German Court rules religious circumcision a crime

[Grumman]

But part of the argument being used against the decision is "this will turn tens of thousands of people into political refugees." I still feel very strange watching people here saying, essentially, "we don't care about that."

I care only to the extent that these "political refugees" would be taking their infant sons out of the country to be subjected to illegal surgery. I do not care about their whining that Germany's refusal to cater to Bronze Age superstitions has forced them into exile.

[Broomstick]

Do I really have to explain that I am NOT referring to retroactive banning of circumcised men, but rather that the Jews will not stop circumcising?. If 1000 Jews are born in Germany a year, and presumably half of them are boys, that's 500 new circumcisions per year, or 1 or 2 a day every day of the year. Unless you only prosecute the person wielding the knife, anyone else present, handing over the kid or otherwise aiding and abetting this would be an accessory to a crime. Germany prosecutes accessories, too, correct? That adds up to several hundred to several thousand members of a small community either being heavily fined or jailed every year. The absolute numbers are small compared to the overall German population, but compared to the Jewish population in Germany they become much more significant.

But part of the argument being used against the decision is "this will turn tens of thousands of people into political refugees." I still feel very strange watching people here saying, essentially, "we don't care about that."

I care only to the extent that these "political refugees" would be taking their infant sons out of the country to be subjected to illegal surgery.

Strictly speaking, if they migrate to where their ritual is legal it's not "illegal surgery" anymore.

I do not care about their whining that Germany's refusal to cater to Bronze Age superstitions has forced them into exile.

If the motive is "halt this practice in Germany" then a Jewish exodus would count towards accomplishing that goal.

If the motive is "halt this practice regardless" then a Jewish exodus is a failure because, as you note, they may well go elsewhere to have it done.

I'm guessing that those who are saying "I don't care" mean they don't want it in Germany and either don't care or don't feel they have a basis on which to speak about it happening elsewhere. Well, they probably find it equally distasteful regardless of where it occurs, but recognize Germany can only pass laws for Germany, not for anywhere else.

[Block]

If you want freedom of religion written out of your constitution, go ahead and lobby for it. Maybe that's the wave of the future.

Freedom of religion has always meant the freedom to believe, not necessarily the freedom to take any action your religion mandates. Orthodox Judaism, for example, mandates the use of violence against women who dress provocatively: something that Orthodox Jews in Israel have recently tried to actually do.

You have proof of this not just being modern Haredi idiots claiming that it's what is required? The talmudic standard is that all Jews dress not to draw attention to themselves, there is no mandated punishment for not complying that I've ever seen.

[Metahive]

Do I really have to explain that I am NOT referring to retroactive banning of circumcised men, but rather that the Jews will not stop circumcising?. If 1000 Jews are born in Germany a year, and presumably half of them are boys, that's 500 new circumcisions per year, or 1 or 2 a day every day of the year. Unless you only prosecute the person wielding the knife, anyone else present, handing over the kid or otherwise aiding and abetting this would be an accessory to a crime. Germany prosecutes accessories, too, correct? That adds up to several hundred to several thousand members of a small community either being heavily fined or jailed every year. The absolute numbers are small compared to the overall German population, but compared to the Jewish population in Germany they become much more significant.

And...? If the Jews insist on being absolutely irrational religious fanatics who need to ignore the law then they should be treated as such. Again, would you on the same basic argument clamor for legal recognition of honor killings by Anatolians? You know, there are more Anatolians than Jews in Germany...

[Ralin]

And...? If the Jews insist on being absolutely irrational religious fanatics who need to ignore the law then they should be treated as such. Again, would you on the same basic argument clamor for legal recognition of honor killings by Anatolians? You know, there are more Anatolians than Jews in Germany...

I'm hoping her point is something along the lines that yes circumcision is bad, but it's going to be harder to get rid of than you think, and that maybe there are better battles to focus that energy on fighting. I agree with every anti-circumcision point made here, but like someone said upthread, we should keep some perspective. Circumcision is a looooong way from the worst thing done to kids because of religion, and for all of its problems circumcision is not something that affects anyone's quality of life in the overwhelming majority of cases.

[Metahive]

I'm hoping her point is something along the lines that yes circumcision is bad, but it's going to be harder to get rid of than you think, and that maybe there are better battles to focus that energy on fighting.

No, since this is all about the religious demanding special exemptions from the law. More than that, exemption from a very basic human right guaranteed by the law. If they get their way here, what should stop other religious minorities from getting their way too? If this isn't a battle worth fighting, then we might as well live in a theocracy.

Also there's this.

I agree with every anti-circumcision point made here, but like someone said upthread, we should keep some perspective. Circumcision is a looooong way from the worst thing done to kids because of religion, and for all of its problems circumcision is not something that affects anyone's quality of life in the overwhelming majority of cases.

So because you don't deem it important, nobody should? Yeah sorry, but not everybody is as callously indifferent as you make yourself out to be.

[Ralin]

So because you don't deem it important, nobody should? Yeah sorry, but not everybody is as callously indifferent as you make yourself out to be.

Not what I said. Just floating the idea that it maybe shouldn't be high on the priorities list. I've been circumcised myself, and I'd be happy to undo that, but it has not impacted my life in any way that I can really notice. I'm fairly sure this is true of most people who have been through the same.

[Metahive]

So because you don't deem it important, nobody should? Yeah sorry, but not everybody is as callously indifferent as you make yourself out to be.

Not what I said. Just floating the idea that it maybe shouldn't be high on the priorities list. I've been circumcised myself, and I'd be happy to undo that, but it has not impacted my life in any way that I can really notice. I'm fairly sure this is true of most people who have been through the same.

Do you know how that above reads? "I never said nobody should give a shit because I don't! However, I think nobody should give a shit because I don't" I'm almost tempted to call it excellent satire.

How about this, you stop appealing to your own indifference and instead argue for A: what a supposedly "better" battle to be fought is (including why the reasons I brought up above re: its importance don't apply) and B: why debating about circumcision would detract from it substantially. Your turn.

[Ralin]

Do you know how that above reads? "I never said nobody should give a shit because I don't! However, I think nobody should give a shit because I don't" I'm almost tempted to call it excellent satire.

No, it doesn't, because I've said repeatedly that circumcision is bad for a number of reasons and it should be banned. I'm not defending circumcision, I'm saying there should be some perspective. For the overwhelming majority of the people who are circumcised as infants there are no real negative consequences.

How about this, you stop appealing to your own indifference and instead argue for A: what a supposedly "better" battle to be fought is (including why the reasons I brought up above re: its importance don't apply) and B: why debating about circumcision would detract from it substantially. Your turn.

Oh, I don’t know, how about because unlike the honor-killing example that keeps getting thrown up there is a large, established community of Germans who will openly fight this tooth and nail, and who moreover will get a hell of a lot more support and sympathy from other parts of the public than the aforementioned honor-killers? Because circumcision supporters will fight this hard in the courts and in the media in what will most likely be an extremely well-funded campaign that will attract major donors both from within Europe and overseas? Because it’s entirely possible that a higher court will rule in favor of circumcision remaining legal, or that politicians will amend the law to make it legal, and wouldn’t that be an even worse precedent to set?

I personally think it’s worth trying anyway, but there should still be a cost-benefit analysis before you go frothing at the mouth to crush the evil religionists. Hell, suppose Broomstick is right and large numbers of Jews start leaving Germany so that they can maintain their traditions. Do you think those kids would be better off growing up in America or Israel or some other country less progressive than Germany that does allow circumcision? I think that would cause them a hell of a lot more harm later on than getting their foreskins cut off. There will be fallout from this decision and you seem determined to ignore that or the possibility that it might end up doing more harm than good.

[Questor]

There's some interesting questions that this brings up for me. Could someone familiar with the german legal system weigh in on these situations? I'm having a hard time finding an english language explanation I trust.

1. How does medical consent for minors (particularly infants) work in Germany? Is it through the parents, is there some kind board, something else? How would the following scenarios work (as I am not a doctor, I'm going to try to describe stuff without naming procedures).
(a). A child has a some small issue that could be corrected with plastic surgery, but would not hinder them in any way. The parents want this corrected.
(b). They don't want it corrected.
(c). A child is born with a horrible disease, they need massive, painful surgery with a long recovery immediately to survive. Without the surgery, they will die peacefully within a few days. The parents don't want to put their child through the surgery.

(c) actually has a bunch of permutations, but they only get relevant from a ethical standpoint, not necessarily a legal standpoint, and I'm not interested in ethics in this post, just the law.

[Thanas]

There's some interesting questions that this brings up for me. Could someone familiar with the german legal system weigh in on these situations? I'm having a hard time finding an english language explanation I trust.

