Why is circumcision of babies still legal in Ireland

Redsky121 · 17-07-2019 8:02am #1

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

JMNolan · 17-07-2019 8:11am

Because it's done to boys.

Autecher · 17-07-2019 8:20am

Redsky121 wrote: »

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

It's 8 in the morning Redsky, go out for a walk. This is not a good way to start your day.

greenspurs · 17-07-2019 8:20am

a nonsensical barbaric practice..

Bass Reeves · 17-07-2019 8:44am

Sorry lads I think you missunderstand it's circumcision not castaration

greenspurs · 17-07-2019 8:46am

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Sorry lads I think you missunderstand it's circumcision not castaration

So its okay to be done ? (circumcision) :rolleyes:

Wabbit Ears · 17-07-2019 8:50am

JMNolan wrote: »

Because it's done to boys.

Its a sad truth but this is the single main reason. A baby boy has no voice and by the time he has one hes had it normalized.

TuringBot47 · 17-07-2019 9:22am

Redsky121 wrote: »

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

Religion typically.

Wibbs · 17-07-2019 9:23am

Mix of reasons. The part removed was for a time considered just a useless piece of skin so no loss and if no adult males in your group had a fully functioning mickey how would you gauge any loss. Religious bronze age blood sacrifice nonsense which daftly hangs on in the 21st century. Group affiliation and tradition(my father had it done, I had it done, therefore...). 19th century medical quackery that stayed on in the west well into the 1950's as a fashion(and continued in places like the US to this day). More recently there would be some element of it happening to boys so less of a societal focus compared to girls. If there was a tradition/religious practice where the genitals of baby girls was just sliced and blood drawn but with no tissue removed there would be far more of an uproar and it would be banned in jig time.

is_that_so · 17-07-2019 9:24am

TuringBot47 wrote: »

Religion typically.

Here's the HSE take on it.
https://www.hse.ie/eng/health/az/c/circumcision/

suicide_circus · 17-07-2019 9:28am

This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your descendants after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. He that is eight days old among you shall be circumcised; every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house, or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring.

17-07-2019 9:31am

Sometimes it's medically necessary?

I used to argue this point, but yeah, have heard loads of arguments and there's no logical reason for elective (whose election?!) circumcision being legal in any modern society.

Any benefits are marginal, the downsides are universal.

Wibbs · 17-07-2019 9:38am

suicide_circus wrote: »

This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your descendants after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. He that is eight days old among you shall be circumcised; every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house, or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring.

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.

topper75 · 17-07-2019 10:04am

Autecher wrote: »

It's 8 in the morning Redsky, go out for a walk. This is not a good way to start your day.

Sanity and justice can be round the clock affairs for some.

TheValeyard · 17-07-2019 10:20am

I like the tip. It's going nowhere.

copperhead · 17-07-2019 10:22am

What's your problem op?
Its no skin off your ooooooooohhh

TheValeyard · 17-07-2019 10:23am

the beer revolu · 17-07-2019 10:24am

I'd happily see it banned here (except in the rare medical circumstances) but it would cause all sorts of hysteria for religious quarters.
I'd go even further and ban piercing children's ears until they are old enough to consent.

17-07-2019 10:32am

I think it should be banned except in cases of paraphimosis.

Just don’t understand how it’s permissible to go cutting off pieces from a baby’s body.

It’s genital mutilation, nothing more.

banie01 · 17-07-2019 10:33am

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Sorry lads I think you missunderstand it's circumcision not castaration

Following that logic, Female Circumcision is perfectly fine too?
As it doesn't impact fertility?

Would it be a clearer choice if Men campaigned and called it Male Genital Mutilation?

Male circumcision for purely Religious reasons or as a matter of parental choice is something I have an issue with as it presents concerns over the actual bodily autonomy and consideration afforded the child.

That said, there are studies in Sub Saharan Africa that show circumcision offers a degree of prophylaxis against HIV transmission and couple that with evidence that circumcised males have a lower incidence of penile cancers.

That said, the same evidence also could be interpreted to mean that better hygiene and cleaning of the foreskin can achieve similar results.

To lay my own cards on the table.
I have a son who is circumcised. Not due to any cultural or religious norm.
Rather as a toddler he suffered from a regular stream of UTI's that a Urologist confirmed was due to phimosis.
Despite our efforts to stretch it, no joy.
He had the Op, and in the 13 years since he has had no further UTI.

So my TL:DR is this.
Imposing it on babies without medical necessity is wrong IMO.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 17-07-2019 10:37am

Americans are SO indoctrinated about circumcision that it’s scary. Americans I respect otherwise.

“It’s more hygienic to be circumcised.” - will you ever go and shíte.

Any medical procedure has a cost-benefit analysis. With circumcision, it tips far towards cost over benefit. Babies have immature immune systems. Taking a knife to a baby for cosmetic reasons? What?

A small amount of procedures are botched. Like I said, where there is a great benefit to a procedure, that risk is acceptable. But of there is no real benefit, how is that okay?

Wabbit Ears · 17-07-2019 12:15pm

I dont think its unreasonable to ban cosmetic, non medical, procedures which are irreversible on anyone who cant give consent.

Any piercing, male and female genital mutilation etc can wait.

Also, most of the pros of circumcision are extremely questionable, especially the AIDS one.

BrokenArrows · 17-07-2019 12:58pm

Because it's done to boys and nobody really cares about negative sexual things done to men.

Also because it's a Jewish thing, and to call the Jewish tradition backward will result in you being called an antisemite.

If a minister was to stand up in the Dail and strongly oppose female genital mutilation then he would be a hero.

If the same thing is to be said for men then he would be called an antisemite, racist and probably lose his job.

Idle Passerby · 17-07-2019 1:06pm

I disagree with circumcising boys without any medical reason. However it's not standard practice to circumcise without a medical reason in Ireland. I'm sure there are those that choose to have it done for religious reasons but i can't imagine it's widespread in this country when the religions that require circumcision are in the minority. Maybe take your outrage to the US where it's done as standard on every baby.

end of the road · 17-07-2019 1:48pm

Idle Passerby wrote: »

I disagree with circumcising boys without any medical reason. However it's not standard practice to circumcise without a medical reason in Ireland. I'm sure there are those that choose to have it done for religious reasons but i can't imagine it's widespread in this country when the religions that require circumcision are in the minority. Maybe take your outrage to the US where it's done as standard on every baby.

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

Bass Reeves · 17-07-2019 3:19pm

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.

Ush1 · 17-07-2019 3:40pm

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.

Is that not the case?

SusieBlue · 17-07-2019 3:42pm

It should be banned and parents prosecuted unless its done for medically necessary reasons - for both genders.

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

We don't remove tonsils or appendix at birth either so the whole "prevention is better than cure" doesn't wash with me. Its a disgusting practice that should be outlawed.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 17-07-2019 3:42pm

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.

It’s also generally unnecessary in countries where it’s commonplace so if it does go badly wrong, in hospital which it occasionally will, it’s been for no good reason. In America if it was outlawed, do you honestly think people would start doing the procedure themselves in great numbers?

Low risk isn’t no risk and when the procedure isn’t carried out to cure a medical problem and goes wrong, that’s just unacceptable, IMO. It’s in no way comforting to the affected boy that botching is rare.

end of the road · 17-07-2019 3:45pm

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.

it wouldn't be a total bann as there are some medical issues which would require it but other then that you could implement a 50 year jail sentence for anyone who procures such a procedure and carries it out. that would probably go a long way to insure no underground services. a 50 year jail sentence for going abroad to have it done also.
both mgm and fgm should have very very serious consequences for those who procure and carry it out.

Bass Reeves wrote: »

You could make the same case for outlawing tattoo's in U18's, piercing ear's, navels or nose's.

you could and you would have a very good case. lets do it. there is absolutely no requirement or reason for children and babies to have any of that done.

Bass Reeves wrote: »

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.

in the cases of mgm where not medically required, and most of what you mentioned, it is a sensible state removing as much risk as possible to people who cannot concent to taking on those risks.

SusieBlue · 17-07-2019 3:46pm

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.

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.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 17-07-2019 3:52pm

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 · 17-07-2019 3:54pm

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 · 17-07-2019 3:57pm

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 · 17-07-2019 4:00pm

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 · 17-07-2019 4:12pm

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

BrokenArrows · 17-07-2019 4:15pm

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 · 17-07-2019 4:16pm

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 · 17-07-2019 4:24pm

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 · 17-07-2019 5:07pm

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 · 17-07-2019 5:19pm

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

ohnonotgmail · 17-07-2019 5:22pm

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 · 17-07-2019 5:31pm

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 · 17-07-2019 5:55pm

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 · 17-07-2019 5:56pm

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 · 17-07-2019 6:28pm

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 · 17-07-2019 6:32pm

very nasty

One eyed Jack · 17-07-2019 6:38pm

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 · 17-07-2019 7:41pm

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 · 17-07-2019 7:47pm

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 · 17-07-2019 7:54pm

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.

Why is circumcision of babies still legal in Ireland

Comments