Germans regulate the right to circumcision (news report, October 6, 2012)

D_Terry_Tugnuts

Account Disabled
Joined
Sep 15, 2011
Posts
378
Media
0
Likes
61
Points
53
Germany has moved a step further towards banning non-religious circumcision as the following shows.

Report in The Daily Telegraph, London, Saturday October 6, 2012:

"Germany's government has sought to quiet Jewish and Mohammedan anger over a court ruling likening circumcision to bodily harm with the introduction of a new law regulating the practice.

The bill before the Federal Parliament allows circumcision on religious grounds, but only when it does not threaten the health of the child and should be "as pain free as possible". The drafting of the new law comes amid anger in Mohammedan and Jewish communities over the decision in June by a Cologne (Koln) court. It led to some areas banning circumcision amid legal uncertainty and fears doctors could face criminal charges."
 
S

SirConcis

Guest
From a legal point of view, can you really prevent christians from circumcising their boy when you allow jews and muslims to do it ?


What happens when christians get a Mohel to perform a bris on their christian baby boy ?

How how can parents prove they are jewish or muslim ?

And if you use the "integrity of the body" issue, this would mean that certain religions are exempt from the contitutional "integrity of body" while other religions must comply.

It is probably much cleaner at the legal level to avoid banning child/baby circs, and work on the education side to implement a national policy. Since baby circs have never been popular in Germany for the native christian population, I don't see why there shoudl be such a big fuss about it.
 

JTalbain

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2005
Posts
1,786
Media
0
Likes
14
Points
258
Age
34
What happens when christians get a Mohel to perform a bris on their christian baby boy ?
Well, if they're Catholic, the Eccumenical Council of Florence says they're going to Hell. Oh, you meant legally. My bad. :tongue:

And if you use the "integrity of the body" issue, this would mean that certain religions are exempt from the contitutional "integrity of body" while other religions must comply.
I agree with you here. It's a bad set up. Then again, given the very neture of this ruling, it's very clearly an appeasement tactic.

It is probably much cleaner at the legal level to avoid banning child/baby circs, and work on the education side to implement a national policy. Since baby circs have never been popular in Germany for the native christian population, I don't see why there shoudl be such a big fuss about it.
Speaking from a purely legal standpoint, failing to place even a limited ban on child circumcision would be ignoring the ruling of their court system, which is a much slippier slope than anything circumcision related. A better idea I think would be go with a full ban and simultaneously increase awareness on the subject, including the fact that many Jews and Muslims across the world no longer see circumcision as necessary. The court ruled that circumcision was in violation of the highest tenets of the German Constitution. Choosing to not support that decision and allowing it to continue unabated, just because they don't want to upset anyone, would be mortgaging their beliefs for political correctness. Pure cowardice.
 

britishboy

Sexy Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2012
Posts
128
Media
0
Likes
50
Points
113
Location
Tennessee
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
but only when it does not threaten the health of the child and should be "as pain free as possible
But does the very act of unnecessary surgery on a tender body part already pose a risk by default? And how is anyone going to ensure that it's as pain free as possible? How does one track the amount of pain from a person who cannot properly speak for themselves? By how loud they scream?

Shouldn't body integrity trump all else?

The appeasement tactic is two steps forward, one step back Germany.
 

gymfresh

Expert Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jan 8, 2008
Posts
1,633
Media
20
Likes
154
Points
383
Location
Rodinia
Verification
View
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
First off, it's useful to put this Telegraph news report in context. Unless there has been a major new development, the "bill" they're talking about is draft language sent from the Merkel administration to parliament 2 weeks ago. The way this works in Germany is rather different from how it works in the USA and other countries. In America, the Congress drafts bills. In Germany, very often the executive branch of government drafts the legislation it wants and Parliament votes on it. It may modify it first.

The Merkel administration proposal, which was drafted primarily by the Justice Minister, lays out a plan for recognizing medically unnecessary circumcision (as they call it). It says:

- should be performed by medically trained, experienced operators, preferably doctors, using appropriate analgesia and "best practices" medical techniques to ensure a safe outcome.

- may be performed by specially-trained religious operators but only on patients up to 6 months of age and only if the operator an demonstrate skills on par with a surgeon.

The proposal specifically states that a religious requirement for requesting medically unnecessary circumcision of a child is unworkable and discriminatory, and should not be contemplated by Parliament.

One very obvious feature of this proposal is that it seeks to amend the criminal law only, while the Cologne judge based most of his ruling on constitutional grounds. Thus means that even if passed as the Merkel administration proposes, a judge could shoot it down in an instant using the same constitutional argument -- which remains strong.
 
S

SirConcis

Guest
Since this is about unnecessary cosmetic surgery, shouldn't the law be written to control all cosmetic surgey decided by parents without child's consent ?

Should hypospadias be considered "normal" and fixing it considered a cosmetic surgery that must await the penis's owners consent ?

What about other cosmetic surgery that is best done at a young age to leave almost no trace and let the kid grow up without feeling different ?

Remember that circumcision does not remove an organ, it is cosmetic surgery that removes excess skin. Yes, it changes the appearance of penis and how you masturbate, it doesn't prevent the penis from being used to its full function.


The politicians have to be very careful how they codify the law to make sure it is neutral and not discriminatory.
 

D_Miranda_Wrights

Account Disabled
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Posts
931
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
103
Sexuality
No Response
Since this is about unnecessary cosmetic surgery, shouldn't the law be written to control all cosmetic surgey decided by parents without child's consent ?

Should hypospadias be considered "normal" and fixing it considered a cosmetic surgery that must await the penis's owners consent ?

What about other cosmetic surgery that is best done at a young age to leave almost no trace and let the kid grow up without feeling different ?

This law strikes me as ad hoc, for better or for worse: there's recognition that parents should have some level of discretion over medical parents made in their child's interest, but this is being seen as a consistently abused discretionary power. It basically shifts the onus to prove that circumcision is justified case-by-case, instead of presuming that the discretionary power is not being abused. I don't think this law is trying to assert that all medical procedures for cosmetic benefit can't be done at a young age. That seems like a strawman. It's shifting the burden of proof on this particular procedure, because this particular procedure is often done irrationally, at some moral peril.

Remember that circumcision does not remove an organ, it is cosmetic surgery that removes excess skin. Yes, it changes the appearance of penis and how you masturbate, it doesn't prevent the penis from being used to its full function.

I mean...it doesn't physically make it impossible to masturbate or have sex, but I think a lot of people would see the circumcised penis as having less than full function. It would feel (subjectively) like a loss to me.

Also, "excess" is probably not the word you mean here.

The politicians have to be very careful how they codify the law to make sure it is neutral and not discriminatory.

I'm not really sure what you mean. Without a blanket ban, it's going to disproportionately affect Muslims and Jews, because they disproportionately practice it. That wouldn't be discriminatory, although it wouldn't be neutral. If an act is bad, I don't think you can only restrict it if the restriction affects all groups equally. No law could pass that test. Explain what you mean? (Obviously, I'm against specifically targeting Jews and Muslims with a law/enforcement if others are doing the same bad acts.)
 

Titsdude21

Sexy Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Posts
405
Media
1
Likes
36
Points
113
Location
australia
Sexuality
60% Straight, 40% Gay
Gender
Male
From a legal point of view, can you really prevent christians from circumcising their boy when you allow jews and muslims to do it ?


What happens when christians get a Mohel to perform a bris on their christian baby boy ?

How how can parents prove they are jewish or muslim ?

And if you use the "integrity of the body" issue, this would mean that certain religions are exempt from the contitutional "integrity of body" while other religions must comply.

It is probably much cleaner at the legal level to avoid banning child/baby circs, and work on the education side to implement a national policy. Since baby circs have never been popular in Germany for the native christian population, I don't see why there shoudl be such a big fuss about it.

I guess if you lie, and your son is un-happy with it being done you would be open to criminal and or civil action.
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Remember that circumcision does not remove an organ, it is cosmetic surgery that removes excess skin.
Come, on you can do better than that. Suppose someone removed a few square inches of skin from their babies faces to show they were part of the tribe? Its no different.

The original posting sounds to me more like an attempt to legalise circumcision by defining when it can be done, after it has effectively been made unlawful by the decision of a court.

I mean...it doesn't physically make it impossible to masturbate or have sex,
Historically, the difficulties it poses to masturbation were touted as a reason for doing it.
 

D_Miranda_Wrights

Account Disabled
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Posts
931
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
103
Sexuality
No Response
Historically, the difficulties it poses to masturbation were touted as a reason for doing it.

I know that was the intention, but I doubt it was very effective. I know it makes it harder on average, and that it makes some guys have to use lube, or feel less comfortable if they don't -- which is obviously an impairment -- but it doesn't generally make anything categorically impossible.
 

JTalbain

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2005
Posts
1,786
Media
0
Likes
14
Points
258
Age
34
Since this is about unnecessary cosmetic surgery, shouldn't the law be written to control all cosmetic surgey decided by parents without child's consent ?

Should hypospadias be considered "normal" and fixing it considered a cosmetic surgery that must await the penis's owners consent ?

What about other cosmetic surgery that is best done at a young age to leave almost no trace and let the kid grow up without feeling different ?
The difference being that those cosmetic surgeries are to fix a diagnosed problem, usually one which has no recourse other than cosmetic surgery. Having a foreskin is not such a condition.

It's interesting that you name hypospadias in your example, however. When that condition is surgically repaired they need additional sexually sensitive tissue in order to make repairs to the penis. Care to guess where they pull it from? The foreskin. Which means if you had your child circumcised, they're kinda SOL on that point. The foreskin also protects the penis from frostbite and is used to make other repairs as well. All the more reason to leave it alone.

Remember that circumcision does not remove an organ, it is cosmetic surgery that removes excess skin. Yes, it changes the appearance of penis and how you masturbate, it doesn't prevent the penis from being used to its full function.
For it to be deemed "excess", it would need to be "extra" would it not? Do you have another foreskin?

Additionally, changing the amount of skin on the penis greatly changes mobility. One of the functions of the penis is sexual activity, including masturbation. If not having a foreskin means that masturbation cannot be comfortably done without artificial lubricant (or it contributes to vaginal dryness, or it makes sexual penetration difficult) then wouldn't you say that the function is impaired? Hence the penis cannot be used at its "full function"?

The politicians have to be very careful how they codify the law to make sure it is neutral and not discriminatory.
Yeah, they could just make it a blanket ban. At that point, anyone complaining on grounds of religion is actually asking for special treatment. Simply banning all underage non-therapeutic circumcision gives the government the strongest leg to stand on.
 
S

SirConcis

Guest
During the victorian era, those who were circumcised couldn't say sex was much better once cut and that masturbation lasted longer because that would be akin to a sin. So they would say that it curbed msturbation knowing full well it was not true.

Then, they switched excuses to infections, cancer etc. But the underlying reasons is that women profer the look of circumcised males and men greatly enjoy having a free glans during the day without smells etc. But those are not medically valid excuses, so circumcision has to be justified/sold using medical excuses.
 

nicecircjob

Cherished Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2008
Posts
1,007
Media
0
Likes
272
Points
148
Location
Dallas Texas
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
To me this is government sticking it's nose where it doesn't belong. I hope we never have a government here in the US that bans circumcision. It's just big government being too intrusive in the peoples lives. The people should have the right to circumcise or not circumcise their children. not decided by the government.
 

D_Miranda_Wrights

Account Disabled
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Posts
931
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
103
Sexuality
No Response
During the victorian era, those who were circumcised couldn't say sex was much better once cut and that masturbation lasted longer because that would be akin to a sin. So they would say that it curbed msturbation knowing full well it was not true.

Then, they switched excuses to infections, cancer etc. But the underlying reasons is that women profer the look of circumcised males and men greatly enjoy having a free glans during the day without smells etc. But those are not medically valid excuses, so circumcision has to be justified/sold using medical excuses.

I really doubt that the "real" reason is that thought-out, bro. I think most people are just used to what the convention is. When I read circumcised men explain why they like being cut, it's rarely something more specific than "idk, sex feels good and I'm used to how it looks." Relatively few people, men or women, probably actually care beyond what they know. I think, in great part, that's why the availability of the internet seems to have accelerated the decline of the procedure.

To me this is government sticking it's nose where it doesn't belong. I hope we never have a government here in the US that bans circumcision. It's just big government being too intrusive in the peoples lives. The people should have the right to circumcise or not circumcise their children. not decided by the government.

If individual choice is so important to you, why do you blow off the value of your kid's eventual preferences? Do you think the government is the only thing that can be unnecessarily imposing? I mean, dude, a few minutes before this you posted:

To each his own preference.

Except, apparently, your son?
 

B_allaboutgirth

1st Like
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Posts
6
Media
4
Likes
1
Points
36
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
circumcision is disgusting when done on children... why the hell would u want to give cosmetic surgery to your knew born baby when it is completely unnecessary and actually makes his cock worse... when i was in grade 10 at school i actually had a teacher try to tell us that it was better medically to get them circumcised... i lost my shit.

also people who use religion as an argument... please just shut up. you are religious not your baby boy. in africa when the circumcise woman for religion or because they believe the woman is unclean if she isn't is a good example of this... it is no different then jews or Muslims doing it, but if u r doing it because u think it looks better or he will be cleaner lord have mercy on your soul
 

JTalbain

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2005
Posts
1,786
Media
0
Likes
14
Points
258
Age
34
also people who use religion as an argument... please just shut up. you are religious not your baby boy. in africa when the circumcise woman for religion or because they believe the woman is unclean if she isn't is a good example of this... it is no different then jews or Muslims doing it, but if u r doing it because u think it looks better or he will be cleaner lord have mercy on your soul
I've even heard many Catholics (I am Catholic, myself) espouse it as being necessary for their religion because it was necessary for Jews to do so. The look of surprise on their face when I inform them the Catholic Church has deemed it a mortal sin since the 1400's is priceless.
 

B_allaboutgirth

1st Like
Joined
Sep 18, 2012
Posts
6
Media
4
Likes
1
Points
36
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
I've even heard many Catholics (I am Catholic, myself) espouse it as being necessary for their religion because it was necessary for Jews to do so. The look of surprise on their face when I inform them the Catholic Church has deemed it a mortal sin since the 1400's is priceless.

stupid people.... stupid people everywhere