Oh No! It's Another Thread About Circumcision.

[RobinGoodfellow]

Re: Circumcision of boys is a crime

Top Ten Things Amusing About This Thread:

10) A mohel's job is to circumcise males. Period. Sure, he can argue the morality of it, I suppose, but the very definition of the term is linked to making a little snip; not doing so makes him a non-mohel. Period.

9)Being polydactyl is probably the best analogy so far. Snipping off that extra toe is essentially a cosmetic issue and gives the person certain medical advantages.

8)Abortion, not so much a good example. Yeah, I'm sorry; I can't think of any universe in which a decision on whether or not to eliminate an unborn child equates on an equal level to eliminate a small piece of flesh.

7)Foreskin and masturbation: Not all of us need lube, and too much masturbation can lead to an actual infection for those with the foreskin, versus just a need of a good lotion for the circumcised. Not exactly a winning argument for the non-circumcised.

6)The reason for the eighth day: Apparently that's when the infant's combination of antibodies from his mother and his own self-defenses combine for a really powerful defense against anything, making that the best moment for something like circumcision.

5)I love that the American Academy of Pediatrics is yet again reversing its decision. It seems to do so every generation or so....

4)Based on what I've read, I think that the Cologne ruling will be slapped down on some level. Not only does it create a new punishable offense, but also steps on the toes on a lot of toes that is just didn't have the right to step on. It's arguable that if not for the medical issues created by the circumcision (a rarity, by the way) that it would have even gone to court. It just comes off as if the judge took advantage of the situation in order to have a secular win over religion.

3)For those equating male and female circumcision: It's worth noting that even those against female circumcision thought the court went too far, and that the reason that they opposed the ruling was because it may be used to equate the two, which are just too entirely different things. I thought that was interesting....

2)I love the “parents don't own their kids” argument. Too bad it has no basis in actual law, where the parents do essentially own the kid and make almost every decision for them, especially at that age. It's a nice concept, but it's ultimately one that just is not going to work in real life on any level. Just try to get a kid to eat vegetables if he has the right to refuse, and you will easily see just how ludicrous it is.

1) I sort of love how those against circumcision are coming off as anti-modern medicine and pretty much focusing in on the cosmetic issues whereas the those for it are backing medicine and religion. Heh.

 

[hungkee]

Re: Circumcision of boys is a crime

And if you google "botched circumcision" you will see a lot of horrific pics of circumcisions that didn't even go wrong per se, but the end result in the adult is anything but nice to look at. And some studies speak of 10%+ of circumcisions having those late effects.
Anyway - I even do believe that many parents to believe that they are doing the best for their kids. The more important is it, to make the doctors take responsibility for their deeds.

Its a religious rite and tradition though. Barring circumcision from being practiced is an infringement upon religious freedom. We don't have to agree with every religious rite or tradition of every religion. That is why it is important to maintain and defend those rights. Otherwise, we are not able to express ourselves and our religions as a free people. It would be religion under the auspices of the secular government - which makes little sense.

If one doesn't like circumcision as a religious rite being imposed on children, then, logically one ought to also hate religious thought being imposed on children as well.

Simply because one is more tangible than the other doesn't make one's potential effects worse than the other.

In fact, I would argue that if one took that perspective, the thought police would have as equal an argument or better than any anti-circumcisionist.

After all, we all see the lasting, far-reaching effects on children when they're raised with any sort of belief system or given some set of specific principles (even when and maybe especially when hateful). So circumcision is nothing compared to filling a young mind.

And what would a German court do about that? Create law that would ban the abuse of another organ - the brain?

 

[bort138]

Re: Circumcision of boys is a crime

9)Being polydactyl is probably the best analogy so far. Snipping off that extra toe is essentially a cosmetic issue and gives the person certain medical advantages.

This would be a good analogy if foreskin was a birth defect or congenital anomaly like being polydactyl is. Unfortunately for this argument foreskin is not a birth defect, never has been and never will be.

 

[bort138]

Re: Circumcision of boys is a crime

Its a religious rite and tradition though. Barring circumcision from being practiced is an infringement upon religious freedom. We don't have to agree with every religious rite or tradition of every religion. That is why it is important to maintain and defend those rights. Otherwise, we are not able to express ourselves and our religions as a free people. It would be religion under the auspices of the secular government - which makes little sense.

If one doesn't like circumcision as a religious rite being imposed on children, then, logically one ought to also hate religious thought being imposed on children as well.

Simply because one is more tangible than the other doesn't make one's potential effects worse than the other.

In fact, I would argue that if one took that perspective, the thought police would have as equal an argument or better than any anti-circumcisionist.

After all, we all see the lasting, far-reaching effects on children when they're raised with any sort of belief system or given some set of specific principles (even when and maybe especially when hateful). So circumcision is nothing compared to filling a young mind.

And what would a German court do about that? Create law that would ban the abuse of another organ - the brain?

Your slippery slope argument is not cutting it. This debate is strictly about circumcision. It has nothing to do with religious indoctrination. It is about altering a child's genitals without their consent.

 

[hungkee]

Re: Circumcision of boys is a crime

Top Ten Things Amusing About This Thread:


8)Abortion, not so much a good example. Yeah, I'm sorry; I can't think of any universe in which a decision on whether or not to eliminate an unborn child equates on an equal level to eliminate a small piece of flesh.

Again, the abortion analogy (at least as I use it in this thread) isn't about the effect or end result of an abortion. It isn't even important that a fetus be discussed.

It is about the surgical procedure performed on a little lady who may not be of her majority. To get to the fetus, you rather got to get in there and root around, scraping and vacuuming within the "mother". Its that invasive surgery which would the correlation to circumcision and not the actual morality or issue of removing a fetus (whether considered human life or common tissue...which best be sucked out before it begins to wiggle it tissuey toes).

 

[bort138]

Re: Circumcision of boys is a crime

3)For those equating male and female circumcision: It's worth noting that even those against female circumcision thought the court went too far, and that the reason that they opposed the ruling was because it may be used to equate the two, which are just too entirely different things. I thought that was interesting....

I'll bring this up again. How is equating foreskin with polydactylism fair game but comparing genital cutting between boys and girls different? Is genital cutting between boys and girls really that different? Both involve cutting of the genitals without consent. Double standard much?

 

[hungkee]

Re: Circumcision of boys is a crime

I'll bring this up again. How is equating foreskin with polydactylism fair game but comparing genital cutting between boys and girls different? Is genital cutting between boys and girls really that different? Both involve cutting of the genitals without consent. Double standard much?

That was discussed in earlier posts. The intent and effect of female circumcision is to purposefully remove a girl's ability to feel or to have sexual sensation.

That is not the intent nor effect of circumcision.

 

[Corny]

Re: Circumcision of boys is a crime

Its a religious rite and tradition though. Barring circumcision from being practiced is an infringement upon religious freedom.

So letting a child die because the parents religions denies them from allowing the doctors to save its life with a blood donation is also "religious freedom"? Why not religious ritual sacrifice of a child? Of course that's "worse" than circumcision, I get it. But this kid could have died *because* of the circumcision, so it's not that far off. Your religious or other freedom stops when you directly hurt, kill or mutilate others.

After all, we all see the lasting, far-reaching effects on children when they're raised with any sort of belief system or given some set of specific principles (even when and maybe especially when hateful). So circumcision is nothing compared to filling a young mind.

And what would a German court do about that? Create law that would ban the abuse of another organ - the brain?

I know that you are trying hard in the US (see: banning the teaching of critical thinking in schools by the Republicans) to abolish such a thing as "free thoughts" - but still, religion is not permanent and a belief-system is something else than surgery.

This is because, in the United States, the anti-abortion fight is religious TO THE CORE. So in both cases, you have government vs. religion:

This is not government against religion. This is a court against unwarranted and unnecessary mutilation of children unable to give consent. It's not allowed for cosmetic reasons or anything else except medical reasons, either.

So what WOULD be a good analogy in Germany? I think the OP's idea concerning blood transfusions is an excellent one. I don't know what they've decided in Germany, but in the United States, a doctor cannot be convicted of a crime if he gives a blood transfusion to a child, against a Jehovah's Witness parents' wishes. (I looked. The decision was handed down in 1982.)

So apparently, when it imposes bodily harm on somebody, religious freedom is limited in the US, too.

Let's go one step further. What about the Christian Scientists, who do not believe in doctors at all? Suppose his kid dies. Will the parents be prosecuted in Germany, because they refused medical help to their children?

Yes of course. It's called (murder through) neglect .. I believe the US equivalents are either "negligence" or "endangerment of a child" or both.

And those laws are OLD. As are the rulings on the blood donations. This is nothing new, just common sense applied.

 

[Corny]

Re: Circumcision of boys is a crime

That is not the intent nor effect of circumcision.

No?

In younger children, with whom moral considerations will have no particular weight, other devices may be used. Bandaging the parts has been practised with success. Tying the hands is also successful in some cases; but this will not always succeed, for they will often contrive to continue the habit in other ways, as by working the limbs, or lying upon the abdomen. Covering the organs with a cage has been practised with entire success. A remedy which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision, especially when there is any degree of phimosis. The operation should be performed without administering an anaesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment, as it may well be in some cases. The soreness which continues for several weeks interrupts the practice, and if it had not previously become too firmly fixed, it may be forgotten and not resumed. …

Dr. Kellogg (yes that one), Plain facts, pp. 294-6

In fact, it's the very reason why Americans started cutting kids.

 

[Corny]

Re: Circumcision of boys is a crime

But Corny, a Jew or a Muslim cannot even BE a Jew or a Muslim without circumcising. It's an essential part of their identity.

So how about a religion where it would be an essential part of their identity to rape a girl as a rite of passage for adulthood?

In any way .. it's still not "Government against Religion" no matter how often you repeat it or use capital text. For starters, it's not even the government involved here. But that's probably just a fact in the way of your argument Furthermore this would also equally punish people who would like their boys to be cut because "it looks better" or "it's like your father is", like people who have come forward with this very opinion in this this very thread. It is more like "you may not mutilate your kids. no, not even for religious reasons, because we put your basic human right, to be protected from bodily harm, first".

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Circumcision of boys is a crime

I suppose in countries where female genital cutting is still practiced they are just removing "extra" skin as well. Foreskin is not extra. All baby boys are born with foreskin. Foreskin is no more extra than ear lobes. The way you casually refer to circumcision as just "one little snip" demonstrates to me your unfamiliarity with the serious risks and complications that can arise from this procedure.

Just like any medical operation they are risks. So why would parents knowingly subject their child to such a painful and unnecessary risk especially at such a vulnerable age? Complications from circumcision are rare but they do happen and are often times far more serious than any condition that could develop from an uncircumcised penis. If the health and well-being of the child is the primary concern of the parents, allowing circumcision is a failure on their part.

How do the risks compare between infant and adult?

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Circumcision of boys is a crime

6)The reason for the eighth day: Apparently that's when the infant's combination of antibodies from his mother and his own self-defenses combine for a really powerful defense against anything, making that the best moment for something like circumcision.

Interesting that someone in the Bronze Age got it right.

2)I love the “parents don't own their kids” argument. Too bad it has no basis in actual law, where the parents do essentially own the kid and make almost every decision for them, especially at that age. It's a nice concept, but it's ultimately one that just is not going to work in real life on any level. Just try to get a kid to eat vegetables if he has the right to refuse, and you will easily see just how ludicrous it is.

