German Court rules circumcision as assault

[Shofercia]

As I said earlier, the problem with circumcision, is that by the time you wait until the age of consent - it's too late, and the operation's more complicated. Most of the people that were circumcised, that I know IRL, liked it and were thankful for it, even the ones that were no longer Jewish. Also, Y isn't genital mutilation - you're lopping off skin, not a vital body part.

You're lopping off skin and nerves.

The clitoral hood is basically the same thing as the foreskin (type Ia). The labia are basically just flaps of skin with nerves (and adult re-sculpting of those is in vogue for some reason) (type IIa). The clitoris itself basically functions as a sexual pleasure implement (removal of the tip [but not entire structure of, just the external protrusion] of the clitoris in types Ib,IIb,IIc).

When we're talking "vital body part" for type I-II FGM, we're talking about "vital" in terms of "this provides sexual pleasure." Which is exactly the same "vital" that people opposed to the practice of circumcising male infants are talking about as "vital." For the most part, the major non-sexual complications of type I-II FGM would seem to be tied to the fact that they're being performed in very primitive environments, and a fair bit of scarring often results.

I'm betting that a large number of women who underwent such procedures as very young children will say that it was a good thing, because each generation of older women seems to think it's a good idea to perform on the next generation of younger women. Cultural variables, in other words, are running the show. As I said, in other words, the arguments are essentially the same once we cook away the cultural variables, give or take some measure of hotly-disputed studies - which are being disputed more or less hotly based, again, on which cultures the people in a position to have more an effect on the peer review process have.

Which is why I feel pretty ambivalent about it. I'm circumcised and don't have an issue with it. I really don't see the point of FGM of any kind, and think it seems like a whacko weirdo thing to do; but the fundamental call is whether or not parents have the right to have what amounts to elective surgery done on their kid's genitals.

Provided that surgery is relatively harmless. I mean if parents do it Philippine Village Style, then obviously - fuck no. But if it's just a short trip to the hospital and properly administered, I don't see the problem with it.

[Crogach]

Check my edit; if the numbers are that obscene in the Philippines then even if half of that is due to surgical protocol there (which I believe is utterly abysmal) you're still looking at high enough trauma rates when placed in context that I'm firmly for banning circumcision.

Your source has two problems: first, it deals with boys between 7-16, and that's not the age group that we're arguing for. Second, your source is a biased study, because it lacks a solid control group. We're supporting circumcision that's properly done, not where you go through hours of mental torture before the procedure even begins!

Same author, meta-analysis of a number of studies performed in developed countries with protocols more in line with what you're defending. http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/boyle6/

Some choice quotes:

The pain that is apparent in circumcised infants and is intensified by their lack of coping resources can have further ramifications. Prescott (1989) referred to the stress hormones triggered by intense pain and the adverse effects they may exert on brain development, sexual function, and behaviour. Anand and Scalzo (2000) postulated that severe pain during infancy may permanently and irreversibly alter neurological circuitry responsible for pain perception and memory. Hepper (1996) documented functioning memory prior to and immediately after birth. An adverse painful perinatal event, through a process of classical conditioning, may sensitise the infant to pain later in life (Chamberlain, 1989, 1995; Field, 1995; Jacobson et al., 1990). Thus, Taddio et al. (1997) found that circumcised boys displayed heightened physiological pain responses to vaccinations four to six months after circumcision suggestive of an infant analogue of post-traumatic stress disorder, as compared with genitally intact children.

Van Howe (1996, p. 431) reported that, "Newborn males respond to circumcision with a marked reduction in oxygenation during the procedure, a cortisol surge, decreased wakefulness, increased vagal tone, and less interactions with their environment following the procedure..." Rhinehart (1999) in a report of clinical cases noted that the only response available to the infant is shock, wherein the central nervous system is overwhelmed by pain, followed by numbing, paralysis, and dissociation. Possibly, dissociation of the traumatic experience and emotional pain may be employed by the infant as a psychological defence (Chu & Dill, 1990; Noyes, 1977; Rhinehart, 1999). While some babies have been described as being "quiet" after circumcision, Rhinehart concluded that the observed stillness most likely represents a state of dissociation or shock in response to the overwhelming pain.

Rhinehart (1999) in a report of adult clinical cases concluded that a man circumcised as a child is more likely to react with terror, rage and/or dissociation when confronted with situations interpreted as threatening. As in any situation of post-traumatic stress, an event resembling any aspect of the original traumatic experience is more likely to provoke negative emotions such as panic, rage, violence, or dissociation.

