Replies

You’re grasping at straws trying to deny that that incident ever occurred.

And regarding mutilation, it is nothing else but that. The foreskin performs the very vital function of keeping the glans hydrated. Without it, the glans becomes desensitised - with an associated loss in pleasure. The foreskin flips over onto the penile shaft and its dense innervation provides the sensory input for that region during intercourse. It is not for no reason that outfits exist which specialise in “reversing” circumcisions.

To compare the lopping off of a functional portion of the male anatomy (which is highly innervated for a particular purpose) to ear piercing or vaccination, is laughable. If you need an answer, yes, I oppose infant ear piercing.

Vaccination is neither mutilation, nor leads to rendering a body part impaired in function. Cleft lip surgeries are performed to repair a damaged physical condition.

Also, as for that old “argument” pushed by the medical community (circumcision procedures bring in money) regarding HIV transmission, firstly, the so-called “studies” were performed in rural Africa where data is at best unreliable, and where cultural factors come into play - the circumcised males there are largely Muslim, and their cultural positions regarding adultery have an influence on their promiscuity, and thereby, STD transmission rates.

Secondly, Sweden and Japan, both having near-zero male circumcision rates, have lower rates of STDs and a higher life expectancy than many countries where nearly all males are circumcised.

Now what about individuals born prematurely? In the past, nearly all of them, if not all of them, would have died because there nearly was no way of rescuing infants born premature. Imagine circumcision complicating this scenario.

If a Muslim or Jewish family has a child who is born premature, and the parents demand circumcision as per their religious rituals, should the authorities step in to stop them? If so, why, and if not, why not? As an aside, children who are born this way into such families, and do not undergo the circumcision according to the cultural requirement of it being performed eight days after birth, do they lose status in terms of being able to be part of the culture? If not, why so?

So you are on the wrong forum, then. You obviously support leftist causes like suppressing religious freedom and talking up pseudoscience for the cause of greater statism. Well, there are fora for that, but this is not one of them.

Now what about individuals born prematurely? In the past, nearly all of them, if not all of them, would have died because there nearly was no way of rescuing infants born premature. Imagine circumcision complicating this scenario.
I happen to know something about this scenario, being born 2 months premature. I did not have a bris until a week after coming home from the hospital at an age of 3 months. This was not as Reform move, but one fully countenance by an Orthodox rabbi. Most religious obligations can be postponed to save a life. A Jew is only required to die rather than commit murder, sexual immorality, or apostasy. I cannot think of any sane rabbi who would force a premature neonate to have a bris. Such a rabbi would face religious sanction.

PS. Muslim boys are circumcised at an older age, I believe 13. Coptic Christians also circumcise boys.