Germany: Parents Cannot Get Boys Circumcised

Remove all ads!

They're wive's tales joacqin, not facts. For every example you could give where some dude "has real problems climaxing" after circumcision, I could give you examples of circumcised guy who can't last more than a couple of minutes. Pulling their skin back to increase longevity? Please, I get emails in my spam box with more credible ways to "make her happy in bed."

 

This entire issue is silly. For anyone to think that it is "child abuse" to circumcize an infant is crazy. The kid will never remember it and doesn't cry anymore than they do when they are hungry or have **** themselves. They cry even less if they suck on a wine soaked blanket for a few minutes (as is done in a Jewish Bris).

IMO this is just a bunch of busybodies who are being pains in the ass. If someone wants to circumcize their son they should have every right to do so. By the same token if a parent chooses to not do so, that is their choice.

As to the argument about "the child isn't old enough to choose", that is pure bullcrap. Parents make many choices for their child and the vast majority of them are permanent and the child has no input (Where they live, what schools they go to, etc.)

You would think Germany would have more important issues.

 

This is a big issue, too many children are mutilated by their parents and it needs to stop. The only problem with outlawing it is that then it moves from proper clinics to back alleys and homes where some cross eyed imam or drunk rabbi carves up the entire mid section of the child.

 

The Great Snook,
there is a risk if the procedure is not handled professionally. Considering that it has been done to billions of people over the millennia it is ludicrous to assume that it is inherently dangerous. But that is not the point. As the court notes, in this case it was done professionally. To give a brief run through the decision:

As far as criminal law goes the reasoning is straightforward and rather compelling. Legally, there is a near consensus among criminal law experts that unnecessary surgery constitutes the criminal offence of bodily harm under §223 StGB. Circumcision is not necessary medically. It thus constitutes bodily harm.

Parental care also doesn't justify the measure either, since that only covers educational measures that promote the well-being of the child. It is hard to argue that unnecessary surgery does that. The court explicitly weighs the rights of the parents for their religious freedom against the right to physical integrity and self determination of the child, and comes to the conclusion that the parent's interests do not outweigh those of the child.

The ruling is final. The LG Köln is already the second instance. In the previous instance the doctor had been acquitted. There will not be a revision from the Prosecutor's office.

Whether that reasoning properly takes into account religious freedom - that is another matter and less certain imo. The constitutional court may theoretically strike it down on constitutional grounds, if the doctor brings it there, and if the court takes it. Both, however, is unlikely because he had been acquitted twice in both trials - i.e. there is no personal grievance in that for him to appeal against, but that is the precondition to have standing. The parents of the boy also can't go to court because they have no grievance either - after all they did get their kid circumcised according to Muslim custom.

Politically there is a lot of push back against the ruling, from Catholic, Jewish and Muslim organisations and from across the entire political spectrum. Where I see this headed is probably the Bundestag. I think it is not inconceivable that there will be a law that amends the criminal code StGB, or amends the constitution. Something to the effect that the religious practice of circumcision does not constitute inflicting bodily harm. Actually, it is IMO better that they settle it than that a court does.

 

I'd say the drunk rabbi comment needs some backup. Are you in possession of some actual data that demonstrates rabbis screw up the procedure more often than medical doctors? I mean, Jews have been doing it for centuries and have had a lot of practice.

Quite a while ago someone mentioned guys harboring resentment toward their fathers for hacking off half their dingaling. I can personally attest that I have never felt this resentment, and have also never met anyone who expressed it. I'll delve into supposition and hazard that anyone with such resentment probably has a multitude of other issues and is merely looking for something else to tack on.

Speaking personally, though, those opposed to circumcision have given me food for thought. As I mentioned, like most boys in Canada I was snipped, and have never given the procedure much thought. I was always told it was for hygienic reasons. I'm quite sure that preventing masturbation was not even on my parents' radar when it came to the circumcisions of their male offspring. Given the current medical research that indicates the hygienic value is minimal, if I were to have a son, I would likely not have him circumcised. As I said before, it has no religious meaning to me (and contrary to what was said earlier, neither I nor any of my friends ever viewed uncircumcised guys as "abominations before God") and thus it would be easy enough for me to forgo the procedure.

But making it illegal is a bridge too far, IMHO. I support religious freedom, and the somewhat hysterical assertions that it is a form of mutilation and abuse are absurd. It's been being done for several thousand years and the world has managed to progress just fine. As Snook said, there are other issues of much greater importance. There are laws regarding incompetence and malpractice that adequately cover the rare cases of serious screw ups. I would guess that the Catholics are advocating circumcision for reasons if religious solidarity -- the New Testament is quite clear about circumcision being unnecessary for Christians, and thus their support is more likely a case of "we'll support this Jewish/Muslim religious requirement because one day the govt. may come after one of ours" sort of mentality.

 

Been several cases here where some incompetent has screwed up the procedure to what I assume is the great sorrow of the future man. For me the only pro of having it legal is that it can then be done openly by professionals who are under scrutiny. If it is illegal then people are forced to rely on whoever is willing to break the law and that is usually not a good idea when it comes to surgery.

