Circumcision

[Exial]

Is religious circumcision ethical?

Is it right to remove a babies foreskin without consent for religious reasons?

In my view, this is unlawful genital mutilation.

 

[selfinflikted]

Well, I certainly wish I'dve had a say in the matter. Sadly, that choice was made for me, though.

I think something as permanent as circumcision should be done only with consent.

 

[jayem]

Is it right to remove a babies foreskin without consent for religious reasons?

No.

In my view, this is unlawful genital mutilation.

Unethical, yes. But unlawful? US law, as per SCOTUS, allows some legal leeway for religious practice. Native American religions have been allowed to use otherwise illegal hallucinogenic drugs in their ceremonies. Male circumcision, unlike female, is an accepted medical procedure, that may have some health benefits. I agree that non-consensual infant circumcision as a religious ritual is wrong. But--providing it's done according to proper surgical standards--I think it would just be bad public policy to make it illegal.

We don't live in a perfect world, and there's not a perfect answer to every issue.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Is religious circumcision ethical?

Is it right to remove a babies foreskin without consent for religious reasons?

In my view, this is unlawful genital mutilation.

Who owns the child's body at this point? The child clearly doesn't, they aren't allow to consent to anything like this. If the parent can dope a 4 year old up on bi-polar meds with the research as is on the issue, why not this? Perhaps the government should actually be the one in control of the children, but then all the parents who want to have control over the children will cry.

 

[Exial]

Who owns the child's body at this point

The child. A persons body does and and always belong to that person. How old they are is irrelevant.

The child clearly doesn't

So who does?

they aren't allow to consent to anything like this.

They are unable to give consent because they have no way of communicating their answer. Therefore we should not cut off portions of their genitalia until they can decide for themselves if they wish this to be the case.

 

[selfinflikted]

The child. A persons body does and and always belong to that person. How old they are is irrelevant.

I agree with this, almost entirely. ALMOST.

I think, while this may open a completely different can of worms (but the distinction needs to be made while I'm giving my opinion), the only time a person doesn't "own" their own body, is while in utero.

They are unable to give consent because they have no way of communicating their answer. Therefore we should not cut off portions of their genitalia until they can decide for themselves if they wish this to be the case.

Also, This. ^

 

[Tinker Grey]

[aside]

Kind of weird to see the subject 'circumcision' with the last poster as 'selfinflikted'.

*ouch*

[/aside]

 

[selfinflikted]

[aside]

Kind of weird to see the subject 'circumcision' with the last poster as 'selfinflikted'.

*ouch*

[/aside]

Coincidence.

 

[jayem]

The child. A persons body does and and always belong to that person. How old they are is irrelevant.

But that's not absolute. Would we allow a 5 year old with Type 1 diabetes to refuse insulin, because the shots hurt? Of course, there is an age where a minor's own wants regarding medical treatment should at least be considered. And that's a case by case determination depending on the maturity and understanding of the child. But we don't allow parents to refuse life-saving intervention for a child's curable or treatable condition. We sure won't allow a young child to refuse it for himself.

Or do you think we should?

 

[Exial]

But that's not absolute. Would we allow a 5 year old with Type 1 diabetes to refuse insulin, because the shots hurt? Of course, there is an age where a minor's own wants regarding medical treatment should at least be considered. And that's a case by case determination depending on the maturity and understanding of the child. But we don't allow parents to refuse life-saving intervention for a child's curable or treatable condition. We sure won't allow a young child to refuse it for himself.

Or do you think we should?

Your analogy (which I agree with) is not comparable to religious circumcision at birth which is not a medical treatment or even done for medical reasons.

 

[jayem]

Your analogy (which I agree with) is not comparable to religious circumcision at birth which is not a medical treatment or even done for medical reasons.

No argument there. My point was simply that a child doesn't have absolute autonomy over his body. And in fact, he has less than an adult.

 

[solarwave]

Is there any gain in circumcision?

Either way there are no Christian reasons for it (Paul seems ro be against it) so unless there is a big health benefit it seems totally unjustified.

 

[selfinflikted]

Is there any gain in circumcision?

Either way there are no Christian reasons for it (Paul seems ro be against it) so unless there is a big health benefit it seems totally unjustified.

I believe health benefits have been little more than hinted at, and nothing has been confirmed, as far as I know.

 

[jayem]

Is there any gain in circumcision?

Probably. Studies show that circumcision significantly reduces the risk of a man acquiring HIV from heterosexual contact. (At least in Africa, where most HIV is transmitted heterosexually, and most of these studies have been done.) Here's an abstract. Obviously, that's not the only way, or even the best way to avoid getting HIV. But I do believe there is evidence that circumcised men are also less likely to get and transmit other STDs. I'll try to find some references.

There's Apligraf. It's a skin substitute used to cover diabetic skin ulcers, burns, and other slow-to-heal wounds. It's made of living fibroblast cells harvested from donated infant foreskins. It's a useful product that would be less available and more expensive if there were fewer circumcisions.

And maybe I'm going out on a limb here, but I think that Americans--both men and women--generally consider a circumcised penis more aesthetic. (Might be an interesting poll. )

But I don't think any of these justify infant circumcision as a routine procedure.

 

[selfinflikted]

Probably. Studies show that circumcision significantly reduces the risk of a man acquiring HIV from heterosexual contact. (At least in Africa, where most HIV is transmitted heterosexually, and most of these studies have been done.) Here's an abstract. Obviously, that's not the only way, or even the best way to avoid getting HIV. But I do believe there is evidence that circumcised men are also less likely to get and transmit other STDs. I'll try to find some references.

There's Apligraf. It's a skin substitute used to cover diabetic skin ulcers, burns, and other slow-to-heal wounds. It's made of living fibroblast cells harvested from donated infant foreskins. It's a useful product that would be less available and more expensive if there were fewer circumcisions.

And maybe I'm going out on a limb here, but I think that Americans--both men and women--generally consider a circumcised penis more aesthetic. (Might be an interesting poll. )

But I don't think any of these justify infant circumcision as a routine procedure.

Hm. Color me educated. And, I agree with the aesthetics.

 

[rsduncan]

Where is this thread going, if I may be so bold as to inquire???

 

[Exial]

Where every debate on the internet ends up going.. nowhere.

Do you have anything useful to add?

 

[rsduncan]

Where every debate on the internet ends up going.. nowhere.

Do you have anything useful to add?

Good. I would hate to think that Judaism was next on your hit list...

 

[yasic]

While circumcision does (without question based on my research) have positive effects and negative ones (reduced risk from STD's, however also reduced pleasure from sex), you do need to keep in mind that one can still get a circumcision later in life.

If a person wants to get a circumcision, he should be able to choose to do so when older (I would say 13 years would be a good time one can choose). They are not expected to have sexual intercourse prior to this age so there is no reason to do it when younger.


I say lets not forcibly mutilate the gentiles of our children, and let them choose if they want to or not.

 

[rsduncan]

While circumcision does (without question based on my research) have positive effects and negative ones (reduced risk from STD's, however also reduced pleasure from sex), you do need to keep in mind that one can still get a circumcision later in life.

If a person wants to get a circumcision, he should be able to choose to do so when older (I would say 13 years would be a good time one can choose). They are not expected to have sexual intercourse prior to this age so there is no reason to do it when younger.


I say lets not forcibly mutilate the gentiles of our children, and let them choose if they want to or not.

I suppose that when we get enough authoritarian athiests together on this issue to make it a matter of law then Judaism's days are numbered.

And athiests say Christians are bad about legislating morality. I guess the old saw about how when you point your finger, three fingers point back at you is true.

I'll watch authoritarian athiests three times as diligently, then...