The entire Catholic community—in Germany and throughout the world—must stand with Rabbi Goldberg and speak out against his prosecution for performing circumcisions of male infants in compliance with their parents’ wishes and Jewish law. The threats to religious liberties and to religious people whose beliefs and practices are regarded as intolerable by those who preach the supreme importance of tolerance know no borders.
Tuesday, August 21, 2012, 3:25 PM
August 21st, 2012 | 3:54 pm
[...] saw this over at First Thoughts: The entire Catholic community—in Germany and throughout the world—must stand with Rabbi [...]
August 21st, 2012 | 4:00 pm
According to Haaretz, it appears to be a lawsuit, not a criminatl prosecution:
August 21st, 2012 | 4:06 pm
Maybe Michael PS (or someone else) knows something about the German legal system and can explain why one paper might report something as a criminal charge and another report it as a lawsuit. Is one of them in error, or does the German legal system operate in such a way that the distinction is not so clear-cut as in the United States?
August 21st, 2012 | 4:12 pm
This just shows the hypocrisy of the Western world. Putting a tattoo on the body of a child is a criminal offense, even in the United States, and yet cutting the genitalia of defenseless boys is not.The law must bend, bow and break before the dictates of religion – as it does when “religious exemptions” are made to child abuse laws, and even to child homicide laws. After all, it’s a gross violation of “religious freedom” that parents be required to seek medical treatment, lest their children die of perfectly treatable diseases.
August 21st, 2012 | 4:54 pm
This just shows the hypocrisy of the Western world. Putting a tattoo on the body of a child is a criminal offense, even in the United States . . .
Maximilian,
Only in certain states. I agree with that prohibition, and I hope someday people will decide not to have boys circumcised for religious reasons. But it really is an issue of religious freedom. I would have to say that this is a case where religious tradition outweighs the power of the state to intervene on behalf of infants. And certainly there is a huge irony that German law would attempt to protect Jewish baby boys from their parents and rabbis when German law in the living memory of some of us attempted to exterminate the Jews. If there is going to be a bona fide movement against religious circumcision, the last place it should take place is in Germany.
August 21st, 2012 | 5:43 pm
This is the salient point:
“…the spectacle of German courts prosecuting a Jew for practicing Judaism doesn’t just awaken echoes of the Holocaust…”
What about “Nie wieder”? Well, that was short-lived, wasn’t it?
August 21st, 2012 | 6:00 pm
David, your heart is in the right place, but know this: to cut perfectly healthy tissue from a defenseless child’s body is not religious freedom. It is the opposite of freedom – it means that an individual is not even free to decide what happens to his own body.
Parents do not have a right to make a martyr out of their children. Frankly, I am glad that Germany, which once committed atrocities against the Jews, now leads the charge in upholding human dignity, for Jews and others. Excusing it is not doing them a favor, quite the opposite.
August 21st, 2012 | 6:14 pm
(I am not of a religious tradition that requires circumcision. For the purposes of this post, I am neutral as to whether it is practiced.)
Maximilian,
Let’s leave the morality of circumcision aside for a second and just consider the methods applied here. By what logic will making circumcision illegal actually stop it’s practice for religious purposes?
As far as I see it, all this law will do is ostracize observant Jews. Perhaps you can convince people not to smoke by ostracizing smokers. However, I think history shows you cannot convince Jews not to be Jews by ostracizing them.
August 21st, 2012 | 8:13 pm
My estimation is the German Court will ignore the complaint filed by the medical from Hesse (a Federal State of Germany). But we still have to wait and see. The medical who filed the complaint is probably one of the intativists who try to take advantage of the court ruling of the district court of Cologne. But the ruling of this court is not binding for the other federal states, some states have already made clear that they won’t prosecuted concerning religious circumcision. I estimate that the complaint of this medical could even be an occasion for German to issue a positive law to allow religious circumcision. But perhaps I am being too optimistic.
August 21st, 2012 | 8:49 pm
And certainly there is a huge irony that German law would attempt to protect Jewish baby boys from their parents and rabbis when German law in the living memory of some of us attempted to exterminate the Jews. If there is going to be a bona fide movement against religious circumcision, the last place it should take place is in Germany.
I see no reason at all to believe this has anything to do with concern for the child.
Germany has found a way to eradicate Jewishness from Europe – and depict Jewish bodies as deformed – in the name of human rights.
Humanists have a long history of children’s rights issue violations. They argue in favor of parents having the right to do anything to a child up until a certain age. They argue in favor of abortion. They argue in favor of surrogacy and other reproductive methods that reduce children to the level of commodities. They argue that parents are within their rights to use children for experimental purposes. They argue that mutilating a child psychologically and/or physically is okay if it is done in the name of sexual ambiguity. And on and on.
The only time humanists care about the child’s well-being is when the child needs to be “protected” from conservatives. Even in clear-cut cases such as sexual predation, they can and do argue that priests are obviously monsters – but protect public school teacher unions from changes that would enable the punishment of predations, and they sign petitions on behalf of Roman Polansky.
And they have a long history of voicing aloud their desire to intervene with how parents raise their children. They want to force parents to teach their values, and they want to severely restrict and limit religious parents from being able to transmit religious values and religious identity. (They also have a long history of caricaturing religious parents as abusive.)
There is no reason to think this is about the child’s welfare. If their goal were the child’s welfare, they would ban circumcision, leave a religious exemption for religious parents, and focus on persuasion, rather than forcibly attempting to sever communities from their identity.
It would appear that the dislocation of Jews is the whole point.
August 22nd, 2012 | 1:56 am
Our local public television station has a half hour German news program (in English) every night, and it had a story tonight saying that 56% of Germans support a ban on circumcision.
They showed an Ashkenazi Rabbi trying to explain to a government group that Jews cannot abandon a divine commandment, and that they believe this practice is an element of a covenant with God.
Could it honestly be that 56% of the people in Germany do not know what the rabbi was explaining? Which does make it seem plausible that the real goal is to drive Jews and Muslims out of the country. I can’t believe that those in support of the ban honestly believe that people would agree to abandon their religion in this way.
August 22nd, 2012 | 2:44 am
Descendants of Abraham have been circumcised for almost 4,000 years. There is no reason to believe that being circumcised has impaired the lives of Jewish men, who are every bit as intelligent, healthy, and wealthy as any non-Jew. The notion that Jewish family babies are being “harmed” is ridiculous.
August 22nd, 2012 | 7:37 am
For the record, Massachusetts is one of those states where ink is legal. I don’t know the law in the case of other body mods.
August 22nd, 2012 | 8:22 am
Blake –
And Christians have a long history of persecuting Jews.
Hey, you know what’s missing in both those statements? The word “some“, as in “some Humanists” or “some Christians”.
For example, you can’t find anything like a ‘doctrinal’ statement on the part of any ‘Humanist’ organization claiming that, say, “parents are within their rights to use children for experimental purposes”. Historic Christianity, on the other hand…
Indeed, so far as I’ve ever been able to tell, for you the word ‘humanist’ means ‘anybody I don’t like’.
August 22nd, 2012 | 8:31 am
George: Let’s leave the morality of circumcision aside for a second and just consider the methods applied here. By what logic will making circumcision illegal actually stop it’s practice for religious purposes?
By the same logic that the laws making this practice illegal for girls prevents its practice for religious purposes (which is usually the reason). By the same logic that the law that criminalizes honor killing (covered by ordinary homicide laws) prevents its practice for religious purposes. Like any law, it is not a perfect deterrent. Whoever heard of a law that put an end to the practice it prohibits in its entirety? But it is vastly superior to not having such a law at all.
George: As far as I see it, all this law will do is ostracize observant Jews.
Not any more than laws against child marriage ostracize sectarian, fundamentalist Mormons; or laws against child neglect ostracize followers of Christian Science (who are opposed to medical treatment). Ad infinitum.
August 22nd, 2012 | 8:41 am
Blake: Germany has found a way to eradicate Jewishness from Europe
You’re slandering an entire nation here, Blake. And that’s when you don’t even have proof that the German people at large, as opposed to Hitler and his sycophants, wanted this at the time of the Holocaust (when Jews were targeted for their race, not religion). And you also have no evidence that this is the intention of the people responsible for the situation described. How do you know their motives? Tell me. If you can provide proof that it is indeed not intended to protect babies, as is my intention, I will join you in denouncing them. You can count on it. Ocular proof.
Blake: And they have a long history of voicing aloud their desire to intervene with how parents raise their children.
Then are you opposed to laws criminalizing parents who do this deed to their daughters? Surely not.
Blake: If their goal were the child’s welfare, they would ban circumcision, leave a religious exemption for religious parents
Why? I do not see why Jewish children should be protected any less than non-Jews. It is not doing them any favors. Should FGM laws have a religious exemptions for the minority of Muslims who believe that it is a religious duty? Should child marriage laws have an exemption for sectarian and fundamentalist Mormons? Should child neglect laws have an exemption for followers of Christian Science? I am giving you these examples, not because I think you are an evil person, but because I hope that you will see why ‘religious exemptions’ are bunk – insofar as they infringe on the rights of others. A religious exemptions so that Native Americans can smoke peyote, alright, I can understand that. But not to force peyote on their children.
August 22nd, 2012 | 10:12 am
Maximilian compares circumcision to honor killing and child marriage, and wonders why no one takes him seriously.
August 22nd, 2012 | 10:19 am
Sally Rogers: Our local public television station has a half hour German news program (in English) every night, and it had a story tonight saying that 56% of Germans support a ban on circumcision.
For defenseless babies. Not for adults. If they choose to present themselves, let it be done to them. It’s as much a violation of religious freedom, as disallowing Jehovah’s Witnesses from denying their children blood transfusions is (which would lead to their death). Those Jehovah’s Witnesses can grow up, and if they are adults and decide to refuse a blood transfusion, so be it.
Sally Rogers: Could it honestly be that 56% of the people in Germany do not know what the rabbi was explaining?
More likely, they do not think that religion should have special privileges to cut healthy tissue from the bodies of babies – a right no one else has. If I cut off the earlobe of my son, I will be prosecuted – and thank God for that – even though it is useless. The law will not allow mutilation. Why should a child’s genitalia be given less protection, especially when it is an unnecessary, harmful and dangerous procedure, as well as being a gross violation of the sanctity of a child’s body, and its dignity.
Raymond: Descendants of Abraham have been circumcised for almost 4,000 years
Fine, then they can do it on themselves when they are 18. Furthermore, there is no evidence that there was a man named Abraham. Also, even if there were, simply being ancient is not a justification. Or you’d have to support Chinese foot binding, Hindu widow burning, fgm, ad infinitum.
Raymond: The notion that Jewish family babies are being “harmed” is ridiculous.
Historically, many Jewish babies bled to death, because of hemophilia. Many times, due to a mistake, boys were maimed for life, and are to this day. And for what?
All kidding aside, don’t take it from me. Take it from the orthodox (traditional, not modern sense) Jewish philosopher Maimonides: http://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org/jewish.htm#Maimonides
Mike Melendez: For the record, Massachusetts is one of those states where ink is legal.
Ink is legal in all states. I personally oppose it, but it’s your own body – do what you want with it. Ink on children is a separate matter – I know that’s what you were talking about, but I just wanted to stress the matter.
August 22nd, 2012 | 10:21 am
Maximilian,
In every society, law is a mixture of reason and tradition. And since reason itself is premised upon tradition (see Alasdair MacIntyre), one needs to recognize this legal ruling and subsequent lawsuit as a clash between traditions. You represent one such tradition, a tradition which is not universal and which is long predated by the one in question here.
August 22nd, 2012 | 10:22 am
Jack Perry: Maximilian compares circumcision to honor killing and child marriage, and wonders why no one takes him seriously.
Don’t bear false witness, Jack. The question was whether outlawing a practice would stop it, when it’s done for religious reasons. Honor killing is a good example of that, as there are countries were honor killers are let off.
Re: child marriage – sectarian and fundamentalist Mormons believes that it’s their religious duty to marry off children young. If one believes that the law should bend for religion, as some argue, then that should be allowed – as it is in Yemen.
August 22nd, 2012 | 10:26 am
Blake’s comment deserves repetition:
This is akin to what Bruno Bauer, the 19th century German philosopher, sought to do. Anti-Semitism takes a myriad of forms, and those for the intelligentsia differ markedly from those of the masses.
August 22nd, 2012 | 10:30 am
Maximilian compares circumcision to honor killing and child marriage, and wonders why no one takes him seriously.
Jack Perry,
I take him seriously, although I believe circumcision at this point in time must be permitted to Jews by those who support religious liberty. The point is that religious liberty isn’t (and can’t be) absolute. And just because something is a religious (or cultural) tradition with a long history does not mean it may not reasonably be banned.
August 22nd, 2012 | 10:32 am
David Nickol
A private party can lay an information before the public prosecutor, who has a discretion whether or not to proceed, although, in some cases, the court may order him to do so.
In addition, where he is a party aggrieved, a private party can pursue his civil claim in the criminal proceedings. Thus, in France, it is common to have a « Partie civile » represented on a trial for homicide, claiming damages for wrongful death; indeed, there may be several, parents, spouse, children, an unmarried sister living with the family, even an employer I recall a case where an actor was killed half-way through the making of a film and the producer, the director and even some other actors all joined in. It is a very good system from the civil party’s point of view, because the state does all the evidence-gathering for him and it avoids multiplicity of proceedings.
I cannot imagine the doctor here is a civil party, in that sense.
August 22nd, 2012 | 10:34 am
Repeated studies have found a non-trivial correlation between circumcision and a lowered risk of sexually transmitted diseases. It is recommended by the WHO in areas with a high prevalence of HIV. Circumcision has other medical benefits, as well. No study has shown anything higher than a 0% median rate of serious complications; the most common complication is blood loss.
Here’s some perspective. There is a 100% rate of serious complications of removing healthy, functioning tissue from a pregnant woman. The complication is death, and the procedure is called abortion. In general, the same people who rail against circumcision are aghast at the notion of banning abortion.
There is only one reason that circumcision is controversial, and it has everything to do with the idolatry of sexuality, and the credulity given to myths regarding sexual pleasure. It has nothing at all to do with ethics.
Most American males are circumcised, the vast majority of them shortly after birth. Last I checked, Americans don’t have a major problem with sexual dysfunction. Neither do Muslims or Jews.
August 22nd, 2012 | 10:45 am
Followup to my previous comment. Many girls have their ears pierced at a young age. Many, probably most, are too young to understand the risks involved. (Yes, there are risks.) It is done to satisfy the parents’ vanity, or the child’s. Maybe both. Other kinds of body piercing is done for religious reason, such as by Hindus, and carries the same risks, sometimes more.
There are no medical benefits, and non-trivial risks. It is often performed by people with little training, if any. It is done neither for religious purposes, so it carries no respect due to conscience, nor for medical, so it carries no respect due to therapy.
Oddly, no one seems to be advocating that we ban this…
August 22nd, 2012 | 10:55 am
Darel: You represent one such tradition, a tradition which is not universal and which is long predated by the one in question here.
Antiquity does not make a right – see fgm, or foot binding, or human sacrifice. Nor does it bestow any form of legitimacy. Divine right monarchy long predated the idea of a social contract. That doesn’t mean it’s more right. It just took a lot more effort to realize that such form of government is also possible, and in fact, preferable. And so is protecting children preferable to allowing the exercise of whimsical parental tyranny.
Also, you agree with me, my so called tradition. That’s why I give all these examples – of Jehovah’s Witnesses and blood transfusions, Christian Science and medicine, etc. You just arbitrarily abrogate what you recognize to be true in this matter, because (I’m guessing) your reason follows your feelings, rather than the other way around.
Darel: Blake’s comment deserves repetition: Germany has found a way to eradicate Jewishness from Europe
Then do you have any evidence to support it? I’m still waiting for Blake to provide evidence for this claim.
Darel: Anti-Semitism takes a myriad of forms
And yet it never takes the form of protecting the dignity and bodily integrity of babies.
August 22nd, 2012 | 11:19 am
Jack Perry,
Thanks for adding a bit of sanity to the discussion. I have had a few discussions (if you can call them that) with anti-circumcision folks and it is not a pleasant experience.
Folks wanting to somehow ignore the elephant in the room, that this is happening IN GERMANY, of all places when there are still Holocaust survivors (few as they may be) living among us to sidetrack this into an argument about how horrible circumcision in my opinion don’t deserve the civility that you are giving them.
August 22nd, 2012 | 11:30 am
Jack Perry,
Are you actually contending that there are no risks involved in circumcision but there are risks involved in ear piercing?
No study has shown anything higher than a 0% median rate of serious complications; the most common complication is blood loss.
From Wikipedia:
Note that mohels are not “medical providers.” We have had several cases here in New York of serious complications resulting from circumcision performed by mohels who remove the blood after the circumcision by sucking it up with their mouths (one traditional technique).
Those sound like serious complications to me.
August 22nd, 2012 | 11:51 am
Maximilian:
You wrote:
David, your heart is in the right place, but know this: to cut perfectly healthy tissue from a defenseless child’s body is not religious freedom. It is the opposite of freedom – it means that an individual is not even free to decide what happens to his own body.
Then you also oppose parents piercing the ears of their infant daughters, right? This is quite common in Mexico and Latin America, and just about every female in my wife’s family (which makes up – it seems – about 1/3 of the population of El Paso) had their ears pierced before they were 6 months old.
August 22nd, 2012 | 11:56 am
Ray:
You wrote:
For example, you can’t find anything like a ‘doctrinal’ statement on the part of any ‘Humanist’ organization claiming that, say, “parents are within their rights to use children for experimental purposes”. Historic Christianity, on the other hand…
Neither could I find a doctrinal statement making that claim in the link you provided. I also know of know doctrinal statement made by the Church stating “parents are within their rights to use children for experimental purposes”. Please provide a link or citation that actually says what you say it says.
August 22nd, 2012 | 12:51 pm
Jack:
(I submitted my comment before yours appeared in this thread, btw)
There are plenty of debates about infant ear piercing on the internet, but after searching through them for a while, I could not find even one call for legislation to outlaw it. All opposition of it was of the “Well, I wouldn’t do it to my daughter…”
Unlike circumcision, ear piercing does not involve genitalia nor religion, so I doubt we’ll see any move to abolish it.
August 22nd, 2012 | 12:59 pm
Jerry: Then you also oppose parents piercing the ears of their infant daughters, right?
Not really a valid comparison, is it? But if you can convince me that it is dangerous procedure, a violation of human dignity and autonomy, and lowers the quality of life, sure.
August 22nd, 2012 | 1:04 pm
David Nickol
I did acknowledge complications; namely, blood loss. Besides, you should read the same Wikipedia page a little further. Lower down, under the heading Complications, it says: The median risk of serious complications was 0% in both cases.
August 22nd, 2012 | 1:10 pm
Jack: Repeated studies have found a non-trivial correlation between circumcision and a lowered risk of sexually transmitted diseases. It is recommended by the WHO in areas with a high prevalence of HIV.
Very interesting that the very same people who oppose harmless vaccines, to prevent STDs that most women will get (HPV), favor an invasive and dangerous procedure to prevent people from getting a disease that an infinitesimal percentage of people will get (HIV). Frankly, it’s insane to want to have 100% of boys to have their dignity, autonomy violated and be put at risk for even worse, so that there will be a reduction in the, what is it, 0.2% of people who get HIV – due to their own irresponsibility (while HPV can be transmitted even when one acts responsibly).
Jack: There is only one reason that circumcision is controversial, and it has everything to do with the idolatry of sexuality, and the credulity given to myths regarding sexual pleasure.
Yes, they traveled to the High Middle Ages, and convinced the orthodox Jewish philosopher Maimonides that it damages the sexual function.
Jack: Last I checked, Americans don’t have a major problem with sexual dysfunction.
This is a positive claim, one that you provide no evidence for. For example, you do not prove that it does not weaken the part, as Maimonides says.
Steve: I have had a few discussions (if you can call them that) with anti-circumcision folks and it is not a pleasant experience.
Is it more or less pleasant than the practice itself?
Steve: Folks wanting to somehow ignore the elephant in the room, that this is happening IN GERMANY
I’m glad you learned the lessons of the Holocaust – that of not ethnically stereotyping people, or judging them for being from a particular ethnicity.
Steve: of all places when there are still Holocaust survivors
And you do know that Hitler targeted not the Jewish religion, but the Jewish race, right? If you were a completely secular atheist, you would still be targeted by Hitler. It’s a real shame that you use the Holocaust, which had nothing to do with religion, in order to gain outrageous privileges for religion.
August 22nd, 2012 | 1:31 pm
Our friend Max is certainly indefatigable in protecting the dignity, bodily integrity and autonomy of babies. Good for him. Now we just need to convince him that they deserved such respect throughout the even earlier span of their lives within their mother’s womb. Not just for their foreskins, but for their very bodily existence.
He insists that parents have no right to harm their babies – not even in the slightest form, nor even for the highest purposes. A very lofty principle – wouldn’t it be nice if this protection extended to the months before the birth of these little ones?
August 22nd, 2012 | 1:49 pm
Sally: Now we just need to convince him that they deserved such respect throughout the even earlier span of their lives within their mother’s womb.
I do. Just not fertilized eggs, or embryos, which are not babies. As soon as they reach or come close to viability, and there is no threat to the life of the mother or fatal fetal deformities, I believe that even self-induced abortion should be prosecuted as infanticide. And I don’t believe people who commit such heinous crimes should receive any mercy.
Sally: He insists that parents have no right to harm their babies – not even in the slightest form, nor even for the highest purposes. A very lofty principle – wouldn’t it be nice if this protection extended to the months before the birth of these little ones?
Extended to the three or fourth months before their birth, absolutely. See what I have written above.
As for the “highest purposes” – I presume you mean divine purposes. If any of the many mutually exclusive religious groups can prove that (1) there is a god who (2) demands a particular thing, I’ll consider it. Until then, neither Jehovah’s Witnesses wanting to deny their children blood transfusions, Christian Scientists who want to deny their children medication for simple, preventable deaths, nor people who want to cut the genitalia of boys or girls have my support. On the other hand, Jehovah’s Witnesses who want to deny themselves blood transfusions, Christian Scientists who want to deny themselves vital medicine, and men and women who want to cut their own genitalia, have my complete and full support.
But not children and babies. I don’t think it does a child born to Jehovah’s Witnesses any favors to excuse his parents denying him a blood transfusion, even though some may consider it “religious freedom”.
August 22nd, 2012 | 1:57 pm
Max:
It is a completely valid comparison.
-It is no less painful for the infant (especially as anesthetic cream is often used for circumcision, whereas anesthetic is almost never used for infant piercing). The girl screams her head off; if no anesthetic cream is used, the boy screams his head off.
-There is no less danger of infection.
-As a father, punching holes in my infant girl’s ears is no less a violation of human dignity than slicing off skin from my infant boy’s penis. Neither is much aware of anything – let alone a loss of dignity – except the infant girl is acutely aware of the pain.
-Either procedure violates the autonomy of the infant (neither give their consent).
-There is nothing approaching sound evidence that circumcision lowers the quality of life. For every study that claims that it reduces sexual pleasure, there is a published article in a medical journal claiming that said study is badly flawed.
It sounds like you’d rather avoid the question.
August 22nd, 2012 | 2:05 pm
Maximilian Very interesting that the very same people who oppose harmless vaccines, to prevent STDs that most women will get (HPV), favor an invasive and dangerous procedure to prevent people from getting a disease that an infinitesimal percentage of people will get (HIV).
I think you’re confusing vaccination with mandatory vaccination. The only people I know who oppose Gardasil itself tend to hold vaccines in general suspicion: i.e., the “natural medicines” crowd. They tend to look at even microscopic risks of side effects as the end of the world, which is one reason pertussis is making a comeback. (Not the only reason.) I am very well acquainted with one person who opposes both giving Gardasil to her daughters and circumcising her sons, and believe you me, religion is not her motivation — well, not the Jewish or Christian religions, anyway.
There are people who don’t want to be forced to give their daughters Gardasil, under the perfectly reasonable logic that they’re daughters aren’t engaging in sexual activity, and thus aren’t at risk. As for myself, I think that a bit naive, but even if not, I recall hearing of a thing called “rape”, so I plan to have my daughters vaccinated at an appropriate age. In any case, I your argument is thoroughly unfounded.\
Yes, they traveled to the High Middle Ages, and convinced the orthodox Jewish philosopher Maimonides that it damages the sexual function.
The one time we can count on Maximilian to cite a medieval writer as infallibly authoritative is the one subject on which the writer is not authoritative, let alone infallible.
August 22nd, 2012 | 2:24 pm
“Extended to the three or fourth months before their birth, absolutely. See what I have written above.”
Well this is a completely arbitrary limitation that rests on nothing more than prejudice and severely undermines your argument. Someone could argue (as they do) that the line is three or four months after birth – in which case circumcision is completely justified, along with such practices as infanticide (see Peter Singer or these lovely people who argue for after-birth abortions: http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03/01/medethics-2011-100411.full ).
The single variant most involved in “viability” is lung capacity, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the humanity of the baby.
A week, a month, a month and a day before they have sufficient lung capacity, little baby boys’ foreskins are intact and healthy, but for some odd reason they are unworthy of even the slightest regard for their very lives. Even as an embryo, their chromosomes are building the strata for their genitals, including the foreskin.
If we want full respect for bodily integrity, human dignity and autonomy, these rights must include the full span of one’s bodily existence – including embryonic bodily existence.
August 22nd, 2012 | 2:34 pm
Hello Max,
“I do. Just not fertilized eggs, or embryos, which are not babies. As soon as they reach or come close to viability, and there is no threat to the life of the mother or fatal fetal deformities, I believe that even self-induced abortion should be prosecuted as infanticide.”
Mere assertion is not a proof. On what grounds do you claim that the unborn are not babies?
You do suggest that they might become babies at a magic point called “viability.” but how are we to define that? Especially as medical science keeps pushing that boundary earlier into pregnancy?
The difficulty that bothers pro-lifers like me about such arguments is that there really is no clear point in time after conception that we can use to demarcate rights or restraint thereof. And this is why talk of defending “defenseless babies” strikes a discordant note when coming from those with no real objection to abortion on demand.
August 22nd, 2012 | 3:09 pm
Sally: Well this is a completely arbitrary limitation that rests on nothing more than prejudice and severely undermines your argument.
Viability is not prejudice. It rests on my firm belief that the location of the being should make no difference. If a baby is viable, then there’s no difference between that baby inside or outside the womb. On the other hand, there’s a huge qualitative difference between an embryo and an actual baby. Or a fertilized egg.
Sally: (see Peter Singer or these lovely people who argue for after-birth abortions:
Which is an absurd concept, because ‘abortion’ can only occur when there is a pregnancy to abort.
Sally: Even as an embryo, their chromosomes are building the strata for their genitals
And as an embryo, you can put them in a freezer for ten years, take them out and they’ll be completely fine. That hardly sounds like a baby.
Sally: If we want full respect for bodily integrity, human dignity and autonomy,
Sally, when others advocate for such, you impugn their motives. At least, in the case of the German people. You made the awful suggestion, which you did not even attempt to support with evidence, that they want to get rid of Jews. I appreciate the fact that you are not currently impugning my motives, but neither should you do that to the German people. Ethnic stereotyping is wrong.
August 22nd, 2012 | 3:45 pm
Jerry Beckett – You misunderstand. I wasn’t claiming any Christian church made any doctrinal statements about child experimentation. I was pointing to historical doctrine about the collective guilt of the Jews for killing Christ. As I said, “And Christians have a long history of persecuting Jews.”
The point being that Blake’s claim about “humanists” (a) has far less support than any charge of anti-Semitism against Christianity, and yet (b) you still can’t claim anything like “Christians are anti-Semitic”.
In other words, Blake feels free to make generalizations about ‘humanists’ that people would object to if he made similar claims about Christians – precisely because those generalizations are hilariously overbroad (and overwrought).
August 22nd, 2012 | 3:50 pm
Lower down, under the heading Complications, it says: The median risk of serious complications was 0% in both cases.
Jack Perry,
That was in two studies. And as I pointed out, the circumcisions studied were done by medical providers not mohels. I provided you with information on two cases of brain damage and two deaths in about a decade in New York City resulting from mohels using unsanitary techniques. I understand the compromise being worked on in Germany is to have mohels have some medical training or supervision or training. In New York, there has been resistance to the city doing anything at all about the situation. No one is suggesting in New York that circumcision be banned or even this unsanitary technique be banned, but that parents give informed consent. Even that is being resisted, and that is preposterous.
August 22nd, 2012 | 3:53 pm
Jack Perry –
I know this is a side issue, but two points: (1) vaccines can take time to build full immunity, and (2) vaccines must be administered before exposure to the disease itself. Administering it before sexual activity commences is therefore “perfectly reasonable” medical “logic”. (There’s also stuff like herd immunity arguing in favor of mandatory vaccination, but that’s extra.)
August 22nd, 2012 | 3:56 pm
Richard M –
Determining when something like consciousness or viability exists may be impossible at times. But it may be possible to rule out consciousness or viability sometimes. There’s been arguments about that on this very site.
August 22nd, 2012 | 3:57 pm
As a father, punching holes in my infant girl’s ears is no less a violation of human dignity than slicing off skin from my infant boy’s penis.
Jerry Beckett,
If done correctly, ear piercings will close up if jewelry is not kept in them. If done badly, the holes can be repaired by a doctor. Once foreskin is cut off, however, it doesn’t grow back.
There is no comparison between ear piercing and circumcision.
(Note, I support—though with a certain reluctance—the religious freedom of Jews to have their baby boys circumcised.)
August 22nd, 2012 | 3:59 pm
Oh, and regarding piercing the ears of little girls – I’m glad in that one respect that my wife and I only had boys. We both agreed not to circumcise our boys, but we might have gotten into a fight over a daughter. I wouldn’t have been in favor of getting her ears pierced until she could choose for herself, but my wife expressed fondness for the idea.
I wouldn’t outlaw infant ear piercing or male circumcision. I’d just argue against them.
August 22nd, 2012 | 4:36 pm
So an embryo’s hardiness in maintaining their capacity to act in conformity with the life force even after being treated to harsh conditions is now evidence against their humanity? One would think that having such tenacity and one might even say super-human capacity is instead admirable and worthy of additional respect instead of derision.
As I said, indefatigable.
I am sure that those Jews and Muslims whose religion has been effectively outlawed by a ban on this central religious injunction will take great comfort in the idea that there were no hard feelings involved in the campaign driving them to choose between their allegiance to their faith and to their country.
As no doubt the babies who are killed the day before they reach Max’s certifiably arbitrary criteria of full human dignity should happily be willing to surrender their entire future lives and all the goods and rights that their day’s older cohorts have magically become endowed with in Max’s views. No hard feelings kids, you just don’t cut it. If only there’d been a power outage or something, you could have been a contender.
August 22nd, 2012 | 5:13 pm
Not that this matters to some folks, but…
http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/media/releases/declining_rates_of_us_infant_male_circumcision_could_add_billions_to_health_care_costs_experts_warn
From those rabidly right-wing pro-religion folks at Johns Hopkins.
I pretty much consider the dogmatically anti-circumcision crowd to have the credibility of the Jennie McCarthy – “vaccinations cause autism” crowd. And nevermind the religious liberty implications or the gall of Germany even considering legislation/rules to limit Jewish religious practice.
August 22nd, 2012 | 5:19 pm
Here is a good rule of thumb to keep in mind when participating in blog discussions. When the topic is abortion, be wary of saying anything in the discussion. When the topic is not abortion, refuse to let it become abortion. If we can’t talk about circumcision until we have settled the abortion question, then we can’t talk about anything at all until we have settled the abortion question.
