German court bans circumcision of young boys

JJM 777 said:
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.
Click to expand...


Not before there had been rigorous safety studies and a large body of literature demonstrating both safety and efficacy. Also, nobody would go near infants with it unless it had also been shown that later treatment wasn't possible.

Now, if you can find something as serious as appendicitis that circumcision prevents with say a 99% success rate, we'd probably be having a different discussion here.

Rolfe.
 
Arcade22 said:
"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!"
Click to expand...

And guess what?

Just read ...

Seriously, they are completely out of touch with reality. Oh, and here's another one, directly from the horse's mouth.

The rabbi conference also stated things like, you know, the new language of antisemitism is the language of human rights.

Their arguments are plain stupid. Seems they simply did not think it through, or are unable to do so, if they want to justify it with stuff like "uh, well, its an old religious tradition!". I'd love to hear if they are OK if i would go around, cutting hearts out of live humans, and then tell them "duh, that's just an old religious tradition from the aztecs, and i happen to follow their religion!".

What i really find troublesome is their constant harping about antisemitism. Don't they recognize that the more often and quicker they pull out the antisemitism-weapon, it will quickly become a really blunt weapon? And comparing the courts ruling against circumcision with the holocaust? Really? Are they that stupid?

Greetings,

Chris
 
Last edited:
ddt said:
From the series of posts, it seems rather that you keep harping on about the use of the word by lack of substantive arguments.
Click to expand...

One would think that the emotional rhetoric used by anti-circumcision advocates would be relevant

ddt said:
As for the double masectomy example, the patient herself is an adult and can make an informed decision for herself. A baby who gets circumcised not.
Click to expand...

You are ignoring the fact that Rolfe has designated elective cosmetic surgery "mutilation", so it doesn't seen that informed consent is a prerequisite for a procedure's not being mutilation.
 
On the other hand, the position that informed consent is a prerequisite for mutilations which are purely cosmetic in nature is not an illogical one at all.

You know, resorting to pointing out that adult women may choose to undergo double mastectomies is not a good way to defend infant circumcision.

Rolfe.
 
So what exactly constitutes "mutilation"? Lack of medical necessity? Lack of informed consent? Permanence?
 
Body modification (that is, modification of an originally normal body) for cosmetic or management reasons.

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:
Body modification (that is, modification of an originally normal body) for cosmetic or management reasons.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

Despite what I have said in the past, I am not going to tell you what the One True Meaning™ of "mutilation" is, but the issue (which I have not done a good job articulating) is not so much if "mutilation" has one fixed meaning, or even several fixed meanings, but more how you will be understood when you refer to people who have undergone whatever procedure is under discussion as "mutilated". Most people don't see elective, cosmetic procedures as "mutilation" unless there are extreme adverse consequences for that specific person (e.g., dermabrasion that results in permanent scarring). Insisting that the person is "really" mutilated because they fit some "technical" definition of "mutilated" is more likely to invite offense than promote understanding, precisely because of the association of mutilation with adverse outcome.
 
mijopaalmc said:
So what exactly constitutes "mutilation"? Lack of medical necessity? Lack of informed consent? Permanence?
Click to expand...

Negative view or opinion of a body modification IMO. I, for example,would never call a tattoo a mutilation: I love tattoos, and have quite a few. My mother, on the other hand, would and does. By the definition of the word, she's right, but she only uses the word because of her (very) negative view of tattoos.
 
mijopaalmc said:
Despite what I have said in the past, I am not going to tell you what the One True Meaning™ of "mutilation" is, but the issue (which I have not done a good job articulating) is not so much if "mutilation" has one fixed meaning, or even several fixed meanings, but more how you will be understood when you refer to people who have undergone whatever procedure is under discussion as "mutilated". Most people don't see elective, cosmetic procedures as "mutilation" unless there are extreme adverse consequences for that specific person (e.g., dermabrasion that results in permanent scarring). Insisting that the person is "really" mutilated because they fit some "technical" definition of "mutilated" is more likely to invite offense than promote understanding, precisely because of the association of mutilation with adverse outcome.
Click to expand...

Your point is unquestionably valid, mutilation can very much be a subjective description. One might instead use the wiki definition, an act of physical injury that degrades the appearance or function of any living body, sometimes causing death.
 
jdp said:
Your point is unquestionably valid, mutilation can very much be a subjective description. One might instead use the wiki definition, an act of physical injury that degrades the appearance or function of any living body, sometimes causing death.
Click to expand...

And there is question as to whether circumcision actually "degrades the appearance or function" of the penis, because the appearance and function of the genitals is itself a subjective evaluation.
 
Indeed. Now wouldn't it be just peachy if the decision about how the appearance and function should be, was left to the owner of the organ? Especially as this is basically a fashion statement?

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:
Indeed. Now wouldn't it be just peachy if the decision about how the appearance and function should be, was left to the owner of the organ? Especially as this is basically a fashion statement?

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

And the decision to undergo orthodontic procedures is not often left up to the owner of the teeth. Any analysis of circumcision as "mutilation" is going to have to address other procedures that parents compel their children to undergo in the name of medical necessity.
 
I've seen no compelling argument why circumcision should not be a decision left to adults to make for their own bodies.
 
mijopaalmc said:
And the decision to undergo orthodontic procedures is not often left up to the owner of the teeth. Any analysis of circumcision as "mutilation" is going to have to address other procedures that parents compel their children to undergo in the name of medical necessity.
Click to expand...


Like female genital cutting?

Oh wait....

If you seriously think the amputation of the entire prepuce from infant boys has to be allowed because we allow corrective dentistry to be carried out on minors (that is, children whose permanent teeth are erupting), I think you're delusional.

Rolfe.
 
Last edited:
mijopaalmc said:
So far people haven't made that argument.
Click to expand...


That's exactly the argument that is being made, by those not completely hung up on semantics.

Circumcision is a decision that should be left to adults. To make about their own bodies, not anyone else's.

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:
That's exactly the argument that is being made, by those not completely hung up on semantics.

Circumcision is a decision that should be left to adults. To make about their own bodies, not anyone else's.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

No, it's not. The argument currently in the thread is whether circumcision is mutilation.
 
Rolfe said:
Like female genital cutting?

Oh wait....

If you seriously think the amputation of the entire prepuce from infant boys has to be allowed because we allow corrective dentistry to be carried out on minors (that is, children whose permanent teeth are erupting), I think you're delusional.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

I told you my parents had my deciduous eye-teeth extracted to close a gap between my incisors. It didn't work, and my current dentist tells me that the procedure would never have achieved the desired outcome. I didn't legally consent do the procedure; my parents did.

Did they have me mutilated?
 
mijopaalmc said:
No, it's not. The argument currently in the thread is whether circumcision is mutilation.
Click to expand...


That's the argument you're having with yourself. The rest of us are more interested in advancing the argument that circumcision is a decision that should be left to the owner of the penis when he is old enough to decide for himself without pressure.

Rolfe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom