Should infant circumcision be illegal?

[7,052,770]

TIL the WHO and CDC aren't "repudiable health organizations."

[John Dule]

TIL the WHO and CDC aren't "repudiable health organizations."

The WHO does not recommend the procedure, they only provide recommendations for how doctors should carry it out if someone choose to opt for it. They also shy away from stating outright that circumcision can prevent the spread of HIV (because there is no conclusive evidence), also noting in the process that condoms are a much more effective method to prevent transmission. They even include this caveat in their analysis of the issue:

"Countries should ensure that male circumcision is undertaken with full adherence to medical ethics and human rights principles, including informed consent, confidentiality and absence of coercion."

Hmm... seems pretty clear to me that they aren't recommending the procedure for infants, who cannot give consent.

As for the CDC, their official recommendation on the subject is similarly a series of recommendations for how to perform the procedure to doctors. And let's have a look at what they say about the HIV rate reduction you brought up in Africa:

Three randomized clinical trials showed that adult male circumcision significantly reduced the risk for HIV acquisition among heterosexual males by 51%–60%

Now, let's assume a few things. Firstly, let's assume that condoms are unavailable to these people (which is probably true), because condoms result in an upwards of 80% reduction in contracting HIV. Secondly, let's assume that these clinical trials represent conclusive results. Even then, what the CDC is talking about here is adult male circumcision, not infant circumcision. If STDs are really what you're worried about, then there is no need to inflict this procedure on a man before he reaches puberty. Waiting until the man can give informed consent does not risk the spread of STDs, it only gives him a choice in the matter-- a choice, by the way, that you seem hell-bent on taking away from him no matter what.

Once again, the people who insist on inflicting this upon infants are transparently motivated by ideology-- not science.

[John Dule]

If this was really about health and not religion, you'd see advocates for circumcision also recommending that we remove the appendix at birth.

The appendix can cause far more severe health problems than foreskin can-- hell, there's a 1/14 chance that any given newborn will someday have appendicitis-- but for some reason nobody seems to adamantly support appendectomies for infants. I wonder why?

Some say that circumcision reduces the risk of penile cancer-- which is one of the most uncommon cancers in the world. You know what would be much better for public health? Mastectomies for all newborn girls. After all, breast cancer is much more common than penile cancer. Why run the risk? Let me take a knife to your newborn daughter! You care about her health, don't you?

Proponents of infant circumcision are motivated by religion, tradition, and narrow-mindedness. Nothing more.

[Alcibiades]

I am really torn over this - I think infant circumcision even for religious reasons is ethically indefensible, but I appreciate the problematic connotations of targeting a practice strongly associated with Jews and Muslims.

It is laughable to suggest that newborn boys in the first world should be circumcised to prevent HIV (even though circumcision does seem to marginally reduce the risk), a disease they have a tiny chance of ever catching and which is much more effectively prevented by condoms.

To those arguing it doesn’t reduce pleasure, the entire reason so many American non-Jews and non-Muslims are circumcised is cultural inertia from a practice originally introduced to reduce pleasure from masturbation.

As an uncircumcised Brit, I have always found the American attitude towards circumcision odd, to say the least.

[RINO Tom]

I know this is anti-intellectual and kind of a bro comment as I pass through, but I honestly had zero idea that 1) like, anyone cared about this besides random activists I picture working at a liberal arts college and close to tenure and 2) that this many men were seemingly uncircumcised in the US ... I guess I never looked at stats or anything, but just anecdotally engaging in crude locker room talk over the years, I got the impression about 90% of dudes I know were circumcised.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Just to be clear, if the only reason given for circumcision were health benefits, then I'd agree that infant circumcision should be banned as the health benefits ascribed to the practice only pertain to people past puberty. The only reason I even touched that point was that those arguing for prohibition often engage in bad faith efforts to discredit the studies indicating there are potential health benefits. It's as if they think their own points aren't sufficiently convincing, so they feel a need to thoroughly discredit a point raised by those who are pro-circumcision in hopes of discrediting the rest of their opponents' points by association.

Once you strip away the hyperbole of both sides, the issue boils down to which is more important, penile sensitivity or religion? I consider that to be an extremely subjective question to answer, and as such I favor the choice that requires the least government action. Incidentally, I have no religious reasons to engage in the practice; it was not performed on me; nor would I have it done to any sons I might have, so it's not as if the resolution of this issue personally affects me.

[John Dule]

Which is more important, penile sensitivity or religion?

The great question of the modern era.

[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.

[John Dule]

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.

I don't see why, if you accept the premise that the choice is subjective, you wouldn't also want to leave that choice up to the individual whose life is actually affected by it.

[afleitch]

I mean it's not the child's religion. It's the parents'. And baptism does not leave a permanent physical mark. So they are two different things.

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

I don't really think of this subject either way--I personally was cut, and although I'd prefer not to be (since I'm gonna need the extra skin for reasons that should be obvious by now), I'm not looking back. On the subject I take the Tony/Parrotguy approach--in an ideal world, it would be, but as it stands, such a ban would be a net negative.

[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.

[John Dule]

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?

[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.

I don't see why, if you accept the premise that the choice is subjective, you wouldn't also want to leave that choice up to the individual whose life is actually affected by it.

Because it's not possible to do so. If the child grows up to embrace their parent's religion, and as an adult would have wanted to have been circumcised as a child in accordance with that religion, it's too late to do so.  Both religiously and physically, adult and infant circumcision are not equivalent.  (Tho I'll grant the physical differences are primarily that there is a greater rate of reported side effects when done as an adult.)

Government is just as much giving someone else the ability to make the decision for that child, when it decides to prohibit infant circumcision.  The only difference is whether the decision is made by the government or the parents.

[John Dule]

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.

I don't see why, if you accept the premise that the choice is subjective, you wouldn't also want to leave that choice up to the individual whose life is actually affected by it.

Because it's not possible to do so. If the child grows up to embrace their parent's religion, and as an adult would have wanted to have been circumcised as a child in accordance with that religion, it's too late to do so.  Both religiously and physically, adult and infant circumcision are not equivalent.  (Tho I'll grant the physical differences are primarily that there is a greater rate of reported side effects when done as an adult.)

Government is just as much giving someone else the ability to make the decision for that child, when it decides to prohibit infant circumcision.  The only difference is whether the decision is made by the government or the parents.

There is a greater rate of "reported side effects" for adult circumcision because someone who experienced the procedure as an infant has no frame of reference. This is a textbook case of misleading statistics.

And once again, I will reiterate that by banning circumcision, the government would not be "making a decision" for anyone. Rather, it would be ensuring that an individual's options are left open to him so that he can make an informed choice at a point in his life where he is able to consent. The government regulates the way that parents can treat their children with regards to their diet, their physical and mental well-being, and their education. Parents have had their kids taken away from them for far less than permanent genital disfigurement. Hell, there are even regulations regarding what you can name your kid. If you can't legally pierce, tattoo, or scar your child, then I don't see why an exception should be made for circumcision.

[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.

I don't see why, if you accept the premise that the choice is subjective, you wouldn't also want to leave that choice up to the individual whose life is actually affected by it.

Because it's not possible to do so. If the child grows up to embrace their parent's religion, and as an adult would have wanted to have been circumcised as a child in accordance with that religion, it's too late to do so.  Both religiously and physically, adult and infant circumcision are not equivalent.  (Tho I'll grant the physical differences are primarily that there is a greater rate of reported side effects when done as an adult.)

Government is just as much giving someone else the ability to make the decision for that child, when it decides to prohibit infant circumcision.  The only difference is whether the decision is made by the government or the parents.

There is a greater rate of "reported side effects" for adult circumcision because someone who experienced the procedure as an infant has no frame of reference. This is a textbook case of misleading statistics.

And once again, I will reiterate that by banning circumcision, the government would not be "making a decision" for anyone. Rather, it would be ensuring that an individual's options are left open to him so that he can make an informed choice at a point in his life where he is able to consent. The government regulates the way that parents can treat their children with regards to their diet, their physical and mental well-being, and their education. Parents have had their kids taken away from them for far less than permanent genital disfigurement. Hell, there are even regulations regarding what you can name your kid. If you can't legally pierce, tattoo, or scar your child, then I don't see why an exception should be made for circumcision.

You are entirely ignoring the temporal aspect here. You also appear to be making decisions about what is essential to the practice of religion and how important religion is to one's mental health. It's clear we're not even approaching this from the same frame of reference, which is why I doubt we're doing anything other than talking past each other.

[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.

[afleitch]

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?

[John Dule]

You are entirely ignoring the temporal aspect here. You also appear to be making decisions about what is essential to the practice of religion and how important religion is to one's mental health. It's clear we're not even approaching this from the same frame of reference, which is why I doubt we're doing anything other than talking past each other.

I am no more "ignoring the temporal aspect" of this argument than I am "ignoring the temporal aspect" for Aztec virgin sacrifices. I acknowledge that some people think it is important for their religion, but quite frankly, that is not a good enough reason on its own to justify a religious practice, especially when that practice directly affects a non-consenting third party. It's not that I am not listening to your arguments. It's just that your arguments are not convincing.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

You are entirely ignoring the temporal aspect here. You also appear to be making decisions about what is essential to the practice of religion and how important religion is to one's mental health. It's clear we're not even approaching this from the same frame of reference, which is why I doubt we're doing anything other than talking past each other.

I am no more "ignoring the temporal aspect" of this argument than I am "ignoring the temporal aspect" for Aztec virgin sacrifices. I acknowledge that some people think it is important for their religion, but quite frankly, that is not a good enough reason on its own to justify a religious practice, especially when that practice directly affects a non-consenting third party. It's not that I am not listening to your arguments. It's just that your arguments are not convincing.

I think you either did not understand or deliberately misconstrued what I was referring to with the word "temporal" since you chose to bring up an entirely unrelated historical practice. I would have thought my meaning was clear since I'd explicitly referred to previously, but in hopes you won't go off on another absurd tangent, let me rephrase my meaning in words that are perfectly clear. It is impossible for an adult either to consent to or to reject their own infant circumcision because by the time they are an adult, it's too late for them to be circumcised as an infant.

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.

[Horus]

Of course. And eventually it will be.

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.

Bodily autonomy is always more important than religion.

[Beet]

I tend to lean towards the anti-circumcision side, but I don't see why there can't be a religious exception. You just need to define it so that it doesn't include FGM.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

I tend to lean towards the anti-circumcision side, but I don't see why there can't be a religious exception. You just need to define it so that it doesn't include FGM.

That makes sense from a position of pragmatic compromise, but not from a position of consistent ethics. Infant children of religious people, after all, are not themselves knowingly and willingly religious. Moreover, it is not the business of the American government to take religious tenants into account when legislating.

[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.

[jaymichaud]

No, and I don't even support the practice.