German court outlaws circumcision for boys

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
and as for the circumcision discussion, rational argument falls down (not heavily ) but enough so that doing it is better for an individual than not. It is like vaccinations, better to do it.

The problem with this is that it doesn't hold up in the West. Particularly when it comes to the spread of STDs or penile infections, we are talking about benefits which are clear in places like sub-Saharan Africa where personal hygiene is not of the standard that we are used to and where condom use is not widespread, whether for cultural or financial reasons.
 
only that some parents do not want it for their children
but medicine says their in a net gain.

No, not really.

Vaccines are all recommended to be used on the population at large because otherwise you lose herd immunity.

Here, it is very clearly being stated that the medical benefits are not substantive enough to recommend routine circumcision.

So not at all the same thing.
 
The problem with this is that it doesn't hold up in the West. Particularly when it comes to the spread of STDs or penile infections, we are talking about benefits which are clear in places like sub-Saharan Africa where personal hygiene is not of the standard that we are used to and where condom use is not widespread, whether for cultural or financial reasons.
So, if the benefits in Africa are say, 98%
and the benefits in the west are 10%, in slowing down STDs.

No, not really.

Vaccines are all recommended to be used on the population at large because otherwise you lose herd immunity.

Here, it is very clearly being stated that the medical benefits are not substantive enough to recommend routine circumcision.

So not at all the same thing.

I've written in here before that no two things are ever the same.
Is their any similarity? Even to a lesser degree? I think so.

I don't have a problem with schools requiring vaccinations before enrollment

I do not believe circumcision should be mandatory or banned. If i had a kid I probably would want to have it done. I also would give my kids the HPV vaccines. I don't think we will even make those mandatory, perhaps we should.
 
only that some parents do not want it for their children
but medicine says their in a net gain.

I suppose to the first part. Only problem is most of the parents who don't want to give their kids vaccines are completely uneducated about them apart from hearing Jenny McCarthy site a completely debunked, bushleague 'study' that was full of flaws (The glaring one being a sample size of about a dozen children). It's really a shame the damage done by that is still making its rounds. I wonder how many kids have gotten seriously ill, maimed, or have died as a result of it
 
It's nothing like vaccinations, deep


I would agree that it's not like vaccinations in a number of ways.

First of all the "costs" of going uncircumsized are much less than those of going unvaccinated, both to the individual and to others.

Second, vaccination isn't weighted with all the religious/sexual baggage that circumcision clearly is.

That said, I've always found the virulent opposition to circumcision a little suspect. I feel convinced that it is rooted primarily in the aforementioned baggage, and because of the unreasonable emotion tied to it, there seems to be a real lashing out at any suggestion that circumcision might not be the worst thing in the world--might even have some benefits for some people.

There are no organizations devoted to stopping the piercing of baby girls' ears even though this too is essentially a non-essential cosmetic change.

I'm curious is to what might be the "real" motives of the American Pediatric Society in coming out with this recent stance. Since it's clearly based on limited studies in Africa what is their "real" goal? Perhaps the organization is dominated by Jewish religious zealots?
 
There are no organizations devoted to stopping the piercing of baby girls' ears even though this too is essentially a non-essential cosmetic change.

I get what you're saying and that thought has definitely crossed my mind, but the big difference is that piercing is relatively minor, reversible, and making a hole is much different than excising an entire part of the anatomy
 
It's a pretty small part though. . .

My argument is that the true big difference is there is no religious/sexual baggage attached to ear piercing.
 
Indeed.

The experience of most circumsized males as hardly a life marred by trauma.

At least none that I've noticed personally.

If sex would be so much better "intact" I honestly cannot imagine what I"m missing.

TMI?
 
Sean that's how it is around here. Like I said earlier I'd be surprised to find an UNcircumcized male that was born and raised in the west Michigan Dutch/CRC community. I've asked a few of these guys about circumcision and *none* have ever told me they wished it hadn't been done, in fact their responses ranged from not really caring to it being preferable. I don't know anyone that has complications from a botched job. Around here it's done at birth and that's the norm, even for those that are the first generation removed from Europe. I'm not defending or condoning it, just saying. Since I'm not a guy I can't presume to know what they're missing out on being circumcised...
 