Yeah, it's a philosophical principle, the sort of thing law should resort to when it's unclear in itself. But even for a libertarian, that's a mixed bag, since while self-ownership resides in the child due to sentience, the exercise of self-ownership is held to come with various stages of maturity, from potty training to the drinking age. So the question comes down to how far the in loco exercise of the child's self ownership by the parents legitimately extends.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Circumcision of boys is a crime

This would be a good analogy if foreskin was a birth defect or congenital anomaly like being polydactyl is. Unfortunately for this argument foreskin is not a birth defect, never has been and never will be.

In both cases, the tissue in question was a product of the child's DNA. By what criterion are we to call one a defect and the other not?

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Circumcision of boys is a crime

So how about a religion where it would be an essential part of their identity to rape a girl as a rite of passage for adulthood?

In any way .. it's still not "Government against Religion" no matter how often you repeat it or use capital text. For starters, it's not even the government involved here. But that's probably just a fact in the way of your argument Furthermore this would also equally punish people who would like their boys to be cut because "it looks better" or "it's like your father is", like people who have come forward with this very opinion in this this very thread. It is more like "you may not mutilate your kids. no, not even for religious reasons, because we put your basic human right, to be protected from bodily harm, first".

And right there is where it IS about religion -- the ones asserting that it isn't bodily harm, but necessary for a full life now and forever, are religious. Other people will probably shrug and go along, so the primary players are government and religion.

In essence, government is telling religion, "You may not raise your children as Muslims. You may not raise your children as Jews. You must bow to the State, and the State only shall you serve".

 

[bort138]

Re: Circumcision of boys is a crime

In both cases, the tissue in question was a product of the child's DNA. By what criterion are we to call one a defect and the other not?

All baby boys are born with foreskin and it is normal and healthy bodily structure found and expected on all baby boys. A congenital disorder on the other hand is defined as an physical, mental or biochemical abnormality present at birth.

 

[bort138]

Re: Circumcision of boys is a crime

And right there is where it IS about religion -- the ones asserting that it isn't bodily harm, but necessary for a full life now and forever, are religious. Other people will probably shrug and go along, so the primary players are government and religion.

In essence, government is telling religion, "You may not raise your children as Muslims. You may not raise your children as Jews. You must bow to the State, and the State only shall you serve".

Religious freedom is a good thing to have in a secular government but there are limits and the line must be drawn somewhere. I draw the line at genital mutilation of children without consent. Where do you? If you want to mutilate the genitals of a child, or go out of you way to campaign for the right of others to do this, you are mentally ill. I'm done with this discussion.

 

[milboy]

Re: Circumcision of boys is a crime

Foreskin isn't a birth defect. It's normal, natural, healthy and every baby is born with one. Even girls. It's commonly referred to as the "clitoral hood" in girls. Genital cutting is barbaric. Think about it. Muslim families in the US, as of 1997, cannot legally have someone pin prick their daughter's clit to draw blood for religious/tradition customs anymore. There are several levels of Female Genital Cutting. Excising the clitoral hood is one of them. This is now illegal in the US. It's time that male circumcision, performed on males under the age of at LEAST 16, is outlawed.

 

[milboy]

Re: Circumcision of boys is a crime

Seems to me that those in this thread who are in favor of infant male circumcision are in favor of it because they themselves love cut cock period. Quit imposing your cock cut status preference on infant boys.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Circumcision of boys is a crime

All baby boys are born with foreskin and it is normal and healthy bodily structure found and expected on all baby boys. A congenital disorder on the other hand is defined as an physical, mental or biochemical abnormality present at birth.

So that which is not statistically common is abnormal and should be removed.

You've just justified a law requiring testing for gayness and eliminating it in the womb, should such a test become possible.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Circumcision of boys is a crime

Religious freedom is a good thing to have in a secular government but there are limits and the line must be drawn somewhere. I draw the line at genital mutilation of children without consent. Where do you? If you want to mutilate the genitals of a child, or go out of you way to campaign for the right of others to do this, you are mentally ill. I'm done with this discussion.

No one's talking about mutilation except with female circumcision. You're playing the demagogue game of employing emotion-laden terms where they don't belong.