Iceland To Ban Male Circumcision

[Republic of the Cristo]

"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."

Is male circumcision really abuse? Can we actually just consider that for a moment?

the definition of abuse is: to use (something) to bad effect or for a bad purpose; misuse.

Is cutting the foreskin ( an necessary part of the human body ) off at birth ( an event which will be forgotten almost instantly ) really abuse? I know some people have noted how circumcision can kill, but this is an extremely rare instance.
According to this site, about 119 people die each year from circumcision related deaths, out of around 4 million males born each year ( American numbers ). If we divide 119 by 4 million, we find that a male has a 0.00002975% chance of dying as a baby from circumcision. We can expect similar numbers to exist in Iceland, which would make such instances insanely rare.

So, we have found that cutting the foreskin is not a great loss for the child, not a traumatic experience for the inflicted party, and very rarely is ever fatal. And, as they are a child, they cannot consent so that decision would go to their parents.

No, this is not abuse.

[Ostroeuropa]

Female genital mutilation was argued for along the same lines.

Isn’t FGM wildly more dangerous?

Female genital mutilation is exactly comparable to Male genital mutilation.

Circumcision (One form of male genital mutilation) is comparable to some forms of female genital mutilation, and more severe than some of those too, which are currently banned in many countries (Including pricking the clitoris with a needle to draw a drop of blood, which is also banned in many places, rightly imo.)

The extreme forms of female genital mutilation are comparable to extreme forms of male genital mutilation, such as castration.

In many countries, all forms of FGM are banned, but only extreme forms of MGM.

It was a meme a while back from Gynocentric feminists to argue that Circumcision wasn't comparable because FGM is worse. This was a duplicitous and misleading way of framing the issue to ignore female privilege and pretend there were no mens issues, or if you prefer, a lie. They often lie. This is probably why you were under this impression. These same campaigners also presented all FGM as the extreme forms.

[Salus Maior]

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.

Female genital mutilation is also completely different from male circumcision, one point being is that it can't happen until the girl is old enough to be fully aware of what is happening, as well as bringing complications to childbirth and processes surrounding that. It's clearly far more dangerous.

[Galloism]

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.

*cough*

The foreskin is one of the most sensitive parts of the penis, and contains somewhere between 10,000 and 70,000 nerve endings (depending on which study you look at).

[El-Amin Caliphate]

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.

Female circumcision is allowed in Al-Islam also, but women don't have to do it if they don't want to, and Prophet Muhammad (SAWS) told us not to go to extremes in FGC.

[Camicon]

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.

I'm sure that's a claim you can prove. Off you pop.

[Galloism]

Female genital mutilation was argued for along the same lines.

Female genital mutilation is also completely different from male circumcision, one point being is that it can't happen until the girl is old enough to be fully aware of what is happening, as well as bringing complications to childbirth and processes surrounding that. It's clearly far more dangerous.

The case going on in Michigan right now was done on infants, and is less invasive and dangerous than male circumcision.

Did you read my link yet?

[Anywhere Else But Here]

Female genital mutilation was argued for along the same lines.

Female genital mutilation is also completely different from male circumcision, one point being is that it can't happen until the girl is old enough to be fully aware of what is happening, as well as bringing complications to childbirth and processes surrounding that. It's clearly far more dangerous.

You've made this claim once already (and you didn't reply when I challenged it). Repeating it doesn't make it any less wrong.

Interestingly, you seem to be the one with discriminatory views here.

[Salus Maior]

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?

Because regardless of what atheists think, religious/cultural identity is an incredibly important thing to many communities, and many, many people have given up much more than some dick skin to protect their own.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

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

*cough*

The foreskin is one of the most sensitive parts of the penis, and contains somewhere between 10,000 and 70,000 nerve endings (depending on which study you look at).

Again, I have never felt anything different before and after (aside from minor, non-issue changes).

It might be different for certain people, though.

[Ostroeuropa]

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

Because regardless of what atheists think, religious/cultural identity is an incredibly important thing to many communities, and many, many people have given up much more than some dick skin to protect their own.

So banning circumcision can seperate the wheat from the chaff in terms of those religious people willing to abide by secular law in the Jewish and Muslim communities by having those that can't flip their shit and riot or something, ignore it and get arrested later, or leave?

And this is... your argument against the notion?

[Anywhere Else But Here]

"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.

It's not discrimination if it's applied equally.

[Galloism]

*cough*

The foreskin is one of the most sensitive parts of the penis, and contains somewhere between 10,000 and 70,000 nerve endings (depending on which study you look at).

Again, I have never felt anything different before and after (aside from minor, non-issue changes).

It might be different for certain people, though.

The brain is a fascinating organ. It can compensate for things missing in amazing ways on the fly.

My left wrist now only turns half as far as it did before I got Keinbock's disease and had a corrective surgery. The brain makes adjustments to my rotation on my elbow and shoulder so that I don't even notice it anymore.

Yet, objectively, my wrist is less functional than before I got Keinbock's disease.

[Republic of the Cristo]

Because regardless of what atheists think, religious/cultural identity is an incredibly important thing to many communities, and many, many people have given up much more than some dick skin to protect their own.

So banning circumcision can seperate the wheat from the chaff in terms of those religious people willing to abide by secular law in the Jewish and Muslim communities by having those that can't flip their shit, ignore it, or leave?

And this is... your argument against the notion?

It's not abuse, and rarely ever is it dangerous. There is no pressing need to ban it, and indeed it would only serve as a major inconvenience to millions of people with no real benefits.

[Fartsniffage]

*cough*

The foreskin is one of the most sensitive parts of the penis, and contains somewhere between 10,000 and 70,000 nerve endings (depending on which study you look at).

Again, I have never felt anything different before and after (aside from minor, non-issue changes).

It might be different for certain people, though.

You were having sex before the age of 10?

[Anywhere Else But Here]

So banning circumcision can seperate the wheat from the chaff in terms of those religious people willing to abide by secular law in the Jewish and Muslim communities by having those that can't flip their shit, ignore it, or leave?

And this is... your argument against the notion?

It's not abuse, and rarely ever is it dangerous. There is no pressing need to ban it, and indeed it would only serve as a major inconvenience to millions of people with no real benefits.

It would benefit boys who want intact foreskins.

[Ostroeuropa]

So banning circumcision can seperate the wheat from the chaff in terms of those religious people willing to abide by secular law in the Jewish and Muslim communities by having those that can't flip their shit, ignore it, or leave?

And this is... your argument against the notion?

It's not abuse, and rarely ever is it dangerous. There is no pressing need to ban it, and indeed it would only serve as a major inconvenience to millions of people with no real benefits.

Every year a knife wielding maniac enters a single primary school and butchers the children therein, and leaves, with no charges, because society condones it.

"No pressing need."

[Galloism]

So banning circumcision can seperate the wheat from the chaff in terms of those religious people willing to abide by secular law in the Jewish and Muslim communities by having those that can't flip their shit, ignore it, or leave?

And this is... your argument against the notion?

It's not abuse, and rarely ever is it dangerous. There is no pressing need to ban it, and indeed it would only serve as a major inconvenience to millions of people with no real benefits.

Over 200 babies die every year from it in the US.

[Salus Maior]

Female genital mutilation is also completely different from male circumcision, one point being is that it can't happen until the girl is old enough to be fully aware of what is happening, as well as bringing complications to childbirth and processes surrounding that. It's clearly far more dangerous.

You've made this claim once already (and you didn't reply when I challenged it). Repeating it doesn't make it any less wrong.

Interestingly, you seem to be the one with discriminatory views here.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 6815000238

As it says in the article, women who have suffered female circumcision are likely to suffer from genital infections and reopening of the wounds throughout their life, and causes complications to things like childbirth as well.

As opposed to male circumcision, which can have complications immediately following the circumcision depending on how it was done, but after that one lives completely normal with minimal quality of life issues. At least not compared to what women suffer with FGM.

[NeoOasis]

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.

Well... child isn't too injured by it, and it's a sign of entering a religious group, soooooo sure?

Stuff gets strangely weird when you replace bit of genitalia with other body parts.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

"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."

Is male circumcision really abuse? Can we actually just consider that for a moment?

the definition of abuse is: to use (something) to bad effect or for a bad purpose; misuse.

Is cutting the foreskin ( an necessary part of the human body ) off at birth ( an event which will be forgotten almost instantly ) really abuse? I know some people have noted how circumcision can kill, but this is an extremely rare instance.
According to this site, about 119 people die each year from circumcision related deaths, out of around 4 million males born each year ( American numbers ). If we divide 119 by 4 million, we find that a male has a 0.00002975% chance of dying as a baby from circumcision. We can expect similar numbers to exist in Iceland, which would make such instances insanely rare.

So, we have found that cutting the foreskin is not a great loss for the child, not a traumatic experience for the inflicted party, and very rarely is ever fatal. And, as they are a child, they cannot consent so that decision would go to their parents.

No, this is not abuse.

http://www.quranicpath.com/misconceptio ... n.html#s10 (warning, graphics images)
http://www.circumcision.org/response.htm
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mo ... ly-believe
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mo ... e-and-stds

[Galloism]

Again, I have never felt anything different before and after (aside from minor, non-issue changes).

It might be different for certain people, though.

You were having sex before the age of 10?

We also might have a case of statutory rape on our hands.

[Republic of the Cristo]

It's not abuse, and rarely ever is it dangerous. There is no pressing need to ban it, and indeed it would only serve as a major inconvenience to millions of people with no real benefits.

It would benefit boys who want intact foreskins.

Does your lack of foreskin keep you up at night? Do you need psychiatric help? If that is the case, that you have far more deep seated issues than circumcision.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

Again, I have never felt anything different before and after (aside from minor, non-issue changes).

It might be different for certain people, though.

The brain is a fascinating organ. It can compensate for things missing in amazing ways on the fly.

My left wrist now only turns half as far as it did before I got Keinbock's disease and had a corrective surgery. The brain makes adjustments to my rotation on my elbow and shoulder so that I don't even notice it anymore.

Yet, objectively, my wrist is less functional than before I got Keinbock's disease.

Placebo or not, I'm content with my current sexual functions.

And I was circumsized at 10 years old, and I was already experimenting with my own body a full year and a half before the surgery, and again, nothing of actual harm or complication happened, I was doing just fine.

[Galloism]

You've made this claim once already (and you didn't reply when I challenged it). Repeating it doesn't make it any less wrong.

Interestingly, you seem to be the one with discriminatory views here.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 6815000238

As it says in the article, women who have suffered female circumcision are likely to suffer from genital infections and reopening of the wounds throughout their life, and causes complications to things like childbirth as well.

As opposed to male circumcision, which can have complications immediately following the circumcision depending on how it was done, but after that one lives completely normal with minimal quality of life issues. At least not compared to what women suffer with FGM.

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.