Many readers of First Thoughts may be aware that San Francisco voters will be voting in November to criminalize circumcision–no religions exemptions allowed. Beyond the questions of the propriety of putting such a personal family matter up for a vote, the author of the initiative runs an explicitly anti Semitic comic book site called Foreskin Man.
Why do I call it anti Semitic? The head villain is an evil rabbi named “Monster Mohel,” who is depicted in a classic anti Semitic visual manner, and described as being “excited” about performing circumcision–and more, which I won’t get into here.
I posted a few of the disturbing images and descriptions at Secondhand Smoke. Be warned. This is hateful and vile stuff that has no place in a free and tolerant society.
No, of course this doesn’t mean that most opponents of circumcision are anti Semitic. But I think it is important for both opponents and proponents of legally outlawing circumcision to see the values exhibited by one of the movement’s prime leaders.
June 2nd, 2011 | 6:40 pm
The link to the Second Smoke article is here (link in article broken).
June 2nd, 2011 | 7:57 pm
It is important to understand that the proposed law would protect males from genital cutting in the same way that females have been protected for fifteen years.
The federal female protection act does not allow religion to be used as as excuse to cut the genital organs of girls. This proposed act would do the same for boys.
The petition was not the product of one deranged antisemitic individual. The petition required more than seven thousand signatures to get on the ballot. Wesley, do you believe that all seven thousand did so for antisemitic reasons? Is it possible that they believe that boys deserve the same protection of genital integrity that girls already enjoy?
Santa Monica has passed a similar ballot initiative. It also required numerous signatures to get on the ballot. Are all of those people driven by antisemitism also?
June 2nd, 2011 | 8:41 pm
Bizarre. You’ll note the “hero” of the series is a blonde-haired, blue-eyed Swedish-looking fellow.
June 2nd, 2011 | 8:45 pm
Wesley has improperly confused being anti-circumcision with being anti-semitic.
Many Jews oppose circumcision. Is a Jew who opposes circumcision anti-semitic?!! Is it possible that Jews who oppose circumcision are simply pro-child?
Here is another Jewish website that opposes circumcision:
http://www.jewishcircumcision.org/
Wesley, how is your Hebrew? Here is a website in Israel of a Jewish organization called “Kahal”, which opposes circumcision:
http://www.kahal.org/
Is Kahal also anti-semitic?
It looks as though even more Jews also oppose circumcision:
http://www.jewishcircumcision.org/spectator.htm
Wow, more anti-semites!
There is a naming ceremony called Brit Shalom that is used in place of Brit Milah:
http://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org/brisshalom.htm
There are rabbis who perform it. Yeah, anti-semitic rabbis for sure.
This is what Doctor Jenny Goodman, an obviously anti-semitic Jew from London thinks about circumcision:
http://www.cirp.org/library/cultural/goodman1999/
Boy oh Boy! we are running over with anti-semites.
June 2nd, 2011 | 9:37 pm
The mohel shown is a deliberately over-the-top caricature, like all comic book characters including Foreskin Man himself. He needs to be put in context with Dr Mutilator in Foreskin Man #1. http://foreskinman.com/foreskinmanno1.pdf Is that anti-medical?
By “more, which I won’t get into here” do you mean the refernence to metzitzah b’peh, sucking the blood from the baby’s penis by mouth, which hasidic mohelim in New York still insist on doing?
“hateful and vile stuff that has no place in a free and tolerant society” could describe cutting babies’ genitals without pressing medical need.
June 2nd, 2011 | 10:30 pm
Secondhand Smoke link repaired. Thanks for the head’s up.
June 2nd, 2011 | 11:16 pm
Wesley has improperly confused being anti-circumcision with being anti-semitic.
George,
No, you have mistakenly interpreted his comments about an anti-Semitic comic book to be comments about the entire anti-circumcision movement, even though he was careful to explicitly deny it in his final paragraph. Even if the comic book can somehow be interpreted not to be anti-Semitic, it is still silly—a story about a superhero named Foreskin Man who dresses like Superman—except in place of an S on his chest is a cross section of the tip of an uncircumcised penis—who kidnaps a baby boy and hands him over to a tribe of “Intactivists” so he can never be circumcised.
I am very glad that people are opposed to circumcision, but you can be opposed to circumcision without defending this comic book.
June 3rd, 2011 | 1:33 am
If you find the mutilator in the comic monstrous looking then you are perhaps seeing exactly what the artist intended.
Amputating healthy normal body parts was wrong when Mengele did it and it’s wrong now.
June 3rd, 2011 | 1:35 am
What further proof of anti Semitism do we need than this comment? Mengele killed Jewish twins and dissected them! Jews were used in unholy medical experiments, often sexual in nature. And you compare that to circumcision, a 5000 year-old sacred tradition of the Jewish people?
June 3rd, 2011 | 1:53 am
“This is hateful and vile stuff that has no place in a free and tolerant society.” So, Wesley, you want to make that kind of thing illegal? You want to jail people who think that way, or fine them, who produce that kind of thing? Nope. I’d like to introduce you to America. We have this thing called “freedom of expression.” Even expression that you don’t like much. It’s right up at the top of those “first things.”
June 3rd, 2011 | 1:54 am
“This is hateful and vile stuff that has no place in a free and tolerant society.”
An astonishing sentence. One would expect that a free and tolerant society is characterized by permitting also hateful and vile stuff.
June 3rd, 2011 | 1:56 am
Not illegal, scorned. Shunned. Decried.
June 3rd, 2011 | 1:57 am
No, a tolerant society speaks against such hate and shuns its purveyors. This isn’t a matter of law, but communal decency.
June 3rd, 2011 | 3:37 am
What bugs me about this aside from what I mentioned in the post proper, is that circumcision is a sign of the covenant Abram had with God. That he would be fruitful and a father of nations.
I get all the arguments against it, but I can’t help but wonder what it means to do so. It’s breaking the covenant, and I wonder if all the Jewish people against it ever think about that. Especially when most the arguments hinge around the loss of sexual pleasure it causes.
June 3rd, 2011 | 5:47 am
[...] Author of SF’s Anti Circumcision Initiative Engages in Disturbing Anti Semitic Advocacy » First T…. [...]
June 3rd, 2011 | 6:14 am
It is important to understand that the proposed law would protect males from genital cutting in the same way that females have been protected for fifteen years.
If there is some reason to suppose that the male in question would value this, then it is appropriate.
But if the male in question is likely to value his traditions more than he values his foreskin, then really “rescuing” him from circumcision is just being a concern troll – “saving” him from something he does not want to be saved from, by assuming that he “ought” to share your values instead of his own religion’s values.
In other words, if you’re motivated by a concern for human rights, you need to use the standard of presumed consent – and you cannot assume that the child of an Orthodox Jew (or any other group that places a high value on tradition and/or scripture) would consent to being “rescued” from circumcision.
June 3rd, 2011 | 6:54 am
I believe it’s anti-Hasidic, not anti-Semetic. It was the Hasidic Pharisees/lawyers that altered their own word of Jehova and changed the original wording into a type of genital mutilation that is now being used as a form of eugenics on infants. It’s not exactly hate, but extreme paranoia caused from being sexually traumatised as infants that is driving the anti circumcision/intactivist movement.
June 3rd, 2011 | 7:21 am
Wesley writes:
“And you compare that to circumcision, a 5000 year-old sacred tradition of the Jewish people?”
That is an appropriate comparison. The practice of male circumcision originated in barbaric times, when as Thomas Hobbes put it, life was “nasty, brutish, and short.”
Men enter into civil society for protection. Civil society is now considering extending protection to male children from a practice that originated in brutish times.
The brutish Nazis reverted to barbaric practices, so the comparison is quite appropriate.
June 3rd, 2011 | 8:10 am
Remember, Wesley, it’s all about sensitivity. Sheesh.
June 3rd, 2011 | 8:35 am
Two misinterpretations of Wesley J. Smith. I hope they were not willful, just shortsighted. Please read thoroughly and be careful to avoid assigning your emotions to other people’s work.
June 3rd, 2011 | 9:45 am
And here I thought circumcision couldn’t be all bad, since it’s linked to a lower rate of HIV infection. Who knows — maybe that has something to do with the rise of the practice. The “barbarians” weren’t complete fools, Thomas Hobbes notwithstanding.
(BTW, would you rather live in a Hobbesian state, with an absolute sovereign who forbids circumcision? or in a free state, where circumcision is licit?)
June 3rd, 2011 | 10:22 am
>>Amputating healthy normal body parts was wrong when Mengele did it and it’s wrong now.
But obviously it wasn’t wrong when God commanded it of Abraham and his people. So it must not be wrong now either. At least for those who aren’t rebels against God.
June 3rd, 2011 | 10:48 am
The images are reminiscent of racist caricatures of Jews in the Nazi magazine Der Sturmer. Currently, many more circumcisions are performed on non-Jewish children in hospitals than are performed by Mohels. It is interesting that the leader’s of the anti-circumcision movement chose to vilify Jews rather than the pediatricians who perform most of the circumcisions in this country. It seems that the rational patina of the anti-circ movement is eroding, and its true colors are beginning to show.
June 3rd, 2011 | 10:51 am
Wow, I knew that some people were not in favor of circumcision (the comparison to female “circumcision” is not ever remotely apples to apples). But some of these comments are just plain frightening. And I don’t know which is more frightening, the ignorance or the hatred.
June 3rd, 2011 | 11:45 am
[...] Francisco will vote in November on an initiative to ban circumcision, with no religious exemptions. Wesley J. Smith points out that the author of the initiative is a notorious anti-Semite. Smith’s wife, Debra J. [...]
June 3rd, 2011 | 11:46 am
But obviously it wasn’t wrong when God commanded it of Abraham and his people. So it must not be wrong now either. At least for those who aren’t rebels against God.
David Gray,
That raises some very interesting and touchy questions. On Vox Nova recently, there were discussions about whether God commanded genocide in the Old Testament and if so, how ic could be defended. See here and here.
I am sure there are many people who read First Things who would not have a problem with the idea that God did not require circumcision (or genocide, or the execution of witches), but certainly there are many who do read First Things who would insist on an approach to the Bible that required them to believe circumcision was practiced because God commanded it.
It is certainly true, though, that we do not obey or even accept many of the commands of the Old Testament. For example, we do not allow parents to demand the stoning to death of an unruly and disobedient son (Deuteronomy 21:18-21).
June 3rd, 2011 | 11:49 am
By “more, which I won’t get into here” do you mean the refernence to metzitzah b’peh, sucking the blood from the baby’s penis by mouth, which hasidic mohelim in New York still insist on doing?
I wouldn’t put up with this. Several babies have gotten syphallis due to the mohelim being infected. I think its pretty absurd that on one hand you have 16 yr old girls who send pictures of themselves being charged with child pornography while a grown man puts his mouth on a baby’s penis! I wouldn’t charge them with child molesting but I would make it clear that religious freedom ends when you endanger the health of a baby.
Blake
But if the male in question is likely to value his traditions more than he values his foreskin, then really “rescuing” him from circumcision is just being a concern troll – “saving” him from something he does not want to be saved from, by assuming that he “ought” to share your values instead of his own religion’s values.
There is no law, though, against adult males getting circumcised. While you may not believe it, there are adult males who choose to do so either for religious or other reasons.
In other words, if you’re motivated by a concern for human rights, you need to use the standard of presumed consent – and you cannot assume that the child of an Orthodox Jew (or any other group that places a high value on tradition and/or scripture) would consent to being “rescued” from circumcision.
The precautionary idea, though, would seem to say that since circumcision is not really reversable the child ‘rescued’ has lost nothing that he can’t choose later in life whereas the child not rescued can’t have a choice. It seems a leap to just assume a child will automatically adopt his parent’s religious beliefs no?
I’m not sure I’d support this law and I’m not going to bother to evaluate the ‘comic book’ (BTW, does Fox News still have Glen Beck airing his “Jews (aka George Soros) Created the Financial Crises/Arab Spring/High Gas Prices/Trump’s bad hair” theories?). I’m not seeing ‘it’s a tradition’ by itself as a sufficient argument in its favor.
June 3rd, 2011 | 12:16 pm
Especially when most the arguments hinge around the loss of sexual pleasure it causes.
Not really sure why this isn’t a perfectly valid argument against it. Does anyone seriously want to argue that God didn’t want sex to be pleasurable?
But the argument that it involves loss of pleasure is kind of difficult IMO. How does one know for sure? You like ice cream, I like ice cream, how do we know that you’re ‘like’ is more intense and pleasurable than my ‘like’?
June 3rd, 2011 | 12:58 pm
Mr. Nickol:
You wrote:
It is certainly true, though, that we do not obey or even accept many of the commands of the Old Testament. For example, we do not allow parents to demand the stoning to death of an unruly and disobedient son (Deuteronomy 21:18-21).
While this is true, the reason why we as Christians left these practices behind was due to our belief that the fullness of God’s Revelation and will for mankind came in the Person of Christ. Questions about what of the OT must still be adhered to was wrestled with by the Apostles, and circumcision (among other things) was no longer considered to be necessary for the new covenant People of God (Christians, that is). So for Christians, I don’t see any problem here: it is perfectly rational to believe that God commanded circumcision as a requirement in the Old covenant, but it was not commanded in the New covenant.
However, as for what modern day Jews should do about adhering to the circumcision requirement of the OT, I certainly do not feel qualified to answer. I’m rather content to let Jewish theologians answer this for the Jewish people, and to let the Jewish people resolve (or not) any conflict – potential or actual – they have with civil authorities.
June 3rd, 2011 | 1:11 pm
Interesting… in our family it was the testimony of both my father and my husband’s father that settled the issue for us. Both men were uncircumcised as infants but because of health issues as adults were circumcised in their 20′s. Both expressed strongly that they wish it would have been done shortly after they were born instead. Both men converts to Catholicism, not Jewish – the one who fathered six sons insisted on circumcision for all of them.
And this was hateful… how??
June 3rd, 2011 | 1:15 pm
Dave and David Nickol:
The difficulty is that circumcision is a foundational token, linked to Abram becoming Abraham and the covenant God made with him. There is theology behind this, and I find it striking that no one here seems to wonder or mention it as something that may be lost: it’s all secular concerns.
Maybe I’m too much into stories, but refusing to uphold a promise is hard to do without justifying it. Christianity did so because it said that people were not justified by the physical acts of the law, and circumcision was a sign of pledging to follow those acts, which were meant as guideposts and caretakers to humanity.
I’m not seeing the same theological care in the replies, or that it’s even an issue to them. What does it mean for the covenant if Jews no longer are wiling to show this as a token? Kind of like Christians and gay marriage-a lot of secular reasons, but what happens to the religious aspects?
June 3rd, 2011 | 2:51 pm
I am 42 years old. I was circumcised as an infant. It was a common practice in hospitals then. I don’t feel like my rights were violated. Why are people making such a big deal about it?
June 3rd, 2011 | 2:55 pm
Dblade,
It seems to me it is entirely dependent on how one interprets the story of Abraham in the Bible. If it is taken to be basically historical, and if God really demanded that all descendants of Abraham be circumcised, then it would be difficult to argue that circumcision is evil, and Jewish authorities would have to come up with a rationale for why Jews no longer needed to be circumcised. But if the story of Abraham is taken to consist of theological teachings in the form of a story about mythical people (the way many would regard the story of Adam and Eve), then circumcision could be seen as a sign of a covenant with God, but not the only possible way of that covenant being expressed. The question might be whether most Biblical scholars (including most Jewish Torah scholars) consider Abraham to have been an actual person who was explicitly told by God that circumcision was a necessity.
Also, there is a question in my mind as to what extent do Christians believe Jews are bound by “the Law.” Some Christians may believe that Jews are obliged to follow the Law, and others may believe that Jews are obliged to abandon Judaism altogether and become Christians. This is a matter of some controversy in the Catholic Church at the moment.
June 3rd, 2011 | 3:02 pm
There is no law, though, against adult males getting circumcised. While you may not believe it, there are adult males who choose to do so either for religious or other reasons.
I don’t mind the idea of circumcision disappearing as a practice. I just hate to see it used as a weapon.
And, yes, I honestly believe that any circumcision law that does not include a religious exemption is about anti-semitism. The people who passed this law are not seriously concerned with a child’s integrity – they are singling out this one procedure, and taking their own children to cosmetic surgeons for boob jobs, and politically they support Palestinians who use children as suicide bombers. I support children’s rights, but I simply do not believe that Hasidic Jews are going to be grateful for having been “rescued” from their “barbaric” traditions.
As a general rule, when you rescue people from things they don’t want to be rescued from, I tend to see it as just another example of the so-called “White Man’s Burden” – elites behaving as if it were self-evident that their values are so superior to other peoples’ values that it is “helpful” whenever they choose to force their values on other cultures.
June 3rd, 2011 | 3:14 pm
Tolerance of evil is not a virtue.
June 3rd, 2011 | 3:21 pm
The United States Senate ratified the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) in June 1992. It is the “supreme Law of the Land” under Article Six of the United States Constitution.
The United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) states in Article 24(1):
“Every child shall have, without any discrimination as to race, colour, sex, language, religion, national or social origin, property or birth, the right to such measures of protection as are required by his status as a minor, on the part of his family, society and the State.”
The proposed law in San Francisco would provide special protection to minors only. It is in accord with the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It does NOT discriminate against any group. It would provide protection for all without any discrimination whatsoever.
June 3rd, 2011 | 4:05 pm
I don’t feel like my rights were violated. Why are people making such a big deal about it?
Chris,
Until quite recently, almost all circumcisions were performed without anesthesia. Nobody thought that was a big deal, either.
I suppose there are any number of things that could be done to a child at birth that most would later not identify as a handicap. My aunt lost a toe as a child and lived to a ripe old age without missing it. But I certainly wouldn’t justify cutting off a baby’s toe for no good reason, or as a sign of some kind of religious reason, for that matter. And of course a lot of people quite evidently do feel strongly about having been circumcised.
It simply is not a trivial matter to cut off part of a baby’s genitals. It is surgery, after all, and all surgery is serious. It is also going to cause considerable discomfort, even if done with adequate anesthesia. There was good reason why early Gentile converts to Christianity didn’t want to be circumcised! I wonder how many people who defend circumcision object to other kinds of body modification, such as piercings or tattoos.
I am not arguing in favor of banning circumcision by law, but the people who oppose circumcision are far from irrational. What other body part is routinely removed? I can’t think of any. For people of my generation, tonsillectomies were extraordinarily common, but the thinking has changed considerably.
The single most intense and heated online discussion I have ever participated in was on circumcision, and that was at the dawn of the personal computer era back in the days of CompuServe and Prodigy, so this is not a new issue.
June 3rd, 2011 | 4:07 pm
It would provide protection for all without any discrimination whatsoever.
George, do you really think the authors of that article had male circumcision in mind? What exactly are the children being protected from? A brief, passing pain that correlates positively with better health? I’ll grant that Jews who circumcise their children probably don’t do so for health reasons, but many children are circumcised for precisely this reason.
Does it not strike you as odd that none of these people advocate such a law protecting children in the womb from abortionists? At least for those children whose nervous systems are sufficiently developed that they feel pain?
Even if we were to take the advocates of this measure at their word, surely there are far more pressing issue for those who genuinely care about the well-being of all children.
June 3rd, 2011 | 4:32 pm
David Nickol:
This is a good analysis. I think though making allegorical parts of the Bible we don’t like in the light of modern ideas is dangerous. The burden should be on the allegorists, as the text appears to show he existed historically. If proof or a compelling argument can be shown, I think it would be less of an issue. The physical aspects matter because of a sign of the religious ones. Protestant Christians don’t mind women ordained because there were also instances of women working and acting in the church, and the universality of people in Christ.
As for Jewish salvation, I remember believing that the Law can’t justify you-that relying on it is trying to win salvation through works, when it really was abating sin through sacrifices. Many think though that God is allowed to show grace to his chosen people to remember the promise he made to Abraham. Either case though, you can’t be justified solely by the Law’s precepts. Otherwise, why send Christ?
June 3rd, 2011 | 8:50 pm
Fresh
And this was hateful… how??
I don’t think it was at all. However I’m not clear anti-circumcision advocates (whom I’m sure make an exception for actual medical conditions) don’t have a point. As unpleasent as it may be to have to go thru it as an adult, it’s still a one way street. The adult can choose to go down that road if he isn’t circumcised but reversing the procedure if he is circumcised is not so easy.
Blake
And, yes, I honestly believe that any circumcision law that does not include a religious exemption is about anti-semitism. The people who passed this law are not seriously concerned with a child’s integrity – they are singling out this one procedure, and taking their own children to cosmetic surgeons for boob jobs,
I don’t honestly believe anti-semitism is behind this. I believe there are real men who really believe circumcision is a type of mutiliation whose impact is not trivial and should not be done to a baby anymore than a baby should be given a tattoo. For one thing, would anti-semites really feel any better about Jews if they weren’t circumcised? I doubt it. I’m not willing to embrace the law (for one thing if it really was illegal I’d worry about individuals trying to do it to their babies themselves), but I’m also not eager to dismiss its concerns.
