Swedish doctors refuse to circumcise boys

It is sad that despite the overwhemling evidence supporting circumcision as an effective defense against sexually transmitted diseases, our surgeon act like cowards when asked to remove the fore-skin from a child who's perception of pain is little.

Male circumcision is not mutilation as it does not reduce the male libido in anyway. Even when done by to non-medical personnel (as is done in most 3rd world countries) I am yet to see a case of major damage to the child.

I am glad my parents circumcised me because I would never have the guts to do it as an adult.

You beat me to the posting board. You took the words write out of my mouth.

No matter what, circumcision of boys will continue to be a practice for many for reasons religious or otherwise. By taking away the option of having it done by a professional in sanitary conditions where the boy's well-being can be properly monitored if necessary will just lead to parents approaching non-medical individuals to have it performed instead.

Is that really a smart thing to do?

Male circumcision when done properly on a young child who will have no memory of it, in my opinion, leaves no lasting psychological or physical impact on the child. It did not for me. So why does it cause such an uproar here in Europe? Can someone please explain it to me cause I am genuinely interested to know.

Yes, the STD prevention argument is well-known. I'm sure the doctors took that into consideration when they came to the conclusion that circumcision for non-medical reasons is an unnecessary surgery. Wouldn't a more effective defense against STDs would be to practice monogamy or use condoms?

Besides, there are plenty of examples of botched circumcisions, such as the following:

http://www.nbcchicago.com/health/men/Babys...order=&pg=1

Basically the doctors are arguing that the parents don't have the right to make that decision on behalf of their baby sons. Let their sons decide when they get older whether to get it done. Seems reasonable to me.

By the way, the claim that it doesn't hurt the baby as much is completely untrue. If anything, babies feel pain much more keenly than adults.

I agree with Miss Kitten that babies probably are more sensitive to pain but the claim is not that the child feels less pain but rather they will not have a recollection of the pain that they felt if the circumcision was done at an age before awareness.

And I am certainly concerned about botched circumcisions which is why I pose the question of whether it is really smart for the medically qualified to refuse to provide this service which will then lead parents to other avenues of getting this procedure done that may have a higher risk for the child? Look at it in another perspective, is that not also a violation of a child's right to safe medical care if a doctor refuses to perform the circumcision and the child ends up having it done at home by a relative who had done it before?

I agree about the moral dilemma some parents will end up facing if medical professionals refuse to perform non-medical circumcision. It's similar to the abortion dilemma: if abortion is made illegal then the number of back alley rusty coat hanger abortions will only increase.

Although, it should be pointed out that the above article I posted was about a medical professional who botched the circumcision.

For information on where circumcism leads to, follow this link.

http://www.amazon.com/As-Nature-Made-Him-R...d/dp/0060192119

It's illegal to make an incision on a girl's genitals, even if no tissue is removed. Why don't boys get the same protection?

Cutting parts off children's genitals is wrong.

If you go by religion then Jesus pbuh was also "circumcised"

and If they are circumcised, They enjoy more sex than uncircumcised person,

Male circumcision reduces HIV risk by 60%, says study,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/oct/25/medicalresearch.aids

They have less chance of getting AIDs, other disease, and ask a female if she likes circumcised man to have or uncircumcised .

Doctors who refuse this needs more education.

I hope it's made illegal soon...

And yes, we hear the arguments all the time that Americans have been brainwashed to believe. Have no doubt, however, that this is because of Jewish influence in the US. In Sweden it's the muslims "religious rights" they're protecting.

There is no proof whatsoever that circumcision decreases the risk of penile cancer and HIV. There's only correlative evidence - nothing which proves causation. And infections won't happen if a person keeps good hygiene - but these religious practices stem back to a time where it was difficult to keep good hygiene. This certainly isn't the case today so these excuses have got to stop.

And all that aside it should be a child's decision to remove a part of their anatomy - circumcision on young boys is nothing but child abuse.

So called circumcision for both sexes has been discussed here before ad nauseam. Its genital mutilation unless done for sound medical reasons that are present at the time of the operation. And the same defence comes up, by parents saying it was done to me so I'm having it done to my child.

Now of course for it to be done to males in the so called civilised west is fine, but for operations on females in the East and Africa its not. Funny that ! Or not funny !

Another instance also for very young children in this case amles not having a choice. The parents are choosing for them for very dubious reasons. All males can be taught to wash that part of their bodies properly and regularly.

Who do you think you are and you have the ability to decide which parts of the body of your son is good and which are bad? You dont have that right and I hope that someday you will understand it...You can say to your son when he is able to judge by himself your opinion and if he thinks that you're correct, he can have it cut then...It is as simple as that...

D*ck without circumcision is like a woman without breast.

No, not at all. Breasts are there when you are born. Cutting off a part of a penis is a different thing altogether.

Those arguing against are mostly inspired by some prejudice feelings but on the other hand subjected to so many acts where they are denying the very existence of child like abortion, gay marriages, and so on.

What's a child like abortion?

Surgeries without medical reasons should be prohibited and genital mutilations done by non medical personnel should be prosecuted, full stop. We do not need to allow barbaric behaviours since some religion recommends that. Some tribal cults support human sacrifices, so, should we then allow homicides because explained by religious believes? If a person wants to be circumcised, free to do when adult, based on his own decision and at his own cost. I do not want to pay taxes just to support religious questionable body modifications.

My son was born in Germany and I had the same issue. I had to wait until I went back to the states to have him circumcised.

what an interesting topic.

circumcised men are sexually better that uncircumcised men UC. ask why swedish ladies why they prefer the black guys.

circumcised genitials are cleaner than that of dirty UC.

partial protection against of STD and HIV now and in the future should be the main reason why it should be done. There are some sexual diseases that would never come to a circumcised man.

Let them not do it, thank God there are many doctors in gothenburg doing it and my son did it. circumcision is a moment of pain for eternal pleasure.

Swedish ladies prefer black men? Can you prove it?

There are more cases of HIV in Africa by the way. Is that because they are not circumsized? No it's because they don't wear condoms.

i did not say black men but black ones.

The point is not if its cleaner/safer etc but if its right for the parent to judge by himself that his son will have his body changed without his acceptance! This is it.Accept it that you are making decision for your sons life, without giving him the right to decide!

streja you are so naive. when we talk about black men, the first thought that comes to you mind is always Africa. I dont know what you are implying

It had nothing to do with the black men comment silly!

Africa has a big problem with HIV. Sweden doesn't and we don't circumsize. Now there's the truth.

Tutu what did you mean by black ones then? Black penises? I mean...come on.

by the time is of that age he would not even know that he was ever circumscised execpet he was told. it might be the benefits that might make him to start wondering what makes him special. Do you know of anyone that have regretted it

Poverty is one of the reasons the spread of AIDS is high but they are reducing it now faster that what is obtainable in europe except for south africa. For example Uganda has reduced aid by more than 15%. that is a great feat than what Sweden has not accomplished.

Uganda have done well you're right. HIV was a big problem there before. In Sweden it has never been that high so we can't do the same thing.

you said it. it was supposed to be a joke but on a more serious note, circumcised men are far better sexually than uncircumscised. That you can find out for yourself streja

Tutu then go to Uganda. What are you doing here in Sweden?

eye witness you can deport me. do you have aids yourself becase i do not have. there is no need for me to got there.

The difference is that if i regret being uncircumcised, i can become circumcised, you can't be uncircumcised thought. Is that enought for you?

By the sounds of things he is busy bringing the one eyed man to the optician!

Leave it to the boys to decide whether they want to "cut" the foreskin or not.

Its surprising that most of people who are against circumcision do it in rebelion against religions and cultures that uphold it. This is a form of intolerance I think. As a christian, I know that it does not matter if you are circumcised or not, but I would rather have my child circumcised and i don't want some leftist, godless person teach me a lesson on what's civilised or not.

Finally, most of the people who hate circumcion are glad to take their kids to give their kids tattoos and piercings (ear, nipple, genital, just name it).

Dear voiceofreason, religion is part of personal freedom. You can do whatever you want to your body, follow whatever religious prescription you like, fine... but not impose your views on other people.... and parents that force their children to get circumcised do exactly that. And, it does not matter if family has responsibility on children choices; there are in our societies very clear limits on the rights that parents have on their children, they cannot abuse them, beat and mutilate their bodies. Very clear. If you do not like that, maybe you should consider to live in countries where parents can dispose completely of the lives of their babies and religious prescriptions are written in the law. Thanks God, this is not, and will not be, Sweden.

And, btw, if a teenager, from a certain age on, wants a tattoo or a piercing, fine, as far it is its own choice and not imposed by anybody else.

Circumcisions by people who are not doctors should be illegal. Circumcision should also be illegal without person's consent.

In reality it is exactly opposite of religious freedom as a child is forced to go under a religious [he might follow a different religion when he grows up] ceremony without his consent.

@bocale1...where is logic for not selling tobacco under 18 when they are desperate to do that..

i dont know what tale bearer aka eye witness doing here. he has nothing sensible to say than to criticise. why dont you bring your thought. circumcision is done not only in africa but USA and UK. i know that you are not swedish.

I can see why people are against circumcision for religious reasons, and maybe circumcisions started off for religious reasons, but the fact of the matter is, is that circumcised men are less likely to contract HIV. I am a circumcised atheist who is very glad I didn't have to be an adult when I was circumcised (but if I wasn't circumcised I doubt I would bother doing it, because being uncircumcised would be all I knew). But I don't know what it is like to not be circumcised, so I am a little biased when it comes to it. My Swedish wife (I am American), on the other hand, greatly appreciates that I am circumcised, and I can't complain that I am.

i agree that unqualified doctors shold not circumcise. People who are not circumcised are missing out and they dont know it. ask the girls

it's rather interesting that people who are pro-circumcision cannot provide a convincing argument against requiring a child to reach some age of consent before performing an irreversible surgical removal of healthy tissue.

anyone got one?

harding00 uncircumcised penises are very ugly and makes them look like impotent. thank God that u did it.

I heard uncircumcised penis' tend to smell bad too...to many places for bacteria to linger?

there is no need for it 7. the child would not even know. secondly, the benefits are immense. please show me one single circumcised person that regretted it. uncircumcise penises have layers of fat that are dirty and needs to be regurlarly cleased to avoid diseases. i saw it once on oprah.

any consenting adult man is perfectly welcome to take you up on your tip. no one should make that decision for a baby or a child.

no doctor can ever tell you that those tissue are healthy. that is why doctors ask people to remove it for healthy reasons.

With all due respect mate - A large sized American chick on tv is the last source of advice I'd turn to when it comes to management of my prodigous todger.

the problem with you is that parent are expected to take decisions that they feel in the right interest of the child. provided they are not breaking any law. do parents need concent to send their child to school, clothe them, feed them when that child does not give consent. we talk all the time about RIGHTS and no talk about RESPONSIBILTY

are you a medical doctor? and 100% of accredited medical doctors will assure you that foreskin is healthy tissue.

you're uninformed. people ask for circumcisions for their sons for religious, cultural, traditional reasons. oh, and out of ignorance. your arguments seemed to be based on the last reason.

very true. a very good reason to modify the law to make circumcision on an unconsenting child illegal.

This is very debatable. I have read alot more studies saying that circumcised men enjoy sex less, because without the foreskin covering and protecting it the penis becomes less sensitive. Anyway since few men undergo circimcision as adults, how do you know that circumcised men enjoy sex more?

Blessed are those who are gentle and who abstain from violence against minors. Prudent are those who do not calumniate communities in the process of defending children.

I hope you will not cut off your finger tips because your nails accumulate dirt but only trim the nails and clean them because nails grow back (foreskins don't grow back).

I hope we can avoid enforcing this on children who have no say in this matter but permit them to make their own decisions when the grow up. May God help us and show us the right path.

that is insane do the swedish doctores think that are better than the american ones who do circumcision daily?

what about the religious rights of the jewish and muslims?

arguing that child is in pain is absurd u can always use a pain killer in circumcision.

personally i find circumcision is clean and healthy

The US is the only country in the world where infant boys are routinely circumcised for non-medical and non-religious reasons. This is despite the recommendations of the American Academy of Pediatrics, which states that "circumcision is not essential to a child's health." All of the traditional pro-circumcision arguments (hygiene, disease prevention, etc) have been dismissed. Really the only point left is the aesthetic one. Basically parents want to circumcise their sons because they think it "looks better."

Circumcision has been declared by the medical establishment in the US and elsewhere to be at best an unnecessary surgery and at worst another type of genital mutilation.

And I don't think Swedish doctors think of themselves as somehow better than their American counterparts. Many American doctors actually hate to perform circumcisions, but have to give in to parents' demands. Sometimes they'll insist that the parents be in the room or even hold the baby while the procedure is done. They're a lot less eager to have it done with asked to witness or take part in the procedure. Even with pain-relief the baby still feels the pain very intensely.

It smacks of hipocrisy when this generation begin to think they are better than the hundreds that have preceeded them. They think they have all knowledge (not wisdom) so they can discard ageless principles, values, cultural practices and traditions.

The folly of it all is that their scientific basis keeps changing because science afterall is attempt to prove right a guess (hypothesis) however irrational the guess is.

One last thing is I don't want any doctor dictating if I can have my son circumcised or not, they don't have the legal, constitutional or moral right to say so.

If the doctor said he'd circumcise your son if you and your wife held the baby's arms and legs down during the procedure, would you be willing to do that?

Circumcision is sick, and doing it in the name of religion is sicker still.

Miss Kitten,

My mother is a medical doctor, so is my uncle, my junior brother and my wife. Non of them ever told me circumcision was evil.

What are anasthetics for, to kill pain. That is how it is done ok.

Babies heal faster than adults do, that's why it is done within the 1st month of delivery.

Circumcision is pain full for baby and against their will, we should stop every act against even giving birth to baby is painful for them, letting them live in such people is also painful, don't let them come in pain. putting them in pain is against human right.

here people can only do what Swedish culture allow them to do or thay can go back to their original country.

Sweden is experiment lab of freedom :),

I don't believe I ever declared circumcision to be evil. It has no medical value, but that isn't just my opinion; it's a medical fact. You didn't answer my question, though. If the doctor said he'd perform the circumcision if you and your wife participated in the procedure, would you do it?

I would Miss Kitten, I am not lilly-livered. It does not make me a bad father. I have only given him my heritage. There are few things I can pass to my son, my heritage, an inheritance and training.

i see a sickness of freedom in Sweden, and it smells like ethnocentric, all time Swedish people tell others you just have to live here according their values or go back to original country.

@Miss Kitten pain cant be stopped, what ever believe you have, those who do it for religious believe live their whole life with such believe, you cant stop them , even i think this human right precaution is more painful fro them.

i dont want to die

i never wanted to born

i feel hunger pain because of others

i feel pain of my believe.

i fell it in complete freedom.

why incest is forbidden

what this new evolutions, ethicist thinking tring to prove that it can prevent death.

How can people be so uneducated as to be pro-circumcision? All of these must be either already circumcised males themselves, women who are used to circumcised penises, or people lost in the (sometimes - in this case definitely) savage traditions of religion.

How can people claim it's not healthy to keep the foreskin? Yeah, sure, if you don't wash more than once a week, perhaps, but at that rate, I think you have other issues that are more important than genital hygiene. Any male who keeps up normal hygiene should have no more reason to get health problems because of his remaining foreskin than than a male who's had his foreskin cut off.

Do the research before stating something stupid, people. I understand that people have uninformed or misinformed opinions, but don't let that affect some defenceless child.

A couple of years ago in the US, I had a co-worker who gave birth to a baby boy. She had her son circumcised, and deeply regretted it. They strapped her baby down to the table, all arms and legs strapped in too. Then they used painkiller on his lil one, and used some tool to cut the skin off. She said she would never forget how her little baby boy was turning red then blue from crying and then convulsing. The doctor promised her it's completely painless to the baby.

Condoms are a much better choice to prevent catching and spreading STDs.

I do not want to give childish views as many did. Let me put this in short. I am not a doctor. I am an accountant. But let me share my views from what I read when I was in my home country (Africa) and from my discussion I have made with my colleagues (doctors). Circumcision protects HIV to some extent as it is a necessary condition for HIV virus to get in to the blood to contaminate a person. Circumcision helps to make long sexual intercourse (reduce the feeling at the tip of the male genital organ) as it help the male not to ejaculate soon. Finally, circumcision also helps to keep the male genital organ clean. Nowadays, circumcision does not have any kind of relationship with religious beliefs. But it issue will still remains unresolved if people relate it with human rights. My advice to all is before one say Africa has such kinds of problems it is wise to ask who created that problem, who is responsible for that and why it is so and who is getting benefit out of that.

From a sexual point of view, having had partners who have been circumcised and partners who have not, IMHO circumcision is mutilation. Absolutely no excuse for it on aesthetic grounds. I am yet to be convinced on the STD front, for instance circumcised men are reported to have higher instances of gential warts!

Oh and Tutu, I do know an adult man who "regrets" being circumcised. My husband! Although to be precise it wasn't his decision so he can't regret it, however he does wish his parents hadn't had it done to him.

Not all parents feed their kids well. It's against the law not to do so though. And hopefully it'll soon be against Swedish law to circumcise.

So you're saying that American doctors are without a doubt better than Swedish doctors? The American Medical Association, like the Swedish one, says circumcision is unnecessary. The difference between Sweden and the US though is that Sweden had a large child right's movement during the 70's and 80's so most of the people back these views.

Should people have the right to commit human sacrifice too if it's a part of their religion? Human rights and rights of the child are of greater value in Sweden than religious rights.

It smacks of backwards thinking when someone chooses to avoid all current evidence and rational thinking in favour of supporting despicable archaic traditions.

A hypothesis is based on an observation, not a "guess." And how has the scientific information changed drastically? There have been plenty of advocates of circumcision who try to make the science match their theory (which is religiously based). This is pseudo-science, but unfortunately a lot of people fall for this bullshit. Remember, a correlation does NOT mean causation!

Hopefully they'll have the legal right to do so soon.

Options:

A.) Obey Swedish laws

B.) Leave Sweden

C.) Break Swedish law and end up in jail

This is not ethno-centric in the least. Nor is a law against circumcision ethno-centric.

Nope, some people don't respect laws. Otherwise our jails would be empty.

To put a child, let alone a new born, through completely unnecessary pain is despicable. Period!

To put a child's body, let alone the body of a new born, through having to cope with anaesthesia in order to perform a completely unnecessary surgery is equally despicable.

Personally I prefer the sight of a "cut" organ, but there is no way I would have it done to my child unless there was a medical need for it.

A half troll writes:

This debate shows perfectly the difference between scientific thought & method and religious doctrine.

The council of paediatric surgeons has approached the issue in a scientific way, without preconceptions and come to the conclusion that non-medical circumcision is not necessary. Therefore they decide not to carry out the procedure unnecessarily (without a pre-existing medical condition)

Many of the "Pro" opinions expressed in the discussion come from religious belief. These people start by knowing the truth and then seek to justify their viewpoint by clutching at straws.

- "better sex" (typical unsubstantiated rubbish)

- lower risk of HIV infection. Better than condoms - nowhere near. "Reduced by 60%" - are you going to take the chance with those odds?

- defence against other sexually transmitted diseases. No it's not - EDUCATION and CONDOMS! Thats the defence against STDs. But Religion cant abide education it destroys their monopoly on the "truth".

BTW when science started telling the world disease was caused by bacteria, religion was saying it was witches, curses or the will of god. (When you religious people are ill, do you go to the doctor or to your particular brand of temple and sacrifice a goat?)

Real reason for circumcision - a stone age ritual clung to by childish fools who are too lazy and stupid to think for themselves - to the point where they blindly mutilate their own children.

Take these kids away from these abusers and give them to the lesbians who want kids instead.

The DN article on the issue says that 2000 of the 3000 circumcisions carried out annually in Sweden are performed by people who are neither doctors nor have permission to carry out the procedure. Who are these people and why aren't they being thrown in prison for life?

I applaud the surgeons who have taken this stand. Primum non nocere

I am sick of hearing stupid arguments that children should grow up and decide for themselves. Circumcision is good for health reasons, religious reasons are something else entirely and should be everyone's personal business.

Can someone tell me why children are not then allowed to remain on their mother's umblical cord after birth so they can grow up to give their consent wether they want to be seperated from their mothers or not? I mean if you talk about pain, the birth process is pain enough for the mother and for the child that becomes conscious during the process, it doesn't scar the child for life still.

I think people are just bored with life and desperately seeking stupid ideologies to define themselves. If circumcision is wrong, it is also wrong to cut your childs' hair, finger-nails without their consent. in my opinion, they all are a matter of hygeiene.

Might be true in some cases, like an earhole from a being pierced will close back up after some time. I have, not in my time encountered a man with a re-growing forskin.

Okay, coming from a gay community, I can tell you that you are grossly incorrect in this statement. Are you saying that being homosexual and female, that they would not want to cut their son? My stomach aches from laughter.

Being a proud mom of two very healthy boys, yes both are cut. Now that they are grown, they both have thanked me for having it done. Imagine that!

From a personal standpoint, being with a man with, and with a man without... for the oral sex I loved it with my 'cut' partner. Much easier, frequent, and definatly more pleasing to the eye. Guess its from where one comes from, how they were raised and what the socail norms are in that area. I do not regret for one second the choices I made on my boys, nor do they today.

Inletwatcher

What utter, uneducated rubbish!

Just out of curiosity; You've never witnessed a birth, nor read any books about it, have you?

Give me strength! The cord is attached to the placenta at the mother's end which comes away after birth. By about 10 days after birth the end of the cord attached to the baby just shrivels up and drops off. At not point is the cord cut off the baby!

Hair and fingernails grow. Do foreskins grow to the same extent?

These are just stupid questions trying to bolster up a stupid and barbaric act of mutilation. If God hadn't wanted boys and men with foreskins why did he give them to them in the first place?

Europe has that stupid arrogance which made European go into troubles with other ethnic groups living in European countries, each day Europe proves me that United States is better than that silly and empty arrogance.

If God didn't want men to grow beards or hair, why did he give them in the first place?

And yes, fore-skins re-grow to full length.

I think either theyr not educated or idont know. I support it not only coz im muslim but cos scientific matter.(BUT should be performed by Professional people)

Circumcision reduces HIV and STDs in general and Many Cancers(penis,anus..etc) HPV and much more. In addition some studies showed that its more EFFECTIVE in childhood than after puberty.

HPV = cancers of cervix, vulva, vagina, and anus in fem& cancers of the anus and penis male.

Good scientific resources: (there r much more)

1- Int J Cancer. 2009 Mar 15;124(6):1251-7. Circumcision and sexual behavior: factors independently associated with human papillomavirus detection among men in the HIM study.

2- Int Braz J Urol. 2008 Sep-Oct;34(5):587-91 Epidemiologic study on penile cancer in Brazil.

3- WHO

They do grow hair and beards! And this foreskin regrowing lark, well my husband has been without his for, lets say 45 years, and strangly not 1mm of it seems to have regrown!

So Trow, better with or without?

on 11:09 July 25, 2009 by voiceofreason said, "Male circumcision is not mutilation as it does not reduce the male libido in anyway."

Funny, reducing libido is one circumstition some give for circumcision.

(see http://www.circumstitions.com #350)

And perhaps this is a translation-to-English problem, but it's the testes that control libido. You can remove the entire penis and not affect libido. No, circumcision is mutilation, alright, if the victim THINKS it is. It's the VICTIM that gets to decide, not you.

The right to practice one's religion ends at the penis of another person. Do I really have to SAY that?!?

For a comparison from the male side we need opinions from men who had the procedure later - at least in their 20's I'd say.

IW - unsnipped by CTID "a half troll writes".

Your boys haven't experienced the alternative (I guess), so it's difficult to accept that as a decisive argument.

In the interest of a more sublte discussion would you describe your reasons for the decision to have the procedure on your kids? (My father was cut and it convinced him that his boys wouldn't be).

CTID really good point there. I was outside having a smoke thinking... would I consider FGM to my daugher. Not the stage 3 one with the sew up, but the lesser of the three types. I was horrified at my thoughts of doing that. Why do I feel its okay to do my boys and not my girl? Is it cultural? Probably. Is it right? Hell I don't really know anymore.

I still stand by what I said on the oral sex.

That is tried and true, by my personal experiences. I am glad my two boys are cut now, but would I do it again if I were to have a baby boy? I am not so sure... anymore. Thank you for this eyeopener, no pun intended.

Inletwatcher

Primarily directed at 007 & Kitten...

I must say that I am deeply offended by your arrogance and intolerance regarding this issue and I should say that I would expect better behaviour regarding your judgmental opines.

Both of you are acting as if circumcision is something people engage in without giving it serious consideration. Both of you have absolutely no regard for the ritual that it may be for some of us.

I respect your collective positions on religion but the two of you have, apparently, absolutely no respect for me and mine (and yes - I am taking this personally). I have been agonizing over the circumcision issue since I found out Max was a boy. But it is exceptionally important to me that Max is raised in the Jewish faith and thus must be circumcised. The way the two of you are carrying on - you may as well call me a bad mother who hates her child.

Also - I find it absolutely disgusting that many of you have absolutely no understanding of the process of the Brit Milah yet you are all so quick to rush to judgement.

Fact: Circumcisions are routinely and safely performed daily by non medical professionals.

Fact: Children heal faster than adults (so really - suck your whining about an age mandate).

Fact: This is a deeply religious, deeply cultural issue. No one judges you for not engaging in *my* practices. How dare you judge me?

Yes. I am disgusted. I never thought my friends would be so phucking insensitive as to label me a barbarian.

It's weird how so many men live on this planet with an intact penis and yet you don't see loads of women complaining that they smell or that they are ugly.

IW, thanks for the intelligent answer.

The different attitude between boys and girls is, in some way, understandable from a physical point of view because in a male it doesn't affect "performance" in anything like the same way.

Men don't suffer from being circumcised or uncircumcised in the same way.

I come from a dutch/protestant family background where religion is a subject for adults - you make decisions yourself when you are "mature".

Plus as an atheist I find it hard to accept such procedures that are perpetuated as a result of religion or social practice.

I think the surgeons are right to start from a point where they say no to circumcision, then the parents should have to argue their case.

Back street operations are the worst option of all and need to be eradicated.

Kang, I have erased what I am trying to write like 10 times now. I don't know what to type!

It's really difficult. On the one hand I support other people's right to engage in religious traditions and activities. On the other I don't see why it can't wait till the child is 18 but then I am no really too informed about the Jewish tradition. I have only heard what my Jewish friend told me about what happened when her brother had the circumcision. She said her mother ran out of the room because she couldn't watch. My friend said that it was a Jewish rite and I left it at that and didn't think about it afterwards. In no way did I think that her parents were bad or anything.

There are many different traditions in religions that have changed and some are kept mostly the same for centuries. I think that for some religious groups, like the Jewish community, traditions have been a way of keeping the identity, especially as there have been persecutions. For us godless creatures it's sometimes difficult to understand. And that's coming from someone who was brought up Catholic and have had to endure Swedish comments like "ohh it's so cruel how come you have to take your communion at such an early age and confirm your faith" and "how can you believe in such nonsense."

I think its up to one family to make decisions of this magnatude. Very personal, and I can see both sides of this discussion, and personally am open to hearing others ideas, given no name calling or mudslinging, or babies connected to placenta till they are 20 years old. It is scary to me that the state or laws governing this great country are stepping into homes like this.

My heart goes out to Mothers and Daddys who make this decision every single day.

I believe that everyone has the right to make this decision for themselves, and not be subject to ridicule for their religious beliefs. I am glad I got spayed, it was one of the smartest things I ever did. Now I can only support my sisters in making the decision for themselves, and their families.

Inletwatcher

Inlet, there is no law against it in Sweden. It's legal!

Well, if the Dr's are given permission to refuse to do this, then it will become an at home operation.. little ones will have horrible infections, or misscut. I would not want a doctor to touch me if he hated Americans. Nor would I want a priest to marry my boy if he felt it was wrong for homosexual relations. I would not want to go in for a nosejob if the Dr. did not believe in giving them. I wish I had all the right things to say, to make this world better for everyone here.

To make it against the law is only a step away... I believe. I hope I am wrong! dang wish it were not so late.. some of the greatest posters are writing now.

I am thankful we can all talk about this, learn, and mend hurts of our fellow friends here.

Night all, and I will go sleep on this.

IW

I pity any children you may have since their thoughts, feelings and opinions clearly mean nothing to you.

No, it isn't. How about picking up a book instead of spouting the same recycled garbage?

I think you're scared of letting go of a tradition and ideology which defines you and you are purposefully avoiding thinking rationally. That you lash out at all critics of circumcision proves this.

Your finger-nails and hair age. Nails weaken the longer they become. They would naturally break off anyway. Same with hair which falls out quite naturally. Skin also ages and falls off and is replaced by new skin.



Causation =/= Correlation! But there's no use arguing with people like you. You've already come to your conclusion and you're trying to find evidence to back up your conclusion. But the majority of medical associations in the world say circumcision is not necessary.

And we don't care. We don't care if some people carry out female and male circumcision and human sacrificies as a part of their tradition and beliefs. We are against it since it removes freedom of choice and rights of the child.

You may love your child and have (what you think are) their best interests at heart - but this doesn't make you a good mother in everyone's view.

People are judged every day for committing horrific acts. It is our every right to judge you and pray for your child.

If,by ending male circumcision it would lead to an end to female circumcision would you refute your religious doctrines? (only askin')

@Kaethar...

Long and short: Phuck you.

Kang and Dock

Streja -

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I really appreciate it.

With regard to the mother who left the room because she was upset...most parents have a hard time accepting pain for their children. One needs to look no further than the average parental reaction to immunizations (and plenty o' folks are against those).

It's very difficult to read some of the comments in this thread and I'm truly grateful for the fact that both Inlet and you have been so kind to me. As for the rest of the people - those who aren't my friends - well - they can live in their respective pits of misery and ignorance. Those who are allegedly my friends, I cannot help but think of what Jason and I oft say when friends treat you like , "Those people *aren't* your friends."

both sides have strong logics. more research need to be accomplished.

Using the argument that it is more difficult to catch a STD if you are circumcised are quite dumb. (even if it was true which is still under debate)

Because I havent heard of any child that is sexually active...leave the decision to when the kid are older/in his late teens and will be aware of what will be done to him.

For those of you who don't know me, I'm Kang's husband. I'm also a dyed-in-the-wool agnostic. It's important to Kang that our son have a Jewish cultural heritage, and that means having him circumcised. I'm OK with that- I don't subscribe to the religion, but I understand and support wanting to preserve your family's cultural identity. I was born in an era where circumcision was common, so it was performed on me, and I have never suffered in the least because of it. I have no problem with the procedure being performed on my son.

I take issue with two points in this discussion- first, the idea that parents shouldn't make the decision to circumcise for their children. Parents make all kinds of decisions for their kids that have far-reaching consequences- whether or not to immunize, how they get treated for medical conditions, what kinds of foods to eat, where they go to school, where they live, what they wear, etc. Making decisions for your child is pretty much the job description of "parent". Circumcising a male child isn't harmful or damaging (trust me, I know), so why all the gnashing and wailing?

Second, as a circumcised man I completely disagree with the idea that circumcision is somehow barbaric. I don't have any memories of or residual resentment about the procedure, nor has it effected my life in any way. Whether or not there are any medical benefits to the procedure is completely beside the point- it's an important part of the Jewish faith, and that's reason enough for those families to have it done. We're not talking about female "circumcision" (aka genital mutilation, which is barbaric), male circumcision is overwhelmingly safe and has no lasting effects whatsoever. Sure, you can cite medical cases where there were complications, but I can also tell you about a kid who developed balanitis and had to be circumcised at age 6, which he most certainly will remember and did not like in the least. Walking down the street has its inherent risks and rewards, too.

As I mentioned before, I'm a hardcore agnostic. Although I don't believe in god, I believe that others have the right to their beliefs so long as they don't impose them on others (sharia law, banning gay marriage, etc). Telling Jews that they can't continue the harmless cultural practice of male circumcision is just as much an imposition. Given my experience with circumcision, I don't have any problem with Jewish parents wanting their boys circumcised for cultural reasons. To me, it's no big deal. Why anyone else cares is a mystery to me. Against circumcision? Don't have it done, but don't tell me how to raise my family.

Kang,

Did I say circumcision was cruel and inhumane? Go back and read through my posts (as well as 007s posts) and you'll find that neither of us said anything of the sort. Did either of us even mention the word barbarian? Where did all this come from?

007 and I argued that the choice of whether to circumcise should be left up to the individual, and not the individual's parents. That's the position of the medical establishment here in Sweden, too.

Why is that so wrong?

I also said that most of the circumcisions performed in the US - that is mostly for non-medical and non-religious reasons - are done for purely aesthetic, medically unnecessary reasons. I provided some information from the medical establishment (the AAP) stating that circumcision is not "essential to a child's health."

I strongly believe that the non-medical, non-religious routine circumcision of baby boys us just plain wrong. I'm sorry but that's just what I believe. All the reasons for why it's "necessary" are invalid. For example, in the past boys were routinely circumcised to prevent masturbation. Well, that didn't work, did it? Seriously, if there's no real reason for it, religious or otherwise, then why get it done?

However, you and Dock are having it done for purely religious reasons and that's very different. Reread my and 007s posts and you'll see the neither of us attacked anyone's religion. I'm mortified that you interpreted what either of us wrote as a personal attack against you. That's not what it was at all.

Baptism isn't medically necessary either, it's only marginally less invasive and doing it to a child removes their freedom of choice to be a Hindu, Jew or Muslim. Being a parent means making choices for your children before they've developed enough brainpower to do it themselves.

So you're saying your religion is better than everyone else's? How do you know? Have you spoken directly to god? Maybe you're wrong and god is a Moonie? Thanks though, for identifying yourself as a myopic idiot.

I say this as unemotionally as possible:

You should be mortified. Whether or not it was your intent to hurt, the fact of the matter is that you did. You overtly and ignorantly criticized those who engage in this practice.

Fact: I am a Jew.

Fact: I am pregnant.

Fact: I am having a son.

How - considering all of the above, would you think that I wouldn't internalize comments made by both Beth and you? Really.

Between the ridiculous commentary about medical mishaps (which happen every day in every procedure and I could spew off more in five minutes than most could in a year) and the asinine suggestion that there be an age mandate, I don't know whether to feel sorry for the collective lack of understanding or remain in a state of utter disgust.

Like it or not, in choosing to vocalize your position in such a manner, you basically overlooked the feelings of those who may, with valid and just cause, not agree with you. And rather than being remotely diplomatic about it, you took the position with a certain amount of dripping scorn and superiority. All without having done any research on the religious aspect and the actual rite iteself.

Sorry if this is harsh but you know - I could just keep silent and not only allow the ignorance to rampantly fester and breed, but I could do the gravest disservice to a friend: allowing them to act the fool.

I'm Igbo, an ethnic group of West Africa where circumcision is practised & has been so for many generations.

A lot of commentators kept asking, why should kids be subjected to such pain of circumcision, why not wait till they are old enough to decide on their own??? One might as well ask, why should kids be given injections or even operated on since it is painful and makes them cry, you might as well wait till they are old enough, seek their consent before doing that.

What of food, education, clothing, etc, you might as well leave them off till the kids is old enough to decide too.

Stop for one minute and try to tabulate, the pros and cons of childhood circumcision and you will see it greatly outweighs that of uncircumcised,

Less risk of infection, complete healing of the penis when done in childhood (NOTE: the foreskin NEVER grows back), better sex for both the male and his woman (a lot of european woman I've been with can attest to that)

I used the word barbaric, but then my experience is of someone whom, for non-religious long forgotten reasons was circumcised as a 4 year old and it has had ramifications.

So if whom ever wants to do it for religious reasons then that's your right, but doctors also have the right to refuse to perform it surely?

Dont normally say much, but I will this time...

Removing body parts is not damaging?

Genital mutilation is damaging and does have lasting effects.

Why is male genital mutilation any different from female genital mutilation?

But mutilating a childs genitals is definately imposing those beliefs on the child.

I am a little uncertain who gets to choose which beliefs are correct and which are not? Which cultural traditions are correct and which are not?

Interesting!

:throws head back and laughs:

Aha!!! So now the vocal anti-brigade is saying, "well...if you're a Jew, then that's ok?"

:laughs louder:

Like this is supposed to negate all of the negative commentary in this thread? Really??? To quote my unborn kid, "Suck it."

Here's the deal - those who engage in circumcision for religious reasons aren't going to enlist a medical professional to complete the ritual. Mohels are far more specialized and adept at this.

Those who wish to engage in circumcision for reasons other than religion have every phucking right to expect their practicioner to perform this service. If you're saying you agree with doctors refusing to perform this, then you're saying you agree with a doctor's right to refuse to engage in other procedures and therapies (ie: abortion, the prescribing of birth control, etc...). You cannot have it both ways.

ja ja... of course... again... poor muslims - discriminated by racist Sweden...

Kang and Dock, if you can find a little break from insulting anybody has expressed opinions other than yours, you may consider a couple of points:

- this is a discussion concerning Sweden, which is a country with its own culture, traditions and points of view; you are right when saying that some of us are ignorant about Hebraic religion and this is mainly because any religion has a set of rules, prescriptions and foundations that are mainly known by its community. I suspect that you may have also some knowledge gaps when talking about, e.g. Hinduism, etc...

- in that country, the main medical associations agree that circumcision is neither needed or recommended for heatlhy reason (they may have not considered elegance of penis and oral sex but, I guess, it is not relevant before 15/16 years of age!)

- Sweden in a not very religious country (and most of us likes it for that); therefore, it is quite unlikely that scientific theories will be just overwhelmed by religious precepts like, instead, may happen in other countries

- In Sweden, there are a couple of points which are considered very important: families of course have responsibilities on their children but also some constraints like, for instance, to respect their children personal rights and physical integrity no matter what (even a moderate slap on a child face may end up in serious legal troubles for parents); moreover, the religion is seen very much as personal act and therefore to not be imposed to people that, due to age, cannot take any decision about it.

This is what I understood after some years living in this lovely country, this is not valid for the entire world. I am still convinced that, if you decide to live in a country, you should accept also its laws and restrictions, having anybody of us the freedom of leaving it if found those unacceptable. That's all. If Sweden will decide to make illegal the circumcision (something that formally is not at the moment, even if the fact that doctors refuse to do that is producing similar results), people living in Sweden must accept that. And, the rest of the world might, in that case, be happy to do not share the same principles of our "godless and leftist" (??) country

" If you're saying you agree with doctors refusing to perform this, then you're saying you agree with a doctor's right to refuse to engage in other procedures and therapies (ie: abortion, the prescribing of birth control, etc...). You cannot have it both ways." (hpks)

Your logic is flawed. The above procedures/prescriptions are being consented to/requested by THE PATIENT. Consent of the 'patient' - is ABSENT in infant circumcision.

Infants cannot consent.

.

May also close a quite meaningless comparison between circumcision and other medical matters?

- Surgeries, injections or whatever other treatment that has medical foundation is of course acceptable even if painful for young children; the discussion about circumcision starts in fact since it is considered something that does not have medical justification (as per Swedish Medical associations opinion)

- Abortion, birth control techniques, etc... those have nothing to do with living children. In particular for the abortion (which is always a said matter anyhow), this is justified by the fact that a foetus is not consider a person until a certain moment (it may vary in various countries but it is normally about 5 months) and therefore the parent's rights prevail on the potential new born right to live. Even in this case, science and religion conflicts (this is why, for example, in Ireland abortion is basically not permitted) and, being Sweden a not religion based country, scientific evidences about when a real life starts (and not just its potential, as foetus is) are taken into account to allow the abortion practice.

Neither can senile individuals. Does this mean that one's desire to relocate a parent, relative or spouse to an assisted living facility is now unfounded because the individual in question didn't consent?

Now - to the subject of child rearing. Given that the age of consent varies by country and state and situation, what decisions can parents make on behalf of their child?

good or bad, for any parents wanting to change foreever a major part of their son's sexuality understand they may want to ask you 40 years later why I must dream of pamerla anderson to cum (or similar).

