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.

you cannot compare vaccines to circumcision. Vaccines have been known to save lives and eradicate some pretty nasty diseases small pox anyone? Any benefits circumcision seems to have can be reproduced by an uncut man having a wash and wearing the proper protection. I would like to re ask gnocci's question why oh why must you do it without anesethic. Does this come from the old belief that babies dont feel pain in the same way cause thats proven to be bullshit

Circumcision is much easier before puberty, and of course you want to do it well before age of first sexual contact.

That is not a reason to do it on tiny newborns without anaesthetic of course..

Think the sti argument is daft. I don't care how much it may decrease the risk of sti's, my son is still told use a condom.

Who on earth would tell their child they have less chance of catching something so not to bother. Surely you tell them to protect themselves anyway

Exactly bunny and dilys no one has actually answered why it is done without anaesthetic. That for me is the reason I see it as abuse and ABH of a child.

Anyway the decision has no value because it doesn't create a precedent. It doesn't even create a "warning" because it's not "law".
The article is just cheap journalism Daily Mail style. Just like the one about the Italian court holding there was probably a link between autism and MMR.
One dumb lower court judge doesn't change the law.

SlipperyNipple We do have eye for an eye in this country - that section is describing the laws on compensation, monetary or through works, for injuries caused. The compensation must be worth the item lost - the worth of the eye for an eye. We have that, personal injury lawyers making money out of people doing that.

The ruling is interesting and easily turned provocative. It would be nice if it led to more discussion over the interconnected issues. As a Noachide with no known Abrahamic background, my sons are obviously not circumcised. As some asked I wanted to explain that, within Judaism though, it's beyond a base tenet. People have died because of and for it in each conflict that has included Jews - even back in Ancient Greece, they hung and beheaded mothers with circumcised sons around their necks, the stories of it still mingle in Channukah tellings. In a lot of conflicts and wars, men would be forced to pull their pants down and those circumcised would be killed. It's a deep issue with many facets overlooked and not understood. And as less than 1% of the population, I find it jarring that some are saying that Jews are controlling anything.

As for anaesthetic, everyone I know who has done it has used an anaesthetic of one type or another (what I don't know but I know it was used). Even in pre-anaesthetic times, it was traditional to use wine. I know in hospitals a few decades ago doctors didn't use it because it was believed babies didn't feel pain but now I would presume that something is used and it has always been used in one way or another by Mohels.

If a boy needs it for medical reasons then of course it should be done and no comeback for the parents however most medical professionals in England would argue that there are no medical reasons why an otherwise healthy baby boy should be circumcised see here

I have two boys and if anyone wanted to take part of them for religious reason or social expectations they would have me to answer to. If when the boys are old enough to make a decision they want to have it done then that is an informed adult decision.

For those that keep commenting about the history of Germany with the Jewish community anyone who had spent time in Germany would know how far the authorities bend over backwards to avoid offending the Jewish members of the population.

I think it is mostly done with anaesthetic, a local, administered via injection like my sons was. Have you never had dental work with a local, I've had minor surgery with a local and I never felt a thing.

That's all it is, a minor surgical procedure that will cause minimum discomfort for a few days. And it's not some crazy person that 'mutilates' our children, we paid a surgeon who specialises in circumcision, he's written books on it. That is usual, most parents pay £100-200 to have a doctor, GP, surgeon to do this 'barbaric' procedure.

Most people do not know what they are talking about wrt to the reality of a typical circumcision procedure, they watch some crazy YouTube video and take that as a point of reference. WHO recommend the procedure, I'm sure if you google, you could find their booklet promoting circumcision.

And for those of you so uppity on circumcision, I wonder if you take the same stance on formula feeding. You know, babies don't have a choice in that either, I'm sure given the choice they'd prefer their mothers milk, not some dead fake milk that gives them reflux and increased risk of gastroenteritis, chest infections, ear infections, general hospital admissions etc etc. Actually I'm 99.9% sure FF feeding carrys far more risk to a babies health than a properly performed circumcision.

it's south africa's main mechanism of combating aids. if you are circumcised you are 51 - 76% less likely to contract hiv, depending on which research you look at:

for example

maybe my first statement was a little rash.

they certainly are using circumcision as a way of preventing hiv though.

butterfingerz: "Actually I'm 99.9% sure FF feeding carrys far more risk to a babies health than a properly performed circumcision."

Hmm. I don't know why you're 99.9% sure - are you a trained doctor? Have you read the scientific literature on both circumcision and formula milk?

Of course, your overall point is a reasonable one - lots of parents do things to their children that are bad for them. They smoke while pregnant, they smack them, they leave them with total strangers for 12 hours a day etc etc. So from that point of view, you could say, well, why pick on circumcision?

On the other hand, saying "there are other things just as bad or worse" is not really a justification for circumcision. It is still an unnecessary procedure. This is what the NHS website (www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Circumcision/Pages/Risks.aspx) says:

"Bleeding and infection are the most common problems associated with circumcision.
Other complications can include:
a decrease in sensation in the penis, particularly during sex
damage to the tube that carries urine inside the penis (urethra), causing it to narrow and making it hard to pass urine
accidental amputation of the head of the penis, which is very rare
a blood infection or blood poisoning (septicaemia)"

It's not something you would want to do to a newborn baby unless you had a very good reason.

Hackmum - the WHO recommends bfing for the first two years at least. Any mumsnetter who tries to dispute this guidance gets shot down in flames.

The WHO recommends infant circumcision. Any mnetter who admits having had her son circumcisedd gets called a child abuser, a hideous person, and just one step short of someone who approves child sacrifice.

Go figure.

"if you are circumcised you are 51 - 76% less likely to contract hiv"

Relative to non-circumcised men. In actual terms you're about 2% less likely. You'd get hugely better odds just by wearing a condom.

If circumcision does in fact lower the risk of sti's a bit for men then we should be giving teen boys a choice to have the procedure done before they become sexually active, letting them know all the risks and possible benefits. And that they can also reduce these risks much much more with condom use and regular sti checks. They should be able to make this choice over their OWN bodies.
The possible reduction of sti risks is still not an excuse to slice up a baby against their will.

So the WHO recommend circumcision for children in Africa where Aids is wider spread than in first world countries, And even then they recommend other practices as part of the process. We though are talking first world countries and the UK medical profession says there is no reason to just circumcise boys.

Sorry but religious reasons for someone who hasn't decided to join a religion but is just born in to it seems just wrong. The fact that muslims have wife beating in their religion does that mean we should ignore DV if the victim is musllim? Wrong is wrong and using religion to hide behind is just sad IMHO.

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.

Medical and cultural are totally different things. A medical circumcisn uses anesthetic and pain killers. It is done in a hospital for the well being of the child. At no point does a surgeon use a fingernail under the foreskin or take the penis in his mouth.

There is a hugh difference. The same as if it was cutting off a finger or a toe.

One done in a hospital operating theatre for medical reasons is a medical procedure. But if a parent was to invite their friends over, have a bit of a party and then let someone to cut of a finger without there being sterile conditions.

Also a Jewish boy who is not healthy on day (I think day 7 - but I stand to be corrected) is not circumcised. Is he any less Jewish?

A foreskin helps protect from most STIs / STDs, the only one where this is not the case is HIV. So if you are living in a country where 50% of people have HIV and condoms are expensive / not available circumcision is an option. In the UK you are more likey to be exposed to clamydia.

If an HIV+ mother gives birth in the UK she will be advised not to breastfood because this is one way to pass HIV on. In many African countries a woman is encouraged to breast feed as formula is expensive and not readily available.

"muslims have wife beating in their religion" Sausage, what an utterly ridiculous and prejudiced statement.

Sashh, the vast majority of religious circumcisions in the Western world are carried out in a medical setting, by Mohels and Imams who are also doctors. Your post illustrates the general ignorance on the way circumcision is performed.

The foreskin does not protect against stis, its removal is known to lower the risk of herpes, syphillis and others. I agree it does not give full proection though.

A Jewish boy who can't be circumcised on day 8 will be circumcised as soon as possible afterwards.

crescentmoon: "does any one use the risk compensation argument that a girl who has the HPV vaccine will then go out and practise unsafe sex thinking she is safe because of the vaccine? because that is an argument people opposed to the HPV vaccine to girls use. if you wouldnt use it in this case, why use it in an argument against circumcision."

Because they are completely different things. A girl who has been vaccinated against cervical cancer is highly unlikely to engage in riskier sexual behaviour, because cervical cancer has never been the main risk that promiscuous sex exposes you to. The main risks of promiscuity if you're female are pregnancy, plus a variety of sexual diseases: chlamydia, genital warts, herpes, gonorrhea, syphilis and HIV. Cervical cancer is relatively rare and a woman isn't going to pass it on to her sexual partner.

If you're a man, on the other hand, in a country with a high prevalence of HIV, thinking you're "protected" by circumcision might encourage you to engage in riskier sexual activity with, for example, prostitutes, who may then pass it on to their other clients. You very quickly see a snowball effect, which you don't with cervical cancer.

I suggest you read this as certain aspects of Islam do believe in wife beating. Point being claiming religion makes it ok is not what I would call reasonable. Would love to see the end of Circumcision for children except when medical professionals say it is necessary. The fact that in the UK the medical professionals think it is not necessary says enough to me.

sashh And one done by a Mohel or Iman involves anaesthetic and doesn't involve using a fingernail or taking the penis into their mouths. Your prejudice is showing and it's sick and twisted. A religious one usually involves the child being held in a blanket rather than strapped to a board (the common way done to babies in American hospitals outside of Jewish and Muslim groups), but that's the only significant difference in the procedure.