Darth Wong wrote:So in 1850, you would have sided with the slave owners? "To tolerate slavery for thousands of years and then suddenly, arbitrarily decide to ban it just seems wrong to me. As I've asked before, if slavery is so obviously, deeply wrong, why hasn't it been banned already, just like human sacrifice has?"
Your argument seems to treat the status quo as a moral self-justification.
Slavery was largely abolished by the mid 19th century, partly because of Enlightenment ideas such as individual rights. Germany became a unified country in 1871, and was, on paper at least, a modern, progressive, post-Enlightenment nation-state. If infant circumcision is morally equivalent to slavery, why was it not banned in Germany at that time, long after slavery had become abhorrent to most of the world.
What about cutting off an infant's ear, as I've mentioned several times? That's not debilitating.
Isn't it? The external ear collects sound and helps you to tell what direction it is coming from. It's also a publically visible disfigurement, while circumcision isn't as obviously apparent in public, unless you're a naturist.
Serafina wrote:"arbitrarily ban circumcision"?
Do you even know what the word "arbitrary" means? Because it means "based on the subjective whim of an individuals opinion".
Which wasn't the case here. The constitution of Germany protects people from having their bodily integrity violated. Children are people too, and as i have explained (and you are evidently agreeing with), they are NOT the property of their parents. Parents do NOT get to violate and infants rights.
Broomstick wrote:I, too, object to the word “arbitrary” here. There is nothing arbitrary about the ruling, it is the result of a consistent moral stance of a society applied to law. If you allow an exception for IMC why “arbitrarily” allow that but not FGM of even the mildest form?
Sometimes, you have to ignore that feeling of wrongness and realize that the morally correct choice is the uncomfortable one. The Germans are actually acting in a consistent, not arbitrary, manner with this ruling.
That constitution has existed since 1949, and 'bodily integrity' is mentioned in Article 2, which I'm assuming is as old as the constitution itself. Why is circumcision only being banned now, over 60 years later? It's the timing that seems odd to me. However, I recognize that 'arbitrary' was a poor word choice, and I apologize for it.
Are you daft?
How is asking practicing Jews whether they regret being circumcised evidence that someone who is no longer a believing Jew wouldn't regret being circumcised as an infant? Have you any idea how stupid that is? That's like evaluating a business by only asking the people who still go there, instead of the people who no longer go there.
If you look at circumcised people who are not part of a tightly-knit religious community (there are plenty of those in the United States), then you can find plenty who DO regret being circumcised without their consent.
Also, you are ignoring studies that show that circumcision actually does result in psychological harm.
Very well then, what if the question were asked of circumcised Jewish men both practising and non-practising? I would guess that more than half of a randomly selected group would be at least nominally practising, and therefore probably happy about their circumcision. I'm also guessing that a fair number of regretful circumcised men in the USA (I should point out that I'm British, not American, by the way) are not Jewish, but were circumcised for fairly shaky medical reasons such as 'hygiene', which I do see as unjustifiable.
Broomstick wrote:I don't see where this ruling singles out circumcision. It would seem to apply to ANY non-medically-necessary permanent alteration of a child's body. Thus, it would seem to apply to ritual face scarring, foot binding, and head binding, and those would all be equally outlawed. It's just that none of those are currently being practiced by anyone in Germany.
I would still argue that circumcision is less debilitating and disfiguring than any of those customs, and that the effect is still to single out circumcision, since with the possible exception of face scarring in pre-medieval times, none of them have to my knowledge ever been practised in Germany, while Jews have lived in Germany for more than one and a half millennia and practised circumcision for all that time.