Iceland law to outlaw male circumcision sparks row over religious freedom

Yeah, well thankfully the majority of Jews don't do this. But it still goes on, even if it was only 1 child a year in the world I would not be okay with it. There is absolutely no reason to have this practice around today.
 
a1ex2001 said:
The real issue here is what is the driver behind the change in the law is it based on independant verifiable evidence of the suffering of children or is it simply an emotion based attack on religious practices?
Click to expand...

Do you have reason to believe that cutting off a part of your body without anaesthetic isn't going to cause suffering?

Provided it is based on proper independant objective research then I don't see how anyone can have a problem with it.
Click to expand...

I don't see why that is even a requirement. In answer to your question (which ought to be pretty obvious) of course there is evidence of harm/risks, this is essentially an unnecessary minor surgical procedure, it causes pain, it removes a part of the body and it can go wrong. Oh and sometimes in the super **** up cases where the really weird Rabbi types decide to suck on the freshly cut penis STDs have been passed onto the kids.

But I don't think that is even a necessary requirement to want to ban it, the lack of consent is enough.

For example suppose I invent a religion that involves say 8 yr old kids getting a very small tattoo as a sign that they're one of my chosen people - a rather less invasive procedure than having a part of you cut off but regardless it is something that should require consent.
 
dowie said:
For example suppose I invent a religion that involves say 8 yr old kids getting a very small tattoo as a sign that they're one of my chosen people - a rather less invasive procedure than having a part of you cut off but regardless it is something that should require consent.
Click to expand...
And there are laws about tattoos, you couldn't tattoo someone under 18 even with parental consent.
But if you want to cut someone's foreskin off, that's okay... :rolleyes:

If there's anything that you might regret, which is hard to undo, it's circumcision!
 
vtHk2eV.png
 
Fantastic move to protect human rights, this sort of grievous bodily harm/sexual abuse needs to be stamped out. The UK is so backwards in allowing GBH on children.

The "doctors" that carry out these procedures should also be struck off the medical register, no one who commits such a violation of the Hippocratic oath can be called a doctor.
 
dowie said:
Do you have reason to believe that cutting off a part of your body without anaesthetic isn't going to cause suffering?



I don't see why that is even a requirement. In answer to your question (which ought to be pretty obvious) of course there is evidence of harm/risks, this is essentially an unnecessary minor surgical procedure, it causes pain, it removes a part of the body and it can go wrong. Oh and sometimes in the super **** up cases where the really weird Rabbi types decide to suck on the freshly cut penis STDs have been passed onto the kids.

But I don't think that is even a necessary requirement to want to ban it, the lack of consent is enough.

For example suppose I invent a religion that involves say 8 yr old kids getting a very small tattoo as a sign that they're one of my chosen people - a rather less invasive procedure than having a part of you cut off but regardless it is something that should require consent.
Click to expand...
I have no reason to believe that the routine circumcision of young boys is anything but painful and unnecessary but when making a decision that could easily be construed as targeting minority religions it is essential to remove emotion from the decision and work purely from independant facts. I suspect any independant research would support a ban so where is your problem?

A rabi putting a child's penis in his mouth is committing an act of abuse which is a crime and should be reported as such, emotive arguments like this shouldn't be used to ban something.
 
I agree. We progressed past this kind of thing, but then started to see Halal meat in supermarkets which spits in the face of animal cruelty laws which were hard fought for. If someone doesn't like the way the British culture handles livestock and meats, there are vegetables.
 
Personally I think religion is a personal belief, not dogma. So if you believe good, mutilate yourself when you're an adult but don't mutilate children in dogma.
 
a1ex2001 said:
I have no reason to believe that the routine circumcision of young boys is anything but painful and unnecessary but when making a decision that could easily be construed as targeting minority religions it is essential to remove emotion from the decision and work purely from independant facts. I suspect any independant research would support a ban so where is your problem?
Click to expand...

As I already pointed out there isn't a problem there, research would indeed support it. DO you have any reason to think otherwise.

My point was that that shouldn't even be a requirement, as per the post were I've already explained that. What is your opinion on a child getting a tattoo for example?

A rabi putting a child's penis in his mouth is committing an act of abuse which is a crime and should be reported as such, emotive arguments like this shouldn't be used to ban something.
Click to expand...

It isn't an emotive argument, it is citing a practice that currently happens and that contains risk. A rabbi cutting off a part of the penis ought to be outlawed in general tbh... that is the bigger issue.
 
Children's rights >>>>>>>>>>>>>> religious rights

The child can decide at 16 or 18 if they want to convert. Religion should fall in the same basket as other coming-of-age lifestyle choices i.e. playing the lottery, alcohol, joining the military, voting, getting married, driver's license etc.
 
Nasher said:
Random **** that whoever was writing it wanted to stick in there :D

Maybe he had shares in silk, donkeys and tassels.
Click to expand...

I love to think about why such silly lines are in old texts.

Perhaps the guy that wrote that had an allergy to wool and was fed up with people mixing wool into “linen” clothing. :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom