Circumcision: what should parents and states do? An essay

Abstract

In May 2012, the district court in Cologne found that male circumcision was unlawful in Germany. The law has since changed, but the ethical question remains: should parents circumcise their sons? Should states try to stop them? In this essay, I examine seven arguments for circumcision applicable to Jewish parents.

Keywords:

• circumcision
• harm
• ethics
• Judaism
• Germany

Notes

1. A Yiddish proverb.

2. On public opinion polls with majorities against the practice, see, for example, ‘Deutsche lehnen religiöse Beschneidung ab’; ‘Mehrheit der Deutschen gegen Beschneidungsgesetz’.

3. Holm Putzke, a prominent voice in favour of the court from the legal community, referred to male circumcision as an act of violence against children (from which they need to be defended by the society) on different occasions; for example: ‘Schutz von Gewalt ist wichtiger als religiöse Riten’, and ‘Die Politik reagiert reflexhaft, nicht reflektiert’.

4. See, for example, in the report by Birgitta vom Lehm (2012)

5. An open letter to Chancellor Angela Merkel (Franz 2012) signed by some 400 health, lawyers and mental health professionals, referred to the circumcision as a form of sexual violence against children.

6. For the new legislation see paragraph 1631d BGB, ‘Beschneidung des männlichen Kindes’.

7. An estimated third of men worldwide is circumcised. Seventy per cent of circumcised men are Muslim. Among white non-Hispanic Americans 80% are circumcised, though there seems to be a trend of decline.

8. Since I employed no scientific sample or interviewing methods, I can claim no scientific validity to my results. However, the information is pertinent as hypotheses for future investigation.

9. I rely here on a recent report of the American Pediatric Association. As a layperson it is impossible for me to judge the quality and full meaning of medical evidence. American Academy of Pediatrics, Technical Report: Male Circumcision, August 2012.

10. Technical Report: Male Circumcision, e761.

11. Technical Report: Male Circumcision, e772.

12. Technical Report: Male Circumcision, e775.

13. Landesgericht Köln Urteil 151 Ns 169/11, 07.05.2012, pp. 5 and 7. This was not the only reason: the court also mentions the right of the child to bodily integrity. I have argued elsewhere (Banai 2012) that in the way bodily integrity is understood in German law, it is hard to see how the court could have concluded otherwise.

14. It does not follow that the practice ought simply to be ignored. It is certainly possible for a state, to provide parents with the relevant information and even require parents to attend a consultation before they decide on the matter. I will return to this point below. It is also possible to leave the parents liable for harms under civil law. I will not discuss this option here.

15. Information about the legal case is available in Gerhard Robbers (2010).

16. In principle, an exemption of this kind should only apply to Orthodox parents. However, I want to assume that the German legal system strongly wishes to avoid testing members of its Jewish community for their Judaism, and so it would make sense pragmatically to opt for the less strict option.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Ayelet Banai

Ayelet Banai is a research fellow at the Centre for Advanced Studies ‘Justitia Amplificata,’ Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany. Her research and publications are in international political theory, including the right of self-determination, democracy and diversity, and minority rights. Her publications include ‘Europe of the regions and the problem of boundaries in liberal democratic theory’ (Journal of Political Ideologies (2012)) and ‘Political self-determination and global egalitarianism’ (Social Theory and Practice (2013)). She is co-editor of the volume Social Justice, Global Dynamics: Theoretical and Empirical Perspectives (Routledge, 2011).