Thursday, June 28, 2012

Another interesting article on the circumcision ruling in Germany

Pretty good reasoning:
After much deliberation, it concluded that a circumcision, "even when done properly by a doctor with the permission of the parents, should be considered as bodily harm if it is carried out on a boy unable to give his own consent". It ruled the child's body would be "permanently and irreparably changed", and that this alteration went "against the interests of a child to decide for himself later on to what religion he wishes to belong".
Also, feminist fail *sigh*
Women's rights groups and social policy makers also condemned the decision, but for the reason that it would have the effect of putting male and female circumcision on the same footing, when they were "in no way comparable", said Katrin Altpeter, social minister in the state of Baden-W├╝rttemberg. Female circumcision she said, was a far more drastic act. It is already outlawed in Germany.
I don't even...


  1. I wrote her an email. If you go to her website, , hit "kontakt" and send her a polite email.

  2. Even if a person believes that female circumcision is far worse than male circumcision it does not make sense to oppose laws prohibiting male circumcision. If the "lesser crime" is outlawed, it only serves to strengthen the argumnet that the "greater crime" be outlawed as well.

  3. elementary_watsonJune 29, 2012 at 10:56 PM

    Well, maaayyyybeeee those feminists opposing the ruling are afraid that the upcoming debate whether male circumcision should be banned, as FGM already is, will convince those who are okay with male circumcision that FGM, at least the less severe forms, is also not a big deal.

    I guess this is behind much of the feminist "a simple circumcision is absolutely not comparable to FGM" dogma - shying away from making those who strongly oppose FGM but are okay with MGM question theis views on this matter.

  4. I don't get the "in now way comparable" idea. First, you can compare any two things, they don't even have to be related. Second, they are related.

    According to most feminists, a man coercing his girlfriend into sex is rape. So is a man jumping out of the bushes and beating the ever loving crap out of a woman, then raping her. One is much worse than the other in terms of physical damage and emotional repercussions. Yet, they're both rape.

    Double standard, as always.