The Oregon Supreme Court is now hearing the case where the (custodial) father wants his 12-year-old son circumcised as part of conversion to Judaism against the wishes of the (non-custodial) mother and, possibly, the wishes of the boy. I wrote about it previously, although there are many issues to consider beyond what was in that entry. NPR’s Day to Day recapped the story in a concise 4:32 (Real Player audio here). I recommend it to anyone interested in principles of self-ownership.
Here are my thoughts on the report, for anyone interested. If the boy wants to convert as the father contends, I have no specific qualms with him choosing circumcision for himself, beyond some basic expectation that he is competent to understand the permanent ramification. Self-ownership is the issue here.
Contrary to the implication early in the report, opposition to circumcision is not synonymous with anti-Semitism or a desire to oppress Jews. I do not care if someone chooses to have himself circumcised, for a religious reason or for no reason. I oppose medically unnecessary genital cutting on a non-consenting individual. Although routine infant circumcision dominates the discussion in America, I am opposed to medically unnecessary genital cutting on a non-consenting individual whether the individual is male or female, child or senior citizen. Proxy consent is reasonable only when a) immediate medical need exists and b) the patient is not legally competent to make the decision. But when a) is absent, b) is irrelevant. Until a) is satisfied, proxy consent is invalid and can’t justify the permanent removal of healthy, functioning genital tissue.
I think the law professor quoted at the end of the report is correct in assuming the case will be decided on family law rather than Constitutional law. The “right” of the parent will trump the right of the boy, regardless of which parent prevails. If that happens, it will be wrong.
From the Female Genital Mutilation Act (pdf):
“In applying subsection (b)(1), no account shall be taken of the effect on the person on whom the operation is to be performed of any belief on the part of that or any other person that the operation is required as a matter of custom or ritual.”
How does family law trump extending that protection to a gender-neutral guarantee (i.e. Constitutional) of the same rights to male minors in the United States?
It’s just like in Pakistan where normal people have to protect their natural rights from circumcising Islamic lawyers who impose unnatural Islamic laws. There are consequences when going against natural laws.
[comment section deleted – not appropriate for this discussion.]
By the time I was old enough to realize the long term side effects circumcision had on my brothers and me, it was too late to stop it from being repeated on my nephews. I was able to explain to my mother why her mother said that my mother caused my older brother to commit suicide and consequently one of my younger brothers, too. Circumcision causes the male prepuce to dysfunction. Its natural functions are to protect and enhance sexual desire. It’s no wonder that societies that promote sexual dysfunction are prone to building weapons of mass distruction, have high suicide/ murder, divorce, abortion, and breast cancer rates.
How does family law trump extending that protection to a gender-neutral guarantee (i.e. Constitutional) of the same rights to male minors in the United States?
It doesn’t.
fredr,
I think it’s dangerous to make such claims about circumcising countries and a connection with bad things. Correlation vs. causation. The moment it’s linked as cause/effect, an anomaly will appear. We end up looking like kooks.
For example, it’s easy to say America and Middle Eastern countries are at war, and both circumcise. But that ignores history and all the wars started by countries that didn’t circumcise. It’s not necessarily causation.
That said, I agree that circumcision has unintended consequences. Society should not be blind to them. But, however unfairly, society puts the burden on us to prove that it’s bad, with the extra frustration of refusing to believe the facts we provide.