Boys not circumcised without medical grounds

Is WHR recommendation for AIDS prevention ignored or they are not aware of that? It is proved there that male circumcision decrease the chance of transmitting HIV virus.

@Iraniboy - Gender mutilation as an AIDS preventive might be a valid point if there was an AIDS epidemic in Sweden, which there isn't. I also think you'd agree that the people getting circumcised are unlikely to be having lots of unprotected sex with multiple partners in their life to begin with. Surgery is a pretty radical step to take.

No country in the Western Hemisphere follow those recommendations since it is not cost efficient and since AIDS is not really a problem in those countries. Condoms are the most cost effective AIDS prevention.

These local authorities seem to think they are thinking of the children, but they are being very shuttered in their view of the eventualities. The important issue here is that it is better for the boys to be circumcised by a proper doctor in a clean hospital using local anesthetic than by a guy with a razor blade at home. I personally think that circumcision is a strange practice, but seeing as it is legal and involves parental right to choose then it should be allowed to be done in hospital for the sake of the child.

it is disgusting that parents make these life choices for their kids based on religion etc.....its like ear rings.

@Iraniboy we've been here before my friend. If you fancy these practices then go elsewhere. I am not against circumcision for religious reasons, but I am against when adults make the choice for their kids.

If I was abiker covered in tattoos should I be allowed to tattoo my kids because all biker do. If they wanted to get a tattoo when they are and adult then so be it. Doctors who carry this practise out should be struck off....or at least disciplined...Is damned child abuse. Sweden does not allow the smacking of children by their parents but yet somehow then can chop their foreskins off...

that's what you get when you have rationed health care. goodbye personal freedom.

they shouldn't get any government help

Helping religions multilate children's genitals is ridiculous archaic and obscene.

I direct you to Hitchens if you disagree. Same goes for the other genital mutilating religion.

Parents deciding to mutilate children should be condemned. As for this genital mutilation lessening the chance of AIDS transmission, cutting off all the male parts would make HIV-AIDS transmission even less likely... These practices are barbaric and irreversible. Further, circumcision is an unnecessary procedure that sometimes leads to infection & death. Parents should not be allowed to put their children at risk in this way.

As a Kurd who has been circumcised I am strongly for the prohibition of this awful practice and would be very happy to see a law that punishes those who perform it for (usually) purely religious reasons... we are struggling in Kurdistan to fight female genital mutilation, a practice that is unfortunately widespread in the region

Is AIDS the main reason behind circumcision? Should we conclude that some parents (perhaps, some religions) accept /recognize in advance that the education they will be providing to these children is not enough for preventing them of being promiscuous.

Does it mean that there is a complete group of people thinking something like "we believe that our male children will be having a lot of partners in the future". That would mean that (not necessarily, but probably) women of that group of people are very active (sexually talking). If women are not involved…then ..that would reveal another facet of that group.

I hope that there are other reasons behind circumcisions. If they are solid (i.e. having medical support), go on. If not, I think it is not fair to use resources (money and professionals) for following traditions of a reduced group of people (e.g. what about a group of foreigners asking an abortion clinic in one determined country). Some cultures have tattooing as tradition, should we pay for that if people from those cultures want it or because they are doing it in not-proper conditions?. I myself also have many traditions and I do not expect people in Sweden paying for them or for the consequences of them.

However, as children are involved I can compromise in any point.

Are the people of Sweden still in the dark ages?

I had both my sons circumcised as babies and there is No CUTTING of any thing there is nothing barbaric and no real pain (they did not complain like they did with nappy rash!

all that was done was a rub of numbing cream then small bell shaped plastic thing was inserted under the foreskin and a thin string was tied around and then the handle snapped off leaving a small ring of plastic and the string.

we just had to bathe it with weak alcohol solution for 3 days and it was all finished ! no cutting no mutilation and no pain simple really (just like people who do not believe in this practice, or believe wrongly) I have a number of friends and know of quite a few more who have needed to be "done" later when they had problems which does involve surgery and is quite painful !

it is these few people that suffered pain from a problem and then more from the late circumcision (which was then medically needed) that prompted me to want it done for my children, as i said before it is simple and painless and saves potential trouble down the way.

now we also know as mentioned it prevents female to male infection and also women tend to prefer "clean" men as well I have found! (well what my female friends say if ever this subject is discussed)

so no it is not "needed" but it is actually nicer in the long run !

It's actually nice not to be a complete "Prick" you know! ROFL

@Da Goat

"I had both my sons circumcised as babies and there is No CUTTING of any thing", "--small bell shaped plastic thing was inserted under the foreskin and a thin string was tied around and then the handle snapped off leaving a small ring of plastic and the string."

What you describe is a plastibell circumcision, and they most certainly were cut. The doctor trims all the extra skin after tying the string. Not to mention the foreskin is fused to the glans like a fingernail to the nail-bed... and it must be torn free before the bell can be inserted. I'm sure your baby boys' penises were all red and raw for weeks. This is a video of a plastibell procedure-- http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5933355699286047639# You can clearly see that the overhang of foreskin is cut away. If you Google the procedure, you'll see that the trimming is part of the standard procedure.

"I have a number of friends and know of quite a few more who have needed to be "done" later when they had problems which does involve surgery and is quite painful!"

It is even more painful to infants. Studies show they feel greater pain that adults do and we cannot give them anesthesia or narcotics for pain. We also don't know how big their penis will grow so we can only estimate how much skin they'll need to cover they're erection.

"it is these few people that suffered pain from a problem and then more from the late circumcision (which was then medically needed) that prompted me to want it done for my children, as i said before it is simple and painless and saves potential trouble down the way."

You stole your sons' most sexually sensitive body part just in case they are in the 2% of men that ever have problems? You mean you aren't a good enough parent to teach them to weigh the pros and cons for themselves and decide if the risk was worth giving up the pleasure? Did you also have their tonsils removed? Their appendixes? Their gall bladders? Removing their eyelids would prevent styes and removing their toes will prevent ingrown toenails.

"it prevents female to male infection"

The reduction in risk in countries with a low incidence is negligible. It's is 0.29% here in the US.

"women tend to prefer "clean" men"

Women's folds are ALWAYS wet... they always have a scent... they harbor far more bacteria and yeast, they produce about 3 TIMES the smegma (cheese) as a foreskin... we also have so flds which are harder t clean than the penis. You would reduce your son's pleasure simply to avoid basic hygiene? Will you teach them to blow their noses and wash the crap from their anuses? Is this difficult to imagine?

"no it is not "needed" but it is actually nicer in the long run !"

That is utterly subjective and may not be an opinion shared by your sons. Their body, THEIR choice. Unless of course you're planning on being their sexual partner one day. *grooooooooss*

~Huntress (Proud mom of 3 intact boys)

Here's the thing: If Sweden wants to not do circumcisions then let them. I don't know what all these stats are people are pulling out of no where but it doesn't matter. I am pretty glad I was circumcised however. I don't care what can happen with or without the skin. I am just glad my penis doesn't live in a pouch.

People calling it "gender mutilation"...no comment. People mutilate themselves all the time when they go get plastic surgery and you people try to act like a baby is even going to remember getting circumcised. Like it's going to scar them for life.

Maybe girls in Sweden think a mouth full of skin is hot but if most parents, especially male parents feel how I feel about it. Do all you can to find a doctor who will do it! Say no to penis pockets!

@WatchingMe:

> "People mutilate themselves all the time"

Exactly! They choose for THEMSELVES. If an adult wants to be circumcised, he should be circumcised. We're talking about non-consenting infants here.

BTW? When a penis is soft it ALL feels like foreskin... and when it's hard, it feels no different than a circ'd penis. If you were intact you'd know that...

~Huntress

here we go again...

# Unless there is a medical need for circumcision it is nothing but wanton mutilation in aid of belief & ignorance. Female circumcision is banned so why this discrimination, ban male circumcision.

To the moron who said women prefer "clean men", get a shower 1-2 times daily.

Ya know, in a lot of cultures, if you are not circumcised by a certain age, you are not considered a man, and cannot marry, own a house, get a job, whatever. It's your passport to an adult life.

Getting your foreskin removed is like preemptively getting your wisdom teeth out. They might be growing just fine, but hurting, no compacting of the other teeth, but you still take them out. It's a "permanent loss of a body part". The same with tonsils. Take them out so you don't get tonsillitis. My brother had many cases of tonsillitis before he was even a year old, so my parents had his tonsils removed. Oh no! The child abuse! Come on... if someone can show me a proven, scientific study that's supported and accredited the world over that circumcision causes emotional/mental trauma to a baby, then I'll start to consider it wrong. Until then, I say let the parents decide for their boys. For many cultures it is a sacred tradition, like getting christened when you're X months old. Babies don't decide that either, yet there's no outcry there.... you are, according to some, changing their spiritual life.

Oh no, the abuse! :P

Circumcision, for non-religious reasons is cyclical. Sometimes it is the norm and sometimes it is frowned upon. I was circumcised as a baby in Britain during the Second world war. It was seen as best medically at that time. I was glad that I had been done as a baby, years later when a friend of mine had to be circumcised in his early 20's. He was in agony for weeks!

Rick, right you are. A friend of mine also had to be circumcised in adulthood and suffered a lot. Circumcision is not only performed for religious reasons nor for decreasing the spread of AIDS, it has been shown that the incidence of cervical cancer in women and many other common infections which could eventually lead to cancer if they become chronic are greatly reduced in cultures where circumcision is practiced. Let's face it, many men just don't wash themselves properly, and it's the women who suffer.

@4thankie

I didn't say I fancy it! Here in Sweden you don't need to fancy something to let others do it. This is called liberalsim. If you're not come back to where you have come from!!

@ who said kids should be adult to make the decison

I'm sore none of you give any choice to your kids when they are about tobe vaccinated!! You should know that circumcision for very young boys or infants is just too easy but for adults it is a surgery which may alter its AIDS prevention advatages.

@finitis

Female circumcision is banned because it has absolutely no benefit for their body. It is totally an unnecessary operation which can be dangerouos so it should be banned.

It is not by any means substantiated that circumcision reduces the spread of aids, actually the glans is more susceptible to the disease without the protection of the foreskin.

I'm glad my parents had the wisdom to leave my penis intact, I for one certainly would not have thanked them for dismembering me.

#sarahRF: I think your parent had a legitimate reason for having you brothers tonsils removed & it was probably on the advice of a physician. Not the same as circumcision for no medical reason.

#karex: Lets face it many women have bad hygiene & it's the men that suffer, nothing worse than a dick covered in blisters & oozing puss after a 1 night stand.

I really don't see why the state and taxpayer should pay for parent's personal preferences at all when there are many private surgeons that they could visit here in Sweden - it doesn't strike me as something that should be a medical emergency and jump the waiting list.

It's interesting that because of the strong religious lobby this procedure is given undue priority in Sweden while children born with deformities are pushed down the list - for example my own daughter was born with conjoined toes - yet the surgeon who examined her when she was 2 days old said they would not operate for 7-10 YEARS as removing this skin was not a medically necessary procedure and not a procedure that they would do without the CHILD'S permission - so why the difference?

If parents want this done - let them pay for it themselves at a private doctor.

I feel deeply sorry for the idiotic-morons who suffer from hypocrisy and stupidity.

Those muppets who scream everyday about children's rights and coming up with freakin' wierd proposals are likely bunch of losers who never managed to create happy family and protect their own children from divorce or other problems. So they will try everything to intervene and cause problems for others.

I guess the next proposal by those goons would be prohibiting the parents to name their children.

The beliefs and principles of the west and westerners are ridiculously incongruous.

@Marko2010S: no need for divorce in muslim countries, most 'women' are far too frightened to commit adultery or proclaim their unhappines because of the consequences, stoning to death or behing murdered by the families.

Children have rights & it's not for the moronic parents to decide whether or not the children should have a complete penis or vagina. I feel deeply for the children that never had the option to be whole.

Getting back to the article, the point is that if the doctors refuse to do it because of purely religious/cultural reasons, then the parents will go find someone else who will. That someone else could be someone with a sharp kitchen knife and a chopping board, seated at their kitchen table. In that case it's better for the boys' health for the procedure to be done in the doctor's rooms than in someone's kitchen. Lesser of two evils here.

Also, what's to stop the parents from going to another country and having the procedure done? A friend of mine, during her pregnancy, wanted to know what the sex of her child was, but the doctors/nurses refused to tell her "because she could abort if the sex is undesired". So, she went to Poland and got the info there. She never wanted to abort, she just wanted to be able to plan for the baby properly.

Rather regulate the procedures if you can, saving people unnecessary pain and risk of infection and disease, than have people bringing in their boys with penises that eventually have to have something more drastic done to repair the damage of a botched home circumcision.

Besides, with stem cell research and growing new livers and what not, they could probably just grow you another foreskin if you decide you want it back :P.

@iraniboy:having the foreskin removed does absolutely nothing towards preventing aids. How does having your penis mutilated stop you contracting aids when kissing or through blood transfusions etc? the only aids prevention is abstinence. Male circumcision is only "advantageous" in the event of a medical problem, it's immoral.

@Marko2010S: the beleifs & principles of the east are archaic & absurd. Do you think the muslim rulers in Iran would not object to a child being named "Christopher" or John or Matthew or any other biblical christian name?

Putting the moral, health and religous issues of circumcision aside for a moment, it's a very serious crime to chop off the business end of someone's penis with a sharp tool; unless you're a licensed doctor going about your work in the proper way.

If the prosecutors have evidence that someone is mutilating boys, or girls, they need to summon up the same enthusiasm they have for prosecuting owners of anti-American internet sites, and people who illegally download music and films.

Where's an aggressive Swedish prosecutor when Sweden really needs one?

@ RobinHood: "Hood" appropriate name for this discussion ;-))

Unfortunately this disgusting ritual does not have economic consequences, so does not receive the attention it deserves from the authorities.

@SarahRF: Thanks but I'd much rather have my own original foreskin, not some unnatural replacement which still would need drastic surgery to attach it, most probably more painful than the original circumcision.

Although if it was grown by Carlsberg ;-))

@flintis.

Bible says In the Book Of John, Chapter 7, Verse 22 Ebraham did circumcision

Bible says In Chapter Of Mathews , Chapter 5, Verse 17,Jesus said to stone to death for adultery.

I'm not sure how I feel about it. My husband is cut and he has said that he would want it for his son if one came. So, as an open minded person I did some research, and there are benefits to circumcision mentioned here already, backed up by a GP. Isn't it worth considering health benefits instead of making this a religious debate? http://www.circinfo.com/benefits/bmc.html

And BTW - if I have 20% less chance of getting cervical cancer because my man is cut, then I guess I'd be happy to help my potential daugher in law with the same odds

@laura ka baal; No the bible actually says:-

Gospel acc St John 7.22 Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; (not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers;) and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man.

Matthew 5.17 #"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them #

We have advance a little in the 2000yrs since these barbaric times, unfortunately, although Islam is considered a more modern religion it is decidedly adverse to change & is still more or less practised as it was in it's infancy some 600yrs after the Christian bible.

It is about time that Europe generally outlaws infant circumcision. Cutting off a body part for no medical reason is mutilation, nothing else. Parents do not have the right to decide about a mutilation of their children, especially not for "religious" reasons.

Those demanding this "right" from their host nation still have the right to leave Europe and go back to their sandlands where mutilating others has been a lifestyle since centuries. Europe does not need them nor their cult.

To be honest I think a lot of the backlash against circumcision is misdirected. It is actually because people are fighting against Religion. My husband and I chose to have our sons circumcised, but we are not Religious. My husband is "Non-Intact" and we are both quite pleased with his equipment. It works very well, we have four children.

All three boys are very healthy and quite sensitive as far as I can tell, they seem highly enamored of their equipment as well. They shower them with attention as near as I can tell with the oldest spending inordinate amounts of time in the bathroom, and the toddler only too pleased to show it to everyone. Our infant has not discovered his yet but I am sure it will happen as is the nature of little boys.

