Chris, I think your answer goes beyond Marty's point. There is a difference between experiencing regret and being a member of a minority faith. If Jews and Muslims who circumcise their infant sons make up 2% of the population in a country, the rest of the population may think this practice is odd, but they won't experience regret about it because they are not circumcised. So the operative question would be whether the members of these minority faiths experience regret. And the answer to that question may be problematic in some ways. Would it count as regret if the concern is that people who are prejudiced against Jews can now identify the circumcised adult as a Jew? Don't we have to be careful here so that prejudice does not become the basis for justifying restrictions on religious liberty?
AlanFrom: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] on behalf of Christopher Lund [l...@wayne.edu] Sent: Friday, July 06, 2012 10:59 AM To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics' Subject: RE: Parental rights and physical conduct Yes (to Marty.) I’m someone inclined toward Marty’s view, and I think the empirical question of regret is very important. Regret either way is important. If most circumcised men regret their infant circumcisions, then infant circumcision becomes harder to justify. Similarly, if most uncircumcised men regret not being circumcised as an infant, that too enters into it. It’s easy to say that an uncircumcised man can always get circumcised (and he can). But it requires surgery and anesthetic in a very sensitive place. And there are a lot of emotional sunk costs too. I’m generally a strong believer in regulatory exemptions for Free Exercise, even when the rest of the world is doing something totally different. But what the rest of the world is doing is very important here, because it goes to the burden on the child. If 30% of boys are circumcised, allowing me to circumcise my son seems an easy call. My son won’t be different from the other kids in his class; his future sexual partners won’t think of him as weird. But if only 2% are circumcised, it’s a different story. If it’s only 2% and those 2% are treated like freaks, then it’s a very different story. My understanding is that the circumcision rate in the US is still above 50%, though it’s below 50% in some of the western states. Changes in that are highly relevant. But given the demographics now, I’m inclined to think this is an easy call in favor of parental autonomy and free exercise. Marty/Eugene’s tattoo point is marvelous, I think. The numbers of 18-25 year olds with tattoos is staggering, something like 40%. If that rises to say 80%, then the tattooing of a child will seem more justifiable, because tattoo regret will probably drop. On the other hand, kids may regret the kind of tattoo that Mom and Dad wanted (and of course they will!), so I guess it’s still different than circumcision. Best, Chris
_______________________________________________ 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.
