Should infant circumcision be illegal?

[politicallefty]

Unequivocally yes, and any parent caught doing this to their child should face the same punishment as they would if they'd amputated one of his fingers or toes. If female genital mutilation is illegal, male genital mutilation should be as well.

Yeah, I agree with you 100%. Unless there's an actual legitimate and urgent medical need, I don't see how anyone can think it's okay to cut off part of a child's gentitals. Adults should be free to alter their bodies (genitals included) as they see fit, not their parents.

[politicallefty]

I don't see how you can take the entirety of the medical community around the world and not come to the conclusion that the American medical establishment is completely out of step. Even then, the most recent statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics stops short of recommendation, just that there are pros and cons. That statement was highly controversial and at odds with the statements from every other country that makes a statement on the issue. What remains true is that no medical organization in the world recommends routine infant male circumcision.

I have little doubt that a significant part of the reason it remains common in the US is the health insurance structure and ultimately money. One thing of note in the AAP statement is that they want insurance to cover the procedure (which to many parents would convey a sense of medical need). The rate of circumcision in this country has declined dramatically from its peak in the 1960s. Medicaid has stopped coverage in a number of states and generally those states have substantially lower circumcision rates. In Canada, the single-payer healthcare system does not cover circumcisions without medical necessity and Australia bans it in public hospitals unless there's medical necessity.

I find it strange how the American medical establishment (through the AAP) can cite all these numerous benefits of circumcision and maladies of the foreskin that no other country does. Surely if the foreskin were so problematic you would see some evidence in the rest of the world (which is overwhelmingly uncircumcised apart mostly Muslim countries, Israel, and the US)? As for arguments about sensitivity and pleasure, those probably are hard to quantify. I can't see logically how removing foreskin doesn't reduce pleasure and sensitivity when the foreskin has numerous nerve endings and also keeps the head of the penis protected. No one's saying all pleasure or sensitivity is reduced (unless it's botched in some fashion), but if you could only see in black and white, you would still probably say you enjoyed your vision all the same.

[politicallefty]

I have to say I'm not entirely unsympathetic to the argument in terms of Judaism, but it is a permanent physical mark on a male child that cannot be undone. I'm always hesitant to wade too deep into religious arguments, but it seems to me that if it is indeed required as a matter of religious doctrine that it would mean more if an adult were to choose to undergo the procedure himself. From what I've read, there is a debate between more Orthodox and conservative elements in Judaism versus some more liberal as to whether it is required for conversion. I've also read that the original Jewish procedure didn't remove the whole foreskin, which would make the statue of David historically correct. It only became a radical procedure after many Jews would try to stretch their foreskins back to look like the idealized Greeks and Romans so that they couldn't do it anymore. I did a quick search to find what I was remembering:

Circumcision, as it is performed today by religious Jews, is really an amalgam of three different procedures: milah, periah and metzizah. Milah is the actual circumcision, the removal of the tip of the foreskin. It is thought that this was the entire ceremony in biblical times: A metal shield was placed on the end of the penis, and the foreskin was stretched forward; in this way, only the tip — the part that usually, in nonerect penises, extends past the glans, was removed. The prepuce itself remained, and the shaft of the penis (and sometimes part of the glans) remained covered. See Michelangelo’s “David” for an example of this.

Periah is something additional: not circumcision, but “tearing” and removing the prepuce, as well. The Jewish Encyclopedia (1906) describes it this way: “After the excision has been completed, the mohel seizes the inner lining of the prepuce, which still covers the glans, with the thumb-nail and index-finger of each hand, and tears it so that he can roll it fully back over the glans and expose the latter completely. The mohel usually has his thumb-nail suitably trimmed for the purpose.” (Wincing yet?) It is this tearing of the membrane — now often performed with the circumcision knife rather than with fingernails — that removes the entire foreskin and exposes the entire glans and penis, including the highly sensitive area just below the glans. This is a much more significant change in the male anatomy, with much more significant consequences in terms of sensation.

[politicallefty]

To expand upon my viewpoints beyond religion, it would be fair to say that my primary opposition is due to the extremely unnecessary hold it still has in the US. I have a strong socially libertarian leaning that views the right to bodily autonomy as paramount. I think at least 95% of the reason it's still commonplace is that most insurance still pays for it and the absurdity of "he needs to match daddy". I would say that's insecurity on the parental part because no male child tries to think of their father's 'parts'.

As I noted before, Australia is a country where infant circumcision was once common for the same reason it was in the US at the time in the mid-20th century. It's gone from an 80-90% infant circumcision rate to about 10% now. The medical community stopped pushing it, it was no longer paid for, and it was banned in public hospitals unless medically necessary. I don't see why we can't do that in the US, at least to start. That's why I feel the need to push back against the so-called benefits pushed by some that only look at the pros and cons the of the procedure itself without looking at the functions of the foreskin. I'm a pragmatist when it comes to mitigating what I think to be something morally wrong. I think the rate of infant circumcision in the US (which I think is currently in the 50-60% range nationally, though widely variable by state) would drop dramatically if all insurance providers (private and government) ceased covering it.

[politicallefty]

That's what I would think too, but then again, religion doesn't place much value on individual agency and personal choice. Regardless, someone who wants to convert to Judaism can still get circumcised at an age at which they can give consent. That does not make them any "less Jewish" than a person who was circumcised as an infant, so the argument from religion is moot. I appreciate the principle that the government shouldn't interfere with religious ceremonies and traditions-- I agree that organic change from within a community is preferable to enforced change from the outside-- but that stops being a relevant argument when the practice in question causes harm to a third party. If this practice had no theological history to it, and someone suggested that we start performing it in the US, that person would be (rightfully) mocked.

In part, that's what I was trying to get across in my second post above (not sure if you saw it, because you only recommended the first and I waited to post). That's basically what happened in the US about a century ago. Unfortunately, there wasn't any mockery. It certainly had some roots in religion in its intent to prevent or reduce masturbation. It doesn't make it impossible, but it certainly makes it more difficult.

I don't disagree with your viewpoint on relgiion either. It's a view I've always held. Basically, it's okay for certain religious practices so long as they've been practiced for thousands of years. If it's been practiced for 50 years, it's a cult. What would be a prophet a thousand years ago is today a resident of a mental institute.

[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.