let&#39;s stumble towards success and pack some snacks for little breaks

Seriously?

From:

There are religious and cultural practices I am willing to refrain from expressing an opinion about no matter how much I object, because they're not my religion/culture and they don't affect me personally, and I'm trying to be less judgmental of others in general.

Deliberate wounding of children is not one of those practices.

From:

I...really find myself unable to really deal with this, because the way you're wording it comes across as very, very hostile and skirting over the complexity.

If you're being by-the-book technical, I can't argue that circumcision is a wound. But at the same time, it isn't. The practice originated as a permanent, effective way for a minority group to distinguish themselves from the world around them, and doing so is still important to us. It's one of the oldest traditions in my culture, and the way you're describing it sounds, very much, like an attack on something held very close and valued.

It gets into the issues of a group setting itself apart, and continuing to do so. And there's no way you can say that doing so isn't important anymore - we're still the target of hatred and violence and ignorance. We hold onto our traditions and rituals because that's what we had, and what we still use to keep ourselves intact as a people.

If I want to be by-the-book technical too, it's not when they're born, it's eight days later, and it's sacred enough that if that day falls on the Sabbath, that's when you do it. The ceremony and ritual around it is the mark of when that child enters the rest of the Jewish people. It's part of what makes that child a Jew.

Argue all you want against secular circumcision, and best of luck to you with that, but the amount of trouble you're going to get arguing against religion probably won't be worth it.

From:

I'm not saying any of that is untrue. I'm saying that nothing, regardless of context, excuses genital mutilation. I don't expect to change anyone's mind; I just find it incredibly depressing that it's even an issue of contention.

From:

I saw someone compare circumcision to female genital mutilation as the difference between piercing the ear, and piercing the eyeball. That's quite a bit closer to how I'm approaching it.

The only way I can conceive of circumcision being referred to as genital mutilation is, again, going to a by-the-book definition. Which, in the context I'm using to approach the idea, doesn't apply. You can't say things like that and expect people to not be wildly offended. To say that nothing excuses it is for me to hear that your worldview is the only possible one in which you think people can engage.

From:

I don't expect people not to be offended. I know perfectly well that there are people who are offended by the opinion that babies should not have body parts cut off. That's what I'm saying is a sad thing.

From:

Well, thank you for your pity.

From:

projectyl.livejournal.com

Starting the debate with a loaded attack post isn't going to win anyone over to your side, Julia. You probably already know this and don't care, but I have to point it out.

Do you feel as strongly about, say, cutting umbilical cords? If not, what's the difference except for the ceremonial aspect?

From:

... umbilical cords aren't useful in later life, will drop off anyway, don't mark one out in any way[1], and are cut off for medical reasons? And there are issues of consent? Etc etc etc.

[1] Well, belly-buttons are something that get a bizarre amount of obsessing done over them in the media, but ignoring that.

From:

projectyl.livejournal.com

...Oh.

You're right, of course. See, this is why I prefer to steer clear of arguments. I'm no good at them.

From:

Eh. It is a Thing I have Opinions about - I hang around the fringes of some online Jewish communities because I have Jewish ancestry and want to find out more about (one of) the culture(s) I come from; I'm also aware of the issue via feminism, and. Just. No. I honestly cannot see any good reason for carrying out that kind of operation for non-medical reasons on somebody who cannot give consent to said operation. I feel very strongly that the theology in this case is not a good reason; nor do I feel that "it's a cultural marker" is a good reason because, really, there are cultural markers that a) aren't male only, b) don't involve damage to someone else's body, and c) are actually visible to other members of the group on anything approaching a regular basis.

Gah. It's all very upsetting. :(

From:

In addition to Lizzie's points, cutting an umbilical cord causes no pain to the baby.

I'm not trying to win anyone over to my side. I'm aware that a post like this will cause comments, but my intention is to express my horror at the procedure and incredulity at the fact that debate is even necessary, not to foster that debate.

From:

pr1ss.livejournal.com

what what what

In a world of ceasarian section, episiotomy, "prophylactic" mastectomy, and hysterectomy and my current favorite, that most labors are induced with drugs, because you know, there is no air in there, and a baby could suffocate

how can you even notice circumcision?

Get rid of all of those and then I may BEGIN to think about whether a tradition that is important to me should be discontinued.

From:

Consent. Consent consent consent.

Why is it important to you? It's not a visible cultural marker. It applies only to boys. By my understanding, the Torah is not meant to be set-in-stone, but is a living document to be reinterpreted with each generation. I am not as familiar with the relevant sections as I might be, but... really? This practice is so important to you that it overrides issues of consent and bodily autonomy?

Furthermore, as far as induced labour goes, my gut feel says that that statistic is very US-specific. And, again, consent!

Also also, people are capable of noticing several things at once! There is a lot wrong with the US medical system, but that doesn't mean that small things can't be focussed on (though I am relieved that they at least now no longer recommend routine circumcision).

From:

all-ephemera.livejournal.com

I personally see no reason for it, except in the cases where it's medically necessary (which generally is not known immediately) such as when the urethra does not extend quite far enough.

There are certain, more liberal, Jewish centers in which a prick of blood is substituted for circumcision.

Should I have sons, I hope to be able to sway my husband to leaving the child uncut, but there's many years of custom behind circumcision and although it's less common than it was, it is still the majority in the US.

From:

pr1ss.livejournal.com

I was told by my nurse-midwife that I did not have a choice about c-section. To not consent I had to threaten to leave the hospital, threaten a lawsuit, and then, when none of that worked, threaten extra-legal personal action. The last one worked! I haven't met anyone else who was able to resist medical recommendation, I mean, "not consent". Brutal persuasion techniques and cultural norms are not easy to go against.

What I see is routine assaults on women's bodies. Some are because of panic that pregnancy won't go well. Sometimes it doesn't. Drugs and surgery don't guarantee a live birth.

Soon you are into a new demographic. The -your female organs will kill you with cancer- age group. Depending on the luxuriousness of your medical insurance, this can start as early as 30, but certainly by 40.

I would love to see someone as smart as jeduser apply research and indignation to to keeping women of all ages as intact as they want to be. We aren't a bundle of pathologies waiting to strike, and the routine medical treatment which is done without what I would call -functional consent- mutilates our bodies multiple times, and in more places than genitally.

I realize that I have digressed from the topic of jeduser's post. It just truly bothers me that there are so many articles debating the ethics of circumcision, and relatively few even questioning far worse practices that only affect women.

From:

Brutal persuasion techniques and cultural norms are not easy to go against.

I am aware of this. I am aware that there is a lot of unpleasantness that happens. Nonetheless, in spite of endorphins etc, there is at least the possibility for real consent.

Soon you are into a new demographic. The -your female organs will kill you with cancer- age group. Depending on the luxuriousness of your medical insurance, this can start as early as 30, but certainly by 40.

To which, being from the Internet, I say: lol, already there.

I am in the UK. There is the NHS. This week I am going for an apointment to get a referral to a genetics clinic for yearly check-ups. Family history, you see, with my mother just having started chemo. I am therefore unlikely to be able to talk terribly coherently or usefully on this point, other than to say "thank fuck for her medical insurance via her work, because it meant we got diagnosis and treatment significantly quicker". Nevertheless, thank fuck also for the NHS.

It just truly bothers me that there are so many articles debating the ethics of circumcision, and relatively few even questioning far worse practices that only affect women.

Oh, it bothers me too. Believe me, it bothers me too, on a personal as well as political level[1]. And I'm betting it bothers

jedusor, too - but that's not what she's been told to research and present a case about, and there lies yet another problem. However, this is the thing in front of her.

[1] YKWIM.

From:

It's not a school assignment, although rereading the OP, I see how it seems that way. By saying that I have to present a structured argument, I just meant that in normal conversation, chopping off baby bits is not automatically assumed to be a bad thing.

But yes, you're right that there are a lot of things to get indignant about, and this one happens to be the one that's really bothering me right now.

From:

gerald_duck

It's right to be very, very hostile to circumcision; it's wrong in every respect at every level.

The foreskin is a useful part of the body (it protects the glans from overstimulation and desensitisation that damage sexual function). Removing it is harmful; people who advocate circumcision for secular reasons such as hygiene are mistaken.

It's an unnecessary and painful medical procedure. Like all medical procedures, it carries risk — especially when it's often carried out by clerics who have little medical training.

It's performed on babies that are unable to give informed consent.

You speak of a "permanent, effective way for a minority group to distinguish themselves"; it is evil and wrong of you to want any such thing, to seek to permanently mark a child in such a way: what if they choose a different faith once they're old enough to make such decisions for themselves? Why should they forever bear the mark of yours? What gives you the right to do that to a child?

What if a family wanted to get an inverted pentagram tattooed on their newborn baby's buttocks? Are you OK with that?

Hold on to traditions and rituals that impose no long-term harm on the unconsenting, by all means, but don't mutilate babies who have no choice in the matter.

From:

mamagotcha.livejournal.com

But at the same time, it isn't.

I'm afraid you are wrong. It is a deliberate amputation of a richly enervated portion of the body without knowledge or consent, often done with no anesthesia, and with healing made difficult and more painful with the repeated application of waste material, sometimes resulting in infection, further amputation and sometimes even death. There's no way you're going to be able to say that this is not a wound. Defend it as your "intact" tradition, but be honest enough to embrace what you are defending: an irreversible, intentional, non-consensual wound that causes a significant amount of pain and ultimately decreases sexual pleasure.

Slavery, stoning of women, and tearing out beating hearts were all somebody's traditions. Just because something is traditional doesn't mean we cannot apply compassion, intelligence, free will, and reason to the situation to find acceptable alternatives.

There is no arguing against religion, because an argument involves logic and balance, while membership in a religion requires blind faith and submission. If a religion wants to survive in a changing environment, it changes itself (hence, enlightened Jews who do more symbolic rituals instead of amputation).

In this day and age, it is indeed a barbaric practice. I'm not arguing. I'm just calling it like I see it.

From:

mamagotcha.livejournal.com

I'm so sorry to hear about your birthing experience. I do know how hard it is to buck the trend... I've had four homebirths, and have attended about 35 other births, mostly in the hospital as a doula, hired specifically to help guide and protect as natural a birth as possible in such a hostile situation.

There IS choice out there for laboring women. It IS possible to have a good birth... even in a hospital, even when things don't go according to plan. The driving force is fear. When you banish fear from your decision-making algorithm, things become a lot clearer.

I'm so glad you're working to fight against the current status quo! Keep it up, and perhaps instead of belittling other efforts to spare innocents from unnecessary procedures, enlist them as cohorts in your own battle. We're really all advocates for the same goals: access to knowledge-based and compassionate health care for everyone.

From:

gerald_duck

Judaism would get a lot more respect if it relied on persuasion and reasoned debate for recruitment rather than coercing minors using mutilative techniques from three and a half millennia ago. Discuss.

The ritual of circumcision was invented almost contemporaneously with the creation of the Code of Hammurabi. I don't see anyone still suggesting that anyone who accuses another of a crime should be put to death if the accused jumps in a river and floats, even though that's an equally venerable tradition.

From:

Judaism would get a lot more respect if it relied on persuasion and reasoned debate for recruitment

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that, but as you know a) I should be asleep and b) I should be finishing off this question sheet...

From:

There are plenty of Jews who don't engage in circumcision, and there are plenty of non-Jews who do. I don't think talking smack about the religion is productive.

From: