• Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .

Germany discriminating against Jews or protecting children ?

GoodSarmatian

Jokerfied Western Male
Joined
Apr 25, 2006
Messages
9,408
A German court recently ruled that circumcision constitutes bodily harm.

In a decision that has caused outrage among Jewish and Muslim groups, the court said that a child's right to physical integrity trumps religious and parental rights.

The case involved a doctor who carried out a circumcision on a four year-old that led to medical complications.

Although male circumcision - unlike female circumcision - is not illegal in Germany, the court's judgement said the "fundamental right of the child to bodily integrity outweighed the fundamental rights of the parents".

Circumcision, it decided, contravenes "interests of the child to decide later in life on his religious beliefs".

What do you think about this ? Do parents have a right to cut off parts of their childrens body as a sacrifice to their God (that's what it is right ?) or should it be up to the child to decide whether or not to pay the foreskin tribute as an adult ?
I'm with the German court on this. Richard Dawkins once ranted that a child does not have a religion and that labeling a toddler jewish or muslim makes about as much sense as to call a a three year old a communist or liberal. I tend to agree with him.
 
I think Germany is doing the right thing here.

Circumscison has many serious implications and I would hate that decison being made for me. Leave it till your 18 in my book; you can give informed consent then.
 
how can banning religious mutilation of infants ever be wrong?

Besides that, why does the OP single out the Jews? Even his quote states that Muslim groups are affected. Trying to bait the usual germans-are-nazis stuff right from post #1?
 
There are probably far more Muslims in Germany than Jews. In a way I agree but I think circumcision is so wrapped up in people's culture that it would be very difficult to change. This will probably lead to Muslims taking their boys to their home countries to do it and it will be done at a later age and probably more painful to them.
 
how can banning religious mutilation of infants ever be wrong?

Besides that, why does the OP single out the Jews?

Because it draws more attention. :D
 
It's pretty obvious that the intention is not to discriminate against anyone, but, as I have been recently informed, the actual effect would be a very serious problem for (at least [some]) Jews. I'm sympathetic to both sides of the ban question. I would like to hear from more Jews arguing against any bans.

I don't think it's done as a sacrifice to god, but as a sort of marker of who's in the club. It's really important to some people.
 
Yeah we do risk that many Muslims and Jews will try to circumsise the children themselves. That might lead to problems for the young boys...
 
Yeah we do risk that many Muslims and Jews will try to circumsise the children themselves. That might lead to problems for the young boys...

Then make it a criminal offence to participate in it against the child's will.

Sod off with religious justifications.
 
99% of those affected will be muslims.

If it can't be justified medically than it should be illegal to preform on minors. It is in a sense plastic surgery since it is an unnecessary procedure done for cultural reasons. It isn't different from making a 14 year old's breasts larger.
 
99% of those affected will be muslims.

If it can't be justified medically than it should be illegal to preform on minors. It is in a sense plastic surgery since it is an unnecessary procedure done for cultural reasons. It isn't different from making a 14 year old's breasts larger.

What if I have a religion that says God will only love you if you have breast implants before you enter adulthood?

It's my right to do this! :mad::mad::mad:
 
Will the law be guided by the purposes of the physical alterations to the body or will this law create a precedent that will disallow ALL bodily alterations? Should it?

If a child has a tumor, we will disallow removal of the tumor or other abnormal aspects of the body, if they are deemed non-life threatening?
 
Will the law be guided by the purposes of the physical alterations to the body or will this law create a precedent that will disallow ALL bodily alterations? Should it?

If a child has a tumor, we will disallow removal of the tumor or other abnormal aspects of the body, if they are deemed non-life threatening?

Please point out to me where removing the foreskin is akin to removing a tumor.
 
@JohnRM
Germany has no common law. "Precedents" only exist in so far as that a judge cares to follow it. That has the consequence that the legal judgment of the specific circumstances of a specific case are unfit to establish some kind of new principle unless other judges are willing to go along with it. Judges often will follow loose guidelines of a precedent when established by y a court of a higher level, but never in a way which is free of context.
Moreover, having studied some German law myself, I can assure you that what this verdict is based on is the reasoning that a child may only receive physical harm for the purpose of preventing even further physical harm (like cancer).
 
Top Bottom