August 22nd, 2012 | 5:25 pm
Ray:
For once, you and I are in agreement. I wasn’t in favor of either for our kids. However, I was overruled on the piercing thing by Mrs. B. Apparently it’s a Hispanic culture thing that, like a fondness for menudo (yuck!), I just don’t get.
David:
There is no comparison between ear piercing and circumcision.
You offer a single distinction between the two in the face of the multiple similarities I mentioned, and then make this assertion. Not only does “Because the foreskin doesn’t back” fail to address the similarities in the issues Max brought up (autonomy, human dignity, etc.) that I outlined above, the case would have to be made that not having this skin deprives the person of something – otherwise it is a rather pointless argument. There are plenty of arguments as to whether the foreskin is useful, neutral, or detrimental, but nothing in the way of agreement on this.
As far as “autonomy”, “pain caused to the infant”, “risk of infection”, “loss of human dignity”, “horror stories associated with procedure”, I see no difference between the two procedures, except that circumcision touches on the twin high voltage nodes of sex and religion, and is therefore argued against with much more vigor.
Good luck fighting this out, y’all….
JB
August 22nd, 2012 | 5:29 pm
(Dear moderator, this is not a copy of my earlier post, I removed and changed anything that could even potentially give offense)
Jerry: It is no less painful for the infant
Very interesting claim. It seems self-evident to me that the earlobe is much less sensitive than the other part we are discussing. However, if there have been studies that have put babies under MRI scanners to see which one activate the relevant parts of the brain more, please present them, and I will be awed.
Jerry: -There is no less danger of infection.
Once again, since the justification for the practice David cited earlier is the chance of infection, I am curious as to the articles in medical journals that you can cite to support this claim.
Jerry: For every study that claims that it reduces sexual pleasure, there is a published article in a medical journal claiming that said study is badly flawed.
Kindly present these studies and journal articles, so I may evaluate them. I can’t take your word for it, can I, since you have clearly taken sides.
Jerry: It sounds like you’d rather avoid the question.
What you see as ‘avoiding the question’, I view as avoiding attempts at diversion. I have already cited one practice that is very commonly against the law, giving tattoos to minor children (even those old enough able to nominally consent). Why will you not comment on that?
–
Jack: I think you’re confusing vaccination with mandatory vaccination.
Actually, there is much opposition to Gardasil itself, especially among fundamentalists, who view it as a license to have sex – even though more than half of women will get it at some time in their lives! So it is interesting to see a justification for this, based on what less than 1% of people will get – and which they can avoid by taking precautions, while HPV cannot be avoided.
Jack: so I plan to have my daughters vaccinated at an appropriate age.
Appropriate age. Interesting, considering your earlier reference to HIV. This sounds like a plea for what I advocate. When people are at an appropriate age for the activity that can get them HIV, they can, if they so wish, opt for a procedure to slightly reduce their chance of a very rare disease, which they can avoid easily (unlike HPV) if they take precautions.
Jack: The one time we can count on Maximilian to cite a medieval writer as infallibly authoritative is the one subject on which the writer is not authoritative, let alone infallible.
Jack, if you read what I was responding to. You claimed that only ‘my side’ claims that it does damage to the relevant part, and I refuted you by citing Maimonides – who cited it as a reason to do it.
August 22nd, 2012 | 5:37 pm
Richard M.: Mere assertion is not a proof. On what grounds do you claim that the unborn are not babies?
I did not say that ‘the unborn’ are not babies – that’s a very broad category. I excluded from the category of ‘babies’ not the unborn who are so far past viability that the only major difference is their location, but the ones so qualitatively different from ‘babies’, that no one could argue that they are ‘babies’, like fertilized eggs.
Richard M.: You do suggest that they might become babies at a magic point called “viability.” but how are we to define that? Especially as medical science keeps pushing that boundary earlier into pregnancy?
Well, it’s good that medical science keeps pushing that boundary. I suggest taking that boundary, minus several weeks as a precaution, and to use that as a delineation. To say that there is no such point, because one can’t point to an exact time in months, days, minutes and seconds, is the heap fallacy.
Richard M.: And this is why talk of defending “defenseless babies” strikes a discordant note when coming from those with no real objection to abortion on demand.
Don’t pro-lifers favor immunizing women from prosecution? I, as a very strong pro-choicer, favor prosecuting women who have abortion after viability, except in the cases of life, (serious) health (issues) and extreme fetal abnormality. Don’t suggest that I do not favor defending the defenseless (I know you didn’t mean to offend), because I do not regard a person as existing from the moment of conception.
August 22nd, 2012 | 7:27 pm
Aren’t the vast majority of males in the US circumcized as a matter of medical routine? Is there any evidence that significant numbers of them are either traumatized, desirous of reattachment of their foreskin, or lacking in sexual pleasure?
If the current consumption of pornography, illicit sexual relationships and continual seeking after sexual pleasure is occuring amongst a group that supposedly has a dimished capacitry for sexual pleasure because they are circumsized, God help us if we have a society wherein that desire is increased by the prevalence foreskins.
August 22nd, 2012 | 9:55 pm
Jack – Used to be the vast majority, now it appears to be a simple majority. The trend is downward, over decades, apparently. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevalence_of_circumcision#United_States
August 23rd, 2012 | 12:15 am
That is current number of babies getting circumcized in US hospitals; its much higher in the current US population – and previous points still apply.
August 23rd, 2012 | 10:42 am
Just as a point of information, Rabbi David Goldman has not been prosecuted for performing a circumcision. He could be, depending on the decision made by the prosecutor:
From the same news source, also note:
August 23rd, 2012 | 10:50 am
Sally: One would think that having such tenacity and one might even say super-human capacity is instead admirable and worthy of additional respect instead of derision.
It’s certainly the constitution that I would like to have, but sadly lack, and with me, all other human beings.
Sally: I am sure that those Jews and Muslims whose religion has been effectively outlawed
By laws outlawing female genital mutilation, which some Muslims, and if I’m not mistaken one of the four schools of Islam considers mandatory? Perhaps by laws outlawing killing your son for disobedience, which the Old Testament mandates?
Sally: by a ban on this central religious injunction will take great comfort in the idea that there were no hard feelings involved
So you retract what you said about the German people intending to drive out the Jews? I’m glad to hear that.
–
Steve: I pretty much consider the dogmatically anti-circumcision crowd to have the credibility of the Jennie McCarthy
Jenny McCarthy twists science to pretend that autism is caused by vaccination. What have I twisted? Only thing I have done, is point out that it is a violation of a helpless baby’s autonomy and dignity, and that the religious-philosophical justification (see Maimonides) for it has been the fact that it damages the genitalia. If an adult wishes to damage his genitalia, go ahead, but you have no right to do that to a baby.
Steve: And nevermind the religious liberty implications or the gall of Germany even considering legislation/rules to limit Jewish religious practice.
Ethnic stereotyping, yet again. Why is it that many people here who seemingly decry it, turn around and do it when it comes to Germans? By the way, I am pretty sure that there are practices in the Old Testament that are already against the law in Germany. For example, stoning your daughter to death if she marries and is not a virgin. Surely, you would not say that ‘the gall of Germany’ is great, that it dares to outlaw this practice?
–
Jerry Becket: As far as “autonomy”, “pain caused to the infant”, “risk of infection”, “loss of human dignity”, “horror stories associated with procedure”, I see no difference between the two procedures,
I know what side you are on, and what your judgment will be like, so kindly link or refer to the multiple journal articles you were referring to in your earlier post, which you said support these and other claims of yours; so I can review them for myself, and see whether they indeed support your claims. Thanks in advance.
–
Jack: Aren’t the vast majority of males in the US circumcized as a matter of medical routine? Is there any evidence that significant numbers of them are either traumatized, desirous of reattachment of their foreskin, or lacking in sexual pleasure?
Since they have nothing to compare it to (like girls to whom this is done), this is a meaningless question. And that still doesn’t justify it. And you underestimate the extent to which sexual problems are a cause of being overly preoccupied with sex. If you “weaken the organ by making it bleed” (as Maimonides says), perhaps you do not lessen the desire, but the satisfaction gained – and so people will need more instances of satisfaction to gain the level that they desire.
