German court declares circumcisions a crime

[curlyg]

I don't think that's the effect it should have. We should not elevate anything above reasonable debate. There is actually a reasonable argument to be made against infant circumcision - I've heard the argument made pretty well myself and I've pretty much been persuaded that the vast majority of circumcisions carried out in countries like the US (i.e. non-Jewish circumcisions) are unethical. We don't legislate something into law just because it is commanded by a religion, even our religion, especially given that most Jews at this time are not strictly religious. If there's a justification for circumcision it needs to be a basically non-religious one. I happen to think that this can be persuasively argued - but as I've said, I do think that the counter-argument is real and raises some valid points.

[Aliyah1995]

Curlyg-

I don't think that's the effect it should have.

Well, Curly, unfortunately it is and I am far from the only one.

There is actually a reasonable argument to be made against infant circumcision

Here are the main arguments against I have heard:

1) the infant has no say, to which I say parents make decision for their children everyday. I think there is an issue, for example, with vegetarian parents denying their children meat. There is plenty of evidence (which is debatable of course) that meat is an important part of the diet. What about home schooling? This denies the child many important social skills. What about single parents (not divorcees, but women who, from the get go, decide to have children on their own by artificial insemination)? What about bringing unsuspecting kids into same sex parent households? And the list goes on....

2) The trauma causes psychological problems later on in life. I seriously would like to meet a man who has psychological issues because of being circumcised at 8 days old.

3) It hinders one's sex life. I haven't noticed Nor do I know anybody who was circumcised who has.

4) It is a tradition based on "myth and superstition". This alone is not reason to deny someone the right to carry it out. As long as one is not causing irreversible harm, which countless Jews (and non-Jews) over thousand of years having gone through this procedure prove one is NOT, then if somebody wants to stand on their head for twenty minutes a day and sing lakookaratcha, that is his/her business.

5) There are cases where circumcision has caused physical harm to the infant, sometimes serious harm. And these cases, while tragic (one is one too many) they are still very rare. Even rarer than the chance of somebody dying in a car accident DAFKA because they were wearing a seat belt (there are rare instances where a seat belt has hindered individuals from leaving the car, which would have saved their lives, but we are not going to stop wearing seat belts are we?). However, a CERTIFIED mohel is much less likely to make a mistake during circumcision than a doctor (who is not a mohel) because a mohel is trained SPECIFICALLY to carry them out. I am all for regulating circumcisions (having to have a license to perform one), but not forbidding them.

We don't legislate something into law just because it is commanded by a religion, even our religion, especially given that most Jews at this time are not strictly religious.

But here the shoe is on the other foot. We are talking about the government forbidding people from practicing their religion. The proposed law in Germany is the first step towards a German speaking KGB. Soon they will be talking about closing down mikvehs because they "carry germs and diseases" (the claim made to justify closing down the mikvehs in the Former Soviet Union). They will talk about outlawing Jewish ritual slaughter (in other European countries they already have such laws or are proposing them) because it causes unnecessary suffering to the animals. Every time governments tried to outlaw practicing Judaism, there were always seemingly "logical" reasons for doing so. And so the snowball will start.

If there's a justification for circumcision it needs to be a basically non-religious one.

I don't agree. Even most secular Jews (both in Israel and in the diaspora) continue to circumcise their sons to this very day. I venture to say it aint' for non-religious (or medical) reasons. And most Jews (even the most secular) will be darned if they are told they can't circumcise their sons.

[Reffo]

Even most secular Jews (both in Israel and in the diaspora) continue to circumcise their sons to this very day. I venture to say it aint' for non-religious (or medical) reasons. And most Jews (even the most secular) will be darned if they are told they can't circumcise their sons

I agree and I am as secular as they come.

[curlyg]

Well, Curly, unfortunately it is and I am far from the only one.

Well that's very unfortunate. Part of the aggravation here, I think, is the crocodile tears from people who are just intent on attacking anything to do with Judaism or Israel. And I can understand that this is frustrating and I find it disgusting. But even so, that's not to say every point that they've raised has no merit. I mean I personally know a few Jews (I grant you they are a very small minority) who have no such hostile intentions but have made the personal judgment that it would be unethical for them to circumcise their children. I disagree with their moral assessment but I don't think we should just label them crazies and refuse to consider the concerns that they raise, because there are some valid moral questions here.

Here are the main arguments against I have heard:

1) the infant has no say, to which I say parents make decision for their children everyday. I think there is an issue, for example, with vegetarian parents denying their children meat. There is plenty of evidence (which is debatable of course) that meat is an important part of the diet. What about home schooling? This denies the child many important social skills. What about single parents (not divorcees, but women who, from the get go, decide to have children on their own by artificial insemination)? What about bringing unsuspecting kids into same sex parent households? And the list goes on....

2) The trauma causes psychological problems later on in life. I seriously would like to meet a man who has psychological issues because of being circumcised at 8 days old.

3) It hinders one's sex life. I haven't noticed Nor do I know anybody who was circumcised who has.

4) It is a tradition based on "myth and superstition". This alone is not reason to deny someone the right to carry it out. As long as one is not causing permanent harm, which countless Jews (and non-Jews) over thousand of years having gone through this procedure prove one is NOT, then if somebody wants to stand on their head for twenty minutes a day and sing lakookaratcha, that is his/her business.

5) There are cases where circumcision has caused physical harm to the infant, sometimes serious harm. And these cases, while tragic (one is one too many) they are still very rare. Even rarer than the chance of somebody dying in a car accident DAFKA because they were wearing a seat belt (there are rare instances where a seat belt has hindered individuals from leaving the car, which would have saved their lives, but we are not going to stop wearing seat belts are we?). However, a CERTIFIED mohel is much less likely to make a mistake during circumcision than a doctor (who is not a mohel) because a mohel is trained SPECIFICALLY to carry them out. I am all for regulating circumcisions (having to have a license to perform one), but not forbidding them.

I don't find any of those compelling - the most critical argument as far as I am concerned is some variation of (1).

With regard to (1), I agree with you - parents make a lot of decisions which in hindsight are potentially harmful to their kids, but we generally don't consider it to be the proper province of the state to interfere in these kinds of discretionary decisions. The main point of the 'opposition' is that we always start from the general proposition that every person has a right to control what happens to their own body. We allow exceptions based on (1) urgency and (2) severity - so for example we allow vaccination or, as Reffo points out, certain cosmetic procedures that would improve quality of life markedly and without which the child would suffer. But circumcision doesn't neatly fall into this kind of analysis. There is no medical or 'objective' urgency or severe condition to which there is a need to respond - this is an entirely voluntary act which makes an irreversible change to a person's body, which (if they wanted) they could make themselves when they're old enough. That's the general argument, and I think you would agree it is not without merit.

Without getting too wordy though, I don't think this approach to moral reasoning is very sound. I don't agree that we can state categorically 'every kind of physical interference with the body which is not urgent or medically required is unethical'. This makes it seem as though the only morally relevant factor is the child's entitlement to physical integrity. While they clearly have that right, there are obviously other factors at play and I don't think you can just dismiss them. These are things that even secular liberals recognise as valuable - things like self-identity, belonging to a community, cultural adherence, etc. which are morally relevant. Ignoring these sorts of factors is just silly, it produces very one-dimensional thinking.

But here the shoe is on the other foot. We are talking about the government forbidding people from practicing their religion. The proposed law in Germany is the first step towards a German speaking KGB. Soon they will be talking about closing down mikvehs because they "carry germs and diseases" (the claim made to justify closing down the mikvehs in the Former Soviet Union). They will talk about outlawing Jewish ritual slaughter (in other European countries they already have such laws or are proposing them) because it causes unnecessary suffering to the animals. Every time governments tried to outlaw practicing Judaism, there were always seemingly "logical" reasons for doing so. And so the snowball will start.

