Politics

Omskæring af drenge

Når man diskuterer omskæring af drengebørn med individer der ikke er modstandere, så er det forudsigeligt hvilke argumenter de vil bruge.

En af dem er at omskære piger er meget værre, hvor WHO (World Health Organisation) har lavet en liste over de forskellige pigeomskæringer der findes.

tabel-kc3b8nslemlc3a6stelse

Alle disse er forbudt ved dansk lov, selv indgreb der er mindre omfattende end det drengebørn bliver udsat for.

 

Der er ingen der argumentere for at der ikke skal være et forbud i frygt af at forældre vil smugle deres piger ud af landet for at få et indgreb.

 

Dernæst hører man at man ikke vil kriminalisere en stor del af verdens befolkning, men det gør vi allerede. I Danmark er det forbudt at slå børn. At slå børn er der også religiøse og kulturelle grundlag for. Fra samme kilder hvor omskæring stammer fra.

At det så skal handle om rettigheder er også noget værre vås, man fratager nemlig drengebørn retten til kropslig integritet. Hensynet til de religiøse når det gælder omskæringer kommer før barnets ret.

Sundhedsstyrelsen skriver i deres rapport at det er et kirugisk indgreb, og ved alle kirugiske indgreb er der risci for komplikationer, og i værste tilfælde kan et barn dø. Hvilket skete i Norge 2012, hvor en dreng forblødte efter en omskæring.

Et barn der dør pga en unødvendig procedure er et barn for meget.

At sidestille omskæringer med tandregulering, rettelse på ører eller øjne er også helt forkert. De indgreb handler om at øge barnets livskvalitet. Omskæring øger ikke barnets livskvalitet, det er kun for at tilfredsstille et religiøst behov.

Der er intet der forhindrer de religiøse at vente til de bliver 18 år, før at de vil lade sig omskære.

Politikerne må i sidste ende vælge mellem hensynet til religion eller hensynet til et barns tarv.

Er det så vigtigt at religioner skal have lov til at brændemærke deres børn som tilhørende en bestemt tro ved kirugiske indgreb, eller er det vigtigere at et barn skal have lov til at vokse op, og senere i livet selv kan tage en beslutning om hvorvidt det vil gennemgå et indgreb i religionens navn.

Circumcision–Would you tattoo a child?

effects_of_circumcision

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Circumcision is a very controversial subject to discuss for many people, and why is this?

To elaborate it is only male circumcision that is controversial to discuss, since in the western world we all agree that female circumcision is wrong on every level, heck they even call it female mutilation. In 2006 FGM (Female genitalia mutilation) was outlawed in Denmark, and you risk a fine and imprisonment if you do it.

The WHO has four types of FGM listed, Type I is where only the skin around the clitoris is removed, Type II is where the clitoris is partial or completely removed, Type III is where all external genitalia is removed on a girl and the wound is stitched together, Type IV groups all other non-medical actions on female genitalia together, actions such as nicking, tattooing, and labia stretching.

All four types are illegal in Denmark, but when people talk about FGM, they tend only think about Type II and III, where as Type I and some Type IV can be less of a procedure than removing the foreskin on a male.

Why do I mention this?

Because a lot people tend to say, “You cannot compared FGM with male circumcision…”

As a whole, no, you cannot, however certain types of FGM you absolutely can compare with male circumcision.

A ritual poking of a clitoris with a needle is by far a less invasive procedure than removing the foreskin of a boy, however it is still wrong and outlawed. Even removing the skin around the clitoris is less invasive.

I am not defending any forms of FGM, and I think that it is rightfully outlawed.

What does male circumcision do?

To understand that, we need to understand the function of foreskin.

The inner foreskin is a mucous membrane, like the inside of your eyelid and mouth. It helps keeping the glans moist, and provides lubrication during sex or masturbation.

The foreskin also have many nerve receptors that are sensitive to touch.

When you remove the foreskin by circumcizing a boy, then you remove his ability to lubricate and lowers the sensitivity of his penis, which can affects his sex life later on.

It dawned to me why many American teens have to rely on lotions when masturbating, it is also very common in American teen movies, such as American Pie, where they also make a joke where a guy uses glue by mistake. They are unable to lubricate themselves, so in order to make masturbation easier, they have to use lotions.

Who circumcise and why?

Global_Map_of_Male_Circumcision_Prevalence_at_Country_Level

The map above illustrates where circumcision is common, the darker the colour, the more common.

In the Middle East and in Africa it is mainly done due to religious mandate, jews believe it has to be done because it is a pact with their god, the muslims do it because their prophet according to their holy texts was born without foreskin (however there is actually no mandate in the Quran to circumcise, but the Shia denomination has it as a mandate, and the Sunni denomination is sort of split on the issue).

What about Northern America, where the muslims and jews are in the minority, why do they circumcise?

Circumcision was introduced to the general public in the USA by Dr. John Harvey Kellogg (Kellogg Cornflakes, yes). Dr. Kellogg was very much an opponent of masturbation, besides using cornflakes in mattresses, he also believed circumcision would stop masturbation.

"A remedy for masturbation which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision, especially when there is any degree of phimosis. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering anaesthetic, as the pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment."

– Dr. John Harvey Kellogg – 1888 – page 295 – Can be read here

It became a part of the American culture, and is still a procedure many people in the USA would defend.

Some of the arguments I hear in defence of circumcisions are;

“It is more hygienic to be circumcised.” — You could also just take regular showers, it is just a matter of regular hygiene.

“I do not want my boy to get teased at gym for looking different…” — Would you tattoo your child if that was the norm, for him to fit in?

“It prevents diseases…” — No, there is poor evidence that it might lower the risk of HIV transmission when doing unprotective anal sex with a female. Vaginal sex there is no evidence that it lowers the risk of infection. There is no study about risk in male to male anal sex, but it is more likely to be the same as the female anal sex. Yes it does lower the risk of cancer in the penis, however that is true for any body part you amputate.

“I am circumcised, and I do not think it is wrong, or that my sex life is bad.” — It does not matter that you don’t feel it was wrongly done, and if you were circumcised as an infant or young child, then you have nothing to compare with.

Lastly I heard this on the live debate show I was on, “Infants cannot remember the pain…” — So you are advocating that violent acts against infants are okay, because they cannot remember it?

I understand it can be hard to get to terms with the fact that your parents, or you yourself as a parent, got a part of your body removed for no good reason. A part of your body that actually served a purpose.

Even if there was some small benefit, it still does not outweigh the adverse effects, many children die because of circumcision, statistically it is about 100 children in America a year, and even more get complications, such a scarring, and partial amputation of the penis.

Even if it was only few children that died of it each year, it is still ONE child too many.

What I am advocating, is that any form of genitalia alterations should be left to consenting adults, just as we do not allow children to get tattooed on the argument that it is semi-permanent. We should not allow amputation of any body parts, just because of religious or cultural preferences.

Only medically neccesary treatments should be done on a child’s genitalia.

When you are an adult, feel free to remove as much as you want from you genitalia, pierce it, tattoo it, amputate, I do not care, just leave the children alone.

 

 

 

Feel free to donate, to help me out in my daily life, by clicking the donate button in the menu on the right side, or by clicking here. Smiley

Renaming it will not fix the problem

20120123-kirkeministeriet

The group leader of the Danish Socialist People’s Party, Pernille Vigsø Bagge, got the brilliant idea that in Denmark we should rename our Ministry of the Church to Ministry of Life Philosophies.

A statement that she withdrew within 24 hours after everyone in Denmark laughed at the idea, or suggested it should be something else such as the Ministry of Magic (I guess we got a lot of Harry Potter fans in our population).

I do wonder if Pernille actually have given it any thoughts at all, because what would changing the name of the said ministry change? (Besides the obvious fact as the name)

We would still have a state church, and with that a state religion, no equality amongst religions, and no proper freedom from religion.

What we need is a change in our constitution, we need to have equal rights for everyone in our country. Yet I fear this is at least one generation away in Denmark to happen, that the church and state will be separated. (30 years time)

There is no easy solution, it will require hard work from our politicians, the non-profit activist groups (such as The Danish Atheist Society), and the general population in order to create this change.

Instead if Pernille would want any of my respect, instead of focusing on the name of a ministry, she should focus on what it does, and its effects on society. Start a debate on what the effects are of a state church in Denmark.

I find the level of hypocrisy amongst politicians in Denmark to be nauseating at best sometimes, I hear interviews where they say that religion and politics have no place in Denmark, yet none of them dare to open a debate whether Denmark should keep having a state church.

What about instead of using the amount of members in the state church for their arguments, how about they find out, how many do actually believe in what the Lutheran Church teaches? How many are actually just “cultural christian” or in all practicality either deist or atheists (agnostics included).

So secular politicians in Denmark, please if you ever read this, grow up, and start an actual debate.

Support Tylzen

Support my work

Categories

My Archive