I support children’s rights, but I simply do not believe that Hasidic Jews are going to be grateful for having been “rescued” from their “barbaric” traditions.
I’m not sure why you’re tossing Hasidic Jews into this rather than just Jews in general. Are you referring too the Hasidic practice of the man using his mouth to clear the penis of blood? I think that is well over the line, esp. as several NY babies have contracted STDs from the practice.
Jack
George, do you really think the authors of that article had male circumcision in mind? What exactly are the children being protected from? A brief, passing pain that correlates positively with better health?
I think a good case has been made that the health benefits have been overstated. We aren’t talking about a vaccine or blood test but the removal of a healthy part of the body. Again I’m willing to grant a religious purpose to it, I’m also willing to grant that the health benefits might be a cause to let it remain an option for parents but I’m unclear that the advocates here don’t have a point.
June 3rd, 2011 | 10:53 pm
Boonton asks:
“George, do you really think the authors of that article had male circumcision in mind? What exactly are the children being protected from? A brief, passing pain that correlates positively with better health?”
International human rights laws sets forth general principles that are applied to specific situations. In addition to Article 24, Article 9 is applicable. Article 9 provides that:
“Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person.”
Circumcision cuts off a body part and is clear and irrefutable violation of the security of the person.
A law against circumcision protects the bodily integrity and the security of the person. It also protects against the complications of circumcision such as infection, hemorrhage, mutilation, and death.
BTW, females are already protected. The proposed law would extend that protection to males.
June 4th, 2011 | 1:26 am
I think a good case has been made that the health benefits have been overstated.
You are free to do so, but the WHO disagrees with you. Still, suppose the WHO didn’t have a position, and all we had are the legitimate studies that give different results. I would think that gives sufficient evidence to say that a parent should be allowed the latitude to make that decision for a child.
If George were willing to say that his logic means that international law outlaws abortion, where death is the intended outcome, and not a slight risk, I might be less unsympathetic. He doesn’t seem inclined to follow his logic to its natural conclusion, however. He doesn’t even seem to see how it can be used to forbid tonsillectomy or appendectomy on the grounds that you are protecting the child from “infection, hemorrhage, mutilation, and death” — which, after all, is a risk of any significant medical intervention.
June 4th, 2011 | 4:42 am
Ben: “It is interesting that the leader’s of the anti-circumcision movement chose to vilify Jews rather than the pediatricians who perform most of the circumcisions in this country.” (As I said 12 hours earlier) see Foreskin Man #1. http://foreskinman.com/foreskinmanno1.pdf If anything, Dr Mutilator is more monstrous than the mohel.
The comic strip is an unfortunate distraction from the real human rights issue being debated here. The idea that it is ethical to cut part off a baby’s genitals, because one has argued oneself into believing he would grow up to wish it had been done, is bizarre.
June 4th, 2011 | 10:35 am
The idea that it is ethical to cut part off a baby’s genitals, because one has argued oneself into believing he would grow up to wish it had been done, is bizarre.
You do not understand the argument being made here.
That is because you obviously are enough of a humanist to share their beliefs that the past should be destroyed and that there is no value in continuity, tradition, or links with the past.
So naturally you see the other side of the argument as having no merit: your values are the only values that matter, and anyone who values things you can’t see? They are obviously barbarians, to be misrepresented as people who just go around cutting off a baby’s penis because they just enjoy doing it.
Slander what you do not understand. It is easier than admitting to ignorance.
The left has a history of destroying links to the past, because they do not value links to the past. During every revolution, art and history and religious artifacts are destroyed – not incidentally, as collateral damage, but deliberately. They are targeted. Because the left wants change, but they do not want the actual work of working out what they want changed and why and then demonstrating its superiority. Why demonstrate how light bulbs are better than candles when it’s so much more enjoyable to simply attack and vent your rage on people who don’t just “see” how superior light bulbs are?
The left deliberately severs a child from his ancestral roots, just because they want that child to be whatever they choose to make it. The Orthodox Jews you are targeting, however, are at the other end of the spectrum: they not only value their ancestry, they want their children to be part of something that stretches back thousands of years – and that is what is really being targeted here: these lefties don’t care about the well being of children, and they openly cheer for a Palestinian society that uses children for suicide bombers, without ever once worrying about the problem of “bodily integrity”.
This isn’t about protecting children, it’s about attacking people who dare to have beliefs that don’t conform to theirs. As evidenced by the need to misrepresent these people as monstrous, rather than admitting they just have different beliefs….beliefs that they say are “wrong”, but if that’s true why can’t they prove it without resorting to misrepresentation and ad hominem?
June 4th, 2011 | 10:36 am
He doesn’t even seem to see how it can be used to forbid tonsillectomy or appendectomy on the grounds that you are protecting the child from “infection, hemorrhage, mutilation, and death”
It probably would forbid a tonsillectomy or appendectomy that had no medical justification. For example, suppose a medical school decided to offer parents $5,000 to let their doctors practice on perfectly healthy children. You could make a minor case for appendectomies or tonsillectomies on the grounds that if you remove them now they’ll never be necessary to remove in the future (which I think is analgous to the medical case for circumcision).
Perusing our friend wikipedia, it does seem to me the health benefits are overstated. There seems to be some evidence for decreased HIV transmission from female-to-males, but not sufficient enough for doctors not to advise at least using a condom if an uninfected male is having sex with an infected female. Other STDs seem to show mixed results. Maybe the human papilloma virus is transmitted less with circumcision, but the HPV is more of a problem for females and a better solution would be the vaccine that’s available for it which is over 98% or so effective at preventing the transmission of the virus.
Hygiene arguments seem minimal as well. Yes later in life circumcized boys have fewer infections but early in life circumcision does seem associated with infant infections. In either case most infections are pretty minor easily treated with antibiotic creams and circumcision is available as an option for persistent infections. Likewise there’s some minor advantages in preventing urinary tract infections, but they too tend to be minor and rare in boys with normal urinary tracts, it takes maybe 111 circumcisions to prevent a single urinary tract infections.
Penile cancer seems to be the most serious alleged health benefit but penile cancer is a pretty rare disease (ranging from slightly less than 1 to maybe 10.5 per 100,000 people). Japan, Norway and Sweden which have lower circumcision rates than the US still match the US in incidence (1 in 100,000) so it may be that the risk reduction of circumcision could be equalled by a non-surgerical practice such as more focused hygiene. (HPV also seems like a factor with some so wider use of the HPV vaccine may end up someday stealing circumcision’s minor thunder in preventing penile cancer).
June 4th, 2011 | 10:40 am
Since some people accuse me of making arguments they can’t quite follow, I’ll say the same thing very simply:
If you want to make the argument honestly, you have to acknowledge that you’re taking something away from these people. Something they value.
They are not cutting babies just because they’re “monsters”.
The act of cutting babies is not a simple equation of harm vs. no harm.
It is a more complex equation of valuing and prioritizing bodily integrity vs. valuing and prioritizing intangible things. If you want to take those intangible things away from someone, you should address honestly what you are doing and why – not just play games with denial followed up by caricatures and demonization and dehumanization.
Real civil rights don’t need to dehumanize. Truth, spoken without malice, is the only way to achieve genuine progress in civil rights debates.
June 4th, 2011 | 11:28 am
BTW this is a marvelous example of the difference between how scientism reasons vs. how other religions reason.
Every religion in the world except humanism/scientism (whatever you choose to call that belief set that comes to us from the “Enlightenment) uses the Golden Rule as a standard. Using the Golden Rule, one can easily see that forcing Hasidic Jews to change any custom they claim to value in order to conform to the values of the greater society (or taking anything from them that they do not want to relinquish) is something that should only be done at genuine need.
That need should be established and debated, as you see happening in burqa debates. We should ask, what is the nature of the conflict between society’s needs vs. these peoples’ rights? The anti circumcision argument, of course, can easily argue that having a certain type of society is the goal – except for the fact that they can’t answer the follow-up questions: if you value children so much, if you value ‘integrity’ so much, then how come you don’t consistently act in the interests of children? The anti-circumcision argument, argued honestly, “gives” something to those who argue that children have innate rights – and those innate rights are in conflict with parental rights and desires in ways that could impact other debates, such as the abortion debate or the gay marriage debate, where the “integrity” of children is compromised – even such questions as whether a parent has the right to buy their daughter a “boob job” for her 11th birthday, or whether it’s child abuse to teach a child that his sexual identity is or can be a “choice”, when that “choice” involves mutilation.
We don’t even have a working definition of ‘integrity’ – precisely because it is not something we have valued; we chop bits and pieces of our kids off whenever it helps us to jam them into some idea of what we want them to be.
Now going back to my original premise, that scientism/humanism somehow reasons differently – rejecting the Golden Rule for some other standard.
By the way scientism reckons things, there’s no need for a debate, because scientific truth always trumps individual rights and freedoms.
And scientific truth holds that a thing is presumed to not exist, not be relevant, not be significant, until it is demonstrated. (Sort of how early chemotherapy “experiments” demonstrated that dignity and a sense of humor are in fact significant – precisely by robbing people of their dignity and spirit, and then observing their rapid decline).
The way scientism reckons things, the matter is clear-cut: the Jews do not have a right to whatever it is they are trying to cling to, because “I can’t see it, therefore it doesn’t exist”.
The burden of proof is on the Jews to prove that whatever it is they value is real, and that it matters.
That is in direct conflict with certain political rights.
Is that really how we want to be governed? That if the authorities do not see value in what we value, the burden of proof is on us to prove that it matters?
June 4th, 2011 | 11:29 am
Tolerance of evil is not a virtue.
You are saying Jews are evil?
June 4th, 2011 | 12:00 pm
Some believe that circumcision belongs to the natural state of man.
“Circumcision is one of the characteristics of the fitrah (the natural state of man), and it is one of the symbols of the Muslims, because it is narrated in al-Saheehayn that Abu Hurairah (may Allah be pleased with him) said: “The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: ‘The (characteristics of) the fitrah are five: circumcision, shaving the pubic hair, trimming the moustache, cutting the fingernails and plucking the armpit hairs.’” So he (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) started with circumcision and said that it is one of the characteristics of the fitrah.”
Abu Hurairah was a Companion of the Prophet.
June 4th, 2011 | 12:35 pm
You are free to do so, but the WHO disagrees with you.
Jack Perry,
From what I have read, WHO’s stance on circumcision is based solely on the studies regarding the heterosexual transmission of HIV/AIDS, and its recommendation applies only to countries in which the rate of circumcision is low and the rate of heterosexual transmission is high.
Also, many conservative Christians (and Catholics, especially) would not be happy with the following:
As I pointed out earlier, it is very often the position of conservative Christians that the only licit public policies for preventing HIV/AIDS transmission must focus on abstinence for the unmarried and fidelity for the married. Advocating circumcision as a way of lessening HIV/AIDS transmission is very similar to promoting condom use. It is not promoting moral behavior. It is trying to lessen the adverse consequences of that behavior.
I certainly don’t agree with this conservative Christian position, but for those who do, it would be hypocritical to cite the anti-HIV/AIDS effects of circumcision as an argument in its favor.
June 4th, 2011 | 3:27 pm
Now going back to my original premise, that scientism/humanism somehow reasons differently – rejecting the Golden Rule for some other standard.
The Golden Rule, in this case, is, “Don’t amputate body parts from someone who cannot give consent unless you want others to amputate your body parts without your consent.”
June 4th, 2011 | 7:29 pm
The Golden Rule, in this case, is, “Don’t amputate body parts from someone who cannot give consent unless you want others to amputate your body parts without your consent.”
If it is true that physical mutilation is always bad, then this might be true.
But physical mutilation is not always bad. Some people value physical mutilations – to name just a few examples: tattoos, body piercings, cosmetic surgery, sex change operations.
So the real question cannot be based on the idea that physical mutilation is inherently evil.
The real question is which should be amputated: the child’s foreskin or the child’s connections with God, his traditions, his people, and his past?
Of course, we all know that severing the child’s connections with God and the rest is the real motive behind this.
Although I would support a motion to grant children the right to bodily integrity, if it included all forms of violation – as opposed to just singling out a particular group.
The question of a child’s right to integrity is important, but it should not be used as a cover for hatred.
June 4th, 2011 | 7:39 pm
A question: if it is self-evident that amputating a foreskin is not only wrong but evil, why do we suppose Jews do it?
Because they don’t realize?
Because they do realize but are simply evil?
Or because there is some other priority that is more important to them as a people than whatever it is that anti-circumcision people value so highly?
Control over one’s physical flesh seems to be the issue here – which is an inherently humanist value, since most if not all other religious communities recognize flesh as transitory and spirituality as more important and/or eternal.
I would even go so far as to say that part of being part of most religions involves the requirement that the flesh be submissive to the demands of spirituality, and so criminalizing the act of forcing a child to understand the flesh as submissive to the demands of a religion is in fact criminalizing the act of transmitting religious values itself.
There are only two arguments against circumcision: one is that the child should have total control over his body, and the other is that supposedly circumcision reduces sexual pleasure.
Both these beliefs are not only unique and specific to humanism (unless there is some other belief out there that teaches that the way to resolve the conflict with the mortality of the flesh is to simply deny it), but are in fact in conflict with what the Judeo-Christian tradition teaches and values.
June 4th, 2011 | 11:22 pm
Blake
But physical mutilation is not always bad. Some people value physical mutilations – to name just a few examples: tattoos, body piercings, cosmetic surgery, sex change operations.
In general babies aren’t given tattoos, in fact I believe I recall hearing a case recently of a father charged with child abuse because he thought it was a great idea to give his baby a tattoo of his gang’s symbol. Likewise I’m unaware of babies being given sex change operations.
I never heard of an 11 year old getting a ‘boob job’. The closest I found was this story from the UK (http://celebrities.ninemsn.com.au/blog.aspx?blogentryid=87649&showcomments=true), but if you read it carefully it doesn’t actually say the daughter had a boob job, only that her mother didn’t object to her desire to get one. Body piercings, are an area where you may have something of a point, but they are all easily reverseable, just stop wearing the ring and the piercing will close up on its own.
I would even go so far as to say that part of being part of most religions involves the requirement that the flesh be submissive to the demands of spirituality, and so criminalizing the act of forcing a child to understand the flesh as submissive to the demands of a religion is in fact criminalizing the act of transmitting religious values itself.
This sounds very creepy, like something written by some cult leader to justify why he’s entitled to ‘marry’ 10 year old girls. I can just see you surrounded by followers ‘teaching’ some reporter “see, I must instruct not only her mind but her flesh just as your society supports every other religion’s right to instruct children in religious I must have the freedom to practice my religion!…”
There are only two arguments against circumcision: one is that the child should have total control over his body, and the other is that supposedly circumcision reduces sexual pleasure.
You are given to making grand sweeping statements….such as the ‘only’ reason anyone questions circumcision is because they don’t like religion, Jewish religion in particular….or here that there are only ‘two’ arguments against circumcision. You must be very proud of your great intelligence. Not only do you know ‘your side’, you also know everyone else’s side. You don’t even have to listen to the arguments you disagree with because you’ve already derived what they *must* be! At this point your seriousness here is even lower….
June 5th, 2011 | 11:53 am
.such as the ‘only’ reason anyone questions circumcision is because they don’t like religion, Jewish religion in particular…
As I have said, I have no problem with banning circumcision for those who have no reason to value it – except, of course, that there’s no reason for a law: a simple information campaign would suffice.
My concern comes when the circumcision ban is used as a cover and the real motive is to usurp authority, to attack the values of parents who are demonized into primitive, evil, barbarians, for the express purpose of replacing those “bad” values with (your!) “good” values.
This is why I believe the correct standard is the standard of “presumed consent”, that is, do we believe that this person would consent if he had the ability to be asked?
In the case of people who are highly traditional, such as Orthodox Jews, the answer is yes, they would consent – because their people value other things, intangible or spiritual things, more than they value having a foreskin.
It is a matter of becoming aware that all change involves loss. Just because you do not prize what is being discarded does not mean you have the right to assume that person over there “shouldn’t” value it, either. Hence the phrase “white man’s burden” – because this is the same mistake we as a people made when, to cite just one instance, we took children away from those “barbaric” and “primitive” Aborigine and Native American people, to place those children with “good” homes, where they’d have “advantages”….the “White Man’s Burden” refers to the extreme arrogance of those who assume that, because you are quite sure your values are the true and correct values, that therefore you’re right and other people (who feel just as strongly about their values) are wrong – or, in this case, not only wrong, but evil.
June 5th, 2011 | 2:12 pm
Blake
My concern comes when the circumcision ban is used as a cover and the real motive is to usurp authority, to attack the values of parents who are demonized into primitive, evil, barbarians, for the express purpose of replacing those “bad” values with (your!) “good” values.
It’s hardly uncommon for an activist group to exaggerate their claims. After all they are activists and by definition are much more highly motivated than the general public who they are trying to convince. I think the bulk of the anti-circumcision community honestly believes circumcision is a bad thing that harms boys and men. To that degree there’s nothing wrong with them ‘demonizing’ the other side. Let’s pause for a relevant quote from GK Chesteron:
The anti-circumcision activists might be wrong but I doubt they are really stealth agents of a secularists plot to discredit religions. Is embracing the cause of foreskins really the most optimal way to undermine religion? Why not a more direct attack, say by asserting God doesn’t exist? I think you are so accustomed to being duplicitious in your arguments that you’ve too easily presumed everyone else is as well. The simple answer here is that things are simply as they appear. Anti-circumicisionists feel that circumcision is wrong and should not be done, period. What is so difficult to believe about that? There are people here who seem to get very agitated at tattoos and body piercings being ‘mutiliation’ it is almost certain that there must also be people who feel the same way about circumcision which is much less reversable than either of those things.
This is why I believe the correct standard is the standard of “presumed consent”, that is, do we believe that this person would consent if he had the ability to be asked?
In the case of people who are highly traditional, such as Orthodox Jews, the answer is yes, they would consent …
There are Jews, even Orthodox Jews, who converted to Christianity, or rejected religion all together. It is presumptious to think you can guess what a baby today will grow up to believe and want. Would you feel this way if we were talking about female circumcision? In those cases it’s not just the fathers but often the mothers as well who feel its a proper thing to do, this indicates that at least some women in cultures with it grow up to feel its right. While I don’t think the two are equal in severity, they both do share the problem of reversability. The baby who is not circumsized is not stopped from choosing it in the future but the baby who is is effectively prevented from declining it in the future.
It is a matter of becoming aware that all change involves loss.
I don’t disagree with you and like I said I’m not confident that I’d go for this law…. I might be more convinced of a proposal to ban it with a religious exemption. But my mind is open regarding it, I could be convinced and I think the activists raise a legitimate point that should not be dismissed simply because it sounds like a silly issue or because one of them really hates Mohels
June 5th, 2011 | 3:07 pm
This sounds very creepy, like something written by some cult leader to justify why he’s entitled to ‘marry’ 10 year old girls.
Well, if it makes you feel the same way you feel when you look at cult leaders pursuing ten year old girls, then it must be wrong, I guess.
(Are you also the sort who giggles at the idea of the Eucharist? “They’re drinking blood, EWWW!”)
June 5th, 2011 | 3:20 pm
It seems to me it is entirely dependent on how one interprets the story of Abraham in the Bible.
It seems to me that it’s for the believer to interpret, not the non-believer who quite frankly wishes to force alien customs on a community against its will.
It is presumptious to think you can guess what a baby today will grow up to believe and want.
The same could be said for any religious teaching – you can’t go back and do childhood over again, so every decision made is both presumptuous and non-reversible. And every decision affects the child’s life – most decisions affect a child’s life far more than the decision to circumcise. So what makes you assume that this matter is “different” or “more important” simply because it’s physical in nature?
This and your argument about reversibility apply equally to the other side of the argument.
To borrow an argument from another commenter here: if a people understand circumcision as a token going all the way back to Abraham, and part of a covenant with God, who are you to decide to take that away? (And remember: the same logic that says a baby cannot have consent, also says that a 13 year old cannot consent, so it isn’t just one little tradition you’re tampering with here).
I would support forcing traditionalists to honor their child’s bodily integrity only if we were forcing all parents to honor their child’s bodily integrity. But it should be all or nothing: to target one group of people to be criminalized and scapegoated as “child abusers” cannot be interpreted as being primarily about children’s health: the message being sent is clearly anti-religious, rather than pro-child, especially given it’s not at all clear that the children will even benefit from the unrequested “assistance”.
June 5th, 2011 | 5:28 pm
It seems to me that it’s for the believer to interpret, not the non-believer who quite frankly wishes to force alien customs on a community against its will.
Blake,
The two interpretations I spoke of were both plausible interpretations for believers—the story of Abraham is literally true, or the story of Abraham is myth or legend divinely inspired to convey religious truth. Non-believers wouldn’t accept the Bible as in any way authoritative or even relevant when it comes to the question of whether or not circumcision is necessary or unnecessary, good or evil.