1. How does medical consent for minors (particularly infants) work in Germany? Is it through the parents, is there some kind board, something else?

As with nearly everything in the legal system, it depends on the situation. In general, the parents are the caretakers and thus get the say unless the child is of legal age. Legally, a child can on his/her own consent as soon as he/she is mentally able to do so and able to recognize the consequence. Current leading opinion, based on a few decisions of the BGHst (highest criminal court) seem to say that this is usually the case from the age of 14 onwards. But this is only a baseline and they themselves have avoided setting a fixed limit.

NOTE: If the parents consent but the child does not (and vice versa) then the procedure is handled according to the wishes of the child.

If the minor is not able to consent but the parents are being irresponsible or denying treatment (for example Jehova's witnesses refuse a blood transfusion for their child) then the doctor can (and has a duty to) get an emergency order from the family court. This is why Jehova's witnesses are claiming they are persecuted in Germany and why all this talk about ZOMG RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION misses the point here. There is able precedent that when faced between the choices of child welfare and religious dictum, the courts will choose the first and damn the religion.

How would the following scenarios work (as I am not a doctor, I'm going to try to describe stuff without naming procedures).
(a). A child has a some small issue that could be corrected with plastic surgery, but would not hinder them in any way. The parents want this corrected.

Depending on the age. Generally -assuming the minor is unable to consent- it would be corrected.

(b). They don't want it corrected.

Nobody cares but the child can get it fixed as soon as he is able to consent.

(c). A child is born with a horrible disease, they need massive, painful surgery with a long recovery immediately to survive. Without the surgery, they will die peacefully within a few days. The parents don't want to put their child through the surgery.

The family court tells them to go to hell within the hour, police bar them from the operating room and the doctors start operating. Should doctors not chose this, they can get charged with a lot of penalties, including a possible murder charge.
Note that this might be different depending on the chance of recovery and if it is actually able to be fixed at all. If there is only a 0.0001 chance and it leaves guaranteed massive brain damage, then the court might decide differently.

[Thanas]

Because it’s entirely possible that a higher court will rule in favor of circumcision remaining legal

No, that will not be the case considering the case is now set in stone and nobody can appeal it anymore.

or that politicians will amend the law to make it legal, and wouldn’t that be an even worse precedent to set?

Which is what the current push seems to be, but we will see how that attempt works out. Currently Merkel seems to try to fall over apologizing, but the judiciary and justice minister holds a different opinion.

Do you think those kids would be better off growing up in America or Israel or some other country less progressive than Germany that does allow circumcision? I think that would cause them a hell of a lot more harm later on than getting their foreskins cut off. There will be fallout from this decision and you seem determined to ignore that or the possibility that it might end up doing more harm than good.

I don't think we should cave on some fundamental principles just to prevent people from living in conditions that are marginally worse (if they even are) than Germany.

[Questor]

Thanks Thanas, a couple follow ups if you don't mind.

As I'm sure you know, in the US, I don't think doctors have quite as strong an legal obligation to fight parents on these issues - although I do know it happens on a pretty regular basis - and the slow speed of our court system makes everything far more retroactive. I'm wondering if the more "US"* view of what guardianship means might be where some of the disagreement in this thread is coming from.

How does the family court work? Are the judges on call, or is it a special (and I hate even using these words) night court, or something else entirely?

In case (c), would the case also be referred to the equivalent of family services, or is that a separate process?

* Unlike some, I think calling the US system "parents owning the child" is a dangerous and misleading shorthand. I think that medical consent would have moved far younger in many US states if it were not for our absolutely idiotic healthcare system. As children are usually covered under the parent's insurance, you can create some stupid situations when parents are not kept at least minimally informed.

[Metahive]

No, it doesn't, because I've said repeatedly that circumcision is bad for a number of reasons and it should be banned. I'm not defending circumcision, I'm saying there should be some perspective. For the overwhelming majority of the people who are circumcised as infants there are no real negative consequences.

Don't make me laugh. When you aren't lazily repeating Broomstick's ill-thought out arguments you're appealing to your own indifference towards the issue. Don't think I didn't pick up on that.

