Iceland To Ban Male Circumcision

[Salus Maior]

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.

The study is entirely irrelevant, since it doesn't even acknowledge the form of female circumcision analogous to male circumcision. This has been pointed out to you again and again, so until you make an effort to engage that point, I'm just gonna make snarky comments at you, 'kay?*

*well, actually, I'm going to go to bed. But if you're still somehow avoiding the point in the morning, I'll snark then.

Probably because FGM isn't analogous to male circumcision.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

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

This refutes nothing. No where did I say that the matter was not painful. I imagine it's quite painful. However, for the vast ( VAST ) majority of cases, any complications are quite rare. I will state my point once more, there is no need to ban circumcision and to inconvenience millions of people.

My links speak of PTSD, shock, breathless fear and screaming. That is far from "necessary pain".

[Ostroeuropa]

The study is entirely irrelevant, since it doesn't even acknowledge the form of female circumcision analogous to male circumcision. This has been pointed out to you again and again, so until you make an effort to engage that point, I'm just gonna make snarky comments at you, 'kay?*

*well, actually, I'm going to go to bed. But if you're still somehow avoiding the point in the morning, I'll snark then.

Probably because FGM isn't analogous to male circumcision.

That's right.
It's analogous to MGM.

But some forms of FGM are analogous to male circumcision. Some are even less severe.

[Salus Maior]

Except not everyone views circumcision equally do they? Clearly one group suffers more from the legislation than others.

Fine fuck it, let's go consistent with this principle.

Drugs.
Prostitution.
hell, rape, murder.
Violent revolution against the bourgeoisie, that's a good one.
Workers appropriating the means of production and telling their CEOs to fuck off and not come back after pinching the keys to the factory.
Crusades.
Holocausts.
Country music.

Well, I can't take you seriously anymore.

[Galloism]

It doesn't say how old the girl was, aside from mentioning another case where the girl was 2 when her Dad came at her with scissors. At any rate, this doesn't debunk the negative effects I mentioned, and how they are greater than male circumcision. In fact your article stated the same, how cutting off the clitoris was equivalent to cutting off the head of a penis rather than the foreskin.

Yes, but they did not cut off the clitoris did they. This is a lower level of FGM, which is less invasive and causes less complications than circumcision.

This act, as described, is it ok to use on infants? yes or no?

[Ostroeuropa]

Fine fuck it, let's go consistent with this principle.

Drugs.
Prostitution.
hell, rape, murder.
Violent revolution against the bourgeoisie, that's a good one.
Workers appropriating the means of production and telling their CEOs to fuck off and not come back after pinching the keys to the factory.
Crusades.
Holocausts.
Country music.

Well, I can't take you seriously anymore.

Why not?
Banning seizing the means of the production clearly hurts one group more than others, so it should be legal when workers do it.

As for Crusades, why ban them? You can't inconvenience millions of devout folk by banning them from causing harm and pain to others because their religion tells them to, that's discrimination.

Show us the line you imagine is there and where it is being crossed.

[Ormantum]

I seriously question the effectiveness of this ban if it passes. Circumcision for Jews is the equivalent of Baptism for Christians, it is a highly important practice in their religion. If it's banned in Iceland, people will simply move to other countries (temporarily or permanently) to have the circumcision done. And if those countries (Europe) also ban male circumcision, which is highly unlikely, there will always be a country that allows for such procedures. Especially considering Israel exists and doesn't seem to be going away anytime soon.

[Salus Maior]

Well, I can't take you seriously anymore.

Why not?
Banning seizing the means of the production clearly hurts one group more than others, so it should be legal when workers do it.

As for Crusades, why ban them? You can't inconvenience millions of devout folk by banning them from causing harm and pain to others because their religion tells them to, that's discrimination.

Show us the line you imagine is there and where it is being crossed.

It is idiotic to compare male circumcision, something that I and millions of other people live with contentedly and have productive lives with, with the fucking murder of millions and millions of people.

If you want to discuss this, discuss it with some kind of actual thinking please, otherwise I'm just not going to respond or take you seriously.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Especially considering Israel exists and doesn't seem to be going away anytime soon.

Insha-Allah it will

[Galloism]

The study is entirely irrelevant, since it doesn't even acknowledge the form of female circumcision analogous to male circumcision. This has been pointed out to you again and again, so until you make an effort to engage that point, I'm just gonna make snarky comments at you, 'kay?*

*well, actually, I'm going to go to bed. But if you're still somehow avoiding the point in the morning, I'll snark then.

Probably because FGM isn't analogous to male circumcision.

Well, Circumcision would likely fall right around FGM Type IIa, removal of the labia minora only.

[Ifreann]

"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.

So cutting bits of skin off people, without consent, is acceptable if you arrange for the victim to forget it.

With that kind of thinking, someone could have your ears off, if they drugged you beforehand. You wouldn't remember it, you probably wouldn't die.

[Galloism]

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.

So cutting bits of skin off people, without consent, is acceptable if you arrange for the victim to forget it.

With that kind of thinking, someone could have your ears off, if they drugged you beforehand. You wouldn't remember it, you probably wouldn't die.

The funny part is we can cut off part of men's genitals and it's ok, but even removing earlobes for cosmetic reasons would be child abuse.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Why not?
Banning seizing the means of the production clearly hurts one group more than others, so it should be legal when workers do it.

As for Crusades, why ban them? You can't inconvenience millions of devout folk by banning them from causing harm and pain to others because their religion tells them to, that's discrimination.

Show us the line you imagine is there and where it is being crossed.

It is idiotic to compare male circumcision, something that I and millions of other people live with contentedly and have productive lives with, with the fucking murder of millions and millions of people.

If you want to discuss this, discuss it with some kind of actual thinking please, otherwise I'm just not going to respond or take you seriously.

You have a point.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

So cutting bits of skin off people, without consent, is acceptable if you arrange for the victim to forget it.

With that kind of thinking, someone could have your ears off, if they drugged you beforehand. You wouldn't remember it, you probably wouldn't die.

The funny part is we can cut off part of men's genitals and it's ok, but even removing earlobes for cosmetic reasons would be child abuse.

Cosmetic reasons are not the same as religious reasons.

[Ostroeuropa]

Why not?
Banning seizing the means of the production clearly hurts one group more than others, so it should be legal when workers do it.

As for Crusades, why ban them? You can't inconvenience millions of devout folk by banning them from causing harm and pain to others because their religion tells them to, that's discrimination.

Show us the line you imagine is there and where it is being crossed.

It is idiotic to compare male circumcision, something that I and millions of other people live with contentedly and have productive lives with, with the fucking murder of millions and millions of people.

If you want to discuss this, discuss it with some kind of actual thinking please, otherwise I'm just not going to respond or take you seriously.

I'm asking you where you think the line gets crossed in terms of where you think religion telling people to harm others being an excuse doesn't count anymore.
apparently the crusades is too much, so show us where it is. You're acting outraged and offended because i'm comparing the excuse you are using to cut children and pointing out it also works for killing adults. That your particular predilections don't go for that doesn't make it any different, your argument applies for both.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

[…]As for Crusades, why ban them? You can't inconvenience millions of devout folk by banning them from causing harm and pain to others because their religion tells them to, that's discrimination.[…]

Which religion, may I ask, considers crusading to be a central tenet of their faith?

[El-Amin Caliphate]

[…]As for Crusades, why ban them? You can't inconvenience millions of devout folk by banning them from causing harm and pain to others because their religion tells them to, that's discrimination.[…]

Which religion, may I ask, considers crusading to be a central tenet of their faith?

I was wondering the same thing.

[Galloism]

The funny part is we can cut off part of men's genitals and it's ok, but even removing earlobes for cosmetic reasons would be child abuse.

Cosmetic reasons are not the same as religious reasons.

Cutting off earlobes for religious reasons would ALSO be child abuse.

[Ostroeuropa]

[…]As for Crusades, why ban them? You can't inconvenience millions of devout folk by banning them from causing harm and pain to others because their religion tells them to, that's discrimination.[…]

Which religion, may I ask, considers crusading to be a central tenet of their faith?

Would it matter if one did?

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Cosmetic reasons are not the same as religious reasons.

Cutting off earlobes for religious reasons would ALSO be child abuse.

Says who?

[Ifreann]

The funny part is we can cut off part of men's genitals and it's ok, but even removing earlobes for cosmetic reasons would be child abuse.

Cosmetic reasons are not the same as religious reasons.

Essentially they are.

[Salus Maior]

So cutting bits of skin off people, without consent, is acceptable if you arrange for the victim to forget it.

With that kind of thinking, someone could have your ears off, if they drugged you beforehand. You wouldn't remember it, you probably wouldn't die.

The funny part is we can cut off part of men's genitals and it's ok, but even removing earlobes for cosmetic reasons would be child abuse.

I'd say that tampering with the head in any way would be the same as facial disfigurement. Which I've already talked about.

[Salus Maior]

Cosmetic reasons are not the same as religious reasons.

Essentially they are.

To you, and people outside of the Jewish community sure. But not to the Jews.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

The funny part is we can cut off part of men's genitals and it's ok, but even removing earlobes for cosmetic reasons would be child abuse.

I'd say that tampering with the head in any way would be the same as facial disfigurement. Which I've already talked about.

And what if facial disfigurement is a part of some hypothetical religion?

[Galloism]

The funny part is we can cut off part of men's genitals and it's ok, but even removing earlobes for cosmetic reasons would be child abuse.

I'd say that tampering with the head in any way would be the same as facial disfigurement. Which I've already talked about.

Cutting off a finger would also be child abuse if it's healthy. As would a toe.

Even though most people who have had that done as children (for medical reasons) don't even notice the difference. The brain is a highly adaptable organ.