Denmark May Ban Circumcision

Well said!

Male and female genital mutilation are not so "completely different" - there are a spectrum of mutilations for both males and females, ranging from fairly innocuous to the downright abhorrent For example, there is a male mutilation called penile skin-stripping, where all the surface skin of the penis, and sometimes flesh from the pubic bone, is flayed off with something sharp. A usual male circumcision is quite innocuous compared with this.

Similarly there are types of female genital mutilation that remove only the female foreskin - the clitoral hood - and types that involve simply pricking or slitting any area of the female genitals.

https://www.who.int/reproductive-health/fgm/terminology.htm

ALL forms of FGM are illegal. There is no good reason why girls genitals deserve comprehensive protection and boys deserve none. Particularly when the 14th Amendment of the American Constitution decrees that people should be protected equally by law, irrespective of gender. The "which is worst?" and "which happens most often?" questions are irrelevant red-herrings. There is no good reason why the law that currently prohibits FGM should not be re-written to be gender neutral.

Some will tout their right to religious freedom in trying to argue their case for circumcising their boys. Well, for a start, not even the mildest forms of FGM are allowed to be practised to satisfy religious conviction - and to the most important point - your right to practice your religion ends where your own body ends - particularly when it comes to rites that irreversibly alter the anatomy. Your right to practice religion does not give you the right to alter anyone's genitals - not mine, not his, and not hers. Your right to religious freedom does not trump your son/daughter's right to have their genitals left as they are unless there is a medical complaint that absolutely positively requires amputation.

And for that matter, it isn't discrimination - against any group (more than 2/3 of circumcised males in the world are Islamic, and more gentile Americans than Jews are circumcised). It is precisely the opposite of discrimination: we are stating that girls genitals are no more precious than boy's, and that our standard of ethics is as applicable to those of particular religious persuasions as it is to the rest of us. It is also illegal for certain religions to fulfill the mandated decrees in their Holy Book to stone adulterers and unruly children, and well it should be! And you don't hear them complaining about their religious freedoms being impinged there.

The witterings of Bronze Age goatherds give no carte-blanche for anything.

Heather, you should get better informed. The proposed ban on circumcision would only apply to non-therapeutic.

As for getting your son circumcised as prophylaxis, what drives a mother to have her son mutilated for no medical reason? Foreskin is sexually functional tissue. It's his body, not yours to stake a claim on his genitals!

If a boy should be unfortunate enough to suffer a penile or foreskin infection, it is almost always treatable by a pharmacy medicine, just like for a girl.

In light of the fact that FEMALES are five times as likely to suffer a urogenital infection than males, perhaps you should consider getting your own vulva trimmed down to make hygiene simpler for yourself. Boys generally manage perfectly well with their foreskin (with girls, hygiene is harder).

As for your nephew "who had to get circumcised" because a band was "pulling his wee wee to one side": that is patently ridiculous, and circumcision would not have offered the appropriate solution!

Get real!

There are many elective surgeries done on children. What about fixes for a hair lip or pinning back ears that stick out a lot? These are for the most part cosmetic but there are psychological problems kids have to deal with if these are not addressed. Braces are usually put on children at an orthodonist's recommendation. Braces tightened monthly can be very painful.

As far as your comment about religious freedom stops when it interfers with the body, maybe we shouldn't even be allowed to take our children into a church until he is eighteen, less we influence him or her in any way. I know that sounds a bit sarcastic but as parents we do make so many choices about what happens to our chilren. Where we live, what we eat etc. All of these can affect the health of a child. We should be allowed to do what we feel is best.

I want to move there NOW! Any country that TRULY wants to protect children is the country for ME!

Most babies don't even cry? Really? Where on earth did you hear that, Joy? My husband is a pediatrician who has to do circumcisions and because of his experiences we have opted not to circumcise either of our sons. The most sensitive skin on the male body is cut off, and generally without any type of anesthesia. It's done as babies because were the child older for the most part he would refuse to get it done! But if he does want it done later in life he can, but you can't undo it.

And how is cutting off the skin that normally protects the head of the penis not cutting off any of your genitals? To quote you - 'do you have any idea how stupid that sounds'?

All that being said, I do not think it should be outlawed. I disagree with the procedure for my family, but to infringe on the religious choices of so many people is wrong.

Just my .02!

I was in the room with both my boys and my oldest one didn't really even react. My youngest one cried but he cried every time I put him down. So would you consider a hang nail a part of your finger? They aren't cutting the penis. It's skin. I'm sorry but I don't consider that the same thing.

It's a lot more than just skin. It's the most sensitive and one of the most erogenous parts of the penis. The former having been demonstrated and the latter proabably varies from guy to guy.

It may be called "foreskin" - 100 sq cm in the adult - but it's also muscle, arteries, veins and thousands of specialised nerves. It's an integral part of the body and its owner, and nobody else, is the only person with any right to decide (when he's old enough) to have it cut off - just as he may split his tongue or have his head tattooed blue all over. No other non-regrowing part of the body is treated with such contempt. Infections are caused by forcibly retracting it. Having all of your body is not a health issue, it's a human rights issue.

I am really disturbed that a pediatrician is doing circumcisions without any anesthetic. It should be done with a local and, while not a picnic, appears to be no more traumatic than immunization. (I would go on a limb and assume that the board certified doctor whose wife commented here is in favor of immunization and they have immunized their children.) It seems that this wife either (a) does not know much about her husband's practice and was taken in by his ego (not professionally) driven reasons not to circumcize or (b) has a husband who is not practicing medicine by acceptable standards. Either way, I just think this ignores that there is no medical evidence that circumcision without clear medical need is not harmful and that it is likely medically helpful (see the recent Australian study that found in a large case study over a long period, I believe a decade, that HIV/AIDS risk was lower among circumcised males). It also ignores that the religious choices, whether yours or not, are important to a lot of individuals. The elephant in the room is that this seems very antisemitic.

Toni, why was your husband circumcised at 12?