Should infant circumcision be illegal?

[John Dule]

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.

I understand your perspective. Still though, since people can convert to Judaism and have the procedure performed later in life, I don't see why that can't be the norm for all Jewish children. If being circumcised at birth is a non-negotiable requirement for entering the covenant, then adults who convert to Judaism should by that logic not be considered Jewish, or at the very least should be considered "less Jewish" than those who were circumcised at birth.

Also, to avoid banning a Jewish ritual, we could always start by banning the circumcision of all gentiles. That's extremely discriminatory and not at all my preference, but at least it's a step in the right direction.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

I understand your perspective. Still though, since people can convert to Judaism and have the procedure performed later in life, I don't see why that can't be the norm for all Jewish children. If being circumcised at birth is a non-negotiable requirement for entering the covenant, then adults who convert to Judaism should by that logic not be considered Jewish, or at the very least should be considered "less Jewish" than those who were circumcised at birth.

Also, to avoid banning a Jewish ritual, we could always start by banning the circumcision of all gentiles. That's extremely discriminatory and not at all my preference, but at least it's a step in the right direction.

It also makes the state the regulator of religion, and if you can't see why that is a step in the wrong direction, well....  At least banning all infant circumcision has the  "virtue" of the state ignoring religion instead of having the state telling people how they may practice their religion.

[John Dule]

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.

I understand your perspective. Still though, since people can convert to Judaism and have the procedure performed later in life, I don't see why that can't be the norm for all Jewish children. If being circumcised at birth is a non-negotiable requirement for entering the covenant, then adults who convert to Judaism should by that logic not be considered Jewish, or at the very least should be considered "less Jewish" than those who were circumcised at birth.

Also, to avoid banning a Jewish ritual, we could always start by banning the circumcision of all gentiles. That's extremely discriminatory and not at all my preference, but at least it's a step in the right direction.

It also makes the state the regulator of religion, and if you can't see why that is a step in the wrong direction, well....  At least banning all infant circumcision has the  "virtue" of the state ignoring religion instead of having the state telling people how they may practice their religion.

The state is already the regulator of religion, by the fact that it bans innumerable other types of religious practices that are also harmful to individual freedom. This is just adding another one to the pile.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

I understand your perspective. Still though, since people can convert to Judaism and have the procedure performed later in life, I don't see why that can't be the norm for all Jewish children. If being circumcised at birth is a non-negotiable requirement for entering the covenant, then adults who convert to Judaism should by that logic not be considered Jewish, or at the very least should be considered "less Jewish" than those who were circumcised at birth.

Also, to avoid banning a Jewish ritual, we could always start by banning the circumcision of all gentiles. That's extremely discriminatory and not at all my preference, but at least it's a step in the right direction.

It also makes the state the regulator of religion, and if you can't see why that is a step in the wrong direction, well....  At least banning all infant circumcision has the  "virtue" of the state ignoring religion instead of having the state telling people how they may practice their religion.

The state is already the regulator of religion, by the fact that it bans innumerable other types of religious practices that are also harmful to individual freedom. This is just adding another one to the pile.

If the state is doing something without regard to religion then it isn't regulating religion, it's only ignoring it.  But allowing people to do something if they are part of a particular religion is definitely putting the state in the position of regulating who is and who is not part of that religion.

[John Dule]

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.

I understand your perspective. Still though, since people can convert to Judaism and have the procedure performed later in life, I don't see why that can't be the norm for all Jewish children. If being circumcised at birth is a non-negotiable requirement for entering the covenant, then adults who convert to Judaism should by that logic not be considered Jewish, or at the very least should be considered "less Jewish" than those who were circumcised at birth.

Also, to avoid banning a Jewish ritual, we could always start by banning the circumcision of all gentiles. That's extremely discriminatory and not at all my preference, but at least it's a step in the right direction.

It also makes the state the regulator of religion, and if you can't see why that is a step in the wrong direction, well....  At least banning all infant circumcision has the  "virtue" of the state ignoring religion instead of having the state telling people how they may practice their religion.

The state is already the regulator of religion, by the fact that it bans innumerable other types of religious practices that are also harmful to individual freedom. This is just adding another one to the pile.

If the state is doing something without regard to religion then it isn't regulating religion, it's only ignoring it.  But allowing people to do something if they are part of a particular religion is definitely putting the state in the position of regulating who is and who is not part of that religion.

There are quite a few instances already in which the government is obligated to treat people differently based on their religious beliefs. Head coverings in certain contexts are allowed for religious purposes but not for other people. Prisons are required to provide certain types of pork, shellfish, or meat-free diets for Jewish, Muslim, or Hindu inmates. Orthodox Jews who work in the public sector cannot be forced to work on Saturday. The US Army bans long facial hair but makes exemptions for Sikh or Muslim recruits. If we lived in a truly 100% secular society, none of these considerations would be made, and everyone would be treated exactly the same by the government regardless of their beliefs.

[Former President tack50]

If the state is doing something without regard to religion then it isn't regulating religion, it's only ignoring it.  But allowing people to do something if they are part of a particular religion is definitely putting the state in the position of regulating who is and who is not part of that religion.

I do not know to what extent it would be applicable, especially for religions other than Christianity, but don't Churches generally keep a list of their adherents?

Like for example I am relatively sure that when you get baptized, the church where you got baptized registers you as a member of said church.

So regulating who is and isn't part of a certain religion definitely is not necesarily something that needs to be carried out by the state, though I'd still be reluctant to the state collecting said information from churches (other than for at most, statistical purposes), let alone using it for lawmaking.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If the state is doing something without regard to religion then it isn't regulating religion, it's only ignoring it.  But allowing people to do something if they are part of a particular religion is definitely putting the state in the position of regulating who is and who is not part of that religion.

I do not know to what extent it would be applicable, especially for religions other than Christianity, but don't Churches generally keep a list of their adherents?

Like for example I am relatively sure that when you get baptized, the church where you got baptized registers you as a member of said church.

So regulating who is and isn't part of a certain religion definitely is not necessarily something that needs to be carried out by the state, though I'd still be reluctant to the state collecting said information from churches (other than for at most, statistical purposes), let alone using it for lawmaking.

That doesn't really solve the issue, just changes it from determining which people are part of a particular religion to which churches/synagogues/mosques/temples/reading rooms are part of a particular religion.

[politicallefty]

I understand your perspective. Still though, since people can convert to Judaism and have the procedure performed later in life, I don't see why that can't be the norm for all Jewish children. If being circumcised at birth is a non-negotiable requirement for entering the covenant, then adults who convert to Judaism should by that logic not be considered Jewish, or at the very least should be considered "less Jewish" than those who were circumcised at birth.

Also, to avoid banning a Jewish ritual, we could always start by banning the circumcision of all gentiles. That's extremely discriminatory and not at all my preference, but at least it's a step in the right direction.

Constitutionally, I think it's easier to just ban infant circumcision outright. I did some reading and apparently several years ago Justice Scalia told a Jewish audience that as long as a ban didn't discriminate against Jews in particular, it would have been perfectly constitutional. I think his comments were around the time when there was a proposed ballot measure in San Francisco that eventually never made it for other reasons.

I think we agree that any measure taken that would diminish the practice would be a positive.  A lot of the reason is that health insurance providers still cover the procedure in most states, even Medicaid. That's probably why the Western US is ahead of the curve on this, where most state Medicaid programs no longer pay for infant circumcision (and from what I understand, most private insurance take their cues from Medicaid). That's a separate question, but maybe one that should be asked.

[Bojack Horseman]

These threads always end the same way.

[Hnv1]

Yes (Jewish)

[vitoNova]

No.

LOL at being uncut.

I never even heard of the term "smegma" until I was in my mid-20s.   I thought it was a German insult.  I googled it, and almost vomited. 

[John Dule]

No.

LOL at being uncut.

I never even heard of the term "smegma" until I was in my mid-20s.   I thought it was a German insult.  I googled it, and almost vomited. 

If you wash your genitals at least once a month, you'll never even know what that is. Though I concede that for someone like you, that might be asking too much.

[Illiniwek]

I thought I would mention that this thread did end up having a significant impact on the decision I faced with my newborn son. Over the past few years and also the months of the pregnancy I bounced back and forth on what my decision would end up being. Over the summer, I was trending closer and closer to choosing to circumcise him. But the extremely fervent arguments here against it caused serious doubt to creep back in.

I ultimately decided that if the United States is trending away from circumcision (and I verified with the doctors that a clear majority of newborn boys in our area are not being circumcised), and there may be a true stigma against it 20 years from now, I did not want my son to have to search for answers as to why I chose to make such a decision to circumcise him.

So personally I don't see a huge problem with circumcision (I certainly wouldn't vote to make it illegal), and I think I am happy that I was. But if my son was circumcised, it would have been mostly for my selfish and superficial reasons. In the end I chose to go with the ethically-safe choice and statistically common option, and its in large part to this thread.

[John Dule]

I thought I would mention that this thread did end up having a significant impact on the decision I faced with my newborn son. Over the past few years and also the months of the pregnancy I bounced back and forth on what my decision would end up being. Over the summer, I was trending closer and closer to choosing to circumcise him. But the extremely fervent arguments here against it caused serious doubt to creep back in.

I ultimately decided that if the United States is trending away from circumcision (and I verified with the doctors that a clear majority of newborn boys in our area are not being circumcised), and there may be a true stigma against it 20 years from now, I did not want my son to have to search for answers as to why I chose to make such a decision to circumcise him.

So personally I don't see a huge problem with circumcision (I certainly wouldn't vote to make it illegal), and I think I am happy that I was. But if my son was circumcised, it would have been mostly for my selfish and superficial reasons. In the end I chose to go with the ethically-safe choice and statistically common option, and its in large part to this thread.

Happy to hear it! I'm sure your son won't regret it, and even on the off-chance that he does, you've at the very least made the option available to him.