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

[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.