In a landmark German court case, Cologne's district court, in effect, outlawed religious male circumcision. In the ruling, the court equated circumcision with "grievous bodily harm," writing,
The religious freedom of the parents and their right to educate their child would not be unacceptably compromised, if they were obliged to wait until the child could himself decide to be circumcised.
The body of the child is irreparably and permanently changed by a circumcision. This change contravenes the interests of the child to decide later on his religious beliefs.
Though the decision is not legally binding, it is expected to set legal precedent and will virtually ban religious circumcision in Germany. Already, religious groups representing Jews and Muslims have expressed outrage at the decision, and this ruling will doubtlessly lead to more discussion on the practice of circumcision, religious or not.
The point of this diary is not to preach one side or another about whether or not circumcision is justified, but to rather start a discussion. Is it a good choice for parents to circumcise their infant son(s)? Does it cause detrimental bodily harm? Should the government be in the business of regulating circumcision?
Here's some background on the practice.
Though rare in Europe, circumcision is relatively common in the United States. Studies do vary, but some show the overall prevalence of the practice in the U.S. at 79%. The rate of circumcision also greatly varies over geographical region: another study in 2009 reported a circumcision rate of a mere 24.6% on the West Coast, but in the North Central Region, the rate increased to 76.2%.
In the past, there was little debate about the practice, but that is changing. "Intactivist" movements are gaining more support, and San Francisco nearly got to vote on whether or not to make circumcision illegal (there were enough signatures to get the measure on the ballot, but a court prevented the measure from being voted on). Recently, decreased circumcision rates have also been observed throughout the country. Proponents of the practice will say it improves hygiene and lead to various medical benefits (such as a reduction in the spread of AIDS), while opponents respond by claiming the practice is painful, unnecessary, and can lead to major medical complications.
So, now comes the big question: Where do you stand on male infant circumcision, and should the state be regulating it?