 

[jdp]

Maybe maybe not, depends on what comes back from the biopsy and pathology reports, history, and risk factors. At the very least it may be a good idea as a prophylactic precaution.

And if it wasn't? Did she mutilate herself?

Whatever treatment regimen was used, whether it was a unilateral mastectomy, bilateral mastectomy, lumpectomy, or only chemo and/or radiation, there was almost certainly a strong therapeutic or prophylactic reason for it. If there wasn't, I doubt you could find a surgical oncologist (or a regular surgeon for that matter) to perform the procedure. You can't say the same thing for infant/child circumcision, especially in North America.

Perhaps you could tell us what would you say if it was done against her will, no cancer present? How would she see that situation?

Not really, because emotional appeal is part of the anti-circumcision rhetoric.

Nearly all causes or groups pushing social changes use emotional appeals. Just look at the emotional pile shoveled by religious leaders opposed to the ruling.

 

[zeggman]

Right. And it's still OK to allow parents to decide to have body-modification surgery performed on their infant sons, thus depriving them of the choice of whether to have that done or not, when they're old enough to decide? Just for fashion?

Yes, it is, just as it's still OK to allow parents to decide to have ears shifted, or teeth pulled and straightened, even though these body-modification surgeries could also be deferred until the child is old enough to decide.

You should probably have an easier time convincing parents not to perform circumcisions. Not many people would prefer crooked teeth or protruding ears, but some people would prefer to have their foreskin. Make sure parents who are making choices for their children have that information as part of their informed consent.

 

[zeggman]

So, if people did prefer the no toenail look, it would be okay?

Not necessarily. The lack of toenails may introduce problems of which I'm unaware. We don't have data going back centuries, or a large population of people who have lived their lives without toenails, which shows that it doesn't negatively impact health or quality of life.

 

[catsmate]

The whole pulling out of nails argument is a straw man. A veternarian should know that.

Do you actually understand what a 'straw man argument' means?

People don't generally use the N-word to refer to people of African descent living outside of Africa, because the N-word, despite accurately describing the aforementioned people, bear extremely negative emotional connotations.

Given that "mutilation" carries similar negative, emotional connotations, referring to circumcision as "mutilation", however "technically" correct the speaker or writer may consider such a reference to be, is in appropriate and unnecessarily inflammatory.

Wow, even by the nonsense posted in this thread this is silly.

If we all promise to stop using the word "mutilate" or any form thereof, can we get back to discussing the actual topic of the OP?

No. They'll find some other minor nit to pick. Like the evolution deniers.

Not really, because emotional appeal is part of the anti-circumcision rhetoric.

So, if people did prefer the no toenail look, it would be okay? How big a community would that require?

Only if they have a Holy Book and Tradition.

 

[JJM 777]

parents to decide to have body-modification surgery performed on their infant sons, thus depriving them of the choice of whether to have that done or not

Not sure exactly in what kind of cases cosmetic surgery is offered by the state to children, and at what age. Cleft lip is an example where many states intervene with cosmetic surgery at age 9 months. Focusing on "modification" or "for fashion" might not lead us anywhere, the bottom line is what we understand as "natural" and "beneficial" for the child. If a pill existed that safely glues up the appendix of a child once and for good, they would probably be prescribed to infants in nationwide campaigns.

 

[JJM 777]

If I slip a finger behind each ear, and make them protrude, it's undeniable that I can hear sounds in front of me more loudly than when they don't protrude.

That would be ideal, if all sounds came directly from front of us. But wait.

 

[zeggman]

That would be ideal, if all sounds came directly from front of us. But wait.

This would be relevant, if our heads were incapable of rotating so that we could best hear a sound while simultaneously best seeing the source of that sound. But wait.

 

[Rasmus]

Not necessarily. The lack of toenails may introduce problems of which I'm unaware. We don't have data going back centuries, or a large population of people who have lived their lives without toenails, which shows that it doesn't negatively impact health or quality of life.

Right, but assume for the sake of the argument that it doesn't have worse negative effects than a few dead baby's here and there every year.

 

[Darat]

Not sure exactly in what kind of cases cosmetic surgery is offered by the state to children, and at what age. Cleft lip is an example where many states intervene with cosmetic surgery at age 9 months. ...snip....

Again - cleft lip an cleft palate correction surgery is carried out because of the many serious complications arising from the abnormality, any cosmetic improvement is incidental to the reason the surgery is carried out..

 

[Arcade22]

Can anybody give me one single reason why pulling babies' toenails out could not be justified, in exactly the same terms circumcision is justified?

Other than, we've always done it, or God told us to do it, of course.

Rolfe.

All the arguments this far can be summed up as "As a parent i should be able to raise my kids as i see fit! Even if it harms them! (but i won't give the same rights to other parents because I'm a hypocritical scumbag)." and "My religion/culture is special so we need special rights! And if you don't give us special rights I'll scream Nazi fascist as loud as i can and be as pathetically offended i can be!"

 

[Rolfe]

Not necessarily. The lack of toenails may introduce problems of which I'm unaware. We don't have data going back centuries, or a large population of people who have lived their lives without toenails, which shows that it doesn't negatively impact health or quality of life.

Well, when you find such data for circumcision, get back to us.

Rolfe.