German court bans circumcision for babies | General Discussion | Forum
I just heard this in the news and wondered what people thought.
It was ruled that such a procedure was an assault on the child if there was no valid medical reason (such as a specific condition), and they could not consent. It further discussed that imposing religious beliefs onto a baby which is unable to choose was not ethical. It has been debated that this could apply to babies having their ears pierced, or to non modifications such as baptism.
It seems likely to get over-ruled by the German government and has been criticised by Jewish group, but i think it raises valid questions.
July 7, 2012
I'm not gonna judge the people who do it for religious reasons, because it's what they believe in (even though I have no idea how cutting off the foreskin of your baby has any religious significance, but whatever).
I will on the other hand judge the people in the United States who have it done to their children for AESTHETIC reasons.
WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCKING FUCK
These people put their sons through all this pain so "the women he ends up with have something nice to look at"
Or because the like it on their husbands….OR SOME OTHER MEANINGLESS BULLSHIT! Meaningless!!! At least when babies go through modifications in Africa (like certain scarification and certain stages in life, which does include infancy, forgot which tribes did that), it is done for a MEANINGFUL reason, like symbolizing the childhood or symbolizing strength and the passage into adulthood.
But most people in the United States, have it done for no other reason other than the fact that they want future sluts to like it…
From the words of Professor Farnsworth: "I don't want to live on this planet anymore…"
July 7, 2012
I read about that and was rather happy to hear it. Consent is key in any form of body modification and a baby cannot give consent. I do not think religion is a good enough excuse to permanently modify a baby who may or may not appreciate it when they are older. Once the child is old enough to have some understanding of what they are consenting too and/or ask for the procedure to be done themselves, that's a different story entirely. But before such a time as they are capable of giving consent, I am against it.
May 5, 2012
I think it's easier to judge in a Western context, even if it is for faith reasons. My head says informed consent is needed for modification or ascribing to a religion. Consent children are of limited capability in choosing, and this should be limited to less permenant decisions.
Despite this i seem to have less instinctive issue with certain tribal rites in small cultures. I reckon it may be my noble savage complex, but can't quite pinpoint it….
May 24, 2012
I have a male son and I won't share my personal experience because I don't want to be lambasted. It is the right for parents to choose to teach their child as they see fit. Circumcision and lobe piercing are traditional rituals which involve body modification… not some new age new fad thing! I am quite honestly pretty shocked that the reasons someone chooses to do a ritual would even be an issue. Our personal relationship with divinity and love are unique. If I want to cut or pierce my child's flesh there is no man made law that can supersede spiritual tradition. Who are YOU to tell ME my reason for continuing a traditional ritual is good enough? Who are you to tell me if I should cut my child's hair, which could be deemed by some as a body modification, or dunk them in the hole of water through the ice. Maybe it's because they might cry? Maybe I shouldn't let my kids ride a bike without training wheels because, although the child is unaware of it, they are going to fall off and it will hurt and they will bleed. Sounds absurd, huh? These procedures aren't being done with a rusty knife and a dull stick!!! It is NOT the right of state or country to delegate to me what I should feel is right for a religious or spiritual practice, but rather a duty of those with more education and knowledge to keep those practices SAFE.
May 24, 2012
Furthermore, what age is old enough to make that decision? When they can talk? When they can read? When science tells you the frontal lobe of the brain is formed enough to understand consequence? When the dictator of your land tells you it is time?
I apologize for being sassy. This is a heated topic. I'd like to hear from someone else who has been faced with these decisions.
I think the issue is not just whether it is right for the state to dictate, but whether a parent is able to give proxy consent, and for what?
Where do you draw the line?
April 3, 2012
Ritual modification on infants/childern is large aspect of many cultural/religious practices spanning the globe. It is is often a way to show devotion to tribe, god(s), family and ancestory. It is sometimes to show wealth/power/status. It is sometimes to mark milestones such as man/womanhood, exceptance by peers etc. The parents of these childern do this becuase they believe in the sanctity of it. It is not done to hurt the child, but actually a blessing or gift to the child. Personally i think that parents should impart thier religion on thier childern. Later in life that child may choose a differnt path, but the fact that spirituality, ritual, expression and all that is instilled is important to the development i believe. I see nothing wrong with the modification of a child provided it is in a fashion that will not harm the child. Example ear piercing vs. genital. Ears are safe on childern provided it's taken care of, while genitals will devlop further and are suited for younger under developed anatomy. Another aspect i think is important is that it establishs a bond. the parent has to do the maintence and such devoting the time and care to the child. it is not the gov. place to decree how we show our devotion to spirtual under any circumstance.
forgfive my erranous spelling lol
July 7, 2012
Is it fair to make a differentiation regarding consent because of the motivations for engaging in a particular modification? In asking that question, I am not including health reasons in the list of possible motivations because I feel that to be an entirely different argument all together. However, if one individual is circumcising their child because of religion and one is circumcising their child because of aesthetics, is it fair to say one is justified and the other is not? Personally, I say no.
Religion and/or spirituality can be a very important thing in many people's lives and I do mostly support a parent's right to raise their child within their religion of choice. However, when it comes to permanently marking their child, whether through ear piercing or circumcision, I do not believe its right to do before the child is old enough to both understand and consent to the modification in question. The line regarding what age is acceptable and what is unacceptable may be a fuzzy one, but it clear that an infant who is too young even to speak is not capable of giving consent in any fashion.
As far as what will or will not harm the child, that is another question up for interpretation. Removing a part of the penis that hold hundreds of thousands of nerve endings could certainly be argued to be harming the child if that child had not given consent. Scarring a baby's ears for life because of a botched ear piercing with a gun could also be considered harming the child. Not all harm might be intentional in these cases, granted, but I feel it should be up to the consenting individual in question to give or withhold consent given the potential risks and rewards, not their parent or anyone else on their behalf.
I run the risk of making a controversial topic more so, but what about female circumcision?
May 5, 2012
March 3, 2011
I used to think it shouldn't be done… but now what makes me really think on this, is meeting a guy who is not circumcised who hates that his parents didn't get it done on him. If he were to get it done now, it would (according to his research, I'll admit I haven't looked into it) be potentially more dangerous, and take longer to heal, not to mention he will be able to remember that pain. He hates the stigma attached (which, if that were changed, would certainly make a difference, but that would certainly be tough to do) which is why I think it really could go either way. I'd like to just leave it to the mothers to choose for themselves. It seems to be slowly changing anyway, with lots of the mothers in the parenting site I am a member of choosing not to circumcise, so maybe that stigma will soon leave. Basically I think we should just let the mothers choose on their own, and the change WILL come on its own.
Male circumcision removes some sensitivity and is a painful thing to heal, whatever age.
Female circumscision can involve serious damage to the area, and may include removal of inner and outer labia, as well as potentially the clitoris, and may restrict or scar the vagina, leading to no sexual sensation or debilitating pain.
Both are done for cultural and religious reasons, on children too young to consent, without any medical reason.
March 3, 2011
May 24, 2012
Many religious rites are done for reasons mysterious to humans, and that is the whole point… to guild mortal beings towards divinity. Again, safe practice is the way all rituals should be done. The female circumcision is being done in a brutal way because of unsafe practice. Just like many male circumcisions. Parents make ALL decisions for children… especially INFANTS. ALL OF THEM!! They are helpless little humans and many people do cruel things to people and animals. Safety first.
But what if the parent is doing something cruel?
I disagree about female circumcision being 'brutal' because of inadequate conditions. It's often referred to as female genital mutilation for a reason, the intent to cause significant damage is there (even if it isn't the primary reason), and is illegal in a number of countries, including the US, UK and Canada.
Most Users Ever Online: 116
Currently Browsing this Page:
Guest Posters: 60
Newest Members: jmb1, jmb, EmeraldxxPools, JessieBet, medusa_reignfire, homework512
Moderators: Oakbear (886), Richard Ivey (6)
Administrators: Chris Carter (191)