Iceland To Ban Male Circumcision

[Katganistan]

Given that no one has argued against it for medical necessity, and that the argument is that if it is infant circumcision for religious reasons, we feel it should be banned until the child is of an age ho be able to commit to a non-necessary surgical procedure and be fully warned of what the consequences as well as benefits, spiritual and or health, that they might expect.

I reiterate what I have stated earlier in greater detail.

If it is clarified that you are against RELIGIOUS circumcision and not MEDICAL circumcision and that the difference is made crystal clear in the presented arguments, then I will concede and back down knowing that medical circumcision is at the very least recognized as necessary, albeit more as a "we tried everything else" last resort than a first solution.

It would be nice if people refrained from unsavoury terms such as "barbarian", "mutilation", and "deformity" if they do not clarify which circumcision type (religious or medical) they are applying these terms to.

I excuse myself for any exaggerated wording or outbursts, I just wanted to make sure that people recognized the distinctions between the two types.

We knew it before you starting slinging accusations, Tex.

[Joohan]

Given the background of the ritual is in lieu of child sacrifice, that doesn't much impress.
"Instead of killing your children, just offer me a piece of their flesh (And also some will still die, but that's an accident resulting from mutilating them.)"
In either case, the deaths show how ridiculous the argument that it isn't mutilation are.

It is a sacrifice of flesh intended to appease a bloodthirsty god, and sometimes it kills the victim. That strikes me as sacrifice. The covenant is one based on a ritual of partial child sacrifice, and your argument is that just because that partial sacrifice of children goes too far and fully sacrifices them that doesn't make it a ritual of child sacrifice.

It plainly is. What's more absurd about it is that viewed in this context, your god is plainly lying to you. (It's because he doesn't exist.)

"Instead of killing some of your children to appease me, just cut bits off them, I promise it'll be fine."
So then imagine all of you doing it in the temple at once, and multiple ones of them still end up dead.

He must have known that would happen, right? He's omniscient, apparently. So he's effectively still demanding you kill children to appease him.

So basically his covenant is one that allows the practitioner the gift of denial and self-deception. It's a nod and a wink that "We aren't sacrificing children.", quite the character isn't he.

I'm not arguing in support of circumcision, just saying that it isn't sacrifice.
But I think you have a point.

He's trolling.

[Katganistan]

Which we have also figured out by now.

And I've figured out that you're fine with discriminating against said communities.

Nope. Just preventing unnecessary surgeries on those who can't consent.
When they attain majority and consent, it's in their hands.

[Farnhamia]

I'm not arguing in support of circumcision, just saying that it isn't sacrifice.
But I think you have a point.

He's trolling.

If you think someone is trolling, report them in Moderation. Do not just sit here and go, "He's trolling." That's a rules violation, too, it's called troll-naming.

[Ostroeuropa]

Which we have all figured out by now.

And I don't just disagree with it, I think it's pretty clear that such thinking will serious damage certain religious/cultural communities, and that's wrong and discriminatory.

There's sections of both the Jewish and Islamic religious communities that abstain from the practice. It is not inherent to the religion. Even if it weren't,

Why should the complaints of Aztecs concern us?

[Anywhere Else But Here]

Which we have also figured out by now.

And I've figured out that you're fine with discriminating against said communities.

"Discriminating"

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Given the background of the ritual is in lieu of child sacrifice, that doesn't much impress.
"Instead of killing your children, just offer me a piece of their flesh (And also some will still die, but that's an accident resulting from mutilating them.)"
In either case, the deaths show how ridiculous the argument that it isn't mutilation are.

It is a sacrifice of flesh intended to appease a bloodthirsty god, and sometimes it kills the victim. That strikes me as sacrifice. The covenant is one based on a ritual of partial child sacrifice, and your argument is that just because that partial sacrifice of children goes too far and fully sacrifices them that doesn't make it a ritual of child sacrifice.

It plainly is. What's more absurd about it is that viewed in this context, your god is plainly lying to you.

"Instead of killing some of your children to appease me, just cut bits off them, I promise it'll be fine."
So then imagine all of you doing it in the temple at once, and multiple ones of them still end up dead.

He must have known that would happen, right? He's omniscient, apparently. So he's effectively still demanding you kill children to appease him.

So basically his covenant is one that allows the practitioner the gift of denial and self-deception. It's a nod and a wink that "We aren't sacrificing children.", quite the character isn't he.

It's not in-lieu of child sacrifice, it's part of ritual cleanliness according to the Law of Moses (whether that's the same reasoning as Muslims do, I couldn't tell you), and it's a mark of entering the Tribe of Israel.

https://sunnah.com/urn/2212080
https://sunnah.com/muslim/2/65
https://sunnah.com/bukhari/77/106
https://sunnah.com/bukhari/79/71
https://sunnah.com/bukhari/60/36
The thing is, it seems that the Holy Qur'an disagrees:
http://legacy.quran.com/30/30
http://legacy.quran.com/4/119
Now, if the Holy Qur'an and aHadith are is disagreement, the Holy Qur'an always wins.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

I reiterate what I have stated earlier in greater detail.

If it is clarified that you are against RELIGIOUS circumcision and not MEDICAL circumcision and that the difference is made crystal clear in the presented arguments, then I will concede and back down knowing that medical circumcision is at the very least recognized as necessary, albeit more as a "we tried everything else" last resort than a first solution.

It would be nice if people refrained from unsavoury terms such as "barbarian", "mutilation", and "deformity" if they do not clarify which circumcision type (religious or medical) they are applying these terms to.

I excuse myself for any exaggerated wording or outbursts, I just wanted to make sure that people recognized the distinctions between the two types.

We knew it before you starting slinging accusations, Tex.

It stemmed almost entirely from a lack of clarity in MOST (not all, though) of the arguments of this thread followed by misunderstanding.

No need to push it further when I have conceded after being assured clarification.

[Galloism]

Go Iceland!

It's high time infant genital mutilation was banned for both genders. I know here in the US, circumcision was originally pushed (and became popular) thanks to Dr. Kellogg, who thought that bland cereal, circumcision, and applying phenol to the clitoris was a good way to stop children from masturbating.

I wish I was making that up.

[Cekoviu]

Which we have also figured out by now.

And I've figured out that you're fine with discriminating against said communities.

If that's what banning involuntary circumcision is, then call me a Nazi. It's not, of course, but you've set the bar so incredibly low that it's hard not to be anti-Semitic without also being in support of mutilating children's genitalia.

[Ostroeuropa]

And I've figured out that you're fine with discriminating against said communities.

"Discriminating"

"Do not cut children with knives without medical reason."

"You're discriminating against me by demanding that, so I demand you put a clause in the law that puts different sections of the population under different conditions and laws based on their demographics like some kind of fucked up legal apartheid."

Look, if you want it kept legal for adults, i'm begrudgingly fine with that, but the problem here is the religious lobby has done the same fuck up they did on abortion and refused to give a single inch to their critics and then expects compromise when their critics win due to building a massive coalition of everyone sick of their shit on this issue.

The time for legal adult circumcision is now, or within the next decade, because if obstinant refusal continues to be the line, there will eventually be no need to give the pro-circumcisers any consideration at all.

[Salus Maior]

And I don't agree with that sentiment.

So if I decided according to my religion, you needed to have your nose cut off in infancy, that's A-ok.

No, because that's not nearly the same thing as circumcision.

A circumcised person can do whatever they want, anywhere in the world, and live out a perfectly normal life. Can you really say the same for someone whose face has been disfigured? No, you can't. The face is an incredibly important part of social life, destroying one's face is an attempt to destroy their chances out in the world. That's why the acid attacks in Britain are seen as so incredibly awful and terrible, because you really are changing their lives for the worse in a significant sense by permanently altering their face.

I would say given the importance of circumcision in Judaism and Jewish culture (I can't speak for Islam), and that circumcision is such a minor thing in terms of how one's life is really effected, I don't have a problem with it. They should have the right to do it.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Btw, if circumcision was/is halal, Muslims should/would be circumcised upon puberty, not infancy.

[Ostroeuropa]

So if I decided according to my religion, you needed to have your nose cut off in infancy, that's A-ok.

No, because that's not nearly the same thing as circumcision.

A circumcised person can do whatever they want, anywhere in the world, and live out a perfectly normal life. Can you really say the same for someone whose face has been disfigured? No, you can't. The face is an incredibly important part of social life, destroying one's face is an attempt to destroy their chances out in the world. That's why the acid attacks in Britain are seen as so incredibly awful and terrible, because you really are changing their lives for the worse in a significant sense by permanently altering their face.

I would say given the importance of circumcision in Judaism and Jewish culture (I can't speak for Islam), and that circumcision is such a minor thing in terms of how one's life is really effected, I don't have a problem with it. They should have the right to do it.

Female genital mutilation was argued for along the same lines.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

So if I decided according to my religion, you needed to have your nose cut off in infancy, that's A-ok.

No, because that's not nearly the same thing as circumcision.

A circumcised person can do whatever they want, anywhere in the world, and live out a perfectly normal life. Can you really say the same for someone whose face has been disfigured? No, you can't. The face is an incredibly important part of social life, destroying one's face is an attempt to destroy their chances out in the world. That's why the acid attacks in Britain are seen as so incredibly awful and terrible, because you really are changing their lives for the worse in a significant sense by permanently altering their face.

I would say given the importance of circumcision in Judaism and Jewish culture (I can't speak for Islam), and that circumcision is such a minor thing in terms of how one's life is really effected, I don't have a problem with it. They should have the right to do it.

Tattoo "Bad Bitch" on infants' mons pubises (how the fuck do you pluralise that?). Not an important part of social life, so perfectly fine, right?

[El-Amin Caliphate]

If religious groups do circumcision according to their religion, they should have that right.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

Btw, if circumcision was/is halal, Muslims should/would be circumcised upon puberty, not infancy.

I personally believe that there is almost no reason for a newborn to be circumcised since the vast majority of medical complications will usually arise around early puberty, so I'd say that puberty would be an acceptable threshold.

[Galloism]

So if I decided according to my religion, you needed to have your nose cut off in infancy, that's A-ok.

No, because that's not nearly the same thing as circumcision.

A circumcised person can do whatever they want, anywhere in the world, and live out a perfectly normal life. Can you really say the same for someone whose face has been disfigured? No, you can't. The face is an incredibly important part of social life, destroying one's face is an attempt to destroy their chances out in the world. That's why the acid attacks in Britain are seen as so incredibly awful and terrible, because you really are changing their lives for the worse in a significant sense by permanently altering their face.

I would say given the importance of circumcision in Judaism and Jewish culture (I can't speak for Islam), and that circumcision is such a minor thing in terms of how one's life is really effected, I don't have a problem with it. They should have the right to do it.

Then I assume this is also ok? Just want to be clear and consistent on things.

“Your Honor, what was being performed was a religious procedure where my client would look at -- on the clitoris of the girls, there's a mucus membrane,” Smith explained when asked by the judge what exactly Nagarwala did do. “She would wipe a little portion of the mucus membrane off, put it on a piece of gauze, which the family would then take the gauze with the mucus membrane and they would bury it.”

Because she's facing charges right now.

[Camicon]

Two things...

Firstly, the "benefits" of circumcision (when not done for a medically necessary reason) are can be replicated by washing yourself and wearing a condom.

Secondly, botched circumcisions must be considered as a detrimental aspect. Successful circumcisions have detrimental effects all their own, but botched circumcisions can be outright lethal, or necessitate the removal of large portions of a person's penis, or further corrective surgeries that result in significantly more pain carrying yet more risk of complications. Nobody knows whether or not a circumcision will be "successful" or "botched" before, or even immediately after, it happens; you can't hand-wave away the consequences of an action because it didn't go flawlessly.

Except when you have a complication such as, you guessed it, phimosis *snip*

Which would make it medically necessary. Which is not what we're talking about.

And foreskin restoration doesn't fix the loss of sensitivity in your glans that results from circumcision.

[Ostroeuropa]

If religious groups do circumcision according to their religion, they should have that right.

Why.
How far does "My religion told me to do it" go as an excuse for you?

[FelrikTheDeleted]

No, because that's not nearly the same thing as circumcision.

A circumcised person can do whatever they want, anywhere in the world, and live out a perfectly normal life. Can you really say the same for someone whose face has been disfigured? No, you can't. The face is an incredibly important part of social life, destroying one's face is an attempt to destroy their chances out in the world. That's why the acid attacks in Britain are seen as so incredibly awful and terrible, because you really are changing their lives for the worse in a significant sense by permanently altering their face.

I would say given the importance of circumcision in Judaism and Jewish culture (I can't speak for Islam), and that circumcision is such a minor thing in terms of how one's life is really effected, I don't have a problem with it. They should have the right to do it.

Female genital mutilation was argued for along the same lines.

Isn’t FGM wildly more dangerous?

[Galloism]

Female genital mutilation was argued for along the same lines.

Isn’t FGM wildly more dangerous?

Depends. Some versions are far more dangerous than male circumcision, and some versions are far less dangerous. There are various degrees to it.

The case in Michigan right now is far less dangerous than male circumcision.

[Salus Maior]

And I've figured out that you're fine with discriminating against said communities.

"Discriminating"

It is not a difficult conclusion to come to, and most of you have already admitted that you're fine with discriminating against religion if they do something you disagree with. You just avoid from saying so in a straightforward and plain manner.

At any rate, it is not a leap to think that regardless of intentions, a legislation that negatively effects certain group is de facto discriminating against that group. In fact, to argue that it isn't is allowing a legal loophole to exist where certain groups can push for discrimination against other groups so long as they dress up the legislation the right way. Which is obviously dangerous thinking.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

Except when you have a complication such as, you guessed it, phimosis *snip*

Which would make it medically necessary. Which is not what we're talking about.

And foreskin restoration doesn't fix the loss of sensitivity in your glans that results from circumcision.

The loss of sensitivity is almost completely negligible, if anything, my "sensitive parts" just shifted slightly, but they didn't go away.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

If religious groups do circumcision according to their religion, they should have that right.

Why.
How far does "My religion told me to do it" go as an excuse for you?

You mean "a reason"?
Up until people start killing each other, or serious torture (which, according to my links on circumcision, arguably, circumcision is torture).