nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Why is circumcision of babies still legal in Ireland

Redsky121

It's astounding that this barbaric practice is still legal today, what gives someone the right to mutilate a child's genitals?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Redsky121 wrote: »

I take it then that you believe female circumcision should be legalised...

Whilst there is a female circumcision analogous to male circumcision, that’s the most mild form. The other forms of female circumcision are more invasive.

I’m vehemently opposed to non-medical circumcision of either sex but the female circumcisions that are more invasive than the most mild form are worse than male circumcision. Even just the fact that female genitalia sits into the body a bit more ensures that it easily becomes more invasive. The clitoral structure is much more complicated than what you see on the surface for example.

SusieBlue wrote: »

Why on earth would you look down at your perfect, healthy newborn baby, who you spent 9 months lovingly growing in your belly, and promptly arrange for a piece of his anatomy to be chopped off?
It goes against all natural instincts as a parent. Its cruel andunnecessary.

Babies have died having this procedure done. One baby dying is too many.

Abso-fücking-lutely.

To the boy with the botched circumcision, does it matter that what happened to him is rare? Does that repair his penis? Low risk is acceptable to most where the medical problem is greater and QOL is affected. But to have your genitalia damaged or to die for an unnecessary procedure just cannot be supported.

Tabnabs

When your medical community supports the ban and a small number of religious zealots oppose it, which do you think will win out?

https://grapevine.is/news/2018/04/26/ban-on-circumcision-to-be-dismissed-in-parliament/

and again in Denmark
https://www.chabad.org/news/article_cdo/aid/4114963/jewish/Circumcision-Ban-in-Denmark-Fails-for-Now-But-the-Battle-Will-Go-On.htm

Idle Passerby

end of the road wrote: »

or we could keep our outrage here in ireland, the country where we live.

The thing is though circumcision is necessary in some cases. You can't ban a medical procedure that some people actually require. You could ban it in non necessary instances but then those who want it for religious reasons will do it without proper medical supervision, that's not a great result is it? Educating them that it's not a good idea would peobably be more effective.

I am against circumcision without medical neccessity. I think it's pretty horrific that a baby would be painfully mutilated for no real reason. I'm just pointing out that we are in a country where that isn't very common.

ohnonotgmail

To all those that say that it should be banned for children except for medical reasons: You are absolutely right. If somebody wants it to do it as an adult for religious reasons let them knock themselves out. Though having gone through it as an adult for medical reasons i cant imagine there would be a long queue.

1o059k7ewrqj3n

Forgive me if I am wrong, is it better to be uncircumcised with regard to HPV or worse?

BrokenArrows

The argument that it will push it "underground" is not a reason not the make it illegal.

Neither is the argument that it is medically necessary in some situations.
Cutting off someone arm is medically a necessary in some situations, doesn't mean parents can decide to do it to their kid.

Make it illegal. Anyone found out performing the practice in Ireland simply faces a charge of physical child abuse. Laws are already in place for that.

The laws of other countries don't matter and religious history doesn't matter. We base our laws on today's moral standards.

One eyed Jack

SusieBlue wrote: »

Why on earth would you look down at your perfect, healthy newborn baby, who you spent 9 months lovingly growing in your belly, and promptly arrange for a piece of his anatomy to be chopped off?
It goes against all natural instincts as a parent. Its cruel and unnecessary.

For the very reasons you’ve stated in your earlier post -

SusieBlue wrote: »

Culture, religion, hygiene or "so he'll look like his dad" are not valid reasons to chop off a newborn baby's anatomy.

For the parents who do it, it would go against their natural instincts as parents not to have either MGM or FGM done, and while their reasons aren’t valid for you, for them who are the child’s parents, they are.

I’m not defending the practice as I too personally think it’s abhorrent and I’m relieved tbh that I’m neither Jewish, Muslim, Middle Eastern, American or from any other culture in Europe which still maintains the practice, I’m just answering your question. For those parents who do it, it’s their natural instinct and they would see it the opposite way you do - for them it’s cruel not to do it, and absolutely necessary.

In the video below, an anthropologist with over 25 years experience and research in the area defends the practice of what she calls “female circumcision practices” as opposed to mutilation -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob3Wf0PKtBM

GarIT

Bass Reeves wrote: »

There are a few issues with making it illegal. It is far better to have it done in a hospital/proper medical setting rather than driving it underground if it is done for extreme religious reasons. It is not an extreme medical procedure with a very low risk of medical complications when done in a proper medical setting.

You could make the same case for outlawing tattoo's in U18's, piercing ear's, navels or nose's. You can make case's for virtually anything if you wish. You could outlaw children riding horses for risk or far until they can make an informed choice. It back to a bit of a nanny state.

I don't think it would be driven underground. Charge anyone who performs it and the parents it with both sexual assault and grevious bodily harm and have them register as sex offenders. There would need to be no statute of limitations on it either.

In this case I would be against the idea of two eyes for an eye, castration for anyone that performs it or seeks it for their child.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

BrokenArrows wrote: »

The argument that it will push it "underground" is not a reason not the make it illegal.

Neither is the argument that it is medically necessary in some situations.
Cutting off someone arm is medically a necessary in some situations, doesn't mean parents can decide to do it to their kid.

Make it illegal. Anyone found out performing the practice in Ireland simply faces a charge of physical child abuse. Laws are already in place for that.

The laws of other countries don't matter and religious history doesn't matter. We base our laws on today's moral standards.

As far as I know, parents can give consent for medical procedures for their children. It’s necessary to allow that really as children can’t always understand the gravity of saying no, depending on their age.

Former Observer

Do the lads still bite off the foreskin with their teeth?

ohnonotgmail

Former Observer wrote: »

Do the lads still bite off the foreskin with their teeth?

no but some more orthodox forms of judiasm still perform Metzitzah as part of the bris. this involves sucking the wound.

One eyed Jack

Former Observer wrote: »

Do the lads still bite off the foreskin with their teeth?

I’m not aware of any culture where they bite the foreskin off with their teeth? I did google out of curiosity (not the most reliable of results given most of them were links to porn videos of biting foreskins of adults, I didn’t realise that was a thing!), but couldn’t find anything reliable.

I do know that it used to be common practice in some Jewish communities for the mohel to stem the flow of blood following circumcision by sucking on the inflicted area, but that’s not the same thing and to the best of my knowledge it’s not as widely practiced today as it was in previous generations.

Mad_maxx

Wibbs wrote: »

Many faiths and cultures have practised it. Judaism and Islam are about the only modern sophisticated cultures who still do. Islam continued the practice as the religion was filtered through the local culture which had practised it for generations, so saw no need for change. Christianity another offshoot of Judaism didn't because it was filtered through the Roman and Greek cultures which even then considered the practice barbaric and only fit for barbarians so cobbled up a get out clause when they adapted the new religion for themselves.

How come most men in America are circumcised if its predominantly a Jewish and Islamic practice?

GarIT

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m not aware of any culture where they bite the foreskin off with their teeth? I did google out of curiosity (not the most reliable of results given most of them were links to porn videos of biting foreskins of adults, I didn’t realise that was a thing!), but couldn’t find anything reliable.

I do know that it used to be common practice in some Jewish communities for the mohel to stem the flow of blood following circumcision by sucking on the inflicted area, but that’s not the same thing and to the best of my knowledge it’s not as widely practiced today as it was in previous generations.

If it happened today I can't see any reason they don't do 15 years and get labelled as a paedo.

Wibbs

Mad_maxx wrote: »

How come most men in America are circumcised if its predominantly a Jewish and Islamic practice?

Late 19th century medical quackery, which then became medically and socially fashionable and then just the Done Thing(tm). It was originally done as a way to reduce masturbation in the young as said practice was thought to cause all sorts of mental and medical ailments(young women sometimes suffered the removal of the clitoris for the same reason, or forced into early marriage and babies as having a kid was thought to cure "hysteria" in women).

It was also practiced as a medical thing in much of the West. Some European royal families got into it which filtered down the fashion to the rest of society. Even in Ireland if you were born before the 60/70's it was quite the "fashionable" thing.

I dunno why it stopped outside of the US though. I suspect the growth of national health services in the post war period might have something to do with it. Because it was public monies involved more procedures were reviewed and found to be not worth the effort medically or monetarily. Whereas in the US with its private healthcare system it was another box to tick that brought in a few quid for an already fashionable procedure. That's just my supposition mind you. The US fashion did spread to some places though. Good example is Korea. Before the Korean war and the influx and influence of American military to the place, along with their medical practices, it was an almost unknown thing to do, but since then it took off rapidly and now it's very widespread.

A mate of mine was married to an American and living over there in one of teh southern states and they had a boy over twenty years ago and according to my mate the pressure to chop a chunk of his willie off after he was born was pretty intense. The inferences of bad parenting, risk to the kids hygiene and health and how his son wouldn't be accepted and all that kinda thing. They brought the permission papers into them twice and cornered his wife with them when my mate wasn't around(luckily she agreed it was a stupid practice). My mate with the personality he has - the more you push the more he'll push back - put his foot down and had to do so pretty forcefully. Mad. It's probably less stupid now. I'd hope it was.

branie2

very nasty

One eyed Jack

GarIT wrote: »

If it happened today I can't see any reason they don't do 15 years and get labelled as a paedo.

I can, and again I’m not defending it, but the reason they’re not convicted of any wrongdoing is because in the jurisdiction they’re doing it, it’s not illegal. Tbh I wouldn’t defend labelling anyone a paedo either when there isn’t any evidence they are in fact a paedophile.

I don’t imagine there’s a sexual element to the act, in much the same way as there’s no sexual element to the act of mothers in Manchu society kissing their children’s genitals instead of kissing them on the cheek as we might do here in the West -

Did Manchu women really fellate their sons?

Again, best not google that, I had only come across it before in passing while reading about something else entirely :pac:

GarIT

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I can, and again I’m not defending it, but the reason they’re not convicted of any wrongdoing is because in the jurisdiction they’re doing it, it’s not illegal. Tbh I wouldn’t defend labelling anyone a paedo either when there isn’t any evidence they are in fact a paedophile.

I don’t imagine there’s a sexual element to the act, in much the same way as there’s no sexual element to the act of mothers in Manchu society kissing their children’s genitals instead of kissing them on the cheek as we might do here in the West -

Did Manchu women really fellate their sons?

Again, best not google that, I had only come across it before in passing while reading about something else entirely :pac:

I disagree anyone who touches a child's penis for non medical or sanitary reasons is a paedo imo.

One eyed Jack

GarIT wrote: »

I disagree anyone who touches a child's penis for non medical or sanitary reasons is a paedo imo.

Ah sure, fair enough so like, I’m not gonna argue with that. I’m just saying that’s why they aren’t charged with any wrongdoing. I do actually get where you’re coming from though, it’s very much Jimmy Saville levels of operating in plain sight if one is a paedophile at least!

4068ac1elhodqr

It's likely even if it was (rightly) to be made illegal, no one would ever be charged.

Take a look at the amount of the (illegal) FMG cases across Ire & Uk in recent years, and few (if anyone) has ever been found guilty,
likely so as not to upset anyone's medieval tendencies.

Evd-Burner

When my little boy was born I wanted him to be circumcised as it seemed far too tight but the his mam disagreed so we didn't. Fast forward to when he was 6 and we had to have an emergency circumcision as it was so bad, the whole experience was absolutely horrendous for him, with we did it when he was a baby never would have had them problem. I know a feel people who still have the same problem as adults!

riclad

i Think circumcision is very common in america, america has millions of people who are jewish,
this subject is mentioned in many films, and drama,s .
American jews have alot of political power ,this is seen as a religious issue.So theres, no way it will be made illegal in america .
I dont think its common in ireland unless the doctor thinks its medically necessary .
i dont think any medical operation should be done on anyone unless there is a medical reason for it.
I,m not a expert but i think its not necessary to do this for most people .
i think its also a breach of human rights, babys are not asked fro an opinion on it, its done for medical reasons or else maybe the parents
are jewish or have some other reason to do it.
i do not think its medically necessary to do this, its more of a tradition.
i think its legal because its a jewish tradition, so its not a big issue in ireland .

eviltwin

My brother and his wife live in the US and have a baby boy. He's uncut and this has been a source of surprise among their friends who have all had their sons circumcised. My sister in law has told me her female friends won't date men with a foreskin because it looks odd. Some think it's less hygienic.

Zaph

Idle Passerby wrote: »

However it's not standard practice to circumcise without a medical reason in Ireland.

It used to be. Both my uncles were circumcised when they were born (around 1940), and when I was born in the late 60s my grandmother was adamant that my mother should have me circumcised. The old hygiene argument was the driving force behind her insistence, and the reason my uncles lost the tops of their willies. Thankfully my mother was having none of it and my grandmother, who was otherwise a very reasonable woman, knew better than to push it when my brother came along 6 years later.

[Deleted User]

Mad_maxx wrote: »

How come most men in America are circumcised if its predominantly a Jewish and Islamic practice?

that kellogg lad was obsessed with sex and ways of preventing masturbation

Zaph

bluewolf wrote: »

that kellogg lad was obsessed with sex and ways of preventing masturbation

I suppose it's all down to which you think is least worst - circumcision or stuffing a load of corn flakes under your foreskin. I know I certainly wouldn't want a **** with half a box of cereal in my pants.

[Deleted User]

Zaph wrote: »

I suppose it's all down to which you think is least worst - circumcision or stuffing a load of corn flakes under your foreskin. I know I certainly wouldn't want a **** with half a box of cereal in my pants.

i'm surprised he didn't add that one to the list

One eyed Jack

riclad wrote: »

i think its also a breach of human rights, babys are not asked fro an opinion on it, its done for medical reasons or else maybe the parents
are jewish or have some other reason to do it.

I don’t think you could argue that as a legitimate reason to ban the practice. Babies aren’t asked for their opinions on anything, their parents are responsible for representing what is considered to be in their children’s best interests and if it’s argued within the framework of human rights as opposed to medical necessity, the issue becomes even more contentious as there are all sorts of conflicting views as to what should constitute human rights and human rights violations.

Some advocates of human rights for recognition of intersex people for example, argue that it is not medically necessary for procedures to be performed on infants with ambiguous genitalia in order to “fix” as it were these medical conditions, and they claim it is a violation of the infants human rights. It’s a decision which is made at birth with the consent of the parents, and the infant has no input on the matter.

The video below gives you some idea of the issues involved in whether or not to allow the medical community to perform what are currently considered necessary medical procedures on infants with ambiguous genitalia -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dJduGC3HyQ

Wibbs

Zaph wrote: »

It used to be. Both my uncles were circumcised when they were born (around 1940), and when I was born in the late 60s my grandmother was adamant that my mother should have me circumcised. The old hygiene argument was the driving force behind her insistence, and the reason my uncles lost the tops of their willies. Thankfully my mother was having none of it and my grandmother, who was otherwise a very reasonable woman, knew better than to push it when my brother came along 6 years later.

Pretty much word for word that echoes what nearly happened to me Zed and what did happen to my maternal uncles and in the exact same timeline. My grandmother and like yours an otherwise reasonable person(quite a rebel for her age group actually) was hellbent on my mother doing the same to me. She was resistant to be fair, but the grandmother wasn't for turning. The dads family had a load of doctors in the mix and one of them told her she was being terribly old fashioned and out of touch and that calmed her down a bit, especially as the doc in question was another woman. In the end my dad just vetoed it outright.

eviltwin wrote: »

My brother and his wife live in the US and have a baby boy. He's uncut and this has been a source of surprise among their friends who have all had their sons circumcised. My sister in law has told me her female friends won't date men with a foreskin because it looks odd. Some think it's less hygienic.

Yeah they can have a hangup over it alright. And like American culture tends to do, go extreme on the yay/nay front. My only experience with an American lass gave me the strong impression that most of all they at least she didn't know what to do with a normally functioning one. Let's just say any notions that sensitivity wasn't really reduced by the practice were put to bed with her.

While FGM is way more intrusive and damaging, the two practices share a lot of cultural commonalities. It's more hygienic, it looks better, the opposite sex prefer even demand it, it's deeply traditional, it's a religious duty and it's usually mothers that are faced with agreeing and promoting the continuation of the practice.

When culture is in play the cognitive dissonance can be strong. EG Years back Oprah Winfrey was among those rightfully campaigning against FGM and yet on either the same show, or one a week later she featured some anti ageing skin cream or other that was made from or came from research into the discarded foreskins of circumcised boys and that was a little amusing for her and the audience. In fairness "I'm putting willies on my face" is amusing.

And TBH I don't really pillory her for that thinking. If she'd talked with a woman or man from a culture where FGM is "obviously correct" they'd have a very different view to her objections. When something is so obviously "correct" within a culture it can be a hard thing to shift and question. That blindness is writ large throughout human history across all cultures. This is one big reason why this stuff is hard to snuff out. I mean if you look at Jewish people, a people who hoover up nobel prizes on the regular and can hardly be described as a dumb group of folks, where endless internal argument is actually built into their faith, yet you will find pretty much every nobel recipient will have stood there, most likely proudly as they snip off a part of their newborn's anatomy in a bronze age blood rite.

d8491prj5boyvg

Redsky121 wrote: »

It's astounding that this barbaric practice is still legal today, what gives someone the right to mutilate a child's genitals?

God