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.

Where did you read that fourthdimension? Can you post a link?

crescentmoon: "i am only trying to show you a rational opposite to the view YOU hold. i am not calling for all babies to be circumcised, you are calling for circumcision to be banned - i think i read."

Assuming that comment is directed at me, please point me to the place where I called for circumcision to be banned.

But it's not really possible to have a rational discussion with you, is it? You repeat the same things over and over again without answering the points other people make.

Hackmum - So don't do it then. Nobody is forcing you to circumcise your sons.

I hope it's banned too. Even saying they can decide as adults I'm not sure about, I wouldn't be able to get a doctor to cut off my pointless earlobes if I wanted, no difference.

Fourthdimension there are occasionally medical reasons for this to be done to a baby. Do agree totally with banning for cosmetic or fairytale reasons.

I love the way those in favour utterly skirt around the no-anaesthetic issue. The response is oh they do have it. Err no they absolutely do not NONE of the boys done in my NCT group (4) had any. Tie them down and take a scalpel to them at 8 days old?? Tie them DOWN??
??!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Agreed property, agreed.

Just throwing my hat into the ring on the side of non-circumcision. Sure, it's OK if the person is an adult and can decide as an adult. I think the health reasons that were cited in the Bible were probably justified those many years ago when people lived in the desert and didn't have access to loads of running water. That is unlike today in the UK/USA where everyone has access to running water and can keep themselves totally clean. I have a DH and 2 DSs. None of those is circumcised.

I still don't understand why people would want to mutilate their tiny baby. A vaccination is not the same at all. It has no lasting effects and is not removing any part of the body, unlike a circumcision.

There are no issues with hygiene here. Daily showers and cleaning of all foreskins in this house.

Also agreed Gnocci.

"google it. Loads of opinions."

Oh well that settles it then.

And Gnocci I must have missed this but where does it say the babies are tied down?!

It's a shame that the mis-information and hysteria on this thread is detracting from the valid arguments against circumcision.

Would you give a vaccination to an adult without anaesthetic? Yes.

Would you circumcise an adult without anaesthetic? Err no.

A Jewish mother who had her children said so IN THIS THREAD!

*had her children done

And yet again, youve skirted the issue... what a surprise.

crescentmoon - if it was a cultural/religious practice to remove children's appendixes then you could no doubt produce studies which found that the risk of appendicitis was then reduced in those children. In that case would you say that the cultural/religious practice was justifiable on medical grounds?

"And yet again, youve skirted the issue... what a surprise."

Was that directed at me?

(still can't see the bit about tied down babies)

gnocci - Neither of my sons were "tied down" and they both got an anaesthetic. Neither had blood sucked from their penises.

But as I said before, if people truly believe things like this:

"A person who is uncircumcised suffers the penalty of kareit, spiritual excision; in other words, regardless of how good a Jew he is in all other ways, a man has no place in the World to Come if he is uncircumcised."

then the medical and physical suffering aspects are surely irrelevant anyway.

Good heavens! I was a practising Jew before, but the remarkable biblical scholarship on this thread from experts in the field (eg they are born perfect, why alter them? why give someone a foreskin and then cut it off? surely a brit was supposed to apply in the desert only) has caused me to renounce it all from 6pm today, or if later as soon as we have finished off the schnitzel from the weekend. A bit late for my DS's, of course.....

NB: of course they're not tied down at a brit. Mine were held by uncles and granddads.

I actually have no opinion on the pros and cons of circumcision. I chose for ds to not have one, erring on the side of caution I suppose, despite his father's preference (he is circumcised; nothing to do with religion, not American, just something that was the norm where and when he was born in England).

I'm interested though that so many people seem to think the way that the court has handled this is a good one. Seems unwise at best to me, downright inflammatory at worst.

Seeing as the Royal Family circumcise boys I think it's unlikely to be outlawed here.