A step in the right direction

[pieces o nine]

I considered current events, politics, health, and debate as possible homes for this topic...
Here's a link to the story: German court rules religious circumcision on boys an assault 

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.

Although the boy in this story has Muslim parents, the following comments were to be expected:

The court came down firmly against parents' right to have the ritual performed on young children. "The body of the child is irreparably and permanently changed by a circumcision," the court said. "This change contravenes the interests of the child to decide later on his religious beliefs."

The decision caused outrage in Germany's Jewish community. The head of the Central Committee of Jews, Dieter Graumann, said the ruling was "an unprecedented and dramatic intervention in the right of religious communities to self-determination." The judgement was an "outrageous and insensitive act. Circumcision of newborn boys is a fixed part of the Jewish religion and has been practiced worldwide for centuries," added Graumann.

Yay, and let's see other enlightened countries follow suit. Let's see this spread until the practice dies out, and let's see a simultaneous end to the horrors of fgm in more benighted nations. I well understand the long religious significance of this practice, but it's long past time for the human race to grow up and stop offering blood sacrifices (of infants, no less!) to appease deities with such fragile sensibilities when it comes to any aspect of human reproduction. An adult who chooses bodily modification is welcome to it -- whether circumcision, facial piercings, bosom enhancement, tattoos, or filing incisors down to vampire teeth, for a quick sampling -- and the disapproving religious, political, corporate, and esthetic experts are free to feel offended if they so desire. But keep your mitts off the kids.

[Roland Deschain]

Here, here, PoN. I've detested the idea of infant genital mutilation in this respect for a long time now, and it's great to see a country with the chutzpah to finally stand up to it (see what I did there?). This isn't an assault on religious freedom, as when that child grows up, they'll be totally free to make the decision themselves: cut or uncut? What's the point in having a foreskin if you're going to cut it off? It's there for a reason, and if Jehovah didn't want it there, he shouldn't have made it in the first place.

If it had been done to me, I would not have been a happy bunny!

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

I just wanted to say that while conceptually I agree with the decision, there are some health benefits derived from (male) circumcision, to the point that it has been recommended in a number of African nations to prevent the spread of AIDS (circumcised men have a lower chance to get infected).

The principle though, is key to prevent female circumcision, which is perhaps the most barbaric practice still in use, particularly in the muslim world.

[Griffin NoName]

I beg to differ. I am fully in support of stamping out female gential mutiliation, but regard it as quite different to the circumcision of boys at age 8 days old, and also there is a huge difference between male circumcision as a teenager or adult than as a baby at 8 days old.

Both my sons were circumsized at 8 days old and I was the person looking after them afterwards. They were fine, and not upset. I also held my nephew, 8 days old, while he was circumsized and he was fine, he didn't cry. I think this judgement is racially motivated and I note the fact it is Germany.

And ^^ Zono.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

I guess the problem is the matter of principle, if you can allow what can arguably be called mutilation in males (regardless of how safe, sanitary and relatively low long term issues*), you have to allow it for females, or enter into a particularly bizarre argumentation of what exactly is the difference.

* check the wiki article on the subject, the argument is far from settled.

[pieces o nine]

I did think for a few moments about the case originating in Germany before I posted the link and added my persxonal comments. I am also aware that some doctors or religious leaders can be counted on to perform this procedure "correctly". That is not the universal case, however, and there are plenty of cases here in the first-world USofA where interns or residents were given the task with little-to-no instruction and supervision. Thre a re also documented cases of religious leaders passing along STDs during the procedure. The results are neither holy, healthy, nor esthetic.

Thus, I must respeectfully disagree with Grif on this one. If there is a legitimate need for a medical procedure, then it is a legitimate medical procedure and should be handled as such. But a decision to impose this on male infants based only on the degree of religious commitment of the parents is not a legitimate medical need.

(fwiw my parents were among millions of who went mindlessly along with this procedure in US Catholic hospitals, and while I have no reason to believe that my brother personally suffered disfigurement because of it, it was not a medical nessessity; current non-fundamentalist parents seriously question it, disallow it, or take a much more educated interest into the person assigned the task.)

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Preamble:  with respect to Griff's comments, nothing I say here is meant to be a criticism of what she witnessed.   Different strokes for different cultures, and all that.  These are my opinions, based on my life-experiences.

It was done to me, without my consent.  I cannot say if it affected me or not-- I was not given a choice, so I'll never know or fully understand the differences between one state or the other.

I think it's wrong to do it to babies.  But if post-puberty males wish to partake of the cultural ritual, who am I to say they cannot?  Same goes for any sort of voluntary body-modification:  so long as the participant is not under undue coercion, it's their body, it ought to be their decision.

As for the alleged health issues?  That's not ever been conclusively proven one way or another; anecdotal "evidence" is not conclusive, nor are random samplings of different cultural practices-- too many variables here, with respect to other life-situations, such as general eating habits, general bathing habits, plumbing fixtures, etc, etc, etc.

And I looked at the link-- but it was inconclusive at best.  No actual scientific papers were cited, making me question their methodologies.  Did the "researchers" have an agenda?  (likely)  If so, what was it?  Were they completely unbiased with respect to circumcision, or did various cultural norms have an affect on their observations?  So I even question their conclusions-- they may be right, but the article did not give sufficient information to say.

To me, the bottom line is this:  we are each given one body to use up as we each see fit, during our one-trip-around-the-track existences.  Should not that body be given to the person, as intact as is reasonably possible -- at least until said person is old enough to be making informed decisions about it?

Never mind the horrid practice of mutilating little girls-- there's also a growing trend to body-modification of not-so-little girls with breast augmentation in their teens... WTF?   I have no criticism of adult women choosing this for themselves; it's their body, it's their decisions and their decision alone (or it should be).  

But a teen girl is no more qualified to "choose" this, than a teen boy is to becoming a father.  They are not experienced enough.   And being so young, they have plenty of time to choose these things, later in life, when they are not hopped-up on raging hormones.

... meh.   My inner libertarian is showing again.



Edit:  re-reading this, I realize I seemed to contradict myself at the beginning and at the end.  But what I meant was, I think such permanent body modifications should not be allowed to people who's brains have not finished growing up.  Yeah, that's a rather wide bad of age, there-- but setting arbitrary age-limits would needlessly punish those kids who are mature enough, just to protect the majority who are not.   

I don't have a good answer for this conundrum either.

Maybe one day, humans will mature into an actual adult culture, such that we won't need arbitrary rules about such things as the above.   But I doubt I should live so long...

[Swatopluk]

Male circumcision had some benefits originally (as so many other strange-looking religious laws in the Book). But advances in hygiene etc. have essentially made them superfluous. The risks now clearly outweigh the benefits. In the US the custom never really had a justification.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Male circumcision had some benefits originally (as so many other strange-looking religious laws in the Book). But advances in hygiene etc. have essentially made them superfluous. The risks now clearly outweigh the benefits. In the US the custom never really had a justification.

I've seen that claim before, but I've not seen any scientific rationale supporting it.  I'm not dissing you here, I'd really love to see references to an actual scientifically based study on this issue.  The majority of "studies" were flawed in multiple ways:  they tended to compare widely different cultures' results, which ignores too many issues to be conclusive.

[Swatopluk]

According to some personal testimony of uncircumcised people in the sandy parts of the Middle East, they understood the benefits of circumcision afte their first sandstorm in areas were water was too scarce to be used for washing. In general it is easier to keep this specific part of the body clean when circumcised (absent modern commodities). Again, today these practical reasons do no longer widely apply. Same with the ban of combining milk and meat in the era of the refigerator and pasteurisation.

[Griffin NoName]

.......... I am also aware that some doctors or religious leaders can be counted on to perform this procedure "correctly". That is not the universal case, however, and there are plenty of cases here in the first-world USofA where interns or residents were given the task with little-to-no instruction and supervision. Thre a re also documented cases of religious leaders passing along STDs during the procedure. The results are neither holy, healthy, nor esthetic.

All Jewish circumcisions in the UK are performed by well-trained doctors who also hold the special position in the synagogue. I can't say there's no risk, but it must be tiny.

According to some personal testimony of uncircumcised people in the sandy parts of the Middle East, they understood the benefits of circumcision afte their first sandstorm in areas were water was too scarce to be used for washing. In general it is easier to keep this specific part of the body clean when circumcised (absent modern commodities). Again, today these practical reasons do no longer widely apply. Same with the ban of combining milk and meat in the era of the refigerator and pasteurisation.

Yes, most religious rules are outdated, but doesn't stop them being maintained. Religous practice is all wierd in my book.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

According to some personal testimony of uncircumcised people in the sandy parts of the Middle East, they understood the benefits of circumcision afte their first sandstorm in areas were water was too scarce to be used for washing. In general it is easier to keep this specific part of the body clean when circumcised (absent modern commodities). Again, today these practical reasons do no longer widely apply. Same with the ban of combining milk and meat in the era of the refigerator and pasteurisation.

Thank you-- that is sound reasoning right there.  And not something I would have thought of myself (what with being cut already).

A sound, practical reason to proceed.   Of course, using some sort of personal "cover" or sheath ought to keep the sand out just as well, I'd think...   I'm thinking one of those cast-iron skillet handle covers?  

Something like these ought to do the trick-- added bonus, it's warmer for when it's cold.

[Swatopluk]

I have not been in the Arabian deserts yet but I hear from people that were that the extremly fine sands* get into everything even through several layers of seemingly impenetrable clothing. It's also a notorious problem for machines and motors. Air filters have to be essentially air-tight to keep the sand out (defying their purpose) and have to be constantly cleaned. In WW2 air filter cleaning was a range limiting factor in the North African campaign. Often vehicles had to stop not due to empty fuel tanks but because it was engine desanding time again. Iirc even the modern tanks in the US-Iraq wars had some difficulty to cope with it (apart from the original gas turbines in the Abrams tanks overheating leading later to a reconversion to Diesel engines).

Btw, sand is considered a significant factor in possible missions to Mars. The spacesuits etc. have to be sandblast-proof because Martian dust and sand storms are both common and abrasive.

*there is actually a shortage of coarse sand, so Saudi Arabia imports it from Scotland. At times it was even the main export from Scotland to Saudi Arabia.

[pieces o nine]

[advocatus diaboli]  Does not a similar problem occur with eyes in a sandstorm? Are eyelids helpfully excised to prevent chafing?  [/advocatus diaboli]

[Griffin NoName]

Something like these ought to do the trick-- added bonus, it's warmer for when it's cold.

Called Willy Warmers.