@Bocale...

Hey! Thanks for the geography lesson! All this time I thought I was discussing local news about the Tar Heel state and not medical ethics and religous preferences even as it relates to Sweden.

BTW - when you speak of G-dless and leftist, try to direct that sort of barb to those whom might find it remotely offensive. Dock is an agnostic (and had you actually read his post, you would have picked up on that one since he only said it a million times) and I'm a socialist. In that regard, you're preaching to the choir.

then, it should be easy for you to find what the age of consent is for youngsters

Erm...young, adolescent women don't use birth control? You know - teenagers and the like. No birth control usage there? No need to take pills, use condoms, have an IUD and, possibly, an abortion? Nope? Never happened? Young women have neither sexual desire nor sexual behaviors until they are legally recongized as adults by law?

Cause...ya know...they do. And ya know what else? Responsible parents guide them down the path of contraception and so forth. Some of those crazy parents might even take their kid to the doctor!!!

Does this mean the parents are bad because they want their daughters to have access to birth control and protection from STDs? Does this mean the parents are bad because they are helping their daughters make decisions? What about the parents who tell their daughters to take the pill?

And - what happens if the only pharmacist in town won't dispense because it's against his moral code? What about the OB who refuses to abort a fetus with Trisomy-13 on moral grounds???

Do you think things through before you speak or do you shoot from the hip?

How does that relate to the discussion about Sweden, parental rights and medical ethics?

a couple of posts before, you wrote "Now - to the subject of child rearing. Given that the age of consent varies by country and state and situation, what decisions can parents make on behalf of their child?"...

direct question to kang and dock - when the boy asks why his penis is less sensitive and gives less pleasure in 30 years will you tell him to be a good jew and put up with it?

Then use the quote function properly.

Why would he ask such a thing in the first place? Well - aside from hearing morons like you rattle on nonsensically on the internet.

ok, understood that you cannot write without trying to offend, that's ok for me...

anyway, you should read better the posts before replying... I was talking about children, you talk about teenagers that of course need to be informed, by parents, by schools and so on... about abortion, I hope that you would leave the final word to the pregnant girl and not, since a parent, force her to do that... so, as you see, the need of consensus remains a must for me... regarding abortion, the max time for a foetus is a law requirement in most of the western countries, no matter what... and normally most of the genetic defects can be found within the time limits required to take the final decision... fortunately, we are not used to kill babies as soon as born because affected by serious diseases

If it is a girl, it is genital mutilation and it is egregious.

If it is a boy, it is circumcision and culturally accepted.

institutionalized discrimination...

Kang) as someone who had a bit of their gentils chopped off i think I know a lot more than you - I can, as a son ask you that question? your son may not ask you it but I bet he wil think about it a few times

If i am an idiot for being circumsised then kind man is very intelligent

If the daughter is 2 weeks old? Yes!

I think it is also important to remember that the doctor has a responsibility to the child they are treating as well.

Yet you can offend me and that's all right? And if you cannot see how or why you're offensive, spend less time worrying about my words and a bit more time focused on your own.

FACT: Adolescents do not have fully mature reasoning abilities which renders them what...children. Which means what in the eyes of the law? The parents are responsible for them.

You're doing a tomayto/tomahto dance to justify a very weak position.

I do find it interesting that you would allow your teenager to make such challenging decisions on her own without guidance or input from a parent. And you're calling whose parenting abilities into question?

Everything else you scribble is mere conjecture aimed at (as I said above) justifying a very weak position. Your arguments hold little water. The fact is you disagree with something which is fine. But simply because you find something unsavory doesn't mean that we should completely overhaul law, medical ethics and religious practices. It all ties back to your initial comment about wanting to be treated in a respectful manner. You want to be treated fairly and have certain rights yet you feel your opinion is the only valid one thus rendering the preferences of others invalid based on your...experience? Intelligence? I don't know, exactly, what your basis is since it lacks anything concrete but do continue to amuse me with your inability to construct a cogent thought.

your moron son is not happy you decided to chop off a bit of his cock? kang your are a little simple sometimes

I'm very saddened to read that your entire penis, and not just the foreskin, was removed. I cannot imagine what would have lead to such a barbaric act and am farily certain there is no compensation to remedy the pain.

In so far as what my poor, mutilated son would say to me when he's 30 about his dick - I'm not exactly sure. First, I would probably ask him why he waited 30 years to discuss his genitalia with me. Then, I would ask what sort of metric he employed to determine the alleged loss of sensation.

If he was further unsatisfied with my horrendous parenting, I would immediately offer him the right to sever me from his life and thus relieve him of the odious burden of caring for his aging female mother. Or - I might let him chop off a finger tip or two out of spite.

Lastly - after my wounds from the fingertipcisionthingy were dressed, I would direct him to his father and ask him how he could allow such a horrible fate to fall upon him. Maybe it's just my husband's bitterness about being circumcised that lead him to harm his son in such a manner. That said, given the substantial size of my husband's unit, I would strongly advocate for a little more trimming.

have you never tried to relax in your life? maybe you would see the world a little better and with less anger... if you cannot see any arguments in my posts, well, what a pity... well, anyhow, I will survive...

and btw, since my opinion is very similar to the one expressed by Swedish medical association, by several posters, by a large number of Swedish citizens, I do not feel that alone! but of course, we are all wrong and without concrete arguments...

At this stage of fetal development, we have no actual way of knowing if my son will be a moron or not. We have, however, seen active brain function so both Dock and I are hopeful he can learn to feed and dress himself.

Thank you for your concern.

Ever tried to relax? How in the hell do you think I got knocked up there, Sparky???

As I said previously, I see the arguments in your post. As I have also said previously, they are weak. And I find it somewhat interesting that some of the very same posters who frequently condemn the Swedish medical system for being flawed, lacklustre and behind the times are the very same folks who are patting it on the proverbial back for taking a stand in this oh, so pressing issue.

Alas, being a minority, I haven't the warmth and comfort you do. Rather than seek solace in an unfounded state of hive mind, I'll simply go outside and enjoy the nice, warm weather.

kang, you called me a moron so I call your son a moron

if you do not understand his issues in 30 years you have your own issues

as explained, i know more than you. women in sweden who have had sex with many men have confirmed what I know

I'm going to hop in here for a bit...because that was a quite silly thing to say.

The foreskin and the frenum are the most nerve-intense part of the penis. And removing that will drastically lessen the sexual pleasure.

If you will go through with this for religious reasons then I really hope you are aware of the fact that there are alternatives to circumcision.

http://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org/brisshalom.htm

"In Sweden, 60% of Jewish boys are intact."

He very well may be a damn moron for all we know. I'm fairly certain there is going to come a time when Dock Ellis, in a fit of disgust, is going to turn to him and say, "Son! You're a moron." And when that time comes, in approximately fifteen years, I'll say, "Don't be upset honey. Daddy is just saying what a foreskin-less Mango said on t3h internets."

Honey - if you don't understand that this kid is going to have issues in 30 years, you just don't know about Jewish mothers.

You know more than I do about...? Quantum physics? Probably. I have never been much for quantum physics.

Now, in so far as the women of Sweden are concerned, I noticed that you didn't mention that these women have had sex with you. Basically, you're saying that women who have had sex with other men know the difference between what a circumcised man feels and an uncircumcised man feels. Granted, I'm not a super genius (although I'm damn phucking close) but for the life of me, I couldn't tell you exactly what sensation a penis experiences since I have a vagina. I'm guessing those women don't know either. Unless, of course, they have both.

Does a penis, sans foreskin, not experience any pleasure at all? Now - think about this before you liken this practice to female genital mutilation.

There are Jews who believe in Jesus, too. I don't agree with them, either.

met quite a few women with 30 to 100 partners (no sex this is normal in sweden if you did not know# they seem to know and understand the difference.

if you do not understand that chopping off a bit of your boys penis will make a difference to his sexual life you have lost it big time

Of course it does and women who have had a circumcision can also feel pleasure.

But it do sound as if you do concede that it will lessen your kids pleasure when he become sexual active?

That is harsh...

“ Circumcision is desirable because it promotes cleanliness and prevents disease.

* The foreskin-frenum/labia minora-clitoris is unnecessary and can be removed with no adverse effects.

* Intact penises/vagina are less cosmetically desirable.

* It is important for a boy/girl to look like its parents.”

Those are the same arguments they use in other cultures to justify male and female circumcision.

kang - moron waiting for a reply? my parents are dead but #i would really like to ask them why I was cut _ you really think your son won't think (or say) that?

Have these women had penises and are they capable of discerning the difference between sex with a foreskin and sex without a foreskin? I'm not talking about discerning the difference via vagina. I'm talking about having an actual penis and having the experience in both circumstances.

Unless I'm not comprehending something here, you are basing your entire existence on the responses of women with 30 to 100 partners. You are not basing your experience on a man's perspective. How can you even rationalize that? I couldn't tell you what a man feels while having sex and you, being a man, have absolutely no idea what a woman experiences.

I would love to lighten the mood and make a joke about sexual perspective from the opposite sex (insert joke about a man's inability to find the g spot here) but I'm sensing something a lot more tragic at hand. This has far less to do with circumcision and far more to do with someone trying to live up to expectations he has no business living up to. What sort of person would make you feel any less adequate as a lover if you are lacking foreskin? Why would you want to spend time with someone like that? Last time I checked - there was more to intimacy than that and I should hope you know that well enough to stop beating yourself over random commentary from some well experienced women.

I know I come across as a royal bitch (and you won't get an apology for that either) but, dude, seriously - worrying about the foreskin of little Jewish boys in the world seems to be the last issue you should be addressing. There are plenty of circumcised men in this world who don't walk about questioning about sexual performance for good reason. Try moving into that camp instead of the woe unto me camp.

I'm not following you. You're still equating female genital mutilation to male circumcision. There is a distinct difference between the two.

:beats head off wall:

As I have said countless times, it is ok to disagree with something. It's not ok to force your opinions down the throats of others when little to no harm comes from it.

are you trying to be stupid or you just come across as such

my sample were women who had experience of the male and in particular the reponse of the male cock. they reported that circumcised cocks were different to uncircumcised cocks (and they were very aware of the different sensitivity and responses) . unforunateley I could not take part in the reseach as i cannot add back a foreskin

i am sure you will ignore me but you should understand you will change his sex life at a cut

Ok - this is my last attempt here.

You're fixated on what women who you have never had intercourse with are saying. You do realize this, right? You also realize that if you had your foreskin, these women might find you inadequate because of size (girth and length). Tell me, in that instance, who has to eat your anger then? It's not anyone's fault if a man has a pencil dick or a stub. That's just bad phucking luck, pal.

With no regard for your own feelings, you're taking to heart what random people are saying? And you expect me to change my entire value set based on discussions you have had with people in bars (or wherever)? Now - if I were to do that, I would be, indeed, stupid.

But since I'm going to remain in my position of feeling truly sorry for you (and hoping you find a good sex therapist who will convince you that you're not a lesser man), I'm just going to let you ramble on about how cruel and unfair life is and sit in judgement on me because you're an apparent ace at determining who the real experts are in this world.

sorry but you are quite funny

if you, for one instant you believe and argue that cutting off the foreskin makes no difference, you have lost all credibility (a bit like gordon brown)

ps - writing alot doesnt make it a good arguement

I know.

So says the man whose entire value set is defined by women who have never phucked him and probably wouldn't talk to him if he wasn't paying for their drinks.

But grammar and sentence structure help. You should give it a try sometime when you're less preoccupied about your self-ascribed mutilated member.

Kang and Dock: according to some senior rabbis, the child of a mixed marriage MAY NOT be circumcised.

Here are contact details for celebrants of non-surgical Jewish naming ceremonies: http://shalom.notlong.com .

"you're saying you agree with a doctor's right to refuse to engage in other procedures and therapies (ie: abortion, the prescribing of birth control, etc...). You cannot have it both ways." Absolutely. Doctors are entitled to freedom of conscience too. They should however let their self-imposed restrictions on their practise be well known before anyone spends money on consulting them, and they should not be the sole physician available in remote areas.

The nastiness, the judgemental people in this thread astonish me.

I feel like I've lost a few IQ points just from reading these 10 pages.

Get back to the original topic - Swedish Doctors refusing to participate in a legal process.

Let's hope these doctors aren't in remote areas or it could promote backyard circumcisions and then have very dangerous consequences for the babies and parents.

As a woman who has had an opportunity to have sex with both circumcised and natural(intact foreskin)men, I would overwhemingly vote for men who are intact. I'm in my thirties and I have had sex with men on three continents and there's an obvious advantage - and it goes to Naturaly Intact Men.

Most of the men I have had sex with were circunmcised and I had to use lube with them all, becuase their glans was so dried out it would be impossible for me to have sex and enjoy myself. The other observation I've noticed is that circumcised men struggle or work much harder thrusting than natural men do to ejaculate.

Natural men with all of that extra skin just glide with their thrust and it's obvious to me, that it's that extra skin that giving me so much extra pleasure that leads to my orgasm.

It's obvious to me, that circumcised men have been unknowingly harmed.

how is this relevant to Swedish doctors refusing to do a lawful procedure?

In response to all who seem to be Pro-Circumcision. Just because YOU were mutilated and believe that it was done for hygenic reasons doesn't make it right.

Read back through american medical journals. THE ONLY reason for circumcision becoming prolific in US society was to curb sexual desire and stop young boys from masturbating.

There can be no doubt of [masturbation's] injurious effect, and of the proneness to practice it on the part of children with defective brains. Circumcision should always be practiced. It may be necessary to make the genitals so sore by blistering fluids that pain results from attempts to rub the parts.- Treatment Of Disease In Children. Philadelphia: P. Blakiston. 1887

If you're going to advocate the removal of a protective mucous-secreting self-cleaning membrane evolved over thousands of years, then stand by your inane and narrow-minded view by cutting off your eyelids at the same time.

Read this and LEARN something.

http://www.noharmm.org/docswords.htm

There will be those who actually bother to read that webpage - quotes from doctors journals and medical papers - and say that it is not "THE ONLY" reason... and you'd be right.

but as you see, The "other" reasons are equally bloody stupid.

It's nice to see Swedish doctors performing in line with modern medical knowledge.

Yes, I agree.. And that is why you should let your boy make that decision when he is old enough.

Especially as it is (for you) "only" a symbolic gesture to reinforce who you are. You can not make that decision for him as you do not know if that is what he wants. It is his well being and freedom to choose that should govern the decision not what you want or who you are.

And one more time...it is not just a small piece of skin. It is a highly sensitive piece of his reproductive organ that has a specific function. Removing that should never be done except for medical reasons. And the same goes for women.

cutting up your infant to make him look right is just sickening. put condoms next to his bed when he is a teenager and leave his glorious body alone. Religious nuts think it is cleaner bla bla bla!!! please stop the torture culture.

I am happy that the doctors will not do it.

If you look at the stigma it has created in South Africa you will understand why the doctors will not do this. Now men with HIV get it done to hide their positive status!!!! It is a public health disaster because circumcision does not protect women from HIV (and many other STD's) they have found in clinical studies in South Africa with a huge population sample!!!

bolobabu: "religious reasons ... should be everyone's personal business." Exactly, that is why everyone's bodies should be left alone and not have any integral parts cut off until they are old enough to decide for themselves what religion or culture they want to follow, if any.

"Can someone tell me why children are not then allowed to remain on their mother's umblical cord after birth so they can grow up to give their consent wether they want to be seperated from their mothers or not?"

Certainly. Because the umbilical cord will dry up and fall off in due course without any intervention, but may become infected. It is now thought that people have been cutting it too soon, before it has given up all its valuable immulogical substances to the baby. The foreskin on the other hand does not drop off by itself. Very different.

swedish culture is being changed little by little by little,one day we will wakeup but it will be to late as we accomodate other cultures

Human rationale is needed in many aspects of life than mere following the law of nature, e.g wearing of clothes, avoiding incest and many others where acts lead to benefits than losses. As far as pain of circumcission is concerned then pain can not be detached in many other things related with new born, if count benefits and losses then empirical data based on medical research show that circumcission is better choice. If it is letting to his choice then why we get concerned for many other things when we know that it doesn't harm physically to us like sex before 19 , or using tobacco or alcohol ect.

Hey Americans listen up. Turn on your radio. Listen to the Dr. Dean Edell Show. This is one of his pet issues. He talks about it almost every day. He follows all the latest research on this. All the supposed benefits of circumcision do not hold up under just about all the studies being conducted. They have even put an end to a mass circumcision program for African men because it has no benefit in lowering the spread of HIV or other diseases.

Also circumcision rates continue decline in the US. A huge drop from the 1980s. Only 20% of boys in the western US states are now circumcised.

Honestly it's pretty moronic to hold on to this practice. Modern science has shown any health justifications proven false. So leave your sons in tact. It will help them keep the playing field even when the time comes to hooking up with euro chics.

Are you saying you need to use fantasy visual aids to reach peak stimulation? Lots of people do. I personally like to think of Johnny Depp, or if I am really kink that day, I will think of ...

Maybe they might be less sensitive if they dont wear proper fitting under-roos, thus it rubs back and forth all day making the little guy less sensitive to the touch of... Also, it is known that if one masterbates too often, they will only feel pleasure from their own hand. AND it will make it harder to come to climax each time. Leave him alone for two weeks, NO sex or masterbation, then try to see how long it takes to reach satisfaction.

mango, sure you don't give a flying pigs arse if you make a bunch of peoples ignore list today. I perfer to not put people on my list, as I believe that everyone has something to offer here. But, calling names and using vulgar language does not get your point across to me, any clear-er. Its like my son cussing, he does it only to make himself look bigger.

To the girl who needed extra lube for the boy that was circumcised, maybe you needed a bit more foreplay, and not just jump in the sack for a quick poke-poke. Lube can also be needed for other reasons, for as we age, we make less of the good stuff. Other contributing factors could be, nerves, diet, how close one is to menestration. Yes guys make the lube too, and this comes from inside the penis, not the foreskin. Working for 2 1/2 years at an adult shop in the states taught me quite a few tricks and treats.

If everybody was the exact same, how boring of a world this would be. I like the discussion here this morning, I have not laughed this much so early in the day, in a very long time. I enjoy the fact we an discuss this like adults and learn and disagree and agree with eachother. Most important to me is to show respect for peoples opinion, and give them credit and most important, their right to decide what is best for their families.

IW

So much for freedom of choice.

Most Jews in Sweden probably don't go to the doctors to have it done, as Kang pointed out.

The childs right to its own body supersedes the parents right to choose.

That is for instance why corporal punishment is illegal in Sweden.

Better than going to a bitter Dr to have it done!

IW

.

Legally, what happens if one parent wants the child circumcised and the other doesn't?

Legally, its not the parents decision

Legally, i think somebody can sue his parents for circumcised him...

1st. the baby will not remember when he gets older. if you wait until he is 18 then it will be real hard for him. he might be sexually active and will remember everything. as a parent it is MY CHOICE not his. that is how it has been since the start of time.

Very wise, Beffers. Not even worth the time and effort to type it out.

good one, on both parties

I never thought that this could generate such a great number of responses but the fact is I got circumcised when I was only 7 days old and I think I dont have any memory of the pain...I have seen boys being circumcised at a very young age and healing as quickly as in two/three days. Circumcision is definitely a huge issue in sweden. Couple of months ago an Arab muslim restaurant owner told me that there are no swedish doctors who perform circumcision and Jewish doctors in stockholm are a blessing for muslims, as they are the only ones performing cirsumcisions and are the first to introduce cirssumcision in sweden. So guys please take circumcision as a positive in creating harmony among jews and muslims, at least in sweden.

Of course boys deserve the same legal protection from genital cutting that girls enjoy, likewise without religious exemptions. There is no emergency that warrants the exercise of proxy consent for cosmetic surgery.

Besides, it is now shown by the same African research team in Rakai Uganda that circumcised men are 50% MORE likely to transmit AIDS to a partner. There is no clear benefit. Most of the US men who have died of AIDS were circumcised at birth.

Let the boy weigh the evidence which will then be available when he is grown. HIS body, HIS decision.

Forskin feels REALLY good.

Suspect it is associated with Jews by Europeans.

I am calling statistical abuse.

Maybe the circumsized Ugandan men were getting laid more often than their cowled brothers. Was that considered in this data?

Now I don't know what percentage of American gays are circumcized but I would guess that the majority are. Thus this claim is meaningless.

Not taking for or against cirumcism, but lets realize the shortcoming of so-called statistical studies. There are many many bad studies around in every subject.

@TLC it is way to hard on the body if you wait. i sure you understand. if you get hard after surgery that can be very painful. i have no memory at all of the pain and i was done twice. the big differance between girls and boys is there is a need to have the lips on the girl. there is no need for foreskin. just like your apendix, and tontsels. the parent is the one who makes all decisions. thats why you need parents permission for many things from law to hospitals. plus in USA you could be made fun of in the gym locker room. and that can be hard for a young boy. kids are mean and i remember making fun of kids with forskin. Parents choice

i like your arguments...Really strong!

Children need parents permission when they ask something...Do you think that a 1-2 week old boy asks to be circumcized?

Ewwww 30 to 100 partners? Walking STD.. gonna have to put a board across her partners behind so they don't fall in that gaping chasm. Gross...this is not a NORMAL number man. Just not good.

Umm let me see... oh wait I hear my teakettle calling me. How silly

IW

so you were a mean kid and now you love to fight. you got yourself some upstanding merits to present when you collect your award.

but heck, you provide a hellofa argument to not circumcise if you live in europe.

Odd. thre's a myth that doing this procedure will reduce the man's sexual satisfaction yet in the middle ages people thought Jews did this to enhance sexuality in the males.

Also, if this reduces sexual satisfaction why do all males in porn movies have circumcized penises?

i always assumed it was because most porn was either made in the US or made for the US market, where cut penises seem to be considered more attractive.

i don't understand how sexual pleasure (for or against) would ever contribute to the discussion regarding circumcising a child.

it's 100% irrelevant.

Maybe this is one reason Swedish women go for American or Turkish guys so much. Think?

Oh, and one other thing, do Swedish doctors care about the issue of the child's choice when the issue of abortion comes up?

Rebel frankly i don't think most european women really consider if their man is cut or not, you fall in love and cope with what ever you get! You'd hardy stop going out with someone because of the circumcision status of their penis, and if you did you'd be below shallow.

And I don't understand how you can sit on your judgemental pedestal while continuing to spout off about things you clearly do not understand or know about. Not only is it quite passive-aggressive, but it is exceptionally cowardly.

But alas, you certainly make *all* of the right decisions when it comes to parenting and are completely immune to any sort of criticism, right.

Also - to the person who exercised his power of the google earlier and decided to tell me about inter-faith marriages as it relates to a faith I have practiced for 38 years now...might I suggest you google a little bit harder. There are many branches of Judaism, you know.

I will say this - a vast majority of what I have seen in this discussion has been grossly unintelligible ramblings from people with an opinion. We have those who feel much more superior to others because they don't understand circumcision. We have those who feel much more superior to others and have used this position to highlight their latent bigotry towards Jews and Muslims. We even have one moron who harbors such resentment towards his ex-wife that he has allowed his bitterness to not only cloud his judgement as it relates to personal issues, but political, as well.

kang, i'm going to put it this way.

i'm not judging anyone. i'm discussing the reasons to argue for and against circumcision of a child. there are valid reasons for and against. add that all up and for me; my personal choice would be against. for others it would be for.

sexual pleasure for an adult is not a point to argue for or against circumcision of a child. when the time comes for a male person to decide on what would contribute or detract from his sexual experience he's more than welcome to make decisions to affect his own experience. therefore, what any of think would be better or worse for his sexual pleasure does not play a role in making decisions for a child.

sexual pleasure isn't a parent's responsibility.

i'm ignoring your decision to make this personal and refuse to address it on this forum. if you have something personal to address to me, i am most happy to discuss this one on one with you.

By comparison,

I wonder why do we vaccinate infants.

we dont take there consents for that. Why we dont wait till they become adult ...

I guess vaccination is a child abuse.

Both circumcision and vaccination protect from diseases... Circumcisions done at earlier age because it is painless. Actually kids cry more from injection pain than cutting the skin.

I guess circumcision should continue as long it protects from diseases.

Why is there an unspoken no-tolerance policy on female genital mutilation, but yet when it comes to male genital mutilation it's perfectly acceptable to talk about having professionals do it to prevent "backstreet circumcisions?" I mean, how would a proposition to have professionals circumcise girls so that they are circumcised in a "hospital setting by professionals with local anaesthesia and sterile equipment" so that they are not circumcised by amateurs in the bush with glass shards? We don't hold back when it comes to FGM, but with MGM we worry about things like "cultural relativism" or "respect for other people's cultures." "Culture" only matters as far as male circumcision goes. Suggest doctors should perform female circumcision and that all goes out the window. Why is that?

You're not judging anyone? Did you read what you have written? Sound horrifically judgemental to me.

1) Please demonstrate where you have supported one pro-circumcision argument.

2) Please demonstrate where you have acknowledged that you understand the various methodology as it relates to circumcision.

3) Please demonstrate one instance in this thread where you haven't openly mocked those who are for it.

As for the rest - whatever. It is personal as it relates to me. As it relates to the discussion and your arrogance towards things you don't understand and your tone towards others - it's not personal - it's just dealing with another know-it-all on the internet.

"It smacks of hipocrisy when this generation begin to think they are better than the hundreds that have preceeded them. They think they have all knowledge (not wisdom) so they can discard ageless principles, values, cultural practices and traditions."

What is it called when and old-boy is angry because the new generation is discarding "ageless principles, values, cultural practices and traditions," outdated and barbaric as they may be?

Were it not for a new generation refusing to carry on older traditions, we'd still have things like slavery and women wouldn't get to vote.

I hate to say it, but some traditions need to kick the bucket.

"Both of you are acting as if circumcision is something people engage in without giving it serious consideration."

You are acting as if giving something "serious consideration" is a virtue. Let's not forget that people give crimes such as robbery and murder "serious consideration." It's not a virtue to mull over something.

"I think its up to one family to make decisions of this magnatude."

There needs to be a decision to make. Since when can I take my child in and order the doctor to do anything? Could I say "doctor, give this child a clitorectomy?" Or "I feel my child should have knee surgery. Right, the phuck, NOW."

Are doctors obliged to operate on children "because the parent says so?" Or must there actually be a medical condition to treat? Bravo Swedish doctors for standing up for what's right.

"I take issue with two points in this discussion- first, the idea that parents shouldn't make the decision to circumcise for their children. Parents make all kinds of decisions for their kids that have far-reaching consequences- whether or not to immunize, how they get treated for medical conditions, what kinds of foods to eat, where they go to school, where they live, what they wear, etc. Making decisions for your child is pretty much the job description of "parent".

The problem with this argument suggests that parents can make absolutely any and every decision the want for their children, and those decisions are ratified by mere virtue that one is a parent.

It also is based on the dubious premise that circumcision is like "immunization," or that the foreskin is any kind of medical condition to treat, like a tumor or birth defect. Is it?

Let's analyze some "decisions" parents have made in the past. Let's see... some mothers have thrown their children off bridges, or stuck them in cars and drove them into rivers... some mothers have decided the best thing to do was to chop up their children. Am I to understand that this mother's decision should be respected "because it was her decision as a parent?"

Just how far do "parental decisions" go?

"Second, as a circumcised man I completely disagree with the idea that circumcision is somehow barbaric."

Go to Africa. Most women who were mutilated don't feel it's "barbaric" either. Actually, many feel that the West is infringing on their "religious freedom." How do you feel about that? Or is female genital mutilation "different?"

"As I mentioned before, I'm a hardcore agnostic."

No, you're NOT agnostic. You're every bit concerned about religion, and it is evident in how aprehensive you and your wife are being.

On the side, I find it kind of pathetic that she couldn't hold her own in a conversation, and so she had to call you in. "I'm telling my husband. Honey, show 'em what for."

Bottom line; circumcision is not necessary in the healthy. Reaping profit from performing medically unnecessary procedures, especially in non-consenting individuals constitutes MEDICAL FRAUD. Doctors should not even be performing circumcisions, let alone complying with parents wishes that it be done.

I can't argue against religious circumcision; that's an aspect that will have to change from within the Muslim and Jewish community. But some people are coming around; there are actually Jewish groups against circumcision. Look up Jews Against Circumcision... if you're really that interested... (I somehow doubt it...)

But one thing is for sure; a man of science is in no way obliged to perform "religious" or "traditional rites" for anyone.

Stand firm, Sweden. Lay down the law. Repatriate religious fanatics to their own countries and let them mutilate their children THERE. Prosecute offenders to the full extent of the law. Make people promise they will not mutilate their children as part of the naturalizing oath. Make them traitors to your country should they break it. SOMEONE needs to stand up for the rights of children... oh high and righteous US... when will you be next...

I dont mean to criticize the SWEDISH DOCTORS but actually how much knowledge they have?

no

i have. i'm not responsible for what you are reading into it. you obviously have a lot on your mind and a ton of hormones to contribute to it. i'm indeed terribly sorry that you feel you're being judged and it is never comforting to know that this personal decision for you and dock causes you anxiety.

i'm not pro-circumcision. do you think i'm suggesting i've made pro-circumcision arguments?

my reason to argue against circumcision for any child without a child's consent makes that irrelevant. is this leading somewhere?

opening to closing post demonstrates that.

it's personal to everyone on this thread. pretty much every thread/post on TL is personal to someone.

you're out of line calling me names because i don't support your personal choice. you're misguided and mistaken presuming i don't understand anything about it either.

and i won't take this further. if you wish to address my arguments, i'll welcome them.

Many years ago when my wife was pregnant with our son I asked my father about why I was clipped. His response was hair raising to say the least. It was because of WW2 the US army decided that a large program of voluntary circumcision would help in field hygiene and sent out doctors to convince GIs to have the procedure, my father consented to the procedure and endured about a week of intense agony with very little sleep. His entire ward was full of guys like him screaming all night long because they woke up with a hard on. I'll bet that hurts. The doctors told them to keep their helmuts full of water next to them and splash it on it when they wake up. I think that might be the reason that it became so prevelent with my generation not some zionist plot like some of the anti semites on this thread seem to think. I feel that if the country of Sweden wants to make it illegal then its guests that live there should comply or leave. I doubt that they will though, even now in some parts of the US there are female circumsisions going on all the time in peoples houses. I don't under stand religious ferver because I'm an athiest. It comes naturally because by heritage I'm Swede and Norse, two races that are too cheap to be religious. By the way my wife and I decided not to customize our son. We taught him proper hygiene instead.

Some ridicules comments here. Vaccination cannot be equated with circumcision even if it prevented some sexual diseases kids can chose at the age of consent. The whole idea of foreskin growing back is just lies. I am a circumcised American who parents were not given a choice. My Swedish kids are not circumcised. They can chose when they grow up if they want. We are the same with religion. We teach facts tell our belief or lack there of but leave it open for them to decide in the future.

It is refreshing that Sweden is standing up for children, Would love that all countries in Europe adopt this policy. Also like France banning the full burka and Bjorn from ABBA's suggestion that exclusive religious school be banned or at least not stae supported. Let the kids decide when they grow up and not allow brainwashing as a front for education. Stand up for kids right to choose.

Circumsision is not compulsory in the states I don't know where you were born.

when I was born late 50s it was expected and almost universally applied. My father was not circumcised but I was. My children born in the US were assumed to be circumcised. It was only by proactive action that we prevented it. We could hear the kids screaming in the hospital when the other babies were circumcised.

I have seen articles that link male circumcision early to the control of the sexuality in societies where older men where allowed multiple wives. Common in the ancient middle east even in Jewish societies. In the modern world this is child abuse.

Okay, let's have some proportions here:

Personal experience:

My son was circumcised. He had freezing (EMLA) + local anesthesia. The whole thing lasted about 45 seconds. He cried for about 30 seconds, some breast time, asleep in seconds. Done.

My point here is that this is innocuous. Trowing words around like "genital mutilation" is ridicules. Worse, what it does is bring female genital mutilation - which is a long procedure, extremely painful, meant to eliminate pleasure entirely, and practiced at an older age and as a result creates a harrowing trauma... as "the same thing". It is not.

Finally, my ancestors practiced this procedure for about 3000 yeas and nothing terrible happened; so to all the bleeding hearts and intellectually elevated and smug - I would suggest to bark at another tree.

[quote name='High Priestess Kang - Slut' date='25.Jul.2009, 10:59 PM' post='443720']I say this as unemotionally as possible:

Fact: I am a Jew.

Fact: I am pregnant.

Fact: I am having a son.

Fact: Many Jews all over the world do not circumcise their sons, especially in more enlightened countries like Sweden.

Fact: Jews worldwide are learning better and giving up this terrible mistake, as Jews for the most part have given up other unsavory aspects of this ancient and at heart honorable religion. Judaism is fundamentally about doing justice, loving mercy, and walking humbly with God, not about mutilating babies' sex organs, stoning adulterous women to death, sacrificing goats, or any of the rest of the garbage from the bronze age and earlier.

Fact: Examining one's cultural and religious heritage and practices for mistakes and giving up mistakes discovered is a good, courageous and necessary thing for any human being, Jewish or otherwise, to do.

Fact: http://circumcision.org, http://JewishCircumcision.org and http://JewsAgainstCircumcision.org have already helped many Jews examine circumcising rationally and give it up, to the increased safety and great delight of Jewish babies. It is not anti-Semitic to try to protect Jewish babies from unnecessary harm and the risk of further injury and death. NOT doing so is what is anti-Semitic, whether the person failing to act to protect the babies or actively harming them is Jewish or otherwise.

Fact: Nazi doctors were convicted at Nuremberg after World War II of violating Jews' and others' human rights by chopping them up with no medical necessity for doing so. The crime against humanity for which they were convicted is called "human vivisection". Circumcising without medical necessity is human vivisection, and it's a crime against humanity whether it's Germans doing it to Jews or Jews doing it to their own children or anybody doing it to anybody else.

Fact: Circumcision injures every child against whom it is inflicted, Jewish or otherwise, and kills some of them.

Fact: The highest density and greatest number of nerve endings yet discovered in the penis is contained within a sense organ new to science in the 1990s, the "ridged band", located in the foreskin. Chopping out human sense organs diminishes human sensation. Chopping out a baby's eyes will blind him or her, every time. Chopping out a baby's sexual sense organs will sexually blind the child, every time, in varying degrees depending on how many sensory nerve endings are excised. With circumcising as done today, most are. See

http://research.cirp.org

http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/taylor/

http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/cold-taylor/

Fact: Circumcising normal, healthy children kills some of them. Dead. See

http://intact.wikia.com/wiki/Death_By_Circumcision

http://www.circumstitions.com/death.html

http://www.cirp.org/library/death/

Fact: Chopping any normal, living, healthy, non-renewable body part off or out of any human being without that person's fully informed, adult, written consent violates that person's inalienable human rights to security of person, equal protection of the law, bodily integrity, and many others including sometimes life itself. Doing so violates national and international laws adopted to protect people from ANY assault and battery, let alone always harmful and sometimes lethal ones.

Fact: Circumcising normal, healthy children is therefore already illegal in every civilized country in the world. The fact that most countries do not enforce the laws already on the books to protect people from unnecessary assault and injury by others doesn't make circumcising legal, it just shows the power of religion and culture to warp otherwise decent people's minds and diminish their ability to think rationally and to act responsibly to defend the human rights of children from always harmful, additionally risky and sometimes lethal assaults against their bodies.

Fact: Mutilating the normal, healthy sex organs of healthy children must and WILL be abolished from the face of the Earth. The only question is how long this urgent necessity will take. See http://MontaguNoCircPetition.org

Fact: Many people will kick and scream, just as they kicked and screamed when slavery was abolished, when women were allowed to vote, when segregation and apartheid were abolished, and as they always kick and scream when full human rights are extended to ANY abused minority or majority group, be they men, women, blacks, gays. lesbians, bisexuals, transgendered people, children or babies. The kickers and screamers cannot be allowed to stand in the way of human progress, and that is achieved by protecting the human rights of every person on the planet from people who profit, or imagine that they do, from those human rights violations. Protect babies, don't mutilate them. Sweden's doctors are moving in the right direction, more slowly than the babies and the future need them to. Move faster. Children's' lives are on the line. Ignore the kickers and screamers. Immature adults always do that. Protect the babies at all costs.

Some more myth busting websites

http://www.mothersagainstcirc.org/

http://www.circumstitions.com/Restric/Botched1sb.html

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

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7272603373993370309

Many?

Sweden is more enlightened than Canada? U.S.? How did you reach this conclusion? Thinking with your foreskin?

Yes, Jews are just like SS soldiers for doing this. Exactly the same.

Reminds me of How to win an argument by Dave Barry, 1981

http://www.digitalroom.net/index2.html

* Compare your opponent to Adolf Hitler.

This is your heavy artillery, for when your opponent is obviously right and you are spectacularly wrong. Bring Hitler up subtly. Say: "That sounds suspiciously like something Adolf Hitler might say" or "You certainly do remind me of Adolf Hitler."

The reason is religious. Yes. But not just religious to Jews - of the highest religious importance. Weather religion should or should not dictate actions is a different issue. I am just answering your question.

"As found in Genesis 17:1-14, Brit milah is considered to be so important that should the eighth day fall on the Sabbath, actions that would normally be forbidden because of the sanctity of the day are permitted in order to fulfill the requirement to circumcise. The Talmud, when discussing the importance of Milah, compares it to being equal to all other mitzvot"

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

Mature.

Comparing circumcision to baptism is a weak argument and you know it. Baptism does not change you as a person.

I'm an agnostic theist and a firm critic of organised religion and the horrific archaic practices that come with it.

My hero.

This has nothing to do with babies feeling pain or not! That's the argument some people use to try to create an emotional response. But we are against child circumcision because it is making a life-altering decision without the consent of the child. And who cares if muslims and jews both do it? Why can't you get along without circumcising boys and eating halal/kosher meat? You should ask yourself this instead.

Who cares how long the procedure is? Female circumcision is meant to eliminate pleasure according to SOME, just as male circumcision is meant to eliminate pleasure according to SOME. But both cultures who practice these traditions claim it's done for health reasons. All supporters of male circumcision who are against female circumcision are hypocrites of the highest order and/or entirely brainwashed.

Yes. Sweden had a huge children's rights movement in the 70's and 80's. Sweden is more enlightened than Canada and the US when it comes to children's rights. That the US is the only country in the Western world to not ratify the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child should tell you something.

[quote name='Torontonian' date='27.Jul.2009, 11:16 AM' post='444080']Many?

Sweden is more enlightened than Canada? U.S.? How did you reach this conclusion? Thinking with your foreskin?

end quote

my reply

The USA is the ONLY COUNTRY in the WORLD where the medical profession circumcises the majority of infant males. No other country on the entire planet has a medical community stupid enough to do this. Thankfully, the US medical community is (very slowly) becoming educated and abandoning this madness. Soon it will be a minority practice, and then should rapidly diminish to levels more like those in Europe; very minor. Injuring and killing children essentially for nothing is not that bright, in case you hadn't noticed. Primary requirement to be a circumciser is empathy deficit disorder. They are missing the mirroring cells in the brain, so they can't understand the physical and emotional experiences of other people. They have to be stopped by people conscious of and committed to protecting the human rights of everyone.

1. Many care about the leangt of the procedure to ensure it is quick and to minimize pain (also via anesthetics).

2. Male circumcision is not meant to eliminate pleasure - I should know.

3. I did not claim health reasons. There are cultural religious reasons. And also practical - try to force Jews this edict. It has been done before:

When a law by Antiochus forbidding to circumcise young boys, an attempt to further dilute Jewish cultural uniqueness. Jews revolted and now we have the story of Hannuka!

Later,

Hadrian forbade castration and circumcision, making a law against a practice that had offended Greek and Roman sensitivities - The Jews revolted and 580,000 were killed in the various engagements or battles. As for the numbers who perished from starvation, disease or fire, that was impossible to establish.

