Posted on 08/08/2012 3:52:25 PM PDT by SJackson
Ombudsman for children's rights proposes that Jews and Muslims replace male circumcision with a symbolic, nonsurgical ritual.
THE HAGUE - Norway’s ombudsman for children's rights has proposed that Jews and Muslim replace male circumcision with a symbolic, nonsurgical ritual.
Dr. Anne Lindboe told the newspaper Vart Land last month that circumcision in boys was a violation of a person’s right to decide over his own body. “Muslim and Jewish children are entitled to the same protection as all other children,“ she said. She added that the practice caused unnecessary pain and was medically unbeneficial.
Lindboe, a pediatrician, was appointed ombudsman in June. Her predecessor, Reidar Hjermann, proposed setting 15 as the minimum age for circumcision. According to Jewish religious law, Jewish babies must be circumcised when they are eight days old.
The children’s ombudsman is an independent governmental institution entrusted with safeguarding the rights of minors.
Ervin Kohn, president of The Jewish Community of Oslo, said that Norwegian Jews “will not be able to live in a society where circumcision is forbidden.” He noted that the mandate of Norway’s children’s ombudsman did not extend to devising Jewish rituals. Norway has a Jewish community of about 700.
In June, a spokesperson for Norway’s Center Party, which has 11 out of 169 seats in parliament, proposed a ban on circumcision in babies.
>>>Yes. Certainly the government could ban fasting for minors.<<<
Certainly. Maybe the government will allow everything else on my list. An omnipotent state granting boons to the peasants is not liberty.
Not that Europe (excluding Britain) has much experience or appreciation for limited government. I like liberty. Sad to see how it is faring these days.
Well, I would have preferred not to have it done when I was a day old. But, on the other hand God told Abraham that was part of the deal. And who is Norway to argue with God?
True, dat. It’s hardly unknown for parents to make medical decisions for their children that may involve ‘mutilation’ and scar the body.
There are tens of millions of women who disagree with your opinion. And I’ve had their unsolicited opinion given to me more than once, both here, and in Europe. Without getting too ripe here, they had a few very specific reasons for why they preferred cut, or in your parlance “mutilated”.
I had never really thought about it, and was rather surprised at their reasons.
Pleasantly.
Your logica is insane. The child did not create himself, and without his parents he would not survive a week. He owes his life to them and is obligated therefore to obey. But you say, within reason, and with due respect to his rights. And who is to decide what those rights are? why the state of course. he becomes the property of the state, which is free to do with him what they decide is best.
Indeed, and of course,”Norway” is in the end no more than a few bags of guts not unlike ourselves.
Kabumpo, no one here doubts your wide spead experience.
It’s pretty apparent just from your posts.
“And who is Norway to argue with God?”
Pagans returning to their roots.
Circumcision is a decision made by loving parents on behalf of their sons. The logic of having a boy wait until the procedure would be more involved and painful does not work. People have the right to decide what to eat, as well, but we don’t starve them until they are capable of making that decision. We have our children vaccinated against diseases— should we refuse to do so that, if they survive, they can decide?
Yes, it’s been at least two people. Not ready for the Elizabeth Taylor award yet.
Your willing (and obviously pride-filled) provision of too much information on your sexual past struck me as highly unnecessary and not in the least conservative.
Quite frankly, I’m left wondering by your lack of shame whether you’re male or female.
Not pride at all - and if you had better reading comprehension you would know my gender.
Why is it ok for Laz to comment that “he would (or would not ) hit that” and not okay for me to comment from a factual viewpoint, that circumcision makes a significant difference in the sexual experience. Suppose I’d been married twice and had a boyfriend in between - does that make me a tramp on the level of Madonna? And then, what are we going to call “I’d hit it” Laz?
Seems like if your reading comprehension was functional, you would have caught the general inference that I view gratuitous sexual commentary — whether from males or females — as generally unnecessary and antithetical to the stated purpose of the website. That said, humor and questionable personal revelations are two different things. Strikes me that Laz most often falls into the realm of the former. You don’t.
Perhaps it’s too Victorian of me to assume that self-respecting women with a modicum of modesty would not lay out multiple posts alluding (in increasing detail) to their sexual activities/proclivities/experiences. But, hey, it’s post number three for you on the subject in this thread alone!
So, to paraphrase the old cliche, *what* you are is not really the question under discussion, is it?
It’s not gratuitous if I’m making a point about genital mutilation. The men who have been mutilated (you may be one) are defensive about their condition. There is no way to assert the fact that a mutilated organ is less effective than one that is unmutilated without claiming direct experience. Surely I am not the only person on FR who has been divorced and remarried. Or is FR the Catholic Church?
As to “I’d hit it” being ok as humor, but serious commentary about genital mutilation being offensive, I think you need to reshuffle your cards.
Q: How do you know when a woman is going to say something intelligent?
A: When her first words are, "A man once told me..."
“I doubt that any decent person would comply with a government demand that they violate their religious beliefs.”
Like Obamacare and the Catholic Church?
“You my dear, have never seen the “creeping crud” grow on the penis under the foreskin. It is nasty and hard to heal. I trained in the swamps for weeks at a time. The skin diseases we acquired caused our corpsmen and doctors all kinds of problems, and we did not like it much either. There are some really good reasons to be circumcised.”
Maybe the Norwegians can make a waiver for swamp people.
The Church has a waiver. It's individual Catholics who have to make a decision. I already scaled back my business to where I no longer have any employees, but if this had come four years ago I would have immediately cut to fewer than 50 employees rather than obey such reprehensible demands (note: I have no moral objection to birth control, but the abortion drug mandate is far over the line by my standards, and in any case I will back those individuals who object to being compelled to violate their fundamental religious values). Employers really do have that choice - a private individual with a business big enough that they are expected to comply is wealthy enough to retire if forced into a corner.
Another mutalee heard from.
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.