Circumcision without consent. Is it wrong?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My point is that your point is irrelevant. You can sneer at and mock the Biblical account all you want, but like it or not circumcision remains non-negotiable for Judaism. So any laws restricting circumcision must have a religious exemption. (Primarily for Jews).

Why must they have a religious exemption?

The only reason I have to respect any religion - including Judaism - is my support for religious freedom.

... but this support for religious freedom also extends to the children of Jewish parents. Marking a child for life as a member of one particular religion goes completely against freedom of religion.

So how could I ever support religious circumcision? The child's right not to be Jewish or Muslim and the parents' right to practice Judaism or Islam are the same right.

If someone were to convince me not to care about freedom of religion enough not to worry about the child, I would have absolutely no reason to support the parents' desire for body modification for babies.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I understand your position and I am sympathetic. But I think the right of Judaism to exist is more important than the desires of those who find male circumcision distasteful.

It's not denying their right to exist. It granting people the right to choose.

 

[QuestioningMind]

So someone other than the affected person gets
to make the decision for them without their consent?
Nah. That's not a good rationale for taking away
bodily autonomy.

If you'd been reading my posts you'd know that I am 100% against anyone other than the individual involved making that decision. And I suspect that if we waited until boys were old enough to decide for themselves that virtually no one would get the procedure.

All I've been arguing is that it's impossible to know whether or not uncircumcised men have more pleasurable sex than circumcised men.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

And I suspect that if we waited until boys were old enough to decide for themselves that virtually no one would get the procedure.

And that's very telling, and strongly suggests it's not something they would have consented to if given the choice.

 

[Revoltingest]

And I suspect that if we waited until boys were old enough to decide for themselves that virtually no one would get the procedure.

Is this a good, bad, or indifferent thing to you?

All I've been arguing is that it's impossible to know whether or not uncircumcised men have more pleasurable sex than circumcised men.

Why is no objective research is possible?

 

[QuestioningMind]

Is this a good, bad, or indifferent thing to you?

Why is no objective research is possible?

In my opinion it would be good to allow individuals to make such a decisions for themselves, since I said I'm 100% against anyone else making the decision.

I don't see how there could be any objective research, since it's not possible for a guy to both know what it feels like to be uncircumcised all of their life as well as know what it feels like to be circumcised all of their life.

 

[Revoltingest]

In my opinion it would be good to allow individuals to make such a decisions for themselves, since I said I'm 100% against anyone else making the decision.

Then no religious exemptions, eh.

I don't see how there could be any objective research, since it's not possible for a guy to both know what it feels like to be uncircumcised all of their life as well as know what it feels like to be circumcised all of their life.

Professionals who design research projects
are more imaginative than you or I. Ever listen
to Freakonomics or Hidden Brain podcasts?
It's incredible what information can be teased
out of people.
But it's all rather irrelevant if we believe that
bodily autonomy rules. There's no good reason
that girls should have it, but not boys.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think the right for Jews (and Muslims) to practice their religion is an important consideration. I think circumcision is distasteful, but I recognize its requirement in Judaism as coming from a genuine religious commitment.


I think the religious requirement must be an established one. Idiosyncratic claims to a religious feeling aren't good enough. Coptic and Ethiopian Christians would have a case (I think I've read that those communities require it of those born into their faiths). But Evangelicals who want to feel a 'connection to Abraham' by having their sons circumcised should be told to take a hike.

On what basis? You do not agree on their interpretation of the Bible. Well I do not agree with the Jews on their interpretation. Does that mean that I can stop them from getting circumcisions? And worse yet are the Muslims whom you seem to support. They do not circumcise their boys. They tend to do the far more barbaric female genital mutilation. There is simply no excuse for that.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

On what basis? You do not agree on their interpretation of the Bible. Well I do not agree with the Jews on their interpretation. Does that mean that I can stop them from getting circumcisions? And worse yet are the Muslims whom you seem to support. They do not circumcise their boys. They tend to do the far more barbaric female genital mutilation. There is simply no excuse for that.

Most Muslims do practice male circumcision. Most Muslim men are circumcised, as far as I know. FGM is mostly a North African practice that existed before Islam came about.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

No tolerance for FGM, IMO.

FGM and male circumcision are not comparable. Neither Islam or Christianity require it in any case.


I understand your position and I am sympathetic. But I think the right of Judaism to exist is more important than the desires of those who find male circumcision distasteful.

I'm always fascinated with religion. You've argued that male circumcision, being a mark of the covenant, can be acceptable for Jews. Then you argue that FGM isn't acceptable -- but aren't females included in the covenant? In fact -- how can you be a Jew if your mother wasn't, now that I think about it. But without a "mark," how would God know she was a member, since He seems to need such a marker to identify the males.

This is why it all seems like perfect nonsense to me. Nonsense based on ancient superstition and kept alive by traditions that can't justify themselves with reason.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Most Muslims do practice male circumcision. Most Muslim men are circumcised, as far as I know. FGM is mostly a North African practice that existed before Islam came about.

Really? I have heard Muslims insulting Christians for being circumcised. I will have to look into this.

EDIT: Hmm, strongly encouraged but not required. Well I'll be. Nice to learn something new. Thank you.

Khitan (circumcision) - Wikipedia

 

[QuestioningMind]

And that's very telling, and strongly suggests it's not something they would have consented to if given the choice.

That's what I wrote in my very first post. Contrary to what you seem to think, I am not advocating for circumcision.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Really? I have heard Muslims insulting Christians for being circumcised. I will have to look into this.

EDIT: Hmm, strongly encouraged but not required. Well I'll be. Nice to learn something new. Thank you.

Khitan (circumcision) - Wikipedia

That sounds backward. Most Christians are not circumcised and it's not a part of the religion. It's part of Islamic tradition, though.

BBC - Religions - Islam: Circumcision of boys.

Edit: You're welcome.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That sounds backward. Most Christians are not circumcised and it's not a part of the religion. It's part of Islamic tradition, though.

BBC - Religions - Islam: Circumcision of boys.

Edit: You're welcome.

It was the norm for the US. Things may be different now.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Then no religious exemptions, eh.

Professionals who design research projects
are more imaginative than you or I. Ever listen
to Freakonomics or Hidden Brain podcasts?
It's incredible what information can be teased
out of people.
But it's all rather irrelevant if we believe that
bodily autonomy rules. There's no good reason
that girls should have it, but not boys.

Since a guy can't know what it's like to live his life both circumcised and uncircumcised, I really don't know what information researchers could possibly 'tease out of them'.

 

[Glaurung]

Seems sexist, ie, bodily autonomy
for females, but not for males.

I do not think the loss of the foreskin is so damaging to male well being that it justifies a total ban on circumcision.

There are different kinds of FGM, some
less extreme than male circumcision.
I wager that it's political & social power
of Judaism that results in this inconsistency.
Muslims lack such power in the west.

It does not matter. FGM is not a religious requirement. It is a cultural expectation in certain parts of Africa and the Middle East. But (call me un-PC) I do not think the west owes such immigrants the right to perpetuate that barbaric practice.

Judaism would continue to exist if circumcision
were delayed until the child was able to freely
make the choice.
Claims that it would kill the religion are histrionic.

Genesis 17:12

To outlaw religious infant circumcision would be dictating the terms by which the Jewish religion is allowed to exist. I think Judaism is too established to turn around now and demand that an explicit requirement of the religion be postponed or even outright abolished. Who are you to demand that?

Why must they have a religious exemption?

Because I think the right for Jews to live according to their established religious traditions outweighs any concerns we may have with the morality of infant circumcision.

Marking a child for life as a member of one particular religion goes completely against freedom of religion.

That would be a concern if circumcision alone somehow compelled a person to identify with, let alone practice, Judaism. And I understand that a man who does renounce Judaism may come to resent his circumcision, but the potential for an apostate to resent having being circumcised is just an unfortunate price to pay for religious freedom.

By all means, I support restricting circumcision. But not to the point of dictating to Jews (and other good faith groups) that their long established religious requirements are suddenly no longer tolerated because liberal ideology now says so.

It's not denying their right to exist. It granting people the right to choose.

Circumcision is a requirement for the practice of Judaism. You are effectively denying parents the right to raise their sons Jewish. That's a step too far for me.

 

[Revoltingest]

Since a guy can't know what it's like to live his life both circumcised and uncircumcised, I really don't know what information researchers could possibly 'tease out of them'.

Some guys have made claims about
circumcision reducing sensitivity.
But suppose it didn't.
Does this give parents the right to make
the decision for someone unable to consent?

 

[Debater Slayer]

On what basis? You do not agree on their interpretation of the Bible. Well I do not agree with the Jews on their interpretation. Does that mean that I can stop them from getting circumcisions? And worse yet are the Muslims whom you seem to support. They do not circumcise their boys. They tend to do the far more barbaric female genital mutilation. There is simply no excuse for that.

FGM predates Islam, and al-Azhar, one of the world's leading Islamic organizations, has started strongly condemning the practice in recent years. Some scholars still try to make doctrinal room for it, but the support for it has certainly dwindled over the years and will hopefully keep going in that direction.

Male circumcision is indeed widely practiced among Muslims, though.

Side note: one of the most vocal critics of male circumcision (and FGM) in Egypt and other parts of the Muslim world was Nawal El Saadawi, an outspoken feminist. I strongly disagree with some of her views on specific issues, but credit where credit is due.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Since a guy can't know what it's like to live his life both circumcised and uncircumcised, I really don't know what information researchers could possibly 'tease out of them'.

Schrodinger's circumcision?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

It was the norm for the US. Things may be different now.

This is the last info I'm aware of on that:
Popularity Of Circumcision Falls In U.S., Especially Out West