Iceland To Ban Male Circumcision

[Trumptonium]

Harms animals.

If animals were people then that would mean it was hurting someone. It would also make it weird that we ate them.

We don't eat animals alive.

Harms animals.

Animal liberation front strikes again.

No, just removing all the savage practices still around today with some religions.

[Des-Bal]

We don't eat animals alive.

Neither do Jews. The only thing separating kosher and non kosher slaughter is that the animals aren't stunned before exsanguination. This doesn't matter for 99% of animals because the cut causes a drop in blood pressure that renders them unconscious.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

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."

Depends. When are we slaying?

I can agree with this if it doesn't violate religious practices, such as Judaism.

Kinda agree with this

No, because he could embrace a religion or a philosophy saying that body integrity is holy.
He could be a muslim quranist:

Some Quranists claim circumcision is haram, arguing that Quran 4:119 forbids altering one's body, and 95:4 says man was created perfectly.

So, by circumciding him, you violated the religious freedom of a muslim quranist.

You fail to understand that religion is an individual belief and choice.

You don't need to be a Qur'anist to say that. In fact, Qur'anism - and all sects for that matter - are haram

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!

Low-key ok with this

[Datlofff]

Surely, an adult Jew who wants to show their covenant with God can choose to undergo the process? What if the infant grows up to not want to be Jewish? Why should a baby be forced to have their privates mutilated?

An uncircumcised adult would not be Jewish. Circumcision is literally a requirement to be in the Covenant with God, and therefor Jewish. If they end up aposticizing, it doesn't matter. I've been circumcised for cultural reasons, and it honestly doesn't do much. I'm glad my parents chose to vaccinize me without my consent, and I'm glad they chose to circumcise me without my consent.

You're glad they chose to cut off the most sensitive part of your penis without your consent? You are aware what the foreskin is right? Its basically the male version of the clitoris.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

We don't eat animals alive.

Neither do Jews. The only thing separating kosher and non kosher slaughter is that the animals aren't stunned before exsanguination. This doesn't matter for 99% of animals because the cut causes a drop in blood pressure that renders them unconscious.

So that 1% of animals has to suffer needlessly... to pander to religion's warped ideas of right and wrong?

[Anywhere Else But Here]

An uncircumcised adult would not be Jewish. Circumcision is literally a requirement to be in the Covenant with God, and therefor Jewish. If they end up aposticizing, it doesn't matter. I've been circumcised for cultural reasons, and it honestly doesn't do much. I'm glad my parents chose to vaccinize me without my consent, and I'm glad they chose to circumcise me without my consent.

You're glad they chose to cut off the most sensitive part of your penis without your consent? You are aware what the foreskin is right? Its basically the male version of the clitoris.

No, that's the glans. The "female foreskin" is the clitoral hood, though so much as nicking that is illegal across the West, I believe.

[Des-Bal]

So that 1% of animals has to suffer needlessly... to pander to religion's warped ideas of right and wrong?

Well first of all it really only matters for cows and second of all the only difference is being conscious for an extra minute or so compared to being given a massive seizure via electrical current or given massive brain damage with a captive bolt.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

So that 1% of animals has to suffer needlessly... to pander to religion's warped ideas of right and wrong?

Well first of all it really only matters for cows and second of all the only difference is being conscious for an extra minute or so compared to being given a massive seizure via electrical current or given massive brain damage with a captive bolt.

You're still legitimizing the idea that it's okay to impose suffering on sentient beings, who didn't choose to suffer, on behalf of religion.

[Des-Bal]

You're still legitimizing the idea that it's okay to impose suffering on sentient beings, who didn't choose to suffer, on behalf of religion.

Yes, provided it's little suffering and only of animals that are already condemned to death.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

You're still legitimizing the idea that it's okay to impose suffering on sentient beings, who didn't choose to suffer, on behalf of religion.

Yes, provided it's little suffering and only of animals that are already condemned to death.

Over several animals, this adds up to a lot of suffering.

And why if we're to draw the line at how much suffering do we draw it at anything other than "none that is needless?"

[Kubumba Tribe]

You have to kill animals in order to eat them, I see nothing wrong with halal slaughter. But this is a topic for the Islamic Discussion Thread.

[Des-Bal]

Over several animals, this adds up to a lot of suffering.

And why if we're to draw the line at how much suffering do we draw it at anything other than "none that is needless?"

It doesn't "add up" in a meaningful way. No animal suffers more because another has suffered similarly.

Because "needless" means nothing in this context. The only "need" that the animals die at all is that we'd rather not sate ourselves in a vegetarian fashion. There's no 'need' to raising livestock, hunting, or fishing. The issue isn't need it's the depth of the harm done and in this case it's very little.

[Elysian Kentarchy]

that's literally the most secular and Laicite thing they've done this last century though.

... banning a religious practice mandatory in two of the most influential religions in the world? Secularism works both ways you understand, correct?

And widely practiced in a third highly influential religion. So yeah not secularism so I would call it anti-religion, which is the opposite of secularism.

[Cekoviu]

Over several animals, this adds up to a lot of suffering.

And why if we're to draw the line at how much suffering do we draw it at anything other than "none that is needless?"

It doesn't "add up" in a meaningful way. No animal suffers more because another has suffered similarly.

Because "needless" means nothing in this context. The only "need" that the animals die at all is that we'd rather not sate ourselves in a vegetarian fashion. There's no 'need' to raising livestock, hunting, or fishing. The issue isn't need it's the depth of the harm done and in this case it's very little.

This thread is about circumcision, guys.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Over several animals, this adds up to a lot of suffering.

And why if we're to draw the line at how much suffering do we draw it at anything other than "none that is needless?"

It doesn't "add up" in a meaningful way. No animal suffers more because another has suffered similarly.

Because "needless" means nothing in this context. The only "need" that the animals die at all is that we'd rather not sate ourselves in a vegetarian fashion. There's no 'need' to raising livestock, hunting, or fishing. The issue isn't need it's the depth of the harm done and in this case it's very little.

If you made it hard to slaughter in a kosher or halal manner, there'd be less demand for meat and fewer animals would need to be slaughtered at all.

[Pilarcraft]

threadjack, guys. We're not talking about kosher or halal. we're talking about male circumcision

[Ecleptalia]

Yes, provided it's little suffering and only of animals that are already condemned to death.

Over several animals, this adds up to a lot of suffering.

And why if we're to draw the line at how much suffering do we draw it at anything other than "none that is needless?"

This thread was about Male Circumcision, now it's about animal cruelty? I'm not sure how this happened. Open your own thread, people!

[Anywhere Else But Here]

... banning a religious practice mandatory in two of the most influential religions in the world? Secularism works both ways you understand, correct?

And widely practiced in a third highly influential religion. So yeah not secularism so I would call it anti-religion, which is the opposite of secularism.

What's the third religion?

[Elysian Kentarchy]

threadjack, guys. We're not talking about kosher or halal. we're talking about male circumcision

Probably because circumcision impacts both Judaic and Islamic practices and therefore it is fair game to discuss when the state will come after those practices too since they are already attacking one. Just my guess on how we got to this point anyway. Though since I one time participated in a discussion about doughnuts and before ten minutes was out my table mates were having a religious debate I am used to such shifts in conversation randomly.

[Ecleptalia]

And widely practiced in a third highly influential religion. So yeah not secularism so I would call it anti-religion, which is the opposite of secularism.

What's the third religion?

Christianity does it sometimes.

[Elysian Kentarchy]

And widely practiced in a third highly influential religion. So yeah not secularism so I would call it anti-religion, which is the opposite of secularism.

What's the third religion?

There are quite a few, primarily Protestant, Christian groups that practice male circumcision even though the act of circumcision was stated to not be mandatory per se in the Book of Acts it is still present in various groups.

[Ecleptalia]

https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=436411 If you want to go off topic, do it there.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

What's the third religion?

There are quite a few, primarily Protestant, Christian groups that practice male circumcision even though the act of circumcision was stated to not be mandatory per se in the Book of Acts it is still present in various groups.

Hm. I would guess that's not widely practised in Iceland.

[Ecleptalia]

There are quite a few, primarily Protestant, Christian groups that practice male circumcision even though the act of circumcision was stated to not be mandatory per se in the Book of Acts it is still present in various groups.

Hm. I would guess that's not widely practised in Iceland.

Which Probably makes it easier for them to ban the practice.

[Cekoviu]

Hm. I would guess that's not widely practised in Iceland.

Which Probably makes it easier for them to ban the practice.

Yeah. IIRC, Iceland has one of the highest atheism rates in the world, and is also one of the most socially progressive societies, so they're not going to face nearly as much public outcry as the US would.