In fact, circumcision is both medically and religiously necessary.
Ähm...
Personally, I would endorse the bris even if there were no medical benefits. I only cite these benefits to refute those who argue that circumcision is not beneficial, or is even harmful.
As for “mutilation,” that is a complete misuse of the term. The term properly describes what is done in many Muslim societies to the genitalia of young girls. That is why it is called “female genital mutilation.” Its vile purpose is to deprive women of the ability to enjoy sexual intercourse. And its effects are prolonged excruciating pain and permanent physical disfigurement. To compare that to the removal of the foreskin is not only absurd, it trivializes the horror of female genital mutilation.
Permanent physical disfigurement - die Vorhaut zu entfernen ist genau das.
With regard to pain, of course the baby experiences pain. The question is how much and whether there is any lasting trauma.
The amount of pain is essentially impossible to judge for a number of
reasons, however. One reason is that we can’t ask the baby: “What is
your level of pain from 1 to 10?” Another is that many babies barely
whimper during the brit. Virtually all cry far more loudly and for far
more time when they have gas or are hungry — and neither condition is
regarded as abnormally painful, let alone traumatic.
There is no halachic issue here; after all, adult men who undergo a brit can be fully anesthetized.
Warum dann nicht gleich warten und erwachsene Menschen selber entscheiden lassen?
To assess whether one wants one’s son to undergo a brit milah, one has to recognize one of the most important laws of life: Everything has a price. There is a price paid for having a brit, and there is a price paid for not having one.
Achso, was ist denn der Preis dafür keine zu haben? Anscheinend kann man sie doch auch als Erwachsener selbstbestimmt nachholen?
The price for having one is momentary pain in an infant. That’s it. The idea that a man pays some lasting price for not having his foreskin is refuted by the experience of virtually every circumcised male who has ever lived. I have only met one man in my life who was troubled about not having his foreskin. On my radio show, I once interviewed a spokesman for an anti-circumcision group based in — you’ll be shocked to learn — San Francisco. And I told him I thought he must be very bored to devote so much of his time to lamenting his lost foreskin.
