Summations Only

In which culture? Germany? Nothing is "culturally necessary". And we can all decide what we feel is culturally desirable to us in relation to our bodies when we are adults, unless people have made irreversible decisions for us and removed that freedom.

Well, we aren't talking about some mysterious unknown diseases which we we don't even know how a doctor might perform in comparision to a medical scientist. We are talking about known medical issues, or in the case of circumcision, non-issues.If a doctor says that there is a good reason for a routine infant circumcision with no other indications, that doctor is wrong. Plain and simple. Granted, the science could change, but for now, the science is clear. So presumably, it bothers you that today, in the USA and other countries, poor parents and their doctors are restricted from circumcising their daughters? At least without a very good medical reason to do so?

If you want to persuade me that I've failed, you have a lot of work to do. If you think the debate is about something else, I'd like to see your take on it.Please explain how talking about the principle of bodily integrity with regards to the legality of circumcision is somehow irrelevant to this topic about a German judge who cited a principle of bodily integrity with regards to the legality of circumcision.From the article referenced in the OP:

quote:

---

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.

---

So I'm dying to hear how talking about the relative weights of the rights of the involved parties is somehow irrelevant to discussing a judge that did exactly that. Good luck. A functional part of the body is removed. It is, for the most part, irreparable. Do you need me to support the following:a) the foreskin has a purpose
b) this purpose is lost upon its removal
c) the foreskin does not grow backOr are you asking me to support the notion that cutting through skin damages the skin? I asked for a justification as to why the parent's rights outweigh the infants. You have given none, that I can see. Why particularly an infant?And you'll notice I have not contested your position on this once, I'm curious as to why you keep repeating it.Some right are explicitly given.
Others are implicitly given.For instance, it is not written in any constitutional document that I am aware of and bound by, that I have the right to wear orange shoes and purple trousers.However, it may well be written (IANAL) that I have a right to do anything that is not forbidden by law. Which would imply I have the right to make dubious fashion choices.The German judge has identified two pertinent rights which exist in German law: The right to bodily integrity and the right to make decisions about your own child.Whether or not 'bodily integrity' is an explicitly given right is not important. The judge may well have identified an implied right. We correctly observed that in Germany, and in the USA, a parent's rights are not unlimited and can be overruled if there are more pressing concerns.Thus: You cannot maim your child, you cannot starve your child, you cannot deny your child education, you cannot deny your child medical treatment (with some exceptions hither and thither).The question is, should you be able to circumcise your child?This is not a debate that is resolved with recourse to the nature of rights. It is not resolved by pointing that parents do have the legal right to circumcise their child.It doesn't matter if a right is something that exists intrinsically or whether it is something that only exists as a construct of the State etc., as far as this discussion is concerned.

In the State, culture or society in which the particular parents live.And it is YOUR opinion that nothing is culturally necessary.Sorry but I do not believe that you should have the right to decide whether or not circumcision might be culturally necessary and believe that decision should be left to the parents and their doctors.

Yawn.I have expressed my opinion several times.I do not believe that the minimal if any harm or the potential risk involved in a circumcision is sufficient reason to override the decisions of the parents of the infant and the doctors involved.In the case in Germany the Stare (at least those under that jurisdiction) made a ruling.Fortunately that ruling does not have any weight or force where I happen to live.It really is simple.I do not feel that I or the State, society or culture I live in should have the right to override a parents wishes regarding circumcision.

So far from you, I've seen that the science is clear that they have failed to affirm one particular good reason. That doesn't mean there isn't any. Too, it depends on what kind of reasons are good enough for you. If the parents and their doctor have a reason that is good enough for them, but has failed to be affirmed by science, then they should be able to move forward with it. No, that doesn't bother me at all, and I don't really see any good comparison between the outlawing of Female Genital Mutilation and your position on the outlawing of male circumcision. The outlawing of FGM had good reasons, and it was responsive to something new to the US. Too, it would be a better comparison if male circumcision removed the whole penis and/or "results in the occurrence of physical and psychological health effects that harm the (person) involved" legislation. Too, the law does allow it to happen if your doctor does these sorts of things and you have a good reason to.

Discourteous, impolite, disrespectful. Really jar, when I see you do things like this it makes me a little sad. Yes, I've noticed. But debate starts with expressing your opinion, but then involves building some kind of argument in support of it. This seems like you are making the claim that the parent's rights should by default be primary unless there is sufficient reason to do otherwise What I don't see is any argument that builds this case. Nor do I see the contrary position refuted: That by default the child's rights should have primacy unless there is sufficient reason to do otherwise.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

The one thing about human cultures that's consistent is that they're in a constant state of change. You may be thinking of religious cultures that practise circumcision. Islam and Judaism. These cannot be culturally necessary to humans in a strict sense otherwise they would be universal and would always have existed. That's what I mean by there being no such thing as "culturally necessary". "Cultural" is pretty much defined as what's optional for humanity, rather than what's innate. For example, humans innately have language. It's a biological attribute. But specific languages are cultural. They come and go; they change over time, and they are optional.But let's look at those religions/cultures. First Islam. There are interpretations in which circumcision isn't necessary, and others in which it could be done at an age which the German law would regard as a reasonable age of consent. It's not actually in the Koran, so the liberal "Koran only" Muslims can do without it. So it's not a problem for Islam per se, but certainly would be a problem for a number of strict traditional fundie type interpretations. The overwhelming majority of Europeans are either lightly religious or not religious at all, and we don't like fundies of all religions, and certainly don't shape our views on human rights around their ignorance. So tough.Judaism. This very debate goes on amongst liberal reform Jews, and there is a faction that would actually understand the German law.

quote:

---

"Any unwarranted medical procedure is abuse," said Moshe Rothenberg, a self-professed "Jewish educator" from Brooklyn who performs alternative ceremonies for Jewish boys. "If you cut off somebody's ear who does not need to have their ear cut off, medically speaking, it's abuse."

---

Reform Rabbis Confront Growing Doubts on CircumcisionSo, a religious Judaism without child circumcision is certainly possible. But for the orthodox fundie types who believe the earth is 5,000 years old, child abuse is a must. We don't need fundies in Europe. You can have them in Texas! You're used to it.But the important thing is, both religions have apostasy rates (particularly high in Judaism), clearly demonstrating how unnecessary they are even to those who are brought up in them.Then the most important thing. Newborns do not and cannot have culture anyway (observable scientific fact, not "opinion"), so culture is no argument for subjecting them to irreversible culture based procedures like ritual circumcision.I'm all for any law that encourages liberal versions of religions over bigoted fundie versions.

That is the argument in its entirety.Both positions are a matter of personal belief.That is sufficient.

Families and societies have cultures, and by default, any child born into that family is part of that culture.

Actually, no. Quite a lot was done in the nineteenth century, especially amongst mental patients. At one time, both female and male circumcision were pushed as a cure for epilepsy (FFS!). They were pushed as cures for all kinds of things, which is what leads me to wonder about the underlying sexual psychology of the people doing the pushing!I really recommend that paper I linked to earlier in the thread (my first post, if you isolate them). It's an astonishing history, and full of examples of really bad pseudoscience.

Two of my brothers are circumcised. One is not.The reason? Two different religions?No. Two different doctors. One circumcised for medical reasons, the other didn't.

And the child's best interest is placed in the hands of the parents. Unless there is a compelling reason to override their decisions, we don't step onto that slippery slope. One of my circumcised brothers broke his arm when he fell off a fence, which is worse than any ill effects he's had from circumcision. By your logic, society ought to ban fences in the children's best interest.

The legislation for outlawing it was in 1996 and responsive to African immigrants who were performing FGMs, it didn't have anything to do with 19th centrury phycological claptrap.ABE:From Message 271: You could reject it by not circumsizing your own children.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : see ABE

quote:

---

Bart: OK, it's not painfully clear the adults are definitely paving the way for an invasion by the saucer people.

​

Milhouse: You fool! Can't you see it's a massive government conspiracy? Or have they gotten to you too?

---