Indeed, for centuries, circumcision has been used as a strategy to reduce sexual gratification (Maimónides, 1963, p. 609). According to Saperstein (1980), quoting Rabbi Isaac Ben Yedaiah, as well as the empirical findings of Bensley and Boyle (2001), and O'Hara and O'Hara (1999), heterosexual intercourse is less satisfying for both partners when the man is circumcised. Due to the neurological injury caused by circumcision, and the resultant reduction of sensory feedback (Immerman & Mackey, 1998), it is highly likely that circumcision may promote sexual dysfunction such as premature ejaculation, and consequently, also the reduction of female sexual pleasure (cf. Money & Davison, 1983). The possible deleterious effects on social and marital relationships (cf. Hughes, 1990) may be considerable, especially in countries where most men have been circumcised.

[Gallowfield]

Isn't this practically exactly like a hypothetical religion that forces someone to get a tattoo at birth? In which case, I can't really say I oppose the ruling.

Yes it is, and again by legislating against it, you are creating more harm then good, especially given the history of the country and one of the two religions most likely to be affected by such a ruling. The fact is people will continue to circumcise, either outside the country or illegally.

So you oppose this ruling not on moral grounds, but practical ones? Strong logic, considering the cultural changes that are going on in Europe at the moment.

[The Godly Nations]

No it doesn't. Complications are rar5e (at 1 in 500), and, when done correctly, as it is usually done, it does not adversely affect the Child's development.

1 in 500 is not non-existent. It has harmed people. It has to have harmed people for 1 in 500 people to have suffered complications from it.

I should think so, if the surgery is harmless, as Circumcision is.

But it isn't. It sometimes is harmless, and other times rarely isn't. The fact of the matter is that it's the child's choice to make, not yours, since it's not a medically necessary procedure.

1 in 500 means that you have a 0.002% chance of getting complication from it, and of these few, most are relatively minor and can be treated immediately and effectively. But, say that you are right, that even rarity of complication is enough to ban it altogether, let's ban vaccines then- complications in vaccines, rare as it is, is not entirely unheard of.

[Wellfleet]

I wonder how many of you arguing against circumcision because the infant can't choose also argue for abortion. *ducks for cover*

*gets popcorn*

I'm so not taking sides in this debate

Gee, why not?

[Transhuman Proteus]

I agree with this. I fully support morphological freedom, and the concept of bodily integrity is vital to that. A permanent alteration to an individuals body is something they, fundamentally, should consent to.

I have no problem with adults seeking such an option out for themselves, however saddens me that so many parents see no issue with seeing a knife taken to their children for no good scientific reason. Outside of religious tradition (and the occasional, rare medical condition) it is purely cosmetic or based on ignorance about the "benefits" of have it performed.



You do, but at the same time the rights of the child (and by extension the rights of the adult they can become) must be respected. The idea your rights as a parent trumps the right of your child's bodily integrity and self determination is worrying.

Parents shouldn't be able to permanently alter their child's body without their consent. And the big question - why exactly would you think it is "best" for your child? Circumcision has no proven scientific value. There is a number of potential risks (as exists in any surgical procedure - in this case they are rare, but the risk still exists).

To repeat a question I have just asked, concerning this whole humbug about 'Child have the right to their foreskin' and what not-

So, something as minor as circumcision gets people into a frenzied debate, how about something that actually affects a child's development, you know, like whether the parents are allowed to raise their child in a strict Calvinistic environment, or send them to Catholic School and learn all about Popery, or send them to a public school in a predominately conservative neighbourhood? Shouldn't the Child have a say in these things too- they do, after all, form a more important part of a child's development than the ownership of a foreskin.

Children should have a say in that as well I believe, but I recognize that is a line that would be foolishly hard to enforce, especially since a big part of childhood is about development - both mental and physical. If a child has ultra-religious parents than that ultra religion is going to be part of the nurture. We are still to early in the whole understanding thing to get into the hard mental and behavioral rights of a child (though they exist).

The bodily rights however - the right to be giving sufficient sustance to grow, the right to bodily integrity etc are something that we are at a stage we can define more easily. What a parent does to their child's mind can scar them for life sadly, and hopefully people will learn.

[Tmutarakhan]

Can I get a valid source for that? Cause the expert source I provided says the exact opposite: http://www.webmd.com/sexual-conditions/ ... rcumcision

Strictly speaking, the source you quoted says it's less risky as an adult, not less painful. The distinction is relevant.

I gave you direct testimony. If you are asking for a source on penile cancer, here is where you can dowload the world's data (search for code C60); the data was discussed at wearying length on this thread, but in sum, there are ZERO cases per year (none, zip, zilch, nada) in countries where circumcision is universal; the handful of cases in Muslim countries are attributable to small minorities that do not circumcise (some of the Copts in Egypt do not, so they get 2 instead of 0; some of the Gulf emirates have East Asian migrants). To find any cases in circumcised men, you need to look at a large nation over a span of centuries: in the history of the United States, there have been nine-- six of these being adult circumcisions, where evidently the cancer started in the foreskin as usual and had already spread to the glans before the diseased was removed; the other three cases involved unusual trauma to the penis. Penile gangrene, similarly, just does not occur (except perhaps with freakish rarity) if circumcision is performed in infancy (although I do not know a central source for world data like the International Cancer Registry). The foreskin also harbors various viral infections (it is known to be a reservoir for the HIV virus, but there are others as well).

So you're saying that because of nine cases in the history of the US, it should be legal? And even in the other countries in the source you provided, it was just in the hundreds? I'm sorry, that's not a legitimate reason.

WHAT???
You seem to be completely misunderstanding the argument. My assertion was that infant circumcision absolutely prevents the conditions which require penile amputation, that the foreskin causes all such problems, and delaying removal of the foreskin past infancy can result in tragic cases like the German boy in the video I linked to. Last time we went around and around on this, I was called to task for claiming that circumcision was 100% preventative; surely, it was argued, nothing is 100%. Well, this is as about as close to 100% as you ever get in such cases: out of a population of hundred of millions over the course of a couple centuries, there are only nine circumcised cases, six of which were adult circumcisions-- that is, the foreskin had already manifested some diseased condition that required removal; so, infant circumcision would have prevented all but three. Among non-circumcised populations, there are hundreds of cases per million males per year; a low chance, but I am happy to know that in my personal case, the chance is ZERO.

[Tahar Joblis]

1 in 500 is not non-existent. It has harmed people. It has to have harmed people for 1 in 500 people to have suffered complications from it.



But it isn't. It sometimes is harmless, and other times rarely isn't. The fact of the matter is that it's the child's choice to make, not yours, since it's not a medically necessary procedure.

1 in 500 means that you have a 0.002% chance of getting complication from it, and of these few, most are relatively minor and can be treated immediately and effectively. But, say that you are right, that even rarity of complication is enough to ban it altogether, let's ban vaccines then- complications in vaccines, rare as it is, is not entirely unheard of.

0.2%, not 0.002%, please math correctly.

Rates of vaccine complications are often actually on the order of 0.002% (1 in 50,000) and in all cases fairly substantially lower than 1 in 500. FWIW.

[Fal Dara in Shienar]

Germany: "Please don't cut the foreskin, but feel free to kill it."

[Earth Empire]

Because it greatly discriminates against Jewish culture. The German courts can go fuck themselves as far as I am concerned.

Why exactly should religious Jews have the privilege of mutilating a child's genitalia?
Thats like saying that Muslims have a 'right' to cut the heads off of their women who dishonor their family.

the Jews have been doing this for 1000s of years. It's an act to God. It's not like they chop it off, it's just some skin.

[Crogach]

Germany: "Please don't cut the foreskin, but feel free to kill it."

Germany: "Feel free not to pop it out, but if you pop it out you don't get to tinker with it beyond necessary maintenance."

[Neutraligon]

Your source has two problems: first, it deals with boys between 7-16, and that's not the age group that we're arguing for. Second, your source is a biased study, because it lacks a solid control group. We're supporting circumcision that's properly done, not where you go through hours of mental torture before the procedure even begins!

Same author, meta-analysis of a number of studies performed in developed countries with protocols more in line with what you're defending. http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/boyle6/

Some choice quotes:

The pain that is apparent in circumcised infants and is intensified by their lack of coping resources can have further ramifications. Prescott (1989) referred to the stress hormones triggered by intense pain and the adverse effects they may exert on brain development, sexual function, and behaviour. Anand and Scalzo (2000) postulated that severe pain during infancy may permanently and irreversibly alter neurological circuitry responsible for pain perception and memory. Hepper (1996) documented functioning memory prior to and immediately after birth. An adverse painful perinatal event, through a process of classical conditioning, may sensitise the infant to pain later in life (Chamberlain, 1989, 1995; Field, 1995; Jacobson et al., 1990). Thus, Taddio et al. (1997) found that circumcised boys displayed heightened physiological pain responses to vaccinations four to six months after circumcision suggestive of an infant analogue of post-traumatic stress disorder, as compared with genitally intact children.

Van Howe (1996, p. 431) reported that, "Newborn males respond to circumcision with a marked reduction in oxygenation during the procedure, a cortisol surge, decreased wakefulness, increased vagal tone, and less interactions with their environment following the procedure..." Rhinehart (1999) in a report of clinical cases noted that the only response available to the infant is shock, wherein the central nervous system is overwhelmed by pain, followed by numbing, paralysis, and dissociation. Possibly, dissociation of the traumatic experience and emotional pain may be employed by the infant as a psychological defence (Chu & Dill, 1990; Noyes, 1977; Rhinehart, 1999). While some babies have been described as being "quiet" after circumcision, Rhinehart concluded that the observed stillness most likely represents a state of dissociation or shock in response to the overwhelming pain.

Rhinehart (1999) in a report of adult clinical cases concluded that a man circumcised as a child is more likely to react with terror, rage and/or dissociation when confronted with situations interpreted as threatening. As in any situation of post-traumatic stress, an event resembling any aspect of the original traumatic experience is more likely to provoke negative emotions such as panic, rage, violence, or dissociation.

Indeed, for centuries, circumcision has been used as a strategy to reduce sexual gratification (Maimónides, 1963, p. 609). According to Saperstein (1980), quoting Rabbi Isaac Ben Yedaiah, as well as the empirical findings of Bensley and Boyle (2001), and O'Hara and O'Hara (1999), heterosexual intercourse is less satisfying for both partners when the man is circumcised. Due to the neurological injury caused by circumcision, and the resultant reduction of sensory feedback (Immerman & Mackey, 1998), it is highly likely that circumcision may promote sexual dysfunction such as premature ejaculation, and consequently, also the reduction of female sexual pleasure (cf. Money & Davison, 1983). The possible deleterious effects on social and marital relationships (cf. Hughes, 1990) may be considerable, especially in countries where
most men have been circumcised.

Again many of the situations described are in older children, not infants, furthermore, many of the studies cited are either old, or are contested. Essentially, it isn't conclusive.

[Shofercia]

Your source has two problems: first, it deals with boys between 7-16, and that's not the age group that we're arguing for. Second, your source is a biased study, because it lacks a solid control group. We're supporting circumcision that's properly done, not where you go through hours of mental torture before the procedure even begins!

Same author, meta-analysis of a number of studies performed in developed countries with protocols more in line with what you're defending. http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/boyle6/

Some choice quotes:

The pain that is apparent in circumcised infants and is intensified by their lack of coping resources can have further ramifications. Prescott (1989) referred to the stress hormones triggered by intense pain and the adverse effects they may exert on brain development, sexual function, and behaviour. Anand and Scalzo (2000) postulated that severe pain during infancy may permanently and irreversibly alter neurological circuitry responsible for pain perception and memory. Hepper (1996) documented functioning memory prior to and immediately after birth. An adverse painful perinatal event, through a process of classical conditioning, may sensitise the infant to pain later in life (Chamberlain, 1989, 1995; Field, 1995; Jacobson et al., 1990). Thus, Taddio et al. (1997) found that circumcised boys displayed heightened physiological pain responses to vaccinations four to six months after circumcision suggestive of an infant analogue of post-traumatic stress disorder, as compared with genitally intact children.

Van Howe (1996, p. 431) reported that, "Newborn males respond to circumcision with a marked reduction in oxygenation during the procedure, a cortisol surge, decreased wakefulness, increased vagal tone, and less interactions with their environment following the procedure..." Rhinehart (1999) in a report of clinical cases noted that the only response available to the infant is shock, wherein the central nervous system is overwhelmed by pain, followed by numbing, paralysis, and dissociation. Possibly, dissociation of the traumatic experience and emotional pain may be employed by the infant as a psychological defence (Chu & Dill, 1990; Noyes, 1977; Rhinehart, 1999). While some babies have been described as being "quiet" after circumcision, Rhinehart concluded that the observed stillness most likely represents a state of dissociation or shock in response to the overwhelming pain.

Rhinehart (1999) in a report of adult clinical cases concluded that a man circumcised as a child is more likely to react with terror, rage and/or dissociation when confronted with situations interpreted as threatening. As in any situation of post-traumatic stress, an event resembling any aspect of the original traumatic experience is more likely to provoke negative emotions such as panic, rage, violence, or dissociation.

Indeed, for centuries, circumcision has been used as a strategy to reduce sexual gratification (Maimónides, 1963, p. 609). According to Saperstein (1980), quoting Rabbi Isaac Ben Yedaiah, as well as the empirical findings of Bensley and Boyle (2001), and O'Hara and O'Hara (1999), heterosexual intercourse is less satisfying for both partners when the man is circumcised. Due to the neurological injury caused by circumcision, and the resultant reduction of sensory feedback (Immerman & Mackey, 1998), it is highly likely that circumcision may promote sexual dysfunction such as premature ejaculation, and consequently, also the reduction of female sexual pleasure (cf. Money & Davison, 1983). The possible deleterious effects on social and marital relationships (cf. Hughes, 1990) may be considerable, especially in countries where most men have been circumcised.

And here's one you didn't choose:

Sampling: One limitation of some of the foregoing research is that random sampling was not always enforced in subject recruitment (e.g., Rhinehart, 1999; Hammond, 1997, 1999). This may be understandable because of the difficulties in boosting sample sizes and the fact that participants were sometimes confined to certain "captive groups." In any case, the result is that there may be a self-selection bias as widely noted in survey research. Arguably, this could have led to inflation of some statistical effects of circumcision-related sequelae.

[Fal Dara in Shienar]

Germany: "Please don't cut the foreskin, but feel free to kill it."

Germany: "Feel free not to pop it out, but if you pop it out you don't get to tinker with it beyond necessary maintenance."

Or you can throw it on the doorstep of a firehouse, or in front of any federal building... Or a church. Or really, throw it anywhere at all. Abandon the shit out of it as long as you don't touch that foreskin!

[Shofercia]

*gets popcorn*

I'm so not taking sides in this debate

Gee, why not?

Take a guess

[Crogach]

Same author, meta-analysis of a number of studies performed in developed countries with protocols more in line with what you're defending. http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/boyle6/

Some choice quotes:

And here's one you didn't choose:

Sampling: One limitation of some of the foregoing research is that random sampling was not always enforced in subject recruitment (e.g., Rhinehart, 1999; Hammond, 1997, 1999). This may be understandable because of the difficulties in boosting sample sizes and the fact that participants were sometimes confined to certain "captive groups." In any case, the result is that there may be a self-selection bias as widely noted in survey research. Arguably, this could have led to inflation of some statistical effects of circumcision-related sequelae.

Fair enough, but at this point the burden of proof belongs on the proponents of the procedure; unless they can show beyond a reasonable doubt that these studies severely inflate or accidentally generate statistical signatures of circumcision-related sequelae the procedure has no place being performed on those who do not have a medical need for it.

[The Godly Nations]

To repeat a question I have just asked, concerning this whole humbug about 'Child have the right to their foreskin' and what not-

Children should have a say in that as well I believe, but I recognize that is a line that would be foolishly hard to enforce, especially since a big part of childhood is about development - both mental and physical. If a child has ultra-religious parents than that ultra religion is going to be part of the nurture. We are still to early in the whole understanding thing to get into the hard mental and behavioral rights of a child (though they exist).

The bodily rights however - the right to be giving sufficient sustance to grow, the right to bodily integrity etc are something that we are at a stage we can define more easily. What a parent does to their child's mind can scar them for life sadly, and hopefully people will learn.

First off, the Child, being a blank slate, does not have the capacity to make the best choice for themselves, this is why we have parents. It is the liberty of the parents to do what they think is best for the child, so long as the child is not harm, as this is the natural laws between a child and his parents, as deduced by the our ancient sages, the former offering his obedience and his reverence, and the latter, love and care. Now circumcision does not harm the child, it doesn't even adversely affect the child's development, and, as another sage noted, that our body is essentially our parents, so to must they have the right to dispose of it so long as they do not harm the child.

In addition, to say that Children should have the right to choose their schooling and their enviorment is to say that Children should have the right to make these decisions for themselves, yet, all considering, how can Children make these decision for themselves unless they were properly educated, and how can they be educated without first being enrolled in a school to learn. In addition, you also ask that the Children should have the right to choose their parents and their environment, and, assuming these can be changed, who raised them to show what is good and bad- they do not choose for themselves, their minds are empty at birth and what they learn is what their parents instill in them. Thus, it again becomes circular. Therefore, it is necessary for the government leave everything at the hands of the parent- to devolve its authority, if you will.

In addition, I also feel that the extension of government to the parent's liberty is unjustified, not only in its targeting of certain ethnic groups, but in the idea that the government should interfere with how a person chooses to raise their child- so long as they are not harmed, what, then, should the government care?

[Neutraligon]

And here's one you didn't choose:

Fair enough, but at this point the burden of proof belongs on the proponents of the procedure; unless they can show beyond a reasonable doubt that these studies severely inflate or accidentally generate statistical signatures of circumcision-related sequelae the procedure has no place being performed on those who do not have a medical need for it.

Actually it doesn't the claim is that circumcision causes harm. The idea that circumcision causes harm is not the null hypothesis.

[Shofercia]

And here's one you didn't choose:

Fair enough, but at this point the burden of proof belongs on the proponents of the procedure; unless they can show beyond a reasonable doubt that these studies severely inflate or accidentally generate statistical signatures of circumcision-related sequelae the procedure has no place being performed on those who do not have a medical need for it.

Nope. The the burden lies on the opponents of the procedure, because when you're going against the status quo, the burden of proof is on you.

[Crogach]

Germany: "Feel free not to pop it out, but if you pop it out you don't get to tinker with it beyond necessary maintenance."

Or you can throw it on the doorstep of a firehouse, or in front of any federal building... Or a church. Or really, throw it anywhere at all. Abandon the shit out of it as long as you don't touch that foreskin!

Once you pop it out you are fully responsible for its welfare, and may transfer that responsibility to other people or institutions as long as the aforementioned institutions can be reasonably expected to manage that responsibility. You don't get to cut up its dong any more than you get to shake it to shut it up (which does cause brain damage, Google "shaken baby syndrome" for more) or give it a knuckle sandwich when it pisses you off.

[Transhuman Proteus]

Any surgery offers complications, hell birth offers complications. By ruling this way, the judge makes it all the more likely that complications will occur since the process will go underground. Circumcision is a very important part of the Jewish religion, whether you agree with it or not, by making it illegal, people will do what they have done in the past when such an important part of the religion was not permitted...do it anyway.

At which point, by gods, I wont have a problem calling the parents involved "bad parents". If the status of the child's foreskin, because of what their religion says, is more important than the health and well being of their child... well, they probably shouldn't have a child.

It is the same thing I feel about those parents who decide to "pray away" a life threatening illness rather than use modern medicine that can treat it incredibly safely and successfully.

[Aeronos]

Nope. The the burden lies on the opponents of the procedure, because when you're going against the status quo, the burden of proof is on you.

Wait, wait, hold on. Last I checked, babies are not born without foreskin.

[The Godly Nations]

1 in 500 means that you have a 0.002% chance of getting complication from it, and of these few, most are relatively minor and can be treated immediately and effectively. But, say that you are right, that even rarity of complication is enough to ban it altogether, let's ban vaccines then- complications in vaccines, rare as it is, is not entirely unheard of.

0.2%, not 0.002%, please math correctly.

Rates of vaccine complications are often actually on the order of 0.002% (1 in 50,000) and in all cases fairly substantially lower than 1 in 500. FWIW.

While I confess to doing the maths wrong, it does not disprove anything, complication in circumcision is rare, and therefore, the fact that complications exist (most of them being minor) offer no justification for banning it.

[Fischistan]

Making murder a crime targets murderers! We cannot let people be prejudiced against murderers!

Do you not see the inherent logical fallacy there?

"Jim Crow Laws unfairly target blacks!"
"Making murder a crime targets murderers! We cannot let people be prejudiced against murderers!"

Really? That's the argument you're making?

No, that's the argument you're making.

[Crogach]

Fair enough, but at this point the burden of proof belongs on the proponents of the procedure; unless they can show beyond a reasonable doubt that these studies severely inflate or accidentally generate statistical signatures of circumcision-related sequelae the procedure has no place being performed on those who do not have a medical need for it.

Nope. The the burden lies on the opponents of the procedure, because when you're going against the status quo, the burden of proof is on you.

I completely disagree; the status quo may be relevant practically, but morally and scientifically speaking it means nothing in the face of evidence of long-term physical or psychological harm.