Iceland to ban circumcision
Discussion
Another day another circumcision thread.
Let's first address the strawman WHO and American Pediatrics.
The WHO recommendation is based on a study and applies to countries in Sub-saharan Africa, where availability of condoms and educational levels are fairly low.
More details available here on WHO site under
As for AAP;
Their members have huge financial reason to push for circumcision as the cost (from memory) is between $1000 to $3000. Even taking that into account this is what they have to say;
Let's first address the strawman WHO and American Pediatrics.
The WHO recommendation is based on a study and applies to countries in Sub-saharan Africa, where availability of condoms and educational levels are fairly low.
More details available here on WHO site under
WHO said:
A framework for voluntary medical male circumcision; Effective HIV prevention and a gateway to improved adolescent boys’ & men’s health in eastern and southern Africa by 2021
To use that as any sort of justification for circumcision of newborns in the West, is downright idiotic, but not surprising given the source.As for AAP;
Their members have huge financial reason to push for circumcision as the cost (from memory) is between $1000 to $3000. Even taking that into account this is what they have to say;
AAP said:
After a comprehensive review of the scientific evidence, the American Academy of Pediatrics found the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks, but the benefits are not great enough to recommend universal newborn circumcision. The AAP policy statement published Monday, August 27, says the final decision should still be left to parents to make in the context of their religious, ethical and cultural beliefs.
The problem with circumcision is that it's perpetuated by people who had it done to themselves, and can't admit that who someone close to them done was nothing but the best decision ever. Luckily, there are enough of smart, brave people, who are looking to break the chain of inflicting pain on newborns, just because it was done to them. TwigtheWonderkid said:
For anyone actually interested in doing something as oppose to just being a keyboard warrior, can I point you in the direction of Action Aid, who are a specific charity involved in girls' welfare and do great work in the ongoing fight against FGM.
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.
People have ''attacked'' (and I'm using the term loosely here) you because every reply you've made has referenced FGM in a thread specifically about Iceland banning circumcision. It's not the zero sum game that you seem weirdly convinced that it is. 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.
yellowtang said:
Raping your wife used to be acceptable and indeed lawful in this country. Times and attitudes change. Thankfully.
Now that's a very interesting analogy.How many convictions have there been for rape within marriage? And have husbands who for years raped their wives stopped doing so now it's illegal?
People who opposed making rape within marriage illegal didn't support rape in marriage, or think it was a good thing. They were concerned that rape was a difficult thing to prosecute anyway, and rape within marriage would be even more so. Also that the time that would go into investigating rape within marriage, only for the CPS to not press charges anyway, would detract from investigating other rapes where a conviction could be more likely. So that overall criminalising it would not be in the best interests of dealing with rape in general.
The almost non existent conviction rate for rape in marriage may well indicate that they had a point.
jjlynn27 said:
The problem with circumcision is that it's perpetuated by people who had it done to themselves, and can't admit that who someone close to them done was nothing but the best decision ever. Luckily, there are enough of smart, brave people, who are looking to break the chain of inflicting pain on newborns, just because it was done to them.
You can be against both male and female circumcision fine - the issue I have is that FGM is not in anyway equal to male circumcision. To put the both together is to belittle FGM as it is far more damaging. It is a false equivalence argument and only serves to weaken the objections to FGM.An outright ban on all circumcision is not practical as it is necessary in some medical cases (personal experience - I was not a baby at the time and still have scarring - it would have been better if I had been a baby) and hence FGM would sneak in under medical reasons (if the ban is not specific enough to highlight the differences) .
Jinx said:
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.
Nonsense. Rape of your wife used to be perfectly acceptable to many men, until the 20th century when attitudes started to change and the issue then became one of the difficulties in proving rape within marriage. Ultimately society demanded an end to this 'loophole' despite the difficulties in enforcing it. We are drifting slightly off topic here, but I think parallels with circumcision of minors can be drawn to some extent.
As you were!
Jinx said:
jjlynn27 said:
The problem with circumcision is that it's perpetuated by people who had it done to themselves, and can't admit that who someone close to them done was nothing but the best decision ever. Luckily, there are enough of smart, brave people, who are looking to break the chain of inflicting pain on newborns, just because it was done to them.
You can be against both male and female circumcision fine - the issue I have is that FGM is not in anyway equal to male circumcision. To put the both together is to belittle FGM as it is far more damaging. It is a false equivalence argument and only serves to weaken the objections to FGM.The reason why FGM is no longer called female circumcision is because the term female circumcision gave it an air of legitimacy and harmlessness that it doesn't deserve.
Unfortunately this is being undone by people referring to circumcision as MGM.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Jinx said:
jjlynn27 said:
The problem with circumcision is that it's perpetuated by people who had it done to themselves, and can't admit that who someone close to them done was nothing but the best decision ever. Luckily, there are enough of smart, brave people, who are looking to break the chain of inflicting pain on newborns, just because it was done to them.
You can be against both male and female circumcision fine - the issue I have is that FGM is not in anyway equal to male circumcision. To put the both together is to belittle FGM as it is far more damaging. It is a false equivalence argument and only serves to weaken the objections to FGM.The reason why FGM is no longer called female circumcision is because the term female circumcision gave it an air of legitimacy and harmlessness that it doesn't deserve.
yellowtang said:
Nonsense. Rape of your wife used to be perfectly acceptable to many men, until the 20th century when attitudes started to change and the issue then became one of the difficulties in proving rape within marriage. Ultimately society demanded an end to this 'loophole' despite the difficulties in enforcing it.
We are drifting slightly off topic here, but I think parallels with circumcision of minors can be drawn to some extent.
As you were!
Around back then were you? You have a strange opinion on how law works and what society is. Society doesn't change people - people are society and they change society. So no I sincerely doubt rape within marriage was "perfectly acceptable to many men" - some men maybe - but then some men are rapists irrespective of marital status.We are drifting slightly off topic here, but I think parallels with circumcision of minors can be drawn to some extent.
As you were!
DurianIceCream said:
For the many opponents of circumcision on this thread: what are you doing about it?
Well at last you have posted something worthwhile, interesting that when I suggested people write to their MP you ridiculed the idea.To answer your question directly, I pledge to write to my MP and try and figure out how to start one of those online petition thingys.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Now that's a very interesting analogy.
How many convictions have there been for rape within marriage? And have husbands who for years raped their wives stopped doing so now it's illegal?
People who opposed making rape within marriage illegal didn't support rape in marriage, or think it was a good thing. They were concerned that rape was a difficult thing to prosecute anyway, and rape within marriage would be even more so. Also that the time that would go into investigating rape within marriage, only for the CPS to not press charges anyway, would detract from investigating other rapes where a conviction could be more likely. So that overall criminalising it would not be in the best interests of dealing with rape in general.
The almost non existent conviction rate for rape in marriage may well indicate that they had a point.
On that premise, should we stop any investigation into FGM?How many convictions have there been for rape within marriage? And have husbands who for years raped their wives stopped doing so now it's illegal?
People who opposed making rape within marriage illegal didn't support rape in marriage, or think it was a good thing. They were concerned that rape was a difficult thing to prosecute anyway, and rape within marriage would be even more so. Also that the time that would go into investigating rape within marriage, only for the CPS to not press charges anyway, would detract from investigating other rapes where a conviction could be more likely. So that overall criminalising it would not be in the best interests of dealing with rape in general.
The almost non existent conviction rate for rape in marriage may well indicate that they had a point.
As for posters a" attacking you" f
king grow up.Edited for the sole purpose of informing TTWK , that the above is meant
as advice, not as an attack.
Edited by gooner1 on Thursday 22 February 10:55
gooner1 said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Now that's a very interesting analogy.
How many convictions have there been for rape within marriage? And have husbands who for years raped their wives stopped doing so now it's illegal?
People who opposed making rape within marriage illegal didn't support rape in marriage, or think it was a good thing. They were concerned that rape was a difficult thing to prosecute anyway, and rape within marriage would be even more so. Also that the time that would go into investigating rape within marriage, only for the CPS to not press charges anyway, would detract from investigating other rapes where a conviction could be more likely. So that overall criminalising it would not be in the best interests of dealing with rape in general.
The almost non existent conviction rate for rape in marriage may well indicate that they had a point.
On that premise, should we stop any investigation into FGM?How many convictions have there been for rape within marriage? And have husbands who for years raped their wives stopped doing so now it's illegal?
People who opposed making rape within marriage illegal didn't support rape in marriage, or think it was a good thing. They were concerned that rape was a difficult thing to prosecute anyway, and rape within marriage would be even more so. Also that the time that would go into investigating rape within marriage, only for the CPS to not press charges anyway, would detract from investigating other rapes where a conviction could be more likely. So that overall criminalising it would not be in the best interests of dealing with rape in general.
The almost non existent conviction rate for rape in marriage may well indicate that they had a point.
As for posters a" attacking you" f
king grow up.Edited for the sole purpose of informing TTWK , that the above is meant
as advice, not as an attack.
Edited by gooner1 on Thursday 22 February 10:55
Keyboard warriors, talking the talk online, whilst doing nothing in real life....the world's full of them.
jjlynn27 said:
Their members have huge financial reason to push for circumcision as the cost (from memory) is between $1000 to $3000. Even taking that into account this is what they have to say;
Your costs are out by almost a factor of 10. The reason it is cheap is that the procedure, even when performed by a regulated and insured medical professional, is trivial. Jinx said:
You can be against both male and female circumcision fine - the issue I have is that FGM is not in anyway equal to male circumcision. To put the both together is to belittle FGM as it is far more damaging. It is a false equivalence argument and only serves to weaken the objections to FGM.
An outright ban on all circumcision is not practical as it is necessary in some medical cases (personal experience - I was not a baby at the time and still have scarring - it would have been better if I had been a baby) and hence FGM would sneak in under medical reasons (if the ban is not specific enough to highlight the differences) .
Not sure why would you reply to my post with that, given that I didn't mention FGM at all. How bizarre.An outright ban on all circumcision is not practical as it is necessary in some medical cases (personal experience - I was not a baby at the time and still have scarring - it would have been better if I had been a baby) and hence FGM would sneak in under medical reasons (if the ban is not specific enough to highlight the differences) .
gooner1 said:
On that premise, should we stop any investigation into FGM?
As for posters a" attacking you" fking grow up.
The effort into stopping FGM, is bluntly woeful and pathetic. Infact if anyone was minded to carry out FGM, they may actually be encouraged and emboldened by the now well published woeful response. As for posters a" attacking you" f
king grow up.Adding circumcision, which is harmless, to FGM, which does serious harm really cheapens the FGM problem and leads me to conclude that most of the people on this thread have their head jammed up their backside - C.A.M. Clueless Ass Mutilation.
DurianIceCream said:
gooner1 said:
On that premise, should we stop any investigation into FGM?
As for posters a" attacking you" fking grow up.
The effort into stopping FGM, is bluntly woeful and pathetic. Infact if anyone was minded to carry out FGM, they may actually be encouraged and emboldened by the now well published woeful response. As for posters a" attacking you" f
king grow up.Adding circumcision, which is harmless, to FGM, which does serious harm really cheapens the FGM problem and leads me to conclude that most of the people on this thread have their head jammed up their backside - C.A.M. Clueless Ass Mutilation.
However, both are unnecessary,in this day and age, except perhaps in some medical instance.
It either are carried out on infants, they are done without consent of the child.
What is the problem with waiting for the child to be able to give his consent, not refering to FGM here, as obviously abhorrent at any age, and then performing circumcision?
Muslims, from what we hear from a poster of the Muslim faith, don't seem to have a problem with that idea. So why do others?
gooner1 said:
If you mean people are comparing the physical , or mental, effects of FGM and Circumcision, then I concede that is a fair point.
However, both are unnecessary,in this day and age, except perhaps in some medical instance.
It either are carried out on infants, they are done without consent of the child.
What is the problem with waiting for the child to be able to give his consent, not refering to FGM here, as obviously abhorrent at any age, and then performing circumcision?
Muslims, from what we hear from a poster of the Muslim faith, don't seem to have a problem with that idea. So why do others?
Good post Gooner. However, both are unnecessary,in this day and age, except perhaps in some medical instance.
It either are carried out on infants, they are done without consent of the child.
What is the problem with waiting for the child to be able to give his consent, not refering to FGM here, as obviously abhorrent at any age, and then performing circumcision?
Muslims, from what we hear from a poster of the Muslim faith, don't seem to have a problem with that idea. So why do others?
I suspect that the issue with waiting until adulthood is simply that most muslims/Jews know that they then wouldn't be prepared to go through with it. Which is, let's face it, rather telling!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff