To hope that we can follow Iceland in banning male circumcision

[GladAllOver]

It really is time that this nasty practice is stopped.
www.theguardian.com/society/2018/feb/18/iceland-ban-male-circumcision-first-european-country

My grown up son, a staunch Atheist, calmly, disapproves that he was christened. He thinks babies have no say in this and wonders what the point is, that it's all for a vacuous show.

In his christening video, the vicar annointed his forehead with oil and said, "this is a badge, that will always be there, long after the oil has worn off, saying that you will always be part of the Christian family". That really pissed him off.

Every now and again, I remind him of his invisible badge, just to wind him up 😀.

'WHO/UNAIDS recommendations emphasize that male circumcision should be considered an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention in countries and regions with heterosexual epidemics, high HIV and low male circumcision prevalence.'

That's not endorsement , Blue. And doesn't exactly apply to the UK.

It applies everywhere. Recommendation or endorsement, same thing to me. It's most definitely not a condemnation, is it?

You know what protects against HIV and doesn't mean surgery? Condoms.

You know what tries to stop people using condoms? Religion.

How many babies are having sex and need protection from HIV, bluelady?

How do you look at your newborn baby and just know that they’ll travel to a high HIV risk area and plan to have lots of unprotected sex? Or is that how you plan to bring them up?

Properly don't give a fuck. Mutilating small boys for religious reasons is insane and should be outlawed

Properly don't give a fuck that you don't give a fuck! It's integral to some faiths and it's just not that simple as to say say "hey, yeah, you know ... let's ban it"

It applies everywhere. Recommendation or endorsement, same thing to me.

Have you read the statement? You know, the bit where it says which countries the statement refers to?

“in countries and regions with heterosexual epidemics, high HIV and low male circumcision prevalence”

The WHO does not endorse circumcision. It says that it can be the least worst option in areas where there is epidemic HIV and a deep rooted objection to the use of condoms. A deep rooted objection, incidentally, frequently planted by the Catholic Church.

The world's foremost health organisation doesn't condemn male circumcision, it has carried out numerous studies also on its website. But of course a bunch of keyboard warriors know much better than the WHO and the millions of people whose faith requires it.

Incidentally, the WHO is also very informative about how the procedure is carried out in the western world - nowhere close to the propagandist stuff posted upthread. Let's not let the facts get in the way of a good prejudice, eh?

Recommendation or endorsement, same thing to me.

You need to acquaint yourself with a good dictionary then.

People are never aware of the cultural biases which inform their decisions, but find it very easy to see that of others.

The idea that most parents don’t coerce their children into certain situations because they feel it is beneficial to them is not true. And the idea that the removal of a tiny bit of foreskin is more traumatic than being sent to nursery as a baby or a boarding school as a young child is unproven (at best). Lots of threads here about people traumatised by boarding school. Very few about men traumatised by being circumcised as a baby on any forum, despite the vast number of men who have it done.

Of course you can object to it but I would examine your own cultural biases first.

The world's foremost health organisation doesn't condemn male circumcision

Hang on, you just posted that the WHO endorses circumcision everywhere. That’s entirely different from your new assertion.

I don't think boys/men are traumatised by being circumcised. Well, there are a few who are-but I suspect they will have other issues too. Not the point. More smoke screening.

I have seen lots of people saying that male circumcision is comparable to FGM on here.
It is not anywhere near the same thing. Here is an NHS leaflet with some of the facts
www.fgmnationalgroup.org/documents/2012_fgm_facts_booklet.pdf
I’ve had training on this for work. We were taught that if the equivalent of FGM was done to a boy, the entire head of the penis would be removed and a third of the shaft.

If you endorse something you don't condemn it. Logic. Incidentally recommend and endorse are synonymous in my dictionary.

Do i think people should have the freedom to practice their religion/culture? YES
Do i think people should be able to lop off a part of their tiny babies bodies for the sake of their religion/culture? Absolutely NOT
I simply cant understand why its still allowed our government has banned the docking of young puppies tails because its painful and unethical but a tiny baby is still subjected to this procedure in the name of religion?
I know a dog and a human are Not the same but its crazy that dogs are offered more protection than children when it comes to mutilating their bodies!
You don't even have to be a medical practitioner to carry out this procedure, and horrifyingly oral suction circumcision is still practiced in the UK! If you don't know what that is google it! How anyone can turn a blind eye to such practices is beyond me!

I don’t think people are referring to the degree of mutilation when they compare circumcision with FGM.

They are referring to the practice of carrying out a procedure on a non-consenting infant for non-medical reasons because of tradition.

Nuffaluff - of course it's not physically comparable. Not remotely. Nobody has said it is.

But in terms of the reason why society does it to young children, and in terms of the issue of consent? Are you really saying it isn't comparable because you don't think it's as severe so therefore the first two points are irrelevant?

bluelady

But where do you get that the WHO endorses this practice everywhere?

Bertrand

'I don't think boys/men are traumatised by being circumcised. Well, there are a few who are-but I suspect they will have other issues too. Not the point. More smoke screening.'

So:

Not traumatised.

Consent not absolute as can be overridden by medical opinion. Not urgent medical need, merely 'medical opinion'.

What exactly is your argument? It is looking weaker by the minute.

Sorry Larry, but it's not Bertrand who's clutching at straws here.

muttmad - I don't think metzitzah b'peh is carried out in the UK. I've been to dozens of circumcisions, and have never seen it. Lots of posters suggesting that mums should be present at their own DS's bris and would then think differently. I was, and I don't.

Sam - do you think perhaps that's because it's how you were raised and therefore it's normal to you?

Sam unfortunately it is, there is a petition running on change.org to ban it as we speak!

Metzitzah b’peh is unknown in the U.K. and rare everywhere. And in the U.K. the mohel is always a doctor or a dentist. Dentists are used to fiddly work on a confined space with a conscious patient.