Circumcision - German court says child's right outweighs parents' rights

Yeah, what's irritating about it, is that they don't force it on people born here. It's something the Rabbinut did to kids of immigrants from places like the former USSR that were deemed as not having Jewish communities they recognized.

I'm sure Ethiopian immigrants had to do the same.

 

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/6KXmcNfEFMI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

Why? I don't understand it. We shouldn't allow parents to mutilate their children, no matter what reason they give. What if a popular religion deemed it necessary to remove 1 toe and 1 finger from a child? Is this OK because it's for religious reasons? Where is the line drawn?

Mutilation is mutilation. Neither should be allowed until the child is old enough to say "I'm OK with this."

I applaud Germany for this decision. That said, people will probably still get circumcised because there are some documented health benefits to it.

 

I think someone on this board argued about why it's ok to pierce your daughters ears but it's not ok to circumcise your sons. I believe it was in the San Francisco might ban circumcision thread.

Anyway. That's a pretty good counter argument.

 

It shouldn't be OK to pierce your daughter's ears. You should wait until they're old enough to know that they want their ears pierced. How is that a good counter-argument?

 

Piercings are reversible. Hell just stop wearing the earing and the hole in your ear will close up.

So no, not a good counter-argument.

 

Like what? In fact, removing the foreskin is more beneficial than leaving it on.

 

Okay, so Jewish families can do this, what is the excuse in America for non-Jewish people to have their children circumcised?

If it's for a religious purpose fine, but it shouldn't be allowed if the sole reason is because it is the "norm" or cause dad has it then the son should have it too.

 

All German males should be Eunuchs -- we've had enough trouble with them over the past 100 years.

 

It's funny...people saying a circumsion is just weird, yet I kinda feel the exact opposite. Like why wouldn't you have one? To me, a circumsized penis is actually normal and does have health benifits in preventing disease.

In any case I find it pretty laughable that people are trying to argue for the children's sake, claiming it's mutliation and causes pshychological trauma. Yeah, umm no.

If you're not circumsized and/or do not want your son to have it done, that's fine. But don't judge others because they prefer to do it.

 

Seems like circumcision should either be mandatory, if there are proven compelling public health reasons(e.g. like vaccines). Or, if there are no compelling health reasons, it should be left up to children to decide for themselves and not be coerced into it by their parents. Currently the health reasons for having a foreskin removed seem no more compelling than having an appendix removed because both would be removed to prevent a non-immediate medical problem that is not 100% likely to occur (ex. though removing foreskin might lower the chance of contracting HIV or another STI, it only lowers the chance by 60% and that 60% chance is further modified by the chance that you actually are exposed to HIV or an STI).

I also don't see how male circumcision is any different from what is referred to as Type 1 Female Circumcision where only the hood of the clitoris is removed. If that specific practice is labeled as barbaric in the Western World, it seems like we should extend the term to circumcision.

 

It is also hard to get my son circumsised in Australia.

At least it is not Female Gentile Mutilation.