Looks like circumcision could be banned.

[Chris_Sleeps]

Their life, liberty and person is secure - a minor and beneficial operation does not in any way break this and in fact arguably upholds it. Wriggle one struck off.

As a human rights issue, their person is not secure. If I was forced to have a surgical procedure now, without my consent, for the reason that somebody else believed it is what their God wanted, then it would be a violation. There is no reason why that isn't true with a parent and a child.

 

It's a minor surgical procedure done under anaesthetic to term this cruel or degrading is laughable. Wriggle two struck off.

Chopping off a finger would be a minor surgical procedure, but it would still be cruel and degrading.

 

A circumcision does not imply that they are an extension of their parents - if Jewish it implies that they are a member of a religion and a community.

Yet they are forced into having their genitalia branded into that religion and community before they are old enough to consent.

 

I'll try not to tackle every point, others will do that, but I believe that it is wrong to force elective circumcision upon a child before it is old enough to consent to it.

 

_____________________________________________________________________________________

 

To add a second input aswell, Maimonides (the Jewish Philosopher) was quite open about why circumcision was of benefit to the Jewish people:

 

THE GUIDE TO THE PERPLEXED, translated by Shlomo Pines. (University of Chicago, 1963)

Source: jewsagainstcircumcision.org

 

Part III, Chapter 49, Page 609:

Similarly with regard to circumcision, one of the reasons for it is, in my opinion, the wish to bring about a decrease in sexual intercourse and a weakening of the organ in question, so that this activity be diminished and the organ be in as quiet a state as possible. It has been thought that circumcision perfects what is defective congenitally. This gave the possibility to everyone to raise an objection and to say: How can natural things be defective so that they need to be perfected from outside, all the more because we know how useful the foreskin is for that member? In fact this commandment has not been prescribed with a view to perfecting what is defective congenitally, but to perfecting what is defective morally.

 

The bodily pain caused to that member is the real purpose of circumcision. None of the activities necessary for the preservation of the individual is harmed thereby, nor is procreation rendered impossible, but violent concupiscence and lust that goes beyond what is needed are diminished. The fact that circumcision weakens the faculty of sexual excitement and sometimes perhaps diminishes the pleasure is indubitable. For if at birth this member has been made to bleed and has had its covering taken away from it, it must indubitably be weakened. The Sages, may their memory be blessed, have explicitly stated: It is hard for a woman with whom an uncircumcised man has had sexual intercourse to separate from him. In my opinion this is the strongest of the reasons for circumcision.

Any modern day interpretation of why to carry on this tradition must be forced into acknowledging how this came into Jewish culture in the first place.

[rubydazzler]

Part III, Chapter 49, Page 609:

Similarly with regard to circumcision, one of the reasons for it is, in my opinion, the wish to bring about a decrease in sexual intercourse and a weakening of the organ in question, so that this activity be diminished and the organ be in as quiet a state as possible.

I said I thought as much in my post #207 ... and I'm not even a venerable and respected Jewish philosopher! I even amaze myself sometimes with my perspicacity and insight into these thorny matters.

 

Although even I'm not sure what this bit means ...

The Sages, may their memory be blessed, have explicitly stated: It is hard for a woman with whom an uncircumcised man has had sexual intercourse to separate from him. In my opinion this is the strongest of the reasons for circumcision.

I'm imagining them 'tied' like a couple of mating dogs now ... do you think that was his intention? What do you think he means? Given his contention that circumcision is intended to diminish sexual desire, he's actually saying that uncut men are more desirable to a woman? I really don't want to express an opinion on that aspect on the grounds that whatever is said, it's bound to upset one or the other.

 

Over to you guys!

[Cyclone]

I think that that is what he's saying (that uncircumcised men are better in bed and thus harder to leave), whether it has any bearing in reality I don't know, but then the idea that circumcision will reduce sexual desire seems a bit simplistic to me.

 

This sounds like a bunch of poppycock to me

 

but violent concupiscence and lust that goes beyond what is needed are diminished. The fact that circumcision weakens the faculty of sexual excitement and sometimes perhaps diminishes the pleasure is indubitable. For if at birth this member has been made to bleed and has had its covering taken away from it, it must indubitably be weakened.

[Chris_Sleeps]

Maimonides was 12th century, to put him into context, and throughout the history of circumcision within Judaism it has not always been performed at the neonatal stage. At varying points in the history it has been at onset of puberty, around the 12/13 stage. This might explain that statement a little more.

 

Edit: Ah. I retract that.

 

at birth ...

Trying to do two things at once.

Edited June 22, 2012 by Chris_Sleeps

[Jeffrey Shaw]

At varying points in the history it has been at onset of puberty, around the 12/13 stage.

No, that's true of Moslems only. They base themselves on Ishmael's circumcision at that age, on the same day that Abraham [age 99/100 years] and Isaac [age 8 days] were circumcised.

[Jeffrey Shaw]

Maimonides was 12th century, to put him into context

He was giving his opinion (and not enunciating Jewish law) as to the rationale.

But the law is unaffected and is as binding now as it was then and before then.

[Jeffrey Shaw]

Plus he was not only a philosopher. Besides being a leader in codification of law, he was doctor to the Spanish royal family.

[Chris_Sleeps]

He was giving his opinion as to the rationale.

Do you agree with his opinion?

 

I can't argue properly on other points at the minute, for the website I got my other information from was a university student's so I can't claim any source beyond that:

 

History of Circumcision

 

[... m]any people were led to believe that circumcision was healthy and natural. References to circumcision are found throughout the Old Testament, but they are vague as to how and at what age the action of circumcision itself was to be performed.

 

During the time of Moses, flint knives were used to perform circumcision on males who had reached puberty. The use of flint knives was very important in early Jewish tradition, for Anthropologists state that the stone blade symbolized a connection to the earth and its elements. As in other cultures, the mixture of blood and stone has been a characteristic of tribal circumcision throughout the world. After the time of Moses, the tradition of Jewish circumcision was altered from being performed at the stage of male puberty to that of the neonatal stage, typically being performed on the eighth day after birth.

[Jeffrey Shaw]

The rationale- as with all of the other 613 commandments- is not available to us.

He has his opinion, which we sort-of know. I have mine which I've not disclosed. Neither impacts on the law's applicability.

[Jeffrey Shaw]

Also, the 613 did not apply before Moses receiving them at Mount Sinai. As a result, the Israelites whom he led from Egypt via the desert were until then not Jews as now defined.