Iceland To Ban Male Circumcision

[Chessmistress]

Children are going to be influenced in a lot of things very heavily by their parents no matter what, religion is just one of many.

Agreed. It's hopeless to try to prevent indoctrination. However, we cannot allow parents to mutilate their children with impunity, especially when there is no hope of undoing the process. I can't believe this is still a matter of debate in the western world.

That's why
https://cruxnow.com/global-church/2018/ ... s-freedom/
Those are uncircumcised catholic bishops defending circumncision and calling EU to pressure on Iceland: they're acting like a cartel

A cartel is a group of apparently independent producers whose goal is to increase their collective profits by means of price fixing, limiting supply, or other restrictive practices.

I expect such catholic bishops saying that Allah actually exist, I cannot figure out them saying that Allah doesn't exist - otherwise they wouldn't defend a pratice made in the name of Allah (wrongly, since the Quranists doesn't agree, and Sunnah scholars says it's not an obligation).

[Cekoviu]

Now you have. I, a feminist, have argued with idiots in this thread. I haven't advocated for anything political IRL, so if that's what you mean, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

You're not the only one. i've seen quite a few users who I had initially dismissed as "regressive" feminists, applauding the decision to prohibit infant MGM and give men the right to genital integrity. It's made me re-evaluate the way I see feminists. It really goes to show, you can't be content with pre-conceived notions about people based on the way they seem.

I'm glad to hear that. Sometimes you only end up seeing the craziest supporters of an ideology in videos and news until you actually interact with people of that ideology and you realize they're mostly not so bad. That doesn't hold true for everything, but I think it is true for a lot of political stuff (for example, I occasionally read about crazy rabid Trump fans like the_donalders, but I know a few people who voted for Trump and they're pretty nice overall).

[Claorica]

So babies are so important that Iceland won't allow people to remove an honestly useless flap of skin for religious reasons, but they are so unimportant that ones (unreliably) diagnosed with down's syndrome can and are killed almost automatically.

[Neutraligon]

So babies are so important that Iceland won't allow people to remove an honestly useless flap of skin for religious reasons, but they are so unimportant that ones (unreliably) diagnosed with down's syndrome can and are killed almost automatically.

Oh, in Iceland born babies are allowed to be killed?

[Claorica]

So babies are so important that Iceland won't allow people to remove an honestly useless flap of skin for religious reasons, but they are so unimportant that ones (unreliably) diagnosed with down's syndrome can and are killed almost automatically.

Oh, in Iceland born babies are allowed to be killed?

Well, if they're diagnosed with down syndrome (again, which is unreliable at the place they are) it's counted as a deformity and they can pretty much be aborted up to birth, which is only 8 days before circumcision.

[Cekoviu]

So babies are so important that Iceland won't allow people to remove an honestly useless flap of skin for religious reasons, but they are so unimportant that ones (unreliably) diagnosed with down's syndrome can and are killed almost automatically.

Y'know, the earlobes are pretty useless, and my religion says that you will be smashed under the foot of the Octopog if you don't remove them on the day of birth, so that means I should be allowed to remove my baby's earlobes -- it's religious freedom, and I believe that the Octopog, when he comes, truly will smash my child if I can't remove their earlobes!
See how silly that sounds? It's the same exact thing. And I'm going to preemptively mention this because I know what you're going to say: just because Octopogism doesn't have many followers doesn't make it any less valid than Judaism!

As for the second point, I don't personally approve of abortion in the case of Down's syndrome, but it is a woman's right to terminate an unborn fetus in her body. It isn't somebody's right to remove the foreskin of a baby who cannot consent, potentially creating health problems, PTSD, and reducing sexual pleasure.

[Neutraligon]

Oh, in Iceland born babies are allowed to be killed?

Well, if they're diagnosed with down syndrome (again, which is unreliable at the place they are) it's counted as a deformity and they can pretty much be aborted up to birth, which is only 8 days before circumcision.

So basically no, born babies cannot be killed if they have down syndrome.

[Claorica]

Well, if they're diagnosed with down syndrome (again, which is unreliable at the place they are) it's counted as a deformity and they can pretty much be aborted up to birth, which is only 8 days before circumcision.

So basically no, born babies cannot be killed if they have down syndrome.

What's the difference between a child killed in the womb them essentially taken out through the same method as a birth, and the next day a child that was born? What's the point in killing it if it is already easily capable of life outside the womb? There is no difference.

[Neutraligon]

So basically no, born babies cannot be killed if they have down syndrome.

What's the difference between a child killed in the womb them essentially taken out through the same method as a birth, and the next day a child that was born? What's the point in killing it if it is already easily capable of life outside the womb?

This is not an abortion thread.

[Cekoviu]

So basically no, born babies cannot be killed if they have down syndrome.

What's the difference between a child killed in the womb them essentially taken out through the same method as a birth, and the next day a child that was born? What's the point in killing it if it is already easily capable of life outside the womb? There is no difference.

I'd like to see your sources regarding whether termination due to unwanted birth defects is legal in the third trimester in Iceland. That seems like quite a far-fetched claim to me.

[Neutraligon]

What's the difference between a child killed in the womb them essentially taken out through the same method as a birth, and the next day a child that was born? What's the point in killing it if it is already easily capable of life outside the womb? There is no difference.

I'd like to see your sources regarding whether termination due to unwanted birth defects is legal in the third trimester in Iceland. That seems like quite a far-fetched claim to me.

Had this been about a born baby it would have been relevant since it shows hypocrisy when it comes to bodily sovereignty. Since the above is about feti instead, it is entirely irrelevant to the thread.

[Colorado-Kansas]

The proposal is wrong, I think we should keep circumcision legal in all cases, religious or aesthetical.

[NeoOasis]

Abortion =\= Circumcision

(Illegal outside of 16 weeks from what I can tell barring deformity...)

Unless we wanna open up a whole 'nother can of rotten shark carcass.

Doesn't change the fact that circumcision seems fairly arbitrary at best, and downright harmful at worst.

In this case with both abortions and circumcision, Iceland has quite strongly supported bodily autonomy. I wonder if they have an official stance on FGM along side MGM. Eitherway, Iceland continues to be the odd one even among the Nordic countries.

[Chessmistress]

So basically no, born babies cannot be killed if they have down syndrome.

What's the difference between a child killed in the womb them essentially taken out through the same method as a birth, and the next day a child that was born? What's the point in killing it if it is already easily capable of life outside the womb? There is no difference.

You claim to be a christian.
Then why are you defending circumcision since Jesus criticized it?

New International Version
Now if a boy can be circumcised on the Sabbath so that the law of Moses may not be broken, why are you angry with me for healing a man's whole body on the Sabbath?

New Living Translation
For if the correct time for circumcising your son falls on the Sabbath, you go ahead and do it so as not to break the law of Moses. So why should you be angry with me for healing a man on the Sabbath?

English Standard Version
If on the Sabbath a man receives circumcision, so that the law of Moses may not be broken, are you angry with me because on the Sabbath I made a man’s whole body well?

Berean Study Bible
If a boy can be circumcised on the Sabbath so that the Law of Moses will not be broken, why are you angry with Me for making the whole man well on the Sabbath?

Berean Literal Bible
If a man receives circumcision on the Sabbath so that the Law of Moses might not be broken, are you angry with Me because I made a man entirely sound on the Sabbath?

New American Standard Bible
"If a man receives circumcision on the Sabbath so that the Law of Moses will not be broken, are you angry with Me because I made an entire man well on the Sabbath?

King James Bible
If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day?

Christian Standard Bible
If a man receives circumcision on the Sabbath so that the law of Moses won't be broken, are you angry at me because I made a man entirely well on the Sabbath?

Contemporary English Version
in order to obey the Law of Moses. Why are you angry with me for making someone completely well on the Sabbath?

Good News Translation
If a boy is circumcised on the Sabbath so that Moses' Law is not broken, why are you angry with me because I made a man completely well on the Sabbath?

Holman Christian Standard Bible
If a man receives circumcision on the Sabbath so that the law of Moses won't be broken, are you angry at Me because I made a man entirely well on the Sabbath?

International Standard Version
If a man receives circumcision on the Sabbath so that the Law of Moses may not be broken, are you angry with me because I made a man perfectly well on the Sabbath?

NET Bible
But if a male child is circumcised on the Sabbath so that the law of Moses is not broken, why are you angry with me because I made a man completely well on the Sabbath?

New Heart English Bible
If a boy receives circumcision on the Sabbath, that the Law of Moses may not be broken, are you angry with me, because I made a man completely healthy on the Sabbath?

That's John 7:23 - Jesus contrasting circumcision to healing.

[Claorica]

I'd like to see your sources regarding whether termination due to unwanted birth defects is legal in the third trimester in Iceland. That seems like quite a far-fetched claim to me.

Had this been about a born baby it would have been relevant since it shows hypocrisy when it comes to bodily sovereignty. Since the above is about feti instead, it is entirely irrelevant to the thread.

Source: 16 weeks *unless fetal deformity*, Down's Syndrome is, in Iceland, considered as such (and would even moreso be likely consider such now that they are celebrating the murder of every single unborn child with a down syndrome diagnosis).

"since it's about (insert dehumanizing term for unborn child here), it's entirely irrelevant." Ah, I see you're a "Abortion on demand 'til birth" folk.


What exactly is any different biologically or morally from a child that is yet to be born (but is extremely viable outside the womb), and the child 9 days later that you think it is so terrible to remove a (once again, absolutely useless) flap of skin?

[Neutraligon]

Had this been about a born baby it would have been relevant since it shows hypocrisy when it comes to bodily sovereignty. Since the above is about feti instead, it is entirely irrelevant to the thread.

Source: 16 weeks *unless fetal deformity*, Down's Syndrome is, in Iceland, considered as such (and would even moreso be likely consider such now that they are celebrating the murder of every single unborn child with a down syndrome diagnosis).

"since it's about (insert dehumanizing term for unborn child here), it's entirely irrelevant." Ah, I see you're a "Abortion on demand 'til birth" folk.


What exactly is any different biologically or morally from a child that is yet to be born (but is extremely viable outside the womb), and the child 9 days later that you think it is so terrible to remove a (once again, absolutely useless) flap of skin?

Simple, in one scenario they are attached to another human being drawing nutrients from that human being (essentially acting like a parasite), in the other they are not directly sustaining themselves based on one specific human being. With a fetus it is a case of bodily sovereignty of the mother, while in the case of circumcision it is a case of the bodily sovereignty of the baby.

I find it funny that you assume my stance on abortion. You got it completely wrong.

[Chessmistress]

Had this been about a born baby it would have been relevant since it shows hypocrisy when it comes to bodily sovereignty. Since the above is about feti instead, it is entirely irrelevant to the thread.

Source: 16 weeks *unless fetal deformity*, Down's Syndrome is, in Iceland, considered as such (and would even moreso be likely consider such now that they are celebrating the murder of every single unborn child with a down syndrome diagnosis).

"since it's about (insert dehumanizing term for unborn child here), it's entirely irrelevant." Ah, I see you're a "Abortion on demand 'til birth" folk.


What exactly is any different biologically or morally from a child that is yet to be born (but is extremely viable outside the womb), and the child 9 days later that you think it is so terrible to remove a (once again, absolutely useless) flap of skin?

Jesus disagree with you, see above.

[Chessmistress]

Practically here we have christians supporting a Jewish and allegedly muslim pratice, even if Jesus contrasted such pratice with healing in John 7:23.

Apparently, catholic bishops never have read John 7:23 and are more interested to defend a Jewish and allegedly muslim practice than interested about the opinion of Jesus.

Then people ask me why I cannot take religion in a serious way...

[Neutraligon]

Practically here we have christians supporting a Jewish and allegedly muslim pratice, even if Jesus contrasted such pratice with healing in John 7:23.

Apparently, catholic bishops never have read John 7:23 and are more interested to defend a Jewish and allegedly muslim practice than interested about the opinion of Jesus.

Then people ask me why I cannot take religion in a serious way...

That's what happens when you take man's word above god's.

[Chessmistress]

Practically here we have christians supporting a Jewish and allegedly muslim pratice, even if Jesus contrasted such pratice with healing in John 7:23.

Apparently, catholic bishops never have read John 7:23 and are more interested to defend a Jewish and allegedly muslim practice than interested about the opinion of Jesus.

Then people ask me why I cannot take religion in a serious way...

That's what happens when you take man's word above god's.

Jesus was probably against freedom of religion, that's why he contrasted circumcision with healing in John 7:23

Those people look like a joke to me: just ask a chirstian priest a simple question

Does Allah exist?

You would expect a straight "No", since Islam is a different religion, and Islam came something like 660 years after christianity

You'll have a very hard time finding a priest actually answering a very straight "no" - that's because they act like a cartel, they support each other: meaning that they don't really think that their own religion is the truth, because truth implies that the other religions are necessarly false but they aren't going to call "false" the other religions.

[Neanderthaland]

Had this been about a born baby it would have been relevant since it shows hypocrisy when it comes to bodily sovereignty. Since the above is about feti instead, it is entirely irrelevant to the thread.

Source: 16 weeks *unless fetal deformity*, Down's Syndrome is, in Iceland, considered as such (and would even moreso be likely consider such now that they are celebrating the murder of every single unborn child with a down syndrome diagnosis).

"since it's about (insert dehumanizing term for unborn child here), it's entirely irrelevant." Ah, I see you're a "Abortion on demand 'til birth" folk.


What exactly is any different biologically or morally from a child that is yet to be born (but is extremely viable outside the womb), and the child 9 days later that you think it is so terrible to remove a (once again, absolutely useless) flap of skin?

For the sake of argument: let's go ahead and assume that Iceland's stance on abortion is indisputably wrong. Does that make this law wrong?

Oh sure, it might be hypocritical of them. Maybe. But your argument is essentially that they can't or shouldn't fix one social evil until they've fixed another.

Now I don't believe, that you really believe, that that's a good policy. So why don't you go ahead and tell us what your real issue here is?

[Kazarogkai]

Parents shouldn't under any circumstances be allowed to impose their religious values or beleifs on their children in my eyes for religion and the choice to engage in such is exclusively something that one should choose to engage in when one is able and willing(12 years or so) so I'm cool with this. Personally I have my rather anti theistic tendencies and would love to ban religion at large and treat it like a mental illness(lead or pill) but if we are to accept accommodation with such... eccentricities then I say the former is a reasonable way of doing things. Aka religion being entirely a voluntary thing one can choose to do or not to do and something that cannot be imposed on one by any other including parents. Not ideal but such is compromise.

[Jebslund]

Had this been about a born baby it would have been relevant since it shows hypocrisy when it comes to bodily sovereignty. Since the above is about feti instead, it is entirely irrelevant to the thread.

Source: 16 weeks *unless fetal deformity*, Down's Syndrome is, in Iceland, considered as such (and would even moreso be likely consider such now that they are celebrating the murder of every single unborn child with a down syndrome diagnosis).

"since it's about (insert dehumanizing term for unborn child here), it's entirely irrelevant." Ah, I see you're a "Abortion on demand 'til birth" folk.


What exactly is any different biologically or morally from a child that is yet to be born (but is extremely viable outside the womb), and the child 9 days later that you think it is so terrible to remove a (once again, absolutely useless) flap of skin?

First off, unless a deformity would make a child unable to live outside the womb, you don't terminate that late in the pregnancy, so, unless and until you provide proof otherwise (and your source says nothing about Down Syndrome or about the reliability of diagnoses thereof.

Second, the phrase you're looking for is 'scientific term', and 'child' doesn't apply until third trimester. Nice use of loaded language, but, as pointed out by others, this isn't an abortion thread.

Third, the function of the foreskin is to protect the glans when not in sexual use. Given that circumcised males report decreased sensitivity/sexual pleasure, though, I'd say it serves a secondary purpose of preserving the sensitivity of the nerves there, though that could be argued to be part of protecting the glans. The clitoral hood serves the same function in women. So, no, it's not "absolutely useless".

[Alvecia]

Prevent irreversible cosmetic surgery until the person is of age?
Sounds good to me.

[Juristonia]

Prevent irreversible cosmetic surgery until the person is of age?
Sounds good to me.

Yup.
If someone wants cosmetic surgery, they can choose to do so when they're old enough to give informed consent.
Unnecessary surgery should never be performed on children.