German court bans circumcision of young boys

[jdp]

So you're saying the Yoruba minority in Germany will be clamoring for this "special right" because one woman did it to her sons almost 40 years ago in the United Kingdom.

No, that's not what I am saying. What I am saying is that if Germany tries to carve out an exception in their law to allow circumcision (for boys only ), then they open themselves up to claims by other parents, from other cultures, who do other things to their children. And I'd like to see the [awkward and strained] song and dance that results from trying to allow circumcision but disallow a list of other similar practices.

Whether that claim is brought by someone in the Yoruba minority (or one of the many other groups that practice ritual scarification), an FGM proponent, or a group that's into tattoos is irrelevant. I can see no rational reason to permit circumcision and prohibit those other practices I listed, can you?

Incidentally, her sons consented to the procedure, which were said to be unlikely to leave a permanent scar, which by your own criteria would have made it acceptable by your own standards.

Funny, I never did say I thought the court was right did I? In fact, considering the fact that the child wanted it, it was part of his culture, he was 14, and this truly appears to be a de minimis type of practice, I see no reason there should have been any intervention.

Second link is broken, but again your argument is that "others" will challenge German courts for their "special rights" in Germany is that some Indonesian woman in Indonesia blogged about getting her daughter circumcised?

Well both links are here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8420401&postcount=128

No my argument is that Germany exposes themselves to that claim and if or when that occurs, I see no rational reason to allow one but not the other.

I doubt it, but for the sake of argument if you were able to find someone somewhere who wants to brand their baby,

Don't be so sure, the world is a warped place, we have cultures that circumcise infant boys.

 

[Christian Klippel]

So...in no way does your "clarification" contradict my interpretation of your initial statement. You're still making an absurd slippery slope argument that not making circumcision illegal will "open the floodgates" to all kinds of ridiculous things.

And also that judges in particular and society as a whole is just too stupid to make any kind of meaningful discernment between cutting off a piece of skin and murder.

Well, i tried to explain it to you with a different wording, since you seemed to be unable to grasp what i meant.

But hey, have at it. If you feel happy when you can misinterpret what somebody say, who am i to stop you? What you write here just adds to the arguments that "my side" has. Namely, that it it seems that those practices can only be defended by twisting reality, and that any reasonable argument against them is dismissed not by counter-arguments, but sheer willful misinterpretation.

At least i tried to clear it up for you. As said, have at it. And thanks for yet another good example of why there is little chance to have reason penetrate the mindset of the defenders.

At least in that respect your post was quite helpful.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Christian Klippel]

No, that's not what I am saying.

Maybe it helps if we say the exact opposite of what we mean? After all, his "counter-argument" to what i said is also based on something i never said, but which he seems to be under the impression i said anyways.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Mycroft]

No, that's not what I am saying. What I am saying is that if Germany tries to carve out an exception in their law to allow circumcision (for boys only ), then they open themselves up to claims by other parents, from other cultures, who do other things to their children.

Germany already allows circumcision and with the possible exception of the Nazi era, always has. So if you describe Germany as trying to "carve out an exception" then you are arguing from ignorance because the status-quo allows for it now. Further, for your slippery slope argument to make sense you need to account for why this hasn't already happened, not just speculate that it might happen in the future.

And I'd like to see the [awkward and strained] song and dance that results from trying to allow circumcision but disallow a list of other similar practices.

A lot of the anti-circumcision argument depends on changing definitions. First you equate it to FGM (Female Genital Mutilation) and allow the reader to conjure images in their minds of clitoral removal and/or closing the vaginal opening, then you produce "FGM" that's just a removal of a tiny pin-head sized piece of skin that doesn't change a woman's sexual enjoyment and probably can't even be detected later on in life. It's dishonest.

Whether that claim is brought by someone in the Yoruba minority (or one of the many other groups that practice ritual scarification), an FGM proponent, or a group that's into tattoos is irrelevant. I can see no rational reason to permit circumcision and prohibit those other practices I listed, can you?

One of those practices, ritual scarring of a 14 year-old, you said you wouldn't object to, so if you don't object to it, why assume anyone else would? You're crafting a straw-man argument by deliberately blurring distinctions then claiming someone else will have a hard time dealing with them.

Funny, I never did say I thought the court was right did I? In fact, considering the fact that the child wanted it, it was part of his culture, he was 14, and this truly appears to be a de minimis type of practice, I see no reason there should have been any intervention.

You held it up as an example of something Germany might have to allow if they continued to allow circumcision, so it's disingenuous of you to now claim it's not something you would object to.

No my argument is that Germany exposes themselves to that claim and if or when that occurs, I see no rational reason to allow one but not the other.

By your own admission at least one of the two examples you gave is not objectionable.
What's your opinion of the other one?

Don't be so sure, the world is a warped place, we have cultures that circumcise infant boys.

I understand that's an attempt at humor, but it really is representative of the anti-circumcision arguments. "It's bad because it's bad, m'kay?"

 

[Mycroft]

Well, i tried to explain it to you with a different wording, since you seemed to be unable to grasp what i meant.

Look, in no way did your "clarification" contradict my understanding. If you want to try again, feel free. If not, then it's not my fault you can't make yourself understood.

 

[Darat]

Yoruba culture, ritual scarification -- it even went to court:

http://webdb.lse.ac.uk/gender/Casefinaldetail.asp?id=54&pageno=1

Female circumcision - Indonesian, Somali, Middle East, ect..

http://aandes.blogspot.com/2010/04/circumcision.html
http://malaysiansupermummy.blogspot....baby-girl.html

I am sure I could find branding, and tatooing too, maybe Polyneasian perhaps Native American? There doesn't need to be hoards either, only a parent claiming it's part of their religion or culture.

NSFW: Photos of scarification http://www.randafricanart.com/Scarification_and_Cicatrisation_among_African_cultures.html

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

I understand that's an attempt at humor, but it really is representative of the anti-circumcision arguments. "It's bad because it's bad, m'kay?"

It's bad because it a freedom that's taken away.

If we can agree that it's bad to indoctrinate a child into a specific ideology, without giving the child a choice, then why would it be any different with such a drastic thing as circumcision?

In both cases we should give a child the choice to make decisions him/herself.

ETA: I would make an exception if the benefits far outweigh the risks.

 

[Mycroft]

It's bad because it a freedom that's taken away.

I'm circumcised, and I don't feel any less free for it.

If we can agree that it's bad to indoctrinate a child into a specific ideology, without giving the child a choice, then why would it be any different with such a drastic thing as circumcision?

Teaching your child your ideology is a fundamental part of parenting. I doubt you will find a lot of support for government interfering in that.

ETA: I would make an exception if the benefits far outweigh the risks.

Some people believe it does.

 

[Christian Klippel]

Germany already allows circumcision and with the possible exception of the Nazi era, always has.

Wrong. The German constitution clearly states that no injury or harm should be inflicted on another human. Circumcision does inflict exactly that.

It's just that it was not clearly spoken out before that circumcision does this. Which is what the cologne court stated. Which is also the reason the parents just so got away with it.

Really, at least try to grasp what this is about.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Christian Klippel]

Look, in no way did your "clarification" contradict my understanding. If you want to try again, feel free. If not, then it's not my fault you can't make yourself understood.

Like to have it step-by-step? OK, i can do that.

Do you agree that if one group of people gets exemptions from the law because of their religious beliefs/traditions, that any other group has to have the same rights to get exemptions, or that it otherwise would be inconsistent and thus discriminating?

 

[Christian Klippel]

Teaching your child your ideology is a fundamental part of parenting. I doubt you will find a lot of support for government interfering in that.

You are somewhat wrong. Just look at the conventions of rights for the child, to which i linked earlier. Yes, they can freely teach them about whatever ideology they want. But they are _not_ allowed to force them into any. Which they do if they circumcise their children just for religious reasons.

Is that really so hard to understand?

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Safe-Keeper]

12 years of peeing through the foreskin without proper washing doesn't sound very hygienic to me.

Urine is sterile. I suppose sperm would be a bigger worry, but of course, there's not much of that coming out of children.

 

[Mycroft]

Wrong. The German constitution clearly states that no injury or harm should be inflicted on another human. Circumcision does inflict exactly that.

Your doctrine is that circumcision equals harm, I disagree.

It's just that it was not clearly spoken out before that circumcision does this. Which is what the cologne court stated. Which is also the reason the parents just so got away with it.

This ruling prohibits circumcision in Cologne, but not the rest of Germany. It says so in the OP. Feel free to go back and check if you are unclear.

Really, at least try to grasp what this is about.

Pot/kettle.

Like to have it step-by-step? OK, i can do that.

Do you agree that if one group of people gets exemptions from the law because of their religious beliefs/traditions, that any other group has to have the same rights to get exemptions, or that it otherwise would be inconsistent and thus discriminating?

I doubt anyone will argue that it's discrimination to allow circumcision but not murder, but seeing what you've done so far, you might just argue that.

All around the world in countries that respect the religious freedoms of their citizens laws and courts have to balance the religious freedoms of their citizenry, so far they have managed to do that without allowing ritual human sacrifice. There is no reason to believe they will suddenly have trouble with that in the near future.

 

[jdp]

Germany already allows circumcision and with the possible exception of the Nazi era, always has. So if you describe Germany as trying to "carve out an exception" then you are arguing from ignorance because the status-quo allows for it now. Further, for your slippery slope argument to make sense you need to account for why this hasn't already happened, not just speculate that it might happen in the future.

It has only been legal in the sense that it isn't explicitly prohibited. Now this court ruling puts that in doubt, at least for the jurisdiction covered by the court. Now I suspect that branding is similarly not explicitly proscribed but I also suspect that if you branded an infant, you'd find yourself in the same legal battle that the doctor who performed the circumcision found himself except you'd lose, why? Just like there was no law explicitly prohibiting the scaring of the boy in the UK but the mother landed in court, why did she lose?

But let's look at it a different way then. Which of the following practices do you think could/should be legal to performed on infants or children by their parents in Germany:

• Tattooing
• FGM
• Ritual Scaring
• Branding
• MGM

A yes or no answer is all that is required, we don't want confusion on this point. If it's a no I'll ask you to please elaborate on why you feel that it should be prohibited as opposed to circumcision.

A lot of the anti-circumcision argument depends on changing definitions. First you equate it to FGM (Female Genital Mutilation) and allow the reader to conjure images in their minds of clitoral removal and/or closing the vaginal opening, then you produce "FGM" that's just a removal of a tiny pin-head sized piece of skin that doesn't change a woman's sexual enjoyment and probably can't even be detected later on in life. It's dishonest.

I haven't allowed the reader to conjure up anything. If you'd bother to look at the definition of FGM, as defined by places like the WHO and as written into nearly all laws, you'd see that the definition of FGM used includes the whole range of practices. So it is not I who is being dishonest, it is NGOs like the WHO and government officials who do not differentiate the practices.

One of those practices, ritual scarring of a 14 year-old, you said you wouldn't object to, so if you don't object to it, why assume anyone else would? You're crafting a straw-man argument by deliberately blurring distinctions then claiming someone else will have a hard time dealing with them.

I don't know, why would I assume that anyone else would object? Maybe because someone was brought to court and convicted of the act. And after that episode, did we see any politicians rushing to her defense? Nope, so what makes you believe that the situation would be handled differently in another jurisdiction? And I just have to know in what way am I blurring the distinctions?

You held it up as an example of something Germany might have to allow if they continued to allow circumcision, so it's disingenuous of you to now claim it's not something you would object to. By your own admission at least one of the two examples you gave is not objectionable.

This would only take you so far. I did say that I didn't object to it in that instance but the example was bounded. The age of the participant matters, the willingness of the participant matters, ect. ect. In the same sense, I'd have no problem with adult circumcision.

What's your opinion of the other one?

What are the bounds? For an adult, anything in that list goes.

 

[sadhatter]

I've seen no compelling argument why circumcision should not be a decision left to adults to make for their own bodies.

And this is the crux of the thread all the pro circumcision folks seem to be missing.

Honestly , the most sense making answer was the most circular one. Parents should be able to do it because it is a parental right. Circular, wrong, but the closest thing to addressing the issue that has happened.

I mean, seriously, find me one bit of logic that shows why leaving a decision on unnecessary body modification to the owner of the body is wrong. There simply isn't one, hence the reams of "But i like my johnson." posts.

 

[Christian Klippel]

Your doctrine is that circumcision equals harm, I disagree.

Oh, does that mean that you would have no problem if someone would cut away your earlobe?

if you like it or not: Cutting away perfectly healthy tissue/skin from a person, for no medical reason, perfectly fits the definition of injury.

This ruling prohibits circumcision in Cologne, but not the rest of Germany. It says so in the OP. Feel free to go back and check if you are unclear.

Seems you don't understand how the court system works here. What the cologne court has done is to set a precedent. To be specific, it said that bodily harm can not be inflicted upon a person purely for religious reasons. Which is exactly what the constitution as well as human rights ans the CRC say.

I doubt anyone will argue that it's discrimination to allow circumcision but not murder, but seeing what you've done so far, you might just argue that.

I see that you still refuse the basic point. So i make it clear just once again: If you allow that a one can inflict bodily harm on another person purely for religious reasons, you can not disallow to kill someone for religious reasons. The point here being that in both cases you put religious reasons above the law. Is that really so hard to understand?

All around the world in countries that respect the religious freedoms of their citizens laws and courts have to balance the religious freedoms of their citizenry, so far they have managed to do that without allowing ritual human sacrifice. There is no reason to believe they will suddenly have trouble with that in the near future.

This in no way answers my question, which is a simple yes/no question. So i repeat it, just for you:

Do you agree that if one group of people gets exemptions from the law because of their religious beliefs/traditions, that any other group has to have the same rights to get exemptions, or that it otherwise would be inconsistent and thus discriminating?

Try to stay focused this time, please.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[sadhatter]

I see this line of reasoning a lot, and I don't think it's a legitimate question.

Being circumcised at 18 will be a very different experience than growing up cirumcised. It is literally impossible for someone to choose to grow up circumcised or uncircumcised.

So, regardless of where you stand on the issue of whether circumcision ought to be legal, the "choice" argument just isn't one that makes any sense. Neither side is giving the infant, or the child, or the adolescent, a choice, and given that there was no choice at those stages of life, the adult has also been deprived of choice. At the age of 18, a male could decide he does not want a foreskin, but he cannot decide that it is his choice to have grown up with or without a foreskin.



For reference, like most American males of my generation, I grew up Christian and circumcised. Unlike most American males, I married a Jewish woman. Before our son was born, we decided to raise him Jewish, and we didn't have him circumcised. We're Reform. Lopping off perfectly good bits of tissue seems silly to me. On the other hand, I'm very reluctant to call it criminal. It doesn't seem to have done any significant harm to my generation. (No pun intended)

Did you honestly just try to make the "Your taking away the choice not to have a choice." argument? Seriously? Really?

First off, if the child wants to have one done earlier and discusses this with their parents, yes they have the choice at any point. Second, trying to say because someone cannot go back in time and have a procedure done , it is the same as making them have no choice is just silly, unless we happen to be living in some universe where time travel is possible, and the parents stop their children from using it.

Seriously, this is as silly as eating a big mac combo at McDonalds, then saying they forced you to eat it, because you, after eating that meal, cannot then go back in time and choose not to eat it.

Seriously, time travel, this is what this debate has turned into versus just conceding that people should make cosmetic surgery choices for themselves, versus having others do it for them.

 

[Meadmaker]

But humour me, and come up with real examples of adults who said they had preferred to grow up circumcised, or deafened.

I have met three such people in my life that I can think of. Two of them converted to Judaism and felt compelled to be circumcised as adults. The other had a foreskin infection when he was 19. All of them wished they had grown up circumcised.

 

[Meadmaker]

You are starting from the premise that circumcision is OK, which is the point of contention in this thread, many of us do not think it is OK (unless for medical reasons).

And you have concluded that it is not ok. That's fine with me. If you think that males are better off with foreskins than without, and you think people should be prevented from removing foreskins, by all means continue to make that argument, as has been done in this thread and many others like it. If you want to talk about medical issues, complications, or loss of function or sensation, fine.

But choice? That's a rather more difficult case to make. The boy will grow up one way or the other, and he cannot choose which way he will grow up.


As for my own perception of circumcision, I do indeed think it is "ok". I don't think it's smart. I think it is a bit ridiculous. I didn't choose it for my own son. However, I've looked at arguments for and against it, and have concluded that it doesn't make a hill of beans worth of difference, and for that reason, have concluded that I would not advocate passing laws against it.

 

[Mycroft]

If you allow that a one can inflict bodily harm on another person purely for religious reasons, you can not disallow to kill someone for religious reasons.

Wow. Just...wow. Truly stunning.

Look, you can get your boys circumcised on most of the planet, can you name any jurisdiction that extends that "principle" to also allow murder?

Just name one.