Circumcision without consent. Is it wrong?

[Revoltingest]

I do not think the loss of the foreskin is so damaging to male well being that it justifies a total ban on circumcision.

The same could be said for less extreme forms
of FGM (Type IV). So what's the difference,
other than gender & affecting Jews?

It does not matter. FGM is not a religious requirement. It is a cultural expectation in certain parts of Africa and the Middle East. But (call me un-PC) I do not think the west owes such immigrants the right to perpetuate that barbaric practice.

Are rights conferred based upon immigrant status,
ie, being an immigrant means loss of the right?
As for FGM...
Religious views on female genital mutilation - Wikipedia
...it is religious for some Muslims.

Genesis 17:12
To outlaw religious infant circumcision would be dictating the terms by which the Jewish religion is allowed to exist. I think Judaism is too established to turn around now and demand that an explicit requirement of the religion be postponed or even outright abolished. Who are you to demand that?

I ask...
Who are you to say that Jewish males should
have no choice about bodily autonomy?
And who are you to demand that Muslims (& others)
stop all forms of female circumcision, eg, the
milder Type IV forms?

Jews wouldn't stop being Jews if circumcision
were delayed until the age of consent.
Or is their faith so fragile that it would vanish if
parents couldn't force circumcision on male
babies?

Because I think the right for Jews to live according to their established religious traditions outweighs any concerns we may have with the morality of infant circumcision.

Yet you deny Muslims the right to live according to their
established religious traditions. Is it that Jews are
special, but not other religions or cultures?

That would be a concern if circumcision alone somehow compelled a person to identify with, let alone practice, Judaism. And I understand that a man who does renounce Judaism may come to resent his circumcision, but the potential for an apostate to resent having being circumcised is just an unfortunate price to be pay for religious freedom.

By all means, I support restricting circumcision. But not to the point of dictating to Jews (and other good faith groups) that their long established religious requirements are suddenly no longer tolerated because liberal ideology.

Circumcision is a requirement for the practice of Judaism. You are effectively denying parents to the right to raise their sons Jewish. That's a step too far for me.

It's a double standard you propose....
- Bodily autonomy for females, but not for males.
- Special exemption for Jews, but not for Muslims.

 

[dybmh]

Does this give parents the right to make
the decision for someone unable to consent?

The decision is based on trying to predict what my child would want me to do. Would they want to be circumsised as an infant. As a circumsised Jewish adult, I can say that I'm glad my parents had me circumsised as an infant.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Circumcision is a requirement for the practice of Judaism. You are effectively denying parents to the right to raise their sons Jewish. That's a step too far for me.

They can still raise them Jewish. They just can't circumcise them.

 

[Revoltingest]

The decision is based on trying to predict what my child would want me to do. Would they want to be circumsised as an infant. As a circumsised Jewish adult, I can say that I'm glad my parents had my circumsised as an infant.

Would you extend the same to parents who decide
their baby girl would rather endure FGM Type IV as
an infant than as an adult?

 

[Revoltingest]

They can still raise them Jewish. They just can't circumcise them.

No, apparently it's genocide of Jews.
(That's been claimed before on RF.)

 

[dybmh]

Would you extend the same to parents who decide
their baby girl would rather endure FGM Type IV as
an infant than as an adult?

I'm not knowledgable enough about it to say. Can you tell me more about the FGM Type IV?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The decision is based on trying to predict what my child would want me to do. Would they want to be circumsised as an infant. As a circumsised Jewish adult, I can say that I'm glad my parents had me circumsised as an infant.

That still doesn't make it right to violate bodily autonomy.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm not knowledgable enough about it to say. Can you tell me more about the FGM Type IV?

Outside of what's in Wikipedia, I've run across
different versions, some of which are even less
extreme than male circumcision, eg, a ceremonial
nick (that doesn't even draw blood).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Because I think the right for Jews to live according to their established religious traditions outweighs any concerns we may have with the morality of infant circumcision.

8-day-old babies have no religious traditions.

If adults want to practice body modification as part of theur religious traditions, let them do it on themselves.

That would be a concern if circumcision alone somehow compelled a person to identify with, let alone practice, Judaism. And I understand that a man who does renounce Judaism may come to resent his circumcision, but the potential for an apostate to resent having being circumcised is just an unfortunate price to pay for religious freedom.

Religious freedom has nothing to do with it.

Religious freedom is about an individual's right to believe and practice their religion according to the dictates of their conscience. It doesn't include imposing one's religion on others.

By all means, I support restricting circumcision. But not to the point of dictating to Jews (and other good faith groups) that their long established religious requirements are suddenly no longer tolerated because liberal ideology now says so.

Why not?

Circumcision is a requirement for the practice of Judaism. You are effectively denying parents the right to raise their sons Jewish. That's a step too far for me.

Why?

Why is it "a step too far" to acknowledge that religion is a matter of individual conscience? Why would it be a problem for people to willingly choose to be circumcised when they're old enough to make that choice?

 

[dybmh]

Outside of what's in Wikipedia, I've run across
different versions, some of which are even less
extreme than male circumcision, eg, a ceremonial
nick (that doesn't even draw blood).

If there's nothing more than a nick, I think a parent can try to predict whether their daughter would appreciate it retroactively just the same as Jewish ritual circumcision.

 

[dybmh]

That still doesn't make it right to violate bodily autonomy.

If I'm happy that it was done as an infant then there's no violation.

 

[Revoltingest]

If there's nothing more than a nick, I think a parent can try to predict whether their daughter would appreciate it retroactively just the same as Jewish ritual circumcision.

Having once searched the internet, there is even
more variety than that, eg, lengthening the labia.

In Ameristan, if one non-medical genital surgical alteration
is OK for males (MGM), or only for Jewish males, there
will arise legal problems....
- The law shouldn't recognize rights or loss of rights
based on one religion.
- The law shouldn't do the same for one sex, but not
another.
- The law shouldn't treat recent immigrant traditions
different from more politically powerful groups.

The Constitution (14th Amendment)...the courts....
...Muslims....Jews...lawyers....civil rights advocates...
Much conflict there.

 

[Revoltingest]

If I'm happy that it was done as an infant then there's no violation.

If someone was happy as a slave, does
that make it ethical to enslave others?

 

[dybmh]

Having once searched the internet, there is even
more variety than that, eg, lengthening the labia.

In Ameristan, if one non-medical genital surgical alteration
is OK for males (MGM), or only for Jewish males, there
will arise legal problems....
- The law shouldn't recognize rights or loss of rights
based on one religion.
- The law shouldn't do the same for one sex, but not
another.
- The law shouldn't treat recent immigrant traditions
different from more politically powerful groups.

The Constitution (14th Amendment)...the courts....
...Muslims....Jews...lawyers....civil rights advocates...
Much conflict there.

Can't it be handled in the courts on a case by case basis?

If someone was happy as a slave, does
that make it ethical to enslave others?

No, all it means is that the happy slave can't claim damages.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I do not think the loss of the foreskin is so damaging to male well being that it justifies a total ban on circumcision.


It does not matter. FGM is not a religious requirement. It is a cultural expectation in certain parts of Africa and the Middle East. But (call me un-PC) I do not think the west owes such immigrants the right to perpetuate that barbaric practice.


Genesis 17:12

To outlaw religious infant circumcision would be dictating the terms by which the Jewish religion is allowed to exist. I think Judaism is too established to turn around now and demand that an explicit requirement of the religion be postponed or even outright abolished. Who are you to demand that?


Because I think the right for Jews to live according to their established religious traditions outweighs any concerns we may have with the morality of infant circumcision.


That would be a concern if circumcision alone somehow compelled a person to identify with, let alone practice, Judaism. And I understand that a man who does renounce Judaism may come to resent his circumcision, but the potential for an apostate to resent having being circumcised is just an unfortunate price to pay for religious freedom.

By all means, I support restricting circumcision. But not to the point of dictating to Jews (and other good faith groups) that their long established religious requirements are suddenly no longer tolerated because liberal ideology now says so.


Circumcision is a requirement for the practice of Judaism. You are effectively denying parents the right to raise their sons Jewish. That's a step too far for me.

There shouldn't be religious exemption to cosmetic body modification of minors of any kind, regardless of how damaging it might be, how old and well accepted the religious practice. Be it branding out of India done under the most antiseptic conditions, or Coptic Christians tattooing crosses on their babies, or infant ear piercing here in much of the 'west.'

 

[Revoltingest]

Can't it be handled in the courts on a case by case basis?

Every FGM & MGM a court case?
Doesn't sound very practical.

No, all it means is that the happy slave can't claim damages.

Not really the point.

 

[dybmh]

Every FGM & MGM a court case?
Doesn't sound very practical.

If a child feels like their parents violated their rights by circumcision or FGM, then why can't the court handle it? The parents make a choice hoping the child will agree with it as an adult. If they make the wrong choice there should be a legal route to address it.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Some guys have made claims about
circumcision reducing sensitivity.
But suppose it didn't.
Does this give parents the right to make
the decision for someone unable to consent?

I've made my opinion concerning consent crystal clear. Is there a reason why you keep asking me the same question over and over?

 

[Glaurung]

On what basis? You do not agree on their interpretation of the Bible. Well I do not agree with the Jews on their interpretation. Does that mean that I can stop them from getting circumcisions? And worse yet are the Muslims whom you seem to support. They do not circumcise their boys. They tend to do the far more barbaric female genital mutilation. There is simply no excuse for that.

In light of your later posts this reply may be superfluous but I want to be clear about a few things. I find male circumcision to be distasteful. There is no practical or medical (with exceptions) justification for the practice. The cultural insistence on circumcision you find in the U.S. is asinine and it should be stamped out. But I do think any restriction on male circumcision needs to make exceptions for sincere and established religious realities that exist among mostly Jews and Muslims. As far FGM is concerned, I reject the claim that it is a requirement of Islam. Prosecute anyone who performs it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In light of your later posts this reply may be superfluous but I want to be clear about a few things. I find male circumcision to be distasteful. There is no practical or medical (with exceptions) justification for the practice. The cultural insistence on circumcision you find in the U.S. is asinine and it should be stamped out. But I do think any restriction on male circumcision needs to make exceptions for sincere and established religious realities that exist among mostly Jews and Muslims. As far FGM is concerned, I reject the claim that it is a requirement of Islam. Prosecute anyone who performs it.

Sorry, but there really is no difference in circumcision between here in the states by Christians and those in other countries. If you are against it here you should be against it everywhere.