Circumcision divide between Denmark and Israel

[SecularMotion]

In two fresh statements, Danish doctors express deep concern over ritual circumcision of boys. The Danish Society of Family Physicians, whose 3,000 members include two thirds of all general practitioners in Denmark, announced in December that circumcision of underage boys with no proper medical indication is nothing short of mutilation. In a separate statement, the overarching Danish Medical Association recommended earlier this week that non-therapeutic male circumcision should wait until the boy or young man is old enough to provide informed consent. An editorial in Jyllands-Posten, the second largest national newspaper in Denmark, urged the Danish government yesterday to ban ritual circumcision of underage boys, and a result poll among readers of BT, another large national newspaper, showed that 87 percent of well over 26,000 votes were in favour of such a ban.

Not surprisingly, Israel has a quite different view on this matter. In December 2013, an Israeli delegation of Knesset politicians travelled to Paris in an attempt to overturn a visionary, human rights-based resolution that was passed by a comfortable majority of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) on 1 October 2013. The PACE resolution 1952 recommends that member states start moving towards abolishing all kinds of physical assaults on children, including non-therapeutic circumcision of boys and girls. The Council of Europe is the continent’s leading human rights organization with a current total of 47 member states, each of which has signed the European Convention of Human Rights. Israel is neither a member, nor has it signed the European Convention of Human Rights but, since 1957, Israel has held observer status in the Council of Europe.

In the Israeli media, readers have repeatedly been told that the widely-held European stance against ritual circumcision is rooted partly in anti-Semitism, and partly in fear of an expanding Muslim population in Europe. Such anti-religious rhetoric is unjustified. The vast majority of Europe’s opponents of ritual circumcision are religiously tolerant, but consider cutting off an important part of a non-consenting, healthy child’s genitals to be contrary to modern ethics. This view was clearly expressed in September 2013 in a common statement of the ombudsmen and spokespersons for children in Norway, Sweden, Finland, Iceland, Greenland and Denmark. To most Europeans circumcision is an ethically problematic ritual that is intrinsically harmful to children: every child has the right to protection of his or her bodily integrity and the right to explore and enjoy his or her undiminished sexual capacity later in life.

http://cphpost.dk/news/circumcision-divide-between-denmark-and-israel.8440.html

[trotsky]

1. But according to some, genital mutilation is OK if done out of sincere religious belief.

So there you go.

[lostincalifornia]

2. It is not only Jews, Muslims also. This is NOT the same thing as circumcision of girls, and to

include it in the same discussion, s bullshit

Yes, it is anti-semitism, both agains Jews and Muslims

The "vast majority of Eurpoe's opponents are religiously tolerant". History tends to disagree. In fact both Jews and Muslims are looked down upon by the wonderful "religiously tolerant" Europeans

[trotsky]

4. I don't think anyone is arguing it's the SAME.

But it is clearly altering the genitals of a helpless child.

To issue a blanket condemnation of those who oppose male infant circumcision as being anti-semitic, well that's bullshit too.

[Swede Atlanta]

7. I do consider female and male circumcision to be the same......

Female circumcision is wrapped in quasi-religious and often tribal tradition intended to suppress or deny females sexual gratification.

Male circumcision, while not intending to deny sexual gratification, is a modification of the penis as, if you are a religious person, God made it.

I am circumcised so I will never know the difference between sex with and without a foreskin.

This is a decision that must be left to a person with sufficient maturity and legal standing.

It is not anti-semitic to say you are opposed to blanket male circumcision. The fact I disagree with a traditional Jewish (and Muslim) practice does not make me anti-semitic any more than someone who challenges infant baptism but no other Christian practices makes them anti-Christian.

The point is the infant/child lacks the requisite capacity to make a decision. A life-altering modification of sexual genitals is being made without their consent. The boy may be raised Jewish but may leave the tradition and become a Christian, agnostic or even atheist. But he cannot undo the removal of his foreskin.

[trotsky]

10. I agree that both are genital mutilation.

But even in your post you acknowledge a difference: FGM is intended to deny women sexual gratification. That is not the case with male circumcision. While it can affect the feeling, it is not nearly as devastating as FGM.

So I think we are on the same page.

[AtheistCrusader]

43. Actually...

"The 1st century Jewish author Philo Judaeus (20 BC-50 AD)[22] defended Jewish circumcision on several grounds, including health, cleanliness and fertility.[23] He also thought that circumcision should be done as early as possible as it would not be as likely to be done by someone's own free will. He claimed that the foreskin prevented semen from reaching the vagina and so should be done as a way to increase the nation's population. He also noted that circumcision should be performed as an effective means to reduce sexual pleasure: "The legislators thought good to dock the organ which ministers to such intercourse thus making circumcision the symbol of excision of excessive and superfluous pleasure."[24]"

It has been argued through various cultures and centuries that it is in fact for that purpose.

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

Not universally so, but it's a factor.

[trotsky]

46. LOL that is true.

However it didn't actually seem to do that!

[Act_of_Reparation]

6. Let me ask you a serious question...

Should it be legal for a Mohel -- a religious leader with no formal medical traning -- to cut the foreskin from a baby boy's penis and remove it with his mouth?

[Swede Atlanta]

3. Circumcision, male or female, is genital mutilation......

Females are born with clitorises and males with a foreskin on the penis.

Removal, trimming or other modifications to the clitoris or foreskin is mutilation.

Whether for religious reasons or not, infants lack the sentient ability to decide on such matters and children lack the requisite maturity and legal standing to make such decisions.

As a result circumcision should not be permitted for religious reasons based on parental choice. The choice must be made by a man or woman with the requisite maturity and legal standing. Just as we try parents who don't take a child to the doctor because they don't believe in medicine for religious reasons, this time of life-changing mutilation must be prohibited.

I am circumcised because that is just what you did. I wish I still had my foreskin. I didn't ever discuss it with my parents but certainly when my nephews were born my sister asked me my thoughts and I said unless there is a substantive medical reason they should not be circumcised.

[Meshuga]

11. In my case I don't wish for my foreskin back

I don't think any harm was done and feel indifferent either way. I certainly don't feel short changed or mutilated. If there are medical benefits in regards to ease to keep it clean and reduced rate of penile cancer then great. That is a plus (if true). However, I certainly do not feel it harmed me in any way so it doesn't matter to me.

There are certainly risks associated with the procedure but they are greatly reduced to extreme rare chances of something going wrong when the procedure is performed by a well trained individual.

In short, unless the procedure is done in a way that could harm the baby (like, for example, in the case of ultra-orthodox mohels who draw blood with their mouths) I think the negative feelings about it are exaggerated.

In the same way that finding anti semitism in anything is an exaggeration and more of an emotional reaction than anything.

However, one from the outside needs to understand that, for a long time, brit milah was outlawed in the soviet Russia for the mere fact that it was a Jewish practice.

An elderly Russian Jew we know cried with a lot of emotion when he attended his grandchild's (my son's friend's) bris because, in all his years of living in Soviet Russia they were not allowed to perform this ceremony. He was seeing it for the first time.

And he is an atheist Jew.

While there are jews who see a supernatural need for this ceremony, this is a practice based on identity, ethniticy, culture so you will naturally see members of this ethnic group (even non-believing ones) questioning the motives of such strong reaction from those who wish to ban the practice.

[trotsky]

12. But to be fair, you have no way to make a comparison.

Neither does anyone who was circumcised as an infant.

Lots of religious practices that at one time meant something very deep to the participants have gone by the wayside. And the world went on.

[Meshuga]

14. I agree. I have no way to compare

But I am not sold that I am missing something. I know converts who went through the trouble of getting circumcised and, from what I have heard, the worst parts of the process are the procedure and the recovery (including the overexposure of the glans) not the final state.

Some practices do get dropped and it is even the opinion of some rabbis that circumcision is barbaric. But others disagree and since the bris is a tradition based on identity they feel it is important to give continuity. Again, it is important to state that they disagree that the practice is harmful.

[AtheistCrusader]

44. You are in fact missing something.

You're missing something on the order of 10,000 nerve endings, several feet of blood vessels, scent glands, etc.

You may not miss them, or perhaps you don't perceive their loss at all, but they are certainly missing.
Like you, I do not intuitively 'know' or perceive what it would be like to have my foreskin back, but I would very much prefer it had not been removed. Can always have it removed later. Can't really put it back after the fact. There are grafting procedures that give you something LIKE it back, but it cannot truly be restored.

Just like 100% of the feeling in the tip of my pinkie cannot be fully restored after a slip with a knife in the kitchen. However, my right hand has a spare, that I can compare and certainly feel the loss of sensation. Not so with my other bits.

[Swede Atlanta]

13. You may not feel short-changed but.....

You do not speak for everyone. Doesn't everyone have the right to make that decision for themselves?

God created males with a penis that has a foreskin. Removing it could be described as "unnatural". As a Christian I am well aware of the deal struck between God and Abraham. As a sign of the covenant Abraham agreed to be circumcised and circumcise all of the members of his household.

It should not be the purview of parents for THEIR own personal religious, cultural or other reasons to deprive a male of his foreskin. They are making an irreversible change to the body of their child for THEIR own satisfaction.

In our society those kinds of irreversible decisions should be, absent compelling medical reasons, be left to the boy when he reaches a sufficient age of maturity and legal standing. What if the child totally rejects Judaism, his ethnicity, etc.? He cannot sew his foreskin back on. You have irreversibly altered the child for the parent's PERSONAL satisfaction. I reject that notion.

People that propose legal proscription against circumcision do not do it, as in Russia, as an anti-semitic act. They, as I, am not anti-semitic but believe this decision must be left to the individual.

[Meshuga]

21. I do not speak for everyone

I am merely stating my opinion in a message board.

But while some people may give importance to the foreskin others don't so performing a bris is not a big deal in the point of view of the latter group. And Performing circumcision is not even an issue to them since the practice is not seen as harmful. Not to mention the fact that many of them see medical benefits of going on with the procedure.

There are two positions here and the argument that the procedure is harmful is not compelling to many so they make decisions for their infants whether for religious reasons or not. And "personal satisfaction" doesn't even come to mind since, in their opinion, the procedure is the normal thing to do.

I also don't believe that people who are for legally banning circumcision are doing so for antisemitic reasons. I Never argued for that. I am just saying that people have reasons for coming up with these emotional knee jerk reactions given the history of anti semitism in Europe and how strong it still is over there.

As one last thing, there are many harmful things that parents can do to harm their children besides removing their foreskins. One of them is religious doctrine which I would give up my foreskin any day not to have doctrine passed down to me and have it define me. Parents are allowed to impose this psychologically harmful idea onto their kids too. Should it be banned along with circumcision in your opinion?

[cbayer]

15. My experience has led me to stay fairly neutral on this.

I decided early on that I would opt for no circumcision if I had boys.

Then I had two.

I happened to live in an area where most boys were circumcised both for religious and cultural reasons.

Despite pressure from my pediatrician, I stuck with it and decided for no circumcisions.

When my first son was old enough to discuss it, he told me that he was angry that I had made that decision and that he had suffered social consequences due to it.

I still think I made the right decision and hope that the cultural "norm" will change, but I am sorry that my kids were used in that effort.

It's a tough area and there is no simple solution.

[Meshuga]

23. In the Jewish community...

...the social consequences would be even stronger. Not that someone would say anything about it but I would feel weird and different as a kid if I weren't circumcised like the other kids in my circles.

[cbayer]

32. My son definitely felt weird and different.

And when he started seriously dating girls, it became an even bigger issue.

All these things need to be kept in mind when making decisions about this.

Much as I would like to see a change, it's going to come slowly and not without some sacrificial lambs.

[trotsky]

35. Girls that aren't a size zero can feel weird and different too.

Society has some pretty fucked up ideas of what acceptable body images are, don't you agree?

I highly doubt that you would say we should consider a bogus societal norm when making choices for our daughters, so why are you trying to do that with boys?

Do you have a double standard?

[AtheistCrusader]

45. But now the choice is his.

He can choose to have it done now, and, as an adult, he's less likely to die from the removal. (Something like 100 children die in the US every year from it.)

I would simply point out, you made the choice that allows HIM the greatest choice later in life. Tell him you have an acquaintance that feels the same as he does, but about his parents choice to have him circumcised. What you did, can be changed, if your son chooses. What my parents did, cannot be un-done.

[cbayer]

47. He can and he's not going to, but he has already told me that he

will probably have his sons circumcised.

The damage that he reports occurred during his childhood and at a time when people would argue he could not make the decision for himself.

Had we lived in a community where it was not so unusual to be uncircumcised, it would have been different. But we didn't.

There was one study on deaths due to circumcisions that I can find. It is not an epidemiological study, but an estimate based on some really sketchy data. It's never been replicated that I can find. Even the author said he really couldn't stand by this and the actual number was not known. Do you have other information?

I am obviously not a supporter of routine circumcision and made a point of that in my decision making. I posted this to point out that the decision not to circumcise also has some risk and consequence which need to be considered by those who think it would be all cherries and cream just to stop it.

And my decision didn't even have anything to do with religious traditions, which is another even more significant complicating factor.

[Act_of_Reparation]

20. It is a simple rite of passage.

And it is no more important to the Jews than was the Okipa to South Dakota's Mandan tribe. So why is it Jews get to hack away at their sons' genitals, but a Mandan father can't make his teenage son fast for four sleepless days before driving wooden skewers behind the muscles of the boy's shoulders and chest, with which to suspend him from the ceiling until he faints?

[Meshuga]

22. Not sure how they are equivalent

One is a procedure (a medical procedure) done by a mohel in a clean place who is usually urologists himself or at least has equivalent training and the other is a ritual that is equivalent to torture. Not sure I see the comparison.

If a specific step in the bris can cause any harm to the baby (like in the case of the ultra-orthodox mohels using their mouth) then it should most definitely be forbidden. Any procedure that increases the possibility of harm to the child should be avoided.

[trotsky]

24. Yet the ultra-orthodox mohels would give the same reasons to protect what they do...

that you give to justify infant circumcision in general. Seems like you are employing a bit of a double standard there.

And the risk of infection from a circumcision procedure is always present, so there is potential for harm to the child versus just leaving it alone.

[Meshuga]

26. I believe there is a big difference...

...between a circumcision in a proper sterile setting and having someone using his mouth on a wound where something can be explicitly transmitted to the child.

One procedure creates the risk and in the other procedure risks are avoided when done properly. I think there is a difference here.

[trotsky]

27. Sure there's a difference.

The risk of infection is much less in one method versus the other, but the risk is not eliminated. And what you said was:

Any procedure that increases the possibility of harm to the child should be avoided.

Cutting the skin and introducing the possibility of infection should therefore be avoided, should it not? Are you contradicting yourself? Or would you like to retract your statement?

[Meshuga]

28. To make what I am trying to say clear

I will retract the statement since, of course, there are risks in the procedure.

[trotsky]

29. So infant circumcision, as you prefer it to be done, is OK...

because of tradition, culture, and identity.

But it's not OK the way others prefer it do be done, despite it being part of their tradition, culture, and identity.

[Meshuga]

30. No

Regardless of tradition, culture, identity, etc. I personally disagree that infant circumcision is harmful.

Regarding a mohel sucking the blood from the wound of an infant, I think it is harmful and wrong

[trotsky]

34. Yet that is part of someone else's tradition/culture/identity.

You deny it for them, but it's an acceptable justification for you. Understood.

[Meshuga]

37. Not sure why you say it is a right justification for me

If something harmful is part of my tradition/culture/identity then I would likely drop that idea/tradition and not argue for its continuation saying it is "my tradition therefore it is okay."

I read my previous post to try to identify the reason why you would think that I would be okay with a tradition of mine (whatever it may be) just because it is my tradition but I am still unsure you would come to this conclusion.

I may be misunderstanding you (and I apologize if I am) but it seems that you are trying to make this exchange about me as if the point is to identify that I am a hypocrite for whatever reason.

[trotsky]

38. I believe you are using the same reasons to reject someone else's version of a religious ritual...

that others use to reject yours. Yet you defend your practice with the same justifications that the others use to justify what you condemn.

[Meshuga]

39. My religious ritual?

What would be my religious ritual that is being rejected?

All I am disagreeing with here is with connecting the dots so close together to equate a bris (a medical procedure done in a sterile environment by a professional) to other obviously harmful practices.

We obviously disagree on whether infant circumcision (done in its proper way) is harmful or not but if I saw it as harmful I would agree that the tradition (whatever it is) should be dropped.

I pointed out why some people find the tradition important to explain why they may react to the anti-circumcision argument in a negative way (i.e., the charges of anti semitism) but I am not sure why this is being translated to me having an attachment to the tradition.

[trotsky]

40. Actually, you already admitted the possibility of harm even in your preferred method.

So I would say that no, you do not "agree that the tradition (whatever it is) should be dropped." A certain level of harm is acceptable to you because of tradition/culture/identity. Others will argue the same, just putting that line in other places.

[Meshuga]

41. I don't think it is that simple and...

...there is more than what you are trying to frame my reasons here.

While the risks for complication are extremely minor, it is my opinion that the health benefits far outweighs the minor risks.

In other words, I am okay with parents making a decision to circumcise their infants regardless if it is for religious tradition or not if it is done in the proper setting that avoids any of the risk factors.

Again, that is my opinion and I understand that opinions differ.

[trotsky]

42. You are correct, this is not simple.

Circumcision isn't harmless, parents will never be able to avoid "any of the risk factors," as you seem to be asserting.

[Act_of_Reparation]

25. You made a subjective argument...

...that a rite of passage should be allowed because some people feel it is important. Surely some people think such rites are important, otherwise they wouldn't exist; but whether or not something is thought to be important is irrelevant when one is considering whether it should be allowed.

[Meshuga]

31. I have been writing...

... In multiple posts (and sometimes emphasizing)that there are people who see no harm in the procedure and that there is contention to whether circumcision is harmful or not. There is a total different side that needs to be considered in the debate. If you say that my argument is that a rite of passage should be allowed solely because some people find it important then you are not really reading all of my posts.

[Act_of_Reparation]

33. You do realize these posts are time-stamped, don't you?

Yes, you have since elaborated on your position. At the time of my post, however, your argument was of a primarily subjective bent. As Trotsky essentially made the same counter-argument and followed it through with you, there's little point in continuing at this juncture.

[cbayer]

5. Good to know that there is a growing sentiment in Israel that things should be changed.

The real change, if it is to occur, will have to come from within the Jewish community, imo.

And then there is the additional complication of the role of circumcision in reducing rates of STD's, HIV in particular.

This remains a really difficult issue that continues to evolve.

[trotsky]

8. Even if circumcision can reduce the rates of certain diseases...

I believe it is a decision that the individual themselves should make. It's really not that difficult.

[nilesobek]

9. Yeah, I chose to not circumcise my 4 sons

and received a hail of condemnation and dire warnings of disease. All turned out to be false. Leave these decisions up to the children themselves when they grow up.

Its a savage tribal mutilation, rooted in primitive superstition.

[struggle4progress]

16. Newborn Male Circumcision (American Academy of Pediatrics)

8/27/2012

After a comprehensive review of the scientific evidence, the American Academy of Pediatrics found the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks, but the benefits are not great enough to recommend universal newborn circumcision. The AAP policy statement published Monday, August 27, says the final decision should still be left to parents to make in the context of their religious, ethical and cultural beliefs ...

http://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-aap/aap-press-room/pages/Newborn-Male-Circumcision.aspx

[goldent]

36. Thanks for posting this

Refreshing to see something more science-based.

This debate reminds me a little bit of tonsil/adenoid removal, where there are also divisions in the medical community. Another one is wisdom teeth removal.

[struggle4progress]

17. Danish Health Board Says No Need to Ban Circumcision

The tide of the anti-circumcision seems to be ebbing. Germany passed a law to bypass a Cologne court ruling that the procedure is illegal. Now, Danish doctors say the ritual is not harmful.
By: Jewish Press News Briefs
Published: June 30th, 2013

A Danish government panel has dealt an anti-circumcision group a severe setback with a new study that concludes there is little risk in circumcisions and that no new guidelines are necessary.

A Health Ministry commission ritual also concluded that circumcisions also have few medical benefits, the Copenhagen Post reported ...

http://www.jewishpress.com/news/danish-health-board-says-no-need-to-ban-circumcision/2013/06/30/

[struggle4progress]

18. Rate of Circumcision ...

... Denmark: 1.6% (age 15) <Frisch et al., 1995>
http://www.circinfo.net/rates_of_circumcision.html

[struggle4progress]

19. Danish coalition partner adopts anti-circumcision motion

By JTA
09/18/2013 19:45

... The Social Liberal Party, a small coalition partner of Denmark’s ruling Social Democrats party, adopted the anti-circumcision stance this week following an internal vote by delegates during a party congress in Nyborg, 75 miles west of Copenhagen ... A large majority of hundreds of delegates from the party — Denmark’s sixth largest with 17 out of 179 seats in parliament — passed the motion to oppose all non-medical circumcision of underage boys ...

http://www.jpost.com/Jewish-World/Jewish-Features/Danish-coalition-partner-adopts-anti-circumcision-motion-326499