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

[DavidB.]

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

Yeah.

I commend anyone of you who opposes circumcision personally or feels uneasy about it yet still doesn't want to ban it.

Of course, I am against a ban, but I realize it will happen in NL sooner or later. In that case, the EU's open borders would come in handy if I were to become the father of a son

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.

Almost all mohalim nowadays are doctors afaik (at least in Europe, don't think it's different in IL and the US apart, perhaps, from some really frum communities).

[DavidB.]

Traditions can change - why not jump the legal age of consent to be circumcised up to 14?

Oh, missed this one (I know LLR came up with it). Yes, this is the problem with calling Jewish mitzvot "traditions" and it is exactly why I never argue for anything Jewish on the basis of "tradition"; indeed, if it's only a tradition, then why not change it? The point is that like most Jewish "traditions", brit mila is most definitely that, but it is much more too: it is a commandment. Commandments do not change. They are not amendable. A parent has the responsibility to make a mohel perform the commandment of brit mila on their newborn son on the eighth day in order to make him part of the covenant with G-d. I admit to feeling uncomfortable about the idea of having a newborn son and then hurting him with no medical purpose, and I doubt I will enjoy it -- but this is a commandment so fundamental, so important that I would not want my child to go without it.

[DavidB.]

Traditions can change - why not jump the legal age of consent to be circumcised up to 14?

Oh, missed this one (I know LLR came up with it).

Hmm?

Crabcake replied to you saying it's a Jewish tradition.

[DavidB.]

As a Jew: yes. Babies don't have religions and should not be forced into them in such a permanent way. Keep your religion but don't inflict it on innocent babies. And please stop crying antisemitism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Burros
Dan, is that you?

also judaism is not a "religion" ffs

[DavidB.]

also judaism is not a "religion" ffs

Non-observant Jews are just as Jewish as the Chief Rabbis of Israel. My statement was a bit strongly worded, and Judaism has religious aspects, but saying "one is not born with a religion" as argument against brit mila makes no sense because one is in fact born with a heritage of thousands of years, with a family, with a people. It is an extremely important part of the cycle of life as a Jew, together with the bar mitzvah, marrying, etc. Even many non-observant or not-all-that-observant Jews think brit mila is of importance. The American tendency to view Judaism as a religion just like Christianity while we should really be seen as another ethnic group with its own tribal rules and traditions (which, indeed, come from G-d) annoys me to no end, although I realize it's mainly Jews who have contributed to this in their attempt to assimilate and get rid of anti-Jewish prejudice.

Yes, every form of genital mutilation should be banned.

I still have my foreskin and never had any problem with it. You just need to wash it properly each day.

[DavidB.]

I thought the word Judaism referred specifically to the religion, as opposed to the ethnicity. My bad if I was mistaken.

Of course I'm aware that there are non-observant (and even nonbelieving) Jews. But surely you'll agree that there is a (for lack of a better way I know of phrasing it) a "Jewish religion" that can be compared and contrasted to others, right?

The word Judaism does generally refer to the "religion", but my point is that it is hard and often misleading to try and disentangle the "religion" from the people, especially when done in order to advocate a ban on certain Jewish commandments.

I definitely agree Jewish "religious" practice and faith can be compared and contrasted to other "religions", and I am not necessarily opposed to using the word "religion" when discussing Judaism in such contexts ("ethno-religion" may be one of the most adequate words when talking about Judaism), but it remains extremely important to keep in mind the problems of using the word "religion" (which stems from a Western, Christian context and doesn't necessarily apply as well to other world "religions") in general and the fact that Jews are, in fact, a people.

[DavidB.]

Not that Jews can be confused as an ethnicity either (you can't convert into an ethnicity FFS DavidB).

Yes, we are definitely more than an "ethnicity" too. I personally prefer the term tribe.

"Conversion" is another term that is highly Western and Christian and doesn't work in a Jewish context. A ger or giyoret technically does not become Jewish, he or she was always Jewish and the giyur process is but the affirmation of one's belonging to the Jewish tribe. One can become a part of certain tribe if one was born outside it. Someone like that will, of course, keep all the laws in such a tribe.

I, of course, agree with the rest of your post.

[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"?

[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!

[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.

[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

[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+

[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.

[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.

[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.

[DavidB.]

I oppose this barbaric practice of genital mutilation.