To approve of a German courts decision re circumcision

[SlipperyNipple]

Apologies if this has already been covered.

I am Jewish by descent but an an agnostic. I think the time has come to say that being religious is not an excuse to carry out mutilation of small boys.

www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/27/circumcision-ruling-germany-muslim-jewish?newsfeed=true

Obviously Female circumcision is already illegal but the same protection should be given to boys.

I don't agree. Lots of people get cut up for medical reasons that doesn't mean pointless mutilation doesn't exist. Anything cosmetic or for no purpose is either abuse or self abuse. Cutting off a healthy part of a child is nothing but mutilating it.

Rightfedup - could you share with the rest of us what the long term effects of circumcision are? surely they aren't big life changing effects that render a boy unable to live a normal life.

valiumredhead you are the one missing the point my dear. No one is talking about you and your situation, so stop taking it so personally

My dear? Do you always use such patronising language with people who disagree with you?

Only when they get snippy with me. I am missing the point, am I? Try elaborating and explain your reasons why, and we can discuss. Just being rude you will get patronising responses.

There are today 140.000 - 200.000 Jewish People in Germany.
There are today 4.3 million Muslims in Germany.
I don't think it is about the Jewish People.
And I do not for one minute believe that Germany is concerned for her infant Muslims.

My suspicious mind says this is an attack by stealth on the Muslim population.

why?

Because bunny that is how the whole bloody shebang started in the Thirties.

what because someone stood up and said oi no more hurting innocent children? heroutdoors can i ask if you would of thought that had it been say greece or spain that had done this.

For all the posters saying 'my son had surgery, he's not mutilated' or 'so are amputees mutilated?'

One definition of mutilation is " an injury that causes disfigurement or that deprives you of a limb or other important body part. "

So under that definition, yes, circumcision, even when medically required, could be seen as mutilation.

But no-one on this thread is against circumcision for medical reasons; everyone understands that the 'mutilation'/surgery/procedure was necessary, so I don't know who you're arguing against.

Well apparently me pointing out that society being biased against circumcision, which has led to huge delays and pain for my son getting a referral to a paediatrician. Got my message deleted. But hey, Jo continue comparing Germans to nazis, saying the WHO is dominated by Jews & Muslims. And labelling my son a mutilated freak.

I think the women who have had sons circumcised due to medical reasons are angry at the two facedness of people calling it a mutilation if it's done for religious reasons but not one if it's done for medical reasons. That's the impression I got from mrsamerretos post. It's true though. It's either a mutilation or not. You can't pick and choose try to use such an offensive term and make mothers feel guilty for something they have done for medical or religious reasons.

any cutting of the body is mutilation, but most of us need it done for medical reasons at some point in our lives, it's horrible but necessary.
It is wrong however to cut a person for completely unnessecary reasons and is abuse.

Oh for god's sake, it's not about trying to make mothers feel guilty at all. If people want to take offence at the fact that people think performing circumcisions on healthy babies is wrong, and make it all about them, that's their problem.

And FWIW, if they have done it to their child for religious reasons, I think they should feel guilty, actually. I've no truck with hiding behind religion as an excuse for unreasonable behaviour, whether it's homophobia, sexism or anything else, and certainly not for this.

Eccles, because the medium is the message - the problem is with the word 'mutilated'.

The point Valium and others are making is that their circumcised sons are not disfigured, nor are they missing an important body part, and they don't want them to be referred to as mutilated. Much as we would no longer use spastic, retard or infirm to describe SN children. The term "mutilated" is extremely negatively charged, and causes offence. So why are some posters so intent on using it? It does seem very inflammatory.

I read that back and realise I contradict myself slightly. To clarify, anyone who has had to have their son circumcised for purely medical reasons has no need to feel guilty, why would they? It has been deemed to be better for their child to have it done, for the good of their health.

The problem I have is with it being performed for religious or cultural reasons, when there is no medical requirement.

Good question bunny
No, probably not. Apart from the fact that I might have thought Good Gracious have they nothing more pressing to worry about considering the financial state of those countries. ( And the rest of Europe )..

Which brings me back to Germany. In an economic downturn scape goats will be found. Historically trouble has always started from Eastern Europe to the West. And for this decision to have been made in a German Court..just makes me wonder of a hidden agenda. Hope this makes sense.
Circumcision is none of my or anybody else's business. If people want to adhere to their beliefs, what business is that of mine?
The whole concept of us thinking we should try and stop it is laughable.
What are we going to do? Go to the Middle East etc. etc., waving anti banners?
A sort of female crusade?

Nightowl, it's not about mothers being made to feel guilty... Except actually it is?

As ever when circumcision is mentioned here, there is way too much emphasis on religious reasons, when in fact circumcision is by and large a cultural thing. In some cases the two (religion and culture) overlap, whereas in others (eg the US, South Korea) they do not.

I soppose it's much easier to win Daily Mail-type support by talking about them wicked Muslim child abusers, than by reflecting too much about the overwhelmingly (white christian) majority of American and Canadian men who are also circumcised. A bit too close to home perhaps?

There are literally billions of circumcised men. Anyone who thinks all their parents were child abusers, has lost sight of what 'abuse' means.

X post Nightowl!

Sorry, lots of typos. Off to bed now!

"The point Valium and others are making is that their circumcised sons are not disfigured, nor are they missing an important body part, and they don't want them to be referred to as mutilated."

A penis naturally has a foreskin. Sorry, it's biology. A penis without a foreskin is disfigured.

It is also an important body part, much like a clitoris.

They might not want them to be referred to as mutilated, and I wouldn't refer to them as mutilated if the procedure was done for medical reasons. But them not wanting it to be so, and it not being so, are two different things.

Heroutdoors.
People do go over to countries where female circumcision is performed to try and stop it from continuing. And they have helped!
I think it is the business of others if a person is assaulting their child. Just because it is legal assault doesn't stop it being disgusting and wrong.

I feel it is important to say mutilating so that people take in the seriousness of what is going on. When we are used to something we tend up forget to question if it is wrong. People need to really think about what circumcision is and look at it.

Thanks Prima.

Thats a fair point Prima noone has really mentioned the American/Canadian aspect which stands just as bad as the religous aspect and my point stands with unnecessary circumcisions being cruel. We have parental responsabilities to keep them safe warm fed loved and nurtured but we do not have ownership their bodies are theirs and cutting off a piece of them however ever small it is or however useless you deem it to be is not -unless medically required- right.