Iceland To Ban Male Circumcision

[Ors Might]

Do you consider banning ritualistic human sacrifice a violation of religious freedoms?

Technically yes.

Then I don’t see anything inherently wrong in placing restrictions upon religious freedom.

[Holt]

Banning mutilation has nothing to do with being against freedom of religion

People have differing opinions on Freedom of Religion. The education system in America explains it as the separation of church and state.

I believe that freedom of religion allows people to practice their religion unless they infringe on someone's rights.

Yup, and they are doing that by mutilating a child! That's why i want the age limit to 16

[Fartsniffage]

Banning mutilation has nothing to do with being against freedom of religion

People have differing opinions on Freedom of Religion. The education system in America explains it as the separation of church and state.

I believe that freedom of religion allows people to practice their religion unless they infringe on someone's rights.

So you support a ban on infant circumcision?

[Hirota]

http://www.drmomma.org/2009/11/jack-black-on-circumcision.html

This seems to suggest that the type of circumcision carried out now is no what is required for jews to have a covenant with god. Not that it changes anything, imho, since there is still something very dodgy about wanting to cut baby genitals, but its interesting.

Well, so much for that so called "tradition" or "religious observance" right?

I mean if apparently a tradition can change, then it isn't quite as sacrosanct as is being claimed.

[Cekoviu]

People have differing opinions on Freedom of Religion. The education system in America explains it as the separation of church and state.

I believe that freedom of religion allows people to practice their religion unless they infringe on someone's rights.

Yup, and they are doing that by mutilating a child! That's why i want the age limit to 16

Nobody's arguing about that here. The policy banned circumcision on infants, not entirely.

[Holt]

Yup, and they are doing that by mutilating a child! That's why i want the age limit to 16

Nobody's arguing about that here. The policy banned circumcision on infants, not entirely.

Ah okay, that's the first step to say no to child mutilation

[Ors Might]

I find it odd that some people are perfectly willing to outlaw other forms of religious mutilations and practices that harm others but for some reason cutting off a piece of a baby boy’s dick is fair game.

[Farnhamia]

Last time I checked all my body parts are still intact, including the circumcised one, and to my knowledge it still operates fine.

Hey, Webster, what's 'intact' mean?

Definition of intact

1 : untouched especially by anything that harms or diminishes : entire, uninjured

2 of a living body or its parts : having no relevant component removed or destroyed:

a : physically virginal

b : not castrated

Thanks, mate! So, as Webster just said, no, the circumcised one is not, by definition, intact, even if it is still functional. And, before you go banging on about that word 'relevant', the foreskin is there to protect the glans when not in use, like a dog's sheath. That is its biological function. It's not useless as you and others have claimed.

In my opinion this is a rather silly thing for the government to be banning. There are far more important things to worry about. Some religious like mine require circumcision. Plus I read many studies doctors have recommended circumcision as it can prevent infections and other possible complications later.

Circumcision has no benefits that can't be replicated by not being lazy when bathing and by being informed enough to know that, if you're the fastest gun in the west, there's products and techniques to help with that without resorting to surgery. I'd also like to point out that, "Religions require it" is not, in itself, a justification, and, the existence of bigger problems does not make any one problem cease to be a problem.

[shnip]
NewLiberalParty, DEAT and 4-week forumban while my colleagues and I discuss your future on this site.
[shnip]

[warn tags removed in accordance with DA RULEZ, Timmy!]

Um... Potentially stupid question: What's DEAT?

Quoting one of us issuing a warning with Red-Text is okay. Using the warn tag yourself will draw harsh consequences.

[Alvecia]

Technically yes.

Then I don’t see anything inherently wrong in placing restrictions upon religious freedom.

It's not like you'll be discriminating anyway. If anything it's just removing privilege.

[Luminesa]

Banning mutilation has nothing to do with being against freedom of religion

People have differing opinions on Freedom of Religion. The education system in America explains it as the separation of church and state.

I believe that freedom of religion allows people to practice their religion unless they infringe on someone's rights.

If you’re sacrificing people...you’re infringing on their most basic right to life, according to the UN’s Declaration of Human Rights.

[Salus Maior]

Technically yes.

Then I don’t see anything inherently wrong in placing restrictions upon religious freedom.

That restriction already exists. Murder is, obviously, illegal and religious freedom has never been cited as a valid reason for it.

That being said, circumcision isn't murder. To compare it to murder is outright lazy arguing, and not at all relative to the real issue.

[Salus Maior]

I find it odd that some people are perfectly willing to outlaw other forms of religious mutilations and practices that harm others but for some reason cutting off a piece of a baby boy’s dick is fair game.

Considering most of us are circumcised anyway (at least us Americans), we realize that it's not really a horrible tragedy to be circumcised. Our lives are, really, mostly unaffected. We live perfectly normal lives, unbarred by our lack of a little skin.

[Ors Might]

Then I don’t see anything inherently wrong in placing restrictions upon religious freedom.

That restriction already exists. Murder is, obviously, illegal and religious freedom has never been cited as a valid reason for it.

That being said, circumcision isn't murder. To compare it to murder is outright lazy arguing, and not at all relative to the real issue.

I for one don’t consider “well, it’s not murder” to be a very convincing counter argument. Clearly it isn’t murder. But it doesn’t have to be. Cutting off a piece of someone’s genitals without medical reason or their consent is wrong. It’s evil.

[Salus Maior]

http://www.drmomma.org/2009/11/jack-black-on-circumcision.html

This seems to suggest that the type of circumcision carried out now is no what is required for jews to have a covenant with god. Not that it changes anything, imho, since there is still something very dodgy about wanting to cut baby genitals, but its interesting.

That's hardly a scholarly source. And one flaw in particular I see with the argument is using Renaissance era paintings of Jesus to speak authoritatively on the figure born in the 1st century AD.

[Ors Might]

I find it odd that some people are perfectly willing to outlaw other forms of religious mutilations and practices that harm others but for some reason cutting off a piece of a baby boy’s dick is fair game.

Considering most of us are circumcised anyway (at least us Americans), we realize that it's not really a horrible tragedy to be circumcised. Our lives are, really, mostly unaffected. We live perfectly normal lives, unbarred by our lack of a little skin.

That you can live without it isn’t the point. You can live with a lot of things. Doesn’t change the fact that it’s disgusting to cut off a piece of someone’s junk without their consent.

[Salus Maior]

That restriction already exists. Murder is, obviously, illegal and religious freedom has never been cited as a valid reason for it.

That being said, circumcision isn't murder. To compare it to murder is outright lazy arguing, and not at all relative to the real issue.

I for one don’t consider “well, it’s not murder” to be a very convincing counter argument. Clearly it isn’t murder. But it doesn’t have to be. Cutting off a piece of someone’s genitals without medical reason or their consent is wrong. It’s evil.

I didn't use that as an argument. I pointed out the very true fact that circumcision is not murder, or even close to being murder so it's silly to continually use the argument "if x religion wanted you to murder babies, would that be fine according to religious freedom?" Because of course nobody would say yes to that because freedom of religion as we know it has always considered such a claim to be invalid. It has, however, allowed circumcision.

[Ors Might]

I for one don’t consider “well, it’s not murder” to be a very convincing counter argument. Clearly it isn’t murder. But it doesn’t have to be. Cutting off a piece of someone’s genitals without medical reason or their consent is wrong. It’s evil.

I didn't use that as an argument. I pointed out the very true fact that circumcision is not murder, or even close to being murder so it's silly to continually use the argument "if x religion wanted you to murder babies, would that be fine according to religious freedom?" Because of course nobody would say yes to that because freedom of religion as we know it has always considered such a claim to be invalid. It has, however, allowed circumcision.

The point, however, isn’t that circumcision is comparable to murder. It’s that there are exceptions to religious liberty. Circumcision is, when not done for medical reasons or by the consent of the patient, a violation of bodily rights.

[Des-Bal]

Considering most of us are circumcised anyway (at least us Americans), we realize that it's not really a horrible tragedy to be circumcised. Our lives are, really, mostly unaffected. We live perfectly normal lives, unbarred by our lack of a little skin.

So it's not a problem because your life is unaffected?

[Salus Maior]

Considering most of us are circumcised anyway (at least us Americans), we realize that it's not really a horrible tragedy to be circumcised. Our lives are, really, mostly unaffected. We live perfectly normal lives, unbarred by our lack of a little skin.

That you can live without it isn’t the point. You can live with a lot of things. Doesn’t change the fact that it’s disgusting to cut off a piece of someone’s junk without their consent.

To one outside of Jewish culture and religion, sure you can see it that way. Jews, obviously, don't. It's an important part of being introduced into their ancient community, being made part of the Tribe of Israel which is their birthright and part of their identity.

And identity is incredibly important. People around the world and throughout history have suffered horrible things and sacrificed a lot for the sake of their cultural or religious identities, Jews are an excellent example of this but not the only ones.

[Ors Might]

That you can live without it isn’t the point. You can live with a lot of things. Doesn’t change the fact that it’s disgusting to cut off a piece of someone’s junk without their consent.

To one outside of Jewish culture and religion, sure you can see it that way. Jews, obviously, don't. It's an important part of being introduced into their ancient community, being made part of the Tribe of Israel which is their birthright and part of their identity.

And identity is incredibly important. People around the world and throughout history have suffered horrible things and sacrificed a lot for the sake of their cultural or religious identities, Jews are an excellent example of this but not the only ones.

I’m going to be frank. I do not care that this will impact the Jews. Have they suffered unjustly throughout the centuries? Oh hell yes. But that does not excuse child mutilation. If it upsets them that they can’t cut off pieces of children well too bad. Their right to practice their faith does not trump the rights of their children to not be mutilated.

[Cekoviu]

To one outside of Jewish culture and religion, sure you can see it that way. Jews, obviously, don't. It's an important part of being introduced into their ancient community, being made part of the Tribe of Israel which is their birthright and part of their identity.

And identity is incredibly important. People around the world and throughout history have suffered horrible things and sacrificed a lot for the sake of their cultural or religious identities, Jews are an excellent example of this but not the only ones.

I’m going to be frank. I do not care that this will impact the Jews. Have they suffered unjustly throughout the centuries? Oh hell yes. But that does not excuse child mutilation. If it upsets them that they can’t cut off pieces of children well too bad. Their right to practice their faith does not trump the rights of their children to not be mutilated.

You said it better than I did.

[Jebslund]

No, parents can give or not give consent to their children getting shots.

I'm asking if the parent decides to give the child a flu shot the kids consent doesn't matter.

A vaccination is a medically necessary preventative procedure. The only other way to get immunity to those diseases is to get those diseases. They carry risks up to an including permanent injury and death, but so do the diseases they prevent (yes, that includes the flu.), at rates orders of magnitude greater than their respective vaccines.

Circumcision, on the other hand, is purely cosmetic/religious, and has no benefits that cannot be replicated by proper washing technique, condoms, and certain OTC products designed to help with sensitivity issues. As with all surgery, it carries risks up to and including permanent pain-causing injury and death.

There's a difference between violating a child's bodily autonomy for a medically necessary procedure and doing so because your religion says so or you can't be bothered to teach him to wash up properly or want his to look like his dad's (yes, that's a justification I've actually heard given) or like the look.

And?

And Jews should have the right to practice their religion

(General) Your right to practice your religion ends where (also general) my rights to bodily autonomy, informed consent, and to not practice it begin.

One preventable death is one too many.

People die from bad reactions to flu shots, doesn’t mean it’s a lot, nor is it enough to stop giving flu shots.

People also die of the flu. In percentages orders of magnitude greater than said shots.

[shnip]

NS slang for delete. Basically the nation will be forced to stop existing and become an ex-nation.

Thank ye!

[Salus Maior]

Considering most of us are circumcised anyway (at least us Americans), we realize that it's not really a horrible tragedy to be circumcised. Our lives are, really, mostly unaffected. We live perfectly normal lives, unbarred by our lack of a little skin.

So it's not a problem because your life is unaffected?

I didn't say "I", I used a plural "our". I can guarantee you, if you lined up a bunch of circumcised guys (not hard to come by in America) and asked them how they feel about being circumcised, the majority of them would probably just give you a weird look. Because men who are circumcised really just don't think about it, it doesn't intrude on their lives, it doesn't impede anything. It's a minor footnote, a bit of trivia about them. They still lead their lives and find as much success and failure as the rest of the world does.

That being said, I don't believe that hospitals should automatically circumcise boys as it happens in America. Because there's no point to it, Christians etc have no stock in it, no cultural or religious importance. It's based off of Victorian era misconceptions that have just stuck in our medical system.

[Des-Bal]

I didn't say "I", I used a plural "our". I can guarantee you, if you lined up a bunch of circumcised guys (not hard to come by in America) and asked them how they feel about being circumcised, the majority of them would probably just give you a weird look. Because men who are circumcised really just don't think about it, it doesn't intrude on their lives, it doesn't impede anything. It's a minor footnote, a bit of trivia about them. They still lead their lives and find as much success and failure as the rest of the world does.

That being said, I don't believe that hospitals should automatically circumcise boys as it happens in America. Because there's no point to it, Christians etc have no stock in it, no cultural or religious importance. It's based off of Victorian era misconceptions that have just stuck in our medical system.

I repeat: So it's not a problem because your life is unaffected?

[Fartsniffage]

So it's not a problem because your life is unaffected?

I didn't say "I", I used a plural "our". I can guarantee you, if you lined up a bunch of circumcised guys (not hard to come by in America) and asked them how they feel about being circumcised, the majority of them would probably just give you a weird look. Because men who are circumcised really just don't think about it, it doesn't intrude on their lives, it doesn't impede anything. It's a minor footnote, a bit of trivia about them. They still lead their lives and find as much success and failure as the rest of the world does.

That being said, I don't believe that hospitals should automatically circumcise boys as it happens in America. Because there's no point to it, Christians etc have no stock in it, no cultural or religious importance. It's based off of Victorian era misconceptions that have just stuck in our medical system.

You expect doctors in a for profit medical system not to advocate unnecessary medical procedures that make money?