June 5th, 2011 | 6:17 pm
Well, if it makes you feel the same way you feel when you look at cult leaders pursuing ten year old girls, then it must be wrong, I guess.
No feelings aren’t the issue here but form. The form of your argument is essentially the same of the hypothetical cult leader. That religious instruction includes both the mind and ‘the flesh’ and by ‘instructing the flesh’ you also include irreversible phyisical modification of it. At the same time, though, you want to jump up and down about tattoos, boob jobs and body piercing.
The same could be said for any religious teaching – you can’t go back and do childhood over again, so every decision made is both presumptuous and non-reversible.
That’s a valid point, but there is a time barrier there. Your parents might have dragged you to Church but the degree that church plays in your adult life today is essentially your responsibility. No maybe you can’t go backwards and create a different childhood for yourself, but you’re essentially free and responsible for your adulthood.
(And remember: the same logic that says a baby cannot have consent, also says that a 13 year old cannot consent, so it isn’t just one little tradition you’re tampering with here).
Consent to what? An ear piercing? And the same ‘logic’ does not hold. 13 yr olds are not full adults but they are capable of limited forms of consent, otherwise upon what logic are those under 18 yrs old someties tried as adults for crimes they committ?
I would support forcing traditionalists to honor their child’s bodily integrity only if we were forcing all parents to honor their child’s bodily integrity. But it should be all or nothing: to target one group of people to be criminalized and scapegoated as “child abusers” cannot be interpreted as being primarily about children’s health:
So far you’ve not explained where you got your idea that ‘childhood sex change operations’ take place. Your 11 year old boob job has been debunked. You are left with tattoos, which parents may NOT simply apply to their babies and piercings which are at most temporary modifications to the body.
Your ‘all or nothing’ approach is nonsense if you think about it. YOu almost certainly would not accept female circumcision, regardless of how much tradition may be behind it. What about some new religion that calls for amputation of the little toe or an ear or a tattoo ‘cross the forehead? Clearly at some point a line has to be drawn unless you want to go down the road of declaring children essentially cattle property of their parents.
June 5th, 2011 | 8:38 pm
So far you’ve not explained where you got your idea that ‘childhood sex change operations’ take place.
Then why not put it all into the law, and codify the child’s right to integrity?
All the way?
If this is really about children’s rights – and not just about supplanting and usurping the right of conservatives and traditionalists to teach their children spiritual as opposed to materialist values – this should be a no-brainer, if it is really true that liberals always (cough, cough) respect their child’s physical – and please, let’s do count emotional and psychological – integrity.
June 6th, 2011 | 12:10 am
The next law in the people’s republic of San Francisco is that parents cannot teach their kids religion except that of the city!
June 6th, 2011 | 3:29 am
As Rachida Dati, the then French Justice Minister and herself a Muslim said of the law banning female genital mutilation, “No more justifications of our oppression in the name of the right to be different and of respect toward those who force us to bow our heads.”
She added that parents’ freedom of conscience, which is an internal freedom, was not affected, for the law simply forbids external acts.
In fact, the law met Blake’s objection, for it simply provided:
“Everyone has the right to respect for his body.
- The human body is inviolable.
- The human body, its elements and its products may not form the subject of a patrimonial right.
There may be no invasion of the integrity of the human body except in case of medical necessity
The consent of the person concerned must be obtained previously except when his state necessitates a therapeutic intervention to which he is not able to assent.”
Clear, simple, principled and universal, as good legislation should be.
June 6th, 2011 | 10:07 am
There may be no invasion of the integrity of the human body except in case of medical necessity
What is the age of consent?
If the child has a right to integrity, then it must be absolute prior to the age of consent, and the age of consent is set to a single age for all kids.
On the one hand, the age of consent should be “the” age of consent – one age at which a child is granted to be able to make decisions. This suggests that it also includes decisions about sexuality, and below this age a child has a right to be protected from sexuality (which is by definition inappropriate, as the child is not of an age to consent).
But if the age of consent is set over the age of 13, what is going to happen to Bar Mitzvahs? I am under the impression that a male child must be circumcised to take part?
June 6th, 2011 | 11:10 am
“There may be no invasion of the integrity of the human body except in case of medical necessity” is a free-standing proposition, unrelated to age or vulnerability. Similarly, the rule that the human body, its elements and its products may not form the subject of a patrimonial right is universal and not confined to minors.
They are, thus, two separate requirements (1) medical necessity and (2) consent.
Consent is a fact. Why should an arbitrary “age of consent” be necessary, given the proviso allowing a therapeutic intervention where the person is incapable of consenting?
The law makes this clear by declaring that its provisions are a matter of “l’ordre public” – the nearest English equivalent is “public policy,” so no one can contract out of its provisions.
June 6th, 2011 | 11:36 am
Then why not put it all into the law, and codify the child’s right to integrity?
IMO the law works best when it works with actual cases, not broad categories. You don’t pass a law that says ‘drive safely’, you pass a law saying you must stop at the red, must not exceed whatever the speed limit is etc.
In general I think the ’11 yr old boob job’ issue would be dealt with in existing law by several layers of regulation. First would be a parental consent requirement. Second would be the ethical obligations of doctors who probably would deem things like a sex change change for a child unethical barring some strking condition. Tattoos and piercings, being less dramatic and perm. modifications to the body, are probably already covered by a sliding scale rule of consent of some sort.
But if the age of consent is set over the age of 13, what is going to happen to Bar Mitzvahs? I am under the impression that a male child must be circumcised to take part?
Perhaps some Jewish readers here might chime in. I once spoke to a woman who knew an Orthodox Jewish man who wasn’t circumsized….she wasn’t quite clear on why and I don’t know what impact, if any, that had in his relationship to his religion.
IMO the line would depend upon whether circumcision is a violation of body integrity or a reasonable ‘option’ that if done is best done soon after birth. In terms of Blake’s demand for an absolute ‘age of consent’, like it or not its a sliding scale. Consider two hypotheticals.
Imagine a 13 yr old who wants to be circumsized and his parents agree. I don’t think this would present many problems IMO.
Imagine a 13 yr old who doesn’t want it but his father has just converted from to Judism and now feels he must circumsize his son. I’d tend to think the law should side with the son here, he shouldn’t be forced against his will to undergo it.
That doesn’t make 13 a magic ‘age of consent’ where anything the 13 yr old wants goes. If he shows up and asks his mom to sign a permission slip to get his ears pierced and she says no, I don’t think the mother’s call should get trumped!
this should be a no-brainer, if it is really true that liberals always (cough, cough) respect their child’s physical – and please, let’s do count emotional and psychological – integrity.
The problem here is ‘emotional and psychological integrity’ is too fuzzy and subjective a concept to really capture in law. Some people have emotionally distant parents and that becomes a problem for them for their entire lives. Other people brush it off. Tell me, then, how you are going to bring up a father on a charge of being ‘emotionally distant’? You’re also blurring the line here between whose body has the integrity. Aren’t you violating the integrity of the father by trying to force him to express emotions in some ‘approved manner’?
Body modification, though, is more clear cut. If the father has just joined a UFO cult and wants to castrate his son, well the answer is going to be ‘no’. I’m unimpressed by Blake’s implication that we have to say yes because darnit, its just so hard to come up with a law preventing fathers from ‘emotionally castrating’ their sons by being too critical or cold or distant etc therefore who are we to say no to the father who wants to physically do it. To paraphrase Chesteron, where do you draw the line? Right here between your head and your neck!
June 6th, 2011 | 11:57 am
I should add that there is clearly a margin of appreciation in any law. The Procurator of the Republic is not going to start prosecuting hairdressers or manicurists. On the other hand, a parent was prosecuted under this law for cutting off a teen-aged child’s hair to sell it.
Likewise, “medical necessity” can be given a broad interpretation to include any procedure that the practitioner believes, in good faith, is for the benefit of the patient’s health, e.g. gender reassignment to treat a psychological condition, even though some authorities hold that this is colluding with a disorder, rather than treating it.
June 6th, 2011 | 12:10 pm
I’m unimpressed by Blake’s implication that we have to say yes because darnit, its just so hard to come up with a law preventing fathers from ‘emotionally castrating’ their sons by being too critical or cold or distant etc therefore who are we to say no to the father who wants to physically do it.
Well, sure, because materialists are committed to prizing the flesh, and are also committed to usurping the authority of anyone who doesn’t.
This is about restricting parents’ right to inculcate religious values in their children.
A foreskin is about as valued as wisdom teeth or tonsils. The only real value in a foreskin is that if you prohibit people from cutting it off, you break their covenant with God.
June 6th, 2011 | 12:15 pm
Likewise, “medical necessity” can be given a broad interpretation to include any procedure that the practitioner believes, in good faith, is for the benefit of the patient’s health
That’s why we need to include the definitions and guidelines regarding the child’s emotional and psychological well-being.
Because otherwise it just becomes one more loophole so that liberals can do whatever they want to and with their own children (including perversions and bodily mutilations), even as they use the same rules to restrict conservative parents from doing anything that liberals don’t approve of.
June 6th, 2011 | 12:17 pm
even though some authorities hold that this is colluding with a disorder, rather than treating it.
But any authority that says so is automatically suspect.
Science has stopped being about finding truth and has started being about replacing democracy with dogma. (With themselves at the top of the hierarchy, natch.)
June 6th, 2011 | 12:36 pm
The only real value in a foreskin is that if you prohibit people from cutting it off, you break their covenant with God.
Well, sure, because materialists are committed to prizing the flesh, and are also committed to usurping the authority of anyone who doesn’t.
One does not have to be a materialist in the hard sense to ‘prize the flesh’ in the sense that you should not cut off pieces of someone else’s body unless there’s a good reason to do so.
Because otherwise it just becomes one more loophole so that liberals can do whatever they want to and with their own children (including perversions and bodily mutilations), ….
Back to the imaginary ‘boob jobs for 11 yr olds’ again I see. I also note ‘liberal’ here means basically anyone Blake disagrees with. The only citation for a childhood boob job came froma UK story about some minor model who was famous for having lots of plastic surgery saying she would let her daughter have a boob job if she wanted one. How does that turn into ‘liberals’ unless you’re mental picture is so distorted that liberal basically means everyone and anyone who isn’t like you.
June 6th, 2011 | 12:44 pm
Booton wrote
“IMO the law works best when it works with actual cases, not broad categories”
I believe the converse is the case. The legislator should lay down broad principles, then Doctrine is developed by the law professors in their commentaries and, then, Jurisprudence in the courts applies this to actual cases, as they arise.
Meanwhile, the Minister can make orders or regulations to implement the law
The provisions I quoted are a good example of this approach
June 6th, 2011 | 1:01 pm
Blake wrote
“This is about restricting parents’ right to inculcate religious values in their children.”
or as Rashida Dati put it
“No more justifications of our oppression in the name of the right to be different and of respect toward those who force us to bow our heads.”
June 6th, 2011 | 3:46 pm
Back to the imaginary ‘boob jobs for 11 yr olds’ again I see
Back to building straw men arguments, I see.
What’s the matter, can’t critique the argument the way it really is, without rewriting it and misrepresenting it?
BTW just for the record, I am very concerned about the increasingly young ages liberal parents are pushing kids into boob jobs and sex change issues.
June 6th, 2011 | 4:02 pm
If you’re so concerned you should be able to cite some evidence that what you’re talking about actually exists. Why am I the one who has to go Googling for you? Carry your own water here man!
June 6th, 2011 | 9:53 pm
If you’re so concerned you should be able to cite some evidence that what you’re talking about actually exists. Why am I the one who has to go Googling for you? Carry your own water here man!
Are you seriously suggesting that I have to find the article I read about underaged boob jobs in order to please you how?
How is this relevant?
Oh wait … you need straw man arguments, because you can’t come up with a single way in which losing one’s foreskin actually does any harm to a person, don’t you?
(If you actually care enough to Google for me – what an amusing idea! – you should look up the Dec. 2005 warning issued by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons re: doing breast implants on women under the age of 18.)
June 6th, 2011 | 9:56 pm
Your ‘all or nothing’ approach is nonsense if you think about it. YOu almost certainly would not accept female circumcision, regardless of how much tradition may be behind it.
That’s because female circumcision does harm.
Male circumcision does not.
But forcing devout Jews to break their covenant with God does harm.
But, then, that’s the point, isn’t it?
June 6th, 2011 | 9:59 pm
The only citation for a childhood boob job came froma UK story about some minor model who was famous for having lots of plastic surgery saying she would let her daughter have a boob job if she wanted one. How does that turn into ‘liberals’ unless you’re mental picture is so distorted that liberal basically means everyone and anyone who isn’t like you.
Actually I read that girls under the age of 18 comprised 4% of the breast augmentation procedures a few years back.
One article put the number at almost 4000 girls having the procedure in a single year. Another put the number at 1800.
But, you are right: most young girls aren’t getting breast jobs – mostly because the FDA has been cracking down on that. Liposuction and nose jobs are far more common in the younger girls.
June 7th, 2011 | 12:48 pm
We have a slight problem here where you do get consent for breast, nose and liposuction jobs. Note earlier I said if you had a 13 yr old who wanted to be circumsized and his parents were ok with it I don’t think there should be any legal problem. Your binary view of consent where a person whose 17 yrs and 11 months old is no different thana baby whose 1 month old does not square with reality, law or tradition.
On the flip side, I would think there should be great barriers to any parent being allowed to force their kid into any of the above procedures against the kid’s will and I would be surprised if a doctor would even be willing to ethically do any of the above with a non-consenting patient.
So with all we’ve discussed, I don’t think I would support this proposed law. I might, though, support a law that basically put a few barriers to circumcision to limit the cosmetic ones but granted religious exemptions for Jewish and Muslim parents as well as a parent who really wanted one. I would, however, ban the Hasidic practice of cleaning the wound with the mouth as it 1. Looks to me like borderline child molesting 2. Endangers babies to STDs and other infections. Cry oppression all you want.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact