Anti-circumcision prop targets Jews?

214 posts / 0 new
Last post
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 7 months ago
Joined: 07/24/10
Posts: 208
Anti-circumcision prop targets Jews?

Here's an interesting Op-Ed piece about San Francisco's anti-circumcision proposition that will be on the November ballot.

My question is, do you think the intactivists are really bigoted against Jews and Muslims and are using the circumcision issue to target these two groups, or do you think the author is using the race/bigot card to deflect readers from the other issues surrounding circumcision?

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-0521-rutten-20110521,0,45960.column

In November, the residents of San Francisco will not only cast their ballots on pressing state and local issues, they also will decide whether to approve a proposition banning the circumcision of male children.

The immediate temptation, of course, is to roll the eyes and dismiss the measure as another reminder that, along with the wild yeast that produces terrific sourdough bread, a strain of lunacy floats on the Bay Area breezes. Moreover, even if it were to pass, the proposal does such obvious violence to the 1st Amendment that its chances of surviving constitutional review are even more improbable than Donald Trump's hair color.

Still, there's something so breathtakingly wrong about the presence of such a proposition on any ballot that its implications are worth at least a few minutes of reflection. On one level, it's simply the most recent and egregious example of how California's long experiment with direct democracy has gone stunningly wrong at every level of government. Simply because more than 12,000 residents signed a petition, you have the people of an American city voting on whether or not to proscribe one of the central rituals of an entire religious community — in this case, Jews, who have been required to circumcise male infants within eight days of birth since the time of Abraham. Many Muslims also practice circumcision for religious reasons, while significant numbers of other American parents elect the procedure for hygienic or health reasons. The San Francisco measure proposes to make the circumcision of males under 18 a misdemeanor punishable by a $1,000 fine or a year in jail.

Will such a ban ever survive a legal challenge based on the 1st Amendment's free exercise clause? No, but California has no mechanism for short-circuiting these wasteful and painful exercises in communal willfulness.

That's true even when, as in this instance, a measure clearly is aimed at a particular part of the community, and there's no doubt that this proposition knowingly targets Jews. Marc Stern, a lawyer for the American Jewish Committee, had the matter exactly right when said: "This is the most direct assault on Jewish religious practice in the United States. It's unprecedented in Jewish life."

While the measure's promoters speak about circumcision in general terms — insisting it constitutes "mutilation" — it's clear from the language of the proposed statute whom they have in mind: "No account shall be taken of the effect on the person on whom the operation is to be performed of any belief on the part of that or any other person that the operation is required as a matter of custom or ritual."

Jews are understandably affronted and alarmed by this proposition, but we all have a stake not only in the protection of religious freedom but in understanding how it is that this sort of thinking infects our politics. America is hardly the only country in the world with an extra share of eccentrics, contrarians and holders of just plain odd ideas about every aspect of life. For all its reputation for restraint, reticence and moderation, for example, English society throws up a lake full of odd ducks in every generation. But Americans are the rare people who regularly come to believe that their private moral revelations ought to be ratified in law.

It's a particularly virulent form of self-righteousness, one that's been with us since the earliest days of the Puritan settlement, when the legislation of virtue and prohibition of vice was supposed to usher in a new Eden. Good Augustinians that they were, the Puritan fathers shared his delusion that "error has no rights." Convinced that they alone possess the truth — however eccentric or novel — some among us have gone on believing that to this very day.

Somehow, we never seem to learn: Privately practiced, temperance is a virtue; the 18th Amendment and the Volstead Act were social insanity.

What's at work here is a kind of narcissism empowered by the particular moral authority our current outlook grants to those who count themselves aggrieved. In this instance, the group behind the San Francisco proposition is made up of people who call themselves "intactivists" — you really can't make this stuff up — and all seem to bear some sort of simmering resentment over a choice they believe their parents usurped from them.

That's the sort of issue you work out in therapy, not at a polling place.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 5 months ago
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

I don't believe it is motivated by bigrotry towards Jews and Muslims, although I also don't think that it shows any sort of sensitivity towards them either. I do, however, agree with this:

But Americans are the rare people who regularly come to believe that their private moral revelations ought to be ratified in law.

It's a particularly virulent form of self-righteousness, one that's been with us since the earliest days of the Puritan settlement, when the legislation of virtue and prohibition of vice was supposed to usher in a new Eden. Good Augustinians that they were, the Puritan fathers shared his delusion that "error has no rights." Convinced that they alone possess the truth — however eccentric or novel — some among us have gone on believing that to this very day.

Somehow, we never seem to learn: Privately practiced, temperance is a virtue; the 18th Amendment and the Volstead Act were social insanity.

What's at work here is a kind of narcissism empowered by the particular moral authority our current outlook grants to those who count themselves aggrieved.

