German Court Rules Religious Circumcision on Boys an Assault

Religion • June 2012 • Views: 1,911

news.yahoo.com

Circumcising young boys on religious grounds amounts to grievous bodily harm, a German court ruled Tuesday in a landmark decision that the Jewish community said trampled on parents’ religious rights.

The regional court in Cologne, western Germany, ruled that the “fundamental right of the child to bodily integrity outweighed the fundamental rights of the parents”, a judgement that is expected to set a legal precedent.

“The religious freedom of the parents and their right to educate their child would not be unacceptably compromised, if they were obliged to wait until the child could himself decide to be circumcised,” the court added.

Of course it is… all the religious freedom yadda yadda aside there is no reason to go around chopping off part of someone’s fireman because some book, tradition or ritual says it’s OK.

Too bad this wasn’t a law in the US or I’d have been saved a whole lot of grief and medical problems.

Recent Pages by Locker:
Religious People Are Less Intelligent Than Atheists Watch This Little Girl Become What She Is Told Every Day How to Be Outraged on the Internet How California's Gun Laws Have Worked Arkansas Attorney General Blocks Plan to Arm Teachers

Jump to bottom

45 comments

researchok Tue, Jun 26, 2012 3:26:49pm

If there was ever a religious minefield, this is it.

Europe has a significant Jewish population and the Muslim community is an even larger minority.

Don't look for religious rites to be restricted.

Bob Levin Tue, Jun 26, 2012 3:52:49pm

Believe it or not, this ruling has nothing to do with the reasons cited in the legal brief.

This has everything to do with immigration. I'm not going to do this, but if I were to look at the groups backing this legislation--I'd bet you don't want to be associated with them.

Once again, I am genuinely sorry for the medical mistakes in your life. If you read Ivan Illich's Medical Nemesis, you'll see that you are not alone--iatrogenic disease and iatrogenic problems are everywhere. Your issues and this legislation only appear to intersect. They don't. This is a law in sheep's clothing.

Elias Tue, Jun 26, 2012 4:55:46pm

This ruling basically criminalizes one of the most important practices of Judaism, supposed to "welcome" the baby to Judaism and among the Jews.

And guess when was the last time Germany criminalized circumcision...

kreyagg Tue, Jun 26, 2012 5:01:54pm

Score one for children's rights versus religious loons. I fail to see what harm is done in allowing a person to wait until they are an adult before they make a decision like this.

Locker Tue, Jun 26, 2012 5:19:26pm

Yea Elias that's it... insinuate the Nazi thing... really classy. If one of the most important practices in Judaism is unnecessary surgery on defenseless infants then I think some self reflection is in order. Your particular brand of voodoo doesn't change reality.

Eclectic Infidel Tue, Jun 26, 2012 5:21:47pm

Religious Jews and Muslims should ignore this law, IMO.

celticdragon Tue, Jun 26, 2012 5:32:19pm

re: #6 Eclectic Infidel

Religious Jews and Muslims should ignore this law, IMO.

My wife confronted a Muslim woman at a Walgreens who was looking for a straight razor. My wife guessed (correctly) that the woman wanted something to "circumcize" her daughter, also known as female genital mutilation. My wife went to call the police for suspected child abuse and the woman fled.

Circumcision is medically unnecessary and can have grotesque life long consequences (especially for females where it can make sex nearly unbearable and turn child birth into torture).

If a person wants to have it done for religious purposes, then wait until adulthood where informed consent is a reality.

kreyagg Tue, Jun 26, 2012 5:33:19pm

Why bother with ignoring it? They have every ability to either reinterpret the commandment or simply rewriting their flawed holy books.

Eclectic Infidel Tue, Jun 26, 2012 5:53:57pm

re: #7 celticdragon

My wife confronted a Muslim woman at a Walgreens who was looking for a straight razor. My wife guessed (correctly) that the woman wanted something to "circumcize" her daughter, also known as female genital mutilation. My wife went to call the police for suspected child abuse and the woman fled.

Circumcision is medically unnecessary and can have grotesque life long consequences (especially for females where it can make sex nearly unbearable and turn child birth into torture).

If a person wants to have it done for religious purposes, then wait until adulthood where informed consent is a reality.

I don't conflate traditional circumcision as it is traditionally known (performed on infant males, removing foreskin), with that of actual mutilation (aka FGM).

I honestly don't see the harm with removing the foreskin, and I definitely recognize that FGM has nothing to do with circumcision and everything to do with deep rooted misogyny in Islam. FGM is an evil practice.

kreyagg Tue, Jun 26, 2012 6:02:42pm

re: #9 Eclectic Infidel

FGM is done as a religious practice, any religious exemption carved out for male circumcision can and will be applied to FGM.

The real problem is that these religious people think that they own their child's body in the same way that they own a cat or a bookshelf.

I repeat, there is zero harm in allowing a person to wait until they are an adult and choose whether or not circumcision is important to their religious practice.

CuriousLurker Tue, Jun 26, 2012 6:12:58pm

re: #9 Eclectic Infidel

I honestly don't see the harm with removing the foreskin, and I definitely recognize that FGM has nothing to do with circumcision and everything to do with deep rooted misogyny in Islam. FGM is an evil practice.

It has everything to do with deep rooted misogyny in some Islamic cultures.

Female Genital Mutilation/ Cutting: A Statistical Exploration - UNICEF (2005)

An update on WHO’s work on female genital mutilation (FGM) - World Health Organization (2011)

Mostly sane, most of the time. Tue, Jun 26, 2012 6:36:24pm

re: #7 celticdragon

My wife confronted a Muslim woman at a Walgreens who was looking for a straight razor. My wife guessed (correctly) that the woman wanted something to "circumcize" her daughter, also known as female genital mutilation. My wife went to call the police for suspected child abuse and the woman fled.

Circumcision is medically unnecessary and can have grotesque life long consequences (especially for females where it can make sex nearly unbearable and turn child birth into torture).

If a person wants to have it done for religious purposes, then wait until adulthood where informed consent is a reality.

Anyone who does this in America should lose the child. Period. FGM is not like male circumcision, not at all.

Eclectic Infidel Tue, Jun 26, 2012 6:39:16pm

re: #10 kreyagg

FGM is done as a religious practice, any religious exemption carved out for male circumcision can and will be applied to FGM.

Well that is a grave tragedy. "Female circumcision" is a smokescreen for mutilation, hands down.

Obdicut Tue, Jun 26, 2012 6:52:25pm

As always, the level of harm of circumcision does not approach that of ballet, cosmetic orthodontry, or playing sports in general, and yet it's singled out. It genuinely confuses me as to why.

My wife, who's studying for her step one boards right now, emphatically recommends circumcision; she thinks that the data shows that it's health benefits far outweigh the risks. The WHO recommends circumcision to slow the growth of AIDS. In the most pessimistic reading of the outcomes, circumcision is slightly worse than not circumcising. And yet this is something which people wax wroth about. It is really, really obvious that this is because it's a cultural thing, and I don't even think the people getting upset about it realize the message that that sends.

The 'right to bodily integrity' sure sounds great, though.

If a person wants to have it done for religious purposes, then wait until adulthood where informed consent is a reality.

Except it's not. 90% of people who grow up in Amish households 'choose' to become Amish, even though Rumspringa effectively allows them to choose otherwise. This is because it is not, really, a free decision. If you have been raised all your life to believe something is religiously necessary, you are, nine times out of ten, going to go through with it as an adult.

Adult circumcision is more painful and traumatic than infant circumcision, in most reviews of the literature.

It would be really nice if the anti-circumcision people would stop conflating male circumcision-- a process that does not have any major effect, if any, on sexuality-- with female circumcision, which paritally or completely inhibits the ability to feel sexual pleasure. It's a completely dishonest argument that weakens the case against female genital circumcision.

I'm a circumcised male, I cannot possibly imagine sex feeling any better, sensitivity any greater. Metareviews of the literature show the same thing. If I were naive, and I was told by an anti-circumcision advocate that female and male circumcision were similar, I'd think female circumcision was also not a big deal.

Please, please make any case you have against male circumcision without bringing up the completely fucking different issue of female circumcision.

CuriousLurker Tue, Jun 26, 2012 6:55:51pm

re: #12 Mostly sane, most of the time.

Anyone who does this in America should lose the child. Period. FGM is not like male circumcision, not at all.

I agree. FGM a practice that dates back to Pharaonic times and it has no place whatsoever in the modern world. It shouldn't be tolerated.

CuriousLurker Tue, Jun 26, 2012 6:58:29pm

re: #14 Obdicut

Please, please make any case you have against male circumcision without bringing up the completely fucking different issue of female circumcision.

This. They are two drastically different things.

kreyagg Tue, Jun 26, 2012 7:39:07pm

re: #14 Obdicut

At least you admit that circumcision is harmful.

Any medical reasons can be provided to the owner of the genitalia so that they can make an informed decision when they are an adult or worst case be done if it becomes medically necessary.

And the conflation of FGM and male circumcision while tenuous is still valid, outside of the US male circumcision is almost exclusively religious. Circumcision was imported into the US as a method to help prevent boys from masturbating, finding minute differences in rates of disease transmission and ignoring factors like simple hygiene and condom use just serve as justifications for continuation of the practice.

And so what if the practice is more painful for an adult, if they are really committed to their religion, a few days of codeine will probably help them out.

And what is the worst case scenario?
In 150 years Muslims and religious Jews may cease to believe that circumcision is important?
Doesn't seem so bad to me.

Obdicut Tue, Jun 26, 2012 7:50:51pm

re: #17 kreyagg

At least you admit that circumcision is harmful.

You apparently didn't read my posts. I said that my wife, based on her reading of the medical evidence, wholeheartedly recommends circumcision.

Any medical reasons can be provided to the owner of the genitalia so that they can make an informed decision when they are an adult or worst case be done if it becomes medically necessary.

Sure, but what's the big deal?

And the conflation of FGM and male circumcision while tenuous is still valid, outside of the US male circumcision is almost exclusively religious.

Nope. It's not just tenuous, it's willfully disingenuous, conflating something that is meant to have a serious impact on sexual pleasure with something that is not. Furthermore, you're wrong about circumcision being exclusively religious-- in Africa, it's an anti-HIV measure, as I cited above.

And so what if the practice is more painful for an adult, if they are really committed to their religion, a few days of codeine will probably help them out.

So-- dropping pretense of actually caring about the individual undergoing this, then?

And what is the worst case scenario?

Higher levels of AIDS transmission in the heterosexual community, higher levels of various other STDs.

And in cultural terms, lots of Jews jailed or fined or whatever for violating this.

Again: There are enormous problems facing us in the world today, there are huge threats to children's health. If nothing else, children's football and other contact sports, now that we understand concussions better, are obviously wildly dangerous. So why are people focusing on circumcision? Why does it keep coming up, over and over?

kreyagg Tue, Jun 26, 2012 8:19:27pm

re: #18 Obdicut

And I am also aware that the American Academy of Pediatrics doesn't think that circumcision is necessary.

[Link: www.aap.org...]

And I will repeat, any advantage versus STDs is obviated by condom use. Any person would be safer if taught how to properly use a condom.

Here's a good homework project for you. Is the rate of AIDS higher in Europe, where circumcision is rare, than it is in the US?

And yes, if people abuse their children they should go to jail.

I promise you that if Muslims and religious Jews stopped circumcisions tomorrow, that the only difference would be that religious Jewish and Muslim men would all have foreskins in 150 years and no body would know the difference. Or care.

Obdicut Tue, Jun 26, 2012 8:24:52pm

re: #19 kreyagg

And I am also aware that the American Academy of Pediatrics doesn't think that circumcision is necessary.

Yep. They're neutral on it. My wife thinks they're conservative and behind the times.

And I will repeat, any advantage versus STDs is obviated by condom use. Any person would be safer if taught how to properly use a condom.

They're not exclusive, so why pretend they are?

Here's a good homework project for you. Is the rate of AIDS higher in Europe, where circumcision is rare, than it is in the US?

Fuck off with the homework project bullshit, seriously, how old are you? Obviously the rate of AIDS is dependent on far more fucking things than just circumcision, especially since circumcision is mainly relevant to the heterosexual transmission of AIDS. For fuck's sake.

And yes, if people abuse their children they should go to jail.

Should parents who sign their kids up for contact sports be put in jail? Or ballet lessons? Why is circumcision treated specially as far as 'harm' goes? Is it because it's attached to religion for some people?

I promise you that if Muslims and religious Jews stopped circumcisions tomorrow, that the only difference would be that religious Jewish and Muslim men would all have foreskins in 150 years and no body would know the difference. Or care.

You can't promise jack shit. I'm not a religious Jew, my parents were not religious Jews, and I'm circumcised. We're going to circumcise our children, should they be boys, because my wife-- who's medical opinion I absolutely trust-- thinks it's a good idea.

Obdicut Tue, Jun 26, 2012 8:27:39pm

re: #19 kreyagg

Make sure to explain how my wife and I both going to jail would be good for our kid, too. How long should we serve? Should the kid be taken away from us? You gotta get these things straight.

kreyagg Tue, Jun 26, 2012 8:49:33pm

re: #20 Obdicut

Contact sports and ballet are separate arguments, they have nothing to do with this discussion.

I agree that they only valid reasons to circumcise a child would be medical. But that still means that it should meet some sort of test to see if it's medically necessary. Really, treat it like an appendectomy or tonsillectomy. If it is for simple prophylactic reasons you should let the person make that choice when they are an adult.

And hopefully the threat of jail and losing your children would deter you from making choices for them that you have no right to make.

Obdicut Tue, Jun 26, 2012 8:59:19pm

re: #22 kreyagg

Contact sports and ballet are separate arguments, they have nothing to do with this discussion.

Yes, they do. You just said that people who abuse children should go to jail, and you believe that circumcision is child abuse and those who do it should go to jail. Those sports are far, far, far more dangerous than circumcision-- football for injury and flat-out death, ballet mainly for eating disorders and permanent bone deformity. So, do you think that people who send their kids to ballet or have them do football should go to jail, and if not, why not?

I agree that they only valid reasons to circumcise a child would be medical. But that still means that it should meet some sort of test to see if it's medically necessary.

Do you also think cosmetic orthodontry shouldn't be performed?

Really, treat it like an appendectomy or tonsillectomy.

It's a little like tonsillectomy, but not really, since that probably has an immune function.

If it is for simple prophylactic reasons you should let the person make that choice when they are an adult.

Why? That's your assertion-- what's your backup for it? If it really were about even odds benefit and harm, what is negative about doing it?

And hopefully the threat of jail and losing your children would deter you from making choices for them that you have no right to make.

Hey dude, you want the policy, you deal with it. Let's say that I'm not going to kowtow to your stupid law, because my wife's medical opinion matters more to me. Maybe i think all you're going to do is threaten, since obviously you wouldn't be stupid enough to think putting parents in jail won't have far worse outcomes on the baby's health.

So, what do you do? How long should we serve in jail, and, very importantly, do you take the kids away from us?

goddamnedfrank Tue, Jun 26, 2012 9:53:52pm

Confession: I find people who get all worked up in opposition to circumcision to be intensely creepy. I'm cut and I'm totally happy with it. If you're all mentally scarred for life and stuck in some rut because you feel mutilated and wounded by what happened to you as an infant then all I can say is we've all got baggage.

I had to learn to walk twice because my hips were deliberately broken and reset to fix a condition that nobody was sure would even develop into a problem as I grew older. We do all kinds of shit to babies without their consent and pretending that this is somehow totally different because there are no benefits is just patently dishonest. There are, both medical/epidemiological and social.

kreyagg Tue, Jun 26, 2012 10:06:18pm

re: #23 Obdicut

Yes, they do. You just said that people who abuse children should go to jail, and you believe that circumcision is child abuse and those who do it should go to jail. Those sports are far, far, far more dangerous than circumcision-- football for injury and flat-out death, ballet mainly for eating disorders and permanent bone deformity. So, do you think that people who send their kids to ballet or have them do football should go to jail, and if not, why not?

It is a separate argument because the sports can be managed better and in the future ballet should only be performed by robots. Also it is possible for the child to express their will.

Do you also think cosmetic orthodontry shouldn't be performed?

I am unclear what you mean by this, but purely cosmetic vs. misaligned teeth that cause pain/infection, the distinction should be obvious.

Why? That's your assertion-- what's your backup for it? If it really were about even odds benefit and harm, what is negative about doing it?

Mainly because I see no real benefit from the practice. The advantages most often cited are those vs STDs, but simple hygiene and condom use eliminate any advantage the circumcision could provide.
Meaning that proper hygiene + condom use + circumcision provides no advantage over just proper hygiene + condom use. Really, why is it, do you imagine that circumcision helps reduce the spread of disease. What process do you think occurs that simply washing wouldn't do just as well.

Hey dude, you want the policy, you deal with it. Let's say that I'm not going to kowtow to your stupid law, because my wife's medical opinion matters more to me. Maybe i think all you're going to do is threaten, since obviously you wouldn't be stupid enough to think putting parents in jail won't have far worse outcomes on the baby's health.

What sort of milquetoast argument would this be if I proposed no consequences for violating the rights of children?
But pulling the licenses of surgeons/doctors that perform medically unnecessary procedures would be damned effective and enforceable.

goddamnedfrank Tue, Jun 26, 2012 10:19:33pm

re: #25 kreyagg

Mainly because I see no real benefit from the practice. The advantages most often cited are those vs STDs, but simple hygiene and condom use eliminate any advantage the circumcision could provide.
Meaning that proper hygiene + condom use + circumcision provides no advantage over just proper hygiene + condom use. Really, why is it, do you imagine that circumcision helps reduce the spread of disease. What process do you think occurs that simply washing wouldn't do just as well.

Here you go:

"It was striking that the trials were in very different settings, but yielded consistent results," says Ronald Gray, study leader for the Uganda trial and epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore. "This was the largest protective effect ever seen next to condom use," adds Sten Vermund, director of the Institute for Global Health at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in Nashville, Tenn. But the question remained: Why?

Microscopic examination of the foreskin yielded important clues for unraveling the benefits of circumcision. Normally, the skin provides a thick protective barrier stemming from keratin—a tough structural protein also found in hair and fingernails. But on the inner surface of the foreskin, the keratin layer is much thinner, resembling the inner lining of the mouth or eyelid more than the palm of the hand.

In uncircumcised men Langerhans cells—immune cells that are primary targets for HIV transmission—"are more richly concentrated near the surface of the foreskin," says Anthony Fauci, director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases in Bethesda, Md. Without the keratin barrier, HIV can easily access these cells in the foreskin. Following infection, Langerhans cells not only serve as reservoirs for replicating virus, but also transport the virus to nearby lymph nodes where HIV spreads to other immune cells.

It may have come to your attention that in the real world people don't alway use condoms, and don't always remain in faithful, monogamous relationships. Saying that people should just use condoms is like saying they should just abstain, it's simply not realistic.

Obdicut Wed, Jun 27, 2012 2:27:45am

re: #25 kreyagg

It is a separate argument because the sports can be managed better and in the future ballet should only be performed by robots. Also it is possible for the child to express their will.

Oh wow, suddenly it's possible for a child to express their will, and we don't have to wait until age eighteen. Imagine my surprise.

I am unclear what you mean by this, but purely cosmetic vs. misaligned teeth that cause pain/infection, the distinction should be obvious.

Most misaligned teeth don't cause pain or infection, they just look funny.

Mainly because I see no real benefit from the practice. The advantages most often cited are those vs STDs, but simple hygiene and condom use eliminate any advantage the circumcision could provide.

Nope. They're not exclusive. As I keep saying, but you keep ignoring. They're additive.

What sort of milquetoast argument would this be if I proposed no consequences for violating the rights of children?

The kind of milequtoast that you're being, since you're refusing to actually say what jail time my wife and I should serve.

But pulling the licenses of surgeons/doctors that perform medically unnecessary procedures would be damned effective and enforceable.

Ah, so now even though we're paying someone to abuse our child-- according to you-- we shouldn't face any penalties. Got it.

But stripping the licenses from doctors is only going to go so far. Parents will skip over the border to Mexico or Canada to get it done-- what do you do then? Just throw up your hands about the 'child abuse' because we did it out of country?

Obdicut Wed, Jun 27, 2012 2:31:45am

re: #26 goddamnedfrank

It's interesting how many parallels there are between both the abortion arguments and abstinence arguments. I'm not at all saying that circumcision and abortion are related in terms of magnitude, but lots of people say that abortion is murder, and yet, when pressed on it they mostly don't want to treat women who get abortions as murderers, to prosecute them. They acknowledge, even if it's just unconsciously, that it's not really murder. Likewise, I keep hearing that circumcision is 'child abuse' and yet most people shy away from actually wanting to imprison parents who get their kids circumcised. Both groups seize on the idea of punishing the doctors instead, which has obvious problems and weaknesses of its own.

And then, on the sexual behavior side, as you already observed, people try to claim that circumcision isn't helpful because other methods of STD prevention are better. This ignores that methods are additives, as well as the more crunchy biological reasons why circumcision is a unique prophylactic technique that's not directly comparable.

Aye Pod Wed, Jun 27, 2012 4:20:42am

Americans and their forcibly trimmed willies eh?

"It's just like football and ballet!"

"There's nothing wrong with us and any attempts to suggest otherwise will be met with lots and lots of typing!"

LOL

Obdicut Wed, Jun 27, 2012 4:49:04am

re: #29 Aye Pod

No, much less harmful than football or ballet.

Did you have an actual argument to make?

kreyagg Wed, Jun 27, 2012 9:15:21am

re: #30 Obdicut

No, much less harmful than football or ballet.

Did you have an actual argument to make?

This football/ballet argument is totally vacant. These activities can be made safer. The harm can be mitigated through regulation. Also, parents who are not abusive will not force their kids to play football or go to ballet practices.

Oh wow, suddenly it's possible for a child to express their will, and we don't have to wait until age eighteen. Imagine my surprise.

You caught me, I left out a clause. I should have written "...can, to some degree, express their will."
The key point is that infants are powerless

kreyagg Wed, Jun 27, 2012 9:18:15am

re: #28 Obdicut

And then, on the sexual behavior side, as you already observed, people try to claim that circumcision isn't helpful because other methods of STD prevention are better. This ignores that methods are additives, as well as the more crunchy biological reasons why circumcision is a unique prophylactic technique that's not directly comparable.

It is not additive, the proposed explanation for the effectiveness of circumcision is that the germs stay in contact with the skin over a larger area. This is made completely superfluous by wearing a condom or simply washing.

kreyagg Wed, Jun 27, 2012 9:29:20am

re: #26 goddamnedfrank

What the Scientific American article does not mention is that condom use was also higher in the circumcised group after 6 months but not tracked after that.
Other factors may have been left out as well.
The British NHS has a different view of these studies.
[Link: www.nhs.uk...]

Interesting Times Wed, Jun 27, 2012 10:56:43am

re: #30 Obdicut

Did you have an actual argument to make?

Well, being female, I have no, er, skin in this game...but as far as I can tell, the argument against male circumcision goes like this:

1) The foreskin is natural protection for the sensitive glans
2) Removing that protection leaves the glans vulnerable and forces it to become somewhat calloused over time, which reduces sexual sensitivity
3) Sexual pleasure is also impacted by removal of the foreskin's gliding motion during sex/masturbation. The implication here isn't so much that the foreskin itself is erogenous, but the action of it moving back and forth over the glans
4) Re 3, male circumcision actually was once used as a sexual control technique - it was thought removing it would prevent masturbation

As for whether or not the "sensitivity" statements are true, there's so much conflicting information out there I don't know what to make of it. The men quoted here, circumcised as adults, say it made no difference (though I've seen the anti-circumcision counter-argument that such men were protected by the foreskin up until that point, and therefore can't be compared to those circumcised as infants).

So...perhaps the opposition to circumcision isn't so much religious but sexual - there's something about a procedure impacting sexuality which makes it innately more frightening, which may explain why people okay with parents making some life-impacting decisions for their children will never favor that one.

goddamnedfrank Wed, Jun 27, 2012 10:57:35am

re: #33 kreyagg

What the Scientific American article does not mention is that condom use was also higher in the circumcised group after 6 months but not tracked after that.
Other factors may have been left out as well.
The British NHS has a different view of these studies.
[Link: www.nhs.uk...]

The Scientific American article is discussing the results of three studies, one of which you cherry pick and then tell a half truth about. You conveniently fail to mention that P value of the difference in condom use in the Ugandan study was listed as less than 0.001 (one tenth of one percent) and that the researchers took the difference into account. Your contention that "other factors may have been left out as well" ignores the fact that this result has born out over multiple studies and that a very clear, plausible, well explained biological mechanism has been put forth.

If you're going to argue the science then a modicum of full disclosure and honesty is important. Cherry picking one study out of three in the article and presenting only partial information about one of it's disclosures makes me think you're less interested in finding the truth of the matter than selling your own biased, fixed belief.

For the record this kind of stunt goes a long way towards explaining why I find circumcision activists to be creepy. I don't really give a shit about the issue one way or the other, and like Obdicut am likely to leave any decision on the matter regarding my own offspring to my mate. But I'm not going to sit by and watch it be presented it as a simplistic issue when it simply isn't, or allow the use half truths to impugn the clear and convincing research that there are epidemiological benefits.

goddamnedfrank Wed, Jun 27, 2012 11:11:33am

re: #32 kreyagg

It is not additive, the proposed explanation for the effectiveness of circumcision is that the germs stay in contact with the skin over a larger area. This is made completely superfluous by wearing a condom or simply washing.

Once the HIV virus has bonded to and invaded a cluster of Langerhans cells on the foreskin's inner surface simple washing isn't going to do much for a man. Anyway, you're (rather deliberately) missing the point. It is additive because, again in the real world, condoms sometimes break, tear and fail.

These kinds of simplistic dismissals of what we all should recognize is a very messy reality is why I'm kind of doubting at this point if any level of evidence or reasoning will get through here.

ozbloke Thu, Jun 28, 2012 2:27:58am

re: #35 goddamnedfrank

The Scientific American article is discussing the results of three studies, one of which you cherry pick and then tell a half truth about. You conveniently fail to mention that P value of the difference in condom use in the Ugandan study was listed as less than 0.001 (one tenth of one percent) and that the researchers took the difference into account.

Hipocracy!!!

Are you not doing the same thing?
I don't believe 0.001 is equal to one tenth of one percent.

Obdicut Thu, Jun 28, 2012 2:40:20am

re: #34 Interesting Times

So...perhaps the opposition to circumcision isn't so much religious but sexual - there's something about a procedure impacting sexuality which makes it innately more frightening, which may explain why people okay with parents making some life-impacting decisions for their children will never favor that one.

Yeah, it may cause some of the irrationality around circumcision, that it's about the ol' pork and beans and humans be crazy when sex is involved. It may not be just a cultural xenophobia thing going on. I dunno.

Obdicut Thu, Jun 28, 2012 2:47:02am

re: #24 goddamnedfrank

Oh and Frank, ever seen this guy?

Youtube Video

goddamnedfrank Thu, Jun 28, 2012 12:27:01pm

re: #37 ozbloke

Hipocracy!!!

Are you not doing the same thing?
I don't believe 0.001 is equal to one tenth of one percent.

It is on a scale of 0 to 1. Probability and statistics values often work with different conventions.

re: #39 Obdicut

Oh and Frank, ever seen this guy?

[Embedded content]

Impressive.

re: #34 Interesting Times

Removing that protection leaves the glans vulnerable and forces it to become somewhat calloused over time, which reduces sexual sensitivity

While I don't go around checking other dude's junk, "calloused" isn't a word I would personally associate with the results of circumcision. Maybe I'm special though, even my elbows are supple and smooth.

TMI? Probably. Anyway my purpose isn't to sell or defend the procedure so much as point out that it's not one that's exactly conducive to a simplistic analysis.

Dark_Falcon Sun, Jul 1, 2012 4:38:47pm

I got here from Goddamnfrank's link form Buck's thread on the topic. I'm updinging GDF for being insightful on both threads, but downdinging this thread. For once Buck has it right on something: The anti-religion tone of many of the posts on this thread is sickening.

What, me worry? Sun, Jul 1, 2012 6:02:09pm

re: #40 goddamnedfrank

While I don't go around checking other dude's junk, "calloused" isn't a word I would personally associate with the results of circumcision. Maybe I'm special though, even my elbows are supple and smooth.

TMI? Probably. Anyway my purpose isn't to sell or defend the procedure so much as point out that it's not one that's exactly conducive to a simplistic analysis.

Dude! LOL I've personally never seen calloused dangly bits either.

Re religion, no Nazi thing, no Godwin thing. Oppressing Jews by denying them their religion has been something going on for over 2000 years. Period, end of story. This is an example of how it starts. Quite sadly, it's an old fascist story.

I don't know why this Muslim boy was circumcised at 4 and not after birth which I think is odd. And as Bob said, using that as an example is quite the BS. Anti-Semitism is on the rise in Germany and elsewhere, as is anti-Muslim sentiment. Could this set a precedent in other countries? It's a bad, bad thing.

CuriousLurker Sun, Jul 1, 2012 6:50:19pm

re: #42 What, me worry?

I don't know why this Muslim boy was circumcised at 4 and not after birth which I think is odd.

There is no set time frame within which Muslims are required to do it, though it is Sunnah to do it at the time of the aqiqah.¹

Nowadays many people just do it at the hospital, however in various places it is traditionally done when the child is a good bit older.

Additionally, it isn't considered wajib (obligatory) in the Hanfi & Maliki schools of jurisprudence, but it IS considered so in the Shafi`i & Hanbali schools.²

---

1. The aqiqah is an animal sacrifice (sheep, goat, cow, etc) is performed 7 days after the birth of a child (7 days is also sunnah), though it may be done at 14 or 21 days, or whenever the parents are able, if I'm not mistaken. The meat of the animal(s) is distributed to the poor.

2. In the Hanfi & Maliki schools it is considered Sunnah Mu'akkadah (highly recommended), but not obligatory. See the Wiki page for more info.

What, me worry? Sun, Jul 1, 2012 7:12:08pm

re: #43 CuriousLurker

There is no set time frame within which Muslims are required to do it, though it is Sunnah to do it at the time of the aqiqah.¹

Nowadays many people just do it at the hospital, however in various places it is traditionally done when the child is a good bit older.

Additionally, it isn't considered wajib (obligatory) in the Hanfi & Maliki schools of jurisprudence, but it IS considered so in the Shafi`i & Hanbali schools.²

---

1. The aqiqah is an animal sacrifice (sheep, goat, cow, etc) is performed 7 days after the birth of a child (7 days is also sunnah), though it may be done at 14 or 21 days, or whenever the parents are able, if I'm not mistaken. The meat of the animal(s) is distributed to the poor.

2. In the Hanfi & Maliki schools it is considered Sunnah Mu'akkadah (highly recommended), but not obligatory. See the Wiki page for more info.

Thanks! Jews do it 8 days after birth, usually by a mohel and sometimes the mohel is a physician, so definitely similar, although I'd say more spiritually meaningful in Judaism.

The larger problem for me is outlawing religious practice. It's usually part and parcel of worse things to come.

CuriousLurker Sun, Jul 1, 2012 7:26:17pm

re: #44 What, me worry?

Thanks! Jews do it 8 days after birth, usually by a mohel and sometimes the mohel is a physician, so definitely similar, although I'd say more spiritually meaningful in Judaism.

Yeah, for us it's considered part of maintaining the Abrahamic tradition and has a spiritual aspect, but as I mentioned, the timing is flexible and it may not be done at all. For example, if an adult male converts and is not circumcised, it's not obligatory that he undergo circumcision in order to be considered 100% fully Muslim. IOW, while very important, it's not as critical to us as it is to you guys. Oh, and we don't have the equivalent of a mohel.