Circumcision illegal in Ireland?

easychair

yawha wrote: »

I'm simply not in favour of parents having the right to consent to the permanent modification of their child's body, except when absolutely medically necessary.

Neither am I, as I have said.

eire4

I don't think circumcision should be made illegal all the way. But I equally do not think any parent should have the right to order this procedure. To me it is a barbaric multilation of a child. No parent should ever have the right to alter their childrens body's in such an invasive way.

Dades

^^ Unfortunately it's a bit difficult to remove a 'right' without making something illegal.

easychair

Dades wrote: »

^^ Unfortunately it's a bit difficult to remove a 'right' without making something illegal.

The mark of a tolerant society is to disagree with someone else, but respect their right to behave in ways with which we may not agree.

I prefer to live in a tolerant society, rather than an intolerant one. ANyone who thinks they might prefer to live in a societyv which is intolerant ought to try living in, for example, Saudi Arabia, or Northern Nigera for a while, to realise what a valuiable and precious thing it is to live in a tolerant society.

psychward

easychair wrote: »

The mark of a tolerant society is to disagree with someone else, but respect their right to behave in ways with which we may not agree.

I prefer to live in a tolerant society, rather than an intolerant one. ANyone who thinks they might prefer to live in a societyv which is intolerant ought to try living in, for example, Saudi Arabia, or Northern Nigera for a while, to realise what a valuiable and precious thing it is to live in a tolerant society.

So you're saying we should tolerate mutilation of children's genitalia in order to prove how tolerant we are. Looks like you're admiring an apathetic uncaring even cruel society rather than a tolerant one. Your words can mean whatever you want them to mean. How about those who have urges to mutilate a child's genitals tolerate us passing laws against it and tolerate us enforcing those laws. Now that's not just tolerant . It's decent. There is no conceivable society on Earth which does not have a limit to tolerance. Nobody tolerates murder - for long anyway. Nobody should tolerate genital mutilation of children.

easychair

psychward wrote: »

So you're saying we should tolerate mutilation of children's genitalia in order to prove how tolerant we are. Looks like you're admiring an apathetic uncaring even cruel society rather than a tolerant one. Your words can mean whatever you want them to mean. How about those who have urges to mutilate a child's genitals tolerate us passing laws against it and tolerate us enforcing those laws. Now that's not just tolerant . It's decent. There is no conceivable society on Earth which does not have a limit to tolerance. Nobody tolerates murder - for long anyway. Nobody should tolerate genital mutilation of children.

I certainly don't consider it mutilation, and it might come as a surprise to many of the billion or so men who are circumcised to be told they have been mutilated.

So we differ. I am against intolerance and even against the sort of intolerance as expressed in your post.

If you consider circumcision as mutilation, then I think you have a duty to campaign for it to be made illegal.

robindch

easychair wrote: »

I prefer to live in a tolerant society, rather than an intolerant one. Anyone who thinks they might prefer to live in a society which is intolerant ought to try living in, for example, Saudi Arabia, or Northern Nigeria for a while, to realise what a valuable and precious thing it is to live in a tolerant society.

I don't see anything "tolerant" about allowing a religious nutter with a knife cut off the end of a baby boy's penis, or indeed, bite it off as happens sometimes. Nor indeed do I think there's anything "tolerant" about allowing the same kind of individual to mutilate the genitals of young girls, nor to indoctrinate them into thinking that they should wear a bag over their heads in order to avoid inflaming the passions of men.

The libertarian position is, broadly speaking, that people should be allowed to do to each other pretty much anything they want to, regardless of whether it involves coercion.

Is this your position too?

Mark Hamill

easychair wrote: »

I am against intolerance.

You are intolerant of intolerance :pac:

Why aren't you against people who are intolerant of foreskins?

AhSureTisGrand

robindch wrote: »

The libertarian position is, broadly speaking, that people should be allowed to do to each other pretty much anything they want to, regardless of whether it involves coercion.

Ye wha

AhSureTisGrand

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You are intolerant of intolerance :pac:

Why aren't you against people who are intolerant of foreskins?

I think what easychair is talking about would be better phrased as "legally tolerant". That is, we do not ban things simply because we don't like them.

Which works great for victimless crimes and such, but children complicate things with their inability to give informed consent. The issue is how the parents' authority and the government's authority are balanced

sonicthebadger*

easychair wrote: »

The studies on HIV were done, as far as I am aware, in Africa where access to soap and clean water and education is less easy than in Europe or the USA.

