Icelandic Catholic leaders condemn ‘anti-Semitic’ circumcision law

thecolorsblend

If God is your Father, who is your Mother?
Supporter
Jul 1, 2013
9,199
8,425
Gotham City, New Jersey
✟308,231.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
"Tear" is such propaganda.
Oh?

We also know that babies cry less for circumcision than they do for vaccinations.
Say, speaking of propaganda, vaccines serve an immediate and obvious good for the child.

Circumcision serves no immediate and obvious good for the child. So far, the best argument for it is "Because I say so".

Are pierced ears deformed?
Not what we're discussing here.

Is a tattoo deformed?
Also not what we're discussing here.

You are being unreasonable.
Yeah, I don't want newborn babies getting their genitals mutilated, I'm such a monster.

Down through time, various cultures have altered the body cosmetically.
Indeed. And others haven't. And yet, Iceland's government is being called everything in the book for wanting to be one of the cultures which doesn't by one of the cultures which does.

Honestly, why can't Iceland's government make their own policies here?
 
Upvote 0

Doctor.Sphinx

Well-Known Member
Dec 10, 2017
2,317
2,900
De Nile
✟20,762.00
Country
Egypt
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Constitution
Oh?

Say, speaking of propaganda, vaccines serve an immediate and obvious good for the child.

Circumcision serves no immediate and obvious good for the child. So far, the best argument for it is "Because I say so".
The benefits of vaccination are debatable, but many parents still have their children vaccinated. Circumcision is claimed to have immediate benefits also.

Not what we're discussing here.

Also not what we're discussing here.
Pierced ears, tattoos, wart removal etc. are all minor procedures comparable to circumcision (although ear piercing and tattoos aren't claimed to provide any benefits). Its hypocritical to oppose circumcision if not opposing these also.

Yeah, I don't want newborn babies getting their genitals mutilated, I'm such a monster.
Its just skin, and therefore not mutilation.

Indeed. And others haven't. And yet, Iceland's government is being called everything in the book for wanting to be one of the cultures which doesn't by one of the cultures which does.

Honestly, why can't Iceland's government make their own policies here?
Individual liberty and parental rights should always take precedence over government policy.
 
Upvote 0

Decanus

I don't even know anymore
Mar 21, 2012
1,042
378
West Midlands
✟40,647.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
There is absolutely no comparison between piercings, tattoos, and circumcision.

What to know why?

Tattoos and piercings can be reversed. You can't reverse circumcision.

Whatever "health benefits" there are is still no grounds for forcibly cutting off part of a childs genitals.

Individual liberty and parental rights should always take precedence over government policy.

Parents should only have the right to decide NECESSARY decisions for their child in the event of illness, near death or general wellbeing. Circumcision is not necessary in almost all cases. The health benefits, if there really are any, are minimal and not great enough to decide to have a circumcision for a child.
 
Upvote 0

Open Heart

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2014
18,521
4,393
62
Southern California
✟49,214.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Celibate
Don't oh me. "Tear" is a lie. Circumcision is a cut.

Not what we're discussing here.

Also not what we're discussing here.
You don't like having double standards pointed out. Easier to try and deflect.

Yeah, I don't want newborn babies getting their genitals mutilated, I'm such a monster.
Continued misrepresentation. No mutilation is going on. This has been refuted several times already on this thread. The penis works just fine.
 
Upvote 0

thecolorsblend

If God is your Father, who is your Mother?
Supporter
Jul 1, 2013
9,199
8,425
Gotham City, New Jersey
✟308,231.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
The benefits of vaccination are debatable,
They're also not the point of this thread.

Circumcision is claimed to have immediate benefits also.
Inflicting pain and possible psychological damage on infant boys is a benefit?

Pierced ears,
... are not the subject of this thread.

... are not the subject of this thread.

wart removal
... is not the subject of this thread.

Its just skin, and therefore not mutilation.
If someone takes a knife to that boy when he's a grown up, it's called assault with a deadly weapon. It's not "just skin".

Individual liberty and parental rights should always take precedence over government policy.
Not when it comes to ritualistically scarring an infant child. If he wants to deform himself when he gets older, he can. Heck, he can probably get a subsidy from the city of San Francisco if it's the right kind of deformity. But parents should not have the right to ritually deform their babies.

Circumcision is morally barbaric and deserves to be outlawed. Kudos and more kudos to Iceland's government for taking common sense measures to protect children.
 
Upvote 0

thecolorsblend

If God is your Father, who is your Mother?
Supporter
Jul 1, 2013
9,199
8,425
Gotham City, New Jersey
✟308,231.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Don't oh me.
Already did. :/

"Tear" is a lie.
It's a word.

Circumcision is a cut.
It tears off a piece of skin though.

You don't like having double standards pointed out. Easier to try and deflect.
I'm quite fond of helping keep discussions on topic when I can. But you can start separate threads for those other issues if you want.

No mutilation is going on.
The baby's private parts look very different after the scalpel than the private parts did before. It's mutilation and it has no place in a civilized society.
 
Upvote 0

Open Heart

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2014
18,521
4,393
62
Southern California
✟49,214.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Celibate
It's not a double standard when the other examples you're comparing it to are in no way the same and therefore not comparable.
They ARE comparable, which you don't like to face.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Doctor.Sphinx
Upvote 0

Open Heart

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2014
18,521
4,393
62
Southern California
✟49,214.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Celibate
Already did. :/

It's a word.

It tears off a piece of skin though.


The baby's private parts look very different after the scalpel than the private parts did before. It's mutilation and it has no place in a civilized society.
You know what? I'm not interested in having a conversation with someone who won't talk honestly. A lie is more than a word. A cut does not tear. For something to qualify as mutilation, it has to do more than alter the appearance of a body part, it has to damage the ability of that body part to function. Since you won't chat honestly, but play games, have fun posting with yourself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Doctor.Sphinx
Upvote 0

Decanus

I don't even know anymore
Mar 21, 2012
1,042
378
West Midlands
✟40,647.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
They ARE comparable, which you don't like to face.

Tell me how they are comparable? Tattoos (you have to be of age to have one anyway) can be reversed. Piercings can also be reversed.

You can not put somebodies foreskin back on.

Tattoos do not take any part of your body off of you and neither do piercings.

So tell me, in which way are they comparable?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Decanus

I don't even know anymore
Mar 21, 2012
1,042
378
West Midlands
✟40,647.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
You know what? I'm not interested in having a conversation with someone who won't talk honestly

You may say that, but I will say I think you're being very disingenuous on the topic of circumcision. You are being wilfully ignorant just to prove a point.
 
Upvote 0

Open Heart

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2014
18,521
4,393
62
Southern California
✟49,214.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Celibate
Tell me how they are comparable? Tattoos (you have to be of age to have one anyway) can be reversed. Piercings can also be reversed.

You can not put somebodies foreskin back on.

Tattoos do not take any part of your body off of you and neither do piercings.

So tell me, in which way are they comparable?
They are comparable in that they are cosmetic altarations to the body.

And JFYI circumcision can be and is reversed.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Doctor.Sphinx
Upvote 0

Open Heart

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2014
18,521
4,393
62
Southern California
✟49,214.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Celibate
You may say that, but I will say I think you're being very disingenuous on the topic of circumcision. You are being wilfully ignorant just to prove a point.
At least I'm being honest.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Doctor.Sphinx
Upvote 0

Decanus

I don't even know anymore
Mar 21, 2012
1,042
378
West Midlands
✟40,647.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
They are comparable in that they are cosmetic altarations to the body.

And JFYI circumcision can be and is reversed.

Well from what i've seen the methods used to bring back a foreskin just involve mostly stretching the skin on the penis till it grows. Even then it is not the same. Not only do these "regrowth" methods often take years, it does not have the same sensitivity level of actual foreskin and is in fact not the same as foreskin. You do not have to go through this long process to reverse tattoos or piercings. Tattoos may take longer, but nowhere near the same length of time to reverse a circumcision.

There is is surgical method, but it's very costly and is just a skin graft. Again, this is not the same as an authentic foreskin and it cannot restore sensitivity.

And why should anybody have to go through that because of an inconsiderate choice taken by the parents when they were a baby?
This whole argument in favour of child circumcision is just to absolve guilt from the parents and cares very little about the child.

If you're saying a person can choose to have their circumcision reversed at a later age, theres no reason why you can't just say a person can wait till they're older to choose to be circumcised? Because that doesn't fit your narrative. It's hypocrisy plain and simple.

Again with Tattoos, you cannot choose to give your child a tattoo, and rightly so, so why can you choose to cut off part of their genitals? The argument is inconsistent.

There is not one reason that is good enough to support circumcising a baby.
 
Upvote 0

Doctor.Sphinx

Well-Known Member
Dec 10, 2017
2,317
2,900
De Nile
✟20,762.00
Country
Egypt
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Constitution
Well from what i've seen the methods used to bring back a foreskin just involve mostly stretching the skin on the penis till it grows. Even then it is not the same. Not only do these "regrowth" methods often take years, it does not have the same sensitivity level of actual foreskin and is in fact not the same as foreskin.
Skin is skin. How can you prove it doesn't have the same sensitivity level if one decides to grow it back?

And why should anybody have to go through that because of an inconsiderate choice taken by the parents when they were a baby?
Why is a parents choice to avoid infections and problems in their child inconsiderate? Why is circumcision inconsiderate, if women generally have a preference for it in their husbands?

If you're saying a person can choose to have their circumcision reversed at a later age, theres no reason why you can't just say a person can wait till they're older to choose to be circumcised?
Because the foreskin can still cause infections and problems until its been circumcised? The sooner one is circumcised, the sooner one's risk of foreskin related problems is eliminated.

Again with Tattoos, you cannot choose to give your child a tattoo, and rightly so, so why can you choose to cut off part of their genitals? The argument is inconsistent.
Skin is not genitalia.

There is not one reason that is good enough to support circumcising a baby.
In your mind. If this were true, circumcision would not be a mainstream procedure.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Decanus

I don't even know anymore
Mar 21, 2012
1,042
378
West Midlands
✟40,647.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Skin is skin. How can you prove it doesn't have the same sensitivity level if one decides to grow it back?

Because doctors have said it doesn't as well as those who have gone through the procedures. Skin is not just skin. Certain areas have more nerve endings than others and foreskin provides a different function to the skin anywhere else on the body.

Why is a parents choice to avoid infections and problems in their child inconsiderate? Why is circumcision inconsiderate, if women generally have a preference for it in their husbands?

Because infections with foreskin are not as common as you're making out. Most people in Europe have foreskins, yet where are the mass reports of widespread infections due to foreskin? To use your own logic against you, if this were true surely everybody would be getting circumcised?

Women have a preference for it? I'm assuming that is in a country where so many people are circumcised that it seems normal. People in countries where circumcision accounts for many people, you are brainwashed into thinking its normal and preferable. Add to that the bogus claims of mass infection of people who do have foreskins and the ignorant rhetoric spouted about uncircumcised penis' in those countries where circumcision is the norm. I can't even begin to tell you how many Americans have spoken to me about uncircumcised penis' and how they have been taught that they're really dirty and smelly etc. This is completely false.

Teach good hygiene, don't cut up kids bodies.

And lol, as if we should be advocating kids get circumcised because later in life a woman would prefer if you had some skin cut off YOUR penis. That woman is probably shallow as hell and not worth bothering with.

Skin is not genitalia.

Read correctly. I said PART of the genitalia, which it is.
 
Upvote 0

Open Heart

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2014
18,521
4,393
62
Southern California
✟49,214.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Celibate
Well from what i've seen the methods used to bring back a foreskin just involve mostly stretching the skin on the penis till it grows. Even then it is not the same. Not only do these "regrowth" methods often take years, it does not have the same sensitivity level of actual foreskin and is in fact not the same as foreskin. You do not have to go through this long process to reverse tattoos or piercings. Tattoos may take longer, but nowhere near the same length of time to reverse a circumcision.

There is is surgical method, but it's very costly and is just a skin graft. Again, this is not the same as an authentic foreskin and it cannot restore sensitivity.

And why should anybody have to go through that because of an inconsiderate choice taken by the parents when they were a baby?
This whole argument in favour of child circumcision is just to absolve guilt from the parents and cares very little about the child.

If you're saying a person can choose to have their circumcision reversed at a later age, theres no reason why you can't just say a person can wait till they're older to choose to be circumcised? Because that doesn't fit your narrative. It's hypocrisy plain and simple.

Again with Tattoos, you cannot choose to give your child a tattoo, and rightly so, so why can you choose to cut off part of their genitals? The argument is inconsistent.

There is not one reason that is good enough to support circumcising a baby.
A person circumcising for religious reasons simply CAN;T wait until they are older. For example, Judaism demands that it be done on the eighth day.

I think tattooing children is a bad idea for a different reason, and that is because it involves a CHOICE OF ARTWORK. Iow the artwork you get is very unique to the individual. In fact I drew my own artwork.

