5 ms·

I'm a circumcised male who has decided to have all 3 male children circumcised. As a Jew, if I may weigh on this, you have my background for an conflicts or bia

I'm a circumcised male who has decided to have all 3 male children circumcised. As a Jew, if I may weigh on this, you have my background for an conflicts or biases. Also, maybe content warning is in order for genital mutiliation. 1) It is absolutely not common practice to allow a mohel to orally suck the blood out of an infant's penis. If it's practiced at all, it is only in extremely fringe groups of Jews, not just orthodox or ultra orthodox but a very small group, truly some hundreds of people, practice it. I don't have the data, probably no one does, but saying Jewish circumcisions involve this would be like suggesting all baptisms look like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFGHerqhSC8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFGHerqhSC8 To call metzitzah b'peh common practice, or at all part of ritual circumcision, is an anti-semitic trope. Comparing a key tenet of Judaism to a cult is both simplistic and demeaning. 2) I grappled with the decision to have brises for my sons. I don't think it's possible to know or define how traumatic such a procedure is; is it worse than giving a 6-month old pierced ears? Is it worse than travelling through the birth canal and having your umbilical cord severed? Who knows. As obvious as it may seem, the pain of a bris impossible to gauge. My sons all began crying as soon as their diaper came off, and their crying was no more intense once the cutting occurred. By the way, it's not like they make a dotted line with marker and snip around the foreskin; whatI witnessed involved a metal device (a type of clamp I suppose) that is slid between the shaft and foreskin, and like a modified cigar cutter, the mohel cuts away the foreskin in one motion. There's a lot of discomfort, maybe pain, but as a father of 3, I assure you every doctor's visit and many trips to the park involve similar levels of harm. 3) I realize mohels are not doctors, but there are mohel academies that train and certify these specialists. To say they are not doctors is one thing (and it's true), but to say they are not medically trained is another. They don't go to medical school but they learn about the biology of the procedure, proper methods, proper tools (including sterilization), post-op treatment & care, etc. It's not an easy topic, but I don't think it should be hard to talk about. Complicated or interesting to describe, maybe hard to judge or rationalize, but let's talk about it openly, let's avoid disparagement, and most of all let's bring some nuance to this conversation.

cachvico 4y ago
It's not so fringe, just Google it.
- natroniks 4y ago
  I have googled it, nothing I've read describes it as common or main stream. Many describe it as being performed only within a very small segment of the ultra orthodox community. I haven't found a place with reliable stats, which is unfortunate, but here is a paragraph with a recent and prety clear comment from a leading Jewish authority https://www.thehastingscenter.org/ritual-circumcision-ban-metzitzah-bpeh/ https://www.thehastingscenter.org/ritual-circumcision-ban-me... Most mohels, even among the Orthodox, do use a sterile pipette, avoiding direct oral-genital contact. In 2005, the Rabbinical Council of America, the main union of modern Orthodox rabbis, issued a statement urging the abandonment of direct suction. Rabbi Moshe Tendler, a medical ethicist and dean of Yeshiva University’s (Orthodox) rabbinical school, was quoted in The JewishDaily Forward as saying: “There is no requirement to make metzitzah b’peh. The Talmud says plainly it is not part of the ritual but belongs to the medical, post-surgical component. There is no doubt that insistence on metzitzah b’peh is wrong. I firmly believe that making metzitzah b’pehis a criminal act.” Do you have sources showing this practice is commonly accepted?
  - natroniks 4y ago
    PS this says (estimates) 3600 children a year. That's 3600 too many, but far from "common place" in my understanding of the term. I can't predict how many Jewish males are born each year, but if someone wants to provide that, I'd be curious to know what portion these 3600 represents.
    - nyolfen 4y ago
      it says 3,600 a year in new york; this does not sound like an esoteric fringe practice, but at least a sizeable minority
      - natroniks 4y ago
tsol 4y ago
It's sad you have to explain all of this. For some reason casual bigotry is now considered acceptable if it's for the sake of what they believe is a good cause. That's a shift I've noticed recently, as a member of a religion that gets a lot of hate. It portends sad things for our society
- xdennis 4y ago
  > casual bigotry is now considered acceptable It's not bigoted to be against mutilating boys. Don't hide behind religion to justify barbaric practices. Most Americans don't mutilate because of religious reasons. Somehow we all agree that female mutilation is horrible, but when it comes to boys it's controversial.
  - natroniks 4y ago
    Is it ok to have your 12 year old's teeth pulled? Is it ok to get your toddler's fremulum removed? I can argue that the very idea that the body should remain intact is itself steeped in religiosity. The belief that the body we start with, we should end with, is tied to the idea of Resurrection and the Last Judgment. > Somehow we all agree that female mutilation is horrible, but when it comes to boys it's controversial FGM is something that affects their body's function. What is the function of the male foreskin? What malfunction arises after circumcision?
- thatjoeoverthr 4y ago
  It’s bigoted to support cutting some babies but not other babies. Tell me I can cut off the tip of my daughter’s ear. Tell me anyone who opposes me is a bigot. Tell me I don’t need her permission, and I don’t need to wait to discuss it with her. Or, more probable: find some little gotcha in my analogy so that you don’t have to confront it.
- LocalH 4y ago
  Attacking religious belief should not be considered within "bigotry", outside of situations like ethnically Jewish people (and their religious beliefs and practices should not enjoy special protection, but their actual ethnicity should).
prvc 4y ago
There is a more common version which uses a glass pipette for the suction stage, in order (presumably) to avoid direct contact between mouth and wound, but crucially, this offers little or no hygiene advantage compared to the full-on ritual. The prevalence of either version, however, is of little consequence, considering that they are both legally permitted and widely defended.
- natroniks 4y ago
  Not all mohels use the pipette, but what make you think using a sterile glass instrument is less hygienic than using one's mouth? And again you say both practices are widely defended. Who is defending oral suction outside of this fringe enclave of Ultra Orthodox Jews?
  - prvc 4y ago
    >Not all mohels use the pipette Yes, this seems to be acknowledged by all comments here. The initial comment you responded to said, "it is legal for them to suck the blood from the mutilated area with their mouth", which, in my interpretation, seems to cover both the direct contact version (no pipette), and the version which just adds a pipette in between. Both involve suction applied by the mouth. The latter version, as an aside, is hardly "fringe" in its prevalence. But I think the important part is the "it is legal", i.e. presumably anybody could add in a sucking part if they wanted to without breaking the law, which has nothing to to with how many actually do go through with it. Anyway, this discussion seems to be going in circles, but I will say, if you are serious in your stated desire for "nuance", there is a wealth of literature discussing the harms and morality (or lack thereof) of circumcision in general (although not necessarily specifically the religious versions), if you cared to look for it.
lmm 4y ago
> It is absolutely not common practice to allow a mohel to orally suck the blood out of an infant's penis. If it's practiced at all, it is only in extremely fringe groups of Jews, not just orthodox or ultra orthodox but a very small group, truly some hundreds of people, practice it. They didn't say it was common, they said it was legal. And the practice is known to have caused dozens of HIV cases in New York alone, so I suspect it's a little more than hundreds. > To call metzitzah b'peh common practice, or at all part of ritual circumcision, is an anti-semitic trope. And yet the reason it remains legal is lobbying by organisations that represent the Jewish community (or at least claim to - if most Jewish people would support making this this practice illegal (something your post is not completely clear on), you should make that clearer to your representatives). > There's a lot of discomfort, maybe pain, but as a father of 3, I assure you every doctor's visit and many trips to the park involve similar levels of harm. Those things don't involve permanent removal of body parts. My objections to nonconsensual circumcision have nothing to do with how painful it is in the moment. > I realize mohels are not doctors, but there are mohel academies that train and certify these specialists. To say they are not doctors is one thing (and it's true), but to say they are not medically trained is another. They don't go to medical school but they learn about the biology of the procedure, proper methods, proper tools (including sterilization), post-op treatment & care, etc. To what standard, and how much legal enforcement is there of that?
lelanthran 4y ago
> I grappled with the decision to have brises for my sons. I don't think it's possible to know or define how traumatic such a procedure is; is it worse than giving a 6-month old pierced ears? Yes, the foreskin doesn't grow back > Is it worse than travelling through the birth canal and having your umbilical cord severed? Yes, because travelling through the birth canal is required to live, and doesn't affect sex in later life. Also, it doesn't result in any amputations. > Who knows. As obvious as it may seem, the pain of a bris impossible to gauge. We do. There's a ton of nerve endings there. Slicing of a particularly sensitive area (due to the concentration of nerve endings there) is going to be painful. If you want to do it, you need to show some evidence that it is not, not throw your hands in the air and say "well, we don't know"). > There's a lot of discomfort, maybe pain, but as a father of 3, I assure you every doctor's visit and many trips to the park involve similar levels of harm. I think your are deluding yourself - few doctors visits or trips to the park results in cutting off a very sensitive part of the body. > It's not an easy topic, It is a fairly easy topic. The question of "Should we amputate a part of a newborns body, one that affects future enjoyment, and known to be incredibly sensitive" is an easy one to answer. It becomes complex when the addition of "But my beliefs, unsupported by any evidence, mind, require me to perform this operation." The long and short of it is, it doesn't matter how much evidence there is showing that the pain is real, and severe, and the lifelong effects are real; you've done it based on a belief that supercedes mortal pain and suffering. In other words, it doesn't matter what the facts are, because the conclusions by the proponents have already been made[1]. [1] Imagine, for a moment, that we are in the near future where we have a device that lets us quantitatively determine (on a scale of 1-10) how much pain is being experienced, with 1 = barely perceptible and 10 = just below the point of passing out, with 5 = minor surgery without anesthetic. What number would religious proponents need to see before they say "that's too much"? Five? Seven? Three?
- natroniks 4y ago
  > Yes, the foreskin doesn't grow back Lip and tongue ties don't grow back. Neither do teeth. Parents remove their kids' body parts if they think it's best for them. Are straight teeth healthy or just aesthetically pleasing? Is clear speech healthy or just valued in our culture? > Yes, because travelling through the birth canal is required to live, and doesn't affect sex in later life. Also, it doesn't result in any amputations. How does circumcision affect sex in later life? If circumcision is amputation, what is removing an unsightly birthmark? Or as I've said, teeth, extra skin in one's mouth... > We do. There's a ton of nerve endings there. Slicing of a particularly sensitive area (due to the concentration of nerve endings there) is going to be painful. Being birthed causes extreme trauma. That's why doctors measure a baby's oxygen and heart rate. So clearly some amount of pain is worth it if the gain outweighs the pain, no? Then you have to ask what is gained through ritual circumcision. The gain is religious and cultural value, so it's hard to measure precisely. But, you know, Christians give alcohol to kids every Sunday and no one's complaining. > If you want to do it, you need to show some evidence that it is not, not throw your hands in the air and say "well, we don't know"). I'm suggesting that we consider not everything that seems obvious is in fact obvious. Should I keep my kid from having routine blood drawn or vaccination because the needle hurts? Stop clipping their nails or cutting their hair? These are all cultural practices, there's nothing intrinsically good about grooming in this way. > I think your are deluding yourself - few doctors visits or trips to the park results in cutting off a very sensitive part of the body. I am trying not to delude myself. I am trying to clarify one thing for myself and one thing for others. For others, I want them to understand oral suction during a bris is basically unheard of outside of a fringe group. For myself, I'm trying to clarify if circumcision results in long term pain (psychological or physical) > It is a fairly easy topic. I think we agree. As I said, it should be easy to talk about and yet there are multiple factors one must weigh. This makes it compicated, but I'm happy we're talking about it. > The question of "Should we amputate a part of a newborns body, one that affects future enjoyment, and known to be incredibly sensitive" is an easy one to answer. I think the question is based on a false premise. How can one measure the joy of sex, and even if you could how would you say "this person gets less out of sex than if he had his foreskin." How can you say what the same person would feel in a hypothetical scenario? I'll just point out this very argument dates back to antiquity. Plutarch has a piece about Jews and discusses ritual circumcision - iirc he takes the stance that circumcision leads to more sexual activity and depravity because the penis is always uncovered. Greeks and Romans thought uncircumcised penises were vulgar, gross, and a sign of overt sexuality. So I would be fascinated to understand the opposite position, which you put forth, that circumcised men get less joy from sex.
jl6 4y ago
> Is it worse than giving a 6-month old pierced ears? Is it worse than travelling through the birth canal and having your umbilical cord severed? Since you asked the question, I’ll give what I think is the obvious answer: yes, of course it’s far worse than both of those things. By the way, I wouldn’t pierce a baby’s ears either, but at least that heals over and leaves minimal lasting damage. You can’t get foreskin back once it’s gone. This might be no big deal to someone who doesn’t know what they’re missing, but try applying that standard to any other part of the body. What is the downside of leaving it until the age of 18 when they can decide to get it done if they want?
- natroniks 4y ago
  There are medical procedures parents must decide to pursue or not, many are voluntary. Should I get my toddler's fremulum snipped even if there's no guarantee it helps their speech? Should teeth be extracted to help straighten out other teeth even if it results in weeks of pain? Are you saying that straight teeth are of more value than religious identity? There are many hard choices a parent must make; I think circumcision is singled out because it bears cultural and religious value but no clear medical value. So let's get down to the core of this discussion: ritual circumcision bears religious and cultural value and that's pretty much it. So long as it's done safely, of course. If you want to debate the biological merits of circumcision, you're missing the religious or cultural value. > What is the downside of leaving it until the age of 18 when they can decide to get it done if they want? My understanding is that if you wait until 18, the procedure is much more involved/more difficult, more in terms of pain and in terms of health risk. Judaism puts health above all other factors, whether it's driving to seek medical attention on shabbat, or not increasing the risk of infection in newborns. Oral suction goes against the highest Jewish principle. If circumcision caused harm - bodily or psychologically - Jews (or most would not practice it. I'm not sure I understand the physical or psychical harm done
  - lotsofpulp 4y ago
    > If you want to debate the biological merits of circumcision, you're missing the religious or cultural value. If you are assigning religious or cultural value to an act that needlessly mutilates your child’s body, you are missing the principle of freedom and letting people have ownership of their bodies. There are cultures that “value” binding feet, stretch out lips and earlobes, poke holes in various places, and face tattoos. That has no bearing on the fact that people should not have a cosmetic alteration done to their body without their permission.

cachvico 4y ago

It's not so fringe, just Google it.

natroniks 4y ago
I have googled it, nothing I've read describes it as common or main stream. Many describe it as being performed only within a very small segment of the ultra orthodox community. I haven't found a place with reliable stats, which is unfortunate, but here is a paragraph with a recent and prety clear comment from a leading Jewish authority https://www.thehastingscenter.org/ritual-circumcision-ban-metzitzah-bpeh/ https://www.thehastingscenter.org/ritual-circumcision-ban-me... Most mohels, even among the Orthodox, do use a sterile pipette, avoiding direct oral-genital contact. In 2005, the Rabbinical Council of America, the main union of modern Orthodox rabbis, issued a statement urging the abandonment of direct suction. Rabbi Moshe Tendler, a medical ethicist and dean of Yeshiva University’s (Orthodox) rabbinical school, was quoted in The JewishDaily Forward as saying: “There is no requirement to make metzitzah b’peh. The Talmud says plainly it is not part of the ritual but belongs to the medical, post-surgical component. There is no doubt that insistence on metzitzah b’peh is wrong. I firmly believe that making metzitzah b’pehis a criminal act.” Do you have sources showing this practice is commonly accepted?
- natroniks 4y ago
  PS this says (estimates) 3600 children a year. That's 3600 too many, but far from "common place" in my understanding of the term. I can't predict how many Jewish males are born each year, but if someone wants to provide that, I'd be curious to know what portion these 3600 represents.
  - nyolfen 4y ago
    it says 3,600 a year in new york; this does not sound like an esoteric fringe practice, but at least a sizeable minority
    - natroniks 4y ago

tsol 4y ago

It's sad you have to explain all of this. For some reason casual bigotry is now considered acceptable if it's for the sake of what they believe is a good cause. That's a shift I've noticed recently, as a member of a religion that gets a lot of hate. It portends sad things for our society

xdennis 4y ago
> casual bigotry is now considered acceptable It's not bigoted to be against mutilating boys. Don't hide behind religion to justify barbaric practices. Most Americans don't mutilate because of religious reasons. Somehow we all agree that female mutilation is horrible, but when it comes to boys it's controversial.
- natroniks 4y ago
  Is it ok to have your 12 year old's teeth pulled? Is it ok to get your toddler's fremulum removed? I can argue that the very idea that the body should remain intact is itself steeped in religiosity. The belief that the body we start with, we should end with, is tied to the idea of Resurrection and the Last Judgment. > Somehow we all agree that female mutilation is horrible, but when it comes to boys it's controversial FGM is something that affects their body's function. What is the function of the male foreskin? What malfunction arises after circumcision?
thatjoeoverthr 4y ago
It’s bigoted to support cutting some babies but not other babies. Tell me I can cut off the tip of my daughter’s ear. Tell me anyone who opposes me is a bigot. Tell me I don’t need her permission, and I don’t need to wait to discuss it with her. Or, more probable: find some little gotcha in my analogy so that you don’t have to confront it.
LocalH 4y ago
Attacking religious belief should not be considered within "bigotry", outside of situations like ethnically Jewish people (and their religious beliefs and practices should not enjoy special protection, but their actual ethnicity should).

prvc 4y ago

There is a more common version which uses a glass pipette for the suction stage, in order (presumably) to avoid direct contact between mouth and wound, but crucially, this offers little or no hygiene advantage compared to the full-on ritual. The prevalence of either version, however, is of little consequence, considering that they are both legally permitted and widely defended.

natroniks 4y ago
Not all mohels use the pipette, but what make you think using a sterile glass instrument is less hygienic than using one's mouth? And again you say both practices are widely defended. Who is defending oral suction outside of this fringe enclave of Ultra Orthodox Jews?
- prvc 4y ago
  >Not all mohels use the pipette Yes, this seems to be acknowledged by all comments here. The initial comment you responded to said, "it is legal for them to suck the blood from the mutilated area with their mouth", which, in my interpretation, seems to cover both the direct contact version (no pipette), and the version which just adds a pipette in between. Both involve suction applied by the mouth. The latter version, as an aside, is hardly "fringe" in its prevalence. But I think the important part is the "it is legal", i.e. presumably anybody could add in a sucking part if they wanted to without breaking the law, which has nothing to to with how many actually do go through with it. Anyway, this discussion seems to be going in circles, but I will say, if you are serious in your stated desire for "nuance", there is a wealth of literature discussing the harms and morality (or lack thereof) of circumcision in general (although not necessarily specifically the religious versions), if you cared to look for it.

lmm 4y ago

> It is absolutely not common practice to allow a mohel to orally suck the blood out of an infant's penis. If it's practiced at all, it is only in extremely fringe groups of Jews, not just orthodox or ultra orthodox but a very small group, truly some hundreds of people, practice it. They didn't say it was common, they said it was legal. And the practice is known to have caused dozens of HIV cases in New York alone, so I suspect it's a little more than hundreds. > To call metzitzah b'peh common practice, or at all part of ritual circumcision, is an anti-semitic trope. And yet the reason it remains legal is lobbying by organisations that represent the Jewish community (or at least claim to - if most Jewish people would support making this this practice illegal (something your post is not completely clear on), you should make that clearer to your representatives). > There's a lot of discomfort, maybe pain, but as a father of 3, I assure you every doctor's visit and many trips to the park involve similar levels of harm. Those things don't involve permanent removal of body parts. My objections to nonconsensual circumcision have nothing to do with how painful it is in the moment. > I realize mohels are not doctors, but there are mohel academies that train and certify these specialists. To say they are not doctors is one thing (and it's true), but to say they are not medically trained is another. They don't go to medical school but they learn about the biology of the procedure, proper methods, proper tools (including sterilization), post-op treatment & care, etc. To what standard, and how much legal enforcement is there of that?

lelanthran 4y ago

> I grappled with the decision to have brises for my sons. I don't think it's possible to know or define how traumatic such a procedure is; is it worse than giving a 6-month old pierced ears? Yes, the foreskin doesn't grow back > Is it worse than travelling through the birth canal and having your umbilical cord severed? Yes, because travelling through the birth canal is required to live, and doesn't affect sex in later life. Also, it doesn't result in any amputations. > Who knows. As obvious as it may seem, the pain of a bris impossible to gauge. We do. There's a ton of nerve endings there. Slicing of a particularly sensitive area (due to the concentration of nerve endings there) is going to be painful. If you want to do it, you need to show some evidence that it is not, not throw your hands in the air and say "well, we don't know"). > There's a lot of discomfort, maybe pain, but as a father of 3, I assure you every doctor's visit and many trips to the park involve similar levels of harm. I think your are deluding yourself - few doctors visits or trips to the park results in cutting off a very sensitive part of the body. > It's not an easy topic, It is a fairly easy topic. The question of "Should we amputate a part of a newborns body, one that affects future enjoyment, and known to be incredibly sensitive" is an easy one to answer. It becomes complex when the addition of "But my beliefs, unsupported by any evidence, mind, require me to perform this operation." The long and short of it is, it doesn't matter how much evidence there is showing that the pain is real, and severe, and the lifelong effects are real; you've done it based on a belief that supercedes mortal pain and suffering. In other words, it doesn't matter what the facts are, because the conclusions by the proponents have already been made[1]. [1] Imagine, for a moment, that we are in the near future where we have a device that lets us quantitatively determine (on a scale of 1-10) how much pain is being experienced, with 1 = barely perceptible and 10 = just below the point of passing out, with 5 = minor surgery without anesthetic. What number would religious proponents need to see before they say "that's too much"? Five? Seven? Three?

natroniks 4y ago
> Yes, the foreskin doesn't grow back Lip and tongue ties don't grow back. Neither do teeth. Parents remove their kids' body parts if they think it's best for them. Are straight teeth healthy or just aesthetically pleasing? Is clear speech healthy or just valued in our culture? > Yes, because travelling through the birth canal is required to live, and doesn't affect sex in later life. Also, it doesn't result in any amputations. How does circumcision affect sex in later life? If circumcision is amputation, what is removing an unsightly birthmark? Or as I've said, teeth, extra skin in one's mouth... > We do. There's a ton of nerve endings there. Slicing of a particularly sensitive area (due to the concentration of nerve endings there) is going to be painful. Being birthed causes extreme trauma. That's why doctors measure a baby's oxygen and heart rate. So clearly some amount of pain is worth it if the gain outweighs the pain, no? Then you have to ask what is gained through ritual circumcision. The gain is religious and cultural value, so it's hard to measure precisely. But, you know, Christians give alcohol to kids every Sunday and no one's complaining. > If you want to do it, you need to show some evidence that it is not, not throw your hands in the air and say "well, we don't know"). I'm suggesting that we consider not everything that seems obvious is in fact obvious. Should I keep my kid from having routine blood drawn or vaccination because the needle hurts? Stop clipping their nails or cutting their hair? These are all cultural practices, there's nothing intrinsically good about grooming in this way. > I think your are deluding yourself - few doctors visits or trips to the park results in cutting off a very sensitive part of the body. I am trying not to delude myself. I am trying to clarify one thing for myself and one thing for others. For others, I want them to understand oral suction during a bris is basically unheard of outside of a fringe group. For myself, I'm trying to clarify if circumcision results in long term pain (psychological or physical) > It is a fairly easy topic. I think we agree. As I said, it should be easy to talk about and yet there are multiple factors one must weigh. This makes it compicated, but I'm happy we're talking about it. > The question of "Should we amputate a part of a newborns body, one that affects future enjoyment, and known to be incredibly sensitive" is an easy one to answer. I think the question is based on a false premise. How can one measure the joy of sex, and even if you could how would you say "this person gets less out of sex than if he had his foreskin." How can you say what the same person would feel in a hypothetical scenario? I'll just point out this very argument dates back to antiquity. Plutarch has a piece about Jews and discusses ritual circumcision - iirc he takes the stance that circumcision leads to more sexual activity and depravity because the penis is always uncovered. Greeks and Romans thought uncircumcised penises were vulgar, gross, and a sign of overt sexuality. So I would be fascinated to understand the opposite position, which you put forth, that circumcised men get less joy from sex.

jl6 4y ago

> Is it worse than giving a 6-month old pierced ears? Is it worse than travelling through the birth canal and having your umbilical cord severed? Since you asked the question, I’ll give what I think is the obvious answer: yes, of course it’s far worse than both of those things. By the way, I wouldn’t pierce a baby’s ears either, but at least that heals over and leaves minimal lasting damage. You can’t get foreskin back once it’s gone. This might be no big deal to someone who doesn’t know what they’re missing, but try applying that standard to any other part of the body. What is the downside of leaving it until the age of 18 when they can decide to get it done if they want?

natroniks 4y ago
There are medical procedures parents must decide to pursue or not, many are voluntary. Should I get my toddler's fremulum snipped even if there's no guarantee it helps their speech? Should teeth be extracted to help straighten out other teeth even if it results in weeks of pain? Are you saying that straight teeth are of more value than religious identity? There are many hard choices a parent must make; I think circumcision is singled out because it bears cultural and religious value but no clear medical value. So let's get down to the core of this discussion: ritual circumcision bears religious and cultural value and that's pretty much it. So long as it's done safely, of course. If you want to debate the biological merits of circumcision, you're missing the religious or cultural value. > What is the downside of leaving it until the age of 18 when they can decide to get it done if they want? My understanding is that if you wait until 18, the procedure is much more involved/more difficult, more in terms of pain and in terms of health risk. Judaism puts health above all other factors, whether it's driving to seek medical attention on shabbat, or not increasing the risk of infection in newborns. Oral suction goes against the highest Jewish principle. If circumcision caused harm - bodily or psychologically - Jews (or most would not practice it. I'm not sure I understand the physical or psychical harm done
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  > If you want to debate the biological merits of circumcision, you're missing the religious or cultural value. If you are assigning religious or cultural value to an act that needlessly mutilates your child’s body, you are missing the principle of freedom and letting people have ownership of their bodies. There are cultures that “value” binding feet, stretch out lips and earlobes, poke holes in various places, and face tattoos. That has no bearing on the fact that people should not have a cosmetic alteration done to their body without their permission.