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

Sgman, can you perhaps, empathize with someone having made a decision for you, that you no longer have a say in? Or does tradition trump the value of the individual?

[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] Sorry, but the little toe serves no purpose for humans, it does not contribute to balance and has almost no sensory receptors, it is quite literally an appendage that serves no function, and is a relic from when we were great apes. The foreskin on the other hand, does serve multiple purposes and has very dense nerve endings. [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] The point is, circumcision is an unnecessary procedure, that is only carried out because of tradition and beliefs, and in extreme cases for medical reasons in which case it becomes necessary. We are not talking about requiring someone be 18+ to be able to consent to medical procedures that will save them, but a completely unnecessary cosmetic procedure. It's the same reason why piercings, tattoos and other body modifications require you to be 18 years of age.

[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] And yet all of the benefits are either replaceable by something much more efficient and much less permanent (condoms or soap depending on the benefit), or are arbitrarily miniscule in scope (reduction in penis cancer? How often does that even happen? Cutting off toes reduces toe cancer, should we do that?) On the other hand, there are various detrimental psychological effects that you're ignoring. [url=https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201501/circumcision-s-psychological-damage]This link[/url] is admittedly pretty biased, but [url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10657682]it[/url] [url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24094874]sources[/url] [url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9057731]studies[/url] [url=http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/boyle6/]that[/url] [url=http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/goldman1/]aren't.[/url] [QUOTE=CommanderPT;53134308]I wonder why God's preferred currency is the foreskins of infants?[/QUOTE] Forescoin, the original crypto-currency.

[QUOTE=TacticalBacon;53134370]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] Not a solution, prophecy doesn't exist anymore and hasn't since the destruction of the second temple. Besides, theres no one on the caliber of those 2 that would be able to go and negotiate with God. In the 2 examples you're citing, they made appeals to the Divine sense of mercy. It wouldn't work in this case. [editline]15th February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=CommanderPT;53134308]I wonder why God's preferred currency is the foreskins of infants?[/QUOTE] Because literally no one would want to do that to themselves at the time [editline]15th February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=_Axel;53134151]Let's just do this on adults then?[/QUOTE] The question I answered assumes that the convert is already circumcised

[QUOTE=PrusseLusken;53134340] like what benefits? 5% less chance to get hiv or chlamydia during unprotected sex? absolutely laughable. trading that against the drawbacks with it?[/QUOTE] 5% is a [B]huge[/B] difference considering how many people get STIs in a given year. Taken from the World Health Organization's website: [QUOTE]More than 1 million sexually transmitted infections (STIs) are acquired every day worldwide. [B]Each year, there are an estimated 357 million new infections with 1 of 4 STIs: chlamydia, gonorrhoea, syphilis and trichomoniasis.[/B] More than 500 million people are estimated to have genital infection with herpes simplex virus (HSV).[/QUOTE] 357 million is not a "laughable" amount. 357,000,000 divided by 4 is not a "laughable" amount. 5% of 357,000,000 divided by 4 prevented STIs is a very significant reduction of disease. For the sake of (some) accuracy, let's use the current model of over 2 million adults in the US reporting chlamydia. Half of those being men, 5% of over 1 million is still [I]over 50,000 cases[/I] prevented. Those numbers are not "laughable". [QUOTE=PrusseLusken;53134356]i simply don't trust "data" from a country in which it is the norm, culturally accepted as natural to do, and there are pretty huge sums made each year from the practice. [/QUOTE] You are taking your own "data" from sites that are [I]against circumcision[/I] themselves - please understand that the data they present themselves has a good likelihood to be biased itself.

[QUOTE=Marbalo;53134487]Dont know why you guys bother arguing why circumcision is still a thing in Judaism. It isn't going to change because it's a fundamental cornerstone of Judaism. Like it's not a "pretty important" thing or a "small enough to be reinterpreted" type of deal. It's pivotal. I doubt anyone disagrees with the fact that babies can't consent or that, out of context, it is a barbaric ritual. But it's simply one of those things that were practiced for thousands of years up until this very day and while religious reform is indeed possible, the likelihood of it happening is comparable to the Sun exploding on Saturday. It's just such a huge a can of worms that I dont think any sane rabbi or person in a position of power will ever attempt to go down that road.[/QUOTE] I may be in the wrong for this, but I don't care. I think [QUOTE]it's simply one of those things that were practiced for thousands of years up until this very day[/QUOTE] Is tremendously bad reasoning for a society to take

If a religion or religious practice can't keep up with modern moral and ethical standards, it should be left behind

[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] I have to say, contrary to what others are saying, that does look like strong evidence with a lot of studies backing it up. I think it's a bit unbelievable that some of the sources are even claiming an [I]increase[/I] in sensitivity, and it's suspicious to me that the 'gliding mechanism' of the foreskin isn't specifically examined [I](although I might have just overlooked sources that do)[/I]. It does state in the text itself that [I]"it is unclear that sensitivity to static monofilament (as opposed to dynamic stimulus) has any relevance to sexual satisfaction"[/I] which I feel is being overlooked in many of the sensitivity studies. A poster on a previous page stated that circumcised men have to use lubrication to masturbate, is that true? Because if so, I think that makes the effect undeniable, and even more suspicious that the studies don't directly examine such a basic function. [URL=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14751371]One of the studies cited[/URL] [I](131 in the references)[/I] in support of no difference actually found a significant increase in ejaculation latency time, but simply concluded that [I]"The increase in the ejaculatory latency time can be considered an advantage rather than a complication"[/I]. [URL=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17155977]Another cited article[/URL] [I](133)[/I] found that masturbation pleasure in people who were circumcised as adults decreased, which notably is an effect that people who were circumcised as infants would not be able to report [I](interestingly, though, this one did not find a change in ejaculation latency time)[/I].

[QUOTE=SIRIUS;53134497]If a religion or religious practice can't keep up with modern moral and ethical standards, it should be left behind[/QUOTE] Eventually they'll all be left behind, because we're constantly trying to prove something exists that, well, doesn't as far as we can tell. The idea of God made sense back when we couldn't prove why certain things happened, like natural disasters for example, however every reason to prove that God exists, has been disproven up to now, and will continue to be disproved as time move forwards, hence why atheism is quickly on the rise.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;53132617]I find it even funnier when you consider the fact priests give children grape juice and not wine during communion because they're actually willing to twist their religion just a little bit in order to not hurt kids.[/QUOTE] I find it funnier that you legit compare a drop of wine for kids as harmful.

Whenever I see studies being cited to argue in favor of circumcision, it always seems like it's a few American ones doing so, and circumcision tends to be of higher occurrence here. If there was actually a larger consensus from the rest of the worlds medical community, I [I]might[/I] be convinced there was some benefit. However, since the majority of the world don't have the same medical consensus, and in fact seem to argue against it, I remain skeptical of most of the studies done here arguing in its favor. I know I must sound like some sort of conspiracy theorist, but it's no secret that circumcision became so shockingly ingrained in America, and it seems like some people would fight to keep it that way for some damn reason. We're up there with countries that do it routinely to their boys simply for religion, or because of barbaric tribal traditions. People have really only started questioning its relevance in the last few decades it seems, and even then, some states have a higher incidence of it than others.

[QUOTE=Marbalo;53134555]As much I absolutely detest the practice, I can see that there is absolutely no hope of it ever going away for Jews, at least not in the foreseeable future.[/QUOTE] It doesn't need to go away, just be postponed to ensure that the child in question is actually capable of consenting and understands what he's doing, not to mention ensure that he actually has the faith. Outlawing it is a reasonable first step because it is child abuse: Jews will realize they can just do it when the kid grows up, and those who start doing it themselves will rightfully start being viewed as extremist child abuse groups.

[QUOTE=Marbalo;53134555]You're probably right. That doesn't change the facts, however. I also dont believe that tradition by itself is bad similarly as to how I dont believe that tradition by itself is good. There could be plenty of reasons why things have been the way they are for a very long time. Sometimes those reasons are good enough, so we keep doing it, sometimes they aren't, so we change. I really doubt Israeli society is built on "tremendously bad reasoning", or indeed if that even has any kind of effect on anything important. People keep repeating these edgy fedora-esque zings in this thread and it's pretty embarrassing and unbecoming. As much I absolutely detest the practice, I can see that there is absolutely no hope of it ever going away for Jews, at least not in the foreseeable future.[/QUOTE] I'm not saying they as a country are implementing tremendously bad reasoning. And even if they were, what of it? I'm not making a statement about Israel, they surely do things correctly even if they fuck up hard on this area. It isn't about being an "edgelord' or wearing a fedora. It's genuinely about the forcing of people to undergo something they have no say in. I didn't think it was fucking edgelord fedora territory to be concerned about that

[QUOTE=Notanything;53134583]Whenever I see studies being cited to argue in favor of circumcision, it always seems like it's a few American ones doing so, and circumcision tends to be of higher occurrence here. If there was actually a larger consensus from the rest of the world, I [I]might[/I] be convinced there was some benefit. However, since the majority of the world don't have the same medical consensus, I remain skeptical of most of the studies done here arguing in its favor.[/QUOTE] I do agree with the skepticism, but I'd encourage anyone wanting to debunk it to go through the list of references in the [url=http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/130/3/e756]source sgman91 posted[/url]. There's a fuck ton of references, and they do actually seem to try to show an international consensus by citing studies from other countries. The claim that the AAP could be biased is believable to me, but we have to actually show the bias before it's a good argument.

You guys know recent circumcisions don't even involve cutting, right? They put a ring on that just holds most of foreskin back and cuts circulation to the rest over the course of a couple weeks, making it fall off. Mind you this is from an area that has almost no pain receptors. It eliminates the foreskin without any pain, blood, etc. I know the OP in general is in reference to religious response to banned circumcisions, but really what about non-religious circumcisions (mine included)? Purely for the health and cleanliness factor that even the WHO has recognized?

[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;53134621]I do agree with the skepticism, but I'd encourage anyone wanting to debunk it to go through the list of references in the [url=http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/130/3/e756]source sgman91 posted[/url]. There's a fuck ton of references, and they do actually seem to try to show an international consensus by citing studies from other countries. The claim that the AAP could be biased is believable to me, but we have to actually show the bias before it's a good argument.[/QUOTE] The studies on this seem to sometimes contradict each other, what's up with that? Anyone who cites a study for one argument to support their stance on this will always be ignoring a half dozen others that gather evidence to the contrary, the fact that this can apply to both sides is weird. Honestly I think if either side was as strong as they wanted it to be the medical literature on the subject would be a lot more unanimous and conclusive than it is.

[QUOTE=Marbalo;53134637]I'd wager that the only thing Jews will realize is the fact that Israel's national persecution complex just got reaffirmed once again, breeding more tribalism and anti-European leanings. The fact that circumcision can be performed at any stage in life is besides the point. Are you really expecting traditionalist Jews to wait 18 years for their son to officially be Jewish? It's not as simple as postponing it. And if a child asks to be circumcised at 12, on account of bullying from his peers for being different and a "goy", would you agree to take him to a rabbi then? Surely he cant consent yet to the procedure given his age. But pressure from your Jewish community is nevertheless mounting, and those very same nuances I was talking about earlier begin to manifest. This is why postponing it is a non-solution. It's one thing to be concerned about it, it's another to make posts like these; I didn't think I needed to make that clear, but here you go. I think it's in poor taste and devalues the issue, making it appear simpler and abstract when it's a deeply ingrained and nuanced religious practice.[/QUOTE] It's a weird tradition to involve a god in, people are going to make statements about it in our current world I don't believe religious beliefs really do deserve special treatment, I get that this is an ingrained thing and I'm not about to suggest changing the religion as an outsider, but sometimes the context in which you exist changes, and you have to change as a result. We give religion an interesting free pass from a lot of change. We don't need to.

I got circumcised as a little kid, now I can't even have sex properly because I don't have any sensitivity whatsoever. But by all means, let's keep doing this to other people. I can't understand how anyone could agree with this practice at all, unless there's medical reasons involved. Good job Iceland, keep up the fight.

I can see making circumcision being made illegal in America/Israel being a big issue because of their cultural and religious ties to it. The fact that people believe a noncircumcised kid could get bullied and so should conform is fucked up but understandable. I can definitely see all infant circumcision being made illegal across places like western Europe in the next few decades though since the practice of it is done by such a small minority. I don't like criticising it too much because I know guys can get sensitive about it, I'm sure most of the people fighting in favour of it were never even given a choice. Trading a 2% risk of not getting HIV for say a 2% chance of getting a severe infection or losing sensitivity etc just isn't worth it, I'll wear a condom and keep the skin. Most of the sources claiming "benefits" are either extremely inconclusive or heavily biased. The fact of the matter is no good health organisation will encourage circumcision on a normal infant because it just isn't necessary.

[QUOTE=Berman Slick;53134729]You don't really understand STDs do you[/QUOTE] It's not an outlandish assumption, really. The warm moist interior of foreskin is especially good at giving bacteria a home, plus the fact that it's reasonably easy to get small tears in that skin making for a good entry point.. seems like a decent way to share with your partner :shrug: Shit pageking [B]Edit:[/B] this wasn't supposed to be taken very seriously!

[QUOTE=Lime-alicious;53134377]Imagine using a slippery slope argument in fear of not being able to cut baby dicks any more.[/QUOTE] Same thing happened with the Romans, same thing happened with Greeks, same with the Soviets, same with the Nazis Historically, the first precursor to massive anti semitism is banning circumcision and kosher slaughter

[QUOTE=KingofBeast;53134751]It's not an outlandish assumption, really. The warm moist interior of foreskin is especially good at giving bacteria a home, plus the fact that it's reasonably easy to get small tears in that skin making for a good entry point.. seems like a decent way to share with your partner :shrug: Shit pageking[/QUOTE] HIV transmission from anal sex is already below 1% iirc that's not something to rely upon tho lmao also unless you've never washed your dick it's not really gonna be a horrible growth point.

[QUOTE=Svinnik;53134777]Same thing happened with the Romans, same thing happened with Greeks, same with the Soviets, same with the Nazis Historically, the first precursor to massive anti semitism is banning circumcision and kosher slaughter[/QUOTE] except this isn't a ban on circumcision, it's a ban on circumcising children.

[QUOTE=KingofBeast;53134751]It's not an outlandish assumption, really. The warm moist interior of foreskin is especially good at giving bacteria a home, plus the fact that it's reasonably easy to get small tears in that skin making for a good entry point.. seems like a decent way to share with your partner :shrug: Shit pageking[/QUOTE] In theory, yes but it's still a stupid "benefit" to base the pro-argument on considering most people bath themselves. If they don't, then not being circumcised is the least of their problems. Your mouth/throat can easily get STDs like chlamydia and bacteria all over your body can cause horrific shit to happen if you don't keep yourself relatively clean and wash cuts. [QUOTE=Svinnik;53134777]Same thing happened with the Romans, same thing happened with Greeks, same with the Soviets, same with the Nazis Historically, the first precursor to massive anti semitism is banning circumcision and kosher slaughter[/QUOTE] The argument that you can't criticise a weird religious practice otherwise you might somehow encourage mass genocide is a pretty shit argument. Anti-circumcision isn't anti-semitic, trying to portray it as such is insane.

[QUOTE=Svinnik;53134777]Same thing happened with the Romans, same thing happened with Greeks, same with the Soviets, same with the Nazis Historically, the first precursor to massive anti semitism is banning circumcision and kosher slaughter[/QUOTE] Can't circumcise babies =/= banning circumcision guy

[QUOTE=Duskin;53134750]I can see making circumcision being made illegal in America/Israel being a big issue because of their cultural and religious ties to it. The fact that people believe a noncircumcised kid could get bullied and so should conform is fucked up but understandable. I can definitely see all infant circumcision being made illegal across places like western Europe in the next few decades though since the practice of it is done by such a small minority. I don't like criticising it too much because I know guys can get sensitive about it, I'm sure most of the people fighting in favour of it were never even given a choice. Trading a 2% risk of not getting HIV for say a 2% chance of getting a severe infection or losing sensitivity etc just isn't worth it, I'll wear a condom and keep the skin. [B]Most of the sources claiming "benefits" are either extremely inconclusive or heavily biased. The fact of the matter is no good health organisation will encourage circumcision on a normal infant because it just isn't necessary.[/B][/QUOTE] The fuck are you talking about [URL="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5296634/"]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5296634/ [/URL] [QUOTE] Benefits of male circumcision: Urinary tract infection (UTI) Phimosis Inflammation Hygiene STIs in men STIs in women (as sexual partners to circumcised men) Genital cancers [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=polarbear.;53134938]The fuck are you talking about [URL="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5296634/"]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5296634/ [/URL][/QUOTE] These are highly debatable. It's not really known how removing your foreskin would prevent urinary tract infections (despite your post implying it [I]causes[/I] UTI's) and it's unlikely that being circumcised would prevent STIs. These are just opinions that have been conflated to facts by generations of families following their parents and circumcising their kids without knowing why. The only legit reason on that list really is phimosis, which circumcision is still an over-the-top solution to.

Urinary tract infection (UTI) - fixed by self hygeine Phimosis - Pretty much the one time most people against infant circumcision say it's okay, because there's a [I]legitimate medical need[/I]. But that's [I]only if you already have phimosis.[/I] Inflammation - fixed by self hygeine Hygiene - fixed by self hygeine STIs in men - fixed by condoms STIs in women (as sexual partners to circumcised men) - fixed by condoms Genital cancers - having less dick = less dick to get cancer, you can apply that to anything. Better remove toes / ears to reduce toe / ear cancer! Can't get nose cancer if you don't have a nose!

The funny thing is, when people say "oh but my religious practices", who even gives you the right to decide that your kid is suddenly part of [I]your[/I] religion? On top of that you can add that the child has not given any consent. It really should be a no brainer that it should be banned on people under 18.

[QUOTE=Last or First;53134986]Urinary tract infection (UTI) - fixed by self hygeine Phimosis - Pretty much the one time most people against infant circumcision say it's okay, because there's a [I]legitimate medical need[/I]. But that's [I]only if you already have phimosis.[/I] Inflammation - fixed by self hygeine Hygiene - fixed by self hygeine STIs in men - fixed by condoms STIs in women (as sexual partners to circumcised men) - fixed by condoms Genital cancers - having less dick = less dick to get cancer, you can apply that to anything. Better remove toes / ears to reduce toe / ear cancer! Can't get nose cancer if you don't have a nose![/QUOTE] You should actually read the article that was linked in that post. Namely, the parts that you're responding to.