Nordic countries may finally ban circumcision.

[ABC10]

If you want to call this "healthy":

Well, the incidence of Meatal stenosis is very low and easy repaired while far more serious is STDs, Aids, HIV positive, penis infections transmitted more readily in an uncircumcised male.

 

[kellyb]

Well, it is better then STDs, Aids, HIV positive, penis infections or blood poisoning.

From the same link:

Infection occurs after circumcision in up to 10 per cent of
patients

Regarding HIV, that's only relevant to Africa, and condoms still work better, and adults can opt for the procedure if they want.

 

[ddt]

Will we be seeing the Germans take on their Muslim population? The Jewish community in Germany is almost non existent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Germany:

After the war the Jewish community started to slowly grow again, fueled primarily by immigration from the former Soviet Union and Israeli expatriates. By the 21st century, the Jewish population of Germany approached 200,000, and Germany had the only growing Jewish community in Europe.

You might check the facts first.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Don't know the guy or any porn stars. In any event as posted earlier, depends on where the movie is made. Most USAers male porn stars are circumcised while the European guys are more uncircumcised. When the Muslims take over the Porn Industry, all the males will be circumcised and the women will have suffered female genital mutilation.

One of the highlighted things is not like the other...

 

[Hawk one]

you can rationalize being rude, ignorant, and insulting all you like.
It still is classless.

( I have walked a few miles in those shoes, amigo).

You can rationalise the completely avoidable and unnecesary deaths of more than 100 children each year in USA alone as a result of male circumcision, not to mention all the other complications

Condoning circumcision with all the knowledge we have, is condoning the deaths of those children, and for no good reason at all, instead clinging to outdated traditions.

If you think it's rude and classless to point this out, then grow a thicker skin. Because I really don't give a damn about the feelings of someone who condones a practice that kills children for no good reason.

 

[rustypouch]

I was outside yesterday, so here's a response to one that caught my eye and was posted after my last response.

Jews have been doing infant circumcision on their sons for 6,000 years and so far things have been going pretty okay. When exactly do you expect those "terrible things" to start happening? Will we have time for a quick bathroom break beforehand, do you think?

That statement was disagreeing with the idea that if someone doesn't remember harm being done to them, it doesn't matter. That could be used to justify all sorts of abuse, to people of all ages. If someone had some rooofies slipped into their drink, all sorts of things could happen to them. But if they don't remember, it doesn't matter, right?

No compelling reason for it except for the fact that it's, you know, a non-negotiable religious duty that Jews believe they have been commanded by God to perform. But hey, what's so great about preserving free exercise of religion? What's that hippie crap done for anyone lately, am I right? That should probably count as a negative reason, because religion is totally dumb.

How far are you willing to take the religion/tradition line of thought, in regards to justifying violence against others?

I've no problem with problem choosing to practice their religion, as long as it doesn't harm others. If someone wants to get snipped, go for it. I'm against making that decision for someone who cannot give informed consent, no matter how 'minor' the change may be. What do you have against people having control over their bodies?

My point, which I've mentioned before, is pro body autonomy. Do whatever you want with your own body. I'm against needlessly mutilating someone else without consent, no matter what form it takes.

 

[The Big Dog]

You can rationalise the completely avoidable and unnecesary deaths of more than 100 children each year in USA alone as a result of male circumcision, not to mention all the other complications

Condoning circumcision with all the knowledge we have, is condoning the deaths of those children, and for no good reason at all, instead clinging to outdated traditions.

If you think it's rude and classless to point this out, then grow a thicker skin. Because I really don't give a damn about the feelings of someone who condones a practice that kills children for no good reason.

That number has never been accepted by any medical authority and is disputed by the CDC.

 

[mijopaalmc]

From the engineering point of view, however, I do appreciate the "why does anyone bother" with trimming position on this basis:

If it ain't broke, why are you trying to fix it?

Perhaps because, if there is a significant risk that what isn't broken currently will break in the future, and, at that future time it will more expensive and disruptive to fix it, preventative measures can be desirable.

What exactly constitutes "significant risk" or "sufficient risk" in the case of cicumcision is open for debate; however, completely invalidating the ethno-religious and historical issues doesn't mean that they no longer exist. It is interesting that "bodily integrity" is suddenly a compelling reason to limit minority religious practices.

 

[GlennB]

It is interesting that "bodily integrity" is suddenly a compelling reason to limit minority religious practices.

People choose to compromise their "bodily integrity" all the time. It's imposing it on unknowing infants - for the sake of nothing more substantial than my belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster - that often rankles.

What if I truly believed that the small left toe of every baby should be removed and tossed in the sea to assuage the wrath of the sharks that threaten the FSM's 'chosen people', The Pirates? Would my contract with the FSM justify this trivial minor surgery on babies?

**** - let's just get out of the stone age eh? Abraham had no covenant with god. If he actually said that stuff then he just made it up to impress people. Or for some other reason, like he was stoned from smoking carob seeds or something.

He.did.not.actually.do.a.deal.with.god.

 

[ABC10]

Perhaps because, if there is a significant risk that what isn't broken currently will break in the future, and, at that future time it will more expensive and disruptive to fix it, preventative measures can be desirable.

What exactly constitutes "significant risk" or "sufficient risk" in the case of cicumcision is open for debate; however, completely invalidating the ethno-religious and historical issues doesn't mean that they no longer exist. It is interesting that "bodily integrity" is suddenly a compelling reason to limit minority religious practices.

1/2 of 1.5 Billion Muslims are circumcised. The 2nd largest religion in the world and hardly a minority religious practice. The Jews who also practice circumcision are a religious minority but somehow everyone is hung up on the Jews and forget the Muslims. Maybe Allah was too stoned with Kwat to think about circumcision, but for sure was a pedophile.

 

[ABC10]

From the same link:



Regarding HIV, that's only relevant to Africa, and condoms still work better, and adults can opt for the procedure if they want.

That can't be true as HIV is world wide. Can't imagine much condom use in Africa.

 

[ddt]

1/2 of 1.5 Billion Muslims are circumcised. The 2nd largest religion in the world and hardly a minority religious practice. The Jews who also practice circumcision are a religious minority but somehow everyone is hung up on the Jews and forget the Muslims. Maybe Allah was stone with Kwat, but for sure was a pedophile.

Muhammad, you mean? Those pesky facts.

And we're discussing here primarily the Western world, where Islam is a minority religion. And in those European countries where the topic has come up, Jewish organizations have been most vocal.

 

[ddt]

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201109/more-circumcision-myths-you-may-believe-hygiene-and-stds

That can't be true as HIV is world wide. Can't imagine much condom use in Africa.

:

Myth: Circumcision prevents HIV/AIDS.

Reality check: Three studies in Africa several years ago that claimed that circumcision prevented AIDS and that circumcision was as effective as a 60% effective vaccine (Auvert 2005, 2006). These studies had many flaws, including that they were stopped before all the results came in. There have also been several studies that show that circumcision does not prevent HIV (Connolly 2008). There are many issues at play in the spread of STDs which make it very hard to generalize results from one population to another.

In Africa, where the recent studies have been done, most HIV transmission is through male-female sex, but in the USA, it is mainly transmitted through blood exposure (like needle sharing) and male-male sex. Male circumcision does not protect women from acquiring HIV, nor does it protect men who have sex with men (Wawer 2009, Jameson 2009).

What's worse, because of the publicity surrounding the African studies, men in Africa are now starting to believe that if they are circumcised, they do not need to wear condoms, which will increase the spread of HIV (Westercamp 2010).

Does that clear up your confusion?

And have you already read the previous thread, this has been discussed ad nauseam there.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Muhammad, you mean? Those pesky facts.

And we're discussing here primarily the Western world, where Islam is a minority religion. And in those European countries where the topic has come up, Jewish organizations have been most vocal.

Yes, circumcision is only legal because the Jew-gy Man hiding under your bead wants it to be.

 

[Rat]

Yes, circumcision is only legal because the Jew-gy Man hiding under your bead wants it to be.

I detect that you're being sarcastic, but I'm lost as to the point you're trying to make. Just for me, because I'm a bit slow, could you be more explicit?

 

[ABC10]

Muhammad, you mean? Those pesky facts.

And we're discussing here primarily the Western world, where Islam is a minority religion. And in those European countries where the topic has come up, Jewish organizations have been most vocal.

Muhammad is Allah. No cap on the discussion as being European countries only.

 

[Rat]

Muhammad is Allah. No cap on the discussion as being European countries only.

I think you're getting mixed up with Jesus and (the Christian) god. This is just getting weird now.

 

[spin0]

Well, the incidence of Meatal stenosis is very low and easy repaired while far more serious is STDs, Aids, HIV positive, penis infections transmitted more readily in an uncircumcised male.

Please do explain how circumcision protects infants and children from STDs and AIDS in the Nordic countries (or by extension in the northern Europe or the EU).

Remember that the issue, and indeed the OP, is about infants and children in the Nordic countries and their right to physical integrity. Boys are not excluded from those rights. The same laws and conventions protect their right to their physical integrity just as well as girls.

Additionally consent and the ability to consent are at the heart of the issue. Being circumcised or getting circumcised would not be illegal in such proposed legislation. If consenting people want to modify or mutilate their genitals it would be perfectly legal be it for health, sexual, esthetic, cultural or even religious reasons whatever belief systems they may have.

 

[ABC10]

I think you're getting mixed up with Jesus and (the Christian) god. This is just getting weird now.

More like boring. Exhausting my interest in penises and circumcision or not.

 

[ddt]

Perhaps because, if there is a significant risk that what isn't broken currently will break in the future, and, at that future time it will more expensive and disruptive to fix it, preventative measures can be desirable.

What exactly constitutes "significant risk" or "sufficient risk" in the case of cicumcision is open for debate; however, completely invalidating the ethno-religious and historical issues doesn't mean that they no longer exist. It is interesting that "bodily integrity" is suddenly a compelling reason to limit minority religious practices.

Considering that it is only 150 years ago that we abolished slavery and only 50 years ago that Jim Crow laws were repealed, much bigger infractions on basic human rights, I think the word "suddenly" is quite a misnomer.

Jews have been doing infant circumcision on their sons for 6,000 years and so far things have been going pretty okay by us.

It doesn't help your case if you make such overblown statements. 6,000 years ago, there were no people called "Jews". To be generous, there were Hebrews 3,000 years ago, who may have practiced circumcision.

And it's also not as if the practice has been unchanged during that period. Before the Graeco-Roman period, only the tip of the foreskin was cut off. The Greeks and the Romans found circumcision barbaric and tried to ban it. Many Hellenized Jews tried to hide or mask their circumcision or even tried to repair it. In response, the rabbis modified the procedure to have the whole foreskin cut off.

So religious practices can change.