August 23rd, 2012 | 1:08 pm
Again, is there any empirical evidence that the vast majority of American men who have circumcises have ‘weakened organs’? And what of recent empirical evidence of the health benefits of male circumcision? You are comparing male and female circumcision, but there are actual studies done on such procedures and there is no comparison with regard to the damage done by female circumcision, and none of the apparent health benefits of male circumcision.
Your argument simply doesn’t hold any water. There is no state interest in restricting this widely practiced religious (and medical) procedure because atheists don’t care for it.
August 23rd, 2012 | 1:26 pm
Max:
Very interesting claim. It seems self-evident to me that the earlobe is much less sensitive than the other part we are discussing.
I guess you missed the part about how anesthetic cream is used for circumcisions but not infant piercings. It’s also funny that you can base your claims on “it seems self-evident” and then demand scientific studies from me. While not scientific, having witnessed both procedures, and having my eardrums almost burst by the little girl screaming while getting holes poked in her ears while the little boy under going the circumcision (with cream) slept through it, “it seems self-evident” that infant piercing is not only no more painful, but less painful.
I am curious as to the articles in medical journals that you can cite to support this claim.
….
kindly link or refer to the multiple journal articles you were referring to in your earlier post, which you said support these and other claims of yours
Try this one: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-30731/How-pierced-ears-leave-infants-agony.html
There are more, if you can be bothered to use the Google machine. Pieces on the risk of infection – up to and including HIV – are everywhere.
What you see as ‘avoiding the question’, I view as avoiding attempts at diversion. I have already cited one practice that is very commonly against the law, giving tattoos to minor children (even those old enough able to nominally consent). Why will you not comment on that?
I didn’t think I needed to comment on it, since the matter was not in dispute, and I didn’t realize that commenting on it was required. I have no idea why tattoos for infants/children are outlawed and not infant piercings or circumcision. Giving a baby a tattoo is not something I would ever even consider, but there is no substantive difference between it and circumcision or piercing. I did not propose the law, advocate the law, write the law, vote for the law, or support a candidate who did, nor would I be part of any effort to outlaw it .
Kindly present these studies and journal articles, so I may evaluate them. I can’t take your word for it, can I, since you have clearly taken sides.
….
I know what side you are on, and what your judgment will be like…
I should submit these for measurement on Bill Simmons’ “Unintentional Comedy Scale”.
1) You make unsourced claims that circumcision “lowers the quality of life”, then admit your unawareness of (or lack of effort in reading) any of the journal articles or studies for or against whether the foreskin is beneficial/neutral/detrimental, then demand that I provide links for my claims. Therefore, rather than redoing my searching from yesterday for someone who has provided nothing in the way of sources for his initial claims, I’ll suggest that you try google. I hear it’s pretty helpful. Good luck finding any study/article taking any position on the helpfulness or lack thereof of the foreskin in regards to infections, sexual pleasure, or “quality of life” whose findings are not strongly disputed in a subsequent article/study.
As for your other complaints about “autonomy” and “loss of human dignity”, I made arguments about why I saw no difference between circumcision and infant ear piercing. You have made no counterargument as to why circumcision is a greater offense than piercing against either, have you?
But here’s the best part…
2) You state twice that I’ve taken a side, and imply that having done so impairs my judgment or honesty or that I’m arguing in bad faith. If taking a side impairs judgment or honesty, are yours not likewise impaired or are you not also arguing in bad faith? If “no”, why are you immune to these assumed effects of taking a side? If “yes”, why are your arguments any more legitimate than anyone else’s? Or do you believe that you have not chosen a side?
Goodbye,
JB
August 23rd, 2012 | 2:34 pm
Jack: Again, is there any empirical evidence that the vast majority of American men who have circumcises have ‘weakened organs’?
Not that I know of, but what about it? It does stand to reason that this would be the case. Are we to ignore that this eminent Jewish philosopher cited it (treating it as self-evident) as a reason to engage in the practice, when you cannot even show studies that refute it?
Jack: And what of recent empirical evidence of the health benefits of male circumcision?
The study you cite says that it provides a benefit of $313. If you toured Europe and offered to do this to the men and offered them $313, how many would take you up on that offer? Also, I note once again how ironic it is that people who oppose vaccinating girls for HPV, a disease that cannot be avoided with precaution and which the vast majority of women will get, support something so invasive as “making the organ bleed to weaken it” (Maimonides), in such violation of human dignity, and which they cannot even prove to be harmless, in order to avoid the .3% lifetime risk rate for HIV, which can easily be avoided with responsibility anyway.
Jack: You are comparing male and female circumcision, but there are actual studies done on such procedures
I would like to see them, so I can judge for myself. Also, you make the mistake to think that there is only one form of FGM. There are actually several, some very close to what you advocate on men.
Jack: and none of the apparent health benefits of male circumcision.
The only thing you can cite, is the reduced rate of HIV. Since FGM destroys the female sexual drive (as opposed to merely damaging it), it stands to reason that this leads to women being less inclined to engage in premarital or extramarital sex – hence, reducing the risk of HIV.
Jack: There is no state interest in restricting this widely practiced religious (and medical) procedure because atheists don’t care for it.
Mere assertion without evidence, and who said that I think it should be restricted? Not any more than I think tattoos should be restricted. If you want to do this to yourself, have at it – I would not even require that you let a professional do it. I disagree that you should have the right to do this, or tattoos, to defenseless babies.
August 23rd, 2012 | 7:47 pm
Jerry Beckett: I guess you missed the part about how anesthetic cream is used for circumcisions but not infant piercings.
That was one of your claims – the evidence of which, you did not share with me, even whilst you claimed that that it is “often” the case – however one is to interpret it. Your anecdote, unfortunately, is not evidence. Kindly provide me with the evidence.
Jerry: It’s also funny that you can base your claims on “it seems self-evident”
When making a self-evident claim, like the relative sensitivity of the earlobe to the other part. Surely, you would not disagree that this other part is more sensitive than the earlobe. And yet, out of an abundance of caution, and not wanting to claim more than I know with absolute certainty, I said that it merely seems self-evident, rather than is.
Jerry: There are more, if you can be bothered to use the Google machine.
You claimed to have in your possession evidence that:
1. ear piercing is more painful;
2. it is as dangerous with respect to infection;
3. journal articles refute the claim that it leads to lesser sexual pleasure.
I merely ask you to prove what you claimed, no more. It is up to the person who posits a claim to prove it. I can just as well tell you that I am not going to make an argument about the harms of this practice, and tell you to Google it for yourself.
Jerry: Giving a baby a tattoo is not something I would ever even consider, but there is no substantive difference between it and circumcision or piercing. I did not propose the law, advocate the law, write the law, vote for the law, or support a candidate who did
I appreciate the fact that you answered this question when no one else would. You are consistent, if nothing else, and I commend you for it. I do have one question, however. Are you hereby declaring that you will not vote for any candidate who votes to protect babies from parents tattooing their bodies?
Jerry: You make unsourced claims that circumcision “lowers the quality of life”,
In my judgment, it does, for the multitude of reasons I have provided in this thread. I did not claim to have journal articles in support of my judgment, as you did. In comparison: the three abovementioned factual claims have not been provided with even a shred of evidence. The one factual claim that I have made, the justification provided by Maimonides, I showed to be true before anyone asked.
Jerry: then admit your unawareness of (or lack of effort in reading) any of the journal articles or studies for or against
You brought them up, not I. Then you refused to provide them, or even references, for two comments straight. And you tell me to look for the sources on which you have relied to make claims. Argument does not work in this fashion.
Jerry: You have made no counterargument as to why circumcision is a greater offense than piercing against either
I refuted your attempt to create any sort of equivalence between the two. But admittedly, I am very familiar with attempts to create diversions (and I am not saying that you do this in bad faith), and I try to avoid it.
Jerry: You state twice that I’ve taken a side, and imply that having done so impairs my judgment or honesty or that I’m arguing in bad faith. If taking a side impairs judgment or honesty, are yours not likewise impaired or are you not also arguing in bad faith?
By all means. I do not take the word of a partisan on an issue. And I would not expect you to take my word for it, if I made three separate factual claims, based on journal articles that I have read, when you will not be allowed access to them. I doubt that you would take my word for it.
Jerry: If “yes”, why are your arguments any more legitimate than anyone else’s?
My arguments speak for themselves, and I would not say that they have any more legitimacy, because I am the one using them, rather than anyone else.
August 23rd, 2012 | 10:54 pm
Re: Gardasil
The debate certainly has a social conservative/liberal bent to it. However, I urge you to consider that the vaccine is only effective for 10 years. Meaning after age 22 or 23, she is again at risk. So if you trust the vaccine and/or cautious of the social realities your daughters may engage in or be subjected to, please remind your daughters to get a booster later. Which begs the question: why mandate protections from HPV in potential sexual acts among girls aged 13-22, but not aged 23-32?
The purpose of mandating Gardasil has another component within the political debate. It just so happens that 1. the makers of the vaccine are an organization able and willing to donate to politicians and 2. public policy goals practically assure all minors have health insurance (or are at least eligible for it).
August 24th, 2012 | 12:21 am
It’s really not a philosophical issue, it’s a medical question. And I already cited a relevant recent study by qualified medical authorities.
Or better yet, you could tour Europe and ask people who are infected with AIDs, herpes, and penile cancers if they would circumcise their sons if they knew it would help prevent those diseases?
Actually, the Hopkins study also cites an 18% reduction in the number of infections of HPV infections of female partners of men with circumcisions. So it’s not only a benefit to men who get them, but the women you are claiming to be concerned about as well.
I am too busy to do all your homework for you since you seem unfamiliar with the literature on the subject. But here is one such study which details the harms of FGM:
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199409153311106
FGM is always detrimental to women on some level, and it has none of the cited health benefits.
Now I know you didn’t read the Hopkins study. From that study:
According to the team’s analysis, if U.S. male circumcision rates among men born in the same year dropped to European rates, there would be an expected 12 percent increase in men infected with HIV (or 4,843); 29 percent more men infected with human papillomavirus (57,124); a 19 percent increase in men infected with herpes simplex virus (124,767); and a 211 percent jump in the number of infant male urinary tract infections (26,876). Among their female sex partners, there would be 50 percent more cases each of bacterial vaginosis (538,865) and trichomoniasis (64,585). The number of new infections with the high-risk form of human papillomavirus, which is closely linked to cervical cancer in women, would increase by 18 percent (33,148 more infections).
It’s hard to bother giving you information if you don’t or can’t read it.
Actually, you just acknowledged why FGM is harmful – it destroys the female sexual drive. Male circumcision has benefits without this notable detriment.
I provided lots of evidence, and not just selectively quoting ancient philosophers. There is no reason to oppose males circumcision other than your own prejudice against religious practices, and many health reasons to support the practice. Unless you can demonstrate actual medically recognized harms that outweigh the known benefits, your argument fails.
August 24th, 2012 | 8:55 am
Charles –
Perhaps in ten years there will be. But, if I may repeat myself from earlier in this discussion: “vaccines must be administered before exposure to the disease itself”. Given the prevalence of HPV in the population, most women aged 23-32 have been exposed to it already.
Eradicating HPV is a long-term project, unfortunately.
August 24th, 2012 | 10:13 am
Charles: The debate certainly has a social conservative/liberal bent to it. However, I urge you to consider that the vaccine is only effective for 10 years. Meaning after age 22 or 23, she is again at risk.
As it is pointed out above, the vast majority of girls will have encounters before the age of 23. So it makes sense to have them protected in the ten years before the age of 23. By no means would I say that Gardasil is a perfect weapon, but it is better than having no protection.
Charles: So if you trust the vaccine and/or cautious of the social realities your daughters may engage in or be subjected to, please remind your daughters to get a booster later.
Thank you very much for your advice, and I will keep this in mind.
Charles: Which begs the question: why mandate protections from HPV in potential sexual acts among girls aged 13-22, but not aged 23-32?
Probably because high schools can require such a vaccine for attendance, while there is no such means of near-universal compliance when the girls are 22-23.
Your other objections to Gardasil, regarding corruption and the like, are acknowledged. However, many opponents of Gardasil are much less interested in these matters, and much more in the idea that this gives “license” to girls to have sex. It is then ironic that either these very same people, or people with similar views, would use the slightly lessened chance of getting HIV as an argument for advocating such an invasive practice.
August 24th, 2012 | 10:46 am
Jack: It’s really not a philosophical issue, it’s a medical question.
Let me remind you of what you said: “There is only one reason that circumcision is controversial, and it has everything to do with the idolatry of sexuality, and the credulity given to myths regarding sexual pleasure.” This is demonstrably false. When a major advocate of this practice uses the fact that it “weakens the organ by making it bleed”, you can’t claim that there is a devious plot by me to convince credulous people that this is the case. Indeed, when it is used as an argument for the practice (or else why would God make the human body in a way that requires men to cut off healthy tissue), you can’t really dismiss it, though I’m sure you want to.
Jack: Or better yet, you could tour Europe and ask people who are infected with AIDs, herpes, and penile cancers if they would circumcise their sons if they knew it would help prevent those diseases?
My question was how many people would agree to have this done to them, for the $313 per person, which you thought was a big deal. You do not answer it. So you tgacitly admit that few to no adult would take you on the offer, even if you offered the $313 that this procedure will save, according to the study. That speaks volumes, doesn’t it? What does it say about a procedure when people are only willing to inflict it on others?
It’s interesting that you keep beating the HIV-drum. Is it my job to advocate for “weakening the organ by making it bleed” (Maimonides), so that the infinitesimal percentage of people who get the easily preventable disease known as HIV, will have a slightly reduced chance of getting it? Where is personal responsibility in this matter? Why should the vast majority of people who are responsible enough not to get HIV have to bleed, so that the tiny minority that does, will have a slightly reduced chance of getting it? Absurd.
Jack: Actually, the Hopkins study also cites an 18% reduction in the number of infections of HPV infections of female partners of men with circumcisions.
While Gardasil gets a close to 100% reduction in HPV infections. If you were concerned with HPV, I think you would be advocating for Gardasil, instead of doing this to babies.
Jack: But here is one such study which details the harms of FGM: FGM is always detrimental to women on some level, and it has none of the cited health benefits.
Your link does not support the idea that it does not have the cited health benefits. Some research I am aware of, notes that it may increase the chance of diseases. However, since it destroys female sexuality, victims of this practice will probably be less likely to seek out individuals other than their husbands, and in this way avoid such diseases.
Also, it says: “In contrast to numerous studies and case reports on the physical complications of genital mutilation, little scientific research is available on the sexual and psychological effects of the practice.” Disregarding the harmful physical effects, if you wish to argue that MGM does not has harmful sexual effects, because research will not support it, then you would have to say the same thing about FGM, at the very least in 1994, when this paper was written.
It is incumbent on people who want to hack off healthy parts of the genitalia of little children to prove that it is not harmful, not on people who advocate for the rights of children. And even if you proved it completely harmless. If I hacked off the earlobe of my son, I would be prosecuted, even if it were completely harmless (apart from the esthetic aspect). Why? Because it is mutilation. You seem to be arguing that it is only mutilation, as long as it concerns any part other than the genitalia.
Jack: Now I know you didn’t read the Hopkins study
Did I say Hopkins, or did I say ‘you’? The only thing you have specifically cited, is HIV – and rightly so, because the rest of what you cite in your quote is small potatoes, both in number and in severity. Supposedly, one should hack off healthy parts of the genitalia of helpless little children, so that if they were to choose to be irresponsible sexually later in life, they would have a slightly lower chance of catching HIV. Absurd.
Jack: Actually, you just acknowledged why FGM is harmful – it destroys the female sexual drive. Male circumcision has benefits without this notable detriment.
Mere damage may be preferable to complete destruction, but it still isn’t something to make one happy.
Jack: I provided lots of evidence, and not just selectively quoting ancient philosophers.
You’ve provided little to no evidence, save for a $313 cost saving on the part of the government, and Maimonides is not an ancient philosopher.
Jack: There is no reason to oppose males circumcision other than your own prejudice against religious practices
And once again, you neglect to mention that I oppose it on defenseless children, not for adults who choose it for themselves (hah). You, and others, who have alleged prejudice and hatred, have not provided even a shred of evidence to support it. Germans in general have been ethnically stereotyped and slandered in a way that would not be acceptable for any other people. Perhaps you cannot understand that someone would support the right of children not to have healthy parts of their body cut off and bloodied, to satisfy not them, but their parents.
Were it not for the special privileges that religion receives to do wrong, this practice would be universally despised, like FGM. And you claim that the fact that FGM has been proven to be harmful leads you to oppose it. Thought experiment. What if there were no such evidence, and a neighbor came up to you and said that he would like to do this to his daughter. Would you be angered with people like me, who would object and say that he has no right to do anything like this to his daughter, saying that *we* have to prove that it is harmful? Hopefully, you will not ignore this question, because I am honestly curious.
August 24th, 2012 | 12:23 pm
[...] Circumcision Friday, August 24, 2012, 12:23 PM Anna Williams Just days after criminal charges were filed against a rabbi in Germany for performing circumcisions comes major news from Yair Rosenberg in Tablet magazine: [...]
August 24th, 2012 | 3:21 pm
I am just dismissing your reliance on the medical opinions of a thousand year old physician in light of current knowledge.
Hard to understand for some, but that number is an average. Obviously the cost of treating AIDs and cervical cancers is considerably higher – not to mention potentially deadly. Death is a the highest cost.
I am not ‘beating the HIV-drum’, you are – I mentioned a number of other related diseases that affect both men and women that circumcision helps prevent. As I pointed out there is no current medical evidence that any significant numbers of American males with circumcision have ‘weakened organs’ contra your repeated unproven assertion.
I am not advocating for mandating or prohibiting either – my position is consistent, it is yours which is inherently contradictory.
‘Destroying sexuality’ is a notable overarching harm. But let’s be clear about what I have shown – male circumcision thus far has no over-arching harms, and demonstrable direct health benefits. FGM has significant harms, and no demonstrable direct health benefits. So even if we accept that FGM has an indirect beneficial behavioral effect (not empirically demonstrated in any way by you) it still has significant harms, which set it apart from male circumcision, and give the state an interest in prohibiting it for minors.
You are the one arguing (in fact it is your only argument) that male circumcision has ‘negative sexual and psychological effect’ ; I have pointed out that the vast majority of American males are currently circumcised, and no such effects are evident – the burden is yours to prove your only substantive assertion because it is this supposed harm that would invoke the state interest in prohibiting the practice.
I cited the Hopkins study, and the Hopkins study says those parts of the genitalia aren’t particularly healthy to retain.
It would only be a problem if it can be shown to harm ‘defenseless children’; you have still shown no harm. And now you are dissembling. Time to show something or admit such evidence doesn’t exist to your knowledge.
And the Germans are being criticized for imposing their unfounded beliefs on a religious minority that they previously attempted to eradicate. That is cause for concern.
If there were no evidence any practice were actually harmful, what a neighbor did with his daughter (or son) wouldn’t be any of my business.
August 24th, 2012 | 7:02 pm
Jack: I am just dismissing your reliance on the medical opinions of a thousand year old physician in light of current knowledge.
Not my reliance, but to disprove your claim that merely credulous people believe this, and that they oppose this practice on this basis. I daresay Maimonides had a greater intellect than either one of us.
Jack: Hard to understand for some, but that number is an average. Obviously the cost of treating AIDs and cervical cancers is considerably higher – not to mention potentially deadly. Death is a the highest cost.
And whose responsibility? If I jump before a car, whose responsibility shall my death be? Similarly, why should responsible people have to suffer and bleed as non-consenting babies, because there is an infinitesimal number of people who can’t conduct their sexuality in a responsible manner?
Jack: As I pointed out there is no current medical evidence that any significant numbers of American males with circumcision have ‘weakened organs’ contra your repeated unproven assertion.
Not mine, Jack, the original claim is Maimonides’s. I know he is more difficult to attack than I am, but please, remain measured. I merely like to quote him in agreement.
Jack: I am not advocating for mandating or prohibiting either – my position is consistent, it is yours which is inherently contradictory.
You are advocating for one, and not the other. And then you say that the practice that you advocate reduced HPV by, what was it, 20%? If that is your position, why do you not advocate so vocally for the other practice, which reduces HPV by close to 100%?
Jack: But let’s be clear about what I have shown – male circumcision thus far has no over-arching harms
You have shown no such thing, merely repeated denials. Unfortunately, the article you cited on FGM also says that there is no study of the sexual effects of FGM. Yet I am confident that there is. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Jack: and demonstrable direct health benefits.
Laughable ‘benefits’, which aid a tiny number of irresponsible people, while violating the bodily integrity and autonomy of all. Whatever happened to the idea of personal responsibility, which is advanced (in name) by conservatives like you?
Jack: So even if we accept that FGM has an indirect beneficial behavioral effect (not empirically demonstrated in any way by you)
This not having been studied, I doubt it could be demonstrated. And you know full well as I do why that it is the case – because it would provide ammunition for supporters of, what we agree, is a heinous practice.
Jack: the burden is yours to prove your only substantive assertion because it is this supposed harm that would invoke the state interest in prohibiting the practice.
Not true, laws of general applicability prohibit mutilation. Would you have to demonstrate that cutting off my son’s earlobe is ‘harmful’? I doubt that it would do other than esthetic harm. Yet it is prohibited. Or tattoos, for that matter, which do demonstrably no direct physical harm. Also prohibited in most cases, on children.
Jack: I cited the Hopkins study, and the Hopkins study says those parts of the genitalia aren’t particularly healthy to retain.
It makes no such broad claim, unless you think that HIV and the small potatoes is all there is to health. I find it not at all unreasonable if someone would prefer an intact body, not having his “organ weakened by making it bleed”, and saving dignity and autonomy, over a reduced chance at catching HIV when behaving irresponsibly. You would deny people their own choice, and have parents force it on them.
Jack: And the Germans are being criticized for imposing their unfounded beliefs on a religious minority that they previously attempted to eradicate.
It was not the Jewish religion, but the Jewish race, that OTHER Germans tried to eradicate. Hitler explicitly disavowed the idea that he targeted Jews for their religion. Moreover, these people attempting to protect the dignity of infants have absolutely nothing in common with those other Germans, except for the fact that they have been born within the limits of Germany. You’re engaging in ethnic stereotyping, which one hopes you would have learned, leads to bad results.
Jack: If there were no evidence any practice were actually harmful, what a neighbor did with his daughter (or son) wouldn’t be any of my business.
Thank you for answering the question – it shows your intellectual honesty. So let’s assume you lived before it was proven that this practice is harmful, you would have absolutely no objection to your neighbor hacking off perfectly healthy tissue from his daughter’s genitalia? Or would it appear to you that it is an unseemly practice, even though, at that particular moment in time, it had not been studied enough for people to know that it is harmful? Would you condemn an entire generation of girls to serve as guinea pigs of researchers, until they can finally establish that, yes, it is harmful to do this to tiny girls? This does show the fatal flaw with your ideology.
For that matter, there is no evidence at the present that cutting off the earlobes of children is harmful, if done in a sterile manner. So I should have the right to do that, until you and other well-meaning people can provide evidence that, yes, it is harmful (if you can)?
On the other hand, I would not err the way you would, in this hypothetical situation. Even if there were no evidence (yet) that FGM is harmful, if my neighbor told me that he wanted to put a knife to the genitalia of his daughters, my instant response would be “you want to do WHAT to your daughter?” It would instantly be apparent to me that there is something dreadfully wrong with it. It would not be incumbent on researchers to pain-stakingly document that the whims of the neighbor in this case are harmful, the simple fact that it is a mutilation of the sacrosanct body of a child, and a gross violation of children’s rights and autonomy would be enough to condemn the practice. And so I would be on the right side, while you would be on the wrong side.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact