Iceland to ban circumcision
Discussion
WinstonWolf said:
No, it treats genital modification in babies equally. No one should be cutting bits off babies without their consent.
No, no it doesn't. Female Genial Mutilation is illegal in the UK and rightly so. Male circumcision is not illegal if both parents consent. Those saying it's the same are clearly wrong as backed up by the existing laws on the topic. I don’t think I’ve seen anything so hilarious as reading someone argue that a positive effect is that it’s harder to catch the AIDS!
What about educating people all over the world about not smashing loads of riddled skanks bareback?
How many uneducated blokes in Africa have this done due to the WHO guidelines then think circumcision = green light to do the nearest prostitute without covering up and spreading the love?
I can’t think of any reason to allow the parents to do this to a child. What if I took my son to a tattooist to have a Star of David drawn permanently on his forehead?
What about educating people all over the world about not smashing loads of riddled skanks bareback?
How many uneducated blokes in Africa have this done due to the WHO guidelines then think circumcision = green light to do the nearest prostitute without covering up and spreading the love?
I can’t think of any reason to allow the parents to do this to a child. What if I took my son to a tattooist to have a Star of David drawn permanently on his forehead?
bmwmike said:
.....
Wait until they are adults so they can make up their own minds about their own bodies and religious beliefs.
Would that principle extent to granting consent for the MMR vaccine? Not related directly with circumcision for cultural reasons, but something done to children with the parents consent that has a risk of serious side-effects, should that also wait until the children are 18? If not why not?Wait until they are adults so they can make up their own minds about their own bodies and religious beliefs.
Dixy said:
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.
You are an idiot. Where are the billions of circumcised men seeking revenge on their parents? They don't exist. Why don't you go to Israel or Australia where there are plenty of circumcised men and tell them how angry they need to be. Idiot.
The Surveyor said:
Would that principle extent to granting consent for the MMR vaccine? Not related directly with circumcision for cultural reasons, but something done to children with the parents consent that has a risk of serious side-effects, should that also wait until the children are 18? If not why not?
Measles, Mumps and Rubella are horrible and can affect anyone at any time. The Circumcision helps prevents STD's argument.... no babies or children are sexually active.
Do you get the point?
I find it (sadly) amusing that in much of the 3rd World one religion's doctrine is to actively deny basic protection against STDs, amongst other things, yet others are more upset about not being able to mutilate baby boys citing a negligible effect on contracting those said STDs.
Mad, mad world.
Mad, mad world.
The Surveyor said:
bmwmike said:
.....
Wait until they are adults so they can make up their own minds about their own bodies and religious beliefs.
Would that principle extent to granting consent for the MMR vaccine? Not related directly with circumcision for cultural reasons, but something done to children with the parents consent that has a risk of serious side-effects, should that also wait until the children are 18? If not why not?Wait until they are adults so they can make up their own minds about their own bodies and religious beliefs.
"Might w
k less" is not a health benefit and is unproven anyway.Circumcision without medical indication is a pointless genital mutilation with no benefit to anyone other than potentially making the parents feel better about themselves.
CrutyRammers said:
I wish people would stop trying to defend it with supposed future health benefits. It's spurious. No-one circumsises their baby son to reduce the future risk of penile cancer. They do it because their god (or culture, to keep twig happy) says they should.
Or use whataboutism to compare it to vaccines. THe lack of logic and disingenuous nature of some here is uniting some strange bedfellows. 
DurianIceCream said:
Question for the anti-circumcision camp on this thread:
Were you aware of any medical effects, such as HIV, HPV prophylaxis, before you read this thread?
I don't think anyone on this thread is anti-circumcision.Were you aware of any medical effects, such as HIV, HPV prophylaxis, before you read this thread?
They are anti- "unnecessary medical procedures on children" - especially those that cannot speak for or defend themselves.
If circumcision is needed - eg to treat phimosis - then it should be carried out.
And to answer your question- YES.
Troubleatmill said:
I don't think anyone on this thread is anti-circumcision.
They are anti- "unnecessary medical procedures on children" - especially those that cannot speak for or defend themselves.
If circumcision is needed - eg to treat phimosis - then it should be carried out.
And to answer your question- YES.
Yes, I know. Writing 'except for medical reasons' each time just takes too much screen space. Thanks for your answer. They are anti- "unnecessary medical procedures on children" - especially those that cannot speak for or defend themselves.
If circumcision is needed - eg to treat phimosis - then it should be carried out.
And to answer your question- YES.
don'tbesilly said:
DurianIceCream said:
the procedure also has mild medical benefits.
Can you point out the mild medical benefits circumcision offers a baby that displays no requirement for such a procedure to be carried out?
Still - The Gillette company seemed to be promoting baby to self circumcise.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff