Published: 26 Jun 12 11:03 CET | Print version
Online: http://www.thelocal.de/society/20120626-43383.html
Religious circumcisions are bodily harm and thus a crime, a German court ruled this week, in what was dubbed a precedent-setting decision.
What do you think? Leave your comment below.
German intelligence services had identified neo-Nazi gang the National Socialist Underground (NSU) as a “terror cell” months before members killed their first victim in 2000, a secret document condemning the state's inaction has revealed. READ () »
German state prosecutors filed on Wednesday charges against a policeman who punched a woman in the face, breaking her nose and eye socket while she was at a Munich police station in January. READ () »
Police on Wednesday carried out raids across several German states at more than 20 properties, which they believe are connected to a network of leftist extremists responsible for carrying out attacks over more than a decade. READ () »
Germany is celebrating the 200th anniversary of the birth of Richard Wagner on Wednesday. Probably the country's most revered and reviled composer, the man considered an anti-Semitic musical genius is The Local's German of the Week. READ () »
German Economy Minister Philipp Rösler appealed to top US university students this week to consider Germany as the place to start their IT careers and called for tech entrepreneurs to be offered dual citizenship. READ () »
Germany's Social Democrats, trailing behind the conservatives in the polls just months ahead of the elections, are looking to relaunch themselves as they celebrate their 150th anniversary later this week. READ () »
Find movies playing in English in Germany with The Local’s cinema guide. READ () »
German outdoor swimming spots are cleaner than ever, results from a European Commission survey showed on Tuesday. On the whole, the EU's water quality has, it said, significantly improved. READ () »
More news from France at thelocal.fr
More news from Norway at thelocal.no
More news from Sweden at thelocal.se
More news from Switzerland at thelocal.ch
See all ads | Join the Marketplace
888 jobs available
589 new jobs this week
0 new jobs today
Dating
Looking for your own blonde bombshell? Or is the strong, silent type more your
style? Find a German sweetheart here.
Weather
"After clouds comes clear weather," say the Germans. But what about after that? Find out in The Local's weather
section.
Blog
German stuff that's distracting us today.
Noticeboard
Whether you want to buy, sell, hire, announce or promote something, here's the place to do it - completely free of
charge.
Discuss
Debate the news, ask for advice, make friends - or just let off steam.
Register now for:
> Free use of noticeboard
> Special discounts
> Weekly news roundup
> Unlimited use of discuss
Your comments about this article:
For many years, we have rejected female circumcision as barbaric. Although male circumcision is less horrifying, it is still appalling, and any legal protection we can extend to the vulnerable is a good thing, in my opinion.
It is obvious that some will question this from the standpoint that the state is interfering with the free practice of specific religious beliefs. Of course, that's not a "pure" situation because the state already limits certain religious practices...i.e. polygamy.
There is also a legitimate question about who speaks as the decider for medical treatments for children. Traditionally we have (generally) allowed a parent to make those decisions, so this presents a new challenge.
On the other side, it is equally true that the child (infant) is being forced into a religious decision that he is not old enough to understand.
It is also generally accepted that this operation is not a "medical necessity" so that raises other issues. We allow people to opt into "elective surgery" such as breast enhancement, but we don't generally allow children to do that, even if their parents agree.
Like so many things in life, this is not a clear choice, and either way the law struggles with defining and absolute. However, that said, I applaud Germany for having the discussion. To me, this is a medical ethics question, and although religion plays a role, it is not an inappropriate discussion to have.
wa
Why don't boys get the same protection? Everyone should be able to decide for themselves whether or not they want parts of their genitals cut off. It's *their* body and they have rights too.
If everyone was circumcised, there would be a lower HIV+ rate.
The photo at the right, of the 1,699 naked people lined up for the artistic photo, combined with this subject on cirumcision for which Jewish are well known, makes me think of the couple million jews sent to the gas chambers (with the other couple million being shot).
There is stronger evidence that female circumcision is linked to lower HIV rates than male circumcision.
(I tried posting this with supporting links, but it looks like I can't include the links)
From a USAID report:
"There appears no clear pattern of association between male circumcision and HIV prevalence—in 8 of 18 countries with data, HIV prevalence is lower among circumcised men, while in the remaining 10 countries it is higher."
The South African National Communication Survey on HIV/AIDS, 2009 found that 15% of adults across age groups "believe that circumcised men do not need to use condoms".
From the committee of the South African Medical Association Human Rights, Law & Ethics Committee :
"the Committee expressed serious concern that not enough scientifically-based evidence was available to confirm that circumcisions prevented HIV contraction and that the public at large was influenced by incorrect and misrepresented information. The Committee reiterated its view that it did not support circumcision to prevent HIV transmission."
The one randomized controlled trial into male-to-female transmission showed a 54% higher rate in the group where the men had been circumcised btw:
ABC (Abstinence, Being faithful, and especially Condoms) is the way forward. Promoting genital surgery seems likely to cost African lives rather than save them.