Oh, I don’t know, how about because unlike the honor-killing example that keeps getting thrown up there is a large, established community of Germans who will openly fight this tooth and nail, and who moreover will get a hell of a lot more support and sympathy from other parts of the public than the aforementioned honor-killers? Because circumcision supporters will fight this hard in the courts and in the media in what will most likely be an extremely well-funded campaign that will attract major donors both from within Europe and overseas? Because it’s entirely possible that a higher court will rule in favor of circumcision remaining legal, or that politicians will amend the law to make it legal, and wouldn’t that be an even worse precedent to set?

Yeah sorry, but German Courts are quite unconcerned about popular opinion or political conveniences. Germany banned crucifixes from the classroom and people made the same arguments you make now. Today's classrooms are still crucifix-free. You do the math.

I personally think it’s worth trying anyway, but there should still be a cost-benefit analysis before you go frothing at the mouth to crush the evil religionists. Hell, suppose Broomstick is right and large numbers of Jews start leaving Germany so that they can maintain their traditions. Do you think those kids would be better off growing up in America or Israel or some other country less progressive than Germany that does allow circumcision? I think that would cause them a hell of a lot more harm later on than getting their foreskins cut off. There will be fallout from this decision and you seem determined to ignore that or the possibility that it might end up doing more harm than good.

I consider that hypothetical "fallout" to be preferable over capitulating to religious fanatics and diluting basic human rights. I however don't at all believe that german Jews are as fanatical and inflexible as Broomstick and you make them out to be anyway. Bärendienst, stop servicing it up.

[Ultonius]

Would a strict interpretation of the ruling and of Article Two suggest that it is illegal to expose a child to tobacco smoke by smoking in their presence, even in a private home? 'Minor bodily harm' sounds like it should encompass the various health problems such as asthma, lung infections and learning difficulties that second hand smoke can cause. I understand from Wikipedia that smoking is already illegal in most non-private buildings and vehicles in Germany.

[Thanas]

How does the family court work? Are the judges on call, or is it a special (and I hate even using these words) night court, or something else entirely?

It is a division of the lowest court level, no special court. An emergency order can be obtained relatively easy by simply calling the judge on duty.

In case (c), would the case also be referred to the equivalent of family services, or is that a separate process?

Yes, it would.

Would a strict interpretation of the ruling and of Article Two suggest that it is illegal to expose a child to tobacco smoke by smoking in their presence, even in a private home? 'Minor bodily harm' sounds like it should encompass the various health problems such as asthma, lung infections and learning difficulties that second hand smoke can cause. I understand from Wikipedia that smoking is already illegal in most non-private buildings and vehicles in Germany.

Yes, it might be interpreted in that way, but I doubt it would be considering the provisions guarding privacy.

[Dahak]

Yeah sorry, but German Courts are quite unconcerned about popular opinion or political conveniences. Germany banned crucifixes from the classroom and people made the same arguments you make now. Today's classrooms are still crucifix-free. You do the math.

There's still a slight difference between what courts think and decide, and what gets done in real life based on that, still.

Your example, for instance, might hold true for most of Germany, but in Bavaria, for instance, crucifixes in classrooms still are the norm. Bavaria changed their laws accordingly so even though the BVG said "you cannot require cricifixes in classrooms" getting rid of them is not that easy.

[Broomstick]

And...? If the Jews insist on being absolutely irrational religious fanatics who need to ignore the law then they should be treated as such. Again, would you on the same basic argument clamor for legal recognition of honor killings by Anatolians? You know, there are more Anatolians than Jews in Germany...

I see - you fear the slippery slope.

And yes, I'm aware there are more Anatolians than Jews in Germany. The size of the group of Jewish people living in Germany is laughably small except, of course, for all the issues of recent history that lead to both that small size and a special focus on that group.

In regards to your fear, I think it's unlikely to happen because there has been, historically, far more tolerance in the west and in Europe for circumcision (practitioners allowed to do it, even if the majority do not) than for killing one's relatives. There is a LOT more cultural inertia to overcome to permit killing. You might as well argue that there will be a push to bring back infanticide if circumcision is allowed, something I find as likely as tolerance for honor-killing. I just don't see that happening in today's Germany under any circumstances.

You also continue to mistake my contention that the Jews aren't going to yield on this as some sort of personal support for circumcision, which is completely untrue. I am opposed to circumcision and anyone who cares to sort through my posting history will find that in many other threads I speak up unequivocally as against circumcision. This is not about what I believe is right, it's about what the Jews believe. It's a pity you're too stupid to make that distinction.

[Pendleton]

The Guardian has an op-ed piece on this affair. It's... eye opening.

[Serafina]

The Guardian has an op-ed piece on this affair. It's... eye opening.

How so? It all boils down to "choice isn't a moral value", "oh no precious cultural identity" and "this means that Hitler wins".
No, really, that's all there is to that article.

Without informed consent, circumcision is regarded as a form of violence and a violation of the fundamental rights of the child. Which is why I regard the liberal mindset as a diminished form of the moral imagination. There is more to right and wrong than mere choice.

Of course that's a blatant exaggeration. German courts actually do not consider ones ability to choose to be the supreme moral value, as do most liberals (i know, at least).

For all of this, I still find it difficult that my son is not circumcised. The philosopher Emil Fackenheim, himself a survivor of Sachsenhausen concentration camp, famously added to the 613th commandments of the Hebrew scriptures with a new 614th commandment: thou must not grant Hitler posthumous victories.

I just have no words for this. Really. Just one question: how bloody stupid is the author?

As I argued in this week's Church Times, one of the most familiar modern mistakes about faith is that it is something that goes on in your head. This is rubbish. Faith is about being a part of something wider than oneself.

Hey, lets take away individual rights in favor of all becoming part of a mindless group!

[Terralthra]

The Guardian has an op-ed piece on this affair. It's... eye opening.

Eye-openingly retarded?

In November 2010, a Muslim doctor in Germany carried out a circumcision on a four-year old-boy at the request of his parents. A few days later the boy started bleeding and was admitted to Cologne's University hospital who reported the matter to the police. Last month, after a lengthy legal battle, a judge in Cologne outlawed male circumcision as being against the best interests of the child.

Muslim and Jewish groups have been understandably outraged. This week, Germany's chancellor Angela Merkel set herself against the court ruling by telling members of her CDU party that "I do not want Germany to be the only country in the world in which Jews cannot practise their rites." It beggars belief that a German chancellor ought to have to utter such a sentence.

Yet the circumcision of babies cuts against one of the basic assumptions of the liberal mindset. Informed consent lies at the heart of choice and choice lies at the heart of the liberal society. Without informed consent, circumcision is regarded as a form of violence and a violation of the fundamental rights of the child. Which is why I regard the liberal mindset as a diminished form of the moral imagination. There is more to right and wrong than mere choice.

Indeed, making choice the gold standard in every circumstance is to concede to the moral language of capitalism.

I was circumcised by the mohel when I was eight days old on my grandmother's kitchen table in St John's Wood. It wasn't done for health reasons. It was a statement of identity. Whatever is meant by the slippery identification "being Jewish" – my father is, my mother is not – it had something to do with this. Circumcision marked me out as belonging. Years later, when my wife objected to the circumcision of our new son on the grounds that it was cruel and unnecessary, I reluctantly gave way. Intellectually, I knew that there was little left of "being Jewish" to protect. After all, my wife was not Jewish and I had become a Christian priest. Halachically, it made no sense.

For all of this, I still find it difficult that my son is not circumcised. The philosopher Emil Fackenheim, himself a survivor of Sachsenhausen concentration camp, famously added to the 613th commandments of the Hebrew scriptures with a new 614th commandment: thou must not grant Hitler posthumous victories. This new mitzvah insisted that to abandon one's Jewish identity was to do Hitler's work for him. Jews are commanded to survive as Jews by the martyrs of the Holocaust. My own family history – from Miriam Beckerman and Louis Friedeburg becoming Frasers (a name change to escape antisemitism) to their grandson becoming Rev Fraser (long story) to the uncircumcised Felix Fraser – can be read as a betrayal of that 614th commandment.

And I have always found this extremely difficult to deal with. On some level, I feel like a betrayer.

As I argued in this week's Church Times, one of the most familiar modern mistakes about faith is that it is something that goes on in your head. This is rubbish. Faith is about being a part of something wider than oneself. We are not born as mini rational agents in waiting, not fully formed as moral beings until we have the ability to think and choose for ourselves. We are born into a network of relationships that provide us with a cultural background against which things come to make sense. "We" comes before "I". We constitutes our horizon of significance. Which is why many Jews who consider themselves to be atheists would still consider themselves to be Jewish. And circumcision is the way Jewish and Muslim men are marked out as being involved in a reality greater than themselves.

This, however, is a complete anathema to much modern liberal thought that narrows religious and ethical language down to the absolute priority of personal autonomy and individual choice. Liberalism constitutes the view from nowhere. Liberalism has no sense of history. And it is because the Cologne court had so little sense of history that it made such a ridiculous and offensive decision.

Some great logic there. "We have to circumcise boys, or else Hitler wins!" Oh, and "There's more to right and wrong than choice. Like choosing not to let Hitler win, by circumcising infants."

[D.Turtle]

If it is such an important matter to be marked as a Jewish man through circumcision, why is there no need to mark women as being Jewish?

[Justforfun000]

Circumcision is not so cut and dried as it appears. No pun intended..It was not so drastic a removal of the prepuce. In truth, they could easily go back to the original covenant (which is still not right to do to a child..but a hell of a lot less invasive and harmful) of Abraham. The history shows that social and political reasons played a major part in changing the original command.

"Some Jews tried to hide their circumcision status, as told in 1 Maccabees. This was mainly for social and economic benefits and also so that they could exercise in gymnasiums and compete in sporting events. Techniques for restoring the appearance of an uncircumcised penis were known by the 2nd century BC. In one such technique, a copper weight (called the Judeum pondum) was hung from the remnants of the circumcised foreskin until, in time, they became sufficiently stretched to cover the glans. The 1st-century writer Celsus described two surgical techniques for foreskin restoration in his medical treatise De Medicina.[18] In one of these, the skin of the penile shaft was loosened by cutting in around the base of the glans. The skin was then stretched over the glans and allowed to heal, giving the appearance of an uncircumcised penis. This was possible because the Abrahamic covenant of circumcision defined in the Bible was a relatively minor circumcision; named milah, this involved cutting off the foreskin that extended beyond the glans. Jewish religious writers denounced such practices as abrogating the covenant of Abraham in 1 Maccabees and the Talmud.[19] Because of these attempts, and for other reasons, a second more radical step was added to the circumcision procedure. This was added around 140 AD, and was named Brit Peri'ah. In this step, the foreskin was cut further back, to the ridge behind the glans penis, called the coronal sulcus. The inner mucosal tissue was removed by use of a sharp finger nail or implement, including the excising and removal of the frenulum from the underside of the glans.[20] Later during the Talmudic period (500–625 AD) a third step, known as Metzitzah, began to be practiced. In this step the mohel would suck the blood from the circumcision wound with his mouth to remove what was believed to be bad excess blood. As it actually increases the likelihood of infections such as tuberculosis and venereal diseases, modern day mohels use a glass tube placed over the infant's penis for suction of the blood. In many Jewish ritual circumcisions this step of Metzitzah has been eliminated.[20]

First Maccabees tells us that the Seleucids forbade the practice of brit milah, and punished those who performed it–as well as the infants who underwent it–with death."

So there is your historical precedent. No excuse whatsoever to say this would not be good enough. It was the original way, and nowhere in any Biblical recording did God update this covenant or give specific approval for the newer and more mutilative procedure.

Religion aside, I agree with many here of course. Body integrity trumps ANY religious beliefs and no one should be making irreversible choices like this for their children. I am very bitter and angry about being circumcised myself. No I don't remember. No I don't know what it's truly like to be uncut. No I will never get it back. Yes it matters! It matters because if there is one body part as humans that we hold in high esteem, it's our primary sexual organs. They are the greatest physical pleasure we know and knowing some fucking butcher skimmed off a major portion of my erogenous tissue, some which are irreplacable like the frenulum, makes me extremely upset. I'm always wondering how much I'm missing and knowing that it's impossible to truly reverse.

Bottom line...it's wrong. Completely wrong to force this mutilation on unconsenting children. Fuck culture, fuck religion, fuck tradition, social pressure and every other excuse. At the end of the day my dick was forcibly ripped and sliced apart for no good reason. I will never be blase about it and I will never stop wishing it had never been done.

Everyone here that is mitigating the issue by appeals to tradition and religious respect can just screw off. They had no right! I can never get it back. I always try to forgive my parents and (not so much) the doctors because they were sold a line about "hygiene" and it wasn't done maliciously. But anyone defending the practice now for any reason other then medical, I want to cheerfully strangle. All I ever hear is everyone else's concern and desire except the owner of the body. (Must look like his father, don't want to be different in the locker room, girls prefer cut, religion demands it, etc.)