German judges rule parents can be brought to court for circumcising children

[DLD]

Parents having their sons circumcised can be brought before a judge for causing bodily injury, even if they did so for religious reasons, a regional court in Germany has ruled.

The recent landmark decision will likely draw the condemnation of Jewish and Muslim communities, although official representatives have refrained from commenting so far, saying they first want to study the reasons given for the judgment.
Following the judgment by the District Court of Cologne, neither the rights of parents nor the constitutional freedom of religion can justify interventions such as circumcision, according to Financial Times Deutschland, which first reported the story.

Continue Reading

 

[Wang Chung]

I think for most religions that practice circumcision, as long as you get it done eventually, you are still conforming to religious principles

 

[MAXAMEYES]

This is judicial intervention at its most invasive. What's next?
Jail time for imposing chores?

 

[rebel2011]

So you think the amputation of an unwilling child's foreskin is ok? What if it were a finger or piece of ear? Would you still think it was unjustified for the court to rule on that form of mutilation?

In reality it is probably just a way for insurance companies to get out of paying for the procedure. Big money rules the world ya know? Its the same as helmet/seat belt laws. The ultra rich and huge corporations make the rules....we are just forced to play by them.

My opinion is this. A new born child has more right to his foreskin than his parents do. If there is something medically wrong and it would be in the best interest for overall health then yes do it but for religious reasons? I don't see it. What if the kids grows up and has a different view of religion that the parents? What about the complications both future and current?

Im not saying its wrong to have your children circumcised. And i also don't agree with government telling me what to do....BUT it is also a forced amputation basically. And isn't it kinda saying that God messed up making man?

 

[Dickleaker]

sorry guys double post...got heated up on this issue

 

[Dickleaker]

I think its a step in the right direction for the rights of the baby boy who has no say in the alteration of his body. Because its sanctioned by religions doesn't mean its the right thing to do .There are so many bad things done in our history in the name of religion.AND if God's main premise is to love thy neighbor i think we can do that with a foreskin.

Germany should be proud on this one.

There are countries in the middle east who were(are still?) removing the clitoris of baby girls for cultural reasons.Would you do that to your newly born daughter?

 

[pest]

Germany, as usual, leading the fight for good sense, ethical justice (not moral justice).

If I was to cut my child, in any way, shape or form because I believed it to be a good idea or his only way into a school or heaven or whatever I'd be sent to jail, and rightly so.

 

[MAXAMEYES]

All this means is that "courts" now have more control of children than parents do.
Now the courts can mandate just about anything; how about mandatory appendectomies?
You really don't need them, now do ya?
Tonsillectomies, wisdom teeth....forced sterilization.

Once children become wholesale property of the state; all bets are off.
Read up a little on Eugenics, and the ardent embracing of it displayed by practically all of the Nordic countries.

 

[DLD]

Once children become wholesale property of the state; all bets are off./QUOTE]


I was a ward of the state most most of my childhood and the damage that was done to me still lingers into my mid-40's. They took a beautiful child, with a wonderful mind and turned him into a monster.

 

[pest]

Under certain religions if you steal you have your hand cut off.

In Germany, if your child steals and you cut off their hand your beliefs will not protect you from the law.

Similarly, if you cut your child for a non-medical procedure your beliefs will not protect you from the law. To suggest circumcision is in anyway similar to removal of wisdom teeth or the appendix is completely fallacious.

If you believe your child is possessed by the devil, and beat the child in an effort to exercise the spirit, your beliefs will not protect you from the law.

The law, when it comes to the protection of children is a very delicate and difficult area. Wherever possible, if there is a black and white issue, the law should be put in place, and where the issue is gray, the law should protect the family and the child. Check out German law, and German society generally ... 20 years ago they subsumed a former eastern bloc country and just look at how well they are doing.

 

[DLD]

If you believe your child is possessed by the devil, and beat the child in an effort to exercise the spirit, your beliefs will not protect you from the law.

Oh shit, I am in trouble

 

[MAXAMEYES]

Holy fuck did you miss the point.

Under certain religions if you steal you have your hand cut off.

In Germany, if your child steals and you cut off their hand your beliefs will not protect you from the law.

Similarly, if you cut your child for a non-medical procedure your beliefs will not protect you from the law. To suggest circumcision is in anyway similar to removal of wisdom teeth or the appendix is completely fallacious.

If you believe your child is possessed by the devil, and beat the child in an effort to exercise the spirit, your beliefs will not protect you from the law.

The law, when it comes to the protection of children is a very delicate and difficult area. Wherever possible, if there is a black and white issue, the law should be put in place, and where the issue is gray, the law should protect the family and the child. Check out German law, and German society generally ... 20 years ago they subsumed a former eastern bloc country and just look at how well they are doing.

 

[Gumbercules]

Holy fuck did you miss the point.

Actually, it's you who is totally missing the point. Circumcision is unnecessary destructive surgery on a healthy part of a healthy patient who doesn't consent. It is a gross violation of the most basic concept of medical ethics and human rights to perform unnecessary surgery on a healthy patient who doesn't consent.


I'm a circumcised, actually genitally mutilated male, and I had my appendix taken out a month ago. Circumcision was done for misguided and debunked cleanliness reasons, and for retarded cultural norms. I had my appendix out because I would have died otherwise. You take tonsils out because they are not healthy. You remove wisdom teeth if they aren't coming in correctly. Nowhere in medicine is it ethical to amputate a normal, healthy, functional body part simply because it MIGHT become a problem, and to do so without any consent whatsoever (except the foreskin). Heck, they made me sign consent forms to have my appendix taken out, even though I was a dead man without having it done. To equate the two, is insane.

Genital integrity is a basic human right, for girls, AND boys. It's about fucking time someone stood up for boys and their right not to be victims of sexual torture and mutilation, and lifelong disfigurement and sexual dysfunction and loss of sensation.

Cutting the genitals of a child, is simply sick. It's a relic of Bronze Age barbarism that will one day be viewed universally the way we all view slavery now.

 

[Gumbercules]

Parents having their sons circumcised can be brought before a judge for causing bodily injury, even if they did so for religious reasons, a regional court in Germany has ruled.

The recent landmark decision will likely draw the condemnation of Jewish and Muslim communities, although official representatives have refrained from commenting so far, saying they first want to study the reasons given for the judgment.
Following the judgment by the District Court of Cologne, neither the rights of parents nor the constitutional freedom of religion can justify interventions such as circumcision, according to Financial Times Deutschland, which first reported the story.

Continue Reading

If it's fundamentally wrong to perform any degree of cutting of the genitals of a girl unless absolutely necessary for medical reasons, it's fundamentally wrong to do so to a boy. The court is right. Circumcision is sexual torture and mutilation, literally disfiguring child rape. It's a sexual assault of the worst kind. A woman can get over rape. At least she has her genitals intact. I'd take it up the ass numerous times if it meant having my foreskin back.

Genital integrity is a human right, not simply a women's right.

This court was absolutely right. The State must intervene when children are being harmed. If you cut off your child's ear, they could still hear. Yet you would have your child take from you, and you would go to prison. Cut of part of their genitals, obviously a much more serious attack, for it attacks a person's sexuality, and the same should result.

In the not too distant future, this will be banned in the civilized world. Not to mention the fact that if boys aren't protected from genital cutting, the current ban on female genital cutting is unconstitutional, for it denies men equal protection under the law from unnecessary genital cutting, equal protection under the law being guaranteed by the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution.

 

[MAXAMEYES]

Since we're hypothesizing here:
In the not so distant future radical Islam becomes the dominant political party in Germany. They make both male and female circucision mandatory, in accordance with Sharia Law.
Would your support of that law be as fervid and strident?
After all; the law is the law.

And once your family is subservient to "The Law, The State, The Nameless-Faceless-Totally-Unaccountable" Government your children have become PROPenis EnlargementRTY OF THAT GOVERNMENT.
They are no longer your family, your offspring...your children: They are wards of the state. And you, my friend, are simply a temporary steward entrusted with their care until such time as "The State" deems you unfit, for whatever legal, ostensible or specious reason.

To give any government complete authority to make such fundamental decisions on such a universal scale, with prejudice and without exception or recourse, is to give government complete authority over every aspect and phase of an individuals life.

And no government either deserves or can effectively dispense that degree of control.

If it's fundamentally wrong to perform any degree of cutting of the genitals of a girl unless absolutely necessary for medical reasons, it's fundamentally wrong to do so to a boy. The court is right. Circumcision is sexual torture and mutilation, literally disfiguring child rape. It's a sexual assault of the worst kind. A woman can get over rape. At least she has her genitals intact. I'd take it up the ass numerous times if it meant having my foreskin back.

Genital integrity is a human right, not simply a women's right.

This court was absolutely right. The State must intervene when children are being harmed. If you cut off your child's ear, they could still hear. Yet you would have your child take from you, and you would go to prison. Cut of part of their genitals, obviously a much more serious attack, for it attacks a person's sexuality, and the same should result.

In the not too distant future, this will be banned in the civilized world. Not to mention the fact that if boys aren't protected from genital cutting, the current ban on female genital cutting is unconstitutional, for it denies men equal protection under the law from unnecessary genital cutting, equal protection under the law being guaranteed by the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution.

 

[DLD]

Since we're hypothesizing here:
In the not so distant future radical Islam becomes the dominant political party in Germany. They make both male and female circucision mandatory, in accordance with Sharia Law.
Would your support of that law be as fervid and strident?
After all; the law is the law.

And once your family is subservient to "The Law, The State, The Nameless-Faceless-Totally-Unaccountable" Government your children have become PROPenis EnlargementRTY OF THAT GOVERNMENT.
They are no longer your family, your offspring...your children: They are wards of the state. And you, my friend, are simply a temporary steward entrusted with their care until such time as "The State" deems you unfit, for whatever legal, ostensible or specious reason.

To give any government complete authority to make such fundamental decisions on such a universal scale, with prejudice and without exception or recourse, is to give government complete authority over every aspect and phase of an individuals life.

And no government either deserves or can effectively dispense that degree of control.

Absolute power absolutely corrupts! No exceptions.

 

[Gumbercules]

Since we're hypothesizing here:
In the not so distant future radical Islam becomes the dominant political party in Germany. They make both male and female circucision mandatory, in accordance with Sharia Law.
Would your support of that law be as fervid and strident?
After all; the law is the law.

And once your family is subservient to "The Law, The State, The Nameless-Faceless-Totally-Unaccountable" Government your children have become PROPenis EnlargementRTY OF THAT GOVERNMENT.
They are no longer your family, your offspring...your children: They are wards of the state. And you, my friend, are simply a temporary steward entrusted with their care until such time as "The State" deems you unfit, for whatever legal, ostensible or specious reason.

To give any government complete authority to make such fundamental decisions on such a universal scale, with prejudice and without exception or recourse, is to give government complete authority over every aspect and phase of an individuals life.

And no government either deserves or can effectively dispense that degree of control.

In that case, where were you when we banned female genital cutting? Hypocrite.

 

[Gumbercules]

So you think parents should be able to brand their children like cattle?

For one so anti-government, you're awfully dismissive of individual rights, say, the right to one's own genitals, one's own body. Take that away, and your anti-government screed sounds awfully inconsistent.

 

[MAXAMEYES]

So you think parents should be able to brand their children like cattle?

For one so anti-government, you're awfully dismissive of individual rights, say, the right to one's own genitals, one's own body. Take that away, and your anti-government screed sounds awfully inconsistent.

Instead of injecting your own prejudices and fears into your invectives and accusations, why don't you pretend that you are actually a reasonable adult, although it may be difficult for you, and simply answer the questions I have raised?

 

[DLD]

Sex, Religion and Government are a very scary threesome!

 

[Gumbercules]

Instead of injecting your own prejudices and fears into your invectives and accusations, why don't you pretend that you are actually a reasonable adult, although it may be difficult for you, and simply answer the questions I have raised?

The only reasonable position is to ban all forms of genital cutting against people who do not consent, unless it's absolutely medically necessary, you know, treat the penis like any other part of the body.

 

[Gumbercules]

Instead of injecting your own prejudices and fears into your invectives and accusations, why don't you pretend that you are actually a reasonable adult, although it may be difficult for you, and simply answer the questions I have raised?

If Sharia law was enacted, then it would be the business of intelligent people to change the law.

I'm not saying the law is perfect. If it were, male circumcision would be banned. But laws matter. You seem to hold that laws are universally unacceptable if they in any way interfere with how you want to live your life.

This isn't about law anyway. It's about basic human rights. I say that genital integrity is a basic human right for all people, women AND men, and the law needs to be changed to suit that. And yes, if you're found guilty of cutting he genitals of a child, the State should punish you severely.

 

[MAXAMEYES]

Your response in no way, by any stretch of the imagination answers the questions I raised.

And your conclusion "this isn't about the law anyway"is completely wrong. If a judge is not a direct representative of the judicial (law) system then what position in society does he/she actually hold?

I'm not sure about the GDR, but in America we have three branches of Government: Executive, Legislative & Judicial.

Fortunately there is no prescribed "religious" branch of government. Yet it makes sporadic intrusions from time to time.

 

[DLD]

Fortunately there is no prescribed "religious" branch of government. Yet it makes sporadic intrusions from time to time.

Unless you are Jewish Like me

 

[anth1225]

Here in America the whole foundation of our nation is based upon religious freedom; freedom from the government deciding how we will worship; to whom we pay tithes ect.

This accusation against circumcision as if it were an act of violence is absurd. Health reasons alone would be reasons enough.
Neither is it the Federal Governments responsibility to dictate how we will raise our children.

In our Declaration of Independence it states that we as a people give the government its power; but in the end the ultimate power remains with the people.
It states that our Creator gave us the right to have: life; liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
These are God given and what God gives man cannot take away.

Judges on the courts assume the role of legislatures thus leaving the people out of major decisions that involve their lives.

Even though we as Americans have seen the transmogrification of our Federal Government assuming powers it was never intended to have; the spirit of the revolution and reasons why this country was first founded still run deep.

Only those who want power want to destroy individual and religous liberties and are more than willing to give an accountable; unelected official ultimate power over the populace.

In this argument it is important to compare apples with apples otherwise all things become obscure and inane

 

[MAXAMEYES]

Unless you are Jewish Like me

I thought you guys controlled Hollywood?!?!?

 

[DLD]

I thought you guys controlled Hollywood?!?!?

Hollywood controls the Government

 

[MAXAMEYES]

Hollywood controls the Government

It's one damn long vicious cycle, it is!

 

[pest]

Face it guys, there are rights that are more important than human rights. These are the rights of the parent and they include to needlessly cut your child!

 

[DLD]

It's one damn long vicious cycle, it is!

vicious being the main theme

 

[Gumbercules]

Here in America the whole foundation of our nation is based upon religious freedom; freedom from the government deciding how we will worship; to whom we pay tithes ect.

This accusation against circumcision as if it were an act of violence is absurd. Health reasons alone would be reasons enough.
Neither is it the Federal Governments responsibility to dictate how we will raise our children.

In our Declaration of Independence it states that we as a people give the government its power; but in the end the ultimate power remains with the people.
It states that our Creator gave us the right to have: life; liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
These are God given and what God gives man cannot take away.

Judges on the courts assume the role of legislatures thus leaving the people out of major decisions that involve their lives.

Even though we as Americans have seen the transmogrification of our Federal Government assuming powers it was never intended to have; the spirit of the revolution and reasons why this country was first founded still run deep.

Only those who want power want to destroy individual and religous liberties and are more than willing to give an accountable; unelected official ultimate power over the populace.

In this argument it is important to compare apples with apples otherwise all things become obscure and inane

It's incredible that a person who can tie their own shoes can't see how absurd what you have written is.

Taking a knife to a child's genitals is violent. If it were done to a girl it's an act of violence. Agree or disagree?

If the following video is not violent, sexual torture even, then NOTHING is, and the concept of violence is meaningless.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmX6RdRNoqk

You do not have an individual freedom to chop off part of another person's body. That infringes on their freedom.

How can you support individual freedom and claim the right of one person to deny another person access to an important part of their body, I mean, their genitals of all things. You recognize the wrongness of this for girls. But you have a double standard and do not recognize it for boys.

You do not have a religious right to brand your children. If you tattooed your child, you would be punished. Circumcision is FAR, FAR more damaging than a tattoo, and cannot be reversed, while a tattoo can be reversed.

Religious freedom is not unlimited. Agree or disagree?

 

[Gumbercules]

Here in America the whole foundation of our nation is based upon religious freedom; freedom from the government deciding how we will worship; to whom we pay tithes ect.

This accusation against circumcision as if it were an act of violence is absurd. Health reasons alone would be reasons enough.
Neither is it the Federal Governments responsibility to dictate how we will raise our children.

In our Declaration of Independence it states that we as a people give the government its power; but in the end the ultimate power remains with the people.
It states that our Creator gave us the right to have: life; liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
These are God given and what God gives man cannot take away.

Judges on the courts assume the role of legislatures thus leaving the people out of major decisions that involve their lives.

Even though we as Americans have seen the transmogrification of our Federal Government assuming powers it was never intended to have; the spirit of the revolution and reasons why this country was first founded still run deep.

Only those who want power want to destroy individual and religous liberties and are more than willing to give an accountable; unelected official ultimate power over the populace.

In this argument it is important to compare apples with apples otherwise all things become obscure and inane

You have no idea what you're talking about. This country was not founded on religious freedom. It was founded on INDIVIDUAL freedom, of which religion is a component. Yet, if my parents mutilate my genitals, they forever have violated my religious freedom not to be a part of their religion. Therefore my rights were violated.

The individual freedom of women is what protects them from their parents religious freedom to cut their genitals. The same principle should apply, to any rational person, to men.

Genital mutilation is not a religious right.

The health justifications are bogus. Few, if any organizations in the world say there is any merit to medical reasons for routine circumcision. And far more specifically say it's not worth it. Others, rightly identify it as a human rights violation. Genital integrity is a human right. Taking a knife to the genitals of a child is not a right. If you don't like it, then civilization will soon put people like you in prison, with the rest of the child rapists.

 

[Gumbercules]

Face it guys, there are rights that are more important than human rights. These are the rights of the parent and they include to needlessly cut your child!

Anyone who insists on the right to take a knife to a child's body, let alone their genitals, and amputate perfectly healthy, normal, functional tissue, has serious issues.

 

[anth1225]

You have no idea what you're talking about. This country was not founded on religious freedom. It was founded on INDIVIDUAL freedom, of which religion is a component. Yet, if my parents mutilate my genitals, they forever have violated my religious freedom not to be a part of their religion. Therefore my rights were violated.

The individual freedom of women is what protects them from their parents religious freedom to cut their genitals. The same principle should apply, to any rational person, to men.

Genital mutilation is not a religious right.

The health justifications are bogus. Few, if any organizations in the world say there is any merit to medical reasons for routine circumcision. And far more specifically say it's not worth it. Others, rightly identify it as a human rights violation. Genital integrity is a human right. Taking a knife to the genitals of a child is not a right. If you don't like it, then civilization will soon put people like you in prison, with the rest of the child rapists.

Female circumcision is mutilation and designed to prevent the woman from having orgasms; thereby making them "pure".

Male circumcision is not mutilation; it does not affect the sexual function or enjoyment.
As I said earlier it is always best to compare apples with apples instead of having a blithering emotional response not based on fact; but more based on trying to make a personal attack thereby trying to bully your position to make yourself right.

You are not right nor will you bully me.

Male circumcision prevents diseases such as yeast infections and is easier to keep clean without the foreskin.
To call foreskin: "genitals" is as misleading as you pretending to know the foundations of our great country.

From the first colonists who came here escaping religious persecution; to the original 13 Colonies which each had a state established denomination; from our Declaration of independance which states where our inalienable rights come from.

It was from the outset for Christian religious liberty through which all other religions were able to benefit.

The inalienable rights are for all: religious or irreligous but the rights are from God so man may not upsurp them.

 

[MAXAMEYES]

Anyone who insists on the right to take a knife to a child's body, let alone their genitals, and amputate perfectly healthy, normal, functional tissue, has serious issues.

To what degree are you actually mutilated? If I may ask.
How much of your penis are you actually missing?
Do you have a glans?
Was there any loss of erectile tissue?
After your circumcision was there any discussion of gender reassignment surgery?
Can you still actually function as a male-outside of simple urination?

From the way you post, it sounds as though you are missing a substantial portion of your penis, either directly through the circumcision process or subsequently via infection and necrosis.
If this is actually your case then I'd say you have a fairly good case to present against your child rapist parents and the equally evil medical horde they conscripted to do their bidding.
Perhaps you should pursue a civil liabilities suit.

 

[DLD]

Things are just starting to heat up!

 

[Gumbercules]

To what degree are you actually mutilated? If I may ask.
How much of your penis are you actually missing?
Do you have a glans?
Was there any loss of erectile tissue?
After your circumcision was there any discussion of gender reassignment surgery?
Can you still actually function as a male-outside of simple urination?

From the way you post, it sounds as though you are missing a substantial portion of your penis, either directly through the circumcision process or subsequently via infection and necrosis.
If this is actually your case then I'd say you have a fairly good case to present against your child rapist parents and the equally evil medical horde they conscripted to do their bidding.
Perhaps you should pursue a civil liabilities suit.

The foreskin is a substantial part of the penis. If you knew anything you'd know that. It's sad how ignorant people are of normal, non-mutilated male genitalia.

 

[Gumbercules]

Female circumcision is mutilation and designed to prevent the woman from having orgasms; thereby making them "pure".

Male circumcision is not mutilation; it does not affect the sexual function or enjoyment.
As I said earlier it is always best to compare apples with apples instead of having a blithering emotional response not based on fact; but more based on trying to make a personal attack thereby trying to bully your position to make yourself right.

You are not right nor will you bully me.

Male circumcision prevents diseases such as yeast infections and is easier to keep clean without the foreskin.
To call foreskin: "genitals" is as misleading as you pretending to know the foundations of our great country.

From the first colonists who came here escaping religious persecution; to the original 13 Colonies which each had a state established denomination; from our Declaration of independance which states where our inalienable rights come from.

It was from the outset for Christian religious liberty through which all other religions were able to benefit.

The inalienable rights are for all: religious or irreligous but the rights are from God so man may not upsurp them.

No man has a right to inflict bodily harm on another. Genital mutilation is bodily harm. What about my right to intact genitalia? Your religious rights don't extend to altering the form and function of another person's body, even if they are your child. The clealiness claims surrounding mgm are bullshit. Just ask any man from Europe where they don't perform surgical rape on their children.

To say that the foreskin is not part of your genitals is to say that your finger is not part of your hand.

Women have far more trouble with cleanliness. Why not cut them too? Male circumcision WAS done to control male sexuality. Just ask Maidmonides and Dr Kellogg's, though I'm certain you don't know who they are.

Your ignorance on this issue is sickening. Your position on this matter is based only on your indoctrination into a culture of mutilation and sexual repression and an unwillingness to question anything.

 

[Gumbercules]

Your response in no way, by any stretch of the imagination answers the questions I raised.

And your conclusion "this isn't about the law anyway"is completely wrong. If a judge is not a direct representative of the judicial (law) system then what position in society does he/she actually hold?

I'm not sure about the GDR, but in America we have three branches of Government: Executive, Legislative & Judicial.

Fortunately there is no prescribed "religious" branch of government. Yet it makes sporadic intrusions from time to time.

So you support a parent's right to cut their daughter's genitals for religious reasons. That's pretty messed up. I'd seek help.

 

[huge-girth]

Sex, Religion and Government are a very scary threesome!

Agreed.