[Cassius Dio, Roman history 69.13.2-3]

The bottom line - it is done at 8 days old so healing is faster and no memory (except visual) is left. Any more focus or "lamentation" about some piece of foreskin is a sign that one has too much time on their hands.

As per "Sweden is more enlightened than Canada and the US when it comes to children's rights." ... sure you are right. Canada is a terrible place for children... not enlightened and virtually in the dark ages. Parents, send your children away to Sweden or Austria or something.

Last point, I assure you that Jews as a cultural group are not child abusers and are interested in the best for them. When it comes to a non Jew trying to force a law on Jewish practice - it is not going to happen. Jews are funny that way. People tried to make them stop practicing for 2500 years - results vary.

The Mohel that circumcised my son was

1. a doctor - who BTW a week earlier operated and separated conjoined twins. He graduated from Harvard that is recognized as the top medical school in the US (together with John Hopkins)

2. a very nice man who ensured application and anesthesia were administered to minimize discomfort.

3. I was holding my son - and did not enjoy it one bit. I love my son more than you will ever know. - as a result, I gave him continuity that lasted thousands of years. he will know were he came from everyday of his life. You may mock as barbaric... and be all smug about it. For Jews it means a lot and that is one important practice that kept Jews as a distinct nation even though they were spread amongst other nations for 2000 years. You may think it is not worth it. I am sure it is. It is also legal in every country on the planet.

Merely for emotional reasons. Emotional people do not think rationally. And in this argument logic is needed.

Yet you claim female circumcision is? How do you know? The West tries to paint all non-Westerners as "barbarians," something that's complete bullshit. Trust me, in these cultures most of the time they certainly do not circumcise to "reduce pleasure." They do it for health and beauty reasons and they continue doing so despite criticism because it's a tradition and they've always done it. And there are plenty of women who do not regret having it done whilst there are some that do.

Yes, I've heard it all before.

Since many American Christians practice circumcision, it does not distinguish the Jewish boys from the non-Jewish.

Thus, the claim that circumcision is essential for the survival of the Jewish people is, therefore, invalid.

Other practices sanctioned by the Torah that we no longer permit because we are educated and enlightened are:

Slavery (Exod 21:1-11, Deut 15:12-18)

Animal and human sacrifices (Lev 4:3, 4:23)

Divorce for men only (Deut 24:1)

Female subservience to men including obedience to every order and no right to refuse sex, (Gen 3:16)

Among the great strengths of Judaism are its rationality, its commitment to learning and scholarship, the tradition of gemilut chasadim, acts of loving kindness, and the prohibition on deliberately causing pain. Cutting off part of a baby’s penis violates all of these traditions and strengths.

http://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org/brisshalom.htm

Still living in the past I see. Just like the far too many christians and muslims who still can't get over the crusades. I feel sorry for all of you, really.

Ridiculing my statement instead of trying to disprove it...

Quite a statement to make. Your opinion, to be sure. Since I consider circumcision child abuse, however...

Since 60% of Swedish jews are intact they have my respect though.

Spare me the dramatics. You are free to migrate to the ethnic Jewish homeland (Israel) to practice your traditions but they should not be tolerated in Sweden in the name of "religious freedom."

I was circumcised when I was like 5 years uncircumcised di*ck are unhealthy coz many dirt can be hided under foreskin and today's science tells us you should circumcise your little boys so they can be good in sex and have healthy joystick

Spare me your holy status - It is legal in Sweden so should be tolerated. It is the law.

As per your go to the Jewish homeland statement above, it is nothing but a reflection of your degenerate values and latent racism. Jews, Muslims, Christians or any other religion members should be able to practice their traditions within the confines of the law. To call practicing Swedish Jews to move to out of the country when what they do is 100% legal within he law is pure bigotry. They are not less Swedish than you...

but heard this all before...

Yes. This is what's at the bottom of all that is wrong with society. The removal turtleneck from the pecker is where is starts!!!

Hopefully not for long... and this thread is about Swedish doctors refusing to perform circumcisions.

Degenerate values? Latent racism? I thought judaism was a religion? (see below)

Yes they should. And jews and muslims have no right to cry "racism" or "discrimination" when doctors refuse to perform circumcisions (because it goes against their oath). And they have no right of being "exceptions" once circumcisions are outlawed, no matter what a certain person on this board seems to think. People are arguing that circumcision shouldn't be made illegal because of muslims and jews.

What's this got to do with being Swedish? This has got to do with respecting the laws of the country you live in. The Hippocratic Oath is protected by law. It is every right of a doctor to turn down requests they deem morally indefensible.

The world will hopefully one day be enlightened to the plight of these children. The only place where this would (presumably) not take place is in Israel due to religions place in politics there. The same goes for countries ruled by sharia or places with an entanglement of sharia in politics. It's quite simple. The best way of having "religious rights" respected is moving to a country which is not secular and which follows these values and traditions in its majority. Like I've said, the majority of Swedish jews are not circumcised so I have no problem with them. But since you're clearly extremely pro-circumcision I'm saying you have somewhere to go once Sweden makes it illegal. Cheers.

1. Still legal. If the doctors have a problem with the law - they are welcome to move to a country where they can practice selectively according to another law which they come up with.

2. Judaism is beyond religion. Much more than that. It is also an ethnic group with a distinct language and culture and genetic makeup.

3. Thanks for making sure I will have a place to circumcise future sons. I can also go to the UK, Germany or any other country in Europe if I want to. Much closer than Israel. In fact, once the bris is done - go back to Sweden. But moving requires shipping containers and immigration staff - so really, thanks but no thanks. Regardless, your concern is noted.

Your bias shows a bit too much. Point 1. you have back to front. No body anywhere is compelling the doctors to perform the operation. They will not be the ones to change country.

Point 2. On Judaism, sharpen up on your use of the term. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism

Put kindly,

I am not sure about your hygiene practices (and not sure we want to go there) - but if the reason is being "clean", I Kindly suggest more showers, exposing the foreskin and scrubbing under.

Kind Regards.

I assure you that my knowledge about Jews is superior. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_ethnic_divisions

I am biased. Aren't we all? As per moving out of the country - I thought that we are playing a "move them out of the country" game if they do not like the law. It goes both ways you know?

As I said, the hippocratic oath is protected by the law.

Will you make up your mind? Jews are an ethno-religious group. The ethnic homeland of Jews is Israel. All Jews are free to move to Israel. Non-religious Jews who are still ethnic Jews can clearly without a problem stay in Sweden. Religious pro-circumcison jews, however, clearly need to go elsewhere if our laws contradict their values.

Yeah, many Somalians also thought of that bright idea... which is why they're considering genital checks in the future. Just thought I'd mention that in case you forgot. Generally speaking going somewhere where your traditions are legal is better than breaking the law and trying to hide your crimes.

.

First and foremost, a child born to a Jewish mother - is Jewish. Not circumcision.

.

I'm shocked and horrified by the ignorance of some people in here. Have you guys really bought the myth about circumcision being such a big health thing? Geez..

I certainly wouldn't want my penis to be like an old tree stump when I get older. The foreskin protects the penis. There is a reason for you guys needing creams and everytime you masturbate.

And everybody showers daily, right?

Are we living in the 21st century or the middle ages?

Let your kids make up their own minds, for Christ's sake...

This is where diversion begins. Especially for he Jews. Regardless, he was himself circumcised.

And crucified. Both acts were criminal, one mutilating him at the beginning of his life, the other mutilating and killing him at the end of it. So we should treat our own children the same way? Jesus' response from the cross: "Forgive them Lord, they don't know what they're doing." He sure got that one right. Jesus was an early Jewish intactivist. Preaching against circumcision in the temple in Jerusalem - in the very heart of the home of the mistaken belief that says that God wants Jews to sexually mutilate their male babies - was one of the things that got Jesus into so much trouble with the Jewish religious authorities. Read John 7 in the New Testament if you don't believe it. Jesus said there that circumcising comes not from Moses, but from the ancestors of the Jews, that is, from man. In other words, not from God the Holy One, but from man the sinner. He points out the hypocrisy of those who were angry at him "for making a man every whit whole" when they themselves make men partial, through circumcising. He said all this in the temple in Jerusalem. He freaked out the religious literalists of his day completely by doing so, and soon was dead at their insistence, crucified. They shed his innocent blood for the second time then. The first time was his circumcision. It prefigured his crucifixion. Look at a little helpless baby strapped into a circumstraint today, arms and legs immobilized, ready for his own penile crucifixion. This is as sick as it gets.

There have been many Jewish intactivists over the centuries. Many of the founders of Reform Judaism were intactivists. There are many important Jewish intactivists today. Read about Jewish Nobel Laureate Harvard biologist, George Wald's essay, "Circumcision", at http://sicsociety.org/crick-wald.htm Read Jewish MD and anthropologist Leonard Glick's book, "Marked in Your Flesh: Circumcision from Ancient Judea to Modern America", published by Oxford University Press. Read Paul Fleiss's important articles, "The Case Against Circumcision: The foreskin is necessary", http://www.mothersagainstcirc.org/fleiss.html, and "Protect Your Uncircumcised Son: Expert Medical Advice for Parents" at http://www.mothering.com/health/protect-yo...-advice-parents Mark Reiss is Vice President of Doctors Opposing Circumcision at http://DoctorsOpposingCircumcision.org. Jewish psychologist Dr. Ronald Goldman's books and websites are important: http://circumcision.org and http://JewishCircumcision.org. Morris Sorrells, MD, did important recent scientific psychological research demonstrating that the foreskin is subjectively the most sensitive part of the penis, reflecting the reality of the neuroanatomy of the foreskin, which shows objectively that the foreskin is the most nerve-dense part of the penis. http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/sorrells_2007/

The list of important Jewish intactivists is long and honorable. The earliest one I know of is Jesus. Modern day Jewish and other intactivists aren't treated much better today by many mutilationist Jews and other mutilationists than Jesus was. Why? Circumcising healthy children is wrong and sick, VERY sick, and it's easier for these very sick mutilationists to attack those working to free the human race from the grip of their tragic sickness and error than it is for them to heal themselves.

Circumcisers, circumcisionists, mutilationists, difficult as the task may be, it's not impossible: Heal yourselves. Abandon this evil madness and go sane with the rest of us. You can do it. You'll be a better person for it, and you'll live in a better world because of it.

No time like the present.

...and ACTION!

Thanks for this fantastic display of verbal gymnastics. I will stay a "mutilationist Jew" though and have no plans of following JC any time soon. Snip Snip Chop Chop - get a life and focus on more serious things. CUT.

So what about the Spaniards? French? Russians?, Chinese?, Germans? They had/have empires? I fail to see the link b/w circumcision and imperialism. The link is as far as my foreskin is from my circumcised member.

And again the arguments move from the bizarre to the crazy. As for the facts they are wrong as well...since Jews were never conquerors of Spain so there was no "freeing" required. What about the Russians? Chinese? Japanese? German? French? Maya? Aztec? - you did not provide a reasoning for aggressive nature due to a lack of foreskin.

I'm also going to exercise my right to modify my childs appearance and bodily functions according to my wishes.

http://www.africanconservancy.org/images/B.../surmadisk1.gif

Here is something all the whiners can use. Problem solved.

http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http...sa%3DN%26um%3D1

1. "a most important worldwide social question?" I listened to the news today (a couple of times). There was not even one mention.

2. "a penis is ever anything but a thing of ugliness?" - You have serious issues Mr. Ford. On a second thought, It is very probable that an 80 year old penis is not a fine specimen. I think you should learn to manage your own anxieties by now. If some kind of an inadequacy complex in that department is guiding your problems in life, a good therapist should be able to give you some help. Good luck and all the best. I hope you will be able to take your problem into your own hands. The therapist, however, will be using velvet gloves in dealing with your problem as it is obvious you are quite sensitive.

There is a reason you do not see circumcised dogs. Most people would not even consider circumcising a dog and vets wouldn't do it anyway. It is animal cruelty. So why do it to a child?

Torontonian - You have affirmed that mutilating female genitals, aka female circumcision, is bad. But you claim that mutilating male genitals, aka male circumcision, is good. Care to explain your rationale a little better?

As a self-professed expert on Jewish traditions and religion perhaps you can explain why women and animals are equally deemed to be not worthy of circumcision? Can you explain the real reasons behind male circumcision?

Perhaps you could answer who gets to choose which religious and cultural beliefs are correct and which are not?

Don't get me wrong. Everyone has the right to believe what ever they want and to follow what ever religious or cultural traditions they wish. But, that is up to the point where it restricts or infringes upon the health, morals, and/or interferes with the fundamental rights and freedoms, of others. 'Sacrificing' bits of people before they are capable of making up their own mind is going quite a long way past that point. IMHO

Good arguments all around except that it is not "mutilation". Now I gave my arguments a few times in this thread as well. My question to you: Do you honestly believe that the overwhelming majority of Jews in the world (around 10-12 million) want to hurt and inflict pain on the sons? to "mutilate"? - the obvious answer is that they do not. - the difference between your opinion and their's is that the definitions are different. Calling it "mutilation" is not winning you points and not helping you make your arguments - It is aliening. Now, ain't it?

Yikes... never understood why this is such an emotional issue.

People seriously need to chill. Comparing this to female circumcision is really fcuked. Relax. Life is too short to get emotional over such a thing. Some people are cut, some are not. Live and let live.

As far as why would we have a foreskin if God wanted us to cut it off? Why do we have an appendix or wisdom teeth? The foreskin protects the glans from the cold weather and other things when we didn't wear clothes. It is not much more complicated then that.

Don't you bring "God" into the discussion, you idiot!

Why is the issue of female circumcision so "fcuked up", as you put it, if "God" didn't want it to be so? Can you answer that?

If you can't, then your whole argument collapses on male circumcision as well, and you only make yourself look stupid!

And if we don't need "an appendix or wisdom teeth" NOW, albeit we did years ago, why do we STILL have these things NOW!!! Are you saying that "God", the almighty, actually CANNOT remove these things from human beings just because humans needed it in the past?? Is "God" not almighty, then??

ALL arguments which rely on the existance of "God" are STUPUID. Which makes your argument, STUPID.

Cutting of your nose has more benefits than circumcision

There are many health benefits in nose removal.

You will no longer suffer from

- Rhinitis

- Hay fever

- Colds & flu’s

- nose bleeding

- snoring

- Sunburnt nose (sunburn causes skin cancer)

Children will no longer tease each other about the different sizes of noses.

It will also stop the nasty habit of “Nose Picking” and the even move vile habit of eating it after.

There is a slim chance that you may suffer from a broken nose in the future. Nose removal will spare you & your children from this.

Wegener Granulomatosis which affects 1 in 50,000 people will be greatly reduced.

Nose removal has benefits to society as it stops people drug sniffing.

Just think, no more pesky nose hairs.

Reduces AIDS, as AIDS infected people will no longer be able to sneeze on you.

Nose removal is painless, as you can simply use anaesthetics and new born babies will not feel it.

So if you love yourself and your children, please get a Nose Removal.

Dont think it did MJ much good...

Thats because he only had partial nose removal

Can I just ask a question and apologies if it was already asked but I can't face reading 16 pages of the same old same old.

If you bring your boy up to be a Jew, and he is faithful and wants to be a Jew, wouldn't he want to be circumcised in order to comply with the requirements of the faith? So why worry about getting it done before he can choose? Is it because Jews are a bit afraid that at 18 boys may care less about the faith than about their foreskins?

This is a good question. Many Jews are also asking the same question. I came across this film that may help in your answer. The web version is edited but still has the same meaning. It is made by a Jewish man, if you are worried about bias.

I had seen the film unedited.

http://www.cutthefilm.com

For Jews the reason is simple:

It is not about being clean

It is not aesthetics

It is not about health reason

It is about the tradition of fulfilling one of the strongest mitzvas. The mitzva itself is to do a brith at 8 days (unless there are health reasons that would prohibit it from taking place.

This is the actual Mitzva:

This is My covenant between Me, and between you and your offspring that you must keep: You must circumcise every male. You shall be circumcised through the flesh of your foreskin. This shall be the mark of the covenant between Me and you. 'Throughout all generations, every male shall be circumcised when he is eight days old.

So...eight days old is part of the "deal".

I am sure I know what you opinions are. In my point of view the procedure is innocuous and at the same time has an enormous traditional value. I ensured my son had it - and I am not going to hide behind any other argument.

Wow, that's a seriously manipulative religious requirement, if you'll pardon my saying so.

That is your opinion so no need to be pardoned. In my opinion, it was decided on such an early age b/c heeling is much faster (a few days). Older man or boys will require weeks before they ca walk again. Also, there is no memory left or anxiety in waiting to get it done.

As for the cultural sensitivity, Brit milah is considered to be so important that should the eighth day fall on the Sabbath, actions that would normally be forbidden because of the sanctity of the day are permitted in order to fulfill the requirement to circumcise. The Talmud, when discussing the importance of Milah, compares it to being equal to all other mitzvot.

For that reason, most of non-religious Jews will circumcise their sons.

What I find offensive in many posts here is the insinuation or flat out accusation of cruelty. As a group, Jews put enormous efforts towards child rearing (that includes education, resources...and demands on kids). To go about an trow words like mutilation, cruelty and sadism is childish, ignorant and frankly not really a discussion.

I'd agree with that, and that's from someone who would happily see circumcision of under 18s outlawed altogether. Although I do believe that a circumcised willy is less sensitive, it's not enough of a problem to be an argument against in itself because the man in question will never know the difference. Over-egging the pudding tends to undermine the argument.

The only real question, I think, is whether a parent has the right to permanently disfigure (damage? can't think of the perfect word) their child. I think most people would be opposed to, say, tattooing a baby and a tattoo is removable.

Anything from removing a mole, getting a tattoo through ear piecing to circumcision is subject to cultural norms and ethics. It is a hard question because there are implications on what is the right age for kids to make their own decisions (religious or otherwise) and what parents are allowed to do. In Jewish tradition and the talmud the child is not considered a viable human being until after graduation from medical or law school. At that point the child can make his or her own decisions (sometimes).

Heh.

Perhaps you should take the time to watch the video in the link provided by AussieAndy. Listen to what the people say in their interviews. If a person who conducts these circumcisions acknowledges that the ritual may be mutilation and may be an abuse and is willing say in that case he is an abuser, why do you have such a hard time with that one word?

Mutilation as a word sounds rather ugly and horrible, but that doesn't change the meaning of the word. I can write out a long winded definition each time instead but I think that is rather pointless considering mutilate as a verb is used to convey that meaning.

You can also try and position me as being against all jews and their faith but that is rather silly and rather untrue.

As for the covenant, many people, including jewish people, do not see that as being the be all and end all to being jewish. In fact you are jewish if you believe you are even if you are not circumcised. If you are uncertain about this talk to your rabbi. Traditionally if you were not circumcised you just couldnt do certain things that circumcised jews could. I am not an expert on the jewish faith, far from it. But as far as I know the original covenant went a lot further than circumcision and the rest of the covenant is no longer practiced as far as I am aware. Originally females could not become a rabbi, now there are plenty of females who occupy this role.

If you remove the covenant from the equation where does that leave you standing on the issue?

1. I have see it in my own eyes many times. I called the surgen/mohel myslef. I held my own son with my own hands when he had it. I helped administer the freezing + anesthesia. It was not an easy experience for me (even though lasted abour 45 seconds or so). I am also not an abuser. So this nonsense it not helpful. If you wish to label me as such - go ahead - but this is the point I will discuss this no more - since there will be no common ground for our discussion and you can discuss this with yourself if you wish. As a result you managed to convince one less person.

2. If you would like to discuss theology, You are welcome - (but that is a different point). The Covenant from Jewish perspective is standing still. In full. Christianity claimed for about 2000 years that God broke it. Only in the 1960's the Catholic Church changed its mind. The foundation of Judaism is the covenant with God. In Hebrew Covanant = "Brith" Or "Bris". Circumcision = "Mila". together Bris Mila = Covenant of Circumcision. Most Jews will just refer to it as Bris (Covenant). There is no other parts to this covenant - it is a one sided obligation.

3. I belong to the Reform stream of Judaism. The Rabbi is a woman in out temple. BUT, the covenant is the same covenant. Breaking it is breaking the covenant that is the cornerstone of Judaism. One without the Bris is still a Jew (nothing can change that) - they just remove themselves from the covenant and not practice it anymore.

We can discuss this forever. What I think you fail to understand is that Judaism changed through the last 4000 years. This practice did not. If you think outside laws would do the trick, you have not learned from history.

I think it is time to give this thread the snip.

Good idea!

http://media-2.web.britannica.com/eb-media...04-37AECE0A.jpg

Torontonian- In reply to point 1. Please watch the video and re-read what I have said in the first paragraph of my previous post.

In reply to point 2. Bris Mila is not all of the covenant. It is one part of the covenant. Redemption of the first born is also another part of the covenant. That is largely a symbolic redemption now and has been symbolic for a very long time. One is no longer required to give their first born son into the forced servitude of god. The redemption of the first born took place at the age of 30 or 31 days and happened irrespective of whether Bris Mila had occured. So one could argue that is more important, but that would be pointless since the all of the covenant is required. It is an all or nothing deal. I cannot see why it is perfectly acceptable to replace one part of the covenant with a token or symbolic gesture and not the others. Can you?

How about trying this. Replace the covenant with human rights legislation and UN convention of the rights of the child. Use medical science and what nearly all national medical associations say on the topic. Tell me what your thoughts are on the topic then. Is your outcome the same or is it different? Do you agree with the Swedish doctors or do you disagree?

So you couldn't understand the message above that this thread has died a death?

How about trying this:

[attachment=589:038.jpg_...0_pixels.jpg]

Kindly of course

Hilarious - 2 of the last 3 posters still hovering here to have the last word, including the one who earlier put

And so they departed. Bye. Here endeth the thread (See recorded times for posts)

I am an evolutionary biologist. Lots of people on this thread seem to be hung up on God and the arguement why would we be born with things if we didn't really need them. My point, which was totally lost on you, is that we are born with lots of things that do not serve a critical function. Personally I don't believe in God in any standard sense of the word but I recognise that lots of people do. Grow up.

Due to medically unnecessary, traumatic amputation and THEREFORE lack of foreskin.

Ever heard of "post-traumatic stress disorder"?

How about "iatrogenic post-traumatic genital mutilation stress disorder"?

Ever heard of the psychoanalytic clinical observation - Sigmund Freud, another circumcision-hating Jew, reported it a century ago - that the earlier in the life of a child a trauma occurs the more likely it is to cause problems in the psyche of the adult the traumatized child becomes, the deeper the trauma will be inflicted and the deeper it will reside in the unconscious where it can do the most harm, and the more difficult psychotherapeutic efforts and successful healing from and resolution of the trauma will prove.

Infant circumcision is pretty early. Early childhood trauma, in the first two and a half years of life during the period of most rapid brain development, has been scientifically demonstrated to cause developmental brain damage in children in at least four different areas of the brain, including the parts responsible for emotions and the corpus callosum, the part responsible for communication between the left and right hemispheres of the brain. Circumcision causes brian damage. Study it:

"Brain Damage Linked to Child Abuse..."

http://mcleanhospital.org/PublicAffairs/20...child_abuse.htm

http://www.mclean.harvard.edu/news/press/a...child_abuse.php

"Male neonatal circumcision and brain damage"

http://cirp.org/library/psych/brain_damage/index.html

"How Culture Shapes the Developing Brain"

http://MontaguNOCIRCpetition.org/pdf/cultu...spring_2002.pdf

http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/immerman1/

http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/immerman2/

http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/bower/

http://www.nospank.net/teicher2.htm

Does circumcision cause active iatrogenic post-traumatic genital mutilation stress disorder and hyper-aggressive behavior in every person circumcised? Does every soldier come back from war with active post-traumatic stress disorder and start shooting up civilians, believing he's still at war? Of course not. But watch out for those who DO!

Genitally traumatizing and mutilating infant male human beings is about as smart as tormenting lions and tigers and grizzly bears. It's asking for big, big trouble. And we've got it, or hadn't you noticed?

Muslims, Americans, Jews, Africans. Ring any bells in the violence department?

Read "Why They Kill" by Pulitzer Prize winner, Richard Rhodes. He details criminological research on how to make a dangerous, violent person. It's a four-stage process - five by my count - that begins with brutalization. Circumcision is brutalization. Is circumcising NECESSARY for brutalization to occur? Of course not! There are a million ways to brutalize a human being. Circumcised men aren't the ONLY brutalized brutes on the planet. Torontonian gives us a list of others, and many more names could be added. IS circumcising SUFFICIENT to create a dangerous, violent person? Of course not! There are many non-violent circumcised men. I'm trying hard to learn how to be one of them. Circumcising is just one of the best and most effective ways ever developed to BEGIN the long process of making a normal human being into a rapist, a murderer, a serial killer or other dangerous, violent human. Why begin? We don't need more dangerous, violent, reactive, egomaniacal men in this world. We need real men for a change, whole men, complete men, loving men, not partial men obsessed with defending as superior their obviously smaller, mutilated, partial, sexually inferior penises, and obsessed with insuring that all other men get genitally, sexually, emotionally, brain damaged as well, in a tragically misguided but severely obsessive effort to level the sexual playing field.

The idea that a some ya-hoo 19th century quack is smarter that God, Mother Nature and billions of years of evolution all put together about how to design human sex organs is nuts. Pure and simple, egotistical insanity. The level of egotism required is mind-numbing.

You can't improve a perfectly cut diamond by smashing it with a hammer, or a Gomco clamp.

When will the genital mutilationists, and those in their thrall, wake up? Why won't they?

Too much pain. They are defending themselves against experiencing the terrible fear and pain that comes with recognizing the full scope of the problem. It's all too overwhelming to them, so they defend the indefensible, chopping up healthy babies and children and damaging them for life, subjecting them to additional and additionally hideous risks, recklessly endangering their lives, and killing some of them outright.

It is illegal to treat laboratory rats this way. And we do it to another baby boy in America once ever 26 seconds, in the world once very second or two.

As the proud mother of an intact son (in the US nonetheless) I have to chime in here. For all of you who refer to the fact that circumcision reduces the spread of HIV, think again. The study that this assumption is based on took place in Africa which, as we all know, has an AIDS rate that is off the charts (25-50% in many countries); therefore, this study has been DISCREDITED as it is not scientific..... The American Academy of Pediatrics states that there is NO increased risk of penile cancer for uncircumcised men and that there is no benefit to circumcising baby boys. This is a barbaric practice. To quote the OB who caught my son: "Thank God you don't want him circumcised, I HATE doing that ...."

And, just for facts - an uncircumcised mail has all of his penile nerve endings intact and is, therefore, more responsive in bed!!!!

Circumcise your sons if you see fit but DO NOT pass judgement on mine and try to scare him with false facts for you are ignorant!