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

Why is circumcision of babies still legal in Ireland

Options
13»

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    hussey
    Registered Users Posts: 6,240 ✭✭✭hussey


    I used to work in the circus circumcising elephants.
    Wages were pretty low, but the tips were huge.

    Unfortunately I lost my eye-sight, and then I got the sack.





    (sorry, I'll get my coat)


  • Options
    #63
    Mousewar
    Registered Users Posts: 2,741 ✭✭✭Mousewar


    No one posted the Hitchins clip yet?


  • Options
    #64
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    banie01 wrote: »
    That said, there are studies in Sub Saharan Africa that show circumcision offers a degree of prophylaxis against HIV transmission

    If you are referring to the studies I think you are - which you might not be - then in the studies the authors very very clearly stated that their findings should not at all be transferred to any assumptions related to western culture. That their findings within Africa are therefore essentially not arguments for circumcision here in the EU or the US. I can dig out this quote if you require.
    banie01 wrote: »
    and couple that with evidence that circumcised males have a lower incidence of penile cancers.

    Not sure that evidence is as convincing as you think - again assuming you are read the same things I have. Perhaps if I knew what you were referring to specifically I could say more. But if you can not remember then I can speak more generally too.
    end of the road wrote: »
    or we could keep our outrage here in ireland, the country where we live.

    Which you are more than welcome to do. Just as others of us are more than welcome to realise we are part of a global community - and we feel that places some onus on us to have a global conversation. Especially with those with whom we share trade - and other agreements and relationships with.
    Bass Reeves wrote: »
    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.

    Not sure that comparison holds. There is a difference between limiting children's options and activities that can assist their growth and development as a human individual - just because of low risks of detrimental outcomes - and limiting parental options related to a 100% irreversible and seemingly unnecessary procedure that affords no apparent benefits at all.

    Really your point seems like a hyperbolic version of the slippery slope fallacy amounting to nothing more than "Sure if you go nanny on one thing you will have to go nanny on them all!" which is itself just a bogus whataboutery deflection really.
    Evd-Burner wrote: »
    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.

    While your situation is unfortunate it is not informative in this context. That 1 in a million children _might_ have an issue with a body part later in life is not a useful statistic in a discussion about whether it is justifiable to remove that body part from all children or large groups of them purely for cosmetic reasons.

    We do not remove tonsils and the appendix at birth either. Yet the occasional child has suffered and some even _died_ because of theirs. I wonder if their parents are also saying "If only we could have removed them when they were babies and we would not have had this problem".

    It would take more than a few isolated cases to justify an entire program really. Or at least it should.


  • Options
    #65
    riclad
    Registered Users Posts: 8,184 ✭✭✭riclad


    On tv tonight bbc 1 10.35 pm, a cut too far ?
    documentary about circumcision in the uk.
    Is it necessary, should it be banned ?
    is it an outmoded practice .
    i think its wrong and barbaric to carry out surgery that is unneccessary in most case,s .
    i think in america its almost taken for granted, its routine .
    Most people in ireland do it as part of a religious tradition .


  • Options
    #66
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users Posts: 7,236 ✭✭✭mcmoustache


    Evd-Burner wrote: »
    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!

    Did you ask a doctor about it when it seemed tight? If a doctor didn't mention circumcision as an option, it would be a bit negligent in my opinion.

    A tight foreskin is a legit reason for a circumcision.


    While I'm here, here's a funny story about foreskins although maybe it should be avoided if you're squeamish.

    Back when I was a teen and started being sexually active for the first time, my foreskin split about half way down on the top side. I had serious problems pissing for a few days. A few days after that, I gave it another go, and it split again. Silly I know but I was a teenager and teens are horny and stupid. This time I let it heel up and it hasn't happened since.

    There's no point to that story. In my case the foreskin wasn't so tight that it needed to be removed. I just needed to get better at using it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users Posts: 7,236 ✭✭✭mcmoustache


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    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.

    This is a relatively new one to me but I would think that this should be a decision for the person owning those bits. I would hate to have my genitals removed without my consent, even if it happened in the past. They're my bits, dammit!


  • Options
    #68
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,695 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    mcmoustache wrote: »
    This is a relatively new one to me but I would think that this should be a decision for the person owning those bits. I would hate to have my genitals removed without my consent, even if it happened in the past. They're my bits, dammit!


    I know where you’re coming from but realistically, parents make decisions for their children all the time, and their children aren’t in a position to argue what is in their own best interests, particularly when they’re infants. Those people arguing that their consent was never sought at the time are now adults making those arguments. It’s why I said earlier I was glad that I wasn’t born into a culture where circumcision is still widely practiced, but the chances are if I had been born into that culture - I’d be of the opinion that circumcision at birth is acting in the child’s best interests.

    Same kinda thing applies to infants born with intersex conditions - whether they are actually a “condition” that requires remedying is less of a medical matter, and more of a cultural and ethical matter as to whether or not to remove any ambiguity is acting in the child’s best interests. That’s why it’s so contentious as a wider issue, but at a parental level at least, IMO it should be a decision made by the child’s parents as to whether or not to circumcise or remove ambiguity regarding the child’s sex.


  • Options
    #69
    Vincent Vega
    Registered Users Posts: 1,735 ✭✭✭Vincent Vega


    Israel in Ireland wants to:

    unDZ4pd.png Know your location


  • Options
    #70
    0lddog
    Registered Users Posts: 3,292 ✭✭✭0lddog


    I hope you lot are looking at the BBC 1 program on the topic that is on now.

    Their angle seems to be " its the norm in Islam" ( and with jews )

    What next ? Bring back the Spanish Inquisition ?

    That'll put an end to it


  • Options
    #71
    riclad
    Registered Users Posts: 8,184 ✭✭✭riclad


    Yes ,parents make decisions for children all the time,
    but i,m not in favour of medical operations on children that are not needed and have no positive outcome unless it is recommended by a
    doctor for a specific reason.
    Just because parents do something does not make it right .
    Many parents drink to excess or use illegal drugs or do not let their children get vaccinated .
    I doubt if infants are asked permission do you want this operation carried out.
    They have no choice .
    irish society has changed , at one time in ireland if a woman got married
    she would have to stop working,
    single women who got pregnant where sent to work in laundrys .
    Divorce was not legal in ireland .
    We have more laws now in favour of women, minority groups and the protection of children .
    Just saying ,ah sure , let parents decide everything about childcare is not a logical excuse in favour of circumcision .


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    riclad wrote: »
    Yes ,parents make decisions for children all the time

    Sure but that can be a cop out argument too. Parents do make decisions on behalf of their children all the time - but within the confines that we as a society allow them to. That parents make a certain list of decisions for their children all the time - is not at all a relevant argument as to whether they should or should not be allowed make any given decision that comes under discussion.

    For example what would happen to you if you decided that what is best for your child would be to deny them and and all education of any sort? That they should not be taught to read - write - work with numbers - or learn any history or language. They should be kept out of school entirely.

    Beware those who leave the specific subject and rely on general statements instead. The question of this thread appears not to be "Do parents make decisions for their children?" but "Should parents be allowed to make _this_ decision for their children?".

    In fact the fact we make decisions on behalf of our children places a larger onus on us to make sure that the choices we make are justified and defensible and are likely to ultimately benefit the child in some way. I am yet to see any evidence that cutting bits off them for cosmetic reasons will achieve that standard.


  • Options
    #73
    riclad
    Registered Users Posts: 8,184 ✭✭✭riclad


    I,m saying that parents are fallible or they not always right .
    Sometimes they make mistakes .
    You do not own child, its not like buying a bike or a car.
    Your child has human rights.
    i do not think parents should have the right to have medical operations on a child just for cosmetic reasons or religious reasons .
    If someone as an adult decides he wants to get circumcised
    well thats a different matter .
    Any child has certain basic human rights which are separate who who happens to be their parent .
    I do not think any operation should be performed on any child unless
    there is a specific medical reason for it and it is decided by a medical expert , ie its not just for cosmetic or religious reasons .


  • Options
    #74
    two wheels good
    Registered Users Posts: 1,996 ✭✭✭two wheels good


    From a UK Independent newspaper article

    Defenders of male circumcision sometimes try to justify the practice by citing “health benefits”. Throughout history, male circumcision has been advocated as a pseudo-medical cure for a variety of ailments ranging from TB to epilepsy to warts to excessive masturbation.

    But no national medical, paediatric, surgical or urological society in the world recommends routine circumcision of boys as a health intervention. In truth, circumcision is a solution in search of a problem. As the medical ethicist Brian Earp has pointed out, “A large proportion of the current medical literature purporting to show health benefits for male circumcision has been generated by doctors who were themselves circumcised at birth – often for religious reasons – and who have cultural, financial, or other interests in seeing the practice preserved.”


  • Options
    #75
    two wheels good
    Registered Users Posts: 1,996 ✭✭✭two wheels good


    From the same Independent article:

    Just last week reports emerged of a one-month-old baby having to have his penis amputated in Egypt after it turned gangrenous following a circumcision. Earlier this year, two baby boys died in Italy after their genitals were cut for religious reasons. Circumcisions in the UK have also resulted in serious injury and deaths.


  • Options
    #76
    Cork Trucker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,553 ✭✭✭Cork Trucker


    My son’s are not circumcised, nor am I, however the school doctor did push for my parents to get it done as I had to get something else done around there 35 years ago, they refused and thank god they did. Bar a tight banjo string which I snapped in my 20’s I’ve had no issue. The same will apply to my sons, they will not be circumcised despite it being suggested when they were born. I asked the doctors were they circumcised or did they get their children done, no surprise they refused to answer.


  • Options
    #77
    Buford T. Justice XIX
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,633 ✭✭✭✭Buford T. Justice XIX


    two wheels good wrote: »
    From a UK Independent newspaper article

    Defenders of male circumcision sometimes try to justify the practice by citing “health benefits”. Throughout history, male circumcision has been advocated as a pseudo-medical cure for a variety of ailments ranging from TB to epilepsy to warts to excessive masturbation.

    But no national medical, paediatric, surgical or urological society in the world recommends routine circumcision of boys as a health intervention. In truth, circumcision is a solution in search of a problem. As the medical ethicist Brian Earp has pointed out, “A large proportion of the current medical literature purporting to show health benefits for male circumcision has been generated by doctors who were themselves circumcised at birth – often for religious reasons – and who have cultural, financial, or other interests in seeing the practice preserved.”

    Just a point of clarification on that post. One of the doctors interviewed last night, the Jewish one iirc, said there may be a small case to be made in favour of circumcision in under developed countries for hygiene reasons but that reasoning couldn't be applied to most of the developed world.


  • Options
    #78
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    If parents decided that their kid didn’t need some of their fingers, or their adult teeth once they’d grown in, would anyone be defending child abuse by talking about parental rights? F*ck’s sake like, this is so obviously an evil and barbaric practice which should be outlawed, that I’m honestly amazed any debate is needed over it.


  • Options
    #79
    Lirange
    Registered Users Posts: 2,096 ✭✭✭Lirange


    riclad wrote: »
    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 .

    The combined Muslim and Jewish population in the US is 2.5%. It is twice that in the UK. The reason it continues to be common in the US is mainly down to inertia and social pressure. Fathers want their sons to be like them. I have talked to an American that did not even realise he had any procedure done until he was an adult. He just thought he was born that way.


  • Options
    #80
    riclad
    Registered Users Posts: 8,184 ✭✭✭riclad


    Maybe the insurance industry in america pays for it,
    the more surgerys that accur the more profit they make, the hospitals
    charge the insurers for it.
    Most operations in the usa are not free ,someone has to pay for it.
    America has the most expensive health care system in the world .
    one year drug x is 100 dollars,the next year its 1000 dollars .
    in todays gaurdian theres a review .


    https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2019/jul/18/a-cut-too-far-male-circumcision-review-an-act-of-love-or-an-assault

    The conclusion of the program is this operation is not medically necessary,
    its mainly done for the sons of muslims and jews in the uk.



    qoute ;
    Likewise with psychotherapist and Jewish feminist Dr Jenny Goodman, who has been taking issue with circumcision in her community for three decades and declined to have her own son undergo it when he was born 20 years ago. She considers it an issue of children’s and mothers’ rights; to be required to deny the maternal urge to protect your newborn, she points out, is profoundly disempowering. Uncircumcised boys remain Jewish in law and in practice, so why cleave to what for at least half the population is an unnatural practice?

    In america it seems to be part of medical practice so it go,s on
    unchallenged by anyone .

    its well known by experts its not a good idea to perform any unnecessary operations on the human body ,unless there is a specific medical reason for it.


Advertisement