German court calls child circumcision "an assault" (causes outrage in Jewish community)
Options
twentyfivelighters
Members Posts: 4,771 ✭✭✭✭✭
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2012/06/201262743137489117.html
I think the court is right, these kids should really decide for themselves. But then again, religion always prevails in some communities.
Circumcising young boys on religious grounds amounts to grievous ? harm, a German court has ruled.
The regional court in Cologne, western Germany, ruled on Tuesday that the "fundamental right of the child to ? integrity outweighed the fundamental rights of the parents", a judgement that is expected to set a legal precedent.
"The religious freedom of the parents and their right to educate their child would not be unacceptably compromised, if they were obliged to wait until the child could himself decide to be circumcised," the court said.
The case was brought against a doctor in Cologne who circumcised a four-year-old Muslim boy on his parents' wishes.
A few days after the operation, with the boy bleeding heavily, his parents took him to a hospital. Prosecutors then charged the doctor with grievous ? harm.
The doctor was acquitted by a lower court that judged he had acted within the law as the parents had given their consent.
On appeal, the regional court also acquitted the doctor but for different reasons.
The regional court upheld the original charge of grievous ? harm but also ruled that the doctor was innocent as there was too much confusion on the legal situation around circumcision.
The court came down firmly against parents' right to have the ritual performed on young children.
'Court not scared off'
"The body of the child is irreparably and permanently changed by a circumcision," the court said. "This change contravenes the interests of the child to decide later on his religious beliefs."
The decision caused outrage in Germany's Jewish community.
The head of the Central Committee of Jews, Dieter Graumann, said the ruling was "an unprecedented and dramatic intervention in the right of religious communities to self-determination".
The judgement was an "outrageous and insensitive act. Circumcision of newborn boys is a fixed part of the Jewish religion and has been practiced worldwide for centuries," added Graumann. "This religious right is respected in every country in the world."
Holm Putzke, a criminal law expert at the University of Passau, told the Financial Times Deutschland that the ruling was "enormously important for doctors because for the first time they have legal certainty".
"Unlike many politicians, the court has not allowed itself to be scared off by charges of anti-Semitism or religious intolerance," said Putzke.
The World Health Organisation has estimated that nearly one in three males under 15 is circumcised. In the United States, the operation is often performed for hygiene reasons on infants.
Thousands of young boys are circumcised every year in Germany, especially in the country's large Jewish and Muslim communities.
The court specified that circumcision was not illegal if carried out for medical reasons.
I think the court is right, these kids should really decide for themselves. But then again, religion always prevails in some communities.
Comments
-
naw this ? is ? up on many levels not surprising it came out germany...
-
Soloman the Wise wrote: »naw this ? is ? up on many levels not surprising it came out germany...
How so? What do you find wrong with it?
-
It is encroaching on religious/spiritual covenants and coming from a country that has a history of doing those type of things. Medical and Spiritual benefits of circumcision far outweigh the courts issue with it...
-
Soloman the Wise wrote: »It is encroaching on religious/spiritual covenants and coming from a country that has a history of doing those type of things. Medical and Spiritual benefits of circumcision far outweigh the courts issue with it...
A history the country is not proud of nowadays and has laws against particular items associated with it.... But I understand where you're coming from. It's not banning the ritual all together. Should these children grow up and still be in touch with their religion enough to have the procedure performed, then they are allowed to decide for themselves. Is it that offensive to NOT have it performed at birth? -
Soloman the Wise wrote: »It is encroaching on religious/spiritual covenants and coming from a country that has a history of doing those type of things. Medical and Spiritual benefits of circumcision far outweigh the courts issue with it...
Actually, there are no medical benefits to circumcision; it's strictly a tribal/religious rite. In actuality, circumcision is nothing more than genital mutilation, but nobody really wants to admit it. If your religious beliefs condone this type of (barbaric) practice, that's one thing.... But, be aware of the fact that the origins of this practice have absolutely NOTHING to do with "medical benefits".
I cosign the Germans.
-
The user and all related content has been deleted.
-
ALLAH U. AKBAR wrote: »Soloman the Wise wrote: »It is encroaching on religious/spiritual covenants and coming from a country that has a history of doing those type of things. Medical and Spiritual benefits of circumcision far outweigh the courts issue with it...
Actually, there are no medical benefits to circumcision; it's strictly a tribal/religious rite. In actuality, circumcision is nothing more than genital mutilation, but nobody really wants to admit it. If your religious beliefs condone this type of (barbaric) practice, that's one thing.... But, be aware of the fact that the origins of this practice have absolutely NOTHING to do with "medical benefits".
I cosign the Germans.Is it easier to care for the circumcised ? or uncircumcised ? ?
The circumcised ? is generally easier to keep clean. An uncircumcised boy should be taught to clean his ? with care. Cleaning of the ? is done by gently, not forcibly, retracting the ? . The ? should be retracted only to the point where resistance is met. Full retraction of the ? may not be possible until the boy is 3 years old or older.
What is the relationship between circumcision and urinary tract infections?
The incidence of urinary tract infections in male infants appears to be lower when circumcision is done in the newborn period. It was first reported in 1982 that urinary tract infections (UTIs) are more common among infant males than they are in infant females (this switches later on in life). In this study, it was revealed that about 95% of the infected infant boys had not been circumcised. This risk is especially significant in infants less than 1 year of age. Many studies have shown that uncircumcised infants have a tenfold increased risk of developing a UTI than circumcised infants.
What might this relationship between circumcision and urinary tract infections mean?
Circumcision prevents the growth of bacteria under the ? and this, in turn, protects male infants against urinary tract infection. The high incidence of urinary tract infections in uncircumcised boys has also been found to be accompanied by an increased incidence of other significant infections such as bacteremia (bacterial infection of the bloodstream) and meningitis (infection of the covering of the brain). The protective effect of circumcision may thus extend to a number of infectious diseases.
What is the relationship between circumcision and sexually-transmitted diseases?
There is a higher risk of gonorrhea and inflammation of the urethra (the tube that carries the ? from the bladder outside) in uncircumcised men. It has also been reported that other sexually-transmitted diseases (such as chancroid, syphilis, human papillomavirus, and herpes simplex virus type 2 infection) are more frequent in uncircumcised men. As mentioned above, most recently three large studies performed in Africa documented that circumcision was protective with respect to the acquisition of ? infection as compared to those uncircumcised subjects.
What might this connection between circumcision and sexually-transmitted diseases mean?
Circumcision prevents the growth under the ? of the agents that cause sexually-transmitted diseases. Removal of the ? may provide some measure of protection from these diseases to males and their mates.
What is the correlation between sexually-transmitted diseases and cancer of the ? ?
There is a strong connection between sexually-transmitted diseases and cancer of the ? . Human papillomavirus types 16 and 18 (as well as other less common HPV types) are causes of precancerous changes in the ? and cervical cancer.
The strongest predisposing factors in cervical cancer are a history of intercourse at an early age and multiple sexual partners. An HPV vaccine is now available and recommended for all teenaged girls, and when given before the first sexual encounter, it has been shown to be protective against the most common HPV types associated with malignancy. The vaccine presumably prevents cervical cancer associated with these specific infections but is unable to prevent cancers arising from infections with less common HPV types not contained in the vaccine. Therefore, routine screening for precancerous changes in the ? is still recommended.
What might this relationship between lack of circumcision and cervical cancer mean?
Circumcision may partially protect the mate from cancer of the ? by removing the ? which harbors sexually-transmitted viruses (HPVs) that promote this common form of female cancer.
What is the relationship between circumcision and cancer of the ? ?
The predicted lifetime risk of cancer of the ? in an uncircumcised man is one in 600 in the U.S. Cancer of the ? carries a mortality rate as high as 25%. This cancer occurs almost exclusively in uncircumcised men. In five major research studies, no man who had been circumcised as a newborn developed cancer of the ? . Human papillomavirus types 16 and 18, which are sexually transmitted, are involved in cancer of the ? .
Circumcision: Medical Pros and Cons At A Glance
Inability to retract the ? fully at birth is not a medical reason for a circumcision.
Circumcision prevents phimosis (the inability to retract the ? at an age when it should normally be retractable), paraphimosis (the painful inability to return the ? to its original location), and balanoposthitis (inflammation of the ? and ? ).
