Skip to comments.Court bans circumcision over ‘psychological’ fears (Germany)
Posted on 09/25/2013 11:23:41 PM PDT by Olog-hai
A German court has forbidden a woman from having her six-year-old son circumcised because of a risk of psychological damage. The decision comes a year after a similar ruling sparked an international outcry.
In July 2012, a court in Cologne said religious circumcision of male infants was tantamount to grievous bodily harm, a criminal act subject to prosecutionprompting furor around the world. In response, German lawmakers were forced to clarify that circumcision was legal.
But now a court in Hamm in North Rhine-Westphalia has said a woman was unfit to decide whether doctors performed the religious rite on her six-year-old child because she had not taken into account the psychological harm it would cause him, newspaper the Westdeutsche Allgemeine newspaper reported.
(Excerpt) Read more at thelocal.de ...
But removing children from their families because they are home-schooled results in no harm in Germany. Krout logic at its socialist best.
Guess you don’t believe in the First Amendment then.
The first amendment says you can cut a babys parts off?
Was ist los? The foreskin is not the “baby’s parts”.
Read the free exercise clause.
who’s parts is it?
Should a parent not be allowed to have a child’s tonsils or adenoids removed if they cause chronic discomfort? The preponderance of the medical evidence says that circumcision prevents infection and disease.
I’m sure it’s much better to leave judgement to the government and children. Who basically have the same understanding of the world as you do.
Sorry. Meant for greysard.
Would you have any objection to Satanists who want to sacrifice a child to their god?
OK, you say, killing a child is not allowed. But how about cutting him up just a little? This won't hurt much, they promise. Just one tablespoon of blood. Is that OK?
Before you go to the First Amendment you need to look at an earlier document that says something about "the pursuit of Happiness." I cannot understand how a child can pursue happiness by having a part of his body cut off forever, without him having any say in the matter. Or, perhaps, we are talking about the parents pursuing their happiness by cutting up their child? I usually use a different word to describe such people.
This practice actually creeps into adjacent areas of law. For example, it is now becoming legal for parents to perform sex change surgery on their children. Is that OK too? You see, if the parents can do A then they can do B and C and D... More than one case is known of people killing their own children by following their religious rituals, such as refusing medical help. But the wellbeing of the child should be, of course, the prime concern. Nothing drastic should be done to a child that is not medically required. When the child grows up he will be able to decide for himself what rituals he wants; that will be done willingly, and it will have religious meaning. You wouldn't like it, I guess, if your parents decided to tattoo the image of FSM on your chest when you were a child just because they happened to believe in FSM at that time? Would that make you a believer in FSM? Would you wear a colander?
A discomfort is a medical case, and it should be discussed with the family doctor. The doctor then will explain what can be gained and what can be lost if the child is subjected to the surgery.
The preponderance of the medical evidence says that circumcision prevents infection and disease.
If the child has a medical problem of that kind, it should be dealt with in a medical way (see above.) If the child does not have a problem, leave him the $^*# alone. We don't cut up newborns to remove appendix, tonsils, or whatever else someone declares to be unnecessary. Most people live happily all their life with those organs - which, actually, have a purpose.
what then is the purpose of the foreskin? I mean besides trapping bacteria and viruses and smegma and causing various infections and occasionally strangling the penis and making it difficult to pee when you become elderly.
Satanists killing their child? Cutting their child for blood? Sex change (sic) surgery? What do those have to do with circumcision?? Those are evil things.
Circumcision is not evil. It’s good.
And perhaps that’s why some people don’t like it.
Comparing circumcision with child sacrifice? Really? Wonder what other types of people would do that . . .
“Should a parent not be allowed to have a childs tonsils or adenoids removed if they cause chronic discomfort? “
No. That’s maiming the child. And not surgery either.
Same with cases of appendicitis? Cholecystectomies?
You have absolutely no idea what my “understanding of the world” is.
Sorry was meant for greysard.
No it isn’t and yes it is Dr.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.