German court bans circumcision of young boys

[Meadmaker]

I don't think he's complaining that it's unfair as much as he's pointing out that growing up one way or another is much the same. Either way, you're not given a choice.

The anti-circumcision argument depends a lot on exaggerating the "harm" supposedly done by circumcision.

Exactly.

We can see a great deal of difference in growing up without feet or with feet. While there might be some crackpot somewhere who wants to make a case that we are better off without feet, pretty much everyone is on the "pro feet" side of this issue.

When it comes to foreskins, the opinions are less than unanimous, and in such cases I am reluctant to use the strong arm of the law to enforce my own opinion.

 

[Christian Klippel]

... and you think people should be prevented from removing foreskins ...

Hyperbole anyone? Care to quote a post where anyone said that? Oh, right. You can't. Because no one ever said that.

What people said is that it should be up anyone to decide for _themselves_ if they want to have their foreskin removed or not.

See the difference?

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.

There is absolutely nothing difficult about it. The _only_ choice one does not have is to decide which way they are born. And as it happens, that is to be born with a foreskin. To have it removed, however, is a choice. One that is better left to the person in question, for that matter.

Oh, and before you intend to beat that already dead horse way mushier than it already is: This does not in any way include things that should be done due to medical reasons, like a cleft lip.

Is it really that hard to see the difference? Or is it willful ignorance?

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Christian Klippel]

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.

Still avoiding my question, i see. So here it is again, just in case:

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?

 

[Meadmaker]

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.

That's not a bad analogy, although you didn't get it quite right.

The child does not have the power to choose the big mac. We do, as parents, force our kids to eat certain foods, and that affects them both physically and psychologically. At age 18, he can start eating whatever food he darned well wants to eat. However, his early diet, which I chose for him, will continue to have an effect. He cannot go back and "un-eat" the things that I made him eat, and he cannot erase some of the effects of the diet I chose for him.

So the appropirate analogy would be the claim that an 18 year old has complete choice of his meals, and at that point, he can choose whatever he wishes. He cannot. His body and mind will be conditioned with certain eating habits as a result of choices his parents made for him.

 

[Meadmaker]

Hyperbole anyone? Care to quote a post where anyone said that? Oh, right. You can't. Because no one ever said that.

The German judge who banned it said that. That's kind of the point of "ban".


Would you rather I was much more specific by saying that people should be prevented from removing foreskins, except with the express permission, including informed consent, which by definition cannot be given by a child, of the person whose foreskin is to be removed, and except for medically necessary reasons?

And except .....oh to heck with it. You know what I meant and everyone knows what I meant.

Many people want to ban the practice of circumcision on young boys. I think it was mighty darned obvious that that is what I was referring to when I said "prevent people from removing foreskins".

ETA: And I might add that the removal of a foreskin has been compared to the removal of feet, and to the removal of an eye, and I'm sure many other analogies. If we assume, for the sake of argument, that the amputation of feet is analogous to circumcision, can we infer that there are numerous people who are "pro-choice" when it comes to adult foot amputation? In the United States at least, no doctor would be allowed to perform a voluntary foot amputation. Any person attempting to perform such an operation would be prosecuted, or if he intended to perform the operation on himself, would be institutionalized for psychological treatment. Why is it that we would treat an 18 year old who wishes to be circumcised differently than we would treat an 18 year old male who wishes to have his perfectly functional feet removed?

 

[jdp]

That's not a bad analogy, although you didn't get it quite right.

The child does not have the power to choose the big mace. We do, as parents, force our kids to eat certain foods, and that affects them both physically and psychologically. At age 18, he can start eating whatever food he darned well wants to eat. However, his early diet, which I chose for him, will continue to have an effect. He cannot go back and "un-eat" the things that I made him eat, and he cannot erase some of the effects of the diet I chose for him.

So the appropirate analogy would be the claim that an 18 year old has complete choice of his meals, and at that point, he can choose whatever he wishes. He cannot. His body and mind will be conditioned with certain eating habits as a result of choices his parents made for him.

The wrinkle in this is that you have to make those choices for him, the kid has to eat. Absent a therapeutic need, circumcision does not have to be performed.

 

[Mycroft]

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.

Over the last month or so I've been going over the medical evidence. What I've learned is there are a small number of people that promote circumcision in a way that's just a bit creepy, and another small number of people that are against circumcision in a way that's equally creepy plus an element of woo.

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

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

Can you choose to have a foreskin? I rest my case.

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.

As has been said, teaching is okay, forcing is not. Where the line lies is very clear.

Some people believe it does.

And they're mistaken. Look, the research is very clear, and saying that it isn't can only be done when discarding good evidence and including bad.

ETA: to prevent hyperboles later on: No, there isn't NO evidence. It's just that the benefits of preventative circumcision don't weigh up to the risk.

 

[Mycroft]

Still avoiding my question, i see. So here it is again, just in case:

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 don't think a slippery slope argument that says if we allow circumcision then we must also allow murder deserves the dignity of a response. It's a stupid argument, and you're not making yourself look any smarter by pushing it.

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

I don't think a slippery slope argument that says if we allow circumcision then we must also allow murder deserves the dignity of a response. It's a stupid argument, and you're not making yourself look any smarter by pushing it.

Equal rights. Not "if he can circumcise his son, I can kill my neighbour".

More "If he can circumcise his newborn son, I can have my newborn son's toenails removed".

I mean no hyperbole. Having no toenails seems to me to be pretty much on equal footing with circumcision; They're both irreversible, they're both non-consensual, and they both don't have to be done when the child is still an infant.

 

[Mycroft]

Can you choose to have a foreskin? I rest my case.

Yes, actually, I could. Google "foreskin restoration". There is also an artificial foreskin product you can buy. Silly, maybe, but it exists.

As has been said, teaching is okay, forcing is not. Where the line lies is very clear.

My parents took me to church and to Sunday school, I was not given a choice. This is common.

And they're mistaken. Look, the research is very clear, and saying that it isn't can only be done when discarding good evidence and including bad.

The anti-circumcision argument can only be made by exaggerating the potential for harm and disregarding the benefits.

ETA: to prevent hyperboles later on: No, there isn't NO evidence. It's just that the benefits of preventative circumcision don't weigh up to the risk.

In your opinion. Other opinions disagree.

 

[Mycroft]

Equal rights. Not "if he can circumcise his son, I can kill my neighbour"...

Then please have a word with Christian Klippel. Maybe he will listen to reason from someone on his side.

 

[zeggman]

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.

Of course it's a parental right. Parents make most choices for their children, because children are not experienced enough or mature enough to make choices for themselves.

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.

The reason is because the child lacks the maturity and experience to make such decisions.

A child doesn't make his own decisions about whether his ears will be reconfigured, whether his teeth will be pulled and straightened, whether his tonsils will be removed, or whether his nose will be cauterized.

The fact that I like my johnson is not being offered as evidence of parental right, it's being offered to refute the hysterical attempts to equate circumcision with FGM, earlobe lopping, and toenail removal. Contrary to those who claim that circumcision is harmful or mutilating, my experience has been that it is neither.

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

Then please have a word with Christian Klippel. Maybe he will listen to reason from someone on his side.

Still avoiding my question, i see. So here it is again, just in case:

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 bolded the relevant piece.

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?

I bolded the relevant piece again.

What was that about reason? Seems to me to be perfectly in order.

It wasn't about actual murder, but about motivations for an act, which would make the type of crime irrelevant.

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

Of course it's a parental right. Parents make most choices for their children, because children are not experienced enough or mature enough to make choices for themselves.


The reason is because the child lacks the maturity and experience to make such decisions.

A child doesn't make his own decisions about whether his ears will be reconfigured, whether his teeth will be pulled and straightened, whether his tonsils will be removed, or whether his nose will be cauterized.

Show me that the risk/benefit ratio is at least as high for circumcision as it is for preventative tonsillectomy (which is also not all that necessary, actually, and isn't done nearly as often as it has been) and then we'll talk. Not that I'd immediately agree that the benefits are high enough, since they aren't high enough in preventative tonsillectomy either.

If you were talking about medically necessary tonsillectomy versus preventative circumcision, you have no leg to stand on.

 

[Meadmaker]

The line between giving someone a choice versus not giving him a choice is not as clear as everyone would like to think.

Let us go back to an ancient time in America. Specifically, to the days when I was a teenager, approximately 35 years ago.

In those ancient days, there was an archaic ritual known as "gym class", and all males were forced to endure it. Starting at the age of 12, a strange element was added to that archaic ritual. All the boys would remove all of their clothing and allow water to run over their bodies. They would do this in the company and in full view of all the other boys.

For those who grew up more recently, it may sound ridiculous, but I assure you we really did this.

Now, also in those days, there was another archaic ritual known as "circumcision", and it was done to darned near every boy in America, and it was not done for religious reasons. It was so commonplace, and done so young, that most of us were unaware that we were circumcised. In fact, there was one boy, and only one, in our gym class that was uncircumcised. I thought he had some sort of disease or malformity of his penis.

Did he have a choice whether or not to grow up different? Did he decide to be the odd one in the showers? Who made that choice? At 18, if he chose to become circumcised, would that eliminate all effects of the choice his parents made?

It's not so easy to take the "pro-choice" argument seriously. That kid didn't have a choice.

Fortunately, it didn't seem to do him, or us, any harm. We had it done, or not, and except for illustrating one element of sexual ignorance, it doesn't seem to have made much of a difference to anyone.

P.S. I am told on good authority that females underwent a similar ritual after gym class, but despite my best efforts, I was never allowed to confirm this by direct observation. My own attempts to visualize it were numerous, but probably not entirely accurate.

 

[zeggman]

I mean no hyperbole. Having no toenails seems to me to be pretty much on equal footing with circumcision; They're both irreversible, they're both non-consensual, and they both don't have to be done when the child is still an infant.

Since your claim is that they're on equal footing, how many people have their toenails removed annually for medical or cosmetic reasons?

 

[Checkmite]

Of course circumcision is harmful; the subject loses a healthy body part; the procedure causes pain and leaves a bleeding wound behind. How can that possibly not constitute harm?

Maybe one personally doesn't think that's "a lot" of harm, but it is a real amount of harm; whereas not circumcising a child causes no harm whatsoever.

Let adults decide to do it to themselves.

 

[ddt]

Your doctrine is that circumcision equals harm, I disagree.

Circumcision is a violation of the bodily integrity, plain and simple. That's a basic human right, and it's also explicitly stated in the German constitution. It's a basic legal principle in various other countries too. And Christian explained here how he sees the ranking of various rights:

It's my opinion that the underlying issue is not really about circumcision, or baptizing, or whatever crazy rituals one adheres to. The issue is, instead, if religious freedom should be valued higher than constitutional and basic human rights. And i think there can be only one sensible ranking: human rights first, then constitutional rights, then religious freedom (even if they are part of the constitution).

And I agree completely with that, as well as his reasoning behind 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.

Yes, but that's not what Christian said. He said the Cologne judge - roughly equivalent to a District Court Judge - had ruled that circumcision runs counter to the constitution. Whether a judge in, say, Berlin, could dissent is not material.

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.

While the murder analogy may be hyperbole, Christian is fully right that - if the government were to grant a special exemption for circumcision - all kind of other religious rituals that infringe on bodily integrity will come out of the wood works and claim an exception - tattoos, (light forms of) FGM, etc.

It's telling that no-one has even tried to make an argument against Rolfe's (excellent IMHO) analogy of ripping out toenails. Suppose I were to start a religion - Toenailistics. It requires that babies get their toenails ripped out at 8 days. (It also has a confessional where the adherent puts their feet in two tin cans which are attached to a meter the priest reads). I go to the Karlsruhe Constitutional Court and claim I want an exception too. Should I get it?

Ultimately, the Jewish community has no other argument than "we want to brand our babies as Jews for life" - see the op-ed of the UK Chief Rabbi. Could as well tattoo them. Or maybe the government should help them in the branding and reintroduce a big, black "J" in their passports?

 

[zeggman]

If you were talking about medically necessary tonsillectomy versus preventative circumcision, you have no leg to stand on.

I gave several examples. Ear reshaping and tooth removal for orthodontia have nothing but cosmetic justification, and they're considered to be parental prerogative.