Iceland To Ban Male Circumcision

[Jadefall]

Well then, you may perceive it as anti-semitic, byt it is most certainly pro-personal liberty. Perhaps the problem lies with the religious cult.

Not allowing consenting adults to undergo a procedure that affects no one but themselves is pro-personal liberty, war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is knowledge, up is down.

So now you have lost the argument for barbaric practices of a religious cult on children, you must fall back to defending adults alone. Well, I would prefer it to be a choice of consenting adults, but still wish that these same adults might grow up and come to their senses regarding bronze age desert tribe creation myth death cults.

[Crockerland]

Not allowing consenting adults to undergo a procedure that affects no one but themselves is pro-personal liberty, war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is knowledge, up is down.

The article in the OP itself specifies that the bill "acknowledges that while parents have the right to give religious guidance to their children, “such a right can never exceed the rights of the child”. Boys who wish to be circumcised for religious or cultural reasons can do so when they reach an age at which they “understand what is involved in such an action.”"

There's no ban here on consenting adults getting elective circumcisions, nor is anyone promoting one. You're moving the goalposts.

In any case, I think we're getting off topic here, so the question we should be asking is whether or not this circumcision ban is one of many situations made antisemitic by it's context; I would certainly argue that, if this ban extends to consenting adults, it is antisemitic.

Well then, you may perceive it as anti-semitic, but it is most certainly pro-personal liberty.

[Durin VII]

What a nonsense.

I believe it does help prevent infections or something like that to an extent, but the cons outweigh any pros.

I'm even sceptical to believe that it would help prevent infections. I mean, if you never wash yourself properly then sure, but otherwise i doubt it.

[Godular]

I believe it does help prevent infections or something like that to an extent, but the cons outweigh any pros.

I'm even sceptical to believe that it would help prevent infections. I mean, if you never wash yourself properly then sure, but otherwise i doubt it.

From what I understand, it assists in preventing certain urinary tract infections that are otherwise relatively common in neonates, but it really does come down to something that can be fixed with being extra-thorough in washing the kiddo.

[Letwinist States]

From what I understand, it assists in preventing certain urinary tract infections that are otherwise relatively common in neonates, but it really does come down to something that can be fixed with being extra-thorough in washing the kiddo.

That is possible, however, I do remember reading somewhere that it has no relevant impact for those who autonomously wash. In such a case, infections are not prevented solely by circumcision.

[Godular]

From what I understand, it assists in preventing certain urinary tract infections that are otherwise relatively common in neonates, but it really does come down to something that can be fixed with being extra-thorough in washing the kiddo.

That is possible, however, I do remember reading somewhere that it has no relevant impact for those who autonomously wash. In such a case, infections are not prevented solely by circumcision.

That's what I meant.

[Pope Joan]

I just declined from Superb to merely Excellent in my nation's rankings in Civil RIghts, because I refused to ban circumcision.

Religious sects should also have rights, and attacking them does not advance democracy

[Camicon]

I just declined from Superb to merely Excellent in my nation's rankings in Civil RIghts, because I refused to ban circumcision.

Religious sects should also have rights, and attacking them does not advance democracy

Nobody should have the right to mutilate children "because tradition".

[Cekoviu]

The pro-infant-mutilation demographic is really flexing its muscles in this thread.

I mean, I think they're outnumbered by like 2:1.

[Fartsniffage]

I just declined from Superb to merely Excellent in my nation's rankings in Civil RIghts, because I refused to ban circumcision.

Religious sects should also have rights, and attacking them does not advance democracy

Religious people should indeed have rights. However, so should babies.

I think you would agree with me that my right to swing my fist should end slightly before your nose, so why don't you think a religious persons right to swing their scalpel shouldn't end before a persons penis?

[Cekoviu]

I believe it does help prevent infections or something like that to an extent, but the cons outweigh any pros.

I'm even sceptical to believe that it would help prevent infections. I mean, if you never wash yourself properly then sure, but otherwise i doubt it.

Yeah, if you'll read down you'll see that I was actually wrong about that.

[NeoOasis]

I just declined from Superb to merely Excellent in my nation's rankings in Civil RIghts, because I refused to ban circumcision.

Religious sects should also have rights, and attacking them does not advance democracy

I prefer to think of it more as prioritizing children over religion. Circumcision is often times done to infants who have no capacity to consent to what I understand is a very painful procedure. Can't say I ever experienced it, but a soccerball to the groin bodes poorly for a more pointed venture.

I won't stop any consenting adult from having the procedure performed on them. Still... the health reasons given are usually outdated and flat out wrong in the modern age of hygiene and healthcare. Religious reasons feel more like denying someone to choose for themselves. People should be given a chance to mature mentally, and make a rational choice to go through with this kind of procedure. Not everyone is going to follow their parents' footsteps.

[Pope Joan]

I just declined from Superb to merely Excellent in my nation's rankings in Civil RIghts, because I refused to ban circumcision.

Religious sects should also have rights, and attacking them does not advance democracy

Religious people should indeed have rights. However, so should babies.

I think you would agree with me that my right to swing my fist should end slightly before your nose, so why don't you think a religious persons right to swing their scalpel shouldn't end before a persons penis?

Because family.

Yes, a quaint concept, I am sure

[Fartsniffage]

Religious people should indeed have rights. However, so should babies.

I think you would agree with me that my right to swing my fist should end slightly before your nose, so why don't you think a religious persons right to swing their scalpel shouldn't end before a persons penis?

Because family.

Yes, a quaint concept, I am sure

Family? I'm not sure I understand you?

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Religious people should indeed have rights. However, so should babies.

I think you would agree with me that my right to swing my fist should end slightly before your nose, so why don't you think a religious persons right to swing their scalpel shouldn't end before a persons penis?

Because family.

Yes, a quaint concept, I am sure

Being family doesn't give you the right to make life changing decisions on another family member's behalf unless it's medically necessary.

[Chessmistress]

Finally some good news

I agree, it's good news.

And here I thought the Icelandic government only pandered to feminists. I am pleasantly surprised. I hope they do pass it and extend the right of bodily sovereignty to young boys who for no legitimate non-medical reasons have their genitalia mutilated against their will.

This positive change coudn't happen without Feminism preparing it, it would never had been possible without Feminism and our battle against FGM.
And you know it, it would be nice if you would admit it.

So, NSG, is this ban good for boys?

Yes.

Does it unnecessarily discriminate against Jews and Muslims in Iceland?

Against muslims? Why?
That's impossible: circumcision isn't compulsory for muslims, though it's usually recommended by most imams.
Furthermore muslims can get circumcision at every age, so it cannot be a major issue for them.

Adult circumcision is more painful

Since the goal is supposed to be to show their faith, some little more pain shouldn't be a problem, right? .

and carries a higher risk of infection.

Everything carries some minor risks - properly done very simple surgeries doesn't involve much risk.

Regardless, circumcision is how Jews show their covenant with God.

Newborn babies knows nothing about God, they know nothing about the Torah and the Talmud, they cannot even speak, they don't understand your words: how they can "show their covenant with God"?
Such concept is a concept for adults, or at least for teens, not for newborn babies.

[Fartsniffage]

Finally some good news

I agree, it's good news.

And here I thought the Icelandic government only pandered to feminists. I am pleasantly surprised. I hope they do pass it and extend the right of bodily sovereignty to young boys who for no legitimate non-medical reasons have their genitalia mutilated against their will.

This positive change coudn't happen without Feminism preparing it, it would never had been possible without Feminism and our battle against FGM.
And you know it, it would be nice if you would admit it.

So, NSG, is this ban good for boys?

Yes.

Does it unnecessarily discriminate against Jews and Muslims in Iceland?

Against muslims? Why?
That's impossible: circumcision isn't compulsory for muslims, though it's usually recommended by most imams.
Furthermore muslims can get circumcision at every age, so it cannot be a major issue for them.

Adult circumcision is more painful

Since the goal is supposed to be to show their faith, some little more pain shouldn't be a problem, right? .

and carries a higher risk of infection.

Everything carries some minor risks - properly done very simple surgeries doesn't involve much risk.

Regardless, circumcision is how Jews show their covenant with God.

Newborn babies knows nothing about God, they know nothing about the Torah and the Talmud, they cannot even speak, they don't understand your words: how they can "show their covenant with God"?
Such concept is a concept for adults, or at least for teens, not for newborn babies.

I've changed my mind on this issue. Iceland is completely wrong to abridge the rights of parents to decide on medical treatment for their children.

[Katganistan]

Some will say it violates religious freedom, but personally I'd say the practice violates the bodily autonomy of the most vulnerable in society. Sure, if an adult wants a circumcision, they can have it. However, almost always it is inflicted on infants who don't get a choice. Good for Iceland.

I have to agree. An adult can consent. An infant can't. And there have been cases of botched circumcisions before.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Finally some good news

I agree, it's good news.

And here I thought the Icelandic government only pandered to feminists. I am pleasantly surprised. I hope they do pass it and extend the right of bodily sovereignty to young boys who for no legitimate non-medical reasons have their genitalia mutilated against their will.

This positive change coudn't happen without Feminism preparing it, it would never had been possible without Feminism and our battle against FGM.
And you know it, it would be nice if you would admit it.

So, NSG, is this ban good for boys?

Yes.

Does it unnecessarily discriminate against Jews and Muslims in Iceland?

Against muslims? Why?
That's impossible: circumcision isn't compulsory for muslims, though it's usually recommended by most imams.
Furthermore muslims can get circumcision at every age, so it cannot be a major issue for them.

Adult circumcision is more painful

Since the goal is supposed to be to show their faith, some little more pain shouldn't be a problem, right? .

and carries a higher risk of infection.

Everything carries some minor risks - properly done very simple surgeries doesn't involve much risk.

Regardless, circumcision is how Jews show their covenant with God.

Newborn babies knows nothing about God, they know nothing about the Torah and the Talmud, they cannot even speak, they don't understand your words: how they can "show their covenant with God"?
Such concept is a concept for adults, or at least for teens, not for newborn babies.

I've never seen any feminists advocate against MGM. Only FGM.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

I agree, it's good news.



This positive change coudn't happen without Feminism preparing it, it would never had been possible without Feminism and our battle against FGM.
And you know it, it would be nice if you would admit it.



Yes.



Against muslims? Why?
That's impossible: circumcision isn't compulsory for muslims, though it's usually recommended by most imams.
Furthermore muslims can get circumcision at every age, so it cannot be a major issue for them.

Since the goal is supposed to be to show their faith, some little more pain shouldn't be a problem, right? .



Everything carries some minor risks - properly done very simple surgeries doesn't involve much risk.



Newborn babies knows nothing about God, they know nothing about the Torah and the Talmud, they cannot even speak, they don't understand your words: how they can "show their covenant with God"?
Such concept is a concept for adults, or at least for teens, not for newborn babies.

I've changed my mind on this issue. Iceland is completely wrong to abridge the rights of parents to decide on medical treatment for their children.

Parents do not have a right to decide for a child what life changing procedures they udergo.

[Chessmistress]

I agree, it's good news.



This positive change coudn't happen without Feminism preparing it, it would never had been possible without Feminism and our battle against FGM.
And you know it, it would be nice if you would admit it.



Yes.



Against muslims? Why?
That's impossible: circumcision isn't compulsory for muslims, though it's usually recommended by most imams.
Furthermore muslims can get circumcision at every age, so it cannot be a major issue for them.

Since the goal is supposed to be to show their faith, some little more pain shouldn't be a problem, right? .



Everything carries some minor risks - properly done very simple surgeries doesn't involve much risk.



Newborn babies knows nothing about God, they know nothing about the Torah and the Talmud, they cannot even speak, they don't understand your words: how they can "show their covenant with God"?
Such concept is a concept for adults, or at least for teens, not for newborn babies.

I've changed my mind on this issue. Iceland is completely wrong to abridge the rights of parents to decide on medical treatment for their children.

Once I've changed my mind on such issue, too.
But it was in the opposite direction: no child should be mutilated, Alice Schwarzer was wrong while pandering to some religious people.
I also repeat: this isn't a major issue for muslims, it isn't compulsory for their religion.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Jews and Muslims should be allowed to circumcise their children, it is their religious law.

[Camicon]

Once I've changed my mind on such issue, too.
But it was in the opposite direction: no child should be mutilated, Alice Schwarzer was wrong while pandering to some religious people.

Good on you.

[Chessmistress]

Parents do not have a right to decide for a child what life changing procedures they udergo.

Parents don't even know, they cannot know, the religion that their children will follow: a Jew could decide to become an atheist, a buddist, and so on.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Jews and Muslims should be allowed to circumcise their children, it is their religious law.

"Jews and Muslims should be allowed to slay infidels, it is their religious law."