Well done Iceland.

[Eisegerwind]

Taking steps to stop the mutilation of male babies with the added bonus of criminalising several religions, nice work.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-43111800

[Scotty CTA]

Agreed.

I remember Germany hoping to do something similar a few years back (but don't know what came of it).

[Eisegerwind]

2 hours ago, Scotty CTA said:

Agreed.

I remember Germany hoping to do something similar a few years back (but don't know what came of it).

They appeared to bottle it when the jewish god botherers started whining.

[Scotty CTA]

OT Judaism officially expired when Jesus rose from the grave.

(Might as well put a bone through your kid's nose now. Just as meaningful.)

Circumcision of the Heart

²⁵ For circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law, but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision. ²⁶ So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? ²⁷ Then he who is physically uncircumcised but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision but break the law.²⁸ For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. ²⁹ But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.

 

[Alibi]

Barbaric practice.  Except in the case of medical reasons, should have been banned decades ago.

[DonnyTJS]

Pretty common in the States, I believe (was told so by a couple of American girlfriends back in the '80s). Was said to have medical benefits, though I'm not quite sure what those might be. Used to be common here too in the first half of the last century - I believe me dad had been done.

[phart]

37 minutes ago, DonnyTJS said:

Pretty common in the States, I believe (was told so by a couple of American girlfriends back in the '80s). Was said to have medical benefits, though I'm not quite sure what those might be. Used to be common here too in the first half of the last century - I believe me dad had been done.

We had a debate on here years ago about male genital mutilation (just fecking about language) and long-term studies show it can reduce the sensation of sex (deny pleasure) with no real health benefits. The argument must have been somewhat convincing as i remember Calmac changing his mind once the new information was available and checked.

[Scotty CTA]

1 hour ago, DonnyTJS said:

Pretty common in the States...

I believe I heard a stat of 65% at one time which I put the practice down to Jewish propaganda.

1 hour ago, DonnyTJS said:

Was said to have medical benefits, though I'm not quite sure what those might be.

The nonsense bandied about was that it supposedly reduced the number of urinary tract infections.

[mariokempes56]

Been trying to rub mine off for years..

[Ormond]

6 hours ago, DonnyTJS said:

Pretty common in the States, I believe (was told so by a couple of American girlfriends back in the '80s). Was said to have medical benefits, though I'm not quite sure what those might be. Used to be common here too in the first half of the last century - I believe me dad had been done.

My Mrs admitted to me that She had been worried about seeing my boaby for the first time as She had never dealt with one which had foreskin before. She thought all of us have foreskin back home as a rule. Until She realised my toby skin got chopped when I was 4. 

[Clyde1998]

Good move by Iceland - a horrible practice (expect, of course, for medical reasons).

Apparently, only 3.8% of newborns are circumcised in the UK - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/10201882/Circumcision-is-one-of-the-oddities-of-the-Royal-Family.html

On the high rates in the US: according to this article - https://www.cbsnews.com/news/circumcision-rates-declining-health-risks-rising-study-says/ - 81% of American males have been circumcised. The article claims that 'half of uncircumcised males will contract a medical condition related to their foreskin' and 'those who were circumcised before their first sexual intercourse were 15 percent less likely to develop prostate cancer'. The article is treating some research as gospel, with only two sentences at the very end of the article talking about why people oppose it.

So by that logic prostate cancer rates should be much lower than countries where circumcision rates are low - like Spain (1.8%). The USA and Spain have practically the same death rate for prostate cancer - http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/prostate-cancer/by-country/. Only 1% of Japanese males have been circumcised - https://healthytokyo.com/blog/circumcision-in-japan/ - yet the Japanese prostate cancer rate is over half the American rate. The Americans can be pretty stupid at times...

[Scotty CTA]

+1