This is a step in the right direction:
A regional appeals court in Frankfurt am Main found that the circumcision of an 11-year-old Muslim boy without his approval was an unlawful personal injury.
According to the court, circumcision can “be important in individual cases for the cultural-religious and physical self-image,” even if there are no health disadvantages involved. So the decision about whether or not to go through with a circumcision is “a central right of a person to determine his identity and life.”
The penis belongs to the individual, not the individual’s parents or society. That’s as it should be, although the court failed to rule on an age minimum. The answer should be birth, although I don’t hold out much hope in the short-term for that lucid conclusion. Also, some of the court’s reasoning was silly.
The court suggested, in part, that it was a punishable offense to subject one’s child to teasing by other children for looking different.
That wouldn’t translate to the United States, where we have warped views of what it means to look different, how a person should decide to value the opinion of others, and whether or not those decisions belong to the individual or his parents. It’s also bad legal reasoning, since children would then have a “right” to fashionable clothing, for example, if his friends might laugh at him otherwise. Still, I applaud the basic outcome of the ruling. The court seems to have understood that forced circumcision is wrong.