"Iceland Could Become first Country to Ban Male Circumcision"

[Koldo]

And amendments to the constitution take more than a simple majority. But sure. You somehow believe that it is good for the majority to have the ability to freely oppress minorities? I somehow feel our discussion is devolving.

I don't remember saying this. I have merely stated a fact.

I do not think that a parent choosing a procedure for which many doctors believe has a net benefit and all doctors acknowledge has a benefit is an unreasonable choice.

I will correct you on this part: It is, because there is no net gain. If they believe so, they are wrong and misguided.

My reasoning for this has been explained.

You believe they are being unreasonable. You believe this because you think they and the many professional doctors on whom the parents rely are all misguided.

You believe this because in your assessment any advantage of circumcision can be equally achieved in a less intrusive way, and because any later in life benefits can be achieved by a later in life circumcision that does not deny the child the right to autonomy. And any surgery, even minor surgeries have risks. Since you believe all of the benefits can be achieved in another manner, you do not believe the benefits offset the harm.

Let correct you again: I know the benefits do not offset the harm.

Given your above beliefs you believe the parents right to act on behalf of their child should be limited to preserve the child's right to autonomy.

I disagree. So, given I think I thoroughly understand your beliefs and you understand mine and we still disagree...where does that leave us?

Me ? Defending children from forced circumcisions.
You ? Supporting parents forcing, if they feel like it, circumcisions upon their children.

 

[Curious George]

As I said, our conversation is devolving.

I don't remember saying this. I have merely stated a fact.

Fact that would entail what I have suggested in order to preserve the truth of what you suggested. It is fact that the Majority could Ammendment the constitution such that it allows for the oppression of minorities.

I will correct you on this part: It is, because there is no net gain.

There is nothing to correct. It is a fact that many doctors have concluded this.

If they believe so, they are wrong and misguided.

I dealt with your beliefs below.

Let correct you again: I know the benefits do not offset the harm.

This just sounds silly. You believe it. You can claim knowledge all you want. Besides the obvious point that knowledge is a type of belief, it just sounds like you saying "what I believe is the truth!"

Me ? Defending children from forced circumcisions.
You ? Supporting parents forcing, if they feel like it, circumcisions upon their children.

I believe I characterized your view fairly. If you believe this is a fair characterization of my view, I think it is unlikely that I will change your mind.

 

[Koldo]

As I said, our conversation is devolving.



Fact that would entail what I have suggested in order to preserve the truth of what you suggested. It is fact that the Majority could Ammendment the constitution such that it allows for the oppression of minorities.

So, you would condemn oppressing the parents, but you are fine with parents oppressing their children ?
I find this laughable.

There is nothing to correct. It is a fact that many doctors have concluded this.

If they concluded it, they are wrong. Period.
In the context of our conversation, which is circumcision on infants, of course.

I dealt with your beliefs below.


This just sounds silly. You believe it. You can claim knowledge all you want. Besides the obvious point that knowledge is a type of belief, it just sounds like you saying "what I believe is the truth!"

It is more like: I don't just believe in it. I am absolutely certain.

I believe I characterized your view fairly. If you believe this is a fair characterization of my view, I think it is unlikely that I will change your mind.

Yes, it is a fair characterization of your view.
You don't mind if parents circumcise their children.

 

[Curious George]

So, you would condemn oppressing the parents, but you are fine with parents oppressing their children ?
I find this laughable.

Parents have always been in the unique position to act on behalf of their child. We as societies expect and anticipate that they are acting and will act in the child's best interests. We intervene only when a parent is clearly acting contrary to the child's best interest. We evidence this by demonstrating that the parent is unreasonably and causing harm to the child. This is not unreasonably in our opinion. This is in fact causing harm (which could include exposing them to unnecessary risks) and the parent should have reasonably known they were causing harm.

If they concluded it, they are wrong. Period.
In the context of our conversation, which is circumcision on infants, of course.

Sigh. It is there medical opinion. They are experts and qualified to give their medical opinion.

It is more like: I don't just believe in it. I am absolutely certain.

As we are on rf, I am sure you can anticipate how this statement resonates with me.

Yes, it is a fair characterization of your view.
You don't mind if parents circumcise their children.

Do you think it is more fair to say: that I see no valid reason to legally prevent parents from choosing to circumcise their sons.

 

[Koldo]

Parents have always been in the unique position to act on behalf of their child. We as societies expect and anticipate that they are acting and will act in the child's best interests. We intervene only when a parent is clearly acting contrary to the child's best interest. We evidence this by demonstrating that the parent is unreasonably and causing harm to the child. This is not unreasonably in our opinion. This is in fact causing harm (which could include exposing them to unnecessary risks) and the parent should have reasonably known they were causing harm.

You have included circumcision in your own definition of what 'harm' entails by including 'unnecessary risks'.
Thank you.

Sigh. It is there medical opinion. They are experts and qualified to give their medical opinion.

They are entitled to their own opinion, but not to their own facts.
I have already stated the facts upon which one can conclude there is no net gain in forcing circumcision.

As we are on rf, I am sure you can anticipate how this statement resonates with me.

No idea. Each person feels differently.

Do you think it is more fair to say: that I see no valid reason to legally prevent parents from choosing to circumcise their sons.

Nitpicking.
Potato, patato.

 

[Curious George]

You have included circumcision in your own definition of what 'harm' entails by including 'unnecessary risks'.
Thank you.

I included it because unnecessary risks can certainly be considered a type of harm. The question with regard to circumcision is does the unnecessary risk (if one is to accept that the benefits do not outweigh the risk) rise to a level of harm that is substantial enough to constitute abuse. Furthermore, we have to establish that the parent was unreasonable in their action as well. I can only assume you will conclude yes to both of these. Hopefully you can see that I still would not. And we are back to square one.

They are entitled to their own opinion, but not to their own facts.
I have already stated the facts upon which one can conclude there is no net gain in forcing circumcision.

Facts which they have seen, weighed, evaluated and in their professional medical opinion still formed their opinion. In other words, one can conclude given the facts, but many medical professionals do not conclude...

No idea. Each person feels differently.

I believe that you believe you are certain.

Nitpicking.
Potato, patato.

Or not. But if you understand my point of view and I understand yours, where does that leave us, if we still disagree.

 

[Koldo]

I included it because unnecessary risks can certainly be considered a type of harm. The question with regard to circumcision is does the unnecessary risk (if one is to accept that the benefits do not outweigh the risk) rise to a level of harm that is substantial enough to constitute abuse. Furthermore, we have to establish that the parent was unreasonable in their action as well. I can only assume you will conclude yes to both of these. Hopefully you can see that I still would not. And we are back to square one.


Facts which they have seen, weighed, evaluated and in their professional medical opinion still formed their opinion. In other words, one can conclude given the facts, but many medical professionals do not conclude...



I believe that you believe you are certain.

Or not. But if you understand my point of view and I understand yours, where does that leave us, if we still disagree.

It bears repeating if I didn't get my message across the first time around:

"Me ? Defending children from forced circumcisions.
You ? Supporting parents forcing, if they feel like it, circumcisions upon their children."

This is where it leaves us.

 

[Curious George]

It bears repeating if I didn't get my message across the first time around:

"Me ? Defending children from forced circumcisions.
You ? Supporting parents forcing, if they feel like it, circumcisions upon their children."

This is where it leaves us.

Well as your words are "potato, patato" I will take a very liberal reading of that. Cheers koldo

 

[Mock Turtle]

Parents have always been in the unique position to act on behalf of their child. We as societies expect and anticipate that they are acting and will act in the child's best interests. We intervene only when a parent is clearly acting contrary to the child's best interest.

But this changes over time as we become more knowledgeable and expect more rights for all. My father was born when children were still working in coal mines - under age 14 up to 1914 in the UK. And of course in earlier times it was worse. They probably thought they were doing right by their kids, or perhaps had no choice - poverty being the determinant. But things changed. If females have gotten better rights in the last century in many countries, it is mostly children that are still lagging behind. As I mentioned a lot earlier in the thread I think, the new battle ground is between parental rights and the rights of the child. And this is one example of this. The parents just shouldn't have the right to inflict something on a child that has no real benefits, and without their informed consent. The 'parent knows best' argument is just not tenable in modern society. One has only to look at things like nutrition, monitoring of their technology use, insufficient interacting, etc., to see there are many things to point out that even if 'the parent knows best', they often are not doing this for their children. And even in America, apart from many other places, you have child marriages going on. Is that a parent doing their duty to their child or in their best interests?

