Iceland to ban circumcision
Discussion
DurianIceCream said:
tannhauser said:
Troubleatmill said:
NDA said:
DurianIceCream said:
It is widely practiced and it is either harmless or beneficial.
I don't think either of those things is true. Far from it.http://www.ulwaluko.co.za/Photos.html
Edit... more horror photographs
http://www.senslip-europe.com/circumcision----disa...
But thankfully DurianIceCream believes it is either harmless or beneficial.
s! 
CubanPete said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
CubanPete said:
I accept the outcome of FGM is worse, but the intent is the same,
The intent is not the same at all. Given that all Abrahamic religions are patriarchal, it would be ridiculous that the idea of circumcision is to subjugate men. Whereas FGM is all about subjugating women.In Judaism, they circumcise men but do not carry out FGM. So you think a male dominated and controlled religion wants to put men at a disadvantage to women??
Yeah...right!
I was making my judgement by modern educated standards, not by those of thousands of years old made up fairy stories from religions that prey on the ignorant.
Mutilation is mutilation. I don't think either is acceptable.
CubanPete said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Ayahuasca said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
WinstonWolf said:
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?
Genital mutilation is genital mutilation. Saying it isn't because it isn't severe enough is b
ks.So in order to get the message across, female circumcision was renamed FGM. It was a slow process, but eventually it caught on. Now male circumcision is being renamed MGM, and we're back to square one, setting back the battle against FGM because people think the two are similar in level of seriousness. Which they are not.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
I'm arguing that the intent isn't the same. You said it was. FGM is carried out to keep women down, in their place, to subjugate them. That isn't why circumcision is done on men.
I would say that male circumcision being carried out on a massive scale to curb sinful masturbation,as it was in America in the late 19th/early 20th century, is as bad as subjugation is in the case of female circumcision. The intent is equally despicable. The fact that the AAP had to introduce retrospective justification to carry on doing it in modern times and bringing in the $$'s is by the by.https://docakilah.wordpress.com/2011/06/15/male-ci...
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Point missed. You really aren't getting it. Let's assume circumcision is mutilation. FGM used to be called female circumcision. The problem was people didn't realise how appallingly serious it was, because people know what circumcision is, and most people, whether they care about it or not, know it's not an horrific life changing injury. And that most circumcised men just get on with life quite happily. And don't give two hoots.
So in order to get the message across, female circumcision was renamed FGM. It was a slow process, but eventually it caught on. Now male circumcision is being renamed MGM, and we're back to square one, setting back the battle against FGM because people think the two are similar.
In what way are we "back to square one" ? Can you demonstrate that FGM awareness was higher, is now lower, and a causal link to the change being that circumcision is known as MGM?So in order to get the message across, female circumcision was renamed FGM. It was a slow process, but eventually it caught on. Now male circumcision is being renamed MGM, and we're back to square one, setting back the battle against FGM because people think the two are similar.
The Surveyor said:
dai1983 said:
...... What if I took my son to a tattooist to have a Star of David drawn permanently on his forehead?
Tattooing children is illegal, what's your point?Ayahuasca said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Point missed. You really aren't getting it. Let's assume circumcision is mutilation. FGM used to be called female circumcision. The problem was people didn't realise how appallingly serious it was, because people know what circumcision is, and most people, whether they care about it or not, know it's not an horrific life changing injury. And that most circumcised men just get on with life quite happily. And don't give two hoots.
So in order to get the message across, female circumcision was renamed FGM. It was a slow process, but eventually it caught on. Now male circumcision is being renamed MGM, and we're back to square one, setting back the battle against FGM because people think the two are similar.
In what way are we "back to square one" ? Can you demonstrate that FGM awareness was higher, is now lower, and a causal link to the change being that circumcision is known as MGM?So in order to get the message across, female circumcision was renamed FGM. It was a slow process, but eventually it caught on. Now male circumcision is being renamed MGM, and we're back to square one, setting back the battle against FGM because people think the two are similar.
I can't see any reason other than pure misogyny for not realising that FGM is a far more serious matter, and doing every single thing possible to ensure people understand this. Keeping the two with completely separate names, to ensure thickos don't think they are similar, is one easy thing we can do.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Keeping the two with completely separate names, to ensure thickos don't think they are similar, is one easy thing we can do.
One is removal of part of a sexual organ in girls and the other is removal of part of a sexual organ in boys.As others have said there are types of FGM that are actually less invasive than Male Genital Mutilation.
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/female-genital-mutil...
Type Ia, removal of the clitoral hood or prepuce only;
The clitoral hood is literally the same as the foreskin.
DurianIceCream said:
dvs_dave said:
An idiot cannot be reasoned with, as evidenced by the fanatical volition of this particular one. His perception of the world is clearly very different to everyone else’s.
So have you worked out what question Dxie was asking then Dave?My perception is obv different to people on this thread. Perhaps not different to parliament, since circumcision is lawful, but other things like FGM are not.
Even more so when many of the people calling you an idiot usually disagree.
No one is anti circumcision, they're against carrying it out on someone who is non-consenting.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Keeping the two with completely separate names, to ensure thickos don't think they are similar, is one easy thing we can do.
Clearly, it is not, or there would not be a problem would there?Can you get your brain cell around that?
If both FGM and MGM were illegal, there would be no room for confusion, thickos or not, and everyone would benefit. A much simpler solution that arguing one good, one bad, and getting upset when people confuse them. Can you not see that, either?
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Oh ffs. Why do you think female circumcision was name changed to FGM in the first place. Some of you are so worked up about the issue of circumcision, you really can't see the wood for the trees.
I can't see any reason other than pure misogyny for not realising that FGM is a far more serious matter, and doing every single thing possible to ensure people understand this. Keeping the two with completely separate names, to ensure thickos don't think they are similar, is one easy thing we can do.
I can't see any reason other than pure misogyny for not realising that FGM is a far more serious matter, and doing every single thing possible to ensure people understand this. Keeping the two with completely separate names, to ensure thickos don't think they are similar, is one easy thing we can do.
amusingduck said:
Why are you so obsessed with this "one at a time" approach?
Should we put a stop to making progress with LGBT equality until we have completely eradicated the equality issues that women face?
Third time asking.Should we put a stop to making progress with LGBT equality until we have completely eradicated the equality issues that women face?
Why are you so reluctant to answer?
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Oh ffs. Why do you think female circumcision was name changed to FGM in the first place. Some of you are so worked up about the issue of circumcision, you really can't see the wood for the trees.
I can't see any reason other than pure misogyny for not realising that FGM is a far more serious matter, and doing every single thing possible to ensure people understand this. Keeping the two with completely separate names, to ensure thickos don't think they are similar, is one easy thing we can do.
I would hope no one on here would disagree that FGM is a far more serious issue then male circumcision and that all efforts should be made to stop it.I can't see any reason other than pure misogyny for not realising that FGM is a far more serious matter, and doing every single thing possible to ensure people understand this. Keeping the two with completely separate names, to ensure thickos don't think they are similar, is one easy thing we can do.
But that doesn't mean that performing circumcision on children, for religious or cultural reasons is right.
WinstonWolf said:
When everyone is telling you you're an idiot you should consider the fact that you're probably an idiot.
Even more so when many of the people calling you an idiot usually disagree.
No one is anti circumcision, they're against carrying it out on someone who is non-consenting.
Hmm, lets see:Even more so when many of the people calling you an idiot usually disagree.
No one is anti circumcision, they're against carrying it out on someone who is non-consenting.
- That I am talking about circumcision for reasons other than immediate medical need, I have stated multiple times. Therefore you have decided to get outraged first, read later.
- Your cohorts on this thread are very loose on any facts and the favoured website link appears to be anti-circumcision propaganda websites. OTOH I prefer to link to the WHO, American Pediatric Society and medical journals.
- Several people on this thread are unopposed to circumcision, but you have ignored that; one of those has worked in combatting FGM, which I doubt any of your cohorts have
- There is no evidence of people who have been circumcised being unhappy about it in any significant number
- Circumcision is legal everywhere and widely practiced; Germany flirted with restricting it in 2012, but didn't
You really should do better. I can see from your posts that you aren't thick, unlike a few others on this thread, but you are putting your circumcision rage ahead of all else.
DurianIceCream said:
Hmm, lets see:
- That I am talking about circumcision for reasons other than immediate medical need, I have stated multiple times. Therefore you have decided to get outraged first, read later.
- Your cohorts on this thread are very loose on any facts and the favoured website link appears to be anti-circumcision propaganda websites. OTOH I prefer to link to the WHO, American Pediatric Society and medical journals.
- Several people on this thread are unopposed to circumcision, but you have ignored that; one of those has worked in combatting FGM, which I doubt any of your cohorts have
- There is no evidence of people who have been circumcised being unhappy about it in any significant number
- Circumcision is legal everywhere and widely practiced; Germany flirted with restricting it in 2012, but didn't
You really should do better. I can see from your posts that you aren't thick, unlike a few others on this thread, but you are putting your circumcision rage ahead of all else.
You did see the botched circumcisions carried out in the EU. But did not comment.- That I am talking about circumcision for reasons other than immediate medical need, I have stated multiple times. Therefore you have decided to get outraged first, read later.
- Your cohorts on this thread are very loose on any facts and the favoured website link appears to be anti-circumcision propaganda websites. OTOH I prefer to link to the WHO, American Pediatric Society and medical journals.
- Several people on this thread are unopposed to circumcision, but you have ignored that; one of those has worked in combatting FGM, which I doubt any of your cohorts have
- There is no evidence of people who have been circumcised being unhappy about it in any significant number
- Circumcision is legal everywhere and widely practiced; Germany flirted with restricting it in 2012, but didn't
You really should do better. I can see from your posts that you aren't thick, unlike a few others on this thread, but you are putting your circumcision rage ahead of all else.
Un-neccessary surgery - permanently damaged cocks.
Will you comment now?
Here is the link again.
http://www.senslip-europe.com/circumcision----disa...
Please - show me the benefits.
Edited by Troubleatmill on Saturday 24th February 20:58
Troubleatmill said:
You did see the botched circumcisions carried out in the EU. But did not comment.
Un-neccessary surgery - permanently damaged cocks.
Will you comment now?
Yes, circumcision is a safe procedure. It is generally noted as having a complication rate of about 2% and the complications are easily dealt with. Un-neccessary surgery - permanently damaged cocks.
Will you comment now?
The pictures linked are from an anti-circumcision propaganda site which, if you look at their home page, their main business is selling fake foreskins. There is no information on what happened, where it happened or why it happened. Does this look like the sort of thing which is reasonable to comment on?
As I noted above, I post links to WHO and medical journals, everyone else posts links to crackpot websites.
If you could at least dig up some genuine complaints by parents where the circumcision has gone very wrong, that would be more credible than a company selling fake foreskins.
DurianIceCream said:
Troubleatmill said:
You did see the botched circumcisions carried out in the EU. But did not comment.
Un-neccessary surgery - permanently damaged cocks.
Will you comment now?
Yes, circumcision is a safe procedure. It is generally noted as having a complication rate of about 2% and the complications are easily dealt with. Un-neccessary surgery - permanently damaged cocks.
Will you comment now?
The pictures linked are from an anti-circumcision propaganda site which, if you look at their home page, their main business is selling fake foreskins. There is no information on what happened, where it happened or why it happened. Does this look like the sort of thing which is reasonable to comment on?
As I noted above, I post links to WHO and medical journals, everyone else posts links to crackpot websites.
I can link to medical journals too..
Bollinger, D., Van Howe, R. S. (2010). Alexithymia and Circumcision Trauma: A Preliminary Investigation.
Erectile disfunction, alexithymia, etc etc
Thorup J, Thorup SC, Ifaoui1IBR. Complication rate after circumcision in a paediatric surgical setting should not be neglected. Dan Med J. 2013;60(8):1–3.
5.1% of boys will have significant complications.
Patel H. The problem of routine infant circumcision. Can Med Assoc J. 1966;95:576-81
and the rate can be as high as 55% for all complications
Joudi M, Fathi M, Hiradfar M. Incidence of asymptomatic meatal stenosis in children following neonatal circumcision J Ped Urol. 2011;7(5):526-8.
Meatal stenosis (narrowing of the urinary opening) is found in 20% of circumcised boys
Van Howe RS. A cost-utility analysis of neonatal circumcision. Med Decis Making. 2004;24:584-601
The average male will have more health problems from being circumcised than from being left alone.
And Circumcision in the news
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-20...
( Hundreds more articles where that came from )
Over to you...
Troubleatmill said:
Over to you...
I think you're wasting your time chap.If you're attempting to counter the medical argument, he's already succeeded in diverting the discussion away from "why shouldn't we wait until they're old enough to decide for themselves" and toward "is circumcision OK in general".
amusingduck said:
Troubleatmill said:
Over to you...
I think you're wasting your time chap.If you're attempting to counter the medical argument, he's already succeeded in diverting the discussion away from "why shouldn't we wait until they're old enough to decide for themselves" and toward "is circumcision OK in general".
te - he has backed himself into a corner anyway.While not wanting to throw rocks at lambs with broken legs, it is quite fun to see him post back up with a " Mum and Dad know best" and nothing more to back it up.
Troubleatmill said:
amusingduck said:
Troubleatmill said:
Over to you...
I think you're wasting your time chap.If you're attempting to counter the medical argument, he's already succeeded in diverting the discussion away from "why shouldn't we wait until they're old enough to decide for themselves" and toward "is circumcision OK in general".
te - he has backed himself into a corner anyway.While not wanting to throw rocks at lambs with broken legs, it is quite fun to see him post back up with a " Mum and Dad know best" and nothing more to back it up.
DurianIceCream said:
Yes, circumcision is a safe procedure. It is generally noted as having a complication rate of about 2% and the complications are easily dealt with.
I see you note the 2% complication rate, and as per your earlier posts there have been, over the years, billions of men circumcised.2% of billions is seriously large number of people affected by a completely unnecessary procedure, even you would agree to that surely?
Shame on everyone that perpetuates it.
Edited by Dromedary66 on Saturday 24th February 21:35
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff