"Iceland Could Become first Country to Ban Male Circumcision"

[Mock Turtle]

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?

I think one should consider if one is out-of-step with comparable nations, that's all. The USA tends to imprison more than most, still has the death penalty in many states, allows child marriage in some states, is out of step with regards to spanking children, has little regard for free health care, loves guns, is a leader in obesity - what have I missed out? Oh yes, circumcision.

 

[Curious George]

I think one should consider if one is out-of-step with comparable nations, that's all. The USA tends to imprison more than most, still has the death penalty in many states, allows child marriage in some states, is out of step with regards to spanking children, has little regard for free health care, loves guns, is a leader in obesity - what have I missed out? Oh yes, circumcision.

Lol. I get it. You do not like the way the U.S. handles issues. Last I checked the AAP does not have a definitive stance on some of those topics, so I find it interesting that you link all of the above in an attempt to discredit them. Second how are those issues related to bias?

 

[Ponder This]

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

On the one hand, it seems to me that there is a clear justification for the elimination of circumcision as evidenced by the overwhelming support from Icelandic doctors on the issue..
And on the other hand, it seems that no specific religion is being targeted (meaning that circumcision would be outlawed regardless of a person's religion).
But it could be said that it does make it difficult for some people to practice their religion even if that isn't the intent of the law (is it)?

However, all that aside, it seems to me that justification needs simply to be given for the intervention of the government in what is most definitely a decision made by a parent with regard to a son. Even though there is no medical justification for the general circumcision of babies, that is not a sufficient grounds to disallow the procedure.

The fact that the child is undergoing a procedure for which he does not consent is not particularly relevant either because that right is reserved to the parent until such time as the child is old enough to decide for himself. While it can be argued that the procedure could be delayed until later, that is not sufficient reason to disregard the parent's decision in the matter.

I am not going to take a particular stance one way or the other here, other than to say that freedom of religion isn't at issue here at all. But I will put forth the question: how is circumcision different from tattooing or branding your babies? Would braces for aesthetic purposes by okay? We know that shaving heads helps reduce the problems associated with lice: would it be okay for a parent to shave the heads of their children everyday until they become consenting adults free from the guardianship of their parents?

It just seems to me that people often ask the wrong questions.

 

[Skwim]

I am not going to take a particular stance one way or the other here, other than to say that freedom of religion isn't at issue here at all.
It just seems to me that people often ask the wrong questions.

Well, Ahmad Seddeeq, the Egyptian-born imam of the Islamic Cultural Center of Iceland made it one when he said,

“It’s an attack on freedom of religion.”
(see the OP)​

​

 

[kiwimac]

I actually think this kind of thing should be an adult decision so it should be left for the child's majority.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Lol. I get it. You do not like the way the U.S. handles issues. Last I checked the AAP does not have a definitive stance on some of those topics, so I find it interesting that you link all of the above in an attempt to discredit them. Second how are those issues related to bias?

I have many issues with what the USA does and how it sees itself, but this is not a personal attack on the USA and I hope others would not see it as such. If I had any issues with the UK, and I do, I would do just the same, as I would regarding any other country. As I've probably mentioned several times, it is all about the rights of the child versus those of the parent.

There is one thing in common with many in the list I gave - the rights of children. Child marriage - a bit obvious this one, being the right to self-determination over the right of the parent to treat them as their property, and child marriage has been outlawed by virtually every civilised nation. The physical chastisement of children (smacking, spanking, etc.) is again the right of the child not to be treated so when doing this just tends to send out the message that physical violence is appropriate, and often just isn't effective. Many countries do regard this as physical abuse and have banned this. The free health care, or a nation-wide 'free' health service should again impact children but I'm not that au fait with the system in America specifically regarding children. The relatively free access to weapons like guns will be having an affect too, as the recent shooting showed, as well as the numerous deaths caused by children or of children, such that just having so many guns around increases the chances of children being killed or injured, so raises the threat level rather than makes their lives safer. And the numbers of deaths related to guns alone surely will be having an affect on their lives. The obesity point - much like many other countries though - where children have the right to continued health, and we do know that obesity is linked to various health issues. And lastly, circumcision - the right not to have their bodies violated before they are able to decide for themselves, when it is the parental right seemingly advocated as trumping their rights.

The USA is hardly the biggest villain when it comes to the rights of the child, but as can be seen, the rights of the child are all too often in conflict with parental rights, whether that stems from culture or religious beliefs. That was my point.

 

[Mock Turtle]

On the one hand, it seems to me that there is a clear justification for the elimination of circumcision as evidenced by the overwhelming support from Icelandic doctors on the issue..
And on the other hand, it seems that no specific religion is being targeted (meaning that circumcision would be outlawed regardless of a person's religion).
But it could be said that it does make it difficult for some people to practice their religion even if that isn't the intent of the law (is it)?

But that is a problem for religions - they set themselves up to have such conflicts because they seem to have dogma, which to many of us is just randomly explained, when they are formed. Religions will continue to do so, and do, but they also change when the pressure becomes too great to withstand.

However, all that aside, it seems to me that justification needs simply to be given for the intervention of the government in what is most definitely a decision made by a parent with regard to a son. Even though there is no medical justification for the general circumcision of babies, that is not a sufficient grounds to disallow the procedure.

The fact that the child is undergoing a procedure for which he does not consent is not particularly relevant either because that right is reserved to the parent until such time as the child is old enough to decide for himself. While it can be argued that the procedure could be delayed until later, that is not sufficient reason to disregard the parent's decision in the matter.

It is when it cannot be reversed. How can a child take back what the parent allowed to be taken away?

I am not going to take a particular stance one way or the other here, other than to say that freedom of religion isn't at issue here at all. But I will put forth the question: how is circumcision different from tattooing or branding your babies? Would braces for aesthetic purposes by okay? We know that shaving heads helps reduce the problems associated with lice: would it be okay for a parent to shave the heads of their children everyday until they become consenting adults free from the guardianship of their parents?

It just seems to me that people often ask the wrong questions.

These too could be cited as undue parental control, and although tattooing and ear-piercing (especially) are quite common in very young children, they are hardly in the same category as circumcision. The former are often just done out of personal belief or fashion considerations, but circumcision seems to come from elsewhere if not usually from a religious belief. There just isn't a worldwide consensus on the issue to support circumcision of the young.

 

[Curious George]

I have many issues with what the USA does and how it sees itself, but this is not a personal attack on the USA and I hope others would not see it as such. If I had any issues with the UK, and I do, I would do just the same, as I would regarding any other country. As I've probably mentioned several times, it is all about the rights of the child versus those of the parent.

There is one thing in common with many in the list I gave - the rights of children. Child marriage - a bit obvious this one, being the right to self-determination over the right of the parent to treat them as their property, and child marriage has been outlawed by virtually every civilised nation. The physical chastisement of children (smacking, spanking, etc.) is again the right of the child not to be treated so when doing this just tends to send out the message that physical violence is appropriate, and often just isn't effective. Many countries do regard this as physical abuse and have banned this. The free health care, or a nation-wide 'free' health service should again impact children but I'm not that au fait with the system in America specifically regarding children. The relatively free access to weapons like guns will be having an affect too, as the recent shooting showed, as well as the numerous deaths caused by children or of children, such that just having so many guns around increases the chances of children being killed or injured, so raises the threat level rather than makes their lives safer. And the numbers of deaths related to guns alone surely will be having an affect on their lives. The obesity point - much like many other countries though - where children have the right to continued health, and we do know that obesity is linked to various health issues. And lastly, circumcision - the right not to have their bodies violated before they are able to decide for themselves, when it is the parental right seemingly advocated as trumping their rights.

The USA is hardly the biggest villain when it comes to the rights of the child, but as can be seen, the rights of the child are all too often in conflict with parental rights, whether that stems from culture or religious beliefs. That was my point.

And yet, in all of that, not one reason to discredit the AAP.

 

[Mock Turtle]

And yet, in all of that, not one reason to discredit the AAP.

What was it, a panel of professionals doing a meta-analysis and deciding? Quite often we do get different interpretations in similar cases. I haven't got professional access to this kind of thing, so just guessing.

 

[syo]

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

why ban circumcision? is it bad for the health? they shouldn't ban it. parents want the best for their children and religion is for the best.

 

[Curious George]

What was it, a panel of professionals doing a meta-analysis and deciding? Quite often we do get different interpretations in similar cases. I haven't got professional access to this kind of thing, so just guessing.

AAP is the American Association of Pediatrics. They have taken a stance against spanking as well. The point is that we have a large group of doctors saying that circumcision is more beneficial than detrimental. You can point to European studies that contradict this, but that just shows that there is disagreement in the field. Moreover, it does not show that circumcision is unreasonable, which is the level we should need to get to in order to justify government interference.

I have seen no evidence or support that the AAP was biased in their opinion.

 

[Mock Turtle]

AAP is the American Association of Pediatrics. They have taken a stance against spanking as well. The point is that we have a large group of doctors saying that circumcision is more beneficial than detrimental. You can point to European studies that contradict this, but that just shows that there is disagreement in the field. Moreover, it does not show that circumcision is unreasonable, which is the level we should need to get to in order to justify government interference.

I have seen no evidence or support that the AAP was biased in their opinion.

Fair enough. I base my views mainly on the rights of the child over the parent, so I'm not particularly interested in the benefits or deficits of any such procedure anyway. To me it is mostly irrelevant, particularly when it cannot be reversed.

 

[Skwim]

why ban circumcision? is it bad for the health? they shouldn't ban it. parents want the best for their children and religion is for the best.

What if the religion required body scarification?

Spoiler: WARNING: bloody scarification

Or earlobe modification?

Spoiler: Ear lobe modification

.

 

[syo]

What if the religion required body scarification?

Spoiler: WARNING: bloody scarification

Or earlobe modification?

Spoiler: Ear lobe modification

.

it depends on the society i suppose. some tribes do those stuff.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

why ban circumcision? is it bad for the health?

In quite a lot of cases it's not only medically necessary it is dangerous and performed by unqualified people in less-than-sterile conditions. Circumcisions, especially those performed as part of religious rituals, expose babies to unacceptable risks of being infected by HIV and the like. A fatal yet purely avoidable disease that could be avoided by not having a circumcision.

they shouldn't ban it. parents want the best for their children

How is mutilating a child and exposing it to the risk of a fatal illness acting in the child's best interest?

and religion is for the best.

It's quite clearly not if it refuses to adapt to social changes and to improving medical knowledge. People know that circumcisions are an unnecessary risk yet they still go ahead in order to slap a religious label on a child which makes them feel justified in indoctrinating them.

 

[Revoltingest]

I watched something interesting on TV last nite.
Mrs Maisel....her family is Jewish.
A baby boy was to be circumcised.
Here are the things which were funny....
- Sharpening the razor.
- The boy's scream in pain.

Would it be so funny if the family were African or
mid-eastern immigrants, & the baby were female?

 

[Milton Platt]

I watched something interesting on TV last nite.
Mrs Maisel....her family is Jewish.
A baby boy was to be circumcised.
Here are the things which were funny....
- Sharpening the razor.
- The boy's scream in pain.

Would it be so funny if the family were African or
mid-eastern immigrants, & the baby were female?

I can see the ad in the classifieds......."needed, one male infant for scene in movie requiring male genital mutilation".

 

[Milton Platt]

Well, Ahmad Seddeeq, the Egyptian-born imam of the Islamic Cultural Center of Iceland made it one when he said,

“It’s an attack on freedom of religion.”
(see the OP)​

​

Yep.......Will Christians now decide to claim that not allowing the burning of witches is an attack on freedom of religion?

 

[Revoltingest]

I can see the ad in the classifieds......."needed, one male infant for scene in movie requiring male genital mutilation".

The scream was heard while viewing the outside of the home.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yep.......Will Christians now decide to claim that not allowing the burning of witches is an attack on freedom of religion?

And don't forget the auto da fe.