The same could be said of any post-natal surgery for congenital birth defects, such as club foot or cleft lip. Many can go without surgery and live their entire lives without developing early-onset arthritis or feeding issues. These days, and in the vast majority of cases, a person can live a relatively healthy and long life without surgery for congenital arrhythmia. But I have never heard or read wholesale condemnations of preventive infant surgery to mitigate, if not prevent, the outcomes of the aforementioned defects. In fact, the opposite is true; Someone (usually a parent or doctor) is expected to do something at the earliest possible moment, even if the issue left untreated would only have a negligible chance of getting "worse" in terms of health or otherwise.
I agree that there's no medical reason for indiscriminate circumcision at birth, or, for that matter, indiscriminate surgery of any kind at any time. After all, that's what circumcision is: surgery. However, the poster I responded to did not make that distinction. Another poster simply posted the word "propaganda". Given what I've read, I'm convinced that many of these anti-circumcision posts are motivated by animus — whether of genital surgery in its entirety or the religious elements associated with it — rather than a well-thought critique of the practice in secular and instrumental terms.
A wholesale dismissal of circumcision is as unthinking as a blind acceptance of it. Instead, each case must be assessed on its own merits. Unfortunately, I rarely see my particular position shared by anyone else.
> However, the poster I responded to did not make that distinction.
Because it was implicit - we are discussing circumcision of infants, not circumcision of adult males with phimosis.
> Given what I've read, I'm convinced that many of these anti-circumcision posts are motivated by animus — whether of genital surgery in its entirety or the religious elements associated with it
Of course it's motivated by animus - mutilation of infants is disgusting. It should not be done, unless explicitly needed in individual cases due to medical issues, just like any other kind of amputation. Speculation of religious hatred is completely uncalled for.
> Instead, each case must be assessed on its own merits. Unfortunately, I rarely see my particular position shared by anyone else.
Yes, and the first step is to stop mutilating children in general just for the sake of mutilating children in general.
> Because it was implicit - we are discussing circumcision of infants, not circumcision of adult males with phimosis.
Infant phimosis exists and it generally requires circumcision. Regarding the post I replied to, I'm not obligated to divine implicit claims from absolute statements. If someone has made an absolute claim with with no stated qualifications or context whatsoever, that is a fundamental error I have a right to rebut it. No context needed on my part.
> Of course it's motivated by animus - mutilation of infants is disgusting. It should not be done, unless explicitly needed in individual cases due to medical issues, just like any other kind of amputation.
> Yes, and the first step is to stop mutilating children in general just for the sake of mutilating children in general.
Just to reiterate, the first step is to understand the appropriate context for when circumcision is necessary and when it isn't, whether of an infant or adult. People don't mutilate children for the sake of mutilating children. The reasons may vary in quality and acceptability, but the general understanding of why parents and doctors advocate for circumcision is as a means and attempt to make the child's present or future life "better" (for some definition of the word). Whether the reasoning for "better" is acceptable depends on the particular case being examined.
I would also add that almost all surgeries are accomplished by mutilation, even the ones deemed uncontroversial and necessary to save an infant's life. Instead of throwing FUD around with words like "mutilation", it would help your case to make a clear, coherent, and consistent point.
> Speculation of religious hatred is completely uncalled for.
If the animus isn't directed towards the medical practice of circumcision, then by process of elimination it surely must be against its religious practice. Historically, religious figures (to my knowledge, Judaic and Christian) have advocated for circumcision and employed people to undertake the task on behalf of the church/temple/etc. In some sects/denominations, the extra-medical practice of circumcision continues to exist. It would make sense that the anti-circumcision posts have much (if not more) to do with the posters' revulsion towards the faith(s) they grew up in, and of which circumcision is a permanent marker.
> Infant phimosis exists and it generally requires circumcision.
Gangrene also exists and generally requires amputation, but I don't see that as an argument for cutting off all infants' limbs, regardless of their medical state. If people in the US cut off male infants' limbs at birth as tradition, it would be perfectly appropriate to write a comment in the lines of "hey, if you have a boy, don't cut off his limbs".
> I'm not obligated to divine implicit claims from absolute statements
If you put things out of context, conversations won't make sense. Implicit context is an inevitable part of communication - it isn't divine, anyone with half a brain could figure out that when someone says "there's no medical reason for circumcision" that they mean in general, not in all cases without exceptions whatsoever. Nobody in their right mind would argue against surgery in general. Pretending that's the original argument is a form of logical fallacy called "attacking a strawman" - yes, you are right that circumcision can be valid in some cases, but nobody is arguing against that.
> Just to reiterate, the first step is to understand the appropriate context for when circumcision is necessary and when it isn't
Yes, and since there is a culture of circumcising infants indiscriminately in the US, the first step is to tell people to stop doing it for no fucking reason.
> People don't mutilate children for the sake of mutilating children.
This is just plain false - the number of circumcisions in the US that happen because of "my dad circumcised me, so I guess that's how it should be" is very high. It is necessary to fight that kind of pointless mutilation by advising people.
> Instead of throwing FUD around with words like "mutilation", it would help your case to make a clear, coherent, and consistent point.
Here's a clear coherent point: We should tell people not to perform unnecessary surgery on infants in general for no reason. I have a feeling that we've been through this a couple of times already...
> If the animus isn't directed towards the medical practice of circumcision
It is directed towards general, indiscriminatory circumcision - or, to generalize, towards any kind of unneeded medical surgeries, some of which are unfortunately done on infants because of ignorance and tradition.
> It would make sense that the anti-circumcision posts have much (if not more) to do with the posters' revulsion towards the faith(s) they grew up in, and of which circumcision is a permanent marker.
Yeah, you'd like that, wouldn't you?
Even if it was true (which you have no way of knowing), the fact that the religion performs surgery on people in order to "mark them" as belonging to the group actually warrants such feelings. The person is never given the right to choose - they were simply marked, with an irreversible surgery, from the moment they were born, without even a chance of changing their minds. If such feelings exist in the poster, I'd definitely sympathize much more with them, than with religious people who feel "attacked" by such feelings.
> Don't circumcise (genital mutilate) your kid if he's a boy.
Of the two forms of genital mutilation, why do you explicitly forbid the low-risk procedure while ignoring the high-risk procedure? Are you sure that whoever convinced you of the importance of this issue had no other motive?
They most likely ignored the high-risk one (assuming FGM), because it is unthinkable of and is not even legal to perform in most western countries. Is it even a thing outside of a few ultra-conservative and religious countries/communities in Africa and Middle East?
The message is obvious by anyone willing to read between the lines. Circumcision is singled out not for risk, or harm, or agency. Far more risky and harmful things are done to children with no agency with no qualm nor opposition. And certainly not with the fervor of the anti-circumcision crowd.
There is nothing to read between the lines bere. Circumcision is "singled out" because that's the only one that realistically might happen to a child born in the west.
If I were to have a child, circumcision would definitely need to be discussed with my partner. Because there are plenty of reasons people decide to opt-in for that procedure, none of which have any intentionally malicious components to it.
FGM wouldn't need to be discussed, because not only I assume nobody here would be insane enough to even propose it, it is just downright evil, carries zero non-malicious purpose, and is illegal to perform here. I see zero reason to worry about something that cannot even be legally performed in the first place.
Serious question, do you have issues with english reading comprehension?
"If it is a boy" was a necessary clause. Because "if it was a girl", then they won't need to worry abour circumcision. Which is why mentioning the first clause made perfect sense. No need for some conspiracy theories here.
Notice that the single bit of medical advice in this thread - among the tens of medical decisions you'll have to make and literally thousands of decisions you hope to not need to make - relates to religious aspects. And I'm sure that the guy who posted it was well-meaning, without a hint of religious hate in his blood.
This is a terrific example of the "useful idiot" phenomenon. Those who hate any group - be it Jews or Catholics or Muslims or anybody else - will find something dear to those people and spread seemingly-unrelated advice that negates that group's core values. Then the useful idiots with no hate in mind spread these advice with fervour.
As a Jew, I am aware of the minuscule risks of circumcision. And of course I had my son circumcised because that has been a hallmark of my race (not religion) for literally millennia. And I do other far riskier activities with my son, such as fishing and riding a bicycle and letting him use a knife. But nobody is advising us not to fish or ride a bicycle with our children, despite literally orders of magnitude higher risk.
Nobody I have ever met is against circumcision because it is a common practice amongst Jews. Everyone I know, including myself, is against it because it is a wholly unnecessary and irreversible procedure forced on a child before the child has the capacity to consent or object to the act. I assume you would be against the Islamic practice of female genital mutilation by cutting off a helpless child’s clitoris, despite the practitioners insistence that it is a hallmark of their culture, because it is barbaric. I just apply that same level of reasonableness to the male organ. And the number of centuries a people have been doing something has no bearing on the quality of the practice.
Edit, to add: I did not intend to imply that female genital mutilation was prevalent in Islam, only that it is done and justified amongst Muslims at a not-insignificant rate.
If the group's core values include mutilating infants, and if the group's values widely affect the actions of the population (as is the case in the US), then it is absolutely neccessary to share advice that goes against those values in order to negate those harmful effects.
You use "miniscule risks" as an argument - the problem isn't the risks of circumcision, it's the circumcision itself. It is (in majority of cases) a completely unneccesary form of mutilation.
It seems to me that your argument boils down to "how dare you tell people mutilating infants is wrong when my culture has been mutilating infants for millenia?". Most people don't circumcise their kids because of religion - and those they do won't listen to this advice anyway.
It's great that you want to uphold a religious tradition that is important to your family, but that is not the case for the majority of people subjected to circumcision. Most are not Jewish and may not even be religious.
You should be honest about this. This wasn't really a "race" thing. You *wanted* to do this to your son. You did this without his consent. And you did something that is completely irreversible.
Don't compare this to fishing, riding a bike, or even using a knife. All of those are necessary skills, or at the very least, useful skills for children to know.
You did something that *was actually risky to do*, for literally no other reason other than this awful justification about "race".
And for what its worth, I'm Iranian. So I get how _expected_ it is from culture.
> You should be honest about this. This wasn't really a "race" thing. You *wanted*
> to do this to your son.
It is a race thing, and you are 100% that I wanted to my child to continue the traditions that have kept us distinct for millennia. Of course.
> You did this without his consent. And you did something
> that is completely irreversible.
That is a parent's job - to make these decisions and take the actions. Did you not have your child vaccinated for Polio, Hepatitis, Rotavirus, Diphtheria, Influenzae, Mumps, Rubella, Varicella, Papillomavirus, Tetanus, Meningococcal, Measles, Polysaccharide and Dengue? Is there no risk in and of those vaccines? Did you, as a parent, decide that the risk is worth the benefit?
> Don't compare this to fishing, riding a bike, or even using a knife. All of those
> are necessary skills, or at the very least, useful skills for children to know.
Fair point. I'll compare it to the Western traditions of feeding excessive sugar. Would you say that the addiction and intake of excessive sugar is a necessary skill? Would you say that it carries less risk of harm than circumcision?
> You did something that *was actually risky to do*, for literally no other
> reason other than this awful justification about "race".
Yes. Of course.
> And for what its worth, I'm Iranian. So I get how _expected_ it is from culture.
I understand that many Iranians today are undergoing a shedding of the influence forced upon by foreign interests - mostly in regards to the Islamic and Arab influences. Even the Iranian language is today infected with Arabic words - you'll hardly hear any sentence in Iranian today that is not using Arabic words. And I'm not referring to just the past 40 years, rather, that was a turning point but the process is actually much older. So, as I understand it, today many Iranians are shedding _all_ traditions - not only the Arab traditions but also the distinct Iranian traditions. Correct me if I'm wrong.
So I really do understand your sentiment that traditions have no value. I get it. But I counter that traditions in fact do have value for those who hold them dear. Does a photograph of a parent have value? A photo of your parent has no value to me, but a photo of my parent has value to me - and I suspect vice versa. I am the distinct person I am because of the values that I hold, those values include things that we will most likely agree upon (Do not murder) but I accept that you don't value things that we don't agree upon. That's fine. But recognize that _you_ feel so passionately about circumcision not because of the risk. Other common practices have greater risk with less benefit. Rather, the media that sold you on this viewpoint specifically, had ulterior motives. I have no problem with your opinion. I do have a problem with the fervent obsession that people have with this one specific low-risk activity that Jews do, while ignoring far riskier and more prevalent activities. The media shaped your opinion with motive. Recognize that.