So true. Unfortunately, not just in the case of the circ debate, either.

Offline
Last seen: 2 years 11 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

I don't think that it is being done to target Jews, but I also don't think that the authors stance is necessarily "playing a card", either. Its a legitimate issue as circumcision IS a very important covenant/ritual for Jewish people.

I get why "intactivists" don't care that it is a religious ritual, and probably every single one will bring up human sacrifice or something being a religious ritual in some religion somewhere that is banned. I also honestly believe that some people see human sacrifice being the same as circumcision (obvs I disagree with them) but surely there is a precedent for laws which preclude religious freedom.

That said, I'm fine with circ, my boys are circ'd, I don't live in SF, and I feel pretty certain that little to nothing will come of this.

Offline
Last seen: 1 year 4 months ago
Joined: 03/14/09
Posts: 624

No, of course not. This isn't preventing adult religious practicioners from choosing circumcision for themselves, is it? It's only preventing those who cannot choose themselves from having an irreversible choice thrust on them.

Offline
Last seen: 1 week 5 days ago
Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1763

Will such a ban ever survive a legal challenge based on the 1st Amendment's free exercise clause? No, but California has no mechanism for short-circuiting these wasteful and painful exercises in communal willfulness.

I disagree with this. The 1st amendment has limits. Like blather posted, it's one thing to make a decision for yourself, it's another to make this kind of decision for others.

Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: 11/28/06
Posts: 848

"blather" wrote:

No, of course not. This isn't preventing adult religious practicioners from choosing circumcision for themselves, is it? It's only preventing those who cannot choose themselves from having an irreversible choice thrust on them.

We thrust lots of irreversible choices on our kids....immunizations, haircuts, and even the dreaded formula. As parents we are forced to make choices that WE think are best for our children until they are grown and able to make choices for themselves.

Offline
Last seen: 2 years 11 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"ethanwinfield" wrote:

Like blather posted, it's one thing to make a decision for yourself, it's another to make this kind of decision for others.

I make lots of decisions for my kids. Doesn't everyone? Honestly I'd say that a ton of those decisions (like, deciding to be in a stable relationship before having them, or being able to financially provide for them), impact my kids a TON more than the decision regarding their foreskin. I wonder if the state is going to move in to also ban children being born into impoverished or unloving homes or the like, as the children can't choose.

Either way, I'm pretty sure a pretty important part of the "covenant" is the 8th day thing. Banning infant circumcision would in fact ban the religious rite as mandated by G_d according to the Jews, no?

Tara? Lana?

KimPossible's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 4 days ago
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3471

Sure we make a lot of decisions for our kids...

but there are some choices we can't make for our kids...even if we think they are best, so that argument alone doesn't really stand up well against circumcision.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 5 months ago
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"Potter75" wrote:

I make lots of decisions for my kids. Doesn't everyone? Honestly I'd say that a ton of those decisions (like, deciding to be in a stable relationship before having them, or being able to financially provide for them), impact my kids a TON more than the decision regarding their foreskin. I wonder if the state is going to move in to also ban children being born into impoverished or unloving homes or the like, as the children can't choose.

Either way, I'm pretty sure a pretty important part of the "covenant" is the 8th day thing. Banning infant circumcision would in fact ban the religious rite as mandated by G_d according to the Jews, no?

Tara? Lana?

This. I would guess that the vast majority of decisions that I make while he's growing up will ultimately matter more than the circ decision - even small stuff like what to have for dinner each night (when you take the culmulative effect of all of those dinners.) I don't really get why circing is the beach that people are willing to die on when it comes to "Not forcing your decisions on your children."

KimPossible's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 4 days ago
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3471

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

This. I would guess that the vast majority of decisions that I make while he's growing up will ultimately matter more than the circ decision - even small stuff like what to have for dinner each night (when you take the culmulative effect of all of those dinners.) I don't really get why circing is the beach that people are willing to die on when it comes to "Not forcing your decisions on your children."

While I'm not willing to figuratively die on any beach over the issue, i see a logical argument for it that i don't see a clear cut argument against.

As for the minor impact, we have lots of laws in our nation that seemingly have a small impact compared to larger issues....that doesn't mean they weren't based in reason....it simply means they aren't big issues.

wlillie's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 6 months ago
Joined: 09/17/07
Posts: 1796

I don't think the intactivists are targeting Jews because they are Jewish or Muslims because they are Muslims, but because those two groups make up the vast majority of people that still circ routinely they are going to be affected by this more than other religions. It's a medical and/or religious decision and I don't think the government should be making it for parents. Just as others have said, there are other things that affect children much more than foreskin and I think it's hilarious that intactivists *OFTEN* (not always) side on the non-vaccinating and the government can't make me when it comes to that particular debate. My son's circ doesn't affect anyone outside of our immediate family (besides his future sexual partners) and vaxing affects everyone.

