Iceland to ban circumcision
Discussion
DurianIceCream said:
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 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?
You may well be right about it reducing HIV infection, but given that we're talking about infant children here, and the elevated risk of HIV requires the insertion of the erect penis into a partner's body, just how many lives do you honestly think have been saved over the years by circumcision?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?
If I wanted to reduce the risk of HIV then I think I would rather use a condom than have the end of my dick chopped off! A damn sight easier.
Likewise let a baby choose when he is old enough to be sexually active, not get this done for religious reasons he can't understand, or agree to.
Likewise let a baby choose when he is old enough to be sexually active, not get this done for religious reasons he can't understand, or agree to.
Leptons said:
eldar said:
Ban it, certainly. Putting male circumcision in the same class as FGM is completely wrong. The results of the two are not comparable in the degree of barbarity.
It’s the male equivalent, simple as.Harry Biscuit said:
Not surprised that Iceland has done this. The male population is fed up with wreckyadick.
Good on Iceland.
The HIV defence is absurd - so cutting skin off my cock means I can f
k unprotected with impunity in high prevalence HIV countries? bks.Two really simple approaches to reducing HIV prevalence - condoms and abstinence. Both more effective than anything else in preventing transmission.
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.
So a reduction, but no where near prevention in the transmission rate of a disease that’s been around for about 30 years justifies a centuries old practice of forced childhood genital mutilation? Staggering.I’m guessing you’ve not heard of condoms and other safe sex practices which are many orders of magnitude more effective at preventing the spread of all STD’s, and don’t involve the user having to chop of parts of your genitals.
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.
Removing the genitalia all together including FGM might well also remove the risk of HIV completely.Not sure I want to live in your world though.
I wonder how many of you lot have actually been to a circumcision ceremony??
some old rabbi appeared with a battered briefcase, in which there was a first aid kit of sorts, scalpels, wine & various other paraphernalia. The boy was held up screaming, in front of 300-odd people, & then had his bits chopped off, with much blood. A rag dipped in wine was put over his mouth, almost suffocating him. Seemed rather barbaric to me, & must be very traumatic. There are some real horror stories involving non-sterilised instruments, blunt scalpels, untrained 'practitioners' & so on. If its really necessary, do it in sterile clinical conditions in a hospital. If its to do with religion, wait 'til the chap's 18 & can do it out of his own free will FFS!!
some old rabbi appeared with a battered briefcase, in which there was a first aid kit of sorts, scalpels, wine & various other paraphernalia. The boy was held up screaming, in front of 300-odd people, & then had his bits chopped off, with much blood. A rag dipped in wine was put over his mouth, almost suffocating him. Seemed rather barbaric to me, & must be very traumatic. There are some real horror stories involving non-sterilised instruments, blunt scalpels, untrained 'practitioners' & so on. If its really necessary, do it in sterile clinical conditions in a hospital. If its to do with religion, wait 'til the chap's 18 & can do it out of his own free will FFS!!
There was a Tattooing of Minors Act which prohibited those under the age of consent from being tattooed. The argument was that this was something which is permanent and, unless done for medical reasons could not be justified. There was no uprising on PH when it was passed or, come to that, when it was incorporated in other legislation.
This was before tattooing became fashionable and what it banned, among other c auses, was tribal markings imposed on children by certain cultures.
The cultural reason behind children being circumcised is the same; tribal markings. This child in part of my gang, and forever.
This was before tattooing became fashionable and what it banned, among other c auses, was tribal markings imposed on children by certain cultures.
The cultural reason behind children being circumcised is the same; tribal markings. This child in part of my gang, and forever.
Biker 1 said:
I wonder how many of you lot have actually been to a circumcision ceremony??
some old rabbi appeared with a battered briefcase, in which there was a first aid kit of sorts, scalpels, wine & various other paraphernalia. The boy was held up screaming, in front of 300-odd people, & then had his bits chopped off, with much blood. A rag dipped in wine was put over his mouth, almost suffocating him. Seemed rather barbaric to me, & must be very traumatic. There are some real horror stories involving non-sterilised instruments, blunt scalpels, untrained 'practitioners' & so on. If its really necessary, do it in sterile clinical conditions in a hospital. If its to do with religion, wait 'til the chap's 18 & can do it out of his own free will FFS!!
That's exactly how I imagine it. Poor child. Nothing wrong with body modification once adult, but for a little baby? Bloody hell. some old rabbi appeared with a battered briefcase, in which there was a first aid kit of sorts, scalpels, wine & various other paraphernalia. The boy was held up screaming, in front of 300-odd people, & then had his bits chopped off, with much blood. A rag dipped in wine was put over his mouth, almost suffocating him. Seemed rather barbaric to me, & must be very traumatic. There are some real horror stories involving non-sterilised instruments, blunt scalpels, untrained 'practitioners' & so on. If its really necessary, do it in sterile clinical conditions in a hospital. If its to do with religion, wait 'til the chap's 18 & can do it out of his own free will FFS!!
stuckmojo said:
Biker 1 said:
I wonder how many of you lot have actually been to a circumcision ceremony??
some old rabbi appeared with a battered briefcase, in which there was a first aid kit of sorts, scalpels, wine & various other paraphernalia. The boy was held up screaming, in front of 300-odd people, & then had his bits chopped off, with much blood. A rag dipped in wine was put over his mouth, almost suffocating him. Seemed rather barbaric to me, & must be very traumatic. There are some real horror stories involving non-sterilised instruments, blunt scalpels, untrained 'practitioners' & so on. If its really necessary, do it in sterile clinical conditions in a hospital. If its to do with religion, wait 'til the chap's 18 & can do it out of his own free will FFS!!
That's exactly how I imagine it. Poor child. Nothing wrong with body modification once adult, but for a little baby? Bloody hell. some old rabbi appeared with a battered briefcase, in which there was a first aid kit of sorts, scalpels, wine & various other paraphernalia. The boy was held up screaming, in front of 300-odd people, & then had his bits chopped off, with much blood. A rag dipped in wine was put over his mouth, almost suffocating him. Seemed rather barbaric to me, & must be very traumatic. There are some real horror stories involving non-sterilised instruments, blunt scalpels, untrained 'practitioners' & so on. If its really necessary, do it in sterile clinical conditions in a hospital. If its to do with religion, wait 'til the chap's 18 & can do it out of his own free will FFS!!
Derek Smith said:
There was a Tattooing of Minors Act which prohibited those under the age of consent from being tattooed. The argument was that this was something which is permanent and, unless done for medical reasons could not be justified. There was no uprising on PH when it was passed or, come to that, when it was incorporated in other legislation.
This was before tattooing became fashionable and what it banned, among other causes, was tribal markings imposed on children by certain cultures.
The cultural reason behind children being circumcised is the same; tribal markings. This child in part of my gang, and forever.
Passed in 1969. PH uprising?This was before tattooing became fashionable and what it banned, among other causes, was tribal markings imposed on children by certain cultures.
The cultural reason behind children being circumcised is the same; tribal markings. This child in part of my gang, and forever.
Leptons said:
All the Feminists up in arms about FGM whilst this has been going on in civilised countries all along.
Well done Iceland.
I thought everyone with a shred of decency was up in arms about FGM. Not just feminists. Well done Iceland.
It's a stupid, ill educated comparison anyway. Like "Iceland to ban children's ear piercing" and you coming on saying "do gooders are up in arms about IS beheading people yet ear piercing has been going on all along."
However, I doubt Iceland have much issue with FGM so this seems like a logical step on their part. However in the UK, the battle against FGM needs to be what we focus on.
Hosenbugler said:
Here in the UK , it is illegal except in very specific circumstance to dock the tail of a puppy.
Yet it is perfectly legal to cut pieces off healthy male babies for no other reason than cult ceremony.
Spectacularly absurd, the physical abuse of male children should be stopped.
Yes but some dogs look much better without the tail....Yet it is perfectly legal to cut pieces off healthy male babies for no other reason than cult ceremony.
Spectacularly absurd, the physical abuse of male children should be stopped.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
I thought everyone with a shred of decency was up in arms about FGM. Not just feminists.
It's a stupid, ill educated comparison anyway. Like "Iceland to ban children's ear piercing" and you coming on saying "do gooders are up in arms about IS beheading people yet ear piercing has been going on all along."
However, I doubt Iceland have much issue with FGM so this seems like a logical step on their part. However in the UK, the battle against FGM needs to be what we focus on.
No, I think that's the wrong attitude. We need to concentrate on abuse of children. We should establish that parents do not have total rights over their kids. Religion must not have the trump card. To suggest that religion and culture may allow mutilation of children of one gender but not of another is a nonsensical standpoint. It's a stupid, ill educated comparison anyway. Like "Iceland to ban children's ear piercing" and you coming on saying "do gooders are up in arms about IS beheading people yet ear piercing has been going on all along."
However, I doubt Iceland have much issue with FGM so this seems like a logical step on their part. However in the UK, the battle against FGM needs to be what we focus on.
Children, and babies of course - they do this to babies for gods' sake - have rights that are inviolable. No concessions; none at all.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff