Skip to comments.Final Solution? Infant Circumcision Outlawed In Germany!
Posted on 07/08/2012 1:53:12 PM PDT by NYer
Sometimes today you encounter stories that are truly jaw-dropping, like this one being reported by the Washington Post.
Headlined, "The Crime of Circumcision," it deals with a ruling issued by a judge in Germany that prohibits Jews from circumcizing their baby boys:
A district judge in Cologne, Germany, recently ruled that ritual circumcision is a crime, violating “the fundamental right of the child to bodily integrity,” which outweighs other parental and religious rights. “This change runs counter to the interests of the child,” the court concluded, “who can decide his religious affiliation himself later in life.”
Circumcision is a rite central to the Jewish faith and is, in fact, the rite by which a male becomes part of the Jewish community.
The circumcision of infants is also expressly commanded by Jewish law, which requires the circumcision of baby boys on the eighth day after birth.
Unsurprisingly, the decision is being condemened by religious folks:
German religious figures from all the Abrahamic faiths criticized the Cologne ruling, with particular outrage expressed by Jewish leaders. Dieter Graumann, head of the Central Council of Jews in Germany, called it “outrageous and insensitive” and warned that a general application of the decision would “coldbloodedly force Judaism into illegality.”
But hailed by anti-religious folks:
Though the ban directly applies in only one region of Germany, secular supporters count it a triumph and a precedent. One academic, Holm Putzke, celebrated the rejection of “religiously motivated violence against children.” “The court has,” he said, “unlike many politicians, not been deterred by the fear of being criticized as anti-Semitic or antireligious.”
(Excerpt) Read more at ncregister.com ...
Alles In Ordnung!
The ghost of the Third Reich appears, goose stepping up to the Judge’s chair in a German Court.
The word “mutilation” in this context is misleading. Mutilation connotes crippling or maiming: the deliberate deprivation of overall function. This is not the case with the circumcised penis: its reproductive function is unimpaired, and circumcised men find intercourse an intensely pleasurable experience.
This makes male circumcision significantly different from female genital mutilation, which truly is maiming.
Not to mention that neither Christianity nor Judaism prescribes female “circumcision”—a practice usually held in muslim or pagan communities.
Female genital mutilation is wrong and horrible, IMO. But if I may stir the pot, is it something that should be illegal? 9 times out of 10, it is performed on 10-11 year olds of a specific culture/religion.
I am genuinely curious, trying to work this out for myself: Is is fair to say FGM should be illegal but not male circumcision? I think that male circumcision is beneficial in some cases and perfectly fine, but I think FGM is horrific. Still, isn’t banning FGM as a religious rite only setting a precedent to ban male circumcision? Didn’t the religious community set themselves up for this by banning FGM?
Furthermore, some people do weird things to their bodies—just watch one of those “taboo” shows on NatGeo and what people do—splitting tongues, etc...
Not trying to be inflammatory, these are some real questions I have.
How about Doberman ear cropping and tail docking?
This law will affect muslims too.
>I think this is more about Muslims than Jews.<
What will prohibiting circumsision do to muslims? They’ll perform the procedure privately.
They will continue to flock to Germany regardless of this law.
There may be hard-to-call borderline cases. That's what jury trials are for. Every law on the books has borderline cases: but let's make a border, and let it be plain and bright.
If youd like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
This is much more about Moslems
it's banned in germany, with the exception for working gun dogs, while ear cropping is completely banned
The article seems bogus, but the judge should be more concerned about the proceedures of performing such an operation on ANYONE (without regard to religion). What were the medical preparations, pre and post-op? Did the “Dr” use a rusty spoon or a schapel? Was there treatment afterwards?
When the Gov’t decides that it is in a better position to raise the kids than the parents are, I question things. The Gov’t can seem to run something as simple as a Post Office without screwing things up.
a Muslim couple decided to have their son circumcised, specifically for religious reasons, by a Muslim doctor in Cologne. The doctor, identified only as Dr K, carried out the circumcision on the four-year old boy in November 2010, before giving the wound four stitches. The same evening, he visited the family at home to check up on the boy. When the boy began bleeding again two days later, his parents took him to the casualty department of Cologne's University hospital. The hospital contacted the police, who then launched an investigation. The doctor was charged with bodily harm, and the case was taken to court.The article here is devious to leave out the Moslem bit and how it was performed on a 4 year old boy causing injuries
While the court acquitted Dr. K on the grounds that he had not broken any law, it concluded that circumcision of minors for religious reasons should be outlawed, and that neither parental consent nor religious freedom justified the procedure. It ruled that in future doctors who carried out circumcisions should be punished.
The court weighed up three articles from the basic law: the rights of parents, the freedom of religious practice and the right of the child to physical integrity, before coming to the conclusion that the procedure was not in the interests of the child.
It rejected the defence that circumcision is considered hygienic in many cultures, one of the main reasons it is carried out in the US, Britain and in Germany.
After much deliberation, it concluded that a circumcision, "even when done properly by a doctor with the permission of the parents, should be considered as bodily harm if it is carried out on a boy unable to give his own consent".
It ruled the child's body would be "permanently and irreparably changed", and that this alteration went "against the interests of a child to decide for himself later on to what religion he wishes to belong".
in a coldly logical point of view, this is an act conducted on a minor who has no say, but then so is sending the child to school or later putting braces before they are 14, so logical but wrong.
Anyway, my point was simple -- this is not Germany v/s the Jews, but one judge ruling against a Moslem couple. Note that the law is not binding on others
Probably the doctor didn't -- I don't know, there's not enough information.
This is judicial activism vs. common sense, though.
Was the kid anesthetized, or did they just hold him down while he squirmed? That might cause some sloppy cutting.
I haven’t any information about the details. All that I have, I posted to you.