Quote:
Originally Posted by Martian
I don't know. Religion fucks things up. I want to be tolerant of people for their beliefs, but I happen to think that those who refuse to give their children life-saving blood transfusions on religious grounds are supremely fucked up and bordering child abuse. The life of a child changes the equation here.
Now, obviously circumcision is not the same level of seriousness. To my knowledge, nobody's died. So let's say that we give orthodox practicing Jews a bye on that one. So far as I know, the rest of the Abrahamic sphere has no such mandate, or at least not one that's really enforced.
I just don't understand how this came to be the norm. The prevailing arguments seem to be 'it looks funny' (societal pressure, from people not seeing it regularly), 'it's unhygienic' (bullshit) and 'everybody does it.' And I just don't get that. This is a proactive thing. It's a conscious choice parents have to make. I can't get into the headspace of someone who intentionally puts their child under the knife without a clear and compelling reason.
|
First of all, I really tried to be clear that the religious arguments are their own thing, entirely separate from anything else. Their reasons are valid only to members of those faiths, and therefore are useless discussing the issue with nonmembers. As far as I know, all practicing Jews circumcise their sons, regardless of movement or denomination. As far as I know, all practicing Muslims circumcise their sons, regardless of sect or tradition. Their reasons are valid only for Jews and Muslims, respectively. So unless one is a practicing Jew or Muslim, the religious issue is moot. (Or, I suppose, a member of some other religion that circumcises, about which I have heard nothing).
And circumcision is such a minor body modification, without any negative physical effects on sexual or urinary function, that, to my mind at least, it seems inconceivable to debate attempting to enforce a prohibition of circumcision at the cost of religious freedom. Therefore, what it boils down to is: if you're not bound by your religion to circumcise, and the idea offends you, don't do it. Otherwise, why create an issue where no issue exists?
As for non-Jews and non-Muslims who circumcise...aesthetics can be a reason. You might not like it: it might seem deeply insufficient to you, but it can be a reason. On its own, I'm not sure it would be enough for me, either. But for some, it could be.
Now, it does appear to be accurate that circumcision brings slight health benefits in that it does slightly promote penile hygiene, and it appears to very slightly retard passage of sexually transmitted diseases. If you want to point out that in both those cases, the benefits are minute-- perhaps an edge of three or four percent as opposed to the uncircumcised-- and that you feel that is not at all a sufficient gain in your opinion to justify circumcision, that might be a fair argument. But there will certainly be some parents that think that even a couple of percentage points favor in their sons health justifies circumcision.
I agree, parents can sometimes do terrible things to their kids in the name of their own beliefs. And I too am shocked and offended by people who let their kids die because they don't "believe" in antibiotics or transfusions. But when it comes to body modifications of the kind bearing cultural significance, and without lasting physical harm to the proper functioning of the body-- piercings, scarification, ear notching, circumcision, earlobe or lip stretching...look, you and I may not appreciate either the aesthetics or the cultural reasons to do those things, but that's because it's not our culture. Cultural transmission only works by bringing kids up in the tradition: you can't just teach them abstract lessons during childhood and then let them decide at the age of majority whether to join their traditional society. That produces nothing but secular/Western assimilation, and the traditional culture is lost.
I'm also not saying there's never an appropriate moment to step in: obviously, female genital mutilation, or foot binding, or rituals depriving kids of fingers or eyes or what have you...I would certainly agree that that might be over the line, and should be stopped. But only because those rituals irreparably damage the correct functioning of the body in deeply integral ways, to degrees that it is impossible to presume that any significant majority of children so mutilated in infancy would, on adulthood, agree that, given the chance, they would certainly volunteer for such modifications willingly.