Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Circumcision illegal in Ireland?

Options
1…89101214

Comments

  • Options
    #332
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Siuin wrote: »
    If you can't produce valid reasons for your opinions, then don't expect to hang around for long.
    Siuin wrote: »
    You don't need to be circumcised to know that there is absolutely no valid medical reason to support circumcision. You don't need a dick (circumcised or otherwise) to have a brain.
    If you can't discuss this issue without these type of snarky posts, don't post at all.


  • Options
    #333
    yawha
    Closed Accounts Posts: 695 ✭✭✭yawha


    UnkieKev wrote: »
    I was circumcised as a child due to health reasons.
    UnkieKev wrote: »
    Valid reasoning? Well I had an uncircumcised penis for 13 years, and have had a circumcised penis for the last 8. You having never been circumcised have no idea the difference in either and are relying on google to back yourself up am I correct?
    So what you're saying is, you've never had a fully functioning, healthy foreskin, and thus have no experience or idea as to what it's like to have one?


  • Options
    #334
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Here's a question for easychair, assuming he's still floating around waiting to spout the same long debunked nonsense to someone new to the thread:
    You said that we shouldn't tell parents what to do with their kids, as the kids belong to their parents and after they get indoctrinated, I mean brought up to accept that what was done to them was deserved. So do you think that the likes of what happens to kids on the Day of Ashura ritual should be allowed?


  • Options
    #335
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    ^^ Just FYI, I really think you're misrepresenting easychair's position on this.


  • Options
    #336
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Dades wrote: »
    ^^ Just FYI, I really think you're misrepresenting easychair's position on this.

    Really? Its certainly possible, if for no other reason than he wont really explain it.
    Several times the argument has gone along the lines:
    Easychair: "I'm libertarian, society shouldn't tell people what to do"
    A.N.Other: "Society shouldn't tell people what to do with their own bodies, but it should stop people inflicting unneccessary changes on their kids bodies"
    Easychair: "Well I dont know any adults, circumcised as kids, who have an issue with it"
    A.N.Other: "Thats to be expected, they were indoctrinated/they would have to admit that they see their penises as malformed or suboptimal/there some people who do, so why not wait until the kids are older and can choose for themselves"
    Easychair: "..........................................................."

    Easychairs libertarianism only seems to apply to the parents, he doesn't take account of what the kids want until they are adults (and then only uses his relatively small subset of companions who where circumcised as a measure). His argument seems to say that, as a child, you have no rights or will of your own and your parents can do what they like to you (even tattoo you). It would be nice to get some clarification on this, but seeing as he hasn't justified anything he has said so far on this thread (repeating doesn't count), I'm not holding my breath.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #337
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    I'm probaly thinking of a post like this.

    I also think you've debased the discussion by alluding to such things as the "Day of Ashura" ritual, in the same way other people bringing up FGM or 'compulsory mastectomies' did.


  • Options
    #338
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Dades wrote: »
    I'm probaly thinking of a post like this.

    He doesn't really explain in that post why he thinks parents can do what they like to their kids though. He claims there are degrees to what they can do, but his lines seem arbitrary. He will disagree with something extreme like cutting off a finger, but has no comeback for analogous procedures like cutting off earlobes (as necessary as a foreskin), removing vestigial organs or tattooing.
    Dades wrote: »
    I also think you've debased the discussion by alluding to such things as the "Day of Ashura" ritual, in the same way other people bringing up FGM or 'compulsory mastectomies' did.

    Why though? I can understand compulsory mastectomies being OTT, but Ashura and FGM dont necessarily result in long term physical damage, the same way circumcision doesn't according to circumcision advocates (not all forms of FGM result in the full removal of the sexual organs). Do you think that the people who support FGM actually call it FGM? To them, its circumcision too. To the parents who do them, FGM and Asgura are as important as male circumcision and, coupled with childhood indoctrination, will result in kids who want to do it to their own kids.


  • Options
    #339
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Why though? I can understand compulsory mastectomies being OTT, but Ashura and FGM dont necessarily result in long term physical damage, the same way circumcision doesn't according to circumcision advocates (not all forms of FGM result in the full removal of the sexual organs). Do you think that the people who support FGM actually call it FGM? To them, its circumcision too. To the parents who do them, FGM and Asgura are as important as male circumcision and, coupled with childhood indoctrination, will result in kids who want to do it to their own kids.
    Hang on, now your downgrading the harm inflicted by FGM in order to equate it with circumcision?

    Also, it's irrelevant what the parents think. They are indoctrinated themselves and therefore don't have the capacity for objectively.


  • Options
    #340
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Dades wrote: »
    Hang on, now your downgrading the harm inflicted by FGM in order to equate it with circumcision?

    As I said in my previous post, not all FGM is the same, look at the wiki article for the different levels. The less invasive forms (Type 1a and Type 4) are on the same level as male circumcision (NB I'm not trying to defend any form of FGM).
    Dades wrote: »
    Also, it's irrelevant what the parents think. They are indoctrinated themselves and therefore don't have the capacity for objectively.

    Not to easychair, which is the point. In his libertarian mindset, parents have near cart-blanche to do what they like with their kids, they could have them tattooed and he wouldn't object.


  • Options
    #341
    swimming
    Registered Users Posts: 5 ✭swimming


    I dont agree guys sorry. I think circumcision should be done here in Ireland, if the person wants it done! some guys need it done for medical purposes! I am 100% Irish and I am circumcised myself! I was cut for medical purposes and tbh I much prefer it now then before! There is no issue of cleaning behind the foreskin or whatever! Whatever you heard about "Less sensitivity or feeling" then you heard wrong..Masturbation and whatever is so much better now and there is less worry of hurting yourself..But dont get me wrong, I think its wrong to circumcise newborns..I think they should(aside from medical purposes) have the authority to make the decision themselves when they older. Just my opinon.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #342
    saa
    Registered Users Posts: 2,194 ✭✭✭saa


    You haven't really thought this through have you, make circumcision illegal
    = certain religious folk will look for circumcision for their babies from people other than doctors in sub standard conditions for the surgical procedure.

    And its more of an issue in America where its done quite often for cosmetic reasons or for their child not be bullied or different.. or to be clean? That disturbs me more than religious practices.


  • Options
    #343
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    swimming wrote: »
    I dont agree guys sorry. I think circumcision should be done here in Ireland, if the person wants it done! some guys need it done for medical purposes! I am 100% Irish and I am circumcised myself! I was cut for medical purposes and tbh I much prefer it now then before! There is no issue of cleaning behind the foreskin or whatever! Whatever you heard about "Less sensitivity or feeling" then you heard wrong..Masturbation and whatever is so much better now and there is less worry of hurting yourself..But dont get me wrong, I think its wrong to circumcise newborns..I think they should(aside from medical purposes) have the authority to make the decision themselves when they older. Just my opinon.

    1. Circumcision is done here if the person wants it.

    2. Of course you prefer it now, you had it done for medical purposes, so much so that you were afraid of hurting yourself from masturbating! :eek:

    Wrong to circumcise newborns? Thinks they should be able to decide when they're older?

    It seems we agree more than you think.


  • Options
    #344
    swimming
    Registered Users Posts: 5 ✭swimming


    saa wrote: »
    You haven't really thought this through have you, make circumcision illegal
    = certain religious folk will look for circumcision for their babies from people other than doctors in sub standard conditions for the surgical procedure.

    And its more of an issue in America where its done quite often for cosmetic reasons or for their child not be bullied or different.. or to be clean? That disturbs me more than religious practices.


    I am just saying that I dont think it should be illegal as the topic to this outlined..but on religious issues..yeah thats a completly different topic..!
    but yes I agree with you that its bad for cosmetic reasons..! it is there for a reason I know!


  • Options
    #345
    yawha
    Closed Accounts Posts: 695 ✭✭✭yawha


    Surely no one could be so obtuse as to think this thread was discussing illegalising circumcision full stop?


  • Options
    #346
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    yawha wrote: »
    Surely no one could be so obtuse as to think this thread was discussing illegalising circumcision full stop?
    Exactly - there was nobody advocating this whatsoever.

    So, swimming, you are in agreement with most people here. :)


  • Options
    #347
    swimming
    Registered Users Posts: 5 ✭swimming


    Dades wrote: »
    Exactly - there was nobody advocating this whatsoever.

    So, swimming, you are in agreement with most people here. :)



    Hey sorry wen I said I didnt agree I meant to say I dont agree with the dude that said "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?"

    I completly disagree with him...while I do think it is wrong to do in on newborns like in the US, I think for religous purposes, it is part of their culture and beliefs and if they didnt have it done they would be 'different from others' in there religion and perhaps the're country.

    But yes in Ireland(not that its at all common) I do agree with yous that the child should have the authority to make the decision when he is older.

    and the person who says that "If it's true that removing the foreskin reduces the penis' sensitivity of more than 50%"..that is completly false.


  • Options
    #348
    easychair
    Closed Accounts Posts: 905 ✭✭✭easychair


    swimming wrote: »
    I completly disagree with him...while I do think it is wrong to do in on newborns like in the US, I think for religous purposes, it is part of their culture and beliefs and if they didnt have it done they would be 'different from others' in there religion and perhaps the're country.
    .

    I'd be interested to see where in the Bible, or Koran, it states that the only way men can worship god is by having a piece of skin cut off their penis.


  • Options
    #349
    DeVore
    Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 32,387 Mod ✭✭✭✭DeVore


    swimming wrote: »
    I dont agree guys sorry. I think circumcision should be done here in Ireland, if the person wants it done! some guys need it done for medical purposes! I am 100% Irish and I am circumcised myself! I was cut for medical purposes and tbh I much prefer it now then before! There is no issue of cleaning behind the foreskin or whatever! Whatever you heard about "Less sensitivity or feeling" then you heard wrong..Masturbation and whatever is so much better now and there is less worry of hurting yourself..But dont get me wrong, I think its wrong to circumcise newborns..I think they should(aside from medical purposes) have the authority to make the decision themselves when they older. Just my opinon.
    I'm pretty much in the same boat and I agree with the above.

    I presume there should have been a negative in the last sentence though?... if not, I would say that I DONT believe parents should have the right to have circumcisions done for religious or cosmetic reasons. No more than they should have the right to have their kids little toe cut off or appendix removed unless a doctor approves the surgery for medical reasons.

    I'm circumcised for medical reasons and very happy with the whole set up down there thank you very much! :)

    DeV.


  • Options
    #350
    easychair
    Closed Accounts Posts: 905 ✭✭✭easychair


    DeVore wrote: »
    I'm pretty much in the same boat and I agree with the above.

    I presume there should have been a negative in the last sentence though?... if not, I would say that I DONT believe parents should have the right to have circumcisions done for religious or cosmetic reasons. No more than they should have the right to have their kids little toe cut off or appendix removed unless a doctor approves the surgery for medical reasons.

    I'm circumcised for medical reasons and very happy with the whole set up down there thank you very much! :)

    DeV.

    I think everyone is pretty much agreed that it's not desirable for parents to decide for their children to circumcise them, but it's another thing entirely to prevent them, by law, from having it done.

    Thankfully, in our society, it's possible to disagree without forcing those who disagree to our way of thinking. Education is so much better than forcing other to our way of thinking on this issue.


  • Options
    #351
    yawha
    Closed Accounts Posts: 695 ✭✭✭yawha


    Should I start the circle again or just leave this thread die?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #352
    easychair
    Closed Accounts Posts: 905 ✭✭✭easychair


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    As I said in my previous post, not all FGM is the same, look at the wiki article for the different levels. The less invasive forms (Type 1a and Type 4) are on the same level as male circumcision (NB I'm not trying to defend any form of FGM).


    Not to easychair, which is the point. In his libertarian mindset, parents have near cart-blanche to do what they like with their kids, they could have them tattooed and he wouldn't object.

    I'm afraid you haven't read what I have said previously about children being tattooed, and are incorrect to claim that I don't object to it.

    I also object to infant routine circumcision, and even children having their ears pierced.

    I'm happy to discuss, but it seems pointless trying to discuss if you are going to not read what I have said, and then claim my views are contrary to those which I have stated.


  • Options
    #353
    yawha
    Closed Accounts Posts: 695 ✭✭✭yawha


    You object to it, but don't think it's serious enough to outlaw it.

    Myself and others on this thread do.


  • Options
    #354
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    easychair wrote: »
    I'm afraid you haven't read what I have said previously about children being tattooed, and are incorrect to claim that I don't object to it.

    I also object to infant routine circumcision, and even children having their ears pierced.

    I'm happy to discuss, but it seems pointless trying to discuss if you are going to not read what I have said, and then claim my views are contrary to those which I have stated.

    Its not much of an objection if, when push comes to shove, you say that we cant stop parents from doing something that we think is wrong and justify yourself with moot "logic" and arbitrary, nonsensical line drawing.

    Like, yawha I can see you dragging this in circles again. If you start bringing up the same debunked points again (for the fourth time, I think it will be) I will respond, once, with links to posts that already debunk them and then just ignore you.


  • Options
    #355
    easychair
    Closed Accounts Posts: 905 ✭✭✭easychair


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Its not much of an objection if, when push comes to shove, you say that we cant stop parents from doing something that we think is wrong and justify yourself with moot "logic" and arbitrary, nonsensical line drawing.

    Like, yawha I can see you dragging this in circles again. If you start bringing up the same debunked points again (for the fourth time, I think it will be) I will respond, once, with links to posts that already debunk them and then just ignore you.

    My previous post was to correct the claims you made about my position which are factually incorrect, and had you actually read what I had said about, for example, tattooes and children, you would not need to make claims about my views which are incorrect.

    It is a fact that we can't stop parents making the decision to have their infant boys circumcised, and as has been explained before, even a change in the law to outlaw the process is unlikely to stop it, any more than in a previous time banning contraceptives prevented Irish people getting contraceptives, and banning alcohol in the USA prevented those affected obtaining alcohol. A lot of people who circumcise their young boys feel they have god on their side, and are likely to find ways around any law whose aim is to stop them, for example by having the procedure done outside the country or by claiming it is medically necessary with the connivance of a sympathetic doctor who may share their religious views.

    As this thread is largely about opinions regarding the practice of circumcision, its hard to know what "points" you feel have been "debunked". You don't say, and then go on to say that you aren't going to debate any further points except to (i) provide a link to a previous post or posts, and then (ii) ignore any further discussion. No one is forced to get involved or respond to any thread on boards.ie, and we are all free to contribute, or not, as we like.


  • Options
    #356
    easychair
    Closed Accounts Posts: 905 ✭✭✭easychair


    yawha wrote: »
    You object to it, but don't think it's serious enough to outlaw it.

    Myself and others on this thread do.

    I don't think it's possible to outlaw the practice in a way which will stop it.

    If you really think it possible to outlaw the practice perhaps you can outline (i) how you can frame a law which (a) prevents parents taking their children to another country to have the procedure done (b) claiming, with the help of a sympathetic medical person, that the procedure was medically necessary and (ii) tell us what penalties the law should proscribe for parents guilty of carrying out the procedure. Is it just one parent, or both, who should be prosecuted? Will parents who pierce their children's ears be similarly prosecuted. Or those who tattoo their underage children? If not, why not?

    For religious groups, such as Jews and Muslims, their opinion (ludicrous as it is) is that their sons can't properly worship god unless they have a piece of skin cut away from their penis. It's unlikely these groups would change their views due to a change in man's law, because for then god will always trump man, and it is certain that they will always find a way to carry out what they see as gods will.


  • Options
    #357
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    easychair wrote: »
    My previous post was to correct the claims you made about my position which are factually incorrect, and had you actually read what I had said about, for example, tattooes and children, you would not need to make claims about my views which are incorrect.

    It is a fact that we can't stop parents making the decision to have their infant boys circumcised, and as has been explained before, even a change in the law to outlaw the process is unlikely to stop it, any more than in a previous time banning contraceptives prevented Irish people getting contraceptives, and banning alcohol in the USA prevented those affected obtaining alcohol. A lot of people who circumcise their young boys feel they have god on their side, and are likely to find ways around any law whose aim is to stop them, for example by having the procedure done outside the country or by claiming it is medically necessary with the connivance of a sympathetic doctor who may share their religious views.

    As this thread is largely about opinions regarding the practice of circumcision, its hard to know what "points" you feel have been "debunked". You don't say, and then go on to say that you aren't going to debate any further points except to (i) provide a link to a previous post or posts, and then (ii) ignore any further discussion. No one is forced to get involved or respond to any thread on boards.ie, and we are all free to contribute, or not, as we like.

    I never said I wouldn't debate further points, I said I wouldn't follow you around in circles if (when) you brought up the same debunked points you have already brought up many times before.

    I already debunked the notion that we cant ban non-medical male circumcision here and here(where I pointed out that the "issues" you come up with apply to FGM, but that doesn't stop anyone from banning that). If you applied this line of reasoning honestly, ie that some people will still do something if we legislate against it, therefore dont legislate against it, then you would have to conclude that we can't have any laws, as you can always find an example of someone breaking any law because they think they are justified in doing it.


  • Options
    #358
    easychair
    Closed Accounts Posts: 905 ✭✭✭easychair


    Mark Hamill wrote: »

    I already debunked the notion that we cant ban non-medical male circumcision here and here(.

    We differ. While it is indeed possible to pass a law banning non-medical male circumcision, I can't agree that any ban would work or be effective for the reasons already given. Just because you have a view about something, doesn't mean that any differing views are not valid or reasonable, or that your view "debunks" (to use your curious word) anyone elses's views.

    It's fine to have different views!


  • Options
    #359
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,403 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    easychair wrote: »
    I can't agree that any ban would work or be effective for the reasons already given.
    Still, the laws blocking parents from, say, pulling out their kids' toenails seem to work ok. I can't see why similar rules can't apply, or be made to apply, to other body parts.


  • Options
    #360
    easychair
    Closed Accounts Posts: 905 ✭✭✭easychair


    robindch wrote: »
    Still, the laws blocking parents from, say, pulling out their kids' toenails seem to work ok. I can't see why similar rules can't apply, or be made to apply, to other body parts.

    If you are saying that you can't envisage parents who feel strongly about it having their sons circumcised for (nudge nudge wink wink) "medical " reasons with the cooperation of a sympathetic doctor?

    Many parents think god wants it for their sons, and I just can't see, for example, jews or muslims not finding similar ways around any attempt to prevent them doing it, by law. Or even breaking the law. No one has yet proposed (a) how you can prove a circumcision was not for medical reasons and (b) if you can, what punishment should be imposed on the (i) parent or (ii) both parents.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #361
    DeVore
    Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 32,387 Mod ✭✭✭✭DeVore


    If they circumvent the law, thats one thing (and a serious crime too).

    It doesnt mean we shouldnt have the law there.


    Many people circumvent the tax laws, the speeding laws etc etc... should we not bother having them too?


    DeV.


Advertisement