Dutch Doctors Call for Circumcision Ban

[Storm]

Female genital cutting and infant scarification are deemed as medically unnecessary and barbaric in Western Culture. Why should the medically unnecessary practice of removing a portion of an infants penis be deemed any less barbaric? Why is the removal of the most sexually sensitive potion of the male penis acceptable, but the genital mutilation of infant females to prevent sexual satisfaction not?

Cultural and/or religious traditions should not supersede basic human rights.

Because of the extremity.

The female equivalent of male circumcision would be removal of the clitoral hood. The male equivalent of FGM would be removal of the entire penis, scrotum, and some surrounding muscle.

If "female circumcision" were merely the former, I would not oppose it, either. That would be a body mod; whereas the reality is a mutilation.

 

[Levite]

No, I don't. Can you think of any other context where taking a knife to an infant with no anaesthetic and for no medical reason would not be considered bodily injury?

It is worth noting here that there is no prohibition on using anaesthetics, though most doctors concur that the pain is minor enough that none are needed.

Nonetheless, some parents do insist on them, and they are used. Most mohalim these days have anesthetic swabs as part of their kits, should they be called for.

 

[Magic Man]

Mutilation is too strong a word, I think. It's a body mod, closer to a tattoo or piercing than say, FGM.

It's cutting off a piece of skin. I think that's more than a piercing or tattoo. I think mutilation is perfectly accurate.

IIRC, you yourself said it wasn't "a big deal." So, if it's not a big deal medically or morally, and it IS a big deal religiously... a blanket ban is just an attempt to deny religious tradition. That's cultural imperialism in my book.

I said it's not a huge deal, as in, if the practice continues, it's not the end of the world. I also said along with that, that if my TV and computer got stolen, it also wouldn't be the end of the world. Morally, it is a big deal to me. And I don't think a ban is trying to specifically deny religious tradition. I think it's as much for the non-Jews and non-Muslims who don't give it a second thought.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Because of the extremity.

The female equivalent of male circumcision would be removal of the clitoral hood. The male equivalent of FGM would be removal of the entire penis, scrotum, and some surrounding muscle.

If "female circumcision" were merely the former, I would not oppose it, either. That would be a body mod; whereas the reality is a mutilation.

I have to disagree Storm.
As I said, male circumcision permanently removes the most sensitive part of the male penis. How is this not mutilation of the male penis?

If we were to accept the permanent removal of the most sensitive part of the female genitalia, which would be the clitoris, not the hood, for cultural or religious reasons, would you not find this barbaric?

 

[tumbleweed41]

I really don't understand why this can't just be a matter of parents making the cultural and medical choices for their children that they see fit-- which is done all the time, in every country in the world.

Like female genital mutilation in North Africa and parts of the Middle East and Asia?

After all, it is parents making a cultural and medical choice for their own children, as they see fit.

 

[Magic Man]

It is worth noting here that there is no prohibition on using anaesthetics, though most doctors concur that the pain is minor enough that none are needed.

Nonetheless, some parents do insist on them, and they are used. Most mohalim these days have anesthetic swabs as part of their kits, should they be called for.

I think it's interesting that the "anaesthetic" part is what got focused on there. The point was that it's bodily injury. Whether or not anaesthetic is used is not important to that point.

 

[Levite]

I'm not going to address the "bodily injury" contention again.

I already stated that there was scant evidence to consider circumcision as having any lasting harm. I posted links to medical scholarship backing up the claim.

The foreskin is not "the most sensitive part of the penis." It is a bit of extra skin. Its absence does not significantly decrease sexual pleasure. Its absence in no way inhibits the proper functioning of the penis. If properly done (as is almost always the case), men experience no lasting or chronic discomfort from having it done, once the healing is complete.

And, as I have repeatedly pointed out, the vast majority of Jewish men who are circumcised are satisfied with their condition, and are glad to have been circumcised as infants, and have no regret about it, or desire to not have been circumcised.

Female Genital Mutilation results in vastly diminished sexual pleasure for the woman, if not well-nigh eliminating sexual pleasure at all. It consistently impairs sexual function. It consistently and viciously impairs the proper function of the female genitals in every way, in fact. And it frequently results in chronic discomfort in the genital area, long after the initial healing has completed. And, more significantly, a great number of the women who have had it done express regret that it had been done to them, and say that they feel violated by having had it done to them.

Therefore, the comparison between the two is insupportable.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Which is allowed. I see no reason to single out body mods for religious reasons.

Are these doctors calling for a ban on piercings, as well?

They're not actually calling for a ban on circumcision, AFAICT. What they're calling for is a re-examination of the Dutch approach to circmcision. In response to this, several religious groups started shouting about how it could end in a ban. That's all this is.

 

[Storm]

I have to disagree Storm.
As I said, male circumcision permanently removes the most sensitive part of the male penis. How is this not mutilation of the male penis?

If we were to accept the permanent removal of the most sensitive part of the female genitalia, which would be the clitoris, not the hood, for cultural or religious reasons, would you not find this barbaric?

I thought that was the glans, not the foreskin.

I don't profess to be an expert on male anatomy, but your info does not jibe with my understanding. Do you have an unbiased source for education handy? (That's a request, not a challenge.)

Anyway, to answer your question: I don't know. The issues surrounding FGM don't stop at anatomy. If it were a safe, sterile procedure done when the girl was too young to remember... maybe. That's not the case, though.

Anyway, even accepting your anatomy correction at face value, FGM is still far more extreme. It's not circumcision, it's castration.

 

[Magic Man]

I'm not going to address the "bodily injury" contention again.

I already stated that there was scant evidence to consider circumcision as having any lasting harm. I posted links to medical scholarship backing up the claim.

So, "lasting harm" is a necessary component of "bodily injury" in your opinion?

Your medical scholarship links were lacking, too.

 

[Poisonshady313]

So, "lasting harm" is a necessary component of "bodily injury" in your opinion?

Seems to be the case for those who figure infant ear piercing is no big deal (especially in comparison to circumcision).

Has most of the same drawbacks as circumcision... child doesn't consent, unnecessary, comes with a medical risk...

But it can heal. No lasting harm, no foul.

 

[tumbleweed41]

The foreskin is not "the most sensitive part of the penis." It is a bit of extra skin. Its absence does not significantly decrease sexual pleasure.

"extra bit of skin.."


A sensitivity study of the adult penis in circumcised and uncircumcised men shows that the uncircumcised penis is significantly more sensitive. The most sensitive location on the circumcised penis is the circumcision scar on the ventral surface. Five locations on the uncircumcised penis that are routinely removed at circumcision are significantly more sensitive than the most sensitive location on the circumcised penis.
In addition, the glans (head) of the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine touch than the glans of the uncircumcised penis. The tip of the foreskin is the most sensitive region of the uncircumcised penis, and it is significantly more sensitive than the most sensitive area of the circumcised penis. Circumcision removes the most sensitive parts of the penis.
This study presents the first extensive testing of fine touch pressure thresholds of the adult penis. The monofiliment testing instruments are calibrated and have been used to test female genital sensitivity.
Sorrells, M. et al., “Fine-Touch Pressure Thresholds in the Adult Penis,” BJU International 99 (2007): 864-869.



Again, cultural and/or religious traditions should not supersede basic human rights.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Anyway, even accepting your anatomy correction at face value, FGM is still far more extreme. It's not circumcision, it's castration.

Yes, is is more extreme

Just as male circumcision is far more extreme than allowing the piercing of infants ears.

It is the permanent and irreversible removal of a portion of the male sexual organ for no reason other than cultural and religious tradition.

 

[Storm]

"extra bit of skin.."


A sensitivity study of the adult penis in circumcised and uncircumcised men shows that the uncircumcised penis is significantly more sensitive. The most sensitive location on the circumcised penis is the circumcision scar on the ventral surface. Five locations on the uncircumcised penis that are routinely removed at circumcision are significantly more sensitive than the most sensitive location on the circumcised penis.
In addition, the glans (head) of the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine touch than the glans of the uncircumcised penis. The tip of the foreskin is the most sensitive region of the uncircumcised penis, and it is significantly more sensitive than the most sensitive area of the circumcised penis. Circumcision removes the most sensitive parts of the penis.
This study presents the first extensive testing of fine touch pressure thresholds of the adult penis. The monofiliment testing instruments are calibrated and have been used to test female genital sensitivity.
Sorrells, M. et al., “Fine-Touch Pressure Thresholds in the Adult Penis,” BJU International 99 (2007): 864-869.

Thanks for that.

Again, cultural and/or religious traditions should not supersede basic human rights.

I don't see intensity of sexual pleasure a basic human right... Why do you?

Yes, is is more extreme

Just as male circumcision is far more extreme than allowing the piercing of infants ears.

Granted. I didn't mean to imply that the two were equivalent, just on the same side of the line dividing modification from mutilation.

It is the permanent and irreversible removal of a portion of the male sexual organ for no reason other than cultural and religious tradition.

That's a fairly significant reason, though.

I happen to think that there should be more justification to denying a traditionally oppressed religious minority their millennia-old traditions than "well, you don't REALLY need to." That's not our call.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There are several reasons that will not work, but the primary and most important one is that we are commanded to do it on the eighth day. So it has been done since Abraham. We were not commanded to do it "whenever you feel the time is right," and one is not permitted to delay circumcision after the eighth day except for immediate medical reasons.

Which creates other medical problems, since the foreskin and the glans haven't properly separated that early in many cases. There have been several studies that have shown significant decreases in complications if circumcision is delayed until the infant is at least a month old.

But also, we deem it to be far less traumatic for it to be done at an age when the boy will not recall the pain, but will only experience the benefits. And I can tell you, having helped various uncircumcised men convert to Judaism, not one failed to say that he wished fervently that his parents had had him circumcised as an infant. And not one class of boys to whom I have taught the laws of the covenant of circumcision, along with explanations of how in some other cultures, circumcision is done at 13 or so, have failed to unanimously express relief that it was done to them in infancy, and they didn't have to worry about it any more.

I assume that in your line of work, you don't encounter many men who wish they hadn't been circumcised. How should their desires get reflected in our treatment of infants?

That would be unfortunate, but acceptable.

Why's it unfortunate? Is it unfortunate that the government doesn't pay for your religious rites, or that doctors are reluctant to perform procedures that aren't medically necessary?

I fail to see how that would be substantially better than an actual ban.

It would be the simple result of people each acting according to their own opinion and conscience, which you seemed to suggest was okay earlier.

Sure. As long as you are okay with either not putting that philosophy into legal practice, or with using that justification to ensure that your community is free of Jews, since making such a philosophy into law would likely result in a mass exodus of Jews to someplace less oppressive.

It's not oppressive to suggest that people shouldn't perform body modification on infants.

As I mentioned above, that solution does not reflect the construction of our culture.

Should that be the concern of non-Jews?

Sure, I agree with that. But you believe that circumcising my son is interfering with his rights, while I hold that in fact, that is protecting his rights. And again we are back to an external culture labeling the circumciser as a criminal offender, and the circumcised as the victim of a crime, when both circumciser and circumcised will (eventually) agree that no crime has been committed.

If a man has sex with an underage girl but they go on to marry when the girl is of age, has statutory rape been committed?

In the case of children and infants, the presumption is that they are incapable of consent. Whether or not they grow into someone who later consents doesn't change this fact.

Except, again, you call circumcision bodily injury, and I call it a holy rite of passage into identity.

The two categories aren't mutually exclusive. Your rite of passage involves bodily injury.

I really don't understand why this can't just be a matter of parents making the cultural and medical choices for their children that they see fit-- which is done all the time, in every country in the world.

Something that is also done all the time, in every country in the world, is that parents are prohibited by law from inflicting particularly aggregious harm on their children. Why should a non-Jew consider it justified to treat infant circumcision any differently than a parent deciding to lop off one of his child's earlobes?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't see intensity of sexual pleasure a basic human right... Why do you?

IMO, the issue here is wrapped up in "security of the person", which is a basic human right.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I happen to think that there should be more justification to denying a traditionally oppressed religious minority their millennia-old traditions than "well, you don't REALLY need to." That's not our call.

As an enlightened and socially conscious society, I believe it is our call.

Nor do I think "traditionally oppressed religious minority" or "tradition" is an excuse for the permanent mutilation of an infants sexual organ.

Just as I would not accept a family from West Africa living next door having the cultural right to perform ritual scarification on their infant child.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Something that is also done all the time, in every country in the world, is that parents are prohibited by law from inflicting particularly aggregious harm on their children. Why should a non-Jew consider it justified to treat infant circumcision any differently than a parent deciding to lop off one of his child's earlobes?

egregious harm?

The study you provided from the Canadian Paediatric Society had this to say:

The overall evidence of the benefits and harms of circumcision is so evenly balanced that it does not support recommending circumcision as a routine procedure for newborns.

Doesn't say it shouldn't ever be done... just says it shouldn't be routine.

And that's fair enough... it shouldn't be routine... it should be available upon request by the parents.

"so evenly balanced".... not what I think of when I think of "egregious harm".

 

[Storm]

egregious harm?

The study you provided from the Canadian Paediatric Society had this to say:

The overall evidence of the benefits and harms of circumcision is so evenly balanced that it does not support recommending circumcision as a routine procedure for newborns.

Doesn't say it shouldn't ever be done... just says it shouldn't be routine.

And that's fair enough... it shouldn't be routine... it should be available upon request by the parents.

"so evenly balanced".... not what I think of when I think of "egregious harm".

Well, as a proud non-Abrahamic who still regrets her own son's medically necessary circumcision... right there with ya.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

egregious harm?

The study you provided from the Canadian Paediatric Society had this to say:

The overall evidence of the benefits and harms of circumcision is so evenly balanced that it does not support recommending circumcision as a routine procedure for newborns.

Doesn't say it shouldn't ever be done... just says it shouldn't be routine.

And that's fair enough... it shouldn't be routine... it should be available upon request by the parents.

"so evenly balanced".... not what I think of when I think of "egregious harm".

When did I say "egregious harm"?

Exactly what "egregious harm" would come from losing an earlobe? AFAICT, a person could live a perfectly full and complete life without one.

BTW - should circumcision be available to parents even if the medical community would choose not to perform it?