Circumcision increases the chance of meatitis (inflammation of the opening of the ? ).
Circumcision may result in a decreased incidence of urinary tract infections.
Circumcision may result in a lower incidence of sexually-transmitted diseases and may reduce ? transmission.
Circumcision may lower the risk for cancer of the ? in sexual partners.
Circumcision may decrease the risk for cancer of the ? .
There is no absolute medical indication for routine circumcision of the newborn. -
The user and all related content has been deleted.
-
*ignorant ? post*
So not only are there still jews in germany but they got the heart to go against the original un-diluted cracca?!
I sense the rise of the 3rd ? again, these jews done lost their rabid ass mind and forgot their place. -
Soloman the Wise wrote: »ALLAH U. AKBAR wrote: »Soloman the Wise wrote: »It is encroaching on religious/spiritual covenants and coming from a country that has a history of doing those type of things. Medical and Spiritual benefits of circumcision far outweigh the courts issue with it...
Actually, there are no medical benefits to circumcision; it's strictly a tribal/religious rite. In actuality, circumcision is nothing more than genital mutilation, but nobody really wants to admit it. If your religious beliefs condone this type of (barbaric) practice, that's one thing.... But, be aware of the fact that the origins of this practice have absolutely NOTHING to do with "medical benefits".
I cosign the Germans.Is it easier to care for the circumcised ? or uncircumcised ? ?
The circumcised ? is generally easier to keep clean. An uncircumcised boy should be taught to clean his ? with care. Cleaning of the ? is done by gently, not forcibly, retracting the ? . The ? should be retracted only to the point where resistance is met. Full retraction of the ? may not be possible until the boy is 3 years old or older.
What is the relationship between circumcision and urinary tract infections?
The incidence of urinary tract infections in male infants appears to be lower when circumcision is done in the newborn period. It was first reported in 1982 that urinary tract infections (UTIs) are more common among infant males than they are in infant females (this switches later on in life). In this study, it was revealed that about 95% of the infected infant boys had not been circumcised. This risk is especially significant in infants less than 1 year of age. Many studies have shown that uncircumcised infants have a tenfold increased risk of developing a UTI than circumcised infants.
What might this relationship between circumcision and urinary tract infections mean?
Circumcision prevents the growth of bacteria under the ? and this, in turn, protects male infants against urinary tract infection. The high incidence of urinary tract infections in uncircumcised boys has also been found to be accompanied by an increased incidence of other significant infections such as bacteremia (bacterial infection of the bloodstream) and meningitis (infection of the covering of the brain). The protective effect of circumcision may thus extend to a number of infectious diseases.
What is the relationship between circumcision and sexually-transmitted diseases?
There is a higher risk of gonorrhea and inflammation of the urethra (the tube that carries the ? from the bladder outside) in uncircumcised men. It has also been reported that other sexually-transmitted diseases (such as chancroid, syphilis, human papillomavirus, and herpes simplex virus type 2 infection) are more frequent in uncircumcised men. As mentioned above, most recently three large studies performed in Africa documented that circumcision was protective with respect to the acquisition of ? infection as compared to those uncircumcised subjects.
What might this connection between circumcision and sexually-transmitted diseases mean?
Circumcision prevents the growth under the ? of the agents that cause sexually-transmitted diseases. Removal of the ? may provide some measure of protection from these diseases to males and their mates.
What is the correlation between sexually-transmitted diseases and cancer of the ? ?
There is a strong connection between sexually-transmitted diseases and cancer of the ? . Human papillomavirus types 16 and 18 (as well as other less common HPV types) are causes of precancerous changes in the ? and cervical cancer.
The strongest predisposing factors in cervical cancer are a history of intercourse at an early age and multiple sexual partners. An HPV vaccine is now available and recommended for all teenaged girls, and when given before the first sexual encounter, it has been shown to be protective against the most common HPV types associated with malignancy. The vaccine presumably prevents cervical cancer associated with these specific infections but is unable to prevent cancers arising from infections with less common HPV types not contained in the vaccine. Therefore, routine screening for precancerous changes in the ? is still recommended.