Other countries should follow this lead. Baby boy penis parts removal should be considered illegal NOW in the United States under the 1996 federal law banning genital cutting -- 14th Amendment equal protection clause.
Those saying that preventing the cutting off of penis parts of a baby boy violates the cutter's freedom of religion, are way out there in irrational land. One's religion ends where their knife touches another human's body. The idea that another human's ritual (rite) trumps ones right to body parts is insane and creepy. Baby boy penis parts removal cuts off thousands of fine touch and stretch nerves. This is like disconnecting the fingertips, nipples or lips from the brain. No human should be subjected to sensory system harm as well as a forced decrease of sexual function and PLEASURE for life!
When I can pee with both hands in my pockets in the freezing cold, I am grateful I was circumcised.
When I can go several days without proper bathing, and don't have smegma everywhere, I am grateful I was circumcised.
Perhaps most importantly, women prefer it.
Male circumcision always causes retrograde neuropathy. It always causes complete keritanization of the glans. It always causes the loss of 240 feet of nerves and somewhere in the vicinity of 20,000 specialized nerve endings not found elsewhere on the penis. It causes a permanent change in the mechanics of sexual intercourse & masturbation for that matter, and circumcised men experience much higher rates of erectile dysfunction, and other problems.
The sad truth is that a scarred, dried out, keritanized penis that literally scoops a woman's natural lubrication out of her vagina because of the exposed coronal hook rather than keeping it in where it's needed and does not have the gliding mechanism anymore is in no way, shape, or form more pleasing to women who are familiar with intact men.
Second, if Europe has the answer to this, for all the various medical and sexual reasons discussed above, then why is Europe¦#39;s (notably Germany, Russia, and the Mediterranean countries) birth rates below replacement levels?
Interesting that we are discussing this on a German bulletin board, given Germans are slowly, but certainly, becoming extinct.
And, I prefer not having to play with a foreskin to pee. And women prefer it.
If it was any other part of the body of the child that was proposed to be cut off serious questions would be asked, and yet the foreskin is mysteriously regarded as dispensable for some reason by many, despite the fact that it is much appreciated by the majority of men in the UK and the rest of the world who were allowed to retain it and are not queuing up in their droves to have it removed.
Infant boys should be afforded the same legal protection as infant girls against the whims or rites of those parents who would choose to impose irreversible physical modification of the genitalia of their infant sons, who lack the capacity to speak out against it for themselves. I salute the decision of this court for taking another step along the road toward a fairer society.
Jews world wide need to stand up and speak out against this and don't stop until it is overturned.
Probably some liberal freak woman who thinks she knows best. One day people will just have enough and reset all this crap through world war. Til then keep rocking!
It's an issue for the children to decide. It's *their* body. Everyone should be able to decide for themselves whether or not they want parts of their genitals cut off.
We don't let parents cut healthy normal living tissue off any other part of a boy, or off any part at all of a girl. Why don't boys get the same protection?
I think it's time people all over the world brought about a revolution in religion based on our God-given reason and Deism. This is what Thomas Paine called for in his thought provoking book on God, Deism and religion, The Age of Reason, The Complete Edition.
Progress! Bob Johnson
www.deism.com
Children aren't faulty furniture to be modified, whatever flimsy excuses and junk science come up with. This decision protects children who may be born to Jews or Muslims. The nazis weren't exactly in the business of protecting rights, so that particular smear does not stick.
However ancient these religions are, this forbidden body part predate them by far, and deserves to be kept.
No medical organization in the world recommends routine circumcision.
There is no medical or health-related benefit of circumcision. It was once thought the foreskin encourages the growth of bacteria, etc. This might have been true several hundred years ago when most people didn't shower very often, but it's not true now. In fact, the Harvard School of Public Health says that the difference now is so miniscule that it shouldn't even be considered.
What Geraldo said about keratanization is completely true. The foreskin has a important function. It has the same function as your eyelids. In both cases, they protect and lubricate a very sensitive and very delicate mucus membrane. When the foreskin is removed, the glans turns from a mucus membrane into regular skin, and it does this order to protect itself from irritation. And this skin isn't as sensitive. So, every male who is circumcised has less sensation during sex. In most cases the difference is relatively minor so it doesn't really matter. But in rare cases it causes a condition called Delayed Ejaculation. This is the third most common sexual problem among men in the U.S. (that was hard for me to believe when I first read it, because a lot of people have never heard of it).
There's a ton of information out there about D.E. and about it's relationship to circumcision. If you're interested you can go to www.nocirc.org. Or go to Google and type in something like "How do I make my penis more sensive", or "why can't I feel anything during sex". You'll see that lots of guys are asking these same questions on various health-related forums.
Those are some of my thoughts, anyway.
For now, I applaud the the court decision.