Your statement that parents who circumcise their sons care very little about them is just plain stupid. There is no correlation between circumcision and neglect.

Your main argument seems to be the old "circumcision permanently desensitizes the male penis." This has been debunked. While there is just one study which shows that in a lab setting the glans is slightly less sensitive, there is absolutely no difference in overall sensitivity -- in fact, some men find their sensitivity improved. The most important piece of information is that circumcised men have greater sexual satisfaction overall. Researchers have concluded that men who undergo circumcision correction mistakenly scapegoat their circumcision for their sexual and other problems.
Medical Male Circumcision Is Associated With Improvements in Pain During Intercourse and Sexual Satisfaction in Kenya - ScienceDirect
Late cuts: an international look at adult circumcision
EURO CIRC - Infos about male circumcision
The Informed Parent
CircumcisionAmerica-Circumcision and Sexual Function
In Favour of Circumcision
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Doctor.Sphinx
Upvote 0

Decanus

I don't even know anymore
Mar 21, 2012
1,042
378
West Midlands
✟40,647.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
A person circumcising for religious reasons simply CAN;T wait until they are older.

Of course they can. If that were the case then what about Jews who decide to let their kids choose? What about adult converts, there is no eighth day for them. Abraham was an old man when he circumcised himself. These time limits are tradition and some traditions are harmful.

I think tattooing children is a bad idea for a different reason, and that is because it involves a CHOICE OF ARTWORK.

So a child should have a say over what artwork he has put on his body, but doesn't have to have a say over whether he wants to keep his foreskin in tact? This is blatant hypocrisy and cherry picking.

Your statement that parents who circumcise their sons care very little about them is just plain stupid. There is no correlation between circumcision and neglect.

My point was that the parents seem to care more about a ritual circumcision than they do what their child may want. I'm not saying they don't give a hoot about their child.

Your main argument seems to be the old "circumcision permanently desensitizes the male penis."

That isn't my argument at all. My argument is about one of choice and individual liberty. There is no denying that foreskin is accompanied by a certain type of sensation tat circumcised penis' do not have.
Also, you've provided links to articles but you can find just as many articles from professionals on the other side of the argument.

Anyway, i'm done with this argument because those who don't care for the rights of those who can't decide for themselves are not people you can win with. So, God bless!
 
Upvote 0

Open Heart

Well-Known Member
Aug 3, 2014
18,521
4,393
62
Southern California
✟49,214.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Celibate
Of course they can. If that were the case then what about Jews who decide to let their kids choose?
It's a desecration for a Jew to wait until your child is older to circumcise him. It spits on the covenant. It's a sin right up there with stealing purgery and murder.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Doctor.Sphinx

Well-Known Member
Dec 10, 2017
2,317
2,900
De Nile
✟20,762.00
Country
Egypt
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Constitution
Of course they can. If that were the case then what about Jews who decide to let their kids choose? What about adult converts, there is no eighth day for them. Abraham was an old man when he circumcised himself. These time limits are tradition and some traditions are harmful.
But this tradition comes from the bible, and its required at 8 days old, not at 99 years. There were already a number of links provided demonstrating the benefits of circumcision and dispelling some of the myths.

So a child should have a say over what artwork he has put on his body, but doesn't have to have a say over whether he wants to keep his foreskin in tact? This is blatant hypocrisy and cherry picking.
I think most of this debate is actually over the importance you assign to foreskin. Many people actually prefer to be without it.

My point was that the parents seem to care more about a ritual circumcision than they do what their child may want. I'm not saying they don't give a hoot about their child.
As above. The stats say about 18% of men not circumcised at birth are later circumcised anyway, and an additional 21% who aren't wish they had been. From these stats, it would seem its the parents of uncircumcised boys who don't care for their children (if anyone doesn't).

That isn't my argument at all. My argument is about one of choice and individual liberty. There is no denying that foreskin is accompanied by a certain type of sensation tat circumcised penis' do not have.
Also, you've provided links to articles but you can find just as many articles from professionals on the other side of the argument.
If you'd read the articles, you'd have read that men circumcised later in life report the sensation is better, and the female partners of circumcised men are more likely to be sexually fulfilled.

Anyway, i'm done with this argument because those who don't care for the rights of those who can't decide for themselves are not people you can win with. So, God bless!
Its not that we don't care about rights, just that we believe the right to be circumcised is important also.
 
Upvote 0