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

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I'll admit I'm in two minds here, having seen the arguments. On the one hand it would be uncomfortably close to the anti-semetic laws used previously against our Jewish populations, which makes me uneasy; but on the other it is an invasive, unnecessary surgery performed by relatively unregulated mohels and which the infant has no choice to consent to. I lean that it should be banned.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

No, it's a Jewish tradition. It's equivalent to banning baptism. Absurd, IMO.

but baptism is just water, it doesn't actually change the body permanently. If somebody who was baptised at birth decides they don't like the religion, they can move on or whatever. Traditions can change - why not jump the legal age of consent to be circumcised up to 14?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

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)