Comments (131)

**Docking, like the bris, is done when a puppy is only a day or two old. It's quick, bloodless, and soon forgotten. Cropping is done later, and under anesthesia. There is probably some soreness involved, but not as much as there is when spaying females, which I'll bet you're all for. Is it necessary? No. But it's part of the characteristic look of a breed, and it doesn't meet the definition of cruelty.**

Have you ever witnessed tail docking? It is not bloodless - the owner doesn't see the blood because it's cleaned up before the pups are returned. When a pup's tail is docked, the pup is held upside down and a hemastat is clamped on the tail, crushing the still-soft bone, as well as blood vessels and nerve endings. A scalpel is used to cut the end of the tail along the edge of the hemastat. If the pup didn't soil itself when the hemastat was clamped on, it does when the end of the tail is cut. The pups also scream. The cut ends of the tail are then pulled together and sewn closed over the cut bone with absorbable suture. All with no anesthsia or pain control. If the pups have dew claws, these are often removed at the same time as the tail docking. The dew claw is snipped off behind the nail root, and the wound is usually electrically cauterized. Again, no anesthesia, no pain control.
Just because they don't remember it doesn't mean that it isn't cruel. If I were to amputate several of your coccygial vertebrae, (and the bones in a dog's tail are coccygial vertebrae) and your thumbs, but you didn't remember it, would that mean I hadn't done you any harm?

As for spaying and neutering, I support it because there simply aren't enough homes to go around - there are thousands of animals euthanized daily simply because they are homeless. It serves a valid purpose.
Every pet I have is the result of someone else allowing their animals to reproduce and then not wanting to take resposibility for the progeny. One was adopted from a kill shelter, one was adopted from a no-kill rescue organization, two were born to a feral stray that took up residence under my daughter's dad's house, one showed up on my doorstep after a hurricane, one is from a litter found (along with their dam) by a friend of mine in a box in a dumpster, and one is from a litter found (along with their dam) by my daughter in a box in the park.

"In many ways, the fate of commercial animals comes down to money, convenience, and the prevailing ethos in a particular sub-culture. Racing dogs do seem to be more expendible than their counter-parts in the horse-racing industry, but that's just my take.

Pit fighting is beyond redemption and should be exterminated wherever it may be found to exist and flourish....it's the moral equivilant of 'female circumcision'."

I couldn't agree with you more about the pit fighting - dogs or roosters.

Race horses, when they don't win, aren't used for breeding, nor are Greyhounds. The difference is that there's always been a market for horses as saddle horses, hunters, and jumpers. Aged horses, though, have always had a problem - many going for dog food, or to the glue factory. There are rescue groups/individuals that maintain pasture land where old horses can live out their lives, but this takes big bucks.

I doubt that many Greyhounds are kept in poor conditions. It doesn't make sense, when your livelihood depends on the abilities of a canine athlete, to give that dog less than optimum care and feeding.

I suspect that the film you saw was the work of PETA, or some group of that ilk. They have a way of finding the worst, and putting a negative spin on anything. Don't be fooled by them - they're not about animal *welfare*, they're about ending all animal ownership of any kind. It's their *stated* goal. It would be a much poorer world, were they to succeed.

And in the spirit of finishing my brief thought, what we do with our children and what we may do with other creatures comes down to cultural/religious/social milieu and the exercise of cultural traditions....many legitimate and some highly illicit and morally objectionable.

In the horse racing culture (and not that I have expertise except for once living in Lexington, KY) animals past their racing prime are seldom destroyed unless an irreversible injury requires it. Why? They're far too valuable in terms of both investment and breeding potential (speaking especially of highly ritualized winners and notable bloodlines - but this sub-culture turns out it's racing failures and retirees to pasture rather than to the glue factory, the dog food factory, or for human comsumption in other world markets....unlike the wild mustangs of our western states, that have been harvested in the past for just these commercial purposes). Now, these marvelous creatures are more often adopted out, if they have the capacity to be 'broken' or tamed.

In many ways, the fate of commercial animals comes down to money, convenience, and the prevailing ethos in a particular sub-culture. Racing dogs do seem to be more expendible than their counter-parts in the horse-racing industry, but that's just my take.

Pit fighting is beyond redemption and should be exterminated wherever it may be found to exist and flourish....it's the moral equivilant of 'female circumcision'.

Pam -

Good response and well said ......

Thus my earlier comment regarding the relativity of time, place, circumstance, and individuals ... all of which rule when it comes to changing our physiques and those of our animals. Animals just don't have a clue as to why they're born and bred, or what their fate may be....on the other hand, working animals may have a very satifying life (we can safely infer) and in my line of work I'm very familiar with dog guides for the blind, for example. These animals are absolutely never destroyed as long as they're healthy. When they retire (after 7-10 years) they are either kept by their owner or adopted out to designated families. If they fail as working dogs, they are nevertheless adopted out without exception.

Don't we always find a way to support & justify that which we personally like and admire?? Greyhounds don't understand their commercial value....they just like to run. When their racing career is over (and if they pass muster for racing) then they may be one of the lucky ones that goes up for adoption - otherwise, they get the needle. I remember journalistic exposes years back when the conditions under which these dogs lived was publicly revealed - and it was not pretty. They may have cleaned up the sport since the days of bad press. Nevertheless, their fate is in our hands.

However, I wouldn't go so far as to equate greyhound racing with pit dog fighting - a very ancient and brutal tradition probably going back to the iron and copper age (when all manner of animals were set against one another).

As to human circumcision - it comes down to personal preference once again, it seems to me (but this has apparently opened the door as to whether parents are exercising their parental rights, or are guilty of violating their (infant) son's personal and inviolable rights as an individual). Then again, maybe we've made a mountain out of a mole hill!

regards -

Sorry, Terry, but I can't let this go by without comment:
"I wouldn't have had it done either. I'm particularly sensitive to unnecessary pain inflicted on non-human creatures for the sake of human vanity....such as in various canine show breeds eg. your example - the key word being'unnecessary'. I was never crazy about using a riding crop on horses either (much less spurs).

Dog racing has got to be one of the cruelest sports ever - at least many 'retired' dogs are adopted out these days....but not all, unfortunately. "

The breeds that are cropped and docked for the show ring (and for pets) Have it done as a matter of tradition. The origins of the traditions were practical in nature. Spaniels, for instance, grow long hair on their tails, and are small dogs (low on leg), so when hunting in brush, were apt to get their tails tangled in the brambles, sometimes to the point of immobilization. Ear cropping was generally done on breeds that fought for a living, whether with other dogs, wild game, or humans. It made the ears harder to grab and tear.

Docking, like the bris, is done when a puppy is only a day or two old. It's quick, bloodless, and soon forgotten. Cropping is done later, and under anesthesia. There is probably some soreness involved, but not as much as there is when spaying females, which I'll bet you're all for. Is it necessary? No. But it's part of the characteristic look of a breed, and it doesn't meet the definition of cruelty.

How is Greyhound racing cruel??? The dogs absolutely LOVE it. I used to lure course my Scottish Deerhounds, and when they felt the tires leave the pavement for the rutted roads to the coursing fields, they would get SO excited! They don't have to be taught or trained to do it - it's completely instinctive, and beautiful to watch. Are there ever injuries? Sure there are. Just as with human athletes. Dogs also sustain injuries when they're just running and playing with each other. The only way to prevent all injury is keep dogs (or people) in padded cells - not a great way to live.

Perhaps your objection is with what happens at the end of a racing/breeding career - or to those that "wash out." Racing Greyhound breeders used to euthanize their dogs if they were no longer of use for racing or breeding. They didn't use the methods that Michael Vick (and other fighting dog owners) used. They are very happy that the rescue groups now make this unnecessary, but before the publicity, there was simply no pet market for the breed.

As for the actual subject at hand, I can only say that I never found uncut objectionable in the least - rather the reverse.

Lep:

If only the world were as you declare it to be.

Late-term abortions have largely been outlawed.

If a woman is murdered and a fetus in her womb dies as well, the perpetrator can often be charged with two homicides.

Your positions are inconsistent and illogical.

Which, in a way, is reassuring. We all live with inconsistencies.

Fritz:

In order to have rights, you must first be born.

Once you are born, you are entitled to a level of bodily autonomy/sovereignty that you did not have when your body was still attached to that of another.

Lep:

So a woman can kill her son up until the moment his head pops out, but a minute after that, circumcision is a no-go.

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

Jenna:

First of all, I have nothing against Judaism as a faith. I did not say that no one could be a sincere convert to Judaism. Nor did I equate it with worship of Spock. You said that if a 12-year-old child wanted to have his body permanently surgically altered to commemorate his change of religion. I was simply attempting to determine whether you would feel that way regardless of the religion or the nature of the alteration.

Fritz:

As long as an embryo/fetus is inside the woman's body, it has no rights of its own. It isn't a person until it's born.
I had a textbook-perfect pregnancy with my daughter. The delivery went haywire, and she and I both went into life-threatening cardiac distress. Had it come to a point where the doctor could have only saved one of us, I would have been perfectly within my rights to tell her to save me.

Lep:

You stated that you are pro-choice. So am I. I also believe that it's no big deal for a parent to authorize a small amount of penile foreskin to be removed within days of a boy's birth. In fact, I think it's preferable. But I wouldn't impose my belief on other parents.

I, myself, am circumcised and am grateful to my parents for having had it done. I do not have to pull back any foreskin to urinate, nor do I have to wipe or wash after urination. Less cleaning is required after sex as well. These are not major inconveniences, but I'm glad I don't have to concern myself with them.

Most of my male friends are circumcised and those who have had sons have also had them circumcised.

I've yet to meet a man who laments the loss of his foreskin. In fact, the only folks I've ever encountered who have an issue with infant male circumcision are women. Ironically, I've also encountered women who've told me that they find uncircumcised penises aesthetically distasteful (especially with respect to oral sex).

Be that all as it may, the reason I asked if you were opposed to abortion rights is that you have taken the position that no permanent alteration of a child is permissible. Many people would argue (and they do), that an embryo or a fetus has demonstrated its desire to live by thriving and progressing.

Therefore, the argument goes, a thriving embryo or fetus has not consented to being denied life. Quite the opposite. And an abortion, usually performed by a vacuum suction, is a permanent physical alteration of a most extreme kind, in that it terminates the developing human life.

Shouldn't the embryo/fetus be carried to term, and then at the age of 18, asked whether it would like to continue its life?

Your absolutist position, equating circumcision with removing toes and docking ears, is comparable to anti-abortion extremists, who view abortion as murder pure and simple. If a mother can't shoot her baby in the head, she shouldn't be able to have it vacuumed out of her either.

There are many other circumstances where parents must make choices that will permanently alter their children's lives. Everything from breastfeeding to schools to disciplinary methods. Should a parent work longer hours to pay for a better school or a house with a yard, or should they work less and spend more time with their children?

From a physical standpoint, what if a child is predisposed to being unusually short and doctors felt that a growth hormone would add a few inches? A cosmetic change for certain, but one that the child would probably be grateful for as they got older.

None of these issues have easy answers, and absolutist viewpoints usually do more harm in the long run (in my opinion) than more flexible ones.

Lep. I think I fiinally understand you. You have never acknowledged the importance to circumcision to me and my religion. And now, in your last post, it appears that you think that no one can possibly be a sincere convert to Judaism. In your mind, it is no different from worshiping Spock, and circumcision has no special meaning for Jews, it is no differnt from other kinds of odd body cutting.

If that is your view, so be it. We have nothing more to say to each other. You don't respect my religion.

Once again -- listen! I have never told you that you had to approve circumcision for your family. But don't oppose it for Jews, and sincere converts. The problem with your rants about circumcision, is that there can come a time when a judge who shares your bias against Judaism will seek to prevent Jews and converts from carrying it out for themselves. (Remember that was the purpose of the case that started this discussion).

I would have thought that a a member of a minority, and persecuted religion, you would have been particularly sensitive to these issues, but I was wrong. You are just too self-absorbed.

Jenna,

Would you allow a 12-year-old to decide for himself that he wanted any other cosmetic surgery?
What if at the age of 12, he decided to worship Spock, and wanted to have his ears cropped into points in the name of his new religion? Would that be ok? Not if he was my child.

Do you think that it's ok for fundamenalist Muslims to circumcize their daughters? After all, it's not like outer labia or even a clitoris are necessary for life or even for sex.

And if you ever find me harming a child in the name of my religion, you have every right to stop me.

On the Oregon case of a 12 year old boy, I fully agree (as does Jewish law) that conversion is for him to decide not his father. If he does so decide, however, I think his mother has no right to stop the conversion -- and concomitant circumcision. You may not like it, and you may think it is the equivalent of clipping a dog's ears, but it is a Jewish religious ritual (that causes no harm to the child). So, it is not up to you to decide what should be done there.

As for infant circumcision, that is always done if the child is going to be raised Jewish -- somethign that the parents have to agree on or the custodial parent in the case of a divorce.

What I am opposed to is "do-gooders" trying to force their personal views about circumcision on to a Jewish religious ritual. As I have said - this is not about YOU at all. Your personal opinion is not relevant to whether circumcision is appropriate for a Jewish convert.

I certainly would not want to interfere with your religion. (Actually, Pagans are my favorite example usually to demonstrate why things like government lead (i.e. teacher led) prayer in public school should barred. I love to use the example of a Pagan teacher leading the class in her prayers.

Fritz:

I'm pro-choice. Why do you ask?

Lep:

Are you also vigorously opposed to abortion rights?

Jenna,
The father was the only member of the family who converted - not the mother or the son. Why should the father have the right to have his son, who is NOT Jewish, undergo a religious circumcision because the father changed religions?

We don't have a law currently forbidding the cropping of infants' ears, but no doctor with a shred of ethics would do such a thing.

And no, I wouldn't want to see the death penalty for circumcision. I'd like to see a sea change in the ethics of the medical community regarding it, and see doctors refuse to do it except in cases of medical necessity.

Lep - lets go back to the issue at hand, which is not whether or not you or anyone else who is not Jewish wants to engage in circumcision, but whether anyone -- a court or a non-Jewish parent -- should prevent Jewish parents from circumcising their sons as part of the Jewish tradition, and from a convert willingly undergoing circumcision to join the Jewish people. Are you saying that you would prevent that from happening.

Perhaps a law that prevents circumcision? Perhaps a penatly for parents that violate the law. Wait, that has been tried before. Remember my earlier quote from the Book of Macabbees:

1 Maccabees Verse 60-61:

"According to the decree, they put to death the women who had their children circumcised, and their families and those who circumcised them; and they hung the infants from their mothers' necks."

So, Lep - is that your position too???

Lep - lets go back to the issue at hand, which is not whether or not you or anyone else who is not Jewish wants to engage in circumcision, but whether anyone -- a court or a non-Jewish parent -- should prevent Jewish parents from circumcising their sons as part of the Jewish tradition, and from a convert willingly undergoing circumcision to join the Jewish people. Are you saying that you would prevent that from happening.

Perhaps a law that prevents circumcision? Perhaps a penatly for parents that violate the law. Wait, that has been tried before. Remember my earlier quote from the Book of Macabbees:

1 Maccabees Verse 60-61:

"According to the decree, they put to death the women who had their children circumcised, and their families and those who circumcised them; and they hung the infants from their mothers' necks."

So, Lep - is that your position too???

Terry,

I also abhor hunting for the sake of a trophy to hang on the wall. On the other hand, I eat fish, venison, and rabbit, and have no issues with people who hunt and fish honorably and eat what they kill.

Fritz:

If parents wanted to have their newborn's ears bobbed into points, would you support their right to do so? If they felt that pinkie toes would make their children more susceptible to athlete's foot, would you support their right to have them amputated at birth?

Hey, Lep:

Don't know if you're still reading this board. I didn't get a chance to get back here all day myself.

So, basically, I understand your viewpoint. You, personally, would never authorize a circumcision. And I respect your choice in that regard.

My question to you is, what about other parents?

Do you feel that other parents should have the right to have their sons circumcised?

Dear Penis -

Use your head. This is for your own good and
you'll hardly feel a thing. Now lay down like a good boy and take your medicine.

Lep -

I wouldn't have had it done either. I'm particularly sensitive to unnecessary pain inflicted on non-human creatures for the sake of human vanity....such as in various canine show breeds eg. your example - the key word being'unnecessary'. I was never crazy about using a riding crop on horses either (much less spurs).

Dog racing has got to be one of the cruelest sports ever - at least many 'retired' dogs are adopted out these days....but not all, unfortunately.

Pit fighting for dogs, roosters, or whatever is an abomination....and very prevelant where I live in S. Carolina. Don't get me started on that issue.

On the other hand, branding has got to be a painful experience for herd animals, but is a practice that seems to be without an alternative, at least that I'm aware of. As you can imagine, you won't find alot of animal sensitivity on the rodeo circuit. I guess it all comes down to circumstances and individual points of view.

PS. I dislike hunting & fishing (as absolutely needless killing for sport) and couldn't care less about most organized sports/athletic activities (particularly at the professional level) - although I do admire good tennis players.

Circumcision I can live with......

Please... DON'T!!!

Terry:

If it makes you feel any better, I also refused to allow my ex to have our Doberman puppy's ears cropped - same basic reason - unnecessary infliction of pain for no medically defensible reason. His ears functioned just fine floppy.

It seems to me the sticking point in the context of this discussion is the term 'mutilation' - which is interpreted as being any procedure that voluntarily & permanently 'defaces' or alters the exterior of the body (for non-medical reasons). Clearly this has a negative connotation.

My point is that some 'mutilations' are viewed as pathological and deviant, whereas others are socially sanctioned (and even widely practiced).

Fritz:

In my daughter's case, the multiple piecings consist of half a dozen in her ears, and one in her navel. All removable, all reversible. Take the jewelry out, the hole closes up. Anything not reversible, such as the plugs that stretch the earlobes, I would have made her wait until she was 18 to get.

And as for a tattoo, She has to wait until she's 18, and after that she doesn't need my permisission anyway.

My point being that non-necessary permanent alterations to a person's body should only be made by the owner of that body when s/he is old enough to give informed consent.

J. Rhinehart -

Thanks for your comments. You'll notice in my observation above that I never referred to self-mutilation.....altering the body symbolically is rarely done by the individual undergoing a 'rite of passage' in socially and/or group based ritualistic behavior. This would be done by group elders and hierophants (priests, shamans, etc.).

On the other hand, self-mutilation is often referred to as 'ritualistic' because it usually has a repetetive, obsessive/compulsive component -as well as being self-destructive. We know well from all the forensic programs on TV the sadistic psychopaths often kill ritualistically.

There's a clear distinction between 'socially approved' transitions indicated by marking the body of the initiate in some way, and other individually based covert 'ritualistic' behavior. Even prison tats fall within the definition of 'socially approved' markings, as in gang membership, etc.

regards -

Lep:

I'm far more comfortable with the notion of having an infant male child receive a circumcision than I am with a teenager "choosing" to get multiple piercings and tattoos.

Please... put down the knife.

To J Rhinehart:

I don't recall where I learned the information about the Egyptians practicing circumcision, but i think it is well known.

You asked why circumcision was uniquely Jewish if everyone practiced it in the ancient middle east. My point is that while it was common among Semitic peoples in the ancient middle east, after the Greeks conquered the area in about 330 BC, everyone except the Jews followed the Greek practice of not circumcising and so it became even more a unique symbol of Jewishness (whereas prior to that there may have been other uniquely Jewish practices such as wearing fringes on the bottom of clothes or kosher food). After the Greek conquest circumcision was a major sign of Jewishness. Antiochus IV persecuted the Jews to put an end to circumcision. The Jews fought, and died, in order to protect that right.

This is recorded in 1 Maccabees Verse 60-61:

"According to the decree, they put to death the women who had their children circumcised, and their families and those who circumcised them; and they hung the infants from their mothers' necks."

Terry said:
Priver -
Please comment on historical references to Pagan customs in the West that involve body painting, scarification, body piercing and tatooing.....are these not forms of mutilation??
In some cases, the body in all it's original pristine beauty will soon to be divested of it's (original) flawless composition.
The ancient and broad tradition of the ritualistic alteration of the body proves that the body itself has often been used as a canvas - that represents one's spiritual progress and societal status.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you look up self-mutilation in psychological descriptions, you’ll find that such things as “body painting, scarification, body piercing and tattooing” are not considered the same as self-mutilation. I quote:

”What is self-injurious behavior?

The forms and severity of self-injury can vary, although the most commonly seen behavior is cutting, burning, and head-banging.

Other forms of self-injurious behavior include:

carving
scratching
branding
marking
burning/abrasions
biting
bruising
hitting
picking/pulling skin and hair

It's not self-injury if the primary purpose is:

sexual gratification
body decoration (e.g., body piercing, tattooing)
spiritual enlightenment via ritual
fitting in or being cool

I copied this from this website: http://www.focusas.com/SelfInjury.html

They also say this about self-mutilation:

"Self-injury is a maladaptive coping mechanism, a way to stay alive. People who inflict physical harm on themselves are often doing it in an attempt to maintain psychological integrity -- it's a way to keep from killing themselves. They release unbearable feelings and pressures through self-harm, and that eases their urge toward suicide. And, although some people who self-injure do later attempt suicide, they almost always use a method different from their preferred method of self-harm."

==============================================
JENNA said:
"Incidentally, most Semitic people in the middle east, and the ancient Egyptians as well, practiced circumcision, as do the Arabs today."
-----------------------
Jenna, where did you get the information that the Egyptians practiced circumcision? I know they were much more advanced medically than anyone else around them, but I'd never read this. It would not surprise me. It would also not surprise me to learn the Hebrews first learned it from the Egyptians. I think the Hebrews got a great deal from the Egyptians that they later attributed to God.

However, another comment says Herodotus said the Egyptians practiced circumcision. Is that your source?
-------------
"The fact is that everyone in the middle east circumcised their children (perhaps more at puberty than at birth). Judaism just took the normal event, and gave it a special sacred element, like it did with other life events."
-----
"Everyone" did not practice circumcision, since the Jews made a point of saying they were different than their neighbors (or some of them).

I can see how by moving from Egypt to the Palestine, the Hebrews (or the "Hibaru" as I've sometimes seen it printed) moved from a cosmopolitan area to a cultural wasteland. Maybe they felt like the Europeans did coming here & meeting the Native Americans, i.e. elitist & superior.

Lep - you read but you didn't listen. You are trying to argue about the correctness of a tradition (one which involves a common and minor change, not a radical mutilization, no matter what the pejorative terms others may use).

I was talking about feelings, not logic, about belonging, about tradition, and most of all, about a 2000 struggle to maintain Jewish identify in the face of others telling us what we can and cannot do. If you listened you would have heard that. Don't criticize our tradition because it is not for you.

Michael D. Houst says:
"It's a primitive, uneffective means of birth control, and it need to become as extinct as the dinosaurs."
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Birth control"??

The Jews didn't believe in birth control. Their edict was "Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth."

Fritz:

I'm sure that seeing other women wearing earrings did influence my daughter's desire to wear them.

I did not make her wait until she was of legal age because ear piercing is reversible if she decided she didn't like it. If it were not reversible, I would have made her wait.
And if she had waited until 18, and then decided not to have them done, so what?

When she told me at age 12 that she wanted a tattoo, I did tell her that she would have to wait until she was of legal age. A tattoo is a permanent alteration and I wanted her to be older and more mature before making that decision. She'll be 18 soon, and if she still wants it, I'll pay for it as a birthday gift.

If my four-year-old was seeing the penises of all the men in my family up close and personal on a regular enough basis to make such a comparison, I'd be wanting to know why.

And I would not let a four-year-old make a decision to have his body permanently surgically altered any more than I would let one make the decision to get a tattoo.

Lep:

That's a really interesting comparison, and perhaps more insightful than it might at first appear.

Why did your daughter ask to wear a pair of your earrings?

Was it because she saw that you wore them, and was influenced by your aesthetic choices? Had she also seen other women wear them? Perhaps some friends of hers already wore earrings?

What if you had told her that she had to wait until she was of legal age to make the choice? If she made it to 18 or 21 without having had it done, would she then bother?

If I were four years old and uncircumsised, but all the men in my family were, and all my male friends were, would I feel left out?

If given the "choice" at that age, how could I possibly decide? I would probably want to be like the other men in my family, but I might be terribly afraid to have it done.

Sometimes parents have to make the tough calls.

Jenna,

I'm really not trying to be difficult. Yes, I have traditions and practices that other people don't get.

But none of them involve removing body parts from a newborn.

I have multiple piercings and will be getting a tattoo as soon as my tax refund posts to my bank account, but I had all of my body art (and it's strictly for art's sake, not religious) done as an adult, with the full knowledge of what I was doing. I have no problem with people making any cosmetic/artistic modifications to their bodies they want - as long as it's their free choice to do so.

When my daughter was born, several people urged me to pierce her ears while she was still an infant. I refused. When she was 4, she asked to wear a pair of my earrings, and I explained to her that she couldn't because her ears weren't pierced. She wanted to know what "pierced" meant, so I explained it to her, and showed her the small holes in my earlobes. She said she wanted to get her ears pierced, then asked "Does it hurt?" I told her that it hurt some, and she wanted to know how much. I asked if she would like me to show her, she said she would, so I gave her earlobe a quick sharp pinch with my fingernails. She yelped, rubbed her ear, and after a couple of seconds asked if it was over that quick. I told her it was, and she said she wanted to get it done. Had she said that she didn't want to get it done, I certainly would not have doneit against her will. She chose to do it, knowing what she was getting into. She's now a teenager with multiple piercings as well, and she chose to have them done.

Lep -- I am sure that as a Pagan you have particular rituals you follow which create a sacred feeling -- I am using that as a beginning of a point. Those rituals are there because everyone following them understands their meaning (even if outsiders belittle them). It is not because you were "told" to do it, but because it feels right to you within the traditions of your faith. (The idea is that various faiths or cultures have certain unique rituals or "sancta" that they follow which gives them a sense of oneness and holiness, even if it is arbitrary when viewed from the outside).

While circumcision may have been common in the middle east at the start of the biblical era, by the time of the Greeks (circa 200 BC and thereafter), it was uniquely a sign of Jewishness. Only the Jews among the people in contact with the Greeks refused to give it up, and clung to it as part of their traditon -- even to the point of death (and in fact Antiochus in about 160 BC decreed that any parent who circumsized a son would be put to death along with the child). Even that decree did not stop circumcision, it only fostered the Maccabeen revolt for independence. The same thing happened again in Roman times (Emperor Hadrian in about 132 AD), leading to another revolt, this time not successful.

So, given that history, for at least 2000 years, circumision has been the sign of being Jewish and has remained so in a European (Christian)culture.

Thus, the importance of circumcision as a sign of Jewish identity. It is an agreed sanctification, not because we are "told" we have to but because we feel we want to join in that long chain of the Jewish people. If you go back and read the comments from the male Jews on this post, you will see that none say that they regret it.

It is not something that can be rationally explained, any more than any religious ritual can be rationally explained to an outsider.

Lepi wrote: "If everyone in the Middle East was circumsizing their children, then how would doing so mark the Jews apart as God's chosen?"

I don't think that they were. If I recall correctly, Islamic circumcision comes out of its identification with Abraham. I don't think it was a common Arabic practice before the time of Muhammad.

The historian Herodotus tells us that the Egyptians had males circumcised because they "valued purity over beauty." So it seems this whole hygienic question isn't exactly new... :)

Jenna and Fritz:

I love that "Fiddler on the Roof!" Especially when Tevye realizes that "Tradition!" is not always an adequate reason.

As a Pagan, I do understand the idea of making the mundane sacred. The Divine is inextricably intertwined in everything.

I have never accepted "Cuz I said so" as a reason, whether it came from my mother or from a holy book.

If there's enough water to wash your hands every time you pray, surely there's enough to wash the head of your johnson once a day.

If everyone in the Middle East was circumsizing their children, then how would doing so mark the Jews apart as God's chosen?

Lep, I don't have an answer to your question, except to say that Judaism seeks to make many mundane acts scared -- washing hands for example (you say a prayer before doing it) or the clothes you wear, or the kind of food you eat (kosher laws). The fact is that everyone in the middle east circumcised their children (perhaps more at puberty than at birth). Judaism just took the normal event, and gave it a special sacred element, like it did with other life events.

Or to just quote Fiddler on the Roof -- "tradition!"

Lepidopteryx:

"Of all the ways that an omnipotent deity could have devised for his people to demonstrate their relationship to him, why choose to do so by demanding that they remove part of their genitalia?"

You are, of course, asking an unanswerable question. Why would an omnipotent deity let six million of his people be sent to gas chambers?

What are some possible reasons--other than God telling them to do it--that the early Hebrews would have adopted circumcision?

1. It was a sacrifice, but not a debilitating one.
2. Hygiene: not a lot of water in the desert.
3. An irreversible way to determine if a man was part of the tribe.
4. To set themselves apart.
5. To make sure that new converts are pretty damn serious.

Jenna - thanks, but that still doesn't answer my question.
Of all the ways that an omnipotent deity could have devised for his people to demonstrate their relationship to him, why choose to do so by demanding that they remove part of their genitalia?

Jenna, you make good points. It is also useful to point out that a "brit" (or "bris"), Jewish religious circumcision, when performed on an older child or adult, is done under sufficient anesthesia, i.e. general or attended local, to put the subject out for the procedure, and in a medical setting. Many Russian emigrés went through this after discovering their Jewish identities.

For an infant, Jewish law does allow for topical anethesia. Our mohel also suggested a dose of Tylenol in advance of the brit. He (my son) slept through it.

Jenna, you make good points. It is also useful to point out that a "brit" (or "bris"), Jewish religious circumcision, when performed on an older child or adult, is done under sufficient anesthesia, i.e. general or attended local, to put the subject out for the procedure, and in a medical setting. Many Russian emigrés went through this after discovering their Jewish identities.

For an infant, Jewish law does allow for topical anethesia. Our mohel also suggested a dose of Tylenol in advance of the brit. He (my son) slept through it.

when you think about a small tribe that has come from North Africa/Middle east, the Jewish diaspora has spread as around the world from shanghai to Buenos Aires, New York to st. Petersburg, our identity is what keeps aa group of otherwise disparate people together. Jewish identity has been under assault for millenia, yet our strong traditions bind us together. circumsision, while not the whole, is certainly a part of this.

when you think about a small tribe that has come from North Africa/Middle east, the Jewish diaspora has spread as around the world from shanghai to Buenos Aires, New York to st. Petersburg, our identity is what keeps aa group of otherwise disparate people together. Jewish identity has been under assault for millenia, yet our strong traditions bind us together. circumsision, while not the whole, is certainly a part of this.

Peter Maranci -

Clearly you still have yours and no one has been recommending that you or anyone else should join the ranks of 'the circumcised ones' just on general principle. As a rule, no adult male or female is likely to remove tissue from any body part unnecessarily - and who would ever think otherwise? Personally I never pretend to know what it's like to have a foreskin...my imagination takes more interesting journeys.

It's pretty obvious that trying to convert folks opposed to the idea of circumcision is about as successful as trying to convert a fundamentalist to the Darwinian point of view (or visa versa) - it ain't going to happen. We all know that.

Under the law women are still free to terminate pregnancies at their discretion (up to a point) and parents are still free to circumcise male infants for a variety of reasons - not all of which are religious in nature e.g. the majority of circumcised males in the USA are most certainly not Jewish.

In fact, it would be quite interesting to compare the 'atheism vs religion' or 'catholic vs protestant', or even the 'liberal vs conservative' points of view in the circumcision battles. I'm not sure we'd find consistent correlations with other issues, but it would be an intriguing research project!

A number of points have been made in support of circumcision, but the non-believers remain adamently unconvinced. So be it......

Medical speculation should always be taken with a grain of salt, until you've got an actual problem on your hands.....and suddenly, you may find yourself a born-again believer.

Lep -- biblically membership in one of the 12 tribes of Israel was transmitted by the male to his children. For example, when Judah had a son by Tamar (a Canaanite), her son became a member of the tribe of Judah, even though they were never married. The son was circumcised and became ancestor of King David,

Incidentally, most Semitic people in the middle east, and the ancient Egyptians as well, practiced circumcision, as do the Arabs today. It was not necessarily a mark to distinguish between warring factions, as much as a mark to honor a man's relationship to God. I know that all the anti-clerics here just will go nuts thinking about a God that wants what they will describe as mutilation. So be it. That doesn't change the fact that it has been an HONORED tradition in Judaism for 4,000 years and will continue to be as long as the Jewish people exist.

I was circumcised as an infant and am quite pleased that I was. It's easier to keep my li'l feller clean and the ladies have never been grossed out by it (well, there was that one woman in Tijuana, but that's a long story...)

However, if my parents had NOT had me circumcised, I very much doubt that I would have it done NOW, because, well, it would be uncomfortable and take a while to heal. So I'm very glad it was done way back when.

On a related note, I have a brother who suffers from mental illness. A few years ago, he attended a music festival and discovered a booth that was devoted to the horrors of circumcision. After reading some pamphlets on the subject, he declared that widespread circumcision was a conspiracy led by Jewish doctors to make sure that male Jewish men could never again be identified by their circumcisions.

In addition to trying to convince everyone he's the new messiah, he is also now furious about having been "mutilated by his parents as friends and relatives cheered it on at the bris." If it's any consolation, this is only one of many, many grievances that he obsesses over.

Who knew the messiah could have so many issues?

Being circumsized is a crucial part of Jewish identity and reflects the idea of being "Gods chosen people." just as Jews did not bite on the "Jesus fad" when it came around (and Paul conveniently decided cutting was unneccessary, knowing it would severly hamper his recruiting amongst adult males), it is another link to our ancient past, like eating Matzah at seder. I dont really understand the vitriol on this board. Of all the men I know in my extended Jewish community I dont know any who regret their parents decision. While it is true we wont get to experience the joys of having foreskin, maybe we just dont really care.

Perhaps someone who has studied Judaism more thoroughly than I have can answer this for me.

Why did God require that the males of his chosen people remove a piece of their reproductive organ in order to identify themselves as his people? Why not simply have them carry id cards? Wear a pendant?
How were the women to be identified - or did identifying them not matter? If identifying the women didn't matter, why did identifying the men matter?

Having my foreskin removed at birth is the ONE thing I will never forgive my parents for. I want a foreskin so much.