Should infant circumcision be illegal?

[Former President tack50]

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.

I will note that all the examples you mention are most certainly reversible. You can undo your seatbelt, take off your mask and clothes, etc. Circumcision is not a reversible procedure.

For the Judaism aspect, you can convert to the religion (it is not the easiest religion to convert to, but Jewish converts do exist I believe?); and similarly, leave the religion by just not attending your synagogue, following traditions and religious mandates and what not. Judaism is "reversible" while circumcision is not.

So, as a religion, banning circumcision just means that children cannot be religiously Jewish at the absolute worst. And even then, it is not like circumcision is the only mandate that Jews have, I am pretty sure those uncircumcidiced children would be able to study their religious texts, keep Jewish traditions, etc. Judaism would not be banned, and any kid who wanted would still be able to "convert" (using the term extremely loosely here as they'd already be doing everything else a religiously Jewish person does) to the religion if they so chose.

As for the argument of the Jewish pseudo-ethnicity (I am never sure to what extent it is one compared to a religion so sorry if the term is offensive or something), I see no reason to give Jews a pass here any more than Arabs or any other ethnicities that also routinely practice circumcision tbh.

I admit it is not a great outcome, but I view this as the lesser of two evils. It is better to delay any irreversible decisions done for non-medical reasons until the children in question are old enough to consent. The age of consent here would probably not even be 18 years old, but more like 13 or something like that.

Quite simply, forcing a circumcision on a child for religious reasons infringes much more on the autonomy of said child than taking the procedure and having some religious issues in my opinion.

[Alcibiades]

On a side note, I have always thought that the command in scripture to circumcise infants is a perfect case study of the sillier aspects of religion: why would God create the foreskin, only to demand it to be cut off as soon as boys are born?

[John Dule]

As for your ludicrous argument that it's not in the Torah, I realize you've repeatedly shown a contempt for religion in this thread, but I hadn't expected you'd make such an ignorant statement, as you're usually better than that. The call for circumcision to be done by the eighth day is found in both Genesis and Leviticus. Even if weren't found in the Penteteuch, you are making an arrogant presumption if you believe you can determine for Jews that the Oral Torah is not really part of Judaism. You would be much better off keeping to your insistence that religion is of no value in this issue than misrepresenting what the religion of other people is really about. I'd still find your arguments unconvincing, but at least I wouldn't find them laughable. Normally, I find you a better poster than afleitch, but in this thread I have found his posts to be far better than yours.

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. 

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).

[John Dule]

On a side note, I have always thought that the command in scripture to circumcise infants is a perfect case study of the sillier aspects of religion: why would God create the foreskin, only to demand it to be cut off as soon as boys are born?

Because the book said so. The end.

[Alcibiades]

On a side note, I have always thought that the command in scripture to circumcise infants is a perfect case study of the sillier aspects of religion: why would God create the foreskin, only to demand it to be cut off as soon as boys are born?

Because the book said so. The end.

“Don’t ask why, it just is.” The mantra of all forms of authoritarianism.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

[John Dule]

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?

[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.

[John Dule]

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.

I didn't claim superior knowledge about anything. In fact, I explicitly admitted my ignorance on the subject and now you are educating me. Thank you so much!

So to clarify, is a person who converts to Judaism later in life and gets circumcised as an adult any less Jewish than a person who was circumcised as an infant?

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

On a side note, I have always thought that the command in scripture to circumcise infants is a perfect case study of the sillier aspects of religion: why would God create the foreskin, only to demand it to be cut off as soon as boys are born?

As a way to distinguish Jews from Gentiles in the Old Covenant.

[Horus]

On a side note, I have always thought that the command in scripture to circumcise infants is a perfect case study of the sillier aspects of religion: why would God create the foreskin, only to demand it to be cut off as soon as boys are born?

As a way to distinguish Jews from Gentiles in the Old Covenant.

Wouldn't a pierced ear or red dot be a little less invasive? That way if you wanna know someone's faith you don't have to ask them to pull their pants down.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

On a side note, I have always thought that the command in scripture to circumcise infants is a perfect case study of the sillier aspects of religion: why would God create the foreskin, only to demand it to be cut off as soon as boys are born?

As a way to distinguish Jews from Gentiles in the Old Covenant.

Wouldn't a pierced ear or red dot be a little less invasive? That way if you wanna know someone's faith you don't have to ask them to pull their pants down.

At the time, only barbarian horsemen were wearing pants. 

[politicallefty]

I have to say I'm not entirely unsympathetic to the argument in terms of Judaism, but it is a permanent physical mark on a male child that cannot be undone. I'm always hesitant to wade too deep into religious arguments, but it seems to me that if it is indeed required as a matter of religious doctrine that it would mean more if an adult were to choose to undergo the procedure himself. From what I've read, there is a debate between more Orthodox and conservative elements in Judaism versus some more liberal as to whether it is required for conversion. I've also read that the original Jewish procedure didn't remove the whole foreskin, which would make the statue of David historically correct. It only became a radical procedure after many Jews would try to stretch their foreskins back to look like the idealized Greeks and Romans so that they couldn't do it anymore. I did a quick search to find what I was remembering:

Circumcision, as it is performed today by religious Jews, is really an amalgam of three different procedures: milah, periah and metzizah. Milah is the actual circumcision, the removal of the tip of the foreskin. It is thought that this was the entire ceremony in biblical times: A metal shield was placed on the end of the penis, and the foreskin was stretched forward; in this way, only the tip — the part that usually, in nonerect penises, extends past the glans, was removed. The prepuce itself remained, and the shaft of the penis (and sometimes part of the glans) remained covered. See Michelangelo’s “David” for an example of this.

Periah is something additional: not circumcision, but “tearing” and removing the prepuce, as well. The Jewish Encyclopedia (1906) describes it this way: “After the excision has been completed, the mohel seizes the inner lining of the prepuce, which still covers the glans, with the thumb-nail and index-finger of each hand, and tears it so that he can roll it fully back over the glans and expose the latter completely. The mohel usually has his thumb-nail suitably trimmed for the purpose.” (Wincing yet?) It is this tearing of the membrane — now often performed with the circumcision knife rather than with fingernails — that removes the entire foreskin and exposes the entire glans and penis, including the highly sensitive area just below the glans. This is a much more significant change in the male anatomy, with much more significant consequences in terms of sensation.

[politicallefty]

To expand upon my viewpoints beyond religion, it would be fair to say that my primary opposition is due to the extremely unnecessary hold it still has in the US. I have a strong socially libertarian leaning that views the right to bodily autonomy as paramount. I think at least 95% of the reason it's still commonplace is that most insurance still pays for it and the absurdity of "he needs to match daddy". I would say that's insecurity on the parental part because no male child tries to think of their father's 'parts'.

As I noted before, Australia is a country where infant circumcision was once common for the same reason it was in the US at the time in the mid-20th century. It's gone from an 80-90% infant circumcision rate to about 10% now. The medical community stopped pushing it, it was no longer paid for, and it was banned in public hospitals unless medically necessary. I don't see why we can't do that in the US, at least to start. That's why I feel the need to push back against the so-called benefits pushed by some that only look at the pros and cons the of the procedure itself without looking at the functions of the foreskin. I'm a pragmatist when it comes to mitigating what I think to be something morally wrong. I think the rate of infant circumcision in the US (which I think is currently in the 50-60% range nationally, though widely variable by state) would drop dramatically if all insurance providers (private and government) ceased covering it.

[John Dule]

I have to say I'm not entirely unsympathetic to the argument in terms of Judaism, but it is a permanent physical mark on a male child that cannot be undone. I'm always hesitant to wade too deep into religious arguments, but it seems to me that if it is indeed required as a matter of religious doctrine that it would mean more if an adult were to choose to undergo the procedure himself. From what I've read, there is a debate between more Orthodox and conservative elements in Judaism versus some more liberal as to whether it is required for conversion. I've also read that the original Jewish procedure didn't remove the whole foreskin, which would make the statue of David historically correct. It only became a radical procedure after many Jews would try to stretch their foreskins back to look like the idealized Greeks and Romans so that they couldn't do it anymore. I did a quick search to find what I was remembering:

That's what I would think too, but then again, religion doesn't place much value on individual agency and personal choice. Regardless, someone who wants to convert to Judaism can still get circumcised at an age at which they can give consent. That does not make them any "less Jewish" than a person who was circumcised as an infant, so the argument from religion is moot. I appreciate the principle that the government shouldn't interfere with religious ceremonies and traditions-- I agree that organic change from within a community is preferable to enforced change from the outside-- but that stops being a relevant argument when the practice in question causes harm to a third party. If this practice had no theological history to it, and someone suggested that we start performing it in the US, that person would be (rightfully) mocked.

[politicallefty]

That's what I would think too, but then again, religion doesn't place much value on individual agency and personal choice. Regardless, someone who wants to convert to Judaism can still get circumcised at an age at which they can give consent. That does not make them any "less Jewish" than a person who was circumcised as an infant, so the argument from religion is moot. I appreciate the principle that the government shouldn't interfere with religious ceremonies and traditions-- I agree that organic change from within a community is preferable to enforced change from the outside-- but that stops being a relevant argument when the practice in question causes harm to a third party. If this practice had no theological history to it, and someone suggested that we start performing it in the US, that person would be (rightfully) mocked.

In part, that's what I was trying to get across in my second post above (not sure if you saw it, because you only recommended the first and I waited to post). That's basically what happened in the US about a century ago. Unfortunately, there wasn't any mockery. It certainly had some roots in religion in its intent to prevent or reduce masturbation. It doesn't make it impossible, but it certainly makes it more difficult.

I don't disagree with your viewpoint on relgiion either. It's a view I've always held. Basically, it's okay for certain religious practices so long as they've been practiced for thousands of years. If it's been practiced for 50 years, it's a cult. What would be a prophet a thousand years ago is today a resident of a mental institute.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Which is more important, penile sensitivity or religion?

The great question of the modern era.

At least it's a more interesting debate than one over infant baptism.

Well, a baptism doesn't involve cutting out your foreskin.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Which is more important, penile sensitivity or religion?

The great question of the modern era.

At least it's a more interesting debate than one over infant baptism.

Well, a baptism doesn't involve cutting out your foreskin.

I don't get why people seem to think that's a rebuttal of some sort to that post of mine. It's precisely because circumcision has a physical impact that makes it a more interesting debate, as it also includes the issue of the relative importance of the material and immaterial aspects of being human.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Which is more important, penile sensitivity or religion?

The great question of the modern era.

At least it's a more interesting debate than one over infant baptism.

Well, a baptism doesn't involve cutting out your foreskin.

I don't get why people seem to think that's a rebuttal of some sort to that post of mine. It's precisely because circumcision has a physical impact that makes it a more interesting debate, as it also includes the issue of the relative importance of the material and immaterial aspects of being human.

I was agreeing with you.

[John Dule]

For the record, I was baptized as a baby and I don't care about it one way or the other. My parents are atheists, but they figured that someday I might wish I'd been baptized and so they did it anyway. They did not, however, put me under the knife. So if someday I decide I want to convert to Judaism, that avenue is still open to me, just as it would be to any child of Jewish parents who wasn't circumcised as an infant. It should be clear to everyone: Banning this practice does not eliminate personal choice, it expands it.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

For the record, I was baptized as a baby and I don't care about it one way or the other. My parents are atheists, but they figured that someday I might wish I'd been baptized and so they did it anyway.

Well, my parents, atheists as well, did consider baptizing me anyway, mostly for the grandparent's sake, but decided I can always get baptized if I decide so as an adult.

I didn't.

[John Dule]

For the record, I was baptized as a baby and I don't care about it one way or the other. My parents are atheists, but they figured that someday I might wish I'd been baptized and so they did it anyway.

Well, my parents, atheists as well, did consider baptizing me anyway, mostly for the grandparent's sake, but decided I can always get baptized if I decide so as an adult.

I didn't.

Yeah, there's really no point in performing either procedure on an infant, but I'm extremely thankful that my parents chose the one that doesn't cause lasting physical harm.

[KaiserDave]

Eh, don't much care. But I do think though the ban would do more harm than good.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

For the record, I was baptized as a baby and I don't care about it one way or the other. My parents are atheists, but they figured that someday I might wish I'd been baptized and so they did it anyway.

Except maybe if done to mollify the grandparents, there's zero reason for atheists to have their children baptized. Indeed, since the baptismal liturgy calls for the parents to do what they can to bring their kids up as good Christians, it was rather hypocritical for them to have you baptised. But since like many atheists, and unfortunately like quite a few theists, they had little understanding of what was involved, I won't blame them for doing so.

Still, to me, this is one reason to favor adult baptism, perhaps while retaining an infant christening ceremony of some sort. But, I don't stress over the issue. Compared to circumcision, debates over baptism are just water under the bris.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I genuinely could not possibly have less attachment to circumcision as an aspect of "American culture" or something that fathers insist on because their fathers insisted on it. I don't care. I didn't have it done to me and I don't plan on doing it to any of my sons if I ever have them. It is an unnecessary and irreversible medical procedure performed on a non-consenting patient and for that reason it is a human rights violation. The only question an affirmative answer to which could trump that is whether the individual harm of circumcising a baby boy is outweighed by the individual and social harms of effectively banning the practice of Judaism. I do answer that question in the affirmative and thus oppose banning circumcision, but holding that position doesn't mean I have any respect for the "muh tradition, muh father, muh son" arguments that goyim make for it.