25 Comments

Jews Against Circumcision
June 3rd, 2011 | 10:41 pm

The movement to abolish circumcision surgery worldwide has been led by many Jews.

* Moshe Rothenberg, an Orthodox Jew in Brooklyn, New York, pioneered the first covenant ceremonies to exclude surgical circumcision.
( http://www.nocirc.org/symposia/second/rothenberg.html )
( http://www.noharmm.org/rationaljew.htm )

* Ronald Goldman, Ph.D., a Massachuttsetts scholar( http://www.jewishcircumcision.org ) wrote some of the first critical material pointing out the ethical lapses of both hospital and religious circumcision.

* Eli Ungar-Sargon ( http://www.cutthefilm.com ) an Israeli movie producer, who grew up in an Orthodox family has produced a documentary on the subject, and wrote an op-ed in the Jewish daily, the Forward in favor of a legal ban on circumcision.

* Leonard Glick, MD., PHD. ( http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=92&Itemid=53 ) a professor of Jewish European history wrote the most complete scholarly text on the history of circumcision and advocates for it’s immediate ban worldwide.

* Betty Katz Sperlich, R.N., ( http://www.circumcisionvideos.com/nsv.htm ) a Jeiwsh mother and nurse helped found a group of over 30 Nurses in Santa Fe, New Mexico to consciously object from taking part in circumcisions in the belief that it is a violation of the body of the child. Her group, Nurses For the Rights of the Child advocates for the legal ban of circumcision in any form.

There are more than three active groups working to ban circumcision in Israel.
* A Jewish Community Group for Parents of Intact Sons ( http://www.kahal.org )
* Israeli Association Against Genital Mutilation ( http://www.britmila.org.il )
* Protect the Child ( http://www.gonnen.org )

Mike Melendez
June 4th, 2011 | 8:55 am

Maybe these distinguished supporters should have a word or two with the man who is giving them a bad name.

Tavener
June 4th, 2011 | 10:14 am

Most circumcisions are of Gentiles and performed by Gentiles. So — leaving aside the question of whether circumcision is a good, a bad, or an indifferent thing — an anti-circumcision campaign that engages in and/or apologizes for this kind of rhetoric focused so narrowly on Jewish circumcision and depicting Judaism and Jews in such a very derogatory light is clearly anti-Semitic and rightly condemned by the ADL. And it ought to be condemned — without qualification — by every decent person, every mensch, whether Jewish or not. This kind of rhetoric and those who excuse it are utterly vile.

Blake
June 4th, 2011 | 4:24 pm

If banning circumcision is a good thing, those advocating for it should be able to explain why without resorting to caricatures like the demon “Monster Mohel”.

This is a dialogue that should be about whether children have a right to “integrity” – and what “integrity” means – not about whether evil Jews enjoy the sensual pleasures of baby-cutting.

M221nv
June 5th, 2011 | 1:50 am

Circumcison is nothing more than child abuse and serves NO medical reason its purley religious and a horrific practice.

If the lord meant us not to have a foreskin then he would of created us that way.

The sooner this practice is banned the better. I watched one before on the tv and it was horrifc the baby screamed so bad it literally went through me Horrific horrific horrific

Steve
June 5th, 2011 | 10:18 am

Here’s my question: If the ban on circumcision is to benefit the baby boys so traumatized by the procedure–since, of course, they have no say in the matter–shouldn’t the same abolitionists, by that rationale, seek to ban abortion too? Aborted fetuses don’t have a say in their fate.

It’s an honest question, and I’m curious what the anti-circumcision folks think.

David Nickol
June 5th, 2011 | 12:13 pm

. . . .shouldn’t the same abolitionists, by that rationale, seek to ban abortion too? Aborted fetuses don’t have a say in their fate.

Steve,

First, we have no way of knowing how many “intactivists” support or oppose abortion. I am sure there are some in both camps. Second, suppose you can make a very strong argument that it is logically inconsistent to oppose circumcision but not abortion. What you have then is a strong argument that those who oppose circumcision but not abortion are inconsistent, not an argument that they are wrong to oppose circumcision. I think there is something to be said for pointing out inconsistencies in people’s position, and I think there is a case that some who oppose abortion are inconsistent in that they (some “anti-aborts”) seem to care deeply about the welfare of the unborn but not nearly so much about the “post-born.” If you can make a very strong case that some (or many) “intactivists” or “anti-aborts” are inconsistent, you have tarnished their image somewhat, and perhaps legitimately so, but it doesn’t in any way prove that their chosen cause is wrong.

Also, I believe quite strongly that you have a right to choose what causes you devote your efforts to. If you feel strongly about world hunger, or animal welfare, or the environment, or literacy, or landmark preservation, you have a right to devote as much as you want of your time and energy to any of those and need not feel guilty about not supporting another person’s cause, including the “pro-life” movement.

Gordon Savage
June 5th, 2011 | 1:56 pm

You think that’s bad. I was sitting next to a family with a screaming baby in Mass last night. Horrific screams. Must have been in absolute agony. Pure child abuse. We need to ban babies in church. And that baptism thing — might as well be waterboarding them.

Sheesh!

In this and the last post on the subject I don’t see anyone from the “anti-circumcision” party addressing the questions Blake, Steve and Tavener just raised. Rather than making your case about “child abuse,” you’re making yourselves out to be a dark, twisted anti-semitic clique.

Tony Esolen
June 5th, 2011 | 4:15 pm

I’d like to hear from an observant Jew, not from somebody who happens to be Hebrew and who may be motivated by a deep hatred for the ancient faith. The exaggerations here border on the insane. Circumcision is a quick and simple procedure, and from what I’ve heard does a male good, and not harm, because of the infections to which the uncircumcised are prone.

David Nickol
June 5th, 2011 | 6:40 pm

I’d like to hear from an observant Jew, not from somebody who happens to be Hebrew and who may be motivated by a deep hatred for the ancient faith.

Tony Esolen,

While it would be interesting to find out how many religious Jews support and oppose circumcision and how many nonreligious, ethnic Jews support and oppose circumcision, whatever the numbers, they would be (in my opinion) irrelevant to the question of whether male babies ought to be circumcised. If all religious Jews without exception supported circumcision, and all nonreligious Jews opposed it, the question would still remain as to whether it was the right thing to do. As people are fond of pointing out to me when I say, for example, that the majority of Catholics support same-sex marriage, moral questions are not settled by opinion polls.

Circumcision is a quick and simple procedure, and from what I’ve heard does a male good, and not harm, because of the infections to which the uncircumcised are prone.

It is nowhere as simple as that, and as I have noted before, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Academy of Family Physicians do not oppose circumcision for those who make an informed choice on behalf of their children, but they do not see sufficient benefit to recommend routine neonatal circumcision.

I think Wesley Smith was correct to point out the anti-Semitic nature of the comic book and that its creator was one of the leaders of the “intactivists,” but it seems to me that keeping the focus on Jews-and-circumcision rather than anti-Semitism on the one hand, and circumcision on the other, is inviting unpleasantness. Anti-Semites generally don’t make a distinction between religious Jews and nonreligious, ethnic Jews. No one escaped the concentration camps by arguing that they were Jewish by accident of birth and actually had a deep hatred for the ancient faith. Quite probably a religious Jew is going to lean toward valuing circumcision more highly than a nonreligious Jew, it seems to me just as possible that a religious Jew will be biased in favor of circumcision (if not more so) than a nonreligious Jew will be biased against it. So while it may be interesting to know who supports and who opposes circumcision, it seems to me it is of no help whatsoever in determining the ethics of circumcision to divide Jews up into groups as if one group had a more reliable opinion on the matter of circumcision than another.

Regarding circumcision and infections, if the infections are sexually-transmitted, it seems from arguments elsewhere on this site that conservative Christian parents are not supposed to take any steps to prevent their children from escaping the consequences of possible sexual sins they may commit when they become old enough to be sexually active. Consequently, the only reason that was given that good Christian parents could have their children vaccinated for HPV was that the children might someday be infected as victims of sexual assault. I don’t think this rationale will hold up as a justification for circumcision.

Steve
June 5th, 2011 | 7:23 pm

David Nickol,

You’re right, and I was merely trying to show the inconsistency of the “intactivists” position. (Funny term, that.) There are, one would think, probably some in both the pro-life and pro-choice camps, but I’d say it’s a safe bet that with this San Fran referendum in mind–and knowing a little bit about the voting patterns of most San Francisco-ites (is that a term?)–there is probably little room for a pro-life position for most of these voters. (An assumption on my part? Yes, but I’d say a pretty good one.)

But you’re entirely right that inconsistency in one’s argument doesn’t take away from one’s freedom to choose what position he or she may take on anything. Frankly, if one wants to be anticircumcision, then go for it. But when the argument is made that this is for the welfare of the children involved, I think it’s a reasonable question to ask how far we’re willing to stretch this “I’m doing it for the kids’ health!” argument.

Blake
June 5th, 2011 | 8:43 pm

Also, I believe quite strongly that you have a right to choose what causes you devote your efforts to. If you feel strongly about world hunger, or animal welfare, or the environment,

Yes, but if you are devoting your efforts to animal welfare – while at the same time also defending the rights of dogfighters – then you don’t deserve to be granted much credibility.

Crying about circumcision while defending the right to suck a baby’s brain out of its skull is not about child welfare. It’s motivated by, as Tony Esolen so aptly put it, “hatred for the ancient faith” – and should be recognized for what it is.

David Nickol
June 6th, 2011 | 6:22 am

Crying about circumcision while defending the right to suck a baby’s brain out of its skull is not about child welfare.

Blake,

While there certainly may be—undoubtedly are—people who are pro-choice and anti-circumcision, nobody has taken both those positions in this discussion.

It’s motivated by, as Tony Esolen so aptly put it, “hatred for the ancient faith” – and should be recognized for what it is.

Tony said, “I’d like to hear from an observant Jew, not from somebody who happens to be Hebrew and who may be motivated by a deep hatred for the ancient faith.”

In my opinion, he went too far. But you are going way too far. There is absolutely no evidence that any of the Jews who have written in opposition to circumcision hate the Jewish faith. You have no reason, and no right, to accuse them of doing so. It’s calumny.

Blake
June 6th, 2011 | 8:02 am

that keeping the focus on Jews-and-circumcision rather than anti-Semitism on the one hand, and circumcision on the other, is inviting unpleasantness.

We are talking about making an abrupt change to where a group of people will be classed as criminals and “child abusers” for circumcising their children.

It’s not unreasonable to ask how far this is motivated by anti-Semitism.

If the goal were to eliminate circumcision, an information campaign would do better than heavy-handed coercion aimed not at persuading, but at punishing.

There is no reason to start with the assumption that parents who circumcise their children do so because they are evil and unloving and need to be punished. One could just as easily start with the assumption that parents love their children but hold “wrong” opinions. The advantage of this position is that, while it gives up the chance to persecute people who don’t share your beliefs, it also leads to a genuine civil rights advantage – granting the child a right he didn’t have before – instead of leading to a protracted culture war.

But, of course, the presence of anti-Semitism indicates that a culture war – not the well-being of the child – is exactly what is desired: the chance to beat up on people who “treat their children wrong” is the real appeal here.

Ray Ingles
June 6th, 2011 | 8:41 am

Steve –


If the ban on circumcision is to benefit the baby boys so traumatized by the procedure–since, of course, they have no say in the matter–shouldn’t the same abolitionists, by that rationale, seek to ban abortion too? Aborted fetuses don’t have a say in their fate.

One could, for example, believe that a fetus before about 20 weeks is not conscious or aware and thus is not a person yet, while still believing that circumcision of a delivered, aware infant causes suffering and is wrong.

You needn’t agree with either part of that position, naturally, but the combination is not inconsistent.

Blake
June 6th, 2011 | 10:01 am

In my opinion, he went too far. But you are going way too far.

I judge civil rights issues according to how urgently they are needed.

One needs a foreskin about as urgently as one needs wisdom teeth or tonsils.

If surgery is no longer believed to be appropriate, the appropriate – and logical – response is an information campaign.

Instead, you want to punish people who do it, and there’s ample evidence that the motive here is rage at those who are circumcising, and a desire to punish them.

So, no, I haven’t gone too far. This is ideological, and they are using the “well being of children” as meat shields.

David Nickol
June 6th, 2011 | 10:24 am

It’s not unreasonable to ask how far this is motivated by anti-Semitism.

Blake,

It’s not unreasonable to ask. But you claim, without any evidence whatsoever, that the anti-circumcision campaign is motivated by anti-Semitism.

One needs a foreskin about as urgently as one needs wisdom teeth or tonsils.

Neither wisdom teeth nor tonsils are removed for non-medical reasons, and I am sure all reasonable people would object if some new religion were founded that required parents to have their children’s tonsils or wisdom teeth removed for “spiritual” rather than medical reasons. The same is true of gall bladders and appendixes.

I am not in favor of legally prohibiting circumcision, but it is unfair and ludicrous to imply that all of those who oppose circumcision have base motives.

Steve
June 6th, 2011 | 10:45 am

@Ray Ingles:

“One could, for example, believe that a fetus before about 20 weeks is not conscious or aware and thus is not a person yet, while still believing that circumcision of a delivered, aware infant causes suffering and is wrong.”

One can certainly make that argument, which gets us into the very amorphous argument over “personhood” (whatever that may be). But it seems to me that this debate in San Fran is over “defending the defenseless,” so to speak, or speaking up for those who don’t yet have their own voices. With that in mind, it seems (to me, at least) an apt comparison.

So perhaps I’m stretching it a bit (I’ll certainly admit to that possibility!), but I do see some inconsistency. But politics and public policy is so often rife with inconsistencies, so I’ll lose no sleep over it!

PCM
June 6th, 2011 | 11:32 am

Sadly, this San Francisco offensive is just the tip of the iceberg in a war against the right of parents to inculcate religious and moral values in their children. The “intactivist” camp is not identical to this more extreme camp — i.e., many people who oppose circumcision do so on grounds different from parental squelching, and also wish to train their children in religion. But some of the commenters in these threads have said it: any attempt to “force” religion upon a child is abuse.

This is a frightening thing for religious parents, especially those who hold to traditional moral values. I fear that, during my lifetime, we will have to fight attempts to ban parents teaching their children:
-that homosexuality is a sin (intentional infliction of emotional distress upon a potentially-gay child; hate speech; incitement to violence against gay children)
-that sexual expression should be confined to monagamous marraige (the right of homeschoolers to opt out of public school sex ed programs is an upcoming battle)
-that biblical Christianity has been marked by miraculous and supernatural occurrences (it goes against scientific claims)
-and that disciplining a child based upon religious claims (forcing a child to submit to a parent’s personal religious views is abuse).

Of course, this goes against foundational religious teaching to “train up a child.” But when moral relativism reigns, attempts to teach objective truth must be squelched.

Blake
June 6th, 2011 | 12:06 pm

I am not in favor of legally prohibiting circumcision, but it is unfair and ludicrous to imply that all of those who oppose circumcision have base motives.

It is not unfair to imply that all of those who favor criminalizing those who circumcise their children, and labeling the practice “child abuse”, are more concerned with inflicting an agenda than on the actual well-being of the children.

If you are genuinely opposed to circumcision, you should skip the tarring and feathering and focus instead of an information campaign urging people to let go of the practice.

Whether you measure the results in terms of total number of children circumcised between now (today’s date) and the date of the final child circumcision, or whether you measure the results in how long it will take to gain complete support of the idea – by either standard, you will have fewer circumcisions and faster total acceptance if you skip the hate part.

David Nickol
June 6th, 2011 | 1:53 pm

It is not unfair to imply that all of those who favor criminalizing those who circumcise their children, and labeling the practice “child abuse”, are more concerned with inflicting an agenda than on the actual well-being of the children.

Of course it is unfair. You may be correct that the better approach would be persuasion, but then that might be the case for abortion as well, and it doesn’t stop the pro-life movement from trying to criminalize abortion.

It would be interesting to see the “intactivists” try to employ approaches that have been employed by the pro-life movement, such as requiring doctors to read a script to any parent considering circumcision so that informed consent can be reasonably guaranteed. Perhaps parents considering circumcision should be required to watch a video of a baby being circumcised.

David Nickol
June 6th, 2011 | 1:59 pm

PCM,

I don’t understand your fears, although they seem to be commonplace. We just had an 8-1 decision by the Supreme Court that it was protected speech for members of the Westboro Baptist Church to scream “God Hates F*gs” at military funerals. And you’re worried about parents losing the right to teach their own children that homosexuality is wrong?

Blake
June 6th, 2011 | 3:40 pm

Of course it is unfair. You may be correct that the better approach would be persuasion, but then that might be the case for abortion as well, and it doesn’t stop the pro-life movement from trying to criminalize abortion.

The obvious difference is that abortion kills a baby, while a circumcision…does what, precisely?

What harm do you imagine a circumcision does?

It violates some newly-coined “right”, but it does no real harm to anyone, nor is there any demonstrated need for one’s foreskin.

Blake
June 6th, 2011 | 3:43 pm

It violates some newly-coined “right”, but it does no real harm to anyone, nor is there any demonstrated need for one’s foreskin.

Which is btw no doubt why persuasion is not going to work as an approach.

Without whipping up hate for “child abusing” parents violating made-up “rights*”, what have you got?

Nothing.

*I view “rights” as being directly related to “needs”. The more a human being can be said to legitimately need a thing for life, liberty, happiness, etc., the more it can be said to be a “need”.

I have yet to hear a single compelling reason why having a choice about one’s foreskin is necessary, useful, or beneficial.

A Jew Against Circumcision
June 7th, 2011 | 11:31 pm

Lloyd Schofield ( http://www.sfmgmbill.org ), the main proponent of the San Francisco Male Genital Mutilation bill put forth this preliminary statement.

“It’s my understanding that both comic books are written from the viewpoint of a frightened infant or child on the receiving end of the knife, no matter where it’s coming from, medical or religious. Hence the comic book format of greatly exaggerated characters, the Doctor and the Mohel. If you have been viewing our website or Facebook page you will have noticed that they have never been posted or referenced there. And we have no intention to do so, as I believe they can be easily misinterpreted and do not encourage the dialogue that we wish to foster.”

There will probably be more statements coming from groups like Intact America ( http://intactamerica.org ), NoCirc ( http://www.nocirc.org/ ), Jews Against Circumcision, Doctors Opposing Circumcision, and others in the coming days.