This blog entry is not about reflecting on the pro or contra of male circumcision and it is certainly no discusion about whether it should be forbidden or allowed. It is about the hipocracy that is currently going on in German politics regarding that topic.
If you are not aware of the current situation in Germany: a court ruled male circumsision of babies and small kids as assault, hence it is not allowed in Germany anymore. However the ruling politicians are now eager to pass a law to legalize it.
The issue I have with this legalization, is that the partial removal of the foreskin is already forbidden by law. In fact, a couple of years ago there was an initiative to punish it more severely with a minimum of two years, which had a broad consensus amongst all politicians and that is only the act itself. Additionally you will be held responsible for abuse of somebody who is entrusted in your care, and I'm sure anything else the lawyers can find. Oh, I forgot to mention one thing though: This only holds if the one whose foreskin is being removed is female.
All in all, if that law is to pass clearing the situation regarding the milder forms of the female circumsision (we are not talking about the more barbaric versions), I expect more lawsuits, either by male circumcision opponents or by female circumcision advocates. So if you like the government running haywire, you will have fun times in front of you.
One last note: I am definitely NOT a supporter of female circumcision! I find it incredibly disgusting and I prefer people not associating my person with a cruel act like that!
I don't understand exactly... how does the legalization of infant male circumcision affect female circumcision advocates? Right now Norway is pushing for a ban on male circumcision as well. Supposedly 80 percent of the population is for it:
If I understand what you're saying right, then I agree that it's very hypocritical to deem female circumcision illegal while male circumcision is legal.
This constitutes religious discrimination. In fact, this feels like some kind of leftover discriminatory law that no one bothered to remove. Legalizing circumcision is a step in the right direction.
Um... I'm not for male-circumcision, but there is a big difference between a clitoris and foreskin in the ways they affect your life long term LOL. I would not be upset if they are treated as individual cases.
On July 17 2012 04:15 Mothra wrote: I don't understand exactly... how does the legalization of infant male circumcision affect female circumcision advocates?
They can claim that it discriminates women, because men may be circumcised while women may not (in their eyes it would be something positive). While the opponents would say that it discriminates against men, because women are protected by law against cricumcision, while men are not.
Quite the paradox, huh? But that's what you get if you have a law which specifically distinguishes between men and women in something which has supporters and opponents.
On July 17 2012 04:20 Chef wrote: Um... I'm not for male-circumcision, but there is a big difference between a clitoris and foreskin in the ways they affect your life long term LOL. I would not be upset if they are treated as individual cases.
There is a way of female circumcision, in which only the foreskin is removed partially. This is forbidden in Germany by law. But partially removing the foreskin on men will be legal soon (if the politicians pull it through).
Anyways, I am not referring to the version of circumcision, which removes the clitoris. As a human, I am quite ashamed that something disgusting like this actually exists on this world.
On July 17 2012 04:23 JustPassingBy wrote: They can claim that it discriminates women, because men may be circumcised while women may not (in their eyes it would be something positive). While the opponents would say that it discriminates against men, because women are protected by law against cricumcision, while men are not.
Quite the paradox, huh? But that's what you get if you have a law which specifically distinguishes between men and women in something which has supporters and opponents.
LOL that is kind of funny actually. Wow, I never would have even considered that legalizing infant male circumcision is seen as discriminatory against women who want to be circumcised (or more accurately, the parents who want to circumcise their daughters).
Oh, you're right there's a distinction between clitoral hood and clitoris. I'm not so sure even the removal of the clitoral hood is comparable to removal of male circumcision tho. I would suspect it would still make sex a painful experience? Who knows~ If not, then I guess the comparison you're making is pretty accurate. I don't know enough to comment zz.
On July 17 2012 04:33 Chef wrote: Oh, you're right there's a distinction between clitoral hood and clitoris. I'm not so sure even the removal of the clitoral hood is comparable to removal of male circumcision tho. I would suspect it would still make sex a painful experience? Who knows~ If not, then I guess the comparison you're making is pretty accurate. I don't know enough to comment zz.
The unprotected clitoris would probably desensitize over time the same way the glans does on a circumcised penis. The glans and clitoris are identical before sex differentiation, so it's reasonable to compare the foreskin to the clitoral hood.
Well it's only reasonable if you have a study that actually says it is the same. Otherwise we are just guessing lol. I suspect there's a difference between having the scars of that surgery where you are being thrust into (thus aggravating the scars?) and having the scar at the base of the penis which is not really the victim of that much friction. But again, these are just guesses, so there's no point in trying to find the answer to this by theoretical 'logic.' It's also not really realistic to compare developed genetals to undeveloped ones....
(PS: you don't need to link to an article about the development of genetalia. It's common knowledge and not really relevant to the discussion)
On July 17 2012 04:18 TheGiz wrote: This constitutes religious discrimination. In fact, this feels like some kind of leftover discriminatory law that no one bothered to remove. Legalizing circumcision is a step in the right direction.
Just to clean this up since you're making the same misassumptions the "big" thread saw in many cases:
The court is weighing the right of the child to not have it's body harmed against the right of the parents to impose bodily harm on their child (yes, cutting off a part of your body without medical reasoning IS harming it) based on their religion. The courts decided that the right to your own body > the parents religious freedom.
In addition this decision is also meant to safeguard religious freedom (hint: of the child). Claiming that this law is meant to cut religious freedom and / or discriminate against a religion is nothing you can really hold up considering the above.
On July 17 2012 06:48 WahMyNose wrote: I'm not for circumcision, but I am for religious freedom. Even if it is hypocritical of the German politicians, I'm with TheGiz on this.
how can the child have religious freedom when the parents have the freedom to cut off part of their dick?
(yes, cutting off a part of your body without medical reasoning IS harming it)
I'm never getting a haircut again.
If you want to be a smartass, please do your homework.
If parents cut either fingernails and/or hair of their child it's considered taking good care of them because it's part of basic hygiene, not to mention we're talking about regrowing and technically "dead" body parts.
However, if you go out on the street and cut off a random persons hair it's still considered assault.
On July 17 2012 06:48 WahMyNose wrote: I'm not for circumcision, but I am for religious freedom. Even if it is hypocritical of the German politicians, I'm with TheGiz on this.
how can the child have religious freedom when the parents have the freedom to cut off part of their dick?
Obviously the religious freedom would be for the parents, not for the child. Parents tend to influence their children in far bigger ways than lopping of a part of their body, and if you want the child to not be influenced by those factors then you'd have to start way more basically than circumcision.
On July 17 2012 06:48 WahMyNose wrote: I'm not for circumcision, but I am for religious freedom. Even if it is hypocritical of the German politicians, I'm with TheGiz on this.
how can the child have religious freedom when the parents have the freedom to cut off part of their dick?
Obviously the religious freedom would be for the parents, not for the child. Parents tend to influence their children in far bigger ways than lopping of a part of their body, and if you want the child to not be influenced by those factors then you'd have to start way more basically than circumcision.
what's more basic than physical integrity? nothing. I'd start with keeping the child's body intact, then go after lofty philosophy and ideals of their religion
It's just a bad comparison to draw. I am very torn on the topic of male circumcision itself but to argue that female and male circumcision should be treated equally is a bad way to start of the discussion because it's way more complicated.
On July 17 2012 06:48 WahMyNose wrote: I'm not for circumcision, but I am for religious freedom. Even if it is hypocritical of the German politicians, I'm with TheGiz on this.
how can the child have religious freedom when the parents have the freedom to cut off part of their dick?
Obviously the religious freedom would be for the parents, not for the child. Parents tend to influence their children in far bigger ways than lopping of a part of their body, and if you want the child to not be influenced by those factors then you'd have to start way more basically than circumcision.
what's more basic than physical integrity? nothing. I'd start with keeping the child's body intact, then go after lofty philosophy and ideals of their religion
It might seem more complex, but the ideals of religion are more basic than physical integrity in this situation. I didn't say that you should start with what's most simple, and obviously religion is the foundation for circumcision.
On July 17 2012 09:04 Baum wrote: It's just a bad comparison to draw. I am very torn on the topic of male circumcision itself but to argue that female and male circumcision should be treated equally is a bad way to start of the discussion because it's way more complicated.
But what makes the removal of the clitoral hood so much worse than removing the foreskin, so that one is almost universally condemned and the other was legal until just recently? I'll be very interested to hear if this matter is publicly debated in the German government.
On July 17 2012 09:04 Baum wrote: It's just a bad comparison to draw. I am very torn on the topic of male circumcision itself but to argue that female and male circumcision should be treated equally is a bad way to start of the discussion because it's way more complicated.
But what makes the removal of the clitoral hood so much worse than removing the foreskin, so that one is almost universally condemned and the other was legal until just recently? I'll be very interested to hear if this matter is publicly debated in the German government.
Culture is the difference.
The cultures that perform female circumcision and genital mutilation are cultures that are not very prevalent in European and Western countries, therefore the act is seen as barbaric and wrong in those places and is outlawed. Similarly, 99% of uncircumsised guys will protest against circumcision because as it is obviously not their cultural norm, the idea of someone coming at their foreskin with a pair of scissors is also barbaric and wrong.
I think this law is a good move as it shows that rather than just following cultural norms and traditions, theyve sat down and tried to look at it from a neutral perspective.
On July 17 2012 07:19 darthfoley wrote: i'm circumcised and i prefer it over having the other weird looking penis (totally biased obviously lol)
when did you get circumcised? 21?
lol no i was quite young, a baby in fact. i'm sure it hurt like a bitch but i cant remember.
Haha yeah, the pain is I think one undeniable fact the opponents of circumcision always bring up. And to everybody who things people complaining about the pain are sissies, I just want to note that the ritual of slapping the butt of a newborn child is not applied anymore out of the same reasons in Germany. ^^"
I don't understand circumcision, it's such a strange ritual. Of all the rituals involved in Judaism and Islam this is one of the stranger ones. I have even more trouble understanding why it's apparently a standard procedure in America.
How can a child make a decision whether or not they want to be circumcized? This is a far easier procedure to do at birth than later on in life. It only makes sense to allow parents to make this deicison for their child, and if it is a religious choice then they have the right to choose the religion of their child anyways until they're old enough to decide if that decision was right for them. That's what debutantes, confirmations, and bar mitvas are about. If you decide you're not happy with your penis later in life then that's your choice to be happy about it or not. Live with what you have or take steps to change it; don't sit there and complain. Me, I'm not a complainer; I find my penis to be quite handsome.
On July 18 2012 00:16 TheGiz wrote: How can a child make a decision whether or not they want to be circumcized? This is a far easier procedure to do at birth than later on in life. It only makes sense to allow parents to make this deicison for their child, and if it is a religious choice then they have the right to choose the religion of their child anyways until they're old enough to decide if that decision was right for them. That's what debutantes, confirmations, and bar mitvas are about. If you decide you're not happy with your penis later in life then that's your choice to be happy about it or not. Live with what you have or take steps to change it; don't sit there and complain. Me, I'm not a complainer; I find my penis to be quite handsome.
No the right of the child to not be harmed comes above the "right" of the parent to mutilate their child. This is fundamental it preserves the childs right to religion and they can choose later in life (more difficult or not) to get circumcised should they wish.
On July 18 2012 00:16 TheGiz wrote: How can a child make a decision whether or not they want to be circumcized? This is a far easier procedure to do at birth than later on in life. It only makes sense to allow parents to make this deicison for their child, and if it is a religious choice then they have the right to choose the religion of their child anyways until they're old enough to decide if that decision was right for them. That's what debutantes, confirmations, and bar mitvas are about. If you decide you're not happy with your penis later in life then that's your choice to be happy about it or not. Live with what you have or take steps to change it; don't sit there and complain. Me, I'm not a complainer; I find my penis to be quite handsome.
The procedure is no easier to do at birth than it is when someone is 18 years old. It carries the same risks and is just as painful. There is no urgency to have a child circumcised so why do we do it on babies? Because people believe that causing a baby to feel intense pain isnt bad because they wont remember it later in life, which is wrong in itself.
If you decide you're not happy with your penis later in life then that's your choice to be happy about it or not. Live with what you have or take steps to change it; don't sit there and complain.
This should be an argument against circumcision, not for it.
On July 18 2012 00:26 Elsid wrote: No the right of the child to not be harmed comes above the "right" of the parent to mutilate their child. This is fundamental it preserves the childs right to religion and they can choose later in life (more difficult or not) to get circumcised should they wish.
I apologize, I forgot that public opinion was equivalent to moral authority, and that parents on the whole are no longer capable of making proper decisions for their children. It's actually pretty upsetting that the government doesn't confiscate children at birth and send them to giant nursing centres where they can be pressured into following the public norm and live in giant plastic bubbles where no harm can come to them. That is, of course, until these people come of age, when they can freely choose what to do with their lives based on many years of that influence. Of course, the education system already is this, minus the bubbles. But we really need those bubbles, lest someone gets a sniffle.
To argue that the pain is somehow traumatic and damaging to a 5 day old infant is unfounded and unproven. I sure as hell don't remember anything; my brain was fundamentally different at the time. That's why you don't remember most of your early childhood.
I'm also willing to bet that there is a class distinction associated with circumcision. Not because of the act itself, but because of the kind of parents that would call for the procedure, and the kind of lifestyle they would lead. And by class I mean income level as well.
On July 18 2012 00:26 Elsid wrote: No the right of the child to not be harmed comes above the "right" of the parent to mutilate their child. This is fundamental it preserves the childs right to religion and they can choose later in life (more difficult or not) to get circumcised should they wish.
I apologize, I forgot that public opinion was equivalent to moral authority, and that parents on the whole are no longer capable of making proper decisions for their children. It's actually pretty upsetting that the government doesn't confiscate children at birth and send them to giant nursing centres where they can be pressured into following the public norm and live in giant plastic bubbles where no harm can come to them. That is, of course, until these people come of age, when they can freely choose what to do with their lives based on many years of that influence. Of course, the education system already is this, minus the bubbles. But we really need those bubbles, lest someone gets a sniffle.
If you abuse your children they do get taken off of you. You cannot do whatever you want with your children , they are not your property and cutting off their foreskin would not be deemed a "proper decision for their children" would it be a "proper decision" for a child if a parent wanted to give it a tattoo? Fuck no it wouldn't and you can bet it wouldn't be tolerated for very long if parents decided they wanted to give their children tattoos that the children couldn't consent to.
Circumcision is a totally unnecessary (in most cases) operation that only limits a child as he grows. If a child so wishes to have this religious or cultural procedure as an adult , that's perfectly fine and no one is going to stop them. However performing this cosmetic operation on a non consenting child is frankly disgusting.
On July 18 2012 00:51 TheGiz wrote: To argue that the pain is somehow traumatic and damaging to a 5 day old infant is unfounded and unproven. I sure as hell don't remember anything; my brain was fundamentally different at the time. That's why you don't remember most of your early childhood.
Well that is rediculous. You wanna run a trial where we cause pain to infants to see what their reactions are? I think you might have trouble with the ethics committees with that one. Infants feel pain just as any other human, this is easily observable. To try and say its ok to cause infants pain because its been unproven that it affects them? God I hope you don't have kids.
That being said, this debate raged on in a really big thread not too long ago. The result of it was of course, no-one budging from their position. You are a product of your culture. I am a product of my culture. In my culture, cutting off the foreskin of an infant for a relgious ceremony is considered barbaric and wrong, in yours it obviously isnt.
These cultural differences debates always result in stalemates, whether it be religious people vs atheists, americans vs the rest of the world on gun control or whether or not people should consume dog meat. It always boils down to what culture you were brought up in.
What I hope however is that when laws are made, and when moral and ethical values are determined, people are able to look past their cultural bias and see things from a neutral viewpoint.
On July 18 2012 00:26 Elsid wrote: No the right of the child to not be harmed comes above the "right" of the parent to mutilate their child. This is fundamental it preserves the childs right to religion and they can choose later in life (more difficult or not) to get circumcised should they wish.
I apologize, I forgot that public opinion was equivalent to moral authority, and that parents on the whole are no longer capable of making proper decisions for their children. It's actually pretty upsetting that the government doesn't confiscate children at birth and send them to giant nursing centres where they can be pressured into following the public norm and live in giant plastic bubbles where no harm can come to them. That is, of course, until these people come of age, when they can freely choose what to do with their lives based on many years of that influence. Of course, the education system already is this, minus the bubbles. But we really need those bubbles, lest someone gets a sniffle.
To argue that the pain is somehow traumatic and damaging to a 5 day old infant is unfounded and unproven. I sure as hell don't remember anything; my brain was fundamentally different at the time. That's why you don't remember most of your early childhood.
I'm also willing to bet that there is a class distinction associated with circumcision. Not because of the act itself, but because of the kind of parents that would call for the procedure, and the kind of lifestyle they would lead. And by class I mean income level as well.
Look, the purpose of the court ruling that caused all of this was not to tell parents how to educate their children, it's up to them of course. the purpose is to prevent the kid from suffering an operation, that, albeit rare, might have health consequences (there are cases of scar tissue formations that can limit the capability of orgasms as well as cases of limited growth of the organ in question due to scar tissue; again, this is very rare, but there is the possibility of this occurring) and it is a religious decision made by the parents that is irreversible. No one would prevent an adult who wants to have circumcision from expressing his religious feelings.
Looks like they're really pushing hard to legalize it. I wonder where are the debates about ethics and such, rather than knee-jerk political appeasement.
Chancellor Angela Merkel‘s supporters and the main opposition parties are in behind-the-scenes talks to endorse the Muslim and Jewish practice of circumcising boys, insiders said Tuesday.
They are jointly drafting a resolution to be passed on Thursday by the Bundestag, or lower house of parliament, asking the government to overrule a court which ruled last month that circumcision is a form of assault.
There has been an international outcry over the trial of a Muslim doctor, who was let off but told that his circumcision of a young boy had been a crime because the child was too young to give consent. ... While some commentators have supported the court ruling, Chancellor Angela Merkel has warned that Germany would be a laughing-stock if it became the sole country in the world to ban the practice.
On July 19 2012 03:11 Mothra wrote: Looks like they're really pushing hard to legalize it. I wonder where are the debates about ethics and such, rather than knee-jerk political appeasement.
Chancellor Angela Merkel‘s supporters and the main opposition parties are in behind-the-scenes talks to endorse the Muslim and Jewish practice of circumcising boys, insiders said Tuesday.
They are jointly drafting a resolution to be passed on Thursday by the Bundestag, or lower house of parliament, asking the government to overrule a court which ruled last month that circumcision is a form of assault.
There has been an international outcry over the trial of a Muslim doctor, who was let off but told that his circumcision of a young boy had been a crime because the child was too young to give consent. ... While some commentators have supported the court ruling, Chancellor Angela Merkel has warned that Germany would be a laughing-stock if it became the sole country in the world to ban the practice.
german politics gets beaten down fairly often by our supreme court so nothing is set in stone yet.
On July 17 2012 04:18 TheGiz wrote: This constitutes religious discrimination. In fact, this feels like some kind of leftover discriminatory law that no one bothered to remove. Legalizing circumcision is a step in the right direction.
my religion tells me to kill canadians, I guess that's ok too right?
On July 18 2012 00:51 TheGiz wrote: To argue that the pain is somehow traumatic and damaging to a 5 day old infant is unfounded and unproven. I sure as hell don't remember anything; my brain was fundamentally different at the time. That's why you don't remember most of your early childhood.
I don't understand how anyone believes this. Would you be okay with getting circumcised unanesthetized if you could take another pill afterward to forget it? No, I don't think you would be, because pain sucks. Not just the memory of it.
A GERMAN court ruling that branded circumcision as grievous bodily harm has created waves in Switzerland where a second hospital announced a possible halt to the procedure.
The announcement, by St Gall hospital in the country's northeast, follows a decision on Thursday by the Zurich children's hospital to temporarily suspend the operation, media reported.
"We are in the process of evaluating the legal and ethical stance in Switzerland," Marco Stuecheli, spokesman for the Zurich hospital, told AFP.
New figures from Patientforsikringen, a patient insurance group, revealed however that between 1996 and 2012 there were 65 claims of injuries related to male circumcision.
Even though the surgery is not complicated, Jørgen Thorup, a professor of paediatric surgery at Rigshospitalet, said it still carries some significant risks.
“The most common complications are bleeding, infection and excessive cutting,” Thorup told Jyllands-Posten.“In the most serious cases, the boys lose part of their penis.”
Parliament is divided on the question, with most parties calling for a debate of the health, social and legal consequences of a ban before any decisions are made.
“We advocate a ban on circumcision,” Jørgen Arbo-Bæhr (Enhedslisten), said. “People should decide for themselves whether or not they want to be circumcised.”
The United States is also stepping up funding for voluntary male circumcision, which has been shown to cut the risk of female-to-male transmission by more than 60 percent in studies in Africa, the continent hardest hit by the disease.
Clinton said U.S. funds had supported 400,000 circumcision procedures since last December and announced that the United States would provide a further $40 million for South Africa's plans to provide voluntary circumcision to almost half a million men and boys in the coming year.
I think it is always a problem when people "justify" harmful behaviour on religious grounds because it simply doesn't allow for rational discussion of the issue at hand.
Personally I think circumcision is child abuse.
An interesting aside: the link to this discussion on the Clan VcK facebook page is rapidly becoming the most popular post there in terms of clicks: http://www.facebook.com/ClanVcK
On July 26 2012 04:34 RevTiberius wrote: I think it is always a problem when people "justify" harmful behaviour on religious grounds because it simply doesn't allow for rational discussion of the issue at hand.
Personally I think circumcision is child abuse.
An interesting aside: the link to this discussion on the Clan VcK facebook page is rapidly becoming the most popular post there in terms of clicks: http://www.facebook.com/ClanVcK
I agree entirely. I can't think of a single other surgery that can be done to a child for religious reasons. It should be a last resort in the case of extreme or life threatening illness. Being born with a foreskin is neither of those things.
EPT
(totally biased obviously lol)
