Nordic countries push for circumcision ban: stand by for howls of ‘anti-Semitism’ and ‘Islamophobia’

48

AT meeting Oslo last week, Nordic ombudsmen for children, paediatricians, and paediatric surgeons agreed a resolution urging their national governments to work for a ban on non-therapeutic circumcision of under-age boys.

According to this report, the children’s ombudsmen from the five Nordic countries – Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, and Iceland – along with the Chair of the Danish Children’s Council and the Children’s spokesperson for Greenland passed a resolution to:

Let boys decide for themselves whether they want to be circumcised.

The ombudsmen concluded that:

Circumcision without a medical indication on a person unable to provide informed consent conflicts with basic principles of medical ethics.

Written By: Barry Duke
continue to source article at freethinker.co.uk

48 COMMENTS

  1. About time, though political action seems unlikely.

    Others are less excited, saying the research is controversial.

    Interracial marriage was “controversial” too. In other words, something being controversial is utterly irrelevant.

  2. The Scandinavian countries lead on many social welfare issues (while in the USA the GOP is fighting against Obama’s health-care legislation).

    There are other cultural features which illustrate this.

    Sweden ranked first for treatment of elderly in UN report – http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-24346962

    Sweden is the best place in the world to be old and Afghanistan the worst, according to a UN-backed global study.

    The Global AgeWatch Index examined the quality of life of the elderly in 91 nations. Norway and Germany made up the top spots, with the UK in 13th place.

    Elderly care: How countries rank

    • Sweden, Norway and Germany headed the list
    • The UK was rated 13th, one place behind Ireland
    • The other nations in the top 10 were the Netherlands, Canada, Switzerland, New Zealand, USA, Iceland and Japan
    • Afghanistan, Tanzania and Pakistan ranked lowest

    Some large fast-developing countries fared worse than others, with Russia (78), India (73) and Turkey (70) receiving a low rank, while Brazil (31) and China (35) were regarded more favourably by the researchers.

    There seems to be an ” intensity of religion to welfare ratio” involved.

  3. There is some interesting information on the link here!

    Said one of the researchers, Associate Professor Morten Frisch from Danish research enterprise SSI:

    Circumcised men are three times as likely to experience a frequent inability to reach an orgasm … Previous studies into male circumcision have looked at the effects it has on the men. But scientists have never really studied the effects this has on the women’s sex lives.

    It appears that women with circumcised men are twice as likely to be sexually frustrated. They experience a three-fold risk of frequent difficulties in achieving orgasm, and an eight-fold risk of feeling pain during intercourse – also known as dyspareunia.

    According to Frisch, the study has received a great deal of international attention. For example, he has been contacted by politicians in California who are very pleased with the results of the study because they wanted to ban circumcision in their federal state.

    There is also an interesting comment on the link, on Victorian-age mistaken notions, which led to the the origins of the belief in a need for the widespread practise of circumcision in the US.

  4. A welcome development but there will definitely be the howls of protest from people like Shmuley Boteach and the like including his rather spurious claim that circumcision is proven to be the best way to prevent the transmission of AIDS.

    • In reply to #9 by Vorlund:

      A welcome development but there will definitely be the howls of protest from people like Shmuley Boteach and the like including his rather spurious claim that circumcision is proven to be the best way to prevent the transmission of AIDS.

      The uncircumcised penis is more vulnerable to all STDs. However, it is not as though circumcisions are being banned, merely postponed and requiring consent. On the other hand, you will much more likely have erectile dysfunction problems in your later years if you are circumcised. One of the justifications for infantile circumcision was to reduce sexual sensitivitivity and hence self pollution.

      Being circumcised is not suffcient to protect you from HIV. I was circumcised as an infant and I have HIV.

    • In reply to #9 by Vorlund:

      A welcome development but there will definitely be the howls of protest from people like Shmuley Boteach and the like including his rather spurious claim that circumcision is proven to be the best way to prevent the transmission of AIDS.

      Fidelity to a partner works too.

      • In reply to #35 by Stevehill:

        In reply to #9 by Vorlund:

        A welcome development but there will definitely be the howls of protest from people like Shmuley Boteach and the like including his rather spurious claim that circumcision is proven to be the best way to prevent the transmission of AIDS.

        Fidelity to a partner works too.

        Yes. As does putting an aspirin between one’s knees, or so I’ve heard. Although that might just be for pregnancy.

  5. We have the laws to defeat this practice, at least in the UK, where thousands of helpless little girls are routinely forced to submit to the cultish demands of stone-age savagery as they suffer the bloody slashing and hacking removal of their clitoris.

    The victims go on to a life of reduced or zero sexual fulfillment, perhaps even handing out similar treatment to later generations of girls. All done with complete impunity, as we have yet to see a prosecution for this continuing everyday atrocity.

    Again, it’s the power of religion to make good people do evil things. And to neutralize any opposition to those deeds. Of course, to protest is ‘Islamophobic’. And ‘racist’.

    Are we really that easily intimidated and useless?

    • In reply to #10 by inquisador:

      We have the laws to defeat this practice, at least in the UK, where thousands of helpless little girls are routinely forced to submit to the cultish demands of stone-age savagery……………….

      But to date those laws haven’t been fired in anger and still thousands of young girls are at risk. What does that tell you about the law itself or the law keepers? Honestly? law enforcement in this country can spend hundreds of hours watching and shaking down addicts for a few crumbs of dope and a slap on the wrist but can’t get enough evidence to prosecute a single case of ‘surgical’ assault on a non consenting child. Whose looking the other way and why?

      • In reply to #17 by Vorlund:

        In reply to #10 by inquisador:

        We have the laws to defeat this practice, at least in the UK, where thousands of helpless little girls are routinely forced to submit to the cultish demands of stone-age savagery……………….

        But to date those laws haven’t been fired in anger and still thousand…

        The reason usually given for the lack of prosecutions is the difficulty in persuading victims to give testimony in court against members of their own family and community..

        Sadly all too understandable. Who would want to earn the wrath and vengeance of the neighbourhood by seeming to turn ‘traitor’?

        I don’t know the answer to this.

  6. How can these parents allow their kids to have this mutilation done to them and stand by watching their kids agony – all in the name of a god….cultural practice ? hygiene ? – its just not proven and so not justified……but it explains why these people can hate others so much and cause suffering…they can withhold empathy even with their own children….duped into believing their religion and god demands it……when really its a test of your utter stupidity and devotion to the barbaric words of your false god….and to see how far you will go against your own protection instinct…that should be kicking in when someone ….even its father… tries to mutilate your child…..
    Non religious people have to protect all children because their religious parents wont…..sad state of affairs…

    • In reply to #15 by This Is Not A Meme:

      Meanwhile in the US, Jews fight for their right to suck baby penises, even though it results in herpes deaths.

      From the Article: Cohn is also the chairman of the American Board of Ritual Circumcision.

      That has to be the weirdest goddamn thing I’ve read all month.

      Mike

  7. Howls of ‘anti-Semitism’ and ‘Islamophobia’ by the bearded boneheads of bronze age and medieval myth based barbarism have
    already managed to terrorize the German parliament into prostrating themselves post-haste to Mecca and Jerusalem (a prostration German politicians automatically default to anyway for reasons historical and political). Voting into law by 434 to 100 votes granting parents the right to authorize circumcision by a trained practitioner.

    This came as a reaction to a Cologne court ruling circumcision on any other than medically justified grounds as grievous bodily harm, and thus illegal. A ruling that clearly would have most closely tracked reality, reason and ethics.

    It will be interesting how this develops. I predict this battle will not be won with a single legal effort or two. It will have to be killed by a thousands cuts. Pun, sadly, intended.

  8. While generally agreeing with the article and the comments here, there is another issue that perhaps some of you could clarify?
    I watched a BBC documentary the other day (sorry, can’t remember the title) part of which showed a valley in central Africa on one side of which was a village massively affected by AIDS and a village on the other side Not. The explanation was that, in the “AIDS” village all the males were uncircumcised while in the other they were.

    The documentary stated that after research, tests, and a pilot that circumcision was arguably a valid defence against AIDS. This would seem to be a vindication of the “medical indication” referred to in the article.

    I’d be interested to read any expert comments here as to the efficacy of circumcision in AIDS (and other) conditions?

    • In reply to #21 by Philoctetes:

      While generally agreeing with the article and the comments here, there is another issue that perhaps some of you could clarify?
      I watched a BBC documentary the other day (sorry, can’t remember the title) part of which showed a valley in central Africa on one side of which was a village massively affected by AIDS and a village on the other side Not. The explanation was that, in the “AIDS” village all the males were uncircumcised while in the other they were.

      There is an ocean on planet earth on one side of which there is group of countries collectively named Europe with a population of about 500 million with less than 10% of men circumcised. At the end of 2011 it was estimated that around 900,000 people were living with HIV in Western and Central Europe.

      On the other side of that ocean there is a country named the United States. On a population of about 305 million with about 75% of men circumcised UNAIDS estimates that there were a total of about 1,200,000 people living there with HIV as of 2009. .

      I’ll be charitable and call it a wash to account for possible statistical error. And add, for those not getting the point, that those “studies” claiming an advantage for circumcision regarding aids prevention have been discredited both on methodology and being agenda driven.

    • In reply to #21 by Philoctetes:

      …The documentary stated that after research, tests, and a pilot that circumcision was arguably a valid defence against AIDS. This would seem to be a vindication of the “medical indication” referred to in the article.

      I’d be interested to read any expert comments here as to the efficacy of circumcision in AIDS (and other) conditions?

      From the Wikipedia article on circumcision:

      A 2009 Cochrane meta-analysis of studies done on sexually active men in Africa found that circumcision reduces the infection rate of HIV among heterosexual men by 38–66% over a period of 24 months. The WHO recommends considering circumcision as part of a comprehensive HIV program in areas with high endemic rates of HIV, such as sub-Saharan Africa, where studies have concluded it is cost-effective against HIV…

      • In reply to #27 by Katy Cordeth:

        From the Wikipedia article on circumcision:

        A 2009 Cochrane meta-analysis of studies done on sexually active men in Africa found that circumcision reduces the infection rate of HIV among heterosexual men by 38–66% over a period of 24 months. The WHO recommends considering circumcision as part of a comprehensive HIV program in areas with high endemic rates of HIV, such as sub-Saharan Africa, where studies have concluded it is cost-effective against HIV…


        I seriously doubt that these “circumcision prevents STD’s” studies’ had a control group for those who consistently DID NOT wear condoms. (insane risk!). So I highly doubt that the 38%-66% chance was purely achieved on the merit of circumcision.

        From wiki article on Preventing HIV/AIDS
        Consistent condom use reduces the risk of heterosexual HIV transmission by approximately 80% over the long-term.[5] Where one partner of a couple is infected, consistent condom use results in rates of HIV infection for the uninfected person of below 1% per year.

        Katy Cordeth, you had made belittling comments on male circumcision issues in a past topic, example from, FGM on rise in US

        And the lack of a fiveskin significantly reduces sexual pleasure in the male, which makes him less likely to go up and over like a pan of milk, as I believe the expression goes; which is nice for us girls.

        I didn’t realise this debate was still going on. Comparing male circumcision to female circumcision is like saying a haircut is the same thing as being scalped.

        You made such claims in the past while being utterly ignorant of the fact that FGM is practiced in multiple forms,
        one of which only happens to remove the clitoral hood, much akin to removing the foreskin.
        So I hope that you no longer think in such ways.

        As for the Nordic politicians, I hope they bravely move forward and ban this practice with as much ease and confidence as they’ve
        had when banning FGM. Do not give these freaks the slightest hint of an apologetic tone because they will whine and do everything
        they can to exploit it in their favour.

        • In reply to #30 by Terra Watt:

          In reply to #27 by Katy Cordeth:

          I seriously doubt that these “circumcision prevents STD’s” studies’ had a control group for those who consistently DID NOT wear condoms. (insane risk!).

          You’d be surprised. Africa is pretty fucked up. You can find such subjects anywhere though, and they are needed for all such research. There is a demographic of gay male prostitute IV drug users who always share needles and never wear condoms, in San Francisco. Sometimes even their infection rates drop and this is insightful.

          As far as circ goes, uncircuncised males should know of the increased risk. There is also very strong logic behind the claim. I’m totally against circumcision, but I concede on this point. If I were a father in Africa, I would barbarically mutilate my sons’ genitals.

          • In reply to #31 by This Is Not A Meme:

            In reply to #30 by Terra Watt:

            In reply to #27 by Katy Cordeth:

            I seriously doubt that these “circumcision prevents STD’s” studies’ had a control group for those who consistently DID NOT wear condoms. (insane risk!).

            As far as circ goes, uncircuncised males should know of the increased risk. There is also very strong logic behind the claim. I’m totally against circumcision, but I concede on this point. If I were a father in Africa, I would barbarically mutilate my sons’ genitals.

            A reminder that religion is not the sole bailiwick of ignorance.

        • In reply to #30 by Terra Watt:

          In reply to #27 by Katy Cordeth:

          Katy Cordeth, you had made belittling comments on male circumcision issues in a past topic, example from, FGM on rise in US

          And the lack of a fiveskin significantly reduces sexual pleasure in the male, which makes him less likely to go up and over like a pan of milk, as I believe the expression goes; which is nice for us girls.

          I didn’t realise this debate was still going on. Comparing male circumcision to female circumcision is like saying a haircut is the same thing as being scalped.

          You made such claims in the past while being utterly ignorant of the fact that FGM is practiced in multiple forms, one of which only happens to remove the clitoral hood, much akin to removing the foreskin. So I hope that you no longer think in such ways.
          ..

          One of the practical aspects of cottoning on to a particular commenter’s modus operandi -in this case repeated and predictable instances of arguments from ignorance, is that one can forgo reading them altogether in confidence that not much will be missed.

  9. My daughter is a midwife at a maternity hospital where MGM is carried out if a parent or parents request it. My daughter is of the opinion that parents who request circumcision for their baby boys should be forced to be present when carried out.

    It’s about time that the same number of voices heard against Female Genital Mutilation are heard against Male Genital Mutilation.

  10. Yes, religious people won’t like this. What they like is to brand their own like some cattle, to mark property. It can work even better than scarves and kippas in that sense, and is hardly reversible. To those who think it’s not a big deal, I’ll ask if they would be pleased if pierced or tattooed against their will.

  11. A worldwide ban on genital mutilation simply cannot happen fast enough. Circumcision is a proceducer that evolved out of religion and only exists in a pseudo-secular form because of modern religiosity. It’s absolute bullshit. It’s infant torture. The fact that it still exists in our society is simply insane.

    Here is a YouTube clip of a circumcision.

    There is plenty of objective information out there explaining why circumcision is unneeded. Please investigate it. Please don’t do this to your kids.

    • In reply to #28 by vbaculum:

      A worldwide ban on genital mutilation simply cannot happen fast enough. Circumcision is a proceducer that evolved out of religion and only exists in a pseudo-secular form because of modern religiosity. It’s absolute bullshit. It’s infant torture. The fact that it still exists in our society is simply insane.

      Aha, another vile cultural imperialist riding roughshod over the religious sensibilities of others, depriving them of their right of freedom to worship as they please.

  12. Go Scandinavia! Parents who allow children to be permanently mutilated for no valid medical reason – and I am one of those children – are, simply, guilty of child abuse. There are no excuses.

  13. In reply to #30 by Terra Watt:

    In reply to #27 by Katy Cordeth:

    From the Wikipedia article on circumcision:

    A 2009 Cochrane meta-analysis of studies done on sexually active men in Africa found that circumcision reduces the infection rate of HIV among heterosexual men by 38–66% over a period of 24 months. The WHO recommends considering circumcision as part of a comprehensive HIV program in areas with high endemic rates of HIV, such as sub-Saharan Africa, where studies have concluded it is cost-effective against HIV…

    I seriously doubt that these “circumcision prevents STD’s” studies’ had a control group for those who consistently DID NOT wear condoms. (insane risk!). So I highly doubt that the 38%-66% chance was purely achieved on the merit of circumcision.

    Doubt all you want, but unless you have some evidence that the meta-analysis of the many studies done on sexually active African men didn’t factor in condom use, I’m inclined to dismiss your doubts. It seems unlikely that the WHO – that’s the World Health Organisation by the way, not the British rock band – would have made the recommendation they did without taking all information into account. They’re going to look pretty silly if a few years from now it emerges that many of the circumcised men who didn’t have the HIV virus were habitual condom users but nobody had thought to ask them.

    There wouldn’t have been a ‘control group’ either. Unless there’s some sort of Tuskegee-like experiment going on over there involving giving one group of men condoms, circumcising another group and leaving the third alone, and introducing them all to another group of HIV-infected people.

    Katy Cordeth, you had made belittling comments on male circumcision issues in a past topic, example from, FGM on rise in US

    And the lack of a fiveskin significantly reduces sexual pleasure in the male, which makes him less likely to go up and over like a pan of milk, as I believe the expression goes; which is nice for us girls.

    I didn’t realise this debate was still going on. Comparing male circumcision to female circumcision is like saying a haircut is the same thing as being scalped.

    (I fixed the link for you.)

    You made such claims in the past while being utterly ignorant of the fact that FGM is practiced in multiple forms, one of which only happens to remove the clitoral hood, much akin to removing the foreskin. So I hope that you no longer think in such ways.

    No, I was always aware that female genital mutilation is practiced in many forms, from the less severe removal of the preputium clitoridis to a complete clitoridectomy and infibulation.

    The point I and others were trying to make on that thread was that modern male circumcision if it’s performed correctly corresponds only to the mildest form of FGM and it’s a mistake to conflate it with all FGM, which is what some users were doing.

    For what it’s worth, I regret the pan of milk joke. It was crass and I apologize for it.

    As for the Nordic politicians, I hope they bravely move forward and ban this practice with as much ease and confidence as they’ve had when banning FGM. Do not give these freaks the slightest hint of an apologetic tone because they will whine and do everything they can to exploit it in their favour.

    And if you could wave a magic wand and end the practice in Africa?

  14. In reply to #38 by HellFireFuel:

    The HIV virus will live longer in the warm damp environment under the foreskin.

    There is a simple cure for this – Washing.

    Most African men don’t have access to clean water.

    It’s not just that the HIV virus will survive for longer, it’s the fact that the underside of the foreskin is permeable.

    From Circumcision: To Snip or Not to Snip?:

    Why removing the foreskin can help prevent some sexually transmitted diseases is still not certain, but is probably due to the fact that the inner foreskin is thinner and more permeable than the outer skin of both the foreskin and the penis itself. In addition, the inner foreskin’s relative fragility means men may get small cuts or abrasions there, which would increase the chances of blood-to-blood transfer of diseases.

  15. My dad’s side of the family is Jewish, albeit not particularly religious. My brother was circumcised but for the purported health benefits (obviously now those benefits are being challenged), not for religious reasons, and it was done in a medical setting. The guys on my mom’s side of the family (not Jewish) were circumcised for the same reason and in medical settings.

    However, I recall at age 7 watching a video of my baby cousin on my dad’s side of the family being circumcised. This was not a medical circumcision but a religious one. Once again, this is bizarre because that side of the family isn’t particularly religious (they rarely went to a synagogue and when they did it was a Reformed one). I recall my baby cousin screaming as he was circumcised. It disturbed me and I asked my dad what was going on and he explained it to me. I remember thinking it was pretty strange.

    Why in the world would a non-religious Jewish family– that doesn’t even keep Kosher– want to have their son undergo ritual circumcision, without anesthetic? Again, I don’t believe in circumcision but medical circumcision is certainly the lesser of the two “evils” because at least there’s anesthesia. And why the hell would they videotape it and show it to the extended family?

    • In reply to #40 by InYourFaceNewYorker:

      …Why in the world would a non-religious Jewish family– that doesn’t even keep Kosher– want to have their son undergo ritual circumcision, without anesthetic? Again, I don’t believe in circumcision but medical circumcision is certainly the lesser of the two “evils” because at least there’s anesthesia. And why the hell would they videotape it and show it to the extended family?

      @

  16. Risk for HIV Infection:

    “Vaginal intercourse – infected men to uninfected women:
    There are so many variables that impact risk it is very difficult to place an exact number or give you exact odds. Risk estimates range from 1:1000 to 1:100,000,”

    “Vaginal intercourse – infected women to uninfected men:
    Studies seem to confirm that the risk is quite low, much lower than male to female transmission.”

    Risk of developing breast cancer: 1:8

    Why are we not recommending and moms not clamoring for preventative mastectomies of their daughters? Yes, breast milk is the ideal infant nutrition but weighed against the risk of potentially fatal cancer, formula will just have to do. And breasts, let’s face it, other than that don’t have much useful function….Oh, wait…

  17. I think it’s easy to understand why religious people would favor GM but can someone explain to me why some types of feminists favor MGM? I thought feminists were the “good guys”. Color me confused.

    • In reply to #43 by debaser71:

      I think it’s easy to understand why religious people would favor GM but can someone explain to me why some types of feminists favor MGM? I thought feminists were the “good guys”. Color me confused.

      I’ve never known a feminist who was in favor of it. None of my feminist friends are and I don’t recall any public statements by feminist leaders in favor of it. Who exactly are you talking about?

  18. One thing I’ve never understood about the people who advocate for circumcision based on health reasons: why does it have to be done when the boy is a baby? Are you really concerned that your 4 year old might have unprotected sex? If it’s for health reasons, wait until the child is old enough to form an opinion and then let him make up his own mind. Of course somehow I doubt that many 17 year old boys are going to be jumping at the chance to lop off a bit of their penis.

Leave a Reply