What might this relationship between lack of circumcision and cervical cancer mean?
Circumcision may partially protect the mate from cancer of the ? by removing the ? which harbors sexually-transmitted viruses (HPVs) that promote this common form of female cancer.
What is the relationship between circumcision and cancer of the ? ?
The predicted lifetime risk of cancer of the ? in an uncircumcised man is one in 600 in the U.S. Cancer of the ? carries a mortality rate as high as 25%. This cancer occurs almost exclusively in uncircumcised men. In five major research studies, no man who had been circumcised as a newborn developed cancer of the ? . Human papillomavirus types 16 and 18, which are sexually transmitted, are involved in cancer of the ? .
Circumcision: Medical Pros and Cons At A Glance
Inability to retract the ? fully at birth is not a medical reason for a circumcision.
Circumcision prevents phimosis (the inability to retract the ? at an age when it should normally be retractable), paraphimosis (the painful inability to return the ? to its original location), and balanoposthitis (inflammation of the ? and ? ).
Circumcision increases the chance of meatitis (inflammation of the opening of the ? ).
Circumcision may result in a decreased incidence of urinary tract infections.
Circumcision may result in a lower incidence of sexually-transmitted diseases and may reduce ? transmission.
Circumcision may lower the risk for cancer of the ? in sexual partners.
Circumcision may decrease the risk for cancer of the ? .
There is no absolute medical indication for routine circumcision of the newborn.
Every so-called "medical-benefit" had the word "may" before it... Meaning that there is nothing absolute about these medical findings.
Also, I'm curious; what are the "medical benefits" of so-called female circumcision? You know, that barbaric practice of removing a young female's ? with a razor blade?.. Still practiced in many countries today... This isn't genital mutilation, right? I'll sit back and wait for to post the doctors' reports on why female circumcision is necessary and how medically beneficial it is. -
ALLAH U. AKBAR wrote: »Soloman the Wise wrote: »ALLAH U. AKBAR wrote: »Soloman the Wise wrote: »It is encroaching on religious/spiritual covenants and coming from a country that has a history of doing those type of things. Medical and Spiritual benefits of circumcision far outweigh the courts issue with it...
Actually, there are no medical benefits to circumcision; it's strictly a tribal/religious rite. In actuality, circumcision is nothing more than genital mutilation, but nobody really wants to admit it. If your religious beliefs condone this type of (barbaric) practice, that's one thing.... But, be aware of the fact that the origins of this practice have absolutely NOTHING to do with "medical benefits".
I cosign the Germans.Is it easier to care for the circumcised ? or uncircumcised ? ?
The circumcised ? is generally easier to keep clean. An uncircumcised boy should be taught to clean his ? with care. Cleaning of the ? is done by gently, not forcibly, retracting the ? . The ? should be retracted only to the point where resistance is met. Full retraction of the ? may not be possible until the boy is 3 years old or older.
What is the relationship between circumcision and urinary tract infections?
The incidence of urinary tract infections in male infants appears to be lower when circumcision is done in the newborn period. It was first reported in 1982 that urinary tract infections (UTIs) are more common among infant males than they are in infant females (this switches later on in life). In this study, it was revealed that about 95% of the infected infant boys had not been circumcised. This risk is especially significant in infants less than 1 year of age. Many studies have shown that uncircumcised infants have a tenfold increased risk of developing a UTI than circumcised infants.
What might this relationship between circumcision and urinary tract infections mean?
Circumcision prevents the growth of bacteria under the ? and this, in turn, protects male infants against urinary tract infection. The high incidence of urinary tract infections in uncircumcised boys has also been found to be accompanied by an increased incidence of other significant infections such as bacteremia (bacterial infection of the bloodstream) and meningitis (infection of the covering of the brain). The protective effect of circumcision may thus extend to a number of infectious diseases.
What is the relationship between circumcision and sexually-transmitted diseases?
There is a higher risk of gonorrhea and inflammation of the urethra (the tube that carries the ? from the bladder outside) in uncircumcised men. It has also been reported that other sexually-transmitted diseases (such as chancroid, syphilis, human papillomavirus, and herpes simplex virus type 2 infection) are more frequent in uncircumcised men. As mentioned above, most recently three large studies performed in Africa documented that circumcision was protective with respect to the acquisition of ? infection as compared to those uncircumcised subjects.
