Iceland to ban circumcision
Discussion
DurianIceCream said:
Circumcision reduces the rate of sexual HIV transmission by well over half. It is very effective in saving lives in high HIV prevalence countries. Or you could say it is very effective in reducing the significant cost of proving HIV antiretroviral drugs to thousands or millions of people over their lifetime, because they did not contract HIV to start with.
Well it’s a good job Iceland isn’t a high prevalence country isn’t it. Unless a doctor determines it necessary for the ongoing health of the child removing or modifying any part of a childs body is completely wrong and beyond stupid. Let them make that decision when they get older.
As for people arguing it’s an important part of their “culture”... if your culture involves mutilating babies it deserves to die out and has no place in a modern society. Thank you Iceland for proving that common sense can prevail over superstition and monumental stupidity.
Shiv_P said:
I have had a medical circumcision a couple of years ago and can understand why they would ban but surely if when older an adult wishes to be circumcised this should be allowable?
I believe the proposal only applies to children. I’d imagine they’d let adults do whatever they want to themselves, they’re a pretty liberal bunch generally!DurianIceCream said:
An exceptionally moronic response well worthy of someone dumb enough to tout out the savages line in your first post.
You have not quoted the article in the BMJ. You have quoted a response, by a single person, to an article about various things related to HIV. That person who made the response was a member of an organisation called "Doctors Opposing Circumcision". Do you think this would be a peer reviewed and objective response, having come from a doctor "Opposing Circumcision"
The reduction in transmission rates in people who are circumcised is well documented. You could start with the WHO advice here:
http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/
Or this link to 40 peer-reviewed studies here:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11273...
That's just tickety-boo then.You have not quoted the article in the BMJ. You have quoted a response, by a single person, to an article about various things related to HIV. That person who made the response was a member of an organisation called "Doctors Opposing Circumcision". Do you think this would be a peer reviewed and objective response, having come from a doctor "Opposing Circumcision"
The reduction in transmission rates in people who are circumcised is well documented. You could start with the WHO advice here:
http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/
Or this link to 40 peer-reviewed studies here:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11273...
Let's mutilate the cock of everyone in the world so that George Agdgdgwengo can have unprotected anal sex with a Gambian prostitute and have a slightly lower chance of contracting HIV.
Great!
I understand that you have taken offence because your tribe (whichever they may be) practices the ritualistic mutilation of boys. It takes an extremely strong sense of identity to push back against the beliefs that have been forced upon you from, I expect, a young age. After all it is far easier to carry on practising the norm than to take a step back and actually consider that what has been carried out for centuries under many guises (covenant with god/cleanliness/so he looks like Daddy) is in fact one of the most egregious violations of childrens rights in all of history.
gooner1 said:
DurianIceCream.
I'll try again.
If an infant male is passing on Or contracting Hiv,
Would this not be through the actions of an adult, and how
would circumcision prevent this?
The efficacy of circumcision in reducing HIV infection during sex is well documented. I'd say these studies have been performed on adults, so I can't help with the answer to your question. It would obviously be illegal and unethical to perform any such study on children. I'll try again.
If an infant male is passing on Or contracting Hiv,
Would this not be through the actions of an adult, and how
would circumcision prevent this?
I am sorry that the efficacy of circumcision in preventing what is often a fatal infection seems to bother you and bother others, perhaps because you are deeply disturbed that something so 'barbaric' or 'savage' could prevent you from dying of AIDS, or prevent you or your countries health service from having to spend $400,000 over your lifetime to manage HIV infection. Perhaps we should just up our aid budget to high HIV prevalence countries to compensate for increased HIV infection rates while simultaneously making that aid conditional on them banning circumcision - would that work for you?
Dromedary66 said:
That's just tickety-boo then.
Let's mutilate the cock of everyone in the world so that George Agdgdgwengo can have unprotected anal sex with a Gambian prostitute and have a slightly lower chance of contracting HIV.
Great!
I understand that you have taken offence because your tribe (whichever they may be) practices the ritualistic mutilation of boys. It takes an extremely strong sense of identity to push back against the beliefs that have been forced upon you from, I expect, a young age. After all it is far easier to carry on practising the norm than to take a step back and actually consider that what has been carried out for centuries under many guises (covenant with god/cleanliness/so he looks like Daddy) is in fact one of the most egregious violations of childrens rights in all of history.
fLet's mutilate the cock of everyone in the world so that George Agdgdgwengo can have unprotected anal sex with a Gambian prostitute and have a slightly lower chance of contracting HIV.
Great!
I understand that you have taken offence because your tribe (whichever they may be) practices the ritualistic mutilation of boys. It takes an extremely strong sense of identity to push back against the beliefs that have been forced upon you from, I expect, a young age. After all it is far easier to carry on practising the norm than to take a step back and actually consider that what has been carried out for centuries under many guises (covenant with god/cleanliness/so he looks like Daddy) is in fact one of the most egregious violations of childrens rights in all of history.
k your are stupid. What fking contempt for most of the developing world your have. You are even mocking their funny names. You think it is fking funny to write "George Agdgdgwengo"? Leptons said:
It’s the male equivalent, simple as.
Not at all. Male circumcision is normally either done for medical reasons when not for religious reasons at a few weeks old. It has no effect on sexual performance or capability and is a low risk operation.FGM is never required for medical reasons. It is a major operation, removing all or part of the external genitalia. It has a severe effect on sexual capability, and can lead to severe complications in childbirth.
The male equivalent of FGM would be removing 2cm from the end of your penis at 6 years old. With an old razor blade, no anaesthetic.
DurianIceCream said:
gooner1 said:
DurianIceCream.
I'll try again.
If an infant male is passing on Or contracting Hiv,
Would this not be through the actions of an adult, and how
would circumcision prevent this?
The efficacy of circumcision in reducing HIV infection during sex is well documented. I'd say these studies have been performed on adults, so I can't help with the answer to your question. It would obviously be illegal and unethical to perform any such study on children. I'll try again.
If an infant male is passing on Or contracting Hiv,
Would this not be through the actions of an adult, and how
would circumcision prevent this?
I am sorry that the efficacy of circumcision in preventing what is often a fatal infection seems to bother you and bother others, perhaps because you are deeply disturbed that something so 'barbaric' or 'savage' could prevent you from dying of AIDS, or prevent you or your countries health service from having to spend $400,000 over your lifetime to manage HIV infection. Perhaps we should just up our aid budget to high HIV prevalence countries to compensate for increased HIV infection rates while simultaneously making that aid conditional on them banning circumcision - would that work for you?
The second one is total b
ks and does not relate to anything I've written, asked or even thought. We are not discussing the rights of sexually ready, or active males.The subject is the circumcision of infants, for which you obviously have no legitimate
objection to. Hence your pathetic attempt at deflection.
They aren’t proposing to ban circumcision they are proposing banning it if the person being snipped is under the age of consent
So preventable HIV is not an argument to keep it. That can be done once the man reaches age of consent - which is also when they can start being sexually active
Personally I would also ban ear piercing without consent as well (my father refused to let my sisters have their ears pierced until they were 16)
I converted to Islam, and did not get snipped. It isn’t one of the 5 pillars of Islam- it counts as a good to have, not a necessity
So preventable HIV is not an argument to keep it. That can be done once the man reaches age of consent - which is also when they can start being sexually active
Personally I would also ban ear piercing without consent as well (my father refused to let my sisters have their ears pierced until they were 16)
I converted to Islam, and did not get snipped. It isn’t one of the 5 pillars of Islam- it counts as a good to have, not a necessity
DurianIceCream said:
An exceptionally moronic response well worthy of someone dumb enough to tout out the savages line in your first post.
You have not quoted the article in the BMJ. You have quoted a response, by a single person, to an article about various things related to HIV. That person who made the response was a member of an organisation called "Doctors Opposing Circumcision". Do you think this would be a peer reviewed and objective response, having come from a doctor "Opposing Circumcision"
The reduction in transmission rates in people who are circumcised is well documented. You could start with the WHO advice here:
http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/
Or this link to 40 peer-reviewed studies here:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11273...
Would you cut your baby daughter's tits off to make sure she never gets breast cancer?You have not quoted the article in the BMJ. You have quoted a response, by a single person, to an article about various things related to HIV. That person who made the response was a member of an organisation called "Doctors Opposing Circumcision". Do you think this would be a peer reviewed and objective response, having come from a doctor "Opposing Circumcision"
The reduction in transmission rates in people who are circumcised is well documented. You could start with the WHO advice here:
http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/
Or this link to 40 peer-reviewed studies here:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11273...
A country with an Islamic population of like a 1000 people out of over 300k (I do not know the jewish population) is going to ban circumcision on religious grounds.
The only thing this will do is either, push it underground where it is not regulated and done by either dodgy clerics in a dark room behind the mosque or doctors on the take, which will make it hugely expensive or simply people will go abroad and have it done.
The only thing this will do is either, push it underground where it is not regulated and done by either dodgy clerics in a dark room behind the mosque or doctors on the take, which will make it hugely expensive or simply people will go abroad and have it done.
WolfAir said:
A country with an Islamic population of like a 1000 people out of over 300k (I do not know the jewish population) is going to ban circumcision on religious grounds.
The only thing this will do is either, push it underground where it is not regulated and done by either dodgy clerics in a dark room behind the mosque or doctors on the take, which will make it hugely expensive or simply people will go abroad and have it done.
That’s not an argument against banning something just an argument for ensuring that the punishment is suitably severe.The only thing this will do is either, push it underground where it is not regulated and done by either dodgy clerics in a dark room behind the mosque or doctors on the take, which will make it hugely expensive or simply people will go abroad and have it done.
The ban is not on religious grounds, it applies to all, it’s on human rights grounds. It just so happens that it’s two religious groups in Iceland that practice the ritual mutilation of children at birth for no decent medical reason. Surprise surprise. Human rights trump religious freedom in Iceland, a great day.
Edited by djc206 on Wednesday 21st February 06:51
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff