Iceland to ban circumcision
Discussion
DurianIceCream said:
Sway said:
An excellent deflection. Fancy trying to actually respond to any of my points? After all, I'm not the person throwing out...
Sorry, couldn't help it 
Your non-dominant arm has an obvious use. Your foreskin has no use. Without a left arm, people could imagine what they could do with an extra arm. I can imagine what I'd do with a third arm. There isn't anything to do with a foreskin.
It would seem exceptionally odd for us to have evolved something with no use whatsoever. Nature tends not to work that way.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
I find it absolutely mindboggling that anyone is remotely fussed about circumcision in a country where FGM affects thousands of girls. People seem to have lost sight of priorities. It's like people in the USA calling for a ban on catapults, whilst mass shootings continue on a regular basis.
Don't get me wrong, I won't be losing any sleep over it. But we don't tend to stamp out car theft and then move on to burglary. Or get rid of smoking them move onto alcohol. It doesn't work like that (not least because we'd never eradicate anything). We determine what is currently acceptable, legislate and deal with it the best we can. There are various groups whose rights have been massively extended over recent decades, drip, drip, drip. Gays, children, transgenders, disabled and so on. You could argue (and I would) that this is simply extending the children's right further, to make the decision for themselves later.I don't remember a mass clamouring for banning smoking in cars. But the government did it anyway, to 'save the children'. If the will is there government can do things remarkably quickly.
I'm not saying the will is there btw, as it's a bit of a hidden issue. But I suspect polls would tend to side with the majority on here, not the religious lobby.
It's got to be a bit mental when we'll ban smoking in cars and smacking before we ban chopping off bits of dick.
yellowtang said:
Interesting thread!
Firstly, I should probably state that I am circumcised. Secondly, I have a three year old son, he isn't and never will be circumcised (save medical necessity).
I was chopped as a baby, not for religious or medical reasons as such, but because of some daft notion of preventative maintenance! My father had foreskin problems at 9 years old and was subsequently circumcised. Growing up in the 1980's (UK) I did actually know a couple of other lads my age who had also been chopped for the same 'reasons'. Seems common in the USA albeit now starting to decline (thankfully).
Personally, while I do believe non medicallly necessary circumcision should be outlawed, no ifs no buts, I haven't actually had any negative side effects myself. Much has been said about sensitively on this thread and I have to say, I'm certain that being circumcised reduces feeling down there a little, I can only make a guess on this, as clearly I've never known any different. However, from discussions with friends on such delicate matters! I concluded that I'm probably somewhat less sensitive than they are.
However, it's not all bad news, slightly less sensitive isn't the same as lacking any sensation! From my own experience, women have commented a lot on my stamina!
While we are on the subject of women/partners - most (and it's not 100's, sadly!) of the women I've slept with have been intrigued and even liked my circumcised state.
I cannot quite believe the outrageous attempts at justifying circumcision by one or two posters on here, while I can very much vouch for the fact that it doesn't generally impact men in a negative way, that alone is not justification for doing it to child! Any other body part and it would be unlawful......go figure!
Religion is about controlling people, it always has been and always will be. Circumsion is rather depressing part of that ideal.
A very thoughtful and balanced post.Firstly, I should probably state that I am circumcised. Secondly, I have a three year old son, he isn't and never will be circumcised (save medical necessity).
I was chopped as a baby, not for religious or medical reasons as such, but because of some daft notion of preventative maintenance! My father had foreskin problems at 9 years old and was subsequently circumcised. Growing up in the 1980's (UK) I did actually know a couple of other lads my age who had also been chopped for the same 'reasons'. Seems common in the USA albeit now starting to decline (thankfully).
Personally, while I do believe non medicallly necessary circumcision should be outlawed, no ifs no buts, I haven't actually had any negative side effects myself. Much has been said about sensitively on this thread and I have to say, I'm certain that being circumcised reduces feeling down there a little, I can only make a guess on this, as clearly I've never known any different. However, from discussions with friends on such delicate matters! I concluded that I'm probably somewhat less sensitive than they are.
However, it's not all bad news, slightly less sensitive isn't the same as lacking any sensation! From my own experience, women have commented a lot on my stamina!
While we are on the subject of women/partners - most (and it's not 100's, sadly!) of the women I've slept with have been intrigued and even liked my circumcised state.
I cannot quite believe the outrageous attempts at justifying circumcision by one or two posters on here, while I can very much vouch for the fact that it doesn't generally impact men in a negative way, that alone is not justification for doing it to child! Any other body part and it would be unlawful......go figure!
Religion is about controlling people, it always has been and always will be. Circumsion is rather depressing part of that ideal.
My parents thankfully resisted the hospital's desire to have me chopped back in the 60's and I resisted my son's hospital's wishes in the same way in 2002.
I can see zero benefit in having it done unless medically necessary in later life. Most un cut men would not choose to have it done - I've never met one who would want it done.
NDA said:
yellowtang said:
Interesting thread!
Firstly, I should probably state that I am circumcised. Secondly, I have a three year old son, he isn't and never will be circumcised (save medical necessity).
I was chopped as a baby, not for religious or medical reasons as such, but because of some daft notion of preventative maintenance! My father had foreskin problems at 9 years old and was subsequently circumcised. Growing up in the 1980's (UK) I did actually know a couple of other lads my age who had also been chopped for the same 'reasons'. Seems common in the USA albeit now starting to decline (thankfully).
Personally, while I do believe non medicallly necessary circumcision should be outlawed, no ifs no buts, I haven't actually had any negative side effects myself. Much has been said about sensitively on this thread and I have to say, I'm certain that being circumcised reduces feeling down there a little, I can only make a guess on this, as clearly I've never known any different. However, from discussions with friends on such delicate matters! I concluded that I'm probably somewhat less sensitive than they are.
However, it's not all bad news, slightly less sensitive isn't the same as lacking any sensation! From my own experience, women have commented a lot on my stamina!
While we are on the subject of women/partners - most (and it's not 100's, sadly!) of the women I've slept with have been intrigued and even liked my circumcised state.
I cannot quite believe the outrageous attempts at justifying circumcision by one or two posters on here, while I can very much vouch for the fact that it doesn't generally impact men in a negative way, that alone is not justification for doing it to child! Any other body part and it would be unlawful......go figure!
Religion is about controlling people, it always has been and always will be. Circumsion is rather depressing part of that ideal.
A very thoughtful and balanced post.Firstly, I should probably state that I am circumcised. Secondly, I have a three year old son, he isn't and never will be circumcised (save medical necessity).
I was chopped as a baby, not for religious or medical reasons as such, but because of some daft notion of preventative maintenance! My father had foreskin problems at 9 years old and was subsequently circumcised. Growing up in the 1980's (UK) I did actually know a couple of other lads my age who had also been chopped for the same 'reasons'. Seems common in the USA albeit now starting to decline (thankfully).
Personally, while I do believe non medicallly necessary circumcision should be outlawed, no ifs no buts, I haven't actually had any negative side effects myself. Much has been said about sensitively on this thread and I have to say, I'm certain that being circumcised reduces feeling down there a little, I can only make a guess on this, as clearly I've never known any different. However, from discussions with friends on such delicate matters! I concluded that I'm probably somewhat less sensitive than they are.
However, it's not all bad news, slightly less sensitive isn't the same as lacking any sensation! From my own experience, women have commented a lot on my stamina!
While we are on the subject of women/partners - most (and it's not 100's, sadly!) of the women I've slept with have been intrigued and even liked my circumcised state.
I cannot quite believe the outrageous attempts at justifying circumcision by one or two posters on here, while I can very much vouch for the fact that it doesn't generally impact men in a negative way, that alone is not justification for doing it to child! Any other body part and it would be unlawful......go figure!
Religion is about controlling people, it always has been and always will be. Circumsion is rather depressing part of that ideal.
My parents thankfully resisted the hospital's desire to have me chopped back in the 60's and I resisted my son's hospital's wishes in the same way in 2002.
I can see zero benefit in having it done unless medically necessary in later life. Most un cut men would not choose to have it done - I've never met one who would want it done.
Can't argue with that, I was about to post something similar but you beat me to it.
del mar said:
Article in the Times.
Iceland is looking at a proposal to ban non medical circumcision, to protect the child's rights.
Seems perfectly reasonable to me, Jews and Muslims are up in arms as that would make their ancient outdated practise illegal.
If they aren't cut at birth, does God strike them down with a lightening bolt?
If at 18 they make the decision to be cut, will God accept them or are they outcast for ever ?
In an era of constant offence, surely we should be able to ban this practise and move forward.
Seems like a good moveIceland is looking at a proposal to ban non medical circumcision, to protect the child's rights.
Seems perfectly reasonable to me, Jews and Muslims are up in arms as that would make their ancient outdated practise illegal.
If they aren't cut at birth, does God strike them down with a lightening bolt?
If at 18 they make the decision to be cut, will God accept them or are they outcast for ever ?
In an era of constant offence, surely we should be able to ban this practise and move forward.
Troubleatmill said:
Islam - Circumcision isn't required, but it is seen as desirable by the members?
Correct - it’s on par with having a beard but shaving the top lip - it is considered good to copy Mohammed (PBUH) but you can be a clean shaven Muslim and you can be an uncircumcised one. Discussed it with local Iman (Sunni) when I converted Just to add - amongst my Muslim relatives, all were older than 11 when they had it done. Not something they would do to a baby
Edited by wisbech on Thursday 22 February 00:38
Having a 6 month old baby boy I can't imagine what has to go through one's mind to say 'yes, lop part of his tallywacker off.' If as an adult I was told that someone else could make a decision about removing part of my penis without my say so I'd be a little more than livid.
Quite why these pathetic little men feel the need to dictate their views on to others I don't know. Much the same as the FGM fans who claim religous, cultural and health reasons for taking a scalpel to little girls. The particularly brain dead argument by some certain individual (s) on here that it helps prevent HIV is risible. Hopefully Iceland do better than the UK with their 0% conviction rate on FGM. The sooner we start locking up those who butcher little babies the better.
Quite why these pathetic little men feel the need to dictate their views on to others I don't know. Much the same as the FGM fans who claim religous, cultural and health reasons for taking a scalpel to little girls. The particularly brain dead argument by some certain individual (s) on here that it helps prevent HIV is risible. Hopefully Iceland do better than the UK with their 0% conviction rate on FGM. The sooner we start locking up those who butcher little babies the better.
CrutyRammers said:
The only reason people do this to their kids, aside from medical interventions, is to indoctrinate them into their particular belief system before theyre old enough to question it. It's the only way religion survives, brainwashing before they're old enough to resist.
That just isn't true. It accounts for the majority of cases in the UK, but not all. Many people circumcise their kids who have no religion, they just believe it's better. Certainly in the USA that was common for years, and still is in many places. Apparently all the men in the royal family are circumcised. So your assertion is just wrong. Circumcision never arose out of religion, religion adopted it. 5% on men are auto circumcised, that is without any operation, their foreskin is permanently retracted, giving the appearance of being circumcised when they are not. It is thought that this is how circumcision started initially, with men liking the look and the ease of use they saw on other auto circumcised men so seeking to emulate it.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
That just isn't true. It accounts for the majority of cases in the UK, but not all. Many people circumcise their kids who have no religion, they just believe it's better. Certainly in the USA that was common for years, and still is in many places. Apparently all the men in the royal family are circumcised. So your assertion is just wrong.
Circumcision never arose out of religion, religion adopted it. 5% on men are auto circumcised, that is without any operation, their foreskin is permanently retracted, giving the appearance of being circumcised when they are not. It is thought that this is how circumcision started initially, with men liking the look and the ease of use they saw on other auto circumcised men so seeking to emulate it.
And is you argument that because of this it is permissible to inflict this on babies? Circumcision never arose out of religion, religion adopted it. 5% on men are auto circumcised, that is without any operation, their foreskin is permanently retracted, giving the appearance of being circumcised when they are not. It is thought that this is how circumcision started initially, with men liking the look and the ease of use they saw on other auto circumcised men so seeking to emulate it.
It is unimportant why people demand this to be done to a child who cannot consent. The sole argument is that it is child abuse. Once a lad is of majority, he should be allowed to do what the hell he wants to it.
Jonmx said:
Having a 6 month old baby boy I can't imagine what has to go through one's mind to say 'yes, lop part of his tallywacker off.' If as an adult I was told that someone else could make a decision about removing part of my penis without my say so I'd be a little more than livid.
Quite why these pathetic little men feel the need to dictate their views on to others I don't know. Much the same as the FGM fans who claim religous, cultural and health reasons for taking a scalpel to little girls. The particularly brain dead argument by some certain individual (s) on here that it helps prevent HIV is risible. Hopefully Iceland do better than the UK with their 0% conviction rate on FGM. The sooner we start locking up those who butcher little babies the better.
Well I see you are just to thick to be able to tell the difference between FGM, which is illegal and serves no purpose and circumcision. For " I can't imagine what has to go through one's mind to say 'yes, lop part of his tallywacker off.' " You could start to imagine it, by imagining what it is like to live in one of the many developed first world countries with good and robust child protection systems, like Canada, Australia or the United States, where circumcision is very common across the population for a variety of cultural, historical and medical reasons. Quite why these pathetic little men feel the need to dictate their views on to others I don't know. Much the same as the FGM fans who claim religous, cultural and health reasons for taking a scalpel to little girls. The particularly brain dead argument by some certain individual (s) on here that it helps prevent HIV is risible. Hopefully Iceland do better than the UK with their 0% conviction rate on FGM. The sooner we start locking up those who butcher little babies the better.
For the many opponents of circumcision on this thread: what are you doing about it?
Do you walk up to people of Jewish or Islamic appearance in the UK and politely ask them to consider changing their views? Do you go to places like Australia or the US, where circumcision is much more common than in the UK, as campaign to stop it? Do you go lobby one of the many UK based charities who work in Africa and lobby them to start opposing circumcision?
Do you walk up to people of Jewish or Islamic appearance in the UK and politely ask them to consider changing their views? Do you go to places like Australia or the US, where circumcision is much more common than in the UK, as campaign to stop it? Do you go lobby one of the many UK based charities who work in Africa and lobby them to start opposing circumcision?
Derek Smith said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
That just isn't true. It accounts for the majority of cases in the UK, but not all. Many people circumcise their kids who have no religion, they just believe it's better. Certainly in the USA that was common for years, and still is in many places. Apparently all the men in the royal family are circumcised. So your assertion is just wrong.
Circumcision never arose out of religion, religion adopted it. 5% on men are auto circumcised, that is without any operation, their foreskin is permanently retracted, giving the appearance of being circumcised when they are not. It is thought that this is how circumcision started initially, with men liking the look and the ease of use they saw on other auto circumcised men so seeking to emulate it.
And is you argument that because of this it is permissible to inflict this on babies? Circumcision never arose out of religion, religion adopted it. 5% on men are auto circumcised, that is without any operation, their foreskin is permanently retracted, giving the appearance of being circumcised when they are not. It is thought that this is how circumcision started initially, with men liking the look and the ease of use they saw on other auto circumcised men so seeking to emulate it.
It is unimportant why people demand this to be done to a child who cannot consent. The sole argument is that it is child abuse. Once a lad is of majority, he should be allowed to do what the hell he wants to it.
If you read thru my posts on this subject, you won't find a single one supporting circumcision on children.
DurianIceCream said:
For the many opponents of circumcision on this thread: what are you doing about it?
Do you walk up to people of Jewish or Islamic appearance in the UK and politely ask them to consider changing their views? Do you go to places like Australia or the US, where circumcision is much more common than in the UK, as campaign to stop it? Do you go lobby one of the many UK based charities who work in Africa and lobby them to start opposing circumcision?
What have you done to protect the freedoms of parents to mutilate their children against their wishes?Do you walk up to people of Jewish or Islamic appearance in the UK and politely ask them to consider changing their views? Do you go to places like Australia or the US, where circumcision is much more common than in the UK, as campaign to stop it? Do you go lobby one of the many UK based charities who work in Africa and lobby them to start opposing circumcision?
TwigtheWonderkid said:
I fail to see how the issue of dealing with FGM and the protection of girls in the future is going to be helped by bringing circumcision to the party.
I find it absolutely mindboggling that anyone is remotely fussed about circumcision in a country where FGM affects thousands of girls. People seem to have lost sight of priorities. It's like people in the USA calling for a ban on catapults, whilst mass shootings continue on a regular basis.
That's just whataboutery. The arguments for and against allowing infant circumcision stand whether FGM is an issue or not. If you want to argue about which is the larger problem and should be dealt with first, an equally irrelevant argument would be to ask which affects the greater number of people.I find it absolutely mindboggling that anyone is remotely fussed about circumcision in a country where FGM affects thousands of girls. People seem to have lost sight of priorities. It's like people in the USA calling for a ban on catapults, whilst mass shootings continue on a regular basis.
Both issues come down to the same fundamental question of whether the sincerely held beliefs and cultural practices of the parents trump the human rights of the child. The difference is of degree and not of kind. For instance, I think if you decide to allow circumcision on those grounds, it is hard to justify criminalising the analogous form of FGM (cutting of the clitoral hood only).
WinstonWolf said:
DurianIceCream said:
For the many opponents of circumcision on this thread: what are you doing about it?
Do you walk up to people of Jewish or Islamic appearance in the UK and politely ask them to consider changing their views? Do you go to places like Australia or the US, where circumcision is much more common than in the UK, as campaign to stop it? Do you go lobby one of the many UK based charities who work in Africa and lobby them to start opposing circumcision?
What have you done to protect the freedoms of parents to mutilate their children against their wishes?Do you walk up to people of Jewish or Islamic appearance in the UK and politely ask them to consider changing their views? Do you go to places like Australia or the US, where circumcision is much more common than in the UK, as campaign to stop it? Do you go lobby one of the many UK based charities who work in Africa and lobby them to start opposing circumcision?
It's probably quite ironic that whilst I've actually done stuff towards battling FGM over the years, people who have attacked me on this thread have almost certainly done sweet f
k all in respect of FGM or circumcision. But such is life, empty vessels make the most noise.
DurianIceCream said:
For the many opponents of circumcision on this thread: what are you doing about it??
Be careful what you wish for! Only political correctness stands in the way of reform here, I for one would definitely sign one of those 'change' petitions should I see one on this issue. Parents have no 'right' to amputate any other part of their child's body, adults can quite rightly decide what they wish to do with their own body so let's ban circumcision for under 18's (save for medical reasons for all you pedants out there!)
Raping your wife used to be acceptable and indeed lawful in this country. Times and attitudes change. Thankfully.
yellowtang said:
Raping your wife used to be acceptable and indeed lawful in this country. Times and attitudes change. Thankfully.
Nonsense. Lawful does not equal acceptable. The issue was that a marriage certificate was proof of consent under law, not that it was acceptable to rape your spouse.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff