Iceland to ban circumcision
Discussion
DurianIceCream said:
even that biased website makes the disclaimer that these deaths haven't been categorised by the medical profession as being due to circumcision.
Very few, if any, death certificates have 'smoking' as the cause of death.This thread is is funny.
The fact that a developed and modern country has outlawed infant circumcision will inevitably lead to them being used as an example to others. It would not surprise me if other EU countries follow suit. Which of course can only be a good thing.
Religion in this country is fighting a losing battle. Between women bishops and gay marriage it's traditions are falling as fast as the congregations. Are there enough Jews and Muslims to put up a fight?
^ There is ample medical evidence on the effects of smoking. The CDC does not recommend smoking. The WHO does not recommend smoking.
Iceland has not banned it, there is a proposal to ban it.
There was also a proposal to ban it in Germany. It is not banned in Germany.
It's Church of England congregations which are falling in the UK, not others. Ironically but also irrelevantly the Church of England has nothing particular to say about circumcision.
Keep trying. Sooner or later, even if by chance, one of you will write something which isn't so easily rebutted.
Edit: actually maybe you won't, because there is no reason to discourage or ban it.
Iceland has not banned it, there is a proposal to ban it.
There was also a proposal to ban it in Germany. It is not banned in Germany.
It's Church of England congregations which are falling in the UK, not others. Ironically but also irrelevantly the Church of England has nothing particular to say about circumcision.
Keep trying. Sooner or later, even if by chance, one of you will write something which isn't so easily rebutted.
Edit: actually maybe you won't, because there is no reason to discourage or ban it.
Edited by DurianIceCream on Sunday 25th February 13:58
TwigtheWonderkid said:
amusingduck said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
I have not argued that it is. I've just said that as FGM has been illegal for 30+ years, yet we haven't tackled the problem at all, there seems little point in bothering to outlaw circumcision. When we've done something about FGM, then it might be worth addressing.
Presumably you were also against passing the "revenge porn" legislature too?I mean, we haven't completely eradicated the more serious forms of sexual crimes, seems little point bothering to outlaw revenge porn. When we've eradicated rape, sexual assault and the like, then it might be worth addressing.
Is there an echo in here?
How does stopping people from circumcising their children for non-medical reasons lessen our will to tackle FGM? Where is the logic?
If anything, I think a consistent "no genital modification for non-medical reasons" approach can only help with tackling FGM. Just making it illegal would make a noticeable difference, even without prosecution.
What do you think we should be doing about FGM that we aren't already? How does stopping non-medical circumcision affect our current approach and your suggested approach detrimentally?
TwigtheWonderkid said:
But we do tackle serious sexual crime. We do prosecute rape and sexual assault. We have the will to try and deal with sex crimes. On FGM, we do nothing. That's the difference.
Is there an echo in here?
There must be, I keep hearing we haven't got rid of this, Is there an echo in here?
so what's the point of tackling that, that that that that....
eldar said:
Dromedary66 said:
Good for Iceland. I hope they succeed where Denmark failed. It should be outlawed globally and be condemned in the same way that ritualistic female genital mutilation is.
I
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.I
FGM is worse in the main, I concur. But comparable, it certainly is. I am circumsised, and it has reduced my sensitivity significantly, and caused other related issues, which I'll spare the details of.
But to say one is horrific and the other is inconsequential is at best, incorrect, and doing a disservice to men / boys / male babies everywhere.
amusingduck said:
Just making it illegal would make a noticeable difference, even without prosecution.
How would you go about getting a new law through parliament making it illegal, as- there is no medical evidence it is harmful, so the only argument is parents should not have the right to make this decision
- you will receive strong opposition from Jews and Muslims, who number in the millions and are also represented in parliament
Would you not rather expend your effort, the effort of Parliament and the country on something which actually has an identifiable public health effect, rather than a vanity project to suit your own beliefs?
DurianIceCream said:
amusingduck said:
Just making it illegal would make a noticeable difference, even without prosecution.
How would you go about getting a new law through parliament making it illegal, as- there is no medical evidence it is harmful, so the only argument is parents should not have the right to make this decision
- you will receive strong opposition from Jews and Muslims, who number in the millions and are also represented in parliament
Would you not rather expend your effort, the effort of Parliament and the country on something which actually has an identifiable public health effect, rather than a vanity project to suit your own beliefs?
Gov.uk said:
1 Prohibition of tattooing of minors.
It shall be an offence to tattoo a person under the age of eighteen except when the tattoo is performed for medical reasons by a duly qualified medical practioner or by a person working under his direction, but it shall be a defence for a person charged to show that at the time the tattoo was performed he had reasonable cause to believe that the person tattooed was of or over the age of eighteen and did in fact so believe.
Circumcision is the exception, not the rule, of what power parents have over their children.It shall be an offence to tattoo a person under the age of eighteen except when the tattoo is performed for medical reasons by a duly qualified medical practioner or by a person working under his direction, but it shall be a defence for a person charged to show that at the time the tattoo was performed he had reasonable cause to believe that the person tattooed was of or over the age of eighteen and did in fact so believe.
Religion is not a defence for immoral behaviour.
I'd rather we do what is right, rather than what is easy.
If it came down to a binary choice between eradicating FGM or eradicating circumcision, of course i'd pick FGM every day of the week. I do not believe that is the way this country works. We don't bow to what is wrong because it's a bit difficult to get sorted out.
Again, nobody is talking about banning circumcision for consenting adults or medical purposes. Parents should not be able to permanently modify their children's bodies for no reason other than their personal beliefs.
^ I did not ask for the name of an existing act related to children, I asked how you would get this through Parliament in the face of strong opposition.
You need to accept, even if you do not agree, that millions of your fellow citizens do not view circumcision in the same negative light that you do, they fo not see it as bad and they do not want it banned.
Even if the act you quoted is not relavant, you will note that it provides an exemption for medical practitioners. You do realise there are Jewish and Muslim medical practitioners?
You need to accept, even if you do not agree, that millions of your fellow citizens do not view circumcision in the same negative light that you do, they fo not see it as bad and they do not want it banned.
Even if the act you quoted is not relavant, you will note that it provides an exemption for medical practitioners. You do realise there are Jewish and Muslim medical practitioners?
DurianIceCream said:
If you want a comment, find a reputable source.
You haven’t quoted on the BBC news sites I quoted. You can’t have your cake and eat it.
BBC news about baby dying due to circumcision. Nurse hailed.
And BBC news about doctor making 4 botched attempts at circulation and trying to bribe with school fees.
Please comment.
You said “no disadvantages”. I am showing you plenty.
DurianIceCream said:
How would you go about getting a new law through parliament making it illegal, as
- there is no medical evidence it is harmful, so the only argument is parents should not have the right to make this decision
harm- there is no medical evidence it is harmful, so the only argument is parents should not have the right to make this decision
hɑːm/Submit
noun
1.
physical injury, especially that which is deliberately inflicted.
It's the very definition of harmful. Or are you going to add arguing with the dictionary to to the rest of your desperate claims?
DurianIceCream said:
- you will receive strong opposition from Jews and Muslims, who number in the millions and are also represented in parliament
So the tail wags the dog now? Jews and Muslims are a tiny minority of the UK population, which is becoming ever more secular and more likely to consider this practice out of step with modern values. I don't doubt that they would have a significant voice, however I don't see why they cannot ideally a) wait until adulthood or at the least b) have it done elsewhere.amusingduck said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
amusingduck said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
I have not argued that it is. I've just said that as FGM has been illegal for 30+ years, yet we haven't tackled the problem at all, there seems little point in bothering to outlaw circumcision. When we've done something about FGM, then it might be worth addressing.
Presumably you were also against passing the "revenge porn" legislature too?I mean, we haven't completely eradicated the more serious forms of sexual crimes, seems little point bothering to outlaw revenge porn. When we've eradicated rape, sexual assault and the like, then it might be worth addressing.
Is there an echo in here?
DurianIceCream said:
alock said:
Maybe we just need a new tactic then? How about making all mutilation illegal instead of making distinctions?
You seem to be saying that the best way to solve a problem is to keep doing what we've been trying for 30 years without success.
So you are proposing to divert what pathetically small resources are allocated to FGM, which causes serious harm, to circumcision? And you expect anything to happen?You seem to be saying that the best way to solve a problem is to keep doing what we've been trying for 30 years without success.
technodup said:
(Dictionary definition of a word everyone knows the meaning of; followed by deciding what is and isn't important to religious groups he isn't a member of)
^ I know what harm means. You knew when you wrote the post above that I know what harm means. Therefore your post was entirely pointless. After 30 odd pages, you really just have not figured out that I do not view circumcision as harmful?The second half of your post about what Jews/Muslims and everyone else think or would do, well you just made it up.
Edited by DurianIceCream on Sunday 25th February 16:31
Dromedary66 said:
Because it was done to you as a baby/child without your consent and to admit you view it as harmful would be to admit that you were violated.
You are good at making stuff up. Was it youvthat used the website of the fake replacement foreskin vendor is one of your sources?TwigtheWonderkid said:
Well something...anything, would be a start.
What a disingenuous reply. Your response to the other 90% of my post? TwigtheWonderkid said:
DurianIceCream said:
alock said:
Maybe we just need a new tactic then? How about making all mutilation illegal instead of making distinctions?
You seem to be saying that the best way to solve a problem is to keep doing what we've been trying for 30 years without success.
So you are proposing to divert what pathetically small resources are allocated to FGM, which causes serious harm, to circumcision? And you expect anything to happen?You seem to be saying that the best way to solve a problem is to keep doing what we've been trying for 30 years without success.
t, and we've no practical way of making the situation better, why not use that resource for something that might improve a separate issue?djc206 said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Can someone answer this question.
When parliament introduce new laws it’s up to them to make provision for their enforcement. If additional funding is required then it should be providedamusingduck said:
Sure. If the resource we've allocated to FGM is achieving jack st, and we've no practical way of making the situation better, why not use that resource for something that might improve a separate issue?
You seem quite prepared to abandon FGM as a lost cause while keeping male circumcision right up there on the list of hot urgent topics for parliament, even if it is supported by several million British citizens, is sanctioned by the WHO and CDC and doesn't actually do any harm. t, and we've no practical way of making the situation better, why not use that resource for something that might improve a separate issue?DurianIceCream said:
^ I know what harm means. You knew when you wrote the post above that I know what harm means. Therefore your post was entirely pointless. After 30 odd pages, you really just have not figured out that I do not view circumcision as harmful?
The second half of your post about what Jews/Muslims and everyone else think or would do, well you just made it up.
how many people that have been circumcised do you think would chose to still have it done if they had to wait to say 18 and make an informed choice on their own ?The second half of your post about what Jews/Muslims and everyone else think or would do, well you just made it up.
Edited by DurianIceCream on Sunday 25th February 16:31
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff