smokering6/28/2012 12:30 AM
Isn't that why we have laws to protect them against abuses by said parents, including cutting bits off them?
You mean…like cutting their hair, trimming their toenails and fingernails?
A cleft palate is a birth defect; crooked teeth can interfere with function. Repairing something that is wrong with the body is very different to removing a healthy, functioning body part.
Irrelevant. I was responding to a blanket objection by “John.” He didn’t qualify his objection. So I cited some obvious counterexamples.
You’re admitting that body modification is proper in some cases, but improper in others. But that’s a different argument than “John” offered. My counterexamples were responsive to his objection.
In the cases of purely cosmetic braces, I would argue that parents should *not* force them on their children - by the time a child is old enough to get braces, he's old enough to understand the implications of having vs not having them, and if he changes his mind later in life he can generally get his teeth straightened later anyway. Would it even be legal for parents to force an unwilling 12-year-old child to get cosmetic braces?
i) There are two different issues here: what parents should do and what they should be legally allowed to do.
ii) Adolescents are often shortsighted.
A cleft palate is a birth defect; crooked teeth can interfere with function. Repairing something that is wrong with the body is very different to removing a healthy, functioning body part.
In the case of neonatal male circumcision, the body part isn’t sexually functional at that age.
“Both involve the removal of a healthy, functioning body part from a non-consenting minor.
You’re bundling three issues into one, each of which requires separate analysis: (a) removal of a “healthy, functioning body part”; (b) the age of the affected individual (a minor), and (c) nonconsent.
“Both are practiced in a variety of conditions, from forced circumcisions at puberty to sterile, hospital circumcisions performed by loving parents.
And the variety of conditions requires separate analysis.
Both are largely practiced, in their respective parts of the world, for cultural and sexual reasons. The same arguments are used - that intact genitals are unsightly, that no-one will want to marry an intact man/woman, that cut genitals are cleaner, that cutting makes sex better.
i) Religious and medical justifications are offered as well.
ii) You’re also disregarding a major disanalogy. In Muslim countries, female circumcision is performed to discourage female premarital and extramarital sex. Indeed, you yourself go on to say, “FGM has long been considered to decrease women's sexual desire and/or pleasure, acting as a type of social control.” By contrast, Muslim countries are extremely permissive regarding male promiscuity. So the cultural motivations could hardly be more disparate.
Type 1 FGM, the mildest form of FGM (and, with Type 2, by far the most common), removes the homologous organ to the male foreskin.
And Type 2 would be analogous to castration. So your analogy fails at the critical point of comparison.
How engaged are you with intactivist communities? I'm familiar with them, and the VAST majority of intactivists strongly oppose tattooing, body-piercing and performing cosmetic surgery on non-consenting minors. A few are OK with piercing babies' ears, on the grounds that it has minimal risks and does not interfere with the function of the ear, and/or because it is culturally important to some people (I disagree with both reasons, but there you go). Intactivists have no ethical problem with *adults* freely choosing to modify their own bodies, whether by circumcision or making their ears pointy like Mr Spock; the point is simply not to inflict such needless modifications on babies.
Your argument is equivocal inasmuch as you’ve bundled two or three issues into one: body modification and consent or nonconsent (related to the age of the individual).
And your argument tugs in opposing directions. On the one hand you appeal to an essentialist argument based on “healthy, functioning body-parts.” That would suggest that body modification (of a health, functioning body part) is intrinsically wrong.
But then you switch to an argument based on individual autonomy, viz. the right of consenting adults to undergo voluntary body modification. But on that view, genital integrity is socially constructed.
I might also point out that Christianity has a history with bodily autonomy - Gladys Aylward was hugely responsible for wiping out the practice of foot-binding in China, a practice with more than a few analogies to infant circumcision.
Do you think OT circumcision was morally analogous to Chinese foot-binding?
As far as the issue of Judaism goes, I can't understand why Christians should support circumcision on religious grounds.
No. The question at issue is whether we ought to outlaw Judaism. If that’s your position, how do you think it should be enforced? Should observant Jews be imprisoned? Should the State dissolve custody and place Jewish children in foster care or orphanages? Should Jewish couples be sterilized?
Why would we support a wrong theological belief that harms children?
Depends on what you mean by “support.” There’s a sense in which raising a child as a Jew indoctrinates the child in some faulty theological beliefs. It tends to bias the child against Christianity. Does that mean we should outlaw yeshivas? Forbid minors from attending synagogue?
Paul explicitly states that circumcision is of no spiritual value.
Which didn’t hinder Paul from circumcising Timothy to promote his mission to the Jews (Acts 16:3).
“Friendship evangelism" should not be taken to the extreme of allowing children to suffer genital mutilation.
Is that how you classify OT circumcision?
And if routine infant circumcision is outlawed (as it should be)…
So you do think Judaism should be criminalized.
…allowing religious circumcision means Jewish boys are not protected while Gentile boys are - which in itself could be construed as a type of anti-Semitism.
Gentile boys don’t need to be “protected” from circumcision.
But we are talking about cutting off bits of babies' genitals here, and ultimately my sympathy lies with the children lying in agony while their foreskins are crushed and snipped off.
Unlike male circumcision in modern countries, which is generally performed under sedation, OT circumcision was performed without sedation. So by your logic, OT circumcision was child abuse.
Its so ironic that the GERMANS took this swipe at JEWS!
ReplyDeleteLove those GERMANS.
They NEVER QUIT TRYING!
Hey...doesn't abortion eliminate a whole bunch of healty body parts all at one time?
ReplyDelete"Depends on what you mean by “support.” There’s a sense in which raising a child as a Jew indoctrinates the child in some faulty theological beliefs. It tends to bias the child against Christianity. Does that mean we should outlaw yeshivas? Forbid minors from attending synagogue?"
ReplyDeleteMy argument was not that teaching faulty theological belief in itself warrants legal prohibition. My argument was that, as the theological belief which leads to circumcision is faulty, Christians have no theological justification for supporting its legality.
"Which didn’t hinder Paul from circumcising Timothy to promote his mission to the Jews (Acts 16:3)."
Timothy was an adult capable of consent.
"Is that how you classify OT circumcision?"
No, OT circumcision was commanded by God. Modern-day circumcision by Jews and/or Gentiles is not. Also, OT circumcision was not nearly as damaging to the function and neurology of the penis, as it did not (until the Hellenistic period) involve exposing the glans. That's not to say that God doesn't have a right to command even the modern-day version of circumcision if He desires, but it's worth noting.
"So you do think Judaism should be criminalized."
I think elective genital mutilation on both sexes should be criminalised, regardless of the religion of the perpetrators. I do not think Judaism as a whole should be criminalised. Government interference in the practice of religion and parental rights should be limited; I believe circumcision (male or female) to be a case where that interference is warranted.
"Gentile boys don’t need to be “protected” from circumcision."
Er, yes they do. The CDM rates for circumcision in the USA is 54.7% in 2010. Not all those babies are Jewish or Muslim. In fact, many Gentile Christians in the USA circumcise their sons under the vague impression that it's a "Biblical" thing to do.
"Unlike male circumcision in modern countries, which is generally performed under sedation, OT circumcision was performed without sedation. So by your logic, OT circumcision was child abuse."
When something is commanded by God, calling it "abuse" is somewhat blasphemous - God has the right to do what He wishes to His creatures, and to command creatures to perform His will on others. God commanded many things in the OT which would, if performed without His direct command, be considered fairly heinous - ripping open pregnant women, for one. God makes the moral law, not us. That does not mean it is morally correct to rip open pregnant women in situations in which God has not commanded it. God has not commanded modern-day Jews to circumcise their sons, but to repent and turn to Christ.
"And Type 2 would be analogous to castration. So your analogy fails at the critical point of comparison."
ReplyDeleteNo it wouldn't. It would be analogous to penectomy. The WHO indicates that types 1 and 2 FGM comprise 85% of FGM worldwide. I couldn't get a breakdown of that statistic between types. I brought it up because there's a common perception in the West that FGM equals complete excision and infibulation; a misunderstanding which makes people recoil against the idea that FGM and male circumcision are at all comparable (I've been called sexist before for daring to suggest such a thing).
Obviously, only Type 1 FGM is biologically comparable to male circumcision.
"Your argument is equivocal inasmuch as you’ve bundled two or three issues into one: body modification and consent or nonconsent (related to the age of the individual)."
I addressed that point above.
"And your argument tugs in opposing directions. On the one hand you appeal to an essentialist argument based on “healthy, functioning body-parts.” That would suggest that body modification (of a health, functioning body part) is intrinsically wrong.
But then you switch to an argument based on individual autonomy, viz. the right of consenting adults to undergo voluntary body modification. But on that view, genital integrity is socially constructed."
That's an interesting point. From what I've observed, most intactivists find the idea of adults choosing elective circumcision very distasteful, believing that there must be a level of social coercion, misinformation etc at play for someone to choose such a procedure. I'm not sure they'd describe it as morally *wrong*, but certainly foolish and unfortunate. However, they believe that people should, in general, should not be legally prevented from making stupid medical decisions about their own bodies. Although I'm not sure how far they'd take that - presumably most people would think that a man who wanted, say, elective double amputation should be put in a psych ward, not an operating room!
With more minor forms of body modification, you run into issues of the perception of disfigurement vs improvement. Some people (particularly Christians) view tattoos as desecrating the body, like graffiti; others view it as beautifying. Even those who believe it enhances the body are unlikely to accept a parent's right to tattoo her child, though, given that it is permanent, not medically necessary, deviates from the biological norm and so on.
What's your perspective on this? Would you adopt a teleological argument for the integrity of the penis, given the functionality of the foreskin?
"Do you think OT circumcision was morally analogous to Chinese foot-binding?"
No; God commanded OT circumcision. Modern-day circumcision, by Jews or Gentiles, is not OT circumcision, so bringing up OT circumcision is a red herring.
"No. The question at issue is whether we ought to outlaw Judaism. If that’s your position, how do you think it should be enforced? Should observant Jews be imprisoned? Should the State dissolve custody and place Jewish children in foster care or orphanages? Should Jewish couples be sterilized?"
Outlawing one aspect of Judaism which harms innocent children is not the same as outlawing the practice of Judaism in toto, nor does it lead naturally to sterilising Jewish couples.
[Sorry for answering the post in a funny order; ran into problems with wordcount and then WordPress throwing a tizzy, so I had to retype my responses to the first part of Steve's post.]
ReplyDelete"You mean…like cutting their hair, trimming their toenails and fingernails?"
No, but I think that was clear in context.
"Irrelevant. I was responding to a blanket objection by “John.” He didn’t qualify his objection. So I cited some obvious counterexamples.
You’re admitting that body modification is proper in some cases, but improper in others. But that’s a different argument than “John” offered. My counterexamples were responsive to his objection."
The way I read John's post, he was using the term "body modification" as it is traditionally understood, referring to elective procedures, often for cosmetic purposes, such as ear piercing. Providing counterexamples with true medical justification is contentious.
"i) There are two different issues here: what parents should do and what they should be legally allowed to do."
Yes...?
"ii) Adolescents are often shortsighted."
Yes...?
"In the case of neonatal male circumcision, the body part isn’t sexually functional at that age."
So? It will become sexually functional in later life; and the foreskin does have a protective function in the neonate. The breasts of baby girls aren't sexually functional at birth either; would you say that was an argument in favour of removing them?
"You’re bundling three issues into one, each of which requires separate analysis: (a) removal of a “healthy, functioning body part”; (b) the age of the affected individual (a minor), and (c) nonconsent."
Fair enough, address them separately if you find it neater.
"And the variety of conditions requires separate analysis."
Indeed, although I'm not sure how relevant that is to this discussion, as long as we make sure we're comparing apples to apples.
"i) Religious and medical justifications are offered as well."
Yes; again, I think I made that clear in the context of my post.
"ii) You’re also disregarding a major disanalogy. In Muslim countries, female circumcision is performed to discourage female premarital and extramarital sex. Indeed, you yourself go on to say, “FGM has long been considered to decrease women's sexual desire and/or pleasure, acting as a type of social control.” By contrast, Muslim countries are extremely permissive regarding male promiscuity. So the cultural motivations could hardly be more disparate."
ReplyDeleteI'm not discussing specifically Muslim FGM and specifically Muslim MGM. I'm responding to your blanket assertion that male circumcision is not comparable to female circumcision. The cultural motivations of both are varied; ask a wealthy Egyptian parent why she chose to circumcise her daughter, and you may well hear the exact same lines as you'd get from a parent in the USA who chose to circumcise his son. In certain sectors of society the sexual-control aspect of FGM has all but disappeared, and one stated reason for it is to *enhance* sexual pleasure!
The popular Western perception is binary: FGM is brutal, dirty, ignorant, destroys women's enjoyment of sex and is performed with flint knives on screaming pubescent girls, whereas male circumcision is clean, civilised, sterile, either has no effect on sex or makes it better, and is performed on babies who don't feel a thing.
And that's simply not true. There are parts of the world in which teenage boys are forcibly circumcised by roving gangs. There are parents who circumcise their daughters who would be horrified at the idea that they were trying to control her sexuality. There are women with complete clitoridectomies (Type 2 FGM) who experience orgasms, and men whose circumcisions have left them unable to have sex at all. Heck, I know a woman whose American-born sister chose to be circumcised as an adult (upon marrying an Egyptian man), and claimed it improved her sex life. It's a complex topic.
Smokering:
ReplyDelete“My argument was not that teaching faulty theological belief in itself warrants legal prohibition. My argument was that, as the theological belief which leads to circumcision is faulty, Christians have no theological justification for supporting its legality.”
The NT doesn’t treat Jewish praxis as illicit. Paul continued to live as a Jew when he was ministering to Jews. The fact that certain Jewish distinctives are no longer obligatory doesn’t mean they are wrong. That’s a point a liberty. Adiaphora. And we have theological justification for defending what’s morally and theologically permissible.
“Timothy was an adult capable of consent.”
i) You’re shifting gears. If you think circumcision is positively wrong because the new covenant has rendered it obsolete, then consent would be insufficient to warrant Paul’s action. You keep leaping back and forth between inconsistent arguments, depending on which one serves you at the moment. But they don’t mesh.
ii) You’re also importing an alien concern into the discussion. In the Bible, consent is not a precondition for circumcision. Not even for adults. Abraham’s menservants had to undergo circumcision. That wasn’t optional.
You’re imposing a contemporary consensual framework onto the discussion, but that’s not a Scriptural presupposition.
“No, OT circumcision was commanded by God. Modern-day circumcision by Jews and/or Gentiles is not.”
You used the loaded term “mutilation.” Do you think God commanded “genital mutilation”?
“Also, OT circumcision was not nearly as damaging to the function and neurology of the penis, as it did not (until the Hellenistic period) involve exposing the glans.”
Where’s your documentation?
“I do not think Judaism as a whole should be criminalised.”
Judaism is a package deal. Circumcision is the rite of initiation. You’re acting like a religious pluralist (e.g. John Hick) who presumes to distinguish what’s essential from what’s nonessential in defiance of the religious adherents.
“Er, yes they do. The CDM rates for circumcision in the USA is 54.7% in 2010. Not all those babies are Jewish or Muslim.”
You’re missing the point. The language of “protection” insinuates that Gentiles babies are wronged by circumcision, which is why they must be “protected.” That begs the question.
“When something is commanded by God, calling it ‘abuse’ is somewhat blasphemous - God has the right to do what He wishes to His creatures…”
You used the loaded term “abuse.” Now you hustle in a makeshift distinction. But does the identical practice cease to be “abusive” if God commands it? That would be theological voluntarism.
“No it wouldn't. It would be analogous to penectomy.”
ReplyDeleteNo, the analogy involves loss of capacity to physically enjoy sexual intercourse. Male circumcision doesn’t have that effect. It’s not comparable to clitoridectomies in that regard.
“What's your perspective on this? Would you adopt a teleological argument for the integrity of the penis, given the functionality of the foreskin?”
Given that God commanded circumcision in OT times, a teleological argument has limited force.
“No; God commanded OT circumcision. Modern-day circumcision, by Jews or Gentiles, is not OT circumcision, so bringing up OT circumcision is a red herring.”
Have you discussed that claim with rabbis?
“Outlawing one aspect of Judaism which harms innocent children is not the same as outlawing the practice of Judaism in toto, nor does it lead naturally to sterilising Jewish couples.”
It’s like banning baptism, the eucharist, or public prayer. That effectively outlaws the Christian faith. Same thing with Judaism.
Observant Jews will break the law by continuing to administer neonatal circumcision. The law will then punish them.
What penalties do you propose for observant Jews? Imprisonment? Making their children wards of the state? Prosecuting Jewish physicians? Setting fire to synagogues?
“So? It will become sexually functional in later life; and the foreskin does have a protective function in the neonate.”
Circumcision also confers protective value. Circumcised males are less susceptible to contracting certain STDs.
“Fair enough, address them separately if you find it neater.”
For starters, you need to explain how your argument about “healthy, functional body parts” is consistent with your argument about consent. If body modification is wrong when it modifies a “healthy, functional body part,” then how does consent make it right? You’re lurching back and forth between opposing principles as they serve the immediate needs of your argument.
“I'm not discussing specifically Muslim FGM and specifically Muslim MGM. I'm responding to your blanket assertion that male circumcision is not comparable to female circumcision.”
Muslim practice is the context of my statement.
“The NT doesn’t treat Jewish praxis as illicit. Paul continued to live as a Jew when he was ministering to Jews. The fact that certain Jewish distinctives are no longer obligatory doesn’t mean they are wrong. That’s a point a liberty. Adiaphora. And we have theological justification for defending what’s morally and theologically permissible.”
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't mean that they are necessarily wrong, but it doesn't mean they are necessarily right, either. For instance, keeping the Jewish practice of niddah could be said to violate 1 Corinthians 7:5.
“i) You’re shifting gears. If you think circumcision is positively wrong because the new covenant has rendered it obsolete, then consent would be insufficient to warrant Paul’s action. You keep leaping back and forth between inconsistent arguments, depending on which one serves you at the moment. But they don’t mesh.”
I address this objection further down. But I'll just point out that Timothy's circumcision was done for evangelistic reasons; a little like Hudson Taylor adopting Chinese dress and a queue. It's a very unique case, and Paul (and presumably Timothy) felt they had very good spiritual reasons for doing it, so I can't say that it was wrong. But that has little bearing on either modern Jewish circumcision or modern RIC.
“ii) You’re also importing an alien concern into the discussion. In the Bible, consent is not a precondition for circumcision. Not even for adults. Abraham’s menservants had to undergo circumcision. That wasn’t optional.”
I never said it was a precondition in the OT. It seems in keeping with the NT that it should be a concern for Christians, however. The Golden Rule comes to mind, as does Jesus' concern for protecting the weak and helpless. Consent as we know it today is a fairly modern moral concern, perhaps, but it does not follow that it is anti-biblical.
“You used the loaded term “mutilation.” Do you think God commanded “genital mutilation”?”
According to the dictionary definition of mutilation, how can you say He did not? And Paul refers in inspired Scripture to circumcision as mutilation (Phil 3:2).
“Where’s your documentation?”
“Circumcision: Then and Now” by James E Peron is one source. It's very interesting, actually.
“Judaism is a package deal. Circumcision is the rite of initiation. You’re acting like a religious pluralist (e.g. John Hick) who presumes to distinguish what’s essential from what’s nonessential in defiance of the religious adherents. “
ReplyDeleteI'm not saying it's nonessential; I'm well aware that Jews (excepting some Reform Jews) consider circumcision absolutely obligatory. But making one rite of a religion illegal is NOT the same thing as making the entire religion illegal; that's absurd. Jews in Germany will be free to practice every aspect of their religion that they were before the edict, except for circumcision; and their babies will be Jewish, circumcised or not.
“You’re missing the point. The language of “protection” insinuates that Gentiles babies are wronged by circumcision, which is why they must be “protected.” That begs the question.”
Begs what question? I have already posted at some length about the physical and sexual harm caused by circumcision, and you have not rebutted my facts or offered any reasoning that said harm should not be considered harmful. Being deprived of full sexual function for no adequate medical reason is harmful.
“You used the loaded term “abuse.” Now you hustle in a makeshift distinction. But does the identical practice cease to be “abusive” if God commands it? That would be theological voluntarism.”
The distinction was clear in my mind from the beginning, Steve; you simply failed to recognise it. God has on several occasions commanded humans to do acts to other humans that He considers immoral in other contexts. When God commanded the Israelites to rip open pregnant women, it would have been immoral of them not to obey; that does not mean it is moral for Christians, Jews or anyone else to do the same thing today in any context I can think of.
Also, if circumcision in the OT did indeed have any kind of spiritual benefit, that would factor into the cost/benefit analysis, possibly to the point of tipping the scales from “abuse” to “a necessary procedure”.
I'm not familiar with theological voluntarism, sorry, so I can't comment on that. I'll ask Bnonn about it tonight.
“No, the analogy involves loss of capacity to physically enjoy sexual intercourse. Male circumcision doesn’t have that effect. It’s not comparable to clitoridectomies in that regard.”
Steve, you are ignorant on the subject of the sexual effects of FGM and MGM.
1. I have already addressed this strawman. Many women without clitorises report sexual enjoyment and even orgasm; many men without foreskins report painful erections, loss of sensation so severe they cannot achieve orgasm without damaging themselves and/or their partners through excessive force, and psychological trauma from having been genitally mutilated.
Even circumcised men who are thrilled with their sex lives are still by definition missing thousands of specialised nerve endings, the gliding action of the foreskin, the rolling action of the frenulum and normal sensitivity of the glans. How is that not a “loss of capacity”?
2. The penis is the homologous organ to the clitoris, as the foreskin is to the clitoral hood; thus, it is correct to say that biologically speaking, type 2 FGM is equivalent to penectomy (although less severe, in that the urethra would not be damaged).
“Given that God commanded circumcision in OT times, a teleological argument has limited force.”
For a limited time, to a small percentage of the world's population.
“Have you discussed that claim with rabbis?”
Why would I? I know their presuppositions, and I disagree with them. Do you believe the OT laws are still in effect for Jews? What about OT laws plus rabbinic additions, which Jews consider binding? If not, why even ask that question?
“It’s like banning baptism, the eucharist, or public prayer. That effectively outlaws the Christian faith. Same thing with Judaism.”
ReplyDeleteIt's really not. Baptism, the eucharist and public prayer do not involve inflicting permanent harm on the genitals of a non-consenting minor.
“Observant Jews will break the law by continuing to administer neonatal circumcision. The law will then punish them.
What penalties do you propose for observant Jews? Imprisonment? Making their children wards of the state? Prosecuting Jewish physicians? Setting fire to synagogues?”
Steve, where have I given you any reason to believe I would be in favour of setting fire to synagogues? Are you able to discuss this in Christian charity, without being deliberately offensive?
