Comments about ‘Ruling against circumcision a threat to freedom’

Gerson will shout about individual freedom. What about the right of the infant to choose? He worries about the right of some religious group to do what it wants at the possible expense of an individual. At least the Amish give their young people the right to stay in the faith or leave when they become young adults. Most religions won't allow that.

Note to the Catholic bishops -- THIS is what a REAL threat to religious freedom looks like.

Luckily, the laws in the United States offer greater religious protections than the laws in France.

It is interesting that people are more upset about the ban on circumcision than they are about the ban on the hijab and burqa.

I wonder why that is?

The right to circumcise has NOT be revoked. Religious freedom is NOT under attack. Feel free to circumcise those who are of age to choose.
When the same thing is done to girls (as practiced by many in Africa and elsewhere) we call it barbaric. Why is it not barbaric to cut (mutilate) the genitals of an infant. Its not a 100% success rate, there are accidents. Accidents that are totally preventable by not cutting the infants genitals.

Injuring an infant child is a threat to freedom? Geez D-news, you're really scraping the bottom of the barrel.

I wait anxiously for Gerson to write with equal passion in defense of female circumcision. Sauce for the gander is sauce for the goose, right? But then, female circumcision is not part of the Judeo-Christian tradition, so it's irrelevant and nonexistent as far as the Religious Right is concerned.

Gerson's closing anecdote is poignant, but what does it imply? How can an infant, incapable of language or abstract thought, be a member of any religion? And what kind of deity would withhold spiritual benefits from a baby simply because its parents skipped a ritual when there were extenuating circumstances? The act was totally for the mother's benefit, not the child's.

The Right is selective in their concerns about the so-called war on religion. Why have I heard nothing about how Mormons are coerced through state taxes to support the distribution and sale of liquor? Why is there widespread silence about Jews being forced to subsidize swine production through their federal income taxes? Yet suggest that an agnostic food service worker in a dorm cafeteria at the University of Notre Dame ought to have her health insurance cover her contraceptives, and all heck breaks loose.

Male circumcision is shown to reduce the transmission of the AIDS HIV virus. Some African countries are promoting its broad acceptance.

Folks,

Male circumcision has little similarity with female circumcision. For the former, health is at minimum the same and likely improved in certain circumstances. For the latter, health is strongly diminished.

@Twin Lights

Some female circumcision is extremely dangerous, I find the practice of male and female circumcision barbaric.

Male infants can die from circumcision and pretty much every first world country has recommended against it.

@TWIN LIGHTS
What they have in common is your are cutting up the genitals of infants. That is a pretty common factor. And really people? Its cleaner? Come on, really? Think about that answer. If I can wash my hands and take a shower I really think cleanliness is not an issue here.

Wait until they're old enough to choose for themselves. Then, if they wish, they can make their own covenants with God rather than having it forced upon them as babies.

UT Brit,

Agreed that female circumcision can be extremely dangerous. The stories from circumcised females are often horrific. I think we all know circumcised males and none (that I know) have such horror stories. Male circumcision is a choice exercised even by non-religious parents.

Midvalian,

Obviously they both cut parts of the genitalia but the effects are dramatically different.

Scientists are not recommending female circumcision. In fact there is widespread opposition in the health community. However, scientists are recommending male circumcision in Africa to help stem the Aids epidemic. It appears that the rate of contraction is less than half for a circumcised male vs. a non-circumcised male. Even if there were such benefits to female circumcision, I doubt you would find any scientific support for the practice.

@Twin Lights

I know someone who had complications as an infant. Its an unnecessary procedure with no real benefit. Like I said infants have died from it.
The STI transmission rate in Africa is shakey evidence at best.
Male circumcision is not recommended by the vast majority of the western world.

Circumcising a baby is mutilation and child abuse. If the boy chooses it when he's older, fine. But babies cannot choose.

Re: Esquire Springville, UT
"What about the right of the infant to choose?"

This same infant has no right to life prior to birth. Does anyone honestly think abortion isn't painful for the infant in the 24th week of the pregnancy?

The same liberals who have a hissy fit over a male circumcision have no sympathy for the plight of the child prior to it's birth.

@ Rifleman: The only times abortions occur in or after the 24th week of pregnancy is when there is a threat to the health of the mother or when the fetus suffers from a severe birth defect that inhibits the ability of the fetus to survive the birth process and/or to survive outside the womb. No body does it for fun. Even pro-life organizations admit that less than 2% of abortions take place during or after the 24th week.

Ruling to circumcision a threat to freedom of religion? Yes and so what? Allowing circumcision of infants is involuntary mutilation of another person’s body. While the parents have every right to practice their religion, they have no right to force a little baby boy to practice their religion who is not even old enough to make such a weighty decision. That choice is properly left to the child to make when he becomes of age.

Using that logic, not allowing Moslems to kill 'infidels' is also a violation of their religion.

Just because the Bible sanctions the practice, does not make it right. The Bible also gives the Jews the right to hold slaves. Not everything the Bible says is right.

Circumcision of males AND females degrades sexual enjoyment. Nor is male circumcision medically necessary. Any advantage gotten by circumcision can also be gotten through education (to properly clean oneself).

Should a parent be able to cut off the tip a child's middle finger? .. just because the parents religion dictates that it ought to be done?

Twin Lights and others re HIV and male circumcision:

Granted, circumcision has been shown to confer some advantage in reducing HIV transmission rates. HIV has only been around for a few decades. It is transmitted through adult behavior. Heterosexual transmission of HIV is a significant problem in sub-Saharan Africa, where a substantial portion of the population is neither Jewish nor Christian.

If adult males want to get circumcised as a medical prophylaxis to reduce their chances of getting HIV or passing it on, fine. But tell me, how does the coerced circumcision of infants as part of a religious rite fit into the HIV picture? Circumcision of Jewish babies in Germany will do little to stem HIV in Zimbabwe.

Those shepherds of Judea back in the Bronze Age were remarkably prescient. They were able to come up with a way to fight HIV millenia before the virus passed to humans. How many babies were cut over thousands of years and thousands of generations to prevent a disease that didn't even exist yet?

The main benefit of religious circumcision of infants is to create a counterexample disproving Lamarckian inheritance.

Just when I think that the priorities of leftists can't be any more ut of whack, I read comments like these on here. There is, quite literally, virtually no health or science-based argument against circumcision, when the absolutely micro risks are weighed against the well-documented health benefits. Comparing male circumcision to female genital mutilation is just beyond absurd, completely ignores scientific fact and aims for fact-free hot-button pushing (they both cut-CUT-did I mention they CUT?-the genitalia!!!)

Ignore the ignorant hyperventilators, folks. Circumcision is good for your baby boys. But not doing it doesn't condemn them either. Much of the opposition comes from an underlying hostility to religion, and none of it comes from respectable science.

If they really believed their own argument that we shouldn't do anything to alter our children's bodies until they are adults, then we wouldn't extract wisdom teeth, remove appendices, or have crooked noses surgically straightened...all of which involve (gasp!) cutting! AAAAAHHHH!!!