Circumcision should be banned

[Watchmen]

likely ruins one's infancy.

Support?

 

[Levite]

Traditional Jewish practice can't be wrong? People can't be mistaken? Wouldn't it mean more if a person chose it? Not having a choice in obeying a command supposedly from god is no virtue.

There is simply no good reason to say that despite the fact that the entire Jewish people have agreed that our sons are inducted into the covenant by circumcision on the eighth day, we should now rethink our stance about how we dedicate ourselves and our children to God because some non-Jew, or even some secular, nonpracticing Jew, suddenly decides that we have no right to decide how our faith is to be passed on.

Nor do I really see the reason behind the idea that it would be somehow kinder not to circumcise boys when they are so young that they will not recall the experience, but will only reap the benefits of the covenant, but instead, we ought to wait until they are old enough to decide that they want what will be a far, far more painful operation, merely in order to secure their fundamental identity, at a point in their lives when they will already be beginning to struggle with the difficult truths of the world. Why would I believe that God would want this to be more painful and difficult than it has to be-- which, at eight days, is not much at all?

This notion that circumcision is somehow an enormous multilation of the body that would require the dedication of a reasoned adult individual, and would never be done by well-intentioned parents is just self-righteous nonsense. It is a very minor physical procedure, very quickly recoverable, and which leaves the boy completely able to use his penis to full measure in all its biological uses. Its significance in Jewish culture is very great.

The fact that someone thinks that its such an huge to-do, to snip off a little extra flap of skin, that it would be worth trampling Jewish culture and tradition, is either ignorant or anti-Semitic. I prefer to believe that it is ignorant.

I don't see any Jews attempting to impose circumcision on non-Jews. And since the procedure is very rarely unsuccessful, and does not interfere or reduce proper use of the penis afterward, I really see no reason why non-Jews cannot just let us be. For non-Jews this should be simple: if you don't like the idea of circumcision, don't circumcise your sons. If you don't approve of Jews doing so, then be glad you're not a Jew; we're just as happy not to have you.

 

[Caladan]

I really don't follow your line of argument here. The fact that I disagree with this practice doesn't mean that I don't think we shouldn't bother to raise children at all.

My main point is. that parents will naturally raise their children in the spirit of their community and standards.
there are far worse things than circumcision, which not only does not damage the man, but ALL circumcised men that I hear talking about it have never complained about it, instead they find it aesthetic, the idea of being uncircumcised is what freaks them out.

And I've said many times that I disagree with this, so I don't see why you're attributing the consequences of a ban on circumcision to anything I've said.


I felt provoked.

I will have to scroll back later on.

The thing that pulled me into this thread is when Tarheeler made the comment that there is nothing bad about circumcision. This just isn't true. Maybe you feel that the good outweighs the bad, but that's still not the same thing.

Medical doctors still debate if there are benefits to circumcision. however, the idea that there is something bad in it, other than 'human rights' concerns are uncommon in the face of the medical research to prove or dispel the ideas of benefits of circumcision.

I do think that many (most?) Jews are good people, and these sorts of things will factor into my judgement of someone as a person. However, when considering whether circumcision itself is positive or negative, I don't think that the character of the people doing it is especially relevant.

I don't think that Jews circumcise their sons to be cruel to them. I think they're following what they think are the best of intentions... but this doesn't stop me from seeing the practice as, on the whole, negative.

Like I said. its diplomacy. if I had a Sikh worker who would arrive to work always on time, was willing to do extra hours without frowning too much and did a good job in general. I would never comment on whether I think there is something bad about the way he keeps his hair or not. further more, even if he was my worst worker, I would think nothing of it.

When did I say a parent shouldn't "pass their heritage and experience" to their children? I'm all for that - give the child everything he needs to know and appreciate his culture, and when he's old enough, let him decide to belong to it or not.

It is a very PRACTICAL decision to have your boy circumcised. whether you are a believing Jewish person or a secular Jewish person, it is completely counter productive to alienate your boy from his community.
furthermore, after thousands of years of Jewish tradition and practice, it has become a natural part of Jewish existence.

Baptism is a bit of a closer concern for me, since my wife is Catholic and, according to her church, is obligated to have her children baptized. Since those children will also be my children, I've given the matter quite a bit of thought, and I've come to the realization that I find the idea that my children will be declared "Catholic" as infants to be very disagreable... and rather absurd, IMO. Would we label a baby "communist" or "Republican"? Probably not. At least, I hope not.

in the case of Judaism, or rather 'Jewishness', the importance varies. some Jews will place the importance of circumcision and identity in general on religious grounds, others on ideological grounds, other Jews on social grounds, some on all of these.

I don't see how labelling an infant "Jewish" is any less absurd. Still, I see circumcision as a minor issue, especially when it's done for cultural reasons instead of religious ones... definitely down the list from, say, parents who decide that their children will have a particular career whether they like it or not.

If a boy or a girl are born into a Jewish family, a community or society, that is what they are- Jewish.
and by the way, in many cases it means that the mother has already decided for them what they are going to be

 

[Bismillah]

but this doesn't stop me from seeing the practice as, on the whole, negative.

Would you list some examples on the negative effects of circumspection.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I have no idea where you got that from. I've not made a comment that even resembled that.

Sorry - blame my faulty memory. I looked back through the thread; the comment I was thinking of was by Levite:

Once again, my feeling has to be: for Jews, it is required, and there is no reason to think it is at all harmful.

My mistake.

 

[Enoughie]

Well everyone knows that Jewish women don't make love to the uncircumcised.

This is demonstrably not true.

_____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life offers a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma. This philosophy has a firm foundation in nature, science, and reason, and it is centered on the core values of honesty, generosity, equality, and freedom

 

[Caladan]

This is demonstrably not true.

LOL. as long as you are smart enough to dump her before you sign a contract with the She-Devil for your eternal soul.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Would you list some examples on the negative effects of circumspection.

You mean circumcision?

The big one in my mind is the small but non-negligible risk of infection caused by the circumcision procedure itself, especially when it's done on an infant who is too young for normal vaccinations. In a non-religious context (and not counting the rare cases where it is actually medically necessary), I think that circumcision represents nothing more than an aesthetic preference of the parent.

IOW, in the non-religious context, it has no real benefit and moderate real cost in the form of risk. I think the practice is worse than ear-piercing for little girls and not as bad as, say, parents getting unnecessary cosmetic surgery for their children, but I object to the whole spectrum.

In the religious context, where circumcision represents a "covenant with God" or the like, I think that it represents an attempt on the part of the parent to try to dictate the faith of the child. As a freethinker myself, I find this disrespectful to the child, and to his own right to freely inquire and decide for himself on matters of faith and conscience when he's old enough to do so.

 

[McBell]

to whom it may concern,
Where does the Bible explain why god orders circumcisions?

 

[Bismillah]

You mean circumcision?

Sassy Canadians

The big one in my mind is the small but non-negligible risk of infection caused by the circumcision procedure itself, especially when it's done on an infant who is too young for normal vaccinations. In a non-religious context (and not counting the rare cases where it is actually medically necessary), I think that circumcision represents nothing more than an aesthetic preference of the parent.

Interesting I did not know of any instances of infection that resulted from something other than a Physician's negligence. Do you have any links to some statistics that I could look at? For example I know that the practice is only commenced or delayed until a newborn is stable and healthy.

IOW, in the non-religious context, it has no real benefit and moderate real cost in the form of risk. I think the practice is worse than ear-piercing for little girls and not as bad as, say, parents getting unnecessary cosmetic surgery for their children, but I object to the whole spectrum.

The benefit of course would be in identifying with one's culture and society and well I prefer mine this way

I'm not sure on the risk, again this goes back into any actual studies done on this because the medical journals seem to have a consensus that while it is not necessary there are no risks major enough to warrant the rejection of performing the operation and there is an ongoing debate on the extent of its benefits.

So while you don't seem to agree with the motives there doesn't seem to be any concrete negative affects of circumcising one's children.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My main point is. that parents will naturally raise their children in the spirit of their community and standards.
there are far worse things than circumcision, which not only does not damage the man, but ALL circumcised men that I hear talking about it have never complained about it, instead they find it aesthetic, the idea of being uncircumcised is what freaks them out.

You come from a culture where almost everyone is circumcised, right?

The unknown often freaks people out.

I will have to scroll back later on.

Though look for the post from Levite, not Tarheeler. I got them confused.

Medical doctors still debate if there are benefits to circumcision.

IOW, there's no clear benefit.

however, the idea that there is something bad in it, other than 'human rights' concerns are uncommon in the face of the medical research to prove or dispel the ideas of benefits of circumcision.

It's a surgical procedure. A minor one, sure, but any surgical procedure carries risks of complication and infection.

Like I said. its diplomacy. if I had a Sikh worker who would arrive to work always on time, was willing to do extra hours without frowning too much and did a good job in general. I would never comment on whether I think there is something bad about the way he keeps his hair or not. further more, even if he was my worst worker, I would think nothing of it.

And if the issue came up in conversation, you'd stay silent?

It is a very PRACTICAL decision to have your boy circumcised. whether you are a believing Jewish person or a secular Jewish person, it is completely counter productive to alienate your boy from his community.

And if there's a real danger of this, I think that's probably a valid reason to circumcise your son. However, in the society I'm in, this isn't a concern at all. Any locker room that he'll ever be in will have a mix of circumcised and uncircumcised penises. In fact, if I had to guess, I'd say that circumcised guys are in the minority here.

furthermore, after thousands of years of Jewish tradition and practice, it has become a natural part of Jewish existence.



in the case of Judaism, or rather 'Jewishness', the importance varies. some Jews will place the importance of circumcision and identity in general on religious grounds, others on ideological grounds, other Jews on social grounds, some on all of these.


If a boy or a girl are born into a Jewish family, a community or society, that is what they are- Jewish.

And someone who has all of this but isn't circumcised won't be "Jewish"?

I have some sympathy for purely cultural considerations - nobody can choose what we're born into. However, I have strong objections to the religious grounds for circumcision - I think it's an attempt to usurp a decision from the child that properly belongs to the adult who the child will become.

and by the way, in many cases it means that the mother has already decided for them what they are going to be

Then that's unfortunate.

I ended up following something of a family history by going into engineering, but the only worry my parents ever had for my career was that I picked something that would make me happy.

 

[Skwim]

to whom it may concern,
Where does the Bible explain why god orders circumcisions?

"Circumcision, as defined in the Old Testament
(Genesis 17), was a symbolic act by which a
Jewish male was entered into a covenant with
God. It required the participants in this
covenant to accept and obediently follow
sanctions and strict commandments.
Circumcision became the "badge of
membership" within the covenant community.
It became the distinguishing mark of being a
Jewish male."
source

​

Gen.17:9 Then God said to Abraham, “As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. 10 This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you.

"John the Baptist and Jesus were circumcised (Luke 1:59; 2:21). Jesus' only comment about circumcision was favorable: It was part of "the law of Moses," and the Jews were willing to circumcise children on the Sabbath. Since it was a religious rite, it could be done on the Sabbath (John 7:22-23), just as priests could "desecrate" the Sabbath to perform sacrifices (Matthew 12:5).

The biggest controversy about circumcision came when the gospel began going to gentiles. Circumcised believers (i.e., Jews) were astonished when the Holy Spirit was given to Cornelius (Acts 10:45). Circumcised believers criticized Peter for going to the house of an uncircumcised person and even eating with gentiles (Acts 11:2-3).

The problem surfaced again when more and more gentiles began responding to the gospel by believing in the Lord Jesus (verses 20-21). Later, some Jewish believers came to Antioch and taught that the gentiles had to be circumcised or else they could not be saved (Acts 15:1). They also said that the gentiles should obey the entire law of Moses (verse 5). In Antioch, this would not have included sacrifices (unless they were to travel to Jerusalem), but it would have included other Jewish customs traceable to the five books of Moses. By "circumcision," these messianic Jews meant full proselyte status, since circumcision implied all the other laws (Galatians 5:3)."
source
​

 

[Rakhel]

circumcising our son does not mean we are choosing his religion. We hope he will remain Jewish, but know that may not happen. What it means is that we are choosing the society he is living in at the time.Which just happens to a Jewish one(or Muslim).
Simply because a Jewish man is circumcised doesn't mean he will always practice Judaism. Quite a number of them leave Judaism for other practices.

 

[Caladan]

You come from a culture where almost everyone is circumcised, right?

The unknown often freaks people out.

Perhaps. in that case there is no reason to freak people out with forcing the unknown on them. mind you I am not saying that is what you actively do, but its a projection on the origin of this thread and whichever bodies around the world which support the notion of banning circumcision.

Though look for the post from Levite, not Tarheeler. I got them confused.

Thanks for the heads up.

IOW, there's no clear benefit.

The main motive is of course cultural.

It's a surgical procedure. A minor one, sure, but any surgical procedure carries risks of complication and infection.

Never have I, in 31 years of living in Israel ever knew another guy or family who had any such problems.

And if the issue came up in conversation, you'd stay silent?

I would probably compliment him on his mighty dreadlocks, and tell him that he should present them in all their glory sometimes.

And if there's a real danger of this, I think that's probably a valid reason to circumcise your son. However, in the society I'm in, this isn't a concern at all. Any locker room that he'll ever be in will have a mix of circumcised and uncircumcised penises. In fact, if I had to guess, I'd say that circumcised guys are in the minority here.

*NODS*. despite this. Jewish or Muslim boys are also part of their own community.

And someone who has all of this but isn't circumcised won't be "Jewish"?

read my first line in the paragraph you replied to: after thousands of years of Jewish tradition it has become a natural part of Jewish existence.

I have some sympathy for purely cultural considerations - nobody can choose what we're born into. However, I have strong objections to the religious grounds for circumcision - I think it's an attempt to usurp a decision from the child that properly belongs to the adult who the child will become.

If it makes any difference. while a great deal of the theatrical act around the circumcision carries a ritualistic atmosphere and to many people a religious ideology of great importance. is it first and foremost a cultural practice.

Then that's unfortunate.

You realize I was kidding, right?
Non of my friends is pursuing a career that was dictated to them. we went to study anything from archaeology, architecture, medicine, psychology, engineering, mathematics, law, East Asian studies, Biology, Social Sciences and Political Science, Literature, Cinema, History, Mid eastern studies and Islam etc.
because of our own interest in doing so.

I ended up following something of a family history by going into engineering, but the only worry my parents ever had for my career was that I picked something that would make me happy.

My mother would agree with your parents.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Interesting I did not know of any instances of infection that resulted from something other than a Physician's negligence. Do you have any links to some statistics that I could look at? For example I know that the practice is only commenced or delayed until a newborn is stable and healthy.

Here you go:

Risks and benefits of circumcision
Problems from the surgery are usually minor. Although serious complications are rare, they do occur. Newborn circumcision has been associated with surgical mistakes, such as having too much skin removed.
Of every 1,000 boys who are circumcised:

• 20 to 30 will have a surgical complication, such as too much bleeding or infection in the area.
• 2 to 3 will have a more serious complication that needs more treatment. Examples include having too much skin removed or more serious bleeding.
• 2 will be admitted to hospital for a urinary tract infection (UTI) before they are one year old.
• About 10 babies may need to have the circumcision done again because of a poor result.

In rare cases, pain relief methods and medicines can cause side effects and complications. You should talk to your baby’s doctor about the possible risks.

Source: Circumcision: Information for parents

Or from the report that the above page links to:

Circumcision may lead to complications, which range from minor to severe. They include easily controllable bleeding,84,85 amputation of the glans,84-86 acute renal failure,87 life-threatening sepsis and, rarely, death.84,85 The evidence of postoperative complications is unknown.84 The rates of complications reported in several large case series are low, from 0.2% to 0.6%.8 However, published rates range as widely as 0.06%88 to 55%.89 Williams and Kapila90 have suggested that a realistic rate is between 2% and 10%.

Source: Neonatal Circumcision Revisited

These are from Canadian sources. I imagine that the risk of complications would be greater where medical care is lower-quality.

The benefit of course would be in identifying with one's culture and society and well I prefer mine this way

As I mentioned to Caladan, this isn't a concern in Canada. I suppose it would be in certain religious or cultural groups, but there's no danger of being singled out for mockery in a locker room because of having a penis that's different from everyone else's.

I'm not sure on the risk, again this goes back into any actual studies done on this because the medical journals seem to have a consensus that while it is not necessary there are no risks major enough to warrant the rejection of performing the operation and there is an ongoing debate on the extent of its benefits.

The risks aren't large, but they're present. I suppose they might not outweigh strong reasons for the procedure, but I think they're significant enough to make a person decide against circumcision when it's only being done because of personal preferences of the parents.

So while you don't seem to agree with the motives there doesn't seem to be any concrete negative affects of circumcising one's children.

Well, no. There are concrete negative effects. There's risk of everything from minor complications to death, but admittedly, these risks are low. Non-zero, but low.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

The fact that someone thinks that its such an huge to-do, to snip off a little extra flap of skin, that it would be worth trampling Jewish culture and tradition, is either ignorant or anti-Semitic. I prefer to believe that it is ignorant.

Are you kidding me? Now you result to the anti-semite card over this?

 

[Levite]

Are you kidding me? Now you result to the anti-semite card over this?

I said I presumed it was ignorance.

But if it is not, then I must say I think it a little odd that it's the Jews and the Muslims whose religions mandate circumcision, and I haven't seen any large numbers of Jews or Muslims protesting their "involuntary" circumcision. Rather, I have seen a whole hell of a lot of non-Jews and non-Muslims telling Jews and Muslims what they ought to be doing in their religion, and that what they are doing is wrong.

I don't call that at all out of the realm of anti-Semitism. I also call it unbelievably self-righteous, arrogant, repressive, and fatuously heavy-handed. As far as I know, neither Jews nor Muslims demand that non-Jews/non-Muslims be circumcised. And yet others, upon whom Jews and Muslims have made no demands, nor expressed any particular interest in the way they raise their children, have the unmitigated gall to come in and say that the way that we practice our religion is immoral?!

I'm sorry, I am not supposed to be incredibly offended by this? I am supposed to just calmly sit back and say that it is perfectly acceptable for people who are not Jewish to trash something central in Judaism, and we Jews ought to realize the error of our ways and make ourselves into whatever it is our detractors think we should be?!

If that's not anti-Semitism, I don't know what is. And if others can't recognize it for that, then they are kidding themselves. Anytime someone comes in and says to a culture, "We know better than you. Your culture's choice's are wrong. You should change to suit our ideas," there had better be the equivalent of genocide happening to merit that. Because if people are not losing life and limb, that kind of arrogant cultural repression is intolerance, it is bigotry, and it will not be taken sitting down by Jews.

Jews have taken crap because non-Jews didn't care for our ideas, our culture, our practice of religion, or the way we looked or dressed or happened to be walking that day. No more. This time there's no passive waiting until it comes to some kind of horror that ends up in history lessons. This time when people pull that kind of crap, we stand up for ourselves and our culture and our religion, and we don't take it.

We circumcise our sons because that is what Jews do. That is what we believe. That is our way. We don't ask it of anyone who's not Jewish. If you're not Jewish, we don't give a damn what your son's penis looks like. We circumcise because that is our covenant with God. We circumcise because we love our children enough to pass on to them the legacy of covenant, community, and belonging, the inheritance of wisdom and devotion that begins with those few drops of blood. Circumcision is a mark of something wonderful and holy to us.

To us. For us. Not others.

If you don't like it, if you don't believe in God, if you think you've got the original grade-A guidebook to moral perfection, we don't care. There's a rolling donut out there. You know what to do with it.

 

[mohammed_beiruti]

I think we have to make another thread talking about child's right to keep his Umbilical cord.

blahhhhhhhhhh

 

[David M]

And? There's no negative repercussions so I'm not sure what you're complaining about.

There are.

Apart from the risk of death arising from the circumcision itself the procedure can produce its own medical complications.

 

[Caladan]

We circumcise our sons because that is what Jews do. That is what we believe. That is our way.

I guess there is only one way I can summarize this, and perhaps this entire pointless thread.

[youtube]gRdfX7ut8gw[/youtube]
YouTube - Fiddler on the roof - Tradition ( with subtitles )