Circumcision illegal in Ireland?

Chuck Stone

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?

Is circumcision illegal or what?

Dave!

Doesn't circumcision have some health benefits? Or at least it's a cosmetic decision, not unlike ear piercing...

dlofnep

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

oldrnwisr

Chuck Stone wrote: »

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?

Is circumcision illegal or what?

Doesn't seem to be.

Unless of course you're stupid enough to think that you can do it with the tools you find in your kitchen drawers.

http://www.circlist.com/circ-law/mainpage.html

Chuck Stone

dlofnep wrote: »

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

You do not get to decide what is a stupid question and what isn't so don't make stupid comments.

Assault is illegal so how come circumcision isn't deemed assault?

MagicMarker

Not all circumcisions are performed on children.

In fact I doubt there are many new borns being circumcised in Ireland.

Delirium

Chuck Stone wrote: »

You do not get to decide what is a stupid question and what isn't so don't make stupid comments.

Assault is illegal so how come circumcision isn't deemed assault?

Why isn't a tonsillectomy or appendectomy deemed assault then?

It isn't assault if the patient or parent/guardian of the patient gives consent for the procedure.

Chuck Stone

koth wrote: »

Why isn't a tonsillectomy or appendectomy deemed assault then?

It isn't assault if the patient or parent/guardian of the patient gives consent for the procedure.

Your mixing up surgery for health and circumcision for religious edict - they are clearly quite different.

If a parent gave consent to chop off a child's little finger tip because the great Monkey God says he should - is that assault? If it is then how is circumcision not?

Delirium

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Your mixing up surgery for health and circumcision for religious edict - they are clearly quite different.

If a parent gave consent to chop off a child's little finger tip because the great Monkey God says he should - is that assault? If it is then how is circumcision not?

No I'm not. I've a friend, who isn't from a Jewish family, and had to be circumcised when he was an infant for medical reasons.

If the circumcision was done for purely cosmetic reasons, not religious, would you still be calling for it to be labelled as assault?

AhSureTisGrand

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Your mixing up surgery for health and circumcision for religious edict - they are clearly quite different.

If a parent gave consent to chop off a child's little finger tip because the great Monkey God says he should - is that assault? If it is then how is circumcision not?

But the parents could claim they were doing it for medical reasons as there are health benefits to circumcision

dlofnep

Chuck Stone wrote: »

You do not get to decide what is a stupid question and what isn't so don't make stupid comments.

It is stupid, because you know full-well that circumcision is not illegal.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Assault is illegal so how come circumcision isn't deemed assault?

Because it's not assault. Women find it nicer anyways! I'm going to get the snip soon, and I'll be running around the place swinging it like there's no tomorrow.

Chuck Stone

koth wrote: »

No I'm not. I've a friend, who isn't from a Jewish family, and had to be circumcised when he was an infant for medical reasons.

If the circumcision was done for purely cosmetic reasons, not religious, would you still be calling for it to be labelled as assault?

Again you're mixing up a medical procedure with a barbaric act carried out by religious edict.

Zillah

Dave! wrote: »

Doesn't circumcision have some health benefits? Or at least it's a cosmetic decision, not unlike ear piercing...

There are three reasons that people get their children circumcised: Religious (blood sacrifice/covenant according to tradition), puritan (makes masturbation more difficult) or medical (too tight etc). Well I suppose there's the third; stupid (going with the flow - it's the done thing).

There have been claims that it makes HIV transmission slightly more difficult, but it's a trivial statistical difference. Claims of cleanliness are nonsense.

It's basically a load of stupidity that results in infected, deformed and mutilated boys every year, and even when it goes correctly it results in lowered sensitivity in the long term and complete agony in the short.

I'd be absolutely in favour of out lawing it without genuine medical reasons.

And no Jews, I don't care if it upsets you, your right to pratice your religion ends at the point where you take a knife to your infant's genitals.

koth wrote: »

Why isn't a tonsillectomy or appendectomy deemed assault then?

