Circumcision illegal in Ireland?

easychair

Sierra 117 wrote: »

Simple. The right of the child to decide what happens to their body is far more important than the right of the parent to have the child circumcised.

What about the right of the child to obey his religion? Rights are tricky things, and we can't decide, for others, which rights they should adhere to, and which ones they should ignore.

But lets go along with what you say, and perhaps you could tell us how you plan to ban circumcision in a way which will be workable.

Sierra 117

kylith's post above pretty much sums up how I would go about it.

drkpower

easychair wrote: »

What about the right of the child to obey his religion? Rights are tricky things, and we can't decide, for others, which rights they should adhere to, and which ones they should ignore. .

Of course you can, society does it all the time (particularly when it comes to child protection).

easychair wrote: »

But lets go along with what you say, and perhaps you could tell us how you plan to ban circumcision in a way which will be workable.

Same way you ban anything.

MagicMarker

easychair wrote: »

What about the right of the child to obey his religion? Rights are tricky things, and we can't decide, for others, which rights they should adhere to, and which ones they should ignore.

So we shouldn't ban FGM so?

easychair wrote: »

But lets go along with what you say, and perhaps you could tell us how you plan to ban circumcision in a way which will be workable.

Why do you keep repeating this nonsensical question?

kylith

easychair wrote: »

What about the right of the child to obey his religion? Rights are tricky things, and we can't decide, for others, which rights they should adhere to, and which ones they should ignore.

No one wants to stop people from following their religion. No one even wants to stop people from getting circumcised as part of their religion. What people want is for the children to be allowed to make the decision to be circumcised themselves when they're old enough.

easychair

kylith wrote: »

No one wants to stop people from following their religion. No one even wants to stop people from getting circumcised as part of their religion. What people want is for the children to be allowed to make the decision to be circumcised themselves when they're old enough.

If "people" want that, it's curious how "people" still continue the practice.

What you mean, in fact, is that some "people" want to stop other "people" .

Rights are not simply what we want, especially when it conflicts with what other "people " want.

I am able to dislike the practice, while allowing other "people" to make that decision for themselves, and for their families.

It's noticeable that the vast, vast majority of the men in the world who have been circumcised as children do not seem to object when they reach adulthood.

robindch

easychair wrote: »

It's noticeable that the vast, vast majority of the men in the world who have been circumcised as children do not seem to object when they reach adulthood.

Hardly unusual if you consider that men who've had it done and who later choose to object, will, effectively, be telling the world that they believe their penis is misshapen. Speaking as a (uncircumcised) guy myself, I'm not sure this is a rumour I'd be happy to spread about myself.

Also interesting to note that adult males almost never choose to get circumcised -- suggesting that men who have a choice don't want it done.

soterpisc

dlofnep wrote: »

You know it's not illegal. Don't ask stupid questions.

Many ignorant parents in Ireland over look their kids as babies and leave young men with problems that could easily be sorted out a kids with a small procedure similar to Circumcision. So no, Circumcision is not illegal in Ireland it sometimes is done for medical reason, you would be surprised who many grown men get circumcised for non religious reasons.


As for the Religious reasons.. Well I have yet to meet a Muslim/Jew who really cared, They don't remember being Circumcised and it does not seem to affect their live one bit. (Certainly not when it comes to having kids).. No my cup of tea. But atleast for men the procedure if done as a baby well they know no different.

One thing do strongly disagree with in religious Circumcision is that it can be done by someone who is not a trained doctor. Not sure in Ireland how its done, but it should only ever be done by a Doctor.

easychair

robindch wrote: »

Hardly unusual if you consider that men who've had it done and who later choose to object, will, effectively, be telling the world that they believe their penis is misshapen. Speaking as a (uncircumcised) guy myself, I'm not sure this is a rumour I'd be happy to spread about myself.

Also interesting to note that adult males almost never choose to get circumcised -- suggesting that men who have a choice don't want it done.

If adult males choose not to be circumcised, then I am sure we can all support their decision, just as we support those who do choose to be circumcised.

I am more impressed by the fact that many of those who were circumcised as children seem less concerned about it than those who were not circumcised. I have never met a man who was circumcised who considered his penis is misshapen, and your comments that a circumcised penis is misshapen are you own views, and seem not to be shared by those who have been circumcised.

It's fine to disagree with the practice, but another thing to effect a law which prevents it. Any such law would be unworkable, so we'll just have to live with the situation which currently exists.

MagicMarker

How would any such law be unworkable?

robindch

easychair wrote: »

just as we support those who do choose to be circumcised.

Does a baby boy sign the consent form with his thumbprint, or do they wait until he can sign his name at age 3 or 4?

easychair

MagicMarker wrote: »

How would any such law be unworkable?

easychair wrote: »

It's entirely possible to realise that there may be benefits to circumcision and still oppose non medically necessary circumcisions of those under the age of majority. That is my position, but I also respect the rights of parents to make that decision.

For me, I know it is impossible to make a law banning infant or childhood circumcision, as it will always be medically necessary in some cases.

Just as in Ireland contraception was banned in the past, but the contraceptive pill could and was proscribed for other conditions (nudge nudge wink wink) and the hysterectomy, (a procedure much more risky than a circumcision) was known as the Irish contraceptive, I know that some parents will still choose to circumcise their infants and will find ways around any law which seeks to ban infant or childhood circumcisions.

*

seamus

So basically what you're saying is that it will always be possible to find a paediatric surgeon who will happily carry out the procedure even though it's not necessary?

While I don't doubt that in some cases this will indeed happen, it would not be widespread IMO. The surgeon would be risking his entire career for nothing, basically, and he would also require the support of a few other medical staff who could call shenanigans on his scam. You'd find a handful of surgeons willing to bend the rules to make it happen, but eyebrows would be raised when someone notices that Dr Gupta circumcised 80 children last year when the national average is closer to 2 or 3 circumcisions per surgeon per year.

At the very least it would also mean that we have a method of punishing people who mutilate their children, and those who assist them.

UnkieKev

I was circumcised as a child due to health reasons. As a 21 year old man I can tell you now it's not barbaric in the least, it makes no difference to you later in life.

It is also extremely more hygienic to be circumcised.

MagicMarker

easychair wrote: »

*

Sigh. I don't know if you're purposely just ignoring what everyone is saying or not.

No one is saying we should ban it completely, only in cases where it is not medically necessary.

So how is that unworkable?

MagicMarker

UnkieKev wrote: »

I was circumcised as a child due to health reasons. As a 21 year old man I can tell you now it's not barbaric in the least, it makes no difference to you later in life.

Meaningless, and you were circumcised for medical reasons, so a moot point.

UnkieKev wrote: »

It is also extremely more hygienic to be circumcised.

Says who?

easychair

robindch wrote: »

Does a baby boy sign the consent form with his thumbprint, or do they wait until he can sign his name at age 3 or 4?

The problem with your rhetorical question is that they are not asked either way. At that point, we have no idea what their views are, and as a society we leave that up to their parents. When many reach the age of consent, at which time they can express an opinion legally, many, for example Jews and muslims, are thankful that their parents took that decision for them.

I'd prefer to live in a society where we leave as many decisions about children to their parents as we can. Not all parents get it right, but most do their best and do what they think is in their child's best interests.

As I have said before, I am opposed to the practice of infant male circumcision myself, but also respect that others may take a different view.

UnkieKev

MagicMarker wrote: »

UnkieKev wrote: »

I was circumcised as a child due to health reasons. As a 21 year old man I can tell you now it's not barbaric in the least, it makes no difference to you later in life.

Meaningless, and you were circumcised for medical reasons, so a moot point.

UnkieKev wrote: »

It is also extremely more hygienic to be circumcised.

Says who?

Hmmm me maybe?

Siuin

UnkieKev wrote: »

It is also extremely more hygienic to be circumcised.

That's just a lie which is continually being peddled to justify circumcision. It's completely unnecessary, and I'm sure if someone is worried about hygiene they can bother to wash their member like a normal person.
Talk about cutting off your nose in spite of your face :P

MagicMarker

UnkieKev wrote: »

Hmmm me maybe?

And as an uncircumcised man, what are you basing it on?

UnkieKev

MagicMarker wrote: »

UnkieKev wrote: »

Hmmm me maybe?

And as an uncircumcised man, what are you basing it on?

The fact that I only had a circumcision when I was 13

Siuin

UnkieKev wrote: »

Hmmm me maybe?

Thanks for your authoritative medical prognosis on that, Dr UnkieKev...

MagicMarker

UnkieKev wrote: »

The fact that I only had a circumcision when I was 13

So what you're saying is you didn't wash yourself properly as a child?

UnkieKev

Siuin wrote: »

Thanks for your authoritative medical prognosis on that, Dr UnkieKev...

