Replies

It is not obvious from nature: seeing my 5-month-old daughter, who has received everything from me except some DNA and air, natural logic could conclude that I have ownership rights over her body, which is, so to speak, me.

Except that the child is a human individual, whereas in nature, might is right - be it a lion's ability to grasp and tear apart antelope, or a bacterium's ability to wreak havoc inside the lion's body. The recognition of this point is necessary because it is a human societal demarcation - distinguishing the progeny from the progenitor - and is a basis for establishing and recognising the rights of that individual.

There is no law arising from non-human sources which prevents an individual from being another individual's physical property - a slave. In fact, the contrary if one subscribes to the popular religions. Recognising the individual as a distinct entity is the first step in creating a societal system where the individual has the protection against his or her physical self being forcibly used for the purposes of another - being enslaved by a more powerful agent - be it by the parents, or any one else. That recognition of the individual's right to his or her self therefore forms the core of recognising that individual's other rights.

If you choose to fail to recognise this aspect of a person's right to his or her physical integrity, then who sets the boundaries for what is permitted and what is not? One may choose to mutilate male or female genitalia of another individual, while another may decide to have surgery performed on that individual to remove certain teeth or other body parts before they can cause problems at a later stage. Others may choose to do this or other barbaric procedures out of cultural whims. Where does the boundary lie, where the individual has protection from such procedures done to him or her, against his or her will?

This may all sound like a stretch, but they are logically connected. What indisputable argument allows you to lop off another's genitalia without his or her consent, that prevents someone else from doing something similar to another individual's other body parts? Your personal, subjective beliefs is not a valid answer.

My husband and I didn't get either of our sons circumcised, on the general grounds that:

the Christian religion does not require circumcision, so it would not be obligatory for us;
both the advantages (lessened disease transmission) and the disadvantages (transient pain; lessened penile sensitivity) are not major; and
therefore it's something any male could choose for or against, when he's of age.

However I do support Jewish (or any) parents deciding for circumcision for their infant sons, since they may decide that

it is religiously obligatory for them, and/or
in their judgment, the lessening of disease transmission is significant, whereas the lessening of penile sensitivity is small enough to have no functional consequence, and/or
if circumcision has health advantages,it is less traumatic to do it in infancy than in adolenscence or later.

These are not judgments my husabnd and I agreed with, but they are reasonable judgments, not irrational barbarism.

I wasn't sure about this for awhile, but now I object to the use of the term "mutilation" in the case of foreskin removal. "Mutilation" implies crippling or maiming: the removal of a limb or essential part, or the deliberate deprivation of a primary function.

The removal of a foreskin is not exactly trivial, but it does not deprive the penis of its primary sexual functions, namely, procreative intercourse, and the notable genital pleasure that comes with it. Both of these sexual functions persist very well after circumcision. Therefore it is not crippling, maiming, or mutilation.

This (among other things) distinguishes it from FGM, which often results in significant or even total loss of genital sensation in the female, as well as reproductive impairment if infection or scarring ensue.

So it now seems to me that the word "mutilation" is somewhat tendentious.