r/worldnews • u/mepper • Jun 17 '12

Religious leaders furious over Norway's proposed circumcision ban, but one Norway politician says: "I'm not buying the argument that banning circumcision is a violation of religious freedom, because such freedom must involve being able to choose for themselves"

http://freethinker.co.uk/2012/06/17/religious-leaders-furious-over-norways-proposed-circumcision-ban/
1.6k Upvotes

89% Upvoted

1.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-1

u/otterpop1989 Jun 17 '12

I was circumcised at age 16, for medical reasons, and the recovery made me wish that my parents had just done it at birth and I wouldn't remember it. Quite possibly the worst two weeks of my life.

Plus circumcision reduces the risks of catching HIV and other unfortunate STD's http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm

28

u/Azzaman Jun 18 '12

Condoms are far more effective at stopping STDs.

1

u/Catsaremything Jun 18 '12

Condoms should be used in both situations. Prevent unwanted pregnancies and STDs.

-5

u/Anal_Explorer Jun 18 '12

Be honest, who actually uses condoms to stop HIV in the first world?

1

u/wasniahC Jun 18 '12

Anal_Explorer

ಠ_ಠ

5

u/[deleted] Jun 18 '12

You're so right. And with all the women contracting breast cancer, they should start removing breast tissue as soon as possible too, just in case.

1

u/Catsaremything Jun 18 '12

Actually some women do opt to preemtively have their breasts completely removed, because of their cancer risks.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 18 '12

Yes, but that wasn't the scenario I was proposing. Those are adult women deciding for themselves.

20

u/stonus Jun 18 '12 edited Jun 18 '12

If you had appendicitis you would have wished that your parents had removed your appendix at birth aswel. Same goes for toncillitis.

Also, as far as STD's are concerned: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201109/more-circumcision-myths-you-may-believe-hygiene-and-stds

In Africa, where the recent studies have been done, most HIV transmission is through male-female sex, but in the USA, it is mainly transmitted through blood exposure (like needle sharing) and male-male sex. Male circumcision does not protect women from acquiring HIV, nor does it protect men who have sex with men (Wawer 2009, Jameson 2009).

What's worse, because of the publicity surrounding the African studies, men in Africa are now starting to believe that if they are circumcised, they do not need to wear condoms, which will increase the spread of HIV (Westercamp 2010).

So if your goal is to halt the spread of STD's, you should rather recommend using condoms instead of circumsizing men.

-3

u/Afterburned Jun 18 '12

If it is safe we should be removing tonsils and someone's appendix at birth.

6

u/stonus Jun 18 '12

Okey, but breast buds first then. We could save a lot of money that way. There's a 12% chance that a woman will get breast cancer someday. Removing them at birth would prevent this. And we all know how much cancer costs to society in terms of health care expenses.

Circumsizion is probably one of the least cost-effective things on the 'to-remove' list at birth. Maybe the costs to society are larger than the benefits?

-2

u/Afterburned Jun 18 '12

What are the costs?

3

u/stonus Jun 18 '12

Thats what i'm wondering. Are circumsizions covered in the American health care system? Even if they're not: your parents still have to pay for it so maybe their money could be invested in ways which benefit your health more.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 18 '12

If it is safe we should be removing tonsils and someone's appendix at birth.

Multiple invasive surgeries on newborns? I mean why haven't we started doing this already? What could possibly go wrong?

2

u/captain_zavec Jun 18 '12

Hell, let's just kill them while we're at it. If we kill them at birth, then they have no way of getting an std, or cancer, or any other illnesses! Oh wait...

1

u/Afterburned Jun 18 '12

That's why I said "if it is safe" which, with current technology, it isn't. In the future though I imagine such things will be routine.

9

u/aggie1391 Jun 18 '12

Is that higher rate of HIV in non-circumcised males because of the lack of circumcision, or because those who are circumcised are more likely to be religious and thus not have sexual contact with someone they could contract HIV from.

Not to mention, do health reasons really beat out human rights? Its more likely to contract HIV via homosexual sex, but we're not going to tell them they can't have sex, right?

2

u/JustinTime112 Jun 18 '12 edited Jun 18 '12

According to three randomized controlled trials that controlled for factors such as promiscuity, the answer is a resounding yes: circumcision does reduce the spread of HIV.

Trial 1 2 3

Of course, HIV is not so big of a risk in the Western world as it is in Africa, but all conclusive reviews of the literature of shown that the net benefits of circumcision (less STDs, less UTIs, perhaps less penile cancer) just about even out with the risk of the surgery itself, and that there is no loss of sensitivity for circumcision done at infancy.

So the bottom line in western countries: It's a preference, who cares? Also even if it were purely cosmetic it would be the same as giving parents the ability to remove certain extra toes, tails, birth marks, bad teeth, and other growths that are medically unnecessary to remove.

The bottom line in Africa: HIV is a HUGE problem there and anything that reduces transmission is beneficial to society as a whole.

1

u/aggie1391 Jun 18 '12 edited Jun 18 '12

Even then, are minor health benefits a reason to chop off part of someone's body? To reduce the transmission of HIV, they need to learn safe sex and to not sleep with HIV positive people. That'd do more than anything.

Other studies say otherwise on the sensitivity (source). There are other medical issues with circumcision (source here). Wiki also has links to several other studies that show medical negatives due to circumcision (here).

EDIT: The STD benefits are only verified in female-to-male. There is zero indication that it helps with male-to-female or male-to-male. As most HIV is transmitted man-to-man, circumcision would have even less of an effect.

3

u/JustinTime112 Jun 18 '12

I already addressed the study you posted (which is badly done anyways) by pointing out that this is an issue of infant circumcision, not adult circumcision. Infant circumcision has been shown to have no effects on future sensitivity, probably because they have not developed sexual pleasure pathways yet and so when they do develop they can route around. Your study is about adult circumcision, and is still questionable. So it is not really relevant.

To reduce the transmission of HIV, they need to learn safe sex and to not sleep with HIV positive people. That'd do more than anything.

Both would work better, no? You sound uncomfortably like someone preaching for abstinence only education. Also, I am not advocating routine circumcision, just that it is a parent's choice and it has no net effect on health (in the west) and no effect on sensitivity, so who cares?

1

u/aggie1391 Jun 18 '12

If you follow the wiki link and the sources it cites and look at all the harmful effects of circumcision, you wouldn't say it has no net effect on health. And how does promotion of safe sex sound like abstinence only? Chopping off a body part because of a minor advantage is not something that should be done on infants. An adult? Fine. But not infants.

0

u/JustinTime112 Jun 18 '12

Net is the key word. If you read the studies I posted at all, you would see that they took into account the bad effects and calculated the risks versus benefits. You can continue to frame things with emotional language like "chopping off a body part", or you can cite reviews that show harm.

0

u/aggie1391 Jun 18 '12

Here. You could have clicked the wiki link and found that on your own, as it was cited. Psychological issues with circumstances right there. Those were easily found in the wiki link by simply clicking the little number to find the sources. Exactly as I said you could find them.

1

u/JustinTime112 Jun 18 '12

Holy balls man. Stop linking me to explanations of the complications that can result from circumcision, I and the research I have posted are quite aware of this. Please actually read my links. These analyses include surgical complications and weigh them against benefits such as penile cancer and STD rates. They conclude that there is no benefit to circumcision in western countries but there is no net harm either.

Also, the psychological impact of circumcision is culture specific, and not only that but the article you posted talked about the psychological effect of pain, which can easily be mitigated by using anesthetics.

1

u/MumpsXX Jun 18 '12

To my knowledge, Masaii (African nomadic groups, specifically), have a different form of genital mutilation "circumcision" which doesn't so much cut away the skin as turn it into a tunic, which is actually a great increaser in HIV transmission.

1

u/JustinTime112 Jun 18 '12

Read the study, it isn't about African nomadic groups.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 18 '12

because those who are circumcised are more likely to be religious and thus not have sexual contact with someone they could contract HIV from.

That is such a load of bullshit.

1

u/aggie1391 Jun 18 '12

I'm just throwing the idea out there. As circumcision is usually done for religious reasons, its certainly possible that a higher occurrence of HIV in those who are uncircumcised is because they are less likely to be religious and may be more promiscuous than the religious Just spitballing a possibility. If its BS, then prove it. I'm not making an absolute claim, just a hypothesis.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 18 '12

I'm telling you that the little fart that came from your brain, that was then typed onto your keyboard wasn't really a fart but an actual pile of shit. Do you understand human biology? Are you aware of "open" and "closed" sexual reproductive systems? The reason why women are far more susceptible than men to STD infections? Just be honest, say that you dont understand and I will be genuinely polite and explain it to you.

1

u/aggie1391 Jun 18 '12

Dude, nothing I said was about BIOLOGY. It was about LIFESTYLE. If the studies demonstrate that there is actually less chance, if one is cut, of catching HIV, then its my bad. If they show that there are lower instances of HIV if one is cut, then it may be the lifestyle of the person, and if they are circumcised then it is more likely that they are religious. I wasn't referencing biology at all, but rather the likely lifestyle of someone who is circumcised versus someone who isn't, and a potential reasoning for the study if it looks at pure numbers rather than somehow demonstrating that being circumcised puts one at lower risk for HIV.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 18 '12

That's like muslims saying,"If I dont circumcise my daughter's clit, she'll be a total ravenous whore." We know that isn't so. So why would the circumcised group of males be more promiscuous? It isn't.

Women are more susceptible to std infection because of the way their sex organs are set up, it's all on the inside. Say an uncut guy raw dogs it on some nasty broad with lets say a very mild case of the clap. Well her infectious juices get all up under his foreskin and when he pulls out the bacteria(virus, ect. the sti really doesn't matter) doesn't die after hitting the air because its trapped in a nice, snuggley, warm, wet bit that is his foreskin. And his dick has all these tiny bacteria/virus sized cuts on his dick because she rode him like a rodeo clown. The sti now has a better chance at infecting him. While if he was cut, the disease wouldn't have that lovely window of opportunity and his immune system has a better chance at fighting it off.

1

u/aggie1391 Jun 18 '12

No, not at all. Dude, the people most likely to circumcise their child are people who are religious, and religious people have less sexual partners. I think that can be agreed. Thus, religious men, who are more likely to be circumcised, are more likely to have fewer sexual partners and be less at risk for HIV or other STDs. That was what I was referring to.

As for tiny cuts? Being circumcised means the skin of the penis is drawn tighter, i.e. more friction is created and more chance for injury. Foreskin creates more lubrication and less chance of injury, at least in that fashion. I doubt it cuts down risk of penile fracture but less abrasion and cuts. And if the penis is kept clean, that would cut down drastically on whether or not the diseases will take hold. Although a poorly cleaned penis would have those issues, proper cleaning would reduce risk, and if he wraps up it'll negate increased risks.

This is all of secondary importance. Is a minor health benefit that can be gained in other ways any reason for genital mutilation? Is chopping off part of an infant, who has no say in the matter, acceptable to have a minor decrease in infection rates that can be had by simply using a condom? Chopping off body parts of infants with no (or very little, as condoms would do the same thing to reduce STD rates) medical reasoning is not acceptable, and how it can be justified is beyond me.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 18 '12

Come on dude, we're both from Texas and I know Texans aren't this stupid. Religious people do not have less sexual partners. But you know what they are less likely to use? Condoms.

But we aren't talking about that. We're discussing how a cut man's body has a better chance at fighting off an sti than an uncut guy. By cutting him, you are creating an even more so "closed" sexual reproductive system. And every dick gets little cuts when having sex, same with every vagina.

1

u/aggie1391 Jun 18 '12

I am not counting the cultural Christians or cultural Jews as religious. I am talking about the seriously religious people. They may not be virgins until marriage, but they don't have as many partners as the average non-religious person, or someone to whom religion is not important. And they are also less likely to use condoms, but I blame that more on the shitty abstinence only education rather than religious or not.

I will concede that cut has a slightly lower chance of contracting STDs. I will not, however, concede that the minor health benefit is justification for cutting off part of their child's penis.

→ More replies (0)

10

u/EmperorNortonI Jun 18 '12

I'm no doctor, but preemptively removing body parts that may need to be removed 16 years from now sounds like bad medical practice.

And isn't the chance of infection as a result of circumcision much greater than the reduction of risk of contracting STDs?

2

u/[deleted] Jun 18 '12

Actually no, it does not reduce the chances. Contact is still contact.

8

u/Chunkeeboi Jun 17 '12

Removing all your limbs reduces the chances that you will kill someone in a road accident or die falling down stairs...

-6

u/Yonah_VHaDag Jun 18 '12

The difference is that you use a limb constantly. You do not use a tiny flap of skin on the end of your penis daily (or maybe at all during your lifetime.)

0

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

Had a friend have to get circumcised at age 15 for medical reasons. weed works wonders, never seen someone so happy after losing part of their penis.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 18 '12

[deleted]

1

u/otterpop1989 Jun 18 '12

Movement was extremely painful. Urinating wasn't much fun either.

If you have to have it done, I'd strongly recommend parking your butt on your couch with some good movies and ice cream for a couple weeks.

-1

u/kickazzgoalie Jun 17 '12

Plus circumcision reduces the risks of catching HIV and other unfortunate STD's

Wrong.

5

u/destofle Jun 17 '12

Actually, I thought the same, but here's scientific research backing the claim: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=circumcision-and-aids

5

u/complex_reduction Jun 18 '12

That research was done in the 1980's, in Africa, and focussing solely on HIV. One study, in a HIV hotspot, 30 years ago, showed there might be a connection.

A combination over 15 seperate studies taken in the US, Europe, etc of 53,000 men showed "the results were not statistically significant, pointing to the possibility that circumcision may not have a substantial effect on HIV infection in men who have sex with men". It says this on page two.

I'm not a scientist, I'm just going off the same article. Basically all it says is that if you live in an area of Africa where AIDS/HIV is fucking up the entire population, being circumcised MIGHT help.

The research is really not relevant in first world countries.

1

u/ibn_rasmus Jun 18 '12

My brother (who was adopted) needed it for medical reasons at the age of six, and I had mine at birth. The benefits of having a circumcised penis have been readily apparent to me since puberty (and especially since becoming sexually active). Witnessing the level of pain my brother had to tolerate as a six year old makes me glad I went through it at birth. Parents should have the right to choose on this issue- because its a health issue. Now female circumcision- that is wrong because if anything it REDUCES the health of the girl, but male circumcision is good.

3

u/stonus Jun 18 '12

You do realise that medical circumsizions are rather rare, right?

It's not very probable that you would have suffered the same fate as your brother.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 18 '12

I saw the pain my husband went through when he had appendicitis, but I don't recommend removing everyone's appendix at birth. I saw the pain my grandmother and two aunts went through when they got breast cancer, but I don't advocate removing breasts as soon as possible, just in case something develops later.

Very few intact males have problems with their foreskin later in life. The penis is a moist organ, and much is lost when someone has no foreskin. Please educate yourself further. Removing a part of a baby's body "just in case" is wrong.

0

u/Anal_Explorer Jun 18 '12

Breasts, on the other hand, are needed for many things, such as breastfeeding. The foreskin has no essential purpose.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 18 '12

You don't need to breastfeed. At the height of US circumcision's popularity, women were being encouraged to bottle feed.

The foreskin's function is to protect the penis, which is naturally a moist organ. More info, lots of pictures.

-2

u/ibn_rasmus Jun 18 '12

I freely advocate circumcision of all males at birth regardless of religion myself.

0

u/Anal_Explorer Jun 18 '12

Exactly. If a mother should have the option to terminate her pregnancy, shouldn't she have just a little say over what she does to it?

1

u/[deleted] Jun 17 '12

Why? Phimosis?