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

I am willing to bet that if we left circumcision for adult men to decide if they wanted it done for religious reasons the practice would die out very, very quickly.

Indeed. As a non circumcised adult man it's not something I would choose for myself; the idea of someone else choosing for me without my consent is abhorrent.

"And it doesn’t strike me as surgery anymore than ear piercing or toenail trimming does."
How about removing an ear lobe?

Interesting thread.
Did you know that an estimated 58% of American men are circumsized? This is as a cultural practice. In other words, those that aren't Jewish or Muslim are routinely circumsized.
I have read that circumcision reduces the risk of HIV transmission (male to female) according to the US CDC.
I, personally, feel that if parents want to get their sons circumsized, that's their business.
Sources:
The Centers For Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Health Care Statistics. "Trends in Circumcision for Male Newborns in U.S. Hospitals: 1979-2010"
wwwn.cdc.gov/hivrisk/decreased_risk/male_circumcision.html

Is it even possible for a baby’s lung to collapse from screaming? If that were the case, surely a lot more babies would have collapsed lungs from wind, doing poos, dropping something out of their pram and not getting it back asap? Maybe, but it sounds odd.

Just asked dp and ds's would they want it etc, all have said no.

Bertrand, you’d bleed like hell at the loss of an earlobe. Such is not the case with circumcision.

Beep, it’s much, much different for a baby though, that’s why in Judaism it’s done at 8 days, not 8 years. The two aren’t comparable medically.

I am willing to bet that if we left circumcision for adult men to decide if they wanted it done for religious reasons the practice would die out very, very quickly.

Completely agree.

Lizzie... We are all talking about the same thing? Your equating circumcision with a toe nail being cut off, and a baby screaming from an operation on its body to the same as a baby crying for a dropped toy? Did you read about the baby who bled to death?

I have read that circumcision reduces the risk of HIV transmission

Babies don't have sex and condoms are way way better at preventing it. Let the man decide when he is an adult.

Ignoring the rights or wrongs of infant circumcision (which is the issue, not male circumcision as a whole, which can be medical necessity), it'll never be banned in the UK because of the religious aspect.

Iceland has a population of, like, 20 and a negligible Jewish and Islamic population. Judaism doesn't even feature on the wiki list of religious observance for Iceland, and there are more pagan affiliated people than Muslims.

I was shocked to find out that adult circumcision is carried out under general anaesthetic but at a religious ceremony a baby is circumcised without any anaesthetic.

“The main reason is to improve hygiene in both the male child and also his female partner in later life.”

In 21st century Europe with access to clean. Running water. Sorry but that argument is not a valid one.

“It does have proven health benefits unlike FGM”

Really?
And what would they be?

“Gobsmacked by the casual antisemitism and Islamaphobia here. Reporting this.”

Oh FGS this isn’t religious persecution. This is a thread supported by posters who wish to see the end of this barbaric practice. Religion doesn’t come into it.

What is wrong with you people who support violating a small baby’s rights?

Isn't it often done for medical reasons, like a tight foreskin or repeated infections? I know several men who were circumcised as teens/adults.
The way I see it, the foreskin serves no purpose. It's an extra bit of skin.

The HIV thing is bullshit. It decreases the risk slightly- and is recommended by the WHO in areas where men completely reject the use of condoms.

When DH was circumcised a couple of years ago his urologist said that younger boys they do under local, but older boys/men usually go under general. DH had the choice, but chose general because he didn't fancy being awake knowing there was someone going at his knob with a scalpel.

First of all can we stop with the whole "it's a male issue". It's not a male issue, it's a human issue. I'm a man, a woman's opinion on this is just as valid as mine.

Secondly, the comparison to ear piercing is a false analogy. Ear piercings heal relatively quickly if you don't maintain them. A better comparison would be giving your baby a tattoo or a decorative brand. Even then not so much because you can have a tattoo removed, you can't grow a foreskin back.

Would you tattoo your newborn baby?

Cutting bits off baby boys bodies for religious reasons is unjustifiable in this day and age. Completely unnacceptable.

The only way these kind of things are shown for the barbaric practices that they are is to take a stand against them. Good for Iceland, hopefully, we will next.

If the best argument you can find to support cutting chunks off a babies penis is "it's always been done" and you are still supporting it, then you need to take a long hard look at yourself.

The holiday it will be because of the law.

We cannot allow some children to be assaulted and ok it for cultural or religious reasons and not the rest.

It's like saying those children are second class citizens and not worthy of protecting

What is wrong with you people who support violating a small baby’s rights?

The power of religion eh? Think of any awful thing, as awful as you can - killing, mutilation, decapitation, rape - and someone out there will believe strongly enough that they'll do it for God. They'll even believe it was a "good thing".

Beepthemeep, circumcision is nothing like crucifying and stoning people. I wouldn't wish it for my son, but I wouldn't have his ears pierced, either. There is a need for a proportionate approach to parents' choices vis-a-vis their children.
Perfectly good principles can be employed for nefarious reasons, like having a go at minorities. The French ban on religious symbols in public office was originally brought in to make it less likely that religious minorities would be victimised for not exhibiting them. Now, it's been extended and abused to justify forcing women in burkinis to strip off. Likewise, there seem to be people here who have suddenly discovered a great deal of concern for Muslim boys' foreskins which they would not, presumably, exhibit if said boys were to "fuck off".

Smithsinarazz

You are right, it's not as bad as crucifying, the best comparison would probably be tattooing or branding.

Would you be ok with tattooing newborns for religious reasons? If not then why not?

"Likewise, there seem to be people here who have suddenly discovered a great deal of concern for Muslim boys' foreskins which they would not, presumably, exhibit if said boys were to "fuck off""
I don't care what religion the owner of the foreskin's parents are. I just don't think they should be allowed to remove it without his consent unless it is medically required.

Babies and children, male and female, who have been subjected to circumcision have been sexual assaulted and abused.

Circumcision is fine if you want tissue chopped off when you’re older, and have reached the age of consent for other sexual acts.
Babies and children aren’t able to give consent, and their genitals should not be interfered with.

Human rights trump religious and cultural practices every fucking time.
Next we’ll have apologists for child marriage. Ffs. Babies and children are human too and have equal rights to adults.

If someone within a cultrual group or religious community want to be circumcised, then they can wait untill they reach the age of consent, but babies and children have no agency and should be left intact.

We must fight for human rights of children, that they are not sexually abused in this brutal and barbaric way.