Circumcision illegal in Ireland?

yawha

...

You do realise that having a foreskin doesn't mean you will have phimosis?

Also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_analysis_of_circumcision#Penile_cancer

Penile cancer is so rare that neonatal circumcision is generally not accepted as a justifiable prevention procedure.

Zillah

Yahew wrote: »

if the problems occur after reproduction it wouldn't matter to evolution

What are we, sea turtles?

It's not like you can squeeze out a baby and then go get eaten safe in the knowledge that your genes are secured for another generation.

seamus

Yahew wrote: »

if the problems occur after reproduction it wouldn't matter to evolution.

Correct. But if the problems occur prior to reproduction, then they generally get squeezed out by evolutionary forces. Therefore if the foreskin caused problems, we wouldn't have one. And in that particular area, pretty much everything has a purpose.

i see hundreds of medical sites on the internet which claim cancer and phimosis are related.

But that's a medical condition. A treatable medical condition. There's also a link betwen diabetes and cancer. Maybe we should whip out everyone's pancreas after birth to avoid pancreatic cancer.

In fact your own link points out that where phimosis did not occur, there is no causal link between having a foreskin and developing penile cancer.

So clearly the problem here is not the foreskin, it's phimosis. So treat that instead of whipping off a piece of everyone's body which only causes a problem for a statistically tiny number of that population but has actual benefits for most of that population. Seriously, like. Let's all wear full body suits to avoid skin cancer.

krudler

sensibleken wrote: »

Im circumcised since i was an infant, I have no idea why but certainly not for religious reasons.
I used to be a piercer so came accross mens willys a couple of times a week. I can honestly say I am delighted that Im circumcised. Even if it wasnt for medical reasons Id thank the guy that did it

*snigger*

Chuck Stone

sensibleken wrote: »

Im circumcised since i was an infant, I have no idea why but certainly not for religious reasons.
I used to be a piercer so came accross mens willys a couple of times a week. I can honestly say I am delighted that Im circumcised. Even if it wasnt for medical reasons Id thank the guy that did it

So you're impressed with your own penis?

Standard.

Bottle_of_Smoke

It would crazy to criminalise it with all the Islamic and African immigrants we've had over the last decade.

As much as non-medical circumcision should be illegal, outlawing it may lead to many nutcases attempting the job themselves and therefore a lot more severely mutilated/dead babies.

sensibleken

Chuck Stone wrote: »

So you're impressed with your own penis?

Standard.

Bask in awe my friend. zzzip

Nip The Tip

dlofnep wrote: »

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.

haha, I thought the same thing too and I did (wanted to whip it out for random women in the street ) but the novelty wore off

krudler

Nip The Tip wrote: »

haha, I thought the same thing too and I did (wanted to whip it out for random women in the street ) but the novelty wore off

thats kinda frowned upon

mewso

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Is circumcision illegal or what?

*looks down* Well it was in 1971. Doesn't bother me although I have been single for far too long. My biggest worry currently is under use.

quad_red

Was circumcised when I was in my mid twenties.

Long bloody overdue as well. Would have saved myself *allot* of discomfort if I'd had it done allot earlier in life.

I am seriously considering having my soon to be born son circumcised. A little nip that he'll never remember or a seriously uncomfortable surgery and a long, uncomfortable and a times scary recovery!

seamus

quad_red wrote: »

I am seriously considering having my soon to be born son circumcised. A little nip that he'll never remember or a seriously uncomfortable surgery and a long, uncomfortable and a times scary recovery!

Are you sure that he has the same medical condition that you had?

Mark Hamill

quad_red wrote: »

Was circumcised when I was in my mid twenties.

Long bloody overdue as well. Would have saved myself *allot* of discomfort if I'd had it done allot earlier in life.

I am seriously considering having my soon to be born son circumcised. A little nip that he'll never remember or a seriously uncomfortable surgery and a long, uncomfortable and a times scary recovery!

Or just dont get a circumcision? Or do you expect your son to have some medical reason to need it?

MagicMarker

quad_red wrote: »

Was circumcised when I was in my mid twenties.

Long bloody overdue as well. Would have saved myself *allot* of discomfort if I'd had it done allot earlier in life.

I am seriously considering having my soon to be born son circumcised. A little nip that he'll never remember or a seriously uncomfortable surgery and a long, uncomfortable and a times scary recovery!

Just because you needed it doesn't mean he will. What's the point in putting him through unnecessary pain when there's no need to? Are you going to get his tonsils and appendix out while you're at it? Some kind of package deal maybe? :pac:

yawha

quad_red wrote: »

Was circumcised when I was in my mid twenties.

Long bloody overdue as well. Would have saved myself *allot* of discomfort if I'd had it done allot earlier in life.

I am seriously considering having my soon to be born son circumcised. A little nip that he'll never remember or a seriously uncomfortable surgery and a long, uncomfortable and a times scary recovery!

wtf? Just because you had to have it done doesn't mean he will need it.

Nip The Tip

krudler wrote: »

thats kinda frowned upon

yeah it was a joke. 2 + 2 = 4, 2 + 2 = 4 :rolleyes:

magicbastarder

quad_red wrote: »

I am seriously considering having my soon to be born son circumcised. A little nip that he'll never remember or a seriously uncomfortable surgery and a long, uncomfortable and a times scary recovery!

in the same vein, are you also intending to proactively remove his appendix?

Dades

I think that's enough questions for quad_red to discover on his return!

easychair

I see in the attached article voters are to consider whether underage male circumcision is to be allowed under californian law. It comes as no surprise that those in favour of forced childhood mutilation ( to call forced male circumcision by another name) is " a clear violation of constitutionally protected religious freedoms"

So, once more, religion is being cited as the reason we should allow what is a barbaric, and unnecessary, practice, and force mutilation on a helpless and defenceless child. I've often noticed when there are no arguments, religion is often cited as a "reason", but if we want to follow that logic "religion" also calls for an eye for an eye, calls for anyone who works on the sabbath to be put to death, and a whole host of other barbaric practices which any society should rightly ban.

Anyone who cites "religion" for carrying out a barbaric act should be seen for what they are.

http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/world-news/voters-to-consider-circumcision-ban-2651514.html

Dades

It does make the mind boggle that the first defence of the right to hack bits off your male children is not a medical one, but a religious one.

Good on that crowd that managed to get enough signatures for a referendum.

Ray Palmer

Have people mentioned the guy who lost his whole penis due to a circumcision mishap when he was a child? They then forced him to be a girl because a doctor said it won't make a difference to him once they follow through will the full sex change.
The doctor then lied about the child's development publish papers on gender reassignment in young children. This lead to quite a lot of children who were born with both sets of genitalia being randomly reassigned a sex for years afterward. It wasn't till the boy grew up that he found out the truth and went public to tell people about what had happened.

Anyway circumcision is definitely mutilation on the grounds of religion and I had it done late in life. Uncomfortable yes but wouldn't inflict it on a child without a medical reason. But I would say the same for ear piercing and the Spanish wouldn't agree

Fighting Irish

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?

:rolleyes:

sensibleken

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Have people mentioned the guy who lost his whole penis due to a circumcision mishap when he was a child? They then forced him to be a girl because a doctor said it won't make a difference to him once they follow through will the full sex change.
The doctor then lied about the child's development publish papers on gender reassignment in young children. This lead to quite a lot of children who were born with both sets of genitalia being randomly reassigned a sex for years afterward. It wasn't till the boy grew up that he found out the truth and went public to tell people about what had happened.

Anyway circumcision is definitely mutilation on the grounds of religion and I had it done late in life. Uncomfortable yes but wouldn't inflict it on a child without a medical reason. But I would say the same for ear piercing and the Spanish wouldn't agree

any link for this story? Im highly dubious

yawha

It's true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer

sensibleken

yawha wrote: »

It's true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer

:eek:

Solair

The way I see it male circumcision is occasionally a necessary procedure. For a percentage of guys, it solves problems with their foreskins and is beneficial in the same way that some of us need our tonsils, our appendix or our wisdom teeth out. In those circumstances, there's nothing wrong with it.

However, I am totally opposed to anyone carrying out unnecessary surgery, without consent from the person who is getting it done, for ritual, religious or bogus quackery reasons like that it improves hygiene.

It should be illegal to carry out any operation on a minor or, anyone without consent, where there is no medical justification for that operation. That logic applies to all other surgery, so I don't really see why it doesn't apply to male circumcision. I am quite honestly very surprised that this legal logic could not be applied and someone could not sue for damages if they had an unnecessary circumcision carried out.

If, as an adult, a man decides that he wants to have any kind of elective plastic surgery carried out on anything, that's entirely up to him but, minors should always be protected by the fact that any surgery ever carried out should be medically necessary and justifiable.

I would be equally opposed to a parent deciding to get their child a nose job, botox or some random cosmetic procedure for no reason other than "it looks better"

For some reason when it comes to religious traditions and just stupid traditions that have become cultural norms, all logic / science seems to get thrown out the window.

ALL medical and surgical treatment should be carried out only subject to normal medical justification that it is necessary and beneficial to the patient regardless of how traditional or anything else it is. Anything outside of that is elective / elective cosmetic surgery and should only be consented to by the patient themselves.

Given that the medical and legal establishment is quite happy to override the beliefs of some religious communities opposed to giving blood transfusions when a minor's life is in danger, I don't really see why they can't override other religious communities who wish to carry out unnecessary surgery on a minor.

Also ALL surgery carries a risk, albeit very slight in most cases, of death / disfigurement / infection / injury so any surgery should only be carried out where justifiable on medical grounds and most importantly with the patient's informed consent.

I realise this would be a very tough subject to raise with Islamic and Jewish people, but are we a society based on human rights and the rule of law? Or, do we just accept anything as being OK because it's religious ?

seamus

Dades wrote: »

It does make the mind boggle that the first defence of the right to hack bits off your male children is not a medical one, but a religious one.

And if asked about things like FGM and neck stretching, they'd probably call it barbaric without noticing the hypocrisy.

Ray Palmer

sensibleken wrote: »

:eek:

I didn't know he committed suicide. That is really a sad story. He came across in interviews quite well in an documentry I saw on the subject

easychair

seamus wrote: »

And if asked about things like FGM and neck stretching, they'd probably call it barbaric without noticing the hypocrisy.

I'm not actually against circumcision, and if an adult chooses to opt for circumcision, or if there are medical reasons for it, then who can be against it?

For example, there is said to be good evidence that circumcision is one way that an adult male can help reduce their risk of catching HIV, and in parts of Africa there has been an effort to offer circumcision to adults. (Studies show that there is a significant benefit to being circumcised, showing that uncircumcised men have a higher chance of contracting HIV. The theory behind the statistics is that the foreskin gives the virus a place to "hide").

What I am against is the forced circumcision of minors on any grounds other than medical benefit from circumcision.

seamus

easychair wrote: »

I'm not actually against circumcision, and if an adult chooses to opt for circumcision, or if there are medical reasons for it, then who can be against it?

No, I've no qualms about it if it's necessary. But justifying any surgery or body modification of a child on the basis of religion is barbaric, even if it's as simple as piercing their ears.
You're imprinting a permanent physical brand on the child for a metaphysical and non-permanent belief.

The theory behind the statistics is that the foreskin gives the virus a place to "hide"

Probably simpler than that. Much like phimosis carries a higher risk of cancer due to constant damage to the foreskin, having a foreskin puts you at a higher risk of contracting HIV because you're more likely to have microtears in the skin, exposing cuts and wounds to HIV. It's a blood-borne disease, so any type of sexual activity which involves more potential for tears and cuts in the sensitive areas than normal, exposes the person to a higher risk. This is why women and gay men are at a much higher risk of contracting HIV than straight men.

Can't say I agree too much with offering circumcision to help reduce the spread of AIDS. Much more likely to result in men thinking that now they have a super-penis which is incapable of contracting AIDs and thereby increasing their chances of engaging in risky sex, negating any possible benefit.