Norway's Progress Party calls for ban on circumcision for boys
jpost.com
jpost.com
And then there are disgusting things like this [2]:
> In a practice that takes place during a ceremony known as the bris, a circumcision practitioner, or mohel, removes the foreskin from the baby's penis, and with his mouth sucks the blood from the incision to cleanse the wound.
[1] Just like anything, there are exceptions. Some people have their foreskin removed because it has an infection or something similar. That shouldn't be applied to all foreskins, and even so, most of that is preventable with good hygiene.
[2] http://abcnews.go.com/Health/baby-dies-herpes-virus-ritual-c...
I can't believe anyone would allow someone to knife off part of their child's genitals (even with anesthesia).
Maybe if the procedure involved branding the Playboy logo into the genitalia (with anesthesia) it would be easier for people to see how barbarous it is.
This is actually not true. It's normal for the foreskin to remain attached in young children. This is entirely normal and acts as a powerful disease protection mechanism. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0079408/
I'm circumcised, as are my boys. I assumed it was for sound medical reasons. When I found out it wasn't, I was, and I am, furious.
To address some of the other points here, I can only give a anecdotal example from my own experience. My wife and I decided to have our son circumcised and not because of religious reasons, but rather because of those listed in the referenced article, among others--and after much condsideration. At the end of the day we decided that the benefits outweighed the risks.
As far as who should have the choice of this procedure, ideally it would be the individual on whom the procedure is being performed. However, the procedure and pain as an adult would certainly be more memorable. My parents made the choice to circumcise me when I was an infant--I'm glad they did because I don't remember any associated pain or discomfort.
I think that there should be more discourse over this parental choice. If parents are making these decisions for mere aesthetic or ritualistic reasons then that is a problem. However, labeling circumcision as 'genital mutilation' across the board is not accurate. There are advantages and disadvantages that should be weighed carefully.
[1] http://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/circumcision/basi...
You're probably right. That's why it was a weighted decision based on the information available.
Your other points do not match the same model we used to make our decision. Flipping someone off or giving the middle finger is a choice that one can make, and later apologize for and move on. Penile cancer or many STDs do not fall into that category.
I'm surprised that this topic is even on HN, and even more so by the presumptive and emotional responses that clearly didn't read the post in its entirety. So, I don't think this is a conversation I will engage in any further.
How do you rationalize changing your son's sexual function without his consent and despite the fact that it is possible to do the same procedure later in life, with zero mental and very little physical immediate trauma?
To what extent did you go to educate yourself on that matter, given you have no personal experience?
For the other, in penetration it both acts as liquid-less lubrication by allowing the penis to move freely inside it even if the vagina isn't very wet; and it also increases the range of sensations by feeling different when the movement is with the glans still inside the foreskin, and when it's deeper in and outside the foreskin. The "pseudo lube" aspect is also appreciated by women in my experience.
E: I see some people down-voted this and i am earnestly puzzled. I believe i have described only physical facts. Is this post too "frank" for a public forum, or did i get something wrong?
And yeah, i can entirely see how different people might not give a damn about any of this. Some might even benefit. Men who're not very sensitive would have more fun without the foreskin and the direct stimulation and might not even notice the loss of the nerves in the foreskin, men with very active glands might not care about the difference in lubrication, women whose glands are naturally more productive might not care which type of penis their partner has.
Nevertheless, the sexual function is changed. There are things a circumcised penis can do better. There's also things an uncircumcised one can do better. I'm not saying either of them is better than someone else's, just different. Changed.
Edit: can't reply, but I think you're being uncharitable by saying I'm overreacting to the word "mutilation" because it's technically correct by the dictionary definition. We don't describe people with earrings or tattoos as mutilated unless we intend to insult them or the practice.
That is not what mutilation means though. Like, literally not. Check the dictionary. You saying that just drives the point home that you're mapping a meaning onto it that is not intended by the other side.
Here's a case for two babies getting Herpes in NYC because of this practise.
Are you OK with this?
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/herpes-strikes-nyc-babies-ritua...
There is compelling evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%. Three randomized controlled trials have shown that male circumcision provided by well trained health professionals in properly equipped settings is safe. WHO/UNAIDS recommendations emphasize that male circumcision should be considered an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention in countries and regions with heterosexual epidemics, high HIV and low male circumcision prevalence.
Saying there is evidence is not the same as evidence. AFAIK, this study was debunked because the result was not causal - it was that different class/cultural patterns among the sub-populations of the country were responsible, not the circumcision. But, there was already a massive stream of funding (Bill Gates included) for adult circumcision based on that faulty reasoning, and now it's too late to turn the ship around.
So you'd be cutting the rate from 8 in 10000 acts to 3 in 10000. its something but theres probably more efficient ways.
Perhaps the procedure could be offered to adults as a way to have safer sex without actually having safe sex.
Not that I'm saying you're advocating it; just continuing the train of thought.
Mastectomy or oophorectomy to avoid cancers in infants with BRCA1/2 mutations comes to mind.
This feels like a platitude that overlooks the complexity of the issue. What rights do parents have over their children? Are they allowed to prescribe a religion? Are they allowed to prescribe a culture? Are they allowed to take their children to the hospital if they're sick?
Personally, I don't think male circumcision is that big of a deal, because it has little to no negative impact on a male child. Female circumcision, on the other hand, is different.
Really? Please link a study, published in a respectable publication, that compares physical and subjective sex performance parameters of the two type of men.
[1] https://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-aap/aap-press-room/pages...
In other words don't fucking do it because it is barbaric and evil. If you think it's not, ask an uncircumcised adult to have the procedure done for all the benefits it provides and see how many agree.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/130/3/e756
Which has all the hallmarks of misleading data.
See the comments for more http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/130/3/e756.com...
The former two seem like legit cases to look into, but doesn't necessarily mean the entire study needs to be thrown out. Until then I see no reason not to let parents decide.
It's a valid medical reason for the operation. Not to mention the above mentioned.
Not only do your facts not hold up to a brief Google, but the reputation of the people suggesting this could have made you think twice.
Twice about the possible motivations. And that could have given you again doubts.
And calling it mutilation implies those who have and want to have this engage in mutilation akin to FGM. It's irresponsible.
It is akin to FGM when it's done nonconsensually (which it is, in the vast majority of cases for both sexes). Disclaimer: I understand that FGM is much more sexually debilitating and AFAIK never has a medical need behind it, but victims of circumcision are also being (usually needlessly) deprived of a functional part of their sexual organ.
FGM is evil, plain and simple. MGM/circumcision has interesting points on both sides, and while there might be a stronger argument against it than for, it's not strong enough to be a hill I'd choose to die on. But to each their own, I suppose.
I was referring to Types I-III as described here:
http://www.endfgm.eu/female-genital-mutilation/what-is-fgm/
Those are very clearly wrong, with no redeeming value and cause a great deal of harm to the woman, beyond any subjectivity. Nobody is signing up to have this done to them for aesthetic reasons. Compared to this, circumcision is only low-moderately invasive and damaging. If you are going to argue against circumcision, do so on its own merits, not by comparing it to something far worse.
I suggest you do a little more research on what genital mutilation really means in the 3rd world, circumcision is no worse than some injections by comparison.
There is a very valid medical reason for this - it prevents sexually transmitted diseases [1] - So much so that it is promoted for adult males by health organizations. n the other hand, the foreskin serves absolutely no medical purpose.
Most reputable mohels (specially trained people who conduct the circumcision) will use a tube to suck the blood to prevent any chance of infection.
Also, whether something is mutilation or not is about more than how much it hurts when it's done. In this case a child is deprived of a part of their body that performs a clear biological function.
Please link to the dictionary definition you're using.
From the definition: "make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts" Cutting off the foreskin entirely fulfills that description.
Using the term mutilation when it is most often used in that context is absurd.
Genital mutilation is part of the general trend of subjugating children and depriving them of rights. Just because we've banned child labor in the US does not mean we've gone far enough.
No but the parents who did it may have been.
> subjugated and deprived of rights as children
Those who were mutilated without giving consent were harmed in a way that could be significant. I certainly would not consent to it as an adult.
Nor would I. However, if I could go back in time and retroactively give my parents consent to do it when I wouldn't remember it, then I would.
Parents are allowed to feed their children the way they want, to take their children to spots where they might get a disease, to pass on their own diseases to their children.
Parents are allowed even to pass on their genes, which may contain horrible psychological tendencies, to their children.
Musical tast, political views, habits and values are irreversible? Really?
Passing on genes, well we generally don't want to prevent that, because, contrary to forbidding circumcision, the cure would be worse than the disease.
That's the part when you introduce your values and your judgement and try to make it sound as if everybody agrees.
Their parentland (motherland or fatherland, though I suppose there may be other categories nowadays) should surely not allow them to do so.
Speaking of parentlands, why are they allowed to make major decisions for their childizens on their behalf? Even if some of the childizens approve, surely the others should be free to decide for themselves.
Unfortunately we cannot bring this issue to that parentless entity in charge, who has never had anyone else decide something on its behalf. It may in time decide to look into the matter and inform us of its decision.
Babies are remarkable in their ability to heal and adapt.
Children should be free of mutilation, regardless of their religion.
The best rhetorical approach here is probably to hammer home the fact that, by performing extensive and life-changing cosmetic surgery on a baby, you are violating their rights. This avoids impugning the parents' motives, which they are (for lack of a less abrasive word) aggressively programmed to defend.
Circumcision, for (orthodox) Jews, is one of the most fundamental conditions for identification and belonging to that group. Leaving a Jewish male baby uncircumcised would most likely lead to feelings of alienation and isolation later on in life – feelings which could have significant psychological impact and could largely negate the benefits one gains from strong communal structures.
Regardless of the process's inherent morality, a blanket ban may cause more harm than good. Cultures have dependency trees, like a Jenga tower: remove one block, even one that, in isolation, is a negative, and you risk destabilizing the entire structure and causing significantly more net harm than that single negative you erased.
More generally, I'd propose a corollary to Chesterson's fence [1]: Before you (in righteous external-observer outrage) destroy an element of a culture, make sure you understand what role that element plays, and what harm you may cause with such heavy handed destruction.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton#Chesterton.27...
https://www.google.com/amp/www.newsweek.com/fgm-compromise-n...
That is a nick, not full mutilation.
It is very far from FGM which removes the clitoris etc.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawoodi_Bohra
We have hundreds of years of data on Jewish males and how they fare after this operation at 8 days old, and it is not at all clear that they are medically or psychologically worse off than without it.
The fact that it is considered a requirement in the Jewish religion for membership in the Jewish people plays a major role in the phychological well being of the child and adult, and as the parent comment has said this needs to be considered!
> The fact that it is considered a requirement in the Jewish religion for membership in the Jewish people plays a major role in the phychological well being of the child and adult, and as the parent comment has said this needs to be considered!
And it should be. It should be considered just like stoning is considered, and thrown out as against modern principles (in most places, sadly not all). It should be considered, just like homosexuality should not have you burned at the stake. This is no different.
I recognize that this is not a light decision, but it is a brutal act (with non 0% chances of horrible things going wrong) that has no physiological need.
Now, the nick I leave as a compromise, b/c I do understand that this is a fundamental requirement of the religion as it is followed. This allows for religious practice to be followed with out mutilating the child.
Also, while a nick _may_ work for certain religions, it serves zero purpose for Judaic circumcision, and would actually be forbidden as unnecessary harm.
And just to cut off this objection, the vast majority of female circumcision involves removal of the clitoral hood, which is (mutatis mutandis) anatomically equivalent to removal of the foreskin and has similar effects and risks.
Most FGM is type II
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation
Saying it has similar effects and risks is just handwaving.
And it is largely practiced in Africa, where tribal ritualistic bodily modification has remained a much bigger thing (compared to the rest of the world). Consider women who stretch their lips with disks to attract men etc.
Jewish males can still have their private parts circumcised when they become adult as it was supposed to be the case, a rite of passage for getting into the adult world.
Most of your rebuttal is centered around a "slippery-slope" argument and it is not convincing enough.
As an orthodox Jew, I can tell you that failure to circumcize your son at 8 days old (outside of extenuating circumstances, e.g. medical issues) is one of the worst sins you could commit.
Furthermore, you would be ostracized from the community, and your child will suffer socially, and emotionally.
Once the child turns 13 he is responsible to ensure that he it's circumcised, and considering that he most likely will not have abandoned his religion by 13 he will go through with it. So now there's physical pain as well.
And if a government would ban circumcision, I'd be willing to bet that all Orthodox Jews would leave. And if the government prevented that (which has certainly happened before), then it is well documented that many Jews are ready to give up their lives in order to circumcise their sons.
Update: only my first comment was theological; the rest were socio-physical
> by 13 he will go through with it. So now there's physical pain as well.
1. One example is Ch 4 and 5 of http://www.circumcision.org/cht.htm
Slippery slope argument says that "we shouldn't do X (even though X is inherently okay) because it might lead yet another set of actions – Y – which is a negative". I'm not saying that at all. Banning circumcision will lead to significant identity issues as a direct consequence, not as a result of some other intermediate effect that obtains as a result of the ban.
It was like "Hey boy, you've hit puberty and become a man now. Let's do this small rite of passage and cut that foreskin off your dick so you could join the rest of the tribe of grown up men"
Do Jews really go around checking each other's penises all the time?
2. Marriage: Barring a specific medical reason to not be circumcised, many Jewish women would take issue with an uncircumcised husband.
3. Locker rooms.
But really #1 is the most immediately pressing.
1. There is a subjective morality that says a parent must not make decisions for a child that will affect it in a manner that could possibly be perceived as negative
2. There is a subjective morality that says to follow your religion, and one aspect of the religion is circumcising your son at 8 days old
The people ascribing to the first believe it to be an objective morality. The people ascribing to the second believe it to be an objective morality.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
1. Not giving your child tattoos, piercings or a circumcision.
2. Female genital mutilation.
I may not be Jewish (though I am Christian and circumcised), and I realize my American values do not directly apply in Norway, but freedom of religion is a basic human right.
Devout religious followers would have no choice but to "obey God rather than men", so laws like this proposed ban are simply a veiled authorization of persecution.
Only until it infringes on someone else's rights and freedoms. At that point, it's violence. That's what circumcision is. If you wish to argue that anything should be allowed for any religion, then we have to accept a world that tolerates rape, human sacrifice and mass suicides, just to name a few religious practices that your argument would allow. But if we had that kind of religious freedom, at least we'd be able to take whatever drugs we all wanted to forget about all the stupidity going on around us in the name of religious freedom. Let's face it, religious freedom is a thinly veiled argument for allowing people to do fucked up shit that would otherwise be unacceptable justifying those actions. Since religion can justify any and all horrible human actions, it's basically an argument for allowing one to do whatever one wants without fear of retribution by appealing to unverifiable nonsense.
Leviticus 20:27 says it's OK to stone mediums to death - should this be lawful too, or would it also be persecution?
You can take freedom of religion too far - the books of the bible were written rather a long time ago. Judaism has been able to modernise regarding such things as being stoned to death for merely breaking Sabbath, so maybe it needs to modernise a bit more regarding mutilating children?
This law is not incompatible with freedom of religion.
You can talk about how harmful it is, but it definitely causes harm.
Any non-circumcised male could choose to undergo the process as adults, I don't hear of many takers.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/MG_Pang/publication/664...
Serious question: how far should that be allowed to go? What if someone believes cutting off their child's earlobe is best for their child (for the sake of an example)?
As I see it, religious freedom does not mean you get to do whatever you want with no comeback.
While I find the idea of cutting off the earlobe repulsive, I don't think it sufficiently crosses the line of harm. For all I know this could be a legitimate practice by some obscure tribe.
Finally, no one says religious freedom means you can do whatever the hell you want without any repercussions. That's a gross mischaracterization of it.
Stockholm syndrome is very likely in those cases.
But your comparison is flawed, because pierced ear holes, if not filled, will easily heal over time, while the circumcision is non-reversible (foreskin will never grow back).
The principle is the same. The hospital should not be doing so much as trimming a fingernail of any patient incapable of giving informed consent, in the absence of a true medical necessity.
In the case of the ear-piercings, it is likely that the local cultural landscape is such that if the procedure is not performed in a sterile and controlled environment, by professional medical personnel, at the hospital, it would be done by amateurs at home. The medical necessity there may be the significant probability of botched, infected piercings. As a public health strategy, it isn't bad. Do the piercings at the hospital for two generations, and then ramp up the out-of-pocket cost for it, while vilifying it with a PR campaign.
Babies should still not be having their ears pierced, though. That is certainly of lesser severity than cutting off and throwing away more significant bits of the baby, leaving a permanent, visible scar there, but it is on the same spectrum. You are performing unnecessary procedures on a patient that cannot give consent.
Do you have a child? Would you not trim their fingernails?
Obviously you would, because you consent on their behalf. Same deal with the piercing; the Hospital obviously doesn't do it without the parents' consent.