Dutch Doctors Call for Circumcision Ban

[Jayhawker Soule]

I have every duty to respect your parenting approach and to let you raise your children in your religious traditions... until you start committing bodily injury on your child.

But isn't is a bit self-serving to define it as "bodily injury"?

 

[Levite]

To sum up what you're saying here: you think it's a good idea to place the government in the role of judging how important a religious practice is - or ought to be - to its members? IOW, you want the government to be the arbiter of what is and isn't legitimate religious expression?

No, I want the government to let religions alone, save only in those rare instances when there is either compelling evidence that the members of a religious community are under duress, or when the accepted practices of a religious community reach out from that community to inflict harm on others in society.

Don't you - as a member of a minority religion yourself - see the value in getting the government completely out of the business of religion? IMO, the best way to ensure the rights of religious people - and all people - is to have a completely secular government. The best way to prevent laws that disadvantage one religious group over another is to make the law completely blind to religion.

In many respects, I do agree that government should not be in the business of religion: I do not favor governments licensing marriages (I think, in other words, that all licensed relationships should be registered with the government as domestic partnerships, leaving it up to religions to decide what is and is not marriage in their eyes), nor do I approve of publicly funded religious activities, or prayer in public schools, or displays of religious icons, texts, or symbols on government property or currency.

I do think that the law should be equally tolerant of all religious groups, not preferring one over another.

But that means, IMO, that government should have nearly no power to interfere with the practices of religious groups, except in the exigent circumstances I mentioned above. Or, of course, if there is compelling evidence that an individual or group is claiming status as a religious practitioner/leader or as a religious group for fraudulent purposes.

Given everything that has happened to the Jewish people over the last century (and in history beforehand), do you really want to support the notion that it's a good idea to have a legal double standard where Jews get treated one way and everyone else gets treated another? I'm sure I don't have to tell you that this has worked out very badly for Jews in the past.

I'm not suggesting that Jews be treated differently. I am suggesting that nations view themselves as being made up various different cultural groups, under the umbrella of a national society. And that tolerance and respect be provided to all those different cultural groups equally, and their rights to do as they please not be infringed upon, save only, as I said, in certain exigent circumstances-- the kind of circumstances which, at least when it comes to Judaism, occur seldom, if ever.

 

[Magic Man]

I personally think that taking this practice away from the Jewish people would be more harmful than allowing the practice.

Unless there is evidence that the practice causes long-term emotional or psychological harm to the child, or that it is excruciatingly painful, or that it commonly causes physical problems in adult life, then I don't see what the big deal is.

I don't think anyone thinks it's a huge deal. It's more the principle of it. And it is pretty painful. It's cutting off part of the penis. There aren't many things I can think of as more painful.

There are so many worse things that happen to every single person in his/her lifetime, that this is so incredibly minor in comparison.

Sure, but does that mean we should just ignore it? Someone stealing my TV and computer is pretty minor compared to me getting shot or run over, but I don't think we should ignore the theft.

To reinstate, I would not like to see circumcision become a social norm in my society as it seems to have become in the USA, because I do not like how society tries to make humans ashamed on of their natural selves. But I see the exception of people like the Jews, who have a much more meaningful reason for engaging in this practice that is really not so harmful (as far as I am aware).

The issue is just that it's parents deciding to mutilate their children. Penguin's earlobe example is a good one. Circumcision is OK, but a parent cutting off their child's earlobe is not. The difference is that one's a cultural practice while the other is not. I don't think traditional practice is a good enough reason to be exempt. Slavery was a traditional practice in many countries for a long time. But you don't give some people the option to have slaves just because it's a tradition. You ban it altogether.

I understand the difference between slavery and circumcision, but I'm just pointing out that something being a religious or cultural tradition isn't good enough to exempt it from the law in my opinion.

 

[Magic Man]

But isn't is a bit self-serving to define it as "bodily injury"?

Isn't it a bit self-serving to not define it as bodily injury"? It's cutting off a piece of the body. If you don't consider that bodily injury, how can you consider anything so?

 

[Storm]

I've only followed this thread sporadically, but it strikes me as cultural imperialism.

Parents are allowed to modify their children's bodies. I've seen 3-month-old girls with pierced ears. I really don't see how that's any better.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But isn't is a bit self-serving to define it as "bodily injury"?

No, I don't. Can you think of any other context where taking a knife to an infant with no anaesthetic and for no medical reason would not be considered bodily injury?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I've only followed this thread sporadically, but it strikes me as cultural imperialism.

Parents are allowed to modify their children's bodies. I've seen 3-month-old girls with pierced ears. I really don't see how that's any better.

Well... pierced ears can heal and circumcision can't, but I'm against that practice, too.

 

[Storm]

Well... pierced ears can heal and circumcision can't, but I'm against that practice, too.

Hey, I'm anti-circumcision, myself. My beautiful boy had to get one for medical reasons, though.

That said, cultural imperialism strikes me a bit more serious than body modification.

 

[Songbird]

I've only followed this thread sporadically, but it strikes me as cultural imperialism.

Parents are allowed to modify their children's bodies. I've seen 3-month-old girls with pierced ears. I really don't see how that's any better.

Ear-piercing is different, though. Piercings heal and don't permanently remove a body part. On a spectrum, circumcision is the most extreme thing done to an infant with no medical reason.

Edit: awr, sorry. You and Pengy already went over it.

 

[Magic Man]

Hey, I'm anti-circumcision, myself. My beautiful boy had to get one for medical reasons, though.

That said, cultural imperialism strikes me a bit more serious than body modification.

I don't think calling it cultural imperialism is quite accurate. It's recognizing that this particular practice is no different from an objective point of view than other kinds of mutilation, so it should be treated as such.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

No, I don't. Can you think of any other context where taking a knife to an infant with no anaesthetic and for no medical reason would not be considered bodily injury?

Thanks for the drama. Just to be clear: How would feel about the procedure if done with anaesthetic and scalpal?

 

[Storm]

I don't think calling it cultural imperialism is quite accurate. It's recognizing that this particular practice is no different from an objective point of view than other kinds of mutilation, so it should be treated as such.

Mutilation is too strong a word, I think. It's a body mod, closer to a tattoo or piercing than say, FGM.

IIRC, you yourself said it wasn't "a big deal." So, if it's not a big deal medically or morally, and it IS a big deal religiously... a blanket ban is just an attempt to deny religious tradition. That's cultural imperialism in my book.

 

[Storm]

No, I don't. Can you think of any other context where taking a knife to an infant with no anaesthetic and for no medical reason would not be considered bodily injury?

So, if they start using anaesthetic, it's ok?

Strikes me a reasonable compromise....

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Thanks for the drama. Just to be clear: How would feel about the procedure if done with anaesthetic and scalpal?

I would think that it's still unnecessary, and even with anaesthetic during the procedure, the child would still suffer discomfort during recovery.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So, if they start using anaesthetic, it's ok?

Strikes me a reasonable compromise....

I think the reasonable compromise would be "wait until the boy's old enough to give informed consent".

Anaesthetic doesn't stop all of the pain and discomfort of a surgical procedure (and I suspect that anaesthetizing an infant that young carries non-negligible risks with it), and at the end of the day, you're still talking about body modification of an infant.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Mutilation is too strong a word, I think. It's a body mod, closer to a tattoo or piercing than say, FGM.

And do we routinely tattoo infants?

IIRC, you yourself said it wasn't "a big deal." So, if it's not a big deal medically or morally, and it IS a big deal religiously... a blanket ban is just an attempt to deny religious tradition. That's cultural imperialism in my book.

IMO, it is a big deal morally. It's the inflicting of major (and IMO unnecessary) pain on an innocent child. How can this not be a big deal?

 

[tumbleweed41]

Female genital cutting and infant scarification are deemed as medically unnecessary and barbaric in Western Culture. Why should the medically unnecessary practice of removing a portion of an infants penis be deemed any less barbaric? Why is the removal of the most sexually sensitive potion of the male penis acceptable, but the genital mutilation of infant females to prevent sexual satisfaction not?

Cultural and/or religious traditions should not supersede basic human rights.

 

[Storm]

I think the reasonable compromise would be "wait until the boy's old enough to give informed consent".

Anaesthetic doesn't stop all of the pain and discomfort of a surgical procedure (and I suspect that anaesthetizing an infant that young carries non-negligible risks with it), and at the end of the day, you're still talking about body modification of an infant.

Which is allowed. I see no reason to single out body mods for religious reasons.

Are these doctors calling for a ban on piercings, as well?

 

[Oneatatime]

Dutch doctors' group calls for circumcision ban | Reuters

Thoughts?

My position is the same as these doctors. I'm not against religious people being circumcised if thats what they want to do. I object to children being circumcised before they are capable of understanding why it's being done or if they even want it done.

I dislike religious childhood initiation rituals in general because they amounts to making a choice for a child which can be put off until the child is able to make the choice for themselves.

I accept that parents often think these initition rituals are important to the point but a parents superstitious fears about what may happen if the ritual isn't carried out or the emotional blackmail of the child being excluded if it's not initiated aren't good enough reasons.

 

[Levite]

How much of this would a child be expected to do, anyhow? An infant is not going to be a witness to any rabbinical court or chant the Torah, circumcised or not.

This is not an either-or matter. If waiting until the child is 18 is too onerous, most (not all, but most) of the objections to infant circumcision could be addressed by waiting until the boy has reached some "age of reason". How much Jewish culture would a boy miss out on if circumcision was delayed until just before his Bar Mitzvah?

There are several reasons that will not work, but the primary and most important one is that we are commanded to do it on the eighth day. So it has been done since Abraham. We were not commanded to do it "whenever you feel the time is right," and one is not permitted to delay circumcision after the eighth day except for immediate medical reasons.

But also, we deem it to be far less traumatic for it to be done at an age when the boy will not recall the pain, but will only experience the benefits. And I can tell you, having helped various uncircumcised men convert to Judaism, not one failed to say that he wished fervently that his parents had had him circumcised as an infant. And not one class of boys to whom I have taught the laws of the covenant of circumcision, along with explanations of how in some other cultures, circumcision is done at 13 or so, have failed to unanimously express relief that it was done to them in infancy, and they didn't have to worry about it any more.

It could very well be that the result would be something like the Canadian approach: routine circumcision is advised against by the medical association, public healthcare doesn't fund it, and no doctor is compelled to do it.

That would be unfortunate, but acceptable.

Out of curiosity, how would you respond to an effective ban... something like this:
- a country legislates that as part of an overall approach to medical procedures generally, circumcision must be performed by a qualified medical practitioner.
- the country doesn't recognize mohels as qualified medical practitioners.
- no doctors choose to offer circumcision.

I fail to see how that would be substantially better than an actual ban. In any case, the country already does not recognize mohels as qualified medical practitioners.

It might interest you to know, by the way, that there is an increasing trend, especially amongst non-Orthodox Jews, to have Jewish doctors, nurse practitioners, licensed midwives, and other certified pediatric medical personnel take training as mohalim/mohalot (mohels), thus ensuring that they are both religiously qualified to perform brit milah (ritual circumcision) and qualified by medical regulatory agencies to perform medical circumcision.

It might also interest you to know that at one time, a few decades ago, it used to be quite common for obstetricians and pediatricians to bring in mohalim to teach them circumcision technique, since mohalim were inevitably better at it than most doctors.

In a similar way, can I hold that a commitment to sparing infants from unnecessary pain and suffering takes primacy over Jewish culture?

Sure. As long as you are okay with either not putting that philosophy into legal practice, or with using that justification to ensure that your community is free of Jews, since making such a philosophy into law would likely result in a mass exodus of Jews to someplace less oppressive.

Actually, it's not even that. I think you're mischaracterizing things when you talk about "the survival of Jewish culture". Even those advocating a ban on infant circumcision aren't talking about a ban on all circumcision; they're only suggesting a delay of circumcision until the person is able to express informed consent for it. Unless no Jews would freely choose to be Jewish, "survival of the Jewish culture" isn't at issue.

As I mentioned above, that solution does not reflect the construction of our culture.

I have a similar philosophy, but in reverse: the limit of your freedom to practice your religion or traditions ends when that practice interferes with the rights of another.

Sure, I agree with that. But you believe that circumcising my son is interfering with his rights, while I hold that in fact, that is protecting his rights. And again we are back to an external culture labeling the circumciser as a criminal offender, and the circumcised as the victim of a crime, when both circumciser and circumcised will (eventually) agree that no crime has been committed.

I have every duty to respect your parenting approach and to let you raise your children in your religious traditions... until you start committing bodily injury on your child.

Except, again, you call circumcision bodily injury, and I call it a holy rite of passage into identity.

I really don't understand why this can't just be a matter of parents making the cultural and medical choices for their children that they see fit-- which is done all the time, in every country in the world.