Circumcision illegal in Ireland?

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.

mehfesto

Sefirah wrote: »

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.[/quote[

I can only say that this is not common practice in Ireland. I am aware I'm not up to date with bris' or other middle-eastern practices. I was really only looking at this from an Irish point of view, as the title of this thread asked.

Sefirah wrote: »

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

I didn't say it would prevent AIDS, I just quoted the WHO who stated
there is compelling evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%. Not my words or study, mind.

And as you've just raised getting rid of it, where do we draw the line?
We'd obviously keep the medical end, but if we stopped the religious coming to hospitals, you're pushing it into the hands of untrained lay-people. That's hardly safe. Could people, say an anxious mother ask it be done so that their father wouldn't do it at home. What surgeon could deny that, given the oath they've taken?

The demand will always be there for it religiously (we know what they're like), so I'd rather see it done in controlled, safe environments.

If you wanna try and stop religious people doing it, report back and let me know how you got on.

Sefirah

mehfesto wrote: »

I can only say that this is not common practice in Ireland. I am aware I'm not up to date with bris' or other middle-eastern practices. I was really only looking at this from an Irish point of view, as the title of this thread asked.

If you want to get around it by saying they do things differently in the Middle East and that it somehow doesn't apply to Irish cases (??) then go right ahead, but it's an extremely weak argument. I've been in an Israeli hospital, much the same as he would have had the procedure done in, and I can tell you- it was miles ahead of anything you'd ever see in Ireland in terms of modernity and cleanliness. Also, they would more than likely be 'better' at performing circumcisions than in Ireland because of the greater number done- and this guy was in serious pain. That's the problem- babies can't tell you that they're in agony, so people like to pretend that they don't experience this pain.

mehfesto wrote: »

I didn't say it would prevent AIDS, I just quoted the WHO who stated
there is compelling evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%. Not my words or study, mind.

If you're quoting it as a basis for your argument, we're going to have to assume that you in some way agree with the statement. I really don't see the point of this study- what does it say? That circumcised men should feel more free to have sex with people suffering from AIDS because they've got a better chance of escaping scot free?

mehfesto wrote: »

And as you've just raised getting rid of it, where do we draw the line?
We'd obviously keep the medical end, but if we stopped the religious coming to hospitals, you're pushing it into the hands of untrained lay-people. That's hardly safe. Could people, say an anxious mother ask it be done so that their father wouldn't do it at home. What surgeon could deny that, given the oath they've taken?

The demand will always be there for it religiously (we know what they're like), so I'd rather see it done in controlled, safe environments.

If you wanna try and stop religious people doing it, report back and let me know how you got on.

We'd draw the line at people doing circumcisions for non-essential medical purposes. If people want to get some kind of back-alley circumcisions, there's nothing we can do to prevent that, but I can assure you that practically all circumcisions performed within the Irish Jewish communities are not done by doctors, but Rabbis. Yes, the demand will always be there religiously- as it will always be for female genital mutilation. However, that does not mean we should condone such a barbaric practice.

strobe

You could say the same for any number of things Mehfesto.

FGM for instance. We should have doctors carry it out in a hospital because religious people will probably just do it in their house otherwise...

It's a very weak argument.

Zillah

mehfesto wrote: »

If you wanna try and stop religious people doing it, report back and let me know how you got on.

Well I'm not in government, so that'd be hard.

In your example with the father there, I'd send police to the house to arrest him rather than having someone do it for them. Swap circumcision with any other unecessary surgery on an infant in that scenario and you'll see why.

Chuck Stone

Could people, say an anxious mother ask it be done so that their father wouldn't do it at home. What surgeon could deny that, given the oath they've taken?

If I were a surgeon I'd refuse to do it on the grounds that it is an unecessary act of violence with huge risks perpetrated agaisnt defenceless children.

If religious folk insist on doing it and the state doesn't deem it assault then they should be made open thier own clinics and fund them.

mehfesto

Fair cop.
I'm out.

Dave!

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'.

Much as I enjoy Hitch's commentary, no, I don't just make my mind up based on his writings. But if you can provide a link with evidence showing that hundreds have died (I presume this is within a set time period, rather than since the beginning of time...) from circumcision, then I'd be happy to see it banned.


I'd love if people could tone it down here BTW and just talk like adults... You'd swear myself and mehfesto were running around with chainsaws, looking for genitals to mutilate. Just looking for some rational discourse on the topic before I start calling for 50%+ of parents in the US to be guillotined for child abuse.

Chuck Stone

Sefirah wrote: »

^^^^^^


Hey hey!! I didn't write that! :P

My apologies - I have no clue how that happened and am too hung over to even bother trying to figure it!

Fixed

Sefirah

Dave, I think you'd do well to watch a circumcision in it's entirety with all the gory details, then come back and tell us we're over-reacting

PS thanks Chuck

Chuck Stone

Dave! wrote: »

I'd love if people could tone it down here BTW and just talk like adults... You'd swear myself and mehfesto were running around with chainsaws, looking for genitals to mutilate. Just looking for some rational discourse on the topic before I start calling for 50%+ of parents in the US to be guillotined for child abuse.

Fair enough - I'll take on board what you say. I don't really see the thread as being confrontational myself but maybe I'm just thick skulled.