|
This blog entry is not about reflecting on the pro or contra of male circumcision and it is certainly no discusion about whether it should be forbidden or allowed. It is about the hipocracy that is currently going on in German politics regarding that topic.
If you are not aware of the current situation in Germany:
a court ruled male circumsision of babies and small kids as assault, hence it is not allowed in Germany anymore. However the ruling politicians are now eager to pass a law to legalize it.
The issue I have with this legalization, is that the partial removal of the foreskin is already forbidden by law. In fact, a couple of years ago there was an initiative to punish it more severely with a minimum of two years, which had a broad consensus amongst all politicians and that is only the act itself. Additionally you will be held responsible for abuse of somebody who is entrusted in your care, and I'm sure anything else the lawyers can find. Oh, I forgot to mention one thing though: This only holds if the one whose foreskin is being removed is female.
All in all, if that law is to pass clearing the situation regarding the milder forms of the female circumsision (we are not talking about the more barbaric versions), I expect more lawsuits, either by male circumcision opponents or by female circumcision advocates. So if you like the government running haywire, you will have fun times in front of you.
One last note: I am definitely NOT a supporter of female circumcision! I find it incredibly disgusting and I prefer people not associating my person with a cruel act like that!
  
|
|
|
This constitutes religious discrimination. In fact, this feels like some kind of leftover discriminatory law that no one bothered to remove. Legalizing circumcision is a step in the right direction.
|
Um... I'm not for male-circumcision, but there is a big difference between a clitoris and foreskin in the ways they affect your life long term LOL. I would not be upset if they are treated as individual cases.
|
On July 17 2012 04:15 Mothra wrote:
I don't understand exactly... how does the legalization of infant male circumcision affect female circumcision advocates?
They can claim that it discriminates women, because men may be circumcised while women may not (in their eyes it would be something positive). While the opponents would say that it discriminates against men, because women are protected by law against cricumcision, while men are not.
Quite the paradox, huh? But that's what you get if you have a law which specifically distinguishes between men and women in something which has supporters and opponents.
|
When it comes to things regarding the sexual differences between men and women, its okay to segregate by gender.
|
On July 17 2012 04:20 Chef wrote:
Um... I'm not for male-circumcision, but there is a big difference between a clitoris and foreskin in the ways they affect your life long term LOL. I would not be upset if they are treated as individual cases.
There is a way of female circumcision, in which only the foreskin is removed partially. This is forbidden in Germany by law.
But partially removing the foreskin on men will be legal soon (if the politicians pull it through).
Anyways, I am not referring to the version of circumcision, which removes the clitoris. As a human, I am quite ashamed that something disgusting like this actually exists on this world.
|
On July 17 2012 04:23 JustPassingBy wrote:
They can claim that it discriminates women, because men may be circumcised while women may not (in their eyes it would be something positive). While the opponents would say that it discriminates against men, because women are protected by law against cricumcision, while men are not.
Quite the paradox, huh? But that's what you get if you have a law which specifically distinguishes between men and women in something which has supporters and opponents.
LOL that is kind of funny actually. Wow, I never would have even considered that legalizing infant male circumcision is seen as discriminatory against women who want to be circumcised (or more accurately, the parents who want to circumcise their daughters).
|
Oh, you're right there's a distinction between clitoral hood and clitoris. I'm not so sure even the removal of the clitoral hood is comparable to removal of male circumcision tho. I would suspect it would still make sex a painful experience? Who knows~ If not, then I guess the comparison you're making is pretty accurate. I don't know enough to comment zz.
|
On July 17 2012 04:33 Chef wrote:
Oh, you're right there's a distinction between clitoral hood and clitoris. I'm not so sure even the removal of the clitoral hood is comparable to removal of male circumcision tho. I would suspect it would still make sex a painful experience? Who knows~ If not, then I guess the comparison you're making is pretty accurate. I don't know enough to comment zz.
The unprotected clitoris would probably desensitize over time the same way the glans does on a circumcised penis. The glans and clitoris are identical before sex differentiation, so it's reasonable to compare the foreskin to the clitoral hood.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_urinary_and_reproductive_organs#External_genitalia
|
Well it's only reasonable if you have a study that actually says it is the same. Otherwise we are just guessing lol. I suspect there's a difference between having the scars of that surgery where you are being thrust into (thus aggravating the scars?) and having the scar at the base of the penis which is not really the victim of that much friction. But again, these are just guesses, so there's no point in trying to find the answer to this by theoretical 'logic.' It's also not really realistic to compare developed genetals to undeveloped ones....
(PS: you don't need to link to an article about the development of genetalia. It's common knowledge and not really relevant to the discussion)
|
On July 17 2012 04:18 TheGiz wrote:
This constitutes religious discrimination. In fact, this feels like some kind of leftover discriminatory law that no one bothered to remove. Legalizing circumcision is a step in the right direction.
Just to clean this up since you're making the same misassumptions the "big" thread saw in many cases:
The court is weighing the right of the child to not have it's body harmed against the right of the parents to impose bodily harm on their child (yes, cutting off a part of your body without medical reasoning IS harming it) based on their religion. The courts decided that the right to your own body > the parents religious freedom.
In addition this decision is also meant to safeguard religious freedom (hint: of the child). Claiming that this law is meant to cut religious freedom and / or discriminate against a religion is nothing you can really hold up considering the above.
|
Russian Federation748 Posts
(yes, cutting off a part of your body without medical reasoning IS harming it)
I'm never getting a haircut again.
|
I'm not for circumcision, but I am for religious freedom. Even if it is hypocritical of the German politicians, I'm with TheGiz on this.
|
On July 17 2012 06:34 Kyrillion wrote:Show nested quote +(yes, cutting off a part of your body without medical reasoning IS harming it) I'm never getting a haircut again.
what kind of foreskin falls off regularly?
|
On July 17 2012 06:48 WahMyNose wrote:
I'm not for circumcision, but I am for religious freedom. Even if it is hypocritical of the German politicians, I'm with TheGiz on this.
how can the child have religious freedom when the parents have the freedom to cut off part of their dick?
|
i'm circumcised and i prefer it over having the other weird looking penis  (totally biased obviously lol)
|
On July 17 2012 07:19 darthfoley wrote:i'm circumcised and i prefer it over having the other weird looking penis (totally biased obviously lol)
when did you get circumcised? 21?
|
On July 17 2012 06:34 Kyrillion wrote:Show nested quote +(yes, cutting off a part of your body without medical reasoning IS harming it) I'm never getting a haircut again.
If you want to be a smartass, please do your homework.
If parents cut either fingernails and/or hair of their child it's considered taking good care of them because it's part of basic hygiene, not to mention we're talking about regrowing and technically "dead" body parts.
However, if you go out on the street and cut off a random persons hair it's still considered assault.
|
On July 17 2012 07:15 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2012 06:48 WahMyNose wrote:
I'm not for circumcision, but I am for religious freedom. Even if it is hypocritical of the German politicians, I'm with TheGiz on this. how can the child have religious freedom when the parents have the freedom to cut off part of their dick?
Obviously the religious freedom would be for the parents, not for the child. Parents tend to influence their children in far bigger ways than lopping of a part of their body, and if you want the child to not be influenced by those factors then you'd have to start way more basically than circumcision.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
