Norway debates banning male circumcision

[Rolfe]

Funny how it's always, my cultural mutilations are just minor, nothing to get upset about, while other people's cultural mutilations are obviously bad, ban away, no skin off my .... nose ....

There comes a point when, if actual human beings with the normal complement of brain cells and presumably some functioning compassion have not figured out that it's time to quit with a pointless, painful and harmful mutilation of newborn infants, then yes, wider society should just up and force the issue.

Not that they will, mind you. The victim mentality is too deeply ingrained and has worked too many times.

Rolfe.

 

[linebreak]

Not a victim mentality, Rolfe. A practice might not sit well with us, but banning it is trivializing another group's morals/traditions. Might not sit right with us, but then again, that's why we're not part of that people, and we don't have to be.

I'm not speaking in absolutes, and what I'm saying doesn't stop me from being opposed to different peoples' traditions. In this specific case, though, I have the privileged position of being able to see both groups' views, and because of all the specifics, I disagree with a national ban of circumcision.

Are there any parts of my argument that you agree with?

ETA: In this discussion it makes perfect sense to look at the negatives of circumcision. Doesn't make much sense to ignore the negatives that the ban would cause though. In an orthodox Jewish family, for example, if a male child does not get circumcised as a baby, he's not exactly thrilled. In fact, he is crushed and feels completely alienated from his people, family, religion, etc. Jewish men take much pride in their circumcision. Just another aspect to the debate.

 

[rustypouch]

...

For those in agreement with the ban: Do you see the ban as a trivialization of Jewish morals?

Not a concern for me. I don't care about *any* such traditions, and consider the sanctity of one's body more important than whichever superstition you care to name.

I'm opposed to any practice of permanently modifying someone's body without their consent, no matter how minor such alterations may be.

Well, some exceptions may be made for medical necessity.

 

[Rufo]

For good reason. It's basically an attack on Judaism. It's not much different from France outlawing the burka, or Sweden outlawing minarets.

I think it is, for the reasons that others have already outlined. That said, I'm uncomfortable with the ban on burkas, and I wasn't aware that Sweden had outlawed minarets.

Having said that, if you can't see how banning circumcision would be an attack on Judaism then there is something wrong with your reasoning. Just like Saudi Arabia attacks Christianity by obstructing the construction of new churches, just like Sweden attacked Islam by outlawing minarets, and France attacked Muslims by banning the burka. Attacking the practices of people is an attack on the people.

That's Switzerland. I'm sure there are people in Sweden who would like that sort of thing, but they are fortunately not in majority and the government reaction to the Swiss ban was negative.

I can see practical reasons for opposing a ban on circumcision, but I honestly don't think this comparison is reasonable. Ryokan has mentioned a case where an infant died from the procedure, a rare result that nevertheless is a possible outcome along with other complications. Is the death or injury of a child "very little harm" because it is a rare outcome?

It doesn't seem to me like it's at all comparable to erecting a building.

 

[Tony]

If you want to outlaw something that causes very little harm yet is of enormous cultural significance to millions of people, I think you need more than that.

Do you have evidence of this? Have male babies been polled to find out whether they think getting their genitals mutilated was culturally significant to them?

 

[Rat]

That's Switzerland. I'm sure there are people in Sweden who would like that sort of thing, but they are fortunately not in majority and the government reaction to the Swiss ban was negative.

I know that. I just like the fact that so many people get Switzerland and Sweden mixed up, presumably because they begin with the same two letters. Oddly, people rarely get the United States of America and the United Arab Emirates mixed up.

 

[Tony]

Having said that, if you can't see how banning circumcision would be an attack on Judaism then there is something wrong with your reasoning. Just like Saudi Arabia attacks Christianity by obstructing the construction of new churches, just like Sweden attacked Islam by outlawing minarets, and France attacked Muslims by banning the burka. Attacking the practices of people is an attack on the people.

Is prosecuting honor killings an attack on Islam?

 

[linebreak]

Not a concern for me. I don't care about *any* such traditions, and consider the sanctity of one's body more important than whichever superstition you care to name.

I'm opposed to any practice of permanently modifying someone's body without their consent, no matter how minor such alterations may be.

Well, some exceptions may be made for medical necessity.

Well, yes, that was my point. I know that you do not care about these traditions. If you did, you wouldn't necessarily be in favor of banning circumcision.

Though I understand why you found a roundabout way of answering my question, I don't think I'm wrong in saying that it's fairly obvious that you realize that you are trivializing their moral code. Yes, I understand that you don't think that's a problem and that you agree with your own moral code more than you agree with theirs -- I should hope that would be the case! If you didn't agree with your own morals . . . that wouldn't really make any sense.

The point is, though, that as much as you'd like to have someone who is anti-ban sit down and examine their choice, you should do the same. Imagine a normal thing/ritual/practice that you do that brings you closer to the people you love, and that your family has been doing for thousands of years, and then imagine someone else deciding to ban it. They claim that they are trying to save you from your own tradition.

The Jewish intent with circumcision is not to harm their babies -- it is a covenant with their god. Hard as it is for a lot of people to believe, but it is an act of love and faith. To keep repeating that you disagree with mutilating babies is missing a subtle and important point. (I know that, for argument's sake, it is easier and safer to simplify, but I do think the point requires at least a little reflection).

I know that you are against circumcision and don't appreciate its religious meaning. A lot of people agree. A lot of people, but not everybody.

 

[Rat]

The Jewish intent with circumcision is not to harm their babies -- it is a covenant with their god. Hard as it is for a lot of people to believe, but it is an act of love and faith. To keep repeating that you disagree with mutilating babies is missing a subtle and important point. (I know that, for argument's sake, it is easier and safer to simplify, but I do think the point requires at least a little reflection).

I really don't think that anyone here thought that circumcision was a way in which Jews could insidiously harm their children for no reason but malice. Everyone knows that it's supposedly a covenant with their god. That's not why people are objecting.

 

[Cainkane1]

I wish the USA had that ban because for me its too late. I've always felt that circumcision of infants was doing something to the body without permission.

 

[linebreak]

I really don't think that anyone here thought that circumcision was a way in which Jews could insidiously harm their children for no reason but malice. Everyone knows that it's supposedly a covenant with their god. That's not why people are objecting.

Based upon your arguments for the banning of the practice (or, if not yours personally, then most supporters) I don't really believe you.
I am not accusing you of ignorance. Obviously you can articulate the Jewish view of circumcision. I do think, though, that you see circumcision as a baseless act of infant mutilation. I don't think you see it for what it is to those who do it religiously. As well you shouldn't, because you don't subscribe to their same belief system!
But it DOES seem like that's why you're objecting to it. Whether the objection is valid or not is the point of the debate, of course, but if you saw it from their point of view, then maybe you would not want to ban the practice.

You want to ban circumcision because it does not hold the same religious significance to you that it does to Jews.
Is that an over-simplification? I hope it's not but tell me if it is.

 

[ehcks]

Because you're so smart you're just gobsmacked by anyone who doesn't instantly agree with you?

Sorry Rolfe, doesn't work that way. If you want to outlaw something that causes very little harm yet is of enormous cultural significance to millions of people, I think you need more than that.

We don't cut out people's kidneys at random and donate them to other people when it would actually save millions of lives.

We stopped performing appendectomies and tonsillectomies on every child even thought that causes little harm and can also save lives.

You do not perform permanent surgical changes to children unless it's absolutely medically necessary.

 

[Rat]

You want to ban circumcision because it does not hold the same religious significance to you that it does to Jews.
Is that an over-simplification? I hope it's not but tell me if it is.

I wouldn't say it's an over-simplification, but it seems misleading. The reason I am tentatively in favour of its banning is not that it does not hold the same religious significance, no. The reasons for banning it have been well explained by other posters. I do not, however, hold the significance that it has to Jews (or Muslims, or whatever) to be a good defence for keeping it. If it's wrong, then it's wrong whether or not it has significance for Jews (or Muslims, or whatever); if it's not, then that significance is irrelevant.

 

[ehcks]

I wouldn't say it's an over-simplification, but it seems misleading. The reason I am tentatively in favour of its banning is not that it does not hold the same religious significance, no. The reasons for banning it have been well explained by other posters. I do not, however, hold the significance that it has to Jews (or Muslims, or whatever) to be a good defence for keeping it. If it's wrong, then it's wrong whether or not it has significance for Jews (or Muslims, or whatever); if it's not, then that significance is irrelevant.

I believe that if, in a country without said religion, a tradition would be banned and punishable by prison, the religion is not a valid defense of that tradition.

Permanent surgical alteration of children for no medical reason is unacceptable, religion or not.

 

[rustypouch]

Well, yes, that was my point. I know that you do not care about these traditions. If you did, you wouldn't necessarily be in favor of banning circumcision.

Though I understand why you found a roundabout way of answering my question, I don't think I'm wrong in saying that it's fairly obvious that you realize that you are trivializing their moral code. Yes, I understand that you don't think that's a problem and that you agree with your own moral code more than you agree with theirs -- I should hope that would be the case! If you didn't agree with your own morals . . . that wouldn't really make any sense.

The point is, though, that as much as you'd like to have someone who is anti-ban sit down and examine their choice, you should do the same. Imagine a normal thing/ritual/practice that you do that brings you closer to the people you love, and that your family has been doing for thousands of years, and then imagine someone else deciding to ban it. They claim that they are trying to save you from your own tradition.

The Jewish intent with circumcision is not to harm their babies -- it is a covenant with their god. Hard as it is for a lot of people to believe, but it is an act of love and faith. To keep repeating that you disagree with mutilating babies is missing a subtle and important point. (I know that, for argument's sake, it is easier and safer to simplify, but I do think the point requires at least a little reflection).

I know that you are against circumcision and don't appreciate its religious meaning. A lot of people agree. A lot of people, but not everybody.

So you agree with mutilating people who are unable to have a say in the matter?

You are a sick person.

I'll admit I'm trivializing a moral code that espouses the harming of infants, whether intentional or not. So what?

Let the person decide for themselves when they are old enough to legally give informed consent.

 

[floghammer]

There's a serious debate going on right now here in Norway about banning male circumcision. If we're successful, we'll apparently be the first country in the world to do so.

Personally, I support this a hundred percent. If people want their foreskin removed, they may do so at age 18, at their own initiative. Body modification of infants just comes across as undesirable to me, and as far as I know, we're not even sure if there are any real health benefits.

Your opinions?

Does Norway currently ban female genital mutilation?

 

[m-n-m]

I believe it should be banned, as well as piercing baby girl's ears. Lifelong body modifications should be left up to the person who owns the body.

I'm on side with the banning of both, for the reason you've stated, (individual choice) however, from what I understand, one (circumcision) of these procedures is not like the other.*



* I had one of my ears pierced (it was the left one, dammit!) when I was around eighteen. It was the cool thing to do at that time. Within a few months, I realized it wasn't me. I took out the stud. A year later, you'd have to look very closely to notice the "mark". That too disappeared in short order.

But a circumcision requires surgery to reverse. Not quite the same thing.

 

[Mycroft]

You're right - I am likely to forget I am circumcised at some point I suppose.

What about removing an eye? An arm? What types of things can you remove from a newborn and what things can you not and what criteria do you use to decide in which pile which belongs?

Is this some sort of bizarre slippery slope argument where you claim that if we leave the law as it is now then next we'll be gouging out eyes and lopping off arms, even though circumcision has been the norm for thousands of years? Or are you trying to present it as a choice among extremes where we must either forbid any body modifications no matter how tiny or allow every possible mutilation imaginable?

Both arguments are nonsensical.

Straw-man portion of your post deleted without response.

Funny how it's always, my cultural mutilations are just minor, nothing to get upset about, while other people's cultural mutilations are obviously bad, ban away, no skin off my .... nose ....

I only see one practice under discussion here. Can you point out the others I missed?

Not a concern for me. I don't care about *any* such traditions, and consider the sanctity of one's body more important than whichever superstition you care to name.

I'm opposed to any practice of permanently modifying someone's body without their consent, no matter how minor such alterations may be.

Well, some exceptions may be made for medical necessity.

Okay. Someone born with a hair-lip, webbed toes or hypospadias will have to wait until 18 to consent to corrective surgery. You sure? Because correcting those isn't medically necessary.

You state this as a general principle, but it's not "any practice" we're discussing. It's one specific practice.

That's Switzerland. I'm sure there are people in Sweden who would like that sort of thing, but they are fortunately not in majority and the government reaction to the Swiss ban was negative.

Oops! Thanks for the catch!

...Ryokan has mentioned a case where an infant died from the procedure, a rare result that nevertheless is a possible outcome along with other complications. Is the death or injury of a child "very little harm" because it is a rare outcome?

While certainly any death is very significant to the family of the decadent, one death among millions in a population is "very little harm" overall. I think it might be difficult to identify any activity that carries zero risk.

 

[Seismosaurus]

Speaking as someone who is circumcised, I can say I do not and have never felt to be harmed. If you want to claim I'm some sort of victim, it's a pretty tough sell to me.

It's really quite fortunate that you feel that way, don't you think? I mean, imagine if you felt differently. You'd be pretty much screwed.

For good reason. It's basically an attack on Judaism. It's not much different from France outlawing the burka, or Sweden outlawing minarets.

Except that circumcision is permanent, and is inflicted on another person who can't give consent. Unlike burkas, which can just be taken off at will whenever you like.

Now if they were stitching burkas permanently onto the skin of babies, I'd object.

But if I were "culturally biased", as you suggest, what of it? Who are you to dictate what my cultural preferences should be? What gives you that right?

You can have any cultural bias you like as far as I'm concerned. What you can't do, IMO, is extend your cultural bias to the mutilation of your children.

If parents wanted to have a large "Jesus Saves" tattooed on their kid's chest, I'd call it child abuse. If their whole religion did the same thing on direct orders from god, it's still child abuse. If their culture just did it as a norm and saw no problem with it, it's still child abuse. In my world, you just don't get to cut pieces off babies like that without good reason.

And it never fails to amuse me that the people who are fine with male circumcision are often so hotly against female circumcision.

 

[Mycroft]

Is prosecuting honor killings an attack on Islam?

If honor killings were a required part of Islam and all Muslims took part in them, then the comparison would still be invalid because snipping off a tiny piece of skin is in no way comparable to murder.

This goes along with the ridiculous suggestions of leaving babies exposed overnight as in ancient Sparta or the Chinese custom of foot binding. It's not a choice between extremes where either everything goes or nothing does. This particular practice if of enormous significance to millions of people and causes very little harm and arguably some benefit. That makes it very different from honor killing.