So what are people's views on the current issues being considered in Germany about the practice of circumcision? For those who aren't aware of what i'm talking about, a German regional court has ruled that the circumcision of young boys amount to bodily harm and is illegal. Jewish and Muslim groups have not been impressed and stated it's a religious tradition they should be allowed to continue and the German government have backed them by saying it's about protecting religious freedom. Personally I agree with the court ruling. The expression of religious freedom has to end when it comes to permanently altering someone else's body. Parents, or anyone else, should not have the right to have parts cut off their children based on their own particular beliefs. The fact that it's a longstanding tradition isn't a basis for allowing it to continue.
Plenty other religious traditions have been culled in the interests of enlightened human rights. We stopped burning heretics some time ago I believe, and I havent seen a good stoning in a long time. Inflicting any irreversible surgical procedure that is not medically necessary on a child is frankly barbaric. Sent from my HTC Desire HD using Xparent Red Tapatalk 2
I may not be familiar with the decision completely but I do object to circumcision being done on children too young to make a decision for themselves. However, I do think that after a certain age, the person does have the right to decide whether or not they would like to go through the procedure for religious/health reasons.
It's fantastic news, and the sooner this is an EU wide law the better. If this causes the nutters to leave Europe I honestly just don't care. Religion should never be a valid excuse for cutting bits off babies. If they want they can get bits cut off once they're adults. Until then, no chop chop.
Agree completely with the above sentiments but just going to point out that there are actually health benefits to circumcision.
As I understand it, once a child has reached an age where they can make the decision for themselves they can choose to have it done. The ruling just prevents others making the decision on the child's 'behalf'.
Understood, but circumcision on a child is mutilation and should be criminal unless medically necessary. I.e. medical necessity would require that benefits materially affect a child's quality of life or life expectancy before they mature enough to make an informed choice themselves. Religious arguments also don't stand when inflicting beliefs on someone who has not had choice in the religion. That is no different to burning heretics for not 'believing' Gregor Sent from my HTC Desire HD using Xparent Red Tapatalk 2
Actually the science is still being debated. While some studies have shown improvements with STI rates, other studies within the US have actually shown a much higher prevalence of STDs among those without foreskins. So essentially it's not safe to say one way or the other for the time being.
I know here in the states.. most whites gets circumsized.. it's the people who come in from other countries- they don't practice that.. it's already a choice- guess you want to take freedoms away now too.. I got circumsized.. haven't had any issues- no infections- nothing.. can go commando and it's fine
There is a reduction in risk of cancer of the glans penis, although that is a very rare cancer to start with (1.5 in 100,000, median age 67). Moreover waiting 18 years until the person is adult enough to make up his own mind would not affect the long-term risk much.
I don't see how it's taking away freedom, a baby or young child can't have a say in the matter so by doing it without consent it's freedom is being removed. I haven't been circumcised and at 42 I have never had an infection in that area, even during the questionable hygiene of a teenager period. I believe you can't have genital peircings until your 16+ so what's the difference.
I agree with the ruling also. Not just for the fact that it is genital mutilation without consent, but also for the fact that just because the parents of a child are of a particular religion, does not make that child automatically of the same religion.
Which is even more significant when you look at the rate of complications from the procedure. I really don't see the issue here. We already ban FGM which is practiced in some sub-saharan animist religions, Just because some religions are more popular shouldn't mean they get an exemption to mutilate children.
Not gonna lie, it effing hurts. I had it done under advisement by my GP though, with the guise of "All the girls like it...." Sam
Circumcision has been seen as an accepted practice because of it's strong association with the Jewish faith. FGM has been seen as non-acceptable because it's of African origins. Both are barbaric, performed without consent and provide no benefit to the individual that warrants it being done so young. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation Even when performed for supposedly the right reasons, circumcision carries with it certain risks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer
