Originally Posted by Skybird
Again I tell you that piercing an earlobe by needle and and mutlating genitals DO NOLT COMPARE - no more than fingernail-clipping compares to cutting off the finger. Something in that range.
So the questions you should ask instead, are these:
1. How old is old enough for genital mutilation? - I give you a clue: the law says: piercing (not that earlobe poiercing I mean, but the bigger callibre), tattoos and branding shall not be done to younbg human before they reah ther age of 18. A studio doing itz below that age, gets visits from the police, the parents also get some vistors. It doe snot matter whether they gave written permission or not: teenagers are banned from ordering such services. It is illegal. So what do you think: what is the adequate age for doing soemthing even more serious: circumcision? Younger than for the above things? Or older or the same age? Eh?
2. And the second quesiton you shoudl ask for sure is: sine children are not fit to make a decision for medically non-indicated circumcision, why should the parents make a deicison for medically non-indicated circumcision then? Why not leaving it to the child reaching majority and actually can understand, weigh and judge the pro and contra?
And I would ask you for a personal opinion on yours. What is your verdict on the first article of the German constitution: 1. The dignity of man is untouchable? Do you think that religions shall claim the right to violate it nevertheless? Do harm, do pain to the weak, the small, the innocent? Sentence it to unneeded surgery and pain? If you search the web, you can find many sites on this issue of circumcision where circumcised males remember their experience of the procedure (Muslims get it done later than Jews, and many Americans got it done under local anestesia as adults, for non-religious reasons, becasue it was en vogue). And many report that the weeks of after-pain, during the healing, were painful as hell, and walking was a terrible experience. What allows parents to harm their babies like this, their boys (and their girls, for that matter)? What allows them to violate the dignity of their child to expose it to this, and to accept the risk of medical complications and long-lasting health consequences and a reduced sexual sensitivity that many men report in quesitonairtesd and interviews to feel sorry for? What do you say to the many men that say they regret what had been done to them as boys, and they wioshed they could reverse it - just that they cannot? Isd this the kind of thing parenbts should be allowed to do to children - without any medical need or indication at all?
When you learn that your neighbours abuse, beat, torture or ill-treat their children, what do you do? When you learn they cut off body parts? Or let their children starve, or give them drugs and alcohol, and hand them to foreign men? Do you say: that is their freedom, their business, parents have the right to educate their children like they want and I am not interested, or do you try to find help on what to do about this? Ask the police, the social wellfare, the authorities? And what do the laws in America say on what in Germany is called "unterlassene Hilfeleistung" - denial of assistance? Be advised, in Germany you can earn prison time for denial of assistance, I think up to one year in bad cases, I am not certain. It is a punishable offence for sure. When you know about bad things happening in your neighbours flat, may it be the husband is beating his wife or they are absuing their children, then you can get into trouble if the police can porve that you knew it. In other words: you are in a legal responsibility before the law if you learn about such things. You must not like it. But the law will hold your responsible, if it can - no matter whether you like it. And I think that is generally a good thing by intention.
Let them grow up, gain knowledge and educatiuon so that they can judge and decide by thremselves. If then they say they want to get snibbled, no problem for me. What enrages me is that abvsue of children, and tghe case of relgion once again claiming to have the right to bypass basic rules and the laws of the state, instead being given a special status, special respect, special recognition.
|