Nelson Jones

Belief, disbelief and beyond belief

Circumcision is not a barrier to an individual's religious freedom

Was a German court justified in interfering with centuries of religious tradition?

By Nelson Jones Published 29 June 2012 12:42

A young boy cries after being circumcised. Photograph: Getty Images

A court in Cologne has ruled that circumcision, performed for religious reasons on male children below an age where they can meaningfully consent to the operation, amounts to an unwarranted and irreparable interference with their bodily integrity. Furthermore, it interferes with the right of a child "to decide for himself later on to what religion he wishes to belong".

The ruling, in a case involving a four-year-old Muslim boy who was injured in a botched procedure, has been strongly criticised by both Muslim and Jewish groups in Germany and beyond. In the UK Jonathan Arkush, vice-president of the Board of Deputies described it as "intolerant, ill-informed and deeply troubling." Andrew Copson of the British Humanist Association, by contrast, supports it. He thinks it is "an open and shut case, ethically speaking" on the grounds that "respect for the autonomy of a person requires that they give consent for irreversible procedures affecting their body like cutting pieces off their genitals". And Pavan Dhaliwal, speaking publicly on behalf of the BHA, suggests that a ban on infant circumcision "would not constitute an attack on religious freedom, because boys would still be allowed to be circumcised when they reach an age to consent".

While Copson has some sympathy for Jews and Muslims who may interpret a ban as oppressive, he appears to locate the source of their discomfort in an emotional attachment to their traditions and, in the case of men, intimate feelings towards their own bodies. But this is more than a merely cultural or psychological issue. It would have especially serious consequences for Jewish religious practice. To ban the circumcision of infant boys would, in effect, be to ban Judaism itself, at least as it has been practised for almost three thousand years. Islam expects males to be circumcised but lays down no specific age for the procedure. Jewish law on the other hand requires circumcision on the eighth day after birth, an age at which even the most precocious infant would be unable to give informed consent. No uncircumcised boy would be able to celebrate his Bar Mitzvah at the traditional age of thirteen. It would be potentially catastrophic. That a German court should have produced such a ruling has only added to the disquiet.

Along with the Sabbath and the rules of kosher, circumcision has always been one of the non-negotiable features of Judaism, indeed central to Jewish identity. The requirement is laid down in the book of Genesis (in chapter 17), which describes circumcision as the "token of the covenant" between God and Israel and goes on to warn that that "the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised shall be cut off from the people; he has broken my covenant."

The importance attached to the procedure is repeatedly stressed in the Hebrew Bible. In one incident recounted in Exodus, God threatens to kill Moses, apparently because the prophet's (non-Jewish) wife has not had their son circumcised. He is only saved when Zipporah takes the knife to her son's foreskin herself. The message is clear: so much does God care about circumcision that's he's prepared to kill the man without whom there would be no Judaism (nor any Christianity or Islam) at all rather than see one Israelite child in possession of a foreskin. It's that serious.

If circumcision were obviously a bad thing, then religious freedom could and should be overridden. No religious justification would suffice to permit human sacrifice, or indeed female genital mutilation (FGM), which most Western countries have specifically banned. But male circumcision is not obviously harmful, as FGM is. Performed properly, it is not dangerous. The World Health Organisation positively encourages it, the theory being that it protects against HIV and other sexually transmitted infections. The effect on sexual pleasure in later life is disputed. Men who are in a position to know offer differing opinions, with those who report improvement somewhat outnumbering those regretting the procedure. All agree, however, that even with anaesthetic during the operation it is very painful afterwards and it takes at least a month to recover.

This matters. If circumcision for religious reasons is restricted to adults, not only would this interfere with long-held custom (and in the Jewish case, Biblical law), it would also force men or older boys to undergo a painful procedure as a price of belonging to their ancestral religion. Uncircumcised male converts to Judaism or Islam already face this dilemma, of course, but it's not hard to see that the prospect would act as a deterrent to many men lacking in the zeal of a convert. At the same time, a circumcised man leaving the religion is not forced to be painfully uncircumcised. It's thus hard to follow the logic that sees the procedure as an interference with a boy's freedom to choose his religion later in life. Quite the reverse.

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

More from Nelson Jones

View the discussion thread.

87 comments

Mon, 2012-07-09 13:43 — omnigo what planet r u on (not verified)

tattoo is not a permanent body modificashun, you can has it removed wif laser; off course risking scars but option exists

/as long as you don't do Names... you're safe, some just have the Name craved on their private parts, that's allright I guess.

(oh-just-get-over-it)

Mon, 2012-07-09 07:28 — caroassasino (not verified)

How about a commutation test:

Would it be acceptable if male infants at the age of eight days were to be given facial tattoos on religious grounds?

We don't allow tattooing, as a permanent body modification, to be made by those under 18, even with parental consent, so why should circumcision, as another permanent body modification, be permitted on non-medical grounds?

Mon, 2012-07-09 05:27 — New Stateswoman (not verified)

Look up Planet Nibiru - heading this way

Wed, 2012-07-04 21:14 — Bud Yanker (not verified)

In 1999, drug company Pfizer has admitted carrying out Viagra tests that involved mutilating dogs' genitals but defended the experiments as essential. The research on the impotence pill was carried out at Pfizer's laboratories in Sandwich, Kent. Animal rights groups are outraged at experiments, which involved removing the foreskins of the anesthetized beagles and then giving them shocks with electrodes inserted into the center of their penises. The company, which also carried out tests on rabbits, rats, mice and monkeys in Bristol, put the dogs down afterwards. Details of the experiments were first published in the American Journal of Urology, in an article titled: "Effect of the selective phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor sildenafil on erectile function in the anesthetized dog." The researchers used the electric shocks to test the firmness of the beagle's erections after administering varying doses of Viagra. Anti-vivisection groups are outraged as Viagra is not a life-saver. The RSPCA said it planned to look into the experiment to determine whether they had inflicted unnecessary pain, while the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection promised to lobby the Home Office to find out why it had permitted the tests. Sarah Kite, of the BUAV, said: "We are appalled that experiments of this nature have been carried out. "These beagles have been mutilated in grotesque experiments for a drug which has no life-saving use."

antisylphid wishes you good day's picture

Thu, 2012-07-05 10:32 — antisylphid wishes you good day (not verified)

"These beagles have been mutilated in grotesque experiments for a drug which has no life-saving use."
True.
For you, foreskin loss is something you cannot come to terms with. For other men erectile dysfunctions are something they cannot come to terms with. Problems like that lead to other group of meds called antidepressants.
Do I agree with experimenting on animals? No. As a matter of fact suffering of animals, this industrialized holocaust, is something I can't come to terms with. Do I agree with experimenting on me? No. Would you test viagra on human volunteers? Maybe. Although ethically it wouldn't *look good* to test meds on desperate people. In practice that's how it is, testing on desperate people anyway, let's say cancer, plus, how many animals suffer from testing anti-cancer drugs? How many animals suffered from testing viagra?
Do you perhaps see compromise here? To me, it's a forced compromise, but that's how it is. Can you see other options?

We don't want to die. And we don't want to suffer from erectile dysfunctions. Nor depression. Nor allergy or other meaningless health problems. And if you were to decide in an environment without food whether to kill me and eat my flesh to survive, you'd do that. And I'd do the same.

Ok, we are not in Japan, but how many dogs and cats are GASSED (in glass chambers, so operator can see if they are already dead) monthly, just because some lovely people with kids threw them out of their houses, or they were just born to the back streets of big cities? You know, homelessness. Homeless people CAN take care of themselves, domesticated animals not really.
American judges order drunk drivers to spend some time in morgues, to me it's fair. Would you order 7-11 years old kids to observe how fluffy homeless (they broke human laws, including the law of esthetics, and are homeless) animals are gassed? Effect on parents wouldn't last, they work as gas chambers operators. The only sensible educational effect would be on kids. Is shock therapy good to teach them that animals aren't toys? I mean it, answer this question, I'd love to read how you answer it.

Wed, 2012-07-04 05:14 — Thoughtfully yours (not verified)

I have noted for some years (and of course there are ample arguments to the contrary) that among the greatest conflicts on the world stage is that between Jews and Arabs (underpinned by the US, the GIGANTIC military bully) and those conflicts are almost completely the doings of men. And these cultures (not the Danes, not the Swiss, not the Paraguayans, not the Mongols) all have their penises mutilated as children.