They are happy and healthy and I would have been incredibly cross at someone for suggesting that I was an abusive mother for having it done. At a hospital, by a professional.

@ukgal28: according to that doctor. According to this institute the following applies http://www.circumcision.org/benefits.htm. Sounds like your husband is not open minded, he should let his sons decide for themselves. I have been married twice, neither of my wives have had any disease/illness inflicted by my foreskin, both of my sons are not circumcised, if they want to make the decision now they are adult, then that is their perogative.

circumcisions for females is evil. However there more advantages for male circumcision. They are as follows:

The chances of contacting HIV is reduced. It will foolishness and ignorance to say there is no risk in Sweden.

there are some diseases like prostate cancer and the rest that will never come unto circumcised people.

uncircumcised penis are dirty, they carry dirty underlay which is removed during circumcision. circumcised penis needs no cleaning

circumcised male is better at sex than uncircumcised because of the curvy nature of the penis. Any lady that tries a circumcised penis will never welcome the uncircumcised

not to talk of the religious and cultural support

It is being done in Uk, Us and everyday in Africa, Asia without problem. I dont understand why anything that is not swedish is wrong.

God, or Darwin's nature, or the aliens, or whatever, didn't make too many mistakes when he/she/them/it knocked up the design the for human being model. But there it is, flapping about benignly at the end of my penis, performing no good deeds at all, and according to some of you here, spreading disease and infection to me and any woman I shake it at. Worse than that, it has somehow become a symbol of religious conflict too.

I am going to have a long hot bath, and contemplate what to do abou this menace to mankind that has lurked menacingly in my underpants for so long. Thank you TL, and posters here for making my Monday evening bath such a philosophical adventure.

At worst, this news is a little confusing:

"health authorities in Örebro, Varmland, Västernorrland, Västerbotten and Jamtland refuse to sanction circumcisions on purely religious or cultural grounds, according to SR."

This is from the not so well-informed:

On what grounds do they refuse to sanction or to justify

circumcisions ?

@ukgal28: Unless your husband is HPV positive or sleeping around behind your back, your risk is no different than any other married woman and it most certainly isn't 20% lower. The American Cancer Society doesn't recommend circumcision for the prevention of HPV transmission. A woman's lifetime risk for developing cervial cancer is 0.68%, less than 3/4 of a percent. A 25% reduction in this risk translates to a lifetime risk reduction of 0.17, making the risk 0.51%. This is what researchers call "statistically insignificant".

~Huntress

Sweden is amazing. As a Jew, I now know that has it is impossible for Jews who observe our traditions to live there. Kosher slaughter, circumcision of boys cannot be removed just because some bureaucrat in Sweden finds them unacceptable.

What hubris! Just like old times. Juden and anyone else who observes a non Christian religion aus.

@Tutu: prostate cancer has no connection with the foreskin.

& you wrote #uncircumcised penis are dirty, they carry dirty underlay which is removed during circumcision# The only thing removed during circumcision is the foreskin. If you wash regulary there no difference between not circumcised or circumcised it's a matter of hygiene.

you also wrote #circumcised penis needs no cleaning# with ignorance like that no wonder there is so much disease & illness in the world.

So the usual Islamaphobes try to turn this into a an anti Muslim rant yet again.

Male circumcision is not just in Islamic religious law but also in Jewish religion as is the banning of pork.

Behind both religious edicts is a lot of sense originating from the birth place and time of both religions in what we now call the Middle East.

The climate of the area and lack of modern processing methods made eating pork dangerous. The lack of clean water and cleansing agents made it difficult for men to be able to keep their penis clean with the foreskin intact. Jewish community leaders found that the best way to ensure that the population applied good hygiene and dietary practise was to enshrine it with Religious faith.

The Islamic faith grew out of Judaism and was based in the same climatic conditions and so Islam found it convenient to enshrine the same practises into their faith.

Early Christians living in the same region also followed the same practise.

Circumcision is mutilation of children, for boys or girls, which no civilised country should subsidise.

Some tribes used to bind wood the children's noses to flatten them, or put metal rings round their necks to stretch them, or bind feet.

Circumcision is on the same level, just a pointless hangover from a less enlightened time.

@lundenlad

You are a thick idiot.

whereas female circumcision has no medical value, male circumcision does have value in a lot of cases outside of Judeo/Islamic religion. Or are the thousands of modern doctors in Sweden and elsewhere in the western world, who carry out male circumcision living in 'less enlightened times'?

@Rick Methven. Water is not nescessary, moisture & salt will destroy most germs, which they had plenty of. Clean water, there was less pollution so 99.9% of all water was clean, & they certainly knew how to filter it through sand.

As for your explanation about pork, it was the same for all animal produce.

As for circumcision, if there is a medical reason fine, but only on the Sabbath

"As for your explanation about pork, it was the same for all animal produce"

Not true.

The pig is a single stomach animal that eats meat compared to a ruminant such as the cow.

Pork meat needs to be cured and or cooked quickly to stop the meat being tainted, unless it is refrigerated. Also pork needs to be cooked to kill the harmful bacteria that is inherent in the meat.

There is nothing like the same risk with Cattle or sheep which can be eaten raw and dried without cooking which was a useful thing for a largely nomadic people who kept their clean water for drinking and not washing.

As for salt 2,000 years ago in the Middle east it was more valuable than gold and they where not about to waste it to use it as a cleanser.

@Rick Methven # they where not about to waste it to use it as a cleanser.# There was millions of gallons of the stuff where land met the sea or at river delta's, where the majority of the Arab folk resided

Make your mind up, does it (pork) need cooking or curing.

flintis

Look at a map. The nomadic people of the region did not live anywhere near the sea. Salt was carried from the sea by camel train and used as currency hence the saying "A man worth his salt"

As for pork it needs boiling first, the water thrown away and then preserving in salt.

Try leaving a pork chop and a lamb chop in the open air at temperatures of 20+ dergrees and see which is rotten first

To the mutilation crowd that wants to cut off male pleasure zones for a minor HIV risk change (About 1 1.4% risk change is alleged by Africa circ pushers), the HIV risk change has not been observed in the industrialized world. In Europe and in the US the risk of HIV is the same if your penis is natural; and mutilated! Also, the circ pushers fail to mention the study they did that shows circumcised men pass HIV to women at a much higher rate than natural men.

For those that say female circumcision is so different, are the mans 20000 nerves cut off less important than the nerves cut off a woman? The hype that female circumcision lowers HIV risk has been put out there along with hype that male circumcision lowers HIV risk. It is the same tissue (with langerhans cells and moist places for the virus to live). A Tanzania study found that women that are circumcised (labia and clitoral hood removal) have more than 55% lower risk of catching HIV from men. So the question is why is there only the focus on male circumcision when both practices MAY have a rick reduction. It is our past acceptance of the horrible sexual mutilation called male circumcision is it not? But if you advocate one, must you not also advocate doing female circumcision to GIRLS? I assume the people that answer YES to the question are ready to subject their daughters to labia and clitoral hood removal.

Male circumcision is nerve damage -- a cutting off about 20000 fine touch and stretch sensing nerve endings and removing a source of pleasure from the male FOR LIFE. This is 2/3 of the total pleasure source amputated! This is nerves, blood vessels, protective covering and pleasure zones taken away from a human before the human can experience this. The dynamics and function and pleasure from sex and masturbation of the penis is harmed for good.The only touch organ possessing as rich erogenous innervation as the foreskin is the clitoris. Circumcision deprives man of 2/3ds of the main erogenous zone constituted of the foreskin and the glans.

BTW, the other risks (besides loss of sexual function, ED, PE and loss of PLEASURE) include curved or misshapen erection, painful erection, botches of all sorts (many requiring redo) and death. Boys DIE each year in the US from this sick practice.

@Rick Methven: who invited the nomads to this conversation?

Look at historic maps about the arab world & the river deltas (eg; Tigris, Euphrates, Nile) The Majority of Arab folk lived in these areas, in Palestine they congregated around the coast or the inland seas.

I don't leave meat for that long ;-))

In 132 AD Emperor Hadrian forbade circumcision, making a law against a practice that had offended Greek and Roman sensitivities. There are indications that he did not forbid circumcision as such, but only the circumcision of boys who had not yet reached the age to consent with the operation; but whatever the precise meaning of the measure, the Jews explained this law as directed against them. At this time, the Jews started a rebellion.

According to Cassius Dio, 580,000 Jews were killed, and 50 fortified towns and 985 villages razed. Roman losses were very heavy. The XXII Deiotariana was disbanded after serious losses.

2000 years later this central practice in the Jewish faith has survived. Practice that is 100% LEGAL, also in Sweden.

Yes @JackieNO!! Finally a voice of reason!! Bravo. Circumcision should be ended for good unless it is absolutely medically necessary and if guys want to chop up their penis's later in life that should be entirely up to them. When you circumcise on the grounds that it's unsanitary to have foreskin or that person might contract AIDS later in life then you are basically making the choice for your son that he will not be taught to maintain proper hygiene when cleaning his private parts or using a condom to prevent STD's because both are 100% preventable in those terms. A new study has revealed on examiner.com that neonatal death rates from circumcision are higher than suffocation and auto accidents, not to mention more and more studies proving the detrimental and long-term psychological effects of circumcision. This type of genital mutilation has high correlations between how men relate sex to violence in later life experiences. So chop up your privates if you feel like it but make it a choice when your old enough to decide for yourself.......

Everyone should have the right to decide for themselves whether or not they want parts of their genitals cut off. That applies to boys as well as girls. Whose body is it?

Circumcision isn't about danger. It is about genital autonomy. Circumcision harms at many levels regardless if performed medically. Doctors first must do no harm. This trumps religious circumcision. Re religion, Parents are suppose to guide their children, not force them.

Let circumcision go underground from where it came from, the Devil. More boys will be saved from harm over the long run than the short of worse harm.

Tutu..What a load of crap! So you think there is no prostate cancer in the USA, a place where MOST men are circumcised? I agree with KOTFrank...circumcision is about genital and bodily autonomy. FIRST DO NO HARM is a mandate that I wish doctors would follow when it comes to ALL forms of genital mutilation/circumcision, INTERSEX, FEMALE and MALE!

@Richardbw said "then it should be allowed to be done in hospital for the sake of the child." This is hypocritical. If it's for the sake of the boy, then you shouldn't be doing it regardless. Doing hospital circumcision doesn't make it right. It's still a wrong to the boy.

@ SarahRF I hope you see this comment. Circumcision does cause physical and emotional trauma. From the Royal Dutch Medical Association on Male Circumcision 2010: "There is no convincing evidence that circumcision is useful or necessary in terms of prevention or hygiene." "risk of HIV infection, it is reasonable to put off circumcision until the age at which such a risk is relevant" "Contrary to what is often thought, circumcision entails the risk of medical and psychological complications." "Non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors conflicts with the child’s right to autonomy and physical integrity." "(concerning religious circumcision) restrict it as much as possible." "There are good reasons for a legal prohibition of non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors, as exists for female genital mutilation." Also Read studies "Fine-Touch Pressure Sensitivity Test of the Adult Penis" bu Sorrelles and "The Frenular Delta" by Dr. John Taylor It was recently reported circumcision lowers male fertility. And google Emotional Behaviors of Circumcision.

@ Torononia

Interesting read from Glick's "Marked in Your Flesh": "that the Lord's covenant and his two definitive promises (prodigious reproduction success and a lavish land grant (all of Canaanite land) appears first in Genesis 15, an earlier J text but with one crucial difference, there is no mention of circumcision." "To seal this covenant the only requirement is that Abram offer several sacrificial animals- a heifer, goat, ram, dove, and one other bird. Here we find no mention of circumcision, no change of name, no mention of Isaac or Ishmael." "Like a number of their neighbors, the ancient Israelites had practiced circumcision, but not as a mandatory rite and probable seldom on infants; nor did they associate it with the idea of covenant."

It was the Judean Priests who wrote Genesis 17 (P text) 13 centuries after Abraham's putative lifetime that called for male circumcision of infants. A initiation rite not so much for the infant but of the father who must circumcise his son himself for he is cognizant of the event whereas the infant is not. These type of circ.s were the cutting off the acroposthion (the part that hangs past the glans). No damage of tearing the foreskin from the glans (thus results scarring from the cut up to the tip of the glans) and no amputating the part covering the glans. The radical circ., also medically known as penile reduction, as we do happens centuries later. The Torah says not to mark the body, the original Covenant jives with the earliest Judea.

@Iraniboy

"Is WHR recommendation for AIDS prevention ignored or they are not aware of that? It is proved there that male circumcision decrease the chance of transmitting HIV virus."

Last time I checked, children are not engaging in risky sexual practices.

What's more, the last time I checked, a condom works far better than being circumcised.

Circumcision, if the strange "studies" are correct, "reduces the risk" of HIV transmission by a 60%. Condoms, by 95%.

Any medical organization that aimed to promote a condom that failed 40% of the time would lose all credibility.

Swedish doctors aren't stupid. They're worth every penny spent on their educations.

"I'm sore none of you give any choice to your kids when they are about tobe vaccinated!!"

You are welcome to explain to us, Iraniboy, how a circumcision functions anywhere near like a vaccine.

@ paleo huntress

An internet video does not stand for reality As I said I saw no cutting and I watched twice ! and both my boys don't remember anything about it they did not even cry and after 3-5 days the whole lot fell off neatly

maybe what you descibed is faulty procedure or wrong timing or the like!

I have always been amused by the claim about foreskins being "more" sensitive how does one actually test this theory out most men have trouble with being too sensitive and not lasting long enough!

if some one said the opposite (less sensitive) that would be a good argument for keeping the useless flap other than that it is just plain ugly and a haven for crud!

next time even if you are a foreskin nazi don't mislead people !

let people decide for them selves I was just saying it is no big deal !

i am very curious as to why circumcision is widely and commonly practiced in the US but not in Sweden. . . any ideas?

I am amused by the posters here against circumcision that claim it reduces sexual pleasure. They have no knowledge and are talking bullshit. I have never had a problem in that area and I was circumcised. My wife is also happy.

As to why it is more common in the US than Sweden, as I posted earlier, the popularity outside of religious reasons is cyclical and custom driven. 65 years ago in the UK it was the norm nowadays not so much. In the US it is currently in favour.

i wonder ooooooooooooooo. I repeat again that dirts coagulates under the foreskin of uncircumcised penis. I grew up in a community where 100% of the males are circumcised and i have never heard of any regret.

PLease the following extract and let Flintis and his group comment. This is a research done by John Hopskin University researchers:

The strongest evidence for a cause-and-effect relationship between circumcision and HIV risk reduction came from three randomized-control trials in sub-Saharan Africa, where the circumcision rate is relatively low and the HIV infection rate is relatively high. All three demonstrated a more than 40% reduction in HIV acquisition among circumcised men.

The largest of these three studies -- in Rakai, Uganda -- was led by Ronald H. Gray, a renowned epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins and the scientific paper's senior author. Gray's group collected penile swabs from all of the circumcision trial study participants, providing the data for the new TGen-Johns Hopkins study.

The new study found that circumcision -- the removal of the foreskin, or prepuce, from the penis -- eliminates an area of mucous membrane and dramatically changes the penile bacterial ecosystem. Significantly, TGen's analysis of more than 40 types of bacteria, using a 16S rRNA gene-based pyrosequencing approach, suggests that the introduction of more oxygen following circumcision decreases the presence of anaerobic (nonoxygen) bacteria and increases the amount of aerobic (oxygen-required) bacteria.

"This study clearly shows that male circumcision markedly reduces genital colonization with anaerobic bacteria in men," says Gray, who is also the William G. Robertson Jr. Professor in population and family planning at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

"Thirty-five articles and a number of abstracts have been published in the medical literature looking at the relationship between male circumcision and HIV infection. Study designs have included geographical analysis, studies of high risk patients, partner studies and random population surveys. Most of the studies have been conducted in Africa. A meta-analysis was performed on the 29 published articles where data were available. When the raw data are combined, a man with a circumcised penis is at greater risk of acquiring and transmitting HIV than a man with a non-circumcised penis (odds ratio (OR)=1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.01-1.12). Based on the studies published to date, recommending routine circumcision as a prophylactic measure to prevent HIV infection in Africa, or elsewhere, is scientifically unfounded." (http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/vanhowe4/)

"A current argument for circumcision is that it prevents sexually transmitted diseases. The U.S. has the highest population of circumcised males in the industrialized world. The U.S. also has one of the highest rates of STDs. A new study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association concluded that "circumcision does not lead to lower rates of sexually transmitted diseases." In fact: "Circumcised men appeared 'slightly more likely' to contract a sexually transmitted disease during their lifetime." [Perlman] In the survey of 1400 men, "circumcised men reported several cases of the bacterial infection called chlamydia, while the disease did not occur at all among the uncircumcised men. Circumcised men "who had 20 or more sex partners had more than twice the risk of bacterial or viral infections -- most often gonorrhea -- compared to uncircumcised men." [Perlman] CIRP library on Circumcision and STDs

This bull on it preventing AIDs is scientifically unfounded, it is a ploy to make money with misinformation. People who say women should not be circumcised and that it's genital mutilation are hypocrites if they turn around and hack up their sons penis's. The majority of nerve endings are in the foreskin of penis's so when you cut that off there is not as great of sensation. So yes it also safe to say that uncircumcised men do have better orgasms. It is also interesting to note that there is not a single medical association in the entire U.S., and in most parts of the world (unless it's for a religious reason) that endorse circumcision because IT IS NOT MEDICALLY NECESSARY. It was first developed and made a cultural norm in places like the U.S. to discourage masterbation because it was un-Godly for little boys to masterbate. Some of the reasons people stated on here to circumcise are so ignorant, you're just buying into all the medical b/s. Nature doesn't do anything by mistake. Our bodies are blueprints to thousands of years of evolution. Why would we develop a layer of skin just for funsies?!

@Rick Methven : wrote "65 years ago in the UK it was the norm nowadays not so much"

Don't know where you got your info from but I can assure you it was not the norm. I worked in the mining industry where you get showered with a couple of hundred other men everyday, there were very few who had been circumcised.

"Religious freedom" and "parental choice" are irrelevant in this matter.

First and foremost, a doctor's duty is to medicine, not to religious superstition. Without a medical condition to address, doctors have absolutely no business performing surgery on healthy, non-consenting individuals, let alone pretend like they could be giving parents any kind of "choice."

The argument that doctors should be performing male circumcisions in clean, sterile hospital environments to prevent parents from having their children circumcised by amateurs is asinine. By the same token, shouldn't they be obliged to perform FEMALE circumcisions then? To prevent them from being performed by untrained amateurs?

And where would it stop? Cutting children's foreheads to celebrate Ashoura? Are doctors going to have to do those as well? Neck stretching? Breast ironing?

Bottom line: A doctor's duty is to medicine. "Religious freedom" and "parental choice" do not mean that doctors are slaves to your demands. It doesn't mean you get to drain society's coffers to satisfy your religious religious convictions or sexual fetishes. Furthermore, it doesn't mean society turns a blind eye when you abuse and mutilate your children in the name of your beliefs. It is a double-standard to be pandering to religious practitioners of male circumcision, while condemning religious practitioners of female circumcision.

And then there are those that try to argue "medical benefits": We are not living in the dark ages. Medical research usually tries to find solutions to cure diseases, not diseases to legitimize a cure. They're supposed to be looking for ways AROUND surgery. This is why we no longer do things such as blood letting and skull trephination.

UTIs are easily treated in boys as they are in girls with antibiotics. As for the "cleanliness issue," it exists in girls as well, and it is taken care of by the same simple solution; a shower. Circumcision does not, cannot prevent the transmission of any STD. It is so ineffective that even the very writers of the "studies" themselves cannot stress condoms enough. Even if "studies" are correct, circumcision would only "reduce the risk of HIV by 60%." Condoms trump this at 95%. Circumcision is useless.

There is no point in mutilating children for "benefit" that they don't need and/or can already easily be achieved by other means.

Doctors should not be obliged to perform circumcisions in people who do not need them. They should not be obliged to perform religious mutilations, and society should not have to be expected to pay for it. NO surgery EVER benefits the healthy.

Charging money to perform needless surgery in healthy, non-consenting individuals constitutes medical fraud. Taking advantage of naive parents to mutilate their children for money is professional abuse. Taking advantage of healthy, non-consenting children to mutilate their genitals is nothing less than child rape.

I'd recommend that those who disfigure their children with circumcision have their ears amputated, or their tongues partially chopped out. But it wouldn't be equivalent. Doctors & clergy who force this procedure on babies (often collecting fees for their services) are barbaric criminals. Even if the foolish parents have been led to believe the procedure is cleansing, they've no right to permanently disfigure children. We don't accept whipping children, or beating them with a splintered plank for their own good. Genital mutilation of children is imposed by force, and should certainly be a crime.

Wow, this thread is really the battle of retarded losers....

@Joe_in_CA......awesome info!!!!!! :)

Also for those of you out there that don't know. Male foreskins are more often than not sold to cosmetic companies for use in topical creams (WITHOUT PARENTAL CONSENT) and foreskins are also sold to scientific testing facilities for stem cell research (WITHOUT PARENTAL CONSENT). So why do some hospitals push for circumcision when they are not medically necessary?! Hmmm. These days it boils down to money. Selling foreskins is a MULTI MILLION DOLLAR business. Swash that around in your brains for a bit and let it set in......

http://www.sdcitybeat.com/sandiego/article-7356-the-$140-million-foreskin.html

This bull on it preventing AIDs is scientifically unfounded, it is a ploy to make money with misinformation by frejay14.

it can be bull for you, but not for me because AIDS is real and knows no colour or country. Reduction of sexual diseases is enough reason to do it.

frejay14 please let us wait for contrary medical report apart from the so called babaric or torture claim that have no ground. In UK where I did my son's own, it was done by a medical doctor but outside of NHS. I am not saying that the government should pay for it. Making it illegal is what i call BULL

Relative ignorance talking here:

So far, the merciless hunting and non-kosher slaughter of reindeer for human consumption is not being frowned upon by the compassionate Swedish authorities who have forbidden kosher-slaughter within the realm of Moder Svea.

All said and done in any apparent conflict between the dictates of the Almighty and the current state/stage of what (in 2010, the eve of Rosh Hashanah 5771) is called modern science, even in secular Sweden, the question is, who is the ultimate authority with regard to the covenant of circumcision – the Almighty? The Parents? The doctor? The Mohel? The Swedish Government?

In my most humble opinion and taking into consideration the principle of pikuach nefesh,all those who want to fulfil His laws also take into consideration the fact that the Almighty does not say, explicitly, that even if the brit milah would be life-threatening to the eight day old baby, it should be carried out , nevertheless.

Brit Milah/ circumcision:

http://uk.search.yahoo.com/search?vc=&...mp;fr=yfp-t-968

Jewish Medical ethics:

http://uk.search.yahoo.com/search?vc=&...mp;fr=yfp-t-968

Did I ever say AID's isn't real? No! I'm saying circumcising for that reason has never been proven to work. Studies have shown that CIRCUMCISED men actually contract HIV more often. So make yourself feel better about mutilation all you want but the fact that you should circumcise for AIDS prevention and many other reasons are medically unfounded. I'm not buying it and that's my choice. A lot of other people aren't buying it either because circumcision rates in the U.S. are dramatically dropping. Parents are researching their choices and finding that it's not the right choice for them. And I'm glad that the circ. rates never got very high in Europe and especially Scandinavia. If it's not right to cut up a woman's parts then it shouldn't be right to cut up a man's!

@Da Goat: I didn't describe anything faulty are wrong, luv... These are the directions from the makers of the device itself.

From PlastiBell™ usage instructions, Hollister Inc.:

Prepared are with Betadine.Drape the patient. Grasp the foreskin with forceps and widen the opening.Separate synechia with blunt dissection (tear foreskin from the glans- this causes the glans to bleed)The foreskin is clamped.A slit is cut in the dorsal side of the foreskin.The slit is separated and the foreskin is laid back.A PlastiBell of appropriate size is slipped over the glans, and the foreskin is laid over it.A ligature is tied in the ridge of the bell, as tightly as possible around the foreskin. Oozing will occur if the ligature is loose.After one or two minutes to allow for crushing, the foreskin is sliced off at the distal edge of the ligature using a knife or scissors. The surgeon trims as much tissue as possible to reduce the amount of necrotic tissue and the possibility of infection.Snap off the handle of the device.

If you had ANY idea what an infant's foreskin actually looks like, you'd have known it was cut. Clearly you weren't present for the circumcision or you'd have seen the cut. How do you know they didn't cry? Because the nurse told you so? Do you know that even if he screamed his tiny head off, that nurses are instructed to tell new mothers that he didn't make a peep? They are instructed to tell them they slept through it? By the time they get back to mum they are in neurogenic shock and almost comatose.

Obviously YOU didn't Google the procedure or you'd see that it includes cutting off the overhang of foreskin.

As for sensitivity, a groundbreaking study was published in the British journal of Urology in 2007. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111...DB807AE2.d01t02

For the first time ever they measured the sensitivity of the different parts of the penis. This wasn't subjective, they actually used tiny probes and measured response. They found,

(Continued below)

@Da Goat:

(Continued from above)

The best part is, that unlike what you suggest, studies prove that intact men do NOT reach orgasm sooner than circumcised men- they simply enjoy it more. Way to go Mom! Maybe you should try a little harder to get educated before you accuse others of misleading or "Nazi-ism". Ahem.

~Huntress

Apparently the Local has a few glitches in the system... this quote only appears on the message board format here- (http://www.thelocal.se/discuss/index.php?showtopic=34429&st=60#entry566137)

The above should read,

They found-

"The most sensitive part of the penis is the preputial opening. The results confirmed that the frenulum and ridged band of the inner foreskin are highly erogenous structures that are routinely removed by circumcision, leaving the penis with one-fourth the fine-touch sensitivity it originally possessed." Five sites on the penis-all regularly removed by circumcision-are more sensitive than the most sensitive site remaining on the circumcised penis. Researcher pediatrician and statistician Robert Van Howe said, "Oddly, the most sensitive site on the circumcised penis is the circumcision scar itself. CONCLUSION: Circumcision ablates the most sensitive parts of the penis."

~Huntress