Iceland to ban circumcision
Discussion
The Surveyor said:
so if it isn't broke don't fix it, unless it relates to something you don't agree with in which case you want the practice banned... 
It is broke though. People are cutting bits off babies for no logical or medical reason, that is broken.It’s not about disagreeing. Seriously put everything to one side for a second and just think about why you would even consider removing a babies foreskin. Its such an illogical and unnecessary action.
yellowtang said:
Can you really not see why most of us on this thread have an issue with circumcision of babies who cannot give consent?
....
This thread isn't really about people supporting babies rights, it's a general objection to a cultural practice that people don't like. ....
The parents give the consent, based on their beliefs and cultural heritage, and its a practice that is permitted and has been permitted for centuries. It isn't less-safe than before infact the opposite is the case and it's seen (rightly or wrongly) within that culture as a right of passage into that specific culture which sets the values under which the child will develop.
There is an increasing culture of pulling apart traditions and traditional values whether that's respect for elders, the law enforcement, politicians, teachers, parents or religion and we are seeing in the feeble and useless millennial snow-flakes that that isn't necessarily a good thing.
The Surveyor said:
This thread isn't really about people supporting babies rights, it's a general objection to a cultural practice that people don't like.
No, it really is just about the kids. No one is saying ban circumcision, simply delay it until the child is old enough to make their own mind up.The Surveyor said:
This thread isn't really about people supporting babies rights, it's a general objection to a cultural practice that people don't like.
The parents give the consent, based on their beliefs and cultural heritage, and its a practice that is permitted and has been permitted for centuries. It isn't less-safe than before infact the opposite is the case and it's seen (rightly or wrongly) within that culture as a right of passage into that specific culture which sets the values under which the child will develop.
There is an increasing culture of pulling apart traditions and traditional values whether that's respect for elders, the law enforcement, politicians, teachers, parents or religion and we are seeing in the feeble and useless millennial snow-flakes that that isn't necessarily a good thing.
With all due respect the beliefs and heritage of the parents are utterly meaningless. Every human deserves rights regardless of the beliefs of their parents and the idea that we make exceptions for religious or traditional reasons is enormously frustrating and illogical. Removing a part of the body of a child that can’t consent for non medical reasons is just silly, unnecessary and if we are ever to progress as a race we need to challenge such actions. It’s not for me/us to justify a ban on mutilating children it’s up to you to justify why you think it’s ok to remove the body parts of babies. Give us one good reason why you should continue to be allowed to do it because in this 20 page thread not one good reason has been given. That it’s happened for millenia is not a sound argument, we’ve done lots of stupid sThe parents give the consent, based on their beliefs and cultural heritage, and its a practice that is permitted and has been permitted for centuries. It isn't less-safe than before infact the opposite is the case and it's seen (rightly or wrongly) within that culture as a right of passage into that specific culture which sets the values under which the child will develop.
There is an increasing culture of pulling apart traditions and traditional values whether that's respect for elders, the law enforcement, politicians, teachers, parents or religion and we are seeing in the feeble and useless millennial snow-flakes that that isn't necessarily a good thing.
t as a race in our time, cutting off foreskins is yet another example of such stupidity.You reference snowflakes but the funny thing is in an increasingly agnostic/atheist world the only thing allowing religious groups to continue doing the things they do that contradict the sensitivies of the majority of society is that snowflakes are scared of offending anyone by challenging such actions.
The Surveyor said:
This thread isn't really about people supporting babies rights, it's a general objection to a cultural practice that people don't like
This thread is very clearly all about a general objection to a cultural practise that ignores the rights of male children. Parents don't have power over their children's rights, they only have responsibilities.
djc206 said:
With all due respect the beliefs and heritage of the parents are utterly meaningless. Every human deserves rights regardless of the beliefs of their parents and the idea that we make exceptions for religious or traditional reasons is enormously frustrating and illogical. Removing a part of the body of a child that can’t consent for non medical reasons is just silly, unnecessary and if we are ever to progress as a race we need to challenge such actions. It’s not for me/us to justify a ban on mutilating children it’s up to you to justify why you think it’s ok to remove the body parts of babies. Give us one good reason why you should continue to be allowed to do it because in this 20 page thread not one good reason has been given. That it’s happened for millenia is not a sound argument, we’ve done lots of stupid st as a race in our time, cutting off foreskins is yet another example of such stupidity.
You reference snowflakes but the funny thing is in an increasingly agnostic/atheist world the only thing allowing religious groups to continue doing the things they do that contradict the sensitivies of the majority of society is that snowflakes are scared of offending anyone by challenging such actions.
Top post! t as a race in our time, cutting off foreskins is yet another example of such stupidity.You reference snowflakes but the funny thing is in an increasingly agnostic/atheist world the only thing allowing religious groups to continue doing the things they do that contradict the sensitivies of the majority of society is that snowflakes are scared of offending anyone by challenging such actions.
The Surveyor said:
This thread isn't really about people supporting babies rights, it's a general objection to a cultural practice that people don't like.
The parents give the consent, based on their beliefs and cultural heritage, and its a practice that is permitted and has been permitted for centuries. It isn't less-safe than before infact the opposite is the case and it's seen (rightly or wrongly) within that culture as a right of passage into that specific culture which sets the values under which the child will develop.
There is an increasing culture of pulling apart traditions and traditional values whether that's respect for elders, the law enforcement, politicians, teachers, parents or religion and we are seeing in the feeble and useless millennial snow-flakes that that isn't necessarily a good thing.
Damn those millennial snowflakes and their fondness for foreskins! The parents give the consent, based on their beliefs and cultural heritage, and its a practice that is permitted and has been permitted for centuries. It isn't less-safe than before infact the opposite is the case and it's seen (rightly or wrongly) within that culture as a right of passage into that specific culture which sets the values under which the child will develop.
There is an increasing culture of pulling apart traditions and traditional values whether that's respect for elders, the law enforcement, politicians, teachers, parents or religion and we are seeing in the feeble and useless millennial snow-flakes that that isn't necessarily a good thing.
johnfm said:
(stuff, followed by a psychological assessment via the anonymous internet)
You clearly overestimate your intellectual prowess and, when challenged, once again resort to abuse and insult. Classic Dunning-Kruger. Probably an IQ of 105-110 under the misapprehension that you're in the 130s.
Top work. Have you considered a career in psychology? Consultant psychologists are paid quite well, esp good ones, such as those that are able to perform a quite detailed assessment via an internet forum. You clearly overestimate your intellectual prowess and, when challenged, once again resort to abuse and insult. Classic Dunning-Kruger. Probably an IQ of 105-110 under the misapprehension that you're in the 130s.
Anyway, amongst your ramble, I note you did not address how you reconcile your views that circumcision is so wrong, with your view in your other thread that instead of punishing criminals via the established judicial and rehabilitation system, that we instead should scar their faces with acid?
Sway said:
Where are these Rabbi/Imam conducted procedures carried out? Is there a formal training and licensing structure in place?
How about approved sterilisation methods and processes?
Just to be clear, it absolutely is about the babies. How about approved sterilisation methods and processes?
Someone went into length about the challenging of cultural practices, heavily implying that questioning circumcision had contributed to a degredation of morals, etc.
Also stating that it's never been safer - yet I note no one answered this post...
The two posters who have relayed their experiences of this ceremony give the impression the religious cutting is not a back street practice, but a front room one, conducted by an untrained bloke with no analgesia or requirement for sterilisation, etc.
Is that really the case? Or are there courses for rabbis to go on, and the ceremony is conducted in a licensed premises with audited hygiene measures?
After all, that's a legal requirement for a tattooist. As are age limits.
Sway said:
The two posters who have relayed their experiences of this ceremony give the impression the religious cutting is not a back street practice, but a front room one, conducted by an untrained bloke with no analgesia or requirement for sterilisation, etc.
Most of the anti-circumcision posters on this thread take the absolutist view, that circumcision not for an immediate medical need is absolutely bad. Your question is a side topic for this, because you could make a circumcision procedure as sterile as it is possible to make it, but I suspect you still would not like it.
DurianIceCream said:
Most of the anti-circumcision posters on this thread take the absolutist view, that circumcision not for an immediate medical need is absolutely bad.
No they don't. The vast majority are making the case that it should be left until the child is old enough to decide for themselves.You refuse to accept this because you are unable to rebut the argument that is being made, rather than the argument you wish was being made.
amusingduck said:
DurianIceCream said:
Most of the anti-circumcision posters on this thread take the absolutist view, that circumcision not for an immediate medical need is absolutely bad.
No they don't. The vast majority are making the case that it should be left until the child is old enough to decide for themselves.You refuse to accept this because you are unable to rebut the argument that is being made, rather than the argument you wish was being made.
circumcision is fine if it’s the person’s own choice. I’m not aware of anyone on here saying otherwise.WinstonWolf said:
amusingduck said:
DurianIceCream said:
Most of the anti-circumcision posters on this thread take the absolutist view, that circumcision not for an immediate medical need is absolutely bad.
No they don't. The vast majority are making the case that it should be left until the child is old enough to decide for themselves.You refuse to accept this because you are unable to rebut the argument that is being made, rather than the argument you wish was being made.
circumcision is fine if it’s the person’s own choice. I’m not aware of anyone on here saying otherwise.
DurianIceCream said:
Most of the anti-circumcision posters on this thread take the absolutist view, that circumcision not for an immediate medical need is absolutely bad.
Your question is a side topic for this, because you could make a circumcision procedure as sterile as it is possible to make it, but I suspect you still would not like it.
I’m rather indifferent to my foreskin and I don’t think circumcision is necessarily bad. I just think that no one has the right to remove or modify a body part of a minor unless out of necessity. As an adult crack on and do what you want to your own body, it’s yours and only yours. Your question is a side topic for this, because you could make a circumcision procedure as sterile as it is possible to make it, but I suspect you still would not like it.
You seem to take the absolutist view that the foreskin is bad and should be removed at the earliest opportunity. Why is that?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff