No More Child Genital Mutilation: If You Were A Modern Aztec, We Wouldn't Let You Sacrifice Somebody's Baby To The Gods
"Because religion...!" is not an excuse for murder, and I say that as a atheist who believes that people should have the freedom to practice their religion -- until that moment when they start to do something that will cause harm to another person (who is not a consenting adult).
Of course, some people are into "harm," and if they're over 18, who am I to tell them they can't have their girlfriend, oh, bullwhip them upon request?
So, where should we draw the line on what you can and can't do per your religious beliefs? Well, for starters, on unnecessary medical procedures -- effectively mutilation -- of little boys and girls' genitals.
We get all, "Wow, disgusting and terrible!" (and it is) about FGM: Female Genital Mutilation. Meanwhile, some person who's tsk-tsking some magazine article about FGM will step right up to have part of their son's penis whacked off in the name of their religion.
Now, if some tot needs some sort of penile or vaginal surgery for medical reasons, well, have at it. I'll just step out of your way.
But if your ancient religious practice is what's leading you to give your child an unnecessary (and potentially risky -- because all operations come with risk) medical intervention, well, no.
Your child is your child, but they are not a coffee mug or a lamp. You don't own your child. He or she is a person -- one who has a right to bodily integrity, to not have others make decisions for him or her to have body parts hacked off for any reason other than medical necessity.
Iceland is the first country to get civilized along these lines. They have a bill in their parliament that would ban circumcision for non-medical reasons. (They banned FGM in 2005, so it's about time somebody got behind ending the genital mutilation of boys.) At the BBC:
The draft law would impose a six-year prison term on anyone guilty of "removing part or all of the [child's] sexual organs", arguing the practice violates the child's rights.Jewish and Muslim leaders however have called the bill an attack on religious freedom.
Iceland would be the first European country to ban the procedure.The country is thought to have roughly 250 Jewish citizens and around 1,500 Muslim citizens.
...The Nordic Jewish Communities issued a statement condemning the ban on "the most central rite" in their faith.
"You are about to attack Judaism in a way that concerns Jews all over the world," the open letter reads.
Oh, bullshit.
P.S. Though I'm an atheist, I'm Jewish. Being against circumcision is about leaving little penises unmutilated. I will defend your right to do all sorts of ridiculous stuff for religious purposes that does not involve knives slicing into toddler flesh for no fucking medical reason.
"Medical reason" is probably not the hill you wanna die on.
Crid at February 21, 2018 9:22 PM
Glad you brought that up. Right here, in my back pocket, I have bioethicist @BrianDavidEarp:
http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2012/08/the-aap-report-on-circumcision-bad-science-bad-ethics-bad-medicine/
Amy Alkon at February 21, 2018 9:31 PM
More from @BrianDavidEarp. (Gander, meet goose.)
http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2017/08/does-female-genital-mutilation-have-health-benefits-the-problem-with-medicalizing-morality/
Amy Alkon at February 21, 2018 9:35 PM
Completely agree.
jdgalt at February 21, 2018 10:04 PM
It's not a medical procedure, it's a religious one, and your sarcasm is inappropriate.
Crid at February 22, 2018 12:22 AM
1.
Whatever happened to "keep your LAWS off my BODY"?
2.
Does this mean you support forced vaccination of children?
Ben David at February 22, 2018 1:21 AM
Its a religious one for a large minority of jews.
It was pushed as a medical thing onto the western public at large by a man who wanted to destroy male sexual pleasure in an attempt to curb masturbation. A man who also suggested using carbolic acid to burn off women's clitorises
But given FGM is a religious thing for even more muslims I'm sure you have no objection to that, right crid?
lujlp at February 22, 2018 1:24 AM
Does this mean you support forced vaccination of children?
No, but unvaccinaed kids should be barred from public schools and parks til the age of 15
You are free to do as you wish, the public at large is free to demand you keep disease vectors away from them
lujlp at February 22, 2018 1:27 AM
Sarcasm again: You guys in a terrible hurry to be right about something.
> But given FGM is a religious
> thing for even more muslims
> I'm sure you have no objection
> to that, right crid?
We've discussed this before, little fella: Context and proportion are not what you're about.
Crid at February 22, 2018 2:51 AM
If I had it to do over again, I wouldn't circumcise my sons. They are 27, 25, and 19. We did it because it was done to me (as it was to most American males my age), we didn't know what the downside was, we were nervous about how to teach a kid to care for the uncircumcised equipment. We were young and ignorant and stupid.
I always wonder what I, and they, are missing out on because of it, to say nothing of the consent issue.
It's Grey DUCK dammit at February 22, 2018 5:33 AM
I always wonder what I, and they, are missing out on because of it, to say nothing of the consent issue.
Why worry about something y'all never knew y'all had?
As for consent, did you get their consent for all the other icky things you did to them? do you worry about that, too?
I R A Darth Aggie at February 22, 2018 6:37 AM
Unfortunately history is replete with examples of prophylactic proceedures that in a later time might seem barbaric, and also a lack of prophylactic procedures that now seems sort of crazy by todays ever shifting standards of cleanliness and disease prevention.
Amy wants to make this a simple issue, when it seems to me, it is anything but.
Full disclousre, I am the mother of a thirty two year old uncircumcised man. My thinking on the subject was influenced by the fact that I come from a culture where circumcision was not the norm. My own father was circumcised in 1942 when he was drafted into the Army for World War II and I am relatively sure he had no choice about either the forced military service, or the circumcision that accompanied it. I am also sure I know what was the risker of the two.
So yes, we in America have the freedom to make bad medical choices all the time and sometimes they get made for us. But taking these sort of decisions out of the hands of parents, the adults most concerned with a child’s welfare and giving them over to the shiting standards and foibles of the government medical nannies is far worse.
I might grant you theoretically that all unnecessary medical proceedures ought to be only performed at the age of 18 with the informed consent of the individual subjected to them, including hormonal treatment and sexual reassignment surgury which in most cases shouldn't be performed at all, if you would also acknowledge that to be legally and morally consistant, mothers would no longer have the option of aborting a viable baby after roughly six months of gestation, which seems to me a far more important child rights issue than a right not to be circumcized.
Isab at February 22, 2018 6:46 AM
Of course, there's mutilation and there's mutilation. My wife tells me that in the Philippines, female newborns leave the hospital with pierced ears as a matter of course, and some children in this country have their ears mutilated at a very young age.
Mutilating ears (or noses, or lips, or what-have-you) strikes me as a purely elective procedure as well, and perhaps outside the bounds of parental authority.
Old RPM Daddy (OldRPMDaddy at GMail dot com) at February 22, 2018 7:37 AM
We've discussed this before, little fella: Context and proportion are not what you're about.
Nope, Im not, if a practice is wrong it is wrong regardless if preformed on girls or boys
And the post of mine you highlighted has not yet been refuted and was backed up by several scientific studies
But since you love to hear yourself talk, so to speak, why is t you are unable to answer such a simple question as to why its ok for boys but not girls?
lujlp at February 22, 2018 1:11 PM
But as long as we are referencing that post here is something else I posted on that thread you likewise decided to ignore
Every defense of this practice has ultimatly boiled down to
A) cultural norms which isnt good enough for foot binding, female circumcision{even the variants less harmful than male circumcision}, or arranged marriges of 12 yr olds to 60yr olds
or
B) Parental rights, which isnt good enough for any other type of elective cosmetic surgery for minors, child abuse, or refusing medical treatment based on religious values
lujlp at February 22, 2018 1:14 PM
Is it:
(A) God loves you so much he wants a man with a razor blade to slice your genitals when you come into the world.
Or:
(B) Control freaks want control over everything about you from birth to death and beyond.
Discuss.
And don't forget to tithe, people! That's 10 percent from your weekly gross, not net. Don't forget.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at February 22, 2018 1:20 PM
So, a country with a population of 334,252 (2016) is banning a religious practice important to a very small percentage of its population - 250 Jews (0.07%) and 1,500 Muslims (0.4%) - and no one mentions any worries about the majority running roughshod over the minority?
