Another ethical dilemma. Maybe I am just confused?

Published by Tom

July 21, 2012

'Circumcision ban makes Ger… JPost – Jewish World – Jewish News.

I am troubled by the German court decision on circumcision (and relieved that the Bundestag is apparently going to over-rule it). Yet I don't really understand why? My libertarian principles certainly don't allow parents a free hand to mutilate their children on any pretext, yet there's something unsettling about prohibiting the practice. The Jewish friend I asked about it didn't help me much. He just said the hygienic reasons for male circumcision were long gone and had sympathy with the court's view. If Jewish men want to be circumcised when they are adult and able to make their own choice, then so be it, but he wasn't sure it was right to impose it in childhood. HIs reaction doesn't seem to be very typical, judging by press reports.

What, gentle readers, is your view?

7 responses to “Another ethical dilemma. Maybe I am just confused?”

WitteringsfromWitney

July 21, 2012

As it happens two people I know had it done, one as a child, aged 3 or 4, and one as an adult. The adult said it hurt rather, while the child did not recall remembering any pain.
Presumably, from a Libertarian viewpoint, whose business is it but that of the parents – or the child on attaining adulthood if he wishes it done?

LikeLike

Reply
Tom

July 21, 2012

As for the adult taking his own decision, no problem, but if it’s only the parents’ business then what of parents who opt for female circumcision or tattooing their children or whatever else?

LikeLike

Reply
Richard B

July 21, 2012

The difference between male and female circumcision is one of degree, not of category. If you approve of one, you cannot logically disapprove of the other. In my view, both are barbaric. I am not against circumcision, only against it where it is carried out on a baby or child (for non-medical reasons, obviously) who is unable to give full, informed consent. We do not own our children, we are their custodians, and so the Libertarian ‘my gaff, my rules’ (with which I broadly agree, by the way) does not become ‘my kids, my foreskins’. If a boy is raised in a Jewish (or Muslim) family and after mature reflection at the age of 18 or so decides to have it done to ‘join the tribe’ as it were, I would have no objection. But I feel that the numbers of circumcisions would decline catastrophically if that were the case.

LikeLike

Reply
FatBigot

July 22, 2012

I doubt that a fall in the number of circumcisions could be called a catastrophe, but that’s beside the point.
What seems to be lacking in much of the debate on this issue is a sense of proportion. Angels on pinheads might want to debate whether the result of infant male circumcision is of benefit or detriment to the child, I don’t because it is impossible to measure and irrelevant in any event.
A tiny piece of skin is cut off, so what?
It’s happened many millions of times before and the willies have still been able to perform their two functions.
This is nothing to do with moral absolutes, it is to do with culture. Some might call it religious and, no doubt, some really believe that their god requires it to be done but most Jews and Muslims (and Nigerians, Ghanaians, Philipinos, Koreans and others) have it done because it is part of their culture. Their fathers were circumcised, they are circumcised and they have their sons circumcised because it is just something that is done in their culture. Western Europeans leave their boys’ willies alone because circumcision is not done in their culture.
For those involved the pain inflicted on the child is considered less important than the cultural significance of the event. It’s no different in substance from Romanies and Hindus piercing their children’s ears. The practice binds the generations regardless of the occasional unfortunate instance of infection or bad practice causing malformation, illness or death.
It is not for us to say they are wrong because for them it is important and we cannot weigh the benefit cultural continuity gives against the detriment of the occasional botched snip. Indeed, we should not even start to try to weigh these things because there is no metric against which they can be evaluated other than the bland metric of uniformity for the sake of uniformity. In the Soviet bloc we saw what that did to architecture, for the same fate to befall humans would be unforgivable.
Friends of mine of West African origin had their son circumcised at an early age simply because it was the norm in the country of their parents’ origin. For them it was important that their boy had that link to his family history. Distasteful though I consider the practice to be, it was absolutely none of my business despite being the boy’s Godfather (a loosely defined term in the circumstances because neither I nor either of the parents is at all religious).
“It’s none of my business” is rather out of vogue in these days of thought crimes and nanny-statism, but I believe it is what should guide all of us on this issue.

LikeLike

Reply
Tom

July 22, 2012

I agree on the limits to my gaff my rules. I don’t agree that female circumcision is a matter of degree. It is a deliberate mutilation designed to damage sexual response. It must be in a different category surely?

LikeLike

Reply
Tom

July 22, 2012

Which leaves me with the same problem. I want to accept the rights of Jews and Muslims to do this to their boys but if I do so on cultural grounds I have to accept female circumcision and other witch-doctory. Don’t I?
Well argued but I am still on the horns of my dilemma.

LikeLike

Reply
SadButMadLad

July 25, 2012

What about cochlea implants?
Not a medical need because society provides a lot of help for deaf people who can live very normal lives. Done on cultural grounds to allow a child to fit in with his peers and not stand out.
Should they be banned for the same reason? More people will probably say no because it doesn’t harm. So it is a matter of degree. Male circumcision doesn’t harm in the long term. I’ve been done and it doesn’t affect my sex life in any way. Female circumcision tends to be more severe and stops the woman from having sexual pleasure. If female circumcision only removed the clitoral hood then it would probably be more acceptable.

LikeLike

Reply