Also as a point of irrelevant fact, Judaism did not invent circumcision: it was common among the Semitic peoples long before the Kingdom of Israel existed in the 9th century BCE, going back at least as far as the 23rd century BCE. What changed culturally with Judaic circumcision was moving it from a coming of age ritual to a newborn one. Many of the peoples around them were already circumcising and many of those who were absorbed into the Kingdom were likely adult circumcised males who had the ritual done somewhere around the age of sexual maturation.
As far as income goes … in the United States pediatricians rarely do circs. The OBs do. They are in the hospital for more of the time and more procedure oriented. Oh there are a few local exceptions, but they are exceptions. This is not a money maker for the vast majority of peds and OBs can make more doing other things.
The policy statement really is not much of a change from the previous 1999 one which basically also had said that the decision to circumcise was one that might be medically justified and that the decision should be made by the parents after discussion of the possible risks and benefits.
13 years later the update takes into account many additional studies and concludes that the evidence for benefit is stronger than it was, greater than the risks, but that the decision is still not a slam dunk. It is still not advised as a routine procedure and is still encouraged to be one made by parental informed decision making.
Honestly almost every pediatrician I know is pretty neutral on circs. The medical benefits are real but they are not huge. The risks are real but even smaller. Doing it is a reasonable decision and not doing it also is. The passion that many of the anti-circers have about this though, their desire to criminalize a reasonable medical decision for many parents to make on behalf of their sons and a fundamentally important religious one to a few, does mystify many of us though, I must admit.
Oh the matrilineal descent bit … tribal origins of the faith. I’d actually be very interested if an anthropologist could chime in with some elucidation on what factors seem to determine if a particular culture grants tribal identity by matrilineal versus patrilineal versus other factors …
Attempting to answer my own question I’ve found this article that posits that being primarily horticultural is associated with matrilineal descent and primarily pastoral (cattle keeping) with patrilineal descent.
It’s elective genital surgery being performed on a child without their consent. And all of the studies showing some kind of minimal advantage were done after the fact to justify a procedure that has its origins in religious and cultural tradition. I fail to see why it’s difficult to understand why some people might be a tad worked up about this.
What’s all this stuff about having the same last name as your father then?
Judaism is, essentially, a tribal identity. Imagine if you will a tribe of Maoris or North American Indians, in which the child’s tribal identity is set through the matrilinial line, while their clan identity is set through their patrilinial line. Imagine also that members of a certain tribe are tattood.
Is this “racist”? Well, no, because it has absolutely nothing to do with “race”. It is a form of identity that long, long predates modern notions of “race”.
I see nothing “seriously proposed and supported by medical research”.
You are equating modern medical science on the one hand, and the ramblings of some cleric on the other.
Though unintentional, your position is somewhat similar to those who wish to teach “intellegent design” alongside evolution. Surely you do not really believe that?
As a matter of course, parents must make decisions which are both elective and comparably permanent. As a young child my parents decided that I would undergo two surgeries to straighten out my knock-kneed legs — I had no input, gave no consent. Without the surgeries I would’ve had some difficulty walking but the risks involved, and the pain felt through recovery, were real and nontrivial.
The benefits of circumcision are much lower than those of my surgeries; the risks, the pain, and the long-term effects (e.g. noticeable scarring on my knees) are also much lower. In comparison to cumulative effect of all the decisions my parents made for me, good ones and bad ones, it seems almost laughable that I would get worked up about the loss of a bit of skin, the only benefit of which seems to be slightly more tedious genital-area hygiene.
Well, whoop dee doo. My parents done mutilated me and now it’s easier to clean my junk — someone call my attorney.
Very few people get worked up when someone decides not to circumcise their child. If you choose not to that is your prerogative as a parent. Choosing to circumcise your child is not an unheard of or morally horrible thing to do, and it gets upsetting to be painted as if it is such.
No one is manipulating or fabricating data to justify it, but doing the studies and presenting the data because it is a contentious issue and facts are helpful.
It probably upsets FGM proponents too to hear themselves described as barbaric. They feel they are doing it for the right reasons, you know. They don’t hate their daughters.
The discussion of Jewish doctors and bias on the part of circumcision advocates ends now. It’s a hijack of the thread and it’s also a distraction from the merits of the arguments. If posters have specific cites about flaws in the scientific data “supporting” circumcision, they can post those cites and make arguments based on them. However vague and unsupported allegations of bias don’t contribute anything to the discussion, and those are done with.
Even if one accepted being on the “wrong” side of history (meaning that one’s ideas would be forgotten/hated) why wouldn’t you continue defending your beliefs?
I disagree, and my instruction applies to posts on page 1 as well as page 2. If you have further questions or comments, please make them by the appropriate means- private messages or posts in ATMB. I’ve gone back to make my mod note more specific, and I hope that helps.
Parents are as a general rule entrusted to be the informed decision maker and to give consent or not on behalf of their children, within a broad range. That applies not only to procedures with clear medical benefits (for which the issue is if the benefits are large enough to justify a procedure or not) but even for procedures that are cosmetic only … removal of large birthmarks, ear tags, orthodontics … I never consented to braces.
In America we give an especially broad range when religion is involved … hence parents being allowed to have a religious exemption for immunizations even though the risk of that decision is significant.
You seem to be worked up over the fact that this involves a penis.