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 hope that this is totally overthrown by the federal court. It is against the German Constitution and basic human rights.

As a Christian I don't believe circumcision is necessary but I support anyone who does it for religious reasons, as it is not a harmful procedure. If they were chopping off a leg or gouging an eye then I wouldn't care what religious arguments were but here all they want is to follow an ancient non-harmful tradition.

Also comparing FGM to circumcision is 100% UNREASONABLE: this is why advocates for women get so angry at the term "female circumcision", it compares a brutal and dangerous practice driven by misogynistic culture to a perfectly respectable safe procedure on a boy. To call it FC is to tap into the safety and acceptability of male circ.

Fgm is completely abhorrent but one of the forms of fgm just removes the clitoral hood. This is comparable to removing the foreskin, both still are pointlessly hurting and scarring a child.
Imagine if I wanted to cut off my child's earlobes. We dont need earlobes but it would be wrong and abusive, how is circumcision any different?

47to31 of course it's not against 'basic human rights'. Bodily integrity is a 'basic human right'.Those belong to the child in this situation and trump the parents religious beliefs. No one has the right [or should have] the right to inflict their religious beliefs on another human being, and that does include their own children.

What about the child's human rights? The right to decide their own religion? To decide what to do with their own body?

Also, removal of the foreskin is shown to have detriment on the sexual pleasure of making love. That's not fair.

Not a harmful procedure?!!!! Do a google search for a video of a baby being done without anaesthetic.

Lurking, that is not true. The WHO has done studies that show no impact on sexual pleasure.

Ecclesvet - are you being deliberately obtuse? You know exactly the point we are making (those of us with sons circumcised for medical reasons).

We know that in the technical sense of the word 'mutilated' yes, that is what a circumcised penis is, but the blanket description of all circumcised men (which is what has been said by many posters, no differentiation about why it happened) is highly offensive. I look at my wonderful son and I do not want that word used in conjunction with him. Technically yes it could be but I and other posters who aren't self-righteous pedants are saying we find it offensive.

As someone else mentioned, we don't use the word 'retard' any more although technically it is accurate because it is now deemed offensive. Using the word mutilation is offensive whether it is technically so or not. Do I need to keep repeating this or do you understand now?

I can't understand why you can't or won't accept this position. I do hope for your sake that you never have a son who needs circumcising. If you do, please, come back to this thread and re-read it with your child in mind.

I know people who still use the word "retard" so speak for yourself (unless you mean in a medical context, where the adjective is clearly forbidden but "retardation" continues in use. Unlike "spasticity", "idiocy" and "imbecility" which disappeared from official use alongside their other forms.

fatlazymummy- this view about no-one "inflicting" (like a disease?) their own religion on their children is toxic to faith and parental rights. It has been used to justify the courts interfering on the side of children who don't want to accompany their parents to church in the US! Of course parents should be able to bring their children up in a faith until they can decide for themselves.

This same construct ("no-one has a right to force their faith/morals on their children") was used a month ago on MN to justify a secretive senior teacher who listened to girls' sexual or relationship concerns and did not pass them on to parents, despite most parents being Muslim or otherwise very conservative and expecting their daughters to remain pure until the night of their wedding ceremony. I wonder if a lawsuit under article 8 "right to family life" (without school intervention undercutting your parental values!- perhaps "the right to family integrity" ) would work to stop it. Don't you see how insisting you can't tell a child about faith crushes the right to bring up a child in accordance with beliefs?

Good to see you on the anti-religion side yet again Krumbum. I just consider religious liberty > bodily autonomy for something as small as a circumcision. Removal of the hood, if necessary for religion (which it is not) I would probably not support a ban on. Are we going to have busybody HVs checking penises for intact-ness?

prima they are WRONG. My DH was done (for med reasons) but was much older so knew the difference. The difference as VERY noticeable.

But then of course a baby wouldnt know the difference would he

But 47 it isnt "religious liberty > bodily autonomy" it's "religious liberty of someone > bodily autonomy of someone else "

On what PLANET can that possibly be right.

You know I cant post on this topic anymore it makes me so angry. Poor little boys - who the FUCK do you think you are.

Applauds gnocci

Grapes people in this thread have been saying that circumcision is mutilation when it is done for religious or cultural reasons; that caveat has been left unsaid because everyone agrees that if it is done for medical reasons, it is perfectly understandable and shouldn't be referred to as mutilation.

This thread has blanket descriptions of circumcision because we are all talking about the vast majority of religious/cultural circumcisions, not the minority of medical ones. If you choose to believe that we are talking about all cases of circumcision no matter the reasons, then you are misunderstanding the discussion.

Gnocci, you have a sample of ONE. That's called an anecdote. The WHO studies are on adult circumcision and their findings are that there is no impact on pleasure.

It may be small to you but it is wounding a child and removing part of their body, there is no valid argument for this!
I only argue against religion when it aims to hurt other people and all the religious views you have talked about on mn do aim to hurt other people.
Do you feel children should have no human rights? No choices in life? No freedom? Children are not the property of their parents! They have the right to think for themselves and they definately have the right to be free from abuse.

I agree Krumbum.

I am a devout Catholic and my DP is an Atheist. Should we decide to baptise our child, they always have the option to not be Catholic when they're older. If you mutilate a child for religion and they grow up with different beliefs, they can't exactly get it back, can they?

I'm all for religious freedom when it doesn't involve harming a child. Everyone should be able to raise their child following their beliefs...Mutilation (and yes, that's what it is bar medical reasons) is where I draw the line.

And people can say what they like..I know circumcision affects sexual pleasure. Body parts are there for a reason, and shouldn't be removed willy nilly.

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

You've summed it up beautifully , thank you :)

I use the term mutilation because that's what I see t as. Removing a body part for religion is mutilation is my book. If anyone finds it inflammatory, that's your problem not mine. I'm not going to tone down the wording of a practice that sickens me and I find cruel.

Good grief.

The name it goes by is not the issue. It could be beautifying, altering, mutilating, hugienifying...

The point is, it's making the decision to unnecessarily (nope, not talking about medical circ'ing) removing part of someone else's body.

How can that ever be right?

Lurking but clearly not learning.

Come on Valium get yer coat let's go and have a cuppa and some cake away from here with our perfectly gorgeous un-mutilated boys.

*hygienifying. Made that one up and I still can't spell it right!

Also, how can inflicting unnecessary pain on someone be right? And this is the very someone who trusts you to protect then from things like that. Can't imagine ever being able to sugar-coat it enough to let it sit right with me.

Not learning what? Because I don't agree with chopping off body parts off of little boys?

You're right, I have a lot to learn. Like how could anyone do that to their child in this day and age.

i think its wrong unless for medical reasons and i have to say i agree with vailum and grapes that the continued referal to it as mutilation is offensive to those who have had to have it done for medical reasons.

would you repeatedly refer to an amputee victim as mutilated or would you use the term amputee/amputated it is clear there is a medical distinction and that is the same case with circumcision for medical reasons, so actually i think people DO need to make the distinction which they are talking about.

i would hazard a guess and say that someone who has had a limb removed for medical reasons, would not describe themselves as mutilated they may well describe themselves as having a limb amputated. so a child who has been circumsised for medical reasons would not describe themselves as mutilatedt hey have had an operation that was medically indicated and as such VERY different from just lopping the foreskin off because religion/culture dictates that is what should be done.

Okay, I'll rephrase.

I think amputating part of a little boys penis for non medical reasons is really wrong, cruel and sick. I hope one day it is made illegal globally.

I have a feeling that sentence is just as offensive to some as the ones that use the word mutilation.