I don’t see circumcision to be immoral or barbaric. If I were to suppose why people might believe it to be barbaric, I’d say because it’s a religious practice. You don’t hear much about piercing infant’s ears from that crowd, then again you might. But I never do. How disgusted could you be about circumcision if you support abortion? Killing the child weeks prior to (or up until) birth is acceptable, but not circumcision?
What do you think? Is circumcision an acceptable practice? I’ve heard it also serves some health purposes. But what if it didn’t and was purely a religious practice, is that a good enough reason?
Sifting Reality 
Circumcision, both infant and adult, has a long history. It is somethat that really needs to be done right, and at the right time. Jewish tradition of circumcising at 8 days turns out to be the ideal time, in regards to ease of recovery and the least danger. Younger, and the child’s immune system is still too weak, older and it becomes more painful and takes longer to heal.
There have been way too many botched circumcisions, and I believe that’s where the first objections to it came from (these days, “intactivism” is its own dogma). Muslim circumcision at the age of four is more like genital mutilation than circumcision.
Arguments about the health benefits can be made both for or against.
I definitely hear people objecting severely to infant ear piercing. Not as often as I hear from intactivists, but there are a lot who are against it just as strongly.
And yeah, it does strike me as strange that people I know who are pro-abortion are also anti-circumcision. But then, moral relativity is a big part of their world views.
Kunoichi
Great reaponse (as usual). It is something I view as wholly up to the parents but with stipulation, if that makes sense. Like you said, and I agree, waiting too long is akin to actual torture, too soon and its too dangerous. Its a decision that needs to be made rather quickly and waiting too long, in my opinion, nulls the right to do it.
So whats your view on it being a purely religious thing? If it served no health benefit nor was detrimental, would you support the practice?
Thanks.
For purely religious reasons, I would support it under limited circumstances. To use earlier examples, I support Jewish circumcision at 8 days, as it is done at the safest time, but I do not support Islamic circumcision at 4 years, because by that age, it’s not only more dangerous, but traumatic to the child. I know for Jewish circumcision, it is done by a mohl who is specialized; more so than most medical doctors. Hospital circumcisions have a higher rate of negative outcomes than traditional Jewish circumcisions. If I remember correctly, most non-religious infant circumcisions are done in the first two or three days, and there’s a tendancy to remove too much tissue, so I would also support restrictions on who can do them, too. I don’t know if Islamic circumcisions require someone with any particular training. They don’t for female “circumcision.”
Performing surgery on anyone for anything other than a medical condition, is unnecessary and irrational.
Stuart,
Ah, good. Then you’d be against breast augmentation and sex-change operations, since neither of those are for medical conditions.
Glenn,
I’d argue that there is a medical condition for sex-change operations.
But I accept your point and I’ll qualify my statement.
People of sound mind electing a surgical procedure (such as breast augmentation) should be allowed after being made aware of the risks involved in such surgery.
There is no “medical” condition for sex-change operations. It is they psychobabble industry who came up with the idea of “transgender” and continues to propagate such a “condition” exists and must be treated as a real condition. Gee, why is it that it is only in recent years that we’ve discovered this condition? Oh, I know, it’s because they were suppressed, and ostracized. Yeah, right. Now we pander to perversion and condone it and encourage it.
No, there is no medical condition.
It is not normal to cut off your pecker and then put on grammies underwear. It’s simply not normal and no amount of psychobabble bullshit will ever convince me otherwise. Those people are sick and deranged and need psychological help, not encouragement.
Circumcision is not cutitng “off your pecker,” and that you say that tells me either you’re not well versed in the physiology of the penis, or you’ve had a failure in hyperbole.
Circumcision has been practiced for thousands of years by a number of cultures. Most practiced adult circumcision (as a male right of passage, for the most part). As far as I know, only Jews practiced infant circumcision.
Kunoichi,
I don’t think you read the entire thread.
Stuart said:
Glenn E. Chatfield responded:
Stuart said:
Glenn E. Chatfield retorts:
And I said:
I was talking about sex-change operations, not circumcision.
Ah, thank you for the correction. The way the responses were ordered and quoted in my email notices, it seemed you were responding to circumcision only and not part of the sex change thread. I often read intactivists refer to parents who circumcise their children as abusive/sick/mentally ill/etc., too. My apologies.
Off topic but – How very tolerant Glenn & TerranceH. Why must everyone be ‘normal’? If they want to change their sex because they are unhappy, and it doesn’t affect anyone else, why not? I suggest you have no idea how anyone else feels and luckily no-one needs your permission, or to persuade you of anything, to improve their lives.
I would say because it doesn’t just end with the change. People who may have a moral objection or even a social objection are attacked for their disagreement. They are ordered to accept and endorse that desired change or face discipline socially or professionally. People get fired or forced into ‘diversity training’ if they voice disagreement.
Stuart,
It doesn’t matter what one “feels.” What matters is objective truth – reality. Pandering to “feelings” is what has gone wrong with this world. Truth is, indeed, intolerant of lies.