Print
Ore. Court: Boy Has Say in Circumcision
by Associated Press
Thanks to Brian Connors for the link.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hauz0PI_3kYdqBNezvr9DhlBbwLwD8UD4N1O0
Ore. Court: Boy Has Say in Circumcision
By SARAH SKIDMORE
PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — The wishes of a 12-year-old boy should be considered in a dispute between his divorced parents about whether he should be circumcised, the Oregon Supreme Court ruled Friday.
The father, James Boldt, converted to Judaism in 2004 and wants the boy to be circumcised as part of the faith. The mother, Lia Boldt, appealed to the high court, saying the operation could harm her son physically and psychologically.
The state Supreme Court ruled that earlier court decisions failed to determine whether the boy wanted the circumcision, as his father contended, or opposed it, as his mother alleged.
The Supreme Court sent the case back to the trial court to answer that question.
If the trial court finds the child agrees to be circumcised, the Supreme Court said, it should deny the mother's requests. But if the trial court finds the child opposes the circumcision, the court has to determine if it will affect the father's ability to care for the child.
The custody dispute began when the child was 4 and the circumcision issue began three years ago when he was 9.
James Boldt, a lawyer, is representing himself, had no comment, his office said. The attorney for both sides also declined to comment.
The case has drawn attention from Jewish groups concerned that the Oregon court might restrict the practice. A group called Doctors Opposing Circumcision backs the mother.
The courts have steered clear of religious or medical issues, focusing on the questions of custody and care of the child.
One constitutional law professor who has been following the case called it "a reasonable ruling."
"I think what may be delicate and tricky is ... how much we can trust what the 12-year-old says, given the circumstances," said Carl Tobias of the University of Richmond. "He likely feels some pressure from (his parents)."
More than a million U.S. infants are circumcised each year, but circumcising adults or teens remains relatively rare. A urologist who met with the boy submitted an affidavit that said the procedure would cause him minor discomfort for about three days but not interfere with his normal activities, the Supreme Court's decision said.PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — The wishes of a 12-year-old boy should be considered in a dispute between his divorced parents about whether he should be circumcised, the Oregon Supreme Court ruled Friday.
The father, James Boldt, converted to Judaism in 2004 and wants the boy to be circumcised as part of the faith. The mother, Lia Boldt, appealed to the high court, saying the operation could harm her son physically and psychologically.
The state Supreme Court ruled that earlier court decisions failed to determine whether the boy wanted the circumcision, as his father contended, or opposed it, as his mother alleged.
The Supreme Court sent the case back to the trial court to answer that question.
If the trial court finds the child agrees to be circumcised, the Supreme Court said, it should deny the mother's requests. But if the trial court finds the child opposes the circumcision, the court has to determine if it will affect the father's ability to care for the child.
The custody dispute began when the child was 4 and the circumcision issue began three years ago when he was 9.
James Boldt, a lawyer, is representing himself, had no comment, his office said. The attorney for both sides also declined to comment.
The case has drawn attention from Jewish groups concerned that the Oregon court might restrict the practice. A group called Doctors Opposing Circumcision backs the mother.
The courts have steered clear of religious or medical issues, focusing on the questions of custody and care of the child.
One constitutional law professor who has been following the case called it "a reasonable ruling."
"I think what may be delicate and tricky is ... how much we can trust what the 12-year-old says, given the circumstances," said Carl Tobias of the University of Richmond. "He likely feels some pressure from (his parents)."
More than a million U.S. infants are circumcised each year, but circumcising adults or teens remains relatively rare. A urologist who met with the boy submitted an affidavit that said the procedure would cause him minor discomfort for about three days but not interfere with his normal activities, the Supreme Court's decision said.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hauz0PI_3kYdqBNezvr9DhlBbwLwD8UD4N1O0
Ore. Court: Boy Has Say in Circumcision
By SARAH SKIDMORE
PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — The wishes of a 12-year-old boy should be considered in a dispute between his divorced parents about whether he should be circumcised, the Oregon Supreme Court ruled Friday.
The father, James Boldt, converted to Judaism in 2004 and wants the boy to be circumcised as part of the faith. The mother, Lia Boldt, appealed to the high court, saying the operation could harm her son physically and psychologically.
The state Supreme Court ruled that earlier court decisions failed to determine whether the boy wanted the circumcision, as his father contended, or opposed it, as his mother alleged.
The Supreme Court sent the case back to the trial court to answer that question.
If the trial court finds the child agrees to be circumcised, the Supreme Court said, it should deny the mother's requests. But if the trial court finds the child opposes the circumcision, the court has to determine if it will affect the father's ability to care for the child.
The custody dispute began when the child was 4 and the circumcision issue began three years ago when he was 9.
James Boldt, a lawyer, is representing himself, had no comment, his office said. The attorney for both sides also declined to comment.
The case has drawn attention from Jewish groups concerned that the Oregon court might restrict the practice. A group called Doctors Opposing Circumcision backs the mother.
The courts have steered clear of religious or medical issues, focusing on the questions of custody and care of the child.
One constitutional law professor who has been following the case called it "a reasonable ruling."
"I think what may be delicate and tricky is ... how much we can trust what the 12-year-old says, given the circumstances," said Carl Tobias of the University of Richmond. "He likely feels some pressure from (his parents)."
More than a million U.S. infants are circumcised each year, but circumcising adults or teens remains relatively rare. A urologist who met with the boy submitted an affidavit that said the procedure would cause him minor discomfort for about three days but not interfere with his normal activities, the Supreme Court's decision said.PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — The wishes of a 12-year-old boy should be considered in a dispute between his divorced parents about whether he should be circumcised, the Oregon Supreme Court ruled Friday.
The father, James Boldt, converted to Judaism in 2004 and wants the boy to be circumcised as part of the faith. The mother, Lia Boldt, appealed to the high court, saying the operation could harm her son physically and psychologically.
The state Supreme Court ruled that earlier court decisions failed to determine whether the boy wanted the circumcision, as his father contended, or opposed it, as his mother alleged.
The Supreme Court sent the case back to the trial court to answer that question.
If the trial court finds the child agrees to be circumcised, the Supreme Court said, it should deny the mother's requests. But if the trial court finds the child opposes the circumcision, the court has to determine if it will affect the father's ability to care for the child.
The custody dispute began when the child was 4 and the circumcision issue began three years ago when he was 9.
James Boldt, a lawyer, is representing himself, had no comment, his office said. The attorney for both sides also declined to comment.
The case has drawn attention from Jewish groups concerned that the Oregon court might restrict the practice. A group called Doctors Opposing Circumcision backs the mother.
The courts have steered clear of religious or medical issues, focusing on the questions of custody and care of the child.
One constitutional law professor who has been following the case called it "a reasonable ruling."
"I think what may be delicate and tricky is ... how much we can trust what the 12-year-old says, given the circumstances," said Carl Tobias of the University of Richmond. "He likely feels some pressure from (his parents)."
More than a million U.S. infants are circumcised each year, but circumcising adults or teens remains relatively rare. A urologist who met with the boy submitted an affidavit that said the procedure would cause him minor discomfort for about three days but not interfere with his normal activities, the Supreme Court's decision said.
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Saturday, January 26, 2008 | PermalinkComments 1 - 50 of 122 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #116300 by Stormkahn on January 26, 2008 at 8:09 am
Gotta say I thought I heard Rabbi Andrew Sachs say the Jews weren't hiring anymore.... Other Comments by Stormkahn
3. Comment #116301 by PrimeNumbers on January 26, 2008 at 8:10 am
Simplest thing is to ban this barbaric procedure for good and be done with it (proper medical reasons excepted.) It's at best cosmetic surgery and at worst child abuse. Time for it to stop. Other Comments by PrimeNumbers
4. Comment #116320 by Fenriswolf on January 26, 2008 at 8:45 am
I'm surprised the case was able to get this far without anybody thinking it might be a good idea to ask the boy what he wants.For example, if this was a divorce in Scotland, a 12 year old would be asked for his/her opinion re contact arrangements. Surely the child's opinion should be considered when the case concerns removing a part of his body for purely religious reasons.Other Comments by Fenriswolf
5. Comment #116322 by MatthewL on January 26, 2008 at 8:49 am
Am I the only one seeing the article twice? The whole thing re-written again as soon as it's finished?Other Comments by MatthewL
6. Comment #116323 by Animavore on January 26, 2008 at 8:51 am
copy and paste mistake maybe Other Comments by Animavore
7. Comment #116324 by Steve Zara on January 26, 2008 at 8:51 am
Some could argue i converted to atheism from catholism when i was 13 although I would say I lost catholism through a gradual process of reasoning and was left with atheism.
I am afraid you are still counted as a Catholic by the Church until you either die or are excommunicated.
Other Comments by Steve Zara
8. Comment #116329 by Radesq on January 26, 2008 at 8:54 am
5. Comment #116322 by MatthewL No its just you MatthewL :)
5. Comment #116322 by MatthewL
No its just you MatthewL :)
Other Comments by Radesq
9. Comment #116330 by Animavore on January 26, 2008 at 8:54 am
why? because some priest tried to drown me as a baby when i had no say? the church neither knows or cares about me. I'm not up there every sunday giving them money ye see. Other Comments by Animavore
10. Comment #116341 by agn on January 26, 2008 at 9:10 am
The father should be prosecuted for maliciously intending to engage in child abuse.Insofar as the boy "agrees" to circumcision, he is to be regarded incompetent at deciding what is best for him, and the victim of indoctrination and brainwashing.
Other Comments by agn
11. Comment #116342 by Double Bass Atheist on January 26, 2008 at 9:12 am
No matter what your opinion of circumcision is, as it's been said many times on past threads about this story, doing this to a boy at that age IS child abuse! It's absolutely appalling that this had to go all the way to the Oregon State Supreme Court for the child's wishes to be considered!
Other Comments by Double Bass Atheist
12. Comment #116344 by stereoroid on January 26, 2008 at 9:17 am
"Daddy, remind me again, what does God want my foreskin for? Is he making a coat?"What happened to the that bit of the Hippocratic Oath that says "first do no harm"?
Other Comments by stereoroid
13. Comment #116349 by ivellios on January 26, 2008 at 9:38 am
Also remember...We were created in his image, perfect. At least that is what they teach. So why does the foreskin have to be cut off if that is the case?
Mental
Other Comments by ivellios
14. Comment #116350 by markg on January 26, 2008 at 9:41 am
My wife and I made a decision before our son (now almost 3 yrs. old) was born not to have this done to him. We researched and found it is medically unnecessary and really only a religous or cultural thing. Here in the U.S. I think less people are choosing this these days than previously.That didn't stop my mother-in-law from calling after he was born and asking why and making comments such as, "won't he be embarassed in a school lockerroom when he's older?" As if that were a worthwhile reason for a circumcision.
However, when my son is of legal age, if he should chose to have that done to himself, so be it.
Other Comments by markg
15. Comment #116351 by Mango on January 26, 2008 at 9:45 am
I don't view male circumcision as "child abuse" or a "barbaric practice." Maybe some atheists abhor it because of a knee-jerk reaction to anything that has has a conspicuous religious origin. To paint male circumcision in such a dramatic fashion serves to trivialize female circumcision, which is much more important to eradicate."But what about the child's right to decline a completely aesthetic, unnecessary mutilation?" If someone argues that, I'd contest the word mutilation. Is getting your child's otherwise healthy teeth clamped down by metal to align them not also a kind of mutilation? How about getting that fully-formed extra digit removed? Both of those examples are purely aesthetic, and so it is with male circumcision when performed by professional health service workers.
And what about a child's right not to be raised in a crime and drug ridden neighborhood? There are worthier fights to engage in than male circumcision and I'm sorry to see such energies wasted towards arguing against it.
Other Comments by Mango
16. Comment #116352 by Friend Giskard on January 26, 2008 at 9:45 am
No matter what your opinion of circumcision is, as it's been said many times on past threads about this story, doing this to a boy at that age IS child abuse!
So why is it not child abuse if you do it to an infant? What's the difference?
Other Comments by Friend Giskard
17. Comment #116355 by jimbob on January 26, 2008 at 9:57 am
What happened to the that bit of the Hippocratic Oath that says "first do no harm"?
Nothing happened to it -- it was never there.
However, a common adage to medical professionals is primum non nocere.
Other Comments by jimbob
18. Comment #116356 by rod-the-farmer on January 26, 2008 at 9:58 am
I agree with PRIMENUMBERS. This is a barbaric practice. We don't permit female genital mutilation in western society. Why should we allow it in males ? If Dog had wanted males to have no foreskin, boys would be born without one. Boys are still being born with one. Evolution has obviously spoken here. It must have some purpose, other than to identify jewish men in the shower. And why is it that only the Abrahamic religions take such interest in the genitals of their believers ? I don't recall reading that any other religion is similarly focussed. Does the bible call for this ? To perform this on a young boy so his Dad says he can then and only then be accepted into the faith....am I the only one who thinks this is really stupid ? When Jim Jones asked his followers to drink that Koolaid, was that any different from this ? Tell the kid he can make up his own mind, at the age of majority. The operation should be specifically forbidden until that time, otherwise he may be under pressure from his Dad. After all, I never heard such an operation was reversible. The comment
Gotta say I thought I heard Rabbi Andrew Sachs say the Jews weren't hiring anymore....
makes real sense. I can't imagine they get a lot of applications, if this is one of the requirements.
Other Comments by rod-the-farmer
19. Comment #116357 by Peacebeuponme on January 26, 2008 at 9:59 am
Mango - an extra digit is an abnormality. Your teeth example is interesting, but I don't think it compares. I would still view that as a "corrective" procedure. Here in th UK we use braces far less than the US (as Americans are so fond of pointing out!)Let the boy decide whether he wants his foreskin or not when he is able to make an informed choice.
To paint male circumcision in such a dramatic fashion serves to trivialize female circumcisionHere we go again... Actually I would think it would have the opposite effect. If we baulk at circumcision it should be obvious that we have even stronger feelings agaist FGM.
Other Comments by Peacebeuponme
20. Comment #116361 by rod-the-farmer on January 26, 2008 at 10:09 am
Mango, you wrote about braces and extra-digit-removal, saying
Both of those examples are purely aesthetic, and so it is with male circumcision when performed by professional health service workers.
Aesthetic ? Are you serious ? Where do you live and work that people judge your "good taste" or "beauty" by your genitals ? (These definitions of aesthetic came from the my handy dictionary.) I would really be interested to hear. What would it be classified as if the operation was done by someone other than a "professional health service worker" ?? Cosmetic ? Therapeutic ?
Other Comments by rod-the-farmer
21. Comment #116363 by NJS on January 26, 2008 at 10:13 am
"purely aesthetic"Apart from the thousands of nerve pleasure receptors removed.
I have a friend who was circumcised when he was 17 for medical reasons. He reckons that though sex is still enjoyable, it is markedly less so.
Why should I believe a circumcised from birth person who knows no different?
I also abhor FGM but women do the argument no favours when they trivialise male circumcision - they are both part of the same barbaric, fucked up world view.
"isnot there a case for it being for ones good, like flouride in ones water or inoculation for a disease? "
All of the usual so called "health reasons" like penile cancer prevention are lies - there are no medical grounds for it on a routine basis. My friend's foreskin was too tight as he reached adulthood which is why it was necessary.
Other Comments by NJS
22. Comment #116365 by Geoff on January 26, 2008 at 10:16 am
why? because some priest tried to drown me as a baby when i had no say? the church neither knows or cares about me. I'm not up there every sunday giving them money ye see.
Easy: so they can still count you as part of their "flock" when they play the numbers game.
"x million Catholics can't be wrong..."
Other Comments by Geoff
23. Comment #116367 by jkr87 on January 26, 2008 at 10:25 am
I think the word mutilation is rather apt. It's removing a functional and useful part of the body, not merely "modifying" it for absolutely medical reasons. There's a big difference between getting an earring and have an earlobe cut off. Mutilation simply is "to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of." This practice is also not merely an aesthetic procedure, but removes functional tissue, and if it were aesthetic, then that still doesn't give someone the right to remove a body part from someone else.Aesthetics doesn't justify amputation, and the very fact, as the article states, that the procedure is rarely done on older people, is consistent with it being a generally unnecessary medical procedure.
Of course, people can grow up taking a number of practices or situations for granted, but when one steps out of that, its only then that one realizes how wrong it really is. All you have to do is change the example slightly, and think about whether parents have a right to have an ear cut off or a finger, or a girl's mammary glands so she has a reduced risk of breast cancer. That would all be considered mutilation, and we could have been living in a society that chose one of those as the norm, but that's merely arbitrary. (But I suppose it's easier though, to write off someone else's sexual feelings as being less important than losing a finger.) For people who wake up one day and realize they had a significant part of the most personal part of their body removed without their consent, it's perfectly understandable that they would react very strongly about it. There's nothing wrong with not wanting to have parts of your body cut off because someone else didnt like them. They have a basic experience of being mutilated and violated. Just because other people are fine with the practice because they are brought up to tolerate it, doesnt change the fact that for those who realize it, they had something forcibly amputated. But some people dont understand that and cant understand why so many are opposed to the practice. But for some reason, we dont seem to find there is something very seriously wrong with people who are so passionate about getting parts of SOMEONE ELSE's genitals cut off, especially if it's not medically necessary.
The practice of female genital mutilation is also done for cultural reasons and tradition, and getting it done is taken VERY seriously in many parts of the world, far more seriously than MGM is taken in North America. There are also degrees of FGM. But in many countries, even making so much as a pinprick on a girl is illegal. The only way one can oppose FGM and also tolerate MGM is if one would allow a similar amount of tissue removal in both cases. If boys don't have a right not to have 1/2-2/3 of their organ's (functional and erogenous) skin removed then it is unprincipled, to say the least, to suggest that girls do have a right not to have ANY genital tissue removed. Saying you're okay with MGM means you're also okay with a similar procedure being done on girls.
Either people have a right to their bodies or they dont.
Other Comments by jkr87
24. Comment #116372 by righton on January 26, 2008 at 10:50 am
I wish I had my foreskin.Other Comments by righton
25. Comment #116373 by agn on January 26, 2008 at 10:51 am
Mango's examples of what is generally called "corrective procedures" is, indeed, interesting, but fails short of being valid analogies.Similar examples would include:
Some infants are born with tails or webbed fingers.
These "anomalies" are routinely removed.
Similarly, on rare occasions, infants are born with "ambiguous" genitals, like hermaphrodites, but there is also known examples of boys born with two penes.
Again, in modern societies, such "abnormalities" are sought corrected.
The question is:
Why would these examples fall in a morally distinct class than the example of removing the foreskin from a baby?
The answer is that kids are not nice to each other, and certainly not towards those who can be considered "freaks".
If any of these tiny, corrective procedures were NOT done, these rare individuals would still be very rare, and expectably suffer under the vicious taunts of others. It is not moral not to regard this as a morally relevant issue; in particular, we shouldn't go about assuming people do not mistreat others on basis of their physical looks.
The removal of foreskin example, however, is totally different:
As soon as an immediate ban on the removal of foreskins was in place, ALL boys would look the same, in complete contrast to what would happen if we decided not to make corrective procedures with respect to rare, physical anomalies as the ones mentioned.
On socio-medical ethical grounds, then, whereas corrective procedures CAN be defended with respect to rare anomalies, those grounds do not hold with respect to the practice of circumcision, whether male or female.
Other Comments by agn
26. Comment #116376 by Mango on January 26, 2008 at 10:54 am
jkr87 Saying you're okay with MGM means you're also okay with a similar procedure being done on girls.
Is there really an equivalence to be drawn between the two procedures? For females the procedure involves intense physical pain, emotional and physical scaring, potential damage to reproductivity, decline in sexual desire, so on and so forth. The two procedures share the name "circumcision" but are in many salient respects different, and reasonable people acknowledge this when they have their male child circumcised yet speak out vociferously against female circumcision.
To say that I condone getting a baby's ears pierced does not ipso facto mean I must also condone getting her clitoris, nose, or navel pierced to remain logically consistent. So it is between males and females and this matter.
Other Comments by Mango
27. Comment #116381 by kwhitefoot on January 26, 2008 at 11:12 am
When the boy comes of age he can convert to Judaism himself and then consent have it cut off. Until then the cutting off of functional body parts should count as assault and battery. It isn't a question of health or pain, the point is the autonomy of the individual concerned. Other Comments by kwhitefoot
28. Comment #116395 by Mr. Grape on January 26, 2008 at 11:48 am
"I'm surprised the case was able to get this far without anybody thinking it might be a good idea to ask the boy what he wants..."Here in the U.S., children are mostly treated as sub human. What can you expect from a country that likes to kill 14 year olds for crimes.
Other Comments by Mr. Grape
29. Comment #116398 by padster1976 on January 26, 2008 at 11:55 am
This is one shockingly crap piece of reportage.First of all...
"The state Supreme Court ruled that earlier court decisions failed to determine whether the boy wanted the circumcision, as his father contended, or opposed it, as his mother alleged."
Why is father given the term 'contend' as opposed to the weaker term 'alleged' for the mother. I sense an attempt to manipulate opinions with a bias towards the male. It would have been a lot fairer to place the parents claim as equal.
"I think what may be delicate and tricky is ... how much we can trust what the 12-year-old says, given the circumstances,"
I would put money that the full quote gives a completely different slant to the what that person said. A highly cynical use of a quote if I ever saw one!
Other Comments by padster1976
30. Comment #116416 by Yggdrasill on January 26, 2008 at 12:40 pm
i dont know why, but this topic always enrages me. i just want to destroy whatever is close to me. anybody else have that problem?but circumcision doesn't even make sense to begin with. there are huge groups of jews in america against circumcision. it is not part of their faith to continue it, it is part of their even more logically empty lifestyle that is based off of traditionalism. "well i did it, so should my son"
Other Comments by Yggdrasill
31. Comment #116422 by tommcc on January 26, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Why should the childs opinion matter??What if he consented to a tattoo on his forehead saying God is a twat?
Imagine what uproar that would cause.
Other Comments by tommcc
32. Comment #116423 by agn on January 26, 2008 at 1:06 pm
From Mango:"The two procedures share the name "circumcision" but are in many salient respects different, and reasonable people acknowledge this when they have their male child circumcised yet speak out vociferously against female circumcision."
They are being inconsistent in their attitudes.
That is hardly a novel feature, particularly among religionists.
In particular, appealing to the inconsistency in parents' attitudes is a rather weak argument in the favour of male circumcision.
Other Comments by agn
33. Comment #116425 by ChicagoMolly on January 26, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Some years ago a male friend of mine married a Jewish woman and joined their team. When he said he wanted to be circumcised the rabbi he consulted told him that the procedure wasn't necessary for a convert; it was really a matter of tribal identity and they didn't expect it of him. But I guess he wanted to show his bride the depth of his commitment, so he did it. At the age of 32. So be it. That was his choice to make as an adult. But for this guy simply to assume that his choice of religions automatically applies to his child at all is ludicrous. To try it without the agreement of his ex-wife (who clearly should have a say in how her child is raised) is presumptuous. To attempt to ritually cut off the foreskin of his son, who can at best be said to have converted by proxy, is outrageous.At age 12 a child raised in a Jewish family is ready for bar/bat mitzvah; ready to stand up for oneself and state, "I am an adult, I can choose for myself, and I freely acknowledge that I am a Jew and accept all the responsibilities of my faith and my people." So at this point I should think the boy has the right to decide for himself what he's going to do, and if his father is serious about Judaism he should allow his son to make the decision for himself. Especially since his own personal naughty bits are at stake.
Speaking of naughty bits, there's nothing in the story about whether the Old Man got his own willy trimmed. One wonders.
Other Comments by ChicagoMolly
34. Comment #116431 by Bertybob on January 26, 2008 at 1:20 pm
How do you circumcise a whale??Send down four skin divers.....!!!
Boom, boom, I'm here all week..
Other Comments by Bertybob
35. Comment #116441 by BigJohn on January 26, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Why anyone would want to whack off a chunk of anyone else's body boggles my mind. How does one decide which part to chop? What reason is there to choose one particular part over another? Religion seems to be the worst basis for choosing because it depends on which religion one accepts as true. Notice that all religions which want to excise bodily parts want to remove sexually related items. Can you think of any reason why? It's called control. Personally, I intend to keep my prepuce, after all it's almost 70 years old and I've grown fond of it.
Other Comments by BigJohn
36. Comment #116443 by agn on January 26, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Suppose a sect in Hammerfest, Norway, formed worshipping the Sun (it being gone for about 3 months a year, quite understandable), and wanted to show their allegiance as "Children of the Fire" by branding themselves and their children with a wavy fire symbol, say on the forehead or shoulder.The pain would be intense, but short-lived, and the procedure would produce no significant loss of functionality.
Still, it would be a public outcry over the branding procedure and that it would be deeply immoral to inflict that type of injury on a defenceless infant.
These are the grotesque types of scenarios circumcision rituals should be compared with.
Other Comments by agn
37. Comment #116444 by ChicagoMolly on January 26, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Circumcising newborn baby boys wasn't a common practice among gentiles in the States until the early 20th Century (so much for progress). It was promoted as a "hygienic" measure to make it easier to keep the bits clean. Of course it also helped pad out the doc's bill -- you know, like the routine $300 rustproofing "option" that's added on when you buy a new car. But it really had more to do with the anti-sex mania that swept the country at that time. There was an endless stream of propaganda out concerning The Horrors of Self-Abuse and all that that entails. It seemed that all the moral failings of America were being blamed on masturbation, and any number of well-meaning religious crusaders and outright quacks were on the job concocting pseudoscientific diagnoses and cures -- circumcision, vigorous exercise, ice-cold baths, exposure to radium salts -- for boys and men who were destroying our nation's vigor by diddling (this was a male problem, of course -- girls are sweet, pure, angelic creatures who just don't do such things). That was Dr John Kellogg's motivation for inventing Corn Flakes. He believed a vegetarian diet, with lots of grain and regular purges, would cure you of the urge to masturbate. If you haven't read T C Boyle's novel The Road To Wellville, do. It's set in 1907 at Dr Kellogg's sanatarium in Battle Creek, Michigan, and while the plot is fiction, Boyle did his homework on the background of the place. It's really frightening to see the ways sexual obsessions express themselves.Other Comments by ChicagoMolly
38. Comment #116457 by Agrajag on January 26, 2008 at 2:31 pm
36. Comment #116431 by Bertybob on January 26, 2008 at 1:20 pm
How do you circumcise a whale??
Did you hear about the job at the city zoo circumcising elephants?
The pay isn't much, but the tips are great. ;-)
AJ
Other Comments by Agrajag
39. Comment #116458 by Radesq on January 26, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Have we run out of things to be opposed to? I am having a hard time getting all worked up over this. I don't consider this a horrible mutilation. I don't think I'd be signing up for it at twelve; But it is not equivalent to FGM anymore than a male's contribution to creating a child is equivalent to a female's. Other Comments by Radesq
40. Comment #116459 by markg on January 26, 2008 at 2:46 pm
BertybobJudging by your avatar, if your feet were that big when you were a baby, I'd hate to hear about your circumcision.
Ba dum bum. Thank You, I'm here all week too.
Other Comments by markg
41. Comment #116465 by GBile on January 26, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Do not cut things of boys and do not cut things of girls. It is a simple as that. Other Comments by GBile
42. Comment #116468 by agn on January 26, 2008 at 3:05 pm
" I don't consider this a horrible mutilation. I don't think I'd be signing up for it at twelve; But it is not equivalent to FGM anymore than a male's contribution to creating a child is equivalent to a female's. "Neither is marital rape equivalent to molesting and murdering a 5-year old.
That doesn't make marital rape okayish.
Other Comments by agn
43. Comment #116471 by Radesq on January 26, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Doesn't make circumcision equivalent to marital rape either. Pick your battles that's all. Other Comments by Radesq
44. Comment #116474 by righton on January 26, 2008 at 3:11 pm
This has to be pretty traumatizing to the twelve year old. Your parents are going to court over cutting skin off your penis? This would give me some kind of complex for the rest of my life. The last thing I would want at twelve would be my parents arguing about my penis.Other Comments by righton
45. Comment #116478 by agn on January 26, 2008 at 3:15 pm
"Doesn't make circumcision equivalent to marital rape either. Pick your battles that's all."
I have unlimited capacity for belligerence.
Other Comments by agn
46. Comment #116481 by theatom82 on January 26, 2008 at 3:20 pm
"The father, James Boldt, converted to Judaism in 2004 and wants the boy to be circumcised as part of the faith."I think that is where the key issue is. The father has converted to Judiasm.... what does that have to do with his son? I wonder if the father got a circumcision after he converted.
Other Comments by theatom82
47. Comment #116615 by drcancerman on January 26, 2008 at 8:10 pm
Why the son must be circumcised if its the father who became jewish? Another question, how does one convert to judaism? I thought that was blood line only! Or is that weird judaism that I heard, Jesus Judaism or something, Christ Judaism, or Christian Judaism or some bs like that...
I had a few discussions with one of them and I couldn't stop laugh my ass off!
Other Comments by drcancerman
48. Comment #116620 by Victor/Victoria on January 26, 2008 at 8:40 pm
I wish I had my foreskin.
So do I.
I think Animavore has been excommunicated latae sententiae due to his atheism, which counts as apostasy. He is still, very technically, however, a Catholic -- but one who stands formally outside of the communion of believers. The Roman Catechism states that by baptism one is "sealed with a character that can never be effaced from the soul."
Other Comments by Victor/Victoria
49. Comment #116622 by Mitchell Gilks on January 26, 2008 at 8:47 pm
Circumcision is a disgusting tribal practice. I was unlucky enough to be raised in a religion that required it. I was furious when I found out the details.Circumcision is done for one reason for males, and two reasons for girls.
Because sex is considered so evil and wrong, they attempt to limit the pleasure as much as possible. This is what circumcision is for solly in boys, and one reason for girls. The second reason for girls is so you can tell whether they are a virgin or not. A large number of girls break their hymen through physical activity such as bike riding or horse back riding. So they will not bleed when they loose their virginity, so that is not a reliable way to determine whether they were a virgin.
There is a small post hoc case to be made for male circumcision that is about health. It is irrelevent to why the practice was started, and was invented purely as a secular defence. Which goes that a circumcised boy is less likely to get penis infections. Which is somewhat true, if you are a total slob, and never wash, ever, the uncircumcised boy will get a penis infection first. Of couse there are more infection they penis infections that can be cought from being a total slob that never washes, no one suggests cutting off everything that can get infected.
There is absolute no sufficient secular reason to continue the practice, while they are a number of reasons to stop it.
Circumcised males (not even getting into females because I would hope that we all agree that is unquestionably disgusting) have greatly reduced sensitivity on the head of their penis, as normally it is meant to be an internal organ, that is overed. Even the foreskin itself has a great deal of sensitivity. In short, us circumcised guys are missing out on a great deal of pleasure during sex. So that we gain cultural acceptance from all the religious people that support it when we show them our dicks, and so that we can go a bit longer living in complete unwashed filth before getting an penis infection.
Yay me.
Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks
50. Comment #116624 by dlitt on January 26, 2008 at 9:08 pm
Comment #116351 by Mango on January 26, 2008 at 9:45 am
I don't view male circumcision as "child abuse" or a "barbaric practice." Maybe some atheists abhor it because of a knee-jerk reaction to anything that has has a conspicuous religious origin. To paint male circumcision in such a dramatic fashion serves to trivialize female circumcision, which is much more important to eradicate.
[edit]
There are worthier fights to engage in than male circumcision and I'm sorry to see such energies wasted towards arguing against it.
It is exactly child abuse.
Its origins are completely religious.
Its only purpose is to assist in numbing the 'sinful' pleasures of sex and make masturbation more difficult.
It's a disgusting practice.
Other Comments by dlitt
Over 1.5 million copies sold
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
1. Comment #116298 by Animavore on January 26, 2008 at 8:01 am
Other Comments by Animavore