What are your thoughts about the proposal in Denmark regarding outlawing male circumcision? (Please read details.)
Here is one of many articles on the subject. Almost 75% of Danish citizens feel that this practice should be banned in their country.
If you lived in Denmark, or this topic came up in your country, how would you respond in this poll and why?
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
41 Answers
Personally, I’m not a fan of circumcision. But sometimes it’s a religious matter. I don’t think it’s the government’s place to mess with that.
@fluthernutter: “But sometimes it’s a religious matter. I don’t think it’s the government’s place to mess with that.”
If we were discussing female circumcision, would that change anything? Would you still feel it were simply a religious matter that the state should stay out of?
@hominid The same thought crossed my mind. As someone who is not male, not Jewish and not Muslim and not living in Denmark, it is virtually impossible to weigh in on this debate. Bring up the topic of female circumcision, and yes, I will give my opinion. Not to derail my question, but is female circumcision tied to a religious practice or a cultural one?
@Pied_Pfeffer Female circumcision, which is not circumcision but genital mutilation, is a patriarchal practice. It has no long standing cultural meaning, and it is religious only from patriarchal strictures that women should have no pleasure.
I’m not going to comment on why it might get banned in Denmark, but I’m all for banning it in general. Religious or not, I don’t think it’s okay. Although female genital mutilation is much more horrifying in general, that doesn’t make male circumcision okay, either.
@hominid As I wrote that, I figured someone would bring up FGM. Yes, it changes my mind when religious principles violate human rights. While I don’t believe in male circumcision, I wouldn’t necessarily consider it a violation of human rights.
Read a bit about this issue in Denmark.
Erik Ullenhag, Sweden’s minister for integration, said that existing rules on circumcision would not be changed. “I have never met any adult man who experienced circumcision as an assault,” Ullenhag said, according to JTA. “The procedure is not very intensive and parents have the right to raise their children according to their faith and tradition.
While the ban is supported by nationalist anti-immigration parties.
I think @ibstubro hit the nail on the head.
Male circumcision should stop because people are better-informed. Not because of anti-Semitic politics.
Genital mutilation is wrong because it involves permanently damaging/removing a part of the body without/against that person’s consent. The degree/severity of the damage isn’t really the factor that makes it wrong, ultimately it’s the fact that it’s not consented to. I have no problem with circumcision (male or female) as long as that decision is arrived at by the person giving informed consent. This trumps religion.
Infants cannot give informed consent, and since this is a “cosmetic” procedure and not one to treat any medical condition or disorder, consent of the legal guardians aren’t sufficient to overrule the informed consent.
Yes and no. The degree of severity isn’t the factor that makes it wrong. But there are degrees of wrong.
Infants cannot give informed consent. In theory, they should wait until they are old enough to give their consent. But adult circumcision is much more complicated and much more painful than having it done as an infant.
It’s a funny world we live in when one of the first things an new-born experiences is to be mutilated by an adult on the grounds of religious belief.
“Welcome to life, little one. Now—we’ll just lop off a bit a bit of your penis.”
@fluthernutter: “But adult circumcision is much more complicated and much more painful than having it done as an infant.”
Complications are not as rare as imagined. And even if they were, how consoled should we be that it’s a small percentage? My coworker confessed that his 3 operations to “fix” a botched circumcision were no picnic.
Anyway, my two boys are uncut. If they decide they want to be circumcised they can when they are adults.
@zenvelo And how is male circumcision not genital mutilation? My parents decided without my consent that my dick would look better if they removed part of it. Now I have less feeling there than someone that is uncircumcised but hey it “looks better” -_ -
@hominid There are also complications with vaccinations as well. But as a parent, we weigh the benefits and the risks. As someone who is not religious, it is much too easy to dismiss the benefits of someone wanting to uphold their thousand year old tenant with their God. Male circumcision is not always just a “cosmetic” procedure.
Before anyone plays the is-it-okay-if-their-God-wants-to-practice-FGM-or-cut-off-the-tips-of-their-fingers-is-that-okay card, let me ask you if you have actually attended a Jewish brit milah?
Before I attended one, I thought it was barbaric and creepy. I mean, seriously? A roomful of adults that gather to chop of a part of an infant’s penis in the name of some imaginary God? It’s not even done in a sterile environment!
I was surprised to learn that most mohels are medically-licensed. Also, they wait until the 8th day to perform the bris milah. That is a world of difference. Being torn from your mother’s womb (birth) is already traumatizing. Then you are torn away from her again to be circumcised (in hospital circumcisions). At over a week old, the infant at the bris milah was surrounded by loved ones. There was a sharp cry of pain and then the infant was suckled at their mother’s breast. That was it. No anesthesia. I’ve heard babies crying longer over getting shots or their ears pierced.
I understand that this is my limited experience. But the only person I know who feels traumatized by their circumcision had it done in their teens. I know a few male friends who wonder if their sexual experience would have been more intense if they were uncircumcised. None of them were circumcised for religious reasons. None of them felt that they were assaulted.
My boy is uncut. If he decides that he wants to be circumcised, he can when he’s an adult. My daughter has unpierced ears. If she decides that she wants to have pierced ears, she can when she’s older.
I really wish that men who compare female genital mutilation to circumcision would just stop. Seriously, just stop. It’s not in the same ballpark. At all.
And I’m anti-circumcision, for the record.
@dappled_leaves: “I really wish that men who compare female genital mutilation to circumcision would just stop. Seriously, just stop. It’s not in the same ballpark. At all.”
I understand why you would say this considering the effects of each. The differences are obvious. Nobody is going to claim that a “successful” male circ is comparable to FGM. However, it’s difficult to argue that they’re not in the “same ballpark”. And by difficult, I mean impossible.
Let’s try this. If it were custom for certain countries to remove the right hands of newborn girls, while only removing the right pinky finger on the right hand for boys, it might be easy to brush off the finger removal as so minor in comparison as to be not in the same “ball park”. But the fact remains that in both cases, it is permanent body modification without consent.
I’m familiar with the “not in the same ballpark” argument, and it mostly comes in the form of people complaining that a particular form of suffering or atrocity is so great that bringing it into the conversation is “offensive” or not relevant. This was huge through much of the 90s regarding homosexual rights and comparison to race.
Can we discuss the legitimacy of the practice of male circumcision, and how it is similar in that it is permanent body modification without consent without it becoming a pissing contest?
For the record – nobody is every going to say that FGM is as bad as male circ. But to not bring up FGM in the same discussion is intellectually sloppy at the expense of being sensitive.
@hominid I generally find that we are on the same wavelength with many political and social ideas, but you are dead wrong here.
Whenever I see this topic I am reminded of an old Playboy cartoon depicting Moses on the mount talking to God.
He is saying: “Let me get this straight. You want us to cut the end of our dicks off?!”
And that pretty much sums up my attitude toward it.
I can’t be bothered to get worked up about this issue again. Frankly, if Denmark wants to ban it, then they ban it. I think it’s asinine, but they didn’t ask my opinion.
@hominid said “pissing contest.” Heh. Get it?
Good for them. If my religion required me to go to another person and chop off a part of their body, would it be legal? Why should it be legal for an innocent child?
Anyone has the freedom to practice their religion, as long as it doesn’t impinge upon another’s freedom. That child’s freedom is being impinged upon—no consent; no freedom.
@hominid There is a vast difference between being relevant and being comparable. Yes, you can compare the two. But saying that they are comparable implies that they are equivalent. Which, even you admit, they are not.
The issues of MC have their own merit. There’s no need to piggyback on larger issues.
Regardless of how you feel about MC, no one has addressed the actual effects of a government ban. Besides a big eff you to people who don’t share the same values as you, do you think it will actually affect the number of MCs? It may affect secular MCs. But changes in healthcare procedures and putting a stop to routine MCs would have had the same effect. A government ban is directed at religious MCs.
Do you think a ban on MCs will stop people from practicing an integral part of their religion? No. This will only affect the medical care available and dissuade immigration.
@fluthernutter: “But saying that they are comparable implies that they are equivalent. Which, even you admit, they are not.”
I may have jumped the gun here based on the “just stop” comment. I apologize if I read too much into it. If “just stop” meant “don’t start”, then I have no problem. But to imply that a single person would say that FGM is just like male circ is a problem if it’s used to eliminate FGM (extremely relevant) from the discussion.
^ Yes. Very relevant…in Denmark… until someone can invent some kind of rubber sheath to be worn on the penis during intercourse. Wait…
Somehow, here we are 5500 years later, circumcised and all is well. There is a healthful basis to it as well as the religious one, and it has been adopted by more and more people around the globe.
Plastic cosmetic surgery should be outlawed, though, Renee.
@zenzen and yet somehow I cannot help but wonder could we possibly, 5500 years later, be uncircumcised and find all to be well?
In fact, I will posit an unfounded claim that much of the violence and turmoil, many of the wars and aggressive behaviours we see in the world today have their basis in the suppressed memories of the hurt, anger and outrage felt by males at the savage butchery ravaged upon the body part held most near and dear to them early in their lives. The part that is the foundation of their image of themselves has been desecrated and defiled and the deflated self-worth resulting from the mutilation and the ensuing self-loathing deeply concealed in the male psyche keep them from being able to view themselves as complete, whole males. A part of their manhood has been sliced away and callously tossed in the garbage and thus they spend the rest of their lives trying to prove to others but more importantly to themselves that they are still, truly men by acting out a combative, contentious, threatening manner.
Oh yeah, and the supposed health “benefits” are dubious claims at best. To quote the linked article:
“The claims of “potential benefits”, allegedly provided by medically unnecessary, non-therapeutic circumcision, lack any real support from medical science. United States medical literature, as compared with the medical literature of other nations, is highly biased in favor of male circumcision. The word “potential” means to exist in possibility but not in actuality. The scientific literature that supports such “potential” benefits is written mostly by doctors who were reared in circumcising cultures.”
@osoraro What’s the risk that a male would contract HIV through intercourse before he reached a reasonable age where he could give informed consent (say on his Bar Mitzvah)?
They should not be banning it. The latest peer-reviewed evidence indicates that the health benefits far outweigh the risks. link
In 2007, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) formed a multidisciplinary task force of AAP members and other stakeholders to evaluate the recent evidence on male circumcision and update the Academy’s 1999 recommendations in this area. Evaluation of current evidence indicates that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks and that the procedure’s benefits justify access to this procedure for families who choose it. Specific benefits identified included prevention of urinary tract infections, penile cancer, and transmission of some sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has endorsed this statement.
@dxs brings up a valid point.
Circumcision should be confined to an adult male choice. I believe men of a given religion should be able to have themselves circumcised legally.
Still, “somewhere between 1,000 and 2,000 circumcision are performed in Denmark each year, with Jewish and Muslim boys making up the majority of patients” smacks of discrimination to me.
@ibstubro: “Still, “somewhere between 1,000 and 2,000 circumcision are performed in Denmark each year, with Jewish and Muslim boys making up the majority of patients” smacks of discrimination to me.”
Ok, let’s run with the discrimination idea. Exactly how is this discrimination? If we agree that permanently modifying a person’s body without their consent is immoral, then how would protecting everyone – including Jewish and Muslim boys – be discrimination?
Or are you concerned with the motivation of that is driving this law? Isn’t it possible for something to be right – even if those that are supporting it are doing so for the wrong reasons?
“Specific benefits identified included prevention of urinary tract infections, penile cancer, and transmission of some sexually transmitted infections.”
So….The AAP disbelieves natural selection?
We’re too close on this for me to debate you, @hominid.
I’ll cop to division of church and state. A lot of religion is an excuse for abuse.
Waiting until adulthood might be too late. That is a long time span and during that timespan, kids/teens could fall victim to these health risks that can be prevented. Circumcision is in the same ballpark as vaccination. If you don’t get your kids vaccinated, then by the time they become an adult, it might be too late to give them a chance to choose. It won’t matter anymore because they might have contracted polio already, or some other disease.
I see anti-vaccination and anti-circumcision as irresponsible parenting because as a parent you’re responsible for your kid’s health and that means minimizing health risks with prevention and early treatments.
So your position is that circumcision is ahead of Natural Selection, by 1,000’s of years? @eno
Use natural selection in context.
As the OP of this question, it appears that I was wrong. There is no dramatic push to outlaw circumcision in Denmark; only citizen poll results and the opinions of certain people quoted were published.
I’m struggling to buy into the belief that ‘circumcised is more healthy’. Even if it is true, wouldn’t it it be better to to provide a male with facts about a penis from an early age and letting him to decide if he wanted to be circumcised?
The religious aspect is a whole other conundrum. While I feel that a government should consider and possibly avoid getting involved in creating certain laws that impose on religious beliefs, there also comes a time when specific beliefs should be retired, if proven false.
@ibstubro is so right here. Circumcision is like telling God he fucked up.
Answer this question 
Composing members:
0
