Iceland to ban circumcision
Discussion
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Firstly, you don't know if I have one or not. I don't think I've commented either way.
Secondly, isn't it a bit odd, that those that are the most vehemently anti circumcision haven't been circumcised, and indeed insult people who think there are bigger issues to worry about (like failure to address FGM) with the taunt "you've been circumcised so no wonder you're defending it".
Firstly, it comes across as though you have due to your rigorous defence of it. I believe you have and since you haven't said whether you are or not I will continue to do so. It just screams out of the screen when reading your posts. A man who had one wouldn't ever say it was pointlessSecondly, isn't it a bit odd, that those that are the most vehemently anti circumcision haven't been circumcised, and indeed insult people who think there are bigger issues to worry about (like failure to address FGM) with the taunt "you've been circumcised so no wonder you're defending it".
Secondly there are many many men who had it done against their will who oppose it.
https://www.fatherly.com/health-science/bloodstain...
Example of one of the many protests in America.
Thirdly there is documented evidence from areas like Singapore and Somalia where women who were circumcised are fine with it, and actually believe it is a good thing and therefore do it to their daughters to.
By your perverse logic above that would mean that FGM is ok too.
Dromedary66 said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Firstly, you don't know if I have one or not. I don't think I've commented either way.
Secondly, isn't it a bit odd, that those that are the most vehemently anti circumcision haven't been circumcised, and indeed insult people who think there are bigger issues to worry about (like failure to address FGM) with the taunt "you've been circumcised so no wonder you're defending it".
Firstly, it comes across as though you have due to your rigorous defence of it. Secondly, isn't it a bit odd, that those that are the most vehemently anti circumcision haven't been circumcised, and indeed insult people who think there are bigger issues to worry about (like failure to address FGM) with the taunt "you've been circumcised so no wonder you're defending it".
But you're so angry you can't even grasp that.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Dromedary66 said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Firstly, you don't know if I have one or not. I don't think I've commented either way.
Secondly, isn't it a bit odd, that those that are the most vehemently anti circumcision haven't been circumcised, and indeed insult people who think there are bigger issues to worry about (like failure to address FGM) with the taunt "you've been circumcised so no wonder you're defending it".
Firstly, it comes across as though you have due to your rigorous defence of it. Secondly, isn't it a bit odd, that those that are the most vehemently anti circumcision haven't been circumcised, and indeed insult people who think there are bigger issues to worry about (like failure to address FGM) with the taunt "you've been circumcised so no wonder you're defending it".
But you're so angry you can't even grasp that.
Most of us don't risk committing crimes, not because we fear the enforcement, but because we know that our society and morals deem it wrong. If the only reason you don't commit a crime is the risk of being caught, then you're less moral than most of us.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
I haven't defended it at all. Not once. I've just said it's pointless making laws that won't be enforced. And the money and time spent on getting that law on the statute would be better spend enforcing FGM laws that already exist.
But you're so angry you can't even grasp that.
Why wouldn't it be enforceable? Unless you're saying that the majority of childhood circumcisions aren't being done by trained registered medical professionals (who would abide by the law or risk losing their careers)? In which case there's even more need to regulate the practice. . But you're so angry you can't even grasp that.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
I haven't defended it at all. Not once. I've just said it's pointless making laws that won't be enforced. And the money and time spent on getting that law on the statute would be better spend enforcing FGM laws that already exist.
But you're so angry you can't even grasp that.
I'm undecided on whether I think the harm which would be prevented by banning circumcision is proportionate to the upset it would cause in Jewish and Muslim communities - but I really don't understand your desire to link it to FGM. Are you allying yourself with the loopy end of the feminist movement who think men's problems should be ignored until all female problems have been solved? The "trickle down equality" sorts?But you're so angry you can't even grasp that.
RTB said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
I haven't defended it at all. Not once. I've just said it's pointless making laws that won't be enforced. And the money and time spent on getting that law on the statute would be better spend enforcing FGM laws that already exist.
But you're so angry you can't even grasp that.
Why wouldn't it be enforceable? Unless you're saying that the majority of childhood circumcisions aren't being done by trained registered medical professionals (who would abide by the law or risk losing their careers)? In which case there's even more need to regulate the practice. . But you're so angry you can't even grasp that.
Like the abortion argument. We all accept that's no debate on abortion v no abortion, it's legal abortion v backstreet abortion. But abortion is here to stay. As with circumcision I suspect.
feef said:
Most of us don't risk committing crimes, not because we fear the enforcement, but because we know that our society and morals deem it wrong. If the only reason you don't commit a crime is the risk of being caught, then you're less moral than most of us.
is that why no one uses their handheld phone whilst driving anymore? 
They continue to do it because they don't see any harm in it (perhaps wrongly, but that's their view) and they know they are very unlikely to get caught.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
I haven't defended it at all. Not once. I've just said it's pointless making laws that won't be enforced. And the money and time spent on getting that law on the statute would be better spend enforcing FGM laws that already exist.
But you're so angry you can't even grasp that.
But you're so angry you can't even grasp that.
Why did we bother making FGM illegal, when, as in
France, we already have laws that we could use?
Am I correct in thinking the French have a higher prosecution and
conviction rate than us. Which admittedley wouldn't be hard to achieve.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
feef said:
Most of us don't risk committing crimes, not because we fear the enforcement, but because we know that our society and morals deem it wrong. If the only reason you don't commit a crime is the risk of being caught, then you're less moral than most of us.
is that why no one uses their handheld phone whilst driving anymore? They continue to do it because they don't see any harm in it (perhaps wrongly, but that's their view) and they know they are very unlikely to get caught.
If someone removes part of a child's anatomy, that's entirely traceable back to the individual who wielded the scalpel and I doubt any doctor would want the chance of being struck off hanging over them for the sake of appeasing religious parents.
I can't understand anyone supporting cutting bits off healthy babies or children without their consent. It is not for prophylactic reasons -that's akin to having your teeth removed to save having fillings when you're older. It's about as valid.
Of course men who have been cut are used to it - it's their 'normal'. They have adapted. Bit like a blind person may have better hearing. None of which makes it right.
Of course men who have been cut are used to it - it's their 'normal'. They have adapted. Bit like a blind person may have better hearing. None of which makes it right.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
It would no doubt cause them considerable upset, because it would interfere with the practice of their religion. That is generally undesirable. Allowing the Interference with the bodily autonomy of others and as a result the permanent alteration of their bodies without their consent is also undesirable. The question is simply one of proportionality. I think it's a debate which needs to be had, and not something which needs to be shoved under the carpet until such time as some other arbitrary social problem is fixed.otolith said:
It would no doubt cause them considerable upset, because it would interfere with the practice of their religion. That is generally undesirable. Allowing the Interference with the bodily autonomy of others and as a result the permanent alteration of their bodies without their consent is also undesirable. The question is simply one of proportionality. I think it's a debate which needs to be had, and not something which needs to be shoved under the carpet until such time as some other arbitrary social problem is fixed.
Religious people are capable of all kinds of mental gymnastics to justify how they're still a <religious practitioner> despite ignoring the inconvenient parts of the teachings.Why can't we add this to the pile?
I might have some sympathy for those who follow the rules as written. At least they're consistent, I can see how they'd be upset that that they are being prevented from fully embracing their faith. If you're already ignoring the inconvenient parts, and you want to complain about not being allowed to permanently modify a baby's body? Get f
ked.amusingduck said:
otolith said:
It would no doubt cause them considerable upset, because it would interfere with the practice of their religion. That is generally undesirable. Allowing the Interference with the bodily autonomy of others and as a result the permanent alteration of their bodies without their consent is also undesirable. The question is simply one of proportionality. I think it's a debate which needs to be had, and not something which needs to be shoved under the carpet until such time as some other arbitrary social problem is fixed.
Religious people are capable of all kinds of mental gymnastics to justify how they're still a <religious practitioner> despite ignoring the inconvenient parts of the teachings.Why can't we add this to the pile?
I might have some sympathy for those who follow the rules as written. At least they're consistent, I can see how they'd be upset that that they are being prevented from fully embracing their faith. If you're already ignoring the inconvenient parts, and you want to complain about not being allowed to permanently modify a baby's body? Get f
ked.The point is really not about whether we should or shouldn't ban it, it's that the existence of FGM is not a good reason not to address the question.
NDA said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I agree - but Otolith is probably reflecting how gubbermint thinks.Same with halal meat. Most of us don't want our food tortured before we eat it, nor do we want halal meat insidiously becoming the standard on our supermarket shelves.
Unless that is Iceland supermarket shelves this has got off topic.
END
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I think that's a simplistic view, in a free democratic country. There are people who think that censoring access to the Internet is a proportionate response to young people getting access to inappropriate content. They probably don't care who they upset in the process either. There are people at Brake who would like to do things to motoring laws which would upset a lot of us, and they probably don't care about that either.I'm not saying that really seriously pissing off 5% of the population makes it impossible. I'm simply saying that it needs to be considered. It's a factor. Sometimes we consider them and do it anyway. In the past we have pissed off countryside sports people, pistol shooters, homophobic Christians. We might in this case decide to p
s off Muslims and Jews. Or we might decide that the harm done is insufficient to justify that. It's a debate that needs to be had.anonymous said:
[redacted]
I think that's something of a false equivalence really. We're not talking about turning a blind eye to an illegal practice, we're talking about criminalising something which is currently perfectly legal. Gandahar said:
Only PH can make 39 pages out of circumcision in Iceland.
If they had decided to ban volcanic eruptions that might have been worth thinking on and commenting on.
END
and just for the hard of reading
END
Why do you keep writing END? Are you a mod? This thread has broken none of the PH rules so what's your problem? And who made you in charge of what is worth commenting on and not...If they had decided to ban volcanic eruptions that might have been worth thinking on and commenting on.
END
and just for the hard of reading
END
Edited by Gandahar on Tuesday 27th February 18:17
Dromedary66 said:
Why do you keep writing END? Are you a mod? This thread has broken none of the PH rules so what's your problem?
He thinks the new fangled internet thingy is a direct replacement for a Telegram?Can't think of any other reason.
Could our protagonist be Montgomery Burns?
feef said:
It's hardly the same thing, they use their phone because "it won't happen to me" and there's zero evidence that they have committed this crime after the fact (unless they cause an accident or are observed while using)
If someone removes part of a child's anatomy, that's entirely traceable back to the individual who wielded the scalpel and I doubt any doctor would want the chance of being struck off hanging over them for the sake of appeasing religious parents.
Meanwhile back on Planet Earth, Jews and Muslims have been practicing as doctors for some time. Fancy that, you go to see some doctor, they look completely normal. You trust them. Little do you know they have a circumcised dick, and a son with a circumcised dick. Holy fIf someone removes part of a child's anatomy, that's entirely traceable back to the individual who wielded the scalpel and I doubt any doctor would want the chance of being struck off hanging over them for the sake of appeasing religious parents.
k. What can be done?The procedure is also so simple, you do not need to be a doctor to do it, so there will be plenty of people willing and qualified.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff