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

[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.