Cultural and religious grounds are no excuse for this procedure to be needlessly carried out on babies who have no say in the matter. If, once they are mature, they wish to have this done, then it is their choice. Forcing it on them before maturity is nothing less than child abuse. Tattooing a child is an offence, as is the barbaric practice of female circumcision. Many of the European countries that condone this have banned the docking of dogs tails on grounds of cruelty, this should be no different.
The word circumcision is used as if it was an essential medical procedure, when in this context it is nothing less than genital mutilation.
Forcing it on them before maturity is nothing less than child abuse.
... or giving them a head start.
Perfectly happy with mine, and guess what, I don't have anything against those who retain theirs.
As long as it is done with proper medical procedures, in fact , I have never heard of anyone complain they were snipped when too young to remember.
Circumcision is literally a case of genital mutilation. We donīt stand for it being carried out on girls, yet doing it to boys is in many countries seen as acceptable on the grounds of respecting religious imperative (jews) or religious tradition (muslims).
Not being a member of either religious group, it is easy for me to say that the whole thing should be forbidden at once. Leave kiddies' bodies (and souls) alone until they themselves can decide. Yep, applies to piercing ears and baptism too IMO.
Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
I don't buy that argument, ExXB; some people have unhygienic armpits, but no-one is advocating excising them from infants. Presumably you would accept some women's poor genital hygiene as justifying female genital mutilation. Male genital hygiene? Easy. Wash your dick!
So, on the one hand we are meant to live in a multicultural society where by all cultures and creeds have equal validity.
On the other hand certain semitic cultures (Jews and Muslims who are both subjected to racist abuse) are not allowed to practice their religion because it offends atheists and racists use such methods as a way to target minorities. Look at the way the Dutch right wing are trying to ban Halal and Kosher slaughter.
Whilst female circumcision does affect the lives of those women on whom it is forced, male circumcision has at worst no beneficial effects, as many of us on here can testify and a recent study indicated it may be beneficial for the male as well in terms of reduced cancer risk.
I agree with Juud, with the proviso that where clearly necessary for medical reasons, and I'm not sure what that would be, it should be done at birth or soon after.
In later life, if an adult wants his manhood mutilated then I suppose, in the same way as people are allowed to mutilate themselves with tattoos and piercings, circumcision should be allowed. I would imagine that the discomfort would be a deterrent.
I was 'done' as an infant, an age at which I had no choice, as my mother was of Jewish descent on her mother's side but non-practising and non-observant, utterly and sickeningly hypocritical, doing what suited her to please her Jewish mother. So we had bacon and eggs for breakfast, roast pork in Sundays, but when her mother came round the topic was 'verboten' and she pretended to keep a kosher home. It was this despicable hypocrisy that turned me and my siblings against all formal religion.
When my son arrived, she asked me if I was having him mutilated and I said : "I am surprised you are even asking the question and let's not discuss it further." She refused to have any contact with his mother, or her grandson, for a few years, until she became senile, by which stage it was too late.
When my sister's son was born, a year or so after mine, the scenario was repeated. Such is the manner in which 'religion' breaks up families and causes strife and war.
As you can see, I feel very strongly about this, mainly because it's about deprivation of choice.
Let us assume the religion of Baal was granted some sort of "freedom" in the UK (for example). Would it be racist or bigoted to point out that the sacrifice of humans might not be a good thing?
Sure I am over egging the cake, for effect, but what is it that gives religions the right to inflict such physical abuse upon people (vide. the Catholics and the old standard beatings in schools, female circumcision etc)?
Why should arcane and simply outmoded practices be forgiven in the name of superstition or religion? Circumcision, in most cases unless for medical needs, is a pointless operation in a modern world and in many cases can be construed as being a form of physical violation.
When children are young, parents must have the ability to decide whats best for them. Jewish tradition says you should be circumcised after birth (and I suspect that the Muslim tradition comes from this). The procedure has been shown to not cause any problems (serious distress or pain) for the infant in the tens of thousands of times the procedure is carried out every year. In the UK it is often carried out safely by a rabbi. If it is done to an older man/boy it is more painful, takes time to heal and I believe is normally done with a local anaesthetic. Much easier to have it done as an infant. Also (please correct me!) Jews believe you are Jewish by birth / ancestry (it is complicated to "become" Jewish). There isn't the concept of deciding to become Jewish if you were born Jewish. Just whether you practice or not.
I suspect that German court decision wont stand - otherwise every Jewish parent could be arrested for GBH. Its just not going to happen.
You are Jewish by birth and you never stop being Jewish just because you decide not to practice.
There are various opinions (differing between strands of Judaism) about which parent determines if you are Jewish, with the mainstream view being that you always know who the mother is of any child, so it is the Jewish mother that creates a Jewish child, not a Jewish father.
Tableview - please don't accuse the Jewish religion of approving of mutilation just because your mother was a hypocrite. Had your mother been more understand of her religion when you grew up, you may now be either keeping quiet or keeping the religious laws.
Caco Whether you like it or not, your ancestors are Jewish, and they believe you are Jewish by birth. They have therefore marked you as Jewish. Whether you have decided to consider yourself Jewish after that is something completely different. They made a decision for your which you have to live with. If you had decided to continue to consider yourself Jewish, you would have been very happy with the decision. It is something that hasn't physically heart you more than pride.
Also - people keep saying "mutilation". The first definition I found is:
an injury that causes disfigurement or that deprives you of a limb or other important body part.
Your foreskin couldn't be described as an "important body part".
So lets not use emotive language for the sake of it!