The aim is both to evaluate the new German law allowing religious circumcision, and to outline the resulting conflict between the surrounding ethical and legal issues.We first elucidate the diversity of legal and medical views on religious circumcision in Germany.Next we examine to what extent invasive and irreversible physical interventions on infant boys unable to given their consent should be carried out for non‐medical reasons.To this end, the potential benefits and harms of circumcision for non‐medical reasons are compared.While no state requires parental consent for contraception, many states require parental consent for abortion.Abortion laws vary greatly from state to state, however.We demonstrate through this analysis how the circumcision debate in Germany has been transformed from a legal and ethical problem into a political issue, due at least in part to Germany's unique historical context.
Most laws have special provisions for teens who experience medical problems and for those who have become pregnant as a result of incest or sexual abuse.
The article aims to illuminate the recent debate in Germany about the legitimacy of circumcision for religious reasons.
We argue that circumcision does not provide any benefits for the child as a child and poses only risks to boys.
We then set out to clarify and analyse political (rather than ethical) justifications of the new circumcision law.
No parent ever wants to imagine their teen having an abortion.
But, for many teens, unplanned pregnancy is a real issue.