Iceland proposes ban on male circumcision

[Minikin]

No, you are arguing that laws should not be passed because it's wrong to hate on jews so therefore banning circumcision because you hate jews is wrong. It's not wrong to ban circumcision because you hate jews, because it's an act that should be banned regardless of how someone feels about them.

no that is not what i meant. we all know some people have underlying agendas. We just need to make sure that people with hateful agendas (see biased, ignorant, etc ) shouldnt be allowed to pass policies and laws.

this is not just about circumcision. Its about us doing our duty that people who are just using a law to cause spite and hatred dont get power.

[rhorle]

So you think if there was no medical benefit to fixing cleft palate, they should be left looking like that? That's going to result in a lot of bullying.

An uncircumcised penis can lead to bullying as well but you are okay with that. So why should the social status of a cleft lip (a cleft palette is not the same as a cleft lip) be fixed because people will bully? Are you saying that bullying is acceptable?

Yes, it is.

Go look up the word specify. Using a general statement of "Depends on the child" is not giving a specific age.

Lice are a medical issue.

https://www.cdc.gov/parasites/lice/head/disease.html

They are a nuisance and a social stigma. You are not dirty for having them. You are not going to spread disease to anyone for having them. It can lead to scalp irritation from excessive scratching but that is about the only real medical effect they can cause.

[Minikin]

again, medical breakthroughs usually arent kept under wraps, or are specific for one country and especially not one religion.

studies can be made about anything and everything, and bent in any way you want.

if circumcision was clearly proven to be good and healthy for you. it'd be practiced in every country.

the fact that it's only really practiced by two of the most archaic religions and one of the most backwards western country, kinda speaks against it heavily.




seriously, just stop. this whole "desperate to offend noone" attitude gets noone nowhere.

it doesnt matter if there's bias in the law if the law itself is sensible. there are plenty of laws that are biased, as we've explained, but still are beneficial to society. especially considerign if that bias isnt even real, since it's against an entirely ficticious thing.

how do you know its not real. how do you know that this politician has complete understanding of the religion or religions they are aiming for and that they have no underlying agenda besides the good of the people.

If its just an assumption...then its just as imaginary as religion is to non religious people.

[exochaft]

again, medical breakthroughs usually arent kept under wraps, or are specific for one country and especially not one religion.

studies can be made about anything and everything, and bent in any way you want.

if circumcision was clearly proven to be good and healthy for you. it'd be practiced in every country.

the fact that it's only really practiced by two of the most archaic religions and one of the most backwards western country, kinda speaks against it heavily.

By your logic, should we just ignore any study that we don't believe? If that's the case, all studies are irrelevant. Besides, the litmus for something being "good and healthy for you" isn't whether it's practiced in every country or not, as that would make almost anything bad and unhealthy since there's not much that every country universally agrees upon. However, more on topic, you can list the medical reports supporting your claim and I'd be happy to read through them.

[Faerillis]

No one is talking about FGM.
And the OP did mention the benefits of a peeled banana in that original article.

Good gods, (non-denominationally speaking) do you think you're posting anything original at this point?

I commend your reading comprehension there, being able to absolutely not see that it was not a comparison but a demonstration as to how religious freedoms do not extend to practices that cause harm, takes a lot of talent.

[kail]

So you think if there was no medical benefit to fixing cleft palate, they should be left looking like that? That's going to result in a lot of bullying and hardship in life.

What if having circumcision was just that popular, would you allow it then?

[shaunika123]

By your logic, should we just ignore any study that we don't believe? If that's the case, all studies are irrelevant. Besides, the litmus for something being "good and healthy for you" isn't whether it's practiced in every country or not, as that would make almost anything bad and unhealthy since there's not much that every country universally agrees upon. However, more on topic, you can list the medical reports supporting your claim and I'd be happy to read through them.

dont strawman me, I've never said that. it's not about belief, if studies are posted about ANYTHING with medical benefits, then medical specialists will examine them, and if it's universally accepted as true, then it will be integrated to western medicine globally. not just to one country, and especially not to one or a few religions.

there are also studies suggesting vaccines cause autism. it doesn't mean anything. circumcision has been around for over 15000 years, if it had real benefits, it'd have been truly adapted to modern medicine world wide, not just in america. it's not a new invention.

how do you know its not real. how do you know that this politician has complete understanding of the religion or religions they are aiming for and that they have no underlying agenda besides the good of the people.

If its just an assumption...then its just as imaginary as religion is to non religious people.

you don't get it do you? it doesnt matter in the slightest what they do and don't understand about religion.
RELIGIONS
DO
NOT
MATTER
IN POLICY AND LAWMAKING

they just dont, or at the very least shouldnt.

If a law makes sense in and of itself, then it doesnt matter if some religion is against it, then quite simply, that religion is wrong, or at the very least incompatible with that countries laws.

stop coddling and babysitting religion. it doesnt need your help, it's already too powerful as it is.

let rationality and logic have some leeway in this world at least.

why do you think the "separation of church and state" is a thing? specifically because of stuff like this.

[Aggrophobic]

I don't have an opinion either way really, but I remember asking some women once during a conversation if they preferred circumcised or uncircumcised. They all agreed they preferred circumcised because it looked better and because a lot of men don't clean it properly so the uncircumcised penis smelt bad.

Interesting titbit, a lot of ancient aboriginal tribes in Australia performed circumcision as part of a mans initiation into manhood.

Who would go even near someone thats not able to handle personal hygiene? If you can't even do the basics then genital mutilation is not the answer, a soap is.
But hey, there are tribes that prefer women cutting off large parts of their genitals as well. Is that a good reason for, would you say?

Sickening, thats what it is. Parents that force their children to do this should be jailed.

[Player Twelve]

What if having circumcision was just that popular, would you allow it then?

No, I'd push for a change in culture to not be so retarded against the natural look of men.

- - - Updated - - -

An uncircumcised penis can lead to bullying as well but you are okay with that. So why should the social status of a cleft lip (a cleft palette is not the same as a cleft lip) be fixed because people will bully? Are you saying that bullying is acceptable?

An uncircumcised penis only leads to bullying on countries that think the natural look of a penis is bad, in which case you should change the culture.

https://www.cdc.gov/parasites/lice/head/disease.html

Parasites are a medical issue by default.

[rhorle]

An uncircumcised penis only leads to bullying on countries that think the natural look of a penis is bad, in which case you should change the culture.

Not everyone of a country things the same. Some prefer it, some don't. This is about a purely social scenario. Why is it okay for people to push their view on circumcision against those who don't agree with them? You are showing a bias here that you can't objectively remove yourself from to have a discussion. You are justifying bully some one just because you personally don't like circumcision.

Should a culture change over hair styles?

Parasites are a medical issue by default.

They cause no medical harm to you. But lets change it up. What if the teenager had a bunch of gum in their hair but didn't want it to be cut.

[Musta]

Baby mutilation is not a religion. Its barbaric.

[exochaft]

dont strawman me, I've never said that. it's not about belief, if studies are posted about ANYTHING with medical benefits, then medical specialists will examine them, and if it's universally accepted as true, then it will be integrated to western medicine globally. not just to one country, and especially not to one or a few religions.

there are also studies suggesting vaccines cause autism. it doesn't mean anything. circumcision has been around for over 15000 years, if it had real benefits, it'd have been truly adapted to modern medicine world wide, not just in america. it's not a new invention.

You're proving my point by saying a study doesn't mean anything if you don't agree with it. A culture argument doesn't prove anything either, as I could just turn around and say "Circumcisions have been around for XXX years, if they did any real harm they would've been banned and outlawed long ago." Goes back to my original question: why is this legislature coming up now?

Just to help people concerning the study documented in the CNN article (http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...ent/130/3/e756), the study does mention and list complications that occur with circumcisions. The study does list the complication rates being <1% for places like the US and Israel, but being higher in less industrialized areas. Besides Israel, there's a notably higher rate of complications (sometimes drastically) when a religious practitioner performs the procedures instead of physicians, especially in Arabic/African areas. Study goes in depth concerning different procedures, equipment, anesthesia, etc. and the complication rates involved. Does age cross-sections to show that the circumcisions have a higher complication rate as the kids gets older. Seriously, you can read through the study to get the general idea, there's a ton of info. Again, the findings pretty much state that there are noted benefits to circumcisions, and the complications are mostly a factor of who/where the procedure is done, which procedure is used, and if the child is actually healthy for the procedure. The studies final result is that while the benefits of getting circumcised outweigh the risks of not circumcising your child, it's really up to the parents to decide since no answer is wrong. The citations for the study include over 200 related studies and articles/journals for their findings.

If you want my opinion on the matter, leave it up to the parents. If Iceland really wants to make a law concerning it, they should probably do something along the lines of requiring the circumcisions performed in a medical facility or, at the very least, under watchful eye of trained medical staff.

[CasualFilth]

TFW you're born with aposthia.

[Deletedaccount1]

officially, there are no medical advantages to circumcision

there are studies that lean in both direction, but since nothing's been clearly established, there's nothing official about it.

The Wikipedia article on circumcision says that the WHO and the UNAIDS recommend circumcision in areas with high HIV rates. It also says it has been linked to reduced risk of cancer and UTI. It doesn't mention that these studies have been contested.

[Mifuyne]

I find it weird that it hasn't been banned yet.

[Deletedaccount1]

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.

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.

I don't subscribe to the argument that you should get circumcised because it is the societal norm where you live but FGM is more analogous to cutting off the entire male member than simply removing the foreskin. FGM removes the entire clitoris and the labia and not just the clitoral hood which is the female equivalent of foreskin. I think the analogy between the two is extremely strained.

[Saiona]

But why? What did someone cutting off a piece of your Dick do to bring a Positive to your life?

They gave us a designer penis. Torpedo dicks LOOK FUCKING GROSS. They are unattractive

[Deldavala]

I don't subscribe to the argument that you should get circumcised because it is the societal norm where you live but FGM is more analogous to cutting off the entire male member than simply removing the foreskin. FGM removes the entire clitoris and the labia and not just the clitoral hood which is the female equivalent of foreskin. I think the analogy between the two is extremely strained.

Well there is different forms of FGM, some are just a small prick, while others are the whole thing as you describe. All of them are illegal in most modern countries.

Its a good thing that Iceland is banning the practice on children. MGM should be something that a atleast someone of consenting age should decide for themselves.

[Deletedaccount1]

Well there is different forms of FGM, some are just a small prick, while others are the whole thing as you describe. All of them are illegal in most modern countries.

Its a good thing that Iceland is banning the practice on children. MGM should be something that a atleast someone of consenting age should decide for themselves.

The type of FGM that you describe is quite rare according to the WHO. Perhaps male circumcision should be done only on consenting adults but it is hard to imagine someone would want to undergo that procedure at an age when they are used to having foreskin and the procedure becomes more serious. Especially when there are widely believed yet unsubstantiated claims that it reduces sensation.

At least in Africa as well, if circumcision was only practiced on adults it would lose much of its benefit of reducing HIV rates among people under 18 which is a very common sexual demographic in that part of the world.

Also "MGM" is a hotel in Las Vegas and a company that makes movies. That is not a proper term for describing circumcision and it arguably trivializes FGM.

[Ryme]

I think consenting adults should have the choice to get it done, but it seems mindbogglingly obvious to me that it should be banned for children.