It passed a law in 2005 banning mutilation of female private parts. This bill would be an extension of that.

Meanwhile, Jewish and Muslim groups have protested saying it violates their freedom of religion.

If the bill passes, it will be the first European country to ban male circumcision.

Babies with Downs Syndrome are killed in utero. Simple, effective, a very final solution.

Are you saying that is optional in Iceland? Or are you saying it is mandatory?

I found this on Snopes:

"The Icelandic government does not mandate abortions for mothers whose unborn children test positive for Down syndrome, nor do they mandate that a mother is required to take the test in the first place....

Some took this story and branded it as being about a mandated eugenics program. Others misrepresented the nature of the report itself. Lifesitenews.com, for example, ran the factually inaccurate headline “Iceland kills 100% of babies with Down syndrome in abortion: New report.”

The report does not suggest that, however. It suggests that nearly 100 percent of the 80 to 85 percent of people who take the test and test positive for Down Syndrome choose to abort their pregnancy. There are similar termination rates after fetal diagnoses of Down syndrome in other European countries. In Denmark, for example, the rate is about 98 percent, CBS News reported. In the United States, for comparison’s sake, the rate of mothers choosing to terminate their pregnancy after receiving a Down syndrome diagnosis is about 68 percent.

“Babies with Down syndrome are still being born in Iceland,” Hulda Hjartardottir, head of the Prenatal Diagnosis Unit at Landspitali University Hospital, in which around 70 percent of Icelandic children are born, told CBS News."

I think that people who choose to test for Downs Syndrome are more likely to abort if the test is positive, as long as abortion is legal in their country. If one was not willing to abort a child with Downs Syndrome, why would anyone test for it?

Perhaps so they can be prepared for the baby's arrival.

Hilarious.

An obvious point that for some reason needed making.

For someone keeping a Down's Syndrome baby it would be advance warning. It isn't easy raising a special needs child, but from what I've heard of parents who've been there, they wouldn't have done it any other way.

One of my cousins children suffered from a childhood disease that left him crippled and disabled for life. She told me it changed her into a kinder person - without that experience she wouldn't be the person she became - her empathy and compassion knew no bounds.

Just that, except for two a year or so that somehow fell through the cracks, they have solved the problem of Down Cchildren. They don't have any. Simple as that.

Countries with high rates of circumcision have reduced rates of cervical cancer. With the hundreds of venereal diseases that have cum upon the scene with the sexual revolution, that may not be as true as it once was.

Opposition to circumcision is a subset of anti-Judeo-Christianity which rears its ugly little head every so often. It cums and goes.

(Where's BYU Boner when I need him?)

Trisomy 21 children are not a problem. It's the ignorant people who cast judgment that is the bigger problem. Ask any parent of a Trisomy 21 child if they wish they had aborted. I bet you none would say yes. It is the health-related costs to care for Trisomy 21 children precipitated the propaganda. The Europeans have a headstart on this eugenics program.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LJxFTKJ7hk

I know a mother of a Downs Syndrome child and she wishes she had aborted.
It's a myth that they're somehow "sweet" children.

So tell us what you mean by "babies".

I like that law. It makes sense to me that body modification that is cosmetic or religious in nature should be an adult decision. I am also coming to the conclusion that children who are born with indeterminate gender should be left as is until they are of an age to make an informed choice.

It's about time. Now if only the US could do the same. Genital integrity should be a human right not left up to the whims of parents.

I agree.

circumcision is Barbaric even though lower incidents of male STDs have been reported in circumcised men (citation needed).

this could be 'offensive' to some persons/parents (Jews, others) the U.S. approach to polygamy was: 'Beliefs aren't subject to laws, but conduct/actions are'.


I hope the Icelandic legal system uses this same philosophy.

In my Mormon family, circumcision was the norm.

It was a religious preference, albeit not a religious mandate. Because of circumcision being a custom biblically, the tradition followed suit.

Peter's vision in Acts 10 puts an end to the Law of Moses and makes all men "clean." Those Mormons who circumcise their kids because Jews did it are not true followers of the New Testament.

Jesus was circumcised following the laws of the prophets.

"The circumcision of Jesus is an event from the life of Jesus according to the Gospel of Luke, which states in verse 2:21 that Jesus was circumcised eight days after his birth (traditionally January 1)." (wiki)

:P

Jesus fulfilled the Law of Moses. Peter was post-Jesus. Check it out.

Doctors always used to say that an infant that young "doesn't experience pain." Then you have the boy circumcised--which the doctor does by clamping the foreskin and scraping it off--and he screams in pain for days. It turns out that the pain an infant experiences when circumcised is the same as if you had scraped off his eyelid.

The main reason that so many American males are now circumcised is, believe it or not, associated with the Pacific Theatre in WWII. The US military believed that fighting men would get terrible and debilitating diseases of the penis if they fought in the jungles. Of course, they should have looked at the fact that the Japanese male population are totally uncircumcised, and they were doing splendidly in the jungle. Once so many men were circumcised, believing it was better, they wanted their boys to not only be "cleaner" in the parents' eyes, but look more like their dad. It became a thing. So many boys got circumcised that it began to look weird to see an uncircumcised man.

An LDS friend of mine was in a circumcision ward in WWII. After the men got circumcised, no one could stand or walk, and were in pain for two weeks, screaming bloody murder when they urinated. He said his penis swelled way up for a long time.

Remember this from Genesis 34. The back story is that Dinah, Jacob's daughter, was raped by Shechem. Scechem's father told Jacob and his sons that Shechem longed for Dinah, and asked Jacob to grant their marriage. But the sons answered:

"We cannot do this thing, to give our sister to one who is uncircumcised, for that would be a reproach to us. But on this condition we will consent to you: If you will become as we are, if every male of you is circumcised, then we will give our daughters to you, and we will take your daughters to us; and we will dwell with you, and we will become one people. But if you will not heed us and be circumcised, then we will take our daughter and be gone.”

So all the men idiotically agreed to be circumcised, following which, the sons of Jacob pulled this stunt:
"And it came to pass on the third day, when [the men] were sore, that two of the sons of Jacob, Simeon and Levi, Dinah's brethren, took each man his sword, and came upon the city boldly, and slew all the males."

See? It hurts.

Love hurts.

Have monitored the effects of thousands of infant circs. After nearly 40 years in Neonatology can see no medical benefit. In this country there are some state Medicaid programs that have stopped paying for them. And a few private insurance programs as well. That is a step forward. In Iceland Muslim and Jewish infants can be circumcised by religious practitioners. They don’t need to waist hospital and physician resources., As a male ages and is unfortunate to have sickle cell disease or diabetes then circumcision often is needed.But as a routine event- it’s a waste of resources

Gatorman

It's easier to keep the area clean if they're circumcised, and lessens infectious diseases that can start in the folds of the uncircumcised skin, I was told by my pediatrician.

The issue was debated for a long time. Eventually it became clear that the down side exceeded any benefits. Facts beat opinions. Evidence rules.

From the Mayo Clinic, re circumcision (the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks:)

"Circumcision is a religious or cultural ritual for many Jewish and Islamic families, as well as certain aboriginal tribes in Africa and Australia. Circumcision can also be a matter of family tradition, personal hygiene or preventive health care.

Sometimes there's a medical need for circumcision, such as when the foreskin is too tight to be pulled back (retracted) over the glans. In other cases, particularly in parts of Africa, circumcision is recommended for older boys or men to reduce the risk of certain sexually transmitted infections.

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) says the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks. However, the AAP doesn't recommend routine circumcision for all male newborns. The AAP leaves the circumcision decision up to parents — and supports use of anesthetics for infants who have the procedure.

Circumcision might have various health benefits, including:

Easier hygiene. Circumcision makes it simpler to wash the penis. However, boys with uncircumcised penises can be taught to wash regularly beneath the foreskin.

Decreased risk of urinary tract infections. The risk of urinary tract infections in males is low, but these infections are more common in uncircumcised males. Severe infections early in life can lead to kidney problems later.

Decreased risk of sexually transmitted infections. Circumcised men might have a lower risk of certain sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. Still, safe sexual practices remain essential.

Prevention of penile problems. Occasionally, the foreskin on an uncircumcised penis can be difficult or impossible to retract (phimosis). This can lead to inflammation of the foreskin or head of the penis.

Decreased risk of penile cancer. Although cancer of the penis is rare, it's less common in circumcised men. In addition, cervical cancer is less common in the female sexual partners of circumcised men."

While I’m sure those things can be pulled from the studies, it sure sounds like apologetics.

Other countries, who don’t have groups putting financial and political pressure on them, have no problem protecting infant males from unnecessary alteration.

The HPV vaccine is a much more effective and direct way to addresss some of the health issues.

It turns out that all that's wrong. We thought that was the case, but it's not. As for keeping clean, women shouldn't be the ones to complain; woman have a helluva lot more cavities and creases to keep clean. And whereas all men occasionally dribble, women do that to and have the occasional vaginal discharge. What we gonna do about that?

It's like Kentish says--a money-maker. It's why OB/GYNs do far more D&Cs and hysterectomies than is necessary, for example. Easy money. 60 Minutes did a whole article on this years ago. (And they did an article on circumcision years ago.) American medicine is just full of that stuff.

We had my first son circumcised, and now he hates me for it. The other two boys we did not, and they thank me for it, because they were mostly raised in Germany and Italy, and are sexually active. They look like all the other guys there.

USA won't do it as per 1st Amendment no doubt.

Good. It's barbaric as is female genital mutilation. I don't care about the ramifications for religions and cultures that demand it.

I think there is a lot of pro circumcision propaganda from the medical profession to support a practice that is a good money maker. It would be interesting to compare medical statistics between the UK, where the practice has never been the norm, to the US.

ziller can confirm this thred ~



circumscibed penor did hurt like heck for a few miniutes ~




brb ~ feels good now . gif ~

It's a touchy subject, for sure!

;-)

My two atheist sons were not circumcised, but in both instances the insurance was billed for a circumcision. When I caught it in the first son's billing, I looked for it in the second billing, and there it was.

Was it an "honest" mistake, based on the presumption that modern American parents 'always' 'trim' their sons, or was it knowingly done, with the expectation that the insurance would pay it without asking for the foreskin as proof?

When my son was born, I discussed it with my husband - given he has the appropriate parts - and we decided not to circumcise. If a medical issue comes up later that requires it, fine... that's one thing. Otherwise, my husband and I agreed that it's our son's body, and therefore his decision to make once he's an adult.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/male-circumcision-benefits-outweigh-risks-cdc-says/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision_controversies



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/20/2018 07:23AM by anybody.