Cultural circumcision in babies/young boys

[junipermarten]

1 of my DS's is circumcised due to a medical issue, he was 3 at the time and it was bloody horrific.

When he was going through it, a good friend gave me tips on after care and offered the number of a private doctor. She has sons who were circumcised shortly after birth for religious reasons.

I personally don't agree with circumcision unless medically required however I respect others choices for religious reasons.

It got me thinking about the high % of boys in the US who are circumcised for cultural reasons, just over 2/3rds. Why is it so prevalent there?

I was having a look at % of male pop per country and the highest were mainly Islamic, but also Samoa was almost 100% which surprised me but apparently its cultural as opposed to religious (I think).

Just utterly barbaric.
Should be against the law to do it for religious or cultural reasons.

Genuine question.

Why are you glad?

What are you glad about with regards to you having been circumcised?

I've had partners with and without foreskin and never once has a partner who wasn't circumcised expressed a wish that their parents had gotten them done as a baby.

Could it simply be a matter of appreciating what you have or is there a genuine reason?

And?...

If people commit a barbaric act on a tiny baby, then they should be criminalised whatever their religion, colour, class.

abhorrent is your subjective, judgement call @pointythings. It is normal for millions of people. It has been normal for billions of people going back around 5000 years. It is a minor procedure. It is not risk free, nothing in life is, but it is very, very low risk. As evidenced by the lack of men who've had it done campaigning for a ban or just having got rid of it themselves over time.

Dismissing arguments with there's more to Judaism than circumcision is ignorance about the religion.

@TooBigForMyBoots just because something is normal for large numbers of people that does not mean it is not wrong. Many things used to be normal for large groups of people that we now consider wrong.

Just because something that is wrong is done in the name of religion that does not make it right. As I've said, FGM is carried out in the name of faith and tradition. So do you think FGM is acceptable and should be permitted? And people accuse atheists of not having a moral compass...

It is a minor procedure. It is not risk free, nothing in life is, but it is very, very low risk.

Lots of medical procedures are very low risk. We still do not carry them out unless there is a medical need.

As evidenced by the lack of men who've had it done campaigning for a ban

It has already been pointed out to you that there are groups of religiously circumcised men campaigning for a ban. The fact that they are small in number does not mean they are wrong - it just means that there are still too many people who slavishly conform to tradition and do not question it.

Ok so help me understand- why is this such a vital part of Judaism that banning it would effectively ban Judaism?
If you couldn’t do this one thing would you actually think that there was no point to your religion at all?

Genuine question - would it be a massive religious issue if a boy had to wait until his bar mitzvah or his 18th birthday to be circumcised? Genuine question.

I was interested in the 8th day rule for some cultures/religions so did a bit of reading last night, apparently vitamin K levels are highest on this day and that, along with not requiring a general aesthetic when so small, is why it is performed then:

www.researchgate.net/publication/321462229_Haematological_Basis_of_8th_Day_Male_Child_Circumcision_in_The_Holy_Bible

@mamacattiva apparently the denial of anaesthesia is a core part of the ceremony, though there is debate within Judaism about this with some denominations allowing anaesthetic creams. But some think that the pain is essential and that it is what God wants. It isn't about 'not requiring' general anaesthesia (though this does carry a substantial risk for newborns), it is about actively thinking pain is needed.

Those arguing for a ban haven't provided evidence that it is needed or that a ban will benefit the UK, beyond some vague hopes for the NHS. Instead there has been a lot of emotional, moralistic language:
abhorrent
barbaric
abuse
mutilation

On this basis we should ban abortion. Many, many people find it abhorrent, barbaric, murderous, unnecessary practice with lasting medical repercussions.

Even if the only benefit is not inflicting pain on tiny babies, that's plenty.

And the costs @Kabalagala?

On this basis we should ban abortion. Many, many people find it abhorrent, barbaric, murderous, unnecessary practice with lasting medical repercussions.

Except that with abortion there's a whole consenting adult woman involved, whose rights should always take precedence.

Also what lasting medical repercussions?

Anti-abortionists would say there is an innocent baby who does not consent to being murdered. And you are either ignorant or disingenuous to argue that abortion doesn't lead to some women suffering lifelong physical and mental health problems.

Abortion is a procedure carried out by trained medical professionals usually under clinical conditions and with the consent of the woman.
I have no issue with circumcision being allowed as long as the person having the procedure is able to consent OR it has been recommended by a qualified medical professional for purely medical reasons and the person having the procedure is unable to legally consent

Well they would be wrong

What exactly are implying the costs would be?

Pregnancy and birth also carry the risk of permanent physical and mental health consequences for the woman - in fact, the risk is far, far higher than with abortion. Nice straw man though.

Abortion is always the choice between two competing sets of rights. The right of the woman who is already living and in this world should always be paramount because she is the one who has to live with the consequences of events. Anti abortionists don't cut any ice with me because they do not give a damn for the rights of real, living women. Supporters of circumcision do not cut any ice with me because they do not give a damn for the right of real, living babies.

@Kabalagala poster means the costs of implementing legislation (wouldn't be bad, the law on FGM could simply be amended) and the costs of groups of people leaving the UK.

It's not a straw man, it's an example of another group who wish to impose their subjective morality and high levels of emotion regarding "victims" on the rest of the country through legistlation.

You're choosing to compare apples and pears when you're comparing infant circumcision for religious reasons with abortion. And you know it.

You've also not answered the quesion I asked earlier: given that FGM is also done for religious and cultural reasons, are you OK with it? Do you think it should be legal?

@Flowersandtattoos being anti unnecessary circumcision is NOT being anti semetic. It is just being anti unnecessary circumcision, nothing more.

It is entierly possible to separate the two.

Passing the legistlation would be very costly. It would be challenged on Human Rights grounds and opposed by nearly all our religions and civil liberties defenders. People will go to prison and it will trigger an exodus. Our friends abroad will wonder what has happened to the UK. Others will say "who the fuck do they think they are" (in their own language).

It is pure fantasy to think that this would be a simple ammendment to the law on FGM, which is not a great piece of legistlation that is rarely enforced.

I am not Jewish. Infant male circumcision is their covenant with god. Banning the Torah would not be as bad as banning circumcision. I'm sure other people on the internet have put it better than I have here.