Iceland proposes ban on male circumcision

[rhorle]

and if you flay an arm you dont cut the arm off, only the skin.again, what's your point?

Does the arm have foreskin? Not even close to being the same thing. You don't flay a penis when you cut the foreskin off.

- - - Updated - - -

No, it's not beneficial socially and medically. It's just an aesthetic surgery when done for cultural reasons or it's done for religious reasons. Not because it's beneficial socially and medically.

People have expressed that they prefer circumcised penises. That is a social benefit. Aesthetic means a social effect.

[shaunika123]

Does the arm have foreskin? Not even close to being the same thing. You don't flay a penis when you cut the foreskin off.

- - - Updated - - -



People have expressed that they prefer circumcised penises. That is a social benefit. Aesthetic means a social effect.

no, but you essentially flay the tip.

[Player Twelve]

People have expressed that they prefer circumcised penises. That is a social benefit. Aesthetic means a social effect.

Social benefit is not enough to stand on its own to justify it because it's cultural, it has no medical benefit, unlike fixing cleft palate.

[shaunika123]

People have expressed that they prefer circumcised penises. That is a social benefit. Aesthetic means a social effect.

and others expressed they prefer uncircumcised ones

SO: wait till the child can actually decide if they want it or not. groundbreaking I know, but if you think about it a little it might make sense.

[rhorle]

no, but you essentially flay the tip.

No you don't. The tip still has its skin/membrane.

- - - Updated - - -

Social benefit is not enough to stand on its own to justify it because it's cultural, it has no medical benefit, unlike fixing cleft palate.

But you keep saying it has no social benefit. Why do you keep saying something has zero social value when it does? Just because you feel it isn't a good enough reason on its own doesn't mean it has no social benefit.

[Player Twelve]

But you keep saying it has no social benefit. Why do you keep saying something has zero social value when it does? Just because you feel it isn't a good enough reason on its own doesn't mean it has no social benefit.

Did you even read what I said? I had an AND medical in there. Cultural reasons do not trump bodily autonomy. Besides, it's only a thing in USA for cultural reasons, not in EU countries, where it's only the religious and people with medical problems that circumcise. There is absolutely zero reason to permanently alter a functional organ without someones consent.

[shaunika123]

No you don't. The tip still has its skin/membrane.

- - - Updated - - -



But you keep saying it has no social benefit. Why do you keep saying something has zero social value when it does? Just because you feel it isn't a good enough reason on its own doesn't mean it has no social benefit.

its social benefit is entirely subjective however. since as we've established, some like it this way and some like it that way.

but anyway, social benefits are entirely meaningless, unless the person specifically wishes for them.

those neck elongating shits in africa, and those feet fuckups in china also have/had social benefits. doesnt make them any less apalling.

[Mask]

No you don't. The tip still has its skin/membrane.

Of course, it's not as bad as flaying skin. However the glans does undergo changes due to becoming an outer layer of skin rather than a mucus membrane. Circumcision has a big impact on the penis beyond just the tiny bit of missing skin.

But you keep saying it has no social benefit. Why do you keep saying something has zero social value when it does? Just because you feel it isn't a good enough reason on its own doesn't mean it has no social benefit.

Sure, and female circumcision in Africa is often performed by the women of the family so their daughters will fit in with the social norms. THAT DOESN'T MAKE IT OKAY.

[rhorle]

Did you even read what I said? I had an AND medical in there. Cultural reasons do not trump bodily autonomy. Besides, it's only a thing in USA for cultural reasons, not in EU countries, where it's only the religious and people with medical problems that circumcise.

Which means you should have just had medical and not AND. Stop using bodily autonomy. You have already established you care little about that and only care about certain permanent procedures.

- - - Updated - - -

its social benefit is entirely subjective however. since as we've established, some like it this way and some like it that way. but anyway, social benefits are entirely meaningless, unless the person specifically wishes for them. those neck elongating shits in africa, and those feet fuckups in china also have/had social benefits. doesnt make them any less apalling.

Which is what a social benefit is. Subjective. Do you believe that in order for something to be a social benefit it has to be accepted by everyone?

[shaunika123]

Which means you should have just had medical and not AND. Stop using bodily autonomy. You have already established you care little about that and only care about certain permanent procedures.

- - - Updated - - -



Which is what a social benefit is. Subjective. Do you believe that in order for something to be a social benefit it has to be accepted by everyone?

no, just the person it's directly affecting.

[Player Twelve]

Which means you should have just had medical and not AND. Stop using bodily autonomy. You have already established you care little about that and only care about certain permanent procedures.

Well, that's just a fabrication.

No, it's not only about permanent changes. You shouldn't be allowed to cut your childs hair against their wishes either when they're old enough to decide for themselves what kind of hairstyle they want, as an example. I don't know why this is so hard for you to grasp.

[rhorle]

Of course, it's not as bad as flaying skin. However the glans does undergo changes due to becoming an outer layer of skin rather than a mucus membrane. Circumcision has a big impact on the penis beyond just the tiny bit of missing skin.

The doesn't mean that anything was removed from the glans though. The glans wasn't cut. The shaft wasn't cut. "Part of the dick isn't cut off". They were making a general statement that doesn't hold true. No where did I say nothing is changed.

Sure, and female circumcision in Africa is often performed by the women of the family so their daughters will fit in with the social norms. THAT DOESN'T MAKE IT OKAY.

It is more mutilation then a circumcision. It would be akin to actually chopping part of the dick off rather then just the foreskin. Women do not have an equivalent part to foreskin on their genitals.

[shaunika123]

It is more mutilation then a circumcision. It would be akin to actually chopping part of the dick off rather then just the foreskin. Women do not have an equivalent part to foreskin on their genitals.

yes, but it's less mutilation than cutting their arm off so it's okay right?

[Aggrophobic]

Mutilating childrens genitals should never be allowed. It's beyond barbaric and more countries really need to follow Icelands example here.

[rhorle]

Well, that's just a fabrication.

You said it only is about if it doesn't heal here

The difference is, that will heal if you take out the piercing and does not impair functionality. You don't get the foreskin back.

You said that other removals of bodily autonomy are not equivalent here

I have no idea why you think just because someone shouldn't have their body modified permanently in a negative manner on a whim by the parents is even equivalent to these things.

And you have already clearly admitted to social benefits for some. Which means there are only no medical reasons. "And" doesn't work when one is false. "And" requires both to be false when used in the fashion you did.

So where is the fabrication?

- - - Updated - - -

yes, but it's less mutilation than cutting their arm off so it's okay right?

No. Never did I say that. Why is it that people assume an extreme just because you point out some making stupid statements?

[Player Twelve]

So where is the fabrication?

Oh, I don't know. You saying that I only care about permanent changes that I disagree with when I think people shouldn't be allowed to cut their childs hair against their wishes, as an example. Cutting the hair isn't a permanent change.

- - - Updated - - -

You said it only is about if it doesn't heal here

I said no such thing there.

[exochaft]

Did anyone actually read the article? Yeah, you gotta go halfway down to the latter part of the article, where it mentions the study saying the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks. Even the risks found make the politician's statement of circumcisions causing "all kinds of severe complications, disfigurations and even death" to be blatant hyperbole. Besides, I'd never trust a politician to make a medical decision for me or be a source of medical advice... that's what your actual doctors are for.

Now Iceland isn't my country so I have no skin in the game (is that a considered a pun here?), but my questions is WHY is this coming up right now? I doubt there was a mass circumcision spree in the middle of the night, killing or disfiguring thousands of babies. There's always a catalyst, and I highly doubt it was for the well-being of children.

[rhorle]

Oh, I don't know. You saying that I only care about permanent changes that I disagree with when I think people shouldn't be allowed to cut their childs hair against their wishes, as an example. Cutting the hair isn't a permanent change.

Because you have made statements that say other permanent changes are not equivalent. You keep changing the rules for what is and is not allowed. You started at general statements and further restricted them based on my probing. Then you claim it is all fabricated. Did I fabricate post quotes from you too?

[Player Twelve]

Because you have made statements that say other permanent changes are not equivalent. You keep changing the rules for what is and is not allowed. You started at general statements and further restricted them based on my probing. Then you claim it is all fabricated. Did I fabricate post quotes from you too?

Fixing someones medical problems is warranted when they're not old enough to decide for themselves. Changing their body because you think it looks better is not warranted.

Did I fabricate post quotes from you too?

It would seem that you have reading comprehension issues.

[shaunika123]

Did anyone actually read the article? Yeah, you gotta go halfway down to the latter part of the article, where it mentions the study saying the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks. Even the risks found make the politician's statement of circumcisions causing "all kinds of severe complications, disfigurations and even death" to be blatant hyperbole. Besides, I'd never trust a politician to make a medical decision for me or be a source of medical advice... that's what your actual doctors are for.

Now Iceland isn't my country so I have no skin in the game (is that a considered a pun here?), but my questions is WHY is this coming up right now? I doubt there was a mass circumcision spree in the middle of the night, killing or disfiguring thousands of babies. There's always a catalyst, and I highly doubt it was for the well-being of children.

if we had rock hard(pun intended) proof that there are clear medical advantages to circumcision, dont you think it'd be more widespread? even just outside religious rituals, and that one single country?

and it has to come up at some point.

why did gay marriage come up when it did?
why did any law.

is that really an argument against a law that it comes up? seriously? are we at that point?