Should infant circumcision be illegal?

[Boobs]

It is hard for me to explain in words how little I care about what gentiles chose to do or not do with their foreskins. But I am planning to have my son circumcised, and it is an important part of raising my son as a Jew. I trust the advice of a rabbi and religious texts regarding the importance of performing the ceremony at infancy over that of folks on the internet, no offence.

Bodily autonomy is a respectable value to uphold, but I do not believe it to supersede all other values in this case. To me, the idea of raising a son Jewish but not circumcising him just does not make sense. Being Jewish is an indelible part of my family's identity, and I value and cherish that identity, as well as the traditional ceremonies that come with it. I respect the decisions of Jewish families who choose to forgo the bris, but it is not a decision that should be forced upon everyone.

Thus, I do not believe it should be illegal.

[Boobs]

It is hard for me to explain in words how little I care about what gentiles chose to do or not do with their foreskins. But I am planning to have my son circumcised, and it is an important part of raising my son as a Jew. I trust the advice of a rabbi and religious texts regarding the importance of performing the ceremony at infancy over that of folks on the internet, no offence.

Bodily autonomy is a respectable value to uphold, but I do not believe it to supersede all other values in this case. To me, the idea of raising a son Jewish but not circumcising him just does not make sense. Being Jewish is an indelible part of my family's identity, and I value and cherish that identity, as well as the traditional ceremonies that come with it. I respect the decisions of Jewish families who choose to forgo the bris, but it is not a decision that should be forced upon everyone.

Thus, I do not believe it should be illegal.

Since you have a unique perspective on this, I'd like to get your opinion on something, if I may. At what point, in your mind, does the "argument from tradition" stop being good enough to justify a practice? Obviously tradition can't be used as a moral justification for everything. Generally speaking, what principle do you use to determine that cutoff?

I disagree. This is not an “argument from tradition.” Circumcision is a tenet and a covenant, not just a tradition, of Judaism. I would agree that the argument that “infants have been circumcised in America for the past century, so we should continue to do so” is an argument from tradition, but it is not the same case as upholding Jewish religious tenets.

Similarly, one could say that bodily autonomy as a value is also not absolute - after all, we have laws requiring people to wear seatbelts, wear clothes in public, and wearing masks, all of which violate bodily autonomy. Of course, these are not the same degree as circumcision, but nonetheless demonstrate that bodily autonomy also has its limits, as does upholding “traditions”. Should parents not be allowed to get their children’s ears pierced? Or consent to medical procedures if the child does not agree? You could even argue that upholding bodily autonomy means that abortion should be banned.

Finally, I personally don’t believe in the idea of “cutoffs” in the realm of moral questions. We, as people, have the ability to think, analyze, and rationalize in situations — so why should morality be formulaic? We can disapprove of FGM (a tradition practiced from the origin of sexual purity and upheld due to fears of social exclusion) and not condemn male circumcision in the Jewish tradition (rooted in and practiced due to a core religious tenet). Our laws should follow a similar form of analysis and understanding.

[Boobs]

We can disapprove of FGM (a tradition practiced from the origin of sexual purity and upheld due to fears of social exclusion) and not condemn male circumcision in the Jewish tradition (rooted in and practiced due to a core religious tenet). Our laws should follow a similar form of analysis and understanding.

Is the Jewish tradition of male circumcision not in part rooted in the idea of male sexual purity; (measured differently as all 'tests' applied to men are) by maintaining purity by dissuading masturbation as noted by Maimonides and Philo?

Actually, both Maimonides and Philo present theories as for the purpose of circumcision - they both stem from the Sage Rabbi Akiva's concept that circumcision and the foreskin was created in order to give humans the chance to "perfect an imperfect world", so to speak. Maimonides and Philo attempt to answer that question of what is the imperfection. Furthermore, I believe Philo also presented other ideas - such as health/cleanliness as well as an opportunity for the proof that one is a Jew (under the assumption that no one would willingly do it otherwise). But ultimately those are post-hoc attempts at justification, which may or may not be correct. Most Jewish scholars, I believe, operate under the assumption that the practice of circumcision is done for the purpose of submission to the will of gd, which is how I would justify it as well - it is a covenant and one we must uphold.

As far as I am aware, the Torah itself does not specify that the procedure must be done while the man is still an infant. God told Abraham to circumcise himself and his household, and so he did, thereby entering into the covenant. Abraham was a consenting adult, and I have nothing wrong with consenting adults modifying their bodies however they see fit. So at the very least, the idea that the procedure must be carried out in infancy, lest the child in question fall outside of the covenant forever, is not textually supported and therefore mostly rooted in tradition. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about this, but based on this example from scripture, I don't see why a Jewish person couldn't have the procedure at a somewhat later age, when he is fully aware of his choice and the implications of that decision.

You are incorrect about this, as Ernest has said. Even if it was possibly up to contention, your opinion would still be incorrect - you are not (as far as you have let on) a rabbinical scholar, while every Jewish tradition, including Reform and Reconstructionist, agree on the primacy of infant circumcision. Your arrogance is showing - you are not an authority on Jewish religious law, and, without great and specific education, never will be.

Regardless of this, I don't think you can successfully parse out the words "tradition" and "religious tenet." One falls under the general category of the other.

This is your opinion. I can agree that some traditions stem out of religious tenets, and some religious tenets are borne from tradition. Circumcision is not one of those, and the argument I make for infant circumcision does not come from tradition, rather from a specific religious mandate. You can disagree with the mandate, but you cannot say it is an argument that appeals to tradition.

Had I said "My son will be circumcised because I am circumcised and my father was circumcised and his father and so on," you would be correct. But it is not reality.

Similarly, one could say that bodily autonomy as a value is also not absolute - after all, we have laws requiring people to wear seatbelts, wear clothes in public, and wearing masks, all of which violate bodily autonomy. Of course, these are not the same degree as circumcision, but nonetheless demonstrate that bodily autonomy also has its limits, as does upholding “traditions”. Should parents not be allowed to get their children’s ears pierced? Or consent to medical procedures if the child does not agree? You could even argue that upholding bodily autonomy means that abortion should be banned.

Well, I think you understand the many differences between the examples you've laid out here and a procedure that permanently affects a person's body. Additionally, things such as masks and seatbelts indirectly affect the physical health of others, because they make interactions safer for everyone. If we're going to get into the health argument here, I'd just note that the evidence linking circumcision to STD prevention is inconclusive, and certainly nowhere near as effective as just wearing a condom. So comparing the procedure to minor public health measures such as those is... questionable.

Nevertheless, I take your general point: Body autonomy isn't limitless, especially for children. But as in the other cases you've mentioned, the violations of this autonomy are limited-- 99% of the time-- to situations in which health is the primary concern. The exception is circumcision, which has few (if any) proven medical justifications. And again, I'm still unconvinced that there is a compelling alternative reason for why we should make that particular exception.

Finally, I personally don’t believe in the idea of “cutoffs” in the realm of moral questions. We, as people, have the ability to think, analyze, and rationalize in situations — so why should morality be formulaic? We can disapprove of FGM (a tradition practiced from the origin of sexual purity and upheld due to fears of social exclusion) and not condemn male circumcision in the Jewish tradition (rooted in and practiced due to a core religious tenet). Our laws should follow a similar form of analysis and understanding.

If this is your take on morality, that's fine. However, I tend to look for guiding principles-- they need not be rigidly applied, but there should at least be some consistency to how we approach these questions. As a libertarian, I believe in bodily autonomy; at the same time, you've mentioned in your post a number of examples in which that general principle conflicts with other principles I have, and thus one must be sacrificed for the other. However, circumcision does not result in the same conflict of principles for me, and therefore I was wondering which principles you were using to form your position.

We make that exception because it is an important religious tenet - as a libertarian, I assume you also believe in freedom of religion. Infant circumcision for infants born Jewish is a well-documented, well-supported belief and practice, and its prohibition greatly inhibits the practice of Judaism.

In the past, Hellenic conquerors of the Israelite tribes similarly looked down upon circumcision, and banned the practice, obviously with an explicit purpose. Even if a modern prohibition is based on the principle of bodily autonomy and not religious discrimination, it still results in the same effect.

This is likely the last I'll say on the matter. It is a subject whose question has been debated and, for all intents and purposes, settled within the academic Jewish community. Which is enough for me.

[Boobs]

Before we proceed, I'd like you both to clarify something: If you need to be circumcised at infancy in order to enter into the covenant with God, does that mean that Abraham never entered said covenant? Does that mean that those who convert to Judaism later in life, who were not circumcised as newborns, can never become part of the covenant either? Please explain; as you've pointed out, I am not very educated on theological matters like this (nor do I ever plan to be).

When the covenant was established, Abraham and all the males of his household, including Ishmael,(Isaac wasn't yet born according to the account in Genesis) were circumcised that very day. Isaac was circumcised on his eighth day according to Genesis. Similarly, upon converting to Judaism, a male must be circumcised.

So to reiterate, this is a procedure that can be performed later in life, for example on a convert to Judaism, and the end result will be essentially the same?

No. It was a special case - gd commanded Abraham to circumcise the men of his household, and that all future male Jews must be circumcised on their eighth day; it's pretty much explicit.

Adulthood circumcision is done only for converts. It is a different ceremony, developed afterwards.

Your obstinate belief that you are somehow smarter than people who have devoted their entire lives to the study of Judaism is really rearing its ugly head.