Iceland law to outlaw male circumcision sparks row over religious freedom

[Eugene]

Source: The Guardian

Iceland law to outlaw male circumcision sparks row over religious freedom

Jewish and Muslim leaders condemn first European country to propose ban

Harriet Sherwood
Sun 18 Feb 2018 00.03 GMT Last modified on Sun 18 Feb 2018 12.22 GMT

Iceland is poised to become the first European country to outlaw male circumcision amid signs that the ritual common to both Judaism and Islam may be a new battleground over religious freedom.

A bill currently before the Icelandic parliament proposes a penalty of up to six years in prison for anyone carrying out a circumcision other than for medical reasons. Critics say the move, which has sparked alarm among religious leaders across Europe, would make life for Jews and Muslims in Iceland unsustainable.

One in three men globally is thought to be circumcised, the vast majority for religious or cultural reasons. Many Jews and Muslims fear the issue of circumcision could become a proxy for antisemitism and Islamophobia, pointing to similar tensions over religious dress and the ritual slaughter of animals for meat.

Muslim and Jewish leaders attacked the proposal, while Cardinal Reinhard Marx, president of the Catholic Church in the European Union, said the bill was a “dangerous attack” on religious freedom. “The criminalisation of circumcision is a very grave measure that raises deep concern.”

-snip-

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/feb/18/iceland-ban-male-circumcision-first-european-country

[janterry]

1. Some Jews

have decided to raise their children Jewish, but not circumcise. It's still a minority, but it's growing.

there are welcoming ceremonies known as “brit shalom” (covenant of peace, which is sometimes also used to celebrate and name girl babies) or “brit b’lee milah” (covenant without cutting) for boys wherein they receive their Hebrew names and are celebrated, but are not circumcised.

[HopeAgain]

2. You have to wonder about the motivation here...

Anti-semitism involved, perhaps?

[Voltaire2]

3. The motivation is to prohibit ritual mutilation

[HopeAgain]

5. mutilation

[Jake Stern]

10. The removal of otherwise healthy flesh sounds like a pretty good definition of mutilation

And it should take more than God to justify it.

[HopeAgain]

13. I was so "mutilated" as a child by the medical profession.

And I'm calling bullshit unless you also criminalize piercing the ears of minors. Poking holes for vanity is not different is it? I believe the issue is with religion, and possibly the religions that do it, not the procedure.

[Jake Stern]

17. If it was done without medical need then I feel it's mutilation

I wouldn't let my son have a tattoo or a piercing. Once he's an adult who can make the informed decision to do so, more power to him. That being said I don't think I've met a single teen who snuck off to get a surreptitious circumcision.

[muriel_volestrangler]

18. Such campaigns exist

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/06/10/campaign-pierce-ears-babies-toddlers_n_7550206.html

[Act_of_Reparation]

33. You obviously know a lot about medicine.

And piercings.

Did you go to Upstairs Hollywood Medical School, too?

[HopeAgain]

38. Im sure you see a lot more infections from people getting pierced...

than from infants geting circumcised at a Bris. In fact, I can think of a lot of people I know in the former catagory and none in the latter.

[Act_of_Reparation]

39. Nice pivot.

But we were talking about the ethics of performing medical procedures on non-consenting parties. Specifically, how you equated performing a reversible procedure typically performed on adolescents with an irreversible procedure performed on infants.

These scenarios are not the same.

[HopeAgain]

43. Okay, so if we are talking consent

should we legislate something that is not really a problem? Infringe on religious beliefs and customs because it infringes your personal sensibilities on autonomy? I have not met a single circumcised Jewish man who regrets having been subjected to a Bris as an infant. In fact, I don't know a single circumcised adult who wishes they weren't (including myself).

[Pope George Ringo II]

44. Look harder.

I've got at least one in my immediate family that I know of.

[Act_of_Reparation]

45. You're not thinking this through.

There are some who prefer circumcision. There are some who do not. Those who prefer circumcision can get circumcised at any point in their lives. Those who do not prefer circumcision cannot be un-circumcised. The current practice is inherently unfair because 1) it does not consider the wishes of those who might prefer to remain intact, or and 2) does so without reason because not being circumcised as an infant does not prevent you from being circumcised later, if you so desire it.

As for the matter of religious beliefs and customs, this is a non-starter. A follower of Xipe Totec cannot legally flay anyone alive. Children under the age of consent cannot marry, regardless of what the Good Book says. You can't legally circumcise your daughter, even though the Hadith say it is totally cool. Plenty of religious beliefs and customs are prohibited, and rightfully so.

Lastly, it doesn't really matter who you know or what they feel. You don't know enough people to constitute a statistically significant sample, and even if you did it wouldn't matter because what's right is not necessarily determined by what's popular.

[Pope George Ringo II]

46. General Sir Charles Napier had a beautiful quote on religious liberty in that context

When the Indians under his rule wanted to burn widows alive as part of sati, he said, "Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs."

It's one of the few truly wonderful moments of British colonialism.

[HopeAgain]

47. I am thinking this through

The Bris is an important ceremony to the Jewish people. It is not a "mutilation" as some claim, and I sure as hell would rather have had it done as an infant rather than as an adult. But none of that is my point.

I note every single person here who has argued with me has identified themselves to be atheists in other threads. Coincidence? Maybe to atheists, the importance of cultural and religious history and custom is unimportant to them. Maybe that makes it impossible for them to see it from another perspective.

[Act_of_Reparation]

48. No, you're not.

Is the Bris more important to Jews than subincision was for the Aboriginal Australians? Is it more significant than Okipa was to the Mandan? Lots of people have initiation rites. Most of them would be illegal in this country.

I note every single person here who has argued with me has identified themselves to be atheists in other threads. Coincidence? Maybe to atheists, the importance of cultural and religious history and custom is unimportant to them. Maybe that makes it impossible for them to see it from another perspective.

So the atheistbadz don't understand religion or its importance to religious people? So, the atheistbadz were born and raised atheistbadz?

[HopeAgain]

51. You seem incapable of understanding

that ripping three thousand years of tradition out from under people can be a tremendously harmful thing in itself.

It's not as if I don't understand consent issues, I am doubtful you have argued a case before the Federal Court of Appeals on consent and religion as I have. But what you are missing is that parents, not children decide what is in the best interest of the child when there are competing interests, and if parents legitimately believe that it is in the best interests of the child to be brought up in a long and rich culture and faith, at least in this country, we honor that right. To blow the whole circumcision out of proportion as a "mutilation" is just silly to me, a circumcised man.

And that's all I can say.

[Pope George Ringo II]

52. Sati was over two thousand years old when it was ended

How did age improve the desirability of the practice?

[HopeAgain]

55. I'm not talking in absolutes, why are you?

[Pope George Ringo II]

58. You're making the argument that age imparts validity.

I'm demonstrating that it doesn't.

[HopeAgain]

59. Not when you kill somebody, of course not

No human liberties come in absolutes. It's always factors we have to weigh against one another. It is always a balancing act.

But to compare a Bris to making someone burn themselves alive is just silly. That would be like me saying you are advocating that children shouldn't be made to dress nice to go to Church.

[Pope George Ringo II]

60. Actually...go right ahead and say I'm advocating that.

But the age of a tradition is completely irrelevant. What matters is the inherent merit of the act involved, and sati clearly is an abomination. There's simply no inherent merit to circumcision. At best it's neutral, and it has a potential for negative consequences. If it really matters that much to you, do it as an adult.

[HopeAgain]

61. Now we have come to the crux of the disagreement

To the Jewish people, there is great merit in preserving their religious traditions and customs. Those traditions and customs have preserved their identity, their faith and their strength as a people for thousands of years, through multiple diasporas and holocausts. Most humans see themselves as both spiritual and intellectual beings, not just one or the other. To say there is "no merit" shows you have absolutely no ability to see things from their perspective. I cannot dismiss culture out of hand like that.

[Pope George Ringo II]

63. I can dismiss it out of hand, but that's actually not what's at play here.

You're arguing that tradition has value. I'd argue that sati disproves that contention on its face. If that's too rough for you, how about the Indian caste system? That's tradition, and it doesn't kill anybody. Confederate flags? Same thing, although there actually is some overlap with that one. Traditions can certainly display some profound negatives even while being tightly tied to a people's identity. Circumcision fits that criteria.

For example, how many men have either physical or psychological consequences because of circumcision? We know they exist, but reporting is hopelessly inadequate. Their love lives impact two (or more) people, and circumcision can be a non-issue or a negative here, but never a positive. There is a cost to this ritual, and if you want to argue that the cost is worth it to you, fine. PROVE IT. Put your money where your mouth is. Have it done as an adult. Don't roll the dice on an infant's future.

In all candor, I actually would dismiss this out of hand without a second thought as just another silly ritual, but it's simply too dangerous to do that with.

[Mariana]

68. I think most men who've been circumcised as infants

aren't aware of any negative effects from it, so they assume there just aren't any, for anyone, ever. But how would they know if they've been negatively affected? They have no basis for comparison.

[Pope George Ringo II]

70. And what if a little girl discovers her penis was circumcised? Reimer wasn't about religion, but...

http://articles.latimes.com/2004/may/13/local/me-reimer13

[trotsky]

66. Answer me one thing.

If circumcision had never been a thing - ever - until just this year, a brand new religious cult "invented" it, would you STILL be defending it as a religious practice, and claim that everyone who disagrees with you is an bigoted atheist?

[AtheistCrusader]

81. In your analogy, can they choose not to dress nice when they grow up?

Do you have any idea what foreskin restoration surgery is like? And frankly, I wouldn't do it because it just adds more scar tissue.

Scar tissue: severed nerves.

[Act_of_Reparation]

53. Why do I seem that way?

Because I'm not agreeing with you? Perhaps I understand your point well enough. Perhaps I still disagree anyway.

[Pope George Ringo II]

49. I'll identify myself as an atheist in this thread

I'll identify circumcision as mutilation here, too. You may argue that it's a traditional mutilation with a long history and that you like it that way, but there is simply no serious argument that cutting off healthy flesh is anything other than mutilation.

And you would prefer to have it done as a child rather than as an adult? That's nice. Who asked for your opinion on the subject? Certainly not the guys with knives. And if it's too much inconvenience for you to have it done as an adult, when your opinion actually matters, then it's clearly not that important to you.

Really. Just do it on adults.

[AtheistCrusader]

83. I hired you to help me start a war.Its a prestigious line of work with a long and glorious tradition

[Pope George Ringo II]

86. I was actually considering piracy

I think I'd make a wonderful Dread Pirate Roberts.

[Mariana]

50. I can't help but see it from the perspective of the infant

who is deprived of his consent. I understand the Bible says God ordered that all descendants of Abraham must circumcise their male children and slaves. So what? The Bible says God ordered lots of things that are very rightly illegal to do today.

[AtheistCrusader]

80. If it was an important cultural component, they'd still choose to do it when they reach the age of

majority.

Religion is never an acceptable excuse to take a knife to a child. Sorry.

[trotsky]

82. As we see every time this issue comes up,

it's a matter of religious privilege.

In any other context, all would be rightfully appalled at such a brutal practice. But when it's in the context of a religious ritual, we're supposed to give it a pass. And even asking WHY will get one branded a religious bigot.

[Beartracks]

54. You seriously think a guy, circumcized as an infant...

... would grow up even giving foreskins a second thought? "Well, I'm 18 now, and I've decided I do not prefer circumcision."



=========

[Pope George Ringo II]

56. Well, it does happen. Therefore, seriously thinking that reality happened only makes sense.

http://www.circumstitions.com/Resent.html

[Beartracks]

62. Well that's eye-opening. I guess I just don't base my manhood...

... on whether I've still got my foreskin. Never really gave it a 2nd thought, and not going to start now. Interesting, though, about the stated loss of sensation when circumsized as an adult. I wonder if that's due to improper technique, or if it's a given that that happens? If it's a given, then I wonder if circumsized infants ever develop "full" sensitivity in some other way as a compensatory measure, or if they are permanently operating at a lower sensitivuty level?

=========

[Pope George Ringo II]

64. It's one of those things I doubt anybody gives a second thought

Unless they're negatively impacted by it.

[Beartracks]

65. But what is curious to me is how that happens.

How does someone come to be negatively impacted by not having a foreskin if they grew up without one?

(I can understand how an adult being circumsized could be negatively impacted.)

========

[Pope George Ringo II]

67. Some guys have psych issues about it, especially as adolescents in the locker room

Some have actual physical consequences. And there's just to reason to roll the dice either way with this procedure on an infant.

And you remember the joke about the toddler telling the infant, "I couldn't walk for two years after they did it to me."

[HopeAgain]

72. 58% of American babies are still circumcised.

So it could go either way, the teasing that is. I can tell you it was the uncircumcised that were teased in my day, simply because they were the minority. The American Academy of Pediatrics certainly doesn't have the harsh view as those condemning it on here.

https://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-aap/aap-press-room/pages/newborn-male-circumcision.aspx

[Pope George Ringo II]

73. They basically wimped out in certain circumstances.

"The AAP policy statement published Monday, August 27, says the final decision should still be left to parents to make in the context of their religious, ethical and cultural beliefs." That's a pretty clear statement that they're not worked up enough about it to pick a fight.

Of course, even at that, they're referring to medical circumcisions. As opposed to the ones the article addresses "in homes that are not sterile, and not by doctors but by religious leaders. There is a high risk of infections under such conditions that may lead to death.” Those are the ones you're invested in, here: The traditionally filthy ones. The ones where the blood is sucked away from the wounded penis by a mouth. For traditional circumcisions, they got pretty harsh about the seventeen cases of herpes since 2000, with two deaths.

https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/.premium-what-is-oral-suction-circumcision-1.5311796

Making children ill by sucking on their wounded penis. But, oh, the tradition!

[HopeAgain]

74. Again, going to the extremes.

If someone has herpes, and they transmit to a baby in that way, they have committed battery and I have no problem with prosecuting them. But that doesn't require the banning of all religious circumcisions. The vast majority are not done like that.

[Pope George Ringo II]

76. Is it about the majority? Or about the traditional ones? Which is your priority here?

Even putting aside the potential of death from herpes or other infection during this traditionally filthy ritual, you're not taking issue with somebody sucking on a wounded infant's penis? And you actually wonder why we're atheists?

[Voltaire2]

88. The actual tradition is to have a Mohil

perform the ceremony in the home, and the ritual includes the appalling blood sucking.

This is the point in this discussion where suddenly the ancient ritual isn’t all that important after all.

I attended one of these butcheries. It was appalling and the kid screamed his head off.

[Pope George Ringo II]

93. We're definitely about to see if fetishizing custom and tradition really matters.

[AtheistCrusader]

85. I know one kid that grew up teased mercilessly because his was cut improperly.

Swim class was mandatory, as was showers. Lots of kids gave him shit for it.

But that kid's nightmare was just cosmetic. Plenty of cases of loss of sexual function as a result. Between 119 and 230 kids die every year from complications related to circumcision.

[Mariana]

69. I don't see how circumcised infants could develop more sensitivity.

Studies on the differences between circumcised and intact men (like the one linked to elsewhere in this thread) speak of the keratinization of the skin of the circumcised penis. In other words, the skin becomes more callused. It makes sense that this would be so, because the foreskin is no longer there to protect the very sensitive tissue from abrasion by clothing. Callused skin isn't exactly known for being highly sensitive.

[Act_of_Reparation]

71. The loss of sensation is due to the removal of highly ennervated tissue.

The ridged band, specifically.

Usually, there's no compensation for that kind of thing. The removed body part is removed. It's gone.

[AtheistCrusader]

84. When you cut nerves, there's desensitization. Cut nerves are cut. I know that's a

tautology, but it's actually valid in this case.

[Act_of_Reparation]

57. The majority would not.

A few probably would.

[AtheistCrusader]

79. I wish I was not.

I likely would not choose to do it as an adult.

[AtheistCrusader]

78. Ten thousand nerve endings.

It's the equivalent of removing the clitoral hood. The two components are homologous. The clitoris and penis are essentially the same structures but assembled in a different order/proportion. Foreskin, glans, erectile tissue and shaft. All present. Both the clitoral hood and male foreskin are muccocutaneous tissues.

Despite your blasé hand waving, between 119 and 230 deaths per year related to circumcision in the United States.
There are a lot of complications from ear piercings, but John Hopkins Medicine doesn't list death as a side-effect. Certainly it can happen from time to time.

That said, I'd ban both, ear piercing and circumcision. Fair?

[Tree-Hugger]

90. +1 nt

[Mariana]

11. I doubt it's anit-semitism. A lot of people are simply opposed

to cutting the genitals of children for any reason except to treat disease or correct deformity. If adults are forbidden to be circumcised, I would absolutely agree that their religious freedom is being infringed. Performing medically unnecessary surgery on another person who can't consent to it? That's a different matter altogether.

[California_Republic]

77. Yes.

[Tree-Hugger]

91. +1 nt

[guillaumeb]

20. Agreed.

And the many similar laws that attack wearing a veil, or building the Muzzein's tower. All are based on discrimination against religion.

[trotsky]

75. So in your opinion, is there any valid reason to be opposed to infant circumcision?

Or is the only reason to be opposed because of religious discrimination?

[edhopper]

4. The AAP

considers there to be a slight benefit to circumcision. So this law is not based on medicine.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/130/3/585

To equate it with female circumcision is just ridiculous.

Don't know what the thinking is behind this. But seems like over-reaching.

[HopeAgain]

7. I suspect some bigotry is behind this. nt

[Jake Stern]

16. Right? Those notoriously bigoted Icelanders

[HopeAgain]

21. Icelanders can't have prejudices?

whoda thunk?

[Jake Stern]

22. Ascribing bigotry to this law without proof is like arguing that Amish can be hackers

Possible? Yes. Probable? No.

[HopeAgain]

23. How else could they be so culturally insensitive?

Jews and Muslims have been circumcising for hundreds, if not thousands of years, how can they so callously ban something that those people consider to be part of who they are?

Now if you will excuse me, I have go and try to get over my ptsd from having been horribly mutilated as a baby...

[Mariana]

24. Jews or Muslims or any other men

can choose to be circumcised when they're adults. Please stop pretending you are defending religious freedom. If you were, you'd be defending the right of the children to decide for themselves whether they wish to undergo ritual circumcision.

[HopeAgain]

25. Since you obviously don't understand

the religious and cultural significance of what they do, you should stop pretending you dont hate all things religious.

[Mariana]

30. Yes, yes, the religious and cultural significance

of taking a knife to the genitals of helpless children who can't consent. You still haven't explained why the children don't deserve the freedom to decide for themselves.

For the record, I don't think infants should be pierced, tattooed, or scarified, either.

[Mariana]

6. Adult men and women should be allowed

to be circumcised if they want to, for any reason. I agree with prohibiting it to be done to children unless it is necessary to treat a medical problem.

[Pope George Ringo II]

8. This is really the best argument against it

Permanently altering somebody else's body, especially a child's, is something which should require a little more justification than religion provides.

[Jake Stern]

9. Refused to put my son through the Brit Milah

My son is Jewish enough without having to have his otherwise healthy flesh mutilated.

If he decides, as a fully informed adult, to have the procedure done then more power to him.

[Mariana]

12. Are you in favor of banning it being done to children?

In the US, the overwhelming majority of circumcisions performed upon babies aren't done for medical or religious reasons but are purely cosmetic surgery - "I just think it looks nicer that way" or "I want him to look like his daddy".

[Jake Stern]

15. With the exception of medical need, yes

Funny how many pro-circ folks would balk at allowing a teen to get a cross tattoo to show their faith but have no problem with people demanding the right to slice away part of a baby to appease their deity.

[Mariana]

19. I agree. nt.

[Tree-Hugger]

92. +1 nt

[MineralMan]

14. Is this circumcision month on DU?

I'll pass.

[JohnnyLib2]

27. Amazing to realize the argument has gone on since Biblical times.

Who knows, maybe it will be settled right here.

[dhol82]

26. Just an FYI for the debate

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1127372/

I am pro circumcision.

[bitterross]

29. How about promoting condoms or PrEP to prevent HIV? Not mutilating all males.

It seems a little wrong to mutilate all males to lower the risk of one disease. Not to mention, the NIH guidance you reference is 17 years old now. Things have changed drastically with HIV since then.

[Act_of_Reparation]

34. Benefit is contextual, not general.

Male circumcision should be seriously considered as an additional means of preventing HIV in all countries with a high prevalence of infection.

In other words, there are certain situations in which the benefits of circumcision would outweigh the ethical considerations of permanently altering a child's genitals by removing some of the most ennervated portions of them. In countries where HIV prevalence is low, it is harder to recommend circumcision as a prophylactic measure. The Canadian Paediatric Society, for example, does not recommend circumcision for all newborn males.

People are different. Populations are different. Environments are different. Medical recommendations must take into account the patient's personal medical history, their family's medical history, and the environment in which they live. There isn't a one-sized-fits-all answer to this question.

[Voltaire2]

96. It also is not relevant to imposing it

on infants. They generally aren’t sexually active.

[bitterross]

28. We have pretty much come to the conclusion that female cutting/circumcision is wrong

Most people will agree that militating a young girl's genitals is wrong. People get outraged about clerics sewing up women's genitalia or circumcising it to control their sex drive.

It is no better when done on a male. It is completely unnecessary for any medical reason.

[AtheistCrusader]

31. So it really is about 'religious freedom', and not a medical necessity eh?

Hard to get Americans to admit that.

[Mariana]

94. It certainly isn't about the "religious freedom" of the children.

The people here defending the practice don't give a flying fuck about that.

[Hav]

32. I always found it strange

Strange in the sense of going against the supposedly perfect creation of a being beyond our understanding. For me, it's just not normal to see a baby being born and having then the thought that what is needed now is to cut its genitals.

[Voltaire2]

35. Guardian headline is bullshitty.

The proposed law only applies to children.

[Eugene]

36. Childhood is when Jewish and Muslim males are usually circumcised.

...not to mention many Christians.

[Voltaire2]

37. Yes. But the headline infers a total ban.

Meanwhile children have no say at all in their mutilation. Worse, infant circumcision is performed without anesthesia and frequently not by a medical professional.

Just change the ritual. Let the decision by a choice made by an adult.

[MineralMan]

40. I was born in 1945, and grew up in a very small town

in California. Back in those days, in high school, gym class included mandatory open group showers. Here's my report. All of the Roman Catholic boys were intact. Most of the non-Catholic boys were circumcised. I remember wondering about that when I was a kid. Circumcision was almost universally recommended by doctors back then. So, my parents opted for it. I don't remember anything about it, of course. My first memories begin about age 4.

Aside from my wondering why the Catholic boys weren't circumcised, I can't remember ever thinking about it much at all.

