German court bans circumcision of young boys

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Someone brought up foreskin restoration as a way for a circumcised guy to have "choice". It is an option if you want the general appearance of a foreskin, but it is not comparable to the choice an uncircumcised guy has.

As for "choice of growing up X"... I really don't see the point.

 

[ddt]

Just because you're religiously motivated doesn't mean you want to go through a couple months of having painful erections. It's quite rational for a convert to wish it had been done in infancy so the adult ritual could be more symbolic.

Evidence please for those medical claims. That's not what Rabbi Simmons says:

But a convert who is NOT circumcised needs the full surgery. This is not as complicated a procedure as you might expect. It is done with local anasthetic and heals within a week or so. I have been present at adult circumcisions and it is a very positive experience for the new convert.

And still, what is that kind of attitude, that you'd rather have a second-rate ritual than the real deal?

The challenge you gave was to come up with real-life examples of people who wished they had been circumcised as children. Meadmaker did so.

And I thanked him for it. I still may then argue that the reasons offered were inane? And may I conclude from your not reacting about the second case, that you concede the argument?

 

[zeggman]

Then add mine. My wisdom teeth had to go because of crowding.

So, another check in the "cosmetic" column.

That's not the point. You claimed all orthodontia was cosmetic. That was a lie.

It would only be a lie if I had been aware of your counter-example beforehand. Since I was not, it was properly a "mistake" which I will not repeat.

I will, however, add blepharoplasty to the list of cosmetic surgeries which parents can choose for their children.

 

[jdp]

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.

In what way does you liking your johnson refute parallels that have been offered?

• tattooing
• Branding
• Ritual Scaring
• Earlobe lopping
• FGM
• Toenail Removal

How would such practices on infants differ from MGM on infants? Since Mycroft appears to have declined to answer, I'll ask you. Which of the above practices should allow parents to perform on their infants? Answer yes or no, for 'no' please explain how you feel it differs from MGM.

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

So, another check in the "cosmetic" column.

With crowding I mean that my wisdom teeth were digging into the teeth next to them. They were standing askew directed inward (so they would have pushed my teeth together).

This was more than cosmetic. If I'd kept them, the teeth next to them would have been eroded, to begin with.

 

[zeggman]

In what way does you liking your johnson refute parallels that have been offered?

• tattooing
• Branding
• Ritual Scaring
• Earlobe lopping
• FGM
• Toenail Removal

How would such practices on infants differ from MGM on infants? Since Mycroft appears to have declined to answer, I'll ask you. Which of the above practices should allow parents to perform on their infants? Answer yes or no, for 'no' please explain how you feel it differs from MGM.

MGM is castration or penisectomy, both of which are illegal.

If I assume you're simply pulling the usual exaggeration for the sake of implying there is something horrible about circumcision, and address these other practices as they compare to circumcision, they're all disallowed because they make people look worse, not better, and thus cannot be justified on cosmetic grounds. The sole exception would be removal of the clitoral hood (which I understand is currently filed under FGM), which seems to be the only example on your list which is in any way comparable to circumcision.

 

[jdp]

MGM is castration or penisectomy, both of which are illegal.

If I assume you're simply pulling the usual exaggeration for the sake of implying there is something horrible about circumcision, and address these other practices as they compare to circumcision, they're all disallowed because they make people look worse, not better, and thus cannot be justified on cosmetic grounds. The sole exception would be removal of the clitoral hood (which I understand is currently filed under FGM), which seems to be the only example on your list which is in any way comparable to circumcision.

I am actually using MGM in the broader sense, much how FGM is used. So for each of these your justification for not allowing parents to perform them on their children is because:

[T]hey're all disallowed because they make people look worse, not better, and thus cannot be justified on cosmetic grounds.

This is your subjective opinion clearly there are others who have different ideas:

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

Darat's link NSFW: http://www.randafricanart.com/Scarification_and_Cicatrisation_among_African_cultures.html

What rational reason can be provided for prosecuting the Nigerian mother and not prosecuting the parent who circumcised there son? Is cosmetic really the best you can come up with?

ETA: I can't even think of a way that most of those points would degrade function, certainly not a ritual scar, tattoo, branding, or earlobe clipping. I just can't see why we might prohibit those.

 

[Wuglife]

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.

Hesitating to bring to bring legal sanctions against those who engage in practices not entirely condemned because opinions are less than unanimous is treading on thin ice.

 

[Meadmaker]

In what way does you liking your johnson refute parallels that have been offered?

• tattooing
• Branding
• Ritual Scaring
• Earlobe lopping
• FGM
• Toenail Removal

How would such practices on infants differ from MGM on infants? Since Mycroft appears to have declined to answer, I'll ask you. Which of the above practices should allow parents to perform on their infants? Answer yes or no, for 'no' please explain how you feel it differs from MGM.

In none of those cases is there any health benefit that might come from any of those procedures. While there is no conclusive evidece for benefits of circumcision, there are lots of studies that suggest there might be benefits.

http://www.webmd.com/sexual-conditions/guide/circumcision

What are the benefits of circumcision?
There is some evidence that circumcision has health benefits, including:
• A decreased risk of urinary tract infections....

And five other conditions.

I'm pretty sure webmd is not some front group for religious nutters.

For my own part, I'm unpersuaded that those health benefits are real. It seems likely to me that even for those that are likely to be real, they might also be achieved by other measures, such as a combination of soap and friction, which the boy may even consider beneficial in other ways. Nevertheless, when faced with a procedure that might have health benefits, I am reluctant to inform parents that such a procedure cannot be performed.

 

[Mycroft]

Evidence please for those medical claims. That's not what Rabbi Simmons says:

You mean the claim that adult circumcision makes erections painful during the healing process? If you really need evidence of that, google it. Since it's not central to any point I'm trying to make, I don't see any reason to waste my time satisfying your curiosity.

And still, what is that kind of attitude, that you'd rather have a second-rate ritual than the real deal?

It's not my place to judge someone else's religious ritual, but the opinion I just expressed is backed up by the link you provided. If you don't believe in your own link, why did you provide it?

And I thanked him for it. I still may then argue that the reasons offered were inane? And may I conclude from your not reacting about the second case, that you concede the argument?

I don't even understand what you're referring to, but I'll assume it's just as nonsensical as the rest of your post and dismiss it. Maybe if you try again after a nights sleep?

 

[Mycroft]

How would such practices on infants differ from MGM on infants? Since Mycroft appears to have declined to answer, I'll ask you.

This is dishonest, don't you think?

When you raised the issue before I was quite clear in my response that they are not parallels in that nobody wants to do them. When challenged to produce the groups that do want to do them, you came up with a single example example of "ritual scaring" from almost 40 years ago that didn't leave a permanent scar, and you later admitted you wouldn't object to because the 14 year-old kid wanted it. You also came up with examples of Indonesian women in Indonesia who practiced "nicking", the mildest form of FGM there is, and still haven't answered what they have to do with laws in Germany.

You're the one not being responsive here. Why don't you back up your claim first and produce the groups of people who be asserting their rights to brand their infants if Muslims and Jews are allowed to continue circumcising their kids.

The only difference between your argument and Christian Klippel's absurd hyperbole is the matter of degree. He says allow circumcision on religious grounds and you have to allow murder on religious grounds, you just substitute other ridiculous things in place of murder.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

The days when being uncircumcised would've made an American boy "the only odd one in the showers" are long, long gone. That particular argument doesn't even need consideration really.

In my school career, we didn't even take showers after gym class until high school, and as far as I can tell we generally did not look at each other's penises - and if somebody did, well by then they were at least aware of what circumcision was so nobody cared.

We can dismiss it because most schools have abandoned showering after gym and we are also at the point that half of males are not routinely circumcised...

But I always thought that this argument was a rather disturbing mindset. "Kids might make fun of you for feature X, therefore we changed X with surgery." Creepy.

 

[brazenlilraisin]

I always thought that this argument was a rather disturbing mindset...Creepy.

Imaginary is more like it....

Too bad circum-twoofers can't channel their energy into something productive and useful--like protesting to bring back compulsory after gym showering!

 

[Christian Klippel]

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.

Where in my question did i say that? And you continue to avoid it. Just so you can re-read it ato check what i wrote, and maybe answer it:

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?

 

[Dave Rogers]

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.

No. Just no. This is literally the stupidest line of argument I have ever seen. You're arguing that circumcision of a child does not affect his right to be or not to be circumcised. Just look in the mirror and tell that to yourself. If you can do that with a straight face, you have a serious problem.

Dave

 

[ddt]

So, another check in the "cosmetic" column.

You were a bit too quick on that. You really want to still try to argue that all orthodontia is cosmetic?

It would only be a lie if I had been aware of your counter-example beforehand. Since I was not, it was properly a "mistake" which I will not repeat.

First, see post #565:

You're sure you're not leaving something out there? I had two premolars pulled too, because of a large overbite. I much prefer this to regular bleeding of the palate, to be honest, and I don't have to hesitate a second to call this a medical necessity.

So yes, assuming you actually read the posts, you were aware.

Second, don't still try to play that game "all orthodontia is cosmetic" (well except that one case of ddt's), because it obviously isn't. My counter-example isn't the only one.

 

[ddt]

The only difference between your argument and Christian Klippel's absurd hyperbole is the matter of degree. He says allow circumcision on religious grounds and you have to allow murder on religious grounds, you just substitute other ridiculous things in place of murder.

But that's exactly what is going to happen, if the German government introduces legislation to allow circumcision on minors for religious reasons.

Someone from religion X complains in Karlsruhe: I want to tattoo my child, that should be allowed too!

Someone from religion Y complains in Karlsruhe: I want to perform a "ritual nick" on my baby daughter, that should be allowed too!

Christian already explained that.

 

[ddt]

Just because you're religiously motivated doesn't mean you want to go through a couple months of having painful erections. It's quite rational for a convert to wish it had been done in infancy so the adult ritual could be more symbolic.

You mean the claim that adult circumcision makes erections painful during the healing process? If you really need evidence of that, google it. Since it's not central to any point I'm trying to make, I don't see any reason to waste my time satisfying your curiosity.

You claimed, in short, that adult circumcision was a horrible experience, with two or more months of painful erections:

Just because you're religiously motivated doesn't mean you want to go through a couple months of having painful erections. It's quite rational for a convert to wish it had been done in infancy so the adult ritual could be more symbolic.

On the contrary, the dear Rabbi claimed it was a positive experience:

But a convert who is NOT circumcised needs the full surgery. This is not as complicated a procedure as you might expect. It is done with local anasthetic and heals within a week or so. I have been present at adult circumcisions and it is a very positive experience for the new convert.

Nothing about painful erections - and the "positive experience" part belies that - and heals within two weeks.

It's not my place to judge someone else's religious ritual, but the opinion I just expressed is backed up by the link you provided. If you don't believe in your own link, why did you provide it?

There's a ritual for it, but you forgo the positive experience of a real circumcision ritual. That's what I said.

I don't even understand what you're referring to, but I'll assume it's just as nonsensical as the rest of your post and dismiss it. Maybe if you try again after a nights sleep?

I'll happily rephrase that. I thanked Meadmaker for providing the examples. Nothing in what I wrote precludes that I can have fun with the reasons provided, and argue they're nonsense. In fact, when I asked him if he knew such persons I said "humour me".

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Imaginary is more like it....

So how do you read the "shower room" argument?

Too bad circum-twoofers...

That... doesn't even make sense.

can't channel their energy into something productive and useful--like protesting to bring back compulsory after gym showering!

No thanks.

 

[Meadmaker]

No. Just no. This is literally the stupidest line of argument I have ever seen. You're arguing that circumcision of a child does not affect his right to be or not to be circumcised. Just look in the mirror and tell that to yourself. If you can do that with a straight face, you have a serious problem.

Dave

In other words if you don't understand it, it must be stupid.


But you got it wrong. I am arguing that circumcision of a child does indeed have a strong effect on his right to be or not be circumcised. What you have apparently missed out on is the fact is that not circumcising a child also has a a strong effect on his right to be or not be circumcised. No matter what you do, you have made a choice for him, and your choice will affect his life. There's no way of avoiding it.

If there were exactly two states of being, circumcised and uncircumcised, then the "choice" argument would be legitimate. An 18 year old male could then pick which one he wishes to be. If he chose uncircumcised, he could even change his mind later. However, if you think about it for just a moment, you will realize why that the existence of that option actually undoes a choice for him, and illustrates why the choice argument is not a simple black and white issue the way that it is usually presented.

Let us suppose that our 18 year old uncircumcised male decides to remain uncircumcised, but that at age 25 he decides he made a bad choice. He can undo that choice by becoming circumcised, right? Of course not. What he wants is to be a 19 year old circumcised male, and he can't do that.

Likewise, an 18 year old uncircumcised male cannot choose to go through adolescence as a circumcised male. It cannot be done. A German judge has decreed that all male children and adolescents in his jurisdiction will be uncircumcised. That is a choice that the judge has made, and that choice cannot be undone.

I have no problem forcing certain decisions on children, and I have no objection to the government making those decisions over and above the parents' wishes if the government is protecting the child's interest. Just don't pretend you are doing anything else when you call for a ban on child circumcision.