Circumcision is grievous bodily harm, German judges rule
Source: Sydney Morning Herald (Daily Telegraph as source)
Matthew Day
June 28, 2012 - 10:44AM
(snip)
The court in Cologne declared that the procedure violated a child's "fundamental right to bodily integrity". Religious groups claimed that the ruling trampled on freedom of belief and could lead to "circumcision tourism".
The court said the right of the child outweighed that of parents in what legal experts said could be a landmark case.
The ruling said: "The religious freedom of the parents and their right to educate their child, would not be unacceptably compromised if they were obliged to wait until the child could himself decide to be circumcised."
"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."
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/circumcision-is-grievous-bodily-harm-german-judges-rule-20120628-213u0.html#ixzz1z36qw0ud
Here's some German press coverage:
Nach Kölner Urteil verzichten viele Ärzte auf Eingriff
Nach dem Kölner Urteil über religiöse Beschneidungen bieten viele Arztpraxen und Kliniken die Eingriffe nicht mehr an: Sie wollen sich nicht strafbar machen. Leidtragende sind die betroffenen Kinder, fürchten einige.
http://www.stern.de/panorama/religioese-beschneidung-nach-koelner-urteil-verzichten-viele-aerzte-auf-eingriff-1847388.html
Das Wohl des Kindes
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/debatten/urteil-zur-beschneidung-das-wohl-des-kindes-11801160.html
Unfortunately the coverage is mainly influenced by deference to the religious fundamentalists who claim a right from ancient scripture or tradition to permanently mutilate the genitals of infants who have no choice. Most of the articles lead with the reaction of these religious so-called authorities before even reporting on the actual story of the court's ruling.
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.
Not to mention to have his body whole as nature gave it to him!
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Mosby
(16,319 posts)not exactly LBN.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Had you heard about it before today?
It is news. Don't you want a discussion of this news story?
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts).
aquart
(69,014 posts)I mean, what do they have left?
yurbud
(39,405 posts)perfect answer!
Warpy
(111,276 posts)How else could they tell Aryan men from Jewish ones?
RevStPatrick
(2,208 posts)My coworker took the day off to go to a bris.
Good thing we don't live in Germany!
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Last edited Thu Jun 28, 2012, 01:09 PM - Edit history (1)
Idiots will continue to perform this permanent physical damage on their children in Germany as well as the US.
ON EDIT: As the above will now be alerted on by someone who prefers the alert button to discussion, I maintain we all have the right to characterize as "idiots" general groups that do things we consider to be idiotic. Certainly no intent was made to characterize any specific person's parents as idiots, beyond the moment when they were making an idiotic decision. I hope jurors vote for freedom of the expression in this case.
Response to JackRiddler (Reply #4)
Post removed
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Not for religious reasons but because it was considered a medical improvement - luckily by a declining number of doctors.
In that moment, it's exactly what they were.
Idiocy is not a permanent personal condition but exists while one is doing idiotic things.
RKP5637
(67,111 posts)Mosby
(16,319 posts)I'm curious if these are some of the "general groups" you're referring to in post 4.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)A great many Jews and Muslims do not engage in genital mutilation of any kind, whether of females or males. Are you implying that all Jews and Muslims engage in genital mutilation? Are you saying that engaging in such practices is a defining quality of these two groups? That is shocking!
At any rate, when you do something idiotic, you're an idiot. When you don't, you're not. It's not a permanent personal condition.
PS - In the United States, the vast majority of persons who had their genitals mutilated as infants are neither Muslim nor Jewish. It was done to us on a doctor's recommendation, with our parents' consent, because of medical superstitions dating back to the 19th century. It's important to see the big picture, beyond the provincial concerns of religious fundamentalists in either the Muslim or the Jewish communities.
Mosby
(16,319 posts)That's true for every denomination.
You did say "...we all have the right to characterize as "idiots" general groups that do things we consider to be idiotic." and I was interested how far you are willing to take that, honestly if I were staunchly against circumcision (which I'm not) I would find differing reasons, including religious reasons meaningless distinctions.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)That is an unfortunately widespread belief, but it is untrue. It is no more true than the idea that only those who are "born again" are truly Christian. No one is required to have their genitals mutilated, and no one loses or gains a general religious or ethnic identity through genital mutilation.
aquart
(69,014 posts)JEWISH males are circumcized. We have a ceremony and cake and everything.
Oh, the champions of the teeny tiny turtleneck are out in force.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)They're Jewish. They didn't cut off their son's foreskin. They had "a ceremony and cake and everything" to celebrate the non-circumcision. (They invited me.) Do you contend that the boy is not "JEWISH," in all caps as you have it? Are the parents no longer Jewish? Luckily Judaism doesn't have a pope who can make such declarations, so what you think of them is irrelevant.
Otherwise your use of mocking, trivializing language speaks for itself. I'm sure there are similar pejoratives for integral parts of the body in use among those who perform genital mutilation on girls and women. You are not a serious speaker on this issue and should be ashamed of yourself.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)of barbarism committed in the name of god. I am not singling out the Hebrew religion in particular- all the bronze age belief systems have their barbaric aspects.
Crunchy Frog
(26,587 posts)Mosby
(16,319 posts)Of all of the commandments in Judaism, the brit milah (literally, Covenant of Circumcision) is probably the one most universally observed. It is commonly referred to as a bris (covenant, using the Ashkenazic pronunciation). Even the most secular of Jews, who observe no other part of Judaism, almost always observe these laws. Of course, until quite recently, the majority of males in the United States were routinely circumcised, so this doesn't seem very surprising. But keep in mind that there is more to the ritual of the brit milah than merely the process of physically removing the foreskin, and many otherwise non-observant Jews observe the entire ritual.
The commandment to circumcise is given at Gen. 17:10-14 and Lev. 12:3. The covenant was originally made with Abraham. It is the first commandment specific to the Jews.
http://www.jewfaq.org/birth.htm
Circumcision is (in general) a common denominator among movements: Reform, Conservative, Reconstructionist, Orthodox — all circumcise their male children and require male converts to undergo some form of circumcision.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/circumcision.html
I should point out that when I refer to Jews I'm talking someone who is engaged somehow with the religion.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)As you say, those who are engaged somehow with the religion, except there are many who are not.
Many religious Muslims have similar justifications, and no doubt other religious traditions.
Does it make it right? Is it or is it not an involuntarily, irreversible procedure that removes a functioning part of the body? Does the child have a right to be protected against involuntarily, irreversible procedures, and to make an own decision as an adult?
Crunchy Frog
(26,587 posts)
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)Among all branches of Judiasm, circumcision of all male infants is required.
reorg
(3,317 posts)What will the kids in school say – not to mention army buddies? What is healthier? Should such men be called Jews?
By Netta Ahituv Jun.14, 2012 | 3:01 PM
--
When their first child, a son, was born 11 years ago, it was clear to Eran Sadeh, now 42, and his partner, Maya, 40, that he would be circumcised.
“We arranged it with a mohel and then I started to look for information and references about the man on the Internet,” says Eran, a former lawyer-turned-computer instructor in a software company. But while surfing the Web, he came across a world of information about circumcision. “For the first time in my life I learned what’s cut, how it’s cut and what the risks are. I didn’t have a clue until then. The word was just another check mark on the list of tasks related to the birth. I treated it almost as a bureaucratic process. But the new information I came across shook me, and I knew I wasn’t capable of inflicting that on my son.”
Eran Sadeh is not alone. In the past decade, increasing numbers of Jewish parents in Israel have decided not to have their sons circumcised. They hardly constitute a majority, but today, in contrast to the past, many Israelis are considering this idea.
http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/magazine/even-in-israel-more-and-more-parents-choose-not-to-circumcise-their-sons.premium-1.436421 (only subscribers)
go west young man
(4,856 posts)These poor infants died. This extreme Jewish ritual involved the rabbi "sucking" on the cut tip and giving the babies herpes from which they died. Believe it or not this was recently this century in New York of all places. Is that religious reason a meaningless distinction?
Mosby
(16,319 posts)I think you may have misunderstood me, I was trying to say that if one does not support circumcision the reasons that people use to justify it should not matter, and that includes religious reasons.
Crunchy Frog
(26,587 posts)4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)there are religions that advocate female genital mutilation as well.
I don't think they should be able to hide behind their beliefs either.
HankyDub
(246 posts)We are both circumcised. We are not mutilated. That's just a lie. Any comparison to female circumcision is a lie.
I used to be able to see the anti-circumcision crowd as genuinely misinformed and not antisemitic, but last year's campaign in SF convinced me differently:
It may be that this is an archaic, silly thing to do. Religious practices generally are. It may be misguided, but it is NOT MUTILATION. It is NOT akin to female circumcision.
Needless to say, this decision is troubling, given Germany's past.
Lying is not a permanent personal condition but it exists when one is TELLING BLATANT FALSEHOODS.
Boxcar Willie
(75 posts)with an archaic, silly thing to do - that cuts off part of your body?
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)The removal of 50 percent of the penile skin and nerve endings is a mutilation.
The even worse mutilations practiced on women and girls are exactly that: even worse mutilations.
There is no good level of this practice. There is only bad and far worse.
The religious excuses are irrelevant. Furthermore, they cover a minority of the circumcised in the United States. If this barbaric practice at least ended for the majority of victims, that would be progress. Jews and Muslims together in the United States are a minority of the victims and so this is not mainly about them. It is total propaganda to divert this into questions of anti-Semitism.
The operative difference here is that the one kind of mutilation is practiced predominantly in foreign countries with brown-skinned peoples. So that is barbaric. The mutilation practiced in the United States is primarily on white people, by doctors. Since this is an American institution, it must be good.
And I don't care what some fool in San Francisco published in his comic book. The comic is indeed anti-Semitic - and therefore a disservice to any cause this guy thinks he's supporting. The hell with him. He is irrelevant to this discussion, and I will not have you trying to pin the attack labels on me or anyone else just because we oppose mutilation of all kinds, male as well as female.
boppers
(16,588 posts)TMI.
Crunchy Frog
(26,587 posts)Of course, they're only toddlers now and I'm sure the proportions will change as they mature. It's still a pretty hefty chunk of the penile skin system.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)It upset me when I first learned it, but it's true.
Sirveri
(4,517 posts)If you take a piece of fabric and fold it in half, that is basically the concept. Most folks don't understand that they only think of it like a flap, when it's actually twice as large when fully laid out. Also two different types of skin since half of it is mucous membrane which then transitions to what we traditionally think of as skin.
Crunchy Frog
(26,587 posts)And yes, "Foreskin Man" is disgusting, but then, so is Vernon Quaintance, who is far more closely connected with the pro-circumcision crowd than "Foreskin Man" is with the anti-circumcision crowd.
snot
(10,530 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)
RitchieRich
(292 posts)Consider for a moment, female circumcision. Now, tell me again how silly it is to treat this as a real issue.
Lionessa
(3,894 posts)just a whisp of skin, additionally the area is sewn essentially shut, so let's cut off your penis' head and stitch your urethal opening to about 25% of what it should be, then tell me if it's the same.
RitchieRich
(292 posts)although I read recently that said is the more common. It is highly interesting though that people commonly express horror at one, while sighing in a patronizing huff and exclaiming how its just cutting off a chunk a man, so it doesn't matter or count.
Lionessa
(3,894 posts)As I said, FGM is like cutting of the head and stitching nearly shut the urethral slit. Not at all the same as removing a little piece of skin.
Unfortunate that you keep trying to make that sorry comparison as though it has any type of validity.
waddirum
(979 posts)from simply making an incision the complete removal of the clitoris. Lots of FGM procedures involving simply removing the clitoral hood, but leaving the clitoris in place.
The male foreskin is equivalent to the female clitoral hood . Why is it okay to surgically remove the first but not the second? Essentially the argument is that "boys don't need those extraneous bits" like girls do.
Infant boys and girls deserve EQUAL rights and protections from nonconsensual genital mutilation.
Lionessa
(3,894 posts)and instead have heard that it's so requested in England, that docs are now offering it. So I guess those are comparable, and I don't really see a problem with it. As you point out, that's quite similar to circumcision, and therefore should be a family choice.
waddirum
(979 posts)It should not be a "family choice". It should be the individuals choice, and no infant (male or female) can give consent to this procedure.
Crunchy Frog
(26,587 posts)You think it should be made legal?
Crunchy Frog
(26,587 posts)Such as that described in this blog.
And as the mother of two intact sons, I can tell you that the foreskin is more that "just a whisp of skin". A standard American circumcision would have easily removed 2/3 of the skin on their penises.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)One kind of genital mutilation cannot be justified on the basis that even worse genital mutilations are performed on others. That would be like saying assault is not an issue because murder is so much worse.
Lionessa
(3,894 posts)so he wouldn't have the childhood long issues his uncle had with urinary infections, that cleared up immediately upon being circumcised at 16yo, which he said was quite excruciating and had wished that like my ex-hub, his brother, he'd be snipped at birth. Not too many folks have a family with brothers, one snipped and one not to make that kind of side by side comparison of the value of circumcision.
Interesting, we can force drugs into children, vaccines, and they have no choice about that, but snip a little piece of skin?
I think part of the problem is the fact that so many see this as only a religious choice, not a medical one, like vaccinations, to avoid urinary tract infections.
Mens/boys penises are not out in the daylight dangling and needing a shroud anymore, so I'm not convinced the need for the shroud is there anymore, regardless of what some men say about sensitivity, because I've heard some swear one way, and other's swear the other way when it comes to sensitivity. I think it should be a family's right to make that decision.
Swede Atlanta
(3,596 posts)It should be a decision that a male, old enough and capable enough of understanding what he is doing, makes.
Unfortunately even an adolescent male may be too immature or be subject to extreme pressure from his family or community to undergo this permanent disfigurement of his body.
I appreciate some men may benefit medically from this. But then this decision, absent it being something that is life-threatening, must be made by the male when he is capable of making an informed, mature decision.
Lionessa
(3,894 posts)I listen. When the only 3 men I knew who had not been circumcised wished they had been due to similar problems through childhood and adolescence, I listen. Until about 3 years after my son was circumcised, I'd never heard or read about a man who wished he still had his shroud, and to date, have read about but still never met a man who mourned the lost of his shroud, and being atheist I've had no moral restrictions to enjoying sex, so I've bedded over 200 to date. None of the snipped seemed to have any problem enjoying themselves and the three that weren't, I made them wash it real good before approaching me with it, I didn't want whatever accumulates under the nooks and crannies of that flap ending up inside of me, that's for sure, yuck, all day sweat, a little feces, some tp, what a lovely little catch-all it is.
Swede Atlanta
(3,596 posts)Your story is your story. The individuals you have spoken with have their views.
But that doesn't mean that the family should make that decision for a male child.
I am uncircumcised and I will tell you that the skin contributes significantly to my sexual pleasure.
Further, I don't know who you know that doesn't maintain proper hygiene as a matter of course. My skin is kept very clean though out the day and obviously maintained prior to any sexual contact.
We will never agree on this but as a woman I suggest you let the male make that decision themselves. I'm sure you would prefer not to have men decide if you should undergo female circumcision.
Lionessa
(3,894 posts)how do you know it give you significantly more sexual pleasure when you have no way to compare? Just as those that have been snipped have no valid way to say it doesn't.
As I said, the ONLY person I know who actually knows the difference sexually and medically, recommended a birth-time circumcision. The only other three who weren't snipped wished they were, but wouldn't do it because of their age and the extremely more difficult and more painful surgery it is as an adult.
Lionessa
(3,894 posts)not the same at all. If female circumcision was only trimming up skin then it might be comparable, but the only way it's comparable as it is would be to compare it to cutting off the head of your penis, and stitching the urethral opening to about 25%. So put that shit comparison away.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)This is not a "trimming of the skin," it is the removal of fully half of the penile skin with half of the nerve endings. Your euphemism doesn't change the facts of this procedure.
All genital mutilation is bad. The practice of a horrific genital mutilation on women does not in any way justify the less terrible genital mutilation practiced on male infants. To be against one is rightly to be against both. (There is no conflict in the idea that, for example, both assault and murder are wrong, even though one is worse than the other.) Similarly, those who oppose both forms of genital mutilation are rightly allies. Please do not engage in false dichotomies to create false divisions.
pmorlan1
(2,096 posts)I'm female and I agree that all genital mutilation is bad. I also agree that female genital mutilation is much more severe than male circumcision. At least with male circumcision the man still has feeling left and can have sexual pleasure. With female genital mutilation there is no hope of having any sexual pleasure.
My husband is not circumcised nor is my grandson. I was very proud of my son-in-law for choosing not to circumcise his son even though he himself was circumcised as a child. These barbaric customs need to stop.
Warpy
(111,276 posts)and considering the hymen fetishists are even worse than the foreskin fetishists, maybe it should be considered.
Crunchy Frog
(26,587 posts)As described in this blog post. http://maurina.wordpress.com/2007/11/16/female-circumcision-explained/
Although, in fact, that removes far less tissue than a male circumcision does, so you would probably also want to throw in some labia trimming.
go west young man
(4,856 posts)I'm English, a naturalized citizen, and uncircumcised. When we moved the the U.S. my older brother was circumcised at 17 (his own choice) because he felt weird at school after seeing all the American guys circumcised in the locker room. They would make fun of him. He was in pain for 3 weeks after the operation and wished he'd never gotten it done. Myself and my younger brother stayed uncircumcised. We washed regularly and never had a problem. Now it's 25 years later and when we recently talked about it my older brother says it's one of the stupidest things he ever did and regrets loosing his foreskin. His own kid's are uncircumcised today.
The infection aspect that is always brought into the debate has more to do with impoverished countries way back when that had limited access to clean water supplies. In the modern day that argument is mute in the US as almost everyone can easily clean themselves. That leaves just religious reasons and social conditioning (as the majority of males are circumcised). I feel the US is lagging well behind on this issue. It is the destruction of the beautifully formed human body right after birth. A child should not have to suffer such pain upon arrival in the world. And if they choose to go for it when they are fully grown let the be "their" right.
Lionessa
(3,894 posts)no question that he knew both to wash and how to wash, she was fastidious about such things.
And you actually point out the very issue of later life circumcision, if it becomes necessary or desired, it is a much bigger and more painful ordeal.
Crunchy Frog
(26,587 posts)No insult to your mother intended. She was most likely following the instructions of misinformed doctors of the era.
FedUpWithIt All
(4,442 posts)His foreskin has never been pushed back to this date and we're waiting on him to work it back himself.
Crunchy Frog
(26,587 posts)Shortly after they were born, a couple of different nurses told me I was supposed to pull them back and clean under it, but fortunately I already knew better. That bit of folklore is still very prevalent in the American medical community though.
go west young man
(4,856 posts)said to you that I didn't want whatever accumulates inside the nooks and crannies of your moist hole ending up on my dick. Because that's what you essentially just wrote. After all we both have a moist sleeve so to speak. Female smegma is just as common. Your argument is ridiculous at best and as a "dude" who has also bedded over 200 sexual partners (to use your analogy) I can also say they seemed quite happy.
Lionessa
(3,894 posts)And unlike a man's penis, a woman's vagina isn't exposed to collect tp, poop, and such. Not the same at all, except for the schmega, which I never mentioned in my concerns because as you say, it's expected and normal.
go west young man
(4,856 posts)1) Have you ever changed the diaper of an infant female after she has pooped? There's plenty of nasty things that get in there.
2) Your argument sounds similar to a sexist male asshole who tells women what to do with their bodies. You cannot possibly know what male infants go through. You are just speculating.
3) I already pointed out to you that I never had a problem with anything "accumulating on my foreskin".
4) You call it a loose tip? Have you ever seen a male sheath?
5) TP (toilet paper) has never gathered on my 3 year old son's uncircumcised penis. Why would it?
6) Why would you want to deny boys and men the extra pleasure that comes from having that so called "loose tip"?
7) The argument that it is painful to do later in life rather than sooner is a redundant one. It is an unnecessary operation entirely.
Those who want it later are free to endure that pain. But why should an innocent boy endure that and lose their own right to decide?
8) In post 38 you seem to have missed my point about being impoverished. I was talking turn of the 20th century leading up to the first world war. Google Hiram Yellen and the history of circumcision in the US. You can see more clearly how it all came into being the norm in the states.
Lionessa
(3,894 posts)1. yes, but I'm talking about adult males
2. similarities exist, certainly. However, in my experience, I asked many men before making the decision. Yes, the bil to ex-hub comparison sealed the deal, but I didn't make a decision for my son without consulting many men, every one of the men I asked said it should be done and at birth.
3. Lucky you. Not all men are so clean apparently.
4. Yes, it's a piece of skin, that some men even have to pull back out of the way when having sex because even fully hard it seems in the way to them. Well, two of the three that still were intact did that, I thought it was odd having never seen a man need to fondle himself while intercoursing before.
5. I don't know how it gets there. Probably it doesn't, but men with foreskins are considerably less enjoyable by look and smell when considering oral sex.
6. Well, men are already so wrapped up in sexual thoughts by their own admissions, I don't think I need to worry that a little less excitement is going to waylay them from having as much sex as they can.
7. Not to those that have had it done later, apparently, for whom you cannot speak.
8. Understood.
go west young man
(4,856 posts)1) In post 30 directly above you clearly also talk about females.
2) In post 15 way above you mention 3 men you had sex with who were not circumcised out of your 200. You wrote you made them wash thoroughly because of things that accumulate under "there". You gave example's of toilet paper and fece's. Now in my 45 years on earth as an uncircumcised male I've never had tp stick to the tip of my dick and to the best of my knowledge walking around uncircumcised doesn't lead to you dick covered in your own shit. Most taints are at least 3 inches and the average penis length is 5 plus you'd be flaccid when walking so it would be tres difficult to get your dick up your own shitter.
3) It's 2012 liquid soap is readily available. In numerous fragrances and flavors so as to deal with your smell issue from post 15.
4) I've never had to fondle myself before sex. I don't know why those guys had to fondle themselves for you? When I'm erect my skin naturally goes back as it's meant to do. If it didn't I'm sure it would take a millisecond to pull it back. Isn't that millisecond worth the pleasure that comes from having those extra nerve endings?
5) The TP I addressed in post 2. My wife appears to love my smell. Obviously millions of other wives in Europe and across the globe must like their men's smells as they seem to be reproducing and putting out porn that puts most American porn to shame.
6) So you feel that achieving maximal pleasure while here on earth is not something half the planet should be interested in?
7) I would think that social conditioning plays a major role in your friends opinions. They don't know what the opposite would be as they were never given the chance to experience it. That decision was made for them based upon what was considered the norm at that time, but as Heraclitus once wrote " The one true constant is change". The times are changing and people are becoming more attuned to achieving as much potential from their life experiences as they can.
8) Not relevant this time around.
Crunchy Frog
(26,587 posts)At the time your friends were born, forcibly retracting and aggressively cleaning under the foreskins of infants and young children was almost universally reccomended by American doctors, and was the reason for most of the infections and other problems.
FedUpWithIt All
(4,442 posts)Your second hand expertise is also short on knowledge.
The old (very common and Dr. recommended) practice of parents forcibly pushing back the foreskin to clean was the cause of many problems like infection issues and things like phimosis. The tissue is fused to the glans in young boys and this keeps the glans and urethra clean until a child ages and is able to move and clean himself. When the tissue is forcibly pushed back off the glans it often causes scarring which then leads to a whole host of other problems.
It is now commonly understood that the practice of forcibly retracting the foreskin of an infant was bad practice and is no longer encouraged or supported.
I have never had an issue of cleanliness with an uncirc'd man and i have only known one uncirc'd man to have a physiological medical condition and and it was a condition that we now know is preventable simply by leaving the foreskin fusing intact until it natural retracts.
Your insistent insinuation that men with retained foreskins are somehow "dirty" is offensive and prejudicial.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)When the only man I know to have it done later, recommends doing at birth,
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=154585
REASON FOR ALERT:
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)
ALERTER'S COMMENTS:
This poster's suggestions that uncirc'd men are unclean is highly offensive and prejudicial.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Jun 29, 2012, 03:58 PM, and the Jury voted 0-6 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I found this much more humorous than insulting. But I'm a woman married for 45 years to the same circumcised man, and our son is circumcised, so what do I know. I do recall an amusing quote, which I will paraphrase: I can't even get my little boy to wash his hands, much less his penis.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: icky, but other than TMI, probably not much here that most adults have not heard of before.. Hide thread might be a valuable tool..
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Really? This is a absolutely ridiculous alert. Stop wasting everyone's time. I don't even agree with the post but this alert is just dumb.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: so tell them that in the thread, not by trying to lock the post and have them run whine about it in meta. it is a DISCUSSION site for fuck's sake. dumb alert.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
I was #1 or #6.
Sid
FedUpWithIt All
(4,442 posts)Hard to see another perspective for many DU "liberals" i guess.
I alerted and stand by my claims that the alerted post is "hurtful" "insensitive" and "rude".
The "mob" here wishes to allow a blanket prejudicial cleanliness statement to be made about a person with a physical variation...so be it. How far from your roots you have fallen DU.
aquart
(69,014 posts)Which the Jews put an to with the bris at the time of Moses.
Before that, it was so crippling and painful for grown men that we used it to slaughter all the men of Shechem (in retaliation for the rape of Dinah).
Doesn't bother me if you bring it back. Have fun.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)go west young man
(4,856 posts)Protection from dryness. It moisturizes the glans, naturally.
Lifetime protection from abrashion's, rubbing against clothes.
Additional nerve endings for sexual stimulation.
harun
(11,348 posts)Good post.
Parents should have the choice, and they do.
reorg
(3,317 posts)- and they shouldn't.
Only medically indicated circumcisions are legal if the person is too young to consent.
Lack of hygiene and "I like the way it looks" are not valid medical indications.
harun
(11,348 posts)The court overturned a decision of a lower court, or rather reformulated the reasons why the defendant should be given a pass.
They stated it was NOT the right of the parents to mutilate their 4-year-old son, but the doctor was not found guilty because, until now, confusion prevails over this topic. Drawing on testimony of legal and medical experts, they came to the conclusion that circumcisions performed on children are only legal when medically indicated.
"I like the way it looks better" or lack of hygiene are not medical indications in Germany.
The decision can be appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court, I suppose. As I already said, it will spur a public debate and the believers in stone-age rituals will probably win.
Response to Lionessa (Reply #7)
Post removed
closeupready
(29,503 posts)If a daughter gets pregnant? And she decides to abort but her father and mother veto?
Lionessa
(3,894 posts)As I explained, based on the only person I knew who knew both with and without a foreskin, he said the pain at 16 wasn't worth it, and that it was best done as a baby when recovery, pain, and complications are less. Since a baby can't get pregnant, it can't be spared pain, longer term recovery, and complications of an abortion by having it as an infant.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)the choice is NOT between having the surgery as an infant or rather as a non-infant; the REAL choice is whether to have surgery, or to leave your penis intact. A child is incapable of making this decision.
I've known uncircumcised men who had the surgery performed in their 30's and were grateful to have it done. Then I've known plenty of circumcised men who wish it had never been done.
there is no perfect analogy.
TBF
(32,067 posts)my husband thought it was safer medically to circumcise. I have to admit I trusted him on this one and didn't do a bunch of independent research.
My only thought on it is maybe it should be left to the family, as it is a simple procedure for an infant but more serious operation for an adult from what I understand.
I don't feel strongly about this issue - finding it very interesting to read the responses in this thread and learning a bit as well.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)
Iggo
(47,558 posts)
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Besides which, that you'll never know.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)Go figure. 
roody
(10,849 posts)last Sunday at Gay Pride Parade. 'No circumcision' had a contingent in the parade.
reorg
(3,317 posts)to see a higher court in Germany go against ancient religious practice in order to uphold modern human rights standards.
The reaction I have seen in news forums is overwhelmingly positive. But spokespersons from all religions have spoken out against the court. No doubt this will spur a public debate. Most likely it will lead to legislation that protects those stone-age rituals and beliefs ...
harun
(11,348 posts)reorg
(3,317 posts)RitchieRich
(292 posts)-I want the right to choose to terminate a pregnancy.
-they don't need the right to bare arms. Lets take it away from them.
-female circumcision is bad.
-male circumcision if just fine.
Expecting a person to respect your rights is only valid if you respect theirs. I proudly define myself as moderate, extremism will ever function.
reorg
(3,317 posts)Man or woman, atheist or muslim, it doesn't make a difference.
But you can't do it to helpless kids. That's what the decision is about.
Just like beating your children. Some people think they have the right to do it. But it's also illegal.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)reorg
(3,317 posts)Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)Board of Education adopts platform that corporal punishment is effective and so on. I've been in GD & LBN, so it's probably in one of those. Sorry.
reorg
(3,317 posts)So spanking is still legal in 19 states, widely practiced in some ...
Most revolting:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/spanking-school-19-states-corporal-punishment-legal/story?id=15932135#.T-zkg7U9VGQ
There is a reason, I guess, why the US hasn't ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child:
States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educatioinal measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child.
In Germany, spanking children is against the law. In schools it was banned in the sixties. It was still tolerated to a certain extent when parents did it, until November 2000, when the wording of the UN Convention was incorporated into German law.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)It very much is bigoted cherry picking, 100% agree.
Bohunk68
(1,364 posts)and their explanation thereof. Notice that the pro-circumcision persons are more often than not female and seem hell-bent on mutilating men's penises. Even to the point of ignoring that cleanliness is a matter of upbringing and education. Teach your sons to clean their dicks and they will. I wish that I had never been circumcised and the fact that I had no say so in the matter is even worse. It's my body, dammit. Just as I support women who wish to have abortions, they should respect a male's right to make the decision for himself.
RitchieRich
(292 posts)It seemed like JUST KIDDING! was going to pop out at any second.
Needs a good muppet though... Choppy the fluffy man hating hypocritical sadist.
hmmm. Is it possible to directly upload photos here? I could whip up some preliminary illustrations.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)The court did not deal with.
reorg
(3,317 posts)This point was specifically addressed.
The district court in Cologne has dismissed this reasoning in its appeal decision. A medical expert consulted by the court came to the conclusion that "in middle Europe, at any rate, there is no necessity to perform circumcisions as a preventative measure for health protection."
---
„Beschneidungen zur Gesundheitsvorsorge nicht notwendig“
Das Kölner Landgericht hat auch diese Begründung nun in seinem Berufungsurteil verworfen. Ein vom Gericht bestellter medizinischer Gutachter kam zu dem Schluss, es gebe „jedenfalls in Mitteleuropa keine Notwendigkeit, Beschneidungen vorbeugend zur Gesundheitsvorsorge vorzunehmen“.
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/inland/beschneidung-eine-dauerhafte-und-irreparable-veraenderung-11799975.html
boppers
(16,588 posts)That's an important word.
Circumcision reduces AIDS, HPV, HSV, UTI, (etc.), but that isn't a matter of necessity. It's a matter of public and private health, sure, but it's not a requirement.
reorg
(3,317 posts)especially not for infants.
Even if circumcision would actually reduce the risk of contracting AIDS and STD, toddlers are not exactly among those high risk groups which frequently change their sex partners. In any case, condoms are far safer than even the most callused glans, and getting enough of them is not an issue in Germany.
Crunchy Frog
(26,587 posts)Doesn't seem like it's too effective.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)AIDS in Europe varies from .1 % in Central Europe (1-2 per 100,000) to 1% in Eastern Europe (Mainly Russia, Eastern Europe now 30 per 100,000 infection rare) ). Most Eastern European inflection is tied in with Drug use.
http://www.avert.org/hiv-aids-europe.htm
Western Europe is holding at 5-8 per hundred thousand infection rate.
In the above site I could NOT find a USA per 100,000 number, used Federal Central for Disease Control (CDC) data which emphasis percentage of new AIDS in various categories as oppose to 100,000. Did find one referring to AIDS per 100,000 but it is divided by race:
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/us.htm#ref2
For a proper comparison, you have to add the males to females and then divide by 2. You can NOT add White, Black and Hispanic for whites are still over 70% of the populations. Thus you have to know the actual percentage of total population to accurately combine the race numbers. An additional problem is that among African-American drug use is high, through not believed to be as high as Eastern Europe drug use.
Thus white, male AND female is 18.6, dived by 2 that comes out to 9.3 per 100,000 people. Much lower then Eastern Europe, but about the same as Western through higher then Central Europe (Through I have my problems with Central European statistics, Germany is often considered WESTERN Europe, Poland, Hungary and the former Warsaw Pact countries are called "Central Europe" and in all of them I can see good reasons for professionals to lie about the AIDS rates, i.e. the rates are low for the simple fact no one goes to a Doctor to see if they have AIDS, and when the do go to a Doctor, the Doctors find it is to their financial benefit NOT to report that someone has AIDS, thus low AIDS rates for no one wants to find AIDS).
The problem is you can NOT really compare European with American AIDS rate do to the fact much of AIDS transmission is via needles.
In the 1990s it was reported that Drugs was the number one way AIDS was spread even in the US, more recent studies have made Drugs #3, behind homosexual and hetorsexual transmission.
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm#exposure
Thus the US rates of AIDS seems to be the same as Europe, clearly true of Western Europe. Russia and the rest of the Former Soviet Union (Eastern Europe) have had to face AIDS for it is tied in with their Massive drug problem and the low rate in Central Europe (Poland and the rest of the Former Warsaw Pact countries) I have no faith in their reported AIDS rates due to the fact they are so much lower then Western and Eastern European rates.
reorg
(3,317 posts)The court decision is about parents making the decision for their children. Since when are toddlers at risk to get HIV through sexual intercourse? And what has the drug problem in Russia got to do with anything?
As regards the numbers of new HIV infections, here are solid, comparable statistics:
New diagnoses of HIV infection in 2009
US (for some reason, this only includes the numbers of "40 states and five dependent areas", but let's neglect that slight distortion)
42,959
http://www.avert.org/usa-statistics.htm
Germany (estimate based on results of HIV tests which must be reported, but sometimes it is not clear if it is a FIRST diagnose)
~ 3,000
http://www.vergissaidsnicht.de/uploads/media/Aids_Zahlen_Deutschland_2009.pdf
http://www.vergissaidsnicht.de/fakten.html
Population estimates taken from Wikipedia:
USA (2012) 313,820,000
Germany (2010) 81,799,600
Estimated HIV infections per 100,000 inhabitants (new infections total divided by population multiplied with 100,000)
US: 13.6
Germany: 3.6
happyslug
(14,779 posts)The comment was to EUROPEAN AIDS rates. I used Easterm Western and Central European numbers, for those are from sources as to rates per one hundrend thousand. I did NOT cite Germany for I could not find a PER 100,000 rate for Germany or even the US. I did find a per 100,000, but divided up by race, thus I used the WHITE numbers as the best I could find.
I was pointing out the difference between Europe and American rates. I did NOT cite Germany for the person I was responding to referred to as Euroope NOT German.
Germany infection rate .01% of total population, US is .06% (as is Swizerland's), BUT Russia WHICH IS PART OF EUROPE is ,03%, the Ukraine is 1.6%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_HIV/AIDS_adult_prevalence_rate
boppers
(16,588 posts)Uhm, I think I need a pointer here, to a study showing lower infection and transmission rates for the different groups....
Or is it not about science, but simply that americans fuck a lot more, diluting the results?
Crunchy Frog
(26,587 posts)Maybe American men need the extra stimulation due to lost nerve endings and keratinized penises. Maybe condoms reduce an already compromised sensitivity too much, making American men less likely to use them.
Funny that a surgery originally intended to mute male sexuality may have had the opposite effect.
http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/419?task=view
Sexually Transmitted Diseases
Limited data is available for STI rates in Europe. However, data from the Netherlands found that rates of reported incidence are considerably higher in the United States.[6,7] Further, comparisons of prevalence (the proportion of a given population which is infected) find that the Chlamydia prevalence among young adults in the United States is twice that among young adults in the Netherlands.[8,9] *
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)In my view, a government is responsible for assuring water is clean. Maybe, maybe, for teaching good habits. It's up to free individuals to clean their own bodies, don't you think?
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)to decide on male circumcision in my view.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)parents for everything. That is why parents are both responsible and the decision-makers for their children. This is for many a religious issue. In this country we respect religious freedom.
Sirveri
(4,517 posts)They do not own their children, it is not their canvas to paint a picture on. Religion does not grant one the right to do whatever they want.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)So the rest of your post makes no sense. No one has the right to cause this irreversible damage to infants.
This is for the MAJORITY not a religious issue, but the consequence of a medical myth. The Muslim and Jewish minorities in the US are small. The religious excuses for damaging the genitals of babies are secondary.
In this country there are many religious freedoms we do not respect, and rightly so. Polygamy, female genital mutilation, the stoning of adulterers and gays, the rules in Leviticus about the price of a slave or a bride - these are among the religious "freedoms" trampled upon by the laws of this country. Also many harmless practices, like the use of drugs in religions.
go west young man
(4,856 posts)In Western countries it is no longer an issue.
boppers
(16,588 posts)I am uncertain which Western country is STD free, can you tell me?
go west young man
(4,856 posts)Weather it's a cut dick or an uncut dick the risk of STD is the same regardless and soap and water are readily available across the USA as best I can tell. Do women have a greater risk of STD because they have an opening? I think not. Your point is ridiculous.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)women have a lot more folds and flaps down there, so if hygiene is a problem for a little bit of foreskin, shouldn't we streamline the ladies too?
closeupready
(29,503 posts) boppers
(16,588 posts)Culturally, it doesn't.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Crunchy Frog
(26,587 posts)My "area" would clearly be more hygienic if it were lacking all those folds of excess skin. Having worked in the health field and doing peri care on women for several years, I will venture to suggest that my anatomy is not unique in that respect.
I've got no interest in getting trimmed though, as I find soap and water to be sufficient for my hygiene needs, as do most intact males.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)that would cut down on the rate of women having sex which would necessarily reduce the rates of STDs.
So . . . thoughts on that? For hygiene of course.
snot
(10,530 posts)if they want it done, let it be done with anaesthetic?
Google says it takes 4-6 weeks to fully heal. You can't tell me it wouldn't be better to wait 'til the person is at least old enough to understand why this is being done to him.
Sirveri
(4,517 posts)That's ultimately what this is about. Familial and cultural conformity. You WILL be like me, and I will force you to be so. It started because the doctors decided to say screw you, I know what's best, and did it without permission after WW2. It's always been about control. Need to have the medical community stop performing them. If they're not medically indicated, then don't perform them. But because it's basically a wash as far as benies versus risk, they toss the ball into the parents court, even though it's essentially cosmetic surgery. They need to stop performing cosmetic surgery on newborns, Male Genital Cutting, Female Genital Cutting, ear piercing, tattooing, all of that shit needs to stop. The body belongs to the individual unless there is a pressing medical need.
ilikeitthatway
(143 posts)Circumcision came to America thanks to a religious nut who touted it as means to get little boys to stop touching themselves.
You know what's akin to male circumcision? Removing the labia. The justifications for male circumcision would also extend to the female.
The foreskin has more nerve endings than the clitoris.
If someone wants to get circumcised when they're older, that's their decision.
Putting infants through this is sadistic.
Europe doesn't do this.
America is off the charts when it comes to STDs, HIV,and so on. There goes that myth, that circumcision cuts down on those diseases. The WORST lie perpetrated by the medical community was when they said that non-circumcised penises can cause cervical cancer. The people who pushed this falsehood should be stripped of their licences!
midnight
(26,624 posts)ilikeitthatway
(143 posts)This is what religious folklore gets ya:
New York City is investigating the death last September of a baby who contracted herpes after a "ritual circumcision with oral suction," in an ultra-Orthodox Jewish ceremony known in Hebrew as metzitzah b'peh.
In a practice that takes place during a ceremony known as the bris, a circumcision practitioner, or mohel, removes the foreskin from the baby's penis, and with his mouth sucks the blood from the incision to cleanse the wound.
The 5,000-year-old religious practice is seen primarily in ultra-Orthodox and some orthodox communities and has caused an alarm among city health officials. In 2003 and 2004, three babies, including a set of twins, were infected with Type 1 herpes; the cases were linked to circumcision, and one boy died.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/baby-dies-herpes-virus-ritual-circumcision-nyc-orthodox/story?id=15888618
Megahurtz
(7,046 posts)below the age of 18. Hell, I would even bump it up to 21! A man should be allowed to make his own decision to circumcise himself - or not. Parents should not be allowed to force this barbaric and abusive practice on a baby or child. It is permanent, and cannot be undone!
Fearless
(18,421 posts)I'm all for letting people decide what to do with or to their bodies.
RKP5637
(67,111 posts)
Beacool
(30,250 posts)But as a woman I must say that I find a circumcised penis far more attractive that one in its natural state.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)"I must say I find tiny feet on a woman far more attractive than feet in their natural state."
(No, obviously.)
How is your cultural or personal preference relevant to this question? Seriously?
"As a male conditioned to the presently dominant norms of Western culture, I find women who are substantially under their natural weight to be more attractive."
(Not actually true. Just another example.)
go west young man
(4,856 posts)They find it more attractive. I would argue that it is superficial social conditioning that is highly prevalent in our "me" society.
Because many women find it more attractive and the uncircumcised penis less so, with it's wrinkled sheath, they opt for the genital mutilation for their own kids. They are willing to ignore the fact their own child feels excruciating pain so early in their fresh new human existence predominantly because "they" get more turned on by a circumcised dick when having sex. It's the norm for them with no thought given to their own child's pain or future feeling. It's a prime example of how messed up and hedonistic our society has become. It's sociopathic really. Ignoring the pain of other's and having no compassion for them while focusing on one's own pleasure.
Beacool
(30,250 posts) go west young man
(4,856 posts)Analyzing is what we do here. I analyze your opinion. (which is simplistic to me) and you analyze mine which you find too in depth I assume. Which to me weakens your opinion. There is a psychological reason for all things that human beings do. I am just adding my opinion on what I believe drives many American women on this issue. The poster clearly stated she finds it more attractive and that reason may have a lot to do with why women allow it for their infant boys. When I say superficial that also includes a lack of education or desire to be educated on the subject. They readily accept it as a societal norm without considering the child's feelings or future experiences.
Beacool
(30,250 posts)As if men don't treat women as pieces of meat. Ask any woman who has walked into a bar or any other place where there's a bunch of guys. Women are primordially judged on their appearance. So a woman can't say what she prefers in a guy? How about the things that women do to please men.
I personally don't care one way or another about circumcision, but if it's a question of aesthetics, a circumcised penis is more attractive.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Therefore you should get to treat men like meat (I'm following so far, actually)...
Therefore it's good to chop off a functioning body part with thousands of nerve endings from the penis of a helpless infant child.
Because you have determined that circumcised is more "aesthetic," objectively, forever.
Brilliant stuff, really. You are one smart, modern lady.
I've got a similar one for you:
The kind of "men" you're thinking of tend to be really stupid and brutish and incapable of basic logic, at any rate if it doesn't benefit their bottom line or aggrandize their egos. They are greedy heels and lack tact, feeling, nuance and empathy...
THEREFORE... complete the rest yourself!
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)he would be labeled a misogynist.
But saying "I Prefer little boys be circumcised because I like the look" is ok.
I think it's fair to say that arguing for permanently altering an infants appearance via surgery on the basis of making that child more attractive to the opposite sex is a bit . . . twisted.
Beacool
(30,250 posts)I was talking about my personal preference in grown men. Where did I suggest that people go out and circumcise their sons?
Although, I just saw a news report about some adult men in Africa volunteering to be circumcised as an example to others to help prevent AIDS.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)that's true, sometimes not. It depends on the guy.
That said, what's wrong with asking a guy to show you his dick before dating him?
Beacool
(30,250 posts)Just imagine saying to a guy: I only date men who have been circumcised.
LOL!!!
closeupready
(29,503 posts)'just in case'. IMHO, of course.
I couldn't imagine saying such a superficial thing like that. It reminds me of certain men who only date women who have surgically enhanced their breasts which I find equally superficial.
Beacool
(30,250 posts)Heard of humor?
HillWilliam
(3,310 posts)thought I've asked plenty to show me theirs during dating. Lucky me, nearly all were happy to comply 
closeupready
(29,503 posts)
HillWilliam
(3,310 posts)They're just easily achieved 
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)
Son of Gob
(1,502 posts)ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)Taverner
(55,476 posts)COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)have a pretty good track record regarding telling Jews what they cannot do...
go west young man
(4,856 posts)COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)lost family to them.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)observant Jewish family.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Is this what makes someone Jewish? There are families who don't do this, just are there are families who don't follow all of the hundreds of commandments in Deuteronomy, many of them involving rules about slavery and sale of women. People don't follow these things, yet they're still Jewish. You seem to be narrowing "observant" down to the observation of this particular act, which is a strange way to define a religion.
At any rate, where is the right of the human being to make their own decisions about irreversible unnecessary procedures?
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)The circumcision of males has been a fundamental covenant of the Jewish people with their God for more than 5,000 years now. Questions about slavery, sale of women, different types of cloth, burning offerings are not part of any covenant - they are instead laws which Jews choose to live by, and which have adapted and changed over the centuries. However, for a Jew to reject the coveant of circumcision is the same as a Roman Catholic rejecting the Holy Trinity. There are things that can be dispensed with and there are other things that are fundamental to a given faith. Circumcision for Jews is one of these. I can't help it if you refuse to understand this in your enthusiasm to condemn a practice you personally do not agree with - it's certainly your right to not agree with it or practice it yourself. But I flatly reject the notion that it's acceptable for a court of law, particularly a German one to assert any right to tell Jews how they may or may not practice their religion. We've been down that road before and the results weren't pretty.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)1) Are you saying a male with an intact foreskin cannot be Jewish?
2) Or are you saying that families who do not engage in the practice cannot be Jewish?
I need you to confirm those answers because these would be incredibly extremist beliefs.
In addition, you are entitled to believe any religious mythology you wish, but you are not entitled to your own facts.
Even if we accept the impossible tales of the Old Testament as true, the "covenant" between the possibly real historical figure, Abraham, and the mythical sky being Yahweh is no older than about 2,800 years, and not "5,000 years" as you have it.
This 2,000-year difference makes me wonder what else you're getting wrong.
"However, for a Jew to reject the coveant of circumcision is the same as a Roman Catholic rejecting the Holy Trinity."
Yes, the two are very similar. It's called Enlightenment.
However, Catholics can cease to be Catholic.
A Jew who "rejects" the "covenant of circumcision" ("denies" would be more accurate, since you cannot reject an offer that does not exist) does not cease to be Jewish.
Your fundamentalist views about agreements with non-existent sky beings do not give you the right to define who is a Jew on the basis of whether they engage in male genital mutilation, or to say that people must cut the foreskins off babies because some Iraqi tribesman once had a deal with a non-existent sky-god.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)overpowering intellectual discourse and profound philosophical analysis. It must be truly awesome to be the sole possessor of the only, absolute, truth to spiritual questions which have puzzled other (obviously lesser) souls since we first climbed down from the primordial trees. And to have achieved the level of spiritual knowledge and understanding to be able to preach ex cathedra to the rest of us on religious questions such as 'how being a Jew should be defined' is simply breathtaking. I can't imagine how you've managed to put up so long with being surrounded by mere mortals. You must be quite lonely.
Sirveri
(4,517 posts)The only requirement to be Jewish (for the child) is that the child is born of a Jewish mother.
This is standard Jewish law, you'd know this if you bothered to do any serious research on the subject. Or maybe you already knew this and you're just trying to be passive aggressive because this particular subject has some sort of personal significance to you.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)to a Jewish mother is 'not a Jew'. Nice attempt at a straw man. But the fact remains the the rite of circumcision is fundamental to Judaism almost universally. It is a covenant between God and the Jewish People and religious Jews believe that failure to perform it has grave religious consequences:
The commandment to circumcise is given at Gen. 17:10-14 and Lev. 12:3. The covenant was originally made with Abraham. It is the first commandment specific to the Jews.
Circumcision is performed only on males. Although some cultures have a practice of removing all or part of the woman's clitoris, often erroneously referred to as "female circumcision," that ritual has never been a part of Judaism.
Like so many Jewish commandments, the brit milah is commonly perceived to be a hygienic measure; however the biblical text states the reason for this commandment quite clearly: circumcision is an outward physical sign of the eternal covenant between G-d and the Jewish people. It is also a sign that the Jewish people will be perpetuated through the circumcised man.
The commandment is binding upon both the father of the child and the child himself. If a father does not have his son circumcised, the son is obligated to have himself circumcised as soon as he becomes an adult. A person who is uncircumcised suffers the penalty of kareit, spiritual excision; in other words, regardless of how good a Jew he is in all other ways, a man has no place in the World to Come if he is uncircumcised.
I personally don't care if the child has a bris or not. But, as I've clearly stated before, I neither accept the right of a German court to tell Jews that believe in the precepts of their religion that they cannot practice it as is their right, nor in the right of others to belittle Jews', or any other religious groups' beliefs in order to champion their own agenda. And that's what has been going on here.
Sirveri
(4,517 posts)After all, they can get it done as an adult. The covenant certainly has more meaning if you actually have to affirm it yourself rather than having it forced on you before an age you can remember.
This of course totally ignores that children aren't property to do whatever the parent desires with, which is why female circumcision is banned. And since you opened that door, the largest Muslim country on earth routinely performs it (for religious and cultural reasons), accounting for over half the incident of FGC, and they typically only either slit the hood or remove it, leaving the clitoris intact. But that practice is banned in this country without any religious exemption. Despite calls from health care professionals to legalize the more minor variants to prevent immigrants from sub-saharan Africa from returning there to have a much more extreme variant performed when they could be convinced to have a less invasive procedure performed.
So I guess the point is, where are the limits of parental domination. Do they have the right to force cosmetic surgery on another person? The issue is cloudy because parents can give consent, but they're also supposed to act in the minors best interests. Is it in the child's best interest to obliterate their ability to make their own decisions? In the case of girls, they're protected from the slightest nick with the only exception being medical NEED. It's really not too much to ask parents to only have surgery performed on their children if they have a viable medical need.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)Why should a boy be exposed to having to go through an agonizing procedure as an adult rather than having it done virtually painlessly when they are 1-7 days old? It's not only counterproductive - it also is and remains a serious abdication of the father's religious commitment.
"It's really not too much to ask parents to only have surgery performed on their children if they have a viable medical need."
Finally, and not to put too fine a point on it, who are you to determine that "It's really not too much"? The crux of your argument seems to be based on your belief that you somehow have the right to demand that Jewish parents act in accordance with your wishes. I on the other hand believe that it's the parents' decision - not that of a court nor that of any advocacy group or other person. And here in the U.S. the law agrees with me - a ruling such as that of the German court would be struck down as clearly violative of the First Amendment.
Sirveri
(4,517 posts)People have the right to extend the first amendment as far as their own body, that's it.
I also dispute that it's agonizing, I've done plenty of research on this subject and adult responses to it vary quite substantially, with some men having virtually no pain at all. Not to mention that they'd be granted pain killers, which typically aren't given to children (unless you feel that a couple drops of wine is an adequate surgical pain relief).
The parents shouldn't have the right to perform needless cosmetic surgery, which is what this is. But because of cultural inertia, it's allowed. Unless you think that the parents own the child, pretty sure that violates the 13th amendment though.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)I don't know how, after all this discussion you have decided that male circumcision of Jewish or Muslim children is 'cosmetic surgery'. There is clearly no cosmetic reason at all - only a religious one. Until such time as the law is changed and upheld as constitutional (something that strikes me as highly unlikely), I believe people have the right to follow their religious practices as they have done up to now without state interference.
Sirveri
(4,517 posts)People have the right to follow their religious practices as far as their own hand can reach. They do not have the right to inflict their religious practices onto non-consenting third parties.
Religion is not a carte blanche to do whatever you want to whoever you want.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)they say about opinions...
Crunchy Frog
(26,587 posts)Used very safely and effectively on adults getting this procedure done (as with adult women getting labiaplasty). Not so much with so with newborns (and newborns do feel pain, at least as acutely as adults). I understand that many, many Russian immigrants to Israel had this done as adults, and without too much trauma.
I certainly hope that you are out campaigning to re-legalize the most minor forms of female genital cutting (which is very important in some cultures). Otherwise, you are coming from a point of total hypocrisy.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)circumcised as an adult. Took him 2 weeks to recover - 14 days of pretty much hell. Other posters on this site have reported the same thing. And I'd love to see your scientific proof that newborns feel pain as acutely as adults. Link? BTW, your story of Russian adult immigrants being circumcised in Israel as adults strikes me as bullshit. Why would they need to be circumcised as adults? My entire father's family are Russian Jews and all of them were circumcised as children in the way it's always been done, at home by a Mohel. The didn't have to go to a doctor to have it done, nor was their any state sanction against them for having it done.
Finally, I am not out campaining for anything, unlike yourself. What other cultures do is their business.
Crunchy Frog
(26,587 posts)Try Googling "Israel Russian immigrant circumcision" and you'll get lots of info.
Here's a link on neonatal pain.
http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/News/2009/Features/WTX054083.htm
ETA: Wow. Your friend was sore for 2 weeks. I bet women are sore for a few weeks after labiaplasty as well. We're sore after childbirth, for that matter. At least your friend didn't have to pee and poop on an open wound. (At least I hope he didn't.)
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)point. The people doing this are people who chose not to live as Jews while in Russia - now that they have emigrated to Israel they have decided to take up their religion and then undergo circumcision as adults. Nothing about that shows that it's preferable to have it done as an adult - merely that some decide to do it later in life.
Anesthesiologists I know would beg to differ with the very tentative conclusions about infant pain that the London doctor has come up with. And the point remains that the procedure in an adult is unquestionably painful - in many cases to a high degree. You still haven't told me from a practical standpoint why it's better to undergo a surgical procedure with full consciousness of pain as an adult rather than a momentary, non-remembered pain (if in fact there is pain perception at all) if the procedure is performed when only days old.
It appears that you agree that male circumcision is OK - just that it should be done on adults.
Crunchy Frog
(26,587 posts)And I hope to God that those anesthesiologists you mentioned are not taking care of babies. I've done alot of research on this issue, but I'm not going to bother with presenting you with anymore links. Find them yourself if you wish to try to contradict me.
And I guess you didn't Google the terms I suggested, or you would have come up with all kinds of links about the mass circumcision of adult Russian immigrants, that ran into the hundreds of thousands.
The only point I was trying to make, is that it's clearly not intolerable for an adult to go through. And yes, I believe that non-medically indicated body modifications should only be done on consenting adults, and not on infants. And no, I don't believe that the procedure is painful for an adult with proper anesthesia, any more than any other surgical procedure.
Sorry. I don't think I'm going to convince you of anything, and the only thing you've convinced me of is that I've done a good deal more research into alot of these issues than you have.
Probably best not to discuss this further with each other.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)That's nothing new. We do it all the time.
Some are private and difficult to enforce (like bans on FGM) and others are more public (like bans on slaughtering goats in public parks and making public offerings). A woman can't wear her burqa for a driver's license photo and a religious Jew cannot make a woman move to the back of a public bus. Muslims can't beat their women under our laws and Australian aboriginal women can't go topless in public.
Courts enforce laws that tell religious people they cannot follow their particular religious practice all the time.
Surely a ritual religious mutilation performed on an infant, cutting off a body part, would be something we could all agree is barbaric and should be outlawed.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)are constutionally limited to being the least invasive they can possibly be, in those rare instances when they are pemitted at all. And in all the circumstances you cite, permission for them has been granted by courts because a superior public interest is involved. What conceivable public interest is in play here?
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)A "family" cultural/religious matter in many places of the world and certainly not a matter of "superior public interest". Yet we in the west with our western values have decided that depriving women of sexual pleasure is worthy of legal action (and I agree with that) but why do we get to decide which cultural/religious practices are okay and others are not? Its because we've had a conversation in our society about what cultural/religious norms we want for our part of the planet. Presumably that position is fluid and things could change on that front (I sincerely hope not) but the first step had to be a conversation about a particular practice. I see this happening with circumcision. What has been happening without a great deal of questioning by many cultures is now getting some scrutiny and a conversation about it is going to occur. Then society will come to some conclusions about whether it will continue. Germany is clearly farther along in this convo than we are in the US, and are moving in the direction of laws about it.
Taking it further, for example, telling women what they can and cannot wear in public seems to me to be pretty major but we've all agreed to it because we're culturally acclimated to it. Perhaps that cultural norm will change in the future but its fairly benign in comparison to mutilating an infant's genitals if you ask me. Yet women wearing tops is enforced pretty strictly in our western cultures. What superior "public interest" is served by outlawing toplessness for women?
So we have big problems with one practice that's pretty harmless (toplessness) yet somehow something really drastic (like genital mutilation) deserves a pass - on cultural/religious grounds no less which isn't really even valid in my opinion.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)You may be right in that public perception is fluid and moving in the direction that will dissuade circumcision. But that's a matter for the public through their elected representatives and later through the courts to ensure that whatever decision is made passes constitutional muster.
Toplessness, if there is such a word is one such evolving trend. There are clothing optional beaches in the US now, as well as strictly nudist areas. I imagine that in another 50 years or so toplessness will be a non-issue. But my greater point is that when something is a permitted religious practice it can only (and should only) be circumscribed legally with the greatest of care and even then only reluctantly. BTW, I don't think you enhance your argument by using emotionally charged phrases like 'genital mutilation' to describe circumcision.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)"when something is a permitted religious practice it can only (and should only) be circumscribed legally with the greatest of care and even then only reluctantly"
I can agree with that. I believe having a tactful conversation about these kinds of rituals is tricky (and I mean that on every level - from personal conversations to the larger societal discourse). Your point about calling it "genital mutilation" vs "circumcision" highlights that. For a long time, in women's rights circles where I travel, FGM was called female circumcision. It didn't really catch on as a real problem in society's eyes until it was called female genital mutilation.
Now you and I (and others) can have a dialogue about whether male circumcision is a "problem" or not and that's clearly the goal of this thread, but I'm guessing anti-male circumcision folks are co-opting the language from the women's movement.
And I'm not sure excising (heh) "genital mutilation" from the discussion is correct. From the discussion on this thread, and other DU threads, there are more than a few people who DO see it that way. Is their POV any less valid? They believe their penis has been mutilated by having the foreskin cut away. They believe its troublesome for sexual activity and other reasons. Isn't this exactly the same language we use when we talk about this for female circumcision?
So why is it okay to talk about female genital mutilation but not male genital mutilation? Why can one be called FGM but the other must be called circumcision? I believe its because those who believe in the ritual prefer to call it by shall we say, its less "inflammatory" name. It sounds awful when we call it genital mutilation doesn't it? Societally acceptable when we call it circumcision. For those who think its a mutilation and are trying to get "activist" about it, which term would you choose?
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)unusual to be able to have a coherent discussion on an emotional topic.
I think the question about FGM vs circumcision is more a physiological rather than a semantic one. As I understand it, FGM normally includes resection of both the labia minora and labia majora - an almost total resection of the exterior female genitalia. In addition, it is usually done by totally untrained persons in totally unsanitary conditions and against older children who are aware of their surroundings and usually frightened, unwilling participants. My daughter, a M.D. who has experience treating female patients in Somalia and Djibouti tells me that, in addition to having the FGM the patient often presents with the vagina sewed shut after the 'procedure', which in turn produces all kinds of medical nightmares (not the least of which are fistulas). That qualifies as a "mutilation"
Infant male circumcision involves virtually none of the above elements. It is either done in a hospital, with local anesthetic or at home by a Mohel, where the child is given a few drops of wine. It is my understanding that, at age 1 day to 7 days (the required time for male circumcision for Jews) the child's perception of pain is not very well developed, to the point that most trained people will call the procedure 'painless'. In any event the actual incision is not drastic. There are probably no pressing medical reasons for infant circumcision, except that the probability of a circumcised male contracting penile cancer is negligible. In addition some medical research indicates that circumcised males are somewhat less susceptible to some STD's, particularly HIV. In contrast, the only argument against circumcision seems to be a "heightened sexual response"in the uncircumcised male, a fact which is countered by others who believe the minimal lack of sensitivity in the circumcised male permits him to be a better partner by being able to delay climax longer to be able to accommodate his partner. Calling this procedure "mutilation" uses an emotionally charged term that adds nothing to the conversation.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)FGM has many variations - from a very mild nick to the entire external genitalia cut off and sewn shut. Some of them are done by experienced "practitioners" who style themselves much the same way as a mohel. My experience is with abused women and rape victims at (what was) my local women's shelter in Wheaton IL, home to almost 200 evangelical missionary organizations and a major re-settlement location for foreign refugees in the US. (I moved 5 years ago after spending 25 years there volunteering).
I only say all of the above so you understand that I'm pretty familiar with the degrees of severity with which FGM presents itself.
The thing is, even a ritualistic nick to the clitoral hood is categorized in the US as FGM and banned by law. I actually agree with it being banned in entirety because you just can't inspect every last procedure, and there are some "practitioners" who will always take very severe measures. If its banned outright, chances are it can be stopped before any action is taken.
Which leads me to the discussion of male circumcision. I think those who want to keep the practice are standing on some shakey grounds.
1. We really don't know what kind of pain infants experience with this. We know how painful it is for those who are old enough to tell us about the pain which makes many people uncomfortable with performing such a painful act on an infant.
2. Its a primarily religious and cultural ritual which aren't very persuasive arguments.
3. Some infants have died from this. Granted, not many, but why expose any child to that risk without their consent, especially when they can decide to do it themselves when they are adults?
4. There are clearly those who feel they have been mutilated. You can't just wish them away and ask them to stop saying that.
You can check my post history, I've never posted on a circumcision thread before so I'm a newbie at this (which is perhaps why you and I are having such a pleasant conversation without any heightened tension). I'm also female with two daughters so I don't have any skin (heh) in this game. Full disclosure: my husband and I had already decided against circumcising our kids if they had been boys but as a European that's standard.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)a religious mandate, the practice is protected in the U.S. by the First Amendment. To me, that's as persuasive as it gets.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Especially reading some of these posts, there are a lot of passionate voices that are deeply angry about this procedure being done to them as children/infants.
Just because something has always been so doesn't necessarily mean its "right" or persuasive. We used to believe slavery and polygamy were god's will as well....
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)evolved in the U.S. I doubt it. We'll just have to wait and see.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)not to circumcise your children if you have boys. Just as I agree with a Jewish person's personal decision to have it done on his newborn son.
Crunchy Frog
(26,587 posts)But not all of them. Here is a link to a blog post, with comments, about female circumcision as it's practiced in Brunei.
http://maurina.wordpress.com/2007/11/16/female-circumcision-explained/
I hope you'll read it, because I think you'll find it genuinely interesting.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Yes, it is breathtaking that you seem to be presenting the rigid and truly fundamentalist view that Jewishness is defined by circumcision, because of a covenant with Yahweh! Your post is pure projection.
I wonder what you'd be writing if we were talking about a bloody permanent trauma practiced on infants, except someone was trying to justify it by citing the Koran. (How come no one here is saying opposition to circumcision is Islamophobic?)
Guess what? This isn't about you. Tens of millions of males in this country had their genitals cut because of a medical myth. Those with a religious justification are a minority.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)Read my reply 153 to Sirveri. I never said that Jewishness is defined by circumcision. It is however an important (most believe vital) part of Jewish (as well as Muslim) religious practice. Neither you nor a court has the legal or moral right to insist that it not be carried out.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)It doesn't matter that these are worse. Society has laws against assault as well as murder. Deliberate harm is wrong, whether great or small.
The only relevant criterion is whether the removal of the foreskin constitutes "grievous bodily harm."
Anyone can make any claim based on what some fictional sky-god said to a figure of legend a million years ago, and use that to violate human rights. People do it every day, in fact.
This is a question of individual human rights versus arbitrary (and dubious) interpretations of ancient religious mythologies. If genital cutting is "grievous bodily harm," then it is just as much so even if it is called "religious practice."
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)circumcision constitutes 'grevious bodily harm', excluding this rather novel approach by a German courrt. I'd be very interested in learning about any US jurisprudence which supports your conclusion.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Self-evidently. What is harm, if the forced, bloody removal of a functioning, healthy part of the body does not qualify? Any counter-claim is absurd. The irreversible removal of any other body part would be seen as such.
The German court merely acknowledged this obvious fact. If American courts take longer, that is to their discredit, but it doesn't change the obvious fact.
Response to JackRiddler (Reply #185)
COLGATE4 This message was self-deleted by its author.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)"it is because I say it is".
Not persuasive. Thanks for the discussion. 'Bye.
reorg
(3,317 posts)get some friends together and then "get some bricks and baseball bats and really explain things"* to a bunch of Nazis gathering down the block, would you consider it grievous bodily harm if this would result in bleeding wounds, cutting through skin, causing lasting, irreparable damage such as a disfiguring scar in the face?
If one of those Nazis gathering down the block was my 15-year-old son, would I have the right to discipline him in this manner?
* favorite movie quote
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)I have no idea what "First Amendment Right" you are referencing in your scenario of theoretically 'beating up a bunch of Nazis'. But, regardless of that;
Would the effects of the beating you describe constitute 'grevious bodily harm'? Depends on the law in your state. For example, here's fairly typical language from state criminal code:
"The term “serious bodily injury” is interchangeably used with serious bodily harm; grievous bodily harm; great bodily injury...which involves a substantial risk of death, unconsciousness, extreme physical pain, protracted and obvious disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty.”
An intentionally caused disfiguring scar on the face would probably meet the legal definition oF a 'protracted and obvious disfigurement'. A routine, legal circumcision would not.
I have no idea what point you're trying to make in asking whether your 15 year old son could be 'disciplined' by you for his involvement in the hypothetical beating. Again, it depends on the law in your state. Generally, children under the age of emancipation (eighteen) can be disciplined by a parent. It also depends on what your idea of 'discipline' consists of.
reorg
(3,317 posts)You were claiming in an earlier post that First Amendment rights ensure that parents have the right to decide on circumcising their children.
I tried to picture myself, as a non-religious person, in a comparable situation, taking matters of opinion and conviction into the realm of the physical.
So you agree that a bleeding wound, cutting through and irreversibly removing considerable amounts of skin, with permanently visible consequences, may constitute grievous bodily harm? Would you agree that inflicting such wounds on somebody else, no matter how righteous your intentions may be which you expressed by inflicting these wounds, is surely illegal?
And if I did something like that to my son in order to displine him, wouldn't that be a bit over the top, even in the US?
I have learned that many states in the US still allow corporal punishment in schools and at home, but cutting through skin, causing irreversable and clearly visible disfigurement? Surely, there must be a law against parental abuse of this kind?
As I mentioned in another post, in Germany it is expressly forbidden and against the law to use violence of any kind against your children (BGB § 1631). It is a recent change, from 2000, when the legislative implemented the Convention on the Rights of the Child into the German civil code (BGB), namely
Art. 19, Paragraph 1:
States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse ...
In the current discussion, another article of the Convention on the Rights of the Child is frequently mentioned:
Art. 24, Paragraph 3:
States Parties shall take all effective and appropriate measures with a view to abolishing traditional practices prejudicial to the health of children.
You can find more on the legal argument around this case in this article, which started the discussion in German professional journals a few years ago. It was written by a young law professor and two pediatricians (apparently it is only available in German).
Liability to penalty for circumcision in boys. Medico-legal aspects of a controversial medical intervention
H. Putzke · M. Stehr · H.-G. Dietz
Abstract
Surgeons and urologists (usually pediatric) are often confronted with the request to perform circumcision on a boy from parents or guardians in the absence of a medical indication. This review highlights the importance of refraining from such procedures to avoid being the possible addressee of a civil law claim or even being accused in a lawsuit a some later point. The attending physician who performs a circumcision without medical indication on a minor male incurs a penalty according to § 223 para. 1 of the German Criminal Code, even in the case where the parent or guardian of the child has signed the informed consent to that procedure. In the absence of power of approval over the compromised legally protected interest of the child (physical inviolacy), the consent is invalid. The present article discusses not only the current German legal status, but also examines in depth the arguments often put forward to support the legitimacy of male circumcision (treatment of phimosis, disease prevention, religion).
http://www.holm-putzke.de/index.php?option=com_content&view=section&layout=blog&id=3&Itemid=10
Crunchy Frog
(26,587 posts)for the current, frantic attempts to find "overwhelming medical benefits" and "minimal risks" for genital cutting of male children.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)preposterous, and has nothing to do with the question we are discussing. We are talking about male circumcision. It is a recognized religious practice for Jews and Muslims. Religious practices are guaranteed under the First Amendment, and there is nothing about circumcision that is against the law in any state in the U.S. If a State were to attempt to prohibit it, I am certain it would be struck down as unconstitutional. The German civil code has no bearing whatsoever outside of Germany (thankfully). And I am the last person who thinks Germany should be making laws telling Jews what they can or cannot do.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)as scarce as hen's teeth. It's exceedingly rare to a court to sustain a prohibition against religious practices because the state has to show a compelling reason to do so. The only one that comes to mind is prohibition against smoking marijuana. What others do you have in mind?
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)no public nudity, no animal sacrifices in the public square, no clitoridectomies - these are just the few that I come up with off the top of my head. I'm sure I could come up with others if I spent some time.
How many do you need for me to have made my point? 
I think the larger issue is that religious practices can be banned and/or regulated under the 1st Amendment. I believe circumcision may come under such scrutiny. I'd advise the Jewish and Muslim communities to come up with better reasons than "its a covenant with God" for performing this on infants, especially when full grown men would be telling the court they've been "mutilated". They would be pretty persuasive....
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)the legal test any restriction on religious practices must pass is that there must be a compelling need for it. Even so, any such restriction is then subjected by the courts to a test of strict scrutiny which is an extremely high barrier. Generally speaking, the only restrictions on religious practices permitted by law are those which can be justified under the rubrics of public health or public safety, i.e. no headgear in DL photos because it may hamper police identification, no slaughter of animals in public places for public health reasons, etc. I am not aware of any law which prohibits a licensed medical professional from performing a clitoroidectomy - perhaps you can enlighten me. While you may not be able to find a Dr. who'll do it, that's not the same as calling that it illegal.
Why would a 'full grown man be telling a court that he'd been "mutilated""? On what basis? What crime (or civil cause of action) would he allege?
Finally, under the First Amendment which is the law in this country, Jewish, Muslim, Christian and other communities do not have to 'come up with reasons' to practice what they do. The First Amendment guarantees them freedom to engage in those practices, as different, strange or abhorrent they may seem to others. To the contrary the burden is always on the government to demonstrate to a court's satisfaction a compelling reason for a court to even agree to restrict, much less eliminate, a given religious practice. And no one has yet demonstrated to me that compelling reason.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)There are different variations of FGM but the law makes no discrimination between that. Its all considered harmful from a small nick in the hood to infibulation. If even a small ritual nick is prohibited, its only a matter of time before male circumcision is scrutinized. I have no idea how the first case for male circumcision will present itself - perhaps a man takes the hospital/doctor to court for doing the surgery? Or perhaps societal attitudes change sufficiently that it's outlawed by Congress?
And as we've now established, the 1st Amendment doesn't guarantee the freedom to practice everything. No one has demonstrated to me the "compelling reason" - either public health or public safety - to prohibit Australian aboriginals from going walkabout naked in the public square but there it is, it's illegal.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)'public indecency' hurts the public good. Expect to see that chipped away at even more in this century, as it already has been with 'clothing optional beaches', for example.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)I am going to further theorize that you are Jewish and feel very strongly that this practice remain legal. How do you think the Jewish community would react if it becomes illegal in the same way as FGM? Do you think that new parents will take their boys out of the country for circumcision like the Somalis, Egyptians and other nationalities do that strongly believe in FGM? Edited to add: do you think they would be right to do so, just as the other people from other cultures/religions are doing this to their girls with FGM?
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)were made illegal (a fact which I strongly doubt because of the Constitiutional difficulties), it would in all likelihood only affect licensed health professionals. I believe Jews would just keep doing what they've done for millenia - have the boy circumcised at home by a Mohel (which is what many do, anyway).
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)If you believe that Jews will just go underground to continue, against the law, then you must feel its okay to continue FGM on girls? If not, how is that different?
reorg
(3,317 posts)But feel free to ignore it, just like the references to the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
The German civil code is only interesting because it was changed due to this Convention, which Germany has ratified. The US hasn't, although they may be getting closer. I understand one major barrier, the cruel and unusual punishment of children (life without parole), has been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Perhaps, given some time, other authoritarian traditions will follow.
I very much doubt that the legal argument and the court decision was somehow conceived as an affront towards Jews. If anything, it is a continuation of the headscarf debate, to what extent Muslim immigrants should be expected to adapt to local culture and customs. Or perhaps Germans just want to demonstrate how anti-authoritarian, anti-violent and humane they have become. I certainly don't have any objections to that.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)you can practice your religion as you see fit *UNLESS* it interferes with the rights of another.
I have to ask: why are you so insistent on mutilating little boys? Would it destroy judiasm if they allowed the kids to grow up then make that decision themselves, as adults?
Also try to imagine yourself defending this same thing but on little girls from a religious standpoint. If you can't maybe you should wonder why you can justify doing this to boys.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)There are Jewish families who don't cut. Are they not Jewish, to you?
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)if it's wrong for a christian or an atheist then it's wrong for a jew as well.
Amazing that people are defending the permanent mutilation of a child because of some 4000 year old beliefs written down by desert dwelling nomads.
The old timey religions had some interesting things to say about women, homosexuals, and people of other faiths.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Applied with incredible inconsistency. (Okay, we dropped "God's" word on murdering people if they masturbate or have sex outside a narrowly defined range, those weren't really God talking, but that other part, about cutting off half the penile skin? That's His Word!)
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)and not talking out of place.
I wonder if the people defending circumcision on that bit would also agree that women should STFU on this issue and let the men handle it. As god intended.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)and respect for others' religious traditions is only surpassed by the eloquence of your argument "4000 year old beliefs written down by desert dwelling nomads." I imagine with that combination you've managed to persuade many people to your point of view.
Well, on the plus side, welcome to my Ignore list.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)That the religion was made up a long time ago by people that were very backwards by todays standards?
Or that Jews aren't exempt from the laws everyone else follows?
Or perhaps it's the notion that little boys aren't playthings for religious nuts?
/seriously: ask yourself why mutilating the genitals of little boys is so important to you when you (and everyone else) would be appalled if this were being done to girls, even if it was backed by a religion.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)My parents never told me
Crunchy Frog
(26,587 posts)The British Medical Association will be urged to debate the banning of Unnecessary Male Circumcision at its annual meeting next week (1) after a baby bled to death in Queens Park, London.
The tragic case of 28 day old Angelo Ofori-Mintah (2) is the latest in string of deaths and injuries that have prompted some doctors to call for laws that protect girls from unnecessary genital cutting to be extended to protect boys.
The news of Angelo’s death came in the same week that The British Association for Community Child Health reported in it’s quarterly newsletter that a baby boy’s skull was fractured during a ritual circumcision performed on a kitchen table in Bristol. (3)
Now Dr Antony Lempert, GP and Director of the Secular Medical Forum, will be calling on the BMA to debate the banning of Non Therapeutic Circumcision in the UK at the start of its annual meeting. (4)
Other cases that have helped push the issue up the agenda include the case of a Salford midwife who will be tried for manslaughter later this year after a boy she circumcised bled to death (5), and a report in The Journal of Public Health that found that nearly 1 in 2 Muslim boys circumcised in an Islamic school in Oxford ended up with medical complications. (6)
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Crunchy Frog
(26,587 posts)
I hope you can tell by my posting here that I'm on your side on this issue.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)of children without consent?
The horror.
Mosaic
(1,451 posts)And dehumanizes males. Whoever invented this didn't want men to be normal sexual beings.
Taverner
(55,476 posts)
MindMover
(5,016 posts)Germany Has Not Learned From It’s Own History
http://www.jewishpress.com/cartoons/germany-has-not-learned-from-its-own-history/
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)You aren't humans because of your religion =/= you can't treat your babies as if they weren't humans regardless of your religion.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)Taverner
(55,476 posts)There's no requirement the genital mutilation has to occur in a hospital - although one should feel safer doing it there than at home.
Crunchy Frog
(26,587 posts)I thought it was already established that circumcision does not "make one a Jew", but rather being born of a Jewish mother. So the only way this particular cartoon would make sense is if Jewish women were being prohibited from giving birth in German hospitals. To say nothing of the fact that Jewish brises don't take place in hospitals in general. Not even in US hospitals, and certainly not in German hospitals, where routine newborn circumcision has never been practiced.
This cartoon I thought was kind of funny.
Taverner
(55,476 posts)JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)1) Contrary to how some people insist on associating it, circumcision is not Jewish. It's not what makes anyone Jewish, as one of the posters here has suggested. It's an operation performed unnecessarily and involuntarily on an infant, and most of the people who suffer it are not Jewish.
2) It really is bodily harm. Should the court have said, "No, we can't take this case based on the facts, but must refuse to hear it because in some unfair way rhetorical bullies will use total sophistry to make this look like something it is not?"
