Before I delve into the details, I’d like to make some general observations. Protestants are conditioned by the Lutheran debate with Rome. How Luther appealed to Paul’s teaching about circumcision and the Mosaic law in reference to the Judaizers. And that’s fine as far as it goes.
But a result of that theological conditioning is that we may fail to notice the other side of the coin. Paul regards circumcision, by itself, as a matter of indifference. He doesn’t think Jewish Christians should cease to be Jewish or Gentile Christians should cease to be Gentile (1 Cor 7:17-20). It’s analogous to his position on food (Rom 14-15; 1 Cor 10:23-30).
Paul takes a pragmatic and conciliatory approach. In relation to Jewish outreach, Jewish observance is permissible. In relation to Gentile outreach, nonobservance is permissible.
Timothy is a borderline case, the result of a mixed marriage. In principle, he could be classified as either Jewish or Gentile. But for purposes of Jewish outreach, it’s expedient that he be circumcised.
Paul himself continues to be an observant Jew. In Acts 18:18 he apparently takes a Nazirite vow. In Acts 20:16 he’s in a hurry to make the Feast of Pentecost. He doesn’t wish to miss this Jewish feast.
Most significant, in Acts 21:17-26, Paul goes out of his way to demonstrate that he’s a loyal Jew. So the new covenant doesn’t render Jewish praxis illicit. Likewise, Jewish Christians continue going to the Temple (e.g. Acts 2:46).
In addition, Paul compares ethnic Israel to the trunk, and Christian gentiles to grafted branches (Rom 11:16b-24). For a defense of this interpretation, cf. R. Jewett, Romans (Fortress 2007), 682-93. The trunk supports the branches, not vice versa.
So how should Christians treat the “trunk”? Shouldn’t the branch protect the trunk? Put a fence around the trunk? A Christian majority ought to protect a Jewish minority. Honor the trunk.
Smokering:
“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.”
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.
“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.
Indeed, given the command to circumcise male Jews, the penis might have been designed with that command in view.
“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.
“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.”
You’re the one you initially brought up Paul’s position on circumcision in reference to the new covenant. You can’t selectively appeal to Paul, then say such appeals have little bearing on the issue when your opponent answers you on your own terms.
“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.”
i) The Golden Rule isn’t unique to the NT. It has OT precedent.
ii) The Bible doesn’t regard circumcision as a violation of the Golden Rule.
iii) Your invocation of the “weak and helpless” begs the question of whether male circumcision constitutes an attack on the “weak and helpless.”
iv) If you’re going to interject consent into Acts 16:3, then you need to show that Scripture was opposed to nonconsensual circumcision.
“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).”
You’re using the term with pejorative connotations. By contrast, Paul’s usage is a sarcastic pun in reference to the Judaizers. See Fee’s exposition in his commentary on Philippians.
“’Circumcision: Then and Now” by James E Peron is one source. It's very interesting, actually.”
You mean his 1-page discussion, with a few brief paragraphs and cursory documentation? Is that what you’ve been hanging your hat on all this time? A pretty spindly hook to bear so much weight. Do you have anything more scholarly to cite?
“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.”
It’s not the least bit absurd. If you outlawed baptism, that would effectively outlaw Christianity.
“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.”
What you’ve done is to present an exaggerated and one-sided case for the alleged damage done by circumcision, while ignoring the counterevidence or compensatory benefits.
“I'm not familiar with theological voluntarism, sorry, so I can't comment on that.”
The view that what’s right or wrong is just an arbitrary fiat.
“Steve, you are ignorant on the subject of the sexual effects of FGM and MGM.”
You suffer from instant-expert syndrome. You’re not a medical professional, much less someone with training in the relevant field of specialization. All you’ve done is to Google some material (from anticircumcision websites) that supports your side of the issue. But anyone can do that.
“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.”
What you’ve done is to cite some exceptions. If you’re going to make exceptions the norm, then that subverts your argument about the harm done by circumcision, of either the male or female variety.
“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'?”
i) Unless you were a man before you were a woman (a la gender reassignment operation), you don’t have the inside track on what it feels like to be a circumcised man (or an uncircumcised man, for that matter).
ii) That's a half-quote. I said "loss of capacity" to physically enjoy sexual intercourse. That's not the effect of male circumcision.
“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).”
The relevant analogy is not comparative anatomy, but the respective effect of medical procedures. Unless male circumcision generally has the same effect as a clitoridectomy, the anatomical comparison is a red herring.
“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?”
Because rabbis should know at least as much about the history of circumcisions as James Peron, who–from what I can tell–only as a doctorate in education. Indeed, I don’t find much available information on his credentials.
For instance, does he know Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, Latin, and Arabic? That would be necessary for him to study the primary sources on the history of circumcision–from OT times through 2nd temple Judaism and medieval Judaism.
“It's really not. Baptism, the eucharist and public prayer do not involve inflicting permanent harm on the genitals of a non-consenting minor.”
i) Now you’re changing the subject. The point of comparison was whether outlawing circumcision effectively outlaws Judaism, just as banning baptism effectively outlaws Christianity. That’s the analogy.
ii) Whether or not it’s (allegedly) harmful is irrelevant to the question of whether you’re criminalizing Judaism in the process.
iii) And you keep conflating distinct issues. What’s your real objection to male circumcision: that it (allegedly) inflicts “permanent harm” on the genitals, or that it’s performed on a “nonconsenting minor”? If lack of consent is the reason it should be illegal, then the alleged harm is superfluous.
What comes across is that you’ve cobbled together divergent arguments which you picked up from different hostile sources, and you parrot these arguments without regard to their mutual inconsistency.
“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) Observant Jews would find your effort to criminalize neonatal circumcision highly offensive.
ii) In addition, you were the one who said:
“My argument was that, as the theological belief which leads to circumcision is faulty, Christians have no theological justification for supporting its legality.”
Well, wouldn’t attending synagogue foster belief in the legitimacy of circumcision? If so, should the State destroy or shut down synagogues? Or would you enact a gag order to prevent rabbis from even teaching circumcision on pain of some legal penalty?
“I would impose the same penalties on Jews, Muslims or Gentiles for illegal circumcision; what that would be would be up to the law.”
i) So you’re going to dodge the issue of what penalties are appropriate. You’re not serious about following your own position through to its logical conclusion. Delegate the unpleasantries to someone else.
ii) You’re also putting Judaism on a par with Islam. But from a Christian standpoint, Judaism is entitled to protections to which Islam is not entitled.
iii) Muslims practice both male and female circumcision. The law can ban one without banning the other.
“Which are generally contracted through immoral sexual contact.”
i) You have a habit of playing hopscotch. When someone answers you on your own grounds, you substitute a different argument.
You hype the alleged harm done by male circumcision, but you don’t want to acknowledge the compensatory medical benefits. These chronic evasive maneuvers betray intellectual discomfort with the coherence of your position.
ii) You yourself (lower down) mention “Boys who remain chaste until and within marriage” Well, a chaste Christian man can marry a woman (say a convert to Christianity) with a sexual history. She can inadvertently transmit STDs to her husband. Male circumcision diminishes the risk. Or do you think Christian men should only marry virgins?
“Is it ethical to permanently damage a boy's sexual organs, diminishing his capacity for sexual pleasure.”
From studies I’ve seen, circumcision can enhance sexual performance. That’s why it’s a treatment for premature ejaculation.
“…and exposing him to medical risks such as haemmorhage and painful erections…”
Because Sarah Tennant has so much personal experience with painful erections, so she can speak on behalf of all circumcised men.
“If STDs are the issue…”
i) I didn’t suggest they were “the issue.” I’m addressing anticircumcision fanatics who obsess over the alleged “harm” done by male circumcision while ignoring the medical advantages.
ii) BTW, I’m not defending (or opposing) male circumcision. I’m opposing anti-Semitism. I’m opposing totalitarian fanatics.
“The cost/benefit analysis simply does not favour routine infant circumcision.”
Everyone doesn’t have the same cost/benefit calculus.
“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.”
Except that you want to change the law. So you’re not accepting the legal status quo as a given. Therefore, that doesn’t relieve the inconsistency of your position.
“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.”
Except that you think many adults (especially women) undergo body modification to satisfy social expectations regarding sex appeal. So it’s more coercive than consensual. The result of peer pressure. Cultural ideals. Why shouldn’t the law protect adult women from “mutilating” their bodies to make themselves more sexually attractive?
“OK, but why? FGM isn't just practiced by Muslims.”
Because that’s the standard frame of reference. But I’d support a general ban on FGM.
Steve, you keep dodging the medical side-effects of circumcision with comments like these:
ReplyDeleteBecause Sarah Tennant has so much personal experience with painful erections, so she can speak on behalf of all circumcised men.
It sounds like you don't think a woman is qualified to make observations about the documented side-effects of circumcision just because she hasn't had one herself. In fact, if we're going to draw speculative conclusions about each other's argumentative motivations, I'd say you're taking a personal interest in this argument because you want to defend what was done to you, rather than acknowledge it was an unjustified form of mutilation. I mean, I don't know for sure obviously, but statistically speaking...
I’m addressing anticircumcision fanatics who obsess over the alleged “harm” done by male circumcision while ignoring the medical advantages.
There's no need to put harm in square quotes, since it is clearly documented. Of course, if a consenting adult wishes to be circumcised, by all means let him. Unsurprisingly, most uncircumcised men choose to use condoms rather than remove their foreskin. I wonder why. Loading the dice by assuming anyone anti circumcision is a "fanatic" while focusing only on medical benefits is at least as unbalanced an approach as the one you accuse us of.
From studies I’ve seen, circumcision can enhance sexual performance. That’s why it’s a treatment for premature ejaculation.
It's hard to see how it could enhance sexual performance, since it is removing some of the most sensitive nerves in the penis. Even if it did enhance performance in rare cases, the fact remains that premature ejaculation is a common side-effect if being circumcised; so it seems odd at best that circumcision is a treatment for premature ejaculatoin.
BTW, I’m not defending (or opposing) male circumcision. I’m opposing anti-Semitism. I’m opposing totalitarian fanatics.
That's fine; I oppose antisemitism as well. But since currently-practiced MGM is not the same as traditional Jewish circumcision, outlawing MGM -- in an effort to be consistent in the law's protection of boys as well as girls -- is not equivalent to outlawing Judaism. Since you support a general ban on FGM, you'd have to show a relevant distinction between that and MGM, otherwise you're just engaging in special pleading. All the arguments about supposed benefits that you've used far are also used by proponents of FGM in many FGM-friendly countries. And they're no less dubious.
Dominic Bnonn Tennant
Delete“Steve, you keep dodging the medical side-effects of circumcision...It sounds like you don't think a woman is qualified to make observations about the documented side-effects of circumcision just because she hasn't had one herself.”
i) Unless I’m mistaken about her educational background, she has zero qualifications to discuss the medical side effects of circumcision. Almost without exception, all I’ve heard from her are unsourced factoids. And I’m really not interested in hearing a dilettante’s fourth-hand understanding of urology. It’s like reading Richard Carrier’s disquisitions on Bayesean probability theory or abiogenesis. Medical science is a highly technical, highly specialized field.
ii) I also think another T'blogger, who does have some professional qualifications, will probably do a post on the scientific side of the issue, so I’m wisely deferring to him.
“I'd say you're taking a personal interest in this argument because you want to defend what was done to you, rather than acknowledge it was an unjustified form of mutilation.”
i) If you paid attention to the genesis of this thread, you’d notice that all I did at the outset was to link to an article in a Jewish news outlet on the ruling of a German court concerning the legality of circumcision. I’ve been defending the right of Jews to practice Judaism.
It’s you and Sarah who decided to shift the conversation to a debate over the alleged physiological and psychological harm done by the neonatal circumcision of boys. So that’s demonstrably your obsession, not mine. And the fact that you recast the issue in terms of what was “done to” a boy, and how that was an “unjustified form of mutilation,” is how you chose to frame the issue, not me. So, what does that say about you?
I’m not the one who ever framed the issue in terms of how some men feel sexually inadequate due to circumcision. So beware of going down that road. You took that turn, not me.
“Loading the dice by assuming anyone anti circumcision is a ‘fanatic’ while focusing only on medical benefits is at least as unbalanced an approach as the one you accuse us of.”
Lobbying to outlaw Judaism over circumcision is fanatical.
“So it seems odd at best that circumcision is a treatment for premature ejaculation.”
Which suggest to me that you’re getting all your information from Sarah.
“But since currently-practiced MGM is not the same as traditional Jewish circumcision…”
That’s just more dilettantism. The only source Sarah gave for that claim was, so far as I can tell, a one-page discussion by a guy with a doctorate in education.
“Outlawing MGM -- in an effort to be consistent in the law's protection of boys as well as girls -- is not equivalent to outlawing Judaism.”
Of course it’s equivalent to outlawing Judaism, for the reasons I’ve given.
“Since you support a general ban on FGM, you'd have to show a relevant distinction between that and MGM…”
Which I have.
“If you paid attention to the genesis of this thread, you’d notice that all I did at the outset was to link to an article in a Jewish news outlet on the ruling of a German court concerning the legality of circumcision.... It’s you and Sarah who decided to shift the conversation to a debate over the alleged physiological and psychological harm done by the neonatal circumcision of boys.”
Delete1. That's not true. Your initial post was not simply a link, but a list of comments on the issue which included your (unsourced, unsupported) opinion that male circumcision is not comparable to FGM. Your comment about the “medical fringe benefits” and “tradeoffs” references the issue of benefits vs harm.
That being the case, it is entirely relevant to point out that your opinions are wrong. If you didn't think those points were relevant, you shouldn't have brought them up in your initial post.
“So that’s demonstrably your obsession, not mine.”
Interesting that you use the pejorative term “obsession” rather than, say, “cause”. Do you consider anti-FGM advocates “obsessed” as well? What about Gladys Aylward?
Smokering
Delete"That's not true. Your initial post was not simply a link, but a list of comments on the issue which included your (unsourced, unsupported) opinion that male circumcision is not comparable to FGM. Your comment about the “medical fringe benefits” and “tradeoffs” references the issue of benefits vs harm."
You suffer from a serious inability to follow a simple argument. M initial post was simply a link, with no editorial commentary on my part. It was focused on the legality of circumcision in reference to Jewish practice.
Bnonn then commented. At that point I responded to Bnonn. Try to keep track of the order of events. It isn't hard.
"That being the case, it is entirely relevant to point out that your opinions are wrong."
You're not qualified to prove me wrong. You can Google, I can Google. That's it.
"If you didn't think those points were relevant, you shouldn't have brought them up in your initial post."
Don't be obtuse. I didn't "bring them up." Bnonn brought them up, at which point I *replied* to him. Cause and effect. That's not a hard distinction to grasp. Your emotional investment in this issue is causing you to act dense. You need to back up.
"which included your (unsourced, unsupported) opinion"
Your attempted tu quoque is a failure:
i) Unlike you, I'm not posing as an instant expert. Unlike you, I know my limitations.
ii) I could give my sources, but since Patrick is more qualified than me on medical issues, I'm deferring to him. It would behoove you to acquire the same wisdom.
Instead, you become a Google scholar and go running off on your self-appointed crusades to save the world according to the chic fad du jour.
Steve, pardon me: I thought your initial post was the one entitled "Genital autonomy". I missed the simple link post.
DeleteNevertheless, by your own standards, when Bnonn brought up a relevant objection - because if circumcision causes sexual/medical harm, that raises the question of whether it should be legal in the general populace, which raises the question of whether, if not, religious exemptions should be allowed - you became an "instant expert" and offered some medical opinions which are ignorant and erroneous.
Incidentally, what basis do you have for calling me an "instant expert"? I've been taking a layman's and journalist's interest in this topic for close to five years, and have spent hundreds of hours researching and debating it. That doesn't make me an expert, nor have I ever claimed to be, but it hardly "instant" knowledge.
You know what's sad about this? I'm right here discussing the issue with you. You could have asked me how long I'd been researching the issue. Would have taken you five seconds to type. Instead, you decided I was ignorant of the subject based on - what? Not the accuracy of my medical facts, because you haven't refuted any (and indeed, your own knowledge of the subject is demonstrably ignorant).
"Unlike you, I know my limitations."
Which allow you to claim that circumcised females who experience sexual pleasure are an "exception"... how?
"ii) I could give my sources, but since Patrick is more qualified than me on medical issues, I'm deferring to him."
No, I'd like you to do it. You made the claim. Don't leave the dirty work to others.
"Instead, you become a Google scholar and go running off on your self-appointed crusades to save the world according to the chic fad du jour."
You know what I really admire about you, Steve? The grace and Christlikeness you exhibit online. Truly a shining example to the world.
Is a self-appointed crusade necessarily wrong? Should I only be concerned with human rights abuses that don't have the privilege of media awareness? What's your point here, other than yet another sneer to demonstrate your utter contempt for me?
Smokering
Delete“Nevertheless, by your own standards, when Bnonn brought up a relevant objection - because if circumcision causes sexual/medical harm, that raises the question of whether it should be legal in the general populace, which raises the question of whether, if not, religious exemptions should be allowed - you became an ‘instant expert’ and offered some medical opinions which are ignorant and erroneous.”
No, that’s not by my own standards. That’s by his standards. I merely responded to him on his own terms. If he’s going to raise inexpert objections, then I can raise inexpert counter-objections.
That doesn’t mean I think I’m qualified to speak to the medical side of the issue, just that I’m no more or less qualified than he.
And as far as that goes, he admits that he relies on your for his (mis-)information, whereas I at least have done some research on my own.
“Incidentally, what basis do you have for calling me an ‘instant expert’? I've been taking a layman's and journalist's interest in this topic for close to five years, and have spent hundreds of hours researching and debating it.”
Which makes you a dilettante.
“That doesn't make me an expert, nor have I ever claimed to be…”
No, you just act like one.
“You know what's sad about this? I'm right here discussing the issue with you. You could have asked me how long I'd been researching the issue. Would have taken you five seconds to type. Instead, you decided I was ignorant of the subject based on - what?”
The fact that you’ve dabbled in the subject for a number of years by dutifully reading the agitprop stuff that's been spoon-fed to you on anticircumcision websites does nothing to rectify your medical ineptitude. You lack the professional competence to evaluate what you read.
“Which allow you to claim that circumcised females who experience sexual pleasure are an ‘exception’... how?”
If you’re going to take the position that it’s normal for circumcised females to experience sexual pleasure, then why are you opposed to FGM? It can’t be that damaging after all.
“No, I'd like you to do it. You made the claim.”
I don’t think redundancy is a virtue. I’ll wait and see what more he has to say on the issue, If at that point I feel the need to supplement what he says, I’ll do so. This is your hobbyhorse, not mine.
“Don't leave the dirty work to others.”
Presenting scientific counterevidence to your exaggerated, lopsided claims is “dirty work”?
“You know what I really admire about you, Steve? The grace and Christlikeness you exhibit online. Truly a shining example to the world.”
Let’s consider the shining, Christlike example that Sarah Tennant presents to the world. She indulges in a blanket smear of America as a racist nation, even though she didn’t even grow up here. And she wants to criminalize Judaism by outlawing the parental right of Jewish couples to circumcise their sons.
Trying using some Windex on your bathroom mirror before you attack the Christian character of others.
“Should I only be concerned with human rights abuses that don't have the privilege of media awareness?”
Which begs the question of whether Jewish circumcision is a human rights abuse. To the contrary, I daresay many Jews would regard your crusade against Jewish circumcision as the human rights abuse.
“What's your point here, other than yet another sneer to demonstrate your utter contempt for me?”
You’re a one-woman wrecking ball who goes around smashing furniture in your blinkered crusade to save the world.
No one invited you to defend the ruling of the German court. You invited yourself. Then you should know by now what you’re getting yourself into.
Agitators like you pose a threat to the social fabric. Agitators like you instigate civil wars if given half a chance.
I haven't closely followed the male circumcision debate here. I've mainly just popped in here and there as I've been pretty busy offline. So hopefully what I say is relevant. If not, my apologies in advance.
ReplyDeleteAlso, while I'm not aiming to be non-committal, the unfortunate reality is I might not be able to devote as much time as I'd like to this debate given how busy I am. But again I'll try to pop in as much as I can.
That said, I'd like to make a few comments please:
1. I think we need to better define and frame the debate.
The WHO defines type 1 FGM as: "Clitoridectomy: partial or total removal of the clitoris (a small, sensitive and erectile part of the female genitals) and, in very rare cases, only the prepuce (the fold of skin surrounding the clitoris)."
However, I think it's too vague of a definition to be helpful in this debate. As the WHO definition itself acknowledges, this could refer to the partial removal of the clitoris, it could refer to the total removal of the clitoris, or it could refer to removing "only the prepuce" i.e. the clitoral hood or hood of the clitoris. But these could be different from a technical or medical perspective.
For example, there's a distinction between clitoridectomy vs. clitoridotomy (aka hoodectomy).
More to the point, speaking from the perspective of the embryological development of our external urogenital anatomy, the male prepuce would be homologous to the female prepuce. We call the male prepuce the foreskin and the female prepuce the clitoral hood.
In this respect, male circumcision would be removing the foreskin which would be analogous to removing the female's clitoral hood.
2. It might help a bit more to take a step or two back. I hope this isn't needlessly technical, although I'll try not to make it too technical, but I think it's important to provide some medical background relevant to the debate.
The female external genitalia would include the mons pubs, labia majora, labia minora, clitoris, vestibule, bulbs of the vestibule or vestibular bulbs, and greater vestibular glands. All this is collectively called the vulva.
All these have their corollary in male urogenital anatomy as well, but obviously modified due to different functions. For example, the labia majora corresponds to the scrotum and the labia minora and the vestibular bulbs correspond to corpus spongiosum. The main difference is that in the female there's no midline fusion of the urogenital folds. In the males the urogenital folds (under the genital tubercle) do fuse in the midline.
There are corresponding blood vessels and nerves too.
Anyway, with regard to the embryological development, you can look into all this in more detail than I've given if you click here. Most relevant is probably section 21.5 on external genitalia.
3. Zooming in on the clitoris, the clitoris is at the ends of the labia minora. It's formed by two corpora cavernosa and the anterior ends of the vestibular bulbs.
The end of the clitoris is called the clitoral glans. This part is homologous to the glans penis.
4. Just like the penis can become erect, so can the clitoris. Just like the penile corpus cavernosum can become engorged with blood for a penile erection, so can the clitoral corpus cavernosum become engorged with blood for a clitoral erection.
5. Now, while erection in males and females is due to the parasympathetic nervous system, orgasm in males and females is due to the sympathetic and somatic nervous system.
I can get more specific later if necessary.
6. Regarding male circumcision. The male prepuce or foreskin is incised on the dorsum of the penis from the tip towards the base of the glans penis, the incision is continued circumferentially, and a surgical suture of the edges is made.
"6. Regarding male circumcision. The male prepuce or foreskin is incised on the dorsum of the penis from the tip towards the base of the glans penis, the incision is continued circumferentially, and a surgical suture of the edges is made."
DeleteThis definition must be referring to circumcision of adults? For infants an extra step is necessary; tearing the prepuce away from the glans, where it is fused at birth in a similar manner to the fingernails being fused to the fingertips. Infant circumcision is often done with a Plastibell or Gomco clamp, too; your definition seems to refer to a freehand circumcision. Probably not that relevant to the debate, but worth mentioning.
7. I'm not for or against male circumcision, per se.
ReplyDeleteI do think there are times when circumcision could be medically necessitated. For example, some children or adults may have a tightly constricting prepuce. This is called phimosis. In some cases of phimosis, there could be chronic local pain such as causing painful erections, urinary obstruction, and/or hematuria. This could warrant circumcision. Phimosis can also occur in females, although it's apparently underdiagnosed. According to this study, clitoral phimosis was identified in 22% of these women.
8. However, I think the case against male circumcision is inconclusive at best.
I've seen several studies. The studies I've seen vary considerably in terms of value. Some have poor methodological design, others are more sound. Some have complete, accurate, relevant/representative, and/or time-applicable data, others have incomplete, inaccurate, irrelevant/unrepresentative, and/or non-time-applicable data. Some have biased data, others are more fair. Some have many confounding factors, others less. And so on and so forth.
What's more, there are different types of studies. For example, there could be animal and lab-based studies, case reports, case-control studies, randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. So, like, animal studies or research are far less valuable to evidence-based medicine. Case reports are more negligible. RCTs are far more valuable to evidence-based medicine.
Anyway, point being, not all studies are of the same value to addressing the question over male circumcision.
On the other hand, the ideal studies would provide the best available medical scientific evidence to support and justify its application in clinical medicine. In a phrase, evidence-based medicine.
But I haven't seen a thorough systematic review let alone meta-analysis on the topic of our debate. Maybe one exists somewhere. If so, I'd be interested in seeing it!
As far as I'm concerned, I'm happy to follow the evidence-based medicine. If it turns out there is a sound meta-analysis which concludes male circumcision is poor evidence-based medicine, then I'm happy to follow it. But at least at this point, again, I think the case against male circumcision is inconclusive at best. From what I've seen, I would think more and better studies are necessary.
7. Yes, phimosis can be a legitimate medical justification for circumcision. Less invasive methods are preferable, though - application of a steroid cream resolves the issue in a majority of cases. (Sources: Ashfield JE, Nickel KR, Siemens DR, MacNeily AE, Nickel JC. Treatment of phimosis with topical steroids in 194 children. J Urol. 2003 Mar;169(3): 1106-8. Also Ng WT, Fan N, Wong CK, Leung SL, Yuen KS, Sze YS, Cheng PW. Treatment of childhood phimosis with a moderately potent topical steroid. ANZ J Surg. 2001 Sep;71(9): 541-3. And a cost-effectiveness analysis: Berdeu D, Sauze L, Ha-Vinh P, Blum-Boisgard C. Cost-effectiveness analysis of treatments for phimosis: a comparison of surgical and medicinal approaches and their economic effect. BJU Int. 2001 Feb;87(3):239-44.)
DeleteThere's also a less invasive surgical option - a small dorsal slit in the penis. (One old source, but there are plenty of others online: Hoffman S, Metz P, Ebbehøj J. A new technique for phimosis: prepuce-saving technique with multiple Y-V-plasties. Brit J Urol 1984;56;319-21.)
Additionally, phimosis is often mistakenly diagnosed in the USA, as many doctors in high-circ areas are unaware that non-retractable foreskins are normal until well into the teens. Interestingly, I recently read statements by a few women that their husbands were non-retractable in adulthood, but sexually functional and asymptomatic; so phimosis is not necessarily a dire evil. (Paraphimosis, of course, is rather more so; it and gangrene of the foreskin and cancer of the foreskin are all good reasons to circumcise.)
8. I've seen a meta-analysis floating around the internet somewhere; I'll see if I can find it once my daughter's gone to bed. I also referenced some studies above, although they're all referring to specific aspects of circumcision rather than studying the phenomenon as a whole. It is noteworthy that the WHO does not consider the evidence for circumcision strong enough to recommend it; nor is it commonly practiced in Britain, most of Europe and Australasia.
Forgot to add that the case for circumcision *due to immediate medical need* is quite different for the case for circumcision *routinely in infancy*. It's one thing to circumcise a phimotic (is that a word?) penis; it's quite another to circumcise a perfectly healthy penis on the statistically small chance that it may, years later, develop phimosis (or cancer, or assist in the spread of HIV, etc).
DeleteSmokering said:
DeleteYes, phimosis can be a legitimate medical justification for circumcision.
Hi Sarah,
Thanks for your comments.
I'm glad we agree phimosis is a good reason for circumcision. For some reason I was under the impression you were totally opposed to any form of circumcision. Anyway, I'm glad that's not the case.
Less invasive methods are preferable, though - application of a steroid cream resolves the issue in a majority of cases.
Of course, to the extent that we can generalize treatment options, doctors would prefer less invasive methods.
It'd be ideal to look at what's best for a patient on a case by case basis though. Specifically tailor the treatment to the patient. A patient could have other factors to consider relevant to treating his phimosis which may influence the treatment plan. For example, if the patient has chronic balantis with inflammation of the prepuce, then a dorsal slit would be a preferred method of treatment even though it would be "invasive" (at least if we consider circumcision invasive). It's not as invasive as circumcision, which could also legitimately be considered, but it's certainly more invasive than a topical steroid.
Similarly, I was referring to cases of phimosis which had additional features like "chronic local pain such as causing painful erections, urinary obstruction, and/or hematuria" in my original comment. In such cases, circumcision would be indicated as the primary treatment option.
There's also a less invasive surgical option - a small dorsal slit in the penis.
Yes, as above, it depends on what's best for the patient as well as what he prefers. Say if both circumcision and a dorsal slit are equally viable, if the patient doesn't mind a possibly a less aesthetic apperance, then a dorsal slit would be better.
Additionally, phimosis is often mistakenly diagnosed in the USA, as many doctors in high-circ areas are unaware that non-retractable foreskins are normal until well into the teens.
This is probably besides the point, it'd just be an interesting little excursion since we're already agreed that phimosis can warrant circumcision, but I'd be interested in your source(s) regarding:
First, phimosis being "often" misdiagnosed in the US. For example, how "often" is often? Also, how "badly" is it misdiagnosed? Like is the misdiagnosis of phimosis closely related to other diseases or conditions which appear clinically indistinguishable without further investigations? Further, which types of doctors are making the alleged misdiagnosis? I wouldn't be surprised if, say, a pathologist misses a difficult heart murmur that a cardiologist would easily know.
Second, "many doctors in high-circ areas" being "unaware that non-retractable foreskins are normal until well into the teens." I wonder how this sort of ignorance would be reliably evaluated.
Third, how the two are necessarily connected to one another. After all, even if it's true phimosis is often misdiagnosed by these doctors, it could be misdiagnosed for reasons other than their ignorance. Like, what do you mean by "high-circ areas" - areas which have heavy patient flow? If so, then perhaps this is one reason it's misdiagnosed (assuming it is)? I mean it's pretty hard to be perfect if you're seeing tons of patients every day in clinic. Even the best doctor can make a misdiagnosis. But anyway it might not have anything to do with their ignorance.
Fourth, "non-retractable foreskins are normal until well into the teens." According to the latest edition (19th) of Nelson's Textbook of Pediatrics (which is a standard pediatrics textbook), the prepuce is retractable in 90% of boys by the age of 3.
so phimosis is not necessarily a dire evil
DeleteOf course, I never claimed otherwise.
Also, please refer to my original comment above where I included "chronic local pain such as causing painful erections, urinary obstruction, and/or hematuria" as part of the rationale for circumcision.
Indeed, most true or pathologic phimosis cases wouldn't require circumcision. But again I never claimed otherwise.
(Paraphimosis, of course, is rather more so
Again, it's complicated and difficult to make a blanket generalization. It depends. Some cases of phimosis are better than some cases of paraphimosis, while others it's the other way around. Are we talking about it in a young child or adult? How badly has the phimosis or paraphimosis progressed? Are there any co-morbidities? Etc.
BTW, paraphimosis doesn't necessarily require circumcision either. (I never claimed it did though.) The glans penis can be "squeezed" (under local anesthesia) to reduce edema, thus reducing the prepuce. Or the prepuce could be slit dorsally as well to release the constriction. Or circumcision could be indicated. Again, it depends how bad it is. What's best for the patient. All that.
That said circumcision could be indicated to prevent recurrence if the paraphimosis was particularly severe and recurrence quite likely.
it and gangrene of the foreskin and cancer of the foreskin are all good reasons to circumcise.
Cool, glad we're agreed.
I've seen a meta-analysis floating around the internet somewhere; I'll see if I can find it once my daughter's gone to bed.
I'd be much obliged if so!
I also referenced some studies above, although they're all referring to specific aspects of circumcision rather than studying the phenomenon as a whole.
Hm, I see two articles on using topical steroids as treatment. Another about the economics of treating phimosis. And one last one about using a dorsal slit to treat phimosis (which I guess was a "new technique" way back in 1984 - how weird to think about!). But none of these are terribly controversial, I don't think. And I'm afraid I don't see how the topics would be relevant to arguing against male circumcision.
At the same time, sorry, I wasn't clear enough before. I should've said I don't think there is such a study which looks at the entire phenomenon. But I wouldn't expect there to be. I would indeed just expect research looking at various aspects of circumcision. Otherwise, if there is a study looking at the entire phenomenon, it must be a huge, well-funded group with excellent researchers at least equal to if not far exceeding the likes of Dr. Gregory House and his team! :-)
That said, I have seen meta-analyses of aspects of the debate like male circumcision and the risk of HIV infection. But one problem with male circumcision and the risk of HIV infection is the two meta-analyses I've seen on the topic ultimately come to polar conclusions - one in favor and the other against. If we include systematic reviews, RCTs, non-randomized cohort studies, case-control studies, and lab-based studies, what I've seen indicates there are a lot more positive studies in favor of circumcision to reduce the risk of HIV infection. But judging by sheer number of studies in favor vs. sheer number of studies against doesn't necessarily mean anything. It could be the case that a single phenomenal study blows all the other 99 studies which come to the opposite conclusion as the single study out of the water. Again, that's why I think the evidence is inconclusive, at least from what I've seen.
It is noteworthy that the WHO does not consider the evidence for circumcision strong enough to recommend it
DeleteFor one thing, the WHO (and other similar organizations) is considerably dependent upon medical research for its position. So it'd be best to go directly to the research itself.
At the same time, I haven't seen the WHO decidedly recommend an anti-circumcision stance. But it could be I'm simply not aware of it. Has the WHO done so?
At least what I've seen is what I've seen in most medical organizations and with which I'd more or less agree: medically speaking there are pros and cons to male circumcision but the evidence doesn't seem strong enough to take a hard stance either way. So to reiterate: I'm not for circumcision but neither am I against it on medical grounds. It depends on the child's (and his family's) overall profile. In some cases it might be best not to circumcise, in other cases it might be best to circumcise.
nor is it commonly practiced in Britain, most of Europe and Australasia.
Well, as I trust you know, what's (not) commonly practiced doesn't necessarily indicate whether it's actually a good idea (not) to practice it. Just because a nation thinks doing this or that or not doing this or that is a good idea doesn't necessarily mean it actually is a good idea.
Related, what's good for one nation might not necessarily be good for another nation. If the UK thought it was a good idea to outlaw the sale of beef, it might be justified if a sizeable number of its beef sold in its markets and grocery stores had mad cow disease. But it wouldn't necessarily mean that's a good idea for other nations to likewise outlaw the sale of beef.
Forgot to add that the case for circumcision *due to immediate medical need* is quite different for the case for circumcision *routinely in infancy*. It's one thing to circumcise a phimotic (is that a word?) penis; it's quite another to circumcise a perfectly healthy penis on the statistically small chance that it may, years later, develop phimosis (or cancer, or assist in the spread of HIV, etc).
At any rate, I haven't been arguing for or supporting routine circumcision.
I'm mainly interested in the medical science side to the debate. But again what I've seen is that the evidence against male circumcision is inconclusive. I've seen studies by doctors and scientists that provide what seems to be good medical scientific evidence against male circumcision, but I've also seen studies by doctors and scientists that provide what seems to be good medical scientific evidence in favor of male circumcision. Hence another reason why I think it's probably best to decide on a case by case basis until there's a professional consensus based around good evidence-based medicine if there is any forthcoming - which, like I said, maybe there is, and I just don't know about it.
"First, phimosis being "often" misdiagnosed in the US.... Second, "many doctors in high-circ areas" being "unaware that non-retractable foreskins are normal until well into the teens.""
DeleteIt's not something I've seen studies on; it's just something I've picked up from being on intactivist forums for several years. It seems like every week another mother posts, distraught, because her doctor (usually paediatrician) has tried to forcibly retract her newborn's foreskin, or has told her he should be retractable by [whatever age] and must therefore have phimosis because he isn't. Many mothers go through several paediatricians trying to find a "foreskin-friendly" one who doesn't react with disgust or ignorance to the sight of an intact baby. It's common to see posts titled "Help - anyone know of a foreskin-friendly doctor in [city?]".
"Fourth, "non-retractable foreskins are normal until well into the teens." According to the latest edition (19th) of Nelson's Textbook of Pediatrics (which is a standard pediatrics textbook), the prepuce is retractable in 90% of boys by the age of 3."
"Doctors Opposing Circumcision" has a referenced page about this: http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/info/retraction.html
"Hm, I see two articles on using topical steroids as treatment. Another about the economics of treating phimosis. And one last one about using a dorsal slit to treat phimosis (which I guess was a "new technique" way back in 1984 - how weird to think about!). But none of these are terribly controversial, I don't think. And I'm afraid I don't see how the topics would be relevant to arguing against male circumcision."
Oh, sorry! Not those references. I meant further above, in one of my responses to Steve. I provided a longish list of references on a number of the topics that have come up - circumcision and pain in the neonate, complications of circumcision, circ and sexual function, etc.
"So to reiterate: I'm not for circumcision but neither am I against it on medical grounds. It depends on the child's (and his family's) overall profile. In some cases it might be best not to circumcise, in other cases it might be best to circumcise."
In theory I agree. I'm *strongly* against non-medical (routine or religious) infant circumcision on ethical grounds - it removes healthy, functioning sexual tissue from a non-consenting minor; the benefits are the avoidance of fairly rare and/or mostly avoidable ills, while some complications are quite common and the sexual losses unavoidable; and there are many ethical and medical analogies to FGM.
That doesn't mean I believe circumcision is never a valid option, but I feel it should be done as a last resort; just like the amputation of any other healthy body part.
"Well, as I trust you know, what's (not) commonly practiced doesn't necessarily indicate whether it's actually a good idea (not) to practice it.... Related, what's good for one nation might not necessarily be good for another nation."
Well, indeed. :p That's why it irks me when the "Studies in Africa show circumcision slows the spread of HIV" line is used to justify RIC (on non-sexually-active infants) across the board in the USA... it's just not comparable.
I found some short reports about this meta-analysis: Perera CL, Bridgewater FHG, Thavaneswaran P, Maddern GJ. Safety and efficacy of nontherapeutic male circumcision: A systematic review. Annals of Family Medicine. 2010;8(1):64-72.
Unfortunately I couldn't access the study itself online (at least not without paying twelve pounds!), but the reports indicate the authors “Current evidence fails to recommend widespread neonatal circumcision,” but analysed only the purported benefits of circumcision; ie, they didn't take complications, sexual losses, ethical issues etc into account. So, yeah; not hugely helpful.
Well, what do you know? I looked up "forcible foreskin retraction", thinking nothing much would come up, and found this.
Deletehttp://www.canjurol.com/abstract.php?ArticleID=1258&PMID=&version=1.0
"CONCLUSIONS: Our findings reveal that many physicians continue to face difficulties in distinguishing physiological phimosis from the pathological. As a result, many unnecessary referrals are made for ˜phimosis˜. We suggest the implementation of improved educational measures regarding preputial pathophysiology in the medical curriculum."
And this page (another Doctors Opposing Circumcision one) starts with a statement by a physician who says he gets "three calls a week" about forcible foreskin retraction:
http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/info/info-forcedretraction.html
So it seems to be a pretty common phenomenon (and the Google results were filled with Yahoo! answers-type hits, with parents commenting about it happening. Grrr.)
Steve,
ReplyDeleteHow is German law wrt circumcision ala Judaism different than US law wrt polygamy ala Mormonism?
Judaism is a revealed religion, Mormonism is a cult.
ReplyDeleteEquivocation. BiblicalJudaism is a revealed religion. Biblical Judaism is no longer operative in the new covenant. Rabbinic Judaism is no more true than Mormanism.
ReplyDeletei) I gave a short answer to a short question. If you want a more nuanced answer, you have to pose a more nuanced question. And a more detailed comparative analysis yields the same result.
ReplyDeleteii) To assert that “Biblical Judaism is no longer operative in the new covenant,” is hyperbolic in the extreme. That implies total discontinuity. But there’s a lot of carryover from the old covenant into the new covenant. Take Gordon Wenham’s Psalms as Torah, or Darrell Bock’s A Theology of Luke-Acts.
iii) Modern Judaism includes Messianic Jews. Jews who believe in the NT. Outlawing neonatal male circumcision would criminalize Messianic Jews.
iv) Rabbinic Judaism has strayed from OT religion. But it’s rooted in OT religion. By contrast, Mormonism is rooted in the false prophethood of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. So there’s still a categorical contrast between Mormonism and Rabbinic Judaism.
v) Apropos (iv), there’s a contemporary renaissance of Jewish commentaries on the OT. And the exegesis is often valid.
vi) Although modern Judaism (prescinding Messianic Judaism) is backslidden, there are OT and NT prophecies regarding the future spiritual restoration of Israel. So it’s current condition is not the end of the line. By contrast, Mormonism carries no such promise.
For these reasons, modern Judaism merits a degree of Christian deference which Mormonism (or Islam) cannot command.
"Apropos (iv), there’s a contemporary renaissance of Jewish commentaries on the OT. And the exegesis is often valid"
ReplyDeleteAre there any commentators in particular that you feel are worth reading?
First of all, I have in mind OT scholars like ben Zvi (Micah), Green (Ezekiel), Levine (Leviticus, Numbers), Milgrom (Leviticus, Numbers), Sarna (Genesis, Exodus), and Tigay (Deuteronomy). There are also literary scholars like Alter and Sternberg.
DeleteHowever, it isn't necessary to read them directly to benefit from them, inasmuch as Protestant commentators mine them for insights.
"i) Unless you were a man before you were a woman (a la gender reassignment operation), you don’t have the inside track on what it feels like to be a circumcised man (or an uncircumcised man, for that matter)."
ReplyDeleteNo, and you don't have the inside track on what it feels like to be a circumcised or uncircumcised (or infibulated, or excised) woman. Yet you have no problems making sweeping statements about their sexual feelings, even though those are explicitly contradicted in studies of the issue.
No man (or woman) can compare firsthand the experience of being intact and being circumcised since birth. So you don't have the advantage over me in that regard. The closest we can get is men who were circumcised in adulthood, after having had sex, which is not precisely the same because the glans has not been gradually keratinised throughout childhood. There are also men circumcised at birth who have undergone foreskin restoration, which restores some of the sexual sensations and functions lost to circumcision, but not all (for instance, the frenulum cannot be regrown).
The experiences of these men widely differ, for obvious reasons. Men who were circumcised in adulthood due to medical issues with the intact penises may be more likely to enjoy sex more post-circumcision. Men who restore their foreskins due to complications of circumcision such as an overly-tight circumcision may be more likely to enjoy sex more after restoring. And there are social and psychological factors as well. So that makes the issue tricky.
But while surveys about sexual *satisfaction* must be taken with a grain of salt, surveys and studies about sexual *function* are more reliable. I believe I included the "fine-touch pressure threshholds" study in my sources; that indicates a sensitivity difference between circumcised and intact men which does not rely on my first-hand experience to comprehend.
It is impossible for a man to experience pleasure sensations from nerve endings which have been severed. It is impossible for his foreskin to help retain female lubrication when it no longer present.
ii) That's a half-quote. I said "loss of capacity" to physically enjoy sexual intercourse. That's not the effect of male circumcision.
*Complete* loss of capacity to physically enjoy sexual intercourse is not the effect of male *or* female circumcision the majority of the time. I referenced a couple of studies on this.
*Partial* loss of sexual *function* which may or may not result in *reduced* capacity to physically enjoy intercourse is the effect of both male and female circumcision. I referenced studies on this as well.
Smokering
Delete“No, and you don't have the inside track on what it feels like to be a circumcised or uncircumcised (or infibulated, or excised) woman. Yet you have no problems making sweeping statements about their sexual feelings, even though those are explicitly contradicted in studies of the issue.”
Actually, that’s a premise of your own argument. You’re the one thinks FGM should be banned because it’s so damaging to women. But then, in response to me, you suddenly reverse course and downplay the medical effects of FGM.
“No man (or woman) can compare firsthand the experience of being intact and being circumcised since birth.”
BTW, that undermines your opposition to male neonatal circumcision based on lack of consent. By your own admission, a male is never in a position to render informed consent, for he can’t compare both experiences ahead of time. He doesn’t know what circumcised sex feels like unless and until he undergoes the procedure, which is effectively irreversible. If it were truly and fully reversible, why would you be so opposed to the procedure?
"i) You have a habit of playing hopscotch. When someone answers you on your own grounds, you substitute a different argument.
ReplyDeleteYou hype the alleged harm done by male circumcision, but you don’t want to acknowledge the compensatory medical benefits. These chronic evasive maneuvers betray intellectual discomfort with the coherence of your position."
Feel free to point to studies which demonstrate that I have hyped the harm done by male circumcision.
I am not "playing hopscotch"; I am pointing out that not all medical pros and cons are created equal. Reduced sexual function, for instance, is an unavoidable consequence of circumcision which occurs in 100% of cases due to complete or partial loss of the foreskin (some circumcisions being higher than others). Reduced transmission of STDs is not a benefit which occurs in 100% of cases.
*If* a boy has sex with an infected partner, and *if* he fails to use a condom or the condom breaks, he may experience a benefit from circumcision.
Is that possible benefit, based on the child's possible future risky and immoral behavior, a valid ethical reason for subjecting him at a non-sexually-active age to certain sexual losses, the possibilities of other complications, and so on? I don't think so. If you disagree, you must also consider that researchers in Tanzania have found that FGM decreases HIV transmission. Would you consider that a valid reason to allow FGM, a procedure for which you believe there should be a "blanket ban"? Or do you consider, as the researchers did, that it would be unethical to implement that research?
Having read posts of yours in the past, you generally seem to be of the opinion that society has no obligation to protect sinners from the consequences of their sin. I recall in a conversation about sex ed in schools, you didn't feel that promiscuous teens should be given information about how to prevent pregnancy and STDs. So why should babies be "given" circumcision in order to slightly decrease their chances of getting STDs from risky sex? Shouldn't that "benefit" not even factor into the decision, by your own standards?
"ii) You yourself (lower down) mention “Boys who remain chaste until and within marriage” Well, a chaste Christian man can marry a woman (say a convert to Christianity) with a sexual history. She can inadvertently transmit STDs to her husband. Male circumcision diminishes the risk. Or do you think Christian men should only marry virgins?"
No, I considered mentioning the possibility, but figured you could work out the issue on your own. If one partner comes into marriage with a sexual past, he or she should be tested. That's the responsible, adult thing to do. If the woman tests positive, the couple should use condoms while she is being treated, or permanently if the disease is incurable (ie HIV).
The couple could certainly discuss circumcision as an extra safeguard in case of a condom break. As an adult in that situation, it might be an acceptable medical decision. But in terms of recommending routine infant circumcision, it's ridiculous. Because Couple A might benefit, because they were too ignorant or naive to get tested, Couples B through Z must live with the consequences of reduced sexual function in the male and the possibility of adverse sexual consequences to the woman?
Smokering
Delete“I am pointing out that not all medical pros and cons are created equal.”
Bnonn doesn’t think circumcision has any pros. He said “But the reality is there are no health benefits to circumcision.”
That’s the kind of extremism I’m responding to.
“To assert that “Biblical Judaism is no longer operative in the new covenant,” is hyperbolic in the extreme.”
ReplyDeleteBiblical Judaism in the new covenant age is called Christianity. The first century followers of Jesus Christ of Jewish descent identified themselves thusly. E.g., Peter and Paul were Christians. The old divine covenant mandate for circumcision among the physical descendants of Abraham, part of the ceremonial law, was abrogated. The “church under age” has grown up (cf. WCF 19:3).
No matter how one understands the future restoration of physical Israel (and the concept as interpreted by semi-dispensationalists is fraught with problems), it is nevertheless as you indicated a spiritual one. There is no suggestion of a return to old covenant ceremonial norms at any point in the future. Circumcision, the act of shedding of blood by the cutting of the foreskin, is as repulsive a thought as would be a return to animal sacrifices in a restoration temple. True circumcision is an altogether spiritual matter in this age (cf. Phil. 3:3).
Messianic Jews are confused in many theological areas, notably in their self-identification. Their existence hardly justifies a case for sound judicial practice. (Counting noses demonstrates that most “messianic Jews” are gentile “converts.”)
If circumcision is still a valid biblical mandate, then the German law is repulsive. But such a case cannot be made from Scripture. Therefore, today, the inability to circumcise one's male offspring is merely an inconvenience, not a violation of divine law. Just as not being able to have multiple wives is an inconvenience for Mormons.
If you're going to apply theology to modern jurisprudence at least be extensive and consistent.
Tom6/30/2012 6:05 PM
Delete“Biblical Judaism in the new covenant age is called Christianity.”
That’s in blatant contradiction to your original claim. You initially said:
“Biblical Judaism is no longer operative in the new covenant.”
Yet now you say “Biblical Judaism in the new covenant age is called Christianity.”
But if your new claim is true, then your old statement is false. If Biblical Judaism in the new covenant age is Christianity, then Biblical Judaism is fully operative in the new covenant. If anything, more operative. So you just falsified your previous claim.
“The old divine covenant mandate for circumcision among the physical descendants of Abraham, part of the ceremonial law, was abrogated.”
i) That fails to distinguish between what’s mandatory and what’s permissible. You’re not keeping up with the argument. Run faster.
ii) Likewise, just because something isn’t mandated in Scripture doesn’t authorize the State to forbid it. The NT doesn’t mandate how many children I should have. That doesn’t give the State the right to dictate the number of children I can have. The fact that the NT doesn’t mandate that I ought to have, say, 3 children, doesn’t mean the State is entitled to prohibit me from having 3 children. Your reasoning is utter nonsense.
“No matter how one understands the future restoration of physical Israel (and the concept as interpreted by semi-dispensationalists is fraught with problems), it is nevertheless as you indicated a spiritual one. There is no suggestion of a return to old covenant ceremonial norms at any point in the future.”
You’re conflating two distinct issues. You compared Judaism to Mormonism. I pointed out that even though modern Judaism is in a backslidden condition, it is rooted in divine revelation (unlike Mormonism), and it has promises Mormonism doesn’t have. So your comparison is profoundly disanalogous.
“Circumcision, the act of shedding of blood by the cutting of the foreskin, is as repulsive a thought as would be a return to animal sacrifices in a restoration temple.”
Paul treats circumcision as a matter of indifference. That’s why he was free to circumcise Timothy.
You are turning a matter of indifference into something positively wrong. That’s a category mistake on your part.
“Messianic Jews are confused in many theological areas, notably in their self-identification.”
Your bigotry is duly noted. In addition, Messianic Judaism ranges along a continuum.
“Their existence hardly justifies a case for sound judicial practice.”
Sound judicial practice wouldn’t outlaw Messianic Judaism. You’re siding with the enemies of God.
“If circumcision is still a valid biblical mandate, then the German law is repulsive. But such a case cannot be made from Scripture. Therefore, today, the inability to circumcise one's male offspring is merely an inconvenience, not a violation of divine law.”
Other issues aside, you’re defending totalitarian gov’t. It’s fallacious to infer that whatever the Bible doesn’t command the State is free to forbid. The Bible doesn’t command me to have 3 children. That doesn’t mean the State has the right to outlaw couples having 3 kids. The fact that Scripture may not mandate something hardly gives the State carte blanche to criminalize whatever isn’t commanded in Scripture.
“Just as not being able to have multiple wives is an inconvenience for Mormons.”
You’re repeating the same invalid comparison between Judaism and Mormonism.
“If you're going to apply theology to modern jurisprudence at least be extensive and consistent.”
I’m not applying *your* theology to modern jurisprudence. Therefore, my application needn’t be consistent with *your* theology. It need only be consistent with *my* theology. And theology wasn’t the only reason I gave.
"Is that what you’ve been hanging your hat on all this time? A pretty spindly hook to bear so much weight. Do you have anything more scholarly to cite?"
ReplyDeleteI said it was one source, not the only available source. I have two small children and a busy life.
The historical development of circumcision, adding peri'ah to milah, is hardly a secret. Here are some Jewish sources:
The Jewish Encyclopaedia:
“In order to prevent the obliteration of the "seal of the covenant" on the flesh, as circumcision was henceforth called, the Rabbis, probably after the war of Bar Kokba (see Yeb. l.c.; Gen. R. xlvi.), instituted the "peri'ah" (the laying bare of the glans), without which circumcision was declared to be of no value (Shab. xxx. 6).”
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/4391-circumcision – look under “In Apocryphal and Rabbinical Literature”
From the Jewish Virtual Library, Encyclopaedia Judaica:
“After the *Bar Kokhba revolt the rabbis apparently instituted peri'ah (laying bare of the glans), probably in reaction to attempts to "obliterate the Seal of the Covenant" by epispasm. According to Tractate Shabbat 19:2, circumcision and peri'ah became part of a unified process in which the mohel disposed of all or most of the foreskin and then split the thin layer of mucosal membrane that is under the foreskin and rolled it downward to uncover the head of the penis. The importance of peri'ah is emphasized in the early rabbinic period and supportive midrashic readings were constructed in order to base it in Torah (e.g. ḥatan damim (Ex. 4:25) is said to imply two acts: the blood of milah, the actual circumcision, and the blood of the peri'ah incision (TJ, Shab. 19:2 17(a)).”
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0004_0_04318.html
There's also this:
“Many Hellenistic Jews, particularly those who participated in athletics at the gymnasium, had an operation performed to conceal the fact of their circumcision (1 Maccabees 1.15). Similar action was taken during the Hadrianic persecution, in which period a prohibition against circumcision was issued. It was probably in order to prevent the possibility of obliterating the traces of circumcision that the rabbis added to the requirement of cutting the foreskin that of peri'ah (laying bare the glans).”
(The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion, ed. R.J. Zwi Werblowsky and G. Wigoder. Oxford University Press, 1997, page 161.)
From a Jewish rabbi (a bit of an odd one, from his website, but a rabbi nonetheless):
“The early Egyptians gifted us with circumcision. The patriarch Abraham was 99 years old when he made the covenant (hebrew: Brit') with Yahweh. He circumcised himself. And we know that it was a small symbolic cut..the removal of the tip of the foreskin that hung over the glans.
In the second century , the Jews at this time were wanting to participate in the Greek and Roman olympics..they competed in the nude. The Greeks and Romans only allowed 'intact' males..as they celebrated the human form in its wholeness and completeness.
So, if a Jewish man wanted to compete..he would hang some weights from his existing foreskin and 'restore' himself. The Rabbis of this era did not take kindly to this practice of physical assimilation so they instituted two new rituals into the circumcision procedure.
1.Periah..the complete removal of the foreskin, exposing the glans, and in some cases, the removal of the frenulum (the extra-sensitive band of tissue on the underside of the penis.)
2.Metzitzah..the sucking of the blood from the cut penis
These two procedures are still performed among Orthodox Jews world wide.
So, from a simple snip at the time of Abraham, we now have a major blood-letting ceremony, complete with blood sucking.”
http://www.rabbinathan.com/writings/circum.shtml
So, assuming you accept the claim now, let's have a look at the implications.
Delete1. It destroys your "rootstock" argument. Peri'ah was never part of biblical mandate. It came into force after Paul wrote his letters, and after he circumcised Timothy (by cutting off the tip of the foreskin, not by stripping the foreskin from the glans and removing it completely).
2. So Paul's circumcision of Timothy cannot be taken as an endorsement of the modern practice, which includes peri'ah and (in some ceremonies) metzitzah.
3. Jews are bound by their acceptance of oral tradition. They don't have a sola Scriptura mindset. But Jesus while Jesus upheld the legitimate authority of rabbinic teaching to some degree, He spoke strongly against adding to the law - the "traditions of men" which placed unnecessary burdens on the people and in some cases twisted the original intent of the law. He also flatly contradicted some of the theology of the Oral Torah - after all, rabbinic teaching included such falsehoods as "God is unary" and "the Messiah will be a [solely] human political figure". Are Christians today expected to "honour" those teachings? Of course not.
4. It is therefore hard to see that Christians have a theological obligation to respect rabbinic additions; in some cases, we may have a theological obligation to oppose them. In this aspect, Judaism is *not* a "revealed religion", it is a false religion. God did not continue adding to the oral Torah once the New Covenant took effect; His will was revealed in Scripture and the canon was subsequently closed.
5. Thinking about it some more, I might soften my use of the word "mutilation" to refer to biblical circumcision, as it interfered far less with the function of the penis. The glans would have remained covered and protected, the gliding action of the foreskin would have remained intact, and so on. There would still have been some sexual loss, as rabbinic writings freely indicate (some rabbis felt that that was the point of circumcision, to weaken and decrease sexual pleasure); but it would not have significantly changed the physics of intercourse in the way peri'ah/modern RIC does. It would also not have carried the risk for some of the complications of peri'ah/RIC.
Would you agree with this assessment?
Smokering
Delete"So, assuming you accept the claim now..."
I don't. I've now done a separate post on the issue.
i) If you paid attention to the genesis of this thread, you’d notice that all I did at the outset was to link to an article in a Jewish news outlet on the ruling of a German court concerning the legality of circumcision. I’ve been defending the right of Jews to practice Judaism.
ReplyDeleteThat's pretty tendentious -- you're not defending the rights of Jews to practice Judaism in general, but rather you're defending their right to practice a form of non-consensual mutilation on minors, which is not the product of adherence to God's revelation, but rather to rabbinic tradition. Somewhat analagous to defending the rights of Catholics to conceal the sexual molestation of altar boys based on doctrinal accretions like mental reservation.
Maybe you didn't realize this when you first posted -- but you do now. So why defend your original position?
I’m not the one who ever framed the issue in terms of how some men feel sexually inadequate due to circumcision. So beware of going down that road. You took that turn, not me.
What makes you think I'm squeamish about admitting my own feelings about having been circumcised? I'm on record in other places as being opposed to circumcision in no small part because of the effect it has had on my own self-image. I don't think men should be ashamed to acknowledge when wrong is done to them, and especially not when it is done by parents who should have protected them.
Lobbying to outlaw Judaism over circumcision is fanatical.
I guess it is, but who is lobbying to outlaw Judaism over circumcision? As far as I can tell, the only lobby going on is to outlaw circumcision itself. That's just consistent law-making, since female circumcision is already illegal in Germany (and America and Canada and New Zealand and Australia and the UK etc etc etc). If female circumcision is unethical and should be a criminal offense, then male circumcision is unethical and should be considered a criminal offense, given the relevant similarities.
If that has the side-effect of outlawing modern Judaism (which is overstating the case anyway; outlawing one practice doesn't outlaw the religion in toto), then so much the worse for modern Judaism. It's not as if rabbinical tradition is sanctioned by the Old Testament. To the best of my knowledge, OT circumcision at most removed the frenulum, but could even just involve a cut to draw blood -- with no lasting effects whatsoever. I won't defend the right of Jews to practice an unethical man-made tradition any more than I'd defend the right of any religion to do so.
Which suggest to me that you’re getting all your information from Sarah.
What's the problem with that? I routinely get all my information on various topics from other people who have studied them -- including you.
That’s just more dilettantism. The only source Sarah gave for that claim was, so far as I can tell, a one-page discussion by a guy with a doctorate in education.
Dilettantism cuts both ways. If Sarah is unqualified to comment, so are you. The fact that the first source that came to her mind when she was asked was a 1-page discussion, is no indication of her overall investigation. (Not to mention that this confuses quantity with quality.)
If you're going to accuse someone of being an instant expert, at least make sure they haven't got several years' worth of journalistic familiarity with the topic before you do it. Unless you're gonna put a "Dilatennte Apologetics" warning placard over the Triablogue logo.
Patrick, I'm curious about your opinion on the neurological effects of male circumcision. It seems to me they are quite severe, and that this alone should make circumcision an option only in cases where such a severe side-effect is a lesser evil to the malady it cures. What is your view, as a medical expert?
Dominic Bnonn Tennant
ReplyDelete“That's pretty tendentious -- you're not defending the rights of Jews to practice Judaism in general, but rather you're defending their right to practice a form of non-consensual mutilation on minors…”
i) OT circumcision was nonconsensual.
ii) Do you think modern circumcision under local anesthetic using precision surgical implements is “mutilation,” but using a flint knife to circumcise a baby (minus sedation) is kinder and gentler?
“Somewhat analagous to defending the rights of Catholics to conceal the sexual molestation of altar boys based on doctrinal accretions like mental reservation.”
That’s an argument from analogy minus the argument.
“Maybe you didn't realize this when you first posted -- but you do now. So why defend your original position?”
Because your statement of the issue is littered with false premises.
“What makes you think I'm squeamish about admitting my own feelings about having been circumcised? I'm on record in other places as being opposed to circumcision in no small part because of the effect it has had on my own self-image. I don't think men should be ashamed to acknowledge when wrong is done to them, and especially not when it is done by parents who should have protected them.”
You’re welcome to your individual feelings, but don’t presume to project that onto other men.
“I guess it is, but who is lobbying to outlaw Judaism over circumcision? As far as I can tell, the only lobby going on is to outlaw circumcision itself. That's just consistent law-making, since female circumcision is already illegal in Germany (and America and Canada and New Zealand and Australia and the UK etc etc etc). If female circumcision is unethical and should be a criminal offense, then male circumcision is unethical and should be considered a criminal offense, given the relevant similarities.”
Actually, you and Sarah have muddled the water by talking about irrelevant similarities.
“If that has the side-effect of outlawing modern Judaism (which is overstating the case anyway; outlawing one practice doesn't outlaw the religion in toto)…”
As I’ve pointed out, that outlaws Judaism in the same way that outlawing baptism, communion, or public prayer would effectively outlaw Christianity. You’re not making a good faith effort to engage the argument.
“It's not as if rabbinical tradition is sanctioned by the Old Testament. To the best of my knowledge, OT circumcision at most removed the frenulum, but could even just involve a cut to draw blood -- with no lasting effects whatsoever. I won't defend the right of Jews to practice an unethical man-made tradition any more than I'd defend the right of any religion to do so.”
I’ve linked to an article by Robert Hall which indicates that your historical understanding is fundamentally flawed.
Cont. “What's the problem with that? I routinely get all my information on various topics from other people who have studied them -- including you.”
ReplyDeleteIt’s a problem when you rely on unreliable sources. Take your armchair speculation that circumcision would never be used to treat premature ejaculation, even though there are studies to the contrary. Or how you base your position on what you take to be the history of circumcision, despite counterevidence.
“Dilettantism cuts both ways. If Sarah is unqualified to comment, so are you.”
I don’t claim to be qualified.
“The fact that the first source that came to her mind when she was asked was a 1-page discussion, is no indication of her overall investigation. (Not to mention that this confuses quantity with quality.)”
In the nature of the case, a one-page discussion on the history of circumcision can’t be a quality treatment. Historical analysis requires careful documentation, sifting sources, context, &c.
“If you're going to accuse someone of being an instant expert, at least make sure they haven't got several years' worth of journalistic familiarity with the topic before you do it.”
“Journalistic familiarity?” That’s a nice euphemism.
Even in journalism, a science writer is supposed to have some scientific training.
Sorry for the tremendously late response! I (kind of) responded here.
ReplyDelete