German court bans circumcision of young boys - Page 4 - Religion, God, and Theology

Huehuecoyotl · 07-08-2012, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by uke_master

Regarding this "omg risk of death" nonsense, first note that not even the German court that is banning circumcision is using this argument. I don't know where the 5600 deaths/year come from but AAFP estimates one per half million births which is vastly lower. So low in fact that any of innumerable other things that parents do cause significantly higher risks of deaths. Should we ban all these other things too? There are other things that may be in the positives column, the strongest of these is the reduction in HIV and other diseases - so much so that the WHO recommends it as a potentially cost effective method in Africa. So it is not even clear what the net effect is whether it is a tiny bit negative or a tiny big positive, but regardless it comes nowhere close to the clear, large negative required for us to ban human actions. Just as we don't have this debate about any number of other things with an either small net positive or negative gain and have advocates have the government try to ban it, so to should we not here.

Lol @ HIV and other diseases. When are babies having sex?

Turn Prophet · 07-08-2012, 03:19 PM

I really don't see how prohibiting parents from subjecting their male children to non-consensual, medically-unnecessary body modification is such a huge knock on religious freedom. I don't see any difference between this and a hypothetical religion requiring the tattooing of children--I doubt that many people defending circumcision would be OK with that on the basis of cultural/religious tolerance.

"ZOMG offensive to Jews and Muslims!" Well, maybe they can learn to update yet one more brutal pre-modern custom for the 21st century, like many have for dietary laws, clothing laws, marriage laws, and the like.

asdfasdf32 · 07-08-2012, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by -RMC-

Agree^. Can anyone explain to me what the religious logic of circumcision is? Is the tip of the penis considered evil or something?

There's quite a bit of speculation on the origin of the practice, nowadays I'd imagine it's (mostly) just tradition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...e_circumcision

master3004 · 07-08-2012, 03:27 PM

I can tell you that neither i or my son was circumcised as result of a religious practice

asdfasdf32 · 07-08-2012, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by master3004

I can tell you that neither i or my son was circumcised as result of a religious practice

Just doing it to fit in, eh?

Turn Prophet · 07-08-2012, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by master3004

I can tell you that neither i or my son was circumcised as result of a religious practice

Nor was I, at least not directly. In some areas it filtered down into the culture so naturally that the religious justification was lost, but it's still a medically-unnecessary procedure when performed on healthy infants, far more harmful than a "preemptive" removal of the tonsils or appendix just on the chance that those areas might become infected.

During the Victorian era and early twentieth century, there was a prevailing "public health" rationale that involved circumcising men as part of an effort to prevent masturbation and "ill health effects" that accompany it. I wonder where that logic came from...

uke_master · 07-08-2012, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Turn Prophet

I really don't see how prohibiting parents from subjecting their male children to non-consensual, medically-unnecessary body modification is such a huge knock on religious freedom.

You have the burden of proof backwards. We don't go around banning anything and everything that somebody thinks might be the tiniest bit harmful and, when it comes to parenting, parents do all sorts of totally crazy things that are not banned. If you want to ban something, you have to provide clear and convincing evidence of its egregious and widespread harm. The "ban circumcision" camp has utterly failed to do that.

uke_master · 07-08-2012, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huehuecoyotl

Lol @ HIV and other diseases. When are babies having sex?

When they get older. That does not mean that, as the WHO says, the policy of circumcising babies does not have the resulting social consequence of reduced AIDS.

uke_master · 07-08-2012, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Turn Prophet

Nor was I, at least not directly. In some areas it filtered down into the culture so naturally that the religious justification was lost, but it's still a medically-unnecessary procedure when performed on healthy infants, far more harmful than a "preemptive" removal of the tonsils or appendix just on the chance that those areas might become infected.

During the Victorian era and early twentieth century, there was a prevailing "public health" rationale that involved circumcising men as part of an effort to prevent masturbation and "ill health effects" that accompany it. I wonder where that logic came from...

Nor was I. My middle brother actually was not circumcised right away and developed an infection under the foreskin and so my mother decided to circumcise him after that.

wutangpoker · 07-08-2012, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by master3004

Care to link this as i would be very surprised if the number is that high. I am pretty sure the risk of death in circumcision is very very low. The number you are quoting may indicate some kind of complication with the procedure, but death? I doubt it

Number was accurate, but it turns out it was from a medical journal from 1949 so it's not really relevant. I can post it still if you want, though. Having a hard time finding anything recent.

asdfasdf32 · 07-08-2012, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by uke_master

You have the burden of proof backwards. We don't go around banning anything and everything that somebody thinks might be the tiniest bit harmful and, when it comes to parenting, parents do all sorts of totally crazy things that are not banned. If you want to ban something, you have to provide clear and convincing evidence of its egregious and widespread harm. The "ban circumcision" camp has utterly failed to do that.

Isn't the burden of proof on the first person to assert something?

Parents: It's okay to chop off a part of my child.
Me: I don't believe you.

uke_master · 07-08-2012, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asdfasdf32

Isn't the burden of proof on the first person to assert something?

Parents: It's okay to chop off a part of my child.
Me: I don't believe you.

The question here is whether we should ban the practice. This is a very, very different standard than whether I personally like it. When it comes to parenting, we give enormous deference to freedom and while I disagree with any number of ways that parents raise their children, and think many of them are FAR more damaging than the silliness of circumcision, I still don't want to ban them. For us to use the government to actually ban something the standard needs to be that there is a clear and significant harm that results.

For instance, backyard swimming pools are incredibly dangerous, compared with circumcision, but I don't want to ban those. Actually, I suspect the long term psychological damage of being raised in a religious household vastly outweighs whatever consequences you can conjour up from circumcision. I still don't want to ban parents teaching their children their religion.

jewbinson · 07-08-2012, 06:44 PM

Just dropping by to post a link I found funny:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz3EE...feature=g-vrec

Huehuecoyotl · 07-08-2012, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by uke_master

When they get older. That does not mean that, as the WHO says, the policy of circumcising babies does not have the resulting social consequence of reduced AIDS.

Right, but we are going with accountability, I'm sure that if they are old enough to stick it in, they are old enough to decide if they want some skin on it. So the "benefits" still can be had while respecting the autonomy of children.

uke_master · 07-08-2012, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huehuecoyotl

Right, but we are going with accountability, I'm sure that if they are old enough to stick it in, they are old enough to decide if they want some skin on it. So the "benefits" still can be had while respecting the autonomy of children.

Except, as should be obvious, the WHO supporting a late life circumcision program is going to be vastly less effective than a childhood one. For example, we could just teach "accountability" of abstinence which respects the autonomy of everybody except it is not going to be remotely effective.