Dutch Doctors Call for Circumcision Ban

[ConfusedKuri]

The Dutch are taking it way too far ...I mean that's just RIDICULOUS...banning circumcision.

 

[Falvlun]

I'd go further: IMO, except where a parent actually feels obliged to have circumcision done, I think it's an unloving act.

I have some sympathy for the mindset that says that it's unpleasant but necessary... but take away the "necessary" part of that (as is the case in the majority of circumcisions that take place in the US), then all you're left with is "unpleasant", and without a compelling reason to do it, I don't think it should be inflicted on a child.

I just know that up to a couple years ago, I had thought circumscision was basically necessary for males. And then, when I had finally asked about it, the response was "Even if it's not strictly medically necessary, you'd be emotionally damaging the boy because he'd be different from everyone else and girls won't want to have sex with him."

 

[D-MITCH777]

The Dutch are taking it way too far ...I mean that's just RIDICULOUS...banning circumcision.

Are you being serious

 

[England my lionheart]

The Dutch are taking it way too far ...I mean that's just RIDICULOUS...banning circumcision.

Whats so great about circumcision,would your God look at you differently if you hadn't been circumcised?

 

[Levite]

I can't believe that I am seeing so many people refusing to see the problem with this ban.

Nobody is saying that there can't be a ban: only that there should be an exception for religious purposes.

Judaism and Islam do not regard circumcision as mutilation. They regard it as a sacred rite. Nobody is suggesting that non-Jews and non-Muslims be compelled to circumcise their children. If you don't believe in circumcision, don't have it done to your child.

And I suppose that intervention might be warranted if there were huge masses of disaffected Jewish and Muslim men, bemoaning the fact that they were circumcised without their own say. But there aren't such masses. There are, in fact, barely enough such individuals to be recognized as a fringe group: if there were no internet, no one would ever hear of such individuals. 99.9% of Jewish and Muslim men have no problem with being circumcised, or circumcising their children.

So what this really boils down to, in refusing an exception for religious purposes, is a bunch of non-Jews and non-Muslims saying, "We don't care about your religious beliefs and your culture. You are wrong about how you want to live, and it is our business to step in and try to make you change your cultural and spiritual beliefs, because we believe that there is a problem with them."

What if the FDA, or the EU ministry of health, based on the testimony of a tiny number of scientists, from highly debatable evidence, decided that everyone needed certain amino acids or proteins in their diet, and made it compulsory to eat beef? Would it be okay to force vegetarians to start eating meat? How about Hindus? Would it be okay to force them to eat beef, just because a couple of politicians and a few scientists working off hazy data decided that we all need to do it?

When does forcing someone to break their culture, their ethical and moral choices, and their religious tradition become okay, when the members of that culture, that ethical group, that religious tradition do not object to it, and the condemnation comes only from outsiders? How is that not just oppression cloaked in compassion?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I can't believe that I am seeing so many people refusing to see the problem with this ban.

Nobody is saying that there can't be a ban: only that there should be an exception for religious purposes.

Judaism and Islam do not regard circumcision as mutilation. They regard it as a sacred rite. Nobody is suggesting that non-Jews and non-Muslims be compelled to circumcise their children. If you don't believe in circumcision, don't have it done to your child.

Replace "circumcision" in that paragraph with "exorcism", and replace "Judaism and Islam" with one of the groups that performs them. Would it still be valid?

So what this really boils down to, in refusing an exception for religious purposes, is a bunch of non-Jews and non-Muslims saying, "We don't care about your religious beliefs and your culture. You are wrong about how you want to live, and it is our business to step in and try to make you change your cultural and spiritual beliefs, because we believe that there is a problem with them."

Frankly, I don't care. I don't think that the mere fact that a belief or practice is religious in nature grants it special status.

OTOH, I'm not in favour of banning circumcision because I think a ban would be unworkable, and IMO, unenforceable law is bad law.

What if the FDA, or the EU ministry of health, based on the testimony of a tiny number of scientists, from highly debatable evidence, decided that everyone needed certain amino acids or proteins in their diet, and made it compulsory to eat beef? Would it be okay to force vegetarians to start eating meat? How about Hindus? Would it be okay to force them to eat beef, just because a couple of politicians and a few scientists working off hazy data decided that we all need to do it?

This isn't analogous to circumcision.

When does forcing someone to break their culture, their ethical and moral choices, and their religious tradition become okay, when the members of that culture, that ethical group, that religious tradition do not object to it, and the condemnation comes only from outsiders?

When the tradition isn't Jewish, apparently.

BTW - I don't think you weighed in on my point about African tribal scarification of children earlier; care to weigh in now?

 

[Panda]

I can't believe that I am seeing so many people refusing to see the problem with this ban.

Nobody is saying that there can't be a ban: only that there should be an exception for religious purposes.

Judaism and Islam do not regard circumcision as mutilation. They regard it as a sacred rite. Nobody is suggesting that non-Jews and non-Muslims be compelled to circumcise their children. If you don't believe in circumcision, don't have it done to your child.

So like 9-10ths said should Scarification also be allowed for the same reasons?

And religion should never ever be a valid reason to be except from the laws.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

When does forcing someone to break their culture, their ethical and moral choices, and their religious tradition become okay, when the members of that culture, that ethical group, that religious tradition do not object to it, and the condemnation comes only from outsiders? How is that not just oppression cloaked in compassion?

Just to jump back to this: it twigged something in my head.

A Dutch Jew isn't just a member of the Jewish culture and community; he's also a member of the Dutch culture and community. Why does only one of these labels get to be the one to dictate what he should consider as cultural norms?

If it's unquestionable for the Jewish people to collectively say "we must circumcise our sons", why isn't it similarly unquestionable for the Dutch people to collectively say "we must not circumcise our sons"?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So like 9-10ths said should Scarification also be allowed for the same reasons?

And religion should never ever be a valid reason to be except from the laws.

If a parent decided to slice off his child's earlobe without anaesthetic, he'd go to jail for child abuse or lose custody of his child.

This would be the case even if he thought it was really, really important to do it, and even if he could completely demonstrate that the child wouldn't be limited in any way as an adult by missing an earlobe.

I have a very hard time seeing why a similar act should be considered acceptable just because it's religious in nature or widely done. Like I said earlier, the only reason why I don't support a total ban on routine circumcision is that I think a ban would be unworkable.

 

[England my lionheart]

I can't believe that I am seeing so many people refusing to see the problem with this ban.

The only thing i see thats wrong with it is Parents who allow it to be done

Nobody is saying that there can't be a ban: only that there should be an exception for religious purposes.

Banning it would just send it underground as for the exceptions i don't see any reason in this case for there to be any.

Judaism and Islam do not regard circumcision as mutilation. They regard it as a sacred rite. Nobody is suggesting that non-Jews and non-Muslims be compelled to circumcise their children. If you don't believe in circumcision, don't have it done to your child.

Thats ok then,as long as two religions think its ok everythings fine

And I suppose that intervention might be warranted if there were huge masses of disaffected Jewish and Muslim men, bemoaning the fact that they were circumcised without their own say. But there aren't such masses. There are, in fact, barely enough such individuals to be recognized as a fringe group: if there were no internet, no one would ever hear of such individuals. 99.9% of Jewish and Muslim men have no problem with being circumcised, or circumcising their children.

How many would be circumcised if they have a choice,really thats what its about,choice

So what this really boils down to, in refusing an exception for religious purposes, is a bunch of non-Jews and non-Muslims saying, "We don't care about your religious beliefs and your culture. You are wrong about how you want to live, and it is our business to step in and try to make you change your cultural and spiritual beliefs, because we believe that there is a problem with them."

Thats true,i don't care about your religious beliefs or practices,my only thought would be for the Child that is being subjected to pain and denied a choice for something that IMO is uneccessary.

What if the FDA, or the EU ministry of health, based on the testimony of a tiny number of scientists, from highly debatable evidence, decided that everyone needed certain amino acids or proteins in their diet, and made it compulsory to eat beef? Would it be okay to force vegetarians to start eating meat? How about Hindus? Would it be okay to force them to eat beef, just because a couple of politicians and a few scientists working off hazy data decided that we all need to do it?

Or not need to do it,it is unecessary

When does forcing someone to break their culture, their ethical and moral choices, and their religious tradition become okay, when the members of that culture, that ethical group, that religious tradition do not object to it, and the condemnation comes only from outsiders? How is that not just oppression cloaked in compassion?

The Dutch are the outsiders in Holland!,how dare they condemn quaint cultural religious practices

 

[Bismillah]

Here's the difference: there is nothing wrong with the foreskin. It is not a deficiency or deformation by any stretch of the imagination. OTOH, neck webbing is, as your article implies, a malformation. It's reasonable for parents to want to "fix" their child's malformation, even if it's mild.

IMO, it's unreasonable to consider a foreskin a malformation.

If you want to argue that your god has commanded you to circumcise your children, then that's one thing, but you seem to be arguing for something completely different.

Doesn't really matter, you are still agreeing to the idea that parents can and do decide on cosmetic surgery. Furthermore, you don't think a Jewish kid for example would feel ostracized within his community for not being circumcised? Isn't the idea of within this scenario, of ostracized, the same one as that of having webbing? Such surgeries are done because they are a norm of society.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Considering there are foreskin restoration procedures, I'd say there are some complaints.

I wonder if one could be a foreskin donor. And if so I wonder how much they would pay for a foreskin.

 

[Panda]

Doesn't really matter, you are still agreeing to the idea that parents can and do decide on cosmetic surgery. Furthermore, you don't think a Jewish kid for example would feel ostracized within his community for not being circumcised? Isn't the idea of within this scenario, of ostracized, the same one as that of having webbing? Such surgeries are done because they are a norm of society.

If circumcision was banned then they would not be outsiders would they?

 

[Breathe]

As a form of cosmetic surgery (I'm including religious reasons in this) I'm against circumcision until the child can make their own choices.

Yeah, this.
I find circumcision to be an abhorrent practice and abnormal. Forcing it on babies is something I oppose wholeheartedly.

If someone wants to do it as an adult, though, that's their choice. Why someone would, though, I have no idea.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Doesn't really matter, you are still agreeing to the idea that parents can and do decide on cosmetic surgery.

For restoration to normal appearance/function, not to satisfy the aesthetic whims of the parent.

Do you think that parents should be able to get their kids tattooed?

Furthermore, you don't think a Jewish kid for example would feel ostracized within his community for not being circumcised? Isn't the idea of within this scenario, of ostracized, the same one as that of having webbing? Such surgeries are done because they are a norm of society.

Do you not understand the difference between reconstruction and body modification?

When most boys are born without foreskins, maybe your argument would work. Not until then, though.

 

[D-MITCH777]

It don't matter if circumcision is a ''sacred right'' to Islam and Judaism, Its's about the rights of the child, who don't have a choice whether they want to be circumcision.

 

[Levite]

Replace "circumcision" in that paragraph with "exorcism", and replace "Judaism and Islam" with one of the groups that performs them. Would it still be valid?

So long as the exorcism does no lasting harm to the one being exorcised, and if the exorcism is a key part of the tradition of the group in question, then yes. And before any objection is raised, I will utterly reject the premise that circumcision is a lasting harm to anyone. It does not interfere with the proper functioning of the penis, and any loss of sensation is negligible, if even extant.

And since this has repeatedly come up, let me refer you to a couple of decent references on the matter which I happen to have to hand:

Myths, Lies and Half-Truths About Male Circumcision (Part 1)
Circumcision Benefits - benefits outweigh the risks
Circumcision - Sensitivity, Sensation and Sexual Function
Medicirc.org: Circumcision Information Site - A Lifetime of Medicial Benefits

Frankly, I don't care. I don't think that the mere fact that a belief or practice is religious in nature grants it special status.

It's useful to recall that Judaism, and to some extent Islam as well, is more than pure religion. "Religion" seems to be a word that implies a philosophy, a set of beliefs as a comparatively abstracted concept. Judaism is a socioreligious ethnicity. The religion and the culture are inextricably intertwined. To grant no status or privilege to Judaism is the same as cultural imperialism against any other minority or non-Western culture, and I would imagine something similar would be true for Islam.

BTW - I don't think you weighed in on my point about African tribal scarification of children earlier; care to weigh in now?

If the scarification is an integral part of cultural and spiritual identity; and if it seems clear that those people who have been scarified do not generally protest and regret the fact in retrospect, but rather embrace the element of identity that it represents, then yes, I say it would be incredibly presumptuous and high-handed for foreigners to come in and say "Your culture is wrong. We know better than you." That would appear to be the inverse of pluralism and tolerance.

A Dutch Jew isn't just a member of the Jewish culture and community; he's also a member of the Dutch culture and community. Why does only one of these labels get to be the one to dictate what he should consider as cultural norms? If it's unquestionable for the Jewish people to collectively say "we must circumcise our sons", why isn't it similarly unquestionable for the Dutch people to collectively say "we must not circumcise our sons"?

It don't matter if circumcision is a ''sacred right'' to Islam and Judaism, Its's about the rights of the child, who don't have a choice whether they want to be circumcision.

Except, again, the children of these cultures are not protesting: they are not claiming any "deprivation of choice." This is an idea that is being externally imposed on the Muslims and Jews.

I still don't see how this is any different from the government coming in and saying that I can't raise my child as a Jew, because the government believes Judaism is wrong.

The point here is that the Netherlands claims to be a country in which there is pluralism and tolerance, and the rights of people to preserve their cultural and religious heritage are upheld.

This is a fundamental, core part of the cultural and religious heritage of Jews and Muslims.

What I am protesting is hypocrisy. If Holland wishes to ban circumcision without an exception for religious reasons, fine. They are a sovereign nation, and can do whatever they like. But then they should make it clear that they are not pluralistic, they are not tolerant, and they do not support the rights of people to preserve their cultural and religious heritage. In other words, they are a Christian nation, or an atheist nation, or an Enlightened nation, or whatever the hell they want to call themselves, but Jews and Muslims are not welcome unless they assimilate and apostasize.

They have every right to make such laws: countries can legislate as they please within their own boundaries. But let's not have any kind of charade that says, "We can force you to give up a central part of your cultural and religious tradition, but no, really, we totally respect your tradition and your right to preserve your culture." That's just sanctimonious double-dealing. The Dutch can't have it both ways. And if they want to crap on our cultural and religious traditions, fine, nobody can stop them, but let them have the guts to call it what it is, and acknowledge that the choice they are presenting us is that we either knuckle under and give up our religion and culture, or get the hell out of the Netherlands.

 

[D-MITCH777]

Except, again, the children of these cultures are not protesting: they are not claiming any "deprivation of choice." This is an idea that is being externally imposed on the Muslims and Jews.

I still don't see how this is any different from the government coming in and saying that I can't raise my child as a Jew, because the government believes Judaism is wrong.

The point here is that the Netherlands claims to be a country in which there is pluralism and tolerance, and the rights of people to preserve their cultural and religious heritage are upheld.

This is a fundamental, core part of the cultural and religious heritage of Jews and Muslims.

What I am protesting is hypocrisy. If Holland wishes to ban circumcision without an exception for religious reasons, fine. They are a sovereign nation, and can do whatever they like. But then they should make it clear that they are not pluralistic, they are not tolerant, and they do not support the rights of people to preserve their cultural and religious heritage. In other words, they are a Christian nation, or an atheist nation, or an Enlightened nation, or whatever the hell they want to call themselves, but Jews and Muslims are not welcome unless they assimilate and apostasize.

They have every right to make such laws: countries can legislate as they please within their own boundaries. But let's not have any kind of charade that says, "We can force you to give up a central part of your cultural and religious tradition, but no, really, we totally respect your tradition and your right to preserve your culture." That's just sanctimonious double-dealing. The Dutch can't have it both ways. And if they want to crap on our cultural and religious traditions, fine, nobody can stop them, but let them have the guts to call it what it is, and acknowledge that the choice they are presenting us is that we either knuckle under and give up our religion and culture, or get the hell out of the Netherlands.

The child is raised to see these things as a normal everyday thing. I don't see why you would keep cutting off the end of your sons genitals for no reason except that your religious scriptures says so.

 

[Levite]

The child is raised to see these things as a normal everyday thing. I don't see why you would keep cutting off the end of your sons genitals for no reason except that your religious scriptures says so.

Then it is a good thing that, even when circumcision is perfectly legal, no Jews or Muslims are coming along and telling you that your opinion regarding circumcision is utterly wrong, and then forcing you to circumcise your child, despite your having your own opinions, which you strongly value, about what is and is not proper to do with your own offspring.

 

[D-MITCH777]

Can you give me some good reasons why Circumcision shouldn't be illegal ???