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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Nigerian Cleared Over Circumcision Death

2»

Comments

  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,170 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Shabadu wrote:
    Female circumsision is a greater crime than male circumcision, as the damage done is immensley larger, not because of the sex involved.
    Both in my opinion are a crime regardless of the damage involved. Both are unneeded procedures which reduce the function of the genitals. While the male is lesser(other than the FGM type I refer to below), the idea that any such operation is acceptable for either sex due to culture/tradition is morally dubious. My point was that although FGM is unacceptable, the male isn't because it's considered a "normal" part of our culture with the same reasons given as for the female version(religion/tradition/cleanliness/reduction of sexual feeling etc). FGM practicioners could use the same argument. How are they wrong?

    If male circumsision involved removing the whole penis and testes, and sewing the flap over the urethera, and female circumcision involved removing a small bit of the labia minora, then male circumcision would be the greater crime, imo.
    Well there are some forms of lesser FGM which involve only removal of the clitoral hood and part of the labia, which would be comparable to the male circumcision. Would that be ok in that instance? Of course not. The fact is that keratinisation of the male glans that occurs after circumcision does reduce sexual function. Just because the male can still orgasm doesn't mean some function isn't lost. The male prepuce is there for a reason after all, to protect and lubricate the glans.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,958 ✭✭✭✭RuggieBear


    Mortmain wrote:
    The reason the judge asked the jury to forego their western standards is so the accused could be judged according to his actions and not according the the juy's values. The Jury were meant to decide the case according to relevant points of law only - not on their views regarding circumcision. For example, if a man is accused of rape and it seems 99.99999% likely that he committed the rape, but there is no concrete evidence - should he be convicted? The answer, of course has to be no for reasons based on the rule of law - this is the decision that must be reached despite the personal opinions of the jury.

    The question to be answered was "did the accused act in a fashion sufficiently negligent so as to render him guilty of a charge of reckless edangerment" - his actions, not his motives were at issue. It was held that he didn't as he carried it out the same way as he always did - and if the child had been brought to hospital quicker he would have survived.

    The Law does not operate within a bubble....


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,659 ✭✭✭Shabadu


    Wibbs- I also don't agree with male circumcision. I also take your point about there being different extremes of FGM.

    What I am trying to say is that the punishment is dictated by the crime, and an extreme form of female circumcision is a greater crime than male circumcision only when the damage caused is so much greater.

    You can't equate the two.
    My point was that although FGM is unacceptable, the male isn't because it's considered a "normal" part of our culture with the same reasons given as for the female version(religion/tradition/cleanliness/reduction of sexual feeling etc). FGM practicioners could use the same argument. How are they wrong?

    Because of the damge caused. Simple. Male circumcision is tolerated because it *is* far less severe and damaging than female circumcision. That is a fact.

    The fact is that keratinisation of the male glans that occurs after circumcision does reduce sexual function. Just because the male can still orgasm doesn't mean some function isn't lost. The male prepuce is there for a reason after all, to protect and lubricate the glans.

    At the end of the day- there are men who are glad they were circumcised. A LOT of men. There are some who aren't.

    How many women do you think are happy about it?


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,170 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Shabadu wrote:
    At the end of the day- there are men who are glad they were circumcised. A LOT of men. There are some who aren't.
    A lot are glad because they feel they "fit in" to the society that approves it. It certainly can't be for any increased sensitivity, as the fact is it reduces the sensitivity. If you can imagine the clitorus being exposed to the world without protection. How sensitive would it be after it basically calloused up? Others are happy because of medical treatment for a condition that requires it(very few. Most can be cured by less invasive procedures)
    How many women do you think are happy about it?
    Quite a few. As has been pointed out some even feel proud as they're now better marriage material in the societies that call for FGM. If they weren't happy to have it done, how come so many put their daughters forward for the procedure? Mainly because of the social pressures in those societies to have it done. A similar case can be made for the male form.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



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


    Wibbs wrote:
    A lot are glad because they feel they "fit in" to the society that approves it.
    I don't think I'd like to be the only kid in a Jewish school with a foreskin in the showers.

    Maybe the relevant question is how many circumsized teen/adult males wish they weren't?
    I would hazard a guess at next to none.

    Maybe that doesn't make it right in our "sheathed" eyes, but it sure as hell makes it more acceptable.
    Especially in the context of the particular society you are part of.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,170 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    I don't think I'd like to be the only kid in a Jewish school with a foreskin in the showers.
    Hardly a a basis for deciding if it's alright morally, is it? I'm sure many mutilated women in FGM societies feel they "fit in", otherwise, why does the procedure continue?
    Maybe the relevant question is how many circumsized teen/adult males wish they weren't?
    I would hazard a guess at next to none.
    Quite a few actually, especially those who have the procedure done at a later age when they can guage the difference. There are quite a few men out there trying to reconstruct their foreskins(I kid you not, google it). In fact I personally know 2 men who had it later in life who really regret it. Just because the loss is less because it's done to you as an infant, doesn't take away from the fact that loss is involved. I'm sure those who are born blind don't register the loss as much as those who go blind later. Regardless it doesn't take away from the fact that a valuable part of the male penile structure is taken away without consent. If FGM was done at birth would this make it more acceptable? hardly. So why is it acceptable to perform unneeded surgery on otherwise healthy male babies?
    Maybe that doesn't make it right in our "sheathed" eyes, but it sure as hell makes it more acceptable.
    Especially in the context of the particular society you are part of.
    If context is everything, why don't we take the context into account when describing and admonishing those societies that agree with FGM? While the damage is more obvious in FGM, damage is damage, male or female.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 21 Charles Bronson


    Judaism views circumcision as a religious ceremony, rather than just as surgery. Thus, it is recommended that a Mohel perform the circumcision. A Mohel is a Jew who has been trained in the physical procedures of circumcision and understands the religious significance of the ritual. If a mohel is not available, then a Jewish physician can perform the circumcision. It is customary to invite a rabbi to conduct the service.

    80 percent of American circumcisions do not meet ritual standards, because the surgical procedure alone does not fulfil the religious requirement, and since many sons of Jewish parents are circumcised in a hospital by physicians, there is often no religious component to the event, and, some would say, no covenant with God. One could argue that a hospital circumcision no more fulfils the divine requirement than no circumcision. Where ritual is concerned, it is the meaning of the act and not just the act itself that is important.

    Some Jews who choose not to circumcise but still want a ritual, change the ritual to omit the circumcision. They may include other ceremonial elements that are sensitive to the infant and the community. For example, something other than the infant’s body can be cut to symbolize the circumcision. An alternative ritual, sometimes referred to as a naming ceremony or “bris shalom,” may or may not be led by a rabbi. It has all the joy of the traditional ritual without the pain of the circumcision.

    The use of an alternative ritual has another advantage; it can be used for both male and female infants. The growing interest in an equivalent ceremony for girls illustrates how culturally bound practices must change to be compatible with evolving values. Reformist observant Jews accept that each generation needs to create contemporary forms of expressing its connection to its religious tradition. Judaism, as a patriarchal religion, has been influenced by the women’s movement.

    However, circumcision ceremonies are performed on African females as well as males. There are various types of female genital surgery. The procedure analogous to circumcision would be to remove the clitoral hood. Physiology is not an excuse for exclusively male ritual surgery. Rather than perform some kind of genital surgery on females, an idea that is repugnant and rejected by virtually all Jews, a ceremony without surgery for both sexes is the egalitarian solution.

    Jewish male circumcision rituals are based on a covenant with God. They are carried out by an experienced Mohel using the Mogen clamp, a tool made for the job. The Mogen clamp is considered by many to be superior to the Gomco device used by doctors i.e. it is quicker and inflicts less pain. They should not be compared to African male circumcision carried out using a razor blade by someone with little experience “he had seen the procedure performed” and without the common sense to recognise when something has gone wrong. This is a crime that should be punished. African female circumcision is based on suppressing female sexual desire. Any culture that considers males to have more rights then females should not be considered civilised. Women in most African societies are considered beneath there husbands.

    Ultimately, All Circumcisions performed without recourse to the recipient are barbaric in a modern society regardless of religion or culture.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,268 ✭✭✭✭Sleepy


    all the joy of the traditional ritual
    I'm sure the poor wee kid beeing sliced and diced is just full of joy during the circumcision :rolleyes:

    Good to see that the Jewish religion is starting to behave in a less barbaric manner though...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 483 ✭✭lazydaisy


    Does anyone know more details around the case? Did he phone 999 after he saw the child bleeding to death? Can you imagine the pain that child must have been in?

    Surely, if you accidentally kill a baby because you messed up snipping baby foreskin it is MANSLAUGHTER?

    How did that jury arrive at that crazy conclusion that he is not guilty?

    Was he able to just walk free?


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,689 Mod ✭✭✭✭stevenmu


    A friend of mine had to be circumcised fairly recently. The doctor performing the procedure got it a bit wrong and my friend kept bleeding, so the doctor tried patching him up a bit better. Things still weren't right and he kept bleeding so they had to patch him up again. The point is that the doctor checked to make sure the procedure was successful, and when it wasn't he took appropriate action.

    IMHO (admittedly without knowing all the details of the case), this guy should have been found guilty of negligence for not doing the same.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement