Circumcision should be banned

[Primordial Annihilator]

It should be up to the parents. There are other cultures that have rituals that seem outrageous (like slicing skin with razor blades to mimic alligator skin, neck rings that elongate the neck) but it's their culture and to ban something like circumcision would step on the toes that do it for religious reasons. The more important thing to do is educate people of today on why it's not necessary.

Would you ban the practice of slicing an infants skin to make it look like an alligator's?

 

[J2hapydna]

Again: I'm not looking to take away your right to circumcise your kids. I have ethical issues with the practice (but not just circumcision - I've got problems with any practice that tries to induct a child too young for free, informed consent into a religion), and I wouldn't mind hearing some sort of proper justification for the practice, but I'm not out to stop it.

Your right to circumcise your kids does not imply that I have no right to find the practice distateful.

Then we have no disagreement.

As far as your criticism of inducting children into religion is concerned, I would say, religion is actually meant for children not adults. In my opnion, children do not have a fully developed sense of adult reasoning and logic, so religion is a way for them to spark their imagination, acquire a symbolic understanding of what is right and wrong, and learn about their culture and language.

when my boy reached age ten and learned he was circumcised and ask why? I gave him the Quran and Bible and explained to him that both Jews and Muslims believe in circum. as a part of our covenant with God thru our father Abraham. Then, I told him to read the Bible and Quran to help him develop critical thinking skills and an understanding of the culture in Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Soon after that, he won his school spelling bee. By the time he was 15 yo his scores on scholastic aptitude tests were matching the top 2% of 18 yo college bound students in the USA. As far as I was concerned, religion did it's job.

So, we have our way of teaching our children and you have yours. I am not telling you to circumcise yourself or your children. I am just telling you that it is none of your business whether I circumcise mine.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As far as your criticism of inducting children into religion is concerned, I would say, religion is actually meant for children not adults. In my opnion, children do not have a fully developed sense of adult reasoning and logic, so religion is a way for them to spark their imagination, acquire a symbolic understanding of what is right and wrong, and learn about their culture and language.

Hmm. I agree with you that religion is largely meant for children, but I see a different intent: to mold the way that a child thinks, and by extension the way the adult the child will become will think.

You didn't set out to merely teach your children about Judaism, did you? Wasn't your objective to actually make your children Jewish? I see a difference there.

when my boy reached age ten and learned he was circumcised and ask why? I gave him the Quran and Bible and explained to him that both Jews and Muslims believe in circum. as a part of our covenant with God thru our father Abraham. Then, I told him to read the Bible and Quran to help him develop critical thinking skills and an understanding of the culture in Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Soon after that, he won his school spelling bee. By the time he was 15 yo his scores on scholastic aptitude tests were matching the top 2% of 18 yo college bound students in the USA. As far as I am concerned, religion did it's job.

I don't see what any of that has to do with him winning a spelling be.

If you taught him Greek or Latin, sure - English derives from roots in those languages, so knowing how they work would help a person derive the spelling of unfamiliar words. But Hebrew? There aren't that many words you would find in an English-language spelling bee that come from Hebrew.

So, we have our way of teaching our children and you have yours. I am not telling you to circumcise yourself or your children. I am just telling you that it is none of your business whether I circumcise mine.

In general, I disagree.

I see childhood indoctrination into a religion as an infringement on the rights of the child. Probably a mild infringement, but an infringement nonetheless. It's the concern of all of us when the rights of one person are infringed by another.

 

[ninerbuff]

Would you ban the practice of slicing an infants skin to make it look like an alligator's?

If it's religious ritual, no. I don't condone it, just like I don't condone circumcision, but it's a religious cultural thing. Though I don't agree with much on any religion, I will support the right for followers to follow it.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

If it's religious ritual, no. I don't condone it, just like I don't condone circumcision, but it's a religious cultural thing. Though I don't agree with much on any religion, I will support the right for followers to follow it.

Evasion.

Yes or No.

 

[Levite]

Out of curiosity, if a gentile were to wish to join Judaism, do they have to get circumcised in a particular way (like, a ritual to do so), or does the foreskin just need to be gone?

This sounds even weirder. I laughed when writing this because it's stupid, but I had to: what if (somehow) there was someone who was religiously Jewish, but somehow their foreskin grew back? ...

I've helped a couple of non-circumcised men convert to Judaism, and their circumcisions (yes, they had to have them) were done under anesthesia, by a mohel who was also a doctor, supervised by a surgeon. It can't just be a surgical procedure, it must be done by someone who knows the proper ritual, to be certain everything is done in the correct order, and to be sure that what needs to be said is said.

I have also helped a number of circumcised men to convert, and even though their foreskin is gone, it was not done for the sake of the covenant, so they require what is called hatafat dam brit, which is the ritual drawing of a single drop of blood from the circumcision scar, symbolically re-created circumcision for the sake of the covenant. This can be done by the convert themselves, or by a rabbi or mohel, if the convert feels unable to do it, and is usually done with one of those push-pin blood testers that diabetics use to draw a drop of blood for testing purposes. It's usually done at home, or sometimes in a rabbi's office, and is comparatively painless. (I did it to myself during rabbinical school, just so I could experience it and help comfort nervous converts. It was harder to actually do it than to get over it. Once I actually did the pinprick, the rest wasn't a day at Disneyland, but it stung very slightly for maybe ten minutes, and I was definitely "ready to go" within an hour.)

As for foreskin growing back...I have never heard of this before. I actually am not certain what the halakhah would be in such a case. If it came up, I would probably have to consult the sources, and maybe ask one of my mentor rabbis for an opinion before I made up my mind. My inclination is to say that a partial regrowth would probably be dismissed, but a total regrowth would probably need re-circumcision. However, the halakhah is not always what one would expect, so don't take that guess as anything more than just idle speculation. It's a great question, though.

Even though we completely disagree I appreciate the mature candor in your responses...you are a credit to this forum, it is a shame others cannot follow your example.
It is people like you that allow for reconciliation between otherwise disparate viewpoints and of course the groups that hold them.
Levite you have my respect and my very best wishes for the future whatever it brings.
It has been a pleasure debating with you...and if by some bizarre mysterious twist of fate I ever got some measure of control of my one world order and I needed to speak to a representative of the jewish people I would ask for Levite.

Thanks. That was kind of you to say, and I appreciate it. You have my respect and best wishes also.

 

[Duck]

It is a horribly painful procedure that likely ruins one's infancy.

It removes the vast majority of nerve endings which are highly specialialised from the penis. It leaves the glans bare and open to keritanization which furthers the loss of sensitivity. In addition, it ruins the gliding action of the foreskin and the mechanical functioning of sex.

It should be banned worldwide and all practicioners should be tried for assualt and torture of an infant (it's not like they can't tell the baby is in pain). Okay I'll admit that might be taking it too far, since this is basically a cultural evil.

Personally, I only object to the circumcision of infants or other children under the legal age of consent, without valid medical reasons (e.g. infections of the foreskin, or issues with foreskin tightness and resulting pain during erection for males. I don't know of any medical reasons that would require female circumcision). If an adult wants to have genital mutilation done to him- or her-self, more power to them.

There have been some studies done that seem to indicate that circumcision reduces the transmission rates of some STIs in newly circumcised males. I don't know enough about those studies to judge the reasons behind that apparent reduction in transmission rates. Is the reason for the apparently lower infection rates due to the removal of the foreskin removed a potential infective vector, is it due to less sexual activity due to the new sensations/appearance of the penis, or did the newly circumcised male wear condoms more often? I am not sure. The studies that I have heard of seemed to focus on heterosexual transmission of certain STIs (mainly HIV) in Sub-Saharan Africa, so I don't know if there were other factors involved (can't remember if the males involved were HIV+ before entering the program or not).

So, mainly, my objections to circumcision lie primarily in issues of consent, my circumcision occurred when I was days old, if not hours old, and essentially was a cosmetic surgery committed on an otherwise cis-normative and healthy male infant without consent. While I am not angry with my parents (over this particular action) I do consider the circumcision of male infants to be a form of genital mutilation and an unnecessary surgical procedure. It is a violation of the person and should be illegal under any circumstance that does not meet stringent medical criteria.

Personally, I think that there should not be a religious exemption to this either. If a person feels that there is a religious obligation to undergo genital mutilation, that person can wait until reaching the legal age of consent (the age at which they could buy a house or join the military, not some mythically determined "age of responsibility" or such).

 

[Skwim]

I've noticed that quite a few people regard circumcision as a mutilation.

mu·ti·late (my

t

l-

t

)tr.v. mu·ti·lat·ed, mu·ti·lat·ing, mu·ti·lates
1. To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple.
2. To disfigure by damaging irreparably: mutilate a statue. See Synonyms at batter1.
3. To make imperfect by excising or altering parts.

​

In accord with this definition I'm assuming these people see circumcision as crippling, or disfiguring, or making imperfect. I don't see it as crippling in any way---the penis can still operate in the exact same manner as an uncircumcised one---which leaves disfiguring or making imperfect. As for disfiguring, this seems to be pretty subjective, with people often preferring a circumcised penis over an uncircumcised one. Left with "making imperfect," this would depend on one's basis for perfection. If it's a matter of going with what one's born with, then yes, circumcision would be altering perfection. But for what reason should this automatically trump an alteration? Someone born with "elephant ears" would have less than perfect ears (taking perfect as equating with the norm) but would one consider an operation to correct them as with messing with perfection? I wouldn't. So I don't think surgical alterations, even for strictly cosmetic reasons, are necessarily improper. Getting back to circumcisions, I think the same holds true. Perfect is often a discretionary concept as is making imperfect; therefore, I don't see it as a viable consideration for circumcisions.

This being said, I believe the term "mutilation" is not only improper but pejorative, and that a far better one is "modification." Circumcision is a modification of the penis not a mutilation of it.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

I've noticed that quite a few people regard circumcision as a mutilation.

mu·ti·late (my

t

l-

t

)tr.v. mu·ti·lat·ed, mu·ti·lat·ing, mu·ti·lates
1. To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple.
2. To disfigure by damaging irreparably: mutilate a statue. See Synonyms at batter1.
3. To make imperfect by excising or altering parts.

​

In accord with this definition I'm assuming these people see circumcision as crippling, or disfiguring, or making imperfect. I don't see it as crippling in any way---the penis can still operate in the exact same manner as an uncircumcised one---which leaves disfiguring or making imperfect. As for disfiguring, this seems to be pretty subjective, with people often preferring a circumcised penis over an uncircumcised one. Left with "making imperfect," this would depend on one's basis for perfection. If it's a matter of going with what one's born with, then yes, circumcision would be altering perfection. But for what reason should this automatically trump an alteration? Someone born with "elephant ears" would have less than perfect ears (taking perfect as equating with the norm) but would one consider an operation to correct them as with messing with perfection? I wouldn't. So I don't think surgical alterations, even for strictly cosmetic reasons, are necessarily improper. Getting back to circumcisions, I think the same holds true. Perfect is often a discretionary concept as is making imperfect; therefore, I don't see it as a viable consideration for circumcisions.

This being said, I believe the term "mutilation" is not only improper but pejorative, and that a far better one is "modification." Circumcision is a modification of the penis not a mutilation of it.

Your interpretation which is sadly subjective.

 

[blackout]

I really don't see the point in making such a big deal of this.
either way.

I can see it causes the same kinds of self worth issues in men
as breast size, or "dress size" in women.

I think it's sad that we're all so fragile as human beings.

If it matters to your parents,
they'll do it.
If it doesn't, they won't.
If it matters to you later,
you have it done.
Or try to undo it.
Whatever.

Most parents are doing the best they can for their children,
but unfortunately they are forced to make decisions for them.
(to do, or not do to. what to do, when to do.)

I just don't see the big deal either way,
and certainly see no reason to ban it.
Neither do I see a reason to push it, either societaly or religiously.
But.... that's how religion and society usually work, so....
No one wants to be "different".
Yet, different is what each one of us is.
This ludicrous fixation on "norms" and "differences"
serve to cause ridiculous comparison issues between people/s.

We are who we are.
Some things we can decide.
Some things our parents decide/d for us.
Some things are undecidable.

man up.

 

[iholdit]

Source, please? All the current medical sources that I can find say that routine circumcision gives no net medical benefit.

And this source says that ritual circumcisions performed at 8 days of age have associated with them a significantly high incidence of urinary tract infections:


Neonatal Circumcision Revisited

You might want to read that link you posted again. It gives several studies which say uncircumcised males are more like to get urinary tract infections than circumcised males. Some of them say say there is a 10 fold(or more) increase in urinary tract infections for uncircumcised males compared to circumcised males.

Maybe i am reading the study you quoted wrong but it doesnt seem to be comparing uncircumcised to circumcised. It just seems to be saying there is an increased risk of urinary tract infections within a couple of weeks after circumcision.

When you are done rereading the link you posted, that has several studies showing an increase in urinary tract infections amongst uncircumcised males compared circumcised males. Then you can read this link from the center for disease control.
Male Circumcision and Risk for HIV Transmission: Implications for the United States | Factsheets | CDC HIV/AIDS

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

We are who we are.
Some things we can decide.
Some things our parents decide/d for us.
Some things are undecidable.

Surely thats what we are trying to ascertain?
Who has the right to do what to whom.

Man up?

I have heard of the expression but do not know what it means in this context...as if being a man was somehow better.

 

[J2hapydna]

Hmm. I agree with you that religion is largely meant for children, but I see a different intent: to mold the way that a child thinks, and by extension the way the adult the child will become will think.

You didn't set out to merely teach your children about Judaism, did you? Wasn't your objective to actually make your children Jewish? I see a difference there.

I wanted him to appreciate and understand religions from three different cultures, that claim to worship the same god, without feeling one was better than the other. So, he could understand that we follow our tradition because it is ours and not because it is necessarily better.

I don't see what any of that has to do with him winning a spelling be. If you taught him Greek or Latin, sure - English derives from roots in those languages, so knowing how they work would help a person derive the spelling of unfamiliar words. But Hebrew? There aren't that many words you would find in an English-language spelling bee that come from Hebrew.

It has to do with expanding the mind with literary works by the best and most creative minds from these three different civilizations, in ways that is hard to explain. I think the results speak for themselves. However, I am not asking you to do this with your child. I am pointing out what I did. What works for me may not work for you. I believe that as parents we have a duty to engage our children's minds in different ways. This produces minds that see the world in different ways and finds solutions that others may not find. If we all studied Greek and Latin, we probably could not find many solutions that were found by those who did not.

I see childhood indoctrination into a religion as an infringement on the rights of the child. Probably a mild infringement, but an infringement nonetheless. It's the concern of all of us when the rights of one person are infringed by another.

So, in the west, do you want to change the Christian calendar from BC and CE to something else? Do you want to change the Saturday and Sunday weekend to Monday and Tuesday? Do you want to end the winter holidays that surround Dec 25th.? Do you want to end Santa Claus, Christmas trees, Christimas pudding and holly? Do you want to end Christmas carols & plays? It would be very dreary. I dont think that is desirable.

 

[Rakhel]

The general emphasis of this thread is "Circumcision should be banned." Thus making this a legal is issue.

If the issue were "Judaism/Islam should banned circumcision" it then becomes a religious issue and needs to be addressed by those religions alone.

 

[HiddenDjinn]

Until one can indicate that circumcision does signifigant harm to the children, there will be no forthcoming ban from secular authorities. That is, unless you live in New Zealand, where they've been working to root out the smallest of Jewish tradition.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

Until one can indicate that circumcision does signifigant harm to the children, there will be no forthcoming ban from secular authorities. That is, unless you live in New Zealand, where they've been working to root out the smallest of Jewish tradition.

Harm has many definitions..just because you are not aware of them...

 

[iholdit]

It (Circumcison procedure) also carries a risk of death...you have to ask is that worth improving the odds very slightly of not getting a urinary tract infection?



Not really because of my above point.



Again that is just illogical nonsense....you may as well sue a parent for not having a cure for cancer.

The hospitals of the gentiles and non muslims are not heaving with corpses produced from urinary tract infections.

Urinary tract infections can and do cause death.

It is not a slightly less chance of getting a urinary tract. The studies show a 10 fold decrease. For example there are studies that show 95% of infants who had a urinary tract infection were uncircumcised.

It(circumcision procedure) may not be a cure for urinary tract infections but it is a preventative surgery that gives you 95% chance of not getting a urinary tract infection.

So now that you understand it is a huge difference between urinary tract infections in uncircumcised and circumcised infants. My question remains. By your logic it should be legal for a male to sue his parents if he gets kidney failure because of a urinary tract infection, because his parents didnt circumcision him, correct?

 

[ninerbuff]

Evasion.

Yes or No.

I already said no to not banning it.

 

[Maury83]

I am not circumcised but I heard doctors saying that it is more hygienic. So I say it is a matter of conscience and personal decision.

 

[PolyHedral]

It is not a slightly less chance of getting a urinary tract. The studies show a 10 fold decrease. For example there are studies that show 95% of infants who had a urinary tract infection were uncircumcised.

It(circumcision procedure) may not be a cure for urinary tract infections but it is a preventative surgery that gives you 95% chance of not getting a urinary tract infection.

Not how statistics works. 1) I want a source for the ten-fold increase, and 2) that ten-fold increase could be going from 1 in a million to 1 in 100,000.

Also, it is to be expected that 95% of infants who get a urinary tract infection are uncircumcised, because the vast majority of infants are uncircumcised. Getting that circumcision isn't necessarily going to change whatever circumstance potentially leads to the infection.