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.

Lurking, you've got that right - your sentence is indeed offensive.

About 40% of children born in Botswana right now are HIV positive. Circumcision could decrease this number by 60% in the future. But you are right, let's make it illegal. Who cares if people die in Africa, right?

Circumcision is about as effective in preventing HIV as the BCG vaccine is against TB. The BCG vaccine very often leaves a scar. Should it also be made illegal on the basis that the child cannot give consent?

I can assure you that American men, the majority of whom are circumcised, do not have any less fun in bed than British men :)

fucking hell - I can't believe the turn this has taken.

don't insult Lurking - she is dead right - the child is being mutilated by having his penis changed without his consent and without medical reason.

His foreskin is being chopped off - that's mutilation.

it's also barbaric and senseless - when done without medical reason.

definition (from freedictionary):

mu·ti·late (mytl-t)
tr.v. mu·ti·lat·ed, mu·ti·lat·ing, mu·ti·lates

1. To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple.

2. To disfigure by damaging irreparably : mutilate a statue. See Synonyms at batter1. 3. To make imperfect by excising or altering parts. [Latin mutilre, mutilt-, from mutilus, maimed.]

And no matter how many times you quote the dictionary, it isstill offensive.

from google:

"mu·ti·late/ˈmyo͞otlˌāt/
Verb:

Inflict a violent and disfiguring injury on.
Inflict serious damage on."

Mutilation:
mutilation /mu·ti·la·tion/ (mu″tĭ-la´shun) the act of depriving an individual of a limb, member, or other important part. Also, the condition resulting therefrom.

from dictionaryreference.com
"verb (used with object), mu·ti·lat·ed, mu·ti·lat·ing. 1. to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts: "

it's offensive to me to mutilate a baby's or young boy's penis for no reason except "God said so"

(it's not God that said so, either - It's man's interpretation of what God said - not exactly science, is it)

Primaface there are many more alternatives to lowering HIV levels in Africa than amputation. Such as education? sadly there are still some who believe that having sex with an infant will cure them of HIV.

Please don't imply I think Africans should die. HIV is a terrible disease. But amputation is not the answer. It's a band-aid on a bullet wound.

Grapes (sorry valium - i don't know whether your DS has been mutilated or had a medical procedure performed)
It's not mutilation if the foreskin has been removed for medical grounds - it is perfectly fine if that is the case. If a part of the body has been removed for medical reasons, it is NOT MUTILATION
(same as a person with a limb that has been removed because it was gangrenous, or a person whose kidney has been removed because it was poisoning the blood, or a person whose appendix has been removed because it was about to burst, a person whose tonsils have been removed because they keep getting infected)

If the literal meaning of a word offends some, I honestly don't see that as my issue. I feel VERY strongly about this.

I agree with nickel. I find it offensive that people think it's okay to cause some pain and in my opinion, cause abuse on a little child for superficial/religious/whatever reasons.

That's what I find a offensive. We're never going to agree over the word, so as suggested earlier, I'll use the word amputation. But as another poster pointed out, that doesn't make my opinion less offensive to some. So why bother using a different word? It doesn't change the debate.

re: Africa and its HIV problem - The men it involves refuse to use condoms, so they think that circumcision is the answer.
it might slightly reduce the chance of getting HIV, but using a condom would be better (and a lot more accurate results)

I meant to say extreme pain, not some pain. Typing too quickly.

"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." - soooo not convinced by this argument.

"retarded" is still used to describe the brain's function - not the child.
"spastic" is also used to describe muscle function - again, not the child.

the mutilation refers to the fucking penis, not the fucking child.

(and even if it did - I still don't see how the offence can be taken!)

So you would quite happily call someone with SN a 'retard' for example, even after you had been told by using that word, you were upsetting and offending someone? After all, a word is just a word, right?

My DP is SN.

I changed my use to the word amputation because people said it was offensive. I just believe it's my view that is offending people, not my choice of words. I guess what I was (poorly) trying to say was the word is meaningless because it is the view that is offending people.

However as suggested, I am using the word amputation.

that is not what i put, you ave read that deliberately wrongly.
i put: "retarded" is still used to describe the brain's function - not the child.

there is no need to do that - to change and misdirect a comment just because it doesn't suit your argument.

It's just a diversion from the real argument Nickel.

ps: retard is a medical verb, not a noun. it was misused by twats as a noun before, that doesn't make its official definition any different.

Fantastic news. I hope it makes other countries sit up and take notice. If anything, I would image this would help the FGM cause rather than hurt it. Instead of saying "well, it's okay for boys, why not also for girls", the message is now that it's not okay to mutilate any child.

As a Jew who was very relieved to have two daughters, I welcome this law with open arms.

What are the actual statistical risks of any of those things though? If the risk is 0.000002 per cent reduced to 0.000001 per cent, the risk is halved, but it was only a tiny risk in the first place.

YANBU. Never understood the need for it.