German Court rules circumcision as assault

[Fal Dara in Shienar]

The issue is whether or not male circumcision at birth a legitimate medical procedure, and a lot of doctors seem to think it is, seeing as it is the safest and best time to perform the procedure, and causes the least apparent pain to the subject. I have yet to see a compelling argument in the other direction, but you generally seem to have well-sourced views, care to enlighten me?

But, what if the child doesn't want it later in his life. What then?

Whether a child wants or doesn't want a medical procedure undertaken by his parents is a poor standard. What happens if an adult wishes, for instance, that he or she had died when he was young? Bad, bad parents. What happens if, even in spite of perfectly good intentions and doctors, a routine surgury goes horribly wrong. Bad, bad parents? It's too subjective to hold parents accountable solely (or even indirectly) on the basis of what their grown-up child "wants."

[Transhuman Proteus]

One's right to practice a religion ends where permanently altering the structure of another's body begins. This court made the right call.

Well that's your opinion.

Why do outsiders get to define what is right?

Well if you are a citizen of a nation, and that nation has laws regarding the rights of the citizens, including children, they get to define rights.

There are probably few religions out there that don't have some law or strongly advocated guideline within them that aren't prohibited by some nations laws - usually for the better. Thankfully such religious laws or guidelines have usually fallen by the way side as the faith moved from outdated thinking.

It is unfortunate for those with a faith that would be impacted by this law, but I think it is far more unfortunate the faith has an expectancy that a parent should permanently alter their child's body well prior to the child being able to give anysort of consent or have any sort of understanding.

[The Godly Nations]

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.

If I am the parent, I should think I have some bloody right as to what I think is best for my child.

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.

[Xerberos]

If I think that routinely, savagely beating my child for stepping out of line is how I want to raise my kid, should the gov't let me do that?

If it causes harm to the child, and that includes emotional harm, then no. Circumcision, especially if performed so early the child doesn't remember it normally does not cause harm, either emotional or physical. The beating probably will.

So is your argument that if they can't remember it, and it causes no harm, then it's fine? I guess that means date-rape using roofies is okay too, as long as they don't remember it and don't get an STI or become pregnant from it.

[Neutraligon]

I think you might be the first person I ever met who had a phobia form from something that happened when they were 8, please show that this happens more than once, and is not a result of circumstances. Most children have to be sat on when drawing blood, and many hate being alone in a quiet room. Prove to me these where the result of the surgery.

Secondly again, circumcision if done correctly does no harm either then or in the future.

I have here a study indicating a 51% incidence of circumcision-related PTSD among those who were medically circumcised in the Philippines; while you may be able to argue that the Filipino protocol is particularly traumatic for a number of reasons (and I will partially agree) a rate that high indicates that the procedure itself has lasting traumatic impact, part of which manifests as an ardent defense of procedure and denigration of those who say otherwise. The link is here: http://epublications.bond.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1120&context=hss_pubs

Then why post it if it doesn't hold in most circumstances that occur in Germany? Also, note the range of the boys used, 11-16, this is significantly after the age we are . I would think boys, especially those on the older side of that range could give informed consent.

[Neutraligon]

Well that's your opinion.

Why do outsiders get to define what is right?

Well if you are a citizen of a nation, and that nation has laws regarding the rights of the citizens, including children, they get to define rights.

There are probably few religions out there that don't have some law or strongly advocated guideline within them that aren't prohibited by some nations laws - usually for the better. Thankfully such religious laws or guidelines have usually fallen by the way side as the faith moved from outdated thinking.

It is unfortunate for those with a faith that would be impacted by this law, but I think it is far more unfortunate the faith has an expectancy that a parent should permanently alter their child's body well prior to the child being able to give anysort of consent or have any sort of understanding.

At then they have the right to protest that law. Since this seems to unjustly place the burden on two particular religions, both of which are dealing or have dealt with discrimination, I question the purpose behind this law. Further this law will cause worse of two reactions, those who are rich enough will leave the country to have the circumcision performed elsewhere, those who are not rich enough will perform it illegally. When you legislate against religion, especially such an important part of religion, the legislation is bound to cause problems.

[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.

[Xerberos]

And Circumcision is less painful as an adult.

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

Circumcision is usually performed on the first or second day after birth. (Among the Jewish population, circumcision is performed on the eighth day.) The procedure becomes more complicated and riskier in older babies, children, and men.

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

Source?

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? Nine? 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.

[Neutraligon]

If it causes harm to the child, and that includes emotional harm, then no. Circumcision, especially if performed so early the child doesn't remember it normally does not cause harm, either emotional or physical. The beating probably will.

So is your argument that if they can't remember it, and it causes no harm, then it's fine? I guess that means date-rape using roofies is okay too, as long as they don't remember it and don't get an STI or become pregnant from it.

Since most people can and do realize what happened, and it does cause harm, so no. Furthermore, at that age they are able to give informed consent themselves, where as before a certain age the parents are able to give informed consent. In the case of the date-rape, they did not give informed consent, in the case of circumcision, the parents did give informed consent.

[Crogach]

I have here a study indicating a 51% incidence of circumcision-related PTSD among those who were medically circumcised in the Philippines; while you may be able to argue that the Filipino protocol is particularly traumatic for a number of reasons (and I will partially agree) a rate that high indicates that the procedure itself has lasting traumatic impact, part of which manifests as an ardent defense of procedure and denigration of those who say otherwise. The link is here: http://epublications.bond.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1120&context=hss_pubs

Then why post it if it doesn't hold in most circumstances that occur in Germany? Also, note the range of the boys used, 11-16, this is significantly after the age we are . I would think boys, especially those on the older side of that range could give informed consent.

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.

[Shofercia]

I think you might be the first person I ever met who had a phobia form from something that happened when they were 8, please show that this happens more than once, and is not a result of circumstances. Most children have to be sat on when drawing blood, and many hate being alone in a quiet room. Prove to me these where the result of the surgery.

Secondly again, circumcision if done correctly does no harm either then or in the future.

I have here a study indicating a 51% incidence of circumcision-related PTSD among those who were medically circumcised in the Philippines; while you may be able to argue that the Filipino protocol is particularly traumatic for a number of reasons (and I will partially agree) a rate that high indicates that the procedure itself has lasting traumatic impact, part of which manifests as an ardent defense of procedure and denigration of those who say otherwise. The link is here: http://epublications.bond.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1120&context=hss_pubs

Nice study. Except it talks about boys getting circumcised between the ages of 7 and 16, not at birth. Also, their methodology is torturous for any operation. I mean, shish!

The boy goes with his friends and male relatives to the circumciser in the “bario” often the town barber or the “herbolarious”- native doctors without medical training...First, the boy will be sent to the lake or river, where he will stay for several minutes, sometimes even an hour or more with his body under the water. This helps to soften the foreskin before it undergoes the cutting...Stretching the foreskin he then performs tuli, placing it on the rounded-wooden base called a “Lukaw,” it will then be cut using a special knife or “labaha,” without anesthesia. The process of cutting the skin is called “pukpok” which means to hammer. “Hammering” the foreskin usually take a minimum of two and a maximum of five “hits.” If the hit is successful, the circumciser will advise the boy to apply the chewed guava leaf on the wound to help control the blood flow.

No wonder they have PTSD. Wow, just, wow.

[Neo Arcad]

Not sure how German laws work, but 'round these parts, that's what we call unconstitutional. I'm disappointed- not in Germany, per ce, but in the Allied occupation force in 1945-51. Why the hell didn't we put some kind of anti-antisemitic measures in the lousy excuse for a founding document we whipped up? It's like letting a sex offender go without registering him as such.

[Xerberos]

And if the majority decides that something is illegal, you cannot do that.

I realize that. That is what is wrong with the system. It's rule by the mob.

Mob rule certainly is bad. However, it's also exactly what you're doing by automatically circumcising male babies; you (the "mob") is putting your religious beliefs onto an individual who cannot choose his own.

[Neutraligon]

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.

[Shofercia]

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.

Saying it's more complicated implies that it has a potential for a higher degree of pain. Also, you've yet to provide any source to back up your point.

[Neutraligon]

I realize that. That is what is wrong with the system. It's rule by the mob.

Mob rule certainly is bad. However, it's also exactly what you're doing by automatically circumcising male babies; you (the "mob") is putting your religious beliefs onto an individual who cannot choose his own.

Parent's can make medical decisions for their children. Is this mob rule. Children are forced to go to school, is this mob rule?

[Transhuman Proteus]

Whether or not my law is true has no bearing. We should be allowed to live by our own law if we wish, so long as we keep the jurisdiction within our own territory. Even if I were to prove it to you, you wouldn't accept the proof because you and others like you have already made up your minds about the issue.

Agreed, he does not have to live by our laws. It does not affect him. We are not insisting that everyone get circumcised, only that we be allowed to practice our religion in peace without outside interference when we are doing something that normally does no harm.

Why should anyone be allowed to legislate on this by preventing on it simply because of their morals or because they find it icky...sounds like something I have heard before.

I doubt the judge will have "because I found it icky" in his notes on the decision.

It is a question of establishing a line at which point a parents right to do something to their child begins infringing on the child's right to bodily integrity and autonomy. This is exactly the kind of thing governments and judges have always been involved in. It is the kind of thing they will continue to be involved in.

The fact a religious group has a horse in the race is irrelevant. I'm sure there are certain types of muslims and Christians and people that worship trees that are annoyed the government has laws that allow women equal rights, gays not to be persecuted and trees to be cut down - fact is what they view as a religious right is not a human or individual right and so doesn't trump human or individual rights.

It is about individual rights. Perhaps a debate will emerge about religious rights vs individual rights. It is a debate religious rights probably shouldn't win.

[Tahar Joblis]

Honestly, when we roll back all the cultural baggage - Jews and Muslims vs. certain parts of Africa - it's the same thing whether we're talking about boys or girls:

"Person X should have operation Y performed on them by their parents at a young age to fit in with culture Z!"
"Y is intrusive and unnecessary genital mutilation, and shouldn't be under parents' control!"

The only real non-cultural differences are in the larger variety of types of female genital mutilation [including some more substantial ones] as compared to the types of male genital mutilation [which honestly don't seem to be very broad]; it's really the same basic issue on the fundamentals of whose rights belong to whom (parents vs. infants).

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.

[Xerberos]

1. It can, and has, harmed people. Read the thread.

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.

2. Someone's religious beliefs do not extend to forcing surgery on others.

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

But it isn't. It sometimes is harmless, and other times 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.

[Neutraligon]

Agreed, he does not have to live by our laws. It does not affect him. We are not insisting that everyone get circumcised, only that we be allowed to practice our religion in peace without outside interference when we are doing something that normally does no harm.

Why should anyone be allowed to legislate on this by preventing on it simply because of their morals or because they find it icky...sounds like something I have heard before.

I doubt the judge will have "because I found it icky" in his notes on the decision.

It is a question of establishing a line at which point a parents right to do something to their child begins infringing on the child's right to bodily integrity and autonomy. This is exactly the kind of thing governments and judges have always been involved in. It is the kind of thing they will continue to be involved in.

The fact a religious group has a horse in the race is irrelevant. I'm sure there are certain types of muslims and Christians and people that worship trees that are annoyed the government has laws that allow women equal rights, gays not to be persecuted and trees to be cut down - fact is what they view as a religious right is not a human or individual right and so doesn't trump human or individual rights.

It is about individual rights. Perhaps a debate will emerge about religious rights vs individual rights. It is a debate religious rights probably shouldn't win.

Again the problem with such a ruling is that it will simply force the practice underground, making it more, not less dangerous for the infant. And again, the judge shows lack of understanding in that certain religions have a timeline. It further alienates a religion that still views Germany with serious trepidation.

[Narrow Path]

x

[Shofercia]

Then why post it if it doesn't hold in most circumstances that occur in Germany? Also, note the range of the boys used, 11-16, this is significantly after the age we are . I would think boys, especially those on the older side of that range could give informed consent.

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!

[Tlaceceyaya]

I doubt the judge will have "because I found it icky" in his notes on the decision.

It is a question of establishing a line at which point a parents right to do something to their child begins infringing on the child's right to bodily integrity and autonomy. This is exactly the kind of thing governments and judges have always been involved in. It is the kind of thing they will continue to be involved in.

The fact a religious group has a horse in the race is irrelevant. I'm sure there are certain types of muslims and Christians and people that worship trees that are annoyed the government has laws that allow women equal rights, gays not to be persecuted and trees to be cut down - fact is what they view as a religious right is not a human or individual right and so doesn't trump human or individual rights.

It is about individual rights. Perhaps a debate will emerge about religious rights vs individual rights. It is a debate religious rights probably shouldn't win.

Again the problem with such a ruling is that it will simply force the practice underground, making it more, not less dangerous for the infant. And again, the judge shows lack of understanding in that certain religions have a timeline. It further alienates a religion that still views Germany with serious trepidation.

It already happens underground. You don't need to go to a hospital to have it performed, so there are no regulations on it outside of the hospital.

[Neutraligon]

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 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.

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.

[Neutraligon]

Again the problem with such a ruling is that it will simply force the practice underground, making it more, not less dangerous for the infant. And again, the judge shows lack of understanding in that certain religions have a timeline. It further alienates a religion that still views Germany with serious trepidation.

It already happens underground. You don't need to go to a hospital to have it performed, so there are no regulations on it outside of the hospital.

But that is not done underground on the fly with tools that have not been cleaned or any of the other medical preparations made. By doing this it will go underground the same way abortion will go underground if it is made illegal.