Germany Bans Religious Circumcision

Woodward

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/german-court-bans-religious-circumcision/story-fn3dxity-1226409674568


This is a great landmark in mens rights. I am disappointed that the law does not go further and ban all medically unnecessary though. Many parents do it for aesthetic reasons and I'm sure there are religious doctors who will still do it and make up a medical reason for it. I wonder how long it will take for Ireland to follow suit

Dravokivich

I don't think it's a good idea to take something which would be safer in a surgery / hospital environment and have a law to remove it from such.

There are cultures/religions that are still going to go forward with it whether or not you or the state they reside within agree with it.

Edit
Also, the article just cites a case that the circumcision was done at the request of Mulsim Parents to their child. But they regard all such requests (regardless of belief) that have no requirement that could result in a negative affect on the child as GBH.

Stark

Delighted to hear this.

johnr1

Great news, pity they didn't go the rest of the way and ban it in every case apart from those deemed medically necessary.
Obviously adults who electively undergo the procedure exempted.

yawha

Dravokivich wrote: »

I don't think it's a good idea to take something which would be safer in a surgery / hospital environment and have a law to remove it from such.

There are cultures/religions that are still going to go forward with it whether or not you or the state they reside within agree with it.

*shrug, lots of cultures/religions have fucked up rituals. We don't not legislate against them just because they might do it anyway.

Iderown

I'm also happy to hear this from Germany.

They tell me that the foreskin is highly sensitive sexually. I was circumcised at a few months old so that I could look like the UK royals. But a scar around the dick does not really look good.

Think how much more committed a young man would be to a religion if he personally made the decision to be circumcised.

LegacyUser

I was circumcised as an adult and i would choose to circumcise my son as an infant, nothing to do with religious reasons.

My family on my father's side all have too long foreskins. All my cousins were circumcised as infants because my uncle was circumcised as an adult and he didnt want to take a chance on his sons. My dad didnt have the problem so he never bothered with his sons.

I had to get circumcised in my early 20's and still have scarring from the operation. For that reason, i would prefer my sons to get circumcised as infants so it can heal properly rather than having the operation as an adult.

Now i presume if this became law in Ireland, i wouldnt have the choice get my kids circumcised as infants because there would be no way to prove whether my reasons were religious or not.

Franticfrank

I agree - good news from my side. But I'm sure alot of people will find it controversial - a fundamental Jewish religious practise prohibited in Germany. Hopefully some people will see the sense...

johnsmith13

The Court stated the following

"This change contravenes the interests of the child to decide later on his religious beliefs."

But how does it, what religion will not accept a person because he is circumcised.

This is a total joke!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Manach

Yet another interference of Big brother central state into the family lives of people.

the_syco

Woodward wrote: »

This is a great landmark in mens rights.

How is it to do anything to do with mans rights?

It's a load of bo||ox. It'll be done regardless, in backyard clinics. And more people will die.

Woodward

the_syco wrote: »

How is it to do anything to do with mans rights?

It's a load of bo||ox. It'll be done regardless, in backyard clinics. And more people will die.

The right to bodily integrity is pretty fundamental dont you think?

the_syco

Woodward wrote: »

The right to bodily integrity is pretty fundamental dont you think?

It's a nice thought, but the law will just drive it into the unlicensed backwater clinics.

Woodward

the_syco wrote: »

It's a nice thought, but the law will just drive it into the unlicensed backwater clinics.

You do not legalise something just because people will do it anyway. The clinics wont last to long once a child is brought to the hospital with an infection and the police track down the person who did it

Sky King

Woodward wrote: »

You do not legalise something just because people will do it anyway.

Totally agree. Legalising something is a de facto endorsement of it - saying the government approves of the practice.

Any parent who give their religion preference over their kids' health and well being really shouldn't have kids anyway.

Piliger

Stark wrote: »

Delighted to hear this.

Absolutely great news. Ireland should follow straight away.

This is a serious assault on a small boy and should be classified as gross physical and sexual abuse.

yawha

Manach wrote: »

Yet another interference of Big brother central state into the family lives of people.

I agree. How dare the state protect the bodily integrity of infants!

johnr1

Cutitoff wrote: »

I was circumcised as an adult and i would choose to circumcise my son as an infant, nothing to do with religious reasons.

My family on my father's side all have too long foreskins. All my cousins were circumcised as infants because my uncle was circumcised as an adult and he didnt want to take a chance on his sons. My dad didnt have the problem so he never bothered with his sons.

I had to get circumcised in my early 20's and still have scarring from the operation. For that reason, i would prefer my sons to get circumcised as infants so it can heal properly rather than having the operation as an adult.

Now i presume if this became law in Ireland, i wouldnt have the choice get my kids circumcised as infants because there would be no way to prove whether my reasons were religious or not.

I haven't seen anyone in this thread or anywhere else suggest that it should not be allowed where MEDICALLY necesssry, such as in your case.

Doing it preventively is a bit like amputating children's big toes 'in case' they get bunions or ingrown toenails.

Why is it that female genital mutilation is a crime everywhere, yet this barbaric medeival practice of male genital mutilation is permitted, and draws out a bunch of apologists whenever it comes up for discussion.

.

suicide_circus

An unnecessary medical procedure on a baby for whatever reason is just wrong and cannot be justified for reasons of religion or tradition . You have all the rights to practice your faith as much as you like but i draw the line at surgical interference of an infant .

iptba

(Nov 26 article)

Denmark to debate male circumcision ban
http://www.theweek.co.uk/health-science/61487/denmark-to-vote-on-male-circumcision-ban

Lurching

johnr1 wrote: »

Why is it that female genital mutilation is a crime everywhere, yet this barbaric medieval practice of male genital mutilation is permitted, and draws out a bunch of apologists whenever it comes up for discussion.

I'd imagine a lot of that is based on the severity of the mutilation.

Either way, delighted Germany have taken a stand on this.

NoCrackHaving

Why does this topic bring out so many apologists? It always worries me that so many people think mutilating an infants body is an ok thing to do.

The fact that people can't see the difference between a consenting adult and a newborn boy is frankly worrying.

Paddy Cow

Cutitoff wrote: »

I was circumcised as an adult and i would choose to circumcise my son as an infant, nothing to do with religious reasons.

My family on my father's side all have too long foreskins. All my cousins were circumcised as infants because my uncle was circumcised as an adult and he didnt want to take a chance on his sons. My dad didnt have the problem so he never bothered with his sons.

I had to get circumcised in my early 20's and still have scarring from the operation. For that reason, i would prefer my sons to get circumcised as infants so it can heal properly rather than having the operation as an adult.

Now i presume if this became law in Ireland, i wouldnt have the choice get my kids circumcised as infants because there would be no way to prove whether my reasons were religious or not.

You would have your own medical records and your family history to show that there is a good chance that your sons might have problems when they are older, so in your case it's clearly medical, not religious.

nc19

Cutitoff wrote: »

My family on my father's side all have too long foreskins..

How long is too long exactly??????

Stark

Long enough to tie in a knot or a bow.

masculinist

The act of circumcision psychologically scars baby boys, reduces sensation and more baby boys die from it in America than from cot death/SIDS [ if you want the source of that statistic I am more than happy to give it]. Anyone remember the media campaigns here or in the UK about SIDS ? Wont anybody think of the poor children ?? yada yada ... yet the world is full of psychopaths when discussing a baby boys' bodily integrity. So many of those boys end up with having their penis burned off by accident. Not even one casualty or death is worth it. How can it be ?
I am amazed at toleration for so long of those who would risk the health and safety of theirs and others baby boys for religious reasons.
They are no different from Jehovah's Witnesses who try to illegally prevent their children from having medically vital blood transfusions. His body . His choice. End of story.

Iderown

I was circumcised at a few months old. I'm now age 67 and have spent a lifetime hating it. There was no medical reason - my parents were from the loyalist community in Northern Ireland and it was done to me so that I could look like the UK royals.
I would not like other males to have a similar dislike of their own bodies - I support the banning of non-medically necessary circumcision. Indeed, think of just how much more committed a young man would be to his religion if he could make the circumcision decision himself when he is old enough to do so.

28064212

masculinist wrote: »

more baby boys die from it in America than from cot death/SIDS [ if you want the source of that statistic I am more than happy to give it]

Yes, I'd like to see that source. According to the CDC there were more than 2200 cases of SIDS in 2011 (that doesn't include cases where the cause of death was recorded as "unknown"). This study estimates about 117 deaths annually from circumcision. And there's an article here that points out some rather large flaws in the study which suggests that figure is overstated (although the article's author is very obviously pro-circumcision, so I'd take his claims with a pinch of salt).

I'm very much against unnecessary circumcision, but false claims don't help anyone

Pawwed Rig

Iderown wrote: »

There was no medical reason - my parents were from the loyalist community in Northern Ireland and it was done to me so that I could look like the UK royals.

While the UK royals are a peculiar looking breed I don't think they necessarily look like a circumcised penis (William apart of course):pac:

Seriously though I would love to see a ban on all genital mutilation for those unable to consent in Ireland. What an adult does is their own business but children shouldn't have to suffer for it