German Court rules circumcision as assault

[Tmutarakhan]

Breast feeding is connected to sexuality?

I meant to say "sexuality and reproduction" as in my prior reference to the type of threads that always draw the irrationality (abortion for example).

In reality, I opted out of the main discussion with you some time back. Again, you can go and check.

You posted that you weren't going to talk to me, and then immediately belied that statement by cherry-picking some phrases to misconstrue obtusely, and challenging me to produce research which you promised (in advance of looking at it) to refute. Apparently, you meant you wouldn't talk to me in any substantive way, but will search out occasions to snipe.

Since then, I've tried to help you match your source to your claims

"Help" is what you call it? It was the fifth time I had pointed to the data, in five different ways (linking to the download, to the thread with data extracts and discussions, and to the specific posts on that thread, before embedding the data itself, and then linking to the organization's home page) and, for some reason, it is only the fifth time that you feel a need to tell me I should repeat the first style.

I think you make a lot of sense in other discussions.

In other discussions, I have seen you willing to engage research, even crunch numbers, look past immediate links to further links showing more data; and refuse to accept baseless repetitions of positions that aren't supported by facts. In other discussions, I am the same-- as I have been here. You are the one who has been behaving quite differently from your norm.

[No Water No Moon]

You posted that you weren't going to talk to me, and then immediately belied that statement by cherry-picking some phrases to misconstrue obtusely, and challenging me to produce research which you promised (in advance of looking at it) to refute.

I'm not going to resort to the baiting about obtuse minconstrual. I didn't challenge you to produce any research

The one 'challenge' I made was for you to support the ridiculous claim (that you KEEP repeating, for some reason - even though it's an obvious nonsense) that: "If the foreskin is gone before puberty, its absence makes no difference whatsoever.".

None of your sources has said that. No source will say that. It would be a ludicrous claim to make.

I've opted out of the discussion. You haven't supported that one claim, and you won't - and the rest of this discussion with you, frankly, lost my interest a long time ago.

"Help" is what you call it? It was the fifth time I had pointed to the data, in five different ways (linking to the download, to the thread with data extracts and discussions, and to the specific posts on that thread, before embedding the data itself, and then linking to the organization's home page) and, for some reason, it is only the fifth time that you feel a need to tell me I should repeat the first style.

I clicked on a link you provided someone, that did not go to what you claimed it went to. I pointed this out, without incident, so you could correct it. I have no idea why this is your new grudge-match issue.

[Greater Ilanar]

HOW exactly is this antisemitism?

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

Yes, it does discriminate against the Jewish faith, and I have also never heard of anybody being hurt by circumcision, especially when it happens right at birth.

[The United Soviet Socialist Republic]

HOW exactly is this antisemitism?

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

To Hell with the Jewish and Muslim cultures! Circumcision is a violation of human rights, bodily soverignity, and is downright barbaric. The Jews can go fuck themselves as far as I am concerned.

No offense intended.

[No Water No Moon]

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

Yes, it does discriminate against the Jewish faith...

No, it doesn't. Being Jewish or not is irrelevant.

Now, the fact that they seem to be allowing that - even though they're saying it's illegal, they're going to make special exceptions for religious people - THAT is discriminatory.

[Tlaceceyaya]

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

Yes, it does discriminate against the Jewish faith, and I have also never heard of anybody being hurt by circumcision, especially when it happens right at birth.

It discriminates against jews no more than laws against murder discriminate against muslims (honour killings).

[Konyun]

It discriminates against jews no more than laws against murder discriminate against muslims (honour killings).

This post sums up the whole issue, and thread.

[Evraim]

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

To Hell with the Jewish and Muslim cultures! Circumcision is a violation of human rights, bodily soverignity, and is downright barbaric. The Jews can go fuck themselves as far as I am concerned.

No offense intended.

Well... I don't believe it's quite that simple. The ruling in this case could have gone either way. Therefore, it is far from settled that circumcision constitutes a violation of human rights or bodily sovereignty (which is limited - as mentioned previously). To call it barbaric does not count for anything other than a pointless insult.

It discriminates against jews no more than laws against murder discriminate against muslims (honour killings).

...I concur - to an extent. Certainly, murder is quite different from circumcision in terms of health. However, this does not address the legalistic language surrounding the ruling nor the existence of rather prevalent cultural norms which dictate that parental authority matters when decisions regarding the bodily sovereignty, culture, and religious views of the child are made.

*snip

My response boils down to this: stop backpedaling, read what I'm typing, try to comprehend it. Until you do there is no point in my continuing to engage in this with you. I've made myself quite clear, yet you continually misconstrue what I'm saying, and ignore that which you cannot misconstrue, while focusing on irrelevancies.

I apologize, but I comprehend your posts fully, and I simply disagree with the entire premise. You are making positive claims and not supporting them with evidence.

[Herlosk]

Meh foreskin is ugly IMHO but what does that matter.

[Servantium]

I got through the first 10 pages, which is about all I'll get through because 168 pages of that would just get old.

The main thing I noticed was that the dissenters to this ruling are claiming that circumcision doesn't harm the child. This is false. I don't know how they think that cutting a piece of you off doesn't hurt, but apparently they do. Just because you don't remember something doesn't mean you weren't harmed by it. Reminds of of when my broken arm got reset and instead of giving me pain meds they gave me a pill that made me forget. So at the very least circumcision puts infants through a pain that they wouldn't otherwise have experienced.

The second is that circumcision is minor surgery, and all surgery carries with them inherent risk. An (admittedly biased) group released a survey that attributed around 100 deaths a year in America to circumcision because of things like infections. A quick look on Google will show you how circumcision can irreparably damage a penis. These complications are very rare, I won't deny that. However, I don't think that their rarity outweighs how extremely serious these consequences are. The process has virtually no benefits, why risk it?

[Tmutarakhan]

You posted that you weren't going to talk to me, and then immediately belied that statement by cherry-picking some phrases to misconstrue obtusely, and challenging me to produce research which you promised (in advance of looking at it) to refute.

I'm not going to resort to the baiting about obtuse minconstrual.

Not "baiting", just a factual observation. In one line you say you're going to stop talking to me-- and then you keep talking to me, and all you have to say is based on ridiculous misinterpretations of quite simple-to-understand points.

I didn't challenge you to produce any research

The one 'challenge' I made was for you to support the ridiculous claim (that you KEEP repeating, for some reason - even though it's an obvious nonsense) that: "If the foreskin is gone before puberty, its absence makes no difference whatsoever.".

None of your sources has said that. No source will say that. It would be a ludicrous claim to make.

Uh, ALL the sources say that. I went into detail on the one source that seemed to find that the absence makes some difference for the better, although not enough to be sure; the other sources cannot find any measurable difference. This is in keeping with general experience: I have found some who like the uncut better, more who like the cut better, and none who think it makes much difference either way. You think your claim that circumcision causes harm to the sexual experience (indeed such horrifying harm that everyone should be appalled, and somebody like Sovey should be told his sex life is over before it even starts) is self-evident, which it isn't, and since the claim is central to your argument, you bear the burden of proof. And besides the base question "Does it do harm?" (which I suppose can be considered subjective; everyone's sexual experience is different, of course) there is the meta-question "Do any research studies support that it does harm?" on which you are quite objectively wrong. You said that if I showed you research, you would show the reason why it didn't mean what I think it means: naturally, your "reason" is, again, Nuh-UHHH!!!

I clicked on a link you provided someone, that did not go to what you claimed it went to.

It went to the publisher of the database. If you want the database, you click on Publications. Was this a problem that needed to be fixed? When I had given the deeper link before, and the data itself, and you had no comment, although the data was entirely contrary to your factual claims?

I have no idea why this is your new grudge-match issue.

I have no idea why you bothered to post about it, other than to make another silly claim that I am being "wrong" about something.

An (admittedly biased) group released a survey that attributed around 100 deaths a year in America to circumcision because of things like infections.

Nobody has produced that source, although one earlier poster gave an absurdly precise "117 deaths a year". I know of a total of 3 such cases in the past few decades, along with the famous David Roemer case of penile amputation; it is difficult to believe that there are more, when such things definitely tend to get written up. One meta-study back on the old thread (I will re-link if you care; most people don't actually seem to) looked at rates of surgical complications from circumcision in multiple studies, finding the highest rate 2% from Nigeria in cases of "freehand" circumcision (no guide on the blade at all), but from North America the highest rate found was 0.2% and the median rate was 0% (that is, in the majority of samples, not one case occurred), and of these complications the vast majority were infections that cleared up in a couple days.

A quick look on Google will show you how circumcision can irreparably damage a penis. These complications are very rare, I won't deny that.

The rate of these serious complications was too small for the meta-study to give a serious assessment, but included some nasty-sounding things ("ulceration of the urethral meatus" etc.)

However, I don't think that their rarity outweighs how extremely serious these consequences are. The process has virtually no benefits, why risk it?

The benefits are avoiding penile gangrenes and invasive penile cancers, which end up with amputation or death, and lowering the rate of various infections including HIV and various urinary-tract pathogens etc. These dire cases are also quite rare, I won't deny that; but as you say, I don't that their rarity outweighs how extremely serious they are. Now THAT is where the actual controversy lies: the bad surgical consequences of circumcision are somewhat less rare than the bad medical consequences of leaving the foreskin, but they are also generally less dire. That is what makes it a judgment call.

[No Water No Moon]

I went into detail on the one source that seemed to find that the absence makes some difference for the better, although not enough to be sure; the other sources cannot find any measurable difference. This is in keeping with general experience: I have found some who like the uncut better, more who like the cut better, and none who think it makes much difference either way.

""If the foreskin is gone before puberty, its absence makes no difference whatsoever.".

"I went into detail on the one source that seemed to find that the absence makes some difference for the better"

If you understood, there'd be no point in me having had to repeat that over and over.

You think your claim that circumcision causes harm to the sexual experience (indeed such horrifying harm that everyone should be appalled, and somebody like Sovey should be told his sex life is over before it even starts) is self-evident...

...and this is why there's no point having this discussion with you. You've invested so much in what you think I mean, or wish I'd said (I don't know which), that you simply can't address what actually happened anymore.

[Baltenstein]

It discriminates against jews no more than laws against murder discriminate against muslims (honour killings).

Because you see, honour killings are just as integral to the Muslim faith as circumcisions are to Judaism.

[Servantium]

An (admittedly biased) group released a survey that attributed around 100 deaths a year in America to circumcision because of things like infections.

Nobody has produced that source, although one earlier poster gave an absurdly precise "117 deaths a year".

117 is the number given by the study.

One meta-study back on the old thread (I will re-link if you care; most people don't actually seem to) looked at rates of surgical complications from circumcision in multiple studies, finding the highest rate 2% from Nigeria in cases of "freehand" circumcision (no guide on the blade at all), but from North America the highest rate found was 0.2% and the median rate was 0% (that is, in the majority of samples, not one case occurred), and of these complications the vast majority were infections that cleared up in a couple days.

I wouldn't mind looking at it.

However, I don't think that their rarity outweighs how extremely serious these consequences are. The process has virtually no benefits, why risk it?

The benefits are avoiding penile gangrenes

I can't find anything on circumcision PREVENTING that. When you google "penile gangrene circumcision" most of the results are from anti-circumcision sites claiming that the procedure CAUSES it.

invasive penile cancers,

80% of penile cancer cases develop after age 40. I'll bet much less than the other 20% occurs before age 18. The American Cancer Society doesn't even claim that circumcision should be used as a preventative measure. There's no reason to think that infant circumcision prevents penile cancer. However if a man thinks it will, let him get himself circumcised.

and lowering the rate of various infections including HIV

I can't speak to "various infections" but the studies correlating circumcision and reduced rate of HIV transmission were flawed.

various urinary-tract pathogens etc.

Tried to find objective data on this, and if I weren't tired as shit I might've. However, I did find this source from a biased organization that claims to have summarized the data. The data says that the rate for UTIs in the circumcised infants was about 22:100,000, while the rate for the uncircumcised was about 88:36,000. In practical terms that's hardly a difference. Plus, it's not like a UTI is some sort of terrible affliction. You can cure them with antibiotics, which is undoubtedly cheaper than a circumcision.

These dire cases are also quite rare, I won't deny that; but as you say, I don't that their rarity outweighs how extremely serious they are. Now THAT is where the actual controversy lies: the bad surgical consequences of circumcision are somewhat less rare than the bad medical consequences of leaving the foreskin, but they are also generally less dire. That is what makes it a judgment call.

As I think I've shown, circumcision doesn't really matter in the long run in preventing most of those afflictions you mentioned. Not only that but it fundamentally violates the infant's right to bodily integrity. That, plus all of the medical stuff I've mentioned says to me that no reasonable person would circumcise their child against their will. It shouldn't be a judgment call.

[NMaa942]

Because you see, honour killings are just as integral to the Muslim faith as circumcisions are to Judaism.

I certainly hope so.

[Milks Empire]

I certainly hope so.

Not sure if trolling or what...

[Risottia]

HOW exactly is this antisemitism?

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

Someone might notice that the Court ruled as a assault a circumcision performed by MUSLIMS.

But no, it must be the EVIL NAZI GERMANS having a go at the JUUUUUDEN! again.

[NMaa942]

Not sure if trolling or what...

I'm leaning towards the "or what" part...

[NMaa942]

I mean, if your family kills you, you really should have killed them first.

[Johnslevania]

as a guy, and a circumcised one, everything works fine down theere. i didn't even know you could circumsice girls, but if it reduces plesure, dont do it

[Blakk Metal]

I mean, if your family kills you, you really should have killed them first.

What is wrong with you?

[Evraim]

I mean, if your family kills you, you really should have killed them first.

Pardon me?

How is this relevant?

[Blakk Metal]

I mean, if your family kills you, you really should have killed them first.

Pardon me?

How is this relevant?

Because you see, honour killings are just as integral to the Muslim faith as circumcisions are to Judaism.

I certainly hope so.

[TomKirk]

I went into detail on the one source that seemed to find that the absence makes some difference for the better, although not enough to be sure; the other sources cannot find any measurable difference. This is in keeping with general experience: I have found some who like the uncut better, more who like the cut better, and none who think it makes much difference either way.

""If the foreskin is gone before puberty, its absence makes no difference whatsoever.".

"I went into detail on the one source that seemed to find that the absence makes some difference for the better"

If you understood, there'd be no point in me having had to repeat that over and over.

This is what I mean by your "obtuseness": when I say it makes no difference, I mean it does no harm to the sexual experience. Obviously, every two penises are "different", but are circumcised penises as a general class different from uncircumcised penises, in the relevant respect, that is, how much sexual satisfaction they give? No study, anywhere, can find any such difference; the one study that suggests a slight difference in the opposite direction from what you want does not enough difference to be sure that there is any.

You think your claim that circumcision causes harm to the sexual experience (indeed such horrifying harm that everyone should be appalled, and somebody like Sovey should be told his sex life is over before it even starts) is self-evident...

...and this is why there's no point having this discussion with you. You've invested so much in what you think I mean, or wish I'd said (I don't know which), that you simply can't address what actually happened anymore.

Perhaps I also am being obtuse. If so, could you try to clarify what you meant? I have never failed to clarify what I meant, when you misconstrue. Now it sounds as if you are denying that you have ever claimed circumcision does harm in that respect: if you concede that point, then what exactly are you arguing?

Nobody has produced that source, although one earlier poster gave an absurdly precise "117 deaths a year".

117 is the number given by the study.

Thanks for giving a source (more courtesy than others have shown), but I see it is not an academic research journal, but a magazine which wants me to pay to read the article, which I am loath to do. The summary speaks of an "estimate" with no indication of how they come across it, and claims that facts are difficult to come by, an excuse I do not think a professional researcher would make, nor would a professional give a supposedly 3-digit-precise answer under such circumstances. My study on surgical complications, for example, would give no more than <0.2%, not even claiming one digit precision-- but your source seems to be claiming that about 1 in 10 surgical complications are fatal, which is difficult to believe. The claimed rate is about a thousand times the number of deaths one would gather from public reports (scarcely one a decade), and one would assume that most such cases would indeed hit the papers; if the explanation is in terms of a grand cover-up conspiracy by the doctors, I don't want to hear about it.

One meta-study back on the old thread (I will re-link if you care; most people don't actually seem to) looked at rates of surgical complications from circumcision in multiple studies, finding the highest rate 2% from Nigeria in cases of "freehand" circumcision (no guide on the blade at all), but from North America the highest rate found was 0.2% and the median rate was 0% (that is, in the majority of samples, not one case occurred), and of these complications the vast majority were infections that cleared up in a couple days.

I wouldn't mind looking at it.

Here: in sum, the higher rates are from poorer countries with bad procedures, but also, the older the child is at circumcision, the worse the rate of complications.

The benefits are avoiding penile gangrenes

I can't find anything on circumcision PREVENTING that. When you google "penile gangrene circumcision" most of the results are from anti-circumcision sites claiming that the procedure CAUSES it.

Doing that Googling turned up four case-reports: one involved (could not get to an abstract) an adult circumcision after the foreskin was already infected; one gathered three cases (indicating that there were many more) from post-pubertal (ages 18, 20, 21) tribal-ritual circumcisions under poor conditions in South Africa; one was a case of the electric-cauterization circumcision method which has now been recognized as very bad and to be avoided (also responsible for the David Reimer case); and then there was a case back in 1967. Fournier's gangrene, on the other hand, was said by one med site to have generated about "750" case reports (it didn't link to an index, so I searched elsewhere and have lost the place) since Fournier's original 1883 study of 5 cases (I don't know if the 750 is individual cases, or studies some including multiple cases), and things that are not hyper-rare do not always get written for every single or nearly every single case, as very unusual things tend to be; diabetes is now known to be a risk factor, and sex-play involving rings on the penis or insertion of objects into the urethra, but the cases among the young (Fournier mistakenly thought it was exclusive to the young) often have no clear cause. There is no central database, however, where I could get rate estimates; it seems safe to say it is less common than the invasive cancers.

invasive penile cancers,

80% of penile cancer cases develop after age 40. I'll bet much less than the other 20% occurs before age 18. The American Cancer Society doesn't even claim that circumcision should be used as a preventative measure. There's no reason to think that infant circumcision prevents penile cancer.

The American Cancer Society makes it plain that it DOES prevent penile cancer (this is simply not a matter of dispute, as I get tired of having to point out); what they say is that they don't think this benefit outweighs the surgical risk. The cost-benefit trade-off is not in terms of like-and-like, so it is a value judgment. Since I'm 56, I'm more concerned about any risks of penile amputation after age 40 than perhaps some of you teeners or 20-somethings are, and am quite glad to have been circumcised.

However if a man thinks it will, let him get himself circumcised.

But late circumcisions have much less benefit, higher risks of complication, and sexual side effects; failure to perform the operation in infancy is, actually, an irreversible decision.

and lowering the rate of various infections including HIV

I can't speak to "various infections" but the studies correlating circumcision and reduced rate of HIV transmission were flawed.

That's a piece of dishonesty that I have talked about before. The study was terminated when the difference in rates went beyond "statistically significant" to "blatantly obvious" on the ethical grounds that not treating the control group amounted to sentencing some of them to death (trials of experimental medications which turn out to have great effects on terminal conditions are often ended early for similar reasons).

various urinary-tract pathogens etc.

Tried to find objective data on this, and if I weren't tired as shit I might've. However, I did find this source from a biased organization that claims to have summarized the data. The data says that the rate for UTIs in the circumcised infants was about 22:100,000, while the rate for the uncircumcised was about 88:36,000. In practical terms that's hardly a difference.

Um, that's over a 90% risk reduction.

Plus, it's not like a UTI is some sort of terrible affliction. You can cure them with antibiotics, which is undoubtedly cheaper than a circumcision.

They typically linger for years. You're not being sympathetic to the patients there. The cost is probably greater for the antibiotics, if that matters.

These dire cases are also quite rare, I won't deny that; but as you say, I don't that their rarity outweighs how extremely serious they are. Now THAT is where the actual controversy lies: the bad surgical consequences of circumcision are somewhat less rare than the bad medical consequences of leaving the foreskin, but they are also generally less dire. That is what makes it a judgment call.

As I think I've shown, circumcision doesn't really matter in the long run in preventing most of those afflictions you mentioned.

I disagree that you have shown any such thing, but I do appreciate your willingness to discuss the issue in terms of data.

Not only that but it fundamentally violates the infant's right to bodily integrity.

Basing morality on rigid axioms that have nothing to do with doing good or harm to the child just annoys me. In deciding whether an appendectomy is a good thing, the "right" to retain a useless and harmful body part doesn't enter into it.

[No Water No Moon]

This is what I mean by your "obtuseness": when I say it makes no difference, I mean it does no harm to the sexual experience. Obviously, every two penises are "different", but are circumcised penises as a general class different from uncircumcised penises,

Yes. They've had a large portion chopped off, for a start.

...in the relevant respect, that is, how much sexual satisfaction they give? No study, anywhere, can find any such difference; the one study that suggests a slight difference in the opposite direction from what you want does not enough difference to be sure that there is any.

It's amusing that you accuse me of being obtuse because you have repeatedly said something obviously nonsensical, and now wish it to be understood that you shouldn't be held accountable to those words, because they didn't mean what you actually mean.

Or something.

...and this is why there's no point having this discussion with you. You've invested so much in what you think I mean, or wish I'd said (I don't know which), that you simply can't address what actually happened anymore.

Perhaps I also am being obtuse. If so, could you try to clarify what you meant? I have never failed to clarify what I meant, when you misconstrue. Now it sounds as if you are denying that you have ever claimed circumcision does harm in that respect: if you concede that point, then what exactly are you arguing?

I'm not arguing, remember? I abandoned this game with you a number of pages back. What has transpired since then has either been me pointing out a source you mis-attributed (and then, for some reason, having to defend that) - or this kind of nonsense, where I have to apparently defend how things I didn't actually say... are things I didn't actually say.

In this case, for example, your claim that I argued: "such horrifying harm that everyone should be appalled, and somebody like Sovey should be told his sex life is over before it even starts". I object to you inventing arguments for me. I especially object to you attributing this kind of hyperbolic, appeal-to-emotion crap to me.

And I find it incredibly dishonest that you're now pretending that - because I'm not defending these bullshit statements you invented for me to have said, that somehow means I had no arguments. Not only is it a textbook strawman argument, it's also transparent, and ridiculously logically fallacious on so many levels.

See - this is the kind of thing that convinced me there's no point having this debate with you.