Should infant circumcision be illegal?

[Former President tack50]

All circumcisons? Absolutely not, it is a legitimate medical procedure with plenty of legitimate uses.

It should be banned in the cases of minors though (except with said medical prescription)

[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)

[Former President tack50]

Regarding the medical pros and cons, even if it is successful in reducing HIV spread, I would still argue against it in the US.

I would see the argument that it is the lesser evil in countries getting wrecked by HIV like South Africa and what not; but not in the US or Europe where HIV rates are thankfully low and manegable enough.

[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.

[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.