G*d also commands Jews to kill their neighbour if he works on the Sabbath. Also to circumsize all their servants and slaves. Obviously the slave does not get to decide that. But Judaism is an evolving religion that changes over the years. Things once normal can be abadoned as barbaric in a later age.
So how are we supposed to approach this contradiction of outrage about circumcision and the unnecessary spearing of infant female ears? What kind of confusing mixed message are we sending to new immigrants?
Don’t bother telling me that circumcision and ear piercing are too different to be analogical. The point of my argument has nothing to do with the different forms of cutting into the body parts of a male or female child.
My question is: Why is it that we are supposed to outlaw male circumcision without their consent, but nobody says boo about girls having their ears mutilated without their consent?
How have I alienated people on the basis of identity? I respect and admire Judaism and the incredible contribution of Jews to every branch of science, education and learning.
I especially admire Judaism for its ability to evolve over the millenia, and to abandon certain aspects of their religion when they become inappropriate.
In the Scriptures, a bride who is discovered not to be a virgin is to be dragged to her father’s front door and stoned to death. Today, would that be considered murder?
To repeat: historically they’ve been very resistant to change this. In the first century Jews actually started practicing a more severe form of male circumcision than they had previously in response to opposition to the practice from neighboring cultures.
I’ve had this argument with other before on the internet. They reason that because the Jews have changed and adapted in regards to other things they’ll yield on this one, but it ignores that there is a hierarchy of importance for Jewish commandments, with some being able to over-ride others. There are a few that are immutable. I believe that Jewish circumcision is one of them (although it wouldn’t bother me to be wrong on that) and it’s not amenable to rational arguments. Remember that Judaism is a religion and religions by their very nature are not grounded in rationalism.
At most I think you might convince them to adopt a less extreme form of the practice (there is evidence that the original form of circumcision was trimming any foreskin that projected past the glans, rather than removing all of it as is now the current practice). But I don’t think you’ll get them to give it up entirely.
Actually, I’ve been bitching about that for years, and on the same basis - that we have no justification to perform medically unnecessary modifications of an infant’s body. When the girl is old enough to articulate a desire for pierced ears then she can get them at that point, with parental consent if she’s still a minor.
Please provide a cite and context for that, because Judaism has long recognized the re-marriage of widows (who would, of course, not be a virgin) and both divorce and re-marriage after divorce where, again, no one would expect the woman to be virgin. Obviously, this is not a nuanced understanding of the culture.
Likewise, Judaism DOES permit parents to forgo circumcision for their son(s) under very limited circumstances, in the Bible that being when a woman has lost previous sons to a bleeding disorder which is now interpreted as excusing Jewish boys suffering from hemophilia and similar bleeding disorders from the requirement. Which is consistent with the Judaic principle that preservation of human life pretty much trumps all other rules and regulations.
By which reasoning I’d say that if you imposed the death penalty for circumcising infants it would give Jews an “out” for skipping the ritual, but mere jail time wouldn’t suffice, much less fines.
It would be great if some actual Jews would weigh in on this, but in SDMB tradition this question was posted late on Friday and so I don’t expect any of then to respond before this evening.
I actually welcome this question. Thank you for asking it. In any overall moral principle there are grey areas created when one looks at extremely minor violations of a principle.
In strict theory, and just to be consistent, I would say that yes, even piercing the ear of a child who cannot consent is in strict principle wrong.
This can be compared to the principle that one must never beat a child. What parent, unless he or she has the patience of Job, has never once in the first 6 or seven years given an unruly child a quick and painless slap on the bum to underscore a command?
Ear piercing of small children DOES violate the principle of bodily integrity, but consider that the hole left by piercing will close by itself. A foreskin or a clitoris does not grow back.
Ear piercing is pretty minor. Teenage girls do it at slumber parties. I have never heard of teenage boys having a circumcision party to remove each other’s foreskins.
What would you think of a parent that has a child’s body extensively tatooed and then claims God told him to?
I think we would have to end it like we work to end other things like slavery and bigamy. Yes, some immigrants come here with slaves and multiple wives. We tell immigrants when they come here what they can and cannot do and if they dont like it, they should leave.
You’re asking American Jews, on the basis of their “undeniable clout”-- whose institutions are already behind armed guards and barbed wire, to support a political movement with “some crazies” by publicly announcing their opposition to the cultural practices of people who are predisposed to antisemitism.
Further, how should American Jews signal to you that circumcision is no longer meaningful to them? Facebook? An article in a niche publication? Media campaign? What would be the content of such a statement? “We undeniably influential people hereby declare that the…” Is this really helping anyone?
Lastly, do you know the percentage of American Jews who are circumcised relative to everyone else in the same area?
That’s a very complicated question in the US, where these rates vary considerably by state and region. I’ve seen stats that 80%+ of ALL newborn boys in West Virginia are still circumcised, but only about 10% of all newborn boys in Nevada. And West Virginia is not noted for having a large Jewish population so that can’t be the reason.
I had trouble getting stats on just Jewish boys in the US, which may be complicated by many Jews still having their boys snipped by religious dudes in the synagogue as opposed to doctors in a hospital. However, what little I could find indicates that the rates of Jewish boy circumcision in the US is still comfortably north of 95%. It is very nearly universal in the US.
This is where your argument fails. The principle you want to hold to is to broad for people to accept. And I don’t believe it’s one held by many people, certainly not the people that share your view that it is hypocritical but use that as a justification for female circumcision. Male circumcision and ear piercing just aren’t in the same category. If you want to convince people male circumcision should be eliminated you’ll have to convince on that specific topic instead of making a distant associations to a practice that is overwhelmingly unacceptable and indefensible to the vast majority of people.
I’m a male who was circumcised at birth. I’m also not a medical professional, but it was my understanding that circumcision was done solely for health and sanitary reasons. It is also my understanding that I am not missing anything (ha!) by the absence of a foreskin, and that those males who have not been circumcised simply have to deal with extra hygiene issues.
If all of that is true, then I think that the whole debate, if there even is any real debate about it, is a complete non-issue.
Many men have been circumcised as adults, and most report no big change. They do not seem to suffer any loss of functionality or pleasure. It really isn’t a bit of flesh we make much use of.
I don’t have much (any!) respect for religion as a reason for doing things, but we live in a world where religion carries vast weight. We need to be extremely careful before we go and step on people’s religious practices.
(I remember when various U.S. state and local governments tried to ban the slaughtering of live fowl for certain religious rituals. The Supreme Court overruled such laws by a full nine to nothing vote.)
Right. So it seems that male circumcision provides a benefit to males with no loss of any benefit. That is the complete non analogy to FGM which destroys a woman’s ability to enjoy sex because of puritanical religious beliefs that the child did not adopt.
I am prepared to be corrected, but I see no comparison between the two.
If some culture had a tradition of such a thing, I would find it very, very strange and absolutely wouldn’t participate with my children. But unless someone can tell me some harm (poor medical outcomes, some general backlash from society that give the kid a harder lot in life, etc) I’m not sure I have a strong standing to argue against some tradition that is for the most part harmless.
So, wanting to prevent genital mutilation is some despicable “political goal”? Casting the comparison as “sexist” is pretty convenient, isn’t it? It closes the debate and prevents you from having to face cognitive dissonance.
First line of defense : you can’t compare both, FGM is so much worse (plenty of posters stated so immediately, even though this was addressed in very clear terms in the OP)?
Answers : One of the form of FGM is in fact pretty much the equivalent of circumcision. Are you willing to allow it (while still forbidding the other worst forms) or are you willing to forbid circoncision? If you don’t want to allow the former and still want to ban the latter, can you explain why the equivalent procedure is fine and dandy when done on boys, but monstrous when done on girls?
Second line of defense : “That’s sexist! (while in fact, you’re the one displaying sexism, here). I don’t even have to discuss the dissonance, I don’t even have to think about it because you’re a bad person!” (unproved, and even it was, it would be an ad hominem fallacy). If you have some arguments, present them. If you’re only argument is “you’re sexist” then you apparently have none, and we can assume that our side (arguing against circumcision) got an easy win.
And it makes me assume that the real issue for many people here is : “I had/my parents had/my relatives and friends had my/their children circumcised. And of course I/my parents/my friends can’t be bad people, so circumcision has to be morally fine, right?” I really can’t see another reason (well…I can see some others, but pretty similar) why one type of genital mutilation done for religious or traditional reasons should be treated differently from another, equivalent genital mutilation done for religious or traditional reasons.
Now, in case you would still argue that even the mildest form of FMG is worst than circumcision, for whatever reason, I would ask you : what kind of female genital mutilation is acceptable? By defending circumcision, you’re agreeing that some level at least of genital mutilation on infants is acceptable. So, let’s assume I belong to some culture where FMG is the norm. I agree not to practice this traditional FMG, but I want my baby girl to have at least some minor symbolical genital mutilation to honor our beliefs/traditions. Which piece of her genitals do you think I can rightfully remove on my baby girl while you remove the foreskin of your baby boy? (please don’t argue that you, personally wouldn’t have circumcision done on your baby. You support people who do, the question stay the same).
Condemning what almost everybody else condemn in your culture is easy. You think you should get a cookie for arguing against FMG? Arguing against an entrenched tradition in your culture is less easy (among other things, you might be called “sexist” or, as the OP pointed out “antisemite”). Maybe we’re wrong, but let me tell you that we are braver than you (it’s not like we’re risking our lives or anything, but we’re apparently risking our reputation if I understand you clearly).
But of course, you’re free to espouse the comfortable position of approving what everybody else approve and disapproving what everybody else disapprove. And I pretty much indeed think that you support circumcision for the exact same reason other people support FMG : because it’s culturally acceptable where and when you live. If you have better reasons you didn’t list them yet, content with demonizing your opponent by calling him “sexist” as if this was putting the issue to rest. It doesn’t.
So, do you have actual argument to support the cutting of genitals on people who are unable to consent to such a practice?
I guess it depends on your opinion of Canada btw. Certainly in my generation (trailing edge of baby boom) it is (or was) common. Personally, I prefer the look of the terrible torture and disfigurement inflicted upon me. Yes, I understand that it serves no purpose but, from what I’ve read, it is not in any way analogous to female genital mutilation.
So you’re either overstating male circumcision or grossly understating female genital mutilation.
Like for instance people never used the ban of interracial marriage as an argument in debates about same sex marriage because it’s way too different, for instance? :rolleyes:
And in fact there are much more dissimilarities between interracial marriage and same sex marriage than between minor forms of FMG and circumcision. The latter are essentially the same thing. I totally agree in fact that piercing ears and circumcision aren’t the same thing (to begin with, I had my ears pierced and I’ve been circumcised. Can you hazard a guess about which part didn’t self-repair?). But in fact, if you think that they’re equivalent, frankly, I’d have zero issue with banning any body modification made without the consent of the person involved. I’d think it’s getting a bit too far, but it totally makes sense, so let’s ban the piercing of child ears if you insist on it.
On the other hand, I’m yet to read someone arguing that since there are genital modifications that are so minor that nobody should be worried about them, circumcision and the equivalent female genital modification should be both allowed. You really can’t get out of this, unless you decide that baby girls and baby boys don’t have the same rights, or more likely, that approved traditions trump these rights, while other, non-approved and foreign, traditions don’t.
In fact, back in the 1970s, there was a brief fad for female circumcision, which is a very minor procedure, exposing a bit more of the clitoris. You’d see it in porn mags and movies. It was a silly fad, and not missed today, but it was the closest equivalent to male circumcision, and it did absolutely no harm, and even (arguably) provided some small amount of benefit.
FGM of the type we’re condemning is approximately equivalent to cutting off the glans from the penis, something us guys would have some real hesitation to undergo!
I’d ideally like for all forms of female geneitial modification to be banned, but if someone really believes it’s a religious necessity, I’d certainly prefer that they be encouraged to do the ultra-mild version rather than the more brutal versions. Male circumcision unlike mild FGM has actual health benefits so I still don’t think they are analogous, although it’s true that the mildest forms of MGM are probably not more damaging than male circumcision.
Malaysia is a relatively advanced / industrialized country (unlike the Muslim nations of Africa), but they also subscribe to the Shafi jurisprudential school that’s the most favourable to FGM, which might explain why a lot of people there do the symbolic or mild forms of female genital modification rather than just omitting the practice entirely.
So, you only have an issue with FMG which is the equivalent of cutting the glans off (cliterectomy) but you aren’t condemning the minor form of FMG the OP refereed to, and are opposed to it being legally forbidden? Because at the moment, it is (at least here, and I gather from previous debates on this topic, also in the USA).
Yes, it reduces the likelihood of penile cancer. Except that not every study agree with it (link to a study showing an increase of the risk of penile cancer in circumcised males, except for children and adolescent with an history of phimosis, in other words for individuals who would have had a legitimate medical, not religious or cultural, reason to be circumcised). And even if it were, the risk of penile cancer is extremely low to begin with, so a reduction of this risk is pretty much irrelevant.
As it is often mentioned, bilateral mastectomy would also significantly reduce the risk of breast cancer (and this time, it’s a significant risk) and nobody is advocating for the preventive removal of various body parts to prevent cancer except in subjects with very high risks.
So, assuming that there’s such an hypothetical benefit to circumcision, how big must be the medical benefit to justify the damages done? Because there’s damage done : you seriously believe that the prepuce has no purpose, and that the removal of the prepuce has no effect on sensitivity and sexual life? If you do, google it, you’ll find easily comparative pictures of keratinised/not keratinized glans. If you think that having a layer of protective callus on your glans has zero effect on your sensitivity and sexual life, what I can say?
Besides, how much effort do you think has been invested in the western world in justifying circumcision, and how much has been invested in finding benefits for the milder version of FMG? Do you think there are a lot of people even trying to figure out whether there are some medical benefits for the latter?