"Iceland Could Become first Country to Ban Male Circumcision"

[Curious George]

Um, that would be "Making facts up as you like, for zero, George".

Reading the what was sourced. Reduction in likelihood of UTI is a benefit. Sorry if it facts do not fit with your worldview.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

It could still be argued though.

Even though I am not making it haha!

Well, yes--- one can argue that 11 year old teen girls ought to be permitted to get breast augmentation surgery.

Not me-- I would not argue for such things; I'd say they'd not suffer by waiting until 16 or 18 at least.

But I have read about some California cosmetic surgeons offering cosmetic surgeries for young girls.

So, yeah, you can argue for nearly anything you like---it still won't make it valid or even ethical.

 

[Enoch07]

Well, yes--- one can argue that 11 year old teen girls ought to be permitted to get breast augmentation surgery.

Not me-- I would not argue for such things; I'd say they'd not suffer by waiting until 16 or 18 at least.

But I have read about some California cosmetic surgeons offering cosmetic surgeries for young girls.

So, yeah, you can argue for nearly anything you like---it still won't make it valid or even ethical.

Eh If for medical condition it is ethical.

But like I say I don't care if it's banned.

 

[Koldo]

I don't have to. It's not an extraordinary claim. It's a well known fact children ages 1-12 are not able to consent in the western world. Usually consent for medical issues is about 14-16, which seems reasonable to me.

This is called 'appeal to tradition'.
Try again.

 

[gnomon]

"Iceland could become the first country in Europe to ban male circumcision, prompting criticism from religious groups about the ritual practiced in both Judaism and Islam.

The legislation being debated by Iceland’s Parliament would impose a six-year jail term on anyone who “removes part or all of (a child’s) sexual organs” for nonmedical reasons.

“It’s an attack on freedom of religion,” Ahmad Seddeeq, the Egyptian-born imam of the Islamic Cultural Center of Iceland, said Monday (Feb. 19).

Iceland outlawed female genital mutilation in 2005, in line with other nations, to prevent procedures that intentionally alter or injure female genital organs for nonmedical reasons.

“We are talking about children’s rights, not about freedom of belief,” she said when she introduced the bill in early February. “Everyone has the right to believe in what they want, but the rights of children come above the right to believe.”

About 336,000 people live in Iceland, including 250 Jews and 1,500 Muslims, according to government statistics and Seddeeq.


The religious ritual of male circumcision, or removing the foreskin from the penis, generally occurs shortly after birth, during childhood or around puberty as a rite of passage. Jews and Muslims typically circumcise their sons to confirm or mark their relationship with God.

In the United States, 98 percent of Jewish men are circumcised, according to the world agency [the World Health Organization]. The organization also said there is substantial evidence that male circumcision protects against diseases, such as urinary tract infections, syphilis, invasive penile cancer and HIV.
source

​

So, is the prohibition of circumcision really an unjustified attack on freedom of religion?

.

​

As compared to the freedom of the individual? An interesting question since the prohibition against female circumcision is widely held as a positive in the Western communities but the argument against male circumcision is argued among health communities including the CDC offering up some support for male circumcision.

I find it has very little to do with religion obviously excepting those who hold forth their cultural beliefs but their is an obvious sexual discrepancy regarding this procedure and supporting cultural practices.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Reading the what was sourced. Reduction in likelihood of UTI is a benefit. Sorry if it facts do not fit with your worldview.

Removing young girl's breasts would reduce the very real chance of breast cancer. It's a benefit. And the cost v benefit analysis is pretty ambiguous depending on how you value each.

I'd rather reduce UTI by teaching healthy eating and cleanliness.

 

[gnomon]

Good for Iceland! Body modifications should not be performed on children or those who have not given explicit consent.

Thank you.

I couldn't get further into this thread. What was a simple argument about circumcision exploded into nonsense about a particular culture's view about a load of garbage that has nothing to do with the argument at hand.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Ok that is a hard line. That includes spinal fusion, cochlear implants, and mole removal.

If it's medically necessary then do it. If not, then the child should decide. It is their body, and not the body of the parent to needlessly alter and adjust as they see fit.

 

[gnomon]

Removing young girl's breasts would reduce the very real chance of breast cancer. It's a benefit. And the cost v benefit analysis is pretty ambiguous depending on how you value each.

I'd rather reduce UTI by teaching healthy eating and cleanliness.

That is an excellent example against the arguments of forced male circumcision based upon spurious health benefits.

Thank you.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I'd rather reduce UTI by teaching healthy eating and cleanliness.

Such a simple and well reasoned response.
You must be going mad!

 

[Curious George]

Removing young girl's breasts would reduce the very real chance of breast cancer. It's a benefit. And the cost v benefit analysis is pretty ambiguous depending on how you value each.

I'd rather reduce UTI by teaching healthy eating and cleanliness.

And as a parent that is your choice. Other parents might choose different paths.

The question was whether or not there were medical benefits to circumcision. There are. This is not disputed.

 

[Curious George]

If it's medically necessary then do it. If not, then the child should decide. It is their body, and not the body of the parent to needlessly alter and adjust as they see fit.

And as a parent you are welcome to make that choice for your own children. I simply do not think you are entitled to make that choice for other parents.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

And as a parent you are welcome to make that choice for your own children.

They shouldn't be able to. Any sort of permanent body modification, when it is not medically necessary, should not be performed on children. A hair cut is one thing, but the permanence of circumcision means the child should decide as it is the child's body, not the parents.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

And as a parent that is your choice. Other parents might choose different paths.

The question was whether or not there were medical benefits to circumcision. There are. This is not disputed.

Funny you should mention that first bit, (and I apologize if this gets a little tmi) because I actually did want to cut my breasts off as a teen. Seriously. I have breast cancer in the family and I had a breast reduction surgery in high school (it was so much tissue it was considered medical. They removed in excess of five pounds.) I was done with breasts and wanted to swim competitively. And even with the reduction they still would only bring me down to a c cup.
Long story short there was enough reason to consider the reduction medical but 'any benefit' was not nearly enough to ethically and legally preform a full mastecomy on a minor even with parental consent.

Some things shouldn't be left to parent decision. This, I think, is one of them. 'Some benefit' can be applied to the removal of just about anything except essential vitals.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

And as a parent you are welcome to make that choice for your own children. I simply do not think you are entitled to make that choice for other parents.

I'm also not too fond of the "making choices for other parents" argument, because that is essentially the reason why America has such a crap approach to sex ed, because "oh my god!!" people are wanting to decide stuff for the parents. Just like sending them to school, vaccines, and laws prohibiting abuse.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Long story short there was enough reason to consider the reduction medical but 'any benefit' was not nearly enough to ethically and legally preform a full mastecomy on a minor even with parental consent.

We don't just remove the appendix either, even though doing so would pretty much eliminate the possibility of it bursting and going through with all that.

 

[Curious George]

They shouldn't be able to. Any sort of permanent body modification, when it is not medically necessary, should not be performed on children. A hair cut is one thing, but the permanence of circumcision means the child should decide as it is the child's body, not the parents.

Parents arguably make choices every day that have lasting and permanent effects on children. While I understand distinguishing permanency for your personal beliefs, permanency still is not enough to force your personal beliefs on another.

 

[Curious George]

I'm also not too fond of the "making choices for other parents" argument, because that is essentially the reason why America has such a crap approach to sex ed, because "oh my god!!" people are wanting to decide stuff for the parents. Just like sending them to school, vaccines, and laws prohibiting abuse.

Hmmm that is a lot better than allowing it to go the other way. Imagine if someone told you that you couldn't instruct your own child regarding sex education.

You will find no argument from me that schools should have comprehensive sex education programs that parents or kids can opt out.

Neglecting education is Neglecting your duty as a guardian. Choosing a medical procedure that can help reduce UTI, and std's is very much like a vaccine. Perhaps, you would find it better if people could tell you that you MUST circumcise your child?

 

[Curious George]

Funny you should mention that first bit, (and I apologize if this gets a little tmi) because I actually did want to cut my breasts off as a teen. Seriously. I have breast cancer in the family and I had a breast reduction surgery in high school (it was so much tissue it was considered medical. They removed in excess of five pounds.) I was done with breasts and wanted to swim competitively. And even with the reduction they still would only bring me down to a c cup.
Long story short there was enough reason to consider the reduction medical but 'any benefit' was not nearly enough to ethically and legally preform a full mastecomy on a minor even with parental consent.

Some things shouldn't be left to parent decision. This, I think, is one of them. 'Some benefit' can be applied to the removal of just about anything except essential vitals.

But we are not talking about any benefit. It was asserted that no benefit came from circumcision. That is wrong.

We are discussing something that is largely considered small benefit and low risk. People argue whether or not the benefits outweigh the risk, but it is not an unreasonable decision for parents to make.

I can't fathom a reason why anyone would feel entitled to tell a parent they cannot make a reasonable choice for their child even if that choice was going to be permanent.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Choosing a medical procedure that can help reduce UTI, and std's is very much like a vaccine.

There are many things we could do, such as appendectomies to reduce the chance of bad outcomes, but we don't. Safe sex and adequate hygiene also work to greatly reduce UTIs and STIs without resorting to a permanent body modification.