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

[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.

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)

Well, of course, in fact I believe the state should have more power to intervene in cases such as that of Baby P. However, circumcision is clearly not a harmful procedure and is in no way a form of child abuse - I mean, if we take the Jewish example, it's not as if Jewish parents circumcise their children for abusive reasons. People can quibble about consent all they want, but in the case of young babies it's not really a useful concept. I'm not attempting to be edgy (Lord knows I'm not clever enough for that type of thing), but I really do think this is an area where our modern obsession with 'rights' has, to use a cringey phrase, 'gone mad'.

[Antonio the Sixth]

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.

This sums up my view perfectly (add Muslims alongside Jews, as well).

[MalaspinaGold]

I'm still waiting for one of the intactivists to tell me what they think of punching holes in toddler's earlobes.

[Alcon]

I'm against infant circumcision.  The cost-benefits arguments on it are poor; considering the number of circumcisions it takes to avoid one serious medical issue (when adjusting for the fact that circumcision can cause complications), the resources could be better-allocated in a way that didn't preempt consent.  I think this is a decision that reasonable people can have varied preferences on, and I've known reasonable people with strong preferences one way or the other.  Considering that, I think this decision should be left to the equipment owner.  I just don't find the arguments for routine infant circumcision logically persuasive, putting aside the fact that I also fundamentally think bodily autonomy is a pretty important thing we should mostly defer to.

Also, the argument that it's better to do it as an infant as an adult, to avoid the trouble of doing it as an adult...is a really, really bad argument, for fairly obvious reasons.  Obviously, for those who want to be circumcised but weren't, it's an inconvenience to do it as an adult.  But for those who were circumcised but didn't want to be, they're pretty much screwed.  Are we actually arguing that having no choice is better than having an inconvenient choice?  That's silly.  This sort of argument screams "half-thinking rationalization" to me.  So do most of the arguments for it.  I've always been kind of baffled by how "sticky" this tradition has been in America, and basically only America.

That said...do I want legislators deciding this sort of thing?  Honestly, probably not.  This is one of those weird issues where I have a clear opinion, but think most people who are passionate about the issue are passionate about it for bad reasons, so I'm not sure I want it to become politicized.  Then again, I know there are numerous countries where it's illegal to the point it becomes a pain in the ass, and that seems like an OK outcome.  I'm just wary that it can be used as a proxy battle for people to attack cultures they don't like, instead of evaluating discrete practices on their own (lack of) merits.

I'm still waiting for one of the intactivists to tell me what they think of punching holes in toddler's earlobes.

I don't necessarily think that's a good idea, but I don't know of many people who are bothered aesthetically or functionally by having their ear pierced.  No non-idiot is arguing that every permanent decision parents make should be disallowed.  The question is whether the preemption of consent is rationally justified, which takes into account both the advantage of doing something immediately, but also the disadvantage of preempting consent and denying an informed choice.  The disadvantage of preempting consent with circumcision is obviously way higher than with ear piercing.

This reduction to the absurd can also be applied to those who argue that "it's a parents' choice, and it doesn't do grave harm, so it's OK."  Really?  To take an absurd metaphor, imagine I had the choice to conscript my kid into an actuarial career when he was born.  Actuaries make good money, after all, and most people would be OK with that career!  Would this choice be ethically reasonable?  Obviously not, because the benefit of preemption (urgency) is very low, and the potential damage from preempting consent (the kid not wanting to be an actuary) is higher than any benefit.  Clearly, there are cases where preempting a kid's consent and autonomy is ethically problematic.

And I think, at a smaller scale, that's the case with circumcision too -- which is why I find it ethically problematic, but think something like vaccination is a great thing.

[bore]

The thing which must be remembered is that everyone here, bar a miniscule number of budding totalitarians, are OK with parents making some irreversible decisions without the child's consent. I'm talking about things like what they feed them, what school they enroll them in, what language they use when bringing them up, what books they demand they read, and so on. And this will shape the child for all their life. Just because most of these irreversible changes are mental doesn't make them any less real then the physical change of circumcision. And given that it is both a fairly minor, painless and small procedure and a requirement of two major religions (or at least large branches of both), it would be wrong and hypocritical to ban it.

And the other thing is while I think the vast majority of the opposition here is because the act is seen as immoral and not inspired by prejudice, the motivation of a ban is, frankly, irrelevant to how the policy is received. It simply is an attack on the religious liberty of Jews and Muslims, it simple is something that stops them practicing their religion. Now there are, of course there are, some cases where sacrificing some groups religious liberty is necessary, because doing nothing would be an even worse crime, but I think, on balance, especially given the history of Judaism in particular, that is not the case here.

[DavidB.]

Okay, this merits a reply. Some of it I've left out, not to twist your argument but because I simply had no comments to it.

I'm against infant circumcision.  The cost-benefits arguments on it are poor; considering the number of circumcisions it takes to avoid one serious medical issue (when adjusting for the fact that circumcision can cause complications), the resources could be better-allocated in a way that didn't preempt consent.

Agreed, the medical argument is bad (at least in a developed country without an HIV epidemy).

Also, the argument that it's better to do it as an infant as an adult, to avoid the trouble of doing it as an adult...is a really, really bad argument, for fairly obvious reasons.  Obviously, for those who want to be circumcised but weren't, it's an inconvenience to do it as an adult.  But for those who were circumcised but didn't want to be, they're pretty much screwed.

I also agree, and here I'd like to note that non-Jews and non-Muslims will be far more likely to complain about this: what's the point for them to be circumcised? I do think it's good to differentiate here. Obviously there will be some Jews and Muslims who aren't happy, but the difference between non-Jews/Muslims vs. Jews/Muslims will likely be significant.

Are we actually arguing that having no choice is better than having an inconvenient choice?  That's silly.  This sort of argument screams "half-thinking rationalization" to me.  So do most of the arguments for it.  I've always been kind of baffled by how "sticky" this tradition has been in America, and basically only America.

I also don't understand why so many non-Jewish/non-Muslim boys are still circumcised just because it's the "standard". Again, what's the point?

I'm still waiting for one of the intactivists to tell me what they think of punching holes in toddler's earlobes.

I don't necessarily think that's a good idea, but I don't know of many people who are bothered aesthetically or functionally by having their ear pierced.

Similarly, I don't know of many Jewish and Muslim people who are bothered aesthetically or functionally by being circumcised.

This reduction to the absurd can also be applied to those who argue that "it's a parents' choice, and it doesn't do grave harm, so it's OK."  Really?  To take an absurd metaphor, imagine I had the choice to conscript my kid into an actuarial career when he was born.  Actuaries make good money, after all, and most people would be OK with that career!  Would this choice be ethically reasonable?  Obviously not, because the benefit of preemption (urgency) is very low, and the potential damage from preempting consent (the kid not wanting to be an actuary) is higher than any benefit.  Clearly, there are cases where preempting a kid's consent and autonomy is ethically problematic.

And I think, at a smaller scale, that's the case with circumcision too -- which is why I find it ethically problematic, but think something like vaccination is a great thing.

So here it becomes again clear that your reasoning is based on a weighing of costs (what if the kid doesn't want it) and benefits (urgency). In the case of Jewish and Muslim kids, the costs will be considerably lower because being circumcised is the social/religious/traditional standard. There will always be kids that will be disappointed with their parents' decision to have them circumcised, but the probability of this occurring will be much lower.

I am (obviously) in favor of allowing parents to have their children circumcised, as I see it as a commandment of high importance for Jews, but for non-Jews and non-Muslims the cost-benefit analysis is different: the benefits don't necessarily outweigh the costs because of the higher probability that the son will end up disappointed with not having a foreskin. Parents should still have the choice, but circumcision should not be promoted as the "default" option anymore (not sure if this is still the case, but it used to be like this in the US), and it should be made clear that there is no real non-religious reason to do this with an infant because there is no real evidence that there are actual health benefits related to it.

Bore's comment is fantastic, btw. A+

[Alcon]

Okay, this merits a reply. Some of it I've left out, not to twist your argument but because I simply had no comments to it.

No worries -- never worried about you twisting my argument!

I also agree, and here I'd like to note that non-Jews and non-Muslims will be far more likely to complain about this: what's the point for them to be circumcised? I do think it's good to differentiate here. Obviously there will be some Jews and Muslims who aren't happy, but the difference between non-Jews/Muslims vs. Jews/Muslims will likely be significant.

...

Similarly, I don't know of many Jewish and Muslim people who are bothered aesthetically or functionally by being circumcised.

...

So here it becomes again clear that your reasoning is based on a weighing of costs (what if the kid doesn't want it) and benefits (urgency). In the case of Jewish and Muslim kids, the costs will be considerably lower because being circumcised is the social/religious/traditional standard. There will always be kids that will be disappointed with their parents' decision to have them circumcised, but the probability of this occurring will be much lower.

Sorry that this is meandering, but unlike the practice in secular environments (which I think is pretty indefensible), my thoughts on the practice in more insular, religious communities are...more complicated.

I think what you say is definitely true, although probably much less so with secular Jews.  Obviously, religious secularism doesn't necessarily mean disinterest in cultural traditions, and there are a lot of Jews who hold those traditions very close.  There seem to be quite a few who don't, though, and also quite a few who prefer to "pick-and-choose."  Like, I think many of my Jewish friends would probably balk something serious about having kosher enforced on them.  There are actually several Jews in this thread who appear to have a strong, negative opinion on this topic.  Actually, the first person who ever keyed me into this topic was an agnostic Jew.

I'm way cognizant that the Jews I'm exposed to probably skew secular, non-traditional, highly analytic, and a bunch of other variables that probably make them wildly unrepresentative...and even if that weren't the case, it's kind of a silly sample to extrapolate from.  But even if those situations are relatively few, it still seems like a somewhat difficult outcome to defend.  The argument that a third party's judgment about what they expect someone to appreciate culturally, shouldn't preempt an irreversible decision about bodily autonomy...is pretty strong.

The counter-argument, which I think has potential, is that the justifying urgency comes from the cultural benefit likely to be conferred upon the kid.  The downside to that argument is that it's virtually identical to the reasoning used to justify much worse cultural practices, like female genital mutilation: "this is reasonable to enforce on you based on the strictures of the culture you are likely to be involved in."  The only defense at that point becomes, basically: "well, we decided one is a good and worthy cultural practice and the other deserves to be ended, even if ending it requires ceasing to confer what's currently culturally beneficial."

I could go down a few more layers in the thought process here, but it doesn't get any less frustrating at that point.

Bore's comment is fantastic, btw. A+

Yeah, I'm sympathetic to it.  I'm also especially sympathetic to why it would be pronounced concern in Europe.  Judaism and Islam are barely connected to the practice in the mind of average Americans, but obviously not in the mind of asshole Europeans.  I think on aggregate I'm ethically uncomfortable with the practice but also uncomfortable with legislating it for religious groups.  I know this will sound idiotic, but it never fails to amaze me how persistent antisemitism is in the West, especially Europe.  (And the valid concerns about Islamic immigration are also convenient proxy vehicles for assholes.)

[DavidB.]

Sorry that this is meandering, but unlike the practice in secular environments (which I think is pretty indefensible), my thoughts on the practice in more insular, religious communities are...more complicated.

I think what you say is definitely true, although probably much less so with secular Jews.  Obviously, religious secularism doesn't necessarily mean disinterest in cultural traditions, and there are a lot of Jews who hold those traditions very close.  There seem to be quite a few who don't, though, and also quite a few who prefer to "pick-and-choose."  Like, I think many of my Jewish friends would probably balk something serious about having kosher enforced on them.  There are actually several Jews in this thread who appear to have a strong, negative opinion on this topic.  Actually, the first person who ever keyed me into this topic was an agnostic Jew.

I'm way cognizant that the Jews I'm exposed to probably skew secular, non-traditional, highly analytic, and a bunch of other variables that probably make them wildly unrepresentative...and even if that weren't the case, it's kind of a silly sample to extrapolate from.  But even if those situations are relatively few, it still seems like a somewhat difficult outcome to defend.  The argument that a third party's judgment about what they expect someone to appreciate culturally, shouldn't preempt an irreversible decision about bodily autonomy...is pretty strong.

Yes, I agree this is a grey area in the sense that if you circumcise your child because he's Jewish but subsequently do not raise him Jewish in any meaningful way, which is not uncommon in the United States, then you child may very well not agree with the decision regarding circumcision. Still, I think the probability for this to happen is lower, perhaps even much lower, than among secular non-Jews. I think the question is from what probability onward the practice becomes morally problematic. I obviously think it is not morally problematic for secular Jews to circumcise their children, partly because of this lower probability of the child being unhappy with being circumcised, but I acknowledge that my religious bias/outlook (as in, I see it as a commandment, for secular Jews just as much as for Haredim) plays a big role in this.

The counter-argument, which I think has potential, is that the justifying urgency comes from the cultural benefit likely to be conferred upon the kid.  The downside to that argument is that it's virtually identical to the reasoning used to justify much worse cultural practices, like female genital mutilation: "this is reasonable to enforce on you based on the strictures of the culture you are likely to be involved in."  The only defense at that point becomes, basically: "well, we decided one is a good and worthy cultural practice and the other deserves to be ended, even if ending it requires ceasing to confer what's currently culturally beneficial."

I think there is a very clear boundary: from the point where the cultural practice objectively harms the child's health in the future, the practice is morally problematic and should not be allowed. For this reason, types I, II and III (and some among type IV as well, afaik) of female genital mutilation (FGM) are unquestionably morally problematic and, in many places, outlawed (and rightly so). There is bodily damage involved that actively harms the child in the future, as opposed to male circumcision, where the body is altered but there is no objective damage involved (other than the obvious fact that the foreskin is gone). Types of FGM category IV that do not involve future bodily damage, such as symbolically pricking the vagina, I still abhor, and I would still consider them indefensible (whatever that means), but if there truly is no long-term damage then I'd have to say they should probably be allowed too. So for me, the boundary is clearly the point where the practice is actively damaging.

Yeah, I'm sympathetic to it.  I'm also especially sympathetic to why it would be pronounced concern in Europe.  Judaism and Islam are barely connected to the practice in the mind of average Americans, but obviously not in the mind of asshole Europeans.  I think on aggregate I'm ethically uncomfortable with the practice but also uncomfortable with legislating it for religious groups.  I know this will sound idiotic, but it never fails to amaze me how persistent antisemitism is in the West, especially Europe.  (And the valid concerns about Islamic immigration are also convenient proxy vehicles for assholes.)

I greatly appreciate these remarks.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Allowing circumcision only for Jews and Muslims is something I'd never support because it'd be an example of the "separate laws for separate groups of people thing" touched on here that I consider NEVER acceptable. But of course I don't see it as a big deal unlike the MRA-style activists who rage against it on the Internet so have no problem with it simply remaining legal for everyone.

[DavidB.]

Oh, if this is directed at me, I'm all for keeping it legal for everyone. I just think it doesn't make sense to do it pre-emptively if you're not Jewish or Muslim, and chances that the son will dislike the fact that he's been circumcised are higher, which makes it more morally questionable given the fact that there are no significant health or other benefits.

[Alcon]

Yes, I agree this is a grey area in the sense that if you circumcise your child because he's Jewish but subsequently do not raise him Jewish in any meaningful way, which is not uncommon in the United States, then you child may very well not agree with the decision regarding circumcision. Still, I think the probability for this to happen is lower, perhaps even much lower, than among secular non-Jews. I think the question is from what probability onward the practice becomes morally problematic. I obviously think it is not morally problematic for secular Jews to circumcise their children, partly because of this lower probability of the child being unhappy with being circumcised, but I acknowledge that my religious bias/outlook (as in, I see it as a commandment, for secular Jews just as much as for Haredim) plays a big role in this.

I think it's a probability question, but I also think the urgency question may vary a little in the absence of a religious commandment.  Secular Jews have no metaphysical impetus for the urgency part of the equation.  They may have some cultural identity impetus, but perpetuating that bugs me ethically for a reason I'll get into next...

I think there is a very clear boundary: from the point where the cultural practice objectively harms the child's health in the future, the practice is morally problematic and should not be allowed. For this reason, types I, II and III (and some among type IV as well, afaik) of female genital mutilation (FGM) are unquestionably morally problematic and, in many places, outlawed (and rightly so). There is bodily damage involved that actively harms the child in the future, as opposed to male circumcision, where the body is altered but there is no objective damage involved (other than the obvious fact that the foreskin is gone). ... So for me, the boundary is clearly the point where the practice is actively damaging.

I totally understand all of that, but a lot of the reason FGM persists anyway is because it's culturally constructed to be advantageous.  There are concerns of the world where it's still incredibly common, in part because women who aren't subjected to it are considered unclean, unmarriagable, bad members of the community, etc.  My point was that there are instances where FGM, at least in its less severe forms, and perhaps even in its more severe forms, may be a more advantageous choice for the child than letting her fail cultural expectations.  Is that screwed up?  Yes.  But is it an extremely common view that they "expect" the child will share?  Yes...that is why it continues between generations, with moms and female relatives literally performing it on their own children.

While the average severity is obviously much greater, the average disutility to not having it performed is also much greater than, say, feeling like you missed out on a cultural rite by having to do it later than typical.  In both cases, the optimal scenario would be to leave choice to the individual, without cultural punishment or guilting if they go against tradition -- basically, giving them the choice, if they decide it's personally enriching to them.  I expect the proportion of secularized Jews who opt for circumcision for enrichment would be a lot higher than the proportion of women who opt for FGM for enrichment.  

However, does it really make sense to demand in one case (FGM) that people default on cultural expectations/traditions so as to present a clear choice without arbitrary negative repercussions, but not expect the same of secular Jews enforcing an expectation/tradition?  Especially considering the former default has much greater repercussions than the latter?  That seems logically arbitrary to me, and basically relies on saying, "eh, the logic is inconsistent, but whatever, this one is much less of a big deal."

And that's true, but I'm not a huge fan of that, especially when "I want to do it and it's much less of a big deal than it could be" is the rationale for something that permanently affects someone else's body.

Types of FGM category IV that do not involve future bodily damage, such as symbolically pricking the vagina, I still abhor, and I would still consider them indefensible (whatever that means), but if there truly is no long-term damage then I'd have to say they should probably be allowed too.

I'm curious -- why do you find them abhorrent and indefensible?  Would you say the same of male circumcision if not for religious beliefs and culturally expected traditions?

[DavidB.]

Sorry for being slow in replying.

I think it's a probability question, but I also think the urgency question may vary a little in the absence of a religious commandment.  Secular Jews have no metaphysical impetus for the urgency part of the equation.  They may have some cultural identity impetus, but perpetuating that bugs me ethically for a reason I'll get into next...

I don't think you could see this as a black and white issue of religious commandment vs. no religious commandment, or secular Jews vs. religious Jews. Most US and European Jews fall somewhere in the middle of the spectrum, and that makes it very difficult. Many are barely observant, yet do believe in (some) G-d and may consider the commandment important. The distinction between the theological realm and the traditional realm also gets blurred. I just don't think talking in terms of "metaphysical impetus" touches on what goes on in people's minds when deciding on whether or not to circumcise their sons.

I totally understand all of that, but a lot of the reason FGM persists anyway is because it's culturally constructed to be advantageous.  There are concerns of the world where it's still incredibly common, in part because women who aren't subjected to it are considered unclean, unmarriagable, bad members of the community, etc.  My point was that there are instances where FGM, at least in its less severe forms, and perhaps even in its more severe forms, may be a more advantageous choice for the child than letting her fail cultural expectations.  Is that screwed up?  Yes.  But is it an extremely common view that they "expect" the child will share?  Yes...that is why it continues between generations, with moms and female relatives literally performing it on their own children.

Yes, this is certainly a problem. But it's a problem because FGM is a health issue, not because the girls didn't choose it. Parents decide on many things that influence the kid's future without the child having a say. That's only problematic if it is damaging to the child.

While the average severity is obviously much greater, the average disutility to not having it performed is also much greater than, say, feeling like you missed out on a cultural rite by having to do it later than typical.  In both cases, the optimal scenario would be to leave choice to the individual, without cultural punishment or guilting if they go against tradition -- basically, giving them the choice, if they decide it's personally enriching to them.  I expect the proportion of secularized Jews who opt for circumcision for enrichment would be a lot higher than the proportion of women who opt for FGM for enrichment.

Well, probably, but the cases are simply not similar. Most types of FGM are detrimental to girls'  health. Male circumcision doesn't damage boys' health. So I disagree that the optimal scenario would be to leave the choice to the individual when it comes to male circumcision.  

However, does it really make sense to demand in one case (FGM) that people default on cultural expectations/traditions so as to present a clear choice without arbitrary negative repercussions, but not expect the same of secular Jews enforcing an expectation/tradition?  Especially considering the former default has much greater repercussions than the latter?  That seems logically arbitrary to me, and basically relies on saying, "eh, the logic is inconsistent, but whatever, this one is much less of a big deal."

And that's true, but I'm not a huge fan of that, especially when "I want to do it and it's much less of a big deal than it could be" is the rationale for something that permanently affects someone else's body.

It may be because I'm not a native speaker, but I'm not entirely sure if I understand what you're arguing here. If I understand you correctly, your argument is that it is inconsistent to consider FGM morally problematic and argue that people should let go of that tradition if one thinks male circumcision is not morally problematic and considers it okay for Jews to continue engaging in this practice. For me, the problem is not that the child doesn't get the opportunity to decide for themselves. It's that FGM is damaging for the child's health, whereas male circumcision is not. Because of the fact that male circumcision doesn't benefit the child either (in terms of health), I would recommend non-Jewish/Muslim parents not to engage in the practice because it makes little sense to do it preemptively whereas the probability that the child will be disappointed with being circumcised is much higher. But this probability is lower with Jewish and Muslim kids, and the surgery isn't actually problematic from a health perspective, so I have no problems with it. I don't think this line of reasoning is inconsistent.

I'm curious -- why do you find them abhorrent and indefensible?  Would you say the same of male circumcision if not for religious beliefs and culturally expected traditions?

No, but I agree that this is mainly based on "feelings" and bias as opposed to facts. I emphasize again that I don't actually want to make policy on that basis regarding these non-detrimental types of FGM.

[IceAgeComing]

So today I learned that apparently most dudes in America are circumcised for "medical reasons" which is both baffling and rather troubling since there's no medical evidence that it's actually beneficial and the hygiene argument is bunk since shockingly it's not that hard to keep that area clean, from personal experience.

It's something that I find icky and a few years ago I'd have been in favour of a ban, now I'm less sure.  I'd need to do more reading about it to actually have a firm belief, and excuse me but reading about the ethics of... that doesn't sound like something I ever really want to do.  I do think that if possible you should encourage people to wait until their children are old enough to make an informed decision for themselves before doing it, but considering that I imagine it's more painful by then, that's not a good idea.  It's not at all comparable to FGM though which is a mistake that some make, that's something which hopefully we all agree should be heavily clamped down on.

[Hatman 🍁]

I oppose this barbaric practice of genital mutilation.

I can though understand why someone lacking a foreskin would not oppose circumcision. They do not know what they are missing. 

[DavidB.]

I oppose this barbaric practice of genital mutilation.

[Alcon]

(sorry in advance.  long as hell.)

Sorry for being slow in replying.

Not slow at all, and no problem if it was!  I appreciate your thoughtfulness and know there are other priorities.

No, but I agree that this is mainly based on "feelings" and bias as opposed to facts.

That definitely is interesting.  I was confused because I took "indefensible" to be more normative.  It's kind of hard for me to come up with any logical argument for male circumcision being OK in a world where symbolic pinprick female circumcision is indefensible.

I don't think you could see this as a black and white issue of religious commandment vs. no religious commandment, or secular Jews vs. religious Jews. Most US and European Jews fall somewhere in the middle of the spectrum, and that makes it very difficult. Many are barely observant, yet do believe in (some) G-d and may consider the commandment important. The distinction between the theological realm and the traditional realm also gets blurred. I just don't think talking in terms of "metaphysical impetus" touches on what goes on in people's minds when deciding on whether or not to circumcise their sons.

Totally understood.  I was only making that distinction black-and-white to delineate between Jews for whom any consideration of ethical and theological issues ends at “G-d says” versus those who have (varying degrees of) more flexibility around expression of identity and even faith.

Just for the same reason that, when I debate gay marriage, I first establish common acceptance that there is some latitude, so we’re not mid-way through an analysis of Massachusetts divorce statistics for 2008 before the other person says “well whatever, I don’t care about any of this because Leviticus.”

Yes, this is certainly a problem. But it's a problem because FGM is a health issue, not because the girls didn't choose it. Parents decide on many things that influence the kid's future without the child having a say. That's only problematic if it is damaging to the child.

Well, probably, but the cases are simply not similar. Most types of FGM are detrimental to girls'  health. Male circumcision doesn't damage boys' health. So I disagree that the optimal scenario would be to leave the choice to the individual when it comes to male circumcision.  

It may be because I'm not a native speaker, but I'm not entirely sure if I understand what you're arguing here. If I understand you correctly, your argument is that it is inconsistent to consider FGM morally problematic and argue that people should let go of that tradition if one thinks male circumcision is not morally problematic and considers it okay for Jews to continue engaging in this practice. For me, the problem is not that the child doesn't get the opportunity to decide for themselves. It's that FGM is damaging for the child's health, whereas male circumcision is not. Because of the fact that male circumcision doesn't benefit the child either (in terms of health), I would recommend non-Jewish/Muslim parents not to engage in the practice because it makes little sense to do it preemptively whereas the probability that the child will be disappointed with being circumcised is much higher. But this probability is lower with Jewish and Muslim kids, and the surgery isn't actually problematic from a health perspective, so I have no problems with it. I don't think this line of reasoning is inconsistent.

All right, let me walk through my argument here.  Sorry this will be long – it’s one of those things that’s relatively simple in logic but complex when written.

First of all, preempting a choice that some people prefer to have is, all else being equal, damaging.  It’s not damaging to each individual, but it’s damaging in that it creates net-disutility across people.  If someone wanted to have some sort of bodily autonomy, and that opportunity was taken from them, that's damage.  The fact that most would be fine with it doesn’t mean it’s not-damaging overall.  The fact that it’s not debilitating doesn’t mean it’s “not-damaging.”  It’s no more “non-damaging” than it would be to prohibit the practice of your religion, just because it wouldn’t be debilitating or universally damaging.

Considering that, what makes the preemption of a potentially desirable choice justifiable?  I think most people see two justifications that, taken together, make it reasonable for a guardian to preempt a choice that someone might want later.  The first is objective benefit and the other is urgency.  Both are pretty straightforward.  Objective benefit tests the likelihood that the decision will be net-beneficial once the person is able to have a preference.  Urgency tests whether the benefit of the decision is time-sensitive, or can be left harmlessly to the decision-maker.  In the absence of either variable, it doesn't really make sense to preempt a decision.  Anything in-between requires thoughtfully balancing the two.  Vaccination is a good example of something that passes both tests fairly easily.  The objective benefit is strong, since few people object to being vaccinated (and those who do object based on ill-founded belief and not personal preference), and the urgency is strong, since childhood measles or whooping cough sucks.

The argument you seem to be making – correct me if needed – is that, even if some people grow up to dislike the choice, the objective benefit is reasonably compelling, because cultural and religious beliefs dictate that it’s an important signifier of identity, and it’s not sexually ruinous or anything.  There’s also urgency because the cultural symbolism of doing it as an adult might feel disappointing relative to the cultural symbolism of doing it to a baby.  Together, you seem to be arguing that the objective benefit (even though non-universal) and urgency (even though not absolute) converge enough to make it reasonable.

Here's the thing, though...FGM has plenty of objective benefit in the cultures where it's practiced.  It does plenty of harm, too, obviously (in our eyes), but the disutility caused by forgoing FGM is oftentimes huge.  There’s strong cultural and religious stigma against skipping the practice – way more stigma than a Jew who chooses to undergo circumcision as an adult.  There’s a reason that it perpetuates from generation to generation.  It’s because it’s perceived as having huge net-benefit.  Otherwise, people would not be taking shards of glass to their children’s genitals.

So, why do we think FGM is wrong?  The counter-argument against FGM being reasonably “net-beneficial,” basically, is that the reason it’s seen as net-beneficial is because social constructs exist that create the benefit, and in doing so, also create unnecessary harm.  In absence of those deeply-ingrained cultural constructs, there would be no disutility associated with forgoing FGM.  Most people, I think, would argue for some ethical responsibility for the culture to shift the norms that demand that unnecessary disutility – even if they’re deeply tied to cultural and religious values and practices.

If it’s not obvious at this point, I think that’s logically analogous to male circumcision.  In both cases, both urgency and net-benefit are based on social and cultural expectations.  In both cases, social and cultural expectations could be shifted in a way that removes the unnecessary disutility around letting someone wait to make the choice over their own body.  In both cases, it’s totally possible to positively experience society and culture without the specific constructs that make preempting that choice (and causing the resulting harm) “net-beneficial.”  

So, why does the ethical demand to shift those expectations and traditions apply with FGM and not male circumcision?  Because FGM is more harmful?  As its proponents point out, it’s not harmful if you’re living under the social construct.  In fact, if you do, it’s a more serious net-benefit than male circumcision is to secular Jews.  Accepting “the social construct makes it compelling” as a sufficient rationale makes it really hard to argue against FGM.  Similarly, rejecting that defense – and applying the ethical demand to shift expectations where they require potentially harmful preemption of consent – makes it hard to defend secular Jewish male circumcision.  Considering that, holding a requirement to end FGM but not male circumcision basically requires some serious special pleading.  And saying “it’s not a big deal” doesn’t wave off this issue; it just (rightly) points out it’s less ethically consequential than FGM.  Agreed.  But that’s obviously a bad ethical defense.

And I think pretty much all of the ethical defenses of infant circumcision basically fall apart in similar (usually more obvious) ways.

***

And that gets at another thing that bugs me about the “religious freedom” defense of circumcision as an ethical (as opposed to merely legal) principle.  Treating “it’s not a big deal or ‘objectively damaging’” as a justification to unnecessarily preempt autonomy seems way at odds with the underlying ethical value of religious freedom itself.  Putting aside the intentional historical abuse of religious restrictions, the reasons we blanch at restricting religious practice seem to be at pretty extreme tension with the willingness to dismiss concerns about autonomy because something is “not ‘damaging.’”

I think one of the core ideas of religious freedom is that religious beliefs (or stuff like secular Jewish identity) are incredibly nuanced and hard to understand outside of personal experience, but important to people.  Even if the government has the technical authority to restrict this sort of autonomy, it becomes problematic when that authority is exercised in cases where it touches on highly personal issues of preference or experience.

Considering that, doesn't it seem kind of untenable to turn around and say personal preference and experience don’t matter when irreversibly altering someone else’s body, because those concerns don’t count as substantive “damage”?  If personal preference and experience are insufficient to establish substantive “damage” that makes it unethical to preempt autonomy, how can you hold religious freedom as an ethical value in the first place?