Edit to add: Now, at age 72, I finally looked it up. Apparently, circumcision was not approved of for Catholics, officially:

http://www.cirp.org/library/cultural/catholic/

The Roman Catholic Church and Non-therapeutic Circumcision
The early teaching of the Roman Catholic Church regarding the practice of male circumcision was stated by Eugene IV in a Papal Bull, Bull of Union with the Copts, in 14421 Persons who practice circumcision risk loss of eternal salvation.1

The Roman Catholic Church has never issued an official policy specifically regarding non-therapeutic neonatal male circumcision as it has been practiced primarily in the English-speaking nations in the Twentieth Century and now the Twenty-first Century. The Church, however, has a strong moral statement on amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations.2 Circumcision falls under both amputation and mutilation, so it is clearly covered by this policy. Catholics generally are required to respect bodily integrity.2 Lack of respect for bodily integrity is viewed as a violation of the Fifth Commandment, Thou shalt not kill.3

The new (1994) Catechism of the Catholic Church at paragraph 2297 states in part:

"Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law."2
The Council on Scientific Affairs of the American Medical Association now defines neonatal circumcision as a "non-therapeutic" surgical procedure.4 Circumcisions (as commonly performed on newborn boys) are non-therapeutic, because no disease is present and no therapeutic treatment is required. Furthermore, circumcision removes healthy and functional tissue from the body and renders the part less functional.5 Thus, a circumcision is a non-therapeutic amputation and mutilation. Therefore, for Catholics, non-therapeutic circumcision at any age is immoral according to the teaching of the Church as expressed in the Catechism.

Eugene IV. Bull of Union with the Copts. Council of Florence, Florence, 4 February 1442.
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Liguori Publications, Liguori, MO 63057-9999, 1994 (ISBN 0-89243-566-6).
Ex 20:13, Deut 5:17.
Council on Scientific Affairs, American Medical Association. Report 10: Neonatal circumcision. Chicago: American Medical Association, 1999.
Cold CJ, Taylor JR. The prepuce. BJU Int 1999;83 Suppl. 1:34-44.

[Mariana]

41. There's no question that circumcision is an amputation.

Courtesy of Merriam-Webster:

Amputate: to remove by or as if by cutting; especially : to cut (a part, such as a limb) from the body.

[MineralMan]

42. True. I don't dispute that at all.

I'm circumcised. I don't really care, though. For some, however, circumcision is a religious ritual. Now, I think that's just silly, but it represents some sort of imagined covenant with a deity. That's also silly.

Still, some people see it as an essential part of their religious identity. So, what do we do?

For me, it's a non-issue. I don't care whether someone is circumcised or not. It's a meaningless thing for me. Those Catholic boys weren't. I was. Jewish boys are. Most Muslim boys are. Lots and lots of people are. Lots and lots of people aren't.

I know that nobody asked me about it. I didn't even know about it until I was old enough to wonder about the difference. When I found out, I simply shrugged.

People argue about it. I don't bother with all that.

[TwistOneUp]

87. While you are deliberating this issue...

Consider the plight of the Intersexed. Not to be confused with Trans peeps, Intersexed peeps are born with ambiguous or "non-specific" genitalia at birth. Because doctors want to see a "gender typical" baby at birth; i.e., male or female, if the baby's genitalia isn't clearly male, quite often the surgeon will "assign" the baby to be female at birth.

One of our prior Surgeon Generals, Dr. Jocelyn Elders, was quoted as saying, "I always cut 'em female. Much easier to make a female than a male."

Gee gosh, what if the baby doesn't WANT to be female?

Y'all are arguing over the penal hood and ear piercings. Those are low risk arguments. Please consider the plight of the intersexed. That's a real gamble that shouldn't be made by the delivery room doctor.

[Voltaire2]

89. Yes that is super fucked up.

[AtheistCrusader]

95. A serious point. And one that is further complicated by the religious mores applied upon

children as well.


I didn't know Elders said that. While the engineer in me agrees, the philosopher in me is angrily flipping over tables covered in books about Ethics.