Circumcision is -obviously- no big deal. This is a great example of when trying to reason about ethics from abstract ideological principles goes off the rails because untethered from common sense based in observations about practical reality. Preserving extremely high walls between between parental rights to raise their children the way they want and social interference justified for any minor objection, however, IS a big deal.
Ears? If you want to make that argument punchy, go for the arms, or eyes, or whole penis. The level of generality game has no winners. It just means that people will adjust the abstraction focus resolution setting to wherever is necessary to 'prove' that two similar things should be distinguished, or two different things should be treated as the same, "If you really think about it, your honor."
A load-bearing "obviously" only works as long as the other person is willing to reply "Yes, obviously." Once that social fact breaks down, you're going to have to justify it somehow, whether "first principles" or no.
And then to win arguments people will just act like slimy lawyers and make isolated demands for escalated standards of rigor and proof and strategically move the goalposts of where they claim "obviously" and "the social facts" are for any particular controversy.
A person is justified in using the word obvious when they know that the subject under discussion is not some subtle bit of abstruse esoterica but a matter in which they have regular direct observations and know that most other people do as well. A defense lawyer might as well demand the prosecution admit evidence to prove the point that his client is a living human. Reasonable people and even unreasonable judges are allowed to simply take notice of the easily observable. It is always possible to just assert a denial that something like that is obvious, or to raise the claimed moral offensiveness of some triviality to the sky, but also, it comes across as ridiculously dogmatic and disconnected from reality.
Even trying to move things to "first principles" is itself stacking the deck. Whoever gets to choose the principles can just pick the set that implies their desired conclusion. This fallacy is an inappropriate application of concepts from empirical reasoning - where principles can be falsified and robustly inferred from lots of consistent observation and testing - to those of ideology, morals, and ethics, where they can't be.
The point of arguing from "first principles" in empirical reasoning is that by anchoring matters in the observable there is at least theoretically a shared standard and mechanism by which people who start out from different priors can reach consensus. There is no such anchor for moral sentiments, and it is incoherent to talk about genuinely "first" principles because there are all kinds of irreconcilable sets of principles which by their own logic do not allow for the possibility of bridging those gaps by appeal to some "more fundamental" - i.e., genuinely 'first' - shared principles.
Well sure, but if we're going down that route, I don't see why I should pay more attention to your claim that it's "obviously" no big deal, compared to Thomas L. Knapp's claim that it's "obviously" no different from any other form of genital mutilation. I don't know that one of these is more obvious than the other.
So if people won't justify their claims, I'm going to make up my mind on other grounds. I find circumcision repugnant and horrifying. That disgust reaction is as valid as any other. So if there's some justification for the practice, let's hear it, otherwise I'd just as soon be rid, thanks.
I didn't comment on whether anything is a big deal. I just opined that infant genital amputation SHOULD be. There's a difference. And yes, I include the female version in that.
I could not convince my husband that circumcision was cruel and harsh and felt I had no power to go against his wishes. I don't know how to protest as this seems to be the norm and the argument that these boys will be laughed at in the locker room seems to prevail. If I had to do it over again I would refuse to sign the papers and tell my husband I would take the baby and leave if he insisted on it. I didn't have the courage as a new mother to do it. Thank you for speaking up against this barbarity.
Circumcision is a good example of why freedom of religion is based on context. If circumcision was invented today, everyone would want it to be illegal. But it's already an established practice and no one wants to spend their political capital fighting the Jews over that issue.
Are you positing that circumcision would be illegal if Jewish Americans, who comprise under 2% of the country's population, were opposed to or neutral regarding the practice? If so, is there an empirical data source that supports your hypothesis that such a small minority is successfully expending political capital on a niche issue?
They aren't spending political capital to keep it in place, but they would definitely expend political capital to keep it if it was legally threatened. The Muslim population is growing and they would oppose a circumcision ban as well.
You have to be careful using words like child abuse. Some people genuinely think homeschooling is a type of child abuse. Depriving a child of much needed socialization. Group interaction. Even parents who form coops still hear this.
I do believe in cultural respect within reason. There are religious and social practices we tolerate even if we don’t choose them for ourselves but within reason.
There is no comparison between male and female circumcision. One is intended to cause severe damage for a reason.
The foreskin is not necessary. It adds some sensation sexually but it’s not like without it the sensation is truly dulled. It also can cause problems. It’s difficult to keep clean and is linked to increase rates of uti penile cancer and std’s.
The formers are a small link the latter is not. I think circumcision should greatly be encouraged in areas where HIV is prevalent. It’s not rocket science. The area traps dirt it also traps germs.
I don’t know why so much hate is thrown at what I think is a very minor issue.
Parents pierce their daughter’s ears often as babies. Yes it’s not as relatively invasive as circumcision which I don’t consider invasive for an infant (some adults have to do this as adults for medical reasons and it’s more complicated) but it’s ornamental. In exceptionally rare cases I’m sure someone has gotten an infection (though this is way more associated with self piercing) but it’s a live and let live for me. Once you cherry pick evils you’ll find other ways to impose on parents.
The reality is vegans are correct meat is murder. I respect that. I think meat eating is part of the world and nature but I don’t view it as the same sin. The deeper reality is while I definitely give preference to higher life forms almost no living thing wants to be in your stomach (excepting ones whose survival has marvelously adapted to this) and I’d rather focus my energy on keeping human animal interactions as humane as possible given the violence involved in meat consumption.
You know who else is right. The pro life crowd. Certainly by mid to late semester. It’s way more ambiguous in the first trimester. But I’ve never ever thought they’re trying to control bodies they think they’re saving defenseless humans. I support early abortion bc I don’t think it’s murder at that stage and babies should be wanted by their moms but I don’t know how people can believe this for a later term baby. But I still don’t perceive those people as murderers because they’re inside a culture that greatly values abortion and is not having honest discussions about alternatives except in more religious zones. I strongly support limits.
I don’t see any reason to limit circumcision. It has a very high success rate very rare instances of trouble and foreskins themselves are associated with certain problems and Don’t underestimate the connection to STD transmission it’s not minimal at all. I also respect cultural preferences that I don’t find significantly jarring morally. You want every cultural practice on the chopping block they’ll come for something in your life too. When you draw your lines draw them wisely.
Thank you for writing this. Two of my cousins just had brises for their children. My family is Orthodox Jewish, and all of them except for myself went to attend the brises to be supportive. I’m appalled, know they’ll never change, and wish it would be criminalized, but know it never will and don’t know what to do.
Sir, what do you think of Tuli? Filipino circumcision that boys do around the onset of puberty. I think, legally, the boys consent to this. But, there is a lot of social pressure (from other boys and girls who find uncircumcised penises less attractive, apparently) and family pressure (and the boys are obviously still living with their parents at this point.)
If I had a boy, I'd tell him it's stupid, there's no good reason for it and that he doesn't have to do it. I anticipate an argument with his mother about this.
My daughter doesn't have her ears pierced. Her mother was really pushing to have her ears pierced as an infant. Aunties were even already buying her earrings. And she probably would have forgot about all the pain by now. But I said no.
She has been vaccinated, though. Several times. I saw her scream like a banshee when getting vaccinated. I did feel a tinge of guilt for putting her through it. She can now talk and the last time, I told her she was going to the doctor's earlier that week and she already started stressing and saying she didn't want a vaccine. I told her she was probably getting a vaccine and it would give her powers (like Elsa!) to tell diseases to "stay away!" She said she didn't want powers. At the doctor's office, she was in such distress, she cried until she got into a coughing fit and even threw up. She got the vaccine anyway and after I'm like: "Did it hurt darling?" and she's like: "Just a little bit!" Anyway, I know, with vaccines, I am putting her through pain, without her consent. But THAT I can justify cause it prevents diseases.
But ear piercing? It's pain for what? Pretty ears? I suspect that she'll wanna get her ears pierced, someday. My rule is that she must understand that it hurts and chose herself to do it anyway. I ask her again, every once in a hwhile, and the latest is: "no". I suspect she probably will want to get her ears pierced someday and that day, I'll even buy her some pretty earrings. But she's got to give informed consent!
Back to circumcision, I'm gonna tread REALLY lightly here... Jews are kind people. They have a lot of fun parties: Hannukkah, Purim, Rosh Hashanah, Sukkot, Passover, Bar and Bat Mitzvah's, etc. They also seem to have fun wedding traditions like the dancing with the chairs, the stomping on the glass, etc.
But Judaism carries with it a lot of dumb traditions. It seems that most ethnic Jews don't take Judaism too seriously. Like they don't really believe in Yahweh and all that. But many of them seem to cling to tradition (even the dumb ones!) for the sake of tradition. Or keeping their identities or hwhat-not. This results in otherwise very smart Jews doing (at least in my estimation) very dumb things. Circumcision is one.
See Amy Webb's Ted Talk: "How I hacked Online Dating" She is very rational and scientific, at first. Using data science to find out what profile pictures are most likely to attract men on online dating sites, for example. And looking at the statistics, and realizing that she can't be "too picky". And looking at how each criteria on her "wish list" narrows down the dating pool and thus, prioritizes which traits she's gonna insist on, etc. So far, so good... But then, one of her "top-tier" traits is must be "Jew...ish" i.e. He shares her Jewish ethnicity but is also not too serious about it. i.e. Not gonna drag her to Shul on Saturday, etc. hWhich she admits eliminated 97.7% of men from the dating pool. For no good reason! Her Jewish family tells her she was being "too picky" about other things, but smiles and nods when she says she's not gonna even consider 97.7% of men ... for no goood reason?? If she was my daughter, I would tell her she's being ridiculous!! Maybe it was important for her to find a man who would go along with her other silly traditions, like getting their sons circumcised, for no good reason.
It's purely cosmetic. Looks better, ask the gals (and guys) if you wish. People do all kinds of odd, painful, and distasteful things to look better. As for age, the cutting produces better cosmetic results and no painful memories when done early in life rather than as an adult as many testimonials attest. Simple.
I dealt with this in the age section of my comment. Adults obtain suboptimal cosmetic results and must endure a great deal of pain over an extended time period as well as risk serious medical complications. Billions of infants prove out the preference for early cutting.
Lots of things are easier to do when someone is too little to consent or remember, that doesn't automatically mean that they should be done. I suppose you could take some kind of survey and see how many men regret not getting circumcised earlier, to try to guess what an infant's future preferences would be. My understanding is that there isn't a lot of regret for not being circumcised.
The other thing to consider is that if everyone stopped doing it though, people would get used to seeing uncut genitals, so they'd stop looking better.
Brian's libertarianism, as I understand it, would impose high barriers to using the state's coercive power to punish. Child abuse would be in the narrow range of activity that the state should prohibit and punish. Parents engaging in sexual abuse or violence toward their children is abhorrent. Putting circumcision in this category has been a cause for the progressive statist left in Europe, but for a libertarian? Perhaps Brian is engaging in hyperbole to be provocative, but he generally states exactly what he means.
And then to add another layer of the statist progressive left, Brian suggests that an exception would be made for a "good reason." Would he have a "good reason" committee that would determine what is good reason and what not? Many Jews circumscribe because God commanded it in the Torah. Given Brian's atheism, is that a "good reason"? Others do it because it is a tradition as being part of a people, which gives meaning to their lives. Given Brian's aversion to tribalism, is that a good reason?
I find it hard to understand why Brian would take such an extreme statist position to support government intrusion into citizen's lives.
I imagine it's because in this case, the government isn't intruding into citizen's lives, it's preventing the citizens from intruding into the lives of other citizens. It would be one thing if the citizen was amputating their own foreskin, but in this case they are amputating somebody else's.
The idea that the government is intruding into citizen's lives if it prevents parents from doing something to their children without their children's knowledge or consent has kind of disturbing implications. It implies that children are not really people with their own lives, but merely extensions of the lives of their parents.
It's like we haven't lived through several generations of watching advocates dance "the exception which swallows the rule 2-step." Step 1, allow for an exception to the rule, assuming people will be honorable enough to maintain lines of interpretive reasonableness in good faith. Step 2. Watch advocates and jurists torture the language into redefining the exception beyond all bounds of shame and sanity in order to squeeze everything and anything they want into the category of the exception. Do mere statements of opinion have to be miscategorized as "true threats" but full shark-jumping """actual violence""" now? Well, ok then, if that's what it takes, no problem!
Using an abstract phrase like "child abuse" as if it's a genuine objective reference point instead of potential putty in the hands of opponents who will use it to do things which you hate and never intended is just incredibly naive for any smart observers over the past 50 years.
I'm completely in favor of circumcision. The Law of Moses has practical reasons, not just faith. Is cleaner, healthier and anti-envious precocious men.
If you look at the history of circumcision of gentiles in the US, you will see that it was adopted for good reason: Physicians in NYC who saw Jewish and gentile patients noticed, that gentile boys had more urinary problems than Jewish boys and therefore began recommending the practice. Much more recent research has shown less transmission of venereal disease in circumcised men compared to uncircumcised men.
- "Sayre hypothesized that irritation of the genitals was the source of many varieties of paralysis and hip-joint disease which stubbornly defied conventional treatments"
- "This slight operation... at once quieted their nervous irritability"
- "Not only orthopedic problems, but epilepsy, hernia, and even lunacy appeared to respond."
- "'peripheral irritation' from the foreskin could produce 'an insanity of the muscles,'"
None of these are urinary problems. Also:
"noting that venereal diseases were markedly less prevalent in Jews than gentiles,...they have fewer still-born children, greater average longevity...Billings reported, for example, that the incidence of cancer among Jews was 6.48 per 1000 compared to 10.01 per 1000 for the general population...insane, idiots, epileptics - represented a comparatively tiny minority of Jews. Billings's work inspired other public health studies that confirmed low rates of morbidity, including syphilis as well as infectious diseases like diphtheria and tuberculosis"
None of these are urinary problems.
"Other doctors (including Sayre himself) revived the mutilating procedure of clitoridectomy, with the clitoris subjected to a variety of surgeries, manipulations, and chemical preparations."
How much of an authority dot you consider Sayre to be? Should we reconsider clitoridectomy?
It’s hardly a stop-the-presses moment when a doctor from the late 1800’s got some things wrong. The article itself has 77 references in its bibliography, many of which are modern.
Circumcision is -obviously- no big deal. This is a great example of when trying to reason about ethics from abstract ideological principles goes off the rails because untethered from common sense based in observations about practical reality. Preserving extremely high walls between between parental rights to raise their children the way they want and social interference justified for any minor objection, however, IS a big deal.
Amputating a significant amount of an infant's body part for reasons other than medical necessity SHOULD be a big deal.
You are literally proving my point.
What about cutting children's ears of? Also no big deal?
Ears? If you want to make that argument punchy, go for the arms, or eyes, or whole penis. The level of generality game has no winners. It just means that people will adjust the abstraction focus resolution setting to wherever is necessary to 'prove' that two similar things should be distinguished, or two different things should be treated as the same, "If you really think about it, your honor."
Well, most people are ok with cutting of hair or clipping nails.
So I'd say some things are different.
I'm glad to have proven a point that doesn't seem to exist.
A load-bearing "obviously" only works as long as the other person is willing to reply "Yes, obviously." Once that social fact breaks down, you're going to have to justify it somehow, whether "first principles" or no.
And then to win arguments people will just act like slimy lawyers and make isolated demands for escalated standards of rigor and proof and strategically move the goalposts of where they claim "obviously" and "the social facts" are for any particular controversy.
A person is justified in using the word obvious when they know that the subject under discussion is not some subtle bit of abstruse esoterica but a matter in which they have regular direct observations and know that most other people do as well. A defense lawyer might as well demand the prosecution admit evidence to prove the point that his client is a living human. Reasonable people and even unreasonable judges are allowed to simply take notice of the easily observable. It is always possible to just assert a denial that something like that is obvious, or to raise the claimed moral offensiveness of some triviality to the sky, but also, it comes across as ridiculously dogmatic and disconnected from reality.
Even trying to move things to "first principles" is itself stacking the deck. Whoever gets to choose the principles can just pick the set that implies their desired conclusion. This fallacy is an inappropriate application of concepts from empirical reasoning - where principles can be falsified and robustly inferred from lots of consistent observation and testing - to those of ideology, morals, and ethics, where they can't be.
The point of arguing from "first principles" in empirical reasoning is that by anchoring matters in the observable there is at least theoretically a shared standard and mechanism by which people who start out from different priors can reach consensus. There is no such anchor for moral sentiments, and it is incoherent to talk about genuinely "first" principles because there are all kinds of irreconcilable sets of principles which by their own logic do not allow for the possibility of bridging those gaps by appeal to some "more fundamental" - i.e., genuinely 'first' - shared principles.
Well sure, but if we're going down that route, I don't see why I should pay more attention to your claim that it's "obviously" no big deal, compared to Thomas L. Knapp's claim that it's "obviously" no different from any other form of genital mutilation. I don't know that one of these is more obvious than the other.
So if people won't justify their claims, I'm going to make up my mind on other grounds. I find circumcision repugnant and horrifying. That disgust reaction is as valid as any other. So if there's some justification for the practice, let's hear it, otherwise I'd just as soon be rid, thanks.
Do you think that female genital mutilation is a big deal?
I didn't comment on whether anything is a big deal. I just opined that infant genital amputation SHOULD be. There's a difference. And yes, I include the female version in that.
I could not convince my husband that circumcision was cruel and harsh and felt I had no power to go against his wishes. I don't know how to protest as this seems to be the norm and the argument that these boys will be laughed at in the locker room seems to prevail. If I had to do it over again I would refuse to sign the papers and tell my husband I would take the baby and leave if he insisted on it. I didn't have the courage as a new mother to do it. Thank you for speaking up against this barbarity.
You can always circumcise later, when he can make his own decisions.
And, if the other kids want to make fun of you, they'll find a way. And if they don't want to make fun of you, they'll look past all the minor things.
I understand later circumcision can be painful. More-so than when done at traditional times.
But I'm not so sure, myself. I was too young at the time.
Circumcision is a good example of why freedom of religion is based on context. If circumcision was invented today, everyone would want it to be illegal. But it's already an established practice and no one wants to spend their political capital fighting the Jews over that issue.
Don't secular Americans also circumcise?
It's also weirdly popular in Singapore.
Yes, it’s extremely bizarre.
America and South Korea (and maybe Australia) are the only developed countries that do it.
Canada too
Canada is a suburb of America.
Are you positing that circumcision would be illegal if Jewish Americans, who comprise under 2% of the country's population, were opposed to or neutral regarding the practice? If so, is there an empirical data source that supports your hypothesis that such a small minority is successfully expending political capital on a niche issue?
They aren't spending political capital to keep it in place, but they would definitely expend political capital to keep it if it was legally threatened. The Muslim population is growing and they would oppose a circumcision ban as well.
You have to be careful using words like child abuse. Some people genuinely think homeschooling is a type of child abuse. Depriving a child of much needed socialization. Group interaction. Even parents who form coops still hear this.
I do believe in cultural respect within reason. There are religious and social practices we tolerate even if we don’t choose them for ourselves but within reason.
There is no comparison between male and female circumcision. One is intended to cause severe damage for a reason.
The foreskin is not necessary. It adds some sensation sexually but it’s not like without it the sensation is truly dulled. It also can cause problems. It’s difficult to keep clean and is linked to increase rates of uti penile cancer and std’s.
The formers are a small link the latter is not. I think circumcision should greatly be encouraged in areas where HIV is prevalent. It’s not rocket science. The area traps dirt it also traps germs.
I don’t know why so much hate is thrown at what I think is a very minor issue.
Parents pierce their daughter’s ears often as babies. Yes it’s not as relatively invasive as circumcision which I don’t consider invasive for an infant (some adults have to do this as adults for medical reasons and it’s more complicated) but it’s ornamental. In exceptionally rare cases I’m sure someone has gotten an infection (though this is way more associated with self piercing) but it’s a live and let live for me. Once you cherry pick evils you’ll find other ways to impose on parents.
The reality is vegans are correct meat is murder. I respect that. I think meat eating is part of the world and nature but I don’t view it as the same sin. The deeper reality is while I definitely give preference to higher life forms almost no living thing wants to be in your stomach (excepting ones whose survival has marvelously adapted to this) and I’d rather focus my energy on keeping human animal interactions as humane as possible given the violence involved in meat consumption.
You know who else is right. The pro life crowd. Certainly by mid to late semester. It’s way more ambiguous in the first trimester. But I’ve never ever thought they’re trying to control bodies they think they’re saving defenseless humans. I support early abortion bc I don’t think it’s murder at that stage and babies should be wanted by their moms but I don’t know how people can believe this for a later term baby. But I still don’t perceive those people as murderers because they’re inside a culture that greatly values abortion and is not having honest discussions about alternatives except in more religious zones. I strongly support limits.
I don’t see any reason to limit circumcision. It has a very high success rate very rare instances of trouble and foreskins themselves are associated with certain problems and Don’t underestimate the connection to STD transmission it’s not minimal at all. I also respect cultural preferences that I don’t find significantly jarring morally. You want every cultural practice on the chopping block they’ll come for something in your life too. When you draw your lines draw them wisely.
Thank you for writing this. Two of my cousins just had brises for their children. My family is Orthodox Jewish, and all of them except for myself went to attend the brises to be supportive. I’m appalled, know they’ll never change, and wish it would be criminalized, but know it never will and don’t know what to do.
Sir, what do you think of Tuli? Filipino circumcision that boys do around the onset of puberty. I think, legally, the boys consent to this. But, there is a lot of social pressure (from other boys and girls who find uncircumcised penises less attractive, apparently) and family pressure (and the boys are obviously still living with their parents at this point.)
If I had a boy, I'd tell him it's stupid, there's no good reason for it and that he doesn't have to do it. I anticipate an argument with his mother about this.
My daughter doesn't have her ears pierced. Her mother was really pushing to have her ears pierced as an infant. Aunties were even already buying her earrings. And she probably would have forgot about all the pain by now. But I said no.
She has been vaccinated, though. Several times. I saw her scream like a banshee when getting vaccinated. I did feel a tinge of guilt for putting her through it. She can now talk and the last time, I told her she was going to the doctor's earlier that week and she already started stressing and saying she didn't want a vaccine. I told her she was probably getting a vaccine and it would give her powers (like Elsa!) to tell diseases to "stay away!" She said she didn't want powers. At the doctor's office, she was in such distress, she cried until she got into a coughing fit and even threw up. She got the vaccine anyway and after I'm like: "Did it hurt darling?" and she's like: "Just a little bit!" Anyway, I know, with vaccines, I am putting her through pain, without her consent. But THAT I can justify cause it prevents diseases.
But ear piercing? It's pain for what? Pretty ears? I suspect that she'll wanna get her ears pierced, someday. My rule is that she must understand that it hurts and chose herself to do it anyway. I ask her again, every once in a hwhile, and the latest is: "no". I suspect she probably will want to get her ears pierced someday and that day, I'll even buy her some pretty earrings. But she's got to give informed consent!
Back to circumcision, I'm gonna tread REALLY lightly here... Jews are kind people. They have a lot of fun parties: Hannukkah, Purim, Rosh Hashanah, Sukkot, Passover, Bar and Bat Mitzvah's, etc. They also seem to have fun wedding traditions like the dancing with the chairs, the stomping on the glass, etc.
But Judaism carries with it a lot of dumb traditions. It seems that most ethnic Jews don't take Judaism too seriously. Like they don't really believe in Yahweh and all that. But many of them seem to cling to tradition (even the dumb ones!) for the sake of tradition. Or keeping their identities or hwhat-not. This results in otherwise very smart Jews doing (at least in my estimation) very dumb things. Circumcision is one.
Intraethnic marriage is another. https://www.ted.com/talks/amy_webb_how_i_hacked_online_dating
See Amy Webb's Ted Talk: "How I hacked Online Dating" She is very rational and scientific, at first. Using data science to find out what profile pictures are most likely to attract men on online dating sites, for example. And looking at the statistics, and realizing that she can't be "too picky". And looking at how each criteria on her "wish list" narrows down the dating pool and thus, prioritizes which traits she's gonna insist on, etc. So far, so good... But then, one of her "top-tier" traits is must be "Jew...ish" i.e. He shares her Jewish ethnicity but is also not too serious about it. i.e. Not gonna drag her to Shul on Saturday, etc. hWhich she admits eliminated 97.7% of men from the dating pool. For no good reason! Her Jewish family tells her she was being "too picky" about other things, but smiles and nods when she says she's not gonna even consider 97.7% of men ... for no goood reason?? If she was my daughter, I would tell her she's being ridiculous!! Maybe it was important for her to find a man who would go along with her other silly traditions, like getting their sons circumcised, for no good reason.
It's purely cosmetic. Looks better, ask the gals (and guys) if you wish. People do all kinds of odd, painful, and distasteful things to look better. As for age, the cutting produces better cosmetic results and no painful memories when done early in life rather than as an adult as many testimonials attest. Simple.
People do all kinds of odd things to look better. But in this case, they aren't doing it to themselves, somebody else is doing it to them.
I dealt with this in the age section of my comment. Adults obtain suboptimal cosmetic results and must endure a great deal of pain over an extended time period as well as risk serious medical complications. Billions of infants prove out the preference for early cutting.
Lots of things are easier to do when someone is too little to consent or remember, that doesn't automatically mean that they should be done. I suppose you could take some kind of survey and see how many men regret not getting circumcised earlier, to try to guess what an infant's future preferences would be. My understanding is that there isn't a lot of regret for not being circumcised.
The other thing to consider is that if everyone stopped doing it though, people would get used to seeing uncut genitals, so they'd stop looking better.
Different strokes. Viva la difference!
Does this line of thinking apply to any other cosmetic surgical procedures, or is it a good-for-one-trip-only ticket?
You know it's considered unethical to pierce a child's ears at that age, right?
I know of several mothers who had their daughters' ears pierced at between 6 weeks and 2 months of age. I guess that counts.
Brian's libertarianism, as I understand it, would impose high barriers to using the state's coercive power to punish. Child abuse would be in the narrow range of activity that the state should prohibit and punish. Parents engaging in sexual abuse or violence toward their children is abhorrent. Putting circumcision in this category has been a cause for the progressive statist left in Europe, but for a libertarian? Perhaps Brian is engaging in hyperbole to be provocative, but he generally states exactly what he means.
And then to add another layer of the statist progressive left, Brian suggests that an exception would be made for a "good reason." Would he have a "good reason" committee that would determine what is good reason and what not? Many Jews circumscribe because God commanded it in the Torah. Given Brian's atheism, is that a "good reason"? Others do it because it is a tradition as being part of a people, which gives meaning to their lives. Given Brian's aversion to tribalism, is that a good reason?
