Should underage male (non-medical) circumcision be banned?

[MalaspinaGold]

True I know that's how Chabad for one approaches the issue (and assume that's true for the rest of the Orthodox). Then again I don't really accept that meaning for a couple reasons:
1) There is no reciprocal where someone is born "within the tribe" but doesn't actually belong to it. According to Orthodox interpretation, if you're born a Jew, you'll always be a Jew. Don't ask me why the lack of symmetry bothers me so much in this regard, but it does.
2) It's way too Calvinistic a concept for my liking.

However point taken.

[LLR]

None of the goyim in this thread have been able to convince me how circumcision is a harmful procedure

[Figueira]

None of the goyim in this thread have been able to convince me how circumcision is a harmful procedure

Not a goy, so I can't help you there. However, I'll admit that it might be a moot point since there might be medical benefits (though I'm not sold on that). It's just that in principle, I am opposed to any procedure that permanently alters people because of a religion or culture they may want to leave a few years later.

[MalaspinaGold]

None of the goyim in this thread have been able to convince me how circumcision is a harmful procedure

Not a goy, so I can't help you there. However, I'll admit that it might be a moot point since there might be medical benefits (though I'm not sold on that). It's just that in principle, I am opposed to any procedure that permanently alters people because of a religion or culture they may want to leave a few years later.

Does this apply to ear piercing?

[Green Line]

Everyone around me that Im aware of (obviously I dont go around asking everyone this) is circumcised, for non-religious reasons.  I wasn't even aware that it was controversial in the slightest.  You learn something knew every day.

[Tartarus Sauce]

This is one of those issues where I should in theory be vehemently opposed to a practice on principle but am far more apathetic about in reality. As an American non-practicing Jew, my circumcision was guaranteed and I'm glad it happened when I was a baby instead of forming memories of the event at a later age. I don't feel bound to Judaism because of it either.

The reasons for why circumcision became enacted outside of Jewish circles in America were atrocious, with anti-masturbatory doctors at the turn of the 20th century believing it would reduce the urge for self-stimulation and advocating for everybody to circumcise their babies. Thankfully, they were completely wrong, but the bizarre tradition continued nonetheless. Now it's mostly justified for "hygienic" reasons (the benefits of which are overblown if you asked me) and cultural norms (I believe over 70% of American men are circumcised if I recall correctly).

The medical community can't seem to get its opinions straight on the practice either, with some groups claiming male circumcision is harmful to sexual performance while others assert even mild benefits for the practice. It's not like female genital mutilation which has certainly no health benefits, a greater host of medical complications, and is intended to oppress sexuality and is successful at doing so.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Of course. It's mutilation without consent. At some point we have to have the courage to stop tap dancing around offending people of a certain faith and stand up to say that the religion is just plain wrong. Hacking off the end of a child's penis is horrifying and serves no reasonable purpose whatsoever.

People always get defensive when talking about this topic for obvious personal reasons, but just think about what the process actually involves.

[DavidB.]

People always get defensive when talking about this topic for obvious personal reasons, but just think about what the process actually involves.

What makes you think supporters of circumcision don't know "what the process actually involves"?

[HagridOfTheDeep]

People always get defensive when talking about this topic for obvious personal reasons, but just think about what the process actually involves.

What makes you think supporters of circumcision don't know "what the process actually involves"?

The fact that they are finding a way to rationalize hacking off the tip of a tiny human being's penis without consent. But you're right: Perhaps I shouldn't similarly rationalize their position by assigning them the benefit of ignorance. Some are just heartless and set in their ways because muh tradition101!

[Filuwaúrdjan]

This is one of those subjects that should never be discussed on the internet.

It's nice to be right.

[DavidB.]

The fact that they are finding a way to rationalize hacking off the tip of a tiny human being's penis without consent. But you're right: Perhaps I shouldn't similarly rationalize their position by assigning them the benefit of ignorance. Some are just heartless and set in their ways because muh tradition101!

[Cassius]

Circumcision is a procedure that rarely harms anyone (aside from a tiny number of... accidents), and is, of course, an important element of Jewish custom (forgive me if I have phrased this clumsily). More to the point, talk of babies and 'consent' misses the fundamental practicality that babies are in no position to consent to anything, be it how they are fed, where they are taken, the style of their hair (I mean on that point I came out of the womb with a full head of Michael Heseltine hair) etc. They are, to all intents and purposes, the property of their parents (a special kind of property to be sure but property none the less), and so the decision for circumcision is really up to the mother and the father.

[MalaspinaGold]

People always get defensive when talking about this topic for obvious personal reasons, but just think about what the process actually involves.

What makes you think supporters of circumcision don't know "what the process actually involves"?

The fact that they are finding a way to rationalize hacking off the tip of a tiny human being's penis without consent. But you're right: Perhaps I shouldn't similarly rationalize their position by assigning them the benefit of ignorance. Some are just heartless and set in their ways because muh tradition101!

As a Jew I find all sorts of body piercings to be disgusting, heartless, disrespectful, to the human body etc. However I do not endorse banning these practices, even for minors that cannot consent (let is recall that in many cultures these are quite common). Nor do I spend time flapping my arms around crying about how HEARTLESS it is that parents are letting their children drill holes into their skin. I suggest you find something else to whine about.

[Green Line]

^ Yes.  Why must you be such a whiny brat. Don't like it?  Dont do it to your kids then, that is your perogative.  It's none of your business if other parents do it to their own.

[politicallefty]

I'm inclined to say yes. I just think it's fundamentally wrong to do something like that and make a permanent physical alteration to an unconsenting minor. To be fair, I am somewhat sympathetic to religious arguments, but I just don't they trump the right to bodily autonomy. I think children do retain certain rights to the effect that they are not property of their parents. Admittedly, my bigger issue on the subject is the prevalence of non-religious circumcision. By far, the most common reasons in this country are to look like the father or because of culturally-derived aesthetic reasons. Those are really quite disturbing reasons to perform any cosmetic procedure on a minor child. I mean, has any son ever thought about how close his penis matches his father's? Somehow, I really doubt it.

Everyone around me that Im aware of (obviously I dont go around asking everyone this) is circumcised, for non-religious reasons.  I wasn't even aware that it was controversial in the slightest.  You learn something knew every day.

That's not surprising, considering you're from the Midwest, though I don't know how old you are. Non-medical circumcision is pretty much limited to Muslims, Jews, some African tribes, the Philippines, South Korea, and a majority of Americans. Even in the US, the current rate is now about 55%, down from about 85% in the 1960s. Prior to the 80s, it pretty much wasn't questioned. Now, it varies widely by region and by state, from 25% in the West to 75% in the Midwest and from 10% in Nevada to 90% in West Virginia.

[MalaspinaGold]

I'm inclined to say yes. I just think it's fundamentally wrong to do something like that and make a permanent physical alteration to an unconsenting minor. To be fair, I am somewhat sympathetic to religious arguments, but I just don't they trump the right to bodily autonomy. I think children do retain certain rights to the effect that they are not property of their parents. Admittedly, my bigger issue on the subject is the prevalence of non-religious circumcision. By far, the most common reasons in this country are to look like the father or because of culturally-derived aesthetic reasons. Those are really quite disturbing reasons to perform any cosmetic procedure on a minor child. I mean, has any son ever thought about how close his penis matches his father's? Somehow, I really doubt it.

Everyone around me that Im aware of (obviously I dont go around asking everyone this) is circumcised, for non-religious reasons.  I wasn't even aware that it was controversial in the slightest.  You learn something knew every day.

That's not surprising, considering you're from the Midwest, though I don't know how old you are. Non-medical circumcision is pretty much limited to Muslims, Jews, some African tribes, the Philippines, South Korea, and a majority of Americans. Even in the US, the current rate is now about 55%, down from about 85% in the 1960s. Prior to the 80s, it pretty much wasn't questioned. Now, it varies widely by region and by state, from 25% in the West to 75% in the Midwest and from 10% in Nevada to 90% in West Virginia.

Again, just because you find something icky is not reason to ban it.

[DC Al Fine]

Circumcision is a procedure that rarely harms anyone (aside from a tiny number of... accidents), and is, of course, an important element of Jewish custom (forgive me if I have phrased this clumsily). More to the point, talk of babies and 'consent' misses the fundamental practicality that babies are in no position to consent to anything, be it how they are fed, where they are taken, the style of their hair (I mean on that point I came out of the womb with a full head of Michael Heseltine hair) etc. They are, to all intents and purposes, the property of their parents (a special kind of property to be sure but property none the less), and so the decision for circumcision is really up to the mother and the father.

Agreed. "Property" is a clumsy bit of phrasing, but the concept is correct. The family is a fundamental institution to our society. Parents are charged with raising their children, and the vast majority do so with the best intentions to the best of their abilities. The state interfering in parenting choices smacks of authoritarianism even at the best of times, and has great potential to be abused.

With that in mind, I am opposed to the state to intervening in a parent's decision making unless the child is being severely harmed. Circumcision doesn't come remotely close to meeting that threshold.

[DC Al Fine]

Also, how do the ban supporters want to enforce this thing when Jews inevitably defy the law and circumcise their children? I don't really see how this could seriously be enforced without news stories of the police seizing Jewish babies in hospital or raiding Jewish neighborhoods to pick up the children. You'd effectively be banning a religious ritual, which might be good for our fedora tipping friends, but not for the rest of us.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Of course. It's mutilation without consent. At some point we have to have the courage to stop tap dancing around offending people of a certain faith and stand up to say that the religion is just plain wrong. Hacking off the end of a child's penis is horrifying and serves no reasonable purpose whatsoever.

People always get defensive when talking about this topic for obvious personal reasons, but just think about what the process actually involves.

The thing is the tap dancing is entirely necessary, because although a ban would have a significant pro in that I consider the act immoral, the consequences (which would essentially be a sign to Jews that "You Are Not Welcome Here" and all that implies) could be nightmarish. I have no intention of becoming the useful idiot for a fascist, whatever my personal qualms with the procedure. It's not an issue that is important enough to die on.

Also, how do the ban supporters want to enforce this thing when Jews inevitably defy the law and circumcise their children? I don't really see how this could seriously be enforced without news stories of the police seizing Jewish babies in hospital or raiding Jewish neighborhoods to pick up the children. You'd effectively be banning a religious ritual, which might be good for our fedora tipping friends, but not for the rest of us.

Also, how do the ban supporters want to enforce this thing when Jews inevitably defy the law and circumcise their children? I don't really see how this could seriously be enforced without news stories of the police seizing Jewish babies in hospital or raiding Jewish neighborhoods to pick up the children. You'd effectively be banning a religious ritual, which might be good for our fedora tipping friends, but not for the rest of us.

I suppose like all seemingly unenforceable laws (like for example marital rape, although obviously I'm not conflating the two issues) the law acts more like a state-sanctioned censure that seeks to bend societal opinion.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Circumcision is a procedure that rarely harms anyone (aside from a tiny number of... accidents), and is, of course, an important element of Jewish custom (forgive me if I have phrased this clumsily). More to the point, talk of babies and 'consent' misses the fundamental practicality that babies are in no position to consent to anything, be it how they are fed, where they are taken, the style of their hair (I mean on that point I came out of the womb with a full head of Michael Heseltine hair) etc. They are, to all intents and purposes, the property of their parents (a special kind of property to be sure but property none the less), and so the decision for circumcision is really up to the mother and the father.

But you have to draw the line somewhere, no? I mean the huge amount of Baby P scenarios where social services deferred to clearly deficient parents suggest that view is a bit naive in practice no? (No, I'm not saying you support child abuse, but clearly circumcision is on another level than a silly haircut)

[DavidB.]

I suppose like all seemingly unenforceable laws (like for example marital rape, although obviously I'm not conflating the two issues) the law acts more like a state-sanctioned censure that seeks to bend societal opinion.

It is not unenforceable at all, at least to the extent that circumcision could easily be discovered by healthcare workers during checkups. A government could even implement such checkups for boys with the specific purpose of discovering circumcision. Parents could theoretically face a trial -- if, of course, the government is willing to go that far. Consequences could be very serious, even if it now seems highly unlikely this will happen.

If it will be banned in the Netherlands by the time I have a baby son, I will gladly make use of the opportunity to enjoy a day in Antwerp. Or Düsseldorf.

[Green Line]

I suppose like all seemingly unenforceable laws (like for example marital rape, although obviously I'm not conflating the two issues) the law acts more like a state-sanctioned censure that seeks to bend societal opinion.

It is not unenforceable at all, at least to the extent that circumcision could easily be discovered by healthcare workers during checkups. A government could even implement such checkups for boys with the specific purpose of discovering circumcision. Parents could theoretically face a trial -- if, of course, the government is willing to go that far. Consequences could be very serious, even if it now seems highly unlikely this will happen.

If it will banned in the Netherlands by the time I have a baby son, I will gladly make use of the opportunity to enjoy a day in Antwerp. Or Düsseldorf.

Is there a serious movement in the Netherlands to ban it?  That surprises me.

[DavidB.]

Is there a serious movement in the Netherlands to ban it?  That surprises me.

Not yet, but it will inevitably happen. Doubt it's really going to pass though. On the upside, this issue would be a great opportunity to promote Jewish-Muslim initiatives

[Thunderbird is the word]

In theory yes, in practice you'd run into all sorts of problems with religious freedom if you tried.

[SWE]

1.  All male circumcision is medical (hygine reasons obvi)

That's like saying cutting off your babies arm is for medical reasons because it'd reduce their chances of getting skin cancer.