Circumcision - yes or no?

[Grad Students are the Worst]

I'm pretty vehemently opposed to infant circumcision outside of medical necessity, but these threads always seem like proxy debates over who has the Bestest Junk Ever.

I don't really care for a semantic debate about what "mutilation" is.  The question to me is whether there is medical or logical reason to preempt my kid's autonomy on this, which there isn't.  I've never seen a compelling argument that there is.  End of story; no hilarious masculine chest-thumping contests required.

[ZuWo]

You have to look at the impacts of a circumcision ban; you make it essentially impossible for Jews and Muslims to continue their religious life in a place where such a ban exists. I think the Jews are in an even greater jeopardy in such a scenario because the circumcision of a Jewish boy has to be carried out very early, which makes it very difficult for a Jewish family to look for safe ways to have their boy circumcised (e.g. find a doctor in another country where circumcision is legal). Muslim families might have more leeway because they usually have a lot more time to plan the circumcision of their son.

Discussing theories of "bodily integrity" and taking very libertarian stances on the issue on an internet forum is all well and good, but you have to think of the very practical effects of such a ban especially when it comes to Jews and the long-term survival of Judaism in the Western world. 

[Secretary Polnut]

You have to look at the impacts of a circumcision ban; you make it essentially impossible for Jews and Muslims to continue their religious life in a place where such a ban exists. I think the Jews are in an even greater jeopardy in such a scenario because the circumcision of a Jewish boy has to be carried out very early, which makes it very difficult for a Jewish family to look for safe ways to have their boy circumcised (e.g. find a doctor in another country where circumcision is legal). Muslim families might have more leeway because they usually have a lot more time to plan the circumcision of their son.

Discussing theories of "bodily integrity" and taking very libertarian stances on the issue on an internet forum is all well and good, but you have to think of the very practical effects of such a ban especially when it comes to Jews and the long-term survival of Judaism in the Western world. 

I know a few reform Jews who do not intend to circumcise if they have sons. I raised that similar point, as someone who has Jewish heritage and cares about it, despite being opposed to infant circumcision... their response was "being Jewish is far more than being circumcised".

[ZuWo]

I am aware that reform Jews exist and are a sizable part of the Jewish community. In fact, there are plenty of them who live in my part of the town, along with all kinds of orthodox, Eastern European or very liberal Jews. I also agree that Judaism is "much more than circumcision" but that doesn't change the fact that circumcision is an essential element of Judaism for the great majority of Jews. Thus, if this practice is banned it becomes nearly impossible for many Jews to lead a normal religious life as Dieter Graumann, chair of the Central Committee of German Jews, made clear. I think you could compare the impact a circumcision ban would have on the Jewish community with a ban on baptisms for Christians; while Christianity is of course much more than the practice of baptism, you would ban a central aspect of the Christian faith.

[Joe Republic]

I think you could compare the impact a circumcision ban would have on the Jewish community with a ban on baptisms for Christians; while Christianity is of course much more than the practice of baptism, you would ban a central aspect of the Christian faith.

No, I don't think you could compare the splashing of water on a baby's face with the permanent mutilation of a baby's penis.

[ZuWo]

I think you could compare the impact a circumcision ban would have on the Jewish community with a ban on baptisms for Christians; while Christianity is of course much more than the practice of baptism, you would ban a central aspect of the Christian faith.

No, I don't think you could compare the splashing of water on a baby's face with the permanent mutilation of a baby's penis.

I clearly did not state that the practices of circumcision and baptism are identical or even similar in any way. What I said was that the impact of a circumcision ban for the Jewish community would be comparable to the effect a ban of baptisms would have for Christians; a central aspect of the religion in question would become illegal, which would prevent many members of these religious groups from practicing their religion.

[Joe Republic]

Okay, if you want to play with flawed comparisons, what if there were a ban on the stoning to death of women for such crimes as cohabitation with another man?  Should we pity this poor, abused religious community for having their rights infringed?

[ZuWo]

Okay, if you want to play with flawed comparisons, what if there were a ban on the stoning to death of women for such crimes as cohabitation with another man?  Should we pity this poor, abused religious community for having their rights infringed?

The comparison you are making here is indeed flawed. Circumcision is an essential aspect of both Judaism and Islam, while the stoning to death of people isn't. Circumcision is a religious ritual, while stoning is a form of punishment. It is a condemnable practice and is, sadly, still practiced by extremists, but in no way is it on par with circumcision when it comes to its significance for Jews and Muslims.

Any religious practice which actually harms people in a clearly tangible way should obviously not be legal. But that's not the case with circumcision; there is no proof that it harms those who are involved. On the contrary, the example of millions of people who are circumcised and don't care and the lack of a clear scientific answer to the question whether circumcision is positive or negative show that circumcision is a harmless practice.

[Joe Republic]

Hey, I never said my comparison wasn't just as flawed as yours.  But at least mine was an example of a barbaric, irreversible, Stone Age ritual conducted against an unconsenting individual, just like the subject of this topic.

[Sibboleth]

For some reason I can never remember whether it actually made it into the final version of Sons and Lovers or whether I've only come across it in a published draft version, but Gertrude Morel seemed to regard the cutting of one of her son's hair (for the first time) by her husband as some sort of mutilation, or at least as a violation. And the author at least half endorses this. Of course Lawrence was a bit a weirdo, but it seems vaguely relevant.

[Grad Students are the Worst]

For some reason I can never remember whether it actually made it into the final version of Sons and Lovers or whether I've only come across it in a published draft version, but Gertrude Morel seemed to regard the cutting of one of her son's hair (for the first time) by her husband as some sort of mutilation, or at least as a violation. And the author at least half endorses this. Of course Lawrence was a bit a weirdo, but it seems vaguely relevant.

"vaguely relevant" seems to be the going theme of your posts in these topics!

[Sibboleth]

Vagueness is good. Shows a degree of self awareness, maybe.

[Gustaf]

Given the amount of abuse we already allow parents to subject their children too I'm unconvinced that this is a major issue.

It's not as if kids have a lot of rights anyway.

[Grad Students are the Worst]

Vagueness is good. Shows a degree of self awareness, maybe.

interesting that you'd phrase it that way.  Disappointing, but neurons have been stimulated, & etc.

[Communists For McCain]

Given the amount of abuse we already allow parents to subject their children too I'm unconvinced that this is a major issue.

It's not as if kids have a lot of rights anyway.

Kids are the n****rs of the world.-John Lennon

[Vasall des Midas]

I support genital integrity. I couldn't imagine what life would be like without a foreskin. Would it even be worth living?

OH man, it is so horrible!  Everyday I wake up wishing I were dead and how much better my life would be if my parents hadn't cut a flap of skin on my dick!

You're not the only one who wishes you dead and whose life would be better in that case, either.

[Hatman]

For some reason I can never remember whether it actually made it into the final version of Sons and Lovers or whether I've only come across it in a published draft version, but Gertrude Morel seemed to regard the cutting of one of her son's hair (for the first time) by her husband as some sort of mutilation, or at least as a violation. And the author at least half endorses this. Of course Lawrence was a bit a weirdo, but it seems vaguely relevant.

Hair grows back, though.

While my views on this subject are well known by this point, I just want to say I am not ignoring the fact that banning circumcision outright will not play well for certain religions. I do know it is a barbaric practice, but I also know that banning it comes with a whole slew of problems with angry religious folk.

[Kuu ülevaade olulisematest]

I do find the suggestions of the uncircumcised that my penis is somehow horribly disfigured at least a little bit offensive.

[freefair]

I was shocked to hear that 70% of US men had this done to them. I've never had a problem with it and mine wasn't, nor are most UK males.

[opebo]

It's hilarious how ~important~ people are making out having foreskin to be.

Well, obviously we'll never know, will we?

[Hatman]

I do find the suggestions of the uncircumcised that my penis is somehow horribly disfigured at least a little bit offensive.

No one said that.

[Secretary Polnut]

I do find the suggestions of the uncircumcised that my penis is somehow horribly disfigured at least a little bit offensive.

No one said that.

and the comments that cut Americans make about the uncut penis "it's dirty" "it's gross" "it looks weird"... are a little offensive too.

But neither of these sentiments have been expressed here... so let's not get into hyper-emotion here.

Again, I don't think there's a problem with BEING circumcised... I do have a problem with it happening to babies who cannot grant consent.

[There Are Some Remedies Worse Than The Disease]

I think the anti-circumcision people really do their side some negative things when they say "mutilation", I don't find it offensive or anything but it is kind of excessive hyperbole, and it's exactly why circumcised males usually do take them seriously. The thought process beings "Oh man I'm not mutilated, these people are nuts who don't have a clue what they're talking about." Even worse and what actually IS offensive is the comparison to the actual mutilation of girls that happens in some places in Africa and the Middle East (not that I've seen that here, but I have in other places, implying the two are even remotely comparable is quite disgusting.)

It's better to just focus on the consent issue than scream "OMG BABIES ARE BEING MUTILATED!"

[asexual trans victimologist]

It's hilarious how ~important~ people are making out having foreskin to be.

Well, obviously we'll never know, will we?

I could, but I still probably won't.

[Hatman]

I think the anti-circumcision people really do their side some negative things when they say "mutilation", I don't find it offensive or anything but it is kind of excessive hyperbole, and it's exactly why circumcised males usually do take them seriously. The thought process beings "Oh man I'm not mutilated, these people are nuts who don't have a clue what they're talking about." Even worse and what actually IS offensive is the comparison to the actual mutilation of girls that happens in some places in Africa and the Middle East (not that I've seen that here, but I have in other places, implying the two are even remotely comparable is quite disgusting.)

It's better to just focus on the consent issue than scream "OMG BABIES ARE BEING MUTILATED!"

It's still mutilation, but I will admit it's not as bad as what is done to those girls. Female circumcision ruins sex for them, while male circumcision just makes it less pleasurable.