Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Circumcision is grievous bodily harm, German judges rule [View all]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.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
234 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I'm calling my own parents idiots for having fallen for the propaganda of 1965.
JackRiddler
Jun 2012
#25
Did you know that the founder of modern Zionism, Theodor Herzl didn't circumcise his son?
Crunchy Frog
Jun 2012
#94
TMI, but it's at least that much on my sons. And their equipment is pretty standard.
Crunchy Frog
Jun 2012
#106
Little different, female circumcision is akin to having the head of penis cut off, not
Lionessa
Jun 2012
#8
There is a difference between a piece of skin, and removing a "chunk" of a man.
Lionessa
Jun 2012
#37
That's too bad. I'm atheist, always have been and had my son done for med reasons,
Lionessa
Jun 2012
#7
My brother in law not impoverishd and knowing my ex-mother-in-law, there would be
Lionessa
Jun 2012
#38
Agreed. My son is a young preschooler and has no issues with being uncirc'd
FedUpWithIt All
Jun 2012
#122
So you should have had the right to cut off your own when you were an adult.
JackRiddler
Jun 2012
#14
It's debatable if the Oil Age has even progressed from the Stone Age, just say'n.
harun
Jun 2012
#29
Crap, can't find it and didn't comment or rec. Anyway saw it this morning,
Egalitarian Thug
Jun 2012
#68
Which all occur at higher rates in the circumcised U.S. than in intact Europe.
Crunchy Frog
Jun 2012
#114
Maybe Americans fuck more recklessly and more frequently without condoms.
Crunchy Frog
Jun 2012
#140
It is up to sovereign individuals to decide what body modifications they want.
JackRiddler
Jun 2012
#139
Children especially babies, are not sovereign individuals. They depend on their
JDPriestly
Jul 2012
#212
Because then they might not make the choice that the parents want them to make.
Sirveri
Jun 2012
#87
Germany is moving in the right direction, circumcision is barbaric, and the foreskin is necessary
ilikeitthatway
Jun 2012
#81
I agree. If an older male decides to do this fine, but don't do this to a infant...
midnight
Jun 2012
#84
I would say that reason she puts forward is really the reason many women advocate for circumcision.
go west young man
Jun 2012
#98
If a guy were to suggest that he prefers women with XYZ surgeries to make them prettier
4th law of robotics
Jun 2012
#159
Many people enjoy other people's cosmetic surgery, especially breast augmentation. nt
ZombieHorde
Jun 2012
#120
So what you're saying is that it's not actually necessary to be forced upon the child.
Sirveri
Jun 2012
#160
All I can say is that your "knowledge" of neonatal pain is about 30 years out of date.
Crunchy Frog
Jul 2012
#231
There's are laws in the west telling people what they can and cannot do religiously
riderinthestorm
Jun 2012
#162
What "public interest" is served by banning FGM? It's largely a private concern.
riderinthestorm
Jul 2012
#169
Its protected at the moment. I wouldn't be surprised if that doesn't change
riderinthestorm
Jul 2012
#224
Again, not all religious practices are guaranteed under the 1st Amendment. nt
riderinthestorm
Jul 2012
#201
I mentioned a few upthead: must have face exposed for a drivers license photo, polygamy,
riderinthestorm
Jul 2012
#204
I'm going to theorize that the acceptance of infant circumcision will also erode.
riderinthestorm
Jul 2012
#225
So then logically you must believe that girls undergoing FGM in secret is okay?
riderinthestorm
Jul 2012
#230
Although I agree, somehow I'm nervous that it was Germany to declare this first....
Taverner
Jul 2012
#207