I don’t think it’s that late. For most it’s around 5-7 years old.
Not “can be broken”, the law in fact must be broken. (Although I believe it’s “sexual immorality”, which is broader than just incest.)
I’m not digging up a citation, because I’m not sure it’s where exactly it’s stated that bluntly, but that’s the normal interpretation, at least. I would imagine Rambam (ZT’'L) or someone wrote eloquently about it.
Their policy as far as I can determine is:
Not exactly a glowing recommendation of the procedure, nor much of a promotion of the medical benefits. And while they do suggest the parents be the ultimate decision makers, no mention is made of secular reasons as part of that process.
90 plus percent of all American parents, virtually all of whom would be classified and goys and kaffirs have their children circumcised.
Obviously there are “secular” reasons for doing it.
Sure there are- force of habit and inertia.
The question is whether there are any legitimate medical reasons for routine circumcision.
Oh, I am SO not going there. 
Huh? There are secular reasons, but these aren’t mentioned as being promoted by the APA. And surely you are aware that the overwhelming majority of those secular reasons are cosmetic, ignorant, or inertial.
Well, had I been given one while an infant I wouldn’t have needed one in middle school following an infection and suffered several weeks of pain and humiliation.
I hope that would strike people as a legitimate medical reason.
Quite frankly if you told an American urologist you felt a tingle in your foreskin 5 years prior circumcision would be recommended, it is literally their go to advise for any penile complaint. I’ve seen intact guys in these threads say they go in for totally unrelated surgery only to be offered circumcision, it is a compulsion in the American medical community.
Go to a country where circ isn’t routine and it is used as a last resort.
Were you even given antibiotics/antifungals first?
That’s a real nice story, but I asked first: what are the specific medical benefits of routine infant circumcision, and in what other cases do we perform amputations on infants to prevent disease?
I don’t get this. Are you saying that the possibility of infection later in life is a strong enough mandate that every newborn male be offered circumcision?
A few responses:
A German appeals court? really? I had enough trouble with this nonsense when it was a ballot initiative or somesuch in San Francisco. But a German appeals court?
Okay, guys. I do not want to pollute a great vacuum-sealed philosophical discussion with an appeal to emotion, but… a German appeals court?
Guess what? German law on Jewish practice is historically suspect. Forever. For freaking ever.
Now, to the specifics of the decree, putting aside the fact that Germany is eternally disqualified from being taken seriously on the subject of circumcision:
One exception in the law appears to be that you just have to say you’re circumcising a child for medical reasons. It would seem that leaves a great deal of leeway for judgment (“I don’t believe your medical reason,” etc.) but even if it doesn’t, it’s a slap in the face reminiscent of the notion that gays can have a civic union, but not a marriage.
You specifically have to go before a court, and, in essence, renounce your religion by saying you have waived your right to practice said religion, by claiming the medical exemption.
Now, we have the implied comparison raised by those who style circumcision “genital mutilation,” to the female genital mutilation much more roundly condemned. That leads to comparisons between FGM’s outcomes and those of circumcision, which leads to the usual bizarre laundry list of horrific psychological and physical effects of the latter.
I won’t wade into that one, except to say someone snipped my tally-whacker So That The Law May Be Fulfilled, Amein, etc., and I don’t hate my late mom or dad, I don’t feel humiliated and powerless, etc. etc. etc. I understand my Johnson or Jonstein or whatever you want to call it, is terribly desensitized. Yeah well, the junk works, what can I say? And come to think of it, if the lack of sensitivity is a problem, how is it that I never read the results of sex surveys where women complain that men take too long to roll over and go to sleep?
Whoops, I did wade into it after all. What I meant to ask was this:
Since it’s a terrible, terrible thing for an adult to decide to “mutilate” a child, and since a child can consent to nothing until he or she reaches the age of consent, should we permit children to have their ears pierced? Or in this case, should Germany?
Should they be able to go all punk rock and wear body jewelry that depends on the mutilation of piercing?
Should the law not round up the tattoo artists abroad in the land, even if a tattoo is administered not just with the permission of, but in the presence of, the parent?
Should those parents who think it’s “okay” to let a child get a tattoo or a piercing be jailed for child abuse?
The German ruling, like the San Francisco initiative, is selective and hopelessly ethnocentric. It’s indefensible from the point of view of a legal system that hopes to protect the rights of its citizens irrespective of religious practice, which in both cases predates the law in question by some 3000 years (just going back to the Mosaic code, not to the pre-existent practice going back to Abraham).
If that law’s okay, it practically demands that the state in question outlaw tattoos and piercings for children on child abuse grounds.
Otherwise, courts of the world, stop with the kvetching and let the Jews and Muslims of the world practice their inconveniently non-Christian faiths. Unless someone comes for your blond-haired blue-eyed kid waving a scalpel and saying stuff in a language that’s written backwards, you have nothing to fear by keeping your selective outrage to yourself. You needn’t save the children of the semitic world from their parents.
I broke my toe a few years ago, and suffered a few weeks of pain. If they’d only cut my foot off as an infant, I would have been spared that.
I hope that would strike people as a legitimate medical reason.
If the sarcasm’s not obvious, stop mutilating babies. God did not tell you to do it, and neither has any reputable medical organisation. The best medical advice you’ll get is that it won’t do any long term harm, and that’s assuming we don’t count reduced sexual function as harm.
Well said, Sir.
How many “in crib” victims of circumcision have you interviewed to determine this, may I ask? Lots of things can be done outside the hospital, but that does not make them any less gruesome, gross, dangerous and painful. Midwives in the 19th century used to keep a straight razor handy to slit open the belly of a pregnant woman in a brutal form of caesarian section, and very often the woman and her child would survive the procedure. It is true that this horrible procedure was performed only as a last resort, but that is not the point of my anaology.
The point is: just because something can be done outside a hospital does not make it minor and inconsequential.
No, I said that it’s a reason that parents might choose to do so. I said nothing about making circumcisions mandatory.
If cutting off a foot was remotely comparable to removing the foreskin you’d have a point but it’s not so you don’t.
Beyond that, I’m not sure why you’ve decided that the American Pediatric Association isn’t a reputable medical organization.
I had an infection under the skin of my armpit when I was young, which had to be cut open in a hospital, disinfected, and allowed to close from the bottom up, with with an excruciating daily ritual of pulling gauze out of the open wound, washing it with peroxide, and inserting new gauze in the wound. It took a couple of weeks to close up.
The doctor said it was caused by a germ that got into a crack in the skin in my armpit. He pointed out that human armpits, constantly covered by the arms, have a “tropical jungle” environment, and are among the most germ-laden parts of the body.
I never really thought to ask him if my parents could have saved me all this suffering by having my arms amputated at the shoulder when I was a baby, allowing free circulation of air around that damned bacteria jungle.
Yes.
The doctor who recommended it was an immigrant from the UK.
And if cutting an arm off were comparable to removing the foreskin you’d have a point, but it’s not so you don’t.
Sometimes, a simple “bumper sticker”-type comment says it all.
**A FORESKIN IS NOT A BIRTH DEFECT! **
P.S. I am a victim of circumcision.