German court rules religious circumcision on boys an assault

[Ashendant]

I though circumsicing is healthier, my families Indian and I'm born here and circumsised
also uncircumirsed dicks looks gross

It gives a small advantage in protection against STDs, but the foreskin also protects against a nasty bunch of other horrible damages.

Your Circumcision is probable a creature of tradition, but you lost a lot to it.

Not everything in nature is pretty, most of the times it will be pratical

[Thor]

Why should the standard be what you personally would consent to?

I didn't say that it should. The standard should be that the individual should consent when body parts are being cut off. Unless, of course, there is a valid medical reason.

But surely with age comes greater capacity for self-determination and informed choice, yes?

Absolutely! But what "choice" does an adolescent have? The parents can certainly tell an adolescent that he's having this done and that's all there is to it. Also, parents can certainly exert considerable pressure on an adolescent. The only way someone can truly make their own choice and consent to something like this is if they are at least 18.

Generally, the older a patient who undergoes the procedure is, the less the "they can't consent to it" argument applies.

Generally true. So why not wait until the kid is 18 and can make that choice for himself?

Every medical procedure will have failed examples. That doesn't mean they shouldn't ever be performed.

Crappy argument. A circumcision is very rarely a necessary procedure. Why perform an unnecessary procedure when there is a real risk that a vital part of someone's body can be damaged? What if there was a religious ritual where some sort of substance was poured into your eyes. And what if this substance was usually harmless, but there was a 1 in 10,000 chance that it could make you go blind? Would you take that chance? I wouldn't.

So is a lot of plastic surgery. Should that be outlawed, as well?

Another crappy argument. Plastic surgery is done with a person's informed consent! And we don't do facelifts or tummy tucks on kids.

It seems like you're coming close to imposing your own personal decisions about elective medical procedures onto others.

Hardly. Adults can have all the elective medical procedures they want. I have no problem with that at all. But when you want to take sharp objects to the privates of children....

Your reasoning seems to be, "If an adolescent doesn't have a choice in the matter, the medical procedure shouldn't be performed." But it seems that there are counterexamples to this principle: a young child who is knocked unconscious by some physical trauma (say, being hit by a car) might require medical attention. Should surgery not be performed because the adolescent doesn't have a choice in the matter?

More crappy arguments. Of course, if a medical procedure is NECESSARY the parents have a right to act in the child's best interests. Where is the child's "best interests" when it comes to circumcision?

So it seems to me that "If an adolescent doesn't have a choice in the matter, the medical procedure shouldn't be performed" is a bad principle to argue.

And that's not what I've argued.

Instead, I'd argue something like, "Only medically necessary procedures should be performed without the consent of the patient undergoing the procedure," where 'medically necessary' would be defined in terms of the likelihood of a good outcome should the procedure not be performed--the higher the chance of a good outcome without the procedure, the less medically necessary it is.

Sounds like a pretty good argument against circumcising infants and children.

[CliveStaples]

I didn't say that it should. The standard should be that the individual should consent when body parts are being cut off. Unless, of course, there is a valid medical reason.

What is a valid medical reason?

Absolutely! But what "choice" does an adolescent have? The parents can certainly tell an adolescent that he's having this done and that's all there is to it. Also, parents can certainly exert considerable pressure on an adolescent. The only way someone can truly make their own choice and consent to something like this is if they are at least 18.

Parents can do lots of things to their kids without the child's consent. Should spanking be a crime? Grounding?

What precisely is the distinction you're drawing here?

Generally true. So why not wait until the kid is 18 and can make that choice for himself?

That wasn't my point. All I said is that your argument isn't as strong against circumcision for older patients.

Crappy argument. A circumcision is very rarely a necessary procedure.

I never claimed otherwise.

Why perform an unnecessary procedure when there is a real risk that a vital part of someone's body can be damaged?

Because the procedure is thought to have benefits that justify the cost.

What if there was a religious ritual where some sort of substance was poured into your eyes. And what if this substance was usually harmless, but there was a 1 in 10,000 chance that it could make you go blind? Would you take that chance? I wouldn't.

What you personally wouldn't choose to do is irrelevant.

Another crappy argument. Plastic surgery is done with a person's informed consent! And we don't do facelifts or tummy tucks on kids.

Piercing ears?

Hardly. Adults can have all the elective medical procedures they want. I have no problem with that at all. But when you want to take sharp objects to the privates of children....

Right, and fixing cleft lips could be described as "taking sharp objects to the mouths of innocent children". Your cheap emotional bullshit is irrelevant; we're talking about principles. Don't turn this into emotional blackmail.

Your reasoning seems to be, "If an adolescent doesn't have a choice in the matter, the medical procedure shouldn't be performed." But it seems that there are counterexamples to this principle: a young child who is knocked unconscious by some physical trauma (say, being hit by a car) might require medical attention. Should surgery not be performed because the adolescent doesn't have a choice in the matter?

More crappy arguments. Of course, if a medical procedure is NECESSARY the parents have a right to act in the child's best interests. Where is the child's "best interests" when it comes to circumcision?

...? Are you saying that my counterexamples don't actually disprove the principle I gave? Because that's all they had to do in order to be a 'good argument'. Since you think what I wrote was a "crappy argument", obviously I must have failed to disprove the principle.

Can you go into more detail? You brought up medical necessity and "best interests", but didn't explain why the counterexamples don't work to disprove the principle.

And that's not what I've argued.

Well, you weren't very articulate, were you? You didn't really give the principle that you were basing your conclusion on. So I had to guess; the first principle I gave was an extreme version, albeit one that was technically consistent with the conclusion you gave.

By going to the extreme, I thought I could find a place of agreement: that the principle I gave was wrong. Then we could slowly back the principle up until we located the source of our real disagreement.

Sounds like a pretty good argument against circumcising infants and children.

Thank you. Read up a bit on presenting arguments and maybe you can do things like provide the warrant and reasoning for a conclusion.

[Whateverist]

I had no idea how important this issue is to people. I personally don't intend to do anything about my circumcision now but I wonder if anyone had considered returning themselves to a state of nature by grafting foreskins from cadavers onto their ravaged members.

[Ashendant]

I had no idea how important this issue is to people. I personally don't intend to do anything about my circumcision now but I wonder if anyone had considered returning themselves to a state of nature by grafting foreskins from cadavers onto their ravaged members.

In America it's roughly 100k people a year from what i understand.

And there are various ways to restore a foreskin both surgical and non-surgical.

[Thor]

What is a valid medical reason?

An instance when a condition is present that must be treated, and failure to treat will likely result in death, loss of a major life function or serious illness. A circumcision fails under the "when a condition is present that must be treated" requirement.

Parents can do lots of things to their kids without the child's consent. Should spanking be a crime? Grounding?

Should sending a kid to bed at 8:00 be a crime? How about not buying them the latest video game? None of these things result in a permanent modification to the child's body. As for spanking, an open handed swat on the kid's backside is harmless. Anything that leaves bruises, scars, etc. would be (and in most places is) a crime.

That wasn't my point. All I said is that your argument isn't as strong against circumcision for older patients.

To a point, this is true. However, if someone is under 18 they can still be pressured by the parents to undergo a procedure they don't want. The younger they are, the more this is true. So why not wait until they reach 18?

Why perform an unnecessary procedure when there is a real risk that a vital part of someone's body can be damaged?

Because the procedure is thought to have benefits that justify the cost.

And the "benefits" to a circumcision are.....?

What if there was a religious ritual where some sort of substance was poured into your eyes. And what if this substance was usually harmless, but there was a 1 in 10,000 chance that it could make you go blind? Would you take that chance? I wouldn't.

What you personally wouldn't choose to do is irrelevant.

The question was directed at you.

Piercing ears?

Piercing ears does not cause a permanent body modification. If the person grows up and decides they don't want pierced ears, they can remove their earrings and the holes will close up. That being said, I was in a mall once and passed a salon where they were preparing to pierce the ears of a little girl who looked to be about six. The kid was fine and smiling until they pulled the trigger and the needle went through the kid's earlobe. At that point, the kid screamed and started crying. I always wondered how they managed to get the kid to sit still so they could do the other ear. Personally, I think this was pretty horrible. The kid was obviously in severe pain. It seems to me that the kid should be old enough to understand what happens when the ears are pierced, and the kid should want this to be performed. I would say 12 or so is a proper age.

Right, and fixing cleft lips could be described as "taking sharp objects to the mouths of innocent children".

And this is similar to circumcision.... how? Oral surgery fixes a problem. A circumcision fixes nothing.

Your cheap emotional bullshit is irrelevant; we're talking about principles.

So the principle that a person (no matter how young) should consent to unnecessary medical procedures where a body part is removed means nothing to you?

[Minimalist]

So the principle that a person (no matter how young) should consent to unnecessary medical procedures where a body part is removed means nothing to you?

Remember he's a xtian...so ancient jewish horseshit is important to him for some stupid-ass reason.

[NoraBrimstone]

Yeah, I'd like to add that I am also against piercing the ears of a child who is too young to understand or ask for it.

[Annik]

Let's boil this down for Clive:

1. Circumcision is usually performed on infants who cannot give consent for no other reason besides religious or cosmetic purposes.
2. Circumcision is a permanent change to the body.
3. Circumcision is incredibly painful. Arguments that the pain will not be remembered are irrelevant. It's an infant, no one remembers their infancy.
4. Circumcision is unnecessary.


If the child does not NEED a circumcision (for the rare instances they are needed, such as the foreskin completely covering the head of the penis so the infant can't urinate properly), it's fucking child abuse that everyone accepts because "tradition". Furthermore, how do you feel about female circumcision? It's all genital mutilation.

The child gets no say in a unnecessary procedure that will remain with him his whole life. If the child wants a circumcision, he may wait until he is old enough to sign his own consent forms.

[Hovik]

3. Circumcision is incredibly painful. Arguments that the pain will not be remembered are irrelevant. It's an infant, no one remembers their infancy.

Why is this so hard for people to grasp? With their logic, it's completely fine to walk up and punch an infant in the face. The kid won't remember it, right? So what's the big deal?

Fucking idiots.