• Due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software, some users were "banned" when they tried to change their passwords at the end of February. This does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you were affected by this, please contact us.

State should outlaw non medical Circumcisions on Children

pauriceenjack

Active member
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
111
The practice of circumcision of children, male or female, for non-medical religious or cultural purposes is nothing short of a barbaric assault on non-consenting defenseless persons and a breach of their human rights as regards the integrity of one’s body.

The State should ensure both that the practice is illegal and that the law is enforced and should prohibit all hospitals and individuals from carrying out this practice.
 


FutureTaoiseach

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 20, 2005
Messages
7,980
Website
greatdearleader.blogspot.com
I agree it should be banned unless carried out by a qualified doctor.
 

Lulu84

Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
21
There's quite a difference between female 'circumcision' and male circumcision :roll:
 

CJH

Active member
Joined
Feb 24, 2004
Messages
214
Lulu84 said:
There's quite a difference between female 'circumcision' and male circumcision
True, though one could argue that the basic point remains the same

Circumcision affects sexual function in both males and females. But male circumcision has been accepted within certain traditions living here for centuries. I don't think it should be banned, but FT's point re a qualified doctor is a good one
 

pauriceenjack

Active member
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
111
The Child cannot lend their consent. The State through its agents and servants should not carry out such a barbaric assault because:

1 It is wrong
2 The child cannot give consent
3 The State could be sued for Assault if the procedure is for non medical purposes
 

Lulu84

Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
21
CJH said:
Lulu84 said:
There's quite a difference between female 'circumcision' and male circumcision
True, though one could argue that the basic point remains the same
Not really, female circumcision is intended to prevent sexual pleasure during intercourse.
Male circumcision is practiced on religious grounds or 'justified' on grounds of hygiene. That is may lessen to a degree sexual pleasure is not the same thing. The intent behind it is different.
 

adamirer

Well-known member
Joined
May 16, 2007
Messages
454
Yeah, I was circumcised.. no biggy.
Also an important part of some religions. Not barbaric at all, very common in states.
 

CJH

Active member
Joined
Feb 24, 2004
Messages
214
pauriceenjack said:
The Child cannot lend their consent. The State through its agents and servants should not carry out such a barbaric assault because:

1 It is wrong
2 The child cannot give consent
3 The State could be sued for Assault if the procedure is for non medical purposes
Well the consent thing is a non-issue. Parents/guardians have responsibility in such matters
 

pauriceenjack

Active member
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
111
FutureTaoiseach said:
I agree it should be banned unless carried out by a qualified doctor.
Doctors have no business carrying out the removal of parts of the body, with out the Victims consent , for non medical reasons.

Let them travel to some other Country for the procedure
 

Defeated Romanticist

Active member
Joined
Apr 12, 2007
Messages
277
CJH said:
pauriceenjack said:
The Child cannot lend their consent. The State through its agents and servants should not carry out such a barbaric assault because:

1 It is wrong
2 The child cannot give consent
3 The State could be sued for Assault if the procedure is for non medical purposes
Well the consent thing is a non-issue. Parents/guardians have responsibility in such matters
Not really. By that logic a parent could do anything to a child as they would have gaurdianship rights. Parents have the right to raise as they wish their children, but they don't have the right to violate the harm principle.

Yes, non-medical circumcisions should be banned.
 

pauriceenjack

Active member
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
111
Lulu84 said:
CJH said:
Lulu84 said:
There's quite a difference between female 'circumcision' and male circumcision
True, though one could argue that the basic point remains the same
Not really, female circumcision is intended to prevent sexual pleasure during intercourse.
Male circumcision is practiced on religious grounds or 'justified' on grounds of hygiene. That is may lessen to a degree sexual pleasure is not the same thing. The intent behind it is different.
Surely Medical Practioners should decide on issues such as Hygiene rather than Clerics.

Let the clerics look after the "Spiritual" welfare and leave health matters to those qualified.

If circumcision is a religous rite why should the State get involved no more than they should do so in getting involved in babtism
 

FutureTaoiseach

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 20, 2005
Messages
7,980
Website
greatdearleader.blogspot.com
pauriceenjack said:
FutureTaoiseach said:
I agree it should be banned unless carried out by a qualified doctor.
Doctors have no business carrying out the removal of parts of the body, with out the Victims consent , for non medical reasons.

Let them travel to some other Country for the procedure
I would agree to ban it were it not for the inevitable fact that this would just drive it underground. If it's going to happen anyway, then at least it should be done safely, and as such let it only be legal where done by a qualified physician.
 

stringjack

1
Moderator
Joined
Feb 8, 2003
Messages
3,887
Lulu84 said:
Not really, female circumcision is intended to prevent sexual pleasure during intercourse.
Male circumcision is practiced on religious grounds or 'justified' on grounds of hygiene. That is may lessen to a degree sexual pleasure is not the same thing. The intent behind it is different.
It's frequently argued that the intent is very similar (even in the religious cases).
 

adamirer

Well-known member
Joined
May 16, 2007
Messages
454
Lads, as a baby, the foreskin is tiny and it's over in seconds. Its very hygenic for the other 80 years of your life. Really, male anyway, not that big a deal.
 

pauriceenjack

Active member
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
111
FutureTaoiseach said:
pauriceenjack said:
FutureTaoiseach said:
I agree it should be banned unless carried out by a qualified doctor.
Doctors have no business carrying out the removal of parts of the body, with out the Victims consent , for non medical reasons.

Let them travel to some other Country for the procedure
I would agree to ban it were it not for the inevitable fact that this would just drive it underground. If it's going to happen anyway, then at least it should be done safely, and as such let it only be legal where done by a qualified physician.
Abortion is not legal under the current law, though it does not generally drive it underground.
 

FutureTaoiseach

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 20, 2005
Messages
7,980
Website
greatdearleader.blogspot.com
pauriceenjack said:
FutureTaoiseach said:
pauriceenjack said:
FutureTaoiseach said:
I agree it should be banned unless carried out by a qualified doctor.
Doctors have no business carrying out the removal of parts of the body, with out the Victims consent , for non medical reasons.

Let them travel to some other Country for the procedure
I would agree to ban it were it not for the inevitable fact that this would just drive it underground. If it's going to happen anyway, then at least it should be done safely, and as such let it only be legal where done by a qualified physician.
Abortion is not legal under the current law, though it does not generally drive it underground.
Yes but abortion is not something required by religion unlike circumcision for the Jews and Muslims.
 

pauriceenjack

Active member
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
111
So if a religion advocated abortion in the case of rape, does that mean the State and its servants should carry out the Abortion to appease a religion?

Or if a religion believed that the amputation of the index finger promoted hygiene by preventing children from picking their nose, would that justify the State and its servants carrying out the amputations?
 

FutureTaoiseach

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 20, 2005
Messages
7,980
Website
greatdearleader.blogspot.com
pauriceenjack said:
So if a religion advocated abortion in the case of rape, does that mean the State and its servants should carry out the Abortion to appease a religion?
Irrelevant because it isn't part of a religion. We have to work with the situation that pertains, not some imaginary one.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top