Iceland proposes ban on male circumcision

[Puupi]

How do you people even have the energy to argue about something so insignificant which comes down to personal preference?

Oh, how do you know the baby's personal preference before his foreskin is chopped off?

[Shadowferal]

No.
We're talking of one country, and the fact that it's fairly anti-immigrant, especially in regards to Muslim immigrants.

[Usagi Senshi]

When my mom had me snipped, the doc took a wee bit much off the top, annnnnnnnnnnnnd that's the reason I use this avatar.

[Mormolyce]

Honestly I think the WHO is mostly targeting that angle in places where circumcision could help and when it is done it is often botched. The studies were done in such locations, there is mention of guidelines on how to perform it. Defending advanced rights in countries were people die of easily preventable diseases is pointless; better to keep them alive first.

It's a near-sighted strategy at best, IMO.

- - - Updated - - -

How often has the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child been mentioned already here?
Bit of a disconnect since WHO is a UN agency.

Well they're hardly advocating for compulsory circumcision in first world countries in any case.

[Deleted]

I look at things of how to best achieve something, i find provocation of a group who's believes are strengthen by isolation, to target them and isolate them further is going to simply not achieve anything you wish and desire. Circumcision is going to keep happening ban or no ban, turning it into a crime is going create a serious disconnect, this means any and all dialogue between the groups you wish to comply to your wishes is going to completely ignore you, Knowing it is very much integrated into their culture, you are suggesting that people from such communities are going to turn on their own in todays world? Good luck with that.

So basically this says "because it doesn't work" and "its their culture", while none of that matters in the face of reality. This isn't about how someone likes their tea, this is about mutilating children on their genitals of all places. Im not saying that you cant discus this with people who want to do this, but ultimately it should not be done to any child. Again, this isn't some grey area, there isn't such a thing as a grey area when it comes to things like this. Just like there isn't a grey area when you talk about setting a crate of puppies on fire, it is simply not done.

So you now spend a lot of money and time as government on what exactly? Creating a law that won't be used a lot, if it does get used it mostly will be with complete wrong motivations, seeing i find it still a justice system and not a system of vengeance is another reason why i'm not in favor of this. But looking at your bloodthirst, i'm sure you are fine with that, so much for your sense of "justice". As you earlier stated you wanted everyone locked up that does it.

How is it not justice when someone who mutilates someone else gets punished? Don't complain about my "sense of justice" when you are the one who wants thinks its okay to mutilate children's genitals. I'm not the one here who has a bloodthirst, people who actually mutilate children are the ones with a bloodthirst.. but nice try.

Looking at the differences and calling it sexist, yes cutting of actual parts that a woman needs to feel something down there and closing it up with needle and thread afterwards is completely the same thing as cutting of the foreskin. Despite it doesn't anywhere come close both in short and long term damage, but you know this hence you have to even bring up with it goes wrong to remotely come anywhere near the female version of it, ironically making it an illegal practice you'll be ensuring the male circumcision chance to become closer to the female part so good job there i guess?

Again with the fallacy.. Nice job! I've never said that those two where the same, i've stated that there are comparable versions, but even those are illegal to preform on girls. So, this is what we would call a strawman.

So end result, you became completely shut out by the community you want to enforce this change who weren't keen on doing it in the first place. Increased the risk since it is now more done in illegal practices and introduced a law where young adults can coerce their parents, an already fragile relationship, that can lead to a pretty bad situation but that's another discussion. (hint terrorism recruitment is part of it), also good luck convicting a parent if the act is performed elsewhere, since this won't become an EU-wide law any time soon.

Those are some massive conjectures, meanwhile other people just uphold the law and would do so with this law as well. If they do defy the law then they get punished, that is how our law works, and yours as well.
And the last bit is funny, first you argue that its done in back ally's, then you go on about how they go to other countries (guess how its done to girls now??). But none of this really matters since, if found out they will be charged with child abuse. Of course, it matters that it was done to them, but it doesn't matter when you talk about implementing a law forbidding it.

Now since you never asked and kept assuming since it fits your narrative. My methods would be i have no problem creating a legal frame work around it, i do find as with other controversial rites whos practices we question in the west achieve the best results over time through dialogue, since you need the community to comply simply waving a ban around with criminal charges as a stick behind the door won't achieve your goals. We are making improvements when it comes to animal sacrifices and while people advocated a full ban at first, when people started finding left overs, guts and organs of the animals in parks and forest and where ever it got dumped because, they very much so prefer to alternative now.

We are not talking about slaughtering live stock, we are talking about mutilating children. Again, there isn't a gray area about this, just like there isn't a gray area for setting fire to a crate of puppies. No one in their right mind would think that there is any excuse to set fire to a crate of puppies. It is a silly excuse at best.

I fully expect that the muslims can be reasoned with, since i think for muslims it isn't done at a baby all the time, some parents do wait till later and ask the child think 8 or 9 or so the latest from people i know, much like Christians their communion or confirmation. The Jewish community, good luck with that group, especially the orthodox ones they won't budge at all.

Then a bunch of orthodox Jews will spend time in prison together with some other people who wanted to mutilate their children. Look, im not a big fan of zero tolerance policies, but we can't be lax against severe forms of child abuse.

Now i fully expect this going over your head again since you cannot look at this from another perspective than your own, where you even stated it is black and white for you, but even if you do so be it. So yeah where you like to make noise and buy into this dumb laws made for nothing but political posturing, i actually want to achieve the same thing but actually achieve it not make some political coin or fake sense of achievement.

And now i'm really done

No i do get where you are coming from, and i think it is utter nonsense. It really comes down to respecting the culture you live in and their rule of law. "but their culture" might be a good defense for wearing scarfs, drinking tea, mumbling against a wall or liking a Shisha and that is all fine. What is not okay is mutilating the genitals of children. Yes, this is black and white for me, as there is no reason to mutilate children's genitals. I think if you do not see this black and white that you lack a basic sense of morality.

[Noradin]

If I recall correctly Iceland handles it similar to Norway. Its illegal for a parent/guardian to withhold life saving medical intervention(even if its against your culture, religion or belief).

Some countries simply temporarily assume guardianship for the kids and order the transfusion, then hand back gaurdianship afterwards.
Jehovah's witnesses are fine with that, because since they do not get a choice in the matter there is no sin committed.

- - - Updated - - -

US law doesn't recognize your bigoted opinion of what you fantasize here.

Who cares?
Make a thread about it if you feel the need to discuss the US.

[Deleted]

The European Jewish Congress (EJC), condemned the bill saying the ban would be an 'effective deterrent' that would 'guarantee that no Jewish community will be established' in the country.

Oh the horror, if you wanna live outside of Israel then respect the law and culture of that country. No country should make concessions to minorities, assimilate or get out. Great move Iceland, now let's see that law passed.

[Jyggalag]

Great to hear i'm not the only one with this problem, as a matter of fact i'm having my surgery tomorrow. I can relate to what you said it also took a long time before i had the courage too confront my mother that i had this problem, its sort of been a depressing factor for me for quite a long time, i'm glad i finally manned up and started taking care of bussnies. Its really (atleast for me) hard to talk to anyone about this.

I hope i can avoid any infection, i got some sort of fluid i'm gonna put on tonight and tomorow morning. If i ever have kids (sons) i would make sure too check on them at a early stage, my father certainly didn't and i feel like a lot of this "pain" could have been avoided had he just asked me sometime if everything was "fine" i'm quite upset he never took the oppertunity to check that with me, its not really something you wanna talk about.

If it's any consolation, I found out a few years later, when I was comfortable discussing it in public, that as many as 10 other lads in my year at school had the same thing. No one talks about it so you feel like you're the only one. My brother had no issues with his and it healed in no time by comparison to mine. Keep an eye out for any lumping below the stitches/scarring and flag it with your surgeon early.

[Hiricine]

Just ban insurance companies for paying for it or NHS for paying for it except for medically indicated conditions and everyone will be happy.

[Noradin]

Just ban insurance companies for paying for it or NHS for paying for it except for medically indicated conditions and everyone will be happy.

That won't help, selling the skins they cut off makes even more money than they charge for the procedure itself.
All kinds of bestselling beauty products are made from skins harvested from genitals of baby boys.

[Freighter]

That won't help, selling the skins they cut off makes even more money than they charge for the procedure itself.
All kinds of bestselling beauty products are made from skins harvested from genitals of baby boys.

I thought conspiracy theories weren't allowed on the forum.

[Noradin]

I thought conspiracy theories weren't allowed on the forum.

They aren't. Why do you ask?

Do you want to order some neonatal human foreskin fibroblasts?
Here is a link for you: ThermoFisher. It's quite the good deal they are offering, they used to be more costy.

And here is a conspiracy theory to go with that for you: "Obviously those cells all grow on trees, that is why the are called neonatal human foreskin fibroblasts. Neither foreskins nor human babies are involved in the process of harvesting them, and selling them is unprofitable, that is why nobody sells them. Ever. Any offers ever made about them are fake, of course."

[Phlegethon]

http://www.cnn.com/2018/02/20/health...ntl/index.html

Excerpt:

"A proposed bill to ban non-medically required male circumcision on babies and children in Iceland is receiving backlash from religious communities.
'Those procedures are unnecessary, done without their informed consent, non-reversible and can cause all kinds of severe complications, disfigurations and even death,' said Icelandic Progressive Party MP Silja Dögg Gunnarsdottir. She said a child should be old enough to give 'informed consent" for the procedure and defended the proposed ban as being about protecting children's rights, adding that it would "not go against the religious right of their parents.'

The European Jewish Congress (EJC), condemned the bill saying the ban would be an 'effective deterrent' that would 'guarantee that no Jewish community will be established' in the country.

'Iceland would be the only country to ban one of the most central, if not the most central rite in the Jewish tradition in modern times,' the EJC statement said, adding that this would 'attack Judaism in a way that concerns Jews all over the world.'

One in three men globally are estimated to be circumcised, with the majority for religious and cultural reasons."

Thoughts?

Religion is not a reason to mutilate people. Female circumsision is illegal, same should go for the male version.
But obviously, dem jews seem to like sucking baby dick? I can't think of another reason.

[Noradin]

Religion is not a reason to mutilate people. Female circumsision is illegal, same should go for the male version.
But obviously, dem jews seem to like sucking baby dick? I can't think of another reason.

Money. You can sell the skins for profit.

[Levelfive]

World Health Organization; Male circumcision is one of the oldest and most common surgical procedures worldwide, and is undertaken for many reasons: religious, cultural, social and medical. There is conclusive evidence from observational data and three randomized controlled trials that circumcised men have a significantly lower risk of becoming infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Demand for safe, affordable male circumcision is expected to increase rapidly, and country-level decision-makers need information about the sociocultural and medical determinants of circumcision, as well as risks of the procedure, in the context of comprehensive HIV prevention programming.
The aim of this report is to review the determinants, prevalence, safety and acceptability of male circumcision, focusing on sub-Saharan Africa.

I posted this earlier: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19115756

"CONCLUSION:

Circumcision had no protective effect in the prevention of HIV transmission. This is a concern, and has implications for the possible adoption of the mass male circumcision strategy both as a public health policy and an HIV prevention strategy."

And there's also this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28299046

"Abstract

The World Health Organization and UNAIDS have supported circumcision as a preventive for HIV infections in regions with high rates of heterosexually transmitted HIV; however, the circumcision solution has several fundamental flaws that undermine its potential for success. This article explores, in detail, the data on which this recommendation is based, the difficulty in translating results from high risk adults in a research setting to the general public, the impact of risk compensation, and how circumcision compares to existing alternatives. Based on our analysis it is concluded that the circumcision solution is a wasteful distraction that takes resources away from more effective, less expensive, less invasive alternatives. By diverting attention away from more effective interventions, circumcision programs will likely increase the number of HIV infections."

So WHO really should update their recommendations.

[Iccycold]

Women use foreskin facial cream for their face, how disgusting is that?
"In fact, the active ingredient in an Oprah-touted skin cream from SkinMedica uses “foreskin fibroblasts” that are used to grow and cultivate new cells.

https://www.bostonmagazine.com/healt...n-hydrafacial/

[Deleted]

Thing is this argument is just going around in circles so I am out. I'll just leave this here:

The health benefits have been debunked as outdated
It's telling the only place besides NA that do nation wide circumcision is Africa and the Middle East
Religious traditions need to move with the times and usually do, circumcision is just one of those outdated traditions
The only reason circumcised penis is viewed aesthetically superior in the US is because that's the cultural norm

[whywhatwhowhenhow]

So that's why mums go to Iceland.

[ranzino]

Oh the horror, if you wanna live outside of Israel then respect the law and culture of that country. No country should make concessions to minorities, assimilate or get out. Great move Iceland, now let's see that law passed.

they are on the fence probably, because later in 2018 the first permanent rabbi will move to iceland.
what a welcome present from the Althing (parliament of Iceland and btw the oldest parliament in existence) to Rabbi Avi Feldman....

[Elba]

So, Nordic antisemitism?