Skip to comments.Furor over Proposed Ban of Circumcision in Denmark
Posted on 11/23/2008 9:08:55 AM PST by Lorianne
Jews and Muslims in Denmark are in an uproar about a bill to ban circumcision for boys under the age of 15, according to Yediot Ahronot. The country's National Council for Children and Ethics Council have both endorsed the proposal and only the parliament's medical committee can prevent it from being heard.
The National Council for Children argued that, "Circumcision is the irreversible damage to a child's body before he is given the chance to object." It also said the ban was a matter of equality, in the wake of a five-year-old ban on female circumscion.
Denmark's Chief Rabbi Bent Lexner who is also a certified mohel (circumciser) in the community told Yediot Ahronot, "The comparison between circumcision and the intentional mutilation of the female sex organ in certain societies is simply complete nonsense." He added, "If the law forbidding circumcision is ever passed in Denmark, Jews will have to leave the place they have been living in for hundreds of years."
(Excerpt) Read more at israelnationalnews.com ...
this is a anti-religion/gay lobby thing coming to a country near you soon.
Ban sexual reassignment for “transsexuals”. Now that is mutilation.
There goes the mushrooms!
Do they let strangers decide whether your 13 year old can have an abortion without your permission?
If so, makes perfect sense that they would deny you the right to circumcize your own child.
Male circumcision is associated with a reduced risk of penile HPV infection and, in the case of men with a history of multiple sexual partners, a reduced risk of cervical cancer in their current female partners.
So, I guess banning circumcision is okay as long as it only hurts females.
Is there medical reasoning behind this?
maybe they think they will be better off without jewish doctors
Since this is decided by the parents and mostly happens when very young, maybe we should poll all the adult males and ask them which they would have preferred?
Are there any doctors out there that could comment on this from a strictly medical aspect?
Circumcision HIV impact doubted
October 7, 2008
There is no hard evidence that circumcision protects gay men from HIV, research shows.
African trials have shown circumcision cuts the likelihood of female to male HIV transmission by up to 60%.
But a US analysis of data on 53,567 men who have sex with other men found HIV rates were not significantly lower among those who were circumcised.
The Journal of the American Medical Association study stressed more work was needed to draw firm conclusions.
The US team, from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta examined data on 53,567 men who have sex with men, of which 52% were circumcised.
HIV levels among those who were circumcised were lower - but not significantly so.
However, there was evidence that circumcision may have had a protective effect in studies carried out before the introduction of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) in 1996.
The researchers said one possible explanation was that the advent of these more effective HIV drugs had encouraged higher levels of risk taking sexual behaviour, wiping out any marginal protective effect from circumcision.
Alternatively, the drugs may have helped lower the risk of transmission to the point where circumcision had no further benefit.
A third possibility is that there may have been a smaller proportion of men in the pre-HAART trials who primarily engaged in receptive anal sex, which carries the greatest risk for HIV infection among gay men.
Michael Carter, of the HIV information service NAM, said: “It’s my sense that there has been a tempering of the excitement about circumcision, and researchers are now favouring a ‘combination prevention’ approach.
“Circumcision may have a place in this in some settings, but so too do good sexual health, consistent condom use, and there’s real excitement and debate about the role of HIV treatment in prevention.”
Will Nutland, of the HIV charity Terrence Higgins Trust, said: “This research adds weight to the evidence that circumcision isn’t an effective method of HIV prevention for men who have sex with men.
“The majority of HIV infections in men who have sex with men are as a result of receptive anal intercourse and circumcision would make no difference in these cases.
“Rather than encouraging gay men to be circumcised, investment in prevention in the UK should focus on targeted education programmes, condom provision and easy access to testing.”
It’s so refreshing to see Jews and Muslims on the same side of an issue.
Lemme guess... his friends call him "Willy".
Or maybe just let them choose for themselves when they get to be adults?
Instead of taking the choice away.
Ban of Circumcision in Denmark = Okay
Ban on Honor Killings in Denmark = What?
Ban on Female Circumcision in Denmark = What?
I wonder if they are going to ban tattoos and piercings?
I’ve read that in Germany, newborns must be named from a government list of approved names.
I don’t know for sure, but they probably already do ban tattoos and piercings for children under 15.
Most men who have been circumcised after reaching sexual maturity regret the procedure. Oh, you can find some who believe it was good, but you can also find many who think is was a bad idea.
Adult men usually do not give up their foreskins without a fight.
Go back & read the story of David and Saul. Saul asked for 100 foreskins from Philistines as the bride-price for his daughter. The practical meaning of this was that David had to kill 100 Philistines, because none of them would have given up his foreskin if he were alive.
David ended up giving Saul 200 foreskins from Philistines.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.