There's nothing wrong with a government banning a religious practice if it's wrong, I think you will agree. I mean, what if someone's religion required someone to cut their child's arm off? Pretty sure we'd both be outraged at that one. Religious practices shouldn't get a free pass. But I think all in all, bearing in mind the non-material advantages to the child in belonging to a community, participating in its traditional practices, etc. is significant, and the physical harm being caused is really negligible, so that to my mind circumcision is really a net positive at least for Jewish infants, whether they are culturally or religiously Jewish. But note that this would not justify the practice common in some American families of circumcising males because they want them to 'look like their father' or because they think 'its cleaner' - I think these kinds of circumcisions are probably unethical.

I don't agree. Even most secular Jews (both in Israel and in the diaspora) continue to circumcise their sons to this very day. I venture to say it aint' for non-religious (or medical) reasons. And most Jews (even the most secular) will be darned if they are told they can't circumcise their sons.

Right - but since most of us are non-religious, we clearly aren't circumcising our kids because God said so. In fact, many of us don't even believe in God. It's not so much a religious practice as it is a cultural milestone in Jewish life, like Bar-Mitzvah, wedding, etc.

[Aliyah1995]

Curlyg-

I mean I personally know a few Jews (I grant you they are a very small minority) who have no such hostile intentions but have made the personal judgment that it would be unethical for them to circumcise their children.

THEIR choice, but don't tell me I can't circumcise my son and try to pass governmental legislation to that effect.

There's nothing wrong with a government banning a religious practice if it's wrong, I think you will agree. I mean, what if someone's religion required someone to cut their child's arm off? Pretty sure we'd both be outraged at that one. Religious practices shouldn't get a free pass.

I think you are an intelligent enough individual to realize that slicing the foreskin off the penis is not even in the same universe as cutting somebody's arm off. If a religious practice is not causing harm (which most people are not convinced that circumcision causes harm and the countless people, Jewish and not, who have had it done over the last thousands of years is pretty convincing as well) then there is no reason to ban it. Generally in western Democracies if religious customs do not cause harm, then it is unacceptable to ban them.

Right - but since most of us are non-religious, we clearly aren't circumcising our kids because God said so. In fact, many of us don't even believe in God. It's not so much a religious practice as it is a cultural milestone in Jewish life, like Bar-Mitzvah, wedding, etc.

True, but most Jews who circumcise their sons are NOT doing it for medical reasons either (which is what I thought you were getting at).

[curlyg]

I think you are an intelligent enough individual to realize that slicing the foreskin off the penis is not even in the same universe as cutting somebody's arm off. If a religious practice is not causing harm (which most people are not convinced that circumcision causes harm and the countless people, Jewish and not, who have had it done over the last thousands of years is pretty convincing as well) then there is no reason to ban it. Generally in western Democracies if religious customs do not cause harm, then it is unacceptable to ban them.

Of course one is far more severe than the other, but the point stands. Circumcision does do some harm, if you look at it from a purely physical point of view and ignore the fact that it also produces cultural 'good' (if you like) for the individual concerned. We do generally agree that we shouldn't inflict harm on infants (or anyone else for that matter) unless they've consented. That's the principle they're appealing to, but they're just not doing it very convincingly in this case.

True, but most Jews who circumcise their sons are NOT doing it for medical reasons either (which is what I thought you were getting at).

Honestly, the medical justifications for circumcision are bogus. If we all lived in Africa and were in real danger of contracting an STD I might buy into circumcision 'for medical reasons.' But we don't, and there are ways of preventing STDs that don't involve cutting off part of someone's body. Circumcision shouldn't be banned because it causes pretty insignificant physical 'harm' - but the tradeoff is that it is a valuable religious and cultural practice which is a net positive for the child and the community.

[dayag]

...Honestly, the medical justifications for circumcision are bogus...

No, they are not.

The medical benefits suggested to accrue from circumcision are reduced incidence of urinary tract infection in infant males, decreased incidence of penile cancer in adult males, and possibly decreased susceptibility to certain sexually transmissible diseases, including human immunodeficience virus (HIV).

source: http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/13585.html

Three randomized, controlled trials held in South Africa, Kenya, and Uganda between 2005 and 2007 found that male circumcision reduced the risk of contracting HIV by 50 to 60 percent, according to the Independent.

source:
http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/...ctors-1.276400

The World Health Organization and the Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS have recommended neonatal and adult circumcision.

In addition to the health benefits previously listed, male circumcusion reduces papillomavirus infection in women who have sexual relations with circumcised males.

source: http://www.jpost.com/HealthAndSci-Te...aspx?id=168805

[curlyg]

You conveniently cut out the rest of my post... Notice that those three randomised controlled trials were done in African countries - where circumcision makes sense because there's no sufficient access to contraception or other means of preventing sexually transmitted diseases. Those considerations aren't applicable to people in the developed world.

As to the the other medical benefits: (1) you'd need to show that the rate of the reduction is significant, (2) you'd need to show that you don't get the same rate of reduction after being circumcised consensually in adulthood as opposed to non-consensually in infancy.

[Aliyah1995]

Curlyg-

Of course one is far more severe than the other, but the point stands. Circumcision does do some harm, if you look at it from a purely physical point of view and ignore the fact that it also produces cultural 'good' (if you like) for the individual concerned. We do generally agree that we shouldn't inflict harm on infants (or anyone else for that matter) unless they've consented. That's the principle they're appealing to, but they're just not doing it very convincingly in this case.

This isn't just a ? of one being more "severe" than the other, but that a larger number of people than I can count to have been circumcised over the past 3,000+ plus years with no CLEAR physical harm (save the very rare cases).

I have also heard (from doctors/phychologists) that mothers that don't nurse their infants/toddlers cause them issues in later life. So, should mothers be forced to nurse their kids or else....?

Honestly, the medical justifications for circumcision are bogus.

To be honest, I haven't researched deeply into whether or not there are medical benefits of circumcision. Maybe there are, maybe not, but I CERTAINLY don't see any convincing evidence that circumcision causes any undo harm to the infant, other than crying for a minute or two and the penis never looking the same again, as it did with the foreskin (which is merely aesthetic).

[Reffo]

This is the bottom line as far as I am concerned:

On the one hand there are a whole host of medical benefits listed. There is also the issue of cultural and religious traditions to consider which can be listed as offering psychological comforts to most Jews and Muslims.

On the other side there is the minute possibility of complications resulting from this very minor operation.

The issue of consent is a red herring because there are a whole host of other medical procedures involving small risks to the child where nobody argues about the right of parents to make decisions on behalf of one's child. So why pick on circumcision only?

So, on balance, until a court can clearly demonstrate that the possibility of harm to the child significantly outweighs the benefits, I expect the court to mind it's own business and stay out of our lives. I say that as a responsible adult who loves his children and grand children and who expects the state to stay out of my life and make my own decisions in the best interest of those whom I love. However, if the state wants to, they can publish medical studies and make recommendations either way. I'll consider what they have to say. However, as soon as they try to forcefully interfere in my affairs, they better show a very good reason for doing so, otherwise I will do everything in my power to ensure that they get kicked out of office and they never regain power ever again!

I know a lot of other people, Jewish and non Jewish who feel the same way. They are known as liberterians who don't want a nanny state.

[curlyg]

This is the bottom line as far as I am concerned:

On the one hand there are a whole host of medical benefits listed. There is also the issue of cultural and religious traditions to consider which can be listed as offering psychological comforts to most Jews and Muslims.

On the other side there is the minute possibility of complications resulting from this very minor operation.

The issue of consent is a red herring because there are a whole host of other medical procedures involving small risks to the child where nobody argues about the right of parents to make decisions on behalf of one's child. So why pick on circumcision only?

So, on balance, until a court can clearly demonstrate that the possibility of harm to the child significantly outweighs the benefits, I expect the court to mind it's own business and stay out of our lives. I say that as a responsible adult who loves his children and grand children and who expects the state to stay out of my life and make my own decisions in the best interest of those whom I love. However, if the state wants to, they can publish medical studies and make recommendations either way. I'll consider what they have to say. However, as soon as they try to forcefully interfere in my affairs, they better show a very good reason for doing so, otherwise I will do everything in my power to ensure that they get kicked out of office and they never regain power ever again!

I know a lot of other people, Jewish and non Jewish who feel the same way. They are known as liberterians who don't want a nanny state.

We agree in our conclusion, just not in the way we get there...

Do you contest the basic premise that a person should have control over what happens to their body? I'm guessing not. I've already addressed the point re other things we do to infants without consent, e.g. say, vaccinations. There's a good reason for doing that in infancy, whereas if you're going to rely purely on circumcision's medical benefits you're going to have a hard time, since the kid would get those same medical benefits if he got circumised later (presumably your infant won't be having sex until they're at least in their teens), and circumcision is really not an effective way to prevent STDs (we have condoms for that, which are far more effective).

But yeah, ultimately the physical harm is insignificant and given its importance it should be permitted at least for Jews.

[curlyg]

This isn't just a ? of one being more "severe" than the other, but that a larger number of people than I can count to have been circumcised over the past 3,000+ plus years with no CLEAR physical harm (save the very rare cases).

I have also heard (from doctors/phychologists) that mothers that don't nurse their infants/toddlers cause them issues in later life. So, should mothers be forced to nurse their kids or else....?

I'm not sure what you mean. It's a non-essential permanent physical interference with their body - as a general principle we obviously prefer that people make those kinds of choices for themselves, especially where there's no pressing medical need. It is very much a difference of degree. Even if we accept the (incorrect) contention that the foreskin is entirely 'aesthetic' (as Reffo put it) and has no effect (this is not actually true, but let's assume it) - you can say the same for a person's small toe. It's not essential to one's functioning, but I imagine that unless there's a pretty damn good reason for it we won't be letting people snip off their babies' toes. Right?

[Reffo]

Last time I looked into it toes and foreskins are two different things. One is essential the other isn't. Foreskins are not essential, just like fingernails are not essential. I have heard the rare case where a child suffered complications because a mother accidentaly hurt a finger while clipping her child's fingernails. I'd like to think though that no one would forbid the right of a parent to clip the child's fingernails?

But yeah, ultimately the physical harm is insignificant and given its importance it should be permitted at least for Jews

And for Muslims too. And Australian Aborigines as well because they practice circumcision too.

[Aliyah1995]

I'm not sure what you mean. It's a non-essential permanent physical interference with their body - as a general principle we obviously prefer that people make those kinds of choices for themselves, especially where there's no pressing medical need. It is very much a difference of degree. Even if we accept the (incorrect) contention that the foreskin is entirely 'aesthetic' (as Reffo put it) and has no effect (this is not actually true, but let's assume it) - you can say the same for a person's small toe. It's not essential to one's functioning, but I imagine that unless there's a pretty damn good reason for it we won't be letting people snip off their babies' toes. Right?

I have YET to be convinced that (save rare instances when circumcision went wrong) removing the foreskin causes permanent damage.

How many parents have their kids appendix removed (and I am not talking about appendicitis, when of course it should be removed) for no particular reason? There is evidence (of course some will disagree) that the appendix has an important function, acting as a storehouse for good bacteria, “rebooting” the digestive system after diarrheal illnesses.

Should a law be passed that parents are forbidden to removed their child's appendix (save cases of appendicitis, of course)?

[curlyg]

Last time I looked into it toes and foreskins are two different things. One is essential the other isn't. Foreskins are not essential, just like fingernails are not essential.

Reffo, re the pinky toe: 'The pinky toe is involved in the maintenance of balance when standing upright and walking, though its relevance to the function of the foot as a whole is frequently called into question. It has been suggested that its contribution to human movement is so minimal that evolution will cause it to shorten until it eventually disappears.' ( http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-...-pinky-toe.htm ). So clearly far from essential. The comparison between foreskins and fingernails is also not very good -- fingernails grow back. Your foreskin doesn't. Cutting fingernails isn't making a permanent modification to the infant's body.