If there is a "god" of all the vastness we can barely comprehend, it is troublesome to imagine that (s)he has time to takes notice of mens' penis accouterments while keeping the galaxies wheeling about silently above us. A check on the prior Egyptian circumcision practice (snakes shedding their skin was the natural model) does nothing to sanctify the current "religious" practices or the "medical model" practiced on white males (mostly) in America. MANY black American males remain uncircumcised.

Wed, 2012-07-04 14:10 — antisylphid wishes you good day (not verified)

Religion is a part of the culture, sometimes specific culture revolves around religion more than other cultures do.

Not long ago bloodletting used to be so called good practice. People did it until someone questioned it. Then advocates of bloodletting started looking for arguments why such practice is good, right? You can't tell bloodletting was good or bad in a specific case regarding individual who underwent it. It was so popular, ordered frequently, it was almost panacea.
Bloodletting belongs to history now, but it doesn't mean we don't do similar mistakes. We are increasingly better educated, our science is going onwards. Medicine is less tied with religion now, even though some docs are believers.

It's all good. Human thought evolves, because there are people who question things, then we have social debate, arguments are being delivered and voila, we change our approach. Nowadays an individual counts more than before.

People do things not necessarily understanding what they are doing. And they do them, because that's how 'things used to be done'. If you were hurt by the past, the only thing you can do is not to repeat the hurtful behaviour yourself. That's how you influence others.

This is what David Lynch said: 'Suffering doesn't bring ideas. If it did, we could just hit someone with a mallet and an idea would pop out. People on chain gangs would be the greatest artists in the world. "Please let me go on that chain gang!" budding artists would cry.'

You know, we humans are able to understand everything, but not everything we should accept. Letting go doesn't always mean acceptance, it may mean 'I shall no longer be bothered by something I have no influence over', when it's all about the past, there are people involved and you have no influence over their actions. YOU, you have only one life and why would you want to live it being tormented?

Mon, 2012-07-02 17:31 — antisylphid (not verified)

'Was a German court justified in interfering with centuries of religious tradition?'

Courts on continent are secular.
Canon law regulates issues linked with religion. Apparently German secular court was approached by someone who wanted the problem to be recognized by non-religius organization. There's separation of church and state and state law ovverrides church law; there are many religious denominations in european countries.

German court was not only justified, it is its role to recognize such problems.

There are very few problems with which people on the continent engage canon law into (Ecclesiastical court), mostly divorces if they had religious ceremony in church. Divorce though, engages civil court as well, so not many people use both options (it costs) and often remarry without another ceremony in church, basically living in sin (in case they are believers).

Now there can be another question created, 'Was a Rabbi justified performing medical procedure without medical license?' /in case they are not doctors and procede anyway/
Secular court would probably answer that Rabbi was justified, regarding centuries of religious tradition. Medical court could not be approached at all if Rabbi wasn't a physician/doctor, but in case of negligence, medical professionals would be asked their opinion in secular court anyway.

So 'Circumcision is not a barrier to an individual's religious freedom' just as lack of circumcision isn't. It's specific religion which regulates this through initiation, for example a baby becomes Christian after being baptized, or a Jew after being circumcised (depends from the parents and their cultural belonging how they chose to bring up the baby). In my private opinion such initiation is a form of positive discrimination (you are one of us if you were baptized or circumcised, otherwise you are not). For example my parents elected to baptize me, but now I'm an atheist out of my own choice, although technically I'm still a Catholic, and considering apostasy tends to be problematic, I have no slightest need to proceed. Initiation at a very young age is convenient to churches because not many people change their religion afterwards maintaining status quo, though more and more stops believing at all.

Mon, 2012-07-02 11:34 — Des Demona (not verified)

Not sure I'd want to be a follower of a God who specifically requires I cut off a bit of my cock? Sounds like a bit of a weirdo to me, but each to his own I guess.

Mon, 2012-07-02 07:49 — hugh markey (not verified)

What's good for the goose is good for the gander Or the other way round. Why the boy chilld and not the girl baby?

Smegma

Wed, 2012-07-04 20:00 — Family Penis (not verified)

Girls have smegma too.

