Atheist Ireland Forum

But wouldn't they just do it themselves anyway, which would be more dangerous. I recall a home-made attempt in Ireland a while back , at least in the hands of the professionals there is accountability.

This is a fair point; but at the same time, if they do try to do it at home they should be held legally accountable for physically maiming an infant or child. I imagine Western medical practitioners don't perform female genital mutilation either, but nobody would dream of adding that to available medical services to make sure parents don't do it themselves.

Very true, didn't think of that, this will make an interesting debate.

That last line really sums it up. I'd be very angry with my parents if they had done this to me as a child. If I was a doctor I would refuse to carry out the procedure on the grounds of it being medically unethical.

I can't envisage how this would work out if the ban was passed. I don't know many Jewish or Muslim people so don't know how they'd react - the article seems to have interviewed fairly devout people. Does anyone else have a better perspective on how it would be taken by the wider community?

My view is that unless there is a medical reason for the op (which is sometimes the case), no medical professional should be obliged to perform this "service".

My particular experience with Jewish and Muslim people is that they are generally far more devout in their respective religions than the average Western Christian. I think it's a result of two main factors: One, both religions have laws that apply to daily life in a more pervasive way than Christianity, dietary laws being a prime example. Two, Islam and Judaism haven't adapted to modern Western values. They haven't had to: Islam has mostly been practised in largely traditional, Eastern countries and immigration of Muslims to Western countries is still a very recent occurrence. Jewish people have of course lived in the West for longer, but mostly in very insular communities.

There are less devout members of both religions, but they are the "cultural" Jews who are more about dreidels and bar mitzvahs than they are about kosher. And in Islam, we can see the affects of the West already on younger Muslims who are second-generation immigrants. I don't think it will take many generations for a Western Islam to exist alongside Western Christianity.

As for now, I think the interviewees in the article represent the demographics fairly well. Circumcision is a religious tradition akin to baptism. Luckily, the Christians went with a more benign celebration of birth, but I don't think people who practise these religions will see it that way.

Which I why I like the Dutch for this. Circumcision is a ritual, not a regular religious observance. Nobody is calling for anyone to stop observing their religion. They are being asked instead to validate their ritual. Solid medical grounds are being used to oppose it, and the only reason being returned is:


And:


Compelling these people to give a better explanation than that brings the fallacy of their beliefs into focus.

If the Muslim motivation is simply to "cut the things that grow", they must explain why they interpret this to specifically refer to the foreskin. Why not also remove the nose and earlobes of a baby too. These too, are "things that grow"

As for the Jewish assertion that "What God tells us to do, we must do", why aren't they stoning adulterous women in Jerusalem any more?

They claim the right to mutilate their children on the basis that they are carrying our their god's instructions, and to do otherwise would go against their beliefs. In that case they should be made to answer why they do not obey every instruction from their god. Why would failing to remove their son's foreskin be more offensive to their god than failing to kill someone who turned on a light on the sabbath?

Each belief carries instructions to kill non-believers. While they happily get on with doing this in their own back yards, they cannot condone that when on the world stage. Because the world stage is secular. The global community couldn't exist if it was otherwise. And the secular moral code is of a standard that is too high for most religions. It respects people that religion would condemn. It values life, liberty and the rights of the individual. It asks people only to obey the community, the opinions of which can be challenged, not a god who's ancient word is final.

If your God told you to do something as heinous as mutilate a child, then we have a right to ask you to prove that god exists. And until you can, we say leave the kid with his foreskin until he's old enough to decide for himself what he wants to do with it. And I'd leave that decision until at least 16.

+1

It's probably worth mentioning that there is a small (but growing) number of Jews who do not practice circumcision: http://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.com/
Also interesting is that circumcision is not obligatory for Muslim converts who have passed puberty. Something of a double standard.

So far as I know, in the Netherlands it's already the case that no doctor is obliged to perform this service (male infant circumcision). The issue for debate is whether doctors should be allowed to do so.

About 15% of the male population of the Netherlands is circumcised, nearly all in infancy. About half of these come from communities where there is a religious/cultural expectation of circumcision. The other half are circumcised either in the hope of some medical or psychosexual advantage, or for essentially cosmetic reasons.

You left out the medically necessary operations.

Medically necessary circumcision in infancy is rare. There are not many conditions which occur in infancy and which require to be treated by circumcision. They would make no appreciable difference to the 15% circumcision figure in the Netherlands.

Circumcision for medical advantage is a different matter. Although the advantage gained is modest (and is arguably counterbalanced by other disadvantages) there is evidence that circumcision has prophylactic benefits; it reduces somewhat the likelihood of your developing certain (quite nasty) conditions in later life. And that often forms part of the rationale for infant circumcision. But I don't think it counts as a medical necessity.

Having just spent days many hours at a hospital with my young son who underwent a necessary circumcision, I would be curious to see the statistics on that, if there are any.

Not really my field, Feardorcha, but I'll see if I can dig some up.

I wish your son a rapid and complete recovery!