Is there any benefit for an otherwise healthy infant? I was under the impression that the supposed non-religious benefits of circumcision all had to do with STDs. Who are these fornicating infants?
If the benefits don’t come into play until the child has reached the age of sexual maturity, can’t we then leave the decision up to the child at that time? I know the recovery is longer and more painful, but is a longer recovery reason enough to remove the child’s choice in the matter altogether? It’s not like it’s a now-or-never scenario.
What if a family with a high risk of ovarian cancer decided to remove their infant daughter’s ovaries, knowing the that recovery would only be longer and more painful as an adult?
But aren’t we talking about ceremonial rituals performed for religious reasons? If some limited forms of bodily mutilation for minor children are permitted on the grounds of free exercise of religion on the part of their parents, the question of health benefits of the procedure shouldn’t come into it. The only relevant medical issue is whether the procedure causes significant harm.
And yes, I totally agree that even if infant male circumcision is banned, exceptions should of course be made for cases where it’s actually medically indicated, e.g., in the case of pathological phimosis caused by the superbly named Balanitis xerotica obliterans.
Nah, the thing is that circumcision is a much more minor medical procedure when performed on an infant. The lack of foreskin is what provides some minimal protection against STDs in adulthood, but the removal of the foreskin is easier and safer if carried out in infancy.
But does waiting until the child can choose mean that they…the child that is, are restricted in religious practice? Seems to me that if they are so young that they can’t make a meaningful and informed choice then they are also too young be considered as having any meaningful religious observance.
But it does doesn’t it? unless every form of religious practice is allowed and I haven’t been informed. Rastafarians are not allowed to smoke their herbal cigarettes are they?
Pretty sure that some forms of animal sacrifice would be illegal as well, if someone claimed FGM was a religious requirement or forced marriage would we make allowance?
This leads on from my previous point, I consider the right to religious freedom to stop well before the right to inflict a medically unecessary procedure on a non-consenting person.
Second, and more significantly, the procedure isn’t the same when performed on an infant as on an adult. On an infant it’s a trivially minor procedure; not so, on an adult.
Right, I’ve acknowledged this. If a parent is weighing the pros and cons of circumcision though, it’s not fair to say, “This procedure may reduce his risk of getting certain diseases,” because the procedure can always be done later. Bringing up diseases is a misdirection. The debate actually comes down to, “Doing this procedure now will allow my child to avoid a lengthy and uncomfortable recovery as a teenager or adult, should my child choose to have the procedure done at all.” That’s it. Bringing up AIDS is just fear-mongering.
FTR, I was circumcised out of medical necessity about the age of 6. I know what the procedure and recovery are like, not as an adult but as an aware child. I still see no reason why the argument that it’s “a trivially minor procedure as an infant” is sufficient to remove the child’s say in a matter of permanent body modification.
Of course the benefits should factor in. Before we even get to the arguments about free exercise of religion, we have to get to the threshold issue of whether the procedure creates a concern that the state should take an interest in in the first place.
That analysis, seems to me, involves a cost/benefit exercise. As in - speaking objectively, do the risks and harms of the procedure outweigh the benefits to such an extent that a reasonable person acting reasonably would never choose the procedure?
Only if you can answer that question with a “yes” should the courts be involved at all. If the answer is “no”, the courts should defer to the care-giver.
Otherwise, you get the absurd result that those choosing the procedure for its alleged general health benefits are OK, while those choosing it for religion are not - even though the very same procedure is at issue. You’d get a court forced to go through some sort of religious inquisition into the motives of parents. What possible benefit does that have?
This of course does not consider at all whether the procedure is specifically indicated because of a health condition. Let’s assume everyone agrees thats OK.
Considering ritual circumcision dates back a few thousand years (in fact, it predates Judaism) I doubt very much it will go away anytime soon.
IIRC a few Tsars and the laws of the USSR opposed Jews snipping. It didn’t stop us.
Re the ‘He can get it done as an adult’ argument
The Torah is very clear that we should snip the penis AND that we should do so on the eighth day of life. Not allowing Jews to snip the baby boy on the eighth day is infringing on our religious freedom. You can argue ‘So what?’. You can argue ‘There is no G-d, so it doesn’t matter anyhow!’. But you cannot argue that postponing circumcision by almost two decades does not infringe on our religious freedom.
Circumcision isn’t routinely practiced in Europe on infants. So, “health reason” is likely to be only situations where circumcision is medically required (phymosis, typically).
I wouldn’t try to. Rather, I would say that religious freedom doesn’t extend to harming children, and considering that circumcision results in amputation of the foreskin 100% of the time, I’d say it’s a pretty harmful procedure. The only reason I’d allow it, if I were in charge of such things, is because I don’t think banning it would make it go away.
The issue isn’t what is done routinely, but what could be done. If I, who am from North America, wished to get my son circumcised in Germany - say, because I immigrated there - and I said “I’ve read the medical literature and I think the health benefits are worth it”, would I be prosecuted for assault - if I could demonstrate that these benefits existed?
If so, it seems that the ruling is more about enforcing European cultural norms than it is about reasonable protection of bodily integrity.
And that is without even arguing anything concerning freedom of religion.
It doesn’t really matter. To take an egrerious example, if your religion mandated a baby sacrifice, forbiding this practice would hardly be controversial even though it would be a restriction on your religious practice.
As soon as a third party is involved, what your religion mandates becomes irrelevant. Basically, your right to practice your religion stops at the tip of my penis. And if I happen to be a 8 days old baby, hence unable to prevent you from practicing your religion on my body, then it’s logical that the state would step in to protect my interests.
You would say. To my mind, an objective as opposed to a subjective test for “harm” is called for - that is, whether the health drawbacks appreciably outweigh benefits.
They won’t disappear. A mohel is a religious person. They’re providing a service. There have been other times in history where Jews have had to circumcise on the quiet.
Yes, we used a Jewish doctor from the University. She had sterile instruments.
The issue to my mind is when the state should “step in” to protect the rights of an infant.
Obviously, the state should not “step in” where the concern is minor, or where reasonable people could disagree about a particular parenting decision.
There are all sorts of decisions parents must make about babies. The state should not be involved in them all, but only in selected ones - ones where the decision made is outside the bounds of the reasonable.
Baby sacrifice? Definitely.
How about whether to give an infant breastmilk or formula? Should the state mandate that? In fact, it’s a more clear-cut case (if you will excuse the pun ) than circumcision.
As I said, circumcision for infants isn’t an usual practice in Europe
Saying “I read the medical literature and I think I should have this procedure done” rarely convinces a doctor, generally speaking.
I’m not sure you’d get a doctor to perform it. I don’t know that for sure, obviously, but I wouldn’t be much surprised if doctors only accepted to practice circumcision for religious reasons, or if only a subset of doctors accepted to practice it at all. Since nobody asks for their son to be snipped, you trying to do so on the basis on some unclear potential medical benefits might well get you only a :rolleyes: from the staff.
I’m not clear on the detail of this particular case, but I understand that a doctor botched a circumcision in his private practice, and the baby was then brought into an hospital. That might mean that it was the hospital’s medical staff who had an issue with the procedure and tipped the authorities (of course, the decision might be only a secondary result of some malpractice case or something like that).
) than circumcision.