Wow I see this thread is a bunch of keyboard warriors so.
Well i'll leave you to throw your heavy implements at each other!

Siuin

UnkieKev wrote: »

Wow I see this thread is a bunch of keyboard warriors so.
Well i'll leave you to throw your heavy implements at each other!

If you can't produce valid reasons for your opinions, then don't expect to hang around for long.

UnkieKev

Siuin wrote: »

If you can't produce valid reasons for your opinions, then don't expect to hang around for long.

Valid reasoning? Well I had an uncircumcised penis for 13 years, and have had a circumcised penis for the last 8. You having never been circumcised have no idea the difference in either and are relying on google to back yourself up am I correct?

Siuin

UnkieKev wrote: »

Valid reasoning? Well I had an uncircumcised penis for 13 years, and have had a circumcised penis for the last 8. You having never been circumcised have no idea the difference in either and are relying on google to back yourself up am I correct?

You don't need to be circumcised to know that there is absolutely no valid medical reason to support circumcision. You don't need a dick (circumcised or otherwise) to have a brain.

MagicMarker

UnkieKev wrote: »

Valid reasoning? Well I had an uncircumcised penis for 13 years, and have had a circumcised penis for the last 8. You having never been circumcised have no idea the difference in either and are relying on google to back yourself up am I correct?

Or maybe people are basing their opinion on the fact that they were never circumcised, don't need to be circumcised and by some miracle hygiene has never been an issue in their whole entire lives? Crazy as it sounds.

It doesn't make a difference if half the planet is circumcised or not and if they are the happiest people alive, the only thing that matters is that it's done needlessly to someone who has no choice in the matter at all.

Would you circumcise your newborn if it wasn't medically necessary? If not why not? And if so why so?

robindch

easychair wrote: »

many, for example Jews and muslims, are thankful that their parents took that decision for them.

Given that significant subsections of these religions are happy to make life very miserable for non-conformists, I'd imagine that most guys would be thrilled to have had the end of their knob hacked off.

easychair wrote: »

their child's best interests.

Does this look like an expression of a child's "best interests" to you:

The Mad Hatter

easychair wrote: »

robindch wrote: »

Does a baby boy sign the consent form with his thumbprint, or do they wait until he can sign his name at age 3 or 4?

The problem with your rhetorical question is that they are not asked either way. At that point, we have no idea what their views are, and as a society we leave that up to their parents.

The whole point of his question is that they are not asked either way. The question being asked of you is why do we leave that up to their parents? And should we leave it up to their parents if their parents are going to have unnecessary medical operations performed on them? Why can't it wait until the patient of the circumcision can make the decision himself?

When many reach the age of consent, at which time they can express an opinion legally, many, for example Jews and muslims, are thankful that their parents took that decision for them.

That's nice, but why couldn't it have waited until they were old enough to take that decision for themselves?

Dades

Siuin wrote: »

If you can't produce valid reasons for your opinions, then don't expect to hang around for long.

Siuin wrote: »

You don't need to be circumcised to know that there is absolutely no valid medical reason to support circumcision. You don't need a dick (circumcised or otherwise) to have a brain.

If you can't discuss this issue without these type of snarky posts, don't post at all.

yawha

UnkieKev wrote: »

I was circumcised as a child due to health reasons.

UnkieKev wrote: »

Valid reasoning? Well I had an uncircumcised penis for 13 years, and have had a circumcised penis for the last 8. You having never been circumcised have no idea the difference in either and are relying on google to back yourself up am I correct?

So what you're saying is, you've never had a fully functioning, healthy foreskin, and thus have no experience or idea as to what it's like to have one?

Mark Hamill

Here's a question for easychair, assuming he's still floating around waiting to spout the same long debunked nonsense to someone new to the thread:
You said that we shouldn't tell parents what to do with their kids, as the kids belong to their parents and after they get indoctrinated, I mean brought up to accept that what was done to them was deserved. So do you think that the likes of what happens to kids on the Day of Ashura ritual should be allowed?

Dades

^^ Just FYI, I really think you're misrepresenting easychair's position on this.

Mark Hamill

Dades wrote: »

^^ Just FYI, I really think you're misrepresenting easychair's position on this.

