Circumcision debate - why the obsession?

The BBQ Pit
141

I am familiar with your straw man. Someone may have said that parents should not have the choice. I’m not arguing that. Bughunter to whom you were replying in the post I was quoting was not arguing that. Chotii was not arguing that.

I appreciate that one of the difficulties with this debate is that there are extremists involved. You can pursue the tactic of attacking the extremist position if you like, but if you want to be more constructive, you need to deal with what most on the other side are saying, not just what you’d like them to be saying so you can attack it.

I’m not trying to change anything. I just think circumcision is a silly unnecessary thing that is not justifiable on any rational ground, and I think that since you seem to have a contrary position, and since chopping bits off children is generally frowned on, it’s up to you to justify why chopping foreskins off should not be frowned upon.

No he wasn’t and neither was bughunter to whom you were replying.

Do you or do you not agree that chopping parts of children is generally frowned upon? If not, do you agree that foreskins are an exception (clearly so). That being the case, it is the exception and not the rule that needs to justify itself, in my view. Justify the exception.

Because your position as stated above was not apparent from what you were arguing against bughunter.

I was being fair. You chose to use an analogy based around morality attacks on voluntary adult behaviour. I suggested that was inappropriate to the debate.

If you can’t tell that this isn’t the only position being argued you’re not reading carefully enough. You need to be more careful in how you spray your arguments around if you are only aiming at one element of the debate.

No. Look rather than do this sentence by sentence, let me summarise. You are the one that needs to go back and read again. There are plenty above who say they would circumsize their children. Are you suggesting that they are saying they would do it but don’t think they should? Or that they would do so but it would be better if they didn’t?

For fuck’s sake. Earlier in the post under reply you even discuss the fact that I’m not arguing that choice should be taken away and here you are once again acting as if I’m arguing for something that you’ve acknowledged I’m not arguing for.

Jesus H Christ on a bicycle. You really are being extraordinarily obtuse.

See if you can read the following and understand it: because circumcision is a non-reversible procedure carried out on children for (as you admit) no reason. The “personal choice” examples you blather above are entirely distinguishable for that reason. Parents do not stamp their religion, politics or cola preference on their children in a manner that the child cannot, when adult, reverse. How the fuck hard is that to understand?

Doc, you’ve chosen to live your life entirely (I take it) upon your/your society’s interpretation of an old book. As that old book says certain things you will do them. Noted. I don’t have anything further to say to you.

142

[Doc, I meant to add (but hit submit too soon).]:

… on this specific subject. Whether following a religion is rational is a whole other thing that I’m not debating.

And of course on your NCCF work I could talk forever…

143

No, wrong, bullshit. There are plenty of reasons for circumcision-A decreased risk of penile cancer, easier to clean, religious feality, asthetics, custom, etc… It’s up to individual parents to judge weather these benefits outweigh the slight risks associated with the procedure. You may not think these reasons are sufficient to offset the risk, but that’s a decision you only get to make for your kids. It’s a decision I get to make for my kids, and Doc Cathoe gets to make for his.

144

Weirddave - Is there anything that parents might decide to do to their children (having judged it a good idea, based on their understanding of the perceived risks and perceived benefits) that would actually be wrong? At what point, if any, should they be overruled?

145

Aw, shit, you’re right. I’ve blamed you for that comment several times, when it was Catsix who said it. I’m sorry. I feel like a prick now, ironically enough.

And yeah, given some of the stories I’ve heard about hospitals, I’d trust a mohel long before I’d trust a doctor. Besides, they just plain have more experience with it. But then, I wouldn’t have it done to my kid anyway.

While I wouldn’t phrase it quite so harshly, I can’t say I particularly argue with that statement.

That’s not nice at all, even if you qualified it later by saying your objections were limited to circumcision. People do have religious faith, and most of them don’t pick and choose which parts to follow based on what makes them comfy inside. You wanna take on the Jewish and Muslim faiths, this ain’t the thread in which to do it. Arguing that Jews and Muslims needn’t or shouldn’t clip their kids isn’t really a tenable position - the Orthodox and (I believe) Conservative branches of Judaism both hold that the Torah was dictated to Moses by God.

If you believe that that’s theologically invalid, this ain’t the time or place. If you think they should ignore the bits that you or they don’t like, again, not the time or place. If you think there’s a strong enough argument to justify taking away a religious ritual, this is the time and place, but I think it’s clear that you don’t believe that.

Anyway, I don’t think aesthetics or custom, or the tortured medical justifications used in the debate, are an adequate reason to circumcise a kid. Nevertheless, I don’t think my view applies to everyone, so I think we shouldn’t step in and stop it from happening. As far as I can tell, you agree with me on those two points, so I guess there’s no reason to argue, and if I misrepresented your case before, I’m sorry.

146

As an uncircumcised European I would have to agree; all you circumcised Americans are probably more or less defective. Hah hah. You don’t know what you miss out on. Heh heh Not that you should feel bad about it or anything but I’m more man than any of you circumcised boys ever will be. No wonder US chicks prefer European males. They do, don’t they? Well they bloddy well should!

emmm… :eek:

147

Wasn’t addressed to me, but I’d like to point out that we grant religious exemptions to vaccination rules, and there are parents who choose not to based on what appears to be very tenuous medical reasoning. I’d be way more comfortable saying vaccination is mandatory (perhaps even over religious objections, though I haven’t given that point much thought or research, so I make no promise to stick by it) than outlawing circumcision.

I’m also all for stopping parents from using cult-mandated severe corporal punishment, or stepping in when kids are subjected to Babywise and other such nonsense. There’s far more reason to think those hurt children.

148

Actually, could you provide a citation for this?

149

A friend of mine had to have a circumsision later on in life (26) after a mis-diagnosed STD and he has reported drastic reduction in sensitivity. The fact that he thinks it has made him a better lover is also food for thought…

150

It is food for thought, but [aside]he might be wrong about this ‘better lover’ business - certainly loss of sensitivity might mean that he can merrily plug away at penetrative sex for longer, but that isn’t necessarily a good thing, outside of the entertainment market, at least.

151

In the broader sense it is a societal decision. Here is a link about the dramatic rise and fall of circ in NZ The rise and fall of circumcision in New Zealand (be warned it does go on a bit…ok a lot).

To sum up a long and somewhat boring link (if you are not a Kiwi, I found it fascinating) New Zealand went from circ being very uncommon to almost universal and then back to very uncommon. The period when it was most common was during and just after WW2, and seemed to be driven by the “easier to keep clean” thing or the “sand myth” (soldiers serving in the desert picked up infections, more to do with STDs then foreskins).

I don’t claim that this link has no bias.

A quote from the link
"During and after World War Two, a very common reason for circumcising was

“He might have to fight in the desert. He could get an infection under his foreskin and have to be circumcised then. Better to do it now.”
This claim, “the sand myth,” is rebutted in detail on another page. It was responsible for a large but unknown number of circumcisions.

The doctors interviewed in the 1960s often mentioned wartime hygiene problems with troops, and one noted that circumcision peaked in popularity after each World War."

According to the link the pressure from society was the reason circ was done.

From the link.
"Once a significant number of men were circumcised, circumcision for conformity’s sake came into play in our very conformist society, and in 1977, when Shannon, Horwood and Fergusson found the rate of circumcision in Christchurch had fallen to 24 per cent (graph point 5), a circumcised father was the biggest single risk factor. That same longitudinal study of 590 boys, the city’s entire birth cohort for three and a half months, also found that by the mothers’ report, 62 percent of fathers (and 34 per cent of elder brothers) were circumcised. This gives us a rough estimate for men born about 1934-44 (graph point 3). The fathers and brothers may not have been born in New Zealand, however.)

But our own contemporaries, born 1941 to 1948, were approximately 95% circumcised (graph point 4), and reports of intact boys being stigmatised date back as far as the birth-year of 1940 - before the sand-myth could have had effect."
I thought this was an interesting factor too.

From the link.
“So it seems the tide went out some time after the war, driven out as it had been driven in, by doctors, but delayed by considerable parental pressure. And grandparental: Some time around 1980, a colleague of mine took her daughter to six different doctors before they could find one to circumcise her grandson. Shannon et al had found grandmother’s opinion to be the next greatest risk factor after father’s circumcision. In 1972 some mothers still thought it was done as a matter of course.”
Though there may be no evidence that circumcision does any actual harm. It is interesting to see that many doctors prefer not to do it.

From the link.
"New Zealand had 6,636 Jews at the 2001 census, 162 of them males aged 0-4, suggesting ~32 circumcisions/year, and when the occasion arises, a doctor-mohel is flown in from Sydney every six months or so, to circumcise in batches - breaking the covenantal requirment that it be done on the eighth day. In 2001 there were 23,631 Muslims, 3591 males under 15, suggesting ~240 circumcisions/year.

One doctor in Wellington will circumcise on request, but in many cities, none will. "

"As two doctors separately said to each of us, in more or less the same words, “I always hated doing them, and I was glad to give it up.”

“By 1976 it was nearly universal not to raise the subject - a “sleeping dogs” policy. In 1986, no circumcision instruments could be found at National Women’s.” (hospital)

152

Which still completely ignores the free will of that person. If it’s not acceptable to choose for a twelve year old boy, or a six year old boy, why is it automatically acceptable to choose for one that was just born?

This is also something that I don’t understand.

Isn’t there also stuff in there about executing homosexuals? If you can ignore other things in a holy book (and every religion’s followers do this), why is that one so important?

The first of which is speculative at best. The second, again, is not absolute fact. There are limitations on what people can do to other people (including their own children) in the name of religion, and asthetics is a poor reason to amputate part of someone else’s body, so that one seems a valid argument only if talking about circumcisiong yourself.

153

Catsix There can be no trials, and no executions without a proper Jewish court. Such a court does not currently exist, and hasn’t for a long time. Circumcision requires somebody with the proper skills, and saying the proper blessings. Additionally when I talk to G-d on the subject of homosexuality, I get “Hate them? Why should I hate them? They are My children! If I have such a problem with gay people, why do I keep making gay people?”. When we chat on circumcision “Look, bubbele, you’re sliced and it hasn’t caused you any problems. If you have a son, why shouldn’t he be sliced? You’ll invite the relatives, have a nice deli cater. But first, you need to meet a nice Jewish girl. Why haven’t you met a nice Jewish girl?”

Excalibre All Princhester is saying is ‘You cannot use logic to argue somebody out of a position that they did not arrive at logically.’. If I had given a medical or asthetitic reason, he could present arguments with cites and either change my mind, or show other posters that my position is invalid. But if I say ‘G-d told me to do it.’ He cannot (with the possible exception of proving that G-d does not exist. And proving a negative is a very difficult thing) use any logical argument to counter my position.

154

I just think the real question is ‘Why shouldn’t he have the choice to be sliced or not?’

155

Does the Torah mention killing homos? I don’t remember where in the Tanakh that stuff appears. But circumcision is indeed far more central than any of the other laws. (Not that they’re not all essential, dictated by G-d, yadda yadda yadda). The circumcision is the symbol of God’s covenant with the nation of Israel; it’s what marks you ethnically as a Jew and religiously as one of the Chosen People. It is explicitly stated that it is to be done on the eighth day, and this covenant is perhaps the most central part of Judaism. The covenant, in fact, defines the Jews as a people and Judaism as a religion - without this covenant, Judaism and Jewishness just don’t exist.

Moreover, the Tanakh goes on to frequently use circumcision as a metaphor for proper living; people are described as “uncircumcised in their hearts” - the centrality of circumcision is mentioned over and over. It’s not a brief passage, nor something open to interpretation. While no doubt some more liberal Reformers and probably lots of Reconstructionists don’t agree with circumcision - I have no doubt you’ll be able to find cites if you try - they are the same people who reject the theistic, religious elements of Judaism altogether and view it as a cultural concept.

Look, catsix, you may not like circumcision. But don’t act as though everyone who practices it is simply being perverse; you don’t seem to have anywhere near the knowledge of Judaism required to understand the religious significance of the act, and it may well be equally important to Islam, though I couldn’t say.

Whatever the reason for your own stridency here, I don’t think you could fail any more acutely to make a point. No one’s asking you to have your kids circumcised, no one’s trying to implement it nationally in some evil plot to control men’s sexuality. People have their beliefs, and their reasons, and as far as I’m concerned, you’re illustrating perfectly why morality is no basis for law, because you’ve made it so apparent that you don’t care about anyone else’s thoughts or opinions, just your own. Circumcision, good or bad, is far from the biggest injustice in the world, and your claim that “it shouldn’t be done because there’s no reason to do it” has some validity, but it doesn’t approach justifying your fervor. People like you are what the OP was asking about, and I guess I just have to conclude that you’re either straight-up batshit insane or just so self-centered that you’ve never even realized that your own thoughts and beliefs don’t justify changing society. Hell, at least the anti-gay crowd is worried about my immortal soul; you’ve got some gigantic nest of seventeen-year cicadas up your ass about kids’ wangs.

Disclaimer: IANAJew, just an agnostic who gets really pissed about how blasé folks can be about others’ beliefs.

156

Well then you don’t undersatnd at all the reasons that I think it should be illegal to circumcise a person without that person’s explicit consent.

Cutting off a part of another person’s body is a permanent alteration, and since the only reasons given to do this are entirely subjective and based on someone else’s belief (not the one person directly affected by the amputation), it shouldn’t be permissible to violate their body in that manner.

Get it yet?

Cutting parts off of others barring medically essential situations is wrong.

157

Because the Talmud says to do it when he’s only eight days old. G-d reveals Himself to Abraham. He tells Abrahim to slice his penis. Abraham is in his nineties at the time. G-d tells Abraham that he will have a son. Abraham has Ishmael with Haggar. Ishmael is circumcised at age thirteen. G-d tells Abraham that He meant a son with his wife Sarah. Sarah is also well past retirement age. She laughs when Abraham tells her that she will have a son. So they name their son Isaac- In Hebrew Yitzhak which means laughter[sub]*[/sub]. Yitzhak, whose descendants G-d promises will be as many as the stars, is circumcised on the eighth day after his birth. G-d tells Abraham ‘And all his children will do this as a sign of their covenant with me.’.

There have been plenty of GD threads on homosexuaility and the Bible. If you read the Torah, it isn’t mentioned a lot.

Circumcision is. It is a big, huge deal.

There have been plenty of times and places when it was much safer to conceal the fact that you are a Jew. We still circumised our sons.

[sub]*[/sub] I mentioned Rabbi Klirs, in earlier posts. His first name was Yitzhak, and he lived up to it. Through his example I learned that when we work to make another person smile or laugh, we do the will of G-d, and that if practicing Judaism isn’t bringing you joy, then you’re probably doing it wrong.

158

You are aware that female circumcision and things like honor killings are a really big deal to other religions, yet we don’t allow their followers to go around doing that to people without consent (and sometimes not at all) in the United States, correct?

159

When there is a reasonable, demonstratable potential hard, not a statistically insignifigant chance of physical harm or a pie in the sky possibility that the child may blame his problems on his penis when he grows up. That’s why I have been asking for proof, over and over again. Without proof that circumcision harms the child, there is no reason to forbid the practace.

See, the point is that you don’t get to make these decisions for other people, they do. If that’s the decision you make reguarding circumcision and your kids, great, more power to you, I support it 100%. You don’t get to tell someone else they can’t do it unless you can PROVE that it’s harmful. So far, nobody has even attempted to. And before you bring it up again, I know you’re going to say:

You’ve been repeating it ad nauseum for this entire thread. What you just WON’T admit is that kids are not emancipated people. Parents, can, do and must make decisions each and every day that go against the kid’s wishes. Baring any proof of harm, circumcision is one of those decisions that fall under parental pervue. The parent has the right to give explicit consent. Not me, not you, not Jack Dean Tyler and not even the kid himself. The parent(s).

Get it yet?

160

So you don’t think there’s anything wrong with chopping a body part off another human when you’d never be allowed to otherwise because the person you’re doing it to is too young to say anything?

What the hell went wrong in your brain? ‘Oh he can’t say anything at all, so we can cut off whatever we’d like for any reason we can drum up or no reason at all.’?

Is that how it works in your world?

Parents do not have an absolute right to consent to have things done to their children, or to do things to their children. There are already things they cannot do, such as sell them into slavery, cut off their external ears, remove their labia, etc. The last two wouldn’t necessarily be ‘harmful’ in the same sense that cutting off a foreskin isn’t ‘harmful’, yet they can’t do that to their kids.

Why does cutting off part of a boy’s body get different treatment from you as merely a matter of ‘parental choice’?