I would impose the same penalties on Jews, Muslims or Gentiles for illegal circumcision; what that would be would be up to the law.
“Circumcision also confers protective value. Circumcised males are less susceptible to contracting certain STDs.”
1. Which are generally contracted through immoral sexual contact. Is it ethical to permanently damage a boy's sexual organs, diminishing his capacity for sexual pleasure and exposing him to medical risks such as haemmorhage and painful erections, simply because it is possible he will grow up and be promiscuous/unsafe? Isn't that rather unfair on the boys who remain chaste until and within marriage? Say that damaging a baby's tastebuds, reducing his capacity to taste, somehow mitigated the effects of alcohol poisoning, reducing the risk of him dying from it later in life. Would that be morally acceptable?
2. Newborns aren't sexually active. If STDs are the issue, parents could wait until their child was near sexual maturity - old enough to understand the procedure, have some input into the decision, and undergo general anaesthetic rather than local (which is inadequate). The doctor would then be able to remove a “correct” amount of foreskin, avoiding some of the more common complications of circumcision; and the open wound would not be exposed to feces and urine in a diaper, as with newborns. It wouldn't mitigate all the ethical concerns surrounding circumcision, but it would be a start.
“For starters, you need to explain how your argument about “healthy, functional body parts” is consistent with your argument about consent. If body modification is wrong when it modifies a “healthy, functional body part,” then how does consent make it right? You’re lurching back and forth between opposing principles as they serve the immediate needs of your argument.”
ReplyDeleteLet me try to make my argument clearer.
It is not always wrong for parents to modify their children's bodies – acceptable modification includes fixing harmful birth defects, such as cleft palates, holes in the heart etc.
It is, however, wrong for parents to unnecessarily and harmfully modify their children's bodies.
Part of the process of determining what is unnecessary and harmful involves looking at the modification. In the case of elective circumcision, the foreskin is no more a significant immediate or eventual health risk than most other body parts (and less than some – these days, breasts, skin and testicles seem to cause a heck of a lot of deaths). The foreskin is not a birth defect. It has a function – several, in fact. Its removal causes pain, loss of function and arguably deformity (although I realise some people prefer the aesthetics of circumcised penises). The cost/benefit analysis simply does not favour routine infant circumcision. The foreskin should no more have to justify its existence on a baby's body than a finger, toe, earlobe, clitoral hood, eyeball, you name it.
This being the case, it is morally wrong for parents to modify their children's bodies in that way.
One could also argue that it is morally wrong for an adult male to damage his body in that way. But the current shape of the law allows adults plenty of freedom to do damaging things to our own bodies, where it prohibits doing those things to minors. It is legal to smoke yourself to death, but if you give your toddler cigarettes, you'll face legal repercussions. It is legal to subsist on a diet of Coke, but if you feed your baby nothing but Coke, he'll probably be taken away by CPS. It is legal to get a nose job, but not to get one for your baby daughter.
In all these cases one of the key elements is informed choice – the baby/child cannot comprehend and accept the risks and consequences of the health decisions. But then, a baby cannot accept the risks of a life-saving surgical procedure either; so it comes back to the risk/benefit analysis, which comes back (in part) to whether or not the body part being modified is healthy and functioning or not.
So I don't think it's illogical to state that circumcision should be illegal for babies and not for adults. The “functional, healthy body part” line is part of the risk/benefit assessment; the “consent” line is about how much the former should apply without the government interfering too intrusively in the lives of citizens.
I'm going to think more about whether I think circumcision is actually immoral (as opposed to simply foolish or unfortunate) for adults. I would be inclined to counsel a fellow Christian not to do it, pointing out that God did not design the penis poorly and has a reason for making us the way we are; but I haven't thought about that in depth. Tattoos and ear piercings, because they don't affect function and are arguably adornment, not disfigurement, don't bother me as much. It's an interesting issue.
“Muslim practice is the context of my statement.”
OK, but why? FGM isn't just practiced by Muslims.