Circumcision illegal in Ireland?

easychair

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If this thread is about the right to circumcise kids, then why did you talk about how circumcised men have told you they dont notice a difference sexually, and how women say its better? You seem to backed away from these claims awfully quickly, which is weird because I wasn't really contradicting them, I was just trying to figure out why they might be the case.

Why I did that was because claims were made that circumcision made sex less pleasurable and sensitive. While it may seem to you that I have backed away from the claims, that is your imagination working overtime and reaching incorrect conclusions, as I have not backed away from them. I feel that the thread is going off on a tangent ( not least caused by me), hence I feel its time to get back to the topic.

Dades

easychair wrote: »

This thread is about the right of parents to decide to circumcise their infant boys and, while it's not a practice I subscribe to myself, my view is that it's a choice best left to the parents, and not for nanny state to try to legislate about.

But why if the evidence "for" is so inconclusive would you grant anyone the right to perform such an act on a child? Surely you need a reason to allow, rather than to deny?

I can't help but fear that the majority of parents who allow their sons to be stripped of the choice are doing so out of some cultural or religious tradition, rather than an informed and thoroughly researched medical decision.

easychair

Dades wrote: »

But why if the evidence "for" is so inconclusive would you grant anyone the right to perform such an act on a child? Surely you need a reason to allow, rather than to deny?

I don't feel its up to me to grant anyone anything. As I have said, even if I, or we, try to stop parents circumcising their infants, i am likely to be unsuccessful.

Dades wrote: »

I can't help but fear that the majority of parents who allow their sons to be stripped of the choice are doing so out of some cultural or religious tradition, rather than an informed and thoroughly researched medical decision.

Whatever are their reasons (I am not sure what are the medical grounds for not circumcising), they are still their reasons. I oppose the nanny state trying to tell parents whether or not they should circumcise their infants and children, as I am a libertarian.

AhSureTisGrand

easychair wrote: »

Whatever are their reasons (I am not sure what are the medical grounds for not circumcising), they are still their reasons. I oppose the nanny state trying to tell parents whether or not they should circumcise their infants and children, as I am a libertarian.

You seem to be forgetting that parents do not own their children. However, if they have the right to aggress upon their children, then that right needs to be restricted. If the parents decide that their child's foot needs amputating do they automatically have the right to do so? Or say the child needs to be abused on a regular basis? What it the parents want to put the child down like a dog? When does the state stop being the nanny state?

Dades

easychair wrote: »

Whatever are their reasons (I am not sure what are the medical grounds for not circumcising), they are still their reasons. I oppose the nanny state trying to tell parents whether or not they should circumcise their infants and children, as I am a libertarian.

I would certainly oppose the State telling men they can't cut the top off their own penises but I don't see what's so libertarian about allowing them to order the cutting off the top off someone's else's.

easychair

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

You seem to be forgetting that parents do not own their children. However, if they have the right to aggress upon their children, then that right needs to be restricted. If the parents decide that their child's foot needs amputating do they automatically have the right to do so? Or say the child needs to be abused on a regular basis? What it the parents want to put the child down like a dog? When does the state stop being the nanny state?

Your analogy of cutting off a foot with circumcision fails as the two are not comporable, not least by a matter of degree.

I agree with you that I am not for circumcision of infants or children, but don't know how to frame a law which will achieve that. Besides which, circumcision is a minor issue and Ithink it's best left to families to decide for themselves.

Here is a question; If you ask any jewish man or muslim in ireland if they regret that their families had them circumcised as a child, out of 100 how many do you think would strongly disagree with that decision their parents or families had made on their behalf?

Imagine you asked the same question to those whose families had cut off their foot as a child, and most of us can see that circumcision is really not a big issue amongst the many who have been circumcised as infants or children.

Dades wrote: »

I would certainly oppose the State telling men they can't cut the top off their own penises but I don't see what's so libertarian about allowing them to order the cutting off the top off someone's else's.

On a matter of fact, the penis is left completely intact after circumcision and the top of the penis is exposed, and certainly not cut off. What is removed is the foreskin.

There are 7 billion people int he world, 3.5 billion of them men. Of that number over 1 billion men are circumcised, and I just don't see the marches or protests by any signifivant number of those men against them having been circumcised.

The problems with trying to outlaw the practice have already been outlined earlier, and it's an issue that is probably impossible to legislate for.

Dades

I like to look at it from the POV of aliens visiting the planet.

You'd have a hard time justifying allowing circumcision to them.

AhSureTisGrand

easychair wrote: »

Your analogy of cutting off a foot with circumcision fails as the two are not comporable, not least by a matter of degree.

I agree with you that I am not for circumcision of infants or children, but don't know how to frame a law which will achieve that. Besides which, circumcision is a minor issue and Ithink it's best left to families to decide for themselves.

Here is a question; If you ask any jewish man or muslim in ireland if they regret that their families had them circumcised as a child, out of 100 how many do you think would strongly disagree with that decision their parents or families had made on their behalf?

Imagine you asked the same question to those whose families had cut off their foot as a child, and most of us can see that circumcision is really not a big issue amongst the many who have been circumcised as infants or children.



On a matter of fact, the penis is left completely intact after circumcision and the top of the penis is exposed, and certainly not cut off. What is removed is the foreskin.

There are 7 billion people int he world, 3.5 billion of them men. Of that number over 1 billion men are circumcised, and I just don't see the marches or protests by any signifivant number of those men against them having been circumcised.

The problems with trying to outlaw the practice have already been outlined earlier, and it's an issue that is probably impossible to legislate for.

The argument, then, boils down to "it's not harmful enough to justify criminalizing it". You draw your line in a different place from where I draw mine, I guess

kylith

easychair wrote: »

Your analogy of cutting off a foot with circumcision fails as the two are not comporable, not least by a matter of degree.

Can we equate it with trimming the tops off of ears so? The top of the ear is of less use than the foreskin. Would you support a parent's right to trim the tops off of their baby's ears for religious reasons, for fashion, or because it might get damaged at some point in the child's life?

easychair

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

The argument, then, boils down to "it's not harmful enough to justify criminalizing it". You draw your line in a different place from where I draw mine, I guess

So how do you propose to frame a law banning it? and how do you propose to enforce that law, should you be able to frame one which is workable?

easychair

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

The argument, then, boils down to "it's not harmful enough to justify criminalizing it". You draw your line in a different place from where I draw mine, I guess

Once again I have to repeat that i am not in favour of the practice, and have drawn attention with the problems with framing an act of parliament banning infant of childhood circumcision elsewhere.

But you are also right, I just don't think the issue is of much importance, and if parents feel it is the right thing to do, then they should be free to have it done.

If there were a sizeable number of the 1 billion plus adult men who had been circumcised as infants who demonstrated against the practice, then I might reconsider, but many or most of them seem at ease about it.

strobe

easychair wrote: »

So how do you propose to frame a law banning it? and how do you propose to enforce that law, should you be able to frame one which is workable?

Ban and enforce the ban in the same way we ban and enforce the ban on FGM. It's a lot more straight forward than you believe.

easychair

strobe wrote: »

There are probably laws already in place that prohibit slicing the tips of your child's ears off (to use Kylith's example). Just apply it to circumcision and enforce it in the same way. Prohibit doctors from carrying it out unnecessarily and imprison anyone else that does it. Same as any law.

Or to give another example, ban it in the same way we ban FGM.

Circumcision is no more considered an offence in law than is having your 3 year old daughters ears pierced. I am against both practices, but don't thikn either can, or should be, criminilised.

What is interesting is that many here seem to think its a problem, but most of those who were circumcised as infants or children don't seem to think it a problem, as in later life many go on to circumcise their own infants and children, and few of the over 1 billion men who have been circumcised seem to think it is a problem.

This thread is now just repeating itself, so unless there is something new, I am going to stop posting in it for a while.

strobe

easychair wrote: »

Circumcision is no more considered an offence in law than is having your 3 year old daughters ears pierced. I am against both practices, but don't thikn either can, or should be, criminilised.

Wha..?

You asked how a law could possibly be drafted and enforced prohibiting circumcision, your implication being it couldn't be done. The answer is it could be done in the same way that FGM is prohibited. It could be addressed in the same way someone tattooing a dragon on their child's back (which is a more apt analogy than ear piercing) would be addressed. There is no issue in this regard. It's a red herring.

easychair

strobe wrote: »

Wha..?

You asked how a law could possibly be drafted and enforced prohibiting circumcision, your implication being it couldn't be done. The answer is it could be done in the same way that FGM is prohibited. It could be addressed in the same way someone tattooing a dragon on their child's back (which is a more apt analogy than ear piercing) would be addressed. There is no issue in this regard. It's a red herring.

I have addressed the point of the legal difficulties before.

You still haven't said where the problem exists, in light of the fact that many if not most of those who are say, once that they reach the age of majority, that it not a problem for them and they are glad their parents took the decision for them. Why do you consider it a problem when millions of men who have had the procedure done don't consider it a problem, and its likely most Jews and Muslims would consider a ban on childhood circumcision much more of a problem.

If you feel so strongly that there should be a law trying to stop it, why not go out and campaign for a change in the law?

kylith

easychair wrote: »

You still haven't said where the problem exists, in light of the fact that many if not most of those who are say, once that they reach the age of majority, that it not a problem for them and they are glad their parents took the decision for them. Why do you consider it a problem when millions of men who have had the procedure done don't consider it a problem, and its likely most Jews and Muslims would consider a ban on childhood circumcision much more of a problem.

So, people who've been circumcised circumcise their children so that's ok?
Women who've had FGM do the same to their daughters, is that ok?
Would it be ok to cut a baby's earlobe off because the same was done to you and it didn't do you any harm?

People who've been abused are more likely to go on and abuse because they mistakenly think it's normal. This does not mean that unnecessarily cutting bits off of newborn children is ok just because people who no say in the matter mistakenly think it's normal. Outside of religious reasons circumcision of boys became fashionable, and it is a fashion, in the 19th centuary as a method of stopping boys mastrubating, along with torturous anti-erection devices and cornflakes. There is no medical reason to perform circumcisions unless there is an actual problem with the foreskin.

easychair

kylith wrote: »

So, people who've been circumcised circumcise their children so that's ok?

Lets not strike attitudes and try to keep things in proportion. What is interesting is that you seem to claim that male circumcision is a problem, yet those who have actually been circumcised, seem to disagree, in the main.

If you think it appropriate to liken circumcision with Female Genital Mutilation, or physical, mental or emotional abuse, then I can't agree, so we'll have to agree to disagree that they are similar.

As a matter of interest, have you considered campaigning against infant or childhood circumcision, and trying to get the law changed?

Dades

I think the questions

(1) Should circumcision be banned except for situation medical reasons? and
(2) Would be it be possible to ban circumcision?

Can be answered independently.

I understand the practical difficulties with (2), but that doesn't mean we can be sure of ourselves regarding (1).

To be honest I think we are in agreement anyway, the only difference being the level in indignation at what people do to their sons.

easychair

Dades wrote: »

I think the questions

(1) Should circumcision be banned except for situation medical reasons? and
(2) Would be it be possible to ban circumcision?

Can be answered independently.

I understand the practical difficulties with (2), but that doesn't mean we can be sure of ourselves regarding (1).

To be honest I think we are in agreement anyway, the only difference being the level in indignation at what people do to their sons.

The two questions go together. As I said in a previous post, "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. "

I myself would be more concerned if it was the sons, who were themselves circumcised as infants or children, who were indignant.

Mark Hamill

easychair wrote: »

Why I did that was because claims were made that circumcision made sex less pleasurable and sensitive. While it may seem to you that I have backed away from the claims, that is your imagination working overtime and reaching incorrect conclusions, as I have not backed away from them. I feel that the thread is going off on a tangent ( not least caused by me), hence I feel its time to get back to the topic.

Ok, we leave that tangent aside if you like, so maybe try addressing the first part of my post, the part on one of the papers in the meta study (supposedly about the medical benefits of circumcision) being a questionnaire on how happy parents where with the information they got from their doctors on circumcision.

Mark Hamill

easychair wrote: »

I have addressed the point of the legal difficulties before.

I fail to see why there would be a problem in legislating against male circumcision when there is not one legislating against female circumcision (FGM).

Mark Hamill

easychair wrote: »

What is interesting is that you seem to claim that male circumcision is a problem, yet those who have actually been circumcised, seem to disagree, in the main.

And people who get tattoos would be unlikely to say that it was a problem for them, so should we allow them to tattoo their babies too?

oceanclub

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?

Umm, because it's done for medical reasons such as phimosis:

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

P.

partyguinness

Circumcision was introduced thousands of years ago by nomads because they would go weeks and months without washing and to prevent infections they starting circumsicising and like everything else it was hijacked for religious reasons.

partyguinness

While I am personally against circumcising infants for no good reason I think the comparison with FGM is a little unfair...FGM leaves women/girls with long term physical and traumatic effects and I think it is fair to say they same damage is not caused to males. But yes, IMO it should not be carried out when infants have no choice in the matter.

easychair

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Ok, we leave that tangent aside if you like, so maybe try addressing the first part of my post, the part on one of the papers in the meta study (supposedly about the medical benefits of circumcision) being a questionnaire on how happy parents where with the information they got from their doctors on circumcision.

If some parents are not happy with the information they get from their doctors on any issue, my advice would be to change doctors.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I fail to see why there would be a problem in legislating against male circumcision when there is not one legislating against female circumcision (FGM).

Perhaps you are right, who knows. Yet you don’t seem to say how the problems which I have outlined might be overcome. Or why you think no government has ever legislated against the practice.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

And people who get tattoos would be unlikely to say that it was a problem for them, so should we allow them to tattoo their babies too?

To that I’d add “and people who pierce the ears of their babies and young children”.

Where we differ is that, while I might not agree with circumcision of infants or children, or tattooing infants or children, or piercing the ears of infants or children, I think it’s up to the parents to decide and I don’t think it’s up to me to “allow” them to do it.

You may decide that these are all things you want governments to legislate against, whereas I prefer that parents are free to make the choices, even if I don’t necessarily agree with those choices.

As I have said before, if there was a groundswell of protest at having been circumcised as an infant or child by the over one billion men who were circumcised as infants or children, then I might think again.

Mark Hamill

easychair wrote: »

If some parents are not happy with the information they get from their doctors on any issue, my advice would be to change doctors.

Dont make a point, or present evidence, if you aren't willing to defend them. You "meta analysis" was cherry picking its results, as evidenced by it including a questionnaire on the parental satisfaction of doctors giving them information.

easychair wrote: »

Perhaps you are right, who knows. Yet you don’t seem to say how the problems which I have outlined might be overcome. Or why you think no government has ever legislated against the practice.

Governments do legislate against the practice - in girls. So I still dont see how any of your problems, which dont arise in relation to female circumcision, would arise with male circumcision. Your point is moot.

easychair wrote: »

Where we differ is that, while I might not agree with circumcision of infants or children, or tattooing infants or children, or piercing the ears of infants or children, I think it’s up to the parents to decide and I don’t think it’s up to me to “allow” them to do it.

You honestly think that its ok for a parent to tattoo their kid? Seriously now, that doesn't at all conflict with your libertarianism at all, parents inflicting a permanent body altering change on their kids before their kids can even understand what is happening to them?

easychair wrote: »

You may decide that these are all things you want governments to legislate against, whereas I prefer that parents are free to make the choices, even if I don’t necessarily agree with those choices.

Nothing magical happens when you become a parent. Just because you break a condom or decide that you life isn't complete until you have a sprog doesn't give you cart blanche to do what you like to it. Why dont you, as a libertarian, recognise the childs rights?

easychair wrote: »

As I have said before, if there was a groundswell of protest at having been circumcised as an infant or child by the over one billion men who were circumcised as infants or children, then I might think again.

You can take it two ways.
Firstly, those that had it done at such a young age that they dont remember the pain have been indoctrinated from birth that it was necessary and that they are dirty if they didn't do it. Therefore they are not likely to campaign against it.
Secondly, given that a good number of number of men have it done as per their own free will as adults, then why shouldn't we have it that all men wait until they reach adulthood before doing it? Surely, as a libertarian, you would want the person being circumcised be willing to have it done?

easychair

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Dont make a point, or present evidence, if you aren't willing to defend them. You "meta analysis" was cherry picking its results, as evidenced by it including a questionnaire on the parental satisfaction of doctors giving them information.

You are incorrect as it was not my meta analysis.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Governments do legislate against the practice - in girls. So I still dont see how any of your problems, which dont arise in relation to female circumcision, would arise with male circumcision. Your point is moot.

Again, they are not my problems. i merely highlighted some of the difficulties which are likely to arise should a government try to legislate againt male infant or child circumcision. It's fine if you don't see them as problems, although it's interesting you don't address the problems themselves.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You honestly think that its ok for a parent to tattoo their kid? Seriously now, that doesn't at all conflict with your libertarianism at all, parents inflicting a permanent body altering change on their kids before their kids can even understand what is happening to them?

Perhaps you missed where I said

easychair wrote: »

To that I’d add “and people who pierce the ears of their babies and young children”.

Where we differ is that, while I might not agree with circumcision of infants or children, or tattooing infants or children, or piercing the ears of infants or children, I think it’s up to the parents to decide and I don’t think it’s up to me to “allow” them to do it.

You may decide that these are all things you want governments to legislate against, whereas I prefer that parents are free to make the choices, even if I don’t necessarily agree with those choices.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Nothing magical happens when you become a parent. Just because you break a condom or decide that you life isn't complete until you have a sprog doesn't give you cart blanche to do what you like to it. Why dont you, as a libertarian, recognise the childs rights?


You can take it two ways.
Firstly, those that had it done at such a young age that they dont remember the pain have been indoctrinated from birth that it was necessary and that they are dirty if they didn't do it. Therefore they are not likely to campaign against it.
Secondly, given that a good number of number of men have it done as per their own free will as adults, then why shouldn't we have it that all men wait until they reach adulthood before doing it? Surely, as a libertarian, you would want the person being circumcised be willing to have it done?

As I also previously said,

easychair wrote: »

As I have said before, if there was a groundswell of protest at having been circumcised as an infant or child by the over one billion men who were circumcised as infants or children, then I might think again.

For me, that there is not a groundswell of protest from these men suggests that it is not an issue for them. It's all very well for you to tell them they should be, but the fact is they aren't.


As a libertarian, I am able to feel I don't have to impose my decisions on others. While I am personally not in favour of infant or childhood circumcisions, I am also not in favour of imposing my decion on others who have strong views about it, and whose sons, when they get to the age of majority, largely don't seem to think it a problem.


Where we differ is that you seem to want to impose your views on others, which is a respectable view, but not one I share on this issue.

Sierra 117

Parents should not be allowed to have their sons circumcised unless it's a medical emergency. Otherwise, it should be left up to the child to decide when he is older. It's completely baffling that parents are allowed to mutilate their children like this.

easychair

Sierra 117 wrote: »

Parents should not be allowed to have their sons circumcised unless it's a medical emergency. Otherwise, it should be left up to the child to decide when he is older. It's completely baffling that parents are allowed to mutilate their children like this.

I agree. Why do you think so few of the one billion plus men who were circumcised as infants or children don't agree with you that they were mutilated?