Iceland to ban male circumcision

[lego 44,165]

This is thousands of years old tradition. You can’t ban it. You can only make it more unsafe.

Think about abortion. Most of you support it, right? It’s removing a lot more than a piece of skin. You think that’s not harmful? People will do it anyway secretly even if it’s banned. Either at home or abroad. 

[Dominic 11,922]

21 minutes ago, lego said:

This is thousands of years old tradition. You can’t ban it. You can only make it more unsafe.

Think about abortion. Most of you support it, right? It’s removing a lot more than a piece of skin. You think that’s not harmful? People will do it anyway secretly even if it’s banned. Either at home or abroad. 

Unfortunately this. 

It will stop a lot of people doing it but there's gonna be a huge group that will just resort to back alley doctors and that is more frightening. 

Alas, something needs to be done though. 

[Bebe 17,289]

1 hour ago, lego said:

This is thousands of years old tradition. You can’t ban it. You can only make it more unsafe.

Think about abortion. Most of you support it, right? It’s removing a lot more than a piece of skin. You think that’s not harmful? People will do it anyway secretly even if it’s banned. Either at home or abroad. 

The age of the tradition doesn't make it okay.

It's a different topic, I support abortion rights - I support the idea of a woman's bodily autonomy and her ability to make choices when it comes to what she does with her body. Women can consent to the medical procedure. An infant, or a child, has no choice in the matter. A newborn can't consent to a medical procedure that permanently disfigures their genitalia, a procedure that has insignificant benefits, a procedure that removes the most sensitive part of the genitals, a procedure that has in cases led to death. 

I'm not even against circumcision, don't think most of the people arguing for this ban are either,  we just think the boys should wait until they’re old enough to decide for themselves. Then they too can make the decision for themselves, they can consent to the procedure if that's what they want.

There are scores of men who feel so much resent, who feel mutilated, who feel shame, who hate that they have less sensitivity, who hate the scars, who feel anger towards their parents or guardians, who feel anger towards the doctor who pushed for what they later learned was an unnecessary circumcision. 

It's not just fringe people either... They include:

Presidents like John F. Kennedy ("When you're circumcised at a much later age like that, you think of it as a kind of castration")

Philosophers like Jacques Derrida ("This per­fumed water attenuates the pain which I suppose to be nil and infinite, and I can still feel it, the phantom burning, in my belly, irradiating a diffuse zone around the sex, a threat which returns every time the other is in pain...the crime of my circumcision...")

Radio personalities like Howard Stern ("I am circumcised, and I tell you something, I despise it. I despise it. I despise it... I dread [rue] the day my parents mutilated me.)

Actors like Ben Affleck ("I hate the circumcisions! Get enough in me, and I'll tell you how much I hate them!")

Comedians like Daniel Tosh ("Just for the record ... I always wished that I wasn't circumcised") 

Youtube personalities like Davey Wavey ("Just because I don't remember it doesn't mean it wasn't an awful experience to go through... It's genital mutilation, no question")

Hell there are even users here that say they wish they hadn't been circumcised! These men feel like they have been failed, like they were not protected. 

I weigh the bodily autonomy of a person and a person's self-determination above that of religious or cultural practices that conflict with those ideals. It's why I'm pro-choice despite some religions considering it murder and it's why I'm anti-circumcision for infants and children despite some religions considering it important.

Parents who ignore the law and turn to other places to illegally circumcise their children are no doubt putting their children at an even greater unnecessary risk, but it's not something most parents would do. It's a greater abuse of the child, but I don't think any country should be aiding in (or promoting) state-sanctioned genital mutilation because of a few bad parents who would expose their children to greater risk. It's far more important, I think, to protect the wider community of boys from undergoing such an unnecessary and unethical procedure. 

I also just wouldn't compare a woman motivated to abort a fetus because she isn't mentally, emotionally, financially, physically ready, able or willing to have a child with parents or guardians who are motivated to put their child at risk for a procedure that is medically unnecessary and detrimental to their child's wellbeing. It's as false an equivalency as "well people will smoke pot whether it's legal or not, why wouldn't they purchase and own guns whether it's legal or not?"

[PerfectGUY 7,822]

15 hours ago, GoldenPonyboy said:

I got it at 12. It hurts like hell. Still remember it to this day. Also, this is not gonna stop people, theyll just do it behind closed door which is just dangerous

Yeah, that's what I said

[ryanripley 86,575]

2 hours ago, lego said:

This is thousands of years old tradition. You can’t ban it. You can only make it more unsafe.

Think about abortion. Most of you support it, right? It’s removing a lot more than a piece of skin. You think that’s not harmful? People will do it anyway secretly even if it’s banned. Either at home or abroad. 

then why bother having any kind of law then? 

[lego 44,165]

2 minutes ago, Fable said:

The age of the tradition doesn't make it okay.

It's a different topic, I support abortion rights - I support the idea of a woman's bodily autonomy and her ability to make choices when it comes to what she does with her body. Women can consent to the medical procedure. An infant, or a child, has no choice in the matter. A newborn can't consent to a medical procedure that permanently disfigures their genitalia, a procedure that has insignificant benefits, a procedure that removes the most sensitive part of the genitals, a procedure that has in cases led to death. 

I'm not even against circumcision, don't think most of the people arguing for this ban are either,  we just think the boys should wait until they’re old enough to decide for themselves. Then they too can make the decision for themselves, they can consent to the procedure if that's what they want.

There are scores of men who feel so much resent, who feel mutilated, who feel shame, who hate that they have less sensitivity, who hate the scars, who feel anger towards their parents or guardians, who feel anger towards the doctor who pushed for what they later learned was an unnecessary circumcision. 

It's not just fringe people either... They include:

Presidents like John F. Kennedy ("When you're circumcised at a much later age like that, you think of it as a kind of castration")

Philosophers like Jacques Derrida ("This per­fumed water attenuates the pain which I suppose to be nil and infinite, and I can still feel it, the phantom burning, in my belly, irradiating a diffuse zone around the sex, a threat which returns every time the other is in pain...the crime of my circumcision...")

Radio personalities like Howard Stern ("I am circumcised, and I tell you something, I despise it. I despise it. I despise it... I dread [rue] the day my parents mutilated me.)

Actors like Ben Affleck ("I hate the circumcisions! Get enough in me, and I'll tell you how much I hate them!")

Comedians like Daniel Tosh ("Just for the record ... I always wished that I wasn't circumcised") 

Youtube personalities like Davey Wavey ("Just because I don't remember it doesn't mean it wasn't an awful experience to go through... It's genital mutilation, no question")

Hell there are even users here that say they wish they hadn't been circumcised! These men feel like they have been failed, like they were not protected. 

I weigh the bodily autonomy of a person and a person's self-determination above that of religious or cultural practices that conflict with those ideals. It's why I'm pro-choice despite some religions considering it murder and it's why I'm anti-circumcision for infants and children despite some religions considering it important.

Parents who ignore the law and turn to other places to illegally circumcise their children are no doubt putting their children at an even greater unnecessary risk, but it's not something most parents would do. It's a greater abuse of the child, but I don't think any country should be aiding in (or promoting) state-sanctioned genital mutilation because of a few bad parents who would expose their children to greater risk. It's far more important, I think, to protect the wider community of boys from undergoing such an unnecessary and unethical procedure. 

I also just wouldn't compare a woman motivated to abort a fetus because she isn't mentally, emotionally, financially, physically ready, able or willing to have a child with parents or guardians who are motivated to put their child at risk for a procedure that is medically unnecessary and detrimental to their child's wellbeing. It's as false an equivalency as "well people will smoke pot whether it's legal or not, why wouldn't they purchase and own guns whether it's legal or not?"

 

It’s not false equivalency. You wouldn’t compare it, but I just did.

You don’t care if the baby wants to be born or not, if the adult wants to terminate the pregnancy at any stage, not wanting kid with Down syndrome, for example. That means removing tiny human being from the womb piece by piece. But you care about piece of skin if baby can’t consent. You have to remember how many millions of people have been practicing this, for centuries, and they don’t think it’s mutilation, besides religious reasons they also believe in health benefits, so you can’t ban it. It’s impossible.

With one country’s ban you are putting these kids at more risk, because it will be done in unsafe conditions. 

This has nothing to do with drugs or guns. It has to do with human body and surgeries and risks. And abortion is pretty damn valid comparison and it also shows hypocrisy. 

 

[lego 44,165]

2 minutes ago, ryanripley said:

then why bother having any kind of law then? 

 

Not a valid argument? Abortion is illegal in Ireland and Malta, you think no one there does it?

[ryanripley 86,575]

Just now, lego said:

 

Not a valid argument? Abortion is illegal in Ireland and Malta, you think no one there does it?

i know ppl still do it but mutilating a baby against its will is barbaric and should be illegal

it's not going to stop everyone but it will now provide punishment for those who will

rape is also illegal but people still do it but since it's illegal, people get in trouble for it 

[lego 44,165]

1 minute ago, ryanripley said:

i know ppl still do it but mutilating a baby against its will is barbaric and should be illegal

it's not going to stop everyone but it will now provide punishment for those who will

rape is also illegal but people still do it but since it's illegal, people get in trouble for it 

 

Can you stop calling it mutilating, it’s actually an insult to victims of FGM. Hundreds of millions of circumcised men have perfectly normal sex life. It’s not equivalent. 

 

It will also bring babies at greater risk, but who cares about that. Oh but you think you’re protecting the babies with this law? Or it’s just about punishing adults. 

 

Rape has nothing to do with this. We are talking about surgeries harmful or not, to human body and the legality of it. 

 

[ryanripley 86,575]

1 minute ago, lego said:

 

Can you stop calling it mutilating, it’s actually an insult to victims of FGM. Hundreds of millions of circumcised men have perfectly normal sex life. It’s not equivalent. 

 

It will also bring babies at greater risk, but who cares about that. Oh but you think you’re protecting the babies with this law? Or it’s just about punishing adults. 

 

Rape has nothing to do with this. We are talking about surgeries harmful or not, to human body and the legality of it. 

 

mutilation is mutilation lol and i brought up rape because i'm talking about making stuff illegal

you say it's pointless when it'll stop a good majority and those who do will get into trouble and these babies will be able to sue their parents probably

there's no real reason minus medical emergencies than to remove foreskin so babies do not need to go through that pain. like every other law, it won't save every single baby but it'll protect more than normal

the point of a law is to punish people for wrong things. people are still homophobic, murderers, rapists, assaulted, littering but if those laws didn't exist, they'd all just be able to walk away unpunished

[lego 44,165]

1 minute ago, ryanripley said:

mutilation is mutilation lol and i brought up rape because i'm talking about making stuff illegal

you say it's pointless when it'll stop a good majority and those who do will get into trouble and these babies will be able to sue their parents probably

there's no real reason minus medical emergencies than to remove foreskin so babies do not need to go through that pain. like every other law, it won't save every single baby but it'll protect more than normal

the point of a law is to punish people for wrong things. people are still homophobic, murderers, rapists, assaulted, littering but if those laws didn't exist, they'd all just be able to walk away unpunished

 

It’s not a mutilation. You’re calling it like that because you are against it and you don’t see any benefits. Rape has no any health benefits, it’s quite opposite, so it’s ridiculous to bring that up or any other stuff that’s illegal. I said more things than just ‘people will do it anyway’, but ok. 

“like every other law, it won't save every single baby but it'll protect more than normal”  

What? You can’t possibly know that. In fact, this is what I’m arguing against. This tradition is so deeply rooted and it has many medical doctors and scientists on its side, it’s impossible to prevent people to find a way to do it. And again, like with abortion, no matter your moral ground, if it’s illegal it will be done in more unsafe conditions and more babies will suffer. So this law is not protecting the babies.

 

[ryanripley 86,575]

Just now, lego said:

 

It’s not a mutilation. You’re calling it like that because you are against it and you don’t see any benefits. Rape has no any health benefits, it’s quite opposite, so it’s ridiculous to bring that up or any other stuff that’s illegal. I said more things than just ‘people will do it anyway’, but ok. 

“like every other law, it won't save every single baby but it'll protect more than normal”  

What? You can’t possibly know that. In fact, this is what I’m arguing against. This tradition is so deeply rooted and it has many medical doctors and scientists on its side, it’s impossible to prevent people to find a way to do it. And again, like with abortion, no matter your moral ground, if it’s illegal it will be done in more unsafe conditions and more babies will suffer. So this law is not protecting the babies.

 

thats cus the benefits to being cut aren't worthy enough of mutilating a baby unless it's a medical emergency which will still be legal 

it is protecting babies cus they now have a legal ground to get back at their parents lol

you're just joining the extreme side effect of the law, people will break any law so its pointless to say they'll do it illegally. leave it down to the family to make the choice of gambling 6 years in jail

the article also says a lot of them were being done in unsafe places already by unqualified doctors but now it's illegal which is great!

[YeehawKylie 7,817]

11 hours ago, Lion Heart said:

How do you know what his looks like?  

Because I first knew him through dating. 

[nobreaks 720]

anti-circumcision nutjobs make me laugh omg enjoy your ugly dic

[Bebe 17,289]

2 hours ago, lego said:

 

It’s not false equivalency. You wouldn’t compare it, but I just did.

You don’t care if the baby wants to be born or not, if the adult wants to terminate the pregnancy at any stage, not wanting kid with Down syndrome, for example. That means removing tiny human being from the womb piece by piece. But you care about piece of skin if baby can’t consent. You have to remember how many millions of people have been practicing this, for centuries, and they don’t think it’s mutilation, besides religious reasons they also believe in health benefits, so you can’t ban it. It’s impossible.

With one country’s ban you are putting these kids at more risk, because it will be done in unsafe conditions. 

This has nothing to do with drugs or guns. It has to do with human body and surgeries and risks. And abortion is pretty damn valid comparison and it also shows hypocrisy. 

 

The 'baby' has no interests - it can't feel pain, it's not conscious. The 'baby' has 0 wants. 

You could argue a lot of things would be 'safer' for those involved if it was legalised. I'm sure if Dog fighting was legalised, the dogs that where unfortunately inevitably going to be involved in dog fighting would probably be better off. I'm sure that they would have better access to veterinary care, as owners wouldn't be worried of being prosecuted for abuse or having their animals taken from them, there would be standards regarding the health of the dogs before such fights, there would be referees to make sure the dogs didn't fight to death. I don't think that is a good enough reason to have state-sanctioned animal abuse. Making dog fights illegal may lead to the animals involved having less protections - but ultimately protects the vast majority of dogs.

The number of parents who would risk their child's health even further by resorting to dubious methods would no doubt be small in numbers. For something that's not life threatening, not medically necessary and for a procedure that could still be done later in life (by the age of 15 or 16) the number of people willing to mutilate their child's genitals would be small. I don't think the parents who would circumcise regardless should be enough of a reason to have state-sanctioned genital mutilation.  Making circumcision illegal may lead some irresponsible, abusive parents to put their child in greater risk - but ultimately it protects the vast majority of children.

To dismiss the issue as "just a bit of skin" removed while ignoring the pain of the men who are expressing the shame, resentment, pain from their circumcisions is pretty insensitive I think. But you have shown no concern at all for the babies, children, adults who have undergone circumcision and have found it to be a traumatic, painful and largely upsetting event.

And the thing is, I think most people here are cool with circumcision - they just want to know that it was performed on a consenting, informed adult. Removing healthy tissue in the absence of any medical need harms the patient and is a breach of medical providers’ ethical duty to the child.  We believe that all people have a right to bodily autonomy and self-determination.

 

2 hours ago, lego said:

 

Can you stop calling it mutilating, it’s actually an insult to victims of FGM. Hundreds of millions of circumcised men have perfectly normal sex life. It’s not equivalent. 

 

It's mutilation - it's what the victims of circumcision call it and it's just true from a definitional standpoint:

"to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts".

Of course it's not equivalent to FGM, but just because many forms of FGM are far worse does not mean that male circumcision isn't harmful or isn't a form of mutilation. 

You can go read the testimony of hundreds of men here: http://www.circumstitions.com/Resent.html

Studies and polls consistently show that uncircumcised men are far more likely to be dissatisfied with their circumcision status and far more likely to feel resentful of their circumcision than uncut men. Up to 30% of circumcised men report feeling unhappy with their circumcision status compared to 3.7% of uncut men.
http://www.cmaj.ca/content/154/6/769.short

Bottom line is that  infant/child circumcision is an unethical medical practice that is performed on unconsenting and non-informed patients. It's a form of genital mutilation that studies have shown is traumatising, distressing and harmful.

Some studies such as this 2007 study by Lander et al: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/419531?redirect=true actually had to be discontinued because of ethical concerns. In studying the safety and effectiveness of current anesthetics used in circumsicion the babies without anesthetics endured so much pain that some began choking and one even had a seizure. When studying the circumcised infants they discovered the pain after the procedure was  “severe” and “persistent” regardless of whether they had used anesthetics or not.

Other studies into children circumcised as newborns or infants (Taddio et al., 1997 ; Anand & Scalzo, 2000 ; Victoria et al., 2013) have found distinct behavioral patterns characterized by increased anxiety, altered pain sensitivity, hyperactivity, and attention problems and that painful procedures including circumcision in the neonatal period were associated with site-specific changes in the brain that have been found to be associated with mood disorders.

Studies of men who were circumcised in infancy have found that some men experienced symptoms of post traumatic stress disorder, depression, anger, and intimacy problems that were directly associated with feelings about their circumcision (Boyle, 2002; Goldman, 1999; Hammond, 1999).

Research has demonstrated that medical traumas in childhood and adolescence share many of the same psychological elements of childhood abuse, such as physical pain, fear, loss of control, and the perception that the event is a form of punishment (Nir, 1985; Shalev, 1993, Shopper, 1995). 

Hammond (1999) found that many men conceptualized their circumcision experience as an act of violence, mutilation, or sexual assault.  Kennedy (1986) detailed the psychological effects of circumcision in a case study describing the psychotherapy of a boy who was circumcised at three years of age. The sense of inadequacy, feelings of victimization, and violent sexual fantasies experienced during this boy’s adolescence were found to be both consciously and unconsciously linked to his experience with losing part of his penis (Kennedy, 1986).  In a study examining the psychological effects of circumcision on boys between four and seven years of age, Cansever (1965) used psychological testing to measure boys’ level of distress.  The results of the study indicated that circumcision was perceived as an aggressive attack on the body that left children feeling damaged and mutilated (Cansever, 1968).  Cansever (1968) also noted that these boys experienced changes in body image (with many feeling smaller and incomplete), feelings of inadequacy and helplessness, as well as a tendency to withdraw psychologically. 

I could go on and on with study after study, but it doesn't seem like you actually take the pain of these men seriously, it doesn't seem like you consider them at all when forming your opinion. The truth is the research shows circumcision is harmful when performed on infants and children - we don't interfere with the genitals of children in any other way, we consider it abusive, but for some reason people think subjecting them to a painful procedure that alters their genitals does nothing at all.

Lets stop exposing infants and children to invasive, non-consensual, uninformed surgical procedures and instead allow them to make their own decisions when they reach maturity and are able to consent. Simple.