As a woman, I have noticed a difference in tactile responsiveness between circumcised and uncircumcised men, FWIW.

I think that the current rates (2012) in the US are down to about 50%, and anecdotally, a friend of mine who is an ob/gyn nurse says that there is a huge difference between the number performed now as compared to 10 years ago when she graduated so she sees it as a definite trend reversal. Keep in mind that there will be regional differences as well.
 
The reasoning behind circumcision preventing STDs is because it removes a part of the body that's more likely to get small tears through which things like HIV can pass into the blood stream. Does not seem like valid reasoning to me considering the existence of condoms. If you're counting on cutting off a part of your body to lower your risk of HIV I think you're putting your eggs in the wrong basket.
 
Like neutering dogs to avoid testicular cancer or spaying female dogs to avoid pyo...

No, I don't think the prevention/cleanliness arguments hold up here in the west.
 
I read an article on this a couple of days back

and came to the conclusion there is a small net gain and no real negatives.
 
According to that same logic they should also remove the appendix at a young age. Thing has no use and it would prevent possible appendicitis.
 
for that reason it should not be prohibited
and a recommendation by them is reasonable.

Is this their consistent position? Say, with respect to something like appendectomies or tonsillectomies for children?
 
I must say I'm really surprised by many of the responses on this topic. People who are normally pretty sharp, seem to be. . .less so on this topic.

I really expected to hear stronger arguments than what's been put forth so far. Are we seriously comparing an appendectomy to circumcision? I mean, really?
 
And I admit I'm not entirely unbiased. I obviously have a vested interest in not feeling like I'm somehow "broken" or "scarred for life."

But even so. . .
 
I must say I'm really surprised by many of the responses on this topic. People who are normally pretty sharp, seem to be. . .less so on this topic.

I really expected to hear stronger arguments than what's been put forth so far. Are we seriously comparing an appendectomy to circumcision? I mean, really?

Have you ever seen a circumcision performed? It's not a neat little snip. I'd agree it's silly to compare an appendectomy to circumcision, but only because the appendix actually is a useless organ
 
In the US, pediatric tonsillectomy actually was a very routine procedure for preventing typical childhood throat infections 60 years ago. That came to an end when large-scale followup studies made it clear that the operation did not in fact have that effect for most children, and given that when these infections occur they are usually easily treatable with bed rest and/or (by that point in time) antibiotics, tonsillectomy as routine preventative was therefore no longer endorsed. Even so, it remains one of the most common childhood surgeries (in the US) and a source of continued infighting among doctors as to whether and when to recommend it for children. There's no history of pediatric appendectomy being employed in such a manner, so it's hard to compare, but as far as it goes the operation itself (as distinct from the disease) actually has quite a high morbidity i.e. significant complications rate in children (13.5%-35.6%, compared to the 0.19%-0.22% cited for infant circumcision--and incidentally, 1.9% for early childhood tonsillectomy--in the AAP statement). That would obviously have to be taken into account if considering appendectomy as a routine preventative.

If the AAP found that research to date supports a conclusion that infant circumcision impairs sexual satisfaction in adulthood, I'm sure they'd change their tune dramatically (their statement does include a literature review on this topic). They are a relatively conservative organization--in the sense in which that term applies to medical organizations, not in the political sense--so it isn't surprising that they'd effectively sidestep the more ideologically charged aspects of the medical question by neither actively recommending nor actively discouraging it (the statement does not constitute a "recommendation," and it is a misrepresentation of it to say so). As the pediatrics professor quoted in MrsS' article points out, most parents decide whether or not to circumcise based primarily on social, cultural, familial or religious notions anyway, so in practice it matters little what the AAP determines the upshot of the extant medical research to be, unless and until they perceive that said research demonstrates unacceptable risk of medical harm.
 
Last edited:
Yet we're still discussing whether or not a baby should have part of his penis cut off... Just think about that for a second. The only reason people aren't completely repulsed is because of ingrained, archaic culture
 
Back
Top Bottom