Such parents will respond to a ban in one of 3 ways: (a) emigrating to a country that permits newborn circumcision; (b) delivering the boy in a country that permits infant circumcision [option foreclosed by the draft Danish legislation); & (c) secretly circumcising the boy. 15/
-
Show this thread
-
And anyone who knows the Jewish community knows that option (a)- mass emigration- is the most likely result. Finally, given how predictable this outcome is, it's hard not to wonder about the motives of those who push for a ban. 16/
1 reply 1 retweet 1 likeShow this thread -
In the case of Denmark, this would be a very sad end to a storied Jewish community. Denmark is rightly famous for having saved its tiny Jewish community from Nazi clutches, helping them to escape to Sweden. Unspeakably sad if this is how it ends. 17/
2 replies 1 retweet 1 likeShow this thread -
Finally, let's underscore the logical problem with framing the issue as one of rights of the child. Observe that no one thinks that a child has rights 9 months *before* s/he is born. Parents have all the rights then, right? 18/
2 replies 4 retweets 4 likesShow this thread -
So proponents of circumcision-bans want parental discretion to be limited when it comes to *circumcising* the boy, but not when it comes to *having* the boy. But in religions that mandate circumcision, these decisions are inextricably linked. Parents in these communities.. .19/
1 reply 1 retweet 4 likesShow this thread -
... choose to have children bc they expect to be able to raise them according to the values & practices of their religion. And so if they discover they can't raise the child as they want to, they will take corrective action *before* the baby is born. 20/
1 reply 4 retweets 4 likesShow this thread -
In short, it's illogical to focus narrowly on the child's rights when the issues concern the very reasons why children are or aren't brought into the world (in a particular country). P.S. I haven't even gotten to enforcement. Circumcision police, anyone? END
9 replies 4 retweets 5 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @ewzucker
Munzer argues children, including Jewish children, have a moral right not to be circumcised before an age of consent without medical necessity, but that it should not be criminalized https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/hmax28§ion=4 …pic.twitter.com/3G5bGkeSHc
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @briandavidearp @ewzucker
Chambers however argues that the most appropriate neutral state policy would in fact be legislation against all non-therapeutic genital cutting of minors https://academic.oup.com/ajj/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/ajj/auy006/4993473 …pic.twitter.com/Kh6CBE4z3f
2 replies 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @briandavidearp
Thx for the various pieces of info. Not sure why you RT’ed the Chambers specifically. Unsurprisingly, I found the Mazor compelling. What still seems missing from these discussions is my point that it’s problematic to assume the child’s birth should occasion a massive shift...
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
Didn’t mean to single out Chambers - I really admire Mazor and like him personally (and Chambers too!)
-
-
Replying to @briandavidearp
Gotcha. Do you know someone who takes up the point I summarized?
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.