Circumcision banned in Germany - it's about time.

by Joey Jo-Jo 57 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Joey Jo-Jo

  http://www.smh.com.au/world/religious-groups-reject-ruling-on-circumcision-20120628-2159v.html

  JEWISH and Muslim groups in Germany have condemned a court ruling that deemed circumcision to be equivalent to grievous bodily harm.

  The court, in Cologne, declared this week that the procedure violated a child's ''fundamental right to bodily integrity''. Religious groups said the ruling trampled on freedom of belief and could lead to ''circumcision tourism''.

  The ruling said: ''The body of the child is irreparably and permanently changed by a circumcision. This change contravenes the interests of the child to decide later on his religious beliefs.''

  The case concerned a four-year-old Muslim boy who was circumcised at the request of his parents but was later taken to hospital with bleeding.

  The doctor was charged and tried for grievous bodily harm but was acquitted on the grounds that he had parental consent. Prosecutors appealed but the doctor was again acquitted, this time owing to the imprecise nature of the law.

  The ruling is not binding but legal experts said it appeared to clarify a grey area in the law and would offer a guide to doctors.

  ''The court has, unlike many politicians, not been deterred by the fear of being criticised as anti-Semitic or anti-religious,'' said Holm Putzke, a professor in criminal law at Passau University. ''The ruling is very important because, for the first time, physicians have legal certainty.''

  Jewish and Muslim groups criticised the decision. ''This ruling is an outrageous and insensitive measure,'' said Dieter Graumann, the head of the Central Committee of Jews.

  The committee called on the German parliament to protect the freedom of religion.

  ''I feel the decision is discriminatory and counters efforts to promote integration,'' said Ali Demir, the chairman of the Islamic Religious Community in Germany. ''We will end up with circumcision tourism to neighbouring countries.''

  The World Health Organisation has estimated nearly one in three boys under 15 is circumcised.

  Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/religious-groups-reject-ruling-on-circumcision-20120628-2159v.html#ixzz1z8OJVxWR
• 

  Scully

  Laws like this are what drives the practice underground.

  It will still be done, the people who want it done on religious grounds will claim that they are being persecuted and that their fundamental rights and freedoms are being violated, and will just do it in secret, or the families will take their children out of the jurisdiction to somewhere that it is permitted.

  Once it's done, it can't be undone.

  The World Health Organization ban on female circumcision has the same problems. Parents who want it done, will find someone to do it. The communities who want it done have networks that direct the families to practitioners, or they will take a "vacation" home and the girls come back with their lady-parts mutilated and sewn up.

  My fear is that outlawing the practice and driving religiously motivated people to find ways to circumvent the law will result in children being taken to unsanitary back-alley butchers, that will make matters worse in terms of potential for infection, visits to emergency rooms for excessive bleeding, and kidney damage when these kids are so swollen that they can't pee, not to mention that some parents will avoid going to doctors when there are problems post-procedure, because they are terrified that they will be reported to authorities.
• 

  JWOP

  Male circumcision is NOT anything LIKE female circumcision: Men can still enjoy sex afterwards, women can't. If male circumcision was such a traumatic thing, God would never have insisted on it in the Old Testament.

  The benefits of it: It is proven that circumcised men are less likely to contract STDs, less likely to develop a urinary tract infection, and nearly zero risk of penile cancer. Circumcised men are less likely to give their female partners the human papilloma virus (which causes cervical cancer), have nearly zero chance of developing balanitis (infection of the head of the penis), offers better and easier hygeine, and better sexual stimulation.

  I think that, instead of banning the practice, perhaps the law should stipulate that males make their own choice on the matter when they reach a certain age.
• 

  mrsjones5

  " Circumcised men are less likely to give their female partners the human papilloma virus (which causes cervical cancer)"

  And to further decease the exposure wear a Jimmie hat cuz a circumcised penis can still pass on the HPV virus. Less likely means still can.
• 

  Scully

  God would never have insisted on it in the Old Testament.

  That only applies if you believe in god. However, that statement leads me to ask you this: Why would God™ Create™ man Perfectly™ In His Image™, and then expect them to remove part of the human form that was Perfectly™ Created™?

  circumcised men are less likely to contract STDs, less likely to develop a urinary tract infection, and nearly zero risk of penile cancer. Circumcised men are less likely to give their female partners the human papilloma virus

  Well if they behaved themselves - circumcised or not - the way the God™ of the Old Testament wanted them to behave - celibate until marriage and monogamous until they die - then STDs, HPV, penile cancer and UTIs would not be an issue, now would they??

  better sexual stimulation.

  Horse feathers. The glans penis, under the protection of the foreskin, does not develop a thicker keratinized layer of skin and is much more sensitive due to the proximity of nerve endings to the skin's surface. Remove the foreskin and sensitivity decreases, the same way the eyeball would lose its sensitivity and harden if the eyelids were removed. Not that a gentleman would know the difference if he had been circumcised as an infant, nor would he have a measure of the degree of "fun" he is lacking during sexual activity, having been circumcised as an infant....

  FYI:

  http://news.softpedia.com/news/CIrcumcision-Decreases-by-Four-Times-Penis-039-s-Sensitivity-52117.shtml

  http://www.circumcision.org/studies.htm

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_effects_of_circumcision
• 

  Scully

  Male circumcision is NOT anything LIKE female circumcision

  I wasn't discussing the physical pros or cons - we were talking strictly about religiously-based beliefs that male and/or female circumcision was a necessary / required religious practice to ensure an individual's acceptance by the religious community to which their parents belong, and the fact that the practice is usually inflicted upon infants and children who have not made up their minds as to their religious affiliation and whether or not they consent to the surgical removal of body parts due to their parents' religious inclinations.
• 

  Chemical Emotions

  As if god always knows what's best in the OT...

  I'm happy about this. No one has the right to permanently alter a child/baby's body. And all those health benifits that are "proven", I'm pretty sure aren't REALLY proven for sure...
• 

  WTWizard

  Circumcision should be solely between the parents, and for medical reasons (preventing of diseases, for instance). Religion needs to keep its damn nose out of it. Mandatory circumcision is no better than my having a tooth pulled (for instance, my wisdom teeth) just because some religion insists on it. We are talking about a medical procedure, one that carries risks and involves pain. Would you want a tooth pulled, even a wisdom tooth that may be impacted, simply because your religion insists?
• 

  FlyingHighNow

  If male circumcision was such a traumatic thing, God would never have insisted on it in the Old Testament.

  My second and former husband wanted our son to be circumcised, because my ex had not been--ever circumcised. Well, my son was born very ill due to Rh incompatibility. He had to be transported and placed in NICU, due to severe jaundice and anemia. His pediatrician told us we must wait for circumcision until baby's blood counts were normal. That took four months. Because there was no exchange transfusion done, it was explained that it would take time for all of my Rh antibodies to die off in the babies blood. My son's hematocrit count was half what it should be for a newborn.

  By the time he was four months old, I did not want the circumcision done, but my husband insisted. I watched as the doctor carried my smiling, trusting baby away. We sat in the waiting room. The doctor explained to us beforehand what would take place. They strapped the baby to a board and circumcised him with no local anesthesia. When they returned him to me, he was crying so hard and he looked at us when he would stop to breathe with this very hurt, wounded and betrayed look in his eyes. He would not nurse, he would sleep and softly sob. It took at least twelve hours and several bloody diapers (we found out he was a free bleeder), before he would nurse. He was not the same little guy for a while afterwards: no smiling for days.

  I'd hate to think what untrained people could do to a baby in unsanitary conditions. It is traumatic. Our doctor, my OB/GYN, did the procedure. He and one of the nurses told us that they hated to circumcise older babies.
• 

  chapstick

  The male foreskin was put there for a purpose. Circumsised males have been prevented from enjoying the full experience of sex because the foreskin, with its large amount of pleasure producing nerves has been hacked off The routine bloody removal of it for identification purposes is a twisted and archaic ritual that should be banned...