I wonder what the view would be of circumcision for non-religious cultural reasons? The vast majority of Americans are not members of religions that require circumcision, but the significant majority of Americans do so anyway, mostly just because “that’s what everyone does”. If an American expat family were living in Germany and wanted to circumcise their baby boy, what would the reaction be?
:rolleyes: Doesn’t it seem like a safe assumption that the law, as written and enforced, probably allows for medically necessary procedures?
The Torah clearly states that if a baby boy has had three other brothers die as a result of circumcision, his parents are not obligated to circumcise him.
Actually, as more and better studies have been done, it’s become far less clear that there’s any medical benefit to breastfeeding.
Out of curiosity, can anyone explain the reasons, historical or otherwise, why routine circumcision has been so much more common in America than in Europe?
It does in the US. From the American Academy of Pediatrics:
Whether you’d be able to get a doctor to perform it isn’t the issue - the issue is whether it should be illegal for a doctor to perform it.
Pretty much all of the sanctions for breaking the ten commandments.
Fair enough. Assume it is ten years ago, when the literature was more or less unanimous on the subject.
However, the changing nature of the literature brings up an additional point: that we as a society should not be too quick to condemn, and criminalize, choices such as this - where what appears to be a clear-cut case (heh) turns out to be wrong.
One may not honor any mitzvah to save a life except idalotry, incest and murder.
It is a long and complex issue, the ultimate answer is probably financial. Routine circumcision died off in Britain after WW2 when universal government provided health care came into being, the gov did not want to pay for a pointless surgery.
It survived in the states due to insurance and profits, once you get enough generations of men circumcised it also becomes a self fullfilling social thing, the intact are freaks.
But those penalties can only be handed down by a duly constituted Sanhedrin. There hasn’t been one of those for a long time.
The reasons were various, but generally had to do with the perception that circumcision was good for a person’s health. The literature in the middle of the last century tended to discount health benefits, but by that time the practice had been so well established in NA that people did it anyway.
Then the pendulum swung back again, and the literature started to claim that there were, in fact, significant health benefits.
Here’s an article on that:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/103/3/686.full
That sounds like a dodge, If it were re-instituted would it be OK for the punishments to be handed out?
It was popularized as a preventative for masturbation. (As far as I know, however, circumcised men masturbate nonetheless.)
The only scenario I know of for a proper Sanhedrin to be re-instated is if the Moshiach comes. If he shows up, the entire would start following Jewish law and any US laws preventing that would be repealed.
Pretty much every internet discussion I’ve witnessed on this topic has gotten very heated. People seem so passionate about the subject that IMO a parent weighing the pros and cons of getting their infant son circumcised should remember to put “He may grow up to bitterly resent me for doing it.” in the cons column.
Good thing that’ll never happen then. In the meantime I take great comfort that most people are happy to ignore the nasty religious bits that don’t square with the modern world.
Around the beginning of the last century some influential figures, like Dr. Kellogg of cornflakes fame, promoted the practice as a masturbation-preventer - but that was never the sole or even primary motive (and it was pretty easily disproved!).
What made it more than a fad among the followers of Dr. Kellogg and the like was the medical literature of the time, which claimed all sorts of health benefits from the practice.
By the 1960s, the practice was well established (and no-one was claiming it prevented wanking), and the medical literature was more or less unanimous in claiming that the alleged medical benefits previously claimed were bunk.
By the 1990s, the medical literature swung the other way, and is now claiming the practice does have medical benefits. Since then, that evidence has strengthened.
If you judge by internet debates, “being bitterly resented” is a standing risk for just about any parental decision, major or minor, starting with having a kid at all. 
A few things-
We don’t sacrifice animals any more because we have no Temple. This doesn’t stop the Orthodox from training the proper Jews in just how to do so. Indeed, phrases like ‘And may Thy Temple be speedily rebuilt’ are in plenty of prayers.
I’m not IGNORING anything. I am no more qualified to hand out Sanhedrin verdicts than I am to hand out US Supreme Court verdicts.
Finally, while (as I am sure you are aware) the Torah recommends the death penalty for all kinds of things, a Sanhedrin that handed down a death penalty more than once in seven years (some sources say seventy years) was known as a murderous court. Think about it for a moment, if every minor violation of a law got the death penalty there would quickly be no Jews left.
Total agreement.
Actually, if the practice were limited to something that is closer to analogous – removal of a portion of the clitoral hood – that would generally be okay. In fact, in the 1970’s, there was a brief fad for that among adult women. It was said to enhance sensitivity.
To me, it’s about as unimportant as whether one’s belly-button is an innie or an outie – and some people have surgery to alter that, too. Should that be banned as “mutilation?”
I was very happy to hear the news and hope it is the start of a worldwide trend.