Also, as far as I am aware cancer of the penis, a rare condition, is virtually unknown in circumcised males.

While both of these might be interesting, you don’t have the ability to just remove them from any conversation, and your opinion that it is brutal and violent is an opinion which seems not to be shared by many if not most of those who have been circumcised.

And this is where I stop bothering to read your posts.

I can limit the scope of my point in any way I deem reasonable. X point does not have to relate to space travel nor be relevant to elephants. Indeed, I do not have to talk about plastic chairs just because that happens to be one of several points brought up somewhere, sometime, by someone.

If I am responding to one detail, I try to keep my response relevant to that one detail. The point I was making is not relevant to the two diseases you mentioned.

And I stand by my opinion that removal of fingernails as a solution to dirty fingernails is brutal and violent compared to the solution of soap and water.

robindch

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

robindch wrote: »

The libertarian position is, broadly speaking, that people should be allowed to do to each other pretty much anything they want to, regardless of whether it involves coercion.

Don't blame me -- while that may not be exactly the classical libertarian position, that's the way that people who self-describe as "libertarian" seem to implement the position in practice.

As a way to run society, it makes no sense to me, but there you go.

easychair

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You are intolerant of intolerance :pac:

It's possible to be against someting, and still be tolerant of those who practice it.

Which is my position on infant circumcision.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Why aren't you against people who are intolerant of foreskins?

I am against the practice of circumcision, and not against the individuals who are for the practice.

To be against the people rather than the practice seems to be the tabloidisation of the argument.

AhSureTisGrand

robindch wrote: »

Don't blame me -- while that may not be exactly the classical libertarian position, that's the way that people who self-describe as "libertarian" seem to implement the position in practice.

As a way to run society, it makes no sense to me, but there you go.

In my experience coercion is exactly what libertarians are opposed to, so I'm afraid I don't understand

easychair

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

In my experience coercion is exactly what libertarians are opposed to, so I'm afraid I don't understand

I think thats fair. What is interesting is that so many here seem to prefer to be intolerant and nannying. Thats why I don't buy Murdock's newspapers, as I find them intolerant and sometimes quite nasty, and designed to appeal to our more base instincts.

Perhaps I am lucky that I don't come across many people in my life who display intolerant attitudes, and having lived in Saudi Arabia before now, I know where intolerance leads.

twinQuins

We tolerate behavior we don't agree with only up to the point where it begins to cause harm to others.

Some here (myself included) are of the opinion that unnecessary circumcision is harmful because: it's difficult to (partially) reverse, is imposed upon a child who can't consent, amounts to little more than cosmetic surgery.

If you think that is intolerance then you must also consider laws against theft and murder intolerant as they're based upon the same principle.

Sierra 117

Why should we respect the right of parents having a circumcision performed on their child? Why should we tolerate that? We shouldn't be tolerant of it because the rights of the child are what should be important.

robindch

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

In my experience coercion is exactly what libertarians are opposed to, so I'm afraid I don't understand

Yes, in principle, that's true. However, in practice, most libertarians I'm aware of appear to be opposed only to state-level action. Whereas coercion by private individuals or corporations -- which a normal state would normally try to block -- seems not to exist.

For example, at one point early last year (AFAIR), one libertarian claimed, I think here on boards, that it wasn't the state's business to interfere when when one person was blackmailing another. Other libertarians have broadly supported that view and similar ones.

In short, there were few if any responsibilities from the citizen to the state which might balance the right of the citizen to avoid interference from the state.

As I said above, I'm not defending this position, since I think it's nuts. It's just seems that that's how modern libertarianism works out in practice.

easychair

twinQuins wrote: »

We tolerate behavior we don't agree with only up to the point where it begins to cause harm to others.

Speaking personally, as long as there is consent I am quite happy for one person to harm another and feel no need to invoke teh state to step in.

How do you define harm? Is it physical, mental or sexual? Or all three?

For example, the catholic church in Ireland, over the 20th century, abused virtually the whole country emotionally, physically and sexually, and caused untold harm to many. I didn't see anyone suggesting they be legally prevented from so doing, although had they been stopped it would have been of great benefit to Ireland.

Many people cause harm to others, and even harm to themselves. Personally I dislike tattos and seeing little children with their ears pierced and circumcision and many things, but to ban all those things are, for me a step too far.

Sierra 117 wrote: »

Why should we respect the right of parents having a circumcision performed on their child? Why should we tolerate that? We shouldn't be tolerant of it because the rights of the child are what should be important.

To which I would add, why should we be too bothered about it. Which right of the child is being infringed by circumcision?

What if the child is a jewish or muslim child. Their religion ( and one of the rights we all enjoy is the right to religious freedom) demands that they be circumcised, the parents want it, and the vast majority of children when they grow up not only have no problem with it, but are thankful their parent had them circumcised as an infant.

How do you judge when two opposing “rights” might come into play?

How do you stop the parents having their son circumcised? How do you stop the son taking an action against the state when he comes of age, for having been denied the right to his religious freedom as a child?

Just because we might not personally like something, is not a good reason to ban it, and as was discussed earlier in this thread it is virtually impossible to ban male infant circumcision.

Rights are not just those we like, and we can’t decide, for others, which rights are their priorities.

robindch wrote: »

For example, at one point early last year (AFAIR), one libertarian claimed, I think here on boards, that it wasn't the state's business to interfere when when one person was blackmailing another. Other libertarians have broadly supported that view and similar ones.

.

I am afraid for you to imply that libertarians are opposed to laws which outlaw blackmail, is a claim too far.

The fact is we have laws, justifiably, which make blackmail a criminal offence.

AhSureTisGrand

easychair wrote: »

I am afraid for you to imply that libertarians are opposed to laws which outlaw blackmail, is a claim too far.

The fact is we have laws, justifiably, which make blackmail a criminal offence.

Forgive me for going off on a tangent, but blackmail laws are quite peculiar when you consider that:

1. Disclosing someone's personal information is legal, and rightly so, we can all agree.
2. The same goes for requesting money off someone.

When you combine these two, you get the heinous crime of blackmail. This raises the question, "How do two rights make a wrong?"

It's also worth considering that if I pay someone to keep their mouth shut, implicit in the agreement is my opinion that I am better off buying silence than letting my secrets out. Keeping secrets is worth more than the money I lose. From my perspective then, the evil blackmailer is preferable to a relentless gossip who will tell all about my escapades. The gossip, although more harmful to me, is acting within the restraints of the law. So by criminalizing blackmail we merely make it more likely that secrets will not be kept

easychair

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

Forgive me for going off on a tangent, but blackmail laws are quite peculiar when you consider that:

1. Disclosing someone's personal information is legal, and rightly so, we can all agree.
2. The same goes for requesting money off someone.

When you combine these two, you get the heinous crime of blackmail. This raises the question, "How do two rights make a wrong?"

Both 1 and 2 above are correct. However, they don't constitute blackmail which is the defined as coercion involving threats of physical harm, threat of criminal prosecution, or threats for the purposes of taking the person's money or propert. What that has to do with circumcision is unclear.

I've never really understood why some say two rights make a wrong, and am not sure what this, also, has to do with circumcision.

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

It's also worth considering that if I pay someone to keep their mouth shut, implicit in the agreement is my opinion that I am better off buying silence than letting my secrets out. Keeping secrets is worth more than the money I lose. From my perspective then, the evil blackmailer is preferable to a relentless gossip who will tell all about my escapades. The gossip, although more harmful to me, is acting within the restraints of the law. So by criminalizing blackmail we merely make it more likely that secrets will not be kept

Again, I think this implies that you have an incorrect understanding of the definition of blackmail. Can I ask why you have introduced this topic in a thread about infant circumcision?

AhSureTisGrand

Here is Wikipedia's definition of blackmail:

In common usage, blackmail is a crime involving threats to reveal substantially true or false information about a person to the public, a family member, or associates unless a demand is met.

It does go on to say:

It may be defined as coercion involving threats of physical harm, threat of criminal prosecution, or threats for the purposes of taking the person's money or property.

robindch: might I be correct in saying that the libertarian with whom you talked was working off the first definition while you were using the second?

twinQuins

easychair wrote: »

Speaking personally, as long as there is consent I am quite happy for one person to harm another and feel no need to invoke teh state to step in.

But - and this is the big problem - a child is incapable of giving consent. Yes, I agree, once there is consent then it's fine but the parents don't know if their child will grow up not having wanted circumcision thrust upon them.
Leave it until they're at an age where they understand what they're accepting.

How do you define harm? Is it physical, mental or sexual? Or all three?

I guess that's down to the individual but for myself all three. Now I know there's a lot of questions that go with that and I'll answer if you want but for the moment, I'll just leave it at that.

For example, the catholic church in Ireland, over the 20th century, abused virtually the whole country emotionally, physically and sexually, and caused untold harm to many. I didn't see anyone suggesting they be legally prevented from so doing, although had they been stopped it would have been of great benefit to Ireland.

I don't understand what your point is. Social convention prevented people from speaking out against the Church. There's really nothing relevant in that example.

Many people cause harm to others, and even harm to themselves. Personally I dislike tattos and seeing little children with their ears pierced and circumcision and many things, but to ban all those things are, for me a step too far.

We're not talking about tattoos or piercings. We're talking about pushing unncessary surgery upon children who can't consent to it, the effects of which last their lives.

Ellis Dee

I don't think it's illegal anywhere, and any attempt to ban it would lead to a sh1t blizzard from the equally-fanatic Jewish and Islamic lobbies, as well as from other denominations who apparently think their particular sky fairy got it wrong when he designed snags.:rolleyes::rolleyes:

If they were really honest about it, though, they'd leave it up to guys to decide, when they are of age, whether or not they want to have their langers snigged.;);)

Fair dues to anyone who chooses to have it done. But I somehow or other can't imagine long queues of guys outside Dr. Cohen's or Dr. Khan's practice.:)

easychair

twinQuins wrote: »

We're not talking about tattoos or piercings. We're talking about pushing unncessary surgery upon children who can't consent to it, the effects of which last their lives.

So how do you go about banning it, assuming that is what you wish to do?

kylith

easychair wrote: »

To which I would add, why should we be too bothered about it. Which right of the child is being infringed by circumcision?

What if the child is a jewish or muslim child. Their religion ( and one of the rights we all enjoy is the right to religious freedom) demands that they be circumcised, the parents want it, and the vast majority of children when they grow up not only have no problem with it, but are thankful their parent had them circumcised as an infant.

No-one wants to take away their right to freedom of religion. Their parents are free to raise them as Kosher as they want. What we would like is for the surgery part be put back until the child is, say, 16. That way they can make an informed decision about whether or not to have the procedure, they will know what is involved, and they will be able to have it as a kind of affirmation of their faith that they make themselves, not as something that is forced upon them as helpless infants.

easychair

kylith wrote: »

No-one wants to take away their right to freedom of religion. Their parents are free to raise them as Kosher as they want. What we would like is for the surgery part be put back until the child is, say, 16. That way they can make an informed decision about whether or not to have the procedure, they will know what is involved, and they will be able to have it as a kind of affirmation of their faith that they make themselves, not as something that is forced upon them as helpless infants.

Can you outline how you plan to ban infant or childhood circumcision, in a way that is effective and will stop it?

kylith

easychair wrote: »

Can you outline how you plan to ban infant or childhood circumcision, in a way that is effective and will stop it?

You have no rebuttal to my previous post so now I have to come up with a plan so that you can nitpick at that, is that it?

Alright then, rough draft:

1) All mosques, synagoges, and other religious groups that circumcise infants are sent word that circumcisions can no longer be carried out on children before they reach the age of majority unless for valid medical reasons, no exceptions. Also; ad campaign on telly so everyone is aware.

2) All hospitals are informed that no circumcisions are to be carried out on children under the age of majority unless for valid medical reasons, no exceptions.

3) Prosecute the hell out of anyone who breaks above rules.

4)Tell anyone who complains because "God... waah, waah, waah" to get over themselves and stop performing unnecessary surgery on children. Remind them that the kid can get their foreskin removed when they're old enough to make the decision themselves.

MagicMarker

Is anyone here even suggesting that we ban child circumcision? I don't think so. All that's being said is that it shouldn't be carried out unless it's medically necessary, I really don't see how this can be argued against.

Sierra 117

easychair wrote: »

To which I would add, why should we be too bothered about it. Which right of the child is being infringed by circumcision?

The right to decide what happens to their body.

easychair wrote: »

What if the child is a jewish or muslim child. Their religion ( and one of the rights we all enjoy is the right to religious freedom) demands that they be circumcised, the parents want it, and the vast majority of children when they grow up not only have no problem with it, but are thankful their parent had them circumcised as an infant.

And what of the people who wish they weren't circumcised as children but are now forced to live with it? Shouldn't the fact that such people exist be a reason to stop child circumcision for non-medical reasons?

easychair wrote: »

How do you judge when two opposing “rights” might come into play?

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.