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 don't know what emptathy is, but have some of that too!

Yes, Germany should hang their head in shame for all of eternity and never make laws that protect children.

As if the only people in Germany who circumcise are Jewish FFS.

Also what's the implication? That all German's are Nazis?

Cynner dont talk such utter bollocks.
We are dicussing a Jewish and Muslim practice so do you want me to talk about fucking Mormons?

If you are actually calling me a racist why dont you just do it. Then we can have a little conversation about it.

So you need to do some quick thinking about where your proof is coming from because I dont fuck about when it comes to racism.

Did you just do a quick google rainy? Why dont you come up with something better to prove your point?

The most hateful post I have seen yet has come from Cynnar.

Considering she knows nothing about my ethnic or religious background I can only assume she is a nasty piece of work.

Its not because of 'big willies' Its because of tight foreskins.
You dont have to have a big willy to have a tight foreskin.

I thought that the reason that religions prescribe circumcision was because they were originally desert based tribes with limited access to water. It's much easier to get compliance with Health and Safety regulations if they come from God! Given that's not the case in the West you'd think that practices should be adjusted accordingly.

Lurking
you should have mail. Can you check that you have the right email address in your reg? Thanks MNHQ

Thank you Olivia, will check now, I appreciate you responding, whatever the answer is. :)

No mail Olivia? Not even in my junk mail? Would you mind PMing me what your response was until I work this out?

Erm....no, I actually read the article linked in the OP, mrsdevere.

Actually it's 29% to be precise

And didn't you also imply that Islamic countries were dirty
A few posts before you started calling people narrow minded and hateful.
Or was that someone else?

Another point worth making is that the practice is not a harmless one in terms of lasting effects. Men who have had it done experience less sexual sensation because the head of the penis is exposed all the time, therefore becomes less sensitive.

Obviously if the procedure is required because of a medical reason there is no argument, if it's needed it's needed. People taking offence at these comments because their son needed the procedure for medical reasons are rather missing the point.

The term 'mutilated' is emotive, but it's like if someone chopped off your arm with a machete, you'd have been mutilated. Now, if you got gangrene and the arm was amputated, you probably wouldn't refer to it as having been mutilated, even if the end result is the same.

Thirty years ago I'd have said this was a no brainer, but now, if I were a mother in (say) Botswana then I'd absolutely want my son circumcised - not as a newborn, but definitely before the age of puberty. I'd do anything I could to reduce his risk of contracting HIV.
After all, I'm going to get my daughter's immune system altered with a needle when she's 12 in order to protect her from an STD that kills far far fewer people.

And given that, it does affect the way I feel about circumcision being banned in Europe.

Another point worth making is that the practice is not a harmless one in terms of lasting effects

Thanks for that.

And after reading your post you miss the point. Completely.

valiumredhead you are the one missing the point my dear. No one is talking about you and your situation, so stop taking it so personally.

This debate is about babies being operated onunnecessarily for religious or cultural reasons in western nations. It is not about circumcisions performed for medical reasons, or indeed the possible health benefits it may confer to the individuals in Africa. IMO.

Obviously for your son he needed the procedure, therefore the benefits will outweigh any negatives for him.

I am with Rainydays and Valium.

The fact that the child cannot consent is a red herring - babies cannot consent to anything at all. Their parents decide for them on every aspect of their lives, many of which (eg what they eat, or where they sleep) have potential long lasting consequences. The state does recognise that parents have parental authority to make these decisions with minimum interference. The decision to circumcise should be made by the parents.

As Rainydays posted above, all the evidence shows that infant circumcision has more benefits than if performed at a later stage.

Someone said upthread that circumcision kills 100 boys a year in the US. That is not true and totally bonkers. Do you really think, given the lawsuit culture in the US, that dctors would carry on this procedure if the risk was so material?

The suggestion that the WHO policy is politically motivated is one which, interestingly, I never see being made whenever people quote the WHO guidance on breastfeeding.

Valium, you may find some comfort in the WHO studies which show that there is no difference in sexual sensation. I can send you a link if you want.

Lurking: "Also what's the implication? That all German's are Nazis?"

No. The implication is that this will be perceived by Jews as a racist attack on their fundamental rights (as they perceive them) in a country that has an all too recent history of attacking their rights in the most extreme way possible. You don't get much more extreme than setting up gas chambers to gas to death millions of men, women and religion simply because of their race.

So, how will this play out? Do people think that Jews and Muslims in Germany will go, "Oh, that's fair enough. You're quite right, we shouldn't be circumcising our children, it's a barbaric practice, it's going to stop"? Or is it more likely that thousands of people will carry on circumcising their children and be prepared to go to jail for the right to do so, and in the process will come to be regarded by fellow Jews and Muslims worldwide as martyrs for the cause of religious freedom? And that this in turn will inflame racial tensions and hatred in Germany and elsewhere in Europe, with possibly devastating consequences?

I know which one I'd put my money on.

Good post, Primie.

fwiw ds is NOT circumcised, but dp is (because that's what happened at the hospital he was born in, with baby boys of a certain class apparently).

The German ruling is only binding in the Cologne district, it does not have force of law elsewhere. And even the German foreign minister said it was wrong.

there you go Prima:
www.examiner.com/article/new-study-estimates-neonatal-circumcision-death-rate-higher-than-suffocation-and-auto-accidents

and if you had read the link, the German court recognized that "parents have parental authority to make these decisions with minimum interference". It just said that the rights and interests of the child should in some cases, like when the parents are planning to cause the child harm, prevail.