Bill would outlaw infant, childhood circumcision, with no exceptions for Jews, Muslims

Anondude,

How is it deranged to demand that a human male have a choice about whether a piece of his skin is cut off without his permission?

Well, I'm certainly not advocating this universally, for all people, nor for any medical reason. As I mentioned earlier, the Christian and atheist worlds seem to go through "fads", where for a hundred years or so all babies are circumcised, and then none are, etc. I don't know why this is, and if people like you want to end the current fad of universal male circumcision, I think that's fine.

It is deranged, however, to try to BAN a practice so central to Judaism, as part of your pendulum-swinging-back fad culture. Through thousands of years of shifting medical understanding, and shifting levels of comfort and security living within so many different national cultures, Jews have preserved this practice because it is key to their understanding of the covenant between their deity and Abraham. Not to over-dramatize, but many people have been imprisoned, exiled, tortured, and killed to preserve Judaism and its rituals during times when they have been banned, both in ancient empires such as Greece and Babylon, and in very modern empires such as the formerly-communist Russia.

In other words, as the flowing tides of secular ideas go back and forth on the universal benefits of circumcision, do as you see fit. But do not try to universally ban it for others.

Male circumcision will no doubt be recognized as barbaric in the future for the simple fact that you're cutting up a human being when it is not *necessary* and without his permission. That. Is. Obvious. Deal with it.

Seeing traditional male circumcision as "barbaric" is just another fad. It has been seen in many other ways before. Perhaps familiarity with truely barbaric practices would illustrate the difference for you.

Jew here - And not planning to circumcise any boy-children.

Well, your boys will then not be part of the most constant and consistent aspect of the Jewish covenant with the lord since, literally, thousands of years ago. That is of course your choice. But it is not a "Jewish" perspective, as I'm sure you'll agree.

Many of the Bambara people of West Africa believe that people will die if they touch a clitoris.
Do you support allowing Americans with this cultural belief to mutilate their female children?

Well, actually Eeka I brought up this piece of deranged reasoning specifically in my last post. You have a situation where there is a truly bad practice (female genital mutilation, which in that case practically removes the clitoris and permanently damages sexual function of women in a major way) and a practice that doesn't hurt Jews and is core to the religion.

For whatever reasons, ignorance or political correctness, some people find it impossible to construct a world view where they can think about the two practices separately. So my response, as above, is that a better response might be to consider:
1. Traditional male circumcision and full-on clitoris removal aren't really the same
2. Why is the male version less harmful, or perhaps in some cases beneficial? Because it doesn't remove vital organs or cause horrible damage
3. So perhaps a better response to the problem would be to encourage the Bambara people to make their ritual less harmful

Do you not agree that that might be a better path, or are you committed to the idea of banning traditional male circumcision outright?

...between sort of talking about this as a human rights issue and talking about it from a money/insurance issue. since this bill has nothing to do with insurance (but you keep referencing it), i am curious if your vehement argument still stands? am i correct in understanding that you have concerns that aren't money?

(and yes, "displeased" might be the wrong word, but you know what i mean). i ask every man i have dated their opinion on it, since i don't have a penis. i am always curious how they feel about it, would they do it to their son if they had one, etc. just because it is now the american norm, doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed. it always should be. it's important.

in fact, i am sort of fascinated with this UH discussion, and i am glad it's being talked about, even if i disagree with the proposed bill ;)