German court rules circumcision to be a crime

Non-medical, religious circumcision on children is bodily harm and thus a crime, a German court ruled this week. Could this set a precedent for the rest of Europe?

Non-medical circumcision is a "serious and irreversible interference in the integrity of the human body," the Cologne district court ruled.

This criminalises religious circumcisions performed by Jews and Muslims, the Financial Times Deutschland newspaper said on Tuesday. It says circumcision should be considered a crime of bodily harm.

http://www.thelocal.de/society/20120626-43383.html

My personal opinion is that it is wrong to perform medically-unnecessary procedures on people who cannot consent to it, especially if this is for religious reasons that the person has yet to form any opinion of. The child should be allowed to choose whether they will follow their religious/cultural practice in getting circumcised when they come to the age of majority. At best it is a permanent intrusion of religion on the body and a disregard for a person's choice regarding their own body, at worst it is tantamount to assault and sexual tampering with an infant. I would support the criminalization of the act and the prosecution of those who carry it out. Your thoughts?

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 1

Steevee

15

I agree.

There are no solid health benefits to routine circumcision, and thus, unless surgical intervention is mandated by an arising medical condition, it should not be performed on an infant.

Reply 2

Aj12

18

If its not needed medically then it should't be done at such a young age. If someone feels that badly that its needed for their religion then have it done later.

Reply 3

Moleman1996

17

Hopefully a similar law will one day follow here.

Reply 4

Dirac Delta Function

14

what about ear piercings? Don't some parents make their young daughters get ear piercings?

Reply 5

Flair91

5

I agree with the OP. It comes down to to whether you think the religious freedom of the parents is more or less important then the bodily intergrity of a child who cannot consent. I side with the latter.

Reply 6

Dary

If the guy wants it done he can do it when he can give consent. I am glad bits and pieces of me werent removed as an infant especially for some nonsensical cultural reason.

Reply 7

Snagprophet

17

Should be criminalised when done to those not suffering tight foreskin or other health issues. Cannot believe kids are mutilated as babies. That's like making your baby an organ donor.

I don't care if adults want to have their dick chopped off but it's wrong to do it to kids.

Original post by Dirac Delta Function

what about ear piercings? Don't some parents make their young daughters get ear piercings?

Do you really think ear piercings, which is puncturing a temporary hole in your ear, can be compared to cutting off a part of someone's body?

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 8

Bardem

1

Horrific practice, right ruling.

EDIT: Always found rep system annoying, would like to know the dimwits responsible for ad hominem 'neg repping'.

EDIT2: Original edit proving about as controversial as if I'd just recommended 'The Satanic Verses' (which I do btw).

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 9

Psyk

16

Original post by Flair91

I agree with the OP. It comes down to to whether you think the religious freedom of the parents is more or less important then the bodily intergrity of a child who cannot consent. I side with the latter.

That's a very good summary of the argument that will inevitably occur in this thread. It does all come down to whose freedom you think is more important, the person who it actually affects, or their parents.

Original post by Snagprophet

Should be criminalised when done to those not suffering tight foreskin or other health issues. Cannot believe kids are mutilated as babies. That's like making your baby an organ donor.

I don't think it's that much like making a baby an organ donor. I think it's worse. I can see the argument against child organ donors, as they cannot properly consent. However making a child an organ donor does not change the child's life in any way. Circumcision does impact the child's life.

Reply 10

Snagprophet

17

Original post by Psyk

That much like making a baby an organ donor. I think it's worse. I can see the argument against child organ donors, as they cannot properly consent. However making a child an organ donor does not change the child's life in any way. Circumcision does impact the child's life.

You're absolutely right.

Reply 11

noisy06

2

I find it disgusting that some pro-abortion people on here are anti-circumcision for infants. Get your priorities straight, imbeciles.

Reply 12

ChocoholicPolyglot

9

I'm a Muslim and I see circumcision as encouraged in Islam but certainly not compulsory (basically, it's not considered sinful if one does not practise it/not get it done) and in the modern day we now know that circumcision has no partiuclar medical/health benefits which is why there is no need to circumcise children. If an adult decides they want to be circumcised then that is their choice which is very different to having it done to your child who is in no position to consent. Another reason as to why I do not completely agree with circumcision is because it may go horribly wrong if it's in the hands of someone unprofessional.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 13

Norton1

18

I'm sure there has to be a joke in here somewhere with the punchline 'a bit of a prick'...but I just cannot find it.

Reply 14

Martyn*

13

In ancient times, well before the Abrahamic madness caught civilisation by the gilded beams, circumcision was only carried out on young boys entering the priesthood, when it was necessary to be clean rather than comely.

Reply 15

StacFace

18

Original post by noisy06

I find it disgusting that some pro-abortion people on here are anti-circumcision for infants. Get your priorities straight, imbeciles.

I don't see how you can be anti-abortion if you are anti-circumcision for infants. That's saying that it's not ok to cut off a part of a child's body when they can't give consent but it's ok to make a woman keep a baby when she may not have even consented to the sex nevermind wanted the pregnancy.

Whether or not your child is circumcised doesn't change your life, having a baby changes it dramatically. It shouldn't be forced on anyone through denying abortion.

Reply 16

TRS-T

13

Original post by Moleman1996

Hopefully a similar law will one day follow here.

No chance.

We wouldn't want to offend Muslims and Jews.

Reply 17

mc1000

13

Excellent! A step forward for human rights.

Does seem ironic, though, that a circumcision ban would happen in Germany of all places.

Reply 18

Hopple

18

Original post by Einheri

Non-medical, religious circumcision on children is bodily harm and thus a crime, a German court ruled this week. Could this set a precedent for the rest of Europe?

Non-medical circumcision is a "serious and irreversible interference in the integrity of the human body," the Cologne district court ruled.

This criminalises religious circumcisions performed by Jews and Muslims, the Financial Times Deutschland newspaper said on Tuesday. It says circumcision should be considered a crime of bodily harm.

http://www.thelocal.de/society/20120626-43383.html

My personal opinion is that it is wrong to perform medically-unnecessary procedures on people who cannot consent to it, especially if this is for religious reasons that the person has yet to form any opinion of. The child should be allowed to choose whether they will follow their religious/cultural practice in getting circumcised when they come to the age of majority. At best it is a permanent intrusion of religion on the body and a disregard for a person's choice regarding their own body, at worst it is tantamount to assault and sexual tampering with an infant. I would support the criminalization of the act and the prosecution of those who carry it out. Your thoughts?