Circumcision

[jedusor]

I can't believe this is even debatable. I can't believe that in a society we consider civilized, I have to actually present a structured argument against cutting off pieces of babies when they're born.

Comments

[canadianpuzzler.livejournal.com]

There are always going to be ethical issues where there are issues of a) assumed responsibility for another and b) informed consent.

Modern society resolves these ethical issues, in part, by entrusting assumed responsibility and informed consent to the person nearest the individual in question (usually the closest living relative). This works reasonably well in most cases, but will never eliminate injustice and/or the appearance of same (as in the Terry Schiavo case).

You may personally disagree with the choices that other parents make with respect to the health and well-being of their children, and that's fine. On the other hand, one of the things that makes our countries civilized is the fact that we all take responsibility for each other in sensible ways, and we trust each other to handle those responsibilities sensibly. As soon we start removing responsibilities and meaningful choices, even if we do so in the name of good - "This new law says that all mothers must breastfeed their children for as long as is medically feasible", say - we immediately become less civilized, rather than more civilized.

I can't believe this is even debatable. I can't believe that in a society we consider civilized, I have to actually present a structured argument against cutting off pieces of babies when they're born.

There are many civilized societies in the world at present which I would nonetheless be inclined to flee at the earliest opportunity: China, Singapore, and Iran come to mind.

Conversely, there are civilized societies in the world at present where I would be inclined to settle in. These societies include Canada and the US, western Europe, and possibly even Israel (assuming I could adjust to the constant duress placed upon Israel by hostile Arab groups such as Hamas). Most of these societies (Japan is the only noticeable exception I can think of at the moment) have a strong element of Judeo-Christian influence in their heritage. Most of the older ones can trace a significant amount of the influences that "civilized" them to it, for that matter.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think there's an unspoken equivalency in your mind where "degree of civilization"="degree of secularization". If so, I have to say that I think that a much stronger argument can be made that religion, in as much as it is concerned with the the moral character and personal and corporate responsibility of its adherents - in other words, as long as the religion has a focus on bettering its adherents and the society they live in - will have a positive correlation with civilization, rather than a negative one. (There are other mechanisms by which religion can have a positive influence on the civilization of a society, but this is perhaps the simplest.)

[canadianpuzzler.livejournal.com]

Ah, I see I neglected an edit I was going to make before hitting "post."

To be perfectly clear: those who are entrusted with the responsibility of care and informed consent for others should, in my mind, be subject to the normal consequences for the resulting actions and decisions, including legal liability and responsibility.

Note that this implies that the civilized recourse for a circumcision later determined to be undesired might well be to sue one's parents for damages resulting from things like emotional distress.

[jedusor.livejournal.com]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think there's an unspoken equivalency in your mind where "degree of civilization"="degree of secularization".

Nope. I wasn't even thinking about religion when I posted this; the commenters brought it up.

As soon we start removing responsibilities and meaningful choices, even if we do so in the name of good... we immediately become less civilized, rather than more civilized.

I'm not talking about government involvement, either. I'm talking about the fact that genital mutilation has social acceptance in my society. That's what makes me sad. I'm not suggesting that anything be done about it, I'm not waving a sign or bombing hospitals. I'm just saying it makes me sad. And even that is enough to warrant being told that I'm being unreasonably disrespectful and intolerant.

[canadianpuzzler.livejournal.com]

Well, then, I'm a little at a loss as to what your definition of a civilized society is defined as, and how modern society does (or does not) qualify as the same. To some degree, I'd be inclined to argue that in a lot of ways, civilized society is about as civilized as common sense and common courtesy are common. :-)

As for your point about mutilation, look around: mutilation *in general* has social acceptance. Some of the mutilation is benign (piercings in odd places) and some of it is not (cutting). I'm sure some of it is even genital mutilation mistakenly believed to be beneficial, but I do my best to avoid reading the e-mail spam that advertises it.

[jedusor.livejournal.com]

Self-mutilation is different, as I said above to rebbyribs. I have no problem with people who choose to modify their own bodies.

I think a truly civilized society would grant people basic rights, like bodily safety, or at least majority agreement that bodily safety is a worthy goal. (Caz pointed out that some people would use the same argument against abortion. I think the distinction is where you draw the "this is now a person" line, which is a hot topic in the abortion debate, but I don't think anyone would argue that an infant old enough to be circumcised has not attained personhood.)

[canadianpuzzler.livejournal.com]

I think that there is agreement that bodily safety is a basic right. (And certainly, I have yet to meet or hear of an emotionally stable parent that did not want to protect their child's bodily safety.) I think what there is is an absence of agreement over whether a properly performed male infant circumcision affects bodily safety adversely. I admit to being uninformed about the medical particulars of modern circumcision - or any, really - but I can see how the idea of "bodily safety" can be interpreted differently enough to fail to settle the question, so I can understand why there might be a failure to agree about this.

And so it comes back to consent and responsibility. And as long as parents do not think it is harmful, and have a reason to have the procedure done (regardless of what that reason is and whether or not it is valid), parents will continue to have it done. Short of trying to educate people into your position, I'm not entirely sure what you can do about it.

[jedusor.livejournal.com]

I'm not trying to do anything about it. I'm just saying it depresses me.

[kaberett.livejournal.com]

Parents aren't always right about what is or is not harmful.

[tablesaw]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think there's an unspoken equivalency in your mind where "degree of civilization"="degree of secularization".

Nope. I wasn't even thinking about religion when I posted this; the commenters brought it up.

As I've been discussing elsewhere, your not thinking about it doesn't mean it's not there in what you said, and possibly within your mindset as well. Throughout this discussion, your expectations for "civilized" societal values have been constructed from a secular humanist perspective, and have been intolerant of societal values constructed on other bases, particularly traditional and religious ones.

As I understand the point of view of Judaism, the society does maintain bodily protection as a value, but considers it so because "God is the one who grants life, and maintains full rights to the human body." (I'm relying on quotes because my knowledge is fairly rudimentary.) This interpretation results in a different view of circumcision than yours, but that discrepancy is not evidence that the culture does not value personal safety.

You may also be unaware of your messages as regards your choice of the word "civilized." "Civilizing" has historically been used as a justification for a colonizer to invade peoples that were doing just fine, really, and to systematically destroy their culture.

Combine the two, and you've sent a message that certain cultures are barbaric and ought to be "civilized" by abandoning their values and adopting yours. This is one of the reasons that even those who are working within their own culture to end practices like circumcision are extremely critical of those who push for changes from outside it.

[otherwise-nyc.livejournal.com]

Tablesaw: Thank you for writing up these anthropological/sociological points better and at greater length than I have more time to do, today.

Julia: Your initial statement is incredibly problematic. Your defense of yourself, in the face of the reasonable outrage of, in particular, your religious friends, is amazing to me.

I would not have a male child circumcised (in fact, I won't be having any children), because I think the routinization of a surgical procedure *in the absence of another reason to perform it* is a bad choice for a culture overall, and it would be a terrible fit with my own belief structure.

However, it's been my observation that parents make their choices for their children with good intentions and love, and that unless those choices somehow cross a *very* clear line, in which irreparable harm is caused to their children, those parents should be allowed to parent in peace.

For instance, I think that not vaccinating a child probably risks more harm to the child than circumcising a male child, especially given that not vaccinating children raises the risk of disease in the population as a whole, and circumcision only affects a single child. Nevertheless, parents are allowed to not vaccinate.

I'm disappointed in your general lack of compassion, Julia. You have always seemed like the sort of vegan who cares about animals but not humans; in this discussion you care more about babies than adults, which is a position reminiscent of the general anti-abortion stance.

[gerald_duck]

While in some respects parents are trusted to decide for themselves what's best for their children, in others there are laws. In the UK, for example, you can't give an infant alcohol, you must use an approved kind of child seat when they're a passenger in a car, you can't sell them to a local factory owner to use as slave labour… you get the idea.

That some things fall in one category and others in another makes it legitimate to debate how specific things might be categorised. There is no innate objection to the idea we might decide infant circumcision is so wrong that it should be illegal.

I personally expect circumcision to be officially discouraged in most countries within the next couple of decades, maybe being defined as a surgical procedure (with penalties for doctors who undertake it other than from clinical necessity) within half a century or so.


My interpretation of history differs from yours. Civilisation has at least as much to do with technology as it has to do with religion. For example, the (Islamic) Ottoman Empire was at least as worthy as the Christian empires of Europe, it just happened not to be the birthplace of the Industrial Revolution.