Where do we draw the line at religious freedom though? I am sure there are those who would claim religious freedom for female circumcision as well and I doubt people would be as understanding there. When all is said and done this is as you said probably not a big issue but isn't that the entire point? Why do something that has no positive benefits and several negative to an infant who has no say in the matter when it could just as easily be done as the choice of the grown man? On a personal note and I don't know about you but I have seen videos of circumcisions and it is not a pretty sight. I for one am not comfortable with wielding scalpels around infants and cutting off pieces of them. Snook's comment about them not screaming any louder than when they are hungry kinda scares me. I don't think they can scream any louder, I am sure they would scream the same if you tore out their tongue or chopped off their foot that doesn't mean it doesn't hurt.

 

LKD,
the words mutilation and circumcision sound over the top - but, in essence, like mutilation, circumcision is an unnecessary procedure. Unless you're in some crap place in South America or Africa where hygiene is poor, circumcision serves no rational medical purpose. Necessity is measured by that standard.

As I wrote earlier, even a hair cut without consent is inflicting physical harm. In fact every medical procedure is in its essence inflicting physical harm, justified only by medical necessity and (in the absence of an imminent danger to his life, and as long as the patient is conscious) - consent.

"Later he'll thank us" is not an argument that will stand up in court.

 

Resurrecting another thread here but the American Academy of Pediatrics came out with a Policy Statement on Circumcision today. The abstract:

Male circumcision is a common procedure, generally performed during the newborn period in the United States. In 2007, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) formed a multidisciplinary task force of AAP members and other stakeholders to evaluate the recent evidence on male circumcision and update the Academy’s 1999 recommendations in this area. Evaluation of current evidence indicates that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks and that the procedure’s benefits justify access to this procedure for families who choose it. Specific benefits identified included prevention of urinary tract infections, penile cancer, and transmission of some sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has endorsed this statement. ​

 

I also heard they could not find/document any 'sensitivity' issues arising from circumcision.

 

Tal -- I don't know, the response from CRC seemed ... angry and disjointed. But then the AAP by their failure to include many of the argument CRC makes basically minimized the organization. There were points in the response which seemed immaterial to me and just a rant on the part of the CRC:

- The CRC is using red herrings in their response. For example, the issue of condoms is irrelevant. People don't always use condoms (even when they should). This was not a statement about the benefits of condoms.
- The CRC is cherry picking. They chose to dismiss statistics from AAP while using their own, unreference statistics. Granted, the AAP may be guilty of this as well but I doubt it.
- They are using straw man arguments. Constantly focussing on "ethics" over and over again trying to paint the AAP as unethical ... really? I've never heard the ethics of AAP questioned.
- CRC is using a guilt by association fallacy by stating conflict of interest thereby questioning the integrity of the AAP. Again ... really? The AAP is quite well known for bucking against big money in the medical and pharmaceutical industries.
- There is a constant appeal to emotion in the arguments -- another kind of fallacy.​

These three items were just plain misdirection:

[T]he effect of circumcision on male distrust, anxiety, and anger toward women is unrecognized and unexamined. Do the psychological and sexual consequences of circumcision affect America's uniquely high divorce rate? We do not know.
Circumcision is traumatic and changes the brain. Does circumcision affect the prevalence of autism and ADHD which both occur about four times more often in boys than in girls? We do not know.
Sudden infant death syndrome occurs more often in boys than in girls. The rise and fall of male infant mortality correlates with the rise and fall of the circumcision rate. Is circumcision a contributing factor? We do not know.​

For me, I would rather hope those against circumcision could delineate good, reasonable argument without resorting to emotional arguments or argumentative fallacies. I'm sure CRC has good points in their argument but it was difficult to find in the mess they posted as a response. To simply attack an organization (especially one with the reputation of the AAP) in response to a statement the CRC doesn't agree with was akin to anti-abortion arguments I've seen. It also doesn't help when the CRC decided to quote Ghandi as if he was on the anti-circumcision band wagon. Ghandi's quote:

"If we are to have real peace, we must begin with the children." ​

was about education and tolerance. The use of it here may actually be against Ghandi's original meaning.

 

The Americans, Jews and Muslims against the world!

 

I agree with this, but I think it would have been just as accurate if you put the period after the word belief. It's not like EVERYONE in the US is circumcized. In fact, a growing number of people aren't. There are several examples in my own family of kids that have been born in the last few years that weren't. It's not like they force you to get it done or do it without getting your permission. Likewise in Europe, I'm sure there are tons of people who are circumcized. As joacqin points out there are millions of Jews and Muslims living in Europe...

 

Doctors have been asking for at least twenty-five years -- they are not permitted to do a procedure without parental permission. My sister tells me all of her boys are uncircumcised (and all were born in the US) -- they range from 11 to 24.

 

That's absolutely true - they can't do anything to your kid without parental permission. That said, most people around my age (I'm 38) circumcision was routine. Pretty much all boys were when I was born.