Angela Merkel intervenes over court ban on circumcision of young boys (in Germany)
Last edited Fri Jul 13, 2012, 03:54 PM - Edit history (1)
Source: The Guardian
Angela Merkel's spokesman has promised Germany's Jewish and Muslim communities they will be free to carry out circumcision on young boys, despite a court ban that has raised concerns about religious freedom.
The government said it would find a way around a ban imposed by a court in Cologne in June as a matter of urgency.
"For everyone in the government it is absolutely clear that we want to have Jewish and Muslim religious life in Germany," said Merkel's spokesman, Steffen Seibert. "Circumcision carried out in a responsible manner must be possible in this country without punishment."
Ruling in the case of a Muslim boy taken to a doctor with bleeding after circumcision, the Cologne regional court said the practice inflicted bodily harm and should not be carried out on young boys but could be practised on older males who gave consent. The ruling applies to the city and surrounding districts.
Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/13/angela-merkel-intervenes-ban-circumcision
Meanwhile, Israel has also condemned the anti circumcision law.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
a2liberal
(1,524 posts)And no, I'm not coming back to defend my comment. It's patiently obvious unless you look at it through the default lens of "the West does it so it must be ok" (while condemning equally horrid practices when only a foreign culture does them)
LynneSin
(95,337 posts)Jus tsaying!
Trillo
(9,154 posts)of infant males, historically without any numbing agents (anesthetics), and cutting off an adult thief's hand. Yes or no?
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)is illegal in Germany, but I get what you are saying.
xfundy
(5,105 posts)It hurts women, when guys feel like they have to drive, drive, harder, hurting the female, to feel the biologically-set indicators that apparently are programmed to human brains to allow them to stop.
backwoodsbob
(6,001 posts)wtf?
boppers
(16,588 posts)Horrible people aren't stopped, or started, by a skin flap.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Last edited Fri Jul 13, 2012, 04:21 PM - Edit history (1)
In order to forcibly identify their "tribe" by means of scarification.
Religion remains fucked-up, film at eleven.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)usually involves anesthesia <sp>
Renew Deal
(81,861 posts)Do they allow other forms of harm or is circumcision protected? Does Angela Merkel think FGM "carried out in a responsible manner" is OK for religious reasons?
kurtzapril4
(1,353 posts)than circumcision. You're comparing apples to oranges here. Do some research on the subject.
Renew Deal
(81,861 posts)Animal sacrifice? Polygamy? Etc.
kurtzapril4
(1,353 posts)FGM. This isn't about Animal sacrifice or polygamy.
FGM is NOT comparable to circumcision. Period. Here's a lil sumthing to get you started. Even type 1 is not comparable to circumcision.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation
Renew Deal
(81,861 posts)do you believe that there should be limits to "religious freedom?" What are the limits?
kurtzapril4
(1,353 posts)Female Genital Mutilation is completely different than circumcision. When will You address this issue?
Renew Deal
(81,861 posts)My first post was "Is there a limit to "religious freedom" in Germany?"
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)If they choose to identify with a religious tribe as adults and undergo the procedure, then fine.
But why inflict that upon infants who cannot consent? Unless your goal as a parent is to force this kind of Religious ID tag.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Certainly not in severity, by any means. There's no argument that in terms of damage done, FGM is worse.
However in both instances, a human being is being cut up against their consent in an effort by their parents to force the child's genitals to conform with the aesthetic / religious standards of the moment.
It's the removal of bodily autonomy that is the issue. It's taking a child, and carving them up into some weird standard held by their parents. That's not right, and it doesn't matter who it's being done to or why.
dflprincess
(28,079 posts)Circumcision does not take away male's ability to have normal sex life nor are there long term health consequences. In fact, there is some evidence that there are some health benefits to circumcision.
This is how WHO describes FGM:
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/
[div class = "excerpt"]
Female genital mutilation is classified into four major types.
Clitoridectomy: partial or total removal of the clitoris (a small, sensitive and erectile part of the female genitals) and, in very rare cases, only the prepuce (the fold of skin surrounding the clitoris).
Excision: partial or total removal of the clitoris and the labia minora, with or without excision of the labia majora (the labia are "the lips" that surround the vagina).
Infibulation: narrowing of the vaginal opening through the creation of a covering seal. The seal is formed by cutting and repositioning the inner, or outer, labia, with or without removal of the clitoris.
Other: all other harmful procedures to the female genitalia for non-medical purposes, e.g. pricking, piercing, incising, scraping and cauterizing the genital area.
FGM has no health benefits, and it harms girls and women in many ways. It involves removing and damaging healthy and normal female genital tissue, and interferes with the natural functions of girls' and women's bodies.
Long-term consequences can include:
recurrent bladder and urinary tract infections;
cysts;
infertility;
an increased risk of childbirth complications and newborn deaths;
the need for later surgeries. For example, the FGM procedure that seals or narrows a vaginal opening (type 3 above) needs to be cut open later to allow for sexual intercourse and childbirth. Sometimes it is stitched again several times, including after childbirth, hence the woman goes through repeated opening and closing procedures, further increasing and repeated both immediate and long-term risks.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)"Circumcision does not take away male's ability to have normal sex life nor are there long term health consequences."
A ritual nicking of the clitoral hood wouldn't do any "damage" would it? Or the removal of only the clitoral hood (akin to male circumcision)? FGM has so many gradations which are impossible to regulate so we as a society have decided to ban ALL of it, even those versions of it that are exactly like what happens to a male.
While we can all agree on infibulation, it becomes much more tricky when its the others shades and variations.
Ban all childhood genital mutilations imho. And then let adult women and men decide what version they prefer.
dflprincess
(28,079 posts)The extreme mutilations which are intended to take away sexual desire and "promote chastity" are far more common and do far more long term damage to a woman's overall health than either circumcision or merely removing the hood of the clitoris.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Can we agree that any genital cutting should be something that adults decide to do to themselves, and not inflicted upon on infants?
boppers
(16,588 posts)Until a child can consent, as an adult.
What do you think about childhood vaccinations?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Hair cuts: dead material being removed. Completely non-permanant.
Wart removal; The removal of a cyst on the skin caused by a viral infection.
Vaccinations: The application of actual medical treatment that actually has a very noticeable rate of preventing actual disease in whole societies. By comparison, the "health benefits" of circumcision amount to excuse-finding for people who want to mangle their kids' penis because God tells them to.
Ear piercings: Falls under the "altering your kid's body permanently for your own personal aesthetics" rubric of weirdness. Not on the same scale as circumcisions, breast implants, tattoos, or scarification, but still in the neighborhood (pierced ears can heal over, unlike these other body alterations)
boppers
(16,588 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Amazing what effect giving condoms and sex ed to the experimental group, but not the control group can have on an experiment. Basically, the researches went in with a preordained conclusion and skewed the experiments to get that conclusion out of them.
Also, for understandable and ethical reasons, the experiment could not be properly performed. Here's what it would take (and note, I'm NOT advocating this, just saying what it'd take for a proper experiment)
You have four groups of men. All of them are tested HIV negative. Two groups are circumcised, two groups are uncircumcised - and they have to come to the experiment that way. One group of both circumcised and uncircumcised men are each paired with a sexual partner who is confirmed HIV positive. The other two groups are the control; they are not paired with anyone, but go about their lives however they normally would. All four groups are forbidden the use of barrier prophylactics during sexual congress.
At the end of the experiment period, test to see the HIV infection rates of all groups.
My hypothesis is that circumcision will not have a noticeable impact on infection rates between the two experimental groups. The control groups will have an infection rate equal to that of the general population while both test groups will both have a high - and probably relatively equal - infection rate.
Of course, this experiment will not - and SHOULD not - ever be performed. But if you want to know the correct way to do it... there it is.
And again, at the end of the day, you're worrying about your infant child contracting HIV from sexual intercourse... Exactly WHAT are you doing with this child? It's just not something you need to concern yourself about; if later on your kid decides to snip it off, then he can make that decision for himself. Or, better yet, you can explain the need to wear a condom. Is this difficult to understand, that the boy can make the decision himself about what to do with his body?
boppers
(16,588 posts)An uncircumcised male has a greater skin surface area to act as a vector for infection.
More skin to break through=more pathways (quantitatively) for infection.
Of course, I'll also argue the counter-theory, since that's proper tennis, and say that more skin layers = more barriers (quantitatively) to prevent infection.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Clearly, you didn't. Clearly, you read the title of my post, and your eyes were too busy rolling in a crazed rage to actually see anything other than the reply button.
There is no comparison between the two in regards to the severity of what is done to the victim. Yes, the many varieties of female genital mutilation are all worse than male circumcision. If you're desperately hoping I'm going to downplay the harm caused to girls by this barbarity, you're sorely mistaken.
Where the two varieties of tribal barbarism are comparable is in the fact that in both cases, it is being performed without the consent of the child involved. A person's body is being permanently altered, without any input from that person. Instead, we have parents, or a society at large, calling for permanent disfigurement of an unwilling child's body, for reasons of fashion or tribal identity.
That one practice is clearly more harmful to the victim than the other, does not make the less harmful one acceptable.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)without the consent of the child.
Circumcision is NOTHING AT ALL LIKE THAT!
dflprincess
(28,079 posts)Unlike circumcision, no religion requires FGM.
xtraxritical
(3,576 posts)The useless foreskin can be a collection center for germs and infections. I'm very pleased with my thang!
E-Z-B
(567 posts)STD.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Your profile says you live in Chicago, so I guess not. Okay, here's what you do. I want you to get up, and go to your bathroom. Somewhere in there should be a basin-shaped thing, usually attached to the wall. if you look carefully, there should be a pipe-looking thing jutting over the basin, with two knobby things, one on either side.
Okay, you see it? Now, put your hand on one of those knobs, and turn it. If it won't go, turn it the other way. Okay, see that clear stuff that's rushing out of the spigot? That's called water. it's a pretty neat substance, but i'll spare you the chemistry lesson. One of those knobs - usually the one on the left - is magic. When you turn that one, you will get hot water. You can even adjust both knobs to get varying degrees of warm water.
Okay, practice turning the water on and off until you get the hang of it. Okay now, look for a bar of stuff that looks kind of waxy; it'll usually be rectangular or oval in shape, and is usually located near either the basin, or in the shower stall (I'll explain that one in a bit) Have you found it? it should be slippery if your hands are wet. This is called soap, it was invented ages ago. Now, what you do with it is, with wet hands - use warm or hot water for best results! - rub the soap between your palms. it should make a bunch of little bubbles, called suds. What soap does, it bonds with oils and loosens dirt from your skin. With that loosened oils and dirt come all sorts of grime, like dead skin cells, bacteria, ink, whatever you've got on you.
Okay, are you nice and lathered up? Okay, set the soap down - careful, it's slippery! - and rinse your hands under the stream of water. All that stuff the soap has loosened up? It's being rinsed from your hands and is going down the drain in your sink. If your hands are especially groady (and since I have to explain this to you, I'll bet they are) you may need to repeat this process another time or two.
Now, I promised I would explain that shower thing, right? If you've mastered the sink, this is actually really easy; in the shower, you do with your whole body, what you just did with your hands. it does require you to get naked, because it's hard to get your skin clean if it's covered, right? don't worry, no one will laugh.
In the shower, you should pay special attention to places on your body that can get, well, shall we say... dank. Your armpits and crotch for instance, where perspiration gathers and there's little air circulation. The crack of your rear end is a similar place that needs to be washed. Also, well, if you're a larger person, you may have a few other places that need attention as well. Also worthy of attention are the areas between your toes and behind your ears - you'd be surprised at the amount of grime that can collect behind your ears, especially if you wear hats or use over-the-ear headphones.
Now, some of these places require a bit of equipment. This is called a washcloth, it's not expensive- usually it's a nine-by-nine square of terrycloth. The way this functions is that you either soap your body and scrub with hte cloth, or you soap the cloth and use it to scrub. Whichever technique works best for you.
When you've scrubbed, rinse off (just like your hands!) and step out of the shower. There should probably be another, larger piece of terrycloth nearby you can use to rub yourself dry (WARNING! even though you are clean now, this cloth - it's called a towel - WILL get dirty and smelly. You should wash it regularly!)
This is a technology known as "washing." it's brought to you by the modern marvels of plumbing and clean water! And this may surprise you, but it's even effective for cleaning parts of your body that Victorian mores assure you should never ever be touched, such as the penis or vulva!
reorg
(3,317 posts)Reading all these strange tales about "smegma" accumulating under the foreskin and the like - what kind of pig does one have to be if you don't feel like washing your genitals at least once or twice a week? I do it several times per day, and nobody here is so poor that they can't spare the water for getting clean. Also feels good, but they probably don't know.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)xtraxritical
(3,576 posts)
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Really, you're advocating slicing up an infant because, golly, you're too fucking lazy / vile to teach the kid to use a bar of Irish Spring or something?
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)More time with family perhaps?
BTW, many areas of the world do not have access to clean water. You imply that you know that but then ignore the reality of it.
Is circumcision okay for them then? Is it less abusive in your eyes if you live in a hut? So then how am I not to conclude that you have a double standard that implies a massive degree of cultural arrogance?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)No, I do not believe child circumcision is okay. Period. The point is, making the dick-rot argument, when you live in a place that DOES have awesome hygienic standards, is fucking DUMB. Especially when you consider that in many of these other, impoverished areas of the world... they DON'T slash off a piece of their kid's penis. And somehow, no harm comes to them for having a prepuce.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)In many places of the world where they do not practice circumcision AND do not have easy access to water and soap, there are some of the most tragic numbers of AIDS deaths.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)I gotta love it when people start with a hypothesis and then work backwards to pick evidence that supports it. In this case, "circumcision is good!" followed by cherry-picked statistics to back it up.
79% of men in the United States are circumcised. adult HIV prevalence is 0.60%
On the other hand, just around 10% of men in Mexico are circumcisedl the HIV prevalence of Mexico is 0.30%
Over in Egypt, over 80% of men are circumcised; HIV prevalence in Egypt is 0.10%
In Mongolia, less than 20% of men are circumcised, and the HIV prevalence is 0.10%
In Ethiopia, 76% of men are circumcised, but the HIV prevalence is 2.10%
In Finland, fewer than 20% of men are circumcised, with an HIV prevalence of 0.03%
In Russia, fewer than 20% of men are circumcised, with an HIV prevalence of 0.30%
I'm tempted to point out correlation does not equal causation... but there's not even any fucking correlation, Bonobo.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)When I bring up the fact that it is NOT the case, suddenly you become deaf. Why?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)My point is that someone living in the united states making the argument that a foreskin collects grime and thusneeds to be lopped off, is either stupid, or filthy. Possibly both, given the admitted lack of foreskin from a person (i.e., how do they know?)
You make this idiotic argument that this somehow makes me a hypocrite because you have decided to put words in my mouth and claim that I support circumcision "in huts." I don't, but your attempt to be disingenuous is appreciated.
You then make an argument that circumcision prevents aids... I show it doesn't.
And now you claim that I didn't answer your earlier disingenuous argument... Which I did.
All so you can defend child abuse. 
Only on DU, man.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)"My point is that someone living in the united states making the argument that a foreskin collects grime and thusneeds to be lopped off, is either stupid, or filthy. Possibly both, given the admitted lack of foreskin from a person (i.e., how do they know?)
"
Sp, in your own words, you were arguing that a DU'er is stupid or filthy. That was what you were trying to do? Not about circumcision, but about showing that a particular DU'er is stupid and filthy? No wonder your circumcision argument is such shit --you aren't really concentrating on the issue.
Now, back to circumcision, you think you have proved that circumcision does not reduce AIDS with the numbers you posted. But that is not true. You tried to show that countries where circumcision is prevalent still has a certain percentage of HIV cases. But if you understood science truly, you would know that proves nothing. If you are interested in actual studies and not simply tossing around meaningless numbers, here's some help for you. It goes into detail about the various studies that have been performed -much more convincing then a lame attempt to attribute causality as you did which was more akin to reading tea leaves.
Experimental evidence was needed to establish a causal relationship between lack of circumcision and HIV, so three randomized controlled trials were commissioned as a means to reduce the effect of any confounding factors. Trials took place in South Africa, Kenya and Uganda. All three trials were stopped early by their monitoring boards on ethical grounds, because those in the circumcised group had a lower rate of HIV contraction than the control group. The results showed that circumcision reduced vaginal-to-penile transmission of HIV by 60%, 53%, and 51%, respectively.
A newer study, published in PLoS in January, 2010, points out that gross changes in the penis's microbiome occurs following circumcision, and this may play a role in protection from HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Yes, a person who argues about smegma and general infections being a major reason for circumcision is either stupid or filthy. By this logic, if we cauterized kids' fingernails shortly after birth, it would drastically reduce the rate of conjunctivitis infection... or we could just teach our kids how to keep their hands clean.
My point was that there is no telling correlation between HIV and circumcision by country. Some countries with hich circumcision rate have low HIV infection rates, some countries with low circumcision rates have high infection rates... And vice versa. There's no rhyme or reason to it. By logic, we would have to assume that the US, with its high circumcision rate, would have a low HIV infection rate. That's not what happens. Norway, where almost no one gets cut, should be a seething hotbed of HIV infections... Again, not the case.
As for these AIDS experiments... First, there were no controls for other factors besides vaginal intercourse. As I'm sure you're aware, there are many ways to contract the HIV virus. Second, the circumcised group had six weeks "off" from sexual intercourse that the uncircumcised group did not. Third, the circumcised experimental group received extensive education in the proper use of condoms, and was supplied with plenty of rubbers. The uncircumcised control group did not receive this instruction or supply. The study also relies on the random chance factor of the subjects bedding down with an infected person. Of course it would violate all standards of ethics to perform the experiment "properly" so, I don't complain on this, except to note that it's going to have an effect on the results.
Could circumcision have an effect? Sure, as the second study notes, the removal of the foreskin causes the mucus membrane of the glans to become more keratinized and thus less penetrable or prone to injury, lessening the chances of infections. 60% reduction rate though? No.
Next, ask yourself; Exactly how many people is your infant son sleeping with, that scarring his penis to get some percentile protection against infection going to be such a top priority? I would hope the answer is "none," but when parents show this much concern over the esthetics of their kid's erogenous zones, it does make me wonder.
Also remember; as was found in these experiments, condoms can be a major factor in preventing disease transmission. I know that if you think god needs your son's penis to be mangled, then you probably believe Pat Robertson when he tells you otherwise, but your god's a pervert and Pat Robertson is a liar.
1) Teach your kids to wash their junk.
2) Teach your kids safe sex
3) if your kid wants to be carved up for God like a spiral ham, then let him make that decision. Not you.
Simple.
boppers
(16,588 posts)Bravo, I think?
Unless this wasn't meant to be satire.
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)Yes, one never knows what they are missing when it was taken so early.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)reproductive track at birth would cut down on yeast infections and the like, would you support it?
Boxcar Willie
(75 posts)
so I guess you have to accept the fact that your parents mutilated you.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)This is about religious freedom. Jews have circumcised their sons since the beginnings of their history. And Muslims followed suit. That procedure, as barbaric as it may seem to many, is a part of what has defined their cultures for centuries and centuries.
Considering its history, for Germany, of all countries, to prohibit circumcision would appear to be an ignorant, intolerant, bigoted act reminiscent of the Third Reich.
If you don't like the procedure, the effective way to end it is to persuade individual parents not to do it to their sons. But banning a religious practice that affects only a minority of citizens and affects only the members of the families and religions that use it and does not broader societal harm is simply wrong.
You don't have to agree with the procedure. You don't have to perform it in your family. You can campaign to persuade people not to do it. But there is no compelling reason to prohibit people from doing it, and, especially in Germany, it should be allowed.
alp227
(32,034 posts)Oh please tell me your account got hacked...circumcision involves an irreversible skin removal on another person, and a child can't control if he gets one...my position is let adults get one if they wish but not make children get one.
harun
(11,348 posts)alp227
(32,034 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Would you like to see my cigarette burn scars? I've got a nice one on my bicep, looks like a permanent mosquito bite. Scar on my lip where my mom's ring caught me when she gave me a good whack across the chops when I was nine, too.
Parents are the boss when it comes to scarring up their kids, yup.
Skittles
(153,169 posts)you know the score 
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)kids.
What a crock of religiously kookery, indeed!
harun
(11,348 posts)Thinking you somehow know better than a child's parents how to take care of them and what is best for them. It's arrogant, intrusive and anti-Liberty.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Its common sense.
Educational standards? Yes.
Bodily harm? Yes.
Nutritional needs? Yes.
We can and have legislated basic standards for good quality care for children and I don't think that's intrusive. The facts remain that a certain population of kids will simply fall through the cracks unless there are some basic standards enforced and policed. We can't catch all of them but we can try.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)They are not pieces of wood for you to whittle, they are not slaves for you to brand, they are not livestock for you to dock, crop, castrate, flense, or poll.
They are people, and they have absolute and total right to the integrity of their own body.
harun
(11,348 posts)their hair, or their nails.
How would that work for you?
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)And snipping the umbilical cord is identical to tribal scarification in order to keep your personal sky-demon from rejecting the boy.
Ooookaaaaaay.
You're weird.
Y'see... Hair and nails are dead material. They're keratin extrusions from the skin. They also grow continuously throughout your life (though contrary to myth, they STOP growing on death.) A haircut causes no lasting change to the body, though a bad one may cause a period of embarrassment. same with paring the fingernails; no change is done to the body.
The umbilical cord also is a temporary feature; even left attached (this is called "lotus birth" apparently) it dries and detaches after about three days. Cutting it simply removes the dangling placenta prior to its inevitable falling away. Eighteen years? Do you learn this stuff from Family Guy?
boppers
(16,588 posts)harun
(11,348 posts)Children have rights, too.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)reorg
(3,317 posts)Last edited Sat Jul 14, 2012, 10:45 AM - Edit history (1)
when in fact it is the exact opposite of singling out Jews.
The court found that parents don't have the right to irreversibly change their son's body if there is no medical indication. That religious freedom does not trump the right to inviolacy of one's body: religious minorities are subject to the exact same laws as everybody else.
The German association of urologists, the relevant experts in the field, disagrees with Frau Merkel: they hold that circumcision of children constitutes bodily harm.
Now, it will be fun to watch how the politicians will get around that fact. I suppose they'll come up with a a law that exempts followers of certain religions from certain laws even while the rest of the people still have to abide by those laws.
kurtzapril4
(1,353 posts)uncircumcised men transmit STDs far more easily and at a higher rate than circumcised ones.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(07)60313-4/abstract?refuid=S0749-3797(09)00491-7&refissn=0749-3797
reorg
(3,317 posts)"far more easily", even if it were true, does not mean you are safe if you're circumcised. I never had any STD because I know how to protect myself.
Anyway, the court decision is about parents making decisions for their children. The number of kids under 14 having frequently changing, possibly STD infected sex partners is negligible.
xtraxritical
(3,576 posts)The previous poster provides a link backing up his claim. Circumcision is medically proven to be salubrious.
Here's the link the previous poster was trying to give...
http://www.thelancet.com/search/results?searchTerm=circumcision&fieldName=AllFields&journalFromWhichSearchStarted=lancet
Updated for link.
reorg
(3,317 posts)The discussion in Germany is about circumcision of small children.
STD are of no concern to small children.
Unless you are promoting frequent change of sex partners among toddlers, that is, which I hope you don't.
As to the dubious claims that circumcision may in any way beneficial to adults in case they are frequently changing sex partners, I'll stick with the German association of urologists and my very own experience, thank you very much.
boppers
(16,588 posts)You do know that children grow up?
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)when they are adults and are cognizant of all the facts and can make an informed decision.
boppers
(16,588 posts)Certainly not any that I know of.
reorg
(3,317 posts)Seems like a healthy activity to me, much easier to practice and more pleasurable for male adolescents when they are not circumcised.
Sexual contact with prepubescent children is illegal and sexually transmitted diseases seem to be statistically insignificant in this age group.
The prevalence of sexually transmitted diseases among adolescents over 14/15 is still very low (from extremely rare in the case of syphilis to some 3 percent for chlamydial infections http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats10/adol.htm), and these diseases can be treated and prevented in many ways that do not require invasive surgical procedures.
Of course, adolescents considered to be able to consent to sexual intercourse might also be considered to be able to consent to medical procedures like circumcision. No need for parents to interfere. They can still inform and educate instead of forcing medical procedures on their children.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)boppers
(16,588 posts)Especially the Catholic ones molesting boys.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Did I miss such an important survey? 
Clearly this thread is played out. Have fun playing with your strawmen.
E-Z-B
(567 posts)reorg
(3,317 posts)regarding the health effects of circumcision on toddlers.
And please spare me the "urinary tract infections". Oh, nos, the infections! Never had one, never knew anybody who ever had one - uh ... wait! I'm wrong! I once had a girlfriend who once had a urinary tract infection, damn, you got me there.
If you feel you need to fuck around a lot with people you don't know and have an aversion to condoms, get circumcised when you're an adult. You won't be safe, but, statistically speaking, there is a possibility that you won't contract STD as quickly as you might if your sensitive body parts are still intact. That's basically what the studies say.
boppers
(16,588 posts)Well, abstinence is not something I want, but congratulations.
unc70
(6,115 posts)That research was highly biased, the groups not equivalent, etc.
BTW You are not talking about just a piece of skin. It changes fundamentally the action of the penis, its sheath, and the interaction with ones partner during intercourse.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)It interferes with their sex lives.
The West has successfully outlawed FGM for these exact same reasons - or are you saying its okay for boys to be genitally mutilated and not girls?
Religious rationales for practices are fair targets in a secular west. We don't allow public nudity, polygamy, or public animal sacrifice - we can and do restrict certain religious practices, even those that are considered the most sacrosanct. You can't go walkabout dressed in a business suit and heels.....
Anyone wanting to join the Jewish or Muslim cults can get their official ID badge when they are adults and can make the decision themselves.
harun
(11,348 posts)
Canuckistanian
(42,290 posts)Or something.
Who's with me?
kurtzapril4
(1,353 posts)Foreskins have feelings, too!
AJTheMan
(288 posts)No, don't give parents the choice. Government knows whats best for your child.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Do you think those families that hire the female equivalent of a mohel and do it underground at circumcision parties "know best"?
How about government intervention on child abuse? Okay or not? What exactly is the line on child abuse where parents are free to assault their kids?
Or homeschooling kids where they only learn Bible lessons - creationism, "science" where the earth is only 6000 years old, no math etc. etc.? Still okay for parents to raise their children completely free of educational basics?
AJTheMan
(288 posts)riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)for the parents being able to exercise their rights, without "big brother government" child services interfering....
Welcome to DU Please note this is not libertarian underground....
AJTheMan
(288 posts)
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Response to riderinthestorm (Reply #57)
Post removed
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)making decisions about their own bodies. Life changing, genitally mutilating decisions for their minor children instead of allowing them to make those decisions when they are adults. Also, abortion doesn't permanently physically scar anyone, for life.
Do you really think there's ANY comparison?
But thanks for making your agenda perfectly clear. I don't presume you will have a long lifespan on DU with that attitude...
AJTheMan
(288 posts)So you're right, I won't post here anymore. I thought this was a forum for Democrats, not communists. I don't belong here. So bye.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)But there are elements of the authoritarian left here - so please...
if you wish to not post here anymore, that is your business - but know that the non-authoritarians outnumbered the authoritarians. So, if you leave please don't leave for that reason.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Anything.
Fearless
(18,421 posts)People need to stop mutilating their children.
Behind the Aegis
(53,961 posts)Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)Let's be honest for a minute. The whole effort to ban circumcision is not about preventing child abuse or some nonsense like that. In most cases I don't think it is motivated by anti-Semitism or anti-Muslim sentiment either - sometimes it is, but mostly not. It is motivated by the inability of some people to not stick their nose into other peoples' business. Of all the trauma of my own childhood - circumcision doesn't even rate. Of all the terrible things that routinely are done to children - circumcision is nowhere near the top of the list. Of the hundreds of millions of people who were circumcised as children - why have not more victims come forward to demand justice and seek compensation? Just how many adult "survivors" of childhood circumcision are there anyway who are now claiming that they were so horribly mutilated and abused? Seriously, why all this fuss over something so insignificant? It's because some people just can't keep their nose out of other peoples' business.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)when the person being victimized is a boy versus a girl.
FGM: no question that it is wrong.
MGM: it's a personal choice (made by someone else for the kid) and religious freedom!
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)foreskin. Also, no where and among no religion is the removal of a clitoris a religious teaching (although it is practiced in parts of the Islamic world and even among some non-Islamic tribes elsewhere) while removing a the male foreskin is an actually basic religious tenant of both Judaism and Islam and goes to the heart of both Jewish and Islamic identity. There simply is no equivalency between female circumcision and male circumcision.
Out of the hundreds of millions of people who had male circumcision - I have not heard of any outcry from "circumcision survivors" claiming victimization and demanding justice and compensation.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)I'd oppose doing either on religious or any other grounds.
Would you?
And if it's such a great thing why not wait until they are 18 and can consent? If every guy loves to have his foreskin remove why does the decision have to be forced on them?
Funny how pro-choice is a good thing . . . only in certain instances. In others it is perfectly acceptable to force decisions on others regarding their bodies.
Abortion: my body my choice!
Tattoos: my body my choice!
Sex: my body my choice!
Circumcision (female): her body her choice!
Circumcision (male): . . . RELIGION TRUMPS EVERYTHING!
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)this is far, far from the biggest. People are free to advocate against the practice of male circumcision. They are free to run campaigns to try to convince parents not to practice it.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)if a parent wanted to get his kid tattooed, no there are laws against it. Or a piercing. Nope. Laws against it. Or to start hacking off any other body part for any other non-medical reason: nope, laws against it. Or to just randomly cut on them for religious or personal reasons: nope, laws against it.
Do any of those things and you will be stopped. Likely sent to jail and almost certainly deemed a horrible parent by your community.
/People are free to advocate against the practice of female circumcision. They are free to run campaigns to try to convince parents not to practice it.
//I guess I will never understand the obsession some people have with mutilating little boys because if we wait until they are adults they may not want it done. Seems pretty perverse.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)concerns me in the least. Male circumcision is not going to be made illegal in the United States. It is not going to happen. If you wish to decrease the number of male circumcisions in the United States you will never succeed in banning it. If you want to try to convince parents not to have it done - you might have some success with that approach. On the other hand if you wish to improve the quality of life for children - I would suspect there are other projects that address other issues that would accomplish a lot more good.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)on an entirely elective and permanently disfiguring surgery?
What is it about the requirement of consent on this that offends you so greatly?
In general would you say that mutilating a child is wrong and that any cosmetic surgeries ought to be consented to?
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)actually I don't have much of an opinion about whether or not boys should be circumcised. That decision is a family matter. Judaism and Islam teach that it should be done soon after birth. I am not going to tell Jews or Muslims or anyone else what they should or should not do on this matter.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)dis·fig·ure? ?[dis-fig-yer; Brit. dis-fig-er] Show IPA
verb (used with object), dis·fig·ured, dis·fig·ur·ing.
1.
to mar the appearance or beauty of; deform; deface: Our old towns are increasingly disfigured by tasteless new buildings.
mu·ti·late?
?[myoot-l-eyt] Show IPA
verb (used with object), mu·ti·lat·ed, mu·ti·lat·ing.
1.
to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts: Vandals mutilated the painting.
2.
to deprive (a person or animal) of a limb or other essential part.
Why are you opposed to first asking the individual being cut on for consent?
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)Last edited Sat Jul 14, 2012, 09:17 PM - Edit history (1)
I have reread all my posts - and nowhere did I say that I am opposed to asking someone's consent on this matter. Obviously if the person is too young then one needs the decision of the child's parents or legal guardian. That's just common sense.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)meaning that you oppose getting consent from those harmed by it.
How can a newborn consent to anything?
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)someone irrevocably. Which is why we have laws that regulate such things (like child brides, or facial tattoos, or FGM or slavery or .... take your pick of any other number of issues you've already agreed should require governmental interference to prevent).
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)fgm or slavery. But I think there are plenty of other matters like specific elective blood test, in what town the child is going to live, where if anywhere they go to nursery school and elective medical procedures like male circumcision- for those kind of issues - I don't think the government should routinely make the decision. I think those are personal family and parental matters.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Ridiculous strawman and no comparison.
Permanent amputation of a physical body part does not equal parental selection of a nursery school.
I can go on all night - my family's out and I'm doing paperwork for several hours more. Please go on just like this - it serves to jack up the thread and exposes the deeply flawed cultural relativism entrenched on DU. You will excuse harm done to minors or the oppressed because its some deeply ingrained status quo within that culture and we should somehow respect that. I firmly disagree.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)it's really not as big a deal as you think it is. But I still think it's a family matter - none of my business what other people do
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)"it's really not as big a deal as you think it is. But I still think it's a family matter - none of my business what other people do"
Yup.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Sure it can be. Sometimes its cutting off the clitoral hood, or ritual nicks. Sometimes its infibulation. Do you think its okay if they simply cut away the clitoral hood (akin to male foreskin removal?)
Regardless of the severity, we've agreed as a society that cutting a girl's genitals in any way is wrong. I 110% agree that cutting a girl's genitals in any way, for any reason, is wrong. Why would I possibly be such a hypocrite as to believe its wrong for girls but okay for boys??
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)stimulation and thus enjoy sex. That is not the issue with removing the foreskin from boys. From what I can gather the procedure on girls is far more traumatic and cannot really be compared to male circumcision.
I also find it interesting that the World Health Organization encourages male circumcision:
http://www.who.int/hiv/pub/malecircumcision/en/
But strongly condemns female circumcision:
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/
But whether one agrees with the findings of the WHO or not - it is clear that the two are not comparable
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)and the finer gradations of pleasure between intact males and those who've been mutilated?
How about the exquisiteness of sex between girls with their clitoral hoods removed vs those with ritual nicks?
You can't. We can theorize all you like (and I love those who believe infants don't "feel pain" when THEIR genitals are whacked) but ultimately until some kind of study is performed, we only have anecdotal evidence.
You (as a male) can anecdotally think you "understand". But truthfully, you only know your own experience.
Why would you possibly think you (hubristically) have all of the answers?
WHO also used to believe that AIDS was only transmitted by gay males or that bottle feeding was superior to breast feeding. Medicine and societal values change and evolve. WHO is not some ultimate authority.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)business.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)and "family business" sometimes isn't private, good, societally beneficial or fundamentally anathema to a human's civil right to determine the status of their own body parts.
Then the law steps in to shut that shit down.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)I wonder how popular that would be? I wonder if he might also be a cultural relativist like me?
If it is cultural relativism to believe that slavery is wrong, foot binding is wrong, FGM is wrong, child marriage is wrong - but have nothing particular against male circumcision then I guess I join at least 90% of Americans in being cultural relativist.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)I'm absolutely certain I'm not in the mainstream - YET! Doesn't bother me in the least. It used to be commonplace that women were beaten by their husbands without legal recourse or children were raped by their fathers without legal recourse. It also used to be common for slaves to be hunted down as chattel and lethal drunk drivers to get a misdemeanor.
Its NOT cultural relativism to believe slavery is wrong, foot binding is wrong, FGM is wrong, child marriage is wrong. It what we've grown to believe as a society. They're simply moral wrongs. So is permanently disfiguring a child's body to simply mark them as religious tribal members.
What's wrong about your position is that you want to support and allow a religious or cultural practice simply because that culture or religion has "always" done it, or their mythical sky god "requires" it, or ... That's cultural relativism at its most despicable.
Regardless of its inherent physical or personal damage you don't have the moral courage to confront those wrongs. Cowardice defined.
Just because you've had to endure religious tribal markings, you think its fine to subject infants to that pain and suffering without their consent. Typical.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)It is exactly this kind of crazy where male circumcision is made to sound like some kind trauma that it's not and somehow the moral equivalence to things that it is not. It's this kind of crazy talk from the authoritarian left that gives a bad name to the entire left.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)wrong - For example slavery or child marriage is wrong - but male circumcision is not particularly wrong - then I guess I join the overwhelming majority of Americans in the sea of cultural relativism. But I still don't see the moral equivalency between slavery, foot-binding, FGM, or child brides to male circumcision - very few people do.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)They also used to believe that dumping nuclear waste into the ocean was okay too and that Native American genocide was jim-dandy.
We now know better.
Just because its been okay doesn't mean its okay. Good luck with that argument.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)persist that they should be arrested?
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)individual's own decision, made when they are fully cognizant of all the facts.
Edited to add ask why you are so insistent this procedure must be carried out on children? Why can't the individual decide to take on this religious and cultural ritual when they have all the facts at their disposal and can make an informed choice?
boppers
(16,588 posts)It's huge organ.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)Where is it then?
/the lengths people will go to defend religious nuttery.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)far last painful and far less traumatic than many medical procedures. People are making a big deal out of nothing
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)where is the foreskin located on the human body?
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)favor of FGM.
If the parents want it and some crazy religion/culture dictates it . . .
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)of the authoritarian left
reorg
(3,317 posts)Like a blind follower of some authoritarian religious cult.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)decisions. But let me ask you, do you believe that if Jews or anyone else for that matter decides to have their male children circumcised that the government must forcibly stop them and if they persist - they should be arrested?
reorg
(3,317 posts)Definition of AUTHORITARIAN
1: of, relating to, or favoring blind submission to authority
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/authoritarian
authoritarianism
authoritarianism, principle of blind submission to authority, as opposed to individual freedom of thought and action. In government, authoritarianism denotes any political system that concentrates power in the hands of a leader or a small elite that is not constitutionally responsible to the body of the people. Authoritarian leaders often exercise power arbitrarily and without regard to existing bodies of law ...
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/44640/authoritarianism
True believers in Abrahamic religions claim they have to blindly follow the commands of a nebulous entity they label "god". Some of them apparently believe they are called upon to cut the foreskin of their sons at a certain point in time. If they are honest (and I believe most of them are), they don't even discuss the supposed benefits or drawbacks of such an operation but simply state: it is a command by our god, period, end of discussion.
The court decision in Germany is based on a thorough reading and interpretation of existing German law and fundamental rights in the German constitution. Everyone has the right to life and physical/bodily integrity (article 2 GG), which goes for adults as well as children. A surgical procedure, if not medically indicated, constitutes bodily harm and violates article 2 GG, a fact which is undisputed. The constitution also guarantees freedom of religion, and the rights of parents to care for and educate their children. However, at the same time, parents have an obligation to act in the best interest of their children.
Whether or not certain religious rituals are in the best interest of children has been decided by the court in Cologne with the known result. Other courts may decide differently. It'll be interesting to see how their argument goes. Quite possibly, there will be a Supreme Court (Verfassungsgericht) decision at some point.
Since you asked my personal opinion on forcibly stopping MGM for ritual reasons: no, I don't think it is necessary to prosecute parents and probably not possible to stop or convict them since they appear to sincerely believe they act in the best interest of their children*. However, I think legal avenues must be open to their children to seek damages from those who infringed on their right to bodily integrity.
*On edit: There also appears to be a sizeable portion of Muslims who follow this tradition due to social pressure, even though they are not really convinced it is in the best interest of their sons. A public discussion on the topic may already have some beneficial effects in those cases, even while the legal questions remain unsolved.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)stopped and if they persist do you believe that they should be arrested?
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)individual's own decision, and that specific individual should decide whether they want to undergo the procedure, when they are an adult.
boppers
(16,588 posts)Such as skin flaps on the ankles, hands, or penis.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)it doesn't mean something that is perfectly normally formed and healthy.
boppers
(16,588 posts)A painful, constricting, disease promoting, skin flap, is not high on my list for "healthy".
reorg
(3,317 posts)in real life?
The vocabulary you are using to describe it strongly suggests otherwise.
Sounds like a chicken trying to explain the tail-fin of a whale.
Painful? LOL! Constricting? Huh? Flap? The foreskin is no more a "flap" than your lips which you happily let "promote" the growth of bacteria in your mouth. Filthy, filthy ...
2. Maybe if chickens were born with tail-fins, and had them removed.
3. Yes, mouths are filthy things, if my children were born with an additional 3-5 inches of mouth-flap, I would want it removed, if only so they could clean themselves more easily.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)why in places where it is less common people must suffer from gangrenous penii all the time. And the agony this devilish flap of skin causes them must drive them to madness and despair.
Horrific backwoods places like . . . Europe.
boppers
(16,588 posts)
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)and all men are sexually frustrated and violent due to the agony their low circumcision rates cause them.
It's a perpetual dystopia of disease and hate.
Good thing we have people like you to save us from such a fate here.
/why, as adults and realizing that they are living in squalor and agony every day, these men don't choose to get a circumcision is beyond me. The benefits are so clear . . . which is why we have to force it on babies because otherwise they might opt out of it as adults.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)boppers
(16,588 posts)Do you cut your hair? Fingernails? Get moles removed?
I'm not arguing for the rationality of this, I'm pointing out that the law allows social pressures to be reflected in body modification.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)I would grant them the right to think that, not to enforce it on someone else.
Hair and fingernails grow back. This would more akin to burning a childs head to ensure no hair ever grows or ripping their fingernails out with pliers.
And removing a mole that isn't cancerous should be left to that person (or even if it is cancerous I suppose).
All of those things are temporary and voluntary.
A circumcision for an infant is neither temporary nor voluntary.
Why have you gone to such great lengths to defend taking choice away from a large segment of the population?
boppers
(16,588 posts)For some reason, people are still really freaked out about penis-skin, and attach huge social, and cultural, significance to it.
Oh, and you can restretch, and regrow, or otherwise remake a foreskin, if you really care about it. It's just skin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreskin_restoration
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)it wouldn't be the same of course.
But would you defend performing such surgery on little girls?
I feel the gender aspect of this is remarkably interesting: what certain people would abhor being done to little girls they will fight tooth and nail (no different than cutting fingernails really) doing to little boys.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)and able to make an informed decision on their own, about a permanent removal of a body part.
You are really stretching here. Cutting nails and fingernails are temporary measures. Moles can grow into cancerous tumours. Does a foreskin grow into a cancerous tumour? I don't think so.
boppers
(16,588 posts)Of course, that's true of the whole penis.
Sterling
(7,730 posts)Speaking as a man who is lacking foreskin it is a pretty big difference. I honestly can't say I have missed any pleasure in life because it was done to me in the hospital when I was born. I thought it was almost a universal practice? Maybe I am missing something but what they do to women is terrible and does not a all seem to be the same to me.
Actually this thread is the first time in my life that I have felt the least bit "odd" about the way my junk is. I rather like my stuff and have been complemented on it's appearance more than once in my life. 
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)How come you get to declare which ritualistic, religiously based physical scarring is important and which isn't? There are DUers who are upset about having the procedure carried out on them as children - their opinions don't matter? How come your opinion is so much more valid than theirs?
As for "sticking their nose into other people's business"? Well, we do that all the time as a society. We certainly do make laws prohibiting certain practices that many might see as their private business - child, spousal and animal abuse are illegal at all times, polygamy is banned, school attendance is mandatory, basic nutritional standards are enforced (if a child has gotten too thin or too fat CPS steps in), furthermore CPS will also step in if children under a certain age (who decided that?) are left alone, you can't even paint your house with certain paints (that may be harmful to others like lead based)....
None of that is "nanny state" imho although I'd be happy to have a conversation about why you believe its nobody else's business if someone's maiming their dog. They are simply societal rules we've agreed upon. They can certainly be changed (although I'm not sure there are that many other DUers other than you and AJ upthread who believe its okay to simply let your neighbor cut off your dogs sheath for example without someone sticking their "nose" into that "private business"
. Society may someday come to believe that ALL infant genital mutilation for religious tribal membership is barbaric.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)I do not wish and and I will not support empowering the state to control every little private matter of family and religious life. Given that Jews and Muslims have and do still suffer persecution in the Western world - I do not wish to see created any additonal points of antagonism with either community on a matter held sacred to Muslims and Jews and fundamental to their identity.
Where else do we go with this? Do we ban religious teaching to children because they are too young to decide for themselves and some children grow up to resent their religious background? Do we ban exposing children to sports because they are too young to decide for themselves and it might facilitate certain values that the children may later come to reject? I do not favor going down this road to tyranny.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)and nobody's said that.
I simply pointed out that the state can and does intervene to protect children from religious AND cultural practices that are deemed harmful - even those that said religion believes are SACRED IMPERATIVES for eternal spiritual well-being. Some Mormon sects truly believe their god demands polygamy, with very young girls. Are you truly saying that the state should never be involved? How about the cultural practices of foot binding? Okay by you? You don't want to go down the road about what exactly cause you seem to be implying that any intervention is "tyranny"?
That said, I'm not saying that it should be banned entirely. I believe that any ritual mutilation should be a decision a person makes as an adult. This isn't sports Douglas Carpenter. Nor is this religious teaching. Its permanent genital cutting (there, feel better, I didn't say mutilation?) that cannot be reversed.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)But male circumcision simply does not rise to that level. Any male who feels deeply bitter about having been circumcised - must surely have had a most idyllic childhood - to be able to view their circumcision as one of the worst things that ever happened to them. My God, I can only envy someone who has the luxury of being able to view that as the lowest point of their youth. No doubt, many adults feel that their childhood religious indoctrination harmed them. Do we therefore ban Sunday School or other forms of childhood religious education? There are very few things in a small child's upbringing that the child has the ability to make a consensual decision about. Okay foot binding and removal of the female clitoris are things that most of us agree can and should be banned. They rise to a significant standard of harm that state intervention is warranted. Male circumcision simply does not rise to that level and is in fact an accepted part of American culture for approximately 50% of Americans and almost a mandatory religious requirement for Jews and Muslims. If one wishes to concentrate their efforts on protecting children, I am sure there are far more pressing concerns that will be appreciated rather than resented.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)Apply the same to slavery.
Or treating women as second class citizens.
Or putting children in mines.
At one point we had "always" done those things. At one point the majority (of those who counted at the time) were ok with it.
/now it's time to completely miss the point and say that circumcision isn't slavery.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)either. But down on planet earth parents are making lots of life altering decisions for their children. Many of those decisions have consequences far greater than male circumcision. And no doubt many children will grow up and wish their parents had decided to do somethings entirely different. If people wish to try to convince parents not to have their children circumcised - well this is a free country - and people have every right to advocate whatever the wish to advocate. So, let them advise parents to their hearts content if it makes them feel better.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)that's insane.
By that reckoning female genital mutilation ought to be fine because there are more horrific things you could do to a child.
For that matter by carrying this to it's logical conclusion anything short of what, genocide maybe, ought to be just fine.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)step below genocide. The simple reality is that circumcision is an established custom that goes back a long time and it is not going to disappear. Approximately 50% of Americans practice it. Two of the three Abrahamic religions hold it as a sacred requirement and a core point of their identity. If you want to convince people that it should end - you are absolutely free to do that. You will not be successful at banning it in the United States.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)so that is disingenuous on your part.
I was merely mocking *your* notion that because some things are worse that makes this ok. That is what you said.
The simple reality is that circumcision is an established custom that goes back a long time
If that argument doesn't work in defending slavery or treating women as chattel why should it apply here? Either traditions are acceptable because they are old or they are acceptable because they respect basic human rights. You can't have both.
So which is it? Are we bound to continue doing what we have always done or can we think for ourselves?
Two of the three Abrahamic religions hold it as a sacred requirement and a core point of their identity.
Wow. At least two of those three rabidly oppose abortion. What are your thoughts there?
Oh but listening to them on that would be wrong because it would involve a religious dogma forcing its edicts on the bodies of others without consent . . .
. If you want to convince people that it should end - you are absolutely free to do that.
Total cop-out.
You will not be successful at banning it in the United States.
I'm sure there are some who made the same argument about Europe once upon a time.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)I would think that anyone concerned about the rights of children could find other projects that would do more good than something that appears to most people like authoritarians sticking their nose into other people's business.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)business. And you've agreed on at least a half dozen examples (out of an entire panoply of other examples that could be brought up) of why that's okay and necessary, even as it infringes on religiously sacrosanct practices (polygamy, slavery etc) or even impinges on cultural norms (foot binding, FGM etc.)
Do you really think its appropriate to call anyone who may object to this kind of infant genital MUTILATION, an authoritarian? (since we're getting sticky about definitions and all....) We as a society have decided these issues and come to certain legal conclusions about them. Is society "authoritarian" when the government interferes with child brides for polygamous religious groups? Or is it authoritarian to interfere when the government steps in to charge someone with mutilating a dog by cutting off its sheath? Can outlawing these kinds of cultural and religious questions fall under the rubric of "authoritarianism" for "sticking their noses" into personal business?
Or is that simply societal norms that are ever evolving and changing?
There was an era when slavery was a common societal norm. But nosy governmental type "authoritarians" decided to outlaw it. Damn them eh? Damn those "authoritarians?"
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)on children including male circumcision should be left up to parents.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)We've already decided (and you've agreed) that SOME bodily modifications are too extreme to inflict on infants and must be banned by law regardless of parental desire. Did you know the Maori of New Zealand consider a child without facial tattoos and scarificatiom (moko) to be "incomplete" and "naked". Yet outlaw that practice we do since we understand that elaborate facial tattoos pretty much mean that person isn't going to be getting a job as a lawyer/president/teacher etc even as the Maori grieve since that person can never be "complete" without it in their religion and culture.
You still haven't answered the question of WHY this religious ritual that serves only to identify someone as a member of a religious tribe, can't be decided to be done when said person is an adult and can decide for themselves. Why MUST it be performed on an unconsenting infant? Without anesthesia? Do you think infant religious scarification is okay too?
Of course you've declined to answer most of the rest of my post. Noted.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)believe a decision about circumcision including the decision whether or not to wait until the child is older should be left up to the parents if the child is too young to make this decision. It is not for me to decide what the Jewish or Islamic faith teaches about this matter.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)except for male genital mutilation. Why do you think only Islam and Judaism get a pass? Why don't you advocate to allow for parental facial burning and scarification inflicted on Maori infants for example? Or the FLDS and their religious imperative to marry 10 year old girls to church elders? Or the Chinese with footbinding, or the Egyptians with FGM or....?
Because we as a society actually DO legally interfere in religious practices - often. Male circumcision should also get no pass from society and that convo is coming. And it will be decided by ALL of us.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)custom - so I can't say. But I do think male circumcision is okay - but I think it's a family matter - not for me to decide.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)You would excuse harm done to minors or the oppressed because its some deeply ingrained status quo within that culture and we should somehow respect that. I firmly disagree.
Nothing that harms anyone else should be shielded from public scrutiny and public dialogue.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)
I bet if you go down to Joe's Bar and Grill in Peoria, Illinois and tell the folks sitting at the bar that you actually met someone who is against slavery, 10 y/o marriage, foot-binding and FGM but doesn't have anything particular against male circumcision - they won't be able to believe it.
Well, I guess I have always been known for my wild unconventional opinions
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)by the way, don't believe all you hear about pollsters and Peoria IL.....
boppers
(16,588 posts)If your child has a birth defect, it can sometimes be removed, like having a foreskin.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)religion trumps the right of infants not to be mutilated without consent.
Outrage?
/men don't you dare weigh in on the abortion debate because you don't have a uterus. Women though, feel free to talk about hacking away at an infants penis and telling everyone how you prefer the cut-look.
Sterling
(7,730 posts)I am really out of the loop on what this is all about. I thought circumcision was something that they do with everyone? I knew they did it to me when I was born in the hospital and I don't feel like I am missing anything as a result in life but, then again how would I know different.
Why was it so common and now there seems to be a lot of controversy about it?
Turbineguy
(37,343 posts)"I thought our policy was to have no policy!"
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)...has always made me wonder:
''If god created man with a fully sheathed penis at birth, isn't demanding part of it back an admission of the penis having a design flaw??? So did He have too much skin leftover when he got finished creating man, and decided to slap the rest on to the penis? Which is not a bad idea when you think of it since He would have known we'd eventually invent underwear. But then later He changed his mind? It's like a factory recall, only where the customer's doctor (or his Moyal) makes the repairs......''
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)an assumption staunchly rejected by the religions demanding this procedure.
boppers
(16,588 posts)...which cause health issues.
Both the theistic, and atheistic, believe the human body is flawed, though.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)Last edited Sun Jul 15, 2012, 12:51 PM - Edit history (1)
hack 'em off.
Hell *having* a penis leads to STDs. Best remove it to be safe.
As to the benefits: http://endmalecircumcision.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/birmingham-hospital-bosses-stay-silent.html
boppers
(16,588 posts)reorg
(3,317 posts)with many reader comments:
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/07/10/an-age-of-consent-for-circumcision
boppers
(16,588 posts)Why didn't you say so, I mean, why trust a clear advocacy site, when you can view un-vetted comments on a third site?
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)I wonder if you came up with that?
Circumcision is a surgery. A fairly minor one but still a surgery. Every surgery, even routine ones, carries some risk.
With me so far?
boppers
(16,588 posts)I'm with you, I think.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)is kind of a bad thing?
So altering the penis of a young boy because women like it when he's an adult is wrong. Or giving breast implants to a toddler. Or binding the feet because that's what is popular right now.
In general can you agree we ought to leave cosmetic surgery to adults who have chosen it of their own free will?
DVDGuy
(53 posts)My opinion is that as long as no permanent harm or discomfort exists (unlike say female circumcision), then the government has no reason to interfere, even if the practice has religious significance.
For example, a lot of cultures have this tradition where newborn girls have their ears pierced, and a handed down family earring is worn. This practice appears to be common in parts of Europe as well. If male circumcision is banned, and then for the same reason, these traditions should also be banned, along with countless others.
xfundy
(5,105 posts)I have been deprived of something -- I don't know what, exactly, it feels like, but have read much, and why should I have been deprived in the first place? Jews do it, Muslims do it, but it was standard in the USA when I was born. Of course Christers jumped on the bandwagon, thanks to the "medical" establishment -- at the turn of the century--making a buck while claiming that it "prevent[ted] masturbation, which causes mental problems." Then the Christers jumped on the patent-medicine bandwagon and the robber barons benefitted as well, by making the same claims. Kellogg's was founded upon this bullshit.
Why did I have something cut off at birth, which by definition mutilated me, and made it much harder to get the satisfaction men apparently need to feel to alert that part of our brain that says "enough," rather than going on and on, against nature, and hurting women in the process?
Circumcision became a "ritual" that happened to babies 8 days after birth because religious "authorities" figured out that no one who had any say in the matter would consent to having the most sensory-laden part of their weenie cut off, condemning them to a life of unsatisfying sex.
I honestly think this cutting bullshit has led to much abuse of women who "can't satisfy a man" as well as promiscuity, as some guys keep holding out hope that "someone" will trigger the innate pleasure/reproductive response their brains are looking for.
I've known several cut guys who had to work up to an orgasm with unnatural stimulants, grease, toys, etc, and it took them over an hour to orgasm. Even then, it was unsatisfying, unrewarding, and left them feeling "less than" or even depressed.
You think it "looks better?" Good for you. Find a guy who wanted to be cut.
I tried for years to stretch and restore my skin, that which was taken away as a child. I succeeded somewhat, but nature can never be replaced, as my frenulum was cut, and my "head" had kerotinized for 30 years. Still, it's better to have it retreat into a somewhat natural covering that was taken from me at birth.
Regardless of the supposed benefits, faulty "it's cleaner," "it looks better, "it prevents AIDS" articles, humans deserve to live as we were born, without mutilation.
boppers
(16,588 posts)I am truly saddened that nobody taught you how to to have great sex, that's horrible.
CTyankee
(63,912 posts)less, by the reasoning offered. My Jewish husband, a strong feminist, would be quite insulted.
reorg
(3,317 posts)And what reasoning are you referring to?
I'm totally clueless what you are talking about, don't see any connection to the post starting this subthread.
CTyankee
(63,912 posts)read the posts in this thread and you'll see what I am talking about. It's just...strange...I couldn't get the logic behind it. If you can understand it, perhaps you will enlighten me as to what the hell was the point and where was any real empirical evidence of circumcized men abusing women sexually because they don't have foreskins?
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)which required that the foreskin be sliced off shortly after birth, I wonder how many people would be OK with that.
It seems that the prevalent argument is, that's how it's been done for years and years, so why mess with this long-standing tradition? In other words, the same argument that the pro-slavery brigade used.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)And this seems to be one of the rare instances where removing someone's rights is acceptable to progressives based on religious reasons.
I think it helps that only boys are affected by this. If it were little girls there would be a national outcry.
harun
(11,348 posts)After that, mind your own business.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)I don't want it done to my daughters, but I suppose beyond that, I should mind my own business. It's a long-standing tradition in certain cultures, after all.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)Clean-Cut: Study Finds Circumcision Helps Prevent HIV and Other Infections
The first microbiome study of the penis offers some clues as to why removing foreskin cuts the risk of HIV infection in circumcised men
What's Next for AIDS: New Approaches for Tackling HIV in the Developing World The surprise success this summer of a clinical trial on an antiretroviral-based vaginal microbicide provides new traction for efforts to combat AIDS in the developing world. Here are some new directions to expect for treatment and prevention of this widespread killer »August 25, 2010.
CUTTING HIV RISK: A new study suggests that bacterial changes following circumcision could help protect circumcised men from HIV infection. Image: ISTOCKPHOTO/LUTHERHILL
The World Health Organization declared three years ago that circumcision should be part of any strategy to prevent HIV infection in men. The organization based its recommendation on three randomized clinical trials in Africa that found the incidence of HIV was 60 percent lower in men who were circumcised. Although this "research evidence is compelling," wrote the WHO panel assigned to the topic, there was little evidence explaining how circumcision might reduce a man's risk of acquiring HIV.
Now comes an answer in a new study, published in the January 6 issue of PLoS ONE, which found that there are gross changes in the penis's microbiome following circumcision, suggesting that shifts in the bacterial environment could account, in part, for the differences in HIV infection. Families of anaerobic bacteria, which are unable to grow in the presence of oxygen, are abundant before circumcision but nearly disappear after the procedure. The researchers suspect that in uncircumcised men, these bacteria may provoke inflammation in the genitalia, thereby improving the chances that immune cells will be in the vicinity for HIV viruses to infect.
"We never knew that there were that many anaerobic bacteria on the uncircumcised penis before ," says Ronald Gray, a reproductive epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and one of the lead authors on the current study. According to a 2006 survey, 56.1 percent of boys in the U.S. are circumcised. In its recommendation, the WHO panel stated that circumcision efforts would be most beneficial in parts of the world where less than 20 percent of boys are circumcised.
Gray, who is also working with one of the three randomized clinical trials on which WHO based its recommendation, adds that, "If we can show that these anaerobic bacteria are associated with HIV, then one could develop microbicides—antiseptics or targeted antibiotics —that might provide protection."
more at link:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=circumcision-penis-microbiome-hiv-infection
snooper2
(30,151 posts)
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)Only Jews and Muslems? I don't know if it still since I am a former Catholic, but I was told it was a Holy Day of Obligation.
Why if it is custom, and barbaric, only for Jews and Musllims?
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)Or is it just sexual organs that are barbaric and mutiliation? Ok, maybe it is not done on babies, but I have know teenagers who have gotten nose jobs purely for cosmetic reasons. Most have wanted it since they were very young. They weren't adults and had to get their parents permission for the surgery.
ButterflyBlood
(12,644 posts)Circumcision actually is discussed in the New Testament, with the consensus seeming to be that it's not necessary. Paul actually seems to mildly discourage it amongst Gentile converts on the grounds that it's sort of a meaningless ritual when the death of Christ and love of God is enough, see Colossians 2:8-14 and Colossians 3:11. There's also discussion of the same type of thing in Acts 15.
There are some Christian groups that ritually carry it out, like Egyptian Copts, but is definitely not a ritual practice for all Christianity.
Nine
(1,741 posts)My husband and I did not have our son circumcised. But if he had been born 10 years earlier, we might have. It's not because we were evil people, nor because we were religious fanatics, but just because it seemed normal and expected back then. As far as I once new, the whole male world practiced circumcision and always had done so. At some point I learned that most countries did not circumcise regularly. At some other point I learned that even in the U.S. the practice had not been around that long. I encountered some of the more reasoned arguments against circumcision. And eventually I began to see the practice in a new light. I began to question the normality and necessity of it. What did NOT change my way of thinking was having people tell me that I was a mutilating monster if I even considered it, nor that I was willing to sacrifice my son's well-being for the sake of my "sky-being." Please consider that when you (general "you" use this kind of language, you are more likely to push people away then bring them around to your way of thinking. It may make you feel superior but it doesn't do much to save baby boys from the fate you consider so terrible.
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)It was common practice back when my husband was a boy. I know if we had had sons, he would have circunsized his own sons, if for no other reason, than so they could like Daddy. I just think it should be an individual couples choice. I don't think other parents should have the right to tell others what they should do with their children, whether for this, vaccinations, religion, etc.
I do not see how you can be Pro CHOICE and favor this. You don't want your own son circunstizesd? Then don't, but don't prevent OTHER parents from it.
Nine
(1,741 posts)I wasn't really addressing the German law or Merkel's reversal of it. I was more making the point that extreme and accusatory and hateful language doesn't really win hearts or change minds. I do believe the world is moving away from infant circumcision and that that is a good and progressive thing. I'm probably 51% in favor of anti-infant circumcision laws but I think there are good reasons to have reservations about it. I feel the same way about anti-spanking laws. I am strongly pro-choice though.