Sun, 2012-07-01 18:10 — StephenKMackSD (not verified)

Infant circumcision announces to everyone that with this act of institutional sexual violence we control your being at it's root, sexuality. We determine you without regard for personal autonomy, but assert our control over you by means of 'normalized' sexual violence. All carefully garnished with tribal defenses predicated on the notion of ownership of a child by the greater will of that tribe. The Abrahamic Tradition's founding position of the rightness of male heterosexual dominance as unquestionable, ineluctable and most importantly as fealty to the designation of the myth of the keepers of the law. All the other rationalizations for this procedure are simply adaptations of this usable paradigm, by the apologists for this act of violence. The reason Patriarchy is under attack, in all it's guises, is that it perpetuates the notion and practice of male power as not subject to appeal or redress: the most virulent form of cultural authoritarianism.
StephenKMackSD
San Diego, California

Sun, 2012-07-01 10:05 — Natsir (not verified)

sorry in advance, I am among those who are circumcised when I was 7 years old. and now I am 28 years old, so far I don't feel any sexual disorder. I was always sensitive, and there are no problems with my erections. please don't blame religion for that.thank you

Sun, 2012-07-01 07:44 — thewestisthebest (not verified)

Parliament needs to debate then outlaw all religious practices that inflicts pain or draws blood. This barbaric practice of child mutilation carried out within the NHS should stop any doctor or lay-person who performs this outrageous act should face prosecution with a lengthy prison sentence awaiting the practitioners of this 'Medical' barbarity.

Sat, 2012-06-30 23:56 — Dan Bollinger (not verified)

I agree. The German Court's ruling does not violate the BOY's religious freedom, in fact, it preserves it. At the same time, it preserves his body. Remaining INTACT is everyone's right, including children.

Sun, 2012-07-01 07:10 — willoyen

yes, quite right. Let every woman remain intact, virgo intacta.... get thee to a nunnery!

Sun, 2012-07-01 00:14 — exactly (not verified)

Sat, 2012-06-30 23:09 — point is nobody (not verified)

defends this blatant act of child abuse.

Sat, 2012-06-30 21:46 — willoyen

let circumcision thrive! and castration! the eunuchs of China more or less brought down the Tang dynasty, and as that wonderful Jew Freud points out, circumcision is a symbolic form of castration, by a God the father, jealous and wrathful. Bloodletting is part of all primitive fellowship and sacrifice. Christians regularly drink Jesus of Nazareth's blood and readily gobble up his flesh in extraordinary (but unremarkable) rites of sacrifice and cannibalism. Of course, if the Abrahamic religions practice it, it's OK, it can be justified. If Africans do it, it's genital mutilation.

Sat, 2012-06-30 23:16 — John Cheese (not verified)

There is much bloodletting in Chicago each weekend too! However, the honoree usually dies!

Sat, 2012-06-30 23:40 — oh so tragic (not verified)

.yawn.

Sat, 2012-06-30 20:24 — Lawrence11 (not verified)

How can the NHS get away with circumcising me without my consent? I do not understand it. My parents gave consent when I was 13 but the doctor never gave them any alternatives and did not inform them of the negative outcomes, e.g. loss of sensitivity and psychological damage. In this day and age, when people are getting compensation for simply ridiculous reasons, it baffles me that this mutilation/assault which was carried out on me without any possibility of me suing. I HATE the NHS now. Privatise it. Kill it off.

Sat, 2012-06-30 16:39 — Comrade Joe (not verified)

"No uncircumcised boy would be able to celebrate his Bar Mitzvah at the traditional age of thirteen"

This is nonsense. no synagogue I have come across enquires about circumcision before allowing a bar mitzvah to take place.

Sat, 2012-06-30 14:47 — Mr Humanus Wright (not verified)

Once again we are being told about technology in the Civilian Sector that has been in existance within the military sector, 10 to 20 years before it has been openly publicized, within the civilian sector. We are talking about the UKUSA agreement and TTCP agreements, Porton Down (QinetiQ - DSTL - DERA), RSRE (Worcestershire), and DARPA, NASA and CIA-DST. This technology is way passed its' study/experimental stage, and is in full implementation, being used activily on a procedural level, with consent and without consent. If you refer to some of the illegal programs that were being occustrated in the 50s, 60s and 70s, under ARTICHOKE, MKULTRA stemming from 'Operation PaperClip', you can gain an insight to the level of depravity that the medicial, scientific research, intelligence and military establishments were willing to go to, and how there is a huge deception on how these technologies and programs are now being presented to the public audience: William Sargant, St Thomas's Hospital, Donald Ewan Cameron, Harry Bailey and Galbraith, amongs others ... The Radio Telemetry Laboratory, and Military Radiations Signals Intelligence, Neural Oscillations, and the Central Nervous System, with ELF or VLF manipulation; under the subject heading Brain Computer Interface (BCI), Remote Neural Monitoring (RNM) and Synthetic Telepathy. Nano-Medicines have hugely allowed this early pioneering 'torture' experimentation to be unimaginably enhanced beyond all scientific expectations, for manipulation of test subjects/live subjects, 'Unethical Human Experimentation' - in the ten of thousands (every living organism has a unique 'Bioelectric Field').

Sat, 2012-06-30 11:22 — Rivas Carrie (not verified)

what Shawn replied I'm impressed that a stay at home mom can get paid $7281 in four weeks on the computer. have you read this webpage HTTP://LAZYCASH24.COM

Sat, 2012-06-30 09:29 — thewestisthebest (not verified)

Why do some on the political-left keep defending the indefensible? Genital mutilation perpetrated against either boys or girls is wrong. Any child born in the {enlightened} west needs to be defended against other worlds barbarities.

Sat, 2012-06-30 11:56 — jankaas (not verified)

for you to suggest that it's exclusively those on "the left" who defend circumcision means that the Enlightenment appears to have had zero effect on you.

Sat, 2012-06-30 08:56 — Richard Mellor (not verified)

The bottom line is this: the religious justification for this genital mutilation is that a supernatural force made a deal with a human being six thousand or so years ago. That deal was a pact that the supernatural being would guarantee a special place for all of this humans descendants if he cut of part of his male children's genitals.

I'm supposed to give this some sort of credibility and throw the rights of children down the drain in the process?

Sat, 2012-06-30 11:54 — jankaas (not verified)

in a word; yes.

just because you and i think the whole reasoning more than a little daft and curious, the fact remains that billions of fellow humans truly believe this is their duty.
we therefor have to be pragmatic and accept that driving this ritual underground is likely to lead to more suffering. unless you genuinely believe that banning the ritual will mean it stops?
i prefer the approach that we ensure the surgery required is of the highest standard, monitored, and procedures reviewed periodically to see if improvements in safety are possible.

Sun, 2012-07-01 00:52 — Hugh7 (not verified)

And do you think the same about female genital cutting - that "the surgery required is of the highest standard, monitored, and procedures reviewed periodically to see if improvements in safety are possible"? You could make it more minor at the same time (as it is already in Malaysia and Indonesia), so that the charge that it destroys sexuality could be refuted. Then it would be "merely" an infringement on her human rights.

The AAP's laughingly-named "Bioethics" committee tried this in 2010, proposing a token ritual nick to girls "much less extensive than neonatal male genital cutting" lest worse befall. Public outcry caused the AAP to back down and "retire" the new policy within a month. What remains is a pure double standard - male genital cutting at parental whim, female genital cutting outlawed completely.

Sun, 2012-07-01 16:37 — jankaas (not verified)

i think you have a serious problem with comprehension Hugh. i just checked and guess what i wrote to you more than a day ago when you insisted there's some genuine value to this comparison? i wrote;
"to say that FGC is the exact same as male circumcision suggests that there is little room for a sensible exchange between us."

i stand by that statement.

Sat, 2012-06-30 04:25 — JimK (not verified)

"it would also force men or older boys to undergo a painful procedure as a price of belonging to their ancestral religion."
And this is somehow not true for infants? Or are you trying to suggest painfully mutilating an infants penis is more acceptable than painfully mutilating a man or older boys penis?
As for circumcision protecting against HIV there's conflicting evidence on that, and frankly any improvement on contraction rates pales in significance compared to using a condom. The choice on either having my penis mutilated to slightly lowering the risk of contracting an STD, or leaving it intact and using a condom to lower the risk to almost zero is a not a difficult one.
I think this episode of Bullsh*t sums up the arguments against circumcision pretty well http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b73FmTuGk9w

Sun, 2012-07-01 16:39 — jankaas (not verified)

"And this is somehow not true for infants? Or are you trying to suggest painfully mutilating an infants penis is more acceptable than painfully mutilating a man or older boys penis?"

i tried to contribute something along these lines but perhaps you missed it? pls scroll down to FRI, 2012-06-29 20:54 — JANKAAS (NOT VERIFIED).

Sat, 2012-06-30 00:27 — Hugh7 (not verified)

I think I will invent a religion. It will involve using the intact adult foreskin in its religious observances - filling it with wine for some communion-like activity, say or "docking" with a phallic idol.

Unfortunately, circumcised men, though they would not be discriminated against (heaven forbid!), would be physically unable to take part in our most sacred rites. Thus they can never become priests, bishops, cardinals or Pope in the Church of the Sancto Posthe. Their parents have excluded them, life-long from these roles. Thus your headline is disproved.

Don't say that's silly. NOTHING could be as silly as what some religion near you believes or does. And don't say "That's just made up". I'm just the next L Ron Hubbard, Mary Baker Eddy or Joseph Smith (Willam Booth, Charles Wesley, John Calvin, Martin Luther, Saul of Tarsus...).

Fri, 2012-06-29 21:50 — Iris Fudge (not verified)

It is good that some of you chaps have sought to correct Nelson Jones on his misinformation about FGM and MGM. The organisation FORWARD provides
details of the various effects of FGM which may be slight or very severe.
What is certain is that the practice happens without the girls consent. The same is true of MGM. The reason children are genitally mutilated is that so far adults can get away with it. I work for NORM-UK and our doctors have helped many men to restore their foreskins which gives greater comfort both to them and their partners. Unlike those in the medical profession who circumcise baby boys knowing that is no medical necessity. Changing the cultures that inflict harm
albeit, unknowingly, will gradually happen.
infl

Fri, 2012-06-29 19:13 — praha7 (not verified)

Circumcised or not on the evidence of this article Mr.Jones is a first class prick.

Fri, 2012-06-29 18:43 — peterr (not verified)

Children generally heal more quickly than adults, but time moves more slowly for them, so the suffering of an infant is quite likely comparable to that of an adult here.

So perhaps in order to obtain the empirical evidence needed for his opinion to be of value, Mr. Jones should volunteer to have himself sliced, with comparable painkillers or whatever (none at all?) to what is given to infants.... maybe even have it bitten off, to see if that's worse or better. Too bad he has only one; otherwise comparison of the knife to the teeth would be possible for him to report back on.

Fri, 2012-06-29 20:54 — jankaas (not verified)

i'll contribute my own story here as it is rather close to home. i had several medical treatments inflicted on me that required a substantial area of my left leg to be dabbed with liquid nitrogen. same as taking a blow torch to it. i was aged 5 or 6 months.
apparently i screamed like a stuck pig, and my parents could not go through with the complete course.
thing is, i don't remember any of this. it has literally had zero effect on me as a person. it's as if it just never happened. if my parents had not told me about it, i would never have known.
now, scroll forward 12 years and i am being circumcised for medical reasons. holy f**king sh*t. that knacked! i did not wee for a day and a half.
and i sincerely hope i am not the exception to the rule. i don't remember suffering at such an early age. i doubt any human ever has, or potentially has to cognitive abilities to store events at 8 days old.

Fri, 2012-06-29 17:53 — Ron Low (not verified)

Medical ethics dictates that proxy (parental) consent for surgery is only valid if waiting for the patient's own rational informed consent would lead to harm. Forced genital cutting of healthy normal boys and girls fails this test decidedly. Somehow when it's a male and an infant and it's the genitals ethics is often overlooked, but that doesn't make it right.

Foreskin feels REALLY good. Circumcision changes intimacy dramatically. The only person with the moral standing to consent to that alteration is the owner of the genitals.

Hundreds of thousands of men are enduring a tedious multi-year process of non-surgical foreskin restoration to undo just some of the sexual damage of circumcision.

Fri, 2012-06-29 15:58 — jankaas (not verified)

reading the comments so far i guess i present another POV.

what appears to be in conflict is the religious obligation felt to be non-negotiable by literally billions of fellow humans, and, the resulting medical complications experienced by a minuscule number of that group. surely we should at the very least understand exactly how many people suffer adverse effects? does anyone know?

and,

in many countries baby girls have their ears pierced as a matter of course. would that also need to be banned for the exact same reason of lack of informed consent?

Fri, 2012-06-29 18:54 — Lesebyst (not verified)

Pierced ears heal, good luck growing back a foreskin.