Offline
Last seen: 1 week 5 days ago
Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1763

I don't have a penis, but I do have othe body parts. If it was part of my parents' religion to make decisions to cut off the tips of other parts would that be okay? If my parents cut off the tip off my nose or heel, would that be okay? It would only effect me.

If tattooing was part of my religious beliefs - say a tattoo of Jesus on the cross - would it be okay for me to find a priest to tattoo that on my infant? It could be lightened through tattoo removal if my child later rejects Christianity, so to some extent it would actually be less permanent.

What if a boy converts or rejects his religion later in life? You can't take it back.

Offline
Last seen: 1 week 5 days ago
Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1763

"Alana*sMommy" wrote:

We thrust lots of irreversible choices on our kids....immunizations, haircuts, and even the dreaded formula. As parents we are forced to make choices that WE think are best for our children until they are grown and able to make choices for themselves.

Hair grows back; foreskin does not.

As for immunizations, if you don't immunize, wouldn't your child still be able to make that decision as an adult?

Offline
Last seen: 4 years 1 month ago
Joined: 08/05/06
Posts: 441

"Alana*sMommy" wrote:

We thrust lots of irreversible choices on our kids....immunizations, haircuts, and even the dreaded formula. As parents we are forced to make choices that WE think are best for our children until they are grown and able to make choices for themselves.

How is a haircut irreversible? Formula isn't irreversible, either. Drinking formula as an infant doesn't mean you have to drink it for your whole life. I don't understand these analogies. I don't think there are many things that are really comparable to circumcision as far as its irreversibility.

wlillie's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 6 months ago
Joined: 09/17/07
Posts: 1796

Cutting off the tips of your heels or ears wouldn't prevent penile cancer, UTI's and/or STDs. If someones religion prompted them to remove their child's appendix or tonsils, I wouldn't care as long as I didn't have to pay for it. Biggrin

I've literally never met a man IRL who complains about being circed. The only people I've met who care about foreskins are intactivists, men who would like to be circed and won't because the surgery is too risky as an adult, and nurses/CNA's that have to deal with the foreskin of elderly gentlemen.

Tattooing doesn't have any medical benefits so I wouldn't compare it to circing personally. I think twins get a small tattoo occasionally as infants...

eta- if a man really hated his circed penis, foreskin restoration is available and has been for quite awhile.

KimPossible's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 4 days ago
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3471

Cutting off your foreskin doesn't *prevent* any of those things either. It supposedly reduces the risk of those things....and it is such an insignificant/questionable difference that even the medical community can get behind promoting it as some sort of preventative measure. This is a weak argument.

And how much does it really matter that you personally haven't met a man who regrets being circ'd? I don't think it actually matters at all when discussing this issue for people besides those that you've personally met.

And its easy to explain a lack of regret. Its been a societal norm, at least in the US, for a long long time. Since when does acceptance through societal normalcy automatically equate to something being ok to do?

wlillie's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 6 months ago
Joined: 09/17/07
Posts: 1796

Ok, maybe not prevent, but definitely not a weak argument.

http://www.medpagetoday.com/InfectiousDisease/STDs/24217

http://www.medpagetoday.com/InfectiousDisease/STDs/15120

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=circumcision-penis-microbiome-hiv-infection

http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/PenileCancer/DetailedGuide/penile-cancer-risk-factors

It does matter if the government is trying to make a law concerning a medical or religious decision that should be left up to parents to decide.

It doesn't have to be a societal norm for people to realize there is a reason for circing. I was torn because I knew there were benefits but also wanted him to be able to choose. I think until someone has personally been affected by a preventable cancer that should have been fixed as an infant, they shouldn't pass judgement on others.

I'm tired of all the intactivists pretending like (or believing) you are a horrible parent if you choose to circ. Let people do their own research and make their own decisions. Spend the time and energy wasted on something that is personal on something that's not; like real child abuse and real child mutilitation.

Offline
Last seen: 1 week 5 days ago
Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1763

Since circumcision isn't common in Europe (and other areas of the world) are European men just better at keeping their parts clean?

Offline
Last seen: 1 week 5 days ago
Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1763

When it comes to abortion, reproductive organs belong to the owner of those organs. Parents cannot decide for their daughters that they will undergo an abortion (or not get an abortion). My body, my choice. My son's body, my choice what I do with his sex organs?

wlillie's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 6 months ago
Joined: 09/17/07
Posts: 1796

"ethanwinfield" wrote:

Since circumcision isn't common in Europe (and other areas of the world) are European men just better at keeping their parts clean?

I don't know. I've never (and will never) sleep with a European man. Maybe they are just better at using condoms? No clue, but it's not my problem, my son is.

"ethanwinfield" wrote:

When it comes to abortion, reproductive organs belong to the owner of those organs. Parents cannot decide for their daughters that they will undergo an abortion (or not get an abortion). My body, my choice. My son's body, my choice what I do with his sex organs?

:confused: That's not completely true. If a girl is pregnant (with a minimum recorded age of 5) and unable to communicate her choices (or has been deemed legally unable to) her parents do decide. If we ever get to the point where our infants can tell us whether they want to be circumcised or not, then I'll be happy to ask my son what he'd prefer. Until then, I'd prefer he be pissed at me and his doctor over a small snip that didn't even cause crying and less than a week to heal over penile cancer, a single UTI, or an STD any day.

Offline
Last seen: 1 week 5 days ago
Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1763

"wlillie" wrote:

I don't know. I've never (and will never) sleep with a European man. Maybe they are just better at using condoms? No clue, but it's not my problem, my son is.

:confused: That's not even a little true. If a girl is pregnant (at the minimum record age of 5) and unable to communicate her choices (or has been deemed legally unable to) her parents do decide. If we ever get to the point where our infants can tell us whether they want to be circumcised or not, then I'll be happy to ask my son what he'd prefer. Until then, I'd prefer he be pissed at me and his doctor over a small snip that didn't even cause crying and less than a week to heal over penile cancer, a single UTI, or an STD any day.

It's not even a little true? And your evidence is a pregnant 5 YO?

I've had many UTIs. What can I snip off to prevent another one pray tell.

wlillie's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 6 months ago
Joined: 09/17/07
Posts: 1796

I'm tired and just got some bad news at work; I meant to say it's not completely true at all.

I was saying the earliest recorded pregnancy was at 5. I can imagine she didn't get much of a choice on her reproductive rights and I'm also assuming there are plenty more who don't. Also, in quite a few states, abortions are illegal without the parents knowledge and in others illegal without parental consent. So yes, you were wrong.

If you could snip off a small piece of skin as an infant to prevent those UTI's you wouldn't? I've never had one, but I've heard they are really painful. Not to mention the whole cancer and STD thing.

Offline
Last seen: 1 week 5 days ago
Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1763

"wlillie" wrote:

I'm tired and just got some bad news at work; I meant to say it's not completely true at all.

I was saying the earliest recorded pregnancy was at 5. I can imagine she didn't get much of a choice on her reproductive rights and I'm also assuming there are plenty more who don't. Also, in quite a few states, abortions are illegal without the parents knowledge and in others illegal without parental consent. So yes, you were wrong.

Cite?

If you could snip off a small piece of skin as an infant to prevent those UTI's you wouldn't? I've never had one, but I've heard they are really painful. Not to mention the whole cancer and STD thing.

Not a chance. Not interested in a permanent solution to a temporary situation.

As for the cancer and STD, having a hysterectomy or mastectomy reduces cancer risks. Does that make it okay?

KimPossible's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 4 days ago
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3471

The plain gist of it is, we don't look to surgically removing things from newborns as ways to prevent very rare cancers...except for circ.

We don't look to surgically removing things from newborns as a way to slightly reduce the risk of treatable infections...except for circ.

We don't look to surgically removing things from newborns as a way to slightly reduce the risk of STDS that have ways to *singificantly* reduce the risk.

And i honestly don't think we would make any other similar exception in the name of religion either.

IMO, this is an issue where circ'ing came first and has been around for so long and we are so used to it and it *does* involve extremely personal decisions, we have retrofitted reasons to keep it around.

Do I personally blame anyone for doing it? No, society, culture and religion are powerful powerful things. I firmly believe that individuals wholeheartedly feel they are doing whats best for their children. But all that being said, i can't deny that the reasons against doing it seem to be clear and untouchable to me, no argument stands up well in favor of it without acknowledging that its a pretty big exception to our typical behavior and attitude towards what is acceptable and what is not.

wlillie's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 6 months ago
Joined: 09/17/07
Posts: 1796

"ethanwinfield" wrote:

Cite?

Not a chance. Not interested in a permanent solution to a temporary situation.

As for the cancer and STD, having a hysterectomy or mastectomy reduces cancer risks. Does that make it okay?

Which part do you need a cite for? I'll look it up, but don't want to do the whole paragraph since I thought they were all common knowledge.

If I was at risk (even a small one) for something so terrible (cancer) that a hysterectomy or mastectomy was needed and my parents could have fixed it by having a small amount of skin snipped off a few days after birth and they didn't because they were worrried about what other people thought about it......

KimPossible's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 4 days ago
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3471

"wlillie" wrote:

Which part do you need a cite for? I'll look it up, but don't want to do the whole paragraph since I thought they were all common knowledge.

If I was at risk (even a small one) for something so terrible (cancer) that a hysterectomy or mastectomy was needed and my parents could have fixed it by having a small amount of skin snipped off a few days after birth and they didn't because they were worrried about what other people thought about it......

Well you are at risk....because you have breasts and a uterus.

ETA and also, those who think circ should not be done aren't suggesting that the reason be because you are worried about what other people think.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 10 hours ago
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6803

Not having any boys and being done having children I will not ever have to decide on whether or not to circumcise a child. I really do not know which way I would go on that so I find this interesting. However we have had to decide about whether or not to do surgery on a baby. DD3 had a tethered cord (where the spine is attached both at the top and at the base) We had one doctor here tell us the risk of surgery on a baby's spine is too great, wait until the child is older and see if they have any problems. We took her to a different city for a second opinion and that doctor said that the risk of paralysis or other serious injury is too great she needs surgery right away. It was terrible to have to make that decision for another human being but as her parents we had to. There are times when a parent has to decide for their child because they are not old enough to decide for them self. (She had surgery last November and is doing great)

wlillie's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 6 months ago
Joined: 09/17/07
Posts: 1796

"KimPossible" wrote:

Well you are at risk....because you have breasts and a uterus.

ETA and also, those who think circ should not be done aren't suggesting that the reason be because you are worried about what other people think.

I don't think anyone would arguing for cutting off a penis at the base....like you would have to do to protect a woman from breast or uterine cancer to see the benefits.

Offline
Last seen: 1 week 5 days ago
Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1763

"KimPossible" wrote:

The plain gist of it is, we don't look to surgically removing things from newborns as ways to prevent very rare cancers...except for circ.

We don't look to surgically removing things from newborns as a way to slightly reduce the risk of treatable infections...except for circ.

We don't look to surgically removing things from newborns as a way to slightly reduce the risk of STDS that have ways to *singificantly* reduce the risk.

And i honestly don't think we would make any other similar exception in the name of religion either.

IMO, this is an issue where circ'ing came first and has been around for so long and we are so used to it and it *does* involve extremely personal decisions, we have retrofitted reasons to keep it around.

Do I personally blame anyone for doing it? No, society, culture and religion are powerful powerful things. I firmly believe that individuals wholeheartedly feel they are doing whats best for their children. But all that being said, i can't deny that the reasons against doing it seem to be clear and untouchable to me, no argument stands up well in favor of it without acknowledging that its a pretty big exception to our typical behavior and attitude towards what is acceptable and what is not.

Excellent!

Offline
Last seen: 2 years 11 months ago
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"KimPossible" wrote:

IMO, this is an issue where circ'ing came first and has been around for so long and we are so used to it and it *does* involve extremely personal decisions, we have retrofitted reasons to keep it around.

Do I personally blame anyone for doing it? No, society, culture and religion are powerful powerful things. I firmly believe that individuals wholeheartedly feel they are doing whats best for their children. But all that being said, i can't deny that the reasons against doing it seem to be clear and untouchable to me, no argument stands up well in favor of it without acknowledging that its a pretty big exception to our typical behavior and attitude towards what is acceptable and what is not.

I don't disagree with any of this. Medical benefits were nice, but I found them to be mostly offset by risks, honestly. The only thing that frustrates me in this entire debate (not THIS debate, the debate in general as we have had it eleventy times on this board)....is that people who accept all sorts of cultural reasons to do things in their own culture, or accept the cultural decisions of foreigners (say, ritual tattooing, or any body modification such as neck stretching lip piercing etc etc) can't even contemplate accepting or pretending to understand the cultural decisions of those of us who DO live in places where the vast (vast) majority of people are one way vs. another (circ'd, in my case/area).

I've seen people pat themselves on the back for not circing their child, while simultaneously stating that "no one!" does it near them. Well.........so? So you are proud of yourself for making the same decision everyone in your culture does?

So am I.

Offline
Last seen: 4 years 1 month ago
Joined: 08/05/06
Posts: 441

"wlillie" wrote:

I'm tired and just got some bad news at work; I meant to say it's not completely true at all.

I was saying the earliest recorded pregnancy was at 5. I can imagine she didn't get much of a choice on her reproductive rights and I'm also assuming there are plenty more who don't. Also, in quite a few states, abortions are illegal without the parents knowledge and in others illegal without parental consent. So yes, you were wrong.

If you could snip off a small piece of skin as an infant to prevent those UTI's you wouldn't? I've never had one, but I've heard they are really painful. Not to mention the whole cancer and STD thing.

Circumcized men still get UTIs, STIs, and penile cancer.

culturedmom's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 1 month ago
Joined: 09/30/06
Posts: 1131

"Potter75" wrote:

I make lots of decisions for my kids. Doesn't everyone? Honestly I'd say that a ton of those decisions (like, deciding to be in a stable relationship before having them, or being able to financially provide for them), impact my kids a TON more than the decision regarding their foreskin. I wonder if the state is going to move in to also ban children being born into impoverished or unloving homes or the like, as the children can't choose.

Either way, I'm pretty sure a pretty important part of the "covenant" is the 8th day thing. Banning infant circumcision would in fact ban the religious rite as mandated by G_d according to the Jews, no?

Tara? Lana?

Well Tara is not here aymore so it's just little o'l me I think. And yes you are correct. Of course just a circ is not enough but it must be an actual bris milah.

I am not going to debate circ with anyone here. I don't care nor respsct what anyone who is anticirc thinks of my religion and my choices. And I do think personally that when people espouse their opinions about my son's penis it IS a direct afront to my religion and directed at my people and my culture and my Judaism. It doesn't matter if that is how it is meant or what the person's intentions are, that is how it effects me and so I take it that way. To tell a Jew not to circ is like tellign a Christian they are not allowed to Baptize. Yes, I get that baptism has no physical discomfort, but the feeling is the same. If I lived in a state that did not allow circ I would most likely move. That's how strongly I feel about it. My son;s bond with G-d and his Jewsih faith is the most important thing I could have ever done for him.

Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: 11/28/06
Posts: 848

"CalBearInBoston" wrote:

How is a haircut irreversible? Formula isn't irreversible, either. Drinking formula as an infant doesn't mean you have to drink it for your whole life. I don't understand these analogies. I don't think there are many things that are really comparable to circumcision as far as its irreversibility.

Sure, hair grows back but slowly. And once you consume something (formula) you can't exactly take that back. Irreversible doesn't mean you have to continue drinking it your whole life, lol. Can't take back immunizations either.....

Offline
Last seen: 4 years 1 month ago
Joined: 08/05/06
Posts: 441

"Alana*sMommy" wrote:

Sure, hair grows back but slowly. And once you consume something (formula) you can't exactly take that back. Irreversible doesn't mean you have to continue drinking it your whole life, lol. Can't take back immunizations either.....

The analogies just don't make sense, though. Your foreskin doesn't grow back like hair. It's also not like food, so I'm not understanding the comparison of circumcision and infant feeding either. You can't take back immunizations, I guess, but you can stop doing them or let them "run out" by not providing boosters. Removing a part of the body that doesn't grow back is very different from any of those things (and I'm not saying better or worse, but it's very different).

Offline
Last seen: 4 years 5 months ago
Joined: 05/23/05
Posts: 174

"CalBearInBoston" wrote:

The analogies just don't make sense, though. Your foreskin doesn't grow back like hair. It's also not like food, so I'm not understanding the comparison of circumcision and infant feeding either. You can't take back immunizations, I guess, but you can stop doing them or let them "run out" by not providing boosters. Removing a part of the body that doesn't grow back is very different from any of those things (and I'm not saying better or worse, but it's very different).

You're right. It is different, and there is just no other thing that can compare to it. It's very unique, no other part of the body can be taken out like that, and it has benefits and downsides, at the same time, it's been done for religeous reasons for a loooong time now. There is just no way to find something that will compare to it exactly. But I do get the arguement of formula and food, even though they are not exactly the same, the point is that they are choices that we do make for our LOs that they can't just reverse in the future. Even things as simple as letting them watch TV or play video games. The circ is unique because it's a physical thing, but once we get past this part, we can compare it to many other choices that we make for our kids because we believe it's best for them. So we can basically compare that aspect of it.

It also doesn't make sense to compare circ to cutting off the tip of a baby's nose, or giving one a tattoe. That's a really silly comparison.

I don't have a boy, but if I did, I would do it because I'm a Muslim. The reason is religeous. But if I believe for one second that it wasn't the best for my child, like any other Muslim or Jew on earth, I would never do it. So yeah, add me to team (Stop Worrying about my Son's Penis).. it really is not a big deal. Seriously, it isn't! It's not a life changing procedure where we have to wait until they grow up and chose, and it's something that's a 100 times better to be done as a baby. Also, until circumstised men start complaining, it shouldn't be a problem. Most of those are against it for babies are the ones who are against period, and are the ones who would never do it. So it's not really an issue of "they are too young to decide".. it's really an issue of "it's a bad idea, don't do it".

Offline
Last seen: 1 week 5 days ago
Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1763

"sweet_nth" wrote:

You're right. It is different, and there is just no other thing that can compare to it. It's very unique, no other part of the body can be taken out like that, and it has benefits and downsides, at the same time, it's been done for religeous reasons for a loooong time now. There is just no way to find something that will compare to it exactly. But I do get the arguement of formula and food, even though they are not exactly the same, the point is that they are choices that we do make for our LOs that they can't just reverse in the future. Even things as simple as letting them watch TV or play video games. The circ is unique because it's a physical thing, but once we get past this part, we can compare it to many other choices that we make for our kids because we believe it's best for them. So we can basically compare that aspect of it.

It also doesn't make sense to compare circ to cutting off the tip of a baby's nose, or giving one a tattoe. That's a really silly comparison.

I don't have a boy, but if I did, I would do it because I'm a Muslim. The reason is religeous. But if I believe for one second that it wasn't the best for my child, like any other Muslim or Jew on earth, I would never do it. So yeah, add me to team (Stop Worrying about my Son's Penis).. it really is not a big deal. Seriously, it isn't! It's not a life changing procedure where we have to wait until they grow up and chose, and it's something that's a 100 times better to be done as a baby. Also, until circumstised men start complaining, it shouldn't be a problem. Most of those are against it for babies are the ones who are against period, and are the ones who would never do it. So it's not really an issue of "they are too young to decide".. it's really an issue of "it's a bad idea, don't do it".

What makes it silly? It's a permanent decision made by parents in some cultures. Would foot binding or cutting out part of the tongue be a better comparison? Just because something is done for religious or cultural reasons for a long period of time, doesn't make it okay. I can think of several religious rituals have been modified or ended over time.

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 6 days ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4229

"ethanwinfield" wrote:

What makes it silly? It's a permanent decision made by parents in some cultures. Would foot binding or cutting out part of the tongue be a better comparison? Just because something is done for religious or cultural reasons for a long period of time, doesn't make it okay. I can think of several religious rituals have been modified or ended over time.

But it does make it okay. What gives YOU the right to tell someone how to practice their religion? How is that different than a parent making a choice for their child, except that you would be making a decision for a child that you don't even know? Can you name a religous ritual that has been modified or ended that causes no harm?

Offline
Last seen: 4 years 5 months ago
Joined: 05/23/05
Posts: 174

"ethanwinfield" wrote:

What makes it silly? It's a permanent decision made by parents in some cultures. Would foot binding or cutting out part of the tongue be a better comparison? Just because something is done for religious or cultural reasons for a long period of time, doesn't make it okay. I can think of several religious rituals have been modified or ended over time.

It's silly because there is absolutely no other body part that compares to a penis's foreskin (or even comes close), where cutting it off would compare to circumcision. That's why it's silly. It's like someone comparing piercing the ears of a child to putting a hole in her foot.

Offline
Last seen: 4 years 1 month ago
Joined: 08/05/06
Posts: 441

"sweet_nth" wrote:

It's silly because there is absolutely no other body part that compares to a penis's foreskin (or even comes close), where cutting it off would compare to circumcision. That's why it's silly. It's like someone comparing piercing the ears of a child to putting a hole in her foot.

The clitoral hood is essentially identical to foreskin. I don't think you can argue that there is no body part that compares.

Offline
Last seen: 1 week 5 days ago
Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1763

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

But it does make it okay. What gives YOU the right to tell someone how to practice their religion? How is that different than a parent making a choice for their child, except that you would be making a decision for a child that you don't even know? Can you name a religous ritual that has been modified or ended that causes no harm?

Nothing gives ME the right per se. But a lot of people seem to think they have that right when they vote against same-sex marriage.

Anyway, what do you mean that causes no harm?

KimPossible's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 4 days ago
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3471

"sweet_nth" wrote:

It's silly because there is absolutely no other body part that compares to a penis's foreskin (or even comes close), where cutting it off would compare to circumcision. That's why it's silly. It's like someone comparing piercing the ears of a child to putting a hole in her foot.

Are you suggesting that all other parts of the body are naturally off limits to removal without consent or medical necessity *except* the foreskin.

That sounds completely arbitrary.

Offline
Last seen: 4 years 5 months ago
Joined: 05/23/05
Posts: 174

"KimPossible" wrote:

Are you suggesting that all other parts of the body are naturally off limits to removal without consent or medical necessity *except* the foreskin.

That sounds completely arbitrary.

Ofcourse not!

Offline
Last seen: 4 years 5 months ago
Joined: 05/23/05
Posts: 174

"ethanwinfield" wrote:

Nothing gives ME the right per se. But a lot of people seem to think they have that right when they vote against same-sex marriage.

Anyway, what do you mean that causes no harm?

So I'm confused! You think it's OK to vote against same-sex marriage?

Offline
Last seen: 4 years 1 month ago
Joined: 06/04/07
Posts: 1368

"sweet_nth" wrote:

You're right. It is different, and there is just no other thing that can compare to it. It's very unique, no other part of the body can be taken out like that, and it has benefits and downsides, at the same time, it's been done for religeous reasons for a loooong time now. There is just no way to find something that will compare to it exactly. But I do get the arguement of formula and food, even though they are not exactly the same, the point is that they are choices that we do make for our LOs that they can't just reverse in the future. Even things as simple as letting them watch TV or play video games. The circ is unique because it's a physical thing, but once we get past this part, we can compare it to many other choices that we make for our kids because we believe it's best for them. So we can basically compare that aspect of it.

It also doesn't make sense to compare circ to cutting off the tip of a baby's nose, or giving one a tattoe. That's a really silly comparison.

I don't have a boy, but if I did, I would do it because I'm a Muslim. The reason is religeous. But if I believe for one second that it wasn't the best for my child, like any other Muslim or Jew on earth, I would never do it. So yeah, add me to team (Stop Worrying about my Son's Penis).. it really is not a big deal. Seriously, it isn't! It's not a life changing procedure where we have to wait until they grow up and chose, and it's something that's a 100 times better to be done as a baby. Also, until circumstised men start complaining, it shouldn't be a problem. Most of those are against it for babies are the ones who are against period, and are the ones who would never do it. So it's not really an issue of "they are too young to decide".. it's really an issue of "it's a bad idea, don't do it".

But it is the same as a normal appendix or gall bladder that can be removed. Would parents elect to have them removed if they needed surgery for something else in that area anyway? Or would they elect to leave those organs alone? While I respect the religious aspects of circumcision, I now think that it should not be done for any other reason other than religion.

Offline
Last seen: 1 week 5 days ago
Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1763

"sweet_nth" wrote:

It's silly because there is absolutely no other body part that compares to a penis's foreskin (or even comes close), where cutting it off would compare to circumcision. That's why it's silly. It's like someone comparing piercing the ears of a child to putting a hole in her foot.

"KimPossible" wrote:

Are you suggesting that all other parts of the body are naturally off limits to removal without consent or medical necessity *except* the foreskin.

That sounds completely arbitrary.

Aren't the majority of men worldwide uncircumcised?

Offline
Last seen: 1 week 5 days ago
Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1763

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

But it does make it okay. What gives YOU the right to tell someone how to practice their religion?How is that different than a parent making a choice for their child, except that you would be making a decision for a child that you don't even know? Can you name a religous ritual that has been modified or ended that causes no harm?

"ethanwinfield" wrote:

Nothing gives ME the right per se. But a lot of people seem to think they have that right when they vote against same-sex marriage.

Anyway, what do you mean that causes no harm?

"sweet_nth" wrote:

So I'm confused! You think it's OK to vote against same-sex marriage?

No, I don't think it's okay to vote on same-sex marriage. Nor do I think this belongs on the ballot.

daniellevmt's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 6 months ago
Joined: 07/25/06
Posts: 213

"Potter75" wrote:

I've seen people pat themselves on the back for not circing their child, while simultaneously stating that "no one!" does it near them. Well.........so? So you are proud of yourself for making the same decision everyone in your culture does?

So am I.

AWESOME post!!!!!

Zero shame here in saying that we factored in the whole "societal norm" thing when making our decision. So what? I hate to sound simple, but why on earth do (general) you care one iota about my son's penis?

And I'm sorry, but I think it's SUPER lame and so non-comformist-y when men whine about their circumcised penises as adults. Or when their wives cry that it "affects their sex life so much!!!". Seriously?? Flame away if you must. I think it's silly.

daniellevmt's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 6 months ago
Joined: 07/25/06
Posts: 213

I also don't understand why those of you who are anti-circ think the religion exemption is totally cool. If you are against it, you are against it. You say that we shouldn't be circ'ing "just because it's traditional"....well, why do you think it's done in some religions??

Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: 11/28/06
Posts: 848

"CalBearInBoston" wrote:

The analogies just don't make sense, though. Your foreskin doesn't grow back like hair. It's also not like food, so I'm not understanding the comparison of circumcision and infant feeding either. You can't take back immunizations, I guess, but you can stop doing them or let them "run out" by not providing boosters. Removing a part of the body that doesn't grow back is very different from any of those things (and I'm not saying better or worse, but it's very different).

Of course nothing is *exactly* the same as circumcision. That's why I gave analogies, and like it or not they do make sense. It is a simple point really.....we make decisions for our children every day and often times those decisions cannot be recalled, reversed, taken back, or whatever language you prefer. We do it because we're parents and that's our job.

Offline
Last seen: 4 years 1 month ago
Joined: 08/05/06
Posts: 441

"Alana*sMommy" wrote:

Of course nothing is *exactly* the same as circumcision. That's why I gave analogies, and like it or not they do make sense. It is a simple point really.....we make decisions for our children every day and often times those decisions cannot be recalled, reversed, taken back, or whatever language you prefer. We do it because we're parents and that's our job.

Do you think all parenting decisions are equivalent?

KimPossible's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 4 days ago
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3471

"sweet_nth" wrote:

Ofcourse not!

So what else do you think is ok to permanently remove from a newborn?

Pages