What might this connection between circumcision and sexually-transmitted diseases mean?
Circumcision prevents the growth under the ? of the agents that cause sexually-transmitted diseases. Removal of the ? may provide some measure of protection from these diseases to males and their mates.
What is the correlation between sexually-transmitted diseases and cancer of the ? ?
There is a strong connection between sexually-transmitted diseases and cancer of the ? . Human papillomavirus types 16 and 18 (as well as other less common HPV types) are causes of precancerous changes in the ? and cervical cancer.
The strongest predisposing factors in cervical cancer are a history of intercourse at an early age and multiple sexual partners. An HPV vaccine is now available and recommended for all teenaged girls, and when given before the first sexual encounter, it has been shown to be protective against the most common HPV types associated with malignancy. The vaccine presumably prevents cervical cancer associated with these specific infections but is unable to prevent cancers arising from infections with less common HPV types not contained in the vaccine. Therefore, routine screening for precancerous changes in the ? is still recommended.
What might this relationship between lack of circumcision and cervical cancer mean?
Circumcision may partially protect the mate from cancer of the ? by removing the ? which harbors sexually-transmitted viruses (HPVs) that promote this common form of female cancer.
What is the relationship between circumcision and cancer of the ? ?
The predicted lifetime risk of cancer of the ? in an uncircumcised man is one in 600 in the U.S. Cancer of the ? carries a mortality rate as high as 25%. This cancer occurs almost exclusively in uncircumcised men. In five major research studies, no man who had been circumcised as a newborn developed cancer of the ? . Human papillomavirus types 16 and 18, which are sexually transmitted, are involved in cancer of the ? .
Circumcision: Medical Pros and Cons At A Glance
Inability to retract the ? fully at birth is not a medical reason for a circumcision.
Circumcision prevents phimosis (the inability to retract the ? at an age when it should normally be retractable), paraphimosis (the painful inability to return the ? to its original location), and balanoposthitis (inflammation of the ? and ? ).
Circumcision increases the chance of meatitis (inflammation of the opening of the ? ).
Circumcision may result in a decreased incidence of urinary tract infections.
Circumcision may result in a lower incidence of sexually-transmitted diseases and may reduce ? transmission.
Circumcision may lower the risk for cancer of the ? in sexual partners.
Circumcision may decrease the risk for cancer of the ? .
There is no absolute medical indication for routine circumcision of the newborn.
Every so-called "medical-benefit" had the word "may" before it... Meaning that there is nothing absolute about these medical findings.
Also, I'm curious; what are the "medical benefits" of so-called female circumcision? You know, that barbaric practice of removing a young female's ? with a razor blade?.. Still practiced in many countries today... This isn't genital mutilation, right? I'll sit back and wait for to post the doctors' reports on why female circumcision is necessary and how medically beneficial it is.
absolutely no benefits to female circumcision only problems with that one so no argument the benefits for male though are well documented by multiple sources... -
*ignorant ? post*
So not only are there still jews in germany but they got the heart to go against the original un-diluted cracca?!
I sense the rise of the 3rd ? again, these jews done lost their rabid ass mind and forgot their place.
Lmao. Keep it in the Donkey bruh. -
Medical benefits of circumsion? Come on use half your brain please. A random religious spirtual ritual has medical benefits? Its multilation for heavens sake. There is study on the negative effects of circumsion. So this argument will go in circles, my gut tells me its wrong. So in my reality its wrong!
-
Circumcision has ancient roots among several ethnic groups in sub-equatorial Africa, and is still performed on adolescent boys to symbolize their transition to warrior status or adulthood.[9]
Male circumcision in Africa
"The distribution of circumcision and initiation rites throughout Africa, and the frequent resemblance between details of ceremonial procedure in areas thousands of miles apart, indicate that the circumcision ritual has an old tradition behind it and in its present form is the result of a long process of development." Wagner, G. 1949. The Bantu of North Kavirondo. London: International African Institute.
African cultural history is conveniently spoken of in terms of language group. The Niger–Congo speakers of today extend from Senegal to Kenya to South Africa and all points between. In the historic period, the Niger–Congo speaking peoples predominantly have and have had male circumcision which occurred in young warrior initiation schools, the schools of Senegal and Gambia being not so very different from those of the Kenyan Gikuyu and South African Zulu. Their common ancestor was a horticultural group five, perhaps seven, thousand years ago from an area of the Cross River in modern Nigeria. From that area a horticultural frontier moved outward into West Africa and the Congo Basin. Certainly the warrior schools with male circumcision were a part of the ancestral society's cultural repertoire.[15]
Question book-new.svg This unreferenced section requires citations to ensure verifiability.
Male circumcision in East Africa is a rite of passage from childhood to adulthood, but is only practiced in some nations (tribes). Some peoples in East Africa do not practice male circumcision (for example the Luo of western Kenya).
Amongst the Gikuyu (Kikuyu) people of Kenya and the Maasai people of Kenya and Tanzania, male circumcision has historically been the graduation element of an educational program which taught tribal beliefs, practices, culture, religion and history to youth who were on the verge of becoming full-fledged members of society. The circumcision ceremony was very public, and required a display of courage under the knife in order to maintain the honor and prestige of the young man and his family. The only form of anesthesia was a bath in the cold morning waters of a river, which tended to numb the senses to a minor degree. The youths being circumcised were required to maintain a stoic expression and not to flinch from the pain.
After circumcision, young men became members of the warrior class, and were free to date and marry. The graduants became a fraternity which served together, and continued to have mutual obligation to each other for life.
In the modern context in East Africa, the physical element of male circumcision remains (in the societies that have historically practiced it) but without most of the other accompanying rites, context and programs. For many, the operation is now performed in private on one individual, in a hospital or doctor's office. Anesthesia is often used in such settings. There are tribes however, that do not accept this modernized practice. They insist on circumcision in a group ceremony, and a test of courage at the banks of a river. This more traditional approach is common amongst the Meru and the Kisii tribes of Kenya.
Despite the loss of the rites and ceremonies that accompanied male circumcision in the past, the physical operation remains crucial to personal identity and pride, and acceptance in society. Uncircumcised men in these communities risk being "outed", and subjected to ridicule as "boys". There have been many cases of forced circumcision of men from such communities who are discovered to have escaped the ritual.
^ Marck, J (1997). "Aspects of male circumcision in sub-equatorial African culture history". Health Transit Review 7 (supplement): 337–360. PMID 10173099. -
Sick, barbaric and totally unnecessary... And kinda ? ..
-
if they are gunna do it do it at birth.... if u dont do it then .........then its the kids choice when he gets older...
-
lol @ large jewish community in germany. there are barely any left last time i checked
-
Deal with it...
-
-Vincenzo- wrote: »lol @ large jewish community in germany. there are barely any left last time i checked
Germany is in the top 10 regarding the highest Jewish population. About 100,000 live in Germany. -
TwentyFive.Lighters wrote: »-Vincenzo- wrote: »lol @ large jewish community in germany. there are barely any left last time i checked
Germany is in the top 10 regarding the highest Jewish population. About 100,000 live in Germany.
thats nothing in a country of more than 80 million, germany used to have 5x as many before the 2nd world war. smaller countries like uk or france also have a lot more...
basically in germany they are non-visible for the most, except when something like this happens. -
Ima just say this, I appreciate not being circumcised, I like having extra feeling during sex.....makes the ? all the more incredible.
-
I won't go as far as to say its mutilation, but it is unnecessary. I won't say the courts should get involved but it should be the choice of the child when he grows up.
I don't see a reason for it but then again I aint Jewish either. -
I think the courts should get involved when it comes to protecting individual rights; especially for those who can't make decisions for themselves. It should fall under the practice of plastic surgery. My mother got me circumcised and my nephews aren't. They don't seem to be having any particular issues, so what's the point.
-
-
Whats the big deal..all this over some skin.My mom told me it was a no brainer that i was going to get cut when i was a baby.nh.
![[Deleted User]](https://w1.vanillicon.com/v2/15efd8efe08bb34aae25f1808aaf5018.svg)