 

[Sayf_ibn_Umar]

Hi y'all. Icelander here with some good news!

My feeling is that the bill is going to pass. ~500 Icelandic doctors recently came out in support of the ban on male genital mutilation. And a nurse who has witnessed the horrors of this barbaric practice in Denmark gave a nice interview on the national radio station.

Hopefully Iceland will just be the first of many nations to ban it

 

[Revoltingest]

Hi y'all. Icelander here with some good news!

My feeling is that the bill is going to pass. ~500 Icelandic doctors recently came out in support of the ban on male genital mutilation. And a nurse who has witnessed the horrors of this barbaric practice in Denmark gave a nice interview on the national radio station.

Hopefully Iceland will just be the first of many nations to ban it

Have any links?
These are always great with breaking news.

 

[Sayf_ibn_Umar]

Have any links?
These are always great with breaking news.

Well, you can try google translate or something, it's in Icelandic.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, you can try google translate or something, it's in Icelandic.

Yes, that's perfect!
Á fimmta hundrað íslenskra lækna fagna umskurðarfrumvarpi - Vísir
Just click on <translate>.
What an age we live in, eh.
The article.....

About fifty hundred Icelandic doctors welcome a bill aimed at banning boys' circumcision unless medical reasons form the basis.

The statement says the case has a number of aspects but is not complicated in the opinion of the doctors.

"All the features, no matter how technically simple they are, have potential complications that should offset their benefits. There are few medical tips for circumcision, but few. We believe that, without such suggestions, infanticide contravention of Physician's Declaration of Genealogy, and thus complies with the basic criteria of Helsinki Declaration by the Doctors on the right to self-determination and informed consent, "the statement said.

In the statement of the statement, Icelandic doctors have said many have worked in Europe, the United Kingdom and the United States. A number of people have received young boys with complications following circumcisions such as infections, bleeding or fibrosis. Even so excited about the prospect of prospects. Others have described their experience of painful neonates where extremely sensible-sensitive tissue is cut away without anesthesia. Many have refused to participate in the work of conscience because of different understanding.

The announcement states that a high of fifty hundred signatures have accumulated in 48 hours.

The doctors who write their name to this statement claim to be wholehearted according to the results of our colleague published in the magazine of the American Pediatric Medical Association AAP in April 2013, the circumcision of brave children in Western societies has no significant health or preventive effect, but on the contrary causes pain, can lead to serious even prolonged complications, violating the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and blaming the Hippocrates area : " Primum non nocere "- above all not harm.

 

[Curious George]

But this changes over time as we become more knowledgeable and expect more rights for all. My father was born when children were still working in coal mines - under age 14 up to 1914 in the UK. And of course in earlier times it was worse. They probably thought they were doing right by their kids, or perhaps had no choice - poverty being the determinant. But things changed. If females have gotten better rights in the last century in many countries, it is mostly children that are still lagging behind. As I mentioned a lot earlier in the thread I think, the new battle ground is between parental rights and the rights of the child. And this is one example of this. The parents just shouldn't have the right to inflict something on a child that has no real benefits, and without their informed consent. The 'parent knows best' argument is just not tenable in modern society. One has only to look at things like nutrition, monitoring of their technology use, insufficient interacting, etc., to see there are many things to point out that even if 'the parent knows best', they often are not doing this for their children. And even in America, apart from many other places, you have child marriages going on. Is that a parent doing their duty to their child or in their best interests?

Given your examples, I do not think a society which mandates what someone can eat, how much TV time they get and whether they have accumulated the social credits for the day is a good and free society.

Parents make decisions on behalf of their children. When those decisions cause unreasonable harm we can step in. Frankly, it sounds like a good chunk of you disagree with the decision the parents are making but ultimately fail to explain why listening to a group of medical professionals is unreasonable.

 

[Sayf_ibn_Umar]

Given your examples, I do not think a society which mandates what someone can eat, how much TV time they get and whether they have accumulated the social credits for the day is a good and free society.

Parents make decisions on behalf of their children. When those decisions cause unreasonable harm we can step in. Frankly, it sounds like a good chunk of you disagree with the decision the parents are making but ultimately fail to explain why listening to a group of medical professionals is unreasonable.

There is always harm when it comes to circumcision. They're cutting off a part of a child's penis.

And there are no good medical reasons for it. Doctors in countries where MGM is practiced try desperately to find some minute health benefits but it doesn't come close to validating MGM.

This is child abuse (I'm not claiming any malice on part of the parents) and would be comparable to e.g. cutting off a pinky toe or something like that.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Given your examples, I do not think a society which mandates what someone can eat, how much TV time they get and whether they have accumulated the social credits for the day is a good and free society.

I'm sure most of us are not exactly enthusiastic about legislating against all sorts of things to control us more. I'm certainly not in favour of this, but undoubtedly parents are not doing the best for their children in many cases. I was perhaps lucky, if one can call it that, having been brought up under rationing after the war so that most of us grew up quite healthy. Just too many issues involved to blame the parents solely for the obesity epidemic in many countries.

Parents make decisions on behalf of their children. When those decisions cause unreasonable harm we can step in. Frankly, it sounds like a good chunk of you disagree with the decision the parents are making but ultimately fail to explain why listening to a group of medical professionals is unreasonable.

Perhaps because we see a slight bias issue? I doubt we would get this medical opinion from outside the USA, unless it was coming from a another country similarly quite religiously dominated.

Lastly, I think that the rights and conditions for children have followed (or should follow) the same trend as has happened with adult females, and that the parents are often not in the best position to effect these rights for their children when they actually do such a poor job in many areas or have an agenda - like a religious belief.

 

[Curious George]

There is always harm when it comes to circumcision. They're cutting off a part of a child's penis.

And there are no good medical reasons for it. Doctors in countries where MGM is practiced try desperately to find some minute health benefits but it doesn't come close to validating MGM.

This is child abuse (I'm not claiming any malice on part of the parents) and would be comparable to e.g. cutting off a pinky toe or something like that.

The fact is that parents relying on medical reasoning of not only a few, but many doctors is not unreasonable.

 

[Curious George]

I'm sure most of us are not exactly enthusiastic about legislating against all sorts of things to control us more. I'm certainly not in favour of this, but undoubtedly parents are not doing the best for their children in many cases. I was perhaps lucky, if one can call it that, having been brought up under rationing after the war so that most of us grew up quite healthy. Just too many issues involved to blame the parents solely for the obesity epidemic in many countries.



Perhaps because we see a slight bias issue? I doubt we would get this medical opinion from outside the USA, unless it was coming from a another country similarly quite religiously dominated.

Lastly, I think that the rights and conditions for children have followed (or should follow) the same trend as has happened with adult females, and that the parents are often not in the best position to effect these rights for their children when they actually do such a poor job in many areas or have an agenda - like a religious belief.

You can speculate about bias all you like. If you have proof that the doctors were biased in their report or that the studies were biased, present it. Otherwise, it is simply an unsupported belief.

As long as parents relying on the medical opinion of doctors to make a medical decision is reasonable, these parents are not unreasonable.

 

[Mock Turtle]

You can speculate about bias all you like. If you have proof that the doctors were biased in their report or that the studies were biased, present it. Otherwise, it is simply an unsupported belief.

As long as parents relying on the medical opinion of doctors to make a medical decision is reasonable, these parents are not unreasonable.

Well, I'm hardly going to get hot under the collar over an issue that has absolutely no relevance for me personally, but I would be suspicious if many other similar authorities did have very opposing views regarding this - which appears to be the case in Europe and elsewhere - and where religious belief seems to be the main consideration, apart from in the USA which just appears to be cultural - like their love-affair with guns.

 

[Curious George]

Well, I'm hardly going to get hot under the collar over an issue that has absolutely no relevance for me personally, but I would be suspicious if many other similar authorities did have very opposing views regarding this - which appears to be the case in Europe and elsewhere - and where religious belief seems to be the main consideration, apart from in the USA which just appears to be cultural - like their love-affair with guns.

Yes, it is helpful to claim unsupported religious bias when it suits one's opinions and ignore such bias when it does not.

I would simply think the better approach is providing evidence of such a bias. But who needs reason when fancy is so much more fun?