Should infant circumcision be illegal?

[7,052,770]

This is one of the few (only?) positions I have that I acknowledge is indefensible and I hold onto for reasons other than logic/reason.  Sorry John.  I'm cut and both my sons are cut and I don't hate my parents for it and my boys don't hate their parents for it.  I only think about it once every three years when it comes up <teehee> in a thread here or when an uncut one occasionally shows up in porn.

I would call it defensible. Notice any similarities in these maps?

[John Dule]

I would call it defensible. Notice any similarities in these maps?

What exactly does this prove?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

While I am still intact and glad of it, I'll have to vote no.  The physical impact is minimal, if done competently, so even if done solely for religious reasons, I don't see a clear dividing line between this and any other form of religious indoctrination of minors by parents.  Beyond basic regulations to ensure the hygiene and skill of the practitioner that should be in place, just as it should be for any surgical procedure, the only special regulation concerning circumcision that I'd care to enact is requiring local anesthesia. Moreover, this literally is a procedure that is easier on the recipient at the neonatal stage than later.  Now if we ever develop a method of temporal communication so that we could have an adult decide if he wanted it done when he was a newborn, that would be ideal, but I doubt that's ever goy-nna happen.

It's different because this can never be undone.

Never say never.

Don't give false hope to the millions of mutilated guys out there. They are living cursed half-lives.

I didn't say it would be easy.  But then it also isn't easy to overcome childhood indoctrination. The idea that the mind is more malleable and resilient than the body is one of those canards that causes a great deal of harm in a wide variety of ways.

[John Dule]

While I am still intact and glad of it, I'll have to vote no.  The physical impact is minimal, if done competently, so even if done solely for religious reasons, I don't see a clear dividing line between this and any other form of religious indoctrination of minors by parents.  Beyond basic regulations to ensure the hygiene and skill of the practitioner that should be in place, just as it should be for any surgical procedure, the only special regulation concerning circumcision that I'd care to enact is requiring local anesthesia. Moreover, this literally is a procedure that is easier on the recipient at the neonatal stage than later.  Now if we ever develop a method of temporal communication so that we could have an adult decide if he wanted it done when he was a newborn, that would be ideal, but I doubt that's ever goy-nna happen.

It's different because this can never be undone.

Never say never.

Don't give false hope to the millions of mutilated guys out there. They are living cursed half-lives.

I didn't say it would be easy.  But then it also isn't easy to overcome childhood indoctrination. The idea that the mind is more malleable and resilient than the body is one of those canards that causes a great deal of harm in a wide variety of ways.

I also think it should be illegal to take your kids to church tbh

[W]

For non-medical reasons, I lean towards yes.

That said, everyone who I've known to be aggressively anti-circumcision is a bit... insecure. It's very low on my priority list.

[Storebought]

In an ideal world, male infant circumcision would be more widespread. The medical benefits are manifold, and the surgery itself is less invasive in infants than in adults. That's exactly the opposite for similar surgeries like tonsil removal, appendectomy, and third- and fourth-molar extraction, which can only be safely performed on older patients.

[DC Al Fine]

No, at the very least it's the state de facto putting up a 'No dogs or Jews allowed' sign.

[afleitch]

No, at the very least it's the state de facto putting up a 'No dogs or Jews allowed' sign.

?

[DC Al Fine]

No, at the very least it's the state de facto putting up a 'No dogs or Jews allowed' sign.

?

By banning a traditional Jewish religious and cultural practice, we are effectively telling Jews they are not welcome. Hence the reference to a common shop sign from 1950's(!) Ontario and elsewhere.

[afleitch]

No, at the very least it's the state de facto putting up a 'No dogs or Jews allowed' sign.

?

By banning a traditional Jewish religious and cultural practice, we are effectively telling Jews they are not welcome. Hence the reference to a common shop sign from 1950's(!) Ontario and elsewhere.

So mutilation should not be banned if it's 'tradition'.

[DC Al Fine]

No, at the very least it's the state de facto putting up a 'No dogs or Jews allowed' sign.

?

By banning a traditional Jewish religious and cultural practice, we are effectively telling Jews they are not welcome. Hence the reference to a common shop sign from 1950's(!) Ontario and elsewhere.

So mutilation should not be banned if it's 'tradition'.

No, that's a rather obtuse way of putting it. My argument is similar to Crabcake's

I view it as similar to the niqab: a rather gross thing that I wish didn't exist, but the implications of a ban goes way more than the damage done by its continued practice amongst a small minority (I'm talking about a non USA context). Like, if we want a ban we are saying that the practice of Judaism - and as far as I know infant circumcision is a consistent tenet amongst even the most liberal interpretations of Jewish law - would be banned. This is really not an avenue I want to remotely venture down.

In short, we don't make policy in a vaccumn. Given the long and sordid history of the state's power being used to oppress ethnic, religious, and cultural minorities, when a proposed policy touches on the practices, traditions or folkways of a minority:

a) The onus should be on the state to show it has a compelling reason to intervene.

b) The compelling reason should be weighed against the effects it will have on the minority in question.

In the case of male circumcision, the health and sexuality arguments for intervening are entirely unconvincing, and the effects on the ethnic religious minorities that practice it are quite oppressive, so male circumcision ought not to be banned. Now if we were talking about female circumcision or chopping off hands, the analysis would be entirely different, but male circumcision does not remotely rise to that level.

[afleitch]

Conversely I would argue the one area of human rights on which we still fail (globally) is the rights of children as individuals with rights independent of and at times contrary to those of their caregivers. Circumcision for religious aesthetic regions I think is a serious infringement on those rights.

[Former President tack50]

Honestly I find the argument about Judaism extremely unconvincing. In a secular state, religion should not be considered at all when drafting public policies. The state should be religiously blind and judge policy based on the "earthly" consequences. Like afleitch said, "tradition" is not a justification for something like that.

The argument that actually gives me second thoughts on circumcision is the argument that it is easier to do on infants. But if anything I suppose that is an argument for doctors to encourage giving circumcisions to infants who actually need them a lot more often than they do; if anything.

Circumcision should not be seen as a religious issue but as a medical issue.

If someone is religiously Jewish, they can get circumcided when they are older and actually conscious of the decision, say at age 18. (which I assume is also what happens to converts?).

If someone is "merely" culturally/ethnically Jewish, then I see no reason to allow circumcision for non-medical reasons. There are tons of non-Jewish people in the US that get circumcided (indeed, the vast majority of people who actually get it)

[John Dule]

No, at the very least it's the state de facto putting up a 'No dogs or Jews allowed' sign.

?

By banning a traditional Jewish religious and cultural practice, we are effectively telling Jews they are not welcome. Hence the reference to a common shop sign from 1950's(!) Ontario and elsewhere.

How do you feel about banning virgin sacrifices? Should people of Aztec descent be allowed to carve out their children's hearts for the Sun God? If pedophilia is one of my "cultural practices," do I get a pass?

[DC Al Fine]

No, at the very least it's the state de facto putting up a 'No dogs or Jews allowed' sign.

?

By banning a traditional Jewish religious and cultural practice, we are effectively telling Jews they are not welcome. Hence the reference to a common shop sign from 1950's(!) Ontario and elsewhere.

How do you feel about banning virgin sacrifices? Should people of Aztec descent be allowed to carve out their children's hearts for the Sun God? If pedophilia is one of my "cultural practices," do I get a pass?

I dealt with this issue two posts down from the one you are responding to.

[DC Al Fine]

While I am still intact and glad of it, I'll have to vote no.  The physical impact is minimal, if done competently, so even if done solely for religious reasons, I don't see a clear dividing line between this and any other form of religious indoctrination of minors by parents.  Beyond basic regulations to ensure the hygiene and skill of the practitioner that should be in place, just as it should be for any surgical procedure, the only special regulation concerning circumcision that I'd care to enact is requiring local anesthesia. Moreover, this literally is a procedure that is easier on the recipient at the neonatal stage than later.  Now if we ever develop a method of temporal communication so that we could have an adult decide if he wanted it done when he was a newborn, that would be ideal, but I doubt that's ever goy-nna happen.

It's different because this can never be undone.

Never say never.

Don't give false hope to the millions of mutilated guys out there. They are living cursed half-lives.

I didn't say it would be easy.  But then it also isn't easy to overcome childhood indoctrination. The idea that the mind is more malleable and resilient than the body is one of those canards that causes a great deal of harm in a wide variety of ways.

I also think it should be illegal to take your kids to church tbh

That would require quite the police state, my yellow avatar friend.

[John Dule]

No, at the very least it's the state de facto putting up a 'No dogs or Jews allowed' sign.

?

By banning a traditional Jewish religious and cultural practice, we are effectively telling Jews they are not welcome. Hence the reference to a common shop sign from 1950's(!) Ontario and elsewhere.

How do you feel about banning virgin sacrifices? Should people of Aztec descent be allowed to carve out their children's hearts for the Sun God? If pedophilia is one of my "cultural practices," do I get a pass?

I dealt with this issue two posts down from the one you are responding to.

Explain to me how it is "oppressive" to tell you that you can't take a knife and cut off part of another human being's body.

[Gass3268]

No of course not.

[DC Al Fine]

No, at the very least it's the state de facto putting up a 'No dogs or Jews allowed' sign.

?

By banning a traditional Jewish religious and cultural practice, we are effectively telling Jews they are not welcome. Hence the reference to a common shop sign from 1950's(!) Ontario and elsewhere.

How do you feel about banning virgin sacrifices? Should people of Aztec descent be allowed to carve out their children's hearts for the Sun God? If pedophilia is one of my "cultural practices," do I get a pass?

I dealt with this issue two posts down from the one you are responding to.

Explain to me how it is "oppressive" to tell you that you can't take a knife and cut off part of another human being's body.

By substantively hindering an unpopular minority in the free practice of their religion.

But if the connotations around the word bothers you, you can swap it out for suppressive if you prefer. As in:

"In the case of male circumcision, the health and sexuality arguments for intervening are entirely unconvincing, and the effects on the ethnic religious minorities that practice it are quite oppressive suppressive, so male circumcision ought not to be banned."

My evaluation is the same either way

[John Dule]

By substantively hindering an unpopular minority in the free practice of their religion.

But if the connotations around the word bothers you, you can swap it out for suppressive if you prefer. As in:

"In the case of male circumcision, the health and sexuality arguments for intervening are entirely unconvincing, and the effects on the ethnic religious minorities that practice it are quite oppressive suppressive, so male circumcision ought not to be banned."

My evaluation is the same either way

A ban on circumcision has nothing to do with religion. It is about protecting the bodily autonomy of infants. "The free practice of religion" stops being relevant once it starts causing direct physical harm to other human beings. Telling you that you can't cut up a baby doesn't affect your rights one iota. It is neither oppressive nor suppressive.

[John Dule]

"My religion demands that I go around in a crowd pricking people with thumbtacks!"

"Uh, no... that's not okay."

"Stop oppressing me!"

[7,052,770]

I would call it defensible. Notice any similarities in these maps?

What exactly does this prove?

It doesn't prove anything, but given the amount of evidence that circumcised penes are less likely to pick up HIV, it's good to have some real-world backup for the idea. HIV is ravaging the Christian parts of Africa (generally not circumcised) so much harder than the Muslim parts (circumcision required). This is despite the fact that HIV first appeared in humans in Congo and has had plenty of time to spread to the Muslim parts as easily as the Southern tip of Africa.

Obviously it's not a 100% explanation and there are other factors that are at play, but circumcision has tangible benefits and no drawbacks beyond "bodily autonomy" issues. As a non-expert, I will of course change my mind if the American medical community does, but barring that, circumcision is a no-brainer if I ever have a son. I've never in my life met a circumcised person who was in any way upset about it having been done.

[7,052,770]

I'd also like to point out that referring to my penis, or those of our Jewish, Muslim, and American posters, as "mutilated" is highly offensive and should be modded and infracted. There's nothing wrong with my body or any of ours.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

No, at the very least it's the state de facto putting up a 'No dogs or Jews allowed' sign.

I wasn't aware that dogs were often circumcised.

[John Dule]

I would call it defensible. Notice any similarities in these maps?

What exactly does this prove?

It doesn't prove anything, but given the amount of evidence that circumcised penes are less likely to pick up HIV, it's good to have some real-world backup for the idea. HIV is ravaging the Christian parts of Africa (generally not circumcised) so much harder than the Muslim parts (circumcision required). This is despite the fact that HIV first appeared in humans in Congo and has had plenty of time to spread to the Muslim parts as easily as the Southern tip of Africa.

Obviously it's not a 100% explanation and there are other factors that are at play, but circumcision has tangible benefits and no drawbacks beyond "bodily autonomy" issues. As a non-expert, I will of course change my mind if the American medical community does, but barring that, circumcision is a no-brainer if I ever have a son. I've never in my life met a circumcised person who wasn't grateful to have had it done - in fact I've never knowingly met an uncircumcised person at all.

Okay, I wasn't even sure what those two maps were meant to depict. But why just focus on Africa? It seems to me that if this hypothesis were to hold true, then countries like China and Japan that have some of the lowest circumcision rates in the world would also have above-average HIV rates.



Hmm... no. It seems to me like this is more of a "Sub-Saharan Africa" problem than a "not circumcised" problem.