Shouldn't this abrupt and casual dismissal of the concerns of the minority, however distasteful, raise some concerns about how the country's government respects the rights of the governed, of all the governed?
Isn't this the "tyranny of the majority" that our own forefathers warned about?
Conan the Grammarian at February 22, 2018 1:40 PM
Why worry about something y'all never knew y'all had?
I’m confident I knew I had it while it was being surgically removed. But assuming I didn’t, what kind of logic is that? I wouldn’t know the difference if my parents had any number of alterations made, unless there was a complication, of course. Let’s not assume surgery is without risks. Or costs, especially, since circumcision clearly has costs to the individual.
As for consent, did you get their consent for all the other icky things you did to them? do you worry about that, too?
Which other permanent, non-therapeutic body alterations are you wondering about? The ethical distinction for non-therapeutic circumcision from a generic, “icky” parental decision is rational, unlike the implication that a) parents make decisions, b) circumcision is a decision, so c) parents may circumcise.
Tony at February 22, 2018 1:46 PM
... about how the country's government respects the rights of the governed, of all the governed?
Children are citizens, including boys, who have the same right to bodily integrity as their sisters. Does their government not have a duty to protect their rights?
Tony at February 22, 2018 1:50 PM
“Every defense of this practice has ultimatly boiled down to
A) cultural norms which isnt good enough for foot binding, female circumcision{even the variants less harmful than male circumcision}, or arranged marriges of 12 yr olds to 60yr olds”
Straw man argument. I would say hormonal treatments for the purpose of arresting puberty based on some kind of mental harm criteria is the modern equivelent of foot binding, and in fact, totally medically unnecessary, and yet crazy parents are allowed to make these decisions every day. If they wont, then the court will do it for them.
Why? because it is culturally aceptable now to want to be transgender.
Iceland will make an exception for Muslims the moment they are faced with a bomb threat because it will be easier and safer to look the other way while the law abiding Jews will vote with their feet, as they have had to do for at least the last three thousand years. It’s a two fer!
You want to government deciding that your kid gets antibiotics rather than an appendectomy because if the antibiotics work the appendectomy would be medically unnecessary or do you want to leave that to the doctor and the parents?
I guarantee you “medically necessary” Is a can or worms you dont want to open. And “elective” isnt nearly as clear cut as you would like to believe it is.
Isab at February 22, 2018 1:55 PM
Do the children have a right to vote, or to enter into a contract? Do they have the responsibility of serving on a jury, or paying taxes? Or does the government recognize that children do not have the experience, maturity, or foresight to comprehend the implications of the decisions they make in these areas?
Do we not have parents to make decisions for them until they reach the age of majority? Else why leave children with their parents; why not take them to a government orphanage where they will be "protected" along with their rights?
And, notice I did not say in my original post anything about the government "protects" their rights; I said "respects" their rights. Rights are not given to you by the government. They are respected by the government or they are not.
Depending upon the government to "protect" your rights is a sure way to have those rights impinged by the very government you're looking to for protection - all in the name of "protecting" you and your rights.
Ironically, when it comes to "protecting" the children, Iceland has the highest abortion rates in the Nordic world, despite having fairly restrictive abortion laws. The high abortion rate is attributed to limited sexual education, early onset of sexual activity, and less widespread use of contraceptives. So, in Iceland, you can abort your child, but you cannot circumcise him. That's government "protection" for you.
Conan the Grammarian at February 22, 2018 2:45 PM
I was circumcised when I was an infant, and frankly, I'm glad I was. I already have a short temper, which I'm working on. Heaven only knows how foul I would be if I had to fiddle with a foreskin every time I had to pee. I would probably use the F word even more often than Amy apparently likes to do.
Besides, the anti-circumcision movement just smacks of more nanny state elitism, this time imposed on Jews who wish to honor their Biblical covenant. Who in heck is gonna remember the snip-snip happened to them at eight days old, anyhow?
mpetrie98 at February 22, 2018 3:18 PM
Pierced ears are reversible, just stop wearing the earrings, the hole closes. Circumcision is more analogous to slicing off the ear lobe. Neither should be done for no reason. Nothing thats illegal and immoral to do to females should be legal to do to males.
However, in a generation this will be a moot point. Already fewer male babies born in the US are circumsized than not. The "gotta have a penis like dads" reflex, which is the only reason most circumsize, will be gone.
Momof4 at February 22, 2018 3:18 PM
> why is t you are unable to
> answer such a simple question
> as to why its ok for boys
> but not girls?
Because as has been made amply & repeatedly clear, the question doesn't apply, . This isn't rhetoric, this is foam. You (and Amy) have other things on your mind, childish things. Points can be tracked to their obvious dissolution, and still you reply: "Ugg!" Or consider "Tony," who appears like a vampire of cowardice when Amy extracts another jolt of inarticulate resentment out of this topic.
You make shit up and you're smugly entertained, but it's mundane.
You kids have fun out there!
Crid at February 22, 2018 3:23 PM
So Crid, as usual, you have no argument.
Snoopy at February 22, 2018 5:04 PM
Conan,
Do the children have a right to vote, or...
Do children have the right to not have normal, healthy parts of their bodies cut off? The law in Iceland, as in the U.S. and other nations - protects that right for girls. (Protects, not grants, because it is a natural right we all have, including boys.)
I don't think government is the best method for protecting it, for many of the comparable reasons you mention. I've only said it's appropriate. Whether it would be effective is a separate discussion.
Do we not have parents to make decisions for them until they reach the age of majority?...
Should parental authority (or deference to it) be absolute? Do you think they have a right to cut their children's normal, healthy genitals? If so, is that right limited to their sons? If so, on what basis is non-therapeutic genital cutting limited to sons and not daughters? Either way, why is that right limited to the genitals and not other body parts? (Is it limited to the genitals?)
Tony at February 22, 2018 5:07 PM
> as usual, you have
> no argument.
Wrong again, Bunnymuffin: Once again, you haven't done the reading. I've offered perhaps hundreds of comments on dozens of these posts across more than a decade here, and because this topic is one of Amy's obsessions/frequent exploitations, I've probably written as much as anyone.
It's your pattern. The hepcat phrase "Fake News" gives you the illusion that nuance, subterranean motives and plain deception are new and unseen by those without your arriveste sensitivities... As if a 1946 edition of the New York Times or a 1975 copy of the Ellettsville Pennysaver had somehow been a more reliable source of meaningful truth. But you'd have been a gullible goof reading those works in their context in their day, just as you're naively addled by pandering hucksters (and candidates) on the internet today.
That's what's nauseating in these lesser blog posts: Amy & some readers will cluck and spit about linguistic trickery and bad faith from academe and government, but when she decides to flex her own authoritarian impulses, she's nakedly enthusiastic. These resentments are as contextual as anyone's.
In her case it's all forgiveable, though it ought to compel a little humility. But some of the dorkminded boy readers oughta simply give it up.
Crid at February 22, 2018 5:53 PM
"No argument":
You want any argument, Cookieboy?EARN one.
Crid at February 22, 2018 5:58 PM
Sp: "arriviste".
Still.
Crid at February 22, 2018 6:01 PM
I'm not actually arguing for (or against) circumcision. In fact, I hold no position on the subject. I see it as a silly practice that has survived for thousands of years because no one every asked "why are we doing this?" In the end, no one has actually proven it harms, or helps, the young man to whom it is done.
However, having a government casually steamroller a minority of its citizenship simply because the minority lacks the numbers to stop it does put one's teeth on edge.
However, like the suttee in India, some ancient practices are incompatible with modernity; some are more barbaric than others. And, perhaps, circumcision is one of those whose time has come.
Conan the Grammarian at February 22, 2018 6:22 PM
Conan,
Physical harm from circumcision is an objective fact. It removes healthy, normal tissue. We understand this with almost every other wound/alteration/surgery we might inflict on a healthy child, including female genital cutting that is analogous or less. There's nothing left to "prove" on this.
I assume that isn't what you mean, though, but rather to prove that it's a net harm. (Correct me if I assume wrong.) That's true, we don't know, but because it's a subjective evaluation to each individual. Net harm or benefit can't be proven, except in some cases of complications for the former, as much as some demand we accept a conclusion. I'm thinking of Brian Morris, specifically, but pick nearly anyone arguing either side, and I'm likely to agree. That we can't know invokes the ethical principle for dealing with the guaranteed physical harm.
All tastes and preferences are unique to the individual. I make no claim that it's a net harm for anyone other than myself, about which I'm obviously correct, because I don't value the reasons it was done or why it's defended. The claims by supporters that it reduces certain risks, or pleases God, or appeals aesthetically to future sexual partners are positions one can take for himself. I don't care. It only matters that an individual be left with his body to choose, not what he chooses or why.
The effects of what government does is relevant. However, "steamrolling" a minority requires more than respecting a right for all individuals against the objection of others. A law applied equally, such as this, that only restricts what one can do to another (i.e. not inflict unnecessary, permanent harm without consent) does not infringe on rights. Rights belong to the individual, not the collective when the individual does not get to choose to be a part of the collective. A law prohibiting non-therapeutic circumcision, full stop, even for consenting males would be indefensible and monstrous, for example. That isn't what this is. Religion is not a pass to violate another's rights. Even one's children.
As I mentioned, government is probably not the best path, however appropriate the law is. Cultural change is necessary. Unfortunately, many remain willfully ignorant, happy to let others violate others. I'm not interested in LULZ NOTHING MATTERS as a public policy effort until the ignorant choose not to be ignorant.
P.S. I'll be shocked if the law passes.
Tony at February 22, 2018 7:44 PM
Shouldn't this abrupt and casual dismissal of the concerns of the minority, however distasteful, raise some concerns about how the country's government respects the rights of the governed, of all the governed?
Isn't this the "tyranny of the majority" that our own forefathers warned about?
Conan the Grammarian at February 22, 2018 1:40 PM
The group "all the governed" includes those kids. Prohibiting the circumcision of infants preserves the rights of those individuals to elect to be circumcised as adults.
Michelle at February 22, 2018 8:17 PM
the question doesn't apply
Da fuq?
It is the exact same thing done for the exact same reasons how the fuck does it not apply?
lujlp at February 22, 2018 9:20 PM
No.
Crid at February 23, 2018 12:24 AM
Are such large numbers of circumcised Icelandic Jewish men lamenting their condition that the law must step in to protect them and future Jewish men?
Will all ancient customary body modifications be affected - neck rings on Icelandic Kayan, foot binding for Icelandic Chinese, tattoos for Icelandic Celts, pierced ears for Icelandic Yuppie babies? Or are only Jewish and Muslim practices affected?
Conan the Grammarian at February 23, 2018 6:58 AM
Some sympathy for the Icelandic, here. Many of these ancient cultural practices truly are disturbing. That neck ring thing can destroy a woman's shoulders over time. I saw an x-ray in National Geographic once. Pretty gruesome.
And foot-binding? Saw a woman's unwrapped bound foot once, also in National Geographic. Yikes.
But the casual disregard being shown in Iceland and here on this blog for dismantling a thousands of years old cultural identifier is also disturbing, albeit not on a visceral level.
And how is this law to be enforced? Will the police be randomly inspecting infant genitals? Will the police be raiding Jewish and Muslim homes to inspect their infants? Will elementary schools have random "drop trou" days?
Conan the Grammarian at February 23, 2018 7:13 AM
Are such large numbers of circumcised Icelandic Jewish men lamenting their condition that the law must step in to protect them and future Jewish men?
One hypothetical man is enough to protect the rights of all. Bodily integrity and religious freedom rights belong to individuals, not the group(s) to which they belong.
Tony at February 23, 2018 9:45 AM
And how, exactly, do you propose the government protect this "bodily integrity" of which you speak so adoringly? Are you okay with no-knock raids to check your children for circumcision? How about random drop trou checks on your children at school?
Or do you propose the government only check Muslim and Jewish families? You know, them.
Conan the Grammarian at February 23, 2018 11:22 AM
Have we agreed it is a right? Presenting bodily integrity as “bodily integrity” suggests not. Were we to ever meet, do I need to fear that you would not recognize what my right to bodily integrity entails? Would the law look the other way if you cut part of my body off if I’m not in a dire medical emergency that calls for it and unable to consent?
Tony at February 23, 2018 12:57 PM
I always wonder what I, and they, are missing out on because of it, to say nothing of the consent issue.
It's Grey DUCK dammit at February 22, 2018 5:33 AM
____________________________________________
Here's what sex columnist Dan Savage said about it:
"In the first few months of D.J.'s life, Terry and I deadlocked on just two issues: circumcision and baptism. I got my way on both. Like most American males, Terry and I were circumcised as infants. And like most American homos, we prefer circumcised men as sex partners. I lived in Europe for a while, and came to appreciate uncut men. But given my druthers, I'd rather put a cut dick in my mouth than an uncut one. Cut cock just tastes better, and in a culture that's embraced oral sex as enthusiastically as ours has, gay and straight, taste counts for something. Discuss circumcision with new parents — hip ones, living in urban areas — and along with the standard pro-circumcision arguments ('We want him to look like his father'; 'We don't want him made fun of in the locker room'; 'It's easier to keep clean') you'll hear implicit and occasionally explicit concerns about how he's going to taste. Straight folks won't usually come right out and say, 'We worry about his dick tasting awful'; instead, they communicate their concern with cryptic comments about what his sex partners will think, the smegma issue, and whether being uncut might limit his options sexually...and they trail off.
"Unfortunately for oral sex, logic is on the side of the anticircumcision activists. Family resemblance? Not something we usually judge on the appearance of genitals. Teasing in the locker room? Half of all boys born in America today are not circumcised; if your son gets teased, he and the other uncut kids can form a gang and beat the shit out of the snip-dicks. Ease of cleaning? We don't cut off other body parts that are hard to keep clean. (not verbatim, this last sentence): With that kind of logic, people point out, we should have our teeth yanked out to save us the trouble of flossing...
"...'If D.J. grows up with a complex about not looking like us, or gets beat up in locker rooms, or can't find anyone who'll give him a blow job,' Terry warned me, 'I'm going to tell him it's all your fault.'
"I assumed these risks, and D.J. remained intact. Barring infectious complications, or a conversion to Judaism, he'll remain uncut for life."
Here's the thread I put that in:
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2015/08/12/male_and_female.html
lenona at February 23, 2018 1:24 PM
As I said earlier, I'm not defending circumcision, and certainly not FGM. Just because "we've always done it that way" does not mean we should continue to do it that way.
I'm just wondering how far you're willing to let the government go to protect this thing you insist is a right that newborn children automatically have at birth - to the point that religious rituals or cultural traditions should be casually overturned by government fiat.
So far, you've only repeated your assertion that newborn children have a right to bodily integrity.
I'm also wondering what other rights you believe children should have unfettered at a young age. Not because I don't think children should be cared for and protected, but because I'm curious where you draw the line. Should they be allowed to vote, to bear arms, to publish a newspaper? Would you assign them civic responsibilities such as serving on a jury or voting? Would you be willing to have a 12-year-old on a jury deciding your fate?
Yes. You need to worry about that. Because everything I've posted here indicates I believe that I can cut random body parts from people I meet in the street, with or without their consent, and for no reason.
Conan the Grammarian at February 23, 2018 1:28 PM
I don't think you're defending circumcision. But I think you're inclined to a relativism that doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Protecting "...this thing [I] insist is a right that newborn children automatically have at birth..." is the core function of government. Most Western governments already protect this right for girls. Even ignoring the obvious harm, the analogous protection afforded to girls calls into question equal treatment under the law. Either boys are being violated or the parents of girls are. Pick one.
Yes. You need to worry about that. Because everything I've posted here indicates I believe that I can cut random body parts from people I meet in the street, with or without their consent, and for no reason.
Obviously, just as I've stated that I think forcing kids to "drop trou" is both necessary and reasonable. And that my concern is solely about, you know, them.
I'm also wondering what other rights you believe children should have unfettered at a young age.
My argument is that boys have the same rights as girls to their bodily integrity, which we protect for girls (and men and women). It's an argument about equality. It isn't "toddlers should vote!". It's a question of whether we would recognize a flaw in our civic structure if girls could vote at 16 but boys have to wait until 18 (or could never vote). The law treats (defenseless) citizens differently based solely on how hormones shaped genital tissue in utero. Permitting non-therapeutic male circumcision on children is an egregious error in our system.
As for what would I do, I stated clearly that I don't think a law is the best strategy. Culture always leads the law, if the law is to be effective. What the government should do ethically isn't synonymous with what is the best way to achieve the ethical outcome. If the US revised the Anti-FGM Act to be the Anti-GM Act, as it should, it would be ignored. Prosecutors would not enforce it, while continuing to enforce it for girls. The sole benefit, and not likely a net benefit in the long-term, would be to discourage doctors for fear of civil lawsuits in the future. I think that's the best legal path, anyway, and it's at least as effective without the law. But that doesn't mean the proposed law is immoral.
Tony at February 23, 2018 4:13 PM
The incidence of cervical cancer is lower in societies that circumcise males. One of the arguments against circumcision is that modern hygienic practices negate its benefits, but there are still all sorts of situations where one is deprived of the opportunities for modern hygienic practices, especially if one can potentially be sent to places like Afghanistan to live in a tent while fighting a politically motivated war, or if one is trapped in the Superdome without runnng water after a hurricane, etc.
It was done to me for non-religious reasons, and I have zero complaints, and am glad to have one less source of dependency on a societal infrastructure that grows less reliable with each passing political conflict.
bw1 at February 23, 2018 7:48 PM
But, Tony, you've left little room for anything else. You're celebrating Iceland's law against circumcision - government action to protect the child's bodily integrity. Noble intentions that can very easily let the vampires in the front door.
Conan the Grammarian at February 23, 2018 8:08 PM
Are you okay with no-knock raids to check your children for circumcision? How about random drop trou checks on your children at school?
Conan the Grammarian at February 23, 2018 11:22 AM
I assume this is the kind of thing that would get noticed in a routine exam of a newborn child by a pediatrician, or by a childcare worker changing a diaper. In the US childcare workers have a duty to report signs that could indicate abuse.
Icelandic prenatal care seems to wield a lot of influence with expectant mothers, even without threat of legal repercussions. I assume the thought of years of pediatric visits and professional diaper changes would also influence how a parent weighs the risk of discovery against the perceived benefits of circumcision.
Michelle at February 23, 2018 11:18 PM
I disagree. To the same extent I celebrate the law, you’re saying it’s too hard, so we shouldn’t try. Which is to say, I don’t think you’re saying that completely, just as I’m not celebrating this law.
This law is appropriate but not the best strategy, as it is in any country. I’ve also said I’ll be shocked if it passes. I mean that, because I’ve experienced how these go.
In a scenario where it has a chance, discussing your concerns is part of the process. It’s just premature to start with enforcement specifics until getting agreement on the framework that male children are humans, too, with the same right to all of their genitals as everyone else. While enough people demand circumcision is a parental right, but *of course* their right somehow limited to their sons, the law still isn’t passing, regardless of the proposed enforcement and punishment. Proposals like this are part of the conversation to change culture, not the process itself.
We didn’t have much of an FGM problem when that law passed in the ‘90s, so it was safe to express outrage through the law, even though the US practiced female genital cutting on a limited scale in the past. How do we enforce that now that it’s rare? There is a prosecution ongoing in Detroit. It’s obviously intrusive to some extent. Is it therefore wrong to have and use the law?
To be clear, existing battery laws already protect boys, since circumcision clearly meets those definitions. FGM, too. But we imagine a difference for the genitals, for no defensible reason other than enough people throw tantrums when someone suggests they shouldn’t mutilate their children.
So, hypothetically, absent this proposed law, what is the appropriate age at which parents no longer have authority to have their healthy son circumcised without need or his consent? Is it the age of majority? When should battery laws finally apply to the whole body of a male?
Tony at February 24, 2018 5:24 AM
One major difference between FGM and circumcision is the part(s) removed. Circumcision removes the foreskin. FGM, in its most extreme removes the clitoris, more akin to chopping off the end of the penis instead of simply the foreskin. Makes it easier to portray it as mutilation.
And nowhere in the Bible was Abraham told to mutilate his daughters, just to circumcise his sons.
Conan the Grammarian at February 24, 2018 8:19 AM
If someone really wants to make a covenant with their God they can do so as an adult.
"But it hurts more!" Yes, but people do all sorts of weird painful things for their Gods and traditions all over the world, if they want to do it they will.
NicoleK at February 24, 2018 9:34 AM
...FGM, in its most extreme...
Yes, but you’re putting your thumb on the scale. The forms that affect the analogous tissue (or involve less cutting harm) are still illegal. There are permanent costs to genital cutting.
Studying the effects of testosterone for female-to-male trans men is revealing, too. The clitoris grows and begins to resemble a penis. Can we therefore conclude that a hoodectomy is fine to perform on healthy girls because it’s the same skin? Is that prohibition wrong?
An argument on the parts removed is also incomplete without a qualifier of “on purpose”. Complications, sometimes horrific, occur with male circumcision. People cite statistics on complications that are generally under-reporting and good for making people feel good, but whatever the numbers, there are real people within those statistics.
As for the Bible, do we allow everything it says, or is civic law superior on Earth? And what about Muslims who claim FGC is commanded by God in their interpretation. Are we going to put the state in charge of deciding whose religious text is actually God’s word?
Also, I’m still curious for your answer to my question on the age limit for when parents may no longer force their sons to undergo non-therapeutic circumcision.
Tony at February 24, 2018 9:44 AM
There are roughly seven forms of FGM, four of which are more benign than medical circumcision, three of which cause less damage than jewish religious circumcision
The least harmful of which is literally a pin prick.
These are all illegal even though they cause less harm, and are preformed for the same reason as 'religious tradition'
lujlp at February 24, 2018 11:18 AM
mpetrie: I was circumcised when I was an infant, and frankly, I'm glad I was.
Same here. If I had ever had kids, I don't think I would have chosen to do the same thing to any boys I had, but I hold nothing against my parents for choosing to have it done to me and, as you said, I'm actually glad they made that choice.
Perhaps being uncircumcised would've brought me more sexual pleasure and intense sensation over the years. I'll never know. What I do know is that being circumcised certainly did not create an absence of such pleasure and sensation. I've had a lot of very pleasurable sex. Also, it's probably been responsible for receiving more oral sex -- and more enthusiastic oral sex -- from girlfriends over the years. I've asked many girlfriends if they preferred going down on a guy who's cut or uncut and not a single one ever said uncut.
As for whether it should be illegal, I'd have to strongly lean toward yes. I don't believe parents have the right to choose to have some surgical procedure performed on their child unless it's medically necessary.
JD at February 24, 2018 12:28 PM
No, I'm saying I'm leery of laws, no matter how nobly intentioned, that run roughshod over a minority's established cultural or religious practices, no matter how disturbing.
Sometimes such laws have to be passed. However, care should be taken in these instances that the law being passed is not being passed in order to suppress an undesired minority.
Conan the Grammarian at February 24, 2018 5:30 PM
And laws that affect religious minorities are not inherently intended to suppress that minority, and can pass constitutional scrutiny.
http://jewishweek.timesofisrael.com/scalia-legal-surprises
So, yes, I take the point that it has potential for abuse. I don’t want that. And I don’t think we’re in danger of that because this law won’t likely pass.
For what it’s worth, I think it was clear I do not actually believe you think we shouldn’t try. That quote is a bit out of context. You’re leery of a law. I get that. Which is also why I asked at what age you think parents may no longer circumcise their healthy sons.
Tony at February 24, 2018 5:50 PM
JD, of course your girlfriends said cut, YOU are cut. No girl is gonna be like, "Sorry, I hate your dick and wish it was different"
NicoleK at February 25, 2018 12:44 AM
Leave a comment