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.

WHEN did I imply muslim countries are dirty? Why are you twisting words into the wrong context? Very mature . I wrote that muslim people I know would rather get the op done in the UK where they trust clinics and there is better aftercare and hygiene than their home country. This is no hidden knowledge that some countries in Africa and South East Asia don't have high levels of hygiene in hospitals.

Yes I did call one person narrow minded and hateful, and if you go back a few pages you will see that person's posts have been deleted, because that's exactly what they were. Why are you picking on people personally instead of keeping to the topic? If you don't agree with circumsition then that's fine, but personal attacks on parents for doing it won't be greeted with a happy face because as far as I am concerned every parent does what is best for their child.

it's a tiny bit of skin and they're better of without it - and so are we. wives of circumcised men are less likely to contract disease.

and even though circumcision is a Jewish custom as well, did anybody notice that the people in question were not, in fact, Jewish?
"The ruling followed a lengthy legal battle, sparked when a Muslim couple decided to have their son circumcised, specifically for religious reasons, by a Muslim doctor"

So basically people here are saying that courts in Germany should never make any decisions condemning anything that might also be practiced by a certain religious group.

Hazle, I've read this a long time ago. It is the epitome of bad science, was made by a lobbyist, and was published in a lobbyist journal.

You can read a review of that "study" here

Crescentmoon, see here

Male circumcision is very effective in reducing the spread of HIV. There are various large scale circumcision programmes currently underway in high-risk countries, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa.

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.

as I understand other courts will refer to this decision in similar circumstances as this shows precedence.

the africa thing is a red herring, anal sex as a basic form of contraception is commonplace in some african regions, with anal sex the foreskin is more likely to rip and with the presence of blood there is a greater risk of HIV infection.
but just use a condom, i would say.

YANBU

Yes but that is really not the case in developed countries where we have better sanitation and our boys learn to clean themselves better. Lovebunny, have you actually seen one performed or come across a baby who has just had it done? I haven't seen one (really wouldn't want to as I'd probably punch someone) but I was in our drs waiting room (overseas) with a baby who had been screaming for an hour. His mum and dad left with him still going.

My mum was a midwife and this is one of her bugbears. The parents would hand over the baby, the procedure would be performed away from them and then the baby would be handed back. Calm, swaddled etc. The parents wouldn't have a clue about what had just happened (they did the whole no anaesthetic/strapped to the board thing) and would be so happy they'd had it done. They would always ask if it had gone well, was the baby distressed and mum would always say something along the lines of, 'what do you think? Of course he was distressed, he was screaming'. I think if you're going to put someone you love through something like that, you should at least have the decency to be there.

And I don't agree with your statement that we are better off when they are circ'd. That is not the case if you have a monogamous relationship with man who is capable of cleaning his willy. Not a good enough reason.

If I found out a friend had done, or was planning to do this to their baby, I would seriously question our relationship.

So no, OP, YAabsoftigginglutelyNBU.

But do you not think that they are promoting this practice in Africa because of the anti-condom message being pushed by the church there? I expect that if people will not wear condoms, and have anal sex as contraception, then of course it seems a sensible idea. That is not the case in Germany, or the UK for that matter, so that argument holds no sway in this instance.

Germany is not sub-saharan Africa though and condoms are widely available.

And true, I have not read the actual study, so it could be less than 100 babies dying. The baby in question was bleeding and needed medical attention only due to the unnecessary procedure. "If my religion tells me so" is good enough justification for this, I guess we can all start doing all kinds of interesting things to our children.

Saying people should be circumcised because they might get HIV or an STD is a bit like saying we should have our appendix out because they might burst. Surely with that thinking it would be appendectomys all around as that is not preventable unlike HIV/STD through use of condoms

Agree bunnywhack. If we removed all parts of our body which might get something wrong with them, there'd be nothing left!

For Valium
Are you worried - as a mum - about the long term effects of the necessary operation your son had? My DH had a circumsition for medical reasons as a 7 year old. My previous partners were uncircumcised. If you want to PM me, I will tell you what his and my experiences of the long term effects are - because there are some.

It should be illegal. It's disgusting.

YABU and an idiot

Does anyone have any actual data on the prevalence of anal sex being used as a form of contraception in Africa?

Hazle, it dims your argument somewhat when you link to a study but then admit you haven't read it.

Lovebunny you say you are less likely but not that much less if your having sex for years with the diseased person! mutilating a child is not worth it. Best way to not get sti's is use A condom! That protects both of you. And to get tested, have any sti's treated.

Snoopyplaystennis.
Can you say why you think the op is unreasonable and an 'idiot'?

I agree with you OP, and so does dh, who was circumcised (in the UK in the 70s). He feels he was unnecessarily mutilated and would not contemplate inflicting that on his children.

He does feel that there have been long term consequences. Not major ones, but nonetheless.

There have been studies done which show that circumcised boys have lower pain thresholds.

Keumbum, some posters have made very valid points upthread about the fact that calling it mutilation is offensive for those who have had it done for medical reasons.

Crescentmoon, the WHO is heavily dominated by americans, who for some reason are rabidly pro-circumcision, and has a very significant muslim and jewish presence. I know a number of people who work at WHO who have said it is a bitter dispute in the organisation and that the issue has been decided mostly by politics and not by science.

Being part of the UN, the WHO does have to satisfy its member states in order to continue to be funded, to believe that politics does not play a significant part in their statements is naive to say the least.

The point about HPV is that the circumcised man is less likely to get it in the first place and hence cannot pass it on (and no, condoms do not offer complete protection, and are, to state the bleeding obvious, a problem if you're TTC).

Beside the point I know, because HPV is not a problem of the same order of magnitude as HIV, and I don't think anybody would think it enough justification for widespread circumcision, (even if you could tell which baby boys were going to be gay, penile cancer is still a tiny risk), but just thought I'd point it out.