Male infant circumcision is declared illegal in Germany.

It is indeed about child mutilation and not about religion or beliefs. But we must not forget that the babes who are mutilated remain so for the rest of their lives and many are highly resentful about this. And who can blame them.

I can never understand that those who believe in a perfect almighty creator on the one hand, can, on the other, take a look at one of his creations (a perfect baby boy) and come to the conclusion that the creator has got it wrong and stuck on an extra bit that need not be there - so they chop it off. How very odd.

Likewise, mishap, but religious beliefs are not open to rational thought

As for the perfection of the human body – Ha! I found Elaine Morgan's very readable book The Scars of Evolution very enlightening.

Was male circumsission practised originally in hot countries, to help prevent infection beneath the foreskin of infant boys?
In the same way that the dead had to be buried within a certain number of days, Purely for health reasons!

Possibly, gramps. There are certainly African tribes (though not all) that practise male circumcision. Sometimes this is done at puberty as an initiation into manhood. Painful and risky.

Glad I'm not living there! thanks Annobel!

Many so-called religious practices are really cultural and were designed for health reasons in days before safe water, refrigeration and better hygiene. There is no reason for allowing them to dictate the way people live today.

gramps are you saying you haven't reached puberty?

Even Dr Spock changed his mind about the need for it.

There was a time when he said it was necessary

bump

An article in the Sunday Times agrees that circumcision of male infants is fundamentally wrong, but says that it should be tolerated in the interests of inter-racial harmony.
I wonder what else we should tolerate?!

Well, that's the line the government will seize on!

Well we might as well tolerate women being stoned in public squares, polygamous marriages and female circumcision as well. Don't want to upset anyone! Dear me!

Why anyone would want to be in harmony with barbarism beats me.

For those for whom faith in a deity is not important male circumcision is not an issue but for Jews and Muslims it is an important religious ritual. To ban it is an open challenge to those religions. I fully understand that any medical procedure has its risks but millions of men have been circumcised.. as long as it is done as a clean and professionally conducted procedure I am not sure I would consider it abuse. I also think that once you start 'banning' what many consider a religious activity it is the thin end of the wedge and it worries me.

I think there is a difference between religious activity that affects no-one else but the believer and religious activity that affects others who have no choice. I would ban the latter.

I'd also ban the ear piercing of babies and young children.

Yes, me too Anagram. No surgical procedures unless on health grounds.

This is ridiculous. How are people calling it "mutilation"? In the US it is considered strange to have a child who is uncircumcised. Most have it done before the child turns one year old. Mutilation? I think not. It is proven scientifically that it is more healthy and sterile (not that type of sterile!) to be circumcised. This is clearly a religious persecution thing. Of all the thousands of medical procedured in the world, that had to pick this one and outlaw it?
Shame on you, Germany. You haven't learned a thing in sixty years.

Perhaps you could give us details of the studies to which you refer.

You are clearly not getting access to all the reports of children suffering disfigurement, infection, serious bleeding and sexual dysfunction in adult life, Donna. Strange because there is a large movement to ban circumcision, which was initiated in the USA and has spread to the UK.

It is mutilation because it is a minor who cannot give consent. The babe has to live with the consequences for the rest of his life whether he likes it or not. It is not religious persecution any more than the UK's stance on arranged marriages, stoning of women etc. is.
As I have said before on this thread, there is a growing movement in the US amongst circumcised men who are protesting at this mutilation that took place without their consent.
Why choose a foreskin? - why not decide that some other portion of the anatomy needs to go?
Once again people are following practices that began in times of ignorance - let us not condone this retrograde attitude.

Hi Jeni.

Puperty?

Yes my dear, I've reached it, past it and forgotten it -and still intact!!

I'm not considering it now - at 80!

I think this is a great Magazine, which I found by accident.

How can a penis be sterile? Do you mean hygienic DonnahM? If lopping dogs' ears is considered mutilation (banned in the UK since the nineteenth century), how can anyone justify lopping off boys' foreskins (except for medical reasons)?

What's wrong with arranged marriages? Forced marriages, maybe? This (male circumcision) is a topic on which there cannot be a meeting of minds if one mind is religious and the other not. People of faith will understand the imperative to ensure that children have every opportunity to embrace the faith. if you are non-religious/anti-religious you can't possibly understand this viewpoint. Waste of words .

Lilygran there are millions of religious people who object to circumcision on infants who don't need it - from Jewish and Muslim communities, too, you might be surprised to learn.

Why don't you Google something like 'ban circumcision' and see how many websites pop up, with some highly intelligent, articulate arguments against circumcision, many going back several years and independent of Cologne's sensible decision.

Having or not having a religion is no indicator of whether or not an intelligent adult can see the complete nonsense of male circumcision for religious reasons.

Playing the 'religion card' does not make one immune from having to defend an indefensible practice.