Really? Its certainly possible, if for no other reason than he wont really explain it.
Several times the argument has gone along the lines:
Easychair: "I'm libertarian, society shouldn't tell people what to do"
A.N.Other: "Society shouldn't tell people what to do with their own bodies, but it should stop people inflicting unneccessary changes on their kids bodies"
Easychair: "Well I dont know any adults, circumcised as kids, who have an issue with it"
A.N.Other: "Thats to be expected, they were indoctrinated/they would have to admit that they see their penises as malformed or suboptimal/there some people who do, so why not wait until the kids are older and can choose for themselves"
Easychair: "..........................................................."

Easychairs libertarianism only seems to apply to the parents, he doesn't take account of what the kids want until they are adults (and then only uses his relatively small subset of companions who where circumcised as a measure). His argument seems to say that, as a child, you have no rights or will of your own and your parents can do what they like to you (even tattoo you). It would be nice to get some clarification on this, but seeing as he hasn't justified anything he has said so far on this thread (repeating doesn't count), I'm not holding my breath.

Dades

I'm probaly thinking of a post like this.

I also think you've debased the discussion by alluding to such things as the "Day of Ashura" ritual, in the same way other people bringing up FGM or 'compulsory mastectomies' did.

Mark Hamill

Dades wrote: »

I'm probaly thinking of a post like this.

He doesn't really explain in that post why he thinks parents can do what they like to their kids though. He claims there are degrees to what they can do, but his lines seem arbitrary. He will disagree with something extreme like cutting off a finger, but has no comeback for analogous procedures like cutting off earlobes (as necessary as a foreskin), removing vestigial organs or tattooing.

Dades wrote: »

I also think you've debased the discussion by alluding to such things as the "Day of Ashura" ritual, in the same way other people bringing up FGM or 'compulsory mastectomies' did.

Why though? I can understand compulsory mastectomies being OTT, but Ashura and FGM dont necessarily result in long term physical damage, the same way circumcision doesn't according to circumcision advocates (not all forms of FGM result in the full removal of the sexual organs). Do you think that the people who support FGM actually call it FGM? To them, its circumcision too. To the parents who do them, FGM and Asgura are as important as male circumcision and, coupled with childhood indoctrination, will result in kids who want to do it to their own kids.

Dades

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Why though? I can understand compulsory mastectomies being OTT, but Ashura and FGM dont necessarily result in long term physical damage, the same way circumcision doesn't according to circumcision advocates (not all forms of FGM result in the full removal of the sexual organs). Do you think that the people who support FGM actually call it FGM? To them, its circumcision too. To the parents who do them, FGM and Asgura are as important as male circumcision and, coupled with childhood indoctrination, will result in kids who want to do it to their own kids.

Hang on, now your downgrading the harm inflicted by FGM in order to equate it with circumcision?

Also, it's irrelevant what the parents think. They are indoctrinated themselves and therefore don't have the capacity for objectively.

Mark Hamill

Dades wrote: »

Hang on, now your downgrading the harm inflicted by FGM in order to equate it with circumcision?

As I said in my previous post, not all FGM is the same, look at the wiki article for the different levels. The less invasive forms (Type 1a and Type 4) are on the same level as male circumcision (NB I'm not trying to defend any form of FGM).

Dades wrote: »

Also, it's irrelevant what the parents think. They are indoctrinated themselves and therefore don't have the capacity for objectively.

Not to easychair, which is the point. In his libertarian mindset, parents have near cart-blanche to do what they like with their kids, they could have them tattooed and he wouldn't object.

swimming

I dont agree guys sorry. I think circumcision should be done here in Ireland, if the person wants it done! some guys need it done for medical purposes! I am 100% Irish and I am circumcised myself! I was cut for medical purposes and tbh I much prefer it now then before! There is no issue of cleaning behind the foreskin or whatever! Whatever you heard about "Less sensitivity or feeling" then you heard wrong..Masturbation and whatever is so much better now and there is less worry of hurting yourself..But dont get me wrong, I think its wrong to circumcise newborns..I think they should(aside from medical purposes) have the authority to make the decision themselves when they older. Just my opinon.

saa

You haven't really thought this through have you, make circumcision illegal
= certain religious folk will look for circumcision for their babies from people other than doctors in sub standard conditions for the surgical procedure.

And its more of an issue in America where its done quite often for cosmetic reasons or for their child not be bullied or different.. or to be clean? That disturbs me more than religious practices.

MagicMarker

swimming wrote: »

I dont agree guys sorry. I think circumcision should be done here in Ireland, if the person wants it done! some guys need it done for medical purposes! I am 100% Irish and I am circumcised myself! I was cut for medical purposes and tbh I much prefer it now then before! There is no issue of cleaning behind the foreskin or whatever! Whatever you heard about "Less sensitivity or feeling" then you heard wrong..Masturbation and whatever is so much better now and there is less worry of hurting yourself..But dont get me wrong, I think its wrong to circumcise newborns..I think they should(aside from medical purposes) have the authority to make the decision themselves when they older. Just my opinon.

1. Circumcision is done here if the person wants it.

2. Of course you prefer it now, you had it done for medical purposes, so much so that you were afraid of hurting yourself from masturbating! :eek:

Wrong to circumcise newborns? Thinks they should be able to decide when they're older?

It seems we agree more than you think.

swimming

saa wrote: »

You haven't really thought this through have you, make circumcision illegal
= certain religious folk will look for circumcision for their babies from people other than doctors in sub standard conditions for the surgical procedure.

And its more of an issue in America where its done quite often for cosmetic reasons or for their child not be bullied or different.. or to be clean? That disturbs me more than religious practices.

I am just saying that I dont think it should be illegal as the topic to this outlined..but on religious issues..yeah thats a completly different topic..!
but yes I agree with you that its bad for cosmetic reasons..! it is there for a reason I know!

yawha

Surely no one could be so obtuse as to think this thread was discussing illegalising circumcision full stop?

Dades

yawha wrote: »

Surely no one could be so obtuse as to think this thread was discussing illegalising circumcision full stop?

Exactly - there was nobody advocating this whatsoever.

So, swimming, you are in agreement with most people here.

swimming

Dades wrote: »

Exactly - there was nobody advocating this whatsoever.

So, swimming, you are in agreement with most people here.

Hey sorry wen I said I didnt agree I meant to say I dont agree with the dude that said "Circumcision is a violent act perpetrated against children by fanatic adults in the name of religious edict.

How do these fanatics get away with perpetrating such crimes and not end up in prison for GBH?"

I completly disagree with him...while I do think it is wrong to do in on newborns like in the US, I think for religous purposes, it is part of their culture and beliefs and if they didnt have it done they would be 'different from others' in there religion and perhaps the're country.

But yes in Ireland(not that its at all common) I do agree with yous that the child should have the authority to make the decision when he is older.

and the person who says that "If it's true that removing the foreskin reduces the penis' sensitivity of more than 50%"..that is completly false.

easychair

swimming wrote: »

I completly disagree with him...while I do think it is wrong to do in on newborns like in the US, I think for religous purposes, it is part of their culture and beliefs and if they didnt have it done they would be 'different from others' in there religion and perhaps the're country.
.

I'd be interested to see where in the Bible, or Koran, it states that the only way men can worship god is by having a piece of skin cut off their penis.

DeVore

swimming wrote: »

I dont agree guys sorry. I think circumcision should be done here in Ireland, if the person wants it done! some guys need it done for medical purposes! I am 100% Irish and I am circumcised myself! I was cut for medical purposes and tbh I much prefer it now then before! There is no issue of cleaning behind the foreskin or whatever! Whatever you heard about "Less sensitivity or feeling" then you heard wrong..Masturbation and whatever is so much better now and there is less worry of hurting yourself..But dont get me wrong, I think its wrong to circumcise newborns..I think they should(aside from medical purposes) have the authority to make the decision themselves when they older. Just my opinon.

I'm pretty much in the same boat and I agree with the above.

I presume there should have been a negative in the last sentence though?... if not, I would say that I DONT believe parents should have the right to have circumcisions done for religious or cosmetic reasons. No more than they should have the right to have their kids little toe cut off or appendix removed unless a doctor approves the surgery for medical reasons.

I'm circumcised for medical reasons and very happy with the whole set up down there thank you very much!

DeV.

easychair

DeVore wrote: »

I'm pretty much in the same boat and I agree with the above.

I presume there should have been a negative in the last sentence though?... if not, I would say that I DONT believe parents should have the right to have circumcisions done for religious or cosmetic reasons. No more than they should have the right to have their kids little toe cut off or appendix removed unless a doctor approves the surgery for medical reasons.

I'm circumcised for medical reasons and very happy with the whole set up down there thank you very much!

DeV.

I think everyone is pretty much agreed that it's not desirable for parents to decide for their children to circumcise them, but it's another thing entirely to prevent them, by law, from having it done.

Thankfully, in our society, it's possible to disagree without forcing those who disagree to our way of thinking. Education is so much better than forcing other to our way of thinking on this issue.

yawha

Should I start the circle again or just leave this thread die?