Date: April 24, 2018
01) Should Iceland Ban Circumcision? A Legal and Ethical Analysis
Thanks to feinmann0, for this find.
“Iceland’s proposed legislation seeks to criminalise circumcision on male minors that is unnecessary ‘for health reasons,’ stating individuals who remove ‘part or all of the sexual organs shall be imprisoned for up to 6 years.’”
The author’s sate that: “While the bill concerns circumcisions not performed for ‘health reasons’, it does not define the term ‘health.’ This is an oversight, as the term is not self-evident.”
…
According to bill spokesperson Silja Dögg Gunnarsdóttir, a key reason for the bill is that all forms of female genital cutting (FGC), no matter how minor, have been illegal in Iceland since 2005, but no similar legislation exists for males.
“If we have laws banning circumcision for girls,” she said in an interview, then for consistency “we should do so for boys.” Consequently, the bill is not specific to male circumcision, but adapts the existing law banning FGC, changing “girls” to “children.”
This gets way, way deeper than what is quoted here…and it should be read in full.
It’s sounding like this may be a toothless law.
What do you think about Stephen Moreton’s comments?…aside from the fact that they may come off a bit aggressive…and maybe condescending…and they’re obviously vigorously defending circumcision…
One reasonable take away, is that he thinks all males should be compelled to “take one for the team”, because third world countries [which lack the same hygiene resources as “first world”] might not want to circumcise their boys anymore, and HIV [etc.] might explode in those regions…
…He also compares it to the effectiveness of a vaccine…
I’ve never bought into the notion, that an unnecessary surgery of this nature should take place, except in the presence of an immediate danger to the individual…
…I mean…I’m sorry if they don’t have running water in their village…or other resources, that would vastly eliminate diseases and infections without circumcision…But does that make it rational or moral, to force it upon people who overwhelmingly, do not statistically need it, because their living conditions are different?
I know this may sound like a naïve question, given the sheer magnitude of such a project…But wouldn’t it be more humane and decent of us, to help them bring their living conditions up to first world standards, instead of leaving them in it?…and pushing them to cut off boys foreskins, to better survive in it?
How many trillions would it cost to overhaul a country in Africa?…
…How many trillions is it worth, to save these boys bodily integrity [and whatever else they lose from this]?
Even if I have some distaste for Stephens conclusion…I have to admit, most people aren’t likely to even consider such a humane intervention, with such a high price tag…
…And the African AIDs crisis, is a serious one.
Does it make sense in Africa, while it’s overwhelmingly foolish in the more modern countries?
…What a shitty circumstance for African boys.
It’s cases like these…where we find out how much the world honestly does care.
