News Archive

Harvard Law Bulletin Publishes Steven's Letter

From: J. Steven Svoboda
Date: 29 May 2003
Time: 23:56:34

Comments

The Summer 2003 edition of the Harvard Law Bulletin has just published a letter from me, responding to a letter from a law school alumnus named Jerold L. Jacobs, who was in turn responding to the profile of ARC and the intactivist movement published in the Law Bulletin last Fall.

Below is the text as published of my letter and also of the letter to which I was responding.

Steven

"Circumcision a Human Rights, not Religious Issue," letter published in Harvard Law Bulletin, Summer 2003, p. 55

Regarding the religious issue raised by Jerold Jacobs '68 in his letter (Bulletin, Spring 2003, p. 2), at Attorneys for the Rights of the Child, we focus primarily on working to halt the uniquely American practice of medicalized circumcision; we largely refrain from addressing the Jewish or Islamic procedures. Medicalized circumcision is a Victorian relic from the days when circumcision was thought to stop masturbation and help prevent disease. Worldwide, lawyers, physicians, bioethicists and scholars oppose circumcision because they understand the foreskin's important immunological, protective, and erogenous functions. The United Nations has repeatedly stated that genital cutting can constitute a human rights violation.

Regarding the religious issue, a growing number of Jews, including rabbis, question circumcision, and many conscientious, well-informed individuals have concluded that this particular practice is neither appropriate nor necessary for Jewish continuity and expression in modern society. Some Jews in the United States, South America, Europe, and Israel do not circumcise. We expect that the more people learn about circumcision, the more they will question it.

J. Steven Svoboda '91

Berkeley, CA

"Religious Importance of Circumcision Overlooked," letter published in Harvard Law Bulletin, Spring 2003, p. 2

For religiously observant Jews and Muslims, circumcision of males is not

"The Unkindest Cut" (Bulletin Fall 2002, p. 55), but rather a benevolent slice. I would not waste time criticizing the "Profile" of J. Steven Svoboda '91, but for his stated view that "ideally circumcision should be outlawed". Such thoughts would make Thomas Jefferson, as well as Moses and Mohammed, turn over in their graves. While, to Mr. Svoboda, circumcision may be "never necessary...not endorsed by an national medical association," and a cultural artifact, it is a religious imperative in Judaism and Islam with 5000 years of stubborn obedience and billions of adherents behind it. Proposing to outlaw it would make the Third Reich smile and is as disingenuous as proposing to outlaw baptism on the ground that there is no medical need for it and people may drown.

Jerold L. Jacobs '68

Potomac, MD