Aftenposten have published two opposing points of view on circumcision, and perhaps – after weighing the pro against the contra, found that the correct decision is to be in favor of circumcision in Norway.
All three opeds have been lifted from aftenposten.no, and equally poorly translated with google.
Circumcision of boys must be allowed
Published: 20.okt . 2013 6:31 p.m. Updated : 20.okt . 2013 6:31 p.m.
IT IS SO risky and unnecessary to circumcise young boys that the procedure should be banned ? Or there is a negligible interference with low risk and which can provide health benefits such as adult ?
The vast majority of Norwegians want to look at the circumcision of male children as unnecessary, even expressed some will call it barbaric . Most Norwegians are not circumcised. In this area we differ from most of the world’s population . But you yourself do not follow such a tradition does not necessarily mean that it must be banned. Especially when we know that the tradition means very much for very many.
Ombudsman ANNE Lindboe has proposed to introduce minimum age for circumcision , so it happens to the boy’s consent. Lindboe have enough good intentions, but here she is astray . Such a proposal will lead to our Jewish population , which is already very small, will not able to practice their religion.
Many Muslims will claim the same, even if within Islam there is disagreement about whether circumcision is an imposition , or just highly recommended. Among Muslims also varies the timing of when the procedure is performed traditionally , from infants all the way up to early teens .
The procedure marks the child’s body . For some, this marked read about a religious stigma . Supporters of the ban or age highlights that some circumcised Norwegian boys feel the mark, and therefore will not participate in sports activities . It ‘s sad , but also due to the greater society ‘s attitude to circumcision.
In NORWAY circumcision is usually the result of a religious tradition. In the USA it is as often a social tradition. Many Norwegian pediatricians are skeptical about circumcision. America ‘s pediatrician associations are positive. Doctors are like other people, they are affected not only by the facts . The disagreement apparently stems from medical reasons, can be influenced by ambient conditions to circumcision.
While the United States claims that circumcision of children provide health benefits in adulthood , according to Norwegian doctors that the gain is not good enough reason to put babies at risk.
There is a good argument . But the young Norwegian children receive fluoride to strong teeth when they grow up. Government vaccine program ensures to fullvaksinere young children , although many of the benefits first arrive in adulthood .
Our insistence that it must still be allowed to circumcise young boys , mark under reasonable circumstances. For on top of the arguments for and against , are thus the legacy we carry on in the face of our Jewish population . From ancient times through the vile Jew paragraphs and duality ban on ritual slaughter , to 2 World War.
There are still anti-Jewish attitudes prevalent in Norway . On this basis, it is impossible to impose ban on circumcision of newborn males today . For even if the purpose is to protect children , a ban function as a new attempt to expel the Jews from the country.
And even if a ban were not intended to target Muslims , there is no doubt that our Muslim population will come to perceive it as an attack . Instead, we now see that Norwegian Muslims endorse the small Jewish population.
Circumcision , a disgusting practice
The minimum requirement should be that the child is old enough to decide for themselves before an intervention may be taken .
Published: 21.okt . 2013 2:28 p.m. Updated : 21.okt . 2013 3:36 p.m.
I could not believe my eyes when I read the editorial in Aftenposten Sunday newspaper on 20 October.
Is it really possible that Aftenposten believes that ” circumcision of boys must be allowed “?
Circumcision of girls – called female genital mutilation is prohibited. While circumcision defenseless boy , according to Director of Aftenposten be authorized . Possibly presumably that ” ritual ” procedure occurs during so-called satisfactory medical conditions – with pain relief for your child . Think about it .
Centre Party at that time legal political spokeswoman Jenny Klinge had an article in Aftenposten , a while ago posted under the heading : ” To cut or not magpie ” performed a number of arguments for the criminalization of this intervention on male children , and juxtapose it with bodily harm . This is a fatal act that the person concerned has no defense against . It is a very good article by Jenny Klinge – but she manages to say , “But we as a society are not mature enough to ban the practice altogether, we must take responsibility for the fewest possible will be damaged by surgery »
Think about it, why should we not be ” mature enough ” to prohibit such abuses? Is it Jewish and Muslim groups of voters they are afraid of losing or encounter ? A ban has nothing to do with Jewish proportionality to do, a population group I have great respect for – but both Jews and Muslims must realize that in Norway live in a society that has come so far that we value individual rights above all .
The secular Norway is religiously incompetent
Why are risky sport great for kids because it is ” fun “, while circumcision is wrong because the reasoning is identity?
Espen Ottosen theologian, chairman of think tank Creative power , Torstein Husby surgeon affiliated think tank Creative Power
Published: 19 Oct. . 2013 7:40 Updated : 19 Oct. . 2013 12:06
Five medical professionals, including the Ombudsman , explaining in Aftenposten 17 October why they would ban the circumcision of male babies. The intentions are good. There appears to complications and risks. But it is obvious that medical assessments will always have the right of way to the culture , tradition , religion and identity ? We believe the perspective testify narrow secularism .
Athletes with high injury risk
If anything that should be emphasized is the medical assessments , should chronicle writers ask for more bans. A small example : mountain biking. The sport has huge injury risk . Accidents may require much more surgery than circumcision. So why not age ? Many will respond that the benefits of biking outweigh the negatives : Children get in better physical shape, they have fun and get along great outdoors. This means that medical assessments do not decide alone. Is that okay?
Circumcision is often due to tradition or religion. But such arguments often face little understanding . It shows that the secular Norway is religiously incompetent . For why is risky sport great for kids because it is ” fun ” , while circumcision is wrong because the reasoning is identity? A Jew with an interest in cycling will probably agree that her son’s circumcision is far more important than he is allowed to ride . For millions of Jews for thousands of years tradition is seen as absolutely fundamental .
The five professionals believe circumcision of infants ” violates basic medical and ethical principles .” But it is an illusion that only children exposed to interventions that can be justified medically. A birthmark can be removed because it is ” unsightly ” , even if the procedure involves some risk. The same applies to surgical correction of protruding ears . Thousands of children have braces primarily for cosmetic reasons .
We accept such intervention , even if they are irreversible and children have little opportunity to express their views and consider the consequences. Why ? Probably because today’s beauty ideals makes birthmarks or protruding ears involves a disadvantage. The reality may be so , but it does nonetheless that medical assessments are not decisive, but cultural conditions !
Small procedure with low risk
It ‘s okay to discourage circumcision. Something different is proposed ban. The point is not that parents have the right to do anything, but circumcision of male children is thus a small procedure with low risk.
Many parents give their children is hardly a balanced diet, enough sleep and healthy TV habits. The health disadvantage is great for children who are exposed to smoking indoors. Studies show that children who experience parental leave from each other are worse off than others. No preference still ban. It should thankfully far before the state intervenes in the life of a family.
Our starting point must be confident that parents want their kids the best . It is not always easy to accept the parents’ choice, but the option to grant parental responsibility is actually a totalitarian society where the state takes over the upbringing of children.