"Iceland Could Become first Country to Ban Male Circumcision"

[Kangaroo Feathers]

And as I explained, there was no element of permanency in his definition. Regardless, are you suggesting that permanency is required for a practice to be considered abusive?

No. There's plenty of types of abuse that aren't physically permanent.

 

[HonestJoe]

The goal of a criminal justice system should be to protect innocent citizens from harm. There's no doubt that an innocent baby is being harmed. The question in my mind is -- Is the harm serious enough to infringe upon the religious rights of the parent? It's a tough call.

I consider that a discriminatory and potentially dangerous approach to take. The implication is that there is a level of harm to a child that is sufficient for the state to take action but that level should be raised by an unspecified amount if the parents are religious.

I suggest the approach should be the exact opposite; a nation as a whole determines what is and is not acceptable in that society and the point at which state intervention is acceptable or necessary. Anyone unable or unwilling to follow that conclusion, regardless of whether it’s on a religious, cultural, political or personal basis, has to find a way to deal with that. They might find a workable compromise, campaign for a general change in the law or break the law and hope they don’t get caught.

 

[LuisDantas]

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

No, it is not. It is not an attack at all. I find the decision entirely rational, justified and reasonable.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

To all those worried about "freedom of religion", what's wrong with waiting until a kid is old enough to have some imput? If you still want a circumcision when you are capable of giving informed consent, I'm sure no one would stop you.

 

[ChristineM]

This has a lifelong effect on the person, surely performing such an elective surgery should only carried out with the agreement of the patient. A child of a few days old has no say in the matter.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Well done Iceland if they do carry this through.

It has nothing to do with religion - well only incidentally because it is often associated with religious beliefs. Both male circumcision and female genital mutilation, if performed on children - and often it is performed on very young children - is undoubtedly abuse. This is the dividing line between parental authority and the rights of the child, and as will be obvious, it encompasses religious teaching too - which for many children is more like religious indoctrination. The benefits of male circumcision appear to be a bit debatable, with it mostly stemming from culture or a religious belief. Did a creator somehow make an error?

My mother left me intact in mind and body since she didn't insist I attend Sunday School or have any unnecessary medical procedures without my knowing consent. For which I am truly grateful!

 

[Revoltingest]

So in Iceland prostitution is legal but participating in divinely established covenant by circumcising is not.

They held public hearings on the proposed legislation,
but God failed to appear & speak on the subject.

 

[Curious George]

This has a lifelong effect on the person, surely performing such an elective surgery should only carried out with the agreement of the patient. A child of a few days old has no say in the matter.

Is the same true for non-cancerous mole removal, spinal fusions (in some instance), and cochlear implants?

 

[Curious George]

Both male circumcision and female genital mutilation, if performed on children - and often it is performed on very young children - is undoubtedly abuse.

Is male circumcision undoubtedly abuse? This seems to be where the disagreement is. Many saying it is not, many saying it is. How do we define abuse such that a one time surgical operation that does provide some medical benefit falls under the abuse description? If we define abuse in such a way, does that impact our other choices?

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't buy into male circumcision as being mutilation unless the surgery is botched somehow. It was a valiant effort though. Female circumcision, um, no... just, no.

Some versions of female "circumcision" are as minor as the male variety.
Why does the west have vehement opposition to one but not the other?
Religion & culture.
Setting those aside, there's no justification for surgical modification
without consent being OK for boys but not for girls. But if the child
later decides the procedure is necessary, one can decide for oneself.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Go ahead. Explain that double standard in a logically consistent way. I mean, hey, great you don't approve of female circumcision, really. But by what possible standard can you condemn one but not the other?

Degree of harm.

 

[Curious George]

No, it is not. It is not an attack at all. I find the decision entirely rational, justified and reasonable.

But is allowing circumcision also reasonable?

 

[Altfish]

Is the same true for non-cancerous mole removal, spinal fusions (in some instance), and cochlear implants?

Surely all those are procedures that are carried out on medical advice for good reasons. The same as any childhood inoculations that are given, they benefit the child and protect it.

 

[Revoltingest]

Is male circumcision undoubtedly abuse? This seems to be where the disagreement is. Many saying it is not, many saying it is. How do we define abuse such that a one time surgical operation that does provide some medical benefit falls under the abuse description? If we define abuse in such a way, does that impact our other choices?

Here's the test....
Consider the extent of male circumcision.
Would it be abuse to do an equivalent procedure to girls?
If so, then it's abuse for males too.

 

[ChristineM]

Is the same true for non-cancerous mole removal, spinal fusions (in some instance), and cochlear implants?

Somewhat different scenarios here. You are talking medical, not religious. Any of the procedure's you mention could effect the health or wellbeing of the child so take your doctors advice . By all means, take your doctors advice on circumcission if the foreskin is causing a problem, painful urination for example. But not because whatever god couldn't do his job as his devoted servants require.

 

[Curious George]

Surely all those are procedures that are carried out on medical advice for good reasons. The same as any childhood inoculations that are given, they benefit the child and protect it.

No, I chose instances which are elective and optional. While some have medical benefits, so too does male circumcision.

 

[Curious George]

Here's the test....
Consider the extent of male circumcision.
Would it be abuse to do an equivalent procedure to girls?
If so, then it's abuse for males too.

I don't imagine that some people would find it abusive to engage in penile circumcision of a girl, if she had a penis.

 

[Revoltingest]

While some have medical benefits, so too does male circumcision.

This is a claim which requires support.
I've heard it before, but based upon research in 3rd world countries
with poor hygiene & health care. That wouldn't apply to Iceland....or
Americastan, Canuckistan, England, etc.

Hypothetically, if removing the girl's labia had some similarly
di minimis medical benefit, would you approve of it?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

While some have medical benefits, so too does male circumcision.

It can, in certain circumstances. It doesn't always. Like @ChristineM said; if it's medically necessary, fine. But that doesn't support people doing it for religious reasons.

 

[Curious George]

Somewhat different scenarios here. You are talking medical, not religious. Any of the procedure's you mention could effect the health or wellbeing of the child so take your doctors advice . By all means, take your doctors advice on circumcission if the foreskin is causing a problem, painful urination for example. But not because whatever god couldn't do his job as his devoted servants require.

And there are documented medical benefits of circumcision. Whether these potential benefits outweigh the potential harm is a discussion. But let us not pretend that no such medical benefits exist. Further, birthmark removal does not provide any medical benefit but that doesn't mean that it is abuse.