Maybe ban ALL circumcision? Up to 5000 girls every year travel from the UK 'on holiday' to their home countries and are subjected to a despicable procedure of removing their clitoris. If Norwegian politicnas think this problem does not exist in Norway, they are naive.

Female circumcision is already banned in Norway. It's a known problem here. A few years ago politicians wanted to have all girls checked at the age of 10 in order to uncover any possibilities, but of course certain people got a bit testy about it.

Female circumcision is already banned in Norway. It's a known problem here. A few years ago politicians wanted to have all girls checked at the age of 10 in order to uncover any possibilities, but of course certain people got a bit testy about it.

This is politically correct Bull. Circumcised males are less likely than their uncircumcised peers to acquire a sexually transmitted infection, the findings of a 25-year study suggest. According to the report in the November issue of Pediatrics, circumcision may reduce the risk of acquiring and spreading such infections by up to 50 percent, which suggests "substantial benefits" for routine neonatal circumcision. The current study is just one of many that have looked at this controversial topic. While most research has found that circumcision reduces the rates of HIV (the virus that causes AIDS), syphilis and genital ulcers, the results are more mixed for other STDs. The American Academy of Pediatrics has called the evidence "complex and conflicting," and therefore concludes that, at present, the evidence is insufficient to support routine neonatal circumcision. In the current study, the researchers analyzed data collected for the Christchurch Health and Development Study, which included a large birth cohort of children from New Zealand. Males were divided into two groups based on circumcision status before 15 years of age. The presence of a sexually transmitted infection between 18 and 25 years of age was determined by questionnaire. The 356 uncircumcised boys had a 2.66-fold increased risk of sexually transmitted infection compared with the 154 circumcised boys, lead author Dr. David M. Fergusson and colleagues, from the Christchurch School of Medicine and Health Sciences report. Moreover, this elevated risk was largely unchanged after accounting for potential confounders, such as number of sexual partners and unprotected sex. The authors estimate that had routine neonatal circumcision been in place, the rate of sexually transmitted infections in the current cohort would have been reduced by roughly 48 percent. This analysis shows that the benefits of circumcision for reducing the risk of sexually transmitted infection "may be substantial," the authors conclude. "The public health issues raised by these findings clearly involve weighing the longer-term benefits of routine neonatal circumcision in terms of reducing risks of infection within the population, against the perceived costs of the procedure," they add.

I have seen and done many circumcisions and, in my opinion, it makes the penis far more interesting an organ to look at (and if one uses local anesthetic, there is no pain.)

@herbert: The 2006 study you refer to (http://www.circumstitions.com/STDs.html#fergusson) was contradicted by a bigger and better one in 2008. It found "Overall, up to age 32 years, the incidence rates for all STIs were not statistically significantly different - 23.4 and 24.4 per 1000 person-years for the uncircumcised and circumcised men, respectively." @Dr Dillner: "Interesting"? The intact penis is a transformer! But what does your opinion matter compared to HIS opinion? The vast majority of intact men are happy to enjoy a whole penis. "No pain"? Williamson and Evans found "The adrenal cortisol response to surgery was not significantly reduced by the administration of lidocaine." Taeusch et al. found "more than half of the study group had what we considered excessive pain/discomfort over the course of the entire procedure." Taddio et al. found circumcised babies reacted differently to the pain of vaccination months afterwards. But even if it were completely painless, infant circumcision would still be a human rights violation.

The Centre Party risks a serious backlash in the name of religious freedom by using the words "ban and "ritual". What it really wants is an age-restriction on non-therapeutic circumcision. Consenting, informed adults should be free to choose ritual circumcision for themselves.

"Circumcised males are less likely than their uncircumcised peers to acquire a sexually transmitted infection"... yeah, right. Cameroon, Ghana, Lesotho, Malawi, Rwanda, Swaziland, Tanzania. What do these countries have in common? Higher HIV rates among cut men than among intact men. So much for circumcision's magical protective powers!

Well here are the latest studies: http://healthland.time.com/2012/03/12/circumcision-the-surgery-that-can-lower-prostate-cancer-risk/ “In the study, researchers from the University of Washington looked at surveys and medical records of 1,754 men with prostate cancer and 1,645 men without the disease. They found that those who were circumcised before they had sex for the first time were 15% less likely to develop prostate cancer than their uncircumcised counterparts. They were also 18% less likely to develop more-aggressive forms of the cancer. Medical researchers recommend male circumcision March 2, 2012 in Health Penile cancer, HIV, HPV, syphilis and kidney inflammation are among a number of medical conditions whose risk can be lowered by the practice of infant male circumcision, says a study led by the University of Sydney. http://medicalxpress.com/news/2012-03-medical-male-circumcision.html Putting to one side the arrogance of Norwegian officials, the studies strongly support, in a statistical sense, that male circumcision is a good idea. Speaking as an American, I would be astounded if this passed in Norway and was used to prohibit Jews from practicing a central tenant of their faith. If it did it would only confirm what most Americans read which is that Norway is probably the most anti-Semitic country in Europe today. As for the genius who sarcastically wrote about "magical protective powers", I surmise that you have stopped taking your medication again.

Herbert, why am I not surprised to see that the notorious circumfetishist Brian Morris is responsible for one of those studies?

Just looked up Morris. His bio looks pretty impressive: "Brian J. Morris was born in 1950 in Adelaide, South Australia, graduated from the University of Adelaide in 1972 and obtained his PhD from Monash University and University of Melbourne (jointly) in Melbourne in 1975, before doing 3 years of postdoctoral research in the USA, firstly at the University of Missouri, Columbia for a year, and then at the University of California, School of Medicine, in San Francisco. He returned to Australia in 1978 after being appointed as an academic at The University of Sydney in 1978, won the Edgeworth David Medal (state award for science) in 1985, was awarded a DSc in 1993, and was appointed to a Chair in the School of Medical Sciences in the Faculty of Medicine from 1999. He was elected as a Fellow of the American Heart Association in 2003. In 2006 he won The Faculty of Medicine Award for Excellence in Postgraduate Research Supervision." And he not Jewish http://www.circinfo.net/about_the_author_professor_brian_j_morris.html So if that qualifies as a "circumfetishist" or whatever word you would like to make up so be it

More like this: http://www.circleaks.org/index.php?title=Brian_J._Morris

Hmm? Interesting. I was not aware of that and do not know if it true. What is clear is that the link has no people attributed to it and seems flatly anti-circumcision. I've never been a big fan of anonymous postings as this site is. However, when you get a site that says "The following is a list of institutions of higher education that fund and promote circumcision research and mass circumcision campaigns. Johns Hopkins, Kaiser Permanente and National Institutes of Health" -- all highly reputable institutions, then you lose me since I attribute your position to having little if any substantive evidence to support it and I prefer not to argue about the messenger instead of the message. So far as I can see the statistical bias is very strongly in favor of circumcision for health reasons. At bottom it is a personal choice which, the government, in my view, has no business being involved and certainly not some dumb woman who fancies herself a social scientist.

If that's what you see, go have your eyes checked. You seem to be completely ignorant - and refusing to learn - about the negative side effects and ethical problems of circumcision.

@Herbert: The Wright study of prostate cancer is a classic of massaged data. Their final result - showing only 15% difference - was barely statistically significant, and it was only achieved by adding never-circumcised, to late-circumcised men, as if one act of intercourse with a foreskin was enough to cause prostate cancer, 20cm upstream, decades later. 30% of men have prostate cancer on autopsy (more men die with it than of it) and the control group had not been biopsied, only not diagnosed with it, so many may have had it undiagnosed. Many other studies have found no difference. Brian Morris is not a medical professional - though he likes to imply that he is. He is a professor of molecular biology in a medical school. He has never seen a reason for circumcising he didn't like, up to and including "to prevent bathroom splatter" and "to prevent zipper injury" - like getting your glans in a zipper is fun? (Morris, BioEssays 29:1147–1158, 2007). He spins statistics, refers to studies that don't support his claims for them and contradicts himself. A recent paper claims to prioritise parental choice but on Australian TV on May 24 , 2009, he said "Circumcision should be compulsory" His leaflets in support of circumcision were published by the Gilgal Society, headed - until recently - by a convicted paedophile, but since that happened he has been trying to cover their traces (not altogether successfully: http://www.circinfo.net/pdfs/LOC-ANZ%200912-1.pdf Circinfo.het is his personal website)

@Herbert: This data is true or not, it doesn't matter. Parents haven't got to the right to circumcise their son. That is his body, his choice. And parents haven't got to the right to choose the religion for their children. I know a person who is ateist, but his parents are muslim and they are circumized him because of religon. This is insult of the human/children rights.

OK so society makes the rules. I HAVE THE SOLUTION TO THE CIRCUMCISION PROBLEM. You will recall that China has banned many Norwegian Diplomats because of China’s displeasure with Norway’s Nobel Prize awards. So here is what Israel might do. All Norwegian diplomats should be declared Persona non grata unless they are circumcised. :-)

Herbert, I suspected you were a troll. Thanks for removing any doubt.

"In my view, this is a custom that we cannot accept..." Of course 3500 years of religious tradition that connect this practice directly to ethnic identity shouldn't carry any weight against one partisan functionary's personal view.

Slavery was a tradition for thousands of years in lands where Jews were resident, therefore, according to herbert, it should still be permitted. Circumcision is, and always was, a gross denial of human rights regardless of the age of the person. So yes, it must be banned for non-consenting children, though I agree that it should be called "non-therapeutic", not "ritual".

Why is it wrong to dismiss archaic traditions that one finds to be worthless cruft, toxic leftovers of a less educated age?

I think Norwegians dislike circumcision because their male members may have small heads and they dislike being made fun of. I think the smaller head has something to do with frost bite.. It is an environmental thing as noted in these articles: http://ivarfjeld.wordpress.com/2012/03/23/perverts-in-norway-soon-ready-for-sex-with-animals/; and http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2008/05/20/animal-brothels-legal-in-denmark/

Thank you Norway and the Centre Party for publicly stating the obvious: circumcision of minor children is a human rights violation and has no place in the modern world regardless of religion, culture or parental demand. No supposed health benefit justifies the removal of healthy, functional tissue from a non-consenting person when that decision can be left until adulthood. All the Scandinavian countries have lower rates of all STD's, HIV, penile and cervical cancer and they don't circumcise. Plus the sex is better because it is the way nature intended it to be. It is time religions that circumcise take steps to change practices that clearly are harmful. It is no longer ethical to support that which harms the most vulnerable in society-our children.

A rather emotive if ignorant post. The same arguments can be made about body piercing and whale killing. Indeed one hears little if any complaint by men who were circumcised. whatever one's views it is clearly not harmful.

Herbert's stance seems to be: "Men do not complain, so everyone is satisfied, lalalalala" – refusing to see that tons of men do complain.

There is a huge difference between male circumcision and female genital mutilation which some mistakenly call female circumcision. The biggest difference is circumcised males are still able to enjoy sex and they are less likely to pass on communicable diseases and their wives are less apt to have cervical cancer because of the germs that accumulate under the foreskin. Also, other foreskin problems often make it necessary for uncircumcised men to be circumcised later in life which is more of a trauma then when they don't remember. Now female mutilation which some mistakenly call circumcision is not circumcision but destruction of female sexual pleasure. This destruction also causes a myraid of other physical and hygiene problems for young girls and woman. One should not compare apples and oranges meaning don't compare male circumcision with female genital mutilation because the latter is not circumcision but the voiding out of a woman's sexual identity and pleasure.

To @herbert: I am sure any son would prefer to be circumcised then to be aborted.

Wouldn't it be easier to just ban Islam and Judaism? Next you can colonise the world to impose your cultural practises on those less civilised than yourselves.

Good point Glory. I'm pro-choice but isn't it funny how the (fascist) left seeks to impose their values on everyone but want to ban circumcision but are happy to support killing fetuses. What's next? Banning ear piercing of minors? Arrest parents that feed their kids fatty foods?

How can supporters think it’s O.K. to cut little boys, when as a society we are horrified by the idea of cutting little girls? This is a huge double standard, religious reasons should not be allowed to interfere with banning this barbaric outdated practice.

@herbert who cares what the tiny minority of jewish people in Norway think, there are far more Muslims here than jews, they will be the real issue if the govt grows a pair and bans this outdated and unnecessary practice.