German court declares circumcisions a crime

[curlyg]

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)?

I have never in my life heard of an elective appendectomy, certainly not for infants... I may be wrong, but even if this is practiced it must be by an incredibly tiny group of people. I would honestly say that a parent putting their infant children through surgery to remove the appendix for no apparent reason is unethical and should probably be illegal...

Just to be clear, the foreskin actually does serve certain functions, it's not just a matter of appearance:

The Royal Australasian College of Physicians states that the foreskin protects the glans, and that "the foreskin is a primary sensory part of the penis, containing some of the most sensitive areas of the penis. The effects of circumcision on sexual sensation however are not clear, with reports of both enhanced and diminished sexual pleasure following the procedure in adults and little awareness of advantage or disadvantage in those circumcised in infancy."[19] The Royal Dutch Medical Association states that many sexologists view the foreskin as "a complex, erotogenic structure that plays an important role ‘in the mechanical function of the penis during sexual acts, such as penetrative intercourse and masturbation’."[20]
Taylor et al. (1996) described the foreskin in detail, documenting a ridged band of mucosal tissue. They stated: "This ridged band contains more Meissner's corpuscles than does the smooth mucosa and exhibits features of specialized sensory mucosa."[2] In 1999, Cold and Taylor stated: "The prepuce is primary, erogenous tissue necessary for normal sexual function."[21] Boyle et al. (2002) state that "the complex innervation of the foreskin and frenulum has been well documented, and the genitally intact male has thousands of fine touch receptors and other highly erogenous nerve endings."[22] The AAP noted that the work of Taylor et al. (1996) "suggests that there may be a concentration of specialized sensory cells in specific ridged areas of the foreskin."[23]
Moses and Bailey (1998) describe the evidence of sensory function as "indirect," and state that, "aside from anecdotal reports, it has not been demonstrated that this is associated with increased male sexual pleasure."[24] The World Health Organization (2007) states that "Although it has been argued that sexual function may diminish following circumcision due to the removal of the nerve endings in the foreskin and subsequent thickening of the epithelia of the glans, there is little evidence for this and studies are inconsistent."[25] Fink et al. (2002) reported "although many have speculated about the effect of a foreskin on sexual function, the current state of knowledge is based on anecdote rather than scientific evidence."[26] Masood et al. (2005) state that "currently no consensus exists about the role of the foreskin."[27] Schoen (2007) states that "anecdotally, some have claimed that the foreskin is important for normal sexual activity and improves sexual sensitivity. Objective published studies over the past decade have shown no substantial difference in sexual function between circumcised and uncircumcised men."[28]
The term 'gliding action' is used in some papers to describe the way the foreskin moves during sexual intercourse. This mechanism was described by Lakshamanan & Prakash in 1980, stating that "[t]he outer layer of the prepuce in common with the skin of the shaft of the penis glides freely in a to and fro fashion..."[29] Several people have argued that the gliding movement of the foreskin is important during sexual intercourse.[30] Warren & Bigelow (1994) state that gliding action would help to reduce the effects of vaginal dryness and that restoration of the gliding action is an important advantage of foreskin restoration.[31] O'Hara (2002) describes the gliding action, stating that it reduces friction during sexual intercourse, and suggesting that it adds "immeasurably to the comfort and pleasure of both parties".[32] Taylor (2000) suggests that the gliding action, where it occurs, may stimulate the nerves of the ridged band,[33] and speculates (2003) that the stretching of the frenulum by the rearward gliding action during penetration triggers ejaculation.[34]
Whiddon (1953), Foley (1966), and Morgan (1967) all believed that the presence of the foreskin made sexual penetration easier.[35][36][37]

So this is not purely cosmetic - again you're making a decision about the permanent state of your infant child's body and, in so doing, denying them the opportunity to make the choice for themselves.

[Reffo]

Well, I'll go on the record and state that I don't miss my foreskin. And I thank my parents that they had me circumcised. There, I said it ...

And that brings up the sixty four dollar question: Does anyone know of someone who has been circumcised as an infant who wants their foreskin back and is blaming his parents for circumcising him? No? I didn't think so. That's why, those who are so critical of this minor procedure are bringing up all sorts of theoretical red herrings or furphies, as we say in Australia.

[Pleepleus]

There are medical benefits as Dayag cited above and neonatal circumcisions have fewer complications than circumcisions performed on adults. Therefore, I think any parent that wants their son circumcised should have that right.

[curlyg]

Well, I'll go on the record and state that I don't miss my foreskin. And I thank my parents that they had me circumcised. There, I said it ...

And that brings up the sixty four dollar question: Does anyone know of someone who has been circumcised as an infant who wants their foreskin back and is blaming his parents for circumcising him? No? I didn't think so. That's why, those who are so critical of this minor procedure are bringing up all sorts of theoretical red herrings or furphies, as we say in Australia.

I actually do know of people who regret or were upset by having been circumcised. Also a quick internet search will reveal plenty. You and I may be happy we were circumcised, I just take the view that just because I believe something doesn't mean everyone else is necessarily of the same opinion.

[Reffo]

I disagree with the court's ruling - I think circumcision should be legal and within the discretion of the parents of the infant. Having said that there is a fairly significant case against infant circumcision...

Well you could blow me away. Ya could have fooled me. Every argument that you presented was in favour of the ban. And now this ...

I think you are just arguing for arguings sake. Whether I am convincing or not, I guess I shouldn't be the one to judge but at least I argue in what I believe.

[Reffo]

I actually do know of people who regret or were upset by having been circumcised. Also a quick internet search will reveal plenty

Well then, there is your answer. Those who are against circumcision, should convince a few of those discontented ones to sue their parents and demand compensation. I guess if they win, that would be a disincentive for parents from performing this simple procedure. Or would it? In any case, that would prove to be more effective in making the point than for a state to act like a nanny state and dictate their own norms to grown up people who love their children.

There were hundreds of millions of circumcisions carried out world wide in say the last 20 years. I wonder how many sons will step forward to sue their parents?

You and I may be happy we were circumcised, I just take the view that just because I believe something doesn't mean everyone else is necessarily of the same opinion

You might say that you don't but if you say that there is a case against circumcision then you are the one who thinks that everyone else has to agree with your opinion and the state's.

I on the other hand only want those of us who believe in circumcision to be allowed to continue performing this very simple and relatively risk free procedure. Those who don't want to, can do what they like. That's why I think that it's a bit rich for YOU to call ME dogmatic ...

[Reffo]

You actually defeated your own point here Reffo. The reason that these kinds of cosmetic surgeries are unproblemtic for infants and children is that they would, as you say, 'pay a very heavy price' if the surgeries were not carried out in their infancy. There's an urgency that justifies not waiting. That case is a little harder to make when it comes to circumcision

Well, as you suggested, I did look on the Internet and most of the men who are resentful about their circumcision, had it done at an age when they can remember the momentary physical pain and trauma that is inevitable with such a procedure. Hence their resentment. As against that, those of us who had the procedure done when we were about 8 days old, don't remember any trauma. Hence we have all the benefits without any adverse memories. There is a case for carrying out the procedure as early as possible, if it is to be done at all.

[Aliyah1995]

Curlyg-

I have never in my life heard of an elective appendectomy, certainly not for infants...

I don't know about Australia, but in America it is not uncommon for parents to decide that the appendix is "useless" and can only cause tzoras (i.e. appendicitis) and to have the child/ren's appendix removed at an early age.

Just to be clear, the foreskin actually does serve certain functions, it's not just a matter of appearance

Even the link you provided (save the first sentence) shows that the most common "function" that the foreskin provides is extra nerve sensors that might make sex more pleasurable and even this is debatable (which your link shows).

Bottom line, there is no where near uniform enough agreement about the foreskin being so important (medically) to warrant forbidding parents from circumcising their infants from a medical point of view. We are talking about so-called "medical benefits" or "functions" of the foreskin that are being debated versus more people than the number of grains of sand on the beach that have been circumcised over thousands of years (Jewish and not, for religious reasons and not) who are not showing any signs of suffering medically, psychologically, or being otherwise deprived. I know which one is more convincing in my book.

Germany's proposed ban has about as much foundation as a house being built on a swamp.

[curlyg]

Well you could blow me away. Ya could have fooled me. Every argument that you presented was in favour of the ban. And now this ...

I think you are just arguing for arguings sake. Whether I am convincing or not, I guess I shouldn't be the one to judge but at least I argue in what I believe.

Really? Because pretty sure every step of the way I've reiterated that I think there should be no ban, and I even explained why. I'm just pointing out that dismissing the arguments of the other side out of hand, as some people were doing earlier in this thread, is unreasonable. They make some valid points. I place value on having a morally coherent position on this issue as with all others... Why is it you seem to think that if I believe circumcision shouldn't be banned, I also have to tout its supposed medical benefits and believe it is morally uncomplicated?

To be clear, I think infant circumcision is a borderline practice. In most cases, where it's practiced by the general population, it may well be unethical. The situation is different for groups for whom this is a culturally significant practice.

[curlyg]

You might say that you don't but if you say that there is a case against circumcision then you are the one who thinks that everyone else has to agree with your opinion and the state's.

I on the other hand only want those of us who believe in circumcision to be allowed to continue performing this very simple and relatively risk free procedure. Those who don't want to, can do what they like. That's why I think that it's a bit rich for YOU to call ME dogmatic ...

People don't have to agree with anything I say. It's the proper role of the state to prevent one individual causing harm to another - there's virtually no more universally accepted principle in the Western world. You obviously support that proposition when it comes to female genital mutilation or cutting off toes or whatever. The same basic principle does apply to circumcision, which is why people need to have a damn good reason to justify it before it should be allowed. That's not dogma - that's consistent application of fundamental moral principles.

[curlyg]

I don't know about Australia, but in America it is not uncommon for parents to decide that the appendix is "useless" and can only cause tzoras (i.e. appendicitis) and to have the child/ren's appendix removed at an early age.

Wow. This is really bizarre to me. I've tried to search for research on elective appendectomies in children on Google Scholar, and haven't been able to find anything. Anyway I'll take your word for it, but that still seems pretty problematic to me even if true. That's a completely unnecessary surgery and probably should be illegal...

[Reffo]

People don't have to agree with anything I say. It's the proper role of the state to prevent one individual causing harm to another - there's virtually no more universally accepted principle in the Western world. You obviously support that proposition when it comes to female genital mutilation or cutting off toes or whatever. The same basic principle does apply to circumcision, which is why people need to have a damn good reason to justify it before it should be allowed. That's not dogma - that's consistent application of fundamental moral principles.

That SOUNDS very consistent. The principle that no harm should be caused by one human against another. Pity you were not able to demonstrate that circumcision causes anything other than momentary discomfort which an infant does not remember. Other than that, it's nothing like the cutting off of toes or female genital mutilation. The onus is on you to prove that male circumcision falls in the same category, not on us. All we need to do is refer to what happened to us personally and remember that we don't feel that there has been any harm done to us. And not only to us but to hundreds of millions of others who have had the procedure done for thousands of years and with the vast majority of those are perfectly happy with the outcome.

[Reffo]

Really? Because pretty sure every step of the way I've reiterated that I think there should be no ban, and I even explained why. I'm just pointing out that dismissing the arguments of the other side out of hand, as some people were doing earlier in this thread, is unreasonable. They make some valid points. I place value on having a morally coherent position on this issue as with all others... Why is it you seem to think that if I believe circumcision shouldn't be banned, I also have to tout its supposed medical benefits and believe it is morally uncomplicated?

To be clear, I think infant circumcision is a borderline practice. In most cases, where it's practiced by the general population, it may well be unethical. The situation is different for groups for whom this is a culturally significant practice

Even in this post you seem to be more inclined to say that circumcision should be banned. You are all but saying it but you just pull short of actually saying it.

As far as I am concerned, you are entitled to your opinion but I too am entitled to disagree with YOUR opinion. Whatever it is. My problem with you is that you are dismissing every point that we make FOR circumcision and are validating every argument in favor of banning circumcision, yet you claim that you are against the ban. That's why it seems to me that you are here to argue for the sake of arguing and not argue for what you actually seem to believe in.

[Reffo]

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

OK, so if the nails wouldn't grow back then you would be against clipping nails?

[curlyg]

That SOUNDS very consistent. The principle that no harm should be caused by one human against another. Pity you were not able to demonstrate that circumcision causes anything other than momentary discomfort which an infant does not remember. Other than that, it's nothing like the cutting off of toes or female genital mutilation. The onus is on you to prove that male circumcision falls in the same category, not on us. All we need to do is refer to what happened to us personally and remember that we don't feel that there has been any harm done to us. And not only to us but to hundreds of millions of others who have had the procedure done for thousands of years and with the vast majority of those are perfectly happy with the outcome.

I've explained why I think that circumcision falls in the same category - it's a permanent physical interference with the natural state of the body without the consent of the person concerned. In fact, as I've pointed out, the small toe is pretty much useless, it's an evolutionary vestige. The fact that it isn't useful is not the point (again, assuming the foreskin does nothing, which is far from clear) - we don't go chopping off parts of people's bodies unless we have a very good reason.

Even in this post you seem to be more inclined to say that circumcision should be banned. You are all but saying it but you just pull short of actually saying it.

I don't see how you can possibly find that in what I wrote. If you're intent on reading this into my comments, fine. Just let it be clear to everyone else that I have made my position clear in this thread repeatedly.

As far as I am concerned, you are entitled to your opinion but I too am entitled to disagree with YOUR opinion. Whatever it is. My problem with you is that you are dismissing every point that we make FOR circumcision and are validating every argument in favor of banning circumcision, yet you claim that you are against the ban. That's why it seems to me that you are here to argue for the sake of arguing and not argue for what you actually seem to believe in.

I don't agree with most of the points you are making for circumcision, and I'm honestly stating as much. I don't think the dubious medical benefits can justify it, and I do think that it is a non-consensual physical interference just like cutting off someone's useless pinky toe. I consider that to be physical harm. But I consider that the physical harm is JUSTIFIED in some cases - like for Jews, where this is a very significant cultural practice which far outweighs the relatively minor physical interference/harm. I think though that in many cases, in the general population, where they do it for silly reasons like 'we wanted him to look like his dad', circumcision really isn't justifiable.

OK, so if the nails wouldn't grow back then you would be against clipping nails?

Well, assuming your nails stayed a constant length (i.e. they don't grow and so don't raise the risk of injuring your infant) then I'd be inclined to say parents shouldn't be messing with them for no good reason... Yeah...