Jewish leaders hit out over Iceland’s plans to ban boys’ circumcision - Sensationalist Headlines

[QUOTE=sgman91;53134188]I'm not personally a fan of equating things that aren't equivalent.[/QUOTE] Pretty weak defense and sadly commonplace on FP. "It's not exactly the same so it's not comparable." [editline]15th February 2018[/editline] Also a nice way of avoiding answering the question. Are you okay with banning child circumcision?

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53134192]Genital mutilation is genital mutilation. They're more equivalent than you want to admit, and the difference is that there isn't currently a mainstream religion promoting the use of one in the west[/QUOTE] No, they aren't equivalent at all. Equating them is like saying that having your child's ears pierced is equivalent because it's also "mutilation" of the body. Using a word isn't an argument. One of them has no measurable effect on the quality of life of the person in question while the other removes a key part how the person's sexual organ works. There's good evidence that FGM has measurable negative long-term effects on women. There is no good evidence that equivalent long-term negative effects apply to circumcision. [editline]15th February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=_Axel;53134209]Pretty weak defense and sadly commonplace on FP. "It's not exactly the same so it's not comparable." [editline]15th February 2018[/editline] Also a nice way of avoiding answering the question. Are you okay with banning child circumcision?[/QUOTE] It's more like, "They differ in all the relevant ways."

[QUOTE=sgman91;53134230]It's more like, "They differ in all the relevant ways."[/QUOTE] Isn't this post missing something? Can't put my finger on it :thinking:

It's about time to split the religion and ethnic group, there's nothing tying the two together besides ancient ink and paper. The religion will use the ethnic group in order to further itself and it's just been constant pain for anyone in the way of it. Trying to touch any aspect of Jewish religion automatically makes you a anti-semite, I think that there needs to be serious reform.

[QUOTE=sgman91;53134230]No, they aren't equivalent at all. Equating them is like saying that having your child's ears pierced is equivalent because it's also "mutilation" of the body. Using a word isn't an argument.[/QUOTE] Just gonna go ahead and say, giving an infant ear piercings should also be illegal, regardless of how much 'less bad' it is.

[QUOTE=sgman91;53134230] One of them has no measurable effect on the quality of life of the person in question while the other removes a key part how the person's sexual organ works. There's good evidence that FGM has measurable negative long-term effects on women. There is no good evidence that equivalent long-term negative effects apply to circumcision.[/QUOTE] Are you insane? Have you never heard of a botched circumcision? The "failure" rate is low but it can potentially kill babies or mess up a guys dick for life. Why even take that risk?

[QUOTE=sgman91;53134230]No, they aren't equivalent at all. Equating them is like saying that having your child's ears pierced is equivalent because it's also "mutilation" of the body. Using a word isn't an argument. One of them has no measurable effect on the quality of life of the person in question while the other removes a key part how the person's sexual organ works. There's good evidence that FGM has measurable negative long-term effects on women. There is no good evidence that equivalent long-term negative effects apply to circumcision. [editline]15th February 2018[/editline] It's more like, "They differ in all the relevant ways."[/QUOTE] Okay. Circumcision is the forced removal of foreskin through either a surgical device, or via traditional methods that can even involve teeth in some instances. It involves the removal of a flap of skin that is rife with nerve endings, thus causing vast pain to the infant at a time where we don't particularly care, because the child won't remember. FGM is the forced removal of the clitoral hood, and sometimes the clitoris itself. A flap of skin that is rife with nerve endings thus causing vast pain to the usually per-pubescent girls who suffer this. The main difference seems to be the age, and not the procedure.

[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;53134249]Just gonna go ahead and say, giving an infant ear piercings should also be illegal, regardless of how much 'less bad' it is.[/QUOTE] At the very least, ear piercings naturally plug over time if they're left unused. You're not growing your foreskin or your clitoris back.

[QUOTE=Duskin;53134252]Are you insane? Have you never heard of a botched circumcision? The "failure" rate is low but it can potentially kill babies or mess up a guys dick for life. Why even take that risk?[/QUOTE] In the words of the American Academy of Pediatrics: "After a comprehensive review of the scientific evidence, the American Academy of Pediatrics found the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks, but the benefits are not great enough to recommend universal newborn circumcision. The AAP policy statement published Monday, August 27, says the final decision should still be left to parents to make in the context of their religious, ethical and cultural beliefs. " ([url]https://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-aap/aap-press-room/pages/newborn-male-circumcision.aspx[/url]) This isn't a question of risk. There's risk in having a circumcision, but there's also risk in not having one. According to good science, the risk of not having one is higher than that of having one. [editline]15th February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53134260]Okay. Circumcision is the forced removal of foreskin through either a surgical device, or via traditional methods that can even involve teeth in some instances. It involves the removal of a flap of skin that is rife with nerve endings, thus causing vast pain to the infant at a time where we don't particularly care, because the child won't remember. FGM is the forced removal of the clitoral hood, and sometimes the clitoris itself. A flap of skin that is rife with nerve endings thus causing vast pain to the usually per-pubescent girls who suffer this. The main difference seems to be the age, and not the procedure.[/QUOTE] Did you totally ignore what I said? The main difference is that one has strong, and measurable, negative effects on the life of the person in question and the other doesn't.

[QUOTE=sgman91;53134265]In the words of the American Academy of Pediatrics: "After a comprehensive review of the scientific evidence, the American Academy of Pediatrics found the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks, but the benefits are not great enough to recommend universal newborn circumcision. The AAP policy statement published Monday, August 27, says the final decision should still be left to parents to make in the context of their religious, ethical and cultural beliefs. " ([url]https://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-aap/aap-press-room/pages/newborn-male-circumcision.aspx[/url]) This isn't a question of risk. There's risk in having a circumcision, but there's also risk in not having one. According to good science, the risk of not having one is higher than that of having one. [editline]15th February 2018[/editline] Did you totally ignore what I said? The main difference is that one has strong, and measurable, negative effects on the life of the person in question and the other doesn't.[/QUOTE] No, but you DID totally ignore what was said to you in response and so I decided to spell out the similarities as you said "They differ in all the relevant ways". Clearly, that isn't the case. [editline]15th February 2018[/editline] Also, you're rephrasing what the APA said for your own benefit. The benefits don't outweigh the risks. That's what you, yourself, have quoted.

in my family it's tradition to cut off the newborn child's little toes, it serves no purpose and has no negative impact on the child's overall health. Obviously the child can't consent to this, but it's our tradition, and long held belief for generations. If this was a legitimate practice, would you be ok with this? And yes, piercing or body mods on non consenting children is mutilation. Just like how the little toe has no measurable effect on the quality of life of the person in question, that doesn't make it ok for the parents to cut them off because of tradition. And as a matter of fact, circumcision does have long term irreversible effects [quote] 2. Glans Externalized and Keratinized The normal glans is an internal structure, only exposed briefly during urination, washing, and sexual arousal. Its surface is moist, and is not keratinized. However, circumcision converts the glans into an external organ. Immediately after the operation, it retains its exquisite sensitivity, and contact with clothing causes considerable discomfort, but it soon becomes desensitized, probably as a result of the laying down of a layer of keratin on the epithelium. A few circumcised men report persistent discomfort from contact with clothing throughout their lives. The epithelium takes on the character of skin rather than mucous membrane. Not only is the appearance of the glans altered, but also there is a dramatic loss of sensitivity. Sorrells et al. (2007) mapped fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis in circumcised and uncircumcised men, comparing the two populations. With regard to the sensitivity of the glans, they showed that the glans in the circumcised male is less sensitive to fine-touch pressure than that of the uncircumcised (intact) male. Bleustein et al. (2005) tested vibration, pressure, spatial perception, and temperature on the glans in the dorsal midline in circumcised and non-circumcised men, and failed to show any significant difference in sensation on the glans between the two groups after correcting for age, hypertension, and diabetes. What is clear is that the glans is the least sensitive region of the penis, in any case, and is only supplied with simple nerve endings, which sense deep pressure and pain (Sorrells et al., 2007; Bleustein et al., 2005; Halata and Munger, 1986).[/quote] Sources in the link: [url]https://www.circinfo.org/Warren.html[/url]

[QUOTE=sgman91;53134230]No, they aren't equivalent at all. Equating them is like saying that having your child's ears pierced is equivalent because it's also "mutilation" of the body. Using a word isn't an argument. [B]One of them has no measurable effect on the quality of life of the person in question[/B] while the other removes a key part how the person's sexual organ works. There's good evidence that FGM has measurable negative long-term effects on women. There is no good evidence that equivalent long-term negative effects apply to circumcision.[/QUOTE] The fact someone who's circumcised has to use lubricant to masturbate is good enough proof it has an effect on their quality of life. It's a mild change but it's an extra inconvenience they wouldn't have to deal with if they still had foreskin. And as pointed out above it also removes the natural protection of the foreskin which will damage it over time.

Should any tradition of body modification that "has no significant" impact be allowed? What's the line? Should we pierce babies ears at a very young age? Why not? What "tradition" is too far for you?

[QUOTE=sgman91;53134230]There's good evidence that FGM has measurable negative long-term effects on women. There is no good evidence that equivalent long-term negative effects apply to circumcision.[/QUOTE] Can you point to a source on this? My quick googling found [URL=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26724395]a study[/URL] that agreed with you when they tested point sensitivity of warmth, heat pain, and touch. But that seems to neglect the fact that the purpose foreskin serves in stimulation under sexual activity isn't just by being sensitive. In any case, all body mods for babies are wrong, they can have them when they can consent to it.

i love it when people try to defend circumcision in an era where it's been completely been shown to be medically pointless and sanitarily irrelevant. there's ways around being circumcised as a jew (yes I know uncircumcised jews) and it should absolutely be left up to the individual when they're a grown adult to [I]decide[/I] if they [I]want[/I] to have their penis mutilated needlessly.

[QUOTE=Svinnik;53134075]Circumcision is called Brit milah in Judaism, literally translating to "covenant of circumcision" It originated with God making a treaty with Avraham It's a clear-cut treaty, god will give the land of Canaan to Avraham's decendants and make them a great nation and in exchange, God will fulfill his end of the deal. It's pretty much the moment where God chooses the Jewish people as the chosen people and sets clear limits for them, it's practically the basis of Judaism to the point where the liberal Reform and Conservative movements do it and even secular Jews with no connection to Judaism do it. It's pretty important and banning it is the same as banning Judaism from your country.[/QUOTE] I wonder why God's preferred currency is the foreskins of infants?

[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;53134298]Can you point to a source on this? My quick googling found [URL=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26724395]a study[/URL] that agreed with you when they tested point sensitivity of warmth, heat pain, and touch. But that seems to neglect the fact that the purpose foreskin serves in stimulation under sexual activity isn't just by being sensitive. In any case, all body mods for babies are wrong, they can have them when they can consent to it.[/QUOTE] According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, along with representatives from the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: "Evaluation of current evidence indicates that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks; furthermore, the benefits of newborn male circumcision justify access to this procedure for families who choose it. Specific benefits from male circumcision were identified for the prevention of urinary tract infections, acquisition of HIV, transmission of some sexually transmitted infections, and penile cancer. Male circumcision does not appear to adversely affect penile sexual function/sensitivity or sexual satisfaction." ([url]http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/130/3/e756[/url])

Banning circumcision is nowhere within even the same ballpark as banning Judaism, and it's 100% naive and willingly dishonest to even utter such a statement. People can look this stuff up, why spread misinformation? /:v:\

[QUOTE=sgman91;53134322]According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, along with representatives from the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: "Evaluation of current evidence indicates that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks; furthermore, the benefits of newborn male circumcision justify access to this procedure for families who choose it. Specific benefits from male circumcision were identified for the prevention of urinary tract infections, acquisition of HIV, transmission of some sexually transmitted infections, and penile cancer. Male circumcision does not appear to adversely affect penile sexual function/sensitivity or sexual satisfaction." ([url]http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/130/3/e756[/url])[/QUOTE] You did it again They say quite clearly just outside of your quote that the risks do not outweigh the benefits enough to be recommended

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53134286]Should any tradition of body modification that "has no significant" impact be allowed? What's the line? Should we pierce babies ears at a very young age? Why not? What "tradition" is too far for you?[/QUOTE] Parents have authority and responsibility over their children, including medical authority (A parent is the one with the final decision on all medical procedures done to a child). If a procedure has been shown to have no negative effects on a person, then yes, I'm OK with it. Culture and tradition is actually an important part of human existence and happiness. In my opinion, dismissing it off hand isn't smart.

[QUOTE=myon;53134146]I hope you realize that by standing staunchly by Brit milah you also risk by extension being associated with the rest of Vayiqra, which abhors things like homosexual practices. Are you for or against capital punishment of gay people? Do banning attacks on gay people somehow set a precedent for judaism to be outright banned? Do you not understand why this ban is set in place? It's straight up mutilation. The child is not allowed to have any say in it, as it cannot consent at its age. And the health risks involved do not outweigh the benefits. When men of the wilderness joined with the jews on the exodus from Egypt, Joshua performed the rite of circumcision on them. Were they lesser jews because they were circumcised at an adult age? Religion in the modern world must adapt to be more flexible as the modern world sets a standard for morals. If you cannot accept it, then that's really on you.[/QUOTE] Not relevant because Jewish religious courts today cannot carry out capital or corporal punishments due to the religious high court not being in session. Even if it was, the stringent conditions of the death penalty would make it practically impossible for him to be convicted. Any attacks on gay people is completely forbidden, only the courts have the power to punish. Besides, it's only a prohibition on homosexual sex, not the desire to have sex with men. It's only punishment if you act on it. They weren't lesser Jews because they were circumcised at an adult age, there's no such thing as a lesser Jew.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53134324]You did it again They say quite clearly just outside of your quote that the risks do not outweigh the benefits enough to be recommended[/QUOTE] They say that the benefits outweigh the risks, but that they don't outweigh it enough to recommend that all babies be routinely circumcised. Your point might be relevant if I were arguing for routine circumcision, but I'm not. I'm arguing that saying circumcision should be banned because it's bad for the child is false.

[QUOTE=PrusseLusken;53134340]pretty funny how you use data from a country in which circumcision is the norm to defend it. ask anyone not from the us or a jewish/muslim majority country and they'll shake their head at it. it's completely bizarre to me how you keep defending this disgusting practice with your main reason being "i'm fine with it because my parents say it's how it's gotta be".[/QUOTE] I'm referring to the preeminent medical experts in the field. It's interesting that you dismiss their findings because you don't agree with them.

[QUOTE=sgman91;53134334]Parents have authority and responsibility over their children, including medical authority (A parent is the one with the final decision on all medical procedures done to a child). If a procedure has been shown to have no negative effects on a person, then yes, I'm OK with it. Culture and tradition is actually an important part of human existence and happiness. In my opinion, dismissing it off hand isn't smart.[/QUOTE] So, if there was a tradition of removing little toes, that'd be good? That'd be fine? No reason to think it's stupid, barbaric, or not something we should culturally reinforce? I get your perspective on traditions, but I don't particularly, or even really remotely, agree. You're a stalwart advocate for tradition and status quo, but clearly, you feel you have the authority to dismiss offhand any discussion about these topics that doesn't favour them. I don't think that's smart, and I think your desire to not examine these things is not smart. [editline]15th February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;53134343]I'm referring to the preeminent medical experts in the field. It's interesting that you dismiss their findings because you don't agree with them.[/QUOTE] I mean you're the one who keeps misquoting them for your own benefit so IDK! [editline]15th February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;53134339]They say that the benefits outweigh the risks, but that they don't outweigh it enough to recommend that all babies be routinely circumcised. Your point might be relevant if I were arguing for routine circumcision, but I'm not. I'm arguing that saying circumcision should be banned because it's bad for the child is false.[/QUOTE] Yes, that is what it says You may not be arguing for it, but you're using it's status in one medical journals view, to argue that it's normal enough to not be worthy of anyones complaints here.

[QUOTE=Svinnik;53134075]Circumcision is called Brit milah in Judaism, literally translating to "covenant of circumcision" It originated with God making a treaty with Avraham It's a clear-cut treaty, god will give the land of Canaan to Avraham's decendants and make them a great nation and in exchange, God will fulfill his end of the deal. It's pretty much the moment where God chooses the Jewish people as the chosen people and sets clear limits for them, it's practically the basis of Judaism to the point where the liberal Reform and Conservative movements do it and even secular Jews with no connection to Judaism do it. It's pretty important and banning it is the same as banning Judaism from your country.[/QUOTE] Why can't Jews change the treaty? The Old Testament has multiple examples of figures like Abraham and Moses bargaining with God and getting him to change his commands, so why don't they just do that to push the circumcision date back to an age when men can decide for themselves if they want to be Jewish? Problem solved.

[QUOTE=Svinnik;53133971] The reason that other Jewish communities care is because this sets a dangerous precedent of religious persecution that could spark similar laws in Europe.[/QUOTE] Imagine using a slippery slope argument in fear of not being able to cut baby dicks any more.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53134361]So, if there was a tradition of removing little toes, that'd be good? That'd be fine? No reason to think it's stupid, barbaric, or not something we should culturally reinforce?[/QUOTE] Does removing the little toe have a measurable negative effect on a person? Yes, yes it does. So, no, I wouldn't support it. [QUOTE]I get your perspective on traditions, but I don't particularly, or even really remotely, agree. You're a stalwart advocate for tradition and status quo, but clearly, you feel you have the authority to dismiss offhand any discussion about these topics that doesn't favour them. I don't think that's smart, and I think your desire to not examine these things is not smart.[/QUOTE] Since when is providing sources and presenting arguments "dismissing offhand any discussion?" [QUOTE]I mean you're the one who keeps misquoting them for your own benefit so IDK![/QUOTE] I factually didn't misquote them. I said that they found the benefits to outweigh the risks. That is factually what they said. You pointed out that they didn't recommend routine circumcision... which I never claimed and is irrelevant to my argument. You've yet to show how I misquoted them in the slightest. [QUOTE]Yes, that is what it says You may not be arguing for it, but you're using it's status in one medical journals view, to argue that it's normal enough to not be worthy of anyones complaints here.[/QUOTE] I'm arguing that it should be allowed, not that every child be forced to be circumcised. The argument presented so far seem to be: 1) It is bad for the child. I've clearly argued against this by showing that the opinion of the medical experts in the field disagree. In fact, they say that the benefits outweigh the risk and that the choice should be left up to the parents. 2) A moral augment about any change to a baby's body being immoral. I responded by saying that parents are given general authority over medical procedures, as they relate to their children. To say that a parent ought not to have the authority to make medical choices for their child would be to say that they shouldn't have the authority to remove a benign tumor, for example. It simply isn't how society works, or should work. Children need an advocate and someone to make medical choices for them, and society has decided that the parents are that advocate.

[QUOTE=sgman91;53134334]Parents have authority and responsibility over their children, including medical authority (A parent is the one with the final decision on all medical procedures done to a child). If a procedure has been shown to have no negative effects on a person, then yes, I'm OK with it. Culture and tradition is actually an important part of human existence and happiness. In my opinion, dismissing it off hand isn't smart.[/QUOTE] Would you say it should be acceptable to, for instance, brand a baby with a religious symbol, or tattoo "[deity] is great" on them? The problem isn't even whether circumcision has negative effects, it's that it has no meaningful positive effects and it's an irreversible decision that is forced upon a person before they have the ability to fucking [i]talk[/i], let alone give informed consent. What if they decide later on in life that they don't want to be Jewish? Now they're stuck with a permanent body modification for the rest of their life, all for a religion they don't even believe in.

[QUOTE=sgman91;53134380]Does removing the little toe have a measurable negative effect on a person? Yes, yes it does. So, no, I wouldn't support it. [/QUOTE] I would say a foreskin, and a toe would be similarly amounts of pain to remove, and it does affect life to have your foreskin removed, as other sources(That you dismiss with your source being "Above" them) state. [QUOTE]Since when is providing sources and presenting arguments "dismissing offhand any discussion?"[/QUOTE] When only your sources are to be taken seriously as you've made clear. [QUOTE] I'm arguing that it should be allowed, not that every child be forced to be circumcised. The argument presented so far seem to be: 1) It is bad for the child. [/QUOTE] It is. You've had this cited for you. [QUOTE] I've clearly argued against this by showing that the opinion of the medical experts in the field disagree. In fact, they say that the benefits outweigh the risk and that the choice should be left up to the parents.[/QUOTE] You have not shown a consensus in the medical field, just that the American Pediatric Association says as much. [QUOTE]2) A moral augment about any change to a baby's body being immoral. I responded by saying that parents are given general authority over medical procedures, as they relate to their children. To say that a parent ought not to have the authority to make medical choices for their child would be to say that they shouldn't have the authority to remove a benign tumor, for example. It simply isn't how society works, or should work. Children need an advocate and someone to make medical choices for them, and society has decided that the parents are that advocate.[/QUOTE] So you go from "They need an advocate for medical procedures"(Like I had when I was circumcised for medical reasons, not religious reasons) to "Therefore, because they need a medical advocate, entirely voluntary procedures that may have a negative effect on the child are entirely on the parents to decide." I mean, I feel maybe you're cutting out a few things for your own benefit here.

[QUOTE=sgman91;53134380]Does removing the little toe have a measurable negative effect on a person? Yes, yes it does. So, no, I wouldn't support it. Since when is providing sources and presenting arguments "dismissing offhand any discussion?" I factually didn't misquote them. I said that they found the benefits to outweigh the risks. That is factually what they said. You pointed out that they didn't recommend routine circumcision... which I never claimed and is irrelevant to my argument. You've yet to show how I misquoted them in the slightest. I'm arguing that it should be allowed, not that every child be forced to be circumcised. The argument presented so far seem to be: 1) It is bad for the child. I've clearly argued against this by showing that the opinion of the medical experts in the field disagree. In fact, they say that the benefits outweigh the risk and that the choice should be left up to the parents. 2) A moral augment about any change to a baby's body being immoral. I responded by saying that parents are given general authority over medical procedures, as they relate to their children. To say that a parent ought not to have the authority to make medical choices for their child would be to say that they shouldn't have the authority to remove a benign tumor, for example. It simply isn't how society works.[/QUOTE] Unless it's for purely medical reasons, permanently altering your child's body at a point in their life where they can't consent is illogical, immoral, and just plain creepy. The act of circumcision itself isn't exactly what is so fucked up, it's the reasoning behind it and the fact they are so vehemently defending cutting baby dicks.