Sorry everyone. This will (probably) be my last response to this topic (the longest conversation I’ve ever had before about circumcision was with a handful of my roommates at school, which ended with jokes about turtles - but that is not to say I am not taking this engagement rather more seriously). Anyhow, the two of us hold materially different views on the appropriateness of government intervention, what constitutes bodily integrity, the role of social repugnance (conflicts that are far deeper than the issue of circumcision itself)… and neither of us are going to successfully proselytize the other. So I’ll just say my piece and let our differences lie.

This passage of yours I find most contentious:

It doesn’t matter so much if people understand *why* it’s wrong: when something is so unjust, what matters first and foremost is just that it ends, period. Yes, it’s great for people to know why it’s wrong, and I, along with and many others, strive to inform people of this. But those who support a ban don’t see circumcision as a gray area, where we need to tolerate that other people will see it differently. To myself and many others, it is OBJECTIVELY wrong (aside from extremely rare cases), and respecting people’s right to choose harming a non-consenting infant is simply not an option.

“It doesn’t matter so much if people understand *why* it’s wrong: when something is so unjust, what matters first and foremost is just that it ends, period.”

• But my whole point is that the passage of a law banning circumcision will not cause the procedure to “end, period.” It is crucially important that people can understand why something is wrong! Otherwise, they will find ways to circumvent the law. Given the extraordinary prevalence of male circumcision and the religious reasons behind such prevalence, outlawing male circumcision overnight will only give rise to illegal, botched operations so long as the religious motive is still there.

“To myself and many others, it is OBJECTIVELY wrong.”

• Okay… but there are those who cannot find circumcision objectively wrong. It may actually be an objective right - to the religious perhaps? And I do not dismiss them as easily as you do; unlike some religiously-motivated but intolerable actions, I’m still do not believe that circumcision is likewise intolerable.
• You have clearly made your case as to why you think infant circumcision is a violation of human rights; and those on the other side have made their case as to why it is, and should be, a widely-accepted practice.
• If the latter are not permitted to pursue their belief because your “objective truth” opposes it, then by the same token, their self-possessed objective right could become an argument forcing every male to get circumcised.
• But they don’t impose such a sweeping mandate on those who do not agree with them… so, in my opinion, neither should you (this is again because I do not accept male circumcision as a necessary violation of bodily integrity, as you do)

uncutting:

We have coined a more ghastly term for it, actually. Many of us interchangeably refer to circumcision as “male genital mutilation.” And changing people’s minds is something we do. Through information on the Internet (I can probably name about a dozen blogs with a similar message to mine, and there are numerous informational websites as well), informational cards that many of us spread around, marches in parades, the annual demonstration against infant circumcision, and simply just informing people we know in our personal lives, the anti-circumcision movement does try to change people, in a non-forceful manner.

But, realistically, we’re not going to be able to reach *everyone*. So, the best way to truly stop people from circumcising their children is a ban. It doesn’t matter so much if people understand *why* it’s wrong: when something is so unjust, what matters first and foremost is just that it ends, period. Yes, it’s great for people to know why it’s wrong, and I, along with and many others, strive to inform people of this. But those who support a ban don’t see circumcision as a gray area, where we need to tolerate that other people will see it differently. To myself and many others, it is OBJECTIVELY wrong (aside from extremely rare cases), and respecting people’s right to choose harming a non-consenting infant is simply not an option. We believe people simply should NOT have the right to subject a non-consenting infant to unnecessary surgery.

In regards to FGM, there are plenty of organizations that strive to educate people about it. Yes, some immigrant families in the US go as far as to send their daughters to their home countries to undergo the procedure, but there is education in Africa to discourage the procedure, too. We can’t just allow injustices to occur (by lifting/not making bans) just because some people will find ways around it. Ultimately, the less people that suffer, the better. Nobody EXTRA was subjected to FGM as a result of the US ban. It seems likely that less were subjected to it as a result. Think of all the parents who would have subjected their daughters to FGM if it was legal in the US, but wouldn’t go through the trouble and cost of sending them to Africa for it.

“If we want to assume your framework, then religious parents should be given the choice to not circumcise their child, because they now know better after hearing the case against it.” - I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. Religious parents already have the option not to circumcise their child. In fact, an increasing amount of religious Jews are opting not to circumcise.

(Source: thusshespaketh)