Changes

*: Many parents argue that foreskin [[amputation ]] in young boys is legal because it has been done for many years, centuries, or even millennia. Modern case law makes it clear that tradition does not create a legal claim. Other violations of [[human rights]] such as rape, stoning, slavery, etc. have also been done for a long time - — which does not legalize them.

*: With the exception of Germany, we do not know of any other country worldwide that would explicitly allow genital mutilation of children without [[medical indication]]. On the contrary, bodily harm is punishable in all countries unless it is medically indicated. The [[German Circumcision Act]] is seen very controversial and ineffective for several reasons: on the one hand it is obviously unconstitutional, on the other hand, it leads itself to absurdity in its own legal text. The assumption that [[genital mutilation ]] is legal in boys because it has been legally tolerated many times, is wrong.

*: The cleaning of an [[intact ]] or [[circumcised ]] penis is equal and is not hampered by an intact [[foreskin]].

*: This argument assumes a poor knowledge about hygiene for all [[intact ]] boys and men and thus constitutes an indirect insult of all intact boys and men. In fact, all genitals start smelling after a while if they are not cleaned now and then. Rinsing with water is basically sufficient.* '''"There are SO MANY older men in the facility who aren’t [[circumcised]], and cleaning them is terrible and nasty. So many of them have to get circumcised because they keep getting infections."'''

*: In fact, many [[circumcised ]] men have to work much longer for ejaculation, especially with age, because due to the lack of [[foreskin]] their [[Glans penis|glans]] is increasingly callous and unfeeling. Regardless of these differences, this is about adult sexual preferences that they want to force on their children, which is not covered by any law in the world.

*: There are certainly women who like sex with [[circumcised ]] men. Discussions show that this is often voiced by women who have no comparison, while women who know both sex with [[intact ]] and genitally mutilated men generally prefer [[intact ]] sex because it doesn't require as hard a penis bump Dry scrubbing of the [[vagina ]] happens. Regardless of these differences, this is about adult sexual preferences that they want to force on their children, which is not covered by any law in the world.

*: Chances are that a man does not talk about his sexual or other (genital) issues to others at all. There are many personal stories of men who did and do complain. There is an organization named [[Men Do Complain]], there are books with [[Case Histories|case histories]] of many men who do complain. But it is not the question if men do complain. The question is: Is [[circumcision]] of children an illegal intervention in the [[physical integrity]]? That is continuously asserted by lawyers. The question for victims does also not arise here, because [[circumcision]] of children basically violates the [[human rights|fundamental rights of the child]].

*: All published [[It´s A Boy!|circumcision videos]] show that those who are [[circumcised ]] without adequate anaesthetic treatment (anaesthesia or anaesthetic), suffer immense [[pain]]. Infants fall regularly in into [[shock]] as a reaction to the pain, when being [[circumcised ]] without effective anaestesiaanaesthesia. This [[shock]] is often misinterpreted and the parents believe that their baby would have simply slept through.*: Actually, in some traditional ritual forms of [[circumcision]] not only the outer [[foreskin]]} is cut up or off, but rather even the (inner) foreskin is torn down. The comparison with pulling off a patch is safe only from the point of view of the person who tear down the patch or the [[foreskin]], but not from the point of view of the child who suffers the [[pain]]. It is at least not a single case known in which a [[mohel]] fell in [[shock]] after [[circumcision]], while it is regularly in only a few days old boys. Therefore, this comparison is more than cynical.

* '''"Babies feel no [[pain ]] yet, therefore should be [[circumcised ]] at an early stage."'''*: This assertion is completely obsolete and refuted in many studies. The discussion is also quite schizophrenic. It is fiercely debated whether embryos that are to be expelled, should be stunned before. But you can easily cut off a body part without anesthesia on born babies because they do not feel [[pain]]? The research situation is however quite differently here: boys who were [[circumcised ]] as infants, show even stronger reactions to [[pain ]] (e.g. vaccination) as than [[intact ]] ones.<ref>{{REFweb

*: Probably one of the worst arguments, because where is the limit? So you can't also explain to the child why the father is sitting in a wheelchair and the child doesn't, so you have to cut his spinal cord? Maybe the father is blind or has scars on his face - — does the child have to compensate the father, too? Of course not. The argument serves to protect the father's peace of mind, but not the child that must be protected against 'conflicts'.

The two main religions that still exist, which "challenge" male genital mutilation in some way, are [[Judaism ]] and [[Islam]]. In Christianity there are only marginalized groups such as the Coptic Christians who still mutilate children's genitals. Of course, the demand to mutilate children's genitals is appropriately religiously disguised in the religions mentioned, although it is not anchored in the Quran, the content of which the dogmas of Islam are primarily based on.

The Christian fathers rejected [[circumcision ]] for Christians at the [[Council at Jerusalem]] in 49 A.D.<ref>[https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+15%3A1-30&version=NASB Acts of the Apostles 15:1-30].</ref>