Pro-circ delusions

misc.kids #266931
Date: Wed Apr 17 1996 10:15:32 GMT-0400
Organization: Prodigy Services Company

[1] Re: Pro-circ delusions

Rob Strom wrote:

I have no interest in the medical aspects of circumcision and I don't care whether Gentiles circumcise their children for non-medical reasons or not. I care a great deal about implications that Jews abuse their children, though.

Well, this isn't a religous discussion and I wouldn't want to turn it into one, but I do have a problem with the prevalent popular Jewish view of circumcision.

I am Jewish by lineage, and was raised socially Jewish, but I am intact. So maybe I have a unique perspective on this issue. Nevertheless, from all that I have learned about Judaism, circumcision is **not** a sacrament (Encyclopaedia Judaica) or defining point of Judaism -- the way having a Jewish mother is -- but it is a cherished social practice.

Full quote: It is not a sacrament, and any child born of a Jewish mother is a Jew,whether circumcised or not.
~ CIRCUMCISION: Laws

Rabbi Moises Maimonides had it quite right in the 13th century when he argued that the point of circumcision is to damage sexual response and enjoyment, for both the man and his partner. I don't have a problem with this -- circumcision is supposed to be a horrible thing among the Jews, a terrible destruction, a sacrifice to G*d of normal sexuality and function as a demonstration of faith. It is our substitute for Abraham's aborted murder of his son Ishmael [sic] at G*d's command, in addition to being an outward sign of the covenant G*d made with Abraham.

Somewhere along the line this got awfully turned around into the present nonsensical feel-good view that the lucky Jews are doing a great physical service to their sons. Hello?? It's supposed to tear your heart out to do this to your son. We should rend our clothes over this. I am disgusted when I watch the joy of the menfolk at a bris -- what pathetic denial. I guess it's only human nature to search for any good in what is intended to be a tragedy -- albeit a tragedy to show one's love for G*d. But is is delusional to believe that this surgery in any way benefits the penis or the child, other than culturally, which is an ever-changing consideration.

We all know that the original circumcision commandment involved cutting only a small snip from the part of the infant foreskin that hangs long over the glans -- never tearing the foreskin from the glans. Even Jesus experienced this relatively minor surgery. It was not until 140 C.E. when the rabbinical council decided on its own to institute the radical circumcision we see today, in response to Jewish athletes trying to pass for intact. This significantly increased destruction of penile tissue [average: 51% of total penile skin and mucosa: Dr. John Taylor, British Journal of Urology (1996)] was neither called for in Genesis nor practiced by any Jews before this.

There exist numerous support groups for American Jews that forgo circumcision of their children. Since over 60% of American Jewish boys are non-ritually circumcised in the hospital (and most not on the 8th day), the point of this part of the bris milah is being lost on them anyway.

Jews do not abuse their children through circumcision. But I cannot accept that unnecessary surgery is somehow more physically beneficial to a Jewish boy than to a Gentile. Socially? The goal and means of that has gotten so distorted as to be unrecognizable.

I'm meeting increasing numbers of other intact Jews, and Jewish parents of intact sons. They appear to have surrendered nothing culturally -- in light of the checkered history of the practice -- but have gained substantial physical advantage -- even Maimonides, writing 600 years ago, got this right.

I think it is time for Jews to own up to the fact that circumcision is extremely painful, destroys substantial functional tissue of the normal penis, and interferes with a number of natural functions. Recent extensive studies on follow-up care have demonstrated the infection rates among circumcised infants is many times higher than among intact, which only figures because this is an open wound. Also partly because of this wound and the natural protective function of the foreskin which is fused to the infant glans, these studies have demonstrated that hygiene is superior in the intact infant and child. All around, nature's design works best. Is this so difficult to acknowledge?

My position is that it is entirely consistent for Jews to say that yes, circumcision destroys natural functioning of their sons' penises. And yes, the wound may have complications, sometimes severe. But these risks may have to be taken out of devotion and sacrifice. Or, if your view of history is such that the ritual practice of circumcision, at least the radical form practiced today, is questionable, then by all means make a decision based on the health of the child to leave him intact.

Martin

The Circumcision Information and Resource Pages are a not-for-profit educational resource and library. IntactiWiki hosts this website but is not responsible for the content of this site. CIRP makes documents available without charge, for informational purposes only. The contents of this site are not intended to replace the professional medical or legal advice of a licensed practitioner.