Iceland to ban circumcision
Discussion
Troubleatmill said:
But there are no medical benefits for the child.
Why not let the child decide when they are an adult?
You haven't come close to answering this one.
Because it is within the scope of what is reasonable for parents to decide for their children. Why not let the child decide when they are an adult?
You haven't come close to answering this one.
If it was a major procedure or had negative health effects, I would think differently. But it is a minor procedure and has mildly positive effects.
DurianIceCream said:
Troubleatmill said:
But there are no medical benefits for the child.
Why not let the child decide when they are an adult?
You haven't come close to answering this one.
Because it is within the scope of what is reasonable for parents to decide for their children. Why not let the child decide when they are an adult?
You haven't come close to answering this one.
If it was a major procedure or had negative health effects, I would think differently. But it is a minor procedure and has mildly positive effects.
Troubleatmill said:
You have not named a single positive benefit for the child.
I just do not think you understand the concept that we do not agree. Telling me I'm wrong with slightly different words each time is not going to change this. Not being able to agree on things is hardly unique to the subject of circumcision. DurianIceCream said:
As for why, I've already stated that several times, it is just beyond your comprehension to accept a view which is in conflict with your own: circumcision is within the things which are reasonable for parents to decide for infant children and the procedure also has mild medical benefits.
Circumcision is not within the realm of reasonable things for a parent to decide for an infant, nor does it have any medical benefit for that child. What is it about doing it to a child that gets you so excited? If you were in favour of circumcision for the benefits it may have to the adult then surely you would be OK with allowing that individual to make a decision in later life when those alleged benefits can be reaped.
Why does it have to be done to a child? For me that's the heart of the matter.
DurianIceCream said:
Because it is within the scope of what is reasonable for parents to decide for their children.
If it was a major procedure or had negative health effects, I would think differently. But it is a minor procedure and has mildly positive effects.
Where are your personal limits for what falls within what is reasonable for parents to decide?If it was a major procedure or had negative health effects, I would think differently. But it is a minor procedure and has mildly positive effects.
Are tattoos reasonable? Piercings? Any other kind of body modification that you find acceptable for a parent to decide?
DurianIceCream said:
Troubleatmill said:
You have not named a single positive benefit for the child.
I just do not think you understand the concept that we do not agree. Telling me I'm wrong with slightly different words each time is not going to change this. Not being able to agree on things is hardly unique to the subject of circumcision. You have come on this forum quite vigorously defending the practice saying it is beneficial for the child.
But you cannot even list a single benefit.
Which takes us back to page 1 - where the human rights of the child should be to ensure they are not having unnecessary medical procedures.
And you have retreated to "I believe it is the right of Mum & Dad to decide.. so there"
I think you just argued my case for me.
[quote
Why does it have to be done to a child? For me that's the heart of the matter.
[/quote]
Because a baby cannot object or articulate his feeling of pain/terror other than screaming and crying. Which lets face it, is easily ignored by some people.
Anyway, when brainwashing people into your particular brand of cult, it's best to get in early.
Edited because punctuation matters!
Why does it have to be done to a child? For me that's the heart of the matter.
[/quote]
Because a baby cannot object or articulate his feeling of pain/terror other than screaming and crying. Which lets face it, is easily ignored by some people.
Anyway, when brainwashing people into your particular brand of cult, it's best to get in early.
Edited because punctuation matters!
Edited by yellowtang on Friday 23 February 15:55
yellowtang said:
Because a baby cannot object or articulate his feeling of pain/terror other than screaming and crying. Which lets face it is easily ignored by some people.
Anyway, when brainwashing people into your particular brand of cult, its best to get in early.
Also, don't forget "I wasn't given the choice and I'll be damned if I'm giving my kids the choice! fAnyway, when brainwashing people into your particular brand of cult, its best to get in early.
k their rights!"DurianIceCream said:
Because it is within the scope of what is reasonable for parents to decide for their children.
If it was a major procedure or had negative health effects, I would think differently. But it is a minor procedure and has mildly positive effects.
No, no and no again.If it was a major procedure or had negative health effects, I would think differently. But it is a minor procedure and has mildly positive effects.
It is not reasonable for parents to decide to lop of a bit of their child's genitals.
It is not a minor procedure. If it is a minor procedure, let's see you have it done.
How many adults have had it done to gain those 'positive effects'? Has any adult in the history of the world ever had it done to gain those effects?
The only positive effect I can see is maybe a lack of smegma build up and a perception among some women that it makes for a cleaner willy and thus they might be more inclined to nosh on it.
But, you could make the same argument that removing all your teeth makes for a cleaner mouth and no bad breath. In both cases, adequate hygiene fixes it.
There are significant negative effects including desensitisation, and significant risks to having the procedure done including infection.
According to the bible Abraham had it done at the age of 99 or something to prove his allegiance to god. Not to gain any minor positive effects. Moses never had it done. It was all about establishing a covenant with god (the previous covenant was based on rainbows, which god probably thought was a bit Sodomy. For Christians, the old testament covenants were null and voided and superseded by Christ's new covenant, so unless you are a Jew there is no religious reason to have it done.
Edited to add:
What is worse - getting the tip of your foreskin caught in your zip, or getting the tip of your glans caught in it?
Edited by Ayahuasca on Friday 23 February 16:03
dandarez said:
Don said:
Good for Iceland.
We don't tolerate FGM.
Why should we tolerate MGM.
Released figures on your second sentence suggest we do!We don't tolerate FGM.
Why should we tolerate MGM.
It's been illegal to carry out FGM in the UK for nigh on 33 YEARS!
To date as far as I know there has not been a single successful prosecution.
Because some people view MGM as a 'minor procedure' with few downsides, people who do not understand what FGM is might believe it is on the same level - a 'minor procedure' - any dismiss any concerns over it. A lot of the FGM campaign seems to be about telling people how bad it is - educating them. If MGM were banned too, there would be a clear unambiguous message that ANY GM is unacceptable.
Saying MGM is OK and FGM is bad is a mixed message that does the anti-FGM campaign no favours.
DurianIceCream said:
Because it is within the scope of what is reasonable for parents to decide for their children.
I hope your son tells you how wrong you are but somehow I don't think you would listen. Never mind at least he will get revenge when he chooses which home to put you in. Seems reasonable.dandarez said:
Don said:
Good for Iceland.
We don't tolerate FGM.
Why should we tolerate MGM.
Released figures on your second sentence suggest we do!We don't tolerate FGM.
Why should we tolerate MGM.
It's been illegal to carry out FGM in the UK for nigh on 33 YEARS!
To date as far as I know there has not been a single successful prosecution.
Ayahuasca said:
I think that banning MGM would help in the fight against FGM too -
Because some people view MGM as a 'minor procedure' with few downsides, people who do not understand what FGM is might believe it is on the same level - a 'minor procedure' - any dismiss any concerns over it. A lot of the FGM campaign seems to be about telling people how bad it is - educating them. If MGM were banned too, there would be a clear unambiguous message that ANY GM is unacceptable.
Saying MGM is OK and FGM is bad is a mixed message that does the anti-FGM campaign no favours.
FGM used to be called female circumcision. So they renamed it FGM to differentiate and make sure people understood the huge gap in seriousness. But then idiots started to refer to circumcision as MGM, which really hampers the battle against FGM.Because some people view MGM as a 'minor procedure' with few downsides, people who do not understand what FGM is might believe it is on the same level - a 'minor procedure' - any dismiss any concerns over it. A lot of the FGM campaign seems to be about telling people how bad it is - educating them. If MGM were banned too, there would be a clear unambiguous message that ANY GM is unacceptable.
Saying MGM is OK and FGM is bad is a mixed message that does the anti-FGM campaign no favours.
We currently have laws against handheld mobile phone use, which are largely ignored with not many prosecutions. Do you think it would help if we banned changing the car radio station whilst driving?
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Ayahuasca said:
I think that banning MGM would help in the fight against FGM too -
Because some people view MGM as a 'minor procedure' with few downsides, people who do not understand what FGM is might believe it is on the same level - a 'minor procedure' - any dismiss any concerns over it. A lot of the FGM campaign seems to be about telling people how bad it is - educating them. If MGM were banned too, there would be a clear unambiguous message that ANY GM is unacceptable.
Saying MGM is OK and FGM is bad is a mixed message that does the anti-FGM campaign no favours.
FGM used to be called female circumcision. So they renamed it FGM to differentiate and make sure people understood the huge gap in seriousness. But then idiots started to refer to circumcision as MGM, which really hampers the battle against FGM.Because some people view MGM as a 'minor procedure' with few downsides, people who do not understand what FGM is might believe it is on the same level - a 'minor procedure' - any dismiss any concerns over it. A lot of the FGM campaign seems to be about telling people how bad it is - educating them. If MGM were banned too, there would be a clear unambiguous message that ANY GM is unacceptable.
Saying MGM is OK and FGM is bad is a mixed message that does the anti-FGM campaign no favours.
We currently have laws against handheld mobile phone use, which are largely ignored with not many prosecutions. Do you think it would help if we banned changing the car radio station whilst driving?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff