Norwegian ruling party votes to ban circumcision for men under 16 years old

[mandrill]

Some are calling it "an attack on minorities."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ears-old-vote-annual-conference-a7723746.html

Thoughts?

Sounds like it is. Let's see if Norway has a constitution that protects religious minorities like Jews and Muslims and what the litigation results are.

Maybe Norway should also ban Sikh turbans and beards on hygienic grounds as well. Also yarmulkes. Also nuns' habits and compulsory celibacy.

 

[261252]

Circumcision is the sign of a covenant with Abraham and his male descendants and is known as the brit milah.


Religion is nuts

 

[canada-man]

THE GUIDE OF THE PERPLEXED by Moses Maimonides, translated by Shlomo Pines. University of Chicago, 1963.

Part III, Chapter 49

Page 609:

Similarly with regard to circumcision, one of the reasons for it is, in my opinion, the wish to bring about a decrease in sexual intercourse and a weakening of the organ in question, so that this activity be diminished and the organ be in as quiet a state as possible. It has been thought that circumcision perfects what is defective congenitally. This gave the possibility to everyone to raise an objection and to say: How can natural things be defective so that they need to be perfected from outside, all the more because we know how useful the foreskin is for that member? In fact this commandment has not been prescribed with a view to perfecting what is defective congenitally, but to perfecting what is defective morally. The bodily pain caused to that member is the real purpose of circumcision. None of the activities necessary for the preservation of the individual is harmed thereby, nor is procreation rendered impossible, but violent concupiscence and lust that goes beyond what is needed are diminished. The fact that circumcision weakens the faculty of sexual excitement and sometimes perhaps diminishes the pleasure is indubitable. For if at birth this member has been made to bleed and has had its covering taken away from it, it must indubitably be weakened. The Sages, may their memory be blessed, have explicitly stated: It is hard for a woman with whom an uncircumcised man has had sexual intercourse to separate from him. In my opinion this is the strongest of the reasons for circumcision.


Pages 609-610:

According to me circumcision has another very important meaning, namely, that all people professing this opinion-that is, those who believe in the unity of God-should have a bodily sign uniting them so that one who does not belong to them should not be able to claim that he was one of them, while being a stranger. For he would do this in order to profit by them or to deceive the people who profess this religion. Now a man does not perform this act upon himself or upon a son of his unless it be in consequence of a genuine belief. For it is not like an incision in the leg or a burn in the arm, but is a very, very hard thing.

It is also well known what degree of mutual love and mutual help exists between people who all bear the same sign, which forms for them a sort of covenant and alliance. Circumcision is a covenant made by Abraham our Father with a view to the belief in the unity of God. Thus everyone who is circumcised joins Abraham's covenant. This covenant imposes the obligation to believe in the unity of God: To be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee. This also is a strong reason, as strong as the first, which may be adduced to account for circumcision; perhaps it is even stronger than the first.

The perfection and perpetuation of this Law can only be achieved if circumcision is performed in childhood. For this there are three wise reasons. The first is that if the child were let alone until he grew up, he would sometimes not perform it. The second is that a child does not suffer as much pain as a grown-up man because his membrane is still soft and his imagination weak; for a grown-up man would regard the thing, which he would imagine before it occurred, as terrible and hard. The third is that the parents of a child that is just born take lightly matters concerning it, for up to that time the imaginative form that compels the parents to love it is not yet consolidated. For this imaginative form increases through habitual contact and grows with the growth of the child. Then it begins to decrease and to disappear, I refer to this imaginative form. For the love of the father and of the mother for the child when it has just been born is not like their love for it when it is one year old, and their love for it when it is one year old is not like their love when it is six years old. Consequently if it were left uncircumcised for two or three years, this would necessitate the abandonment of circumcision because of the father's love and affection for it. At the time of its birth, on the other hand, this imaginative form is very weak, especially as far as concerns the father upon whom this commandment is imposed.

Page 611:

The fact that circumcision is performed on the eighth day is due to the circumstance that all living beings are very weak and exceedingly tender when they are born, as if they were still in the womb. This is so until seven days are past. It is only then that they are counted among those who have contact with the air. Do you not see that this point is also taken into account with regard to beasts ?—Seven days shall it be with its dam, and so on. It is as if before that period it were an abortion. Similarly with regard to man; he is circumcised after seven days have passed. In this way the matter is fixed: You do not make out of it something that varies.

This class of commandments also includes the prohibition against mutilating the sexual organs of all the males of animals, which is based on the principle of righteous statutes and judgments, I mean the principle of keeping the mean in all matters; sexual intercourse should neither be excessively indulged, as we have mentioned, nor wholly abolished. Did He not command and say: Be fruitful and multiply? Accordingly this organ is weakened by means of circumcision, but not extirpated through excision. What is natural is left according to nature, but measures are taken against excess. He that is wounded in the stones or hath his privy member cut off is forbidden to marry a woman of Israel, for such cohabitation would be perverted and aimless. Such a marriage would likewise be a stumbling block for the woman and for him who seeks her out. This is very clear.

 

[SkyRider]

Circumcision might have been necessary 10,000 years ago for the folks who lived in the desert and had no running water to clean their privates. Surely, Canadian and American males should be able to keep their cocks (and assholes) clean without chopping off the foreskin.

What is more difficult to change is the myth that circumcised cocks are babe magnets or male magnets if you are homo.

BTW: I really don't care if Muslims continue to circumcise their male babies if it prevent suicide bombings and killing people with trucks.

 

[PhoenixHouse]

I agree that circumcision should only be done on infants if there is a proven medical need. Otherwise there is no reason to subject the child to an unnecessary surgery, with all the risks that even minor surgery entails. If a man wants to do it for cosmetic reasons when he is old enough to make that choice on his own then he is free to do that.

You do know that it is not a surgery right?

Circumcision Methods
In newborns, circumcision can be performed in several ways. The most common techniques protect the head of the penis with special devices while the foreskin is removed. Your doctor will determine which method is appropriate.

In newborns, the three most common circumcision techniques are:

1. The Gomco Clamp
A special instrument called a probe is used to separate the foreskin from the head of the penis (they are usually joined by a thin membrane). Next a bell-shaped device is fitted over the head of the penis and under the foreskin (an incision may be made in the foreskin to allow this). The foreskin is then pulled up and over the bell and a clamp is tightened around it to reduce blood flow to the area. A scalpel is used to cut and remove the foreskin.

2. The Mogen Clamp
Again, the foreskin is separated from the head of the penis with a probe. The foreskin is then pulled out in front of the head and inserted through a metal clamp with a slot in it. The clamp is held in place while the foreskin is cut with a scalpel and remains for a few minutes after this to make sure that bleeding has been controlled.

3. The Plastibell Technique
This method is similar to the Gomco clamp technique. After separation with a probe, the plastic bell is placed under the foreskin and over the head of the penis. A piece of suture is tied directly around the foreskin, which cuts off the blood supply to the foreskin. A scalpel may then be used to cut off the extra foreskin, but the plastic ring is left on. About 6 to 12 days later it falls off on its own.


The Plastibell being the most commonly used technique here in Canada from my understanding.

Now I am not dissing your opinion at all, just sharing some actual facts on how it is done.

 

[FAST]

I'm glad i had the procedure done at 8 days. I have never had any memory of it. Moreover that is considered scientifically the ideal time to have it done. Interestingly, the Bible says to do it exactly then.

Curious lenny,...does the bible say WHY it should be done,...???

 

[kherg007]

Hmm...the circumcision thing...I recall back 20 yrs ago in Oz there was a movement of blokes complaining about their "mutilation" and their victimization at the hands of society, etc, and how some of them teaching courses on how to restore the foreskin by attaching weights to the skin near the penis head and pulling it over and keeping weights on it...etc etc. I found it all a bit silly and sook-ish to be blunt, and most of these spokesman came across as just whingey deluxe. The only thing that affected them is they stand a smaller chance of getting penile cancer, which is quite rare indeed with our without the foreskin. However, there is no real comparison between circumcision and female genital mutilation. If circumcision involved removing the entire head of your penis, then we're talking equivalence. But it doesn't. The circumcised part of the wedding tackle operates just fine for me, whether producing babies or participating in drills that might be employed some day to make a baby. I'm extraordinarily glad it happened at a point in my life I have no idea that it happened.

 

[canada-man]

Hmm...the circumcision thing...I recall back 20 yrs ago in Oz there was a movement of blokes complaining about their "mutilation" and their victimization at the hands of society, etc, and how some of them teaching courses on how to restore the foreskin by attaching weights to the skin near the penis head and pulling it over and keeping weights on it...etc etc. I found it all a bit silly and sook-ish to be blunt, and most of these spokesman came across as just whingey deluxe. The only thing that affected them is they stand a smaller chance of getting penile cancer, which is quite rare indeed with our without the foreskin. However, there is no real comparison between circumcision and female genital mutilation. If circumcision involved removing the entire head of your penis, then we're talking equivalence. But it doesn't. The circumcised part of the wedding tackle operates just fine for me, whether producing babies or participating in drills that might be employed some day to make a baby. I'm extraordinarily glad it happened at a point in my life I have no idea that it happened.

saying there is no comparison to male and female circumcision is saying that infant boys do not have the right to not have their genitals cut. both genders are cut for the exact same reasons and there are flawed"studies" out there that claim benefits from doing FGM and in areas that do FGM on girls those same areas also circumcise their boys. so why are girls protected and boys aren't? aren't boys worthy of protection like the girls? and in some parts of Africa men are hunted down and forcibly circumcised against their will. and because the world don't respect the rigths of men to not have their genitals cut nobody cares.

 

[danmand]

Sounds like it is. Let's see if Norway has a constitution that protects religious minorities like Jews and Muslims and what the litigation results are.

Maybe Norway should also ban Sikh turbans and beards on hygienic grounds as well. Also yarmulkes. Also nuns' habits and compulsory celibacy.

What kind of nonsense is that, counsellor? Putting a turban or a yarmulke on a baby has nothing to do with genital mutilation.
Are you unable to grasp the difference?

BTW, most countries do not allow parents to have their children tattooed.

 

[lenny2]

LOL ditto with the Quran?

"Did You Know Prophet Muhammad Wasn’t Circumcised?..."

"Up until very recently many Muslims performed it between the ages of 7 and 13, when a boy declared himself Muslim and moved onto adulthood: a ritually limited procedure followed by a party...."

"In fact, the Abrahamic practice of infant circumcision began with the Covenant, recorded in Genesis 17, also known as Bereishit “In The Beginning” which that book also makes plain was made with solely the line of Israel. It’s an everlasting covenant, promising greatness, blessings and the land of Canaan in return for—among other things—their 8-day-old-foreskins."

http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.ph...-you-know-prophet-muhammad-wasnt-circumcised/

"There is no explicit reference in the entire Quran which ever commands Muslims to perform circumcision, especially on the eighth day. The Islamic traditions are divided on when a child should be circumcised. Interestingly, these same Islamic sources also encourage female circumcision, a very grotesque and inhumane act. Since Muslims claim that Islam is the very religion of Abraham they must account for the Quran’s failure of exhorting Muslims to honor the everlasting command given to Abraham that all his male descendents must be circumcised on the eighth day. This becomes all the more necessary to explain in light of Muslims’ claim that Muhammad is a descendant of Ishmael (*, *), the son of Abraham."

http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/mosaic_law.htm

"Muslim boys are usually circumcised at any time from soon after birth all the way up to puberty depending on family, region, and country."

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision

"Although it is not explicitly mentioned in the Quran (early 7th century CE), circumcision is considered essential to Islam, and it is nearly universally performed among Muslims."

"...The procedure is not explicitly mentioned in the Quran, however, it is a tradition established by Islam's prophet Muhammad directly (following Abraham), and so its practice is considered a sunnah (prophet's tradition) and is very important in Islam. For Muslims, circumcision is also a matter of cleanliness, purification and control over one's baser self (nafs). There is no agreement across the many Islamic communities about the age at which circumcision should
be performed. It may be done from soon after birth up to about age 15; most often it is performed at around six to seven years of age."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision

"Although circumcision is not mentioned in the Koran, the holy text of the Islamic faith, it is nevertheless an essential part of Islamic tradition. Some even believe that Muhammad himself was born circumcised to be distinguished as ‘the Prophet’ because Allah (God) created circumcision as a form of perfection.[10] The Islamic religion also considers the Old Testament to be a viable textual authority, therefore, just as the Jews, Muslims should adhere
to the covenant God revealed to Abraham, which entails that the faithful be circumcised. It is clear that Muhammad meant for the adherents of Islam to be circumcised when he said statements such as: “let him who becomes a Muslim be circumcised even if he is old” and a man cannot make the essential pilgrimage to Mecca “not as long as he is uncircumcised.”[11]"

http://www.d.umn.edu/~mcco0322/history.htm


Disclaimer: re all my posts, all opinions in links or quotes are posted for reasons of discussion or entertainment, etc, and do not necessarily indicate agreement with such.

 

[lenny2]

I'm glad i had the procedure done at 8 days. I have never had any memory of it. Moreover that is considered scientifically the ideal time to have it done. Interestingly, the Bible says to do it exactly then.

"In Genesis 17:12, God specifically directed Abraham to circumcise newborn males on the eighth day. Why the eighth day? In 1935, professor H. Dam proposed the name “vitamin K” for the factor in foods that helped prevent hemorrhaging in baby chicks. We now know vitamin K is responsible for the production (by the liver) of the element known as prothrombin. If vitamin K is deficient, there will be a prothrombin deficiency and hemorrhaging may occur. Oddly, it is only on the fifth through the seventh days of the newborn male’s life that vitamin K (produced by bacteria in the intestinal tract) is present in adequate quantities. Vitamin K, coupled with prothrombin, causes blood coagulation, which is important in any surgical procedure. Holt and McIntosh, in their classic work, Holt Pediatrics, observed that a newborn infant has “peculiar susceptibility to bleeding between the second and fifth days of life.... Hemorrhages at this time, though often inconsequential, are sometimes extensive; they may produce serious damage to internal organs, especially to the brain, and cause death from shock and exsanguination” (1953, pp. 125-126). Obviously, then, if vitamin K is not produced in sufficient quantities until days five through seven, it would be wise to postpone any surgery until some time after that. But why did God specify day eight?"

"On the eighth day, the amount of prothrombin present actually is elevated above one-hundred percent of normal—and is the only day in the male’s life in which this will be the case under normal conditions. If surgery is to be performed, day eight is the perfect day to do it. Vitamin K and prothrombin levels are at their peak. The chart below, patterned after one published by S.I. McMillen, M.D., in his book, None of These Diseases, portrays this in graphic form."

http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=13&article=1118

Disclaimer: re all my posts, all opinions in links or quotes are posted for reasons of discussion or entertainment, etc, and do not necessarily indicate agreement with such.

 

[angrymime666]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGYq1n6Ipfw

interesting stuff from canadian association for equality regarding history, myths, etc...

 

[Smallcock]

"Did You Know Prophet Muhammad Wasn’t Circumcised?..."

"Up until very recently many Muslims performed it between the ages of 7 and 13, when a boy declared himself Muslim and moved onto adulthood: a ritually limited procedure followed by a party...."

"In fact, the Abrahamic practice of infant circumcision began with the Covenant, recorded in Genesis 17, also known as Bereishit “In The Beginning” which that book also makes plain was made with solely the line of Israel. It’s an everlasting covenant, promising greatness, blessings and the land of Canaan in return for—among other things—their 8-day-old-foreskins."

http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.ph...-you-know-prophet-muhammad-wasnt-circumcised/

"There is no explicit reference in the entire Quran which ever commands Muslims to perform circumcision, especially on the eighth day. The Islamic traditions are divided on when a child should be circumcised. Interestingly, these same Islamic sources also encourage female circumcision, a very grotesque and inhumane act. Since Muslims claim that Islam is the very religion of Abraham they must account for the Quran’s failure of exhorting Muslims to honor the everlasting command given to Abraham that all his male descendents must be circumcised on the eighth day. This becomes all the more necessary to explain in light of Muslims’ claim that Muhammad is a descendant of Ishmael (*, *), the son of Abraham."

http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/mosaic_law.htm

"Muslim boys are usually circumcised at any time from soon after birth all the way up to puberty depending on family, region, and country."

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision

"Although it is not explicitly mentioned in the Quran (early 7th century CE), circumcision is considered essential to Islam, and it is nearly universally performed among Muslims."

"...The procedure is not explicitly mentioned in the Quran, however, it is a tradition established by Islam's prophet Muhammad directly (following Abraham), and so its practice is considered a sunnah (prophet's tradition) and is very important in Islam. For Muslims, circumcision is also a matter of cleanliness, purification and control over one's baser self (nafs). There is no agreement across the many Islamic communities about the age at which circumcision should
be performed. It may be done from soon after birth up to about age 15; most often it is performed at around six to seven years of age."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision

"Although circumcision is not mentioned in the Koran, the holy text of the Islamic faith, it is nevertheless an essential part of Islamic tradition. Some even believe that Muhammad himself was born circumcised to be distinguished as ‘the Prophet’ because Allah (God) created circumcision as a form of perfection.[10] The Islamic religion also considers the Old Testament to be a viable textual authority, therefore, just as the Jews, Muslims should adhere
to the covenant God revealed to Abraham, which entails that the faithful be circumcised. It is clear that Muhammad meant for the adherents of Islam to be circumcised when he said statements such as: “let him who becomes a Muslim be circumcised even if he is old” and a man cannot make the essential pilgrimage to Mecca “not as long as he is uncircumcised.”[11]"

http://www.d.umn.edu/~mcco0322/history.htm


Disclaimer: re all my posts, all opinions in links or quotes are posted for reasons of discussion or entertainment, etc, and do not necessarily indicate agreement with such.

Precisely. Real kooky religious stuff.

 

[lenny2]

Let's agree that's true. However, unless medically necessary, what would be the problem with waiting until the kid is 16? At that age, the teen would at least have some input into what happens to his genitals.

1. More physical pain likely at 16.

2. More psychological pain (e.g. fear, bad memories) likely at 16 & for the rest of one's life. I had it done at 8 days & have no memory.

3. As per quoted/linked info earlier in this thread, 8 days is the scientifically ideal time to circumcise.

4. At 16 a wrong/poor decision may be made by the minor. What do the older & wiser adults/parents do then?

5. Unlike with a baby, recovery time at 16 may keep one from doing things.

For our first son the hospital had a video to watch explaining the lower infection rate in circ'd males. I worked as a CNA for a while and intact elderly men had more UTIs from not cleaning themselves.

I wonder what the "it's painful crowd" thinks about shots within minutes of birth, 2, 4, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21 months, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, ... years.

My son was circ'd a month ago. Given anesthesia before, tylenol after, no bleeding, never made a peep. The NP used a Mogen which is what the jewish people use. We had it done at nine days old because the prothrombin (a clotting factor) is 100% normal at day eight. Somehow God knew this thousands and thousands of years ago whereas we smart people have just figured it out.

http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=5928.60

Disclaimer: re all my posts, all opinions in links or quotes are posted for reasons of discussion or entertainment, etc, and do not necessarily indicate agreement with such.

 

[wilbur]

1. More physical pain likely at 16.

2. More psychological pain (e.g. fear, bad memories) likely at 16 & for the rest of one's life. I had it done at 8 days & have no memory.

3. As per quoted/linked info earlier in this thread, 8 days is the scientifically ideal time to circumcise.

4. At 16 a wrong/poor decision may be made by the minor. What do the older & wiser adults/parents do then?

5. Unlike with a baby, recovery time at 16 may keep one from doing things.



http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=5928.60

Disclaimer: re all my posts, all opinions in links or quotes are posted for reasons of discussion or entertainment, etc, and do not necessarily indicate agreement with such.

I agree with this. Plus, it takes less maintenance and doesn't produce odours the way uncut penises would be if not pulled back and washed regularly. I think I can jack off just as easily as someone who still has his foreskin.

The idea of 'torturing' babies is nonsense. It's also not the same as female 'circumcision'. The latter is to deprive the woman of sexual pleasure and merely have her perform her duties as a baby factory for the husband and his family. The foreskin does not make any difference wrt sexual pleasure. The clitoris and the foreskin are totally different in nature.

So to those occasional SJW's who still have their foreskins, and to those who don't even have penises, who decry the torture and maiming for life of little babies: Fuck Off and mind your own business. I'm glad it was done to me when I was 8 days old.

 

[FAST]

Originally Posted by lenny2 View Post

I'm glad i had the procedure done at 8 days. I have never had any memory of it. Moreover that is considered scientifically the ideal time to have it done. Interestingly, the Bible says to do it exactly then.

Curious lenny,...does the bible say WHY it should be done,...???

Don't mean to be a pest,...but really am interested.

 

[kherg007]

saying there is no comparison to male and female circumcision is saying that infant boys do not have the right to not have their genitals cut. both genders are cut for the exact same reasons and there are flawed"studies" out there that claim benefits from doing FGM and in areas that do FGM on girls those same areas also circumcise their boys. so why are girls protected and boys aren't? aren't boys worthy of protection like the girls? and in some parts of Africa men are hunted down and forcibly circumcised against their will. and because the world don't respect the rigths of men to not have their genitals cut nobody cares.

I respectfully disagree about the reasons for the cutting - for females it is to reduce their licentious sex drive by removing the clit. For boys....religious? Hygenic? But nothing about reducing their sex drive. Now - if it is about consent...and consent only....then yes, we're on the same page as you're right in both instances the child has no say in the matter. But male circumcision is just way different than a clitorectomy. As I said, if boys had their penis head's removed then it would be exactly the same as female genital mutilation. The term 'female circumcision' is used but it is a euphemism for a clitorectomy, horrible as that is.

 

[OddSox]

You do know that it is not a surgery right?

As long as there's a scalpel involved, it sounds like surgery to me.

 

[mandrill]

What kind of nonsense is that, counsellor? Putting a turban or a yarmulke on a baby has nothing to do with genital mutilation.
Are you unable to grasp the difference?

BTW, most countries do not allow parents to have their children tattooed.

It's a symbol of religious adherence. Like a turban or a yarmulke.

It's not a symbol of MY religious adherence. But I doubt the local Imam or Rabbi is going to be too pleased about this law.

 

[mandrill]

Precisely. Real kooky religious stuff.

Yup.

"Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion; ..... "

More kooky religious stuff, Smally. Wanna tell me what I just quoted at you?