Nordic countries may finally ban circumcision.

[Rat]

I know you two well enough to know that you both know that Loss Leader is a long standing member in good standing here, Jewish, father of two kids, and a decent person.

Right up there, you two just spit in his face.

Not well played, gentlemen.

Histrionic hyperbole.

 

[colander]

Changing the law of a country in a way that criminalizes the free practice of at least two major religions is kind of a big deal. Unless you can actually rustle up a critical mass of people who were themselves circumcised and who feel like the practice needs to be stopped, I'm not sure how well you're going to be able to make the case that allowing infant circumcision is an unalloyed evil.

Although many people from countries where it is not typically practiced think of it as a horrendous injustice, it doesn't really seem to be the cause of very much dissatisfaction to the vast majority of the people who've actually had it done. If most of them are fine with it, then what concrete good will it do society to outlaw it given that it will come at the absurd cost of essentially making it illegal to be Jewish or Muslim? Who is it that benefits from such a ban?

It's a massively divisive solution for a problem that currently doesn't really seem to exist.

 

[Rat]

Changing the law of a country in a way that criminalizes the free practice of at least two major religions is kind of a big deal. Unless you can actually rustle up a critical mass of people who were themselves circumcised and who feel like the practice needs to be stopped, I'm not sure how well you're going to be able to make the case that allowing infant circumcision is an unalloyed evil.

Was someone trying to make that case? I (loosely) support the law that states that people under 18 should not be able to buy alcohol, but I don't think that people aged 17 drinking alcohol is an unalloyed evil. Also, though I hate to drag FGM into it again, many women who have undergone FGM do not think that it needs to be stopped, and it is often the women in a family who arrange and insist on its being carried out on the next generation. I do not mean to state that the two procedures are necessarily equal, but that men who were circumcised do not consider themselves harmed is not really the point.

Although many people from countries where it is not typically practiced think of it as a horrendous injustice, it doesn't really seem to be the cause of very much dissatisfaction to the vast majority of the people who've actually had it done. If most of them are fine with it, then what concrete good will it do society to outlaw it given that it will come at the absurd cost of essentially making it illegal to be Jewish or Muslim? Who is it that benefits from such a ban?

It's a massively divisive solution for a problem that currently doesn't really seem to exist.

The problem that I see is the unnecessary surgical alteration of children too young to consent. It unquestionably exists.

It certainly doesn't make it illegal to be Jewish or Muslim, which I agree would be undesirable. That would be absurd hyperbole again. As I understand it (do correct me if I misunderstand), shechita is illegal in Sweden, and yet you can buy kosher meat in Sweden.

As to who would benefit, I would suggest society. I just don't see it as a good thing to permanently modify the bodies of children for no real benefit. We don't allow the tattooing of children in many parts of the world, but there are few cultures common in the West that demand tattoos for children, so it's never been an issue and we don't have to make odd exceptions. Let children grow up with the body they have until they reach an age of majority and can decide otherwise. Parents are the guardians of their children; not their owners.

 

[kellyb]

It certainly doesn't make it illegal to be Jewish or Muslim, which I agree would be undesirable.

I don't know.

I've talked to a number of atheist Jews who say it would make it illegal to "be Jewish." They consider circumcision to be that much of a core part of their culture.

I'm not going to claim to really understand how that works, but I'm willing to accept that you (I) would have to be Jewish to understand it.

Either way, because of that I don't any longer have strong feelings either way on Jews circumcising. Or rather, I feel fairly strongly in two separate and incompatible ways.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I don't know.

I've talked to a number of atheist Jews who say it would make it illegal to "be Jewish." They consider circumcision to be that much of a core part of their culture.

I'm not going to claim to really understand how that works, but I'm willing to accept that you (I) would have to be Jewish to understand it.

Either way, because of that I don't any longer have strong feelings either way on Jews circumcising. Or rather, I feel fairly strongly in two separate and incompatible ways.

Why is "cultural reason" more acceptable than "religious reason"? And why would an infant care about it?

 

[ddt]

Don't count your baby dicks just yet. Circumcision bans have been proposed in many countries, but I can't think of any cases where they actually managed to stick. One was leveled in Germany last year, but parliament pretty handily passed a bill that re-legalized it, citing the preservation of religious freedom as their justification.

Yes, the district court in Cologne ruled that it was a criminal act, in a case of a botched circumcision with a Muslim boy. Then the Jews cried "Holocaust", and all MPs swiftly got behind a law to allow it. I'm surprised it hasn't gone yet to the German Supreme Court, which has the power to rule laws unconstitutional. Interestingly, in a poll of December last year, it turned out that 70% of the German population was against this law. (source: Der Spiegel, in German).

And for those new to the debate, it would be well advised to read the two previous threads on circumcision:
Norway debates banning circumcision
German court bans circumcision of young boys
Especially the second one: about all conceivable health issues were debated there, with links to the actual studies.

 

[The Big Dog]

Yes, the district court in Cologne ruled that it was a criminal act, in a case of a botched circumcision with a Muslim boy. Then the Jews cried "Holocaust", and all MPs swiftly got behind a law to allow it. I'm surprised it hasn't gone yet to the German Supreme Court, which has the power to rule laws unconstitutional. Interestingly, in a poll of December last year, it turned out that 70% of the German population was against this law. (source: Der Spiegel, in German).

And for those new to the debate, it would be well advised to read the two previous threads on circumcision:
Norway debates banning circumcision
German court bans circumcision of young boys
Especially the second one: about all conceivable health issues were debated there, with links to the actual studies.

Yeah, the Germans don't have a particularly rosy history with the circumsized.

I am fairly well baffled by the strident support in favor of governmental intervention into private medical issues. What the **** is gonna happen when we learn the foreskin starts forming in utero and someone wants to abort the baby?

This type of advocacy regarding government control makes we want to say:

For every circumsicion you don't perform, I'm performing three!

 

[Loss Leader]

I know you two well enough to know that you both know that Loss Leader is a long standing member in good standing here, Jewish, father of two kids, and a decent person.

For the record, I don't think anyone here has attacked me personally. I did have my two sons circumsised in the Jewish tradition. While I thank Darth Rotor for his passionate defense, I don't feel I've been personally disrespected. I would thank everyone to keep the conversation philosophical and not personal, though.

Sorry if I don't find mutilating someone else's body without their permission, for specious reasons, defensible.

Religious reasons are not specious. They're just reason you don't agree with.

No matter if some people consider it harmless, there are risks and permanent effects. The decision should rest solely on the person who's having their body modified.

Except that the literature shows that the earlier a circumcision is done, the fewer long-term effects there are. The only study on male pleasure or sexual function included only men who were circumcised as adults - long after the brain had mapped the area of the glans. The so-called "slut study," where women with multiple partners were asked their impressions, was poorly controled at best.

The best medical information appears to be that, while newborns can feel pain, they cannot locate the source of that pain. Nor are they capable of forming memories because their brains simply lack any method of definition or compartmentalization.

My anecdotal experience is that my children cried more from being held down than they did from the cut; the entire circumcision including prayers lasted about ten seconds; and they had stopped crying within two to five minutes of the bris.

All of this having been said, I have seen no compelling medical reason for or against circumcision. I would not recommend circumcision performed in a hospital, nor would I recommend it for general health reasons. I see nothing wrong with religious circumcision.

It goes without saying that the archaic practice of touching one's lips to the penis is no part of any bris I have ever been to; is not commanded to appropriately complete the mitzvah; and is opposed by all but just a few of the most insular ultra-orthodox communities (most of which have abandoned the practice entirely).

 

[Darth Rotor]

Dear Rat:

Nope.

Dear rustypouch:

Are your attitudes, beliefs, opinions and inflexible principles more important than the people you are talking to? You don't owe me an answer, but I ask you to consider that answer in your own mind at your leisure.

I find that people talk AT people more than TO them these days, particularly on the internet. I have certainly been guilty of that my own self on more than one occasion.

Why, I ask you, are you that concerned with someone else's dicck?

Why is "cultural reason" more acceptable than "religious reason"? And why would an infant care about it?

Assuming that it is only cultural is, IMO, a mistake. Please go back and read how it went down for me, my brothers, and my son.

It isn't all cultural. There are often doctors and other health professionals involved in this. (For better or for worse).

 

[spin0]

I've talked to a number of atheist Jews who say it would make it illegal to "be Jewish." They consider circumcision to be that much of a core part of their culture.

Being circumcised or getting circumcised would not be illegal in such proposed legislation. If people want to modify or mutilate their genitals it would be perfectly legal even if they do it on cultural or religious grounds were those Jewish or Islamic or whatever else relevant belief systems people may have.

For example, animal welfare legislations in Nordic countries⁽¹ require that animals are slaughtered without undue stress, pain or suffering, and that the animal must be appropriately stunned or killed before bleeding. This means that some methods of slaughtering related to religious rituals are not possible to perform legally. It also means that person's religious beliefs are not a legal reason to cause undue pain or suffering to animals in Nordic countries.

Yet it does not mean that such religions or having such belief system would be illegal. For example a devil worshipper can freely believe in a dark fairy but act of torturing animals to death is illegal even if it was done as a ritual belonging to that religion.

The proposal in the OP is about person's consent and the ability to consent to genital mutilation. The arguments for such legislation are based on ratified human rights, medical ethics and gender equality ⁽². All those values are in high regard in the Nordic countries, just like animal rights are.


1) At least in Denmark, Finland and Sweden - I believe the animal welfare legislation is quite similar in Norway and Iceland but not sure.

2) Such as:
The UN Convention of the Rights of the Child, articles 12, and 24 (3) which say that children should have the right to express their own views and must be protected from traditional rituals that may be harmful to their health.

The Council of Europe's Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine which bans removing living tissue from a person who cannot consent:
"No organ or tissue removal may be carried out on a person who does not have the capacity to consent under Article 5."

ETA: Also, European Council Condemns Male Circumcision as Human Rights Violation
Contrary to the headline it's not about wholesale male circumcision but about children and their rights: "The Parliamentary Assembly is particularly worried about a category of violation of the physical integrity of children, which supporters of the procedures tend to present as beneficial to the children themselves despite clear evidence to the contrary. This includes, amongst others, female genital mutilation, the circumcision of young boys for religious reasons, early childhood medical interventions in the case of intersexual children and the submission to or coercion of children into piercings, tattoos or plastic surgery." (resolution available here: Children’s right to physical integrity)

 

[Darth Rotor]

For example, animal welfare legislations in Nordic countries require that animals are slaughtered without undue stress, pain or suffering, and that the animal must be appropriately stunned or killed before bleeding. This means that some methods of slaughtering related to religious rituals are not possible to perform legally. It also means that person's religious beliefs are not a legal reason to cause undue pain or suffering to animals in Nordic countries.

Yet it does not mean that such religions or having such belief system would be illegal. For example a devil worshipper can freely believe in a dark fairy but act of torturing animals to death is illegal even if it was done as a ritual belonging to that religion.
---snip---

Thank you for putting the E into JREF for me. Nice post.

 

[Peter May]

Evidence?

Evidence

Evidence?


I think the existence of the debate that spawned this thread demonstrated you are wrong.

Not true.

Evidence?

This I actually agree with.


Why?

I’m sure if you read my post again, you will find my comments are specific to Female Genital Mutilation, not the resolution concerning underage boys in the Nordic countries.
Female Genital Mutilation is illegal in Sweden.

Google translation of an article by the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare

Read the full article here,

http://www.socialstyrelsen.se/valdsochbrottsrelateradefragor/kvinnligkonsstympning/forekomst

Concerning where the groups come from, my initial reaction was to want to write, gimme a break, but this is, after all, the James Randi Educational Foundation, so……....

Female circumcision in Sweden

“Of the women in Sweden who were born in countries where FGM occurs or has at least one parent from there are the largest groups from Somalia, Egypt, Ethiopia, Eritrea and The Gambia. Of 28 000 women are about 12,000 girls under 18 years, 5000 is less than 7 years (SCB, 2004).

The risk of a girl living in Sweden are subjected to genital mutilation is likely to increase during the summer months, when many choose to travel to the home country. But it is also common for parents genital mutilated their daughters even before they move to a country with no tradition”.

To be sure, the African nations mentioned here are not alone in this obscene practice, others are, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Pakistan, India, et al, but they do not represent the largest groups in Sweden.

As to how much the subject is discussed, it’s a difficult question to answer with numbers, I have though lived here for 40 years and I do get the drift.
.

 

[rustypouch]

Dear Rat:

Nope.

Dear rustypouch:

Are your attitudes, beliefs, opinions and inflexible principles more important than the people you are talking to? You don't owe me an answer, but I ask you to consider that answer in your own mind at your leisure.

I find that people talk AT people more than TO them these days, particularly on the internet. I have certainly been guilty of that my own self on more than one occasion.

Fair question. I figure it's the combination of a touchy subject, as well as the nature of a semi-anonymous forum with an audience.

Why, I ask you, are you that concerned with someone else's dicck?

I'm concerned with any unneeded surgery performed on someone without consent. Would you ask the same question of someone opposed to FGM, foot binding, breast ironing, cranial binding, etc.?

Assuming that it is only cultural is, IMO, a mistake. Please go back and read how it went down for me, my brothers, and my son.

It isn't all cultural. There are often doctors and other health professionals involved in this. (For better or for worse).

For you, I thought it was just someone that people did, expected by the culture.

 

[Peter May]

Furthermore, I am surprised and disgusted by some of the comments on this thread, could we please have a big "NO" to genital mutilation, which ever God this might serve, I hope this is not misunderstood to be a personal attack! But it could be.
Which brings to mind this, if God’s do not exist, have they chopped of all those bits for naught? Probably, almost certainly.

 

[rustypouch]

For the record, I don't think anyone here has attacked me personally. I did have my two sons circumsised in the Jewish tradition. While I thank Darth Rotor for his passionate defense, I don't feel I've been personally disrespected. I would thank everyone to keep the conversation philosophical and not personal, though.

Religious reasons are not specious. They're just reason you don't agree with.


Except that the literature shows that the earlier a circumcision is done, the fewer long-term effects there are. The only study on male pleasure or sexual function included only men who were circumcised as adults - long after the brain had mapped the area of the glans. The so-called "slut study," where women with multiple partners were asked their impressions, was poorly controled at best.

The best medical information appears to be that, while newborns can feel pain, they cannot locate the source of that pain. Nor are they capable of forming memories because their brains simply lack any method of definition or compartmentalization.

My anecdotal experience is that my children cried more from being held down than they did from the cut; the entire circumcision including prayers lasted about ten seconds; and they had stopped crying within two to five minutes of the bris.

All of this having been said, I have seen no compelling medical reason for or against circumcision. I would not recommend circumcision performed in a hospital, nor would I recommend it for general health reasons. I see nothing wrong with religious circumcision.

It goes without saying that the archaic practice of touching one's lips to the penis is no part of any bris I have ever been to; is not commanded to appropriately complete the mitzvah; and is opposed by all but just a few of the most insular ultra-orthodox communities (most of which have abandoned the practice entirely).

Thanks for acknowledging that it's not a personal attack.

Although you don't consider religious reasons specious, I have a hard time accepting any reason for esthetic surgery on someone without their consent.

With the minimizing of infants' suffering, one can justify all sorts of things. Same with discounting causing pain if someone can't remember it. Down that way lies terrible things.

I agree, there's no compelling reason for or against. As such, I feel that body autonomy should be the deciding factor.

 

[Peter May]

Fair question. I figure it's the combination of a touchy subject, as well as the nature of a semi-anonymous forum with an audience.



I'm concerned with any unneeded surgery performed on someone without consent. Would you ask the same question of someone opposed to FGM, foot binding, breast ironing, cranial binding, etc.?




For you, I thought it was just someone that people did, expected by the culture.

I figure it's the combination of a touchy subject, as well as the nature of a semi-anonymous forum with an audience.


You have hit the nail on the head, and I agree with you wholeheartedly.

 

[Peter May]

@ Rustypouch


I figure it's the combination of a touchy subject, as well as the nature of a semi-anonymous forum with an audience.




You have hit the nail on the head, and I agree with you wholeheartedly.

 

[Loss Leader]

With the minimizing of infants' suffering, one can justify all sorts of things. Same with discounting causing pain if someone can't remember it. Down that way lies terrible things.

I'm not sure what terrible things lie down that way which could not be distinguished from male circumcision in other ways.

 

[colander]

With the minimizing of infants' suffering, one can justify all sorts of things. Same with discounting causing pain if someone can't remember it. Down that way lies terrible things.

Jews have been doing infant circumcision on their sons for 6,000 years and so far things have been going pretty okay by us. When exactly do you expect those "terrible things" to start happening? Will we have time for a quick bathroom break beforehand, do you think? It's hot out and we've been drinking iced tea all day.

I agree, there's no compelling reason for or against.

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? Lots of countries don't have that, and it's never caused them any problems at all!

Nope, cultural majority groups suddenly deciding to unilaterally outlaw long-established and apparently innocuous religious practices that members of an ethnic and religious minority universally regard as crucial to their continuing identity as a people could never lead to anything bad happening, ever. It's win/win, people!

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Jews have been doing infant circumcision on their sons for 6,000 years and so far things have been going pretty okay by us. When exactly do you expect those "terrible things" to start happening? Will we have time for a quick bathroom break beforehand, do you think? It's hot out and we've been drinking iced tea all day.



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? Lots of countries don't have that, and it's never caused them any problems at all!

Nope, cultural majority groups suddenly deciding to unilaterally outlaw long-established and apparently innocuous religious practices that members of an ethnic and religious minority universally regard as crucial to their continuing identity as a people could never lead to anything bad happening, ever. It's win/win, people!

Except I don't think people have a problem with it as an adult, cosmetic body mod. All of the arguments so far have centered around it being done to infants. It is doing it to an infant, before it even has a choice about such things, that I think goes against free exercise of religion. How anyone can claim that permanently marking someone for your own faith and culture is promoting free exercise of any sort is laughable.

And despite all of the protestations to the contrary, I have not seen the penis of any of the Jewish people I have ever met. Yet somehow they could still be culturally Jewish. Shocking.