Should infant circumcision be illegal?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

Not everyone shares your subjective perception that it causes physical harm.  Even if they did, why is physical harm a greater concern than spiritual harm?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

I am willing to risk offending religious extremists in order to prevent this barbaric and inhumane practice from perpetuating itself to future generations.

So your subjective opinions are right?  I thought you considered yourself to be a libertarian. Objectively one can say circumcision is a physical alteration. Calling it barbaric or inhumane or referring to it as causing physical harm is very much a subjective opinion.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

One of the 'studies' you cited admitted that it was of self-selected men, Dule. So that effectively means it's as much junk as a political poll of self-selected voters. Perhaps that's why not only the journal it was published in, but it's publisher has gone kaput.  Considering how difficult that is for it to happen, that doesn't speak well of the journal or the articles that landed in it.

As for not using anesthesia, all that does is argue in favor of requiring its use during circumcision, which I already indicated I had no objections to. It's not a valid argument for prohibiting circumcision. Nor are the complications that arose from one case of an extremely unusual method of circumcision; at most that argues for disallowing the use of that method.

When it happens, stenosis is an easily treated complication, so again you raise a point that doesn't argue for prohibition, just serves as a reminder that it is surgery and should be regulated just as any other minor surgery.  If the only choices were unregulated circumcision and prohibiting circumcision, then perhaps an argument could be constructed in favor of prohibition, but those aren't the only choices and it's intellectually dishonest to raise points that could only be relevant if they were the only choices.  The only one of your cites that I find at all relevant to the issue is the decrease in penile sensitivity, and that cite also indicated that the decrease is more noticeable to those who undergo the procedure later in life, and was based on another self-selected online survey of whom less than 8% of those who were circumcised had it done at birth.

In short, Dule, all of your cites either have obvious methodology problems, are irrelevant to the issue of banning infant circumcision, or both. If that's the best you can do, then you haven't made your argument. And in a debate over whether something is to be prohibited, I believe it's definitely the side in favor of prohibition that bears the burden of making a case, no matter what is proposed to be banned.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

One of the 'studies' you cited admitted that it was of self-selected men, Dule. So that effectively means it's as much junk as a political poll of self-selected voters. Perhaps that's why not only the journal it was published in, but it's publisher has gone kaput.  Considering how difficult that is for it to happen, that doesn't speak well of the journal or the articles that landed in it.

As for not using anesthesia, all that does is argue in favor of requiring its use during circumcision, which I already indicated I had no objections to. It's not a valid argument for prohibiting circumcision. Nor are the complications that arose from one case of an extremely unusual method of circumcision; at most that argues for disallowing the use of that method.

When it happens, stenosis is an easily treated complication, so again you raise a point that doesn't argue for prohibition, just serves as a reminder that it is surgery and should be regulated just as any other minor surgery.  If the only choices were unregulated circumcision and prohibiting circumcision, then perhaps an argument could be constructed in favor of prohibition, but those aren't the only choices and it's intellectually dishonest to raise points that could only be relevant if they were the only choices.  The only one of your cites that I find at all relevant to the issue is the decrease in penile sensitivity, and that cite also indicated that the decrease is more noticeable to those who undergo the procedure later in life, and was based on another self-selected online survey of whom less than 8% of those who were circumcised had it done at birth.

In short, Dule, all of your cites either have obvious methodology problems, are irrelevant to the issue of banning infant circumcision, or both. If that's the best you can do, then you haven't made your argument. And in a debate over whether something is to be prohibited, I believe it's definitely the side in favor of prohibition that bears the burden of making a case, no matter what is proposed to be banned.

Hey, don't just take one study's word for it. Maybe look at the NHS website, which explicitly states that "Other possible complications of circumcision can include permanent reduction in sensation in the head of the penis, particularly during sex." It also notes that the evidence linking circumcision to STD prevention is contradictory and inconclusive. As for stenosis, I only picked one of many complications that can arise.

But once again, even if it was proven that circumcision prevents STDs-- which it isn't-- and even if it weren't possible that the procedure could result in decreased sensitivity-- which it is-- then that still would not prove that this surgery should be performed on infants. I would support a system where circumcision is illegal up until the age of 13-14, whereupon an individual could choose for himself whether or not to have the procedure (if his parents tried to strongarm him into it, he could report them for child abuse). But if you are going to inflict this practice upon a vulnerable, helpless child who cannot give consent, then you will have to do a damn fine job of convincing me that it is absolutely necessary, extremely safe, and results in no adverse side effects. These are not things you can prove, because frankly, they aren't true.

Why are you misrepresenting what the NHS site says? It only weakens your argument to do so. It's doesn't say "that the evidence linking circumcision to STD prevention is contradictory and inconclusive"; it says that evidence is not there for STDs other than HIV.

There's evidence from several trials carried out in Africa that circumcised men have a lower risk of acquiring HIV from infected women.

But it's unclear whether male circumcision can help prevent other sexually transmitted infections (STIs).

There have been several studies into male circumcision and the risk of other STIs, but the evidence to date has been inconclusive and conflicting.

Also, I'm not claiming no side effects, just that when properly performed and monitored, those side effects don't adversely affect a person's physical health.  Beyond physical health, the relevance of other effects is entirely subjective.

Also, you seem to be espousing a purely materialistic point of view that only an unaltered physical body is a desirable body. Basically your argument is that parents can't be trusted to raise their kids in a manner that accords with your own subjective opinion of what is desirable, so the state must intervene.  Yes, parents will make mistakes, but so will the state. My own admittedly subjective opinion is that when properly performed, the side effects are sufficiently light that the principle of parental authority (which I'll admit the importance of which is also a subjective opinion) has the better claim to priority over that of state control of children.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

And some of us, thank you very much, think that the other factors (such as decreased sensitivity) are relevant.

And some of us, thank you very much, think other factors than the ones you've raised are relevant. You've yet to provide an objective reason why your factors are more relevant than other factors. Just because Santaists don't have infant circumcision as part of their religion isn't a sufficient reason to prohibit it or consider its prohibition to not be an impingement upon religion.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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. 

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.