Because they are a medical necessity. If a circumcision is performed for the same reason then sure, good call parents. Otherwise they're cutting off piece's of their children's genitals for no good reason.

sdanseo

OP means when it's done to kids purely for religious reasons, and I agree with him that's wrong. The person having the procedure can't have their own choice, then.

I had it done for health reasons when I was 8.

Dave!

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Your mixing up surgery for health and circumcision for religious edict - they are clearly quite different.

If a parent gave consent to chop off a child's little finger tip because the great Monkey God says he should - is that assault? If it is then how is circumcision not?

That's just pointless mutilation though... A better example would be, if a religious cult mandated that members have their ears pierced, would it be okay for a parent to have their child's ears pierced for that reason?

I wouldn't see it as a big deal myself.

Chuck Stone

dlofnep wrote: »

It is stupid, because you know full-well that circumcision is not illegal.

If you can't figure out that I'm asking this question to create a debate around circumscision and why it's not considered assault then I doubt I have the talent to helo you 'get it'.

Because it's not assault.

Your (misguided) opinion. How you don't deem the cutting off of a childs foreskin or removal of a childs clitoris as assault is beyond me.

Women find it nicer anyways!

Rubbish - how can this be tested as being a true statement without a rigourous experiment. What a stupid thing to say.

I'm going to get the snip soon, and I'll be running around the place swinging it like there's no tomorrow.

Do me a favour - quit thanks whoring :rolleyes: After hours is that way >>>>

.

Chuck Stone

Dave! wrote: »

That's just pointless mutilation though... A better example would be, if a religious cult mandated that members have their ears pierced, would it be okay for a parent to have their child's ears pierced for that reason?

I wouldn't see it as a big deal myself.

I don't believe any child's bodily integrity should be compromised for the sake of some adult cult.

I always feel sorry for babies and small children when I see their ears pierced.

Zillah

Dave! wrote: »

That's just pointless mutilation though... A better example would be, if a religious cult mandated that members have their ears pierced, would it be okay for a parent to have their child's ears pierced for that reason?

I wouldn't see it as a big deal myself.

Do you actually consider ear-piercing and cutting off the tip of someone's penis to be equivalent procedures?

Anyway, if there was a cult piercing their children's ears I would be as loud or upset about it as I am circumcision, but yes, I would oppose it.

Morag

[noparse]

X

[/noparse] =

X

[noparse]

yorema wrote:

X

[/noparse] =

yorema wrote:

X

It is not illegal to have a circumcision preformed on an infant boy for religious reasons,
but it is regulated and not just anyone can preform it.

Sefirah

As a Jew, I still find the act of circumcision wrong and barbaric. I've always just found it to be a nauseating, out-dated and thoroughly pointless practice. I have an uncircumcised Israeli boyfriend and by fook, there's no way in hell I'd do that to any of my kids.

Annasopra

FGM isn't even illegal in Ireland

mehfesto

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I don't believe any child's bodily integrity should be compromised for the sake of some adult cult.

I always feel sorry for babies and small children when I see their ears pierced.

Whut?

Here:

Are there benefits from circumcision?

There are several:

Many older men, who have bladder or prostate gland problems, also develop difficulties with their foreskins due to their surgeon's handling, cleaning, and using instruments. Some of these patients will need circumcising. Afterwards it is often astonishing to find some who have never ever seen their glans (knob) exposed before!

Some older men develop cancer of the penis - about 1 in 1000 - fairly rare, but tragic if you or your son are in that small statistic. Infant circumcision gives almost 100% protection, and young adult circumcision also gives a large degree of protection.

Cancer of the cervix in women is due to the Human Papilloma Virus. It thrives under and on the foreskin from where it can be transmitted during intercourse. An article in the British Medical Journal in April 2002 suggested that at least 20% of cancer of the cervix would be avoided if all men were circumcised. Surely that alone makes it worth doing?

Lots of men, and their partners, prefer the appearance of their penis after circumcision, It is odour-free, it feels cleaner, and they enjoy better sex. Awareness of a good body image is a very important factor in building self confidence.

Balanitis is an unpleasant, often recurring, inflammation of the glans. It is quite common and can be prevented by circumcision.

Urinary tract infections sometimes occur in babies and can be quite serious. Circumcision in infancy makes it 10 times less likely.

Chuck Stone

Sefirah wrote: »

As a Jew, I still find the act of circumcision wrong and barbaric. I've always just found it to be a nauseating, out-dated and thoroughly pointless practice. I have an uncircumcised Israeli boyfriend and by fook, there's no way in hell I'd do that to any of my kids.

I think that children should, at the very least, be allowed to reach an age where they make the decision on whether or not they want to have it done.

I'm all for religious freedom but I just can't understand why the cutting off of children's body parts continues in this day-and-age.

Dave!

Zillah wrote: »

Do you actually consider ear-piercing and cutting off the tip of someone's penis to be equivalent procedures?

Anyway, if there was a cult piercing their children's ears I would be as loud or upset about it as I am circumcision, but yes, I would oppose it.

Cutting off the tip of the actual cock, no, that would be pointless mutilation... Cutting off some of the foreskin though is a relatively minor procedure for an infant.

I'm not too keen on the religious motivation, but if it has a net benefit in most cases, then it's not something I care too much about. If the Jehovah's Witnesses decide tomorrow that you have to have all your vaccinations in order to be a member, then I'll leave them to it!

Chuck Stone

mehfesto wrote: »

Whut?

Here:

What?

So better hygiene = less disease. Um we've known that for hundeds of years - nothing new there.

I'd rather wash my penis that cut the foreskin off TYVM.

Sefirah

It should be noted that circumcision is also an Islamic practice. It is quite common in such countries as Turkey and Malaysia for circumcision to take place when the boy is older, too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5PCkYYzATc&playnext=1&list=PLD6532AC4701CBAB8
Sickening.

Chuck Stone

Stopped watching ^^ when the child was on the operating table

*crosses legs*

yawha

Dave! wrote: »

That's just pointless mutilation though... A better example would be, if a religious cult mandated that members have their ears pierced, would it be okay for a parent to have their child's ears pierced for that reason?

I wouldn't see it as a big deal myself.

wtf?

It's much more comparable to lopping off a fingertip than an ear piercing. I don't support the piercing of children's ears at all, but an ear piercing is not a serious surgical procedure. An ear piercing can be removed, and if the hole doesn't close, it's just a tiny hole, not affecting anything.

The routine cutting off of an infant's foreskin is an unnecessary surgical procedure which carries all the risks of surgery with it (infection, potential complications etc.). It completely alters the look of the penis, removes a considerable amount of very sexually sensitive skin, decreases the sensitivity of the head and makes masturbation more difficult.

You seem to assume, bizarrely, that the foreskin is just a useless flap of skin. Yes, you can function ok without it, and yes, there are valid medical reasons for which a small number of men will have to have it done, but doing it routinely to infants is barbaric.

Oh, and there are zero health benefits. AFAIK, some studies have suggested that in third world countries with AIDS epidemics, that those with circumcisions are less likely to contract it (and also studies which refute this claim). That's about it. Pretty **** case for routine infant genital mutilation in the first world, don't ya think?

mehfesto

It's common in America too, outside of religious practice.
The benefits just outweigh the potential side-effects.

Alos hygiene is one thing - penile cancer, UTIs, reducing cervical cancer in women is another. These are all benefits of male circumcision.

What are the negative effects in your opinion?


I mean this argument whether people should or shouldn't do this to their child is essentially pointless. It's like arguing that a parent should or shouldn't give a child a religion, or whatever. It's in the parents hands and there's little to be done about it. It doesn't cause any long term damage, be it physical or mental.

And finally it can reduce the instances of AIDS:

From the WHO

There is compelling evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%. Three randomized controlled trials have shown that male circumcision provided by well trained health professionals in properly equipped settings is safe. WHO/UNAIDS recommendations emphasize that male circumcision should be considered an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention in countries and regions with heterosexual epidemics, high HIV and low male circumcision prevalence.

Laisurg

dlofnep wrote: »

I'm going to get the snip soon, and I'll be running around the place swinging it like there's no tomorrow.

Because no woman wants to touch it as it is? :P

mehfesto

yawha wrote: »

The routine cutting off of an infant's foreskin is an unnecessary surgical procedure which carries all the risks of surgery with it (infection, potential complications etc.). It completely alters the look of the penis, removes a considerable amount of very sexually sensitive skin, decreases the sensitivity of the head and makes masturbation more difficult.

Bollocks. All of that other than the image alteration is absolute rubbish.

I've been circumcised later in life than the norm. If affected nothing. I don't know who told you that, but I've been happily working away with myself in the time since. I hacn't broken 'my banjo string', since obviously.

yawha wrote: »

You seem to assume, bizarrely, that the foreskin is just a useless flap of skin. Yes, you can function ok without it, and yes, there are valid medical reasons for which a small number of men will have to have it done, but doing it routinely to infants is barbaric.

Why? It is a useless flap of skin!

yawha wrote: »

Oh, and there are zero health benefits. AFAIK, some studies have suggested that in third world countries with AIDS epidemics, that those with circumcisions are less likely to contract it (and also studies which refute this claim). That's about it. Pretty **** case for routine infant genital mutilation in the first world, don't ya think?

See my above case. There are numerous reasons.
There have been no associate deaths in the US as a result of Male Circumcision. Given the millions of cases that occur yearsly, that's an impressive figure. The only other reported side-effects were small (sickness post anaesthesia, etc.) and it doesn't warrant any unnecessary concern.

Sefirah

mehfesto wrote: »

It's common in America too, outside of religious practice.

cos everyone knows that Americans always make the most intelligent and informed decisions

Laisurg wrote: »

Because no woman wants to touch it as it is? :P

Lol, I don't suppose this is the time to tell him that sex is better with an uncircumcised guy...?

Chuck Stone

mehfesto wrote: »

I mean this argument whether people should or shouldn't do this to their child is essentially pointless. It's like arguing that a parent should or shouldn't give a child a religion, or whatever. It's in the parents hands and there's little to be done about it. It doesn't cause any long term damage, be it physical or mental.

From the WHO

No it's not. I was brought up a Catholic which I now completely reject. I don't think it has done me any long term damage except being mightily pissed of being made get up and go to mass on Sunday mornings (did I ever hate that).

If my foreskin had been removed I can't reject that - tough **** on me.

mehfesto

Sefirah wrote: »

cos everyone knows that Americans always make the most intelligent and informed decisions

So you're going to ignore the rest of my post then based on ignorant and lazy assumptions.

Makes sense, I suppose.

[edit] I jumped the gun here.

mehfesto

Chuck Stone wrote: »

No it's not. I was brought up a Catholic which I now completely reject. I don't think it has done me any long term damage except being mightily pissed of being made get up and go to mass on Sunday mornings (did I ever hate that).

If my foreskin had been removed I can't reject that - tough **** on me.

What 'damage' can circumcision do, then?

Sefirah

mehfesto wrote: »

So you're going to ignore the rest of my post then based on ignorant and lazy assumptions.

Makes sense, I suppose.

Since the rest of your post was just a bunch of pseudo-science which has since been refuted by many medical professionals, yes, yes I am.

There's a cure to all the 'ills' of being uncircumcised, and that's called washing yer bóllocks

Chuck Stone

Christopher Hitchens articulates my thoughts on the subject here where he freaks out with a religiuos guy about circumcision.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xx_ov2NiNo4

Skip to 3.20

Chuck Stone

Sefirah wrote: »

Since the rest of your post was just a bunch of pseudo-science which has since been refuted by many medical professionals, yes, yes I am.

There's a cure to all the 'ills' of being uncircumcised, and that's called washing yer bóllocks

mehfesto

Sefirah wrote: »

Since the rest of your post was just a bunch of pseudo-science which has since been refuted by many medical professionals, yes, yes I am.

There's a cure to all the 'ills' of being uncircumcised, and that's called washing yer bóllocks

Yes the World Health Organisation. Witch Doctors of the highest order.

I'll ask my question again though: what damage can it do?

Jews must perform it as a 'positive commandment', as I understand it. Given the eternal rewards they believe they will receive in following requests like this, why wouldn't they? It's not like FGM in any way. Given that this is an atheist forum, you probably wont agree with this - but they believe it.

And what harm is being done?

MagicMarker

mehfesto wrote: »

What 'damage' can circumcision do, then?

Worst case scenario? Death.

http://www.examiner.com/family-health-in-washington-dc/new-study-estimates-neonatal-circumcision-death-rate-higher-than-suffocation-and-auto-accidents

yawha

mehfesto wrote: »

Bollocks. All of that other than the image alteration is absolute rubbish.

I've been circumcised later in life than the norm. If affected nothing. I don't know who told you that, but I've been happily working away with myself in the time since. I hacn't broken 'my banjo string', since obviously.

If you were circumcised later in life, it likely was medically necessary. I would imagine that sex/masturbation considerably improved for you after being circumcised, since your foreskin was probably tight, making things painful for you.

Not everyone has a tight foreskin, however. Not everyone has a medical necessity to have it removed. Circumcisions are 100% fine in cases where a malformed/tight foreskin is causing issues. Routine infant circumcision is not.

mehfesto wrote: »

See my above case. There are numerous reasons.
There have been no associate deaths in the US as a result of Male Circumcision. Given the millions of cases that occur yearsly, that's an impressive figure. The only other reported side-effects were small (sickness post anaesthesia, etc.) and it doesn't warrant any unnecessary concern.

I know it's wikipedia, but the article is well cited and supported: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision#Medical_aspects

I think you'll find, that generally, the apparent benefits purported by certain pro-circumcision groups are unfounded, and the vast majority of medical organisations worldwide consider circumcision not to be worthwhile procedure to perform for health benefits.

Dave!

yawha wrote: »

wtf?

It's much more comparable to lopping off a fingertip than an ear piercing. I don't support the piercing of children's ears at all, but an ear piercing is not a serious surgical procedure. An ear piercing can be removed, and if the hole doesn't close, it's just a tiny hole, not affecting anything.

The routine cutting off of an infant's foreskin is an unnecessary surgical procedure which carries all the risks of surgery with it (infection, potential complications etc.). It completely alters the look of the penis, removes a considerable amount of very sexually sensitive skin, decreases the sensitivity of the head and makes masturbation more difficult.

You seem to assume, bizarrely, that the foreskin is just a useless flap of skin. Yes, you can function ok without it, and yes, there are valid medical reasons for which a small number of men will have to have it done, but doing it routinely to infants is barbaric.

Oh, and there are zero health benefits. AFAIK, some studies have suggested that in third world countries with AIDS epidemics, that those with circumcisions are less likely to contract it (and also studies which refute this claim). That's about it. Pretty **** case for routine infant genital mutilation in the first world, don't ya think?

Calm yourself there champ

There's no epidemic of people growing up and being debilitated as a result of being circumcised as an infant. It used to be standard practice, and it's still very prevalent in countries like the US. The foreskin may be erogenous, but if you never had it then you won't miss it. If not medically, then many people consider it aesthetically beneficial. Point is, except in rare cases, it has at worst a neutral outcome.

It may not be necessary, but to use terms like barbaric, torture, mutilation, etc., is rather alarmist and unhelpful. Circumcision is far from the main focus of my attention.

Improbable

mehfesto wrote: »

What 'damage' can circumcision do, then?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10605531

http://www.cirp.org/library/complications/williams-kapila/

mehfesto

MagicMarker wrote: »

Worst case scenario? Death.

http://www.examiner.com/family-health-in-washington-dc/new-study-estimates-neonatal-circumcision-death-rate-higher-than-suffocation-and-auto-accidents

I'll take that on-board. Will have to read the whole thing (which I won't do tonight), but it goes against what I'd read before mine and what is on the medical sites I'd visited tonight. Fair point though.

Can't really argue against death. Or indeed amputation as has just popped up as I type.

Fair enough, I take your points and stand down.

Chuck Stone

Dave! wrote: »

Calm yourself there champ

There's no epidemic of people growing up and being debilitated as a result of being circumcised as an infant. It used to be standard practice, and it's still very prevalent in countries like the US.

Children have DIED because of this act FFS man.

The foreskin may be erogenous, but if you never had it then you won't miss it. If not medically, then many people consider it aesthetically beneficial. Point is, except in rare cases, it has at worst a neutral outcome.

The DEATH of a child is not a neutral outcome - as Hitchens says, and I trust his intellectual rigour, hundreds of children have died in the US alone. How the hell is this a 'neutral outcome'.

.

flyboy69

My son was circumcised due to medical reasons, carried out in Crumlin children's hospital under anesthetic and following proper surgical procedures and even so it took over a week to recover, it's just incredible that any parent would put their son through that suffering for no good reason. The video posted by Sefirah is just sickening and to think that that suffering is just totally unnecessary.

Sefirah

mehfesto wrote: »

Yes the World Health Organisation. Witch Doctors of the highest order.

I'll ask my question again though: what damage can it do?

Jews must perform it as a 'positive commandment', as I understand it. Given the eternal rewards they believe they will receive in following requests like this, why wouldn't they? It's not like FGM in any way. Given that this is an atheist forum, you probably wont agree with this - but they believe it.

And what harm is being done?

Ok, well in an earlier post I mentioned that I myself am Jewish. To expand on this, I attend a Progressive synagogue twice a week, and am very much informed on and involved in my religion. I have attended 5 circumcision ceremonies, and cringed at each and every one of them, and from an early age I've just known from a human perspective that this is outright wrong. If it's cutting off of a part of the male organ which brings eternal reward, as opposed to being a good person, I think I'll pass.

I had a boyfriend who moved to Israel from Russia when he was 7/8 years old. His parents decided that they wanted to get him circumcised so that he would 'fit in' better with everyone else. He is now 28 and still recalls the agonising pain every time he went to urinate, and is simply angry that his parents would be forced to do this to him because of societal pressure when it was so obviously unnecessary. And this is a guy who had anesthetic, might I add, as opposed to a baby which (the vast majority of the time) receives nothing.

The harms of circumcision are plentiful-- psychological trauma, loss of sexual sensitivity, blood loss and infection leading to death-- you keep talking about how it lessens the chance of contracting HIV and AIDS, but in fairness- you'd be better off with a jar of gypsy tears than a circumcision if you think you can have sex with an AIDS sufferer and get away with it

mehfesto

Chuck Stone wrote: »

.

Kids have died from tonsillectomies too, though.
If they just washed their bollocxs throats they'd be fine.

EDIT: I'm just stating, as had been stated at me, surgery is surgery. It can have negative effects, regardless how 'common' it is.
(I'm learning so much tonight)

Chuck Stone

mehfesto wrote: »

Kids have died from tonsillectomies too, though.
If they just washed their bollocxs throats they'd be fine.

You do yourself no favours comparing a medical procedure with religious violence carried out on defenceless children.

Seriously.

Sefirah

mehfesto wrote: »

Kids have died from tonsillectomies too, though.
If they just washed their bollocxs throats they'd be fine.

EDIT: I'm just stating, as had been stated at me, surgery is surgery. It can have negative effects, regardless how 'common' it is.
(I'm learning so much tonight)

LOL wow, I'm glad that you edited that, because you would have had a quite a lot of replies saying what an idiotic comparison that is.

Surgery does carry risks- THEREFORE how about avoiding completely unnecessary surgery and not circumcising babies?

yawha

Dave! wrote: »

There's no epidemic of people growing up and being debilitated as a result of being circumcised as an infant. It used to be standard practice, and it's still very prevalent in countries like the US. The foreskin may be erogenous, but if you never had it then you won't miss it. If not medically, then many people consider it aesthetically beneficial. Point is, except in rare cases, it has at worst a neutral outcome.

Actually, quite a few men are unhappy with having been circumcised. Interest in foreskin restoration is growing. And medical bodies do recognise that there are a whole range of potential medical and psychological risks associated with it.

And that's without even mentioning the extreme cases which can result in even death, which links have been given for already in the thread.