Circumcision???

paddyandy

On a dark night everything can look like anything depending on the ophthalmic drift of the soul .

opinion guy

paddyandy wrote: »

On a dark night everything can look like anything depending on the ophthalmic drift of the soul .

Are you a machine trying to pass the Turing test ?

laoch na mona

ilovelamp2000 wrote: »

It's not mutilation when it looks better

yes it is

Ah come on lads, it's not a big deal. Like anytime I get something stuck in a zip I always say to myself "This is exactly as painful as getting caught in the rain."

Wibbs

Christ lads and lasses it shows how shíte the Irish "summer" is when here we are stuck indoors of a Saturday afternoon talking shíte about knobs.

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

Christ lads and lasses it shows how shíte the Irish "summer" is when here we are stuck indoors of a Saturday afternoon talking shíte about knobs.

Well I dunno about you but the alternative for me is talking with a bunch of knobs.

seamus

paddyandy wrote: »

It's an extremely fine operation no more distressing than a baptism

How about you go off and get baptised and circumcised and then come back and let us know which was more distressing.

If you're already circumcised, ask the doctor to remove a small part of your scrotum. It's not nearly as sensitive, but close enough.

Ellis Dee

Well, wasn't I lucky that my parents didn't let anyone snig the end off my willy when I was small.:D

Why tamper with perfection?;););)

They did believe in a sky fairy, or at least went with the flow in rural Ireland in those days when it was sunk even deeper in ignorance and superstition than it is today, and had me baptised, but there is no trace of that on me now.:)

What I can't figure out about those religions that are into circumcision is why they can't accept the human body the way the particular sky fairy that they in their non-enlightenment believe in created it.

No surgical intervention should ever be made unless it is medically necessary and people who are prepared to mutilate their children's genitals to please some hocus-pocus mythological figure shouldn't be allowed to reproduce at all.

opinion guy

seamus wrote: »

How about you go off and get baptised and circumcised and then come back and let us know which was more distressing.

If you're already circumcised, ask the doctor to remove a small part of your scrotum. It's not nearly as sensitive, but close enough.

His metallic dongle-foreskin is kind of hard to cut!

Galwayguy35

When I was a kid a doctor recommended that I have the cut but my parents decided it was up to me when I was older to make that decision for myself.
I've never had it done and while I'm probably a bit tight it hasn't really been a problem when having sex.
The point I'm making is that men should be let decide for themselves when they are adults if they want the cut or not.

Neeson

seamus wrote: »

If you're already circumcised, ask the doctor to remove a small part of your scrotum. It's not nearly as sensitive, but close enough.

Would a doctor take a slice at the sack just because you want him to though. There'd have to be a good reason for it.

Piste

I read a good article on male circumcision which I'm annoyed I can't find now, but it quoted another article (that I also can't find, I should really bookmark this stuff) talking about female genital mutilation, and the quote is just as applicable to male circumcision. It was something along the lines of (paraphrasing here): "if one girl is pinned down and has her genitalia sliced with a blade, the question is not if the person doing the cutting should be punished, but how they should be punished. When it happens to millions of girls we call it culture". I agree with this 100% as it applies to boys. I was really disappointed to see that Angela Merkel is looking to overturn a high court decision in Cologne to ban circumcision of baby boys, she's fallen to the strong Jewish and Muslim lobby groups in Germany. Much like foot binding and human sacrifice, "culture" is never a good enough reason to inflict bodily harm on a child.

EDIT: Found the article!

philologos

Piste wrote: »

I read a good article on male circumcision which I'm annoyed I can't find now, but it quoted another article (that I also can't find, I should really bookmark this stuff) talking about female genital mutilation, and the quote is just as applicable to male circumcision. It was something along the lines of (paraphrasing here): "if one girl is pinned down and has her genitalia sliced with a blade, the question is not if the person doing the cutting should be punished, but how they should be punished. When it happens to millions of girls we call it culture". I agree with this 100% as it applies to boys. I was really disappointed to see that Angela Merkel is looking to overturn a high court decision in Cologne to ban circumcision of baby boys, she's fallen to the strong Jewish and Muslim lobby groups in Germany. Much like foot binding and human sacrifice, "culture" is never a good enough reason to inflict bodily harm on a child.

EDIT: Found the article!

I guess the issue is that we've not seen much of an argument for circumcision being of harm, or that it is disadvantageous in comparison to remaining uncircumcised.

I don't believe the author of the article has the right to suggest forcing Jews and Muslims alter their faiths.

philologos

philologos wrote: »

I guess the issue is that we've not seen much of an argument for circumcision being of harm, or that it is disadvantageous in comparison to remaining uncircumcised.

I don't believe the author of the article has the right to suggest forcing Jews and Muslims alter their faiths.

What harm would there be in removing the tips of kids' toes? It would have the benefit of preventing ingrown toenails in later life but if any doctor was carrying it out on request I'd guess there'd be bit of fuss kicked up about it.

philologos

Deleted User wrote: »

What harm would there be in removing the tips of kids' toes? It would have the benefit of preventing ingrown toenails in later life but if any doctor was carrying it out on request I'd guess there'd be bit of fuss kicked up about it.

The onus is on the people calling circumcision as "child abuse" and as harmful, and as detrimental in some way to explain how that is.

Until that point, I have no interest in denying the freedom of others to practice Judaism or Islam, even if I disagree with both faiths.

Piste

philologos wrote: »

I guess the issue is that we've not seen much of an argument for circumcision being of harm, or that it is disadvantageous in comparison to remaining uncircumcised.

I don't believe the author of the article has the right to suggest forcing Jews and Muslims alter their faiths.

It's more that principle that they're surgically altering the bodies of babies without their consent, it would apply equally to chopping off earlobes, or cutting into their nostrils, or even just randomly slashing their skin cos- y'know- it'll heal and not cause lasting damage. I don't think saying "it doesn't cause much medical harm" is a good enough reason to allow the removal of part of a child's body via surgery without their consent.

I think society has every right to demand people not practice certain aspects of their faiths if those aspects are damaging to members of that society. There are two competing interests here- the interest of Jews and Muslims to practice their religious beliefs on babies that do not share those beliefs (this is important- there is no such thing as a Jewish, Muslim or Christian infant, they do not have the capacity to comprehend religion), and the interest of babies to have bodily autonomy and not be subjected to mutilating procedures that are in no way medically indicated (obviously excepting circumstances where it is medically indicated).

ilovelamp2000

Wibbs wrote: »

If that was the only reason then you were ill advised medically. Like a dentist removing an otherwise healthy tooth when all you required was a small filling.

Aside from the appearance factor which is debatable at best, dubious at worst(ring of scar tissue on my knob wouldn't be a look I'd be too happy with) would you extend this to women with "untidy" vulvas? Would you extend that to newborn baby girls in such a case? I doubt it.

What I find interesting are the reasons for circumcision in the male are remarkably close to those reasons given for female circumcision. For a moment let's not fly the red herring flag of damage done for a moment. Even removal of the clitoral hood, equivalent to male circumcision, is banned in most countries. Let's look at the reasons; religious, cultural, tradition, her grandmother had it done and I had it done, therefore... it's "cleaner", would put off a partner if not done, they wouldn't fit in if left intact, hell even the old guff about reducing fiddling with themselves is thrown in. Sounds terribly familiar. The reason we frown on "savages" who do that to young girls, but don't frown on the civilised who "augment" male genitals is down to the simple fact it's more acceptable in our culture. If cultures that practised FGM were the majority we'd likely be happy to go along with it too.

What agenda? If it's an agenda that backs leaving the choice of body modification until a person is of an age to choose, then colour me in, I'll wear that tee shirt. That's what freedom is to me, informed choice. Doubtless religious/cultural/whatever groups will cry oppression and removal of choice, but what choice does a newborn have? None, that's what. Their "choice" is foisted upon them by their parent's culture. Our children rely or should rely on parents to nurture them to a point where they can make a choice, not make it for them on non medical grounds. If parents won't do it, then society has to take up that slack.

It wasn't the only reason. It was the straw that broke the camel's back.

What you find interesting is that FGM and circumcision are essentially the same thing except FGM have better pressure groups to demonize the practice. Anyone doing anything for religious reasons is a ****ing idiot anyway so I don't get too bothered by it.

opinion guy

philologos wrote: »

The onus is on the people calling circumcision as "child abuse" and as harmful, and as detrimental in some way to explain how that is.

Eh....why ?????

Neeson

The thing about female cuttings are that they tidy up the beef curtains, should they be present. The male hood can be pulled back and won't slide back over so long as the head grows enough which it no doubt will provided that the female is attractive enough.

With the female this is not the case. Should a man want to get backstage he has to pull back the curtains and keep them open with his bare hands. Otherwise they will shut firmly in his face. And that is poor etiquette.

seamus

philologos wrote: »

The onus is on the people calling circumcision as "child abuse" and as harmful, and as detrimental in some way to explain how that is.

So tattooing your child, stretching their earlobes, all that kind of harmless body modification is OK? Parents should be allowed to make permanent changes to their children's bodies provided that it does no harm?

Surely it should be up to the parent to show reasons why it will benefit the child rather than doing these things "because I feel like it".

Piste

Neeson wrote: »

The thing about female cuttings are that they tidy up the beef curtains, should they be present. The male hood can be pulled back and won't slide back over so long as the head grows enough which it no doubt will provided that the female is attractive enough.

With the female this is not the case. Should a man want to get backstage he has to pull back the curtains and keep them open with his bare hands. Otherwise they will shut firmly in his face. And that is poor etiquette.

If you had a baby daughter would you happily have her external genitals sliced off to satisfy a man sometime in the future?

philologos

opinion guy wrote: »

Eh....why ?????

Well, if you're going to claim that circumcision should be banned, and that it is child abuse, you must be able to argue how it is more harmful than remaining uncircumcised. The reality is that there seems to be pros and cons to both.

But yeah, if you're going to make a claim that we should outlaw circumcision, I think it's only right and proper to ask those who want to ban it to explain why.

The blog that Piste posted if taken seriously would form a dangerous precedent in society whereby judges would be able to interpret other peoples religious texts. That's not the job of the State, and I hope to God it never is.

For example, if the State told me that it was illegal for me to tell other people about Jesus Christ, and said don't do that. I'd be in a situation where I would have to do it anyway. God's standards, are above those of the State as far as Christianity is concerned.

Piste

I'm happy for the state to decide whether an action has an intrinsic value- whether religious or not- and allow or disallow it based on that. Circumcision has little intrinsic value- certainly nothing worth forcing on a child.

philologos

Piste wrote: »

I'm happy for the state to decide whether an action has an intrinsic value- whether religious or not- and allow or disallow it based on that. Circumcision has little intrinsic value- certainly nothing worth forcing on a child.

Again, in order to criminalise something, I think the onus is on those arguing it to present good evidence that circumcision is actually harmful as opposed to remaining uncircumcised.

I don't think the law should be a place for people to compel other people to subscribe to their ideologies.

Piste

The law is the perfect place to have people subscribe to ideologies! Everything is based on principles and ideologies- when you legally force people to pay taxes, attend school or not cause bodily harm to another you're forcing a moral standard on people- what's the problem with that?

The other side of the law is it prevents people forcing their harmful ideologies on others- which is why we don't allow foot-binding, blood sacrifice or FGM all in the name of culture or religion.

Also it's not as simple as "circumcision good -v- circumcision bad", it's "circumcision of a non-consenting child good -v- circumcision of the non-consenting child bad".

Neeson

Piste wrote: »

If you had a baby daughter would you happily have her external genitals sliced off to satisfy a man sometime in the future?

Well, like all good daughters I'd like to think she'd want to make her daddy happy first...


...daddies never want to see their little girls going off with some young stud. You want daddy to be yer only man.

Thinking about the daughter with another man often doesn't bare thinking about for daddies.

philologos

Piste wrote: »

The law is the perfect place to have people subscribe to ideologies! Everything is based on principles and ideologies- when you legally force people to pay taxes, attend school or not cause bodily harm to another you're forcing a moral standard on people- what's the problem with that?

So let's say if the law suggested that everyone had to follow Hasidic Jewish practices to a tee, you should be fine on that considering that you are OK with people putting their ideologies into law?

Taxation is obvious, as is attending school, or causing bodily harm to another.
1) State needs money to function and provide for the welfare of its citizens, 2) Education is a fundamental human right, 3) Causing bodily harm is a violation of anothers rights.

Piste wrote: »

The other side of the law is it prevents people forcing their harmful ideologies on others- which is why we don't allow foot-binding, blood sacrifice or FGM all in the name of culture or religion.

If you do even the most rudimentary research into FGM you will see that there are clear differences between it and circumcision in terms of its effects.

Not the same thing irrespective of how much people might like to compare them.

Piste wrote: »

Also it's not as simple as "circumcision good -v- circumcision bad", it's "circumcision of a non-consenting child good -v- circumcision of the non-consenting child bad".

Yes, pretty much that is the debate we're getting into. My point is, that unless you can show that circumcision has clear disadvantages over being uncircumcised, I don't see any good or sound reason as to why it should be criminalised, and I don't think that your ideology has any place in law on this issue.

Scanlas The 2nd

philologos wrote: »

Piste wrote: »

I read a good article on male circumcision which I'm annoyed I can't find now, but it quoted another article (that I also can't find, I should really bookmark this stuff) talking about female genital mutilation, and the quote is just as applicable to male circumcision. It was something along the lines of (paraphrasing here): "if one girl is pinned down and has her genitalia sliced with a blade, the question is not if the person doing the cutting should be punished, but how they should be punished. When it happens to millions of girls we call it culture". I agree with this 100% as it applies to boys. I was really disappointed to see that Angela Merkel is looking to overturn a high court decision in Cologne to ban circumcision of baby boys, she's fallen to the strong Jewish and Muslim lobby groups in Germany. Much like foot binding and human sacrifice, "culture" is never a good enough reason to inflict bodily harm on a child.

EDIT: Found the article!

I guess the issue is that we've not seen much of an argument for circumcision being of harm, or that it is disadvantageous in comparison to remaining uncircumcised.

I don't believe the author of the article has the right to suggest forcing Jews and Muslims alter their faiths.

I don't believe anyone has the right to mutilate a baby. If someone's faith implores them to cause harm to a baby then you don't have a right to adhere to that faith. Simple as.

SusieBlue

I think circumcision for non medical reasons in appalling.

My cousin in the US had her newborn son circumcised, its a total social norm there. She couldn't understand why I was so horrified by it.

I can't imagine being handed a new, perfect baby and then arranging for a part of his anatomy to be chopped off.

She says he won't remember when he's older. By that logic, if you smacked your newborn around the head, he won't remember that either. But it doesn't mean it didn't hurt at the time.

I read a study that suggests the newborn nerves never recover from the shock and pain from such a big procedure so soon after birth.

She also says that prevention is better than the cure - But we don't get tonsils removed at birth, or our appendixes, so why the foreskin? It just baffles me.

If you're a clean person you won't have issues with it. I just don't agree with it at all. I'd obviously advocate it if it were medically necessary, but getting it done "just because" does my head in. Especially when its done to babies, they have no say in what is essentially, a pointless procedure.

philologos

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

I don't believe anyone has the right to mutilate a baby. If someone's faith implores them to cause harm to a baby then you don't have a right to adhere to that faith. Simple as.

The problem is nobody has presented any good reason to believe why circumcision is harmful, or detrimental over uncircumcision.

Another question to ask Piste and yourself would be, do you believe in objective or subjective morality?