Icelandic Catholic leaders condemn ‘anti-Semitic’ circumcision law

[Open Heart]

Cutting pieces of skin off of kids is mutilation.

This is just not true. I cut off pieces of my toes that are calloused all the time.

For something to be considered mutilation, it has to create damage. FGM does damage -- it destroys the natural usage of the organ by removing it, thus completely destroying its ability to enjoy sex.

You can't say the same about circumcision. A circumcised penis works just fine. It can urinate, and it can have sex with lots of pleasure. It is therefore not mutilation. It is simply a cosmetic thing like getting a tatto or scarification or having a piercing or tummy tuck.

The equivilent of FGM is castration.

 

[Nithavela]

What is the objective of FGM if not to remove the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]?

It's a religious/pseudo-religious/cultural rite of induction of the child into the world of the adults and to mark it as part of the same "tribe", just like the way some amazon tribes jump from platform with ropes tied around their ancles or have their skin scarred.

Just like male circumcision.

 

[Nithavela]

FGM does damage -- it destroys the natural usage of the organ by removing it, thus completely destroying its ability to enjoy sex.

And here you turn right around and repeat the falsehood after being corrected.

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

And here you turn right around and repeat the falsehood after being corrected.

Its almost universally agreed that the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] is an organ in its own right, with a very important function. However, the idea that the foreskin is even an organ at all, rather than an unneeded, excess flap of part of the skin, is the subject of debate.

If the foreskin is an organ itself, with an important purpose, the idea that circumcision is mutilation may make sense. The fact that circumcision was a command from God, that most circumcised men are pleased with their circumcisions, and that circumcision yields no real problems (but rather benefits), supports the idea that foreskin is not so important (and men might even be better off without it). This is evidence that circumcision is not mutilation.

I'm not arguing that all males should be circumcised, just that in a free society, parents would have the right to make that choice. To deny the medical and religious rights of people on nothing more than personal opinion, as has occurred in this situation prohibiting circumcision, is really tyranny.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Its almost universally agreed that the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] is an organ in its own right, with a very important function. However, the idea that the foreskin is even an organ at all, rather than an unneeded, excess flap of part of the skin, is the subject of debate.

If the foreskin is an organ itself, with an important purpose, the idea that circumcision is mutilation may make sense. The fact that circumcision was a command from God, that most circumcised men are pleased with their circumcisions, and that circumcision yields no real problems (but rather benefits), supports the idea that foreskin is not so important (and men might even be better off without it). This is evidence that circumcision is not mutilation.

I'm not arguing that all males should be circumcised, just that in a free society, parents would have the right to make that choice. To deny the medical and religious rights of people on nothing more than personal opinion, as has occurred in this situation prohibiting circumcision, is really tyranny.

Banning it is to make Judaism illegal.

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

Banning it is to make Judaism illegal.

I would be more sympathetic to making Judaism illegal (only Christ can save), as this at least would be a more honest motive (although it would still be a strike at the heart of religious freedom). It would also still allow circumcision for medical reasons, and even cultural reasons (e.g. Christians who have Jewish roots and still want to practice the traditional customs).

 

[chevyontheriver]

I would be more sympathetic to making Judaism illegal (only Christ can save), as this at least would be a more honest motive (although it would still be a strike at the heart of religious freedom). It would also still allow circumcision for medical reasons, and even cultural reasons (e.g. Christians who have Jewish roots and still want to practice the traditional customs).

It is a definitive move against religious freedom. FGM differs as it is not a religious issue, but a cultural issue, and should be banned. The two practices are radically different and should not be compared as if equivalent in scope.

 

[Doctor.Sphinx]

It is a definitive move against religious freedom. FGM differs as it is not a religious issue, but a cultural issue, and should be banned. The two practices are radically different and should not be compared as if equivalent in scope.

I agree. Only the foreskin is removed in circumcision. In FGM, the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] is mutilated. This would be the equivalent of removing the (important and sensitive) glans on the male, rather than just an excess skin flap.

 

[Open Heart]

It's a religious/pseudo-religious/cultural rite of induction of the child into the world of the adults and to mark it as part of the same "tribe", just like the way some amazon tribes jump from platform with ropes tied around their ancles or have their skin scarred.

Just like male circumcision.

Let me clarity. What is the physical objective of FGM if not to remove the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse].

 

[Nithavela]

Let me clarity. What is the physical objective of FGM if not to remove the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse].

Either partial or complete removal of the clitoral hood, of the labia minora or simple ritual nicking of those parts in the "lightest" instances.

Let me be clear that I oppose even those cases fully and think that all sensible actions should be taken to abolish this disgusting practice.

 

[Open Heart]

Either partial or complete removal of the clitoral hood, of the labia minora or simple ritual nicking of those parts in the "lightest" instances.

Let me be clear that I oppose even those cases fully and think that all sensible actions should be taken to abolish this disgusting practice.

It sounds to me like even this damages a woman's ability to experience normal sexual pleasure. It is THAT which is the objective, since they are trying to keep her from being promiscuous. I absolutely do not believe you that there is in some cases only ritual nicking, and if that were the case, I would not be opposed.

 

[Nithavela]

I absolutely do not believe you that there is in some cases only ritual nicking[...]

Maybe some evidence will change that:

Female genital cutting in the Demographic and Health Surveys: a critical and comparative analysis. | POPLINE.org

Female genital cutting (FGC), also known as female circumcision, or female genital mutilation (FGM), is a common practice in many societies in the northern half of sub-Saharan Africa as well as in Egypt and Yemen. Nearly universal in a few countries, it is practiced by various groups in at least 25 African countries, in Yemen, and in immigrant populations in Europe and North America. The cutting varies from a symbolic nicking of the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] to excision of tissue and partial closure of the vaginal area (infibulation).

Female circumcision | Circinfo.org

Dr. Mathews writes in response to last year’s controversy over suggestions that the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (RANZCOG) might consider the legalisation of so-called "ritual nicking." Considerably less harmful than male circumcision, "ritual nicking" is the practice of scratching the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] and extracting a drop of blood in order to satisfy cultural adherents of female circumcision.

 

[Stabat Mater dolorosa]

nm.

 

[Open Heart]

Maybe some evidence will change that:

You did a good job proving your point.

I would not call symbolic nicking FGM. Nor am I opposed to it, since it is not mutilation. I'm assuming we understand the same thing when we say nick?? A small prick that draws blood?

 

[Nithavela]

You did a good job proving your point.

I would not call symbolic nicking FGM. Nor am I opposed to it, since it is not mutilation. I'm assuming we understand the same thing when we say nick?? A small prick that draws blood?

Something like that. It might also be a tiny incision leave a small scar, perhaps in a symbolic shape.

To be clear, this kind of let's call it procedure is the exception, not the rule. But it happens, both in itself and as a substitute for more radical FGM.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Don't be silly. It makes EVERY difference whether it hurts the child. Hurting a child is abuse. Circumcision does not hurt the child -- they cry more for a vaccination.

The baby isn't crying for no reason. The fact that he's getting a chunk of his skin torn off without so much as a pain killer might have something to do with his tears.

In any case, we can't know for sure how he feels... which means it's probably a good idea to let him decide if he wants to be deformed when he's older.

Those passing this law are religiously intolerant.

Oh well.

 

[Nithavela]

The baby isn't crying for no reason.

 

[Open Heart]

The baby isn't crying for no reason. The fact that he's getting a chunk of his skin torn off without so much as a pain killer might have something to do with his tears.

In any case, we can't know for sure how he feels... which means it's probably a good idea to let him decide if he wants to be deformed when he's older.

Oh well.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Yes? Did you mean to say something?

 

[Open Heart]

The baby isn't crying for no reason. The fact that he's getting a chunk of his skin torn off without so much as a pain killer might have something to do with his tears.

In any case, we can't know for sure how he feels... which means it's probably a good idea to let him decide if he wants to be deformed when he's older.

Oh well.

I mean hurt as in mutilated. The penis is still fully functioning -- the male can still urinate and have sex when grown up no problem.

"Tear" is such propaganda. It is inaccurate and irrational.

We know that the nerves are not yet myelinated, which means they are less efficient -- that includes for pain.

We also know that babies cry less for circumcision than they do for vaccinations. This probably has to do with the fact that it is not the pain itself that is the major factor, but the psychological reaction to the pain that kicks in when a child is older.

Are pierced ears deformed? Is a tattoo deformed? You are being unreasonable. Down through time, various cultures have altered the body cosmetically.