That explanation makes circumcision not a religious act in itself, but a means to a religious end. Anyway, the impulse to discourage sexual thoughts and masturbation is not limited to the religious. Some people are just puritanical, and at the time there were probably perfectly genuine (however ridiculous, in hindsight) beliefs that too much masturbation would cause problems such as stammering and blindness.

Self-ownership is the cornerstone of our Western society: the principle of bodily integrity…

This probably goes to the heart of why we disagree. I certainly value bodily integrity, but I don’t put it on quite that much of a pedestal. I think there’s a lot more to Western society than respect for the individual, an idea that itself encompasses a lot more than bodily integrity. I see my body as a mechanism, basically, and I can think of worse things than having its integrity violated. So I see respect for a young boy’s bodily integrity not as some absolute principle, but as a consideration that is very important but still has to be balanced against other important things.

So, yes – circumcision was very much introduced as part of religious dogma.

But that is a side issue…

The most fundamental human right is the right to bodily integrity.

Nobody had the right to violate another person’s body – not even a parent.

If some culture though it was their cultural heritage to cut off their kids noses and ears for ‘aesthetic’ and ‘cultural’ reasons – would that be acceptable?

Ears and noses have fewer nerve endings in them than a foreskin does…

Self-ownership is the cornerstone of our Western society: the principle of bodily integrity, that nobody can arbitrarily remove or harm bits of your body without your informed consent, is a basic expression of self-ownership.

Just like a parent cannot violate their child’s bodily integrity by consenting – as their child’s guardian – to somebody having sex with that child, in the same way, they cannot give consent to non-medically necessary surgical procedures, regardless of what their motivation is!

The big problem with this argument is that circumcision in Canada and other English-speaking countries is absolutely not a religious tradition except among Jews, Muslims and perhaps a few other minority groups. I know it’s just Wikipedia, but you really ought to take a look at the “non-religious circumcision” section of this article. Maybe no one in these countries would have thought of circumcision if not for the Jewish example, but the arguments used to bring the practice into the mainstream were never religious in character.

There are no aesthetic reasons for circumcision.

When I mentioned aesthetic reasons, what I had in mind was that some people find uncircumcised penises unattractive or even a bit repugnant. From their perspective, circumcising a boy is kind of like putting braces on his teeth – it’s just a matter of improving his appearance. His penis will be seen by fewer people than his teeth, but some parents probably imagine that not circumcising their son is tantamount to giving him a cruel choice between having the operation done himself when he’s older (which is apparently less trivial than doing it in infancy) and putting up with a certain amount of rejection and ridicule when he becomes sexually active. In some communities, they would probably have a point.

As I said, I don’t find this argument convincing in the sense that it would make me want to circumcise any son of mine. Ditto for the arguments about cleanliness and health – I’m not defending circumcision, but rather the freedom to circumcise. I see no good reason to do it, but I can kind of see what advocates of circumcision are thinking, and I’m reluctant to attempt to impose my preference on them and their sons.

Where’s the boy’s vote? He gets none, but removal of his penis parts could be up to a vote of extended family members? The brings the creep factor to a whole new level.

Creep factor? Really? Look, if a close relative of yours mentioned that he was planning to circumcise his son, wouldn’t you put forward some of the arguments you’re making in this thread? That’s the kind of informal “vote” I’m talking about. People are always going to have opinions, and I’m happy to take into account the opinions of family members when it comes to matters like this. Some might think circumcision is a great idea, while others might be dead against it. I’d listen respectfully to all of them.

“Outlawing circumcision seems a bit too nanny-statish”. Not more than outlawing other forms of child sexual abuse is nanny-statish. Certainly not more nanny-statish than banning smoking in cars with kids.

Child sexual abuse? I can understand your thinking of circumcision as abusive, given your general attitude to the subject, but not everything involving the genitals is sexual. Anyway, banning smoking in cars with kids is bloody nanny-statish, in my opinion. When it comes to tobacco, Western governments have gone off the deep end.

A child’s genitals are being forcibly, painfully, and irrevocably modified, and you can’t see that’s wrong? Suppose someone wanted to implant horns, make their baby’s ears pointy, or snip off a portion of the tongue, using the same excuses?

Forcibly, painfully, irrevocably… and slightly. We’re not talking about the Australian aboriginal version of circumcision here. I wouldn’t dismiss culturally-based arguments for the hypothetical modifications you’re talking about out of hand, either. I mean, I wouldn’t want to let Canadian parents snip off much of their child’s tongue regardless of any cultural traditions that might apply, but maybe a small, more or less symbolic amount would be okay. Who knows, it might even catch on.

What you’re missing here is that children are not their parents’ property. Parents are obligated to care for their children. That means putting the child’s interests first, and not substituting their own.

Children aren’t the government’s property, either. Nor are they autonomous agents capable of making decisions for themselves (at least at the age when circumcision normally takes place). Decisions have to be made for the child, and I prefer to give parents a lot of elbow room in which to play the role of decision maker. Whether parents should be expected to put the child’s interests first in all respects is actually an interesting ethical question, but some parents clearly think that circumcision is in a boy’s best interests anyway.

I don’t feel strongly about this issue, and I don’t have much of a dog in this fight since I suspect I’ll never have children anyway. But the case for banning circumcision seems… well, intolerant and dogmatic. And nanny-statish, as I said earlier. At some point, “progressives” are going to have to start allowing for diversity of opinion.

I think parents should be able to control the raising of their children but the decision to give them an unncessary surgery at childbirth that cannot be reversed is not about “What’s best for my child”.

What if we were talking about having a large ‘X’ carved into the right butt cheek of every newborn? Or having the first knuckle of their little finger removed? We’d say “No way!”. Unless the parent wanted to do it for a religious reason then we’d say “Oh, well then ok.”

There are no aesthetic reasons for circumcision. Even for those who appreciate a good scar, the fact is that in public, the penis is almost without exception covered by clothes. In private, a parent can have no proper interest in the aesthetics of their boy’s penis. This decision is properly left to the boy when he becomes a man, and can make an informed choice, in line with his own view of aesthetics. This is nobody else’s legitimate choice.

Cleanliness is obviously not a rational reason for surgery and amputation, particularly in a first-world country. We would never allow the amputation of other “dirty” skin (ears, for example) which could simply be washed.

There are no meaningful health benefits to circumcision, particularly in a first-world country. To the contrary, removal of the foreskin somewhat impairs the proper functioning of the penis during intercourse, for both partners. This isn’t back skin. And, as with any surgery, it has the associated risks ranging anywhere from “tight” circumcisions to the occasional complete penis amputation or death.

“my vote would presumably be only one of two, or one of several if extended family members had opinions” – What am I reading? Where’s the boy’s vote? He gets none, but removal of his penis parts could be up to a vote of extended family members? The brings the creep factor to a whole new level. This is a total lack of respect for the man he will grow up to be. I cannot even imagine the humiliation of knowing Aunt Bea and Uncle Bob voted that my penis would look better if the skin was cut back, but Aunt Jane liked my penis with foreskin.

“Outlawing circumcision seems a bit too nanny-statish”. Not more than outlawing other forms of child sexual abuse is nanny-statish. Certainly not more nanny-statish than banning smoking in cars with kids.

“if she tells me that she’s going to circumcise him because that’s just what Jews do, I have a much harder time telling her she’s wrong to go ahead with it.” – I marvel at this. A child’s genitals are being forcibly, painfully, and irrevocably modified, and you can’t see that’s wrong? Suppose someone wanted to implant horns, make their baby’s ears pointy, or snip off a portion of the tongue, using the same excuses?

What you’re missing here is that children are not their parents’ property. Parents are obligated to care for their children. That means putting the child’s interests first, and not substituting their own.

“I put up Christmas decorations every year, without fail.”
And then you take them down again. Do that with a circumcision.

I’m a big fan of christmas, myself. But if there was a cultural tradition that involved tattooing the faces of babies, I would be for outlawing that too. I think parents should have the right to raise their child in their traditions, but circumcision is not something you can undo. We can always toss that christmas tree out, and leave that tradition in the dustpile of history, anytime we want. But currently, regrowing a foreskin is just not actually possible.

If I were to have a son, I don’t think any of those reasons would persuade me to vote for snipping, especially given that the evidence for health benefits seems flimsy at best. However, my vote would presumably be only one of two, or one of several if extended family members had opinions.

I’d be reluctant to support a ban on the practice in Canada. Parents need some latitude to decide how to raise their children, and I think that ought to extend to minor body modifications. Outlawing circumcision seems a bit too nanny-statish, and a bit too ham-fistedly disrespectful of parental prerogatives.

I even have some sympathy for families who want to circumcise their sons for reasons of religious tradition. One of my recent preoccupations has been the distinction between religious beliefs and religious practices. Beliefs like the existence of gods can be clearly shown to be unjustified, and I’m happy to argue against them on that basis. Practices are a bit different, since they often have a cultural significance that’s partly independent of their religious significance. If a mother tells me she’s going to circumcise her son because Yahweh wants her to, I can explain to her why I think it’s wrong to believe that Yahweh exists (let alone wants anything in particular). But if she tells me that she’s going to circumcise him because that’s just what Jews do, I have a much harder time telling her she’s wrong to go ahead with it. After all, I put up Christmas decorations every year, without fail.

If an adult wants to get circumsized (for personal or religious reasons) then they should absolutely be able to get one.

But a child being needlessly abused because an old book says so is wrong on any level. I am not holding my breath on this change coming to Canada anytime soon but I am hopefuly.