Summations Only

It has gotten rather large news coverage, so I was surprised not to see a topic about it(or I happen to be blind).Anyway, here is the story for those who missed it: http://medicalxpress.com/...laws-religious-circumcision.htmlThis could have some implications for German laws on the matter in the long run, although higher courts may undo this. At the very least it's a rather unusual ruling that may cause other Judges to think about this, not being tied to politics.Is this the start of something big, or a storm in a glass of water?

Just as female genital mutilation is outlawed in many places, so should male genital mutilation.Maybe we could take one more tini step out of the dark ages if this starts bubbling up as a human rights issue.If a jewish male wants to slice off skin for religious reasons, let him choose to do so at an age of appropriate consent similar to tattoos and other permanent body modifications.

I'm not sure how circumcision and female genital mutilation are at all comparable.

It depends on the type of fgm. Some are worse, but others are fairly comparable.In either case though were talking about permanent physiological changes for absolutely no medical purpose, in the case of male circucision before the age of consent or indees even language. Fgm typically of course occurs when the victim is at least able to say no and be violated anyway.

Nonsense. Of course they can be compared. Both are utterly unnecessary surgical procedures done primarily for religious reasons. (or at least rooted in religious reasons)Science has shown that the hygeine argument is bullshit.As a medical intervention, it does not pass the risk vs. reward test at all. While the vast majority of the time young boys are "fine" afterward, sometimes they are not.There is no reason to do it other than as a brutish old age superstition about making a war god happy.

It's under heavy debate, but I believe some studies have shown decreased sensitivity because the now exposed skin naturally grows tougher. The supposed advantage, easier hygiene, can also be met by proper washing.I agree none of this is really as horrible as female circumcision, which is far worse concerning negative effects. However, save for specific rare conditions, there is no reason to circumcise a male, aside from religous reasons. Which a child cannot judge yet.It's still viewed as radical by Jews and Muslims, and I don't like them being enforced in this very much. However, this operation cannot be reversed, and I agree with the German judge you can't really justify it with religous freedom. There already are borders to that, and it seems support is growing within certain countries to also place a border on this issue when it concerns newborns. It may not be as dehumanizing as female circumcision, but it still hits the same core principles.That being said, it still has extremely harsh implications for Judaism and Islam, and it's sad this collision has to happen. If it's not now, it will happen in the future.

General reply to all.And your point?The risk factor is extremely low.There is not even much risk of future psychological trauma.I'm sorry but this just sounds like a bunch of folk trying to find yet another thing to whine about.

Only because you come from a culture where its normal and accepted. Cutting off any other bit of a baby even if relatively harmless would be viewed as child abuse. Circumcision is granted exception only due to cultural inertia.My body was modified for no medical reason without my consent. I think thats pretty fucked up.

A thread on this was begun over at FA, where I have been participating heavily: Religious circumcisions are crimes says (German) courtI have to agree with jar on this.

Nonsense.Removing moles, even birthmarks is not considered child abuse.But if you are upset, then fine. But I honestly don't see a problem.

There are a lot of permanent body modifications that I find perfectly acceptable for parents to do to their childrenear piercing, for example.And a foreskin is just that: a foreskin. So what if the parents want to cut it off their kids? It does no more harm than many of the other sixty five gazillion decisions parents make for their kids during their childhood. I think you have foreskin envy.

I am in the don't snip camp. If there is no medical reason for it and it is simply a parental aesthetic preference. It seems to be an invasive and unnecessary thing to do to someone who may or may not want it done.

Invasive? Do you know what a foreskin is?And what does it matter what the child wants? We don't live in a societyhell, we don't even live in a worldwhere infants get put in charge of their own medical care. Even up to adolescence, almost all medical decisions are made for the child by their parents. And sometimes even the parents don't get to have a say (kids having to get physicals and shots to enter certain grade levels in school, for example).We simply don't live in a world where children are given say in how they are to be medically treated.Whether a child wants or doesn't want a medical procedure matters not one bit.You are living in a fantasy universe if you think otherwise.Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

The doctor may have been guilty of malpractice. If anybody is guilty of causing grievous bodily harm, it's the parents.Next case.

But not zero. With modern medicine, the risk factor of some female procedures could also be low. So do you think we should allow infant female circumcision if it is done properly to make the risk as low as male circumcision? I don't see anyone who made that claim. How very dismissive of you. If you don't want to provide actual arguments, you are welcome to exit the discussion. You have make it perfectly clear that you stand for the rights of adults to perform genital mutilation on their children as long as the child is a male. Just don't pretend that you have justified it by claiming that we are unnecessarily whining.