The difficulty is that newborn males aren't Jewish in the sense
of actually believing in the Jewish religion - they are, after all, newborns.
When they are 18, they might be religious enough (or culturally identified
enough) to appreciate being circumcised if they had been circumcised, and to
resent not having been circumcised if they hadn't been. Or they might be
irreligious (or religious but non-Jewish) and appreciate not being circumcised
if they hadn't been circumcised, and to resent having been circumcised if they
had been. Or of course they might be irreligious but not care much one way or
another.
One possible answer to this is to try to estimate - how exactly
would one do that? - which group is likely to be largest (those who would
resent not having been circumcised or those who would resent having been
circumcised), adjust the numbers to account for the greater difficulty of
undoing a circumcision as an adult (very difficult, I understand, even now) vs.
getting one as an adult (painful but less difficult), and adjust further to
account for the relative importance of the matter to each group (if such a
thing is possible).
Another possible answer is to say that parents are entitled to
make the choice for their children.
A third answer is to say that it's not proper to substantially
alter the bodies of some people without their consent (and absent medical
need), at least if the alteration is likely to interfere in some measure with
some valued function, even in order to advance the religious or cultural
interests of other people. My sense is that this latter view is the right
view, because I agree that the important right is the right of the child, and
the right to be free of surgery that one may later not want is more important
than the right to have surgery that one may later want.
Eugene
Brian Landsberg writes:
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Brian Landsberg
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2012 11:35 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Parental rights and physical conduct
Let me try again. The discussion has focused on the rights of the parents and
of the state. The children have come into the discussion only as objects of
control or protection by the parents or state; that is the context of the "best
interests of the child" standard. But isn't the state depriving most newborn
Jewish males of a right when it bans circumcision of children? Of course, the
infant does not have capacity to exercise his right, so the law generally
declares the parent rather than the state as a surrogate decision-maker. At
least at the policy level isn't that ordinarily the proper allocation of
responsibility?
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
