Denmark May Ban Circumcision

The people that say it's for health reasons only think this because they have grown up in a country where most men have had this done. What about all the men in Europe that are not circumsized according to your reasoning at least 50% of these men has health problems because their penis is still intact! And that is not true.

I think it's good countries are banning this practice because it's outdated and unnecesary to cut of part off a babies penis (even if it's only skin).

Reply

are those of you FOR circumcision (and who keep saying "because of infection") american? because in most european countries, circumcision is in the minority. and no one seems to complain of infections. seems that was hysteria brought about in the 1970's in the states that has been proved ridiculous.... and for the record, i'm an american woman having lived many years in europe with one uncircumcised son (6 years old). he'd be the "odd one out" at school if he had been circumcised as pretty much no one seems to be circumcised here. and like i said, i'm not sure where this "so many infections" business is coming from. it'd be pretty hard to get an infection there unless you aren't cleaning it at all! my son (and his uncircumcised father) have never had a problem with it. hmmm.

Reply

American mom here...and my son is not circumcised...nor are most of his friends. I let my husband make the final call(he is circ) and after doing much research he realized that if he did it would only be so our son's would look like his and that was not enough for him.

No problems here or in anyone I actually know. I always hear the "somebody's uncle had a horrible infection" stuff...but people get infections of all kinds in all sorts of different places. I would not mutilate(my honest opinion) my son out of fear of infection...but if he were to have a terrible, incurable infection one day we'll see. For now six years and he hasn't even needed antibiotics once-for anything. Healthy, strong and intact.

Reply

I read this article and the posts with much interest. I'm Jewish (not religious) and American and both my husband and son are circumcised - at 8 days old. It was done by a special religious person called a mohel whose job it is to do this things. Mohel's apply a drop of wine to the baby's gums. My son didn't even cry. Yes, the thought of it is barbaric - but it's part of my religion. What upsets me is this - I can't help but feel that by outlawing circumcision you are very subtly being anti-Semitic. If a Jewish person is being prevented from practicing their religion by law - that's like how the Holocaust started. Also, if Jewish people in a country can't practice their religion they might have to leave that country or else give up their religion. What an easy way to make that country free of Jews. I'm not the kind of person who sees anti-semitism around every corner but certain things raise red flags for me. And the fact that this is happening in Europe really comes as no surprise to me.

I don't really understand the issue. No body is forcing you to circumcise your sons so there really is no need to outlaw it. If no one wants to do it - that's your decision and your your right. However, if it's part of your religion then your rights are taken away. This law will really only effect those for whom circumcision
is a religious right and when you start outlawing religious rights - well does Auschwitz ring any bells.

Please - it's anti-semitism bundled up in law designed to be humane.

Reply

Married 35yrs. to an uncircumcised man, our 31 year old son, also uncircumcised, have never had any infections or problems in that area.
As a toddler we showed our son to clean and rinse the soap
off. He went to college and was/is popular with girls- so no problem there.
I don't see how everyone got infections or were rejected by women. I know we made the right decision in our son.

Reply

I'm tired of hearing about all these bogus reasons to cut off parts of children's genitals. Almost everyone in the Europe is intact, but they don't seem to get all these infections that pro-circers seem to insist are so common. If a UK male is left intact, there's about a 1 in 140 chance that he'll need to be circumcised, and it's getting rarer.

Denmark has almost no circumcision, but a lower rate of penile cancer than the USA, where the circ rate used to be 90% (now 57%).

You might also want to check out the following. Most of the male doctors in these coutries are circumcised, yet they recommend against circumcision, or say it has no medical benefit. I had to remove some web addresses as there's a limit of 3 URL's.

Canadian Paediatric Society
http://www.cps.ca/english/statements/fn/fn96-01.htm
“Recommendation: Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed.”

www caringforkids cps ca pregnancy&babies circumcision.htm
“Circumcision is a non-therapeutic" procedure, which means it is not medically necessary. Parents who decide to circumcise their newborns often do so for religious, social or cultural reasons. To help make the decision about circumcision, parents should have information about risks and benefits. It is helpful to speak with your baby’s doctor.

After reviewing the scientific evidence for and against circumcision, the CPS does not recommend routine circumcision for newborn boys. Many paediatricians no longer perform circumcisions.”

Royal Australasian College of Physicians
http://www.racp.edu.au/download.cfm?DownloadFile=A453CFA1-2A57-5487-DF36DF59A1BAF527
"After extensive review of the literature the Royal Australasian College of Physicians reaffirms that there is no medical indication for routine neonatal circumcision."
(those last nine words are in bold on their website, and almost all the men responsible for this statement will be circumcised themselves, as the male circumcision rate in Australia in 1950 was about 90%. “Routine” circumcision is now *banned* in public hospitals in Australia in all states except one.)

British Medical Association
http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/malecircumcision2006?OpenDocument&Highlight=2,circumcision#Circumcisionformedicalpurposes
"to circumcise for therapeutic reasons where medical research has shown other techniques to be at least as effective and less invasive would be unethical and inappropriate.”

National Health Service (UK)
www nhsdirect nhs uk articles article.aspx?articleId=649
”Many people have strong views about whether circumcision should be carried out or not. It is not routinely performed in the UK because there is no clear clinical evidence to suggest that it is has any medical benefit.”

Canadian Children's Rights Council
www canadiancrc com Circumcision_Genital_Mutilation_Male-Female_Children.aspx
"It is the position of the Canadian Children's Rights Council that "circumcision" of male or female children is genital mutilation of children.
...
The Canadian Children's Rights Council position is that there is no medical benefit to the routine genital mutilation (circumcision) of any children (defined by U.N. as those under 18 years of age). Further, all Canadian children, both male and female, should be protected by the criminal laws of Canada with regards to this aggravated assault. Currently, the protection provided by the Criminal Code of Canada includes only genital mutilation (circumcision) of female children."

Reply

To those who think infection is a valid reason to circumcise, I ask: what parts of female genitals do we amputate due to infection? If a girl or woman get a yeast infection they get antifungals or antibiotics, not their labia removed.

And as an atheist, I abhor permanent body modification to helpless children in the name of religion. I'm glad I wasn't permanently scarred in the name of my parents religion that I wish no part of.

High praise to Denmark in protecting the rights of children.

Reply

I had to put my two cents. I am a registered nurse, I have seen circumcisions done to these tiny ababies and they were done in a military hospital wihout any anestehesia. The babies cried bloody murder, I hated that rotation to the nursery beacuse I suffered every time they did one. My son nor my husband are circumsized, doing fine, no infections ,no problems. My son is 25 years old now. If you clean yourself well, there are no problems. Is a matter of choice. The only issue is if it is a religious act, the baby does not have a choice. I think we should allow our kid to decide when they are older if they want one or not. If is a matter of health, then it should be done.

Reply

My husband was never circumcised, had no problems, he is now 77. We chose not to have our son circumcised, no problems, he is now 25. Proper care is not the babysitter's responsibility at ALL times, so the parent should know how to take care of this too.

Reply

Okay, here's my two cents, for what it's worth:

My husband is intact, and his two older brothers are as well. His younger brother, however, had to have his foreskin removed at age 6 due to infection. They ALL lived on a farm. Dirty beggars the lot of them growing up! The older boys regularly mucked around with horses and pigs and baled hay and all sorts of dirty things, and the only one who got an infection was the youngest, who DIDN'T do nearly as much mucking as the older boys did.

Now, my father and my brother are both circumcised. My brother's mother being Jewish insisted upon having it done to my brother, though I seem to recall (I was 15 a the time) my father being more reluctant for some reason. To my knowledge, my brother doesn't mind, and my father has never complained. Then, would you complain to your daughter or sister? I guess not.

My adoptive brother was circumcised at 8 days old. The doctor made a mistake and he is scarred for life. My adoptive mother regrets ever having it done. It wasn't a religious decision; it was a personal decision.

I have no idea about my brothers on my biological mother's side, as I don't know them well.

So, taking into consideration the seven men I know, three of whom are not circumcised, I wouldn't have it done to my son. Only one kid had it done for medical purposes, and one kid had his penis mutilated at 8 days old. It seems to me that either way there's a risk, but if I had to make the choice, I'd opt not to have it done, because the risk of infection if the child is properly cared for and taught to properly care for himself seems far less risky than having someone brandishing a scalpel or a sharp shard of flint stone near my child's penis.

I can understand the Law of circumcision and why it was written WHEN it was written, but, speaking from a strictly secular point of view, it's no longer necessary. Let's face it, the Israelites lived in a wilderness without antimicrobial soap or even running water. There was a pretty good chance of them getting infection from sand, fleas, dirty hands, you name it. Now days, better still, even in the later years before the common era, hygiene, or at least the ability to care for one's self hygienically, had improved greatly.

Good thing is, I'm neither Jewish, nor am I expecting a boy. At least I don't have to make that decision. If I had to make a statement on it as a human rights issue, however, I'd have to say that I whole-heartedly believe in religious freedom. It'd be very difficult for me to agree with a ban, simply because banning one aspect of religious freedom opens the door to further bans, and bans on religious freedoms often lead to misunderstandings and persecution.

I'm not a Jew, but I am a religious person, and I wouldn't want someone dictating to me what part of my faith I may or may not practice. To the Jews, circumcision is a matter of obeying the Law. If someone were to ask me to disobey God to conform to secular laws, I would refuse. Mind you, there are some people who will always abuse the right of religious freedom, making up the rules as they go along so to speak, but the outright banning of religious practices that have been long-standing, well-established, and deeply ingrained in one's culture is asking for trouble.

Take care,
Azy!

Reply

I wonder if this will even be up for debate in generations to come?

Reply

Here is what the ever reasonable, balanced, non emotional American Academy of Pediatrics says below if anyone's interested. I always thought fondly of living in/visiting Denmark (seemed more enlightened and civilized), but I'd feel very much in the isolated minority being there as a Jewish mother who circumcised her baby boy for religious, cultural, family, and health reasons. How uncomfortable it must be to be a Jew in that country right now. Parents may not choose this for their sons in the US, but the sizable Jewish population in certain cities (unlike Denmark), as well as the large percentage of circumcised boys/men here, make this an understood, acceptable practice (and not vilified; this is simply not abusive mutilation as some here descibe it). Parents in Denmark should have this choice as well.

[From AAP.org:] Should we have our son circumcised?

At birth, boys have skin that covers the end of the penis, called the foreskin. Circumcision surgically removes the foreskin, exposing the tip of the penis. Circumcision is usually performed by a doctor in the first few days of life. An infant must be stable and healthy to safely be circumcised.

Scientific studies show some medical benefits of circumcision. However, these benefits are not sufficient for the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) to recommend that all infant boys be circumcised.

Because circumcision is not essential to a child's health, parents should choose what is best for their child by looking at the benefits and risks. Circumcision may be more risky if done later in life, so parents should decide before or soon after their son is born if they want it done.

Reasons parents may choose circumcision

There are a variety of reasons why parents choose circumcision.

Medical benefits, including
A slightly lower risk of urinary tract infections (UTIs). A circumcised infant boy has about a 1 in 1,000 chance of developing a UTI in the first year of life; an uncircumcised infant boy has about a 1 in 100 chance of developing a UTI in the first year of life.
A lower risk of getting cancer of the penis. However, this type of cancer is very rare in all males.
A slightly lower risk of getting sexually transmitted infections (STIs), including HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.
Prevention of foreskin infections.
Prevention of phimosis, a condition in uncircumcised males that makes foreskin retraction impossible.
Easier genital hygiene.
Social reasons. Many parents choose to have it done because "all the other men in the family" had it done or because they do not want their sons to feel "different."
Religious or cultural reasons. Some groups such as followers of the Jewish and Islamic faiths practice circumcision for religious and cultural reasons.

Reasons parents may choose not to circumcise

The following are reasons why parents may choose NOT to have their son circumcised:

Fear of the risks. Complications are rare and usually minor but may include bleeding, infection, cutting the foreskin too short or too long, and improper healing.
Belief that the foreskin is needed. Some people feel the foreskin is needed to protect the tip of the penis. Without it, the tip of the penis may become irritated and cause the opening of the penis to become too small. This can cause urination problems that may need to be surgically corrected.
Belief it can affect sex. Some feel that circumcision makes the tip of the penis less sensitive, causing a decrease in sexual pleasure later in life.
Belief that proper hygiene can lower health risks. Boys can be taught proper hygiene that can lower their chances of getting infections, cancer of the penis, and STIs.

Reply