Fri, 2012-06-29 20:33 — jankaas (not verified)

lol. fair point.

Fri, 2012-06-29 18:38 — Silican (not verified)

Turning that argument around, what level of risk is acceptable? The absolute level of risk will depend on both operator and 'patient' characteristics The risks include haemorrhage, infection, urinary retention with potential renal failure, penectomy and death.

Fri, 2012-06-29 20:43 — jankaas (not verified)

yes i agree Silican. in an ideal world we wouldn't even have to take a stand on such a no-brainer. of course any level of harm if avoidable is wrong by definition.
i could now turn this back around to you, and try to remain practical and pragmatic; same as making abortion illegal, we know that making something we know is going to happen safe is more important than moral posturing. lives are lost and people suffer greatly. so you should accept that by making circumcision, which we know will continue to happen, illegal we will see more medical trauma rather than less.
in essence; banning is too blunt an instrument.
this is as much about culture as it is religion. and culture do change, and then religion follows. so it goes.

Sat, 2012-06-30 12:49 — Silican (not verified)

I couldn't'agree more. The analogy of taking abortion out of the 'back streets' is apt. I know very little of Jewish custom but, I have a suspicion that the Jewish community would reject licensed surgical procedures.

Sat, 2012-06-30 17:20 — jankaas (not verified)

the great thing about Judaism is that is does 'progress', so we do see more and more liberal versions that are more popular. many Jews don't adhere to the stricter forms of sabbath requirements, so maybe, just maybe, the Jewish community can come to realise that they can have a win-win; safe circumcision at day 8.

Jewish parents are exactly like me and my wife are when it comes to our children, they are everything. we would lay down our lives to preserve theirs. the notion that Jewish parents care little for their baby boys is, as no doubt you'd agree, a non-starter.

so i think safe circumcision has more chance of succeeding than a blanket ban. and ultimately my only concern is for the well being of the children, i honestly am not bothered about religious doctrine. i have no need for any of it, but i know it is essential for so many.

Sat, 2012-06-30 00:05 — Hugh7 (not verified)

And is banning too blunt an instrument to use against FGC, because we know it will happen? The "Bioethics" committee of the AAP thought so in April 2010 and proposed to allow a token, ritual pinprick "much less extensive than neonatal male genital cutting" but was howled down within a month.

Sat, 2012-06-30 11:46 — jankaas (not verified)

to say that FGC is the exact same as male circumcision suggests that there is little room for a sensible exchange between us.

Sun, 2012-07-01 01:11 — Hugh7 (not verified)

Of course it's not "the exact same" - how could it be? - but they can be very similar indeed. This Malaysian baby girl's operation seems to remove less tissue: http://aandes.blogspot.com/2010/04/circumcision.html
This American device has a shield to protect the clitoris: http://www.circumstitions.com/methods.html#rathmann
These Seirra Leonean women demand the right to have it done, denying any sexual losses: http://www.thepatrioticvanguard.com/article.php3?id_article=3752 (Unfortunately they also claim the right to have it done to their daughters.)
And you seemed to have missed that what the AAP proposed was a token ritual nick to girls "much l e s s extensive than male genital cutting".
So what exact difference do you claim remains that makes it impossible ever to compare them?

Mon, 2012-07-02 12:53 — jankaas (not verified)

ok, let me try and state the obvious, and remember that i have already stated that by definition i am not 'for' circumcision. i would rather it was only done purely on medical grounds.

1) male circumcision is a requirement for all Jews and Muslims, apparently it's their God's wish they do this. any idea how impossible it is to ban a pivotal religious tenet on this many people? so no matter how noble the goal (i.e. zero harm and individual informed consent) there is absolutely no way a legal ban will stop these theists doing God's will. they will do this covertly with all the inevitable additional suffering this will cause (see legal versus illegal abortion).
no religious equivalence exists for female circumcision. i am now aware of any mainstream religion where it is a requirement, it is a cultural issue.

2)the 'harm' inflicted on male infants is debatable both in terms of the memory of the event, and, sexual functioning as an adult. as far as i am aware 8 day old humans have no capacity for storing such a memory, and apart from anecdotal evidence i have not seen compelling data that proves impaired sexual functioning caused by circumcision (i previously provided my own anecdote, do read it). i have already argued that i advocate the safest possible medical procedure, including collection of data and periodic review.

that'll do for now.