# German appeals court decides against religious circumcision of children. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 29, 2012, 12:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/german-appeals-court-decides-against-religious-circumcision-of-children/626686 "2012-06-29T12:23:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2012, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/german-appeals-court-decides-against-religious-circumcision-of-children/626686/41 "2012-06-29T18:48:17Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > An atheist, acting reasonably and with knowledge of the latest scientific literature, _could_ come to the conclusion that male circumcision was beneficial for his or her infant. Is there any benefit for an otherwise healthy _infant_? I was under the impression that the supposed non-religious benefits of circumcision all had to do with STDs. Who are these fornicating infants? If the benefits don’t come into play until the child has reached the age of sexual maturity, can’t we then leave the decision up to the child at that time? I know the recovery is longer and more painful, but is a longer recovery reason enough to remove the child’s choice in the matter altogether? It’s not like it’s a now-or-never scenario. What if a family with a high risk of ovarian cancer decided to remove their infant daughter’s ovaries, knowing the that recovery would only be longer and more painful as an adult? ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2012, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/german-appeals-court-decides-against-religious-circumcision-of-children/626686/42 "2012-06-29T18:57:19Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > I agree that “even the most minor forms” ought not to be banned, because to my mind criminal sanctions should be restrained by de minimis considerations, but that being noted there is an additional and significant distinguishing feature of male vs. female circumcision - that the former is alleged to have health benefits, while the latter is not. But aren’t we talking about ceremonial rituals performed for religious reasons? If some limited forms of bodily mutilation for minor children are permitted on the grounds of free exercise of religion on the part of their parents, the question of health **benefits** of the procedure shouldn’t come into it. The only relevant medical issue is whether the procedure causes significant **harm**. And yes, I totally agree that even if infant male circumcision is banned, exceptions should of course be made for cases where it’s actually medically indicated, e.g., in the case of pathological phimosis caused by the superbly named _Balanitis xerotica obliterans_. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2012, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/german-appeals-court-decides-against-religious-circumcision-of-children/626686/43 "2012-06-29T18:59:25Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > Is there any benefit for an otherwise healthy _infant_? I was under the impression that the supposed non-religious benefits of circumcision all had to do with STDs. Who are these fornicating infants? Nah, the thing is that circumcision is a much more minor medical procedure when performed on an infant. The lack of foreskin is what provides some minimal protection against STDs in adulthood, but the removal of the foreskin is easier and safer if carried out in infancy. ---
**Author:** ![sitchensis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sitchensis/32/4892_2.png) [@sitchensis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sitchensis)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2012, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/german-appeals-court-decides-against-religious-circumcision-of-children/626686/44 "2012-06-29T19:10:31Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > What if a family with a high risk of ovarian cancer decided to remove their infant daughter’s ovaries, knowing the that recovery would only be longer and more painful as an adult? Maybe you should read up on what ovaries actually do and then get back to us. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2012, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/german-appeals-court-decides-against-religious-circumcision-of-children/626686/45 "2012-06-29T19:14:49Z")
> [@cmkeller](#): > > The Torah says that the eighth day of a baby boy’s life is the ideal time for him to be circumcised, and even when it can’t be done on that exact date for various reasons, it should be done as soon as possible. Jewish belief definitely says that there are certain spiritual refinements that cannot be experienced by males who are uncircumcised. Disallowing parents from having their under-aged sons circumcised is absolutely an impediment to the practice of Judaism. But does waiting until the child can choose mean that they…the child that is, are restricted in religious practice? Seems to me that if they are so young that they can’t make a meaningful and informed choice then they are also too young be considered as having any meaningful religious observance. > [@](#): > > “Congress shall make no law… prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]” But it does doesn’t it? unless every form of religious practice is allowed and I haven’t been informed. Rastafarians are not allowed to smoke their herbal cigarettes are they? Pretty sure that some forms of animal sacrifice would be illegal as well, if someone claimed FGM was a religious requirement or forced marriage would we make allowance? > [@](#): > > It doesn’t. It’s an example of how the freedom to maintain your own beliefs is embraced by some because they agree with the outcome, but when the outcome of said freedom is contrary to the outcome they’d prefer, they’d favor compelling their opinion on the matter. This leads on from my previous point, I consider the right to religious freedom to stop well before the right to inflict a medically unecessary procedure on a non-consenting person. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2012, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/german-appeals-court-decides-against-religious-circumcision-of-children/626686/46 "2012-06-29T19:17:22Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > Is there any benefit for an otherwise healthy _infant_? I was under the impression that the supposed non-religious benefits of circumcision all had to do with STDs. Who are these fornicating infants? > > If the benefits don’t come into play until the child has reached the age of sexual maturity, can’t we then leave the decision up to the child at that time? I know the recovery is longer and more painful, but is a longer recovery reason enough to remove the child’s choice in the matter altogether? It’s not like it’s a now-or-never scenario. > > What if a family with a high risk of ovarian cancer decided to remove their infant daughter’s ovaries, knowing the that recovery would only be longer and more painful as an adult? First, not all the benefits relate to STDs. Second, and more significantly, the procedure isn’t the same when performed on an infant as on an adult. On an infant it’s a trivially minor procedure; not so, on an adult. ---
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2012, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/german-appeals-court-decides-against-religious-circumcision-of-children/626686/47 "2012-06-29T19:28:38Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Second, and more significantly, the procedure isn’t the same when performed on an infant as on an adult. On an infant it’s a trivially minor procedure; not so, on an adult. Right, I’ve acknowledged this. If a parent is weighing the pros and cons of circumcision though, it’s not fair to say, “This procedure may reduce his risk of getting certain diseases,” because the procedure can always be done later. Bringing up diseases is a misdirection. The debate _actually_ comes down to, “Doing this procedure now will allow my child to avoid a lengthy and uncomfortable recovery as a teenager or adult, _should my child choose to have the procedure done at all_.” That’s it. Bringing up AIDS is just fear-mongering. FTR, I was circumcised out of medical necessity about the age of 6. I know what the procedure and recovery are like, not as an adult but as an aware child. I still see no reason why the argument that it’s “a trivially minor procedure as an infant” is sufficient to remove the child’s say in a matter of permanent body modification. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2012, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/german-appeals-court-decides-against-religious-circumcision-of-children/626686/48 "2012-06-29T19:28:38Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > But aren’t we talking about ceremonial rituals performed for religious reasons? If some limited forms of bodily mutilation for minor children are permitted on the grounds of free exercise of religion on the part of their parents, the question of health **benefits** of the procedure shouldn’t come into it. The only relevant medical issue is whether the procedure causes significant **harm**. > > And yes, I totally agree that even if infant male circumcision is banned, exceptions should of course be made for cases where it’s actually medically indicated, e.g., in the case of pathological phimosis caused by the superbly named _Balanitis xerotica obliterans_. Of course the benefits should factor in. Before we even get to the arguments about free exercise of religion, we have to get to the threshold issue of whether the procedure creates a concern that the state should take an interest in in the first place. That analysis, seems to me, involves a cost/benefit exercise. As in - speaking objectively, do the risks and harms of the procedure outweigh the benefits to such an extent that a reasonable person acting reasonably would never choose the procedure? Only if you can answer that question with a “yes” should the courts be involved at all. If the answer is “no”, the courts should defer to the care-giver. Otherwise, you get the absurd result that those choosing the procedure for its alleged general health benefits are OK, while those choosing it for religion are not - even though the very same procedure is at issue. You’d get a court forced to go through some sort of religious inquisition into the motives of parents. What possible benefit does that have? This of course does not consider at all whether the procedure is _specifically_ indicated because of a health condition. Let’s assume everyone agrees thats OK. ---
**Author:** ![DocCathode](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doccathode/32/18773_2.png) [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2012, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/german-appeals-court-decides-against-religious-circumcision-of-children/626686/49 "2012-06-29T19:29:49Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > I think in 100 years we’re all going to look back on ritual circumcision and slap our foreheads. Considering ritual circumcision dates back a few thousand years (in fact, it predates Judaism) I doubt very much it will go away anytime soon. > [@](#): > > In the short term, I worry about it going underground. People with religious convictions aren’t going to suddenly stop. IIRC a few Tsars and the laws of the USSR opposed Jews snipping. It didn’t stop us. Re the ‘He can get it done as an adult’ argument The Torah is very clear that we should snip the penis AND that we should do so on the eighth day of life. Not allowing Jews to snip the baby boy on the eighth day is infringing on our religious freedom. You can argue ‘So what?’. You can argue ‘There is no G-d, so it doesn’t matter anyhow!’. But you cannot argue that postponing circumcision by almost two decades does not infringe on our religious freedom. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2012, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/german-appeals-court-decides-against-religious-circumcision-of-children/626686/50 "2012-06-29T19:37:31Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > . The German court has allegedly ruled (I haven’t read the actual ruling) that you can do the procedure if your motives are for health, but not if they are for religion. > > This is silly. It mean in effect that everyone _except_ Jews and Muslims could legitimately perform the procedure on their kids without question. > . Circumcision isn’t routinely practiced in Europe on infants. So, “health reason” is likely to be only situations where circumcision is medically required (phymosis, typically). ---
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2012, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/german-appeals-court-decides-against-religious-circumcision-of-children/626686/51 "2012-06-29T19:42:22Z")
> [@DocCathode](#): > > But you cannot argue that postponing circumcision by almost two decades does not infringe on our religious freedom. I wouldn’t try to. Rather, I would say that religious freedom doesn’t extend to harming children, and considering that circumcision results in amputation of the foreskin 100% of the time, I’d say it’s a pretty harmful procedure. The only reason I’d allow it, if I were in charge of such things, is because I don’t think banning it would make it go away. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2012, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/german-appeals-court-decides-against-religious-circumcision-of-children/626686/52 "2012-06-29T19:48:14Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > Circumcision isn’t routinely practiced in Europe on infants. So, “health reason” is likely to be only situations where circumcision is medically required (phymosis, typically). The issue isn’t what is done routinely, but what could be done. If I, who am from North America, wished to get my son circumcised in Germany - say, because I immigrated there - and I said “I’ve read the medical literature and I think the health benefits are worth it”, would I be prosecuted for assault - if I could demonstrate that these benefits existed? If so, it seems that the ruling is more about enforcing European cultural norms than it is about reasonable protection of bodily integrity. And that is without even arguing anything concerning freedom of religion. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2012, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/german-appeals-court-decides-against-religious-circumcision-of-children/626686/53 "2012-06-29T19:49:28Z")
> [@DocCathode](#): > > The Torah is very clear that we should snip the penis AND that we should do so on the eighth day of life. Not allowing Jews to snip the baby boy on the eighth day is infringing on our religious freedom. You can argue ‘So what?’. You can argue ‘There is no G-d, so it doesn’t matter anyhow!’. But you cannot argue that postponing circumcision by almost two decades does not infringe on our religious freedom. But there are lots of things recommended by religions that are either ignored or illegal and are accepted as such, so the precedent is set. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2012, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/german-appeals-court-decides-against-religious-circumcision-of-children/626686/54 "2012-06-29T19:49:55Z")
> [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > IANAJ, but if I’m not mistaken, the command is upon the _father_ to have the son circumcised on the 8th day. So it is a restriction on the religious practice of Jewish adult men. Dunno about Muslim views. It doesn’t really matter. To take an egrerious example, if your religion mandated a baby sacrifice, forbiding this practice would hardly be controversial even though it would be a restriction on your religious practice. As soon as a third party is involved, what _your_ religion mandates becomes irrelevant. Basically, your right to practice your religion stops at the tip of my penis. And if I happen to be a 8 days old baby, hence unable to prevent you from practicing _your_ religion on _my_ body, then it’s logical that the state would step in to protect my interests. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2012, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/german-appeals-court-decides-against-religious-circumcision-of-children/626686/55 "2012-06-29T19:49:58Z")
I didn’t see it in the article, but it’s still allowed for medical necessity, like say, pimosis? > [@cmkeller](#): > > The Torah says that the eighth day of a baby boy’s life is the ideal time for him to be circumcised, and even when it can’t be done on that exact date for various reasons, it should be done as soon as possible. Jewish belief definitely says that there are certain spiritual refinements that cannot be experienced by males who are uncircumcised. Disallowing parents from having their under-aged sons circumcised is absolutely an impediment to the practice of Judaism. What if you discover at birth that your child is a hemophiliac, or for some other medical reason, cannot be circumcised? ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2012, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/german-appeals-court-decides-against-religious-circumcision-of-children/626686/56 "2012-06-29T19:50:59Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > I wouldn’t try to. Rather, I would say that religious freedom doesn’t extend to harming children, and considering that circumcision results in amputation of the foreskin 100% of the time, I’d say it’s a pretty harmful procedure. The only reason I’d allow it, if I were in charge of such things, is because I don’t think banning it would make it go away. You would say. To my mind, an objective as opposed to a subjective test for “harm” is called for - that is, whether the health drawbacks appreciably outweigh benefits. ---
**Author:** ![DocCathode](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doccathode/32/18773_2.png) [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2012, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/german-appeals-court-decides-against-religious-circumcision-of-children/626686/57 "2012-06-29T19:52:34Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > But there are lots of things recommended by religions that are either ignored or illegal and are accepted as such, so the precedent is set. Illegal? Such as? Keep in mind, the Supreme Court has ruled that Santarian animal sacrifice is legal. ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2012, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/german-appeals-court-decides-against-religious-circumcision-of-children/626686/58 "2012-06-29T19:53:29Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > And if mohelim can’t operate in public? Presumably even they know about sterile tools and proper procedures. I would guess that many if not most of them have some kind of medical background. If they’re not free to practice their craft in public, they’ll disappear and be replaced by less savory types who are willing to risk jailtime to make a buck. Or by people who just really enjoy cutting up dicks. I’m not sure I’d want either of those types around my kids’ junk, if I were so inclined. They won’t disappear. A mohel is a religious person. They’re providing a service. There have been other times in history where Jews have had to circumcise on the quiet. > [@steronz](#): > > All of the mohelim that I’ve seen advertising their services tout their medical experience. Your experiences may be different, but to say that mohelim have no medical training isn’t very accurate. Yes, we used a Jewish doctor from the University. She had sterile instruments. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2012, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/german-appeals-court-decides-against-religious-circumcision-of-children/626686/59 "2012-06-29T19:58:19Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > It doesn’t really matter. To take an egrerious example, if your religion mandated a baby sacrifice, forbiding this practice would hardly be controversial even though it would be a restriction on your religious practice. > > As soon as a third party is involved, what _your_ religion mandates becomes irrelevant. Basically, your right to practice your religion stops at the tip of my penis. And if I happen to be a 8 days old baby, hence unable to prevent you from practicing _your_ religion on _my_ body, then it’s logical that the state would step in to protect my interests. The issue to my mind is when the state should “step in” to protect the rights of an infant. Obviously, the state should not “step in” where the concern is minor, or where reasonable people could disagree about a particular parenting decision. There are all sorts of decisions parents must make about babies. The state should not be involved in them all, but only in selected ones - ones where the decision made is outside the bounds of the reasonable. Baby sacrifice? Definitely. How about whether to give an infant breastmilk or formula? Should the state mandate that? In fact, it’s a more clear-cut case (if you will excuse the pun 😃 ) than circumcision. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2012, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/german-appeals-court-decides-against-religious-circumcision-of-children/626686/60 "2012-06-29T20:15:56Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > The issue isn’t what is done routinely, but what could be done. If I, who am from North America, wished to get my son circumcised in Germany - say, because I immigrated there - and I said “I’ve read the medical literature and I think the health benefits are worth it”, would I be prosecuted for assault - if I could demonstrate that these benefits existed? > . I don’t know but given that : 1. As I said, circumcision for infants isn’t an usual practice in Europe 2. Saying “I read the medical literature and I think I should have this procedure done” rarely convinces a doctor, generally speaking. I’m not sure you’d get a doctor to perform it. I don’t know that for sure, obviously, but I wouldn’t be much surprised if doctors only accepted to practice circumcision for religious reasons, or if only a subset of doctors accepted to practice it at all. Since nobody asks for their son to be snipped, you trying to do so on the basis on some unclear potential medical benefits might well get you only a :rolleyes: from the staff. I’m not clear on the detail of this particular case, but I understand that a doctor botched a circumcision in his private practice, and the baby was then brought into an hospital. That might mean that it was the hospital’s medical staff who had an issue with the procedure and tipped the authorities (of course, the decision might be only a secondary result of some malpractice case or something like that). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/german-appeals-court-decides-against-religious-circumcision-of-children/626686.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/german-appeals-court-decides-against-religious-circumcision-of-children/626686.md?page=4)