German Court Rules Circumcision a “Bodily Harm”

This week a court in Germany ruled that circumcising boys for religious reasons is “bodily harm.” The ruling came as a result of a court case about medical complications following the circumcision of a four-year-old boy. The doctor was acquitted, but apparently the court felt like stirring up a shit-storm anyway.  The ruling isn’t binding but it certainly sets a precedent.

Also, this happened in Germany. And circumcision of newborn boys has been a tradition in Judaism (amongst other religions and cultures) dating back thousands of years. Er, guys? You do remember the Holocaust, right? Don’t you think you might want to step a little more lightly when it comes to religious freedom, and in particular the religious freedom of Jewish people?

Read the rest of this post on SUNfiltered


Say Something

13 Comments on "German Court Rules Circumcision a “Bodily Harm”"

Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted

ANY circumcision, male or female is physical abuse upon the child and should be banned worldwide. In women it destroys their entire sexual sensations and in men the glans becomes atrophied and less sensitive.



Leave the children uncut, please.


You know what reduces the contraction of HIV? Fn condoms. When faced with the decision to perform (what by all measures seems to be a remarkably painful) surgery on an infant and promoting temporary latex sheaths why are we deciding that promoting condoms is just too big a fight?


Before we decide whether or not circumcision is a religious right we should be asking ourselves why it’s almost an automatic practice in the US. We’d go along way by simply flipping the hospital norm. Instead of going in preparing to circumcise an infant why don’t we switch to waiting until a parent requests a circumcision.

The underlying question becomes who’s values should dictate in raising a child. A parent’s beliefs, or that of the state. These questions arise in all segments of society. Some parents do not want their children vaccinated under a belief that it is harmful. Other parents don’t want their children to have a secular education. Who should be making that choice, the state or the parents. In religious communities that practice male circumscion, this is not a choice, and comes down to fundamental values and beliefs. As for those who want to raise questions of its hygenic value, the religious practice,… Read more »
The “mediical benefits” of infant circumcision are exaggerated – slight reductions in rare diseases of late onset that can be better prevented by other means, or treated as they occur – when they are not completely bogus. Circumcision is a “cure” looking for a disease, an intervention in search of an excuse. The court considered the religious freedom of the parents carefully, and balanced it against the right of the child to decide for himself what parts of his own genitals to keep or have cut off, when he is old enough. (He almost always chooses to – surprise, surprise!… Read more »