German Court Rules Circumcision Illegal

I've researched circumcision lately because I'm having a baby boy and was kind of on the fence about circumcision (in the US its much more of a cultural practice; people from all religions get their babies circumsized and its really common) but after doing my research I've found there is really no hygienic benefit to circumcision.

It was considered hygienic a long time ago, but we live in an era where people in first world countries have access to clean water and soap on a daily basis. Unless you're just not bathing there is really no reason for an uncircumcised penis to be any harder to keep clean.

 

Quite true.

Notice it's desert religions that mandate circumcision.

It was brought back out as a cure for masturbation, by john harvey kellog &co. in the US, that's why it's a general cultural practice.

 

Everywhere you turn, there are people claiming that their rights are being trampled on. So many competing claims, each conflicting with the other...

But to me, the issue boils down to the government protecting its youngest and most vulnerable citizens from an ancient blood rite that is imposed without the consent of the child. And consent is an ability that is not fully possible until adulthood.

Maybe it is time that Jews and Muslims evolve a "baby dedication" ceremony rather than literal blood-letting and fleshcutting.

The foreskin has a job to do. It protects the head of the penis. I can't force an adult to leave his own foreskin intact, but we can damn sure keep his hands off the penises of little boys.

 

I know that the common wisdom was that circumcision prevents cancer of the penis because the foreskin produces smegma between the glans and foreskin (serves as a lubricant), which if left too long becomes rancid and potentially carcinogenic. If this is true, regular bathing would prevent this.

Some are claiming that circumcision prevents AIDS and other STD's by reducing surface area of penis. Seems to be plenty of AIDS in the USA anyway. Circumcision is no substitute for safe sex.

Circumcision prevents masturbation? Didn't work for me!
I think the foreskin is an important part of a man's love-making equipment. Leave it alone to do its job!

It is taking years for the latest medical knowledge to trickle down to the doctors office. Besides parents should be insisting that it not be done.
Hospitals can charge extra for it. Some insurance companies are making it elective surgery rather than routine for boys.

 

So IF- I was in Germany and IF-the law was retroactive-I'd be walking around with an illegal dick?

Of course IF-my aunt had balls,she'd be my uncle.

I watched number 1 son get circumcised. It was horrible! # 2 son decided on his own to get circumcised at 12. His decision,so that's what happened.

 

what i gotta say, is does the state have to go that far and make it illegal? c'mon

 

Does Germany have any choice? How else will they protect the right of their youngest citizens to decide for themselves whether to cut their bodies?

 

According to the National Hospital Discharge Survey, 2008 US rate of hospital circumcisions is 56.9%.

This should reassure you that your son will have plenty of schoolmates just like him. There's a chance that boys in school sports will see one another naked in the showers after an event. So at least as far as circumcision, not a problem. I guess we should keep in mind that kids tease one another over even the slightest deviation, so you'll have to teach him how to deflect criticism anyway.

 

I guess Canada is diefferent

by the time we were showering in schools everyone had already been educated about sex and related topics like circumcision

the only teasing that happened was directed at the guys with small weiners

 

hell yes! i'm beginning to like Germany more and more. i completely support such legislation.

 

Well, an attempted cure for masturbation.

He also liked electrical shocks and that sort of thing. I think he favored circumcision of conscious individuals, caught in the act of masturbation, or something like that.

His anti-sex bigotry and torture seems to have been more of a sick BDSM style fetish perpetrated on "clients" of his sanitarium and their children, than any actual method.

He was also a fan of female genital mutilation, by means of carbolic acid.

 

why did i open this thread while eating breakfast?

 

The christian groups seem curiously silent with respect to the court's decision...

 

I agree with the German government. The need to modify our bodies from how we have evolved over millions of years for a myth based religion is insane. I did not have the choice, but if I had I am sure this nature boy would still have his foreskin.

 

Once again everyone worries about racial intolerance, but when religions are suppressed no one says anything.

I just did a bunch of individual research on the topic of circumcision for another thread on this forum. So far as I found there are a number of good reasons to circumcise a child, but none that make it necessary. Also anything that would show that it is traumatic for the child always seems to say something along the lines of " more research is needed" or " the research on this topic is not conclusive" or worse yet when they say it's not complete.

I'm not gonna even bother with arguing weather religion is based on myth or not, because I know it just leads to going round and round. However this decision to means just looks like religious suppression and the last time Germany did that bad things happened. Just thought I would point that out.

 

It's about giving the child a voice.

Why should the boy have this done for religious reason's or I should say a religious belief that will be pushed upon him for the first years of his life till he gets a choice. If he chooses to follow this religion and wants this done for religion purposes then I think "God" can wait till he is old enough to make the decision himself not his parents.

Also if a Circ is nessasary for medical reason's again that can be done later in life if those problem's should arise. And Don't spout that uncir'd have a higher chance of Cancer, everything can give you cancer these days.

And I've heard baby's scream their heads off getting it done and mass bleeding while in hosp having my boys. Think about it what a kick to the nuts like..... ya imagine them chopping that little bit of skin off with nothing for pain that poor child wondering why his body is instantly taken over by enormous pain

 

You bring up some good points.

But isn't the opposite true? people who want to raise their kids with no religions are going to shove that idea down their throats for the formative years of their lives?

according to the research I did, there are medical complications that can happen by the age of 3 through 5 that will still involve a parental decision to have a child circumcised... and it will still be painful (although they probably have a better idea of why the pain maybe necessary at that age)

I also found lots of medical reasons doctors still believe in for getting it done, just none that are NECESSARY. So to me that means parents who make lots of ife decisions for their children, have another one to make. And in the past I do believe there were reason why this is necessary (although someone earlier in this thread brought up modern soaps and showers which I do see eliminate those).

and of course a child will be in pain... whether subjecting them to that pain is wise or not is the real argument. and from what I see it's not NECESSARY, but can have benefits down the road.

Calling it genital mutilation is extreme. I wrote a paper on female circumcision in college (which does not make me an expect I know). THAT IS mutilation. It is only done to reduce pleasure in sex for women and stop them from being promiscuous. The thing I learned can not even be compared to male circumcision, at least in what I have researched.

 

I'm not religious by any means, but with my children I don't exactly shove any ideas down thier throats myself we just live life and if they wanted to learn about a religion I will not stop them.

I did almost have to make that decision for my oldest as at his 4yo check up the dr. thought his foreskin was too long and wasn't going to stretch over properly. My husband was not impressed tell ya..... we went home and started getting him to pull it back more and he never had any issues. Why would he say that just by looking......

A lot of doctors are confused by the issue themselves. Let's face it there is a new study every month that will contradict the other one. Whether or not is lessen's the risk of STD's or not who knows but either way if you are sleeping around wrap it up and be safer.

Why would you say it's extreme?? It's still mutilating the penis for religious reason's only in most cases. The foreskin is there for a reason to protect the head of the penis, taking that away would desensitize it right? Making sex not quite the same.


(Not picking apart your post just discussing )

 

Yeah right not picking apart my ideas at all

Actually I rather expected a much more... terse response (not from you, I have read a lot of your stuff on the forum and you only get terse when necessary). Kinda glad it is you responding since these kinds of discussions can dissolve real quickly. Nothing done with a little picking apart if it's done the right way.

I am religious (although for any out there to think me ignorant, you are sorely mistaken, I have given it much much thought and exploration over many many years), and I agree there are many people that get it shoved down their throat. While I find many rebel against it later and some follow ti blindly, it is never helpful. I am glad you leave the exploration open for your children, but you must agree that for every religious person out there, there is also an agnostic or atheist shoving "beliefs" down their children throats. Whether it is a religious or none religious person doing it, can we both agree it's bad?

Next, I am sorry you son had to go though that, and just as angry that a doctor did not do his job in giving you all the options. That is highly unethical, and in the argument of parents getting full information, I do agree with many people on this and other forums, that doctors need to give full information on the consequences of all procedures, and other options to them. Even if they are confused by new studies every week, that is why there are options.

And doesn't that argument apply to your last statement? just because it is a religious tradition doesn't mean it does not serve another purpose. as a history major I know for a fact that ancient cultures knew things we still don't understand, and had many things we would consider modern thousands of years ago that got lost.

That being said I looked up the definition of genital mutilation. since the definitions I found all talk about changing the sexual genitalia in a temporary or permanent way... well than it is genital mutilation by that definition. However the term mutilation carries an emotional response towards something negative, and I do not think that we can prove at the moment that it is a horrible bad thing. Again different studies say different things.

Now I would like to back up that last point about studies: many of the studies I have read about this topic seem highly inconclusive. many are not stating straight out results, only possible ones. Many will even tell you that concrete results are hard to get because most men that reply are older now and were circumcised soon after birth: in other words, they are self reporting problem with their circumcisions so it is hard to find a control (something vital to any good statistical study.) I also find many of these studies to have poor report rates, and very low participation numbers (something that does not give them much credit).

studies on the desensitizing of the penis because of it all fall into the above category, with the exception of studies about men who were circumcised later in life. They all report a desensitizing effect. I have a possible explination for why this might not occur in cases of infant circumcision, but I am missing back up for a critical portion of that argument so won't submit it now.

besides this post is already to long

 

Circumcision should be a personal choice made with consent and for serious reasons (of which religion isn't one)