Forums → WEPR → Circumcision

Unless there's something wrong with it, no need to remove it.

So, with that being said, you are against circumcision?

I guess I'm not clear on the question here. There's a sense in which you're asking whether circumcision is in some way immoral (e.g. comparing it genital mutilation). Of course, those familiar with the practice of female circumcision might think this isn't a good analogy. Still, it can be immoral - just not on that scale.

A separate, but related question is whether you would circumcise your child. And the reason you might not doesn't have to be a moral reason. Maybe you think that's a choice the child should make.

As for whether the procedure is necessary - I'd say definitely not. From what I understand, the practice has more to do with keeping things clean 'down there', which isn't so much an issue today.

But what if it's not necessary, but also not inhumane? Where does the practice stand morally, then (assuming it's not done precisely for religious reasons)?

From what I understand, the practice has more to do with keeping things clean 'down there', which isn't so much an issue today.

On the issue of physical cleanliness, I'd have to agree with you partially. In most of the Western Hemisphere, circumcision is not necessary since most people living in the Western world have an advanced knowledge in hygiene. However, in Third-World countries, there is a reduced knowledge of genital hygiene. So in these places, circumcision is beneficial. For example, in one study, circumcision in men has been proven to reduce the amount of bacteria found in and around the penis.
Source: [url]mbio.asm.org/content/4/2/e00076-13[/url]

@Moegreche sometimes male circumcision is necessary (I don't know about female). Not necessary as a ritual or in the way it was practiced initially, but as surgery. There are certain cases where a part has to be cut off because 'it won't break' during the first sexual contact. An acquaintance of mine had to do this. Forgive my language, i tried to make it as clear as possible.

sometimes male circumcision is necessary (I don't know about female)

@Doombreed

In this thread, the focus is on male circumcision. Female circumcision (or FGM) is another topic.

There are indeed some cases where there is a medical reason to operate, as in Doombreed's example, or if the foreskin is unusually tight. Other than that, it is strictly not necessary. And I'm also not sure whether it is truly beneficial or not. One study is no study, and if benefits there are, I'd expect them to be marginal. Besides, the foreskin also has its obvious advantages.
.
About the ritual circumcision, I have basically two objections. One, it is usually done in such an early stage that the child never has a chance to fully understand and decide; which doesn't make it genital mutilation on the same scale as what we usually think of it, but it is in a slightly shady area. The second is the cleanliness of the 'operation'; correct me if I'm wrong, but ritual circumcision is done at a religious center and not in a hospital or even clinic, and the tools are usually also anything but truly medical.

Circumcision is child abuse.

PS: there are no "jews". Only judaists.
"Jew" is a nazi term for a nonexistent category.

PS: there are no "jews". Only judaists.
"Jew" is a nazi term for a nonexistent category.

I call bull****

And I call too.

Instead of clarifying your problem you bring in even more words: hebrews and israelites.

Let's start with "israelites":
- ethymology this'd mean they have to do "something" with Izrael, aka. they are part of it. Izrael is an existing, multirace country. So if you'd want to call the people who believe in judaism "israelites" you'dd say they are citizens of Izrael, and not the country they reside in.
This of course would sign them as illegal immigrants and spies. At thebest instance they'd be deported. At worst they'd be arrested and/or execuuted for spying.

Let's take a look on "jew":
- the word was defined by the race-theory applying Third Reich (Nazi Germany). The definition said anyone who has a this-and-this far relative who is follower of judaism, is a jew. This was invented despite the fact that many people who fell under this law was christian, or straight-out nazi. This law/definition estimated blood-relation between any member of the judaism religion, what is clearly false, as judaism is a religion, thus can be entered and left by will.

"hebrews":
the word is originated from the Bible, specifically from the Book of Exodus, which describes a story what never happened. the "hebrews" therefor never existed. This is an imaginary deteriorative term made up for whatever reason.

---------

But this is a side-issue, keep focusing the people who plan to mutilate their children. Chop off their perfectly healthy genitals, arms, legs...

The question of whether a jew is an actual concept that refers isn't relevant. People of all sorts of faiths circumcise their children - so let's stick to the act itself.
As for your last point - you do well to recognise that the notion of jew isn't relevant. You then make a slippery slope argument that doesn't seem to have any relevance.

People that circumcise their children aren't 'chop[ping] off' their kid's genitals. And they certainly aren't prone to chopping off body parts

It's also worth noting that that the use of the word 'mutilate' is question-begging. If we're discussing the morality of the practice, the notion of mutilation brings with it some heavy baggage.

It fairly clear that you don't support circumcision. But you haven't given an argument as to why. Is it immoral, or merely unnecessary? Or is something else going on?

But this is a side-issue, keep focusing the people who plan to mutilate their children. Chop off their perfectly healthy genitals, arms, legs...

--

As for the unrelated part, I cannot simply not address this...
- Israelite, defined here as "one of the people of ancient Israel", refers to the historical people and not any modern person;
- Israeli , a citizen of Israel, is what you were thinking of instead;
- Hebrew (or possibly better called Hebrew Israelite to avoid confusion with the Hebrew language) appears to be just another word for Israelite;
- Jew, which as I was saying is a term far older than you think.
- Judaist... sorry but I didn't find that one, does the word even exist in this sense?
.
Basically, you ignored the part where the wiki definition said that the word Jew appeared already in the Hebrew Bible, and unnecessarily lashed out on words that apply to the ancient, not the modern, people. The nazis may have used and misused the word Jew in different ways, but they did not define it.

Let's take a look on "jew":
- the word was defined by the race-theory applying Third Reich (Nazi Germany). The definition said anyone who has a this-and-this far relative who is follower of judaism, is a jew. This was invented despite the fact that many people who fell under this law was christian, or straight-out nazi. This law/definition estimated blood-relation between any member of the judaism religion, what is clearly false, as judaism is a religion, thus can be entered and left by will.

Source.

The nazis may have used and misused the word Jew in different ways, but they did not define it.

Let me add on to @HahiHa 's point:

The word Jewish comes from, and I quote from the Online Etymology Dictionary definition of the word 'Jewish':

"late 12c. (in plural, giwis), from Anglo-French iuw, Old French giu, from Latin Iudaeum (nominative Iudaeus), from Greek Ioudaios, from Aramaic jehudhai (Hebrew y'hudi) "Jew," from Y'hudah "Judah," literally "celebrated," name of Jacob's fourth son and of the tribe descended from him. Replaced Old English Iudeas "the Jews." Originally, "Hebrew of the kingdom of Judah."

Also look at this verse from the KJV Bible:

"Now in Shushan the palace there was a certain Jew, whose name was Mordecai, the son of Jair, the son of Shimei, the son of Kish, a Benjamite;"
-Esther 2:5, KJV

The word 'jew' is in the Old Testament, in the Bible.

---------------------------------------------

But back to the original subject on circumcision:

Circumcision is defined as the removal of the foreskin from the penis.

Female genital mutilation, otherwise known as FGM, as defined by the WHO as the partial or total removal of the clitoris and/or the labia.

Thus, circumcision is different from genital mutilation.

So, moving on then (people sometimes say false things - the Jew thing is obviously false, so let's not rub it in).

I'm not picking up a general attitude towards circumcision yet. @twillight2 compared it child abuse, so there's a pretty clear stance on the issue. Though I have to see an argument for this claim.

It also seems like some people's opinions are divided. Some of you listed some good examples of cases in which circumcision might be preferable. But these are pragmatic considerations, and I (at least) am interested in the moral aspect of the practice.

So let's put the act in a less messy environment. So, it wouldn't be a necessary procedure, there are no issues of cleanliness involved, and the procedure itself is done in a safe, sterile environment.

Hopefully now, we're just focused on the act itself. So there are a few questions before us:

1) Is the procedure moral/immoral as it stands?

2) Would it be more permissible (or better off) to wait until the child can make the decision for himself?

3) What, if any, ethical duties or codes are we violating should we circumcise a baby?