Opposition to Iceland’s proposed ban on circumcision

Isn't it also illegal in most western countries to get a tattoo before someone is 18 as well. 18 does appear to be the magic number,  but it appears that Cool and Arlon want to make up others minds for them. My mind just boggles!

Toasted Cheese

It doesn't matter if they want it or not if they are brainwashed. They're going to march in and face the machete...
If religion is a necessity in that child's life, then the tenets of that religion matter and warranted considering no harm is caused (Harm and pain are not synonymous.)
See, the questioning verifies the bias against religion which is why this is indeed a religious discrimination law. The people who concocted it are like you and thus are unable to comprehend the importance in the child's life. It literally escapes you.

So if the law is biased in the first place, I still can;t understand why a doctor wouldn't be questioning an 18 year old who walks in and says chop my penis off. That is what circumcision is isn't it and the dude is still doing it for the same "harmful" reasons.
Who said i did?I often wonder what happened in a foreskinned person's life to be concerned so much about circumcision when so many of us circumcised dudes are living normal lives except that people consistently tell us we aren't.

My concern is purely from a religious discrimination standpoint because the more you chip away at religious freedom, the more likely ones will be to ban religion altogether.

My religion does not require circumcisions, so that's a non-issue, but protecting the rights of others beliefs when no harm is caused, protects my religious freedoms as well as atheists & theophobiacs.

And that’s fine. Nobody is arguing that stupid, brainwashed ADULTS shouldn’t have the legal right to do that if they choose. The argument is that children under 18 are too young to consent to procedures they don’t understand the implications of, and therefore should have to wait until they are old enough to legally make an informed decision (which for most things is 18).


It isn’t! Religion is an indoctrination of ideas forced into children. It is not a necessity!

Irrelevant. Circumcision results in harm beyond “pain”.

How so? What does religion have to do with this question at all? There are non religious people who force their kids to undergo circumcision. And such parents would theoretically be just as likely as religious parents to brainwash their children into thinking they needed a circumcision. Therefore, it has nothing to do with religion at all, and religion is once again being offered as a poor EXCUSE to defend the indefensible.

Yes, as it would any rational skeptic who questions the logic of something that seems on the surface illogical. The people who defend it on the other hand are like you; irrational theists, who don’t question anything that you accept on faith, no matter how illogical it seems.

It isn’t. Unless you believe that laws should be based on religion (which the US Constitution clearly rejects in the First Amendment).

No. circumcision is chopping PART of the penis off.

Maybe a doctor WOULD question an 18 year old who asked for that. But at the end of the day, an 18 year old is a legal adult who can make his own cosmetic decisions (whether a doctor agrees with them or not).

There, fixed it (and by extension answered the question for you)

Non-sequitur! The Constitution protects religious freedom. It does not allow you to use religious freedom to deny the rights of other people. Your religious freedom ends where someone else’s body begins!

But circumcision always causes harm (even if you don’t recognize it as such).

Well, it would be lovely if every case involving consent depended on an individual assessment of the youngster to decide whether they can consent or not, but I doubt it would be practical. An age of consent is a reasonable compromise, IMO.

So for me, no circumcision on anybody under 18.

I think it's important to do in cases where there's a claim made that something was done nonconsensually.  In other cases, there's no need to bother--no one is making a complaint.  And that's not for any particular age group.  It would go for cases where there's a claim made that something was done nonconsensually regardless of the ages involved.

If Arlon were in charge of public safety at beaches, we could expect signs like "Caution: this beach contains sand and gravel. Women and uncircumcised males not permitted.  All others advised to take precautions when sitting down."

Which in itself proves it to be true!


The wisdom on the matter is that religion is not a necessity. That is a demonstrable fact given that there are atheists who are happy, successful, and functional being atheists, and raising their children in non-religious households. What the law says or doesn’t say is a red-herring in this case.

Ryleigh McWillis, Eric Keefe, Jamaal Coleson Jr., Jayvas Carson, Angelo Mintah, Brayden Tyler Frazier, and Ryan Heydari all disagree with you!

Involuntary circumcision IS rape and harm. Thus you become a hypocrite with this stance!

So by your logic we should cease making it illegal, because crazy religious people are going to do it anyway. Screw the rights and protections of the child!

There doesn’t need to be a fight so long as Muslims and Jews follow the law. If they don’t want to follow the law, then they should live in a country where religious law(Sharia) trumps secular law.

That’s because your imagination is limited by the stupidity of your argument. I imagine it’s about exactly what it appears to be about (protecting the rights and safety of children, irrespective of religion).

Total red herring here!

And the honest religious. Religion is optional, not necessary.


Yes it does. You're wrong.


As is circumcision.

Your imagination is a peculiar place that has little relation to reality.

No, I meant that circumcision should only be performed as a matter of medical necessity.