I find it hard to understand why Brian would take such an extreme statist position to support government intrusion into citizen's lives.
I imagine it's because in this case, the government isn't intruding into citizen's lives, it's preventing the citizens from intruding into the lives of other citizens. It would be one thing if the citizen was amputating their own foreskin, but in this case they are amputating somebody else's.
The idea that the government is intruding into citizen's lives if it prevents parents from doing something to their children without their children's knowledge or consent has kind of disturbing implications. It implies that children are not really people with their own lives, but merely extensions of the lives of their parents.
It's like we haven't lived through several generations of watching advocates dance "the exception which swallows the rule 2-step." Step 1, allow for an exception to the rule, assuming people will be honorable enough to maintain lines of interpretive reasonableness in good faith. Step 2. Watch advocates and jurists torture the language into redefining the exception beyond all bounds of shame and sanity in order to squeeze everything and anything they want into the category of the exception. Do mere statements of opinion have to be miscategorized as "true threats" but full shark-jumping """actual violence""" now? Well, ok then, if that's what it takes, no problem!
Using an abstract phrase like "child abuse" as if it's a genuine objective reference point instead of potential putty in the hands of opponents who will use it to do things which you hate and never intended is just incredibly naive for any smart observers over the past 50 years.
I'm sure Bryan has less of a problem with Jews who circumscribe. :-)
I'm completely in favor of circumcision. The Law of Moses has practical reasons, not just faith. Is cleaner, healthier and anti-envious precocious men.
One hopes the author didn't confuse science fiction with reality.
If you look at the history of circumcision of gentiles in the US, you will see that it was adopted for good reason: Physicians in NYC who saw Jewish and gentile patients noticed, that gentile boys had more urinary problems than Jewish boys and therefore began recommending the practice. Much more recent research has shown less transmission of venereal disease in circumcised men compared to uncircumcised men.
Do you have a source for the NYC story?
https://www.cirp.org/library/history/gollaher/
From Ritual to Science: The Medical Transformation of Circumcision in America
Journal of Social History, Volume 28, Issue 1, Pages 5-36. Fall 1994.
David L. Gollaher
California Health Care Institute
Thanks. From your source:
- "Sayre hypothesized that irritation of the genitals was the source of many varieties of paralysis and hip-joint disease which stubbornly defied conventional treatments"
- "This slight operation... at once quieted their nervous irritability"
- "Not only orthopedic problems, but epilepsy, hernia, and even lunacy appeared to respond."
- "'peripheral irritation' from the foreskin could produce 'an insanity of the muscles,'"
None of these are urinary problems. Also:
"noting that venereal diseases were markedly less prevalent in Jews than gentiles,...they have fewer still-born children, greater average longevity...Billings reported, for example, that the incidence of cancer among Jews was 6.48 per 1000 compared to 10.01 per 1000 for the general population...insane, idiots, epileptics - represented a comparatively tiny minority of Jews. Billings's work inspired other public health studies that confirmed low rates of morbidity, including syphilis as well as infectious diseases like diphtheria and tuberculosis"
None of these are urinary problems.
"Other doctors (including Sayre himself) revived the mutilating procedure of clitoridectomy, with the clitoris subjected to a variety of surgeries, manipulations, and chemical preparations."
How much of an authority dot you consider Sayre to be? Should we reconsider clitoridectomy?
It’s hardly a stop-the-presses moment when a doctor from the late 1800’s got some things wrong. The article itself has 77 references in its bibliography, many of which are modern.
In World War II in the Western Desert uncircumcised soldiers had more problems one was told.
Highly counterintuitive, given that desert dwelling people are historically more likely to practice circumcision than non-desert peoples.
What one heard from old Army doctors... heat may have something to do with it plus limited bathing water.