Guest fountainhall Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 Here’s a iittle conundrum. A German regional court in Cologne has ruled that circumcision amounts to bodily harm. As a result, the German Medical Association has told doctors in the area not to perform circumcisions. Not surprisingly, European Jewish and Muslim groups have joined forces to defend circumcision for young boys on religious grounds after a German regional court ruled it amounted to bodily harm. A joint statement says the practice is fundamental to their faiths and calls for it to be awarded legal protection . . . The court said that a child's right to physical integrity trumped religious and parental rights. http://www.bbc.co.uk...europe-18807040 Yet, in the book from which I quoted this morning on another thread, Islam: Its Law and Society, it is clearly stated – There is nothing in either the Quran or the hadith that would lead to the conclusion that circumcision is compulsory for either males or females. So it is merely a long standing tradition, but seemingly not an essential requirement for those practicing the faith. There even seem to be some of the Jewish faith now questioning the procedure. The Torah states: "You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh on account of the dead or tattoo any marks upon you: I am the Lord." They argue that this passage contradicts the requirement for circumcision because it involves the cutting and marking of the genitals. This, they claim, is not consistent with Jewish law and values. Opponents also insist that the Torah does not allow another person to be harmed. (Exodus 21: 18-27). In this context, growing awareness of infant pain has brought the ethics of circumcision into question. http://www.bbc.co.uk...mcision_1.shtml Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 I'm not at all for circumcision (it seems in this day and age there's no need for it at all); however, in my view, no government ought to ban it either (part of government's obligation to protect freedom of religion and choice is to stay the hell out of banning something unless there is clear or significant personal or societal harm). I think the German court is out of bounds on this ruling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 I think they could ban circumcision for people under 18, to protect them from being forced into it or brainwashed by parents. However, if an adult chooses to remove part of his anatomy, that's his own decision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogie Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 Many of the Message Boards have over the years had threads discussing the pros and cons of male circumcision. Unlike female so-called circumcision, which, other than in those few countries where it's practiced, is universally regarded as wrong, male circumcison doesn't ruin or in any significant way alter, a man's virility and sexual enjoyment. Debate as to whether sexual enjoyment is affected seems to be polarised, with the more hysterical opponents of circumcision going way over the top IMO. Ideally, yes, men should be in a position to opt for circumcision from an informed vantage point, in a pressure-free climate - infants and young boys do not have that luxury. But as circumcision doesn't affect a boy's or man's sex life, and if it's part and parcel of a religious tradition or requirement, I do not see any problem. Could one make a comparison with abortion? Possibly. No doubt people who are pro-lifers and anti-abortion could with some justification argue circumcision is wrong. On the other hand, a woman (and her boyfriend or husband) who has an abortion might, from a point of view of consistency, be expected to side with proponents of infant circumcision. I am thus another who thinks the German court 'out of bounds'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChristianPFC Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 I am quite surprised about this court decision, usually the German government pets all ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities. (This has nothing to do with the German government, but in administration and court you have to be aware of this general trend.) I applaud the court for its decision! If male circumcision is their (Jews and Moslems) religious custom, so is female circumcision for many African tribes. The catholic church used to burn witches in the Middel Ages. Just because something has a religious background or is a local custom, doesn't mean we have to keep it for eternity. There has to be some advancement in humanity. Banning all kinds of circumcision worldwide would be an advancement. The court said that a child's right to physical integrity trumped religious and parental rights. I totally agree. And I want to add: I value animal protection higher than freedom to exercise one's religion (there have been cases in court about kosher butchering.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogie Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 If male circumcision is their (Jews and Moslems) religious custom, so is female circumcision for many African tribes. Come on Christian, that's why I specifically addressed that issue in my previous post. Circumcised boys and men lead 100% normal lives in the way I mentioned. Whilst I agree it may well be the custom in parts of Africa, I don't know of a single westerner, or enlightened person of any nationality, who thinks female mutilation (as I prefer to call it), is perfectly acceptable. We all know the trauma it causes the young girl, the risk of terrible complications and the sheer brutality of it. Anyone'd have to be a male chauvinist, par excellence, to think any different. I admit there are cases of boys being circumcised in parts of Africa, and maybe other places, where the local witch doctor' performs the operation which can lead to awful complications, but in western countries I would imagine the chances of any medical complications from circumcision is zero. Circumcison in such countries is perfectly safe and the males go to on to lead a life no different or less satisfying than their uncircumcised brethren. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 As noted, I'm with Rogie on this one even though I personally don't support circumcision. What's next, banning parents from allowing their 8-year-old girls/boys from getting their ears pierced? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thaiworthy Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 As noted, I'm with Rogie on this one even though I personally don't support circumcision. What's next, banning parents from allowing their 8-year-old girls/boys from getting their ears pierced? I also agree with Rogie, but personally do support circumcision. Although my reasons have nothing to do with religion. Sorry Bob, I think ear-piercing is not a valid comparison. You are comparing a surgical procedure with fashion. The reasons for doing either are different. If circumcisions do become fashionable, I have a pair of pinking shears you can borrow Bob, if you want to have a frilly dilly! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 If circumcisions do become fashionable, I have a pair of pinking shears you can borrow Bob, if you want to have a frilly dilly! Too late - been there, done that (like probably 99% of people raised Catholic in the 40's and 50's, I've already been had - and I'm still looking for the doctor to file the malpractice action as he obviously cut off way too much....). But I'll do your ears if you let me borrow those pinking shears.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fountainhall Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 There is another article in today’s Guardian. The writer focuses initially on the issue of “informed consent lying at the heart of liberal society”. This suggests that those against circumcision practice a form of violence and a violation of the rights of the child unless there is such consent from the child. However the writer clearly has a dilemma. Which is why I regard the liberal mindset as a diminished form of the moral imagination. There is more to right and wrong than mere choice. Indeed, making choice the gold standard in every circumstance is to concede to the moral language of capitalism. I was circumcised by the mohel when I was eight days old on my grandmother's kitchen table in St John's Wood. It wasn't done for health reasons. It was a statement of identity. Whatever is meant by the slippery identification "being Jewish" – my father is, my mother is not – it had something to do with this. Circumcision marked me out as belonging. Years later, when my wife objected to the circumcision of our new son on the grounds that it was cruel and unnecessary, I reluctantly gave way. Intellectually, I knew that there was little left of "being Jewish" to protect. After all, my wife was not Jewish and I had become a Christian priest. Halachically, it made no sense. For all of this, I still find it difficult that my son is not circumcised . . . On some level, I feel like a betrayer. . . . circumcision is the way Jewish and Muslim men are marked out as being involved in a reality greater than themselves. This, however, is a complete anathema to much modern liberal thought that narrows religious and ethical language down to the absolute priority of personal autonomy and individual choice. Liberalism constitutes the view from nowhere. Liberalism has no sense of history. And it is because the Cologne court had so little sense of history that it made such a ridiculous and offensive decision. http://www.guardian....muslim-identity Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChristianPFC Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 What's next, banning parents from allowing their 8-year-old girls/boys from getting their ears pierced? You have my full support for that, and let's include tattoos as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 You have my full support for that, and let's include tattoos as well. I think you misunderstand my comment. While I also don't like body piercings or tattoos, I hardly support governmental interference or regimentation involving personal choice issues. Unless a given action carries with it some significant harm to persons or society in general, government ought to stay the hell out of regulating it. And I think this concept is particularly true where there exists historical, religious, or cultural reasons for the conduct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thaiworthy Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 You have my full support for that, and let's include tattoos as well. And crooked teeth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KhorTose Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 You have my full support for that, and let's include tattoos as well. And crooked teeth. or club foot or deviated septum (no not what some of you might think)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fountainhall Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 I hardly support governmental interference or regimentation involving personal choice issues And what of the personal choice of a young baby? It's surely odd that many around the world express themselves vociferously - and occasionally violently - to protect the rights of the unborn child. Yet when it comes to amputating part of a male child's anatomy at 8 days old (or whenever), that child has absolutely no right to a say in the decision whatever! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 that child has absolutely no right to a say in the decision whatever! Nature of the beast, I suppose. Parents have made choices (vaccinations, circumcisions, etc.) for their children since the beginning of time. As noted, I'm not "for" circumcision as I personally don't see the purpose of it; yet, a sizeable percentage of humanity has engaged in the practice for thousands of years for various reasons (religious, cultural, or whatever) and I don't agree that a government ought to tell parents that they are going to jail if they make the decision to circumcize their child. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogie Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 People use all manner of justification for their actions. Just as boys have been cirumcised for thousands of years, so did many other practices occur in that time. Some examples might be cannabilism, human sacrifice and idolatory. As civilisation has evolved, mankind has dumped those practices. So it could be argued, why not then dump circumcision? But is it a civilised activity? I think becasue it is borderline that explains the dilemma. Personally I do not think abortion is particularly civilised. Why does it happen then? I admit I haven't done any research on the history of abortion going back thousands of years, but I would imagine it has always been practiced, but with a high risk of harm to the woman, so I'd have expected abortion would have been the exception rather than the rule. So why has abortion become acceptable? Well it's now legal in many countries where it wasn't before. It was legalised in 1967 in England with a gestational age limit of 28 weeks, changed in 1990 to 24. Nobody would wish to see the return to 'back street' abortions. Now the woman can justify it to herself it's legal, provided she sticks to the rules, and it's her 'right' to do it if that's what she decides, she no longer feels society's stigma or shame. The abortion laws needed changing as a simple matter of necessity. Pre-legalisation: "Estimates of the number of illegal abortions varied widely: by one estimate, 100,000 women made efforts to procure a miscarriage in 1914, usually by drugs". Post-Abortion Act: In 2009, there were 189,100 abortions in England and Wales. (source Wikipedia). So, what to me at least, is an uncivilised act, killing an unborn child, has become accepted owing to the way civilisation has evolved. A general feeling for what is fair and reasonable, and what isn't. Back to circumcision, it seems what has up to now been seen as a civilised act, perfectly natural and completely harmless, is now seen by some to not be so. As a civilised person I think it is 'fair and reasonable' that if parents want to circumcise their boy they are free to do that. Maybe all this talk about civilisation is besides the point. Maybe we should be talking about what's modern in this day and age. What does Modern mean? Modern ways of thinking . . .? It seems to me the decision by the court in Cologne is their idea of modern thinking. Modern thinking to me has the veneer of civilisation overlying a bit of old-fashioned "you'll do as you're told because we say so". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fountainhall Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 I guess abortion may always have been practised, but I reckon even up to 500 years ago it must have been far, far less common than nowadays. Surely there was always an urgent need for the human race to procreate, given the huge numbers who routinely died off as a result of illness and war? And that being the case, there would have been major pressure for babies to be born rather than aborted. Isn't it only in the last half century or so that it has become a great deal more routine, as attitudes to sex have changed? As for circumcision, I would respectfully suggest to Rogie that "natural and completely harmless" is hardly a description anyone who has been circumcised would use. Jewish babies will not remember, but the screaming that accompanies such an amputation bears witness to there being a considerable degree of pain. As for adults, read about Nelson Mandela's initiation into manhood as he entered his teens. He describes an horrific degree of pain that was wholly unnatural and certainly very far from harmless. I do agree that parents today obviously have a duty to bring up their child as they believe right and proper. And circumcision of boys amongst certain groups and individuals is seen as a necessary rite of passage. Yet there are today hysterical outcries against circumcision of girls! Why should the right of the female child be any different to that of a male child? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 Interesting discussion but we're somewhat mixing several concepts here - the wisdom of circumcision, the right of parents versus the government to decide if the practice can continue, and, to some degree, the rights of infants/children (or the governmental right to intervene in decisions parents make about them). We all don't seem to disagree about either the need or wisdom of circumcision although some of us disagree and/or have mixed feelings about the other issues. On a somewhat related issue, I remember during a couple of my first trips to Thailand that two different boys "warned" me in the bars that they were "Muslim" and I quickly figured out that they were not actually noting religious affiliation but were trying to tell me they were circumcized. I found that rather cute in a way and, instead of confusing them by trying to communicate that I was a circumcized Catholic, I simply told them "okay with me, I'm Muslim too!" P.S. A special award respectfully goes to Khun FH for adroit use of loaded language to advance his views. I'm about to take my morning shower and was planning on clipping my fingernails thereafter; however, I'm hesitating now that I know I'll be amputating them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fountainhall Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 A special award respectfully goes to Khun FH for adroit use of loaded language to advance his views. I'm about to take my morning shower and was planning on clipping my fingernails thereafter; however, I'm hesitating now that I know I'll be amputating them. Good try Khun Bob, but surely nothing like an appropriate analogy. Your fingernails grow back. I have never yet heard of a circumcised penis growing back its foreskin, any more than I have of a man with an amputated arm growing it back. Circumcision is effectively amputation! My father was a doctor in a prisoner of war camp in World War 2. He told me he did have a method for stretching the flesh of the penis of circumcised men so that they could give the impression of being uncircumcised (for rather obvious reasons). But unless there is evidence of the foreskin actually growing back, then amputation is surely an appropriate description! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogie Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 I guess abortion may always have been practised, but I reckon even up to 500 years ago it must have been far, far less common than nowadays. Surely there was always an urgent need for the human race to procreate, given the huge numbers who routinely died off as a result of illness and war? And that being the case, there would have been major pressure for babies to be born rather than aborted. Isn't it only in the last half century or so that it has become a great deal more routine, as attitudes to sex have changed? That seems to me a fair assessment. Yes, more pressure on babies to be born - certainly. There would surely have been enormous taboos against a woman aborting a child. I suppose to some extent, the degree to which would depend on the society's attitude to 'bastards' - children born out of wedlock. As for circumcision, I would respectfully suggest to Rogie that "natural and completely harmless" is hardly a description anyone who has been circumcised would use. Jewish babies will not remember, but the screaming that accompanies such an amputation bears witness to there being a considerable degree of pain. As for adults, read about Nelson Mandela's initiation into manhood as he entered his teens. He describes an horrific degree of pain that was wholly unnatural and certainly very far from harmless. I quite agree the baby suffers distress. We saw that in the video Christian posted in the 'Ten out of ten babies say NO to circumcison' thread back in November last year. But I stick by my comment it's "natural and completely harmless". Compare it to childbirth. Also by common agreement 'natural and completely harmless' (especially nowadays when the standards of medical care are so good that women dying in childbirth must be almost unknown in western countries), but not without a fair degree of distress and 'screaming' on the part of the mother-to-be. Although I believe its use is in decline, many women also undergo something called an episiotomy which is a cut on the perineum between the vagina and anus. Maybe baby boys destined for circumcision should have it done following the cutting of the umbilical cord. That would be a triple whammy for the poor kid - having to fill his lungs with air and breathe for the first time, having his umbilical cord cut, and the snip. All over with quickly. As for Nelson Mandela, he's just celebrated his 94th birthday (I think I have that right) so we don't need to feel too sorry for what happened when he was a pubescent. In post #6 I said: ". . . there are cases of boys being circumcised in parts of Africa, and maybe other places, where the local 'witch doctor' performs the operation which can lead to awful complications . . ." so I can only assume he was the victim of something similar. Not a nice thing to wish on anyone, and I would never advocate that. Yet there are today hysterical outcries against circumcision of girls! Why should the right of the female child be any different to that of a male child? In post #6 I outlined the reasons why I believe female circumcision is wrong. I agree, given equal weighting, neither sex should have greater 'rights'. The fact of the matter is, male vs female circumcision is far from equal. In fact I would argue the only similarity is in the word 'circumcision' and that is why I say when that happens to girls and young women it's mutilation. I accept some may say male circumcision is mutilation but IMO that is putting it a bit strong, because the dictionary defines to mutilate as "cause a severe and disfiguring injury to someone". That fits the bill for female circumcision but not male IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fountainhall Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Compare it to childbirth. I really don't think this is comparing like with like. In almost every case, childbirth is voluntary and there are countless classes women can attend to make the delivery of the child less painful. Sorry, but circumcision is not voluntary in all but a few cases. Maybe baby boys destined for circumcision should have it done following the cutting of the umbilical cord Sorry again, Rogie. The midwife always waits until the pulse in the cord stops almost immediately after delivery. It is therefore effectively 'dead' and there is no pain whatever. All over with quickly. SInce we clearly have no idea what a baby experiences, here is the description of a trainee nurse. We students filed into the newborn nursery to find a baby strapped spread-eagle to a plastic board on a counter top across the room. He was struggling against his restraints, tugging, whimpering, and then crying helplessly. . . . I stroked his little head and spoke softly to him. He began to relax and was momentarily quiet. The silence was soon broken by a piercing scream, the baby’s reaction to having his foreskin pinched and crushed as the doctor attached the clamp to his penis. The shriek intensified when the doctor inserted an instrument between the foreskin and the glans (head of the penis), tearing the two structures apart. The baby started shaking his head back and forth – the only part of his body free to move – as the doctor used another clamp to crush the foreskin lengthwise, which he then cut. This made the opening of the foreskin large enough to insert a circumcision instrument, the device used to protect the glans from being severed during the surgery. The baby began to gasp and choke, breathless from his shrill continuous screams. . . . During the next stage of the surgery, the doctor crushed the foreskin against the circumcision instrument and then, finally, amputated it. The baby was limp, exhausted, spent. http://www.circumcis...g/response.htm# And that is purely the pain from the operation. Add in days of pain when urinating until the wound has healed. (I admit this is from an informative, yet basically anti-circumcision website.) But here's another from a nurse who quit her job in 2011 because of the pain caused to baby boys - I am an American white female age 56, and I worked in many family practice doctor's offices over the years. Part of my job was to assist with circumcisions. I quit my job over that very duty. It was barbaric. I watched babies pass out, turn blue, scream in a guttural scream that turned my blood cold. Parents should be forced to watch a doctor cut off the tip of their son's penis, hear him scream, see his skin mottle white and blue, watch his head roll back and forth in agony while strapped down, unable to move. Babies have no voice in the decision other than vomiting all over themselves during the "procedure". If parents want that for their son, they should be forced to participate in the torture. http://www.circumsti...s.com/Pain.html Whilst babies will not carry this memory of utter pain in their conscious mind, I wonder if any is retained in the sub-conscious? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogie Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 "If parents want that for their son, they should be forced to participate in the torture." Torture? That's a bit strong, and I don't know about being made to watch, but otherwise I agree parents should certainly be made aware of what's involved. My use of the term 'the snip' reflects the common view that's all there is to it. It would seem more complicated than I had realised, so I appreciate the clarification. Like many, I am baffled by its prevalence in countries such as the US for non-religious reasons. Most people seem to put it down to 'like father, like son' or "if he doesn't have it done he'll be different to his peers" with a swipe at the medical profession for being happy to perpetuate the custom. It would be interesting to hear how doctors performing circumcisions for non-medical reasons justify that, other than trotting out "the parents want it done". No doubt these arguments have been gone over again and again, with eventually some sort of common sense prevailing to the extent its legitimacy is becoming increasingly questioned. But back to religious circumcision: here the 'harm' principal helps us to distinguish what should be banned and what should be tolerated. As the male child suffers no long-lasting harm I still say in a tolerant society it should be allowed for religious reasons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fountainhall Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Torture? Here is what Mandela wrote about his rite of passage at the age of 16 - I felt as if fire was shooting through my veins; the pain was so intense that I buried my chin in my chest. [To his biographer Anthony Sampson, he compared the sensation with molten lead flowing through his veins.] http://www.circumstitions.com/tribal.html And a more sensible view from an American parent - My husband & I chose not to circumcise our son. Why? Because we did not, and do not, believe we have the right to make such an alteration to his body. That is something for him to decide for himself, if he would even want to in the first place, when he is older. We are merely the custodians of our son's body, not its owner. Parents need to put themselves in their children's place and imagine what it would be like to be tied down against your will, and have your genitals cut at with inadequate, or no, anesthesia at all. How can people subject a newborn infant to such a painful, inhumane practice and defend it? Especially when it would be assault if it was done, without their consent, to an adult. I think about circumcision this way... If I wouldn't want some one to mutilate and permanently damage my genitals, then why would my son want that done to him? http://www.drmomma.org/2009/08/plastibell-infant-circumcision.html If you have the stomach for it, that webpage has a video of an infant's circumcision. As other responders noted, every parent should be made to watch that video before making the decision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thaiworthy Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 As other responders noted, every parent should be made to watch that video before making the decision. I agree with Rogie. I don't think this will ever happen. The first concern of every parent is that the baby is healthy. No one forces anyone to watch anything for any other kind of procedure, so I don't think this is a realistic strategy. I don't like the notion of "being made to watch" something as a prerequisite, since hospitals don't have that right or responsibility. This is just another emotional response from readers. If a baby is to be circumcised, it will be done so because of the parent's religion, or because the father is circumcised or they both want it that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
