Circumcision and Libertarian Ethics
I've heard libertarians wail against the practice of circumcision and demand it be made illegal. They complain that it's akin to assault, etc. Sure, I suppose, that argument could be made. But what if the child consents? Well, so it goes, he can't. He's just a baby, and not old enough to give "informed consent". My reply to this: What about feeding a child? Eating the wrong thing is far riskier to his life than circumcision. Should we not feed children until they are old enough to give "informed consent"? What would happen to the child then?
I think on circumcision, since it's something that's been done for thousands of years to no effect on life or limb, it's okay in my book. As my above retort demonstrates, the "informed consent" argument is just plain silly. It' s like piercing a baby's ears as well. My son was circumcised the day he was born, and my daughter had her ear's pierced at 3 months. Horrors! I'll ask their forgiveness when they're old enough to give "informed mercy".
In any event, by asking if it should be "illegal", libertarians are asking if it should be legislated against and enforced by the illegitimate entity known as "the state". Nothing should be "illegal" in that regard.
I think on circumcision, since it's something that's been done for thousands of years to no effect on life or limb, it's okay in my book. As my above retort demonstrates, the "informed consent" argument is just plain silly. It' s like piercing a baby's ears as well. My son was circumcised the day he was born, and my daughter had her ear's pierced at 3 months. Horrors! I'll ask their forgiveness when they're old enough to give "informed mercy".
In any event, by asking if it should be "illegal", libertarians are asking if it should be legislated against and enforced by the illegitimate entity known as "the state". Nothing should be "illegal" in that regard.
Mostly agree but how do you know if it had no effect on your life? Since you've never had that skin for all you know sex may be much more enjoyable with it in tact or maybe you would prefer it for some other reason. Unfortunately you will never know cause you were deprived of that option.
ReplyDeleteI agree with most of your logic about it not being illegal and the consent argument is flawed but don't follow why "it's ok in [your] book."
You have not given any good reason to do it beside "it's been done for a long time." That doesn't justify an action or make it good.
Yes don't legislate it and no the baby doesn't have to consent but you have no idea if your quality of life is better or worse having that skin removed so why should any parent choose to cut it off of there boys?
Good point. I don't know, but I don't perceive it either, nor will my son (circumcision) or daughter (pierced ears). As for a good reason, I like that I'm circumcised (easier to clean, to inspect, wife prefers it, etc.) and believe my son will to. Since it can't really be done later in life, the time to have it done, if it's to be done at all, is as an infant.
DeleteI find your reasons for liking it problematic.
ReplyDelete1. Easier to clean: since you've never had that skin how would you know there is any noticeable level of difference in how difficult it is to clean? Easier is a comparison but what are you comparing it to? How can one action be easier than another action you have never experienced?
2. To inspect: same argument as cleaning.
3. Wife prefers: This would only matter if your wife has something to compare yours to; namely another penis that is uncircumcised. But if she only "prefers" it because that's all she knows then this is no advantage either. (I know nothing about you and your wife and don't profess to and mean no disrespect here just pointing out the logic of such a preference.)
I still don't see any good reason to have it done.
These determinations are clearly subjective *sticks tongue out at you*.
DeleteAs for it violating the NAP, sure, I admitted as much: My son was circumcised the day he was born, and my daughter had her ear's pierced at 3 months. Horrors! I'll ask their forgiveness when they're old enough to give "informed mercy".
If they decide not to extend me mercy (once old enough to make that consideration) and want justice, we'll find a mutually agreed upon private arbitrator and work it out. ^_^
But even your subjective reasons don't really make much sense... I'm not trying to change your mind but maybe you can step back and really think if there really is anything you like about it beyond advantages you've simply been told but have not experienced. Could it be you like it cause that's what you are used to?
DeleteFor most of my life I was "glad to be circumcised" and would "never want it any other way". But recently I have stepped back and ask myself why and I know it's simply because "that's how my dad is" and that's what I was used to. I finally realized I have no idea how it would feel like with that skin in tact so I have no reason to be glad it's gone.
Yes, I see your point. I'm still glad.
DeleteI used to feel that way (about it being a personal choice, and "it's been done; what's the problem?). Then (after DS1) I found out that what they're doing *now* is *not* what's been done for thousands of years... do I believe it's major crime? Not in ignorance. But from my POV, since it *does* inflict physical and emotional suffering (even if you don't believe it does long-term harm), wouldn't it be acceptable to defend a child's right to their own body? At least keeping all the parts they came with?
ReplyDeleteNote: It *can* be done at any time, honestly, and especially considering it as a percentage of blood loss (given infant body size - yikes!), I'd prefer my 2nd son have it done later if he so chooses - when he can actually sue them if they don't use anesthesia. I readily admit that my research has completely changed my opinion on this issue, and I'd be happy (not the right word) to share what I've learned...
Thanks. I would also add that another reason in having my son circumcised was so that he was just like his old man. Created "in my image" as it were.
DeleteSo if you were born with no legs would that be sufficient reason to chop off your sons legs since you want him to be "just like his old man"? An abusrd examaple indeed but it follows the principled reason you have given here for why you had it done to your son.
DeleteDamn you!
DeleteAfter more thought, I guess you're being consistent with your philosophy that it's not really harmful, at least - accepting accountability for your choices. (Ear piercing != circumcision, though... similar principle, but radically different in effect. There was, however, a movement for female circumcision a few decades back, which I find rather horrifying. Just for the record ;) )
DeleteIf circumcision is consistent with libertarian ethics then so is elective amputation of a babies legs.
DeleteI'm just trying to keep you consistent Skyler as I would expect you to do for me :)
Yes, but I never said circumcision was justified by libertarian ethics.
DeleteYa it's an undeniable fact that the practice does cause at least physical suffering (hard to say if a baby is capable of emotionally suffering as a result). Combine this with the fact that all boys are born with an intact foreskin — the burden of proof is on the pro-circumcision crowd to demonstrate why cutting an infant’s tissue off is necessary or good. "It's been done a long time" and "that's how mine is" are not sufficient to me.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that it is not "to no effect". Male circumcision has profound effects on the sexual function of the penis. It turns an internal organ into an external organ, removes tens of thousands of specialized nerves (more than in the entire female clitoris) and ablates the male g-spot at the frenular delta. I would recommend educating yourself on the composition and function of the male prepuce.
ReplyDeleteWhat have you to say about female circumcision? It was outlawed here in 1997. Don't boys deserve equal protection under the law? Even though the majority of female circumcisions are less severe than male circumcision by admission of the AAP.
Why is ok for parents to perform genital cutting surgery on unconsenting males simply b/c they are newborns and can't speak up for themselves. This is not a parenting issue -- cutting genitals has no effect on parenting. It doesn't effect the parents, it only effects the child and primarily when he becomes and adult and his future sex partners. Why do parents get to change the way their child experiences sex forever?
I realize this information may make you feel defensive as a circumcised man -- and if you research, you will see -- but it may be hard to come to terms with what was done to your most private parts at your most vulnerable moment. I will tell you where I am coming from -- I am a hardcore Libertarian mother with 2 circumcised sons and now 1 intact son. I educated myself after the birth of my second and I was horrified. I have to live with the responsibility of what I chose to do to them and that is a pain that runs extremely deep for me. While I accept responsibility, I am angry that this was offered to me by doctors, leading me to believe it was a recommendation or at the very least, not harmful. Why didn't anyone protect the rights of my sons?
I advocate for an extremely limited role of government. One of those roles is to protect the rights of the individual. Just because I am a parent, doesn't give me the right to go cutting and removing the most sensitive and private parts of my child's body. Circumcision is not a time-sensitive issue. It can be easily done later in life and is a much less invasive surgery when done as an adult as the foreskin is no longer adhered to the glans as it is in infancy. Now they even have the prepex which a man can get a circumcision with and doesn't even have to take a single day off of work. However, I suspect that my son -- just like the majority of intact men in the developed world -- will never want his precious foreskin to be removed. Just like I do not want any part of my genitals removed!
"While I accept responsibility, I am angry that this was offered to me by doctors, leading me to believe it was a recommendation or at the very least, not harmful. Why didn't anyone protect the rights of my sons?
DeleteI advocate for an extremely limited role of government. One of those roles is to protect the rights of the individual."
YES.
And as if I needed to add to that, the predominant pro-circ culture is based on falsehoods - that's what angers me most about circumcision. My choice with DS1 was made based on lies. I was *completely* uninformed about the real reasons for what's currently called "circumcision" when we had our first son. U.S. (I'd say "western," but most of Europe and the rest of the "western" culture-type world doesn't routinely circ their boys) culture is EXTREMELY genital-phobic. That shows in the history of "modern" circumcision. Tons of info available at Dr. Momma.
Also, it occurs to me that eating the wrong thing, barring anaphylactic shock, choking, or other more immediate harm, still gives your body the chance to heal and eat *right* things. It's not (generally) permanent, unlike circumcision. Bodies are designed to cope with and recover from junk food and other abuses, to an extent.
ReplyDeleteAmericans are soooo weird...sorry we are. Most other countries do NOT circumcise their males at birth for "health reasons". We do NOT remove any other body part as "just in case", as parental choice, to look like dad, etc. While, sometimes parents will need to sign off on surgery for their child, it is generally only done, because a problem has arisen and less invasive measures aren't treating said problem...or because it is life or death. Circumcision at birth, does NOT fit into this category. And while bad things can happen from driving in a car, feeding your child food, etc. THose things are pretty much things that you have to do, you don't have to remove part of your child's body when their isn't anything wrong with it. The problem in the U.S. is that our medical professionals are not aware of the foreskins function. When sitting down with parents and listing "pros and cons"(btw i can find pros to removing any body part), the doctors aren't letting people know what the foreskin is actually there for, because they themselves aren't taught anything. IF you look at European literature(where circumcision has never been common). YOu will see them explain how the foreskin has over 20,000 nerve endings and how the foreskin is meant to gover the glans(head), when the penis is flaccid. This keeps the glans soft and moist(kind of like the inside of a womans vagina). The woman is NOT suppose to be the only one contributing moisture to the sexually experience. Maybe your son won't mind being circumcised...but don't assume because you like it he will too. We as a society have really started getting annoyed at parents that force their kids into sports, pagents, etc because the parents enjoy it/enjoyed it as a child...yet forcing circumcision on them, because parent likes it, is ok? Now, big shocker of all shocks...after saying all this, i will say i have a circumcised son. I was young and niave and knew absoultely nothing of what circumcision really intailed or what the foreskin even was. My son had some complciations that we dealt with on and off from his circumcision. THis lead me to really research this and i have changed my stance so completely. I, as a parent, do not have the right to remove any part of my sons body(no matter how small or unimportant it appears to others), without true medical indication
ReplyDeleteShould it be illegal for parents to pierce their son's penis or their daughter's labia? Male circumcision is a more severe form of permanent body modification than genital piercing. However if a parent pierced their son's penis they would go to jail.
ReplyDeleteWhen a boy is old enough to pierce his penis, he can decide whether or not he wants to have a doctor cut part of it off.
I've gotta agree---Skyler has not demonstrated that circumcision is consistent with libertarian ethics, and Kevin, Krista, Erin, and Jeff B have given pretty compelling reasons why it's not, consistent. I'm not saying Skyler's wrong, just that there's still no compelling case yet. (And saying you're willing to let your children sue you later doesn't address whether an action should be legal; it just means you're a noble conscientious objector to the law.) :-)
ReplyDeleteThis whole discussion, though, does not persuade me that circumcision should be illegal. Rather, it persuades me that libertarianism cannot get us to ultimate truth. In other words, I agree that circumcision cannot be reconciled with libertarianism, but I still think it should be legal. If thorough libertarian reasoning says that circumcision is inherently morally wrong in principle, but God says, "Every man child among you shall be circumcised," I have to conclude that the latter is correct. This seems to be an example of where revelation breaks the expectations of reason.
I've gotta admit I've been wrestling with libertarianism for a while. I find it really persuasive, but the big gap I keep running into is parents and children. Whether it be circumcision, or criteria for neglect, or age of consent for sex, over and over again I find that libertarianism cannot account for parents' rights and duties. As a philosophy, it works almost perfectly in a society where new people leap into being as fully-formed adults (think Athena). But it continually results in answers that conflict with the gospel when it comes to parents and children.
My tentative conclusion is that libertarianism is incredibly useful, but not fully true. It's a handy way to get a large group to agree on the same set of laws, and a useful guide to gauging whether a proposed law is a good idea (I found out a couple years ago that there's a word for this: heuristic). Heavenly Father may even use it in history to bring his children's societies out of chaos. But it cannot be used to determine what is right or wrong.
"But it cannot be used to determine what is right or wrong." I disagree, so long as we differentiate between "right and wrong" and "good and evil".
DeleteGood point. Never thought of that.
DeleteMostly agree with you Nathan and while God did at one time require it to be done God later said in effect "ya that's been done away with and is no longer required.".
ReplyDeleteLibertarianism (as far as I understand) doesn't seem to completely address the question of when force is justified with children.
What distinction do you make?
DeleteI don't understand your question.
DeleteI totally agree that libertarianism doesn't seem to (really) cover parental rights and responsibilities. It's a tricky issue, to which I believe the only "best" answer for one's unique situation is to be found by following the Spirit.
DeleteThat said, here's a post about being "done away with circumcision" from the Book of Mormon. First paragraph:
"In Moroni 8:8 of The Book of Mormon, Christ, following his death and resurrection, speaks to the people of the western hemisphere, the Nephites and Lamanites. He says, 'Listen to the words of Christ, your Redeemer, your Lord and your God. Behold, I came into the world not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance; the whole need no physician, but they that are sick; wherefore, little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin; wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me, that it hath no power over them; and the law of circumcision is done away in me.'"
There are more listings from the D&C and NT, as well... it was a very interesting read, and it clarifies that there is (for LDS believers) no requirement at all for circumcision.
From my POV, the least I can do for my kids as not-quite-accountable-and-mature people, is to allow them their bodily integrity. It seems to be a sensible boundary. But even then, there's the hubbub over vaccinations, and I feel like if the Lord only holds us accountable for what we know at the time, our children, as spiritual peers, can hardly require more.
Krista, great thoughts. I just wrote this follow-up, check it out: http://latest.skylerjcollins.com/2012/01/re-circumcision-and-libertarian-ethics.html
Delete"Libertarianism (as far as I understand) doesn't seem to completely address the question of when force is justified with children." What does? I think it's the best we have and as it's developed, it will.
ReplyDelete"What does?"
Delete- Beats me. Nothing that I know of.
"I think it's the best we have and as it's developed, it will."
- I agree it's the best we have but don't know if it ever will.