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.

"It's an infringement on the child's right to choose whether they have it done. Supoose they grow up to a different/no faith and would prefer a foreskin? Who are you to choose? There's no such thing as a Christian/Jewish/Muslim baby. They haven't chosen yet"

It depends whether you see Judaism as a purely a religion or (as per UK law) a racial group, or (as I do) somewhere in between. He was born Jewish - he may want to have been born Chinese or Afro-Carribean, but he wasn't. If he wants to change his religion when he's older, that's his preprogative, but I don't see how being circumcised prevents this. If he spends his time wishing he wasn't, I'll tell him to get a life!

He may spend his time wishing he wasn't because too much skin was removed and he finds erections painful. He may spend his time wishing he wasn't because he has no feeling during sex. He may spend his time wishing he wasn't because he has terrible scars on his genitals that are there because of a choice you made for him.

If you tell him to get a life, you will be a very callous woman.

I'm sorry if this has been covered as I'm coming v late to the thread on a phone and can't read it all.

Ignoring religion, I'd I had a son I would have him circumcised as a baby. Dh had a very painful medical problem with his foreskin and had to go through a quite traumatic adult curcumcision with a general anaesthetic. I would not wish that on anyone. Apparently it's not uncommon either.

So for me although not for religious reasons, neither would ur be aesthetic like ear piercing.

Rhonda that's a bit of an over-reaction don't you think? Pre-empting a problem that may never happen. I'm presuming it's not genetic?

That's like keeping a child's head shaved in case they get lice, or never letting them play outide in case they're abducted.

An odd way to approach things.

Since Wednesday I have become more of a firm believer in circumcision for a baby at birth more than ever. For the fear of being victimized and bullied by certain people on this thread, I didn't mention before that I was having my son circumcised.

Last Wednesday we had him circumcised. There were loads of babies in the clinic all aged between 10 days and 6 months, with my son being one of the oldest. There were muslims and black african christians.

When his foreskin was pulled back, the doctor called me over to have a look. I saw yellow pus growing on the inside of the skin, and he told me that as my son had been urinating, some of it had been held back under the skin each time, and was causing an infection to start. He said that if he hadn't been circumcised now, he would have had a medical circumcision later in life, as the infection would have got worse and worse and it was lucky that he came to have it done as a baby.

Yes my baby found it uncomfortable, but only that. His penis was numbed with emla for an hour. His foreskin was numbed with a local anaesthetic. He was prescribed paracetemol for discomfort for the first 24 hours and has been given antibiotics to prevent infection. He was fine by the evening. He now has a ring on the tip of the penis that will fall off with the skin. He is still the same happy bubbly little 6 month old.

You may say that not every boy will suffer from infections under the foreskin - but that doesn't matter. MY baby would have suffered from it. The pain he would have suffered if he hadn't been circumcised now would have been far greater further down the line. In my eyes, not only has he had a religious circumcision, he has had a preventative medical circumcision too.

I know most of you won't agree with me, and that's fine. I have posted this not to alter or try to alter your views, so please don't use it as a reason to talk down to me or swear at me. Just view it as MY opinion of the matter.

How had you not noticed yourself that your son had an infection?

Squoosh, I'm not a medic, and anecdote is not data, but yes, I think there can be a genetic element when circumcision is medically necessary. DH was "done" a as young boy for medical reasons, DS1 got away with just the steroid cream, DGS (3yo) is seeing a consultant next week.

Well if you think there's a high probability that a problem can arise due to a genetic pre-disposition that's a different thing.

Because I didn't push back my son's foreskin to see it developing. He had no symptoms as of yet.

TBH, I don't know why doctors/HV's don't tell a mother how to clean their son's penis properly. Are you supposed to push back the foreskin to clean or not? When is a boy taught to clean himself properly when bathing? Or are they never taught? Genuine question to mothers of uncircumcised boys.

Personally, I don't think I would have ever pushed back to clean him, and I wouldn't have had a clue about telling him to do it himself when he got to the age of bathing himself.

yes, if you have a foreskin you have to clean under it, but the foreskin is actually attched to the head of the penis for the first few years of life.

washing your helmet really isnt rocket science, your perents should teach you, also it daily keeps it stretched this will avoid the majority of the 'later medical problems' leading to adult circumcision.

smega will build under a foreskin, but it's harmless and is easily washed away. could that circumciser feel his trade is under new attack in the west and fears for his livelyhood?

Well, if the foreskin is attached to the head of the penis for the first few years of life, then any bacterial infection growing can easily go unnoticed, until, ofcourse it becomes a problem.

I doubt the doctor felt his trade under attack. He wasn't just a doctor for circumcisions, he was also a GP and running his own practice.

You don't need to clean under a penis. It is VERY harmful to retract a boy's foreskin before it has retracted itself. You just need to swish it around in the bathwater, which happens as part of a bath anyway. They do collect smegma under there, but it is harmless and comes out when the foreskin separates.

If it was infected then it would be sore, or it would smell, probably both.

Under a foreskin, obviously.

Smegma is rather an unfortunate name isn't it?

All of our bodies are practically over flowing with unpleasant yet natural secretions. Toe jam, Ear wax, Vaginal discharge, Snot, Plaque on our teeth.

Smegma is just another perfectly normal thing that the body produces and like all the other stuff listed above is easily kept under control and clean with regular washing. This need not apply to a baby though!

I think one of the reason some baby boys are getting such bad infections is because some parents think they have to pull back the foreskin to clean it which as others have said causes damage which leads to infection.

German MPs have voted to reverse the Cologne Court decision and reinstate the right to have boys circumcised. Story here

That's depressing but not surprising.

What a shame. :(