Why Is Male Circumcision Still Legal
The Federal Association of Paediatricians (BVKJ) sees no medical reason for non-therapeutic circumcision and that the AAP (2012) recommendation is scientifically untenable and that boys should have the same constitutional right to physical integrity as girls: But no national medical, pediatric, surgical or urological society in the world recommends routine male circumcision as a health intervention. In truth, circumcision is a solution in search of a problem. As medical ethicist Brian Earp has pointed out, “Much of the current medical literature purporting to show the health benefits of male circumcision has been generated by physicians who were themselves circumcised at birth – often for religious reasons – and who have cultural, financial or other interests in preserving the practice. In a small minority of cases, circumcision is for explicitly religious reasons, as in Orthodox Judaism. In the vast majority of cases, this is done for something closer to cultural habit, or for a vague sense of health or hygiene. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and CDC working groups recently highlighted the potential health benefits associated with foreskin removal. But the main data they relied on were about voluntary adult circumcision and heterosexual transmission of HIV in sub-Saharan Africa. These data do not apply to baby circumcision in Western countries, where HIV is mainly transmitted among people who inject drugs and men who have sex with men. The enactment of the Human Rights Act 1998 has given rise to speculation that the legality of female circumcision of male children is unclear.  Male circumcision is not comparable to female genital mutilation, although I agree that consideration should be given to prohibiting male circumcision in childhood and allowing adults to make a fully informed decision about whether or not they want the procedure.
Our response to both forms of circumcision should be to apply the principle of genital autonomy and physical integrity to all children, regardless of gender. Circumcision before the age of consent deprives a boy of a part of the body that he would otherwise enjoy. Every child should enjoy the freedom to grow up with an intact body and make their own decisions about permanent physical changes. If they accept their own non-therapeutic circumcision, if they are old enough for it, then fine. But let us at least give them that choice. In June 2012, the center-right Centre Party proposed banning the circumcision of men under the age of eighteen after the death of an Oslo infant after being circumcised in May.  On 5. In July 2011, he made a detailed statement on the legal status of circumcision in criminal proceedings. First of all, the Public Prosecutor`s Office points out that there is no law expressly prohibiting the circumcision of boys, nor that this practice falls within the more general criminal offence of ill-treatment (aggravated assault). “In any event, female genital mutilation is undoubtedly ill-treatment (Articles 300 to 303 of the Dutch Criminal Code). While most forms of cutting are generally referred to as genital mutilation, there is no similar communis opinio for male genital cutting.
The Supreme Court recognized that society`s attitude towards female circumcision has gradually changed over the years and that “the growing concern [in the medical world] about harms and the risk of complications during circumcision is indeed relevant,” but that, overall, there is still insufficient reason to do so. to move to criminalization. The intentional infliction of serious bodily harm (section 82 of the Dutch Criminal Code) may also be applied to the normal circumstances of competent and hygienic circumcision in a clinic. And because young children are unable to exercise the right to self-determination, parents should do so on their behalf. On the basis of their parental authority, they can both request and consent to circumcision. However, it is important that both parents agree to the procedure.  There is no known medical benefit for the procedure (circumcision) in children. Therefore, there are good reasons to expect with the intervention until the person who is the subject of the measure has reached such an age and maturity that he or she can give informed consent. The AEOI considers that the goal is to end non-medically justified circumcision without prior consent.
The Finnish Ombudsman for Equality notes that circumcision of boys without medical reason is legally highly questionable, the Finnish Supreme Court has ruled that non-therapeutic circumcision of boys is a procedure of bodily harm, and the Finnish Ombudsman for Children has suggested that Finland prohibit non-therapeutic circumcision of boys: this practice is not only not illegal, it is not even regulated. As bioethicist Dena Davis wrote, “States are currently regulating the hygienic practices of those who cut our hair and nails, so why not a baby`s genitals?” But she means the genitals of little boys. Girls` genitals, in fact, are prohibited by law. In November 2007, the Oregon Supreme Court heard arguments from a divorced Oregon couple about the circumcision of their son. The father wanted his son, who died on the 2nd. March 2008 was 13 years old, circumcised according to the religious views of the father; The child`s mother refuses the procedure. The parents argue over whether the boy is in favor of the procedure. A group opposed to circumcision filed briefs in support of the mother`s position, while some Jewish groups filed briefs in support of the father.  On January 25, 2008, the court referred the case back to the trial court with instructions to determine whether the child had consented to or objected to the proposed circumcision.  The father appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court to allow him to circumcise his son, but his appeal was dismissed.
The case was then referred back to the Court of First Instance.  When the trial court questioned the couple`s son, now 14, the boy said he did not want to be cut. It also provided the necessary circumstances to allow the boy to change residence to live with his mother. The boy was not circumcised. Antoninus Pius allowed the Jews to circumcise their own sons. However, He forbade the circumcision of pagan men who were either foreign-born slaves of Jews and the circumcision of pagan men who were members of Jewish households, in violation of Genesis 17:12. He also forbade non-Jewish men from converting to Judaism.  Antoninus Pius freed the Egyptian priesthood from the otherwise universal prohibition of circumcision. But they are always wrong, I think, both morally and legally. In 2013, ombudsmen for children from all Nordic countries – Finland, Iceland, Denmark, Sweden and Norway – issued a joint statement in 2013 proposing to ban non-medical circumcision of male minors. In October 2018, the right-wing populist Sweden Democrats party submitted a motion to Parliament calling for a ban.
At the Centre Party`s annual conference in September 2019, 314 to 166 commissioners voted in favour of banning male circumcision. Several Jewish and Islamic organizations have spoken out against a possible ban.  The Left Party has also come out in favour of banning male circumcision before the age of 18; Other parties have so far not supported a possible ban, although the Greens have found the practice “problematic”.  This will normally only be the case if the circumcised patient has suffered physical, sexual or psychological problems as a result of circumcision. In such cases, filing a circumcision action may provide a remedy for losses.