Circumcision

son Asked 4 years ago

What is your position on the arguments against circumcision? That the child is an individual who should have the choice whether or not to perform irreversible acts on his body, that the alliance endangers the child and that in general it is like cutting the nipple for girls (regarding the health argument)

Leave a comment

1 Answers
mikyab Staff Answered 4 years ago

Such arguments can go against eating habits, education and the like. There is no escape from the influence of parents on the life of the child. So even if the claim is theoretically correct it is not applicable. Parents should do their best according to their faith for him. In particular, when he grows up, the decision to make an alliance will hurt him and make it harder for him.

son Responded 4 years ago

But it is an irreversible process contrary to diet and education habits

mikyab123 Responded 4 years ago

Not true. Everything is irreversible. For example, education takes it to a place that also influences the decision whether to change direction.

Dr Responded 4 years ago

On education it can be said that it is reversible but nutrition is definitely not reversible.

דניאל Responded 4 years ago

Also not circumcising at the age of 8 days is an irreversible decision. No one will be able to give back to this child the childhood days in which he was outside the covenant.

A Responded 4 years ago

Why is this the only issue that there is from the rabbi's evasion to the body of the matter the answers are weak and not serious. Somewhat reminiscent of ultra-Orthodox apologetics in our time.

ד Responded 4 years ago

A, indeed. But note that he wrote "even if theoretically correct" and only then said that there is no other option and everything is irreversible, etc. But the real answer is that the commandment of circumcision outweighs the value of the autonomy of the mindless baby.

R. Responded 4 years ago

In my opinion, the answer is actually strong and correct and not evasive.

Pine Responded 3 years ago

Following on from this topic, I thought I would add that there is a dilemma here between the value of a person's autonomy over his children and the magnitude of the harm to the child. If it was a very large injury (such as amputation of a leg or arm) there would be room to use coercion to prevent this practice by those who do not believe in it (such as forcing a person not to commit suicide even though he has autonomy over his body). But in the case of circumcision, the harm is relatively small and the value of parental autonomy seems to outweigh it (just as a person is not forced to refrain from smoking even though he is harming himself). So even those who do not believe in the importance of circumcision, should not deprive it of those who do believe in it. At most, people can be educated peacefully against so-called "barbaric" practices.

Leave a comment