Iceland to ban circumcision

[DurianIceCream]

It's amazing that this thread is now being used as a vehicle to criticise organised religion. That is an entirely separate topic. It is also an irrelevant topic, because people of all religions and no religion have their children circumcised.

[djc206]

DurianIceCream said:

It's amazing that this thread is now being used as a vehicle to criticise organised religion. That is an entirely separate topic. It is also an irrelevant topic, because people of all religions and no religion have their children circumcised.

The overwhelming majority on non medical circumcisions in the U.K. and Iceland are carried out for religious reasons so it’s very much relevant.

[DurianIceCream]

amusingduck said:

The argument seems to be "if you don't remember it, whats the problem?". Not a very good argument though, is it. Do we apply that principle elsewhere? All that springs to mind is date rape, and if you applied the same logic there, you'd be (rightly) thought of as an utter tt

I don't know. If you st your pants on a train hen you are 6 months old can you remember it later and has it done you any harm? If you st your pants at your company Christmas dinner in front of your colleagues, because you are drunk and you can't remember it, is it a problem?

[DurianIceCream]

bmwmike said:

On the flip side a man cut at birth cannot possibly know what a foreskin feels like.

They can if they buy one of those artificial replacement foreskins from the website which has previously been used as 'evidence' how tormented people who have been circumcised must me.

[djc206]

DurianIceCream said:

I don't know. If you st your pants on a train hen you are 6 months old can you remember it later and has it done you any harm? If you st your pants at your company Christmas dinner in front of your colleagues, because you are drunk and you can't remember it, is it a problem?

stting yourself as a baby doesn’t leave a rather obvious permanent disfigurement.

[djc206]

DurianIceCream said:

They can if they buy one of those artificial replacement foreskins from the website which has previously been used as 'evidence' how tormented people who have been circumcised must me.

It’s a rather bizarre invention isn’t it. Must be a market though I guess.

[RTB]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Maybe making it illegal would mean more unregulated procedures as legal circumcision by a medic would no longer be available.

If this is the case then it tells you an awful lot about the morality of some peope who are pro-circumcision. Their beliefs and principles come before the safety of their own children. Sickening.

[DurianIceCream]

djc206 said:

The overwhelming majority on non medical circumcisions in the U.K. and Iceland are carried out for religious reasons so it’s very much relevant.

So shall we exclude the epiphany that several posters appear to have only just had right here on this thread that people who believe in some religion have beliefs which don't make sense to atheists or people of other religions?

This seems to have come as a real surprise to a few people on this thread, I mean fk, who could have thought of that.

Given this amazing shock, I wonder if they think the head of state on the UK should be removed from also being the head of the Church of England? I mean we seemed to have broadened the discussion to say anything fine in the same of religion has no validity.

[DurianIceCream]

RTB said:

If this is the case then it tells you an awful lot about the morality of some peope who are pro-circumcision. Their beliefs and principles come before the safety of their own children. Sickening.

How does it affect the safety of children?

Hint: unsubstantiated reports from propaganda websites selling fake foreskins don't count.

[DurianIceCream]

djc206 said:

It’s a rather bizarre invention isn’t it. Must be a market though I guess.

I think someone should volunteer to buy one, try it out and report back.

[Troubleatmill]

DurianIceCream said:

RTB said:

If this is the case then it tells you an awful lot about the morality of some peope who are pro-circumcision. Their beliefs and principles come before the safety of their own children. Sickening.

How does it affect the safety of children?

Hint: unsubstantiated reports from propaganda websites selling fake foreskins don't count.

The last link I sent you from The BBC the child died.

Does that count?

[djc206]

DurianIceCream said:

So shall we exclude the epiphany that several posters appear to have only just had right here on this thread that people who believe in some religion have beliefs which don't make sense to atheists or people of other religions?

This seems to have come as a real surprise to a few people on this thread, I mean fk, who could have thought of that.

Given this amazing shock, I wonder if they think the head of state on the UK should be removed from also being the head of the Church of England? I mean we seemed to have broadened the discussion to say anything fine in the same of religion has no validity.

I don’t think it’s an epiphany or surprise to anyone. That’s quite a leap and it’s not what’s been said at all as far as I’ve read.

If non medical circumcision is deemed to be unacceptable to society then religion will just have to deal with that in the same way that certain cultures aren’t allowed to indulge in polygamy in the UK despite it being a long established tradition of theirs. They’ll just have to deal with it.

As far as I care you can believe whatever you want, if your beliefs involve actions that are contrary to the laws of the land that’s when you hit trouble and I don’t think it’ll be long before non medical circumcision is made illegal.

Our head of state has no more than a ceremonial role so it’s not really of any concern.

[bmwmike]

DurianIceCream said:

bmwmike said:

On the flip side a man cut at birth cannot possibly know what a foreskin feels like.

They can if they buy one of those artificial replacement foreskins from the website which has previously been used as 'evidence' how tormented people who have been circumcised must me.

Its unlikely to be the same. Appreciate that you are joking anyway.

[djc206]

DurianIceCream said:

djc206 said:

It’s a rather bizarre invention isn’t it. Must be a market though I guess.

I think someone should volunteer to buy one, try it out and report back.

Can you imagine introducing that to your missus? Yeah don’t worry dear I’m just trying it out for the blokes on PH.

[gooner1]

DurianIceCream said:

djc206 said:

It’s a rather bizarre invention isn’t it. Must be a market though I guess.

I think someone should volunteer to buy one, try it out and report back.

I'd happily volunteer, if only I wasn't sporting the real thing.
Did you just step forward yourself.? Bravo chap, bravo.

[WinstonWolf]

DurianIceCream said:

djc206 said:

The overwhelming majority on non medical circumcisions in the U.K. and Iceland are carried out for religious reasons so it’s very much relevant.

So shall we exclude the epiphany that several posters appear to have only just had right here on this thread that people who believe in some religion have beliefs which don't make sense to atheists or people of other religions?

This seems to have come as a real surprise to a few people on this thread, I mean fk, who could have thought of that.

Given this amazing shock, I wonder if they think the head of state on the UK should be removed from also being the head of the Church of England? I mean we seemed to have broadened the discussion to say anything fine in the same of religion has no validity.

No one has had an epiphany, everyone bar two people think it's child abuse.

You want to chop your dick off do it as an adult.

God made man in his own image, is religion saying god would be better if he cut a bit off his dick?

[RTB]

DurianIceCream said:

How does it affect the safety of children?

Hint: unsubstantiated reports from propaganda websites selling fake foreskins don't count.

The argument runs that if childhood circumcision is made illegal then people will allow their children to be operated on by unqualified people in uncontrolled possibly unsanitary conditions. I pointed out that it is sickening that people would put their beliefs ahead of their childrens welfare.

Are you now arguing that surgery is without risk or that surgery in a non-medical environment is as safe as in a medical environment? Can you have a bash at answering that.

Also, further to my question earlier, whats wrong with waiting until the child is 18 (or even 16) and why are pro-circumcision people so obsessed with children's genitals and a desire to cut them?

Thanks in advance.

[technodup]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Maybe making it illegal would mean more unregulated procedures as legal circumcision by a medic would no longer be available.

So? If you're going to ban something you don't not ban it because some people will inevitably flout the ban. You ban it and deal with the miscreants afterwards.

TwigtheWonderkid said:

We all accept that's no debate on abortion v no abortion, it's legal abortion v backstreet abortion. But abortion is here to stay. As with circumcision I suspect.

No we don't, various religious nutters don't believe in abortion in any circumstances. Jacob Rees Mogg being a notable one.

We don't pander to religion on that issue, in fact he's regularly mocked and reviled in equal measure for his beliefs. I'm not sure why we should pander to religion in the case of ritualistic child abuse.

I'm generally against banning anything. Freedom of choice for me. But giving parents that choice removes the same choice from children, which I think should be reversed.

I think this type of move would be right up the SNP street, something symbolic, seen by some as meddling, cheap yet allows them to grab headlines. See also banning smoking in public places and smacking of children. Scotland implements it for a few years, Jews and Muslims don't all leave the country, the odd defiant practitioner gets prosecuted and made an example of, the world doesn't collapse and the UK follows suit a few years later.

And for probably the one and only time I'd agree with them.

[gumshoe]

DurianIceCream said:

It must be infuriating for you idiots to be all set with a new cause you can become outraged and lecture about, then find out the WHO and American Society of Pediatrics actually recommend it and there are 40-odd peer reviewed medical papers which also support it.

Have you actually read their statements on circumcision?

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/130/...

They don't blanket recommend it.

[DurianIceCream]

gumshoe said:

Have you actually read their statements on circumcision?

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/130/...

They don't blanket recommend it.

I've never said they outright recommend it for everyone. I think I've described it on this thread as a 'mild recommendation' or with 'moderate benefits'

They do say "Systematic evaluation of English-language peer-reviewed literature from 1995 through 2010 indicates that preventive health benefits of elective circumcision of male newborns outweigh the risks of the procedure... The procedure is well tolerated when performed by trained professionals under sterile conditions with appropriate pain management. Complications are infrequent... Although health benefits are not great enough to recommend routine circumcision for all male newborns, the benefits of circumcision are sufficient to justify access to this procedure for families choosing it and to warrant third-party payment for circumcision of male newborns."