Circumcision is Messed Up

[Tallguy88]

Children cannot give consent to medical procedures.

 

[PureBliss]

Sorry for Raymond's prejudiced reply. As I said to him, I don't believe women were excluded from the covenant of circumcision in the bible. It was just the covenant sign was written on the man. Zipporah's example in Exodus 4 shows us that even though women couldn't be circumcised, they still played an essential role in ensuring the covenant was kept.

I agree that society's standpoint often differs from the Christian one, but based on God commanding circumcision (i.e. of the man/foreskin, not Female Genital Mutilation), I think describing the covenant as "mutilation" or "messed up" (e.g. by some in society such as certain human rights groups) is going too far.

I hope the above didn't sound disrespectful.

Not at all, Joshua.
Thanks for the clarification, we are all here to learn.

 

[Joshua_5]

Fallacious argument, false analogy.

That's your opinion. Do you think so many people would have it done if they thought the excess skin was useful, or if the benefits of removing the skin didn't outweigh the risks?

There isn't "more risk and pain", in fact it's decreased since in adults the surgery is performed with anesthetic.

Adult circumcision I think is at a rate of 3 - 6 per 100,000 males... so yeah, I'll guess hardly no one get circumcised later.

I was also referring to the increased risk of disease from uncircumcision, which isn't as low as you'd like to believe. If the risk of circumcising children is so high, why did God command it in the bible for *all* Israelite males at 8 days old? You're argument seems to want to ignore biblical fact, but as Christians, the bible should be our basis.

I'm arguing for the consent of the person who's being mutilated, not the parent.

You haven't demonstrated circumcision is mutilation - is ear piercing mutilation also? For bible believers, that is an inconsistent claim. In the bible, circumcision was primarily for a sign and symbol. Today, it is often for health reasons. SPF already pointed out the obvious fact that parents can give consent for their children, especially for such a minor procedure as a circumcision. What about the consent of the child to accept the risks of uncircumcision? Who gives that consent, in a world where parents can't give consent for their children?

Your arguments are all little more than opinion. You don't agree with circumcision. Many parents do. This doesn't mean circumcision is messed up, anymore than it means uncircumcision is messed up. Don't make a mountain out of a mohel.

 

[Shard]

Meh got circumcised as an infant never cared or got mad about it as an adult. Some people just like to have things to cry about.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

The Circumcision Society will meet next month to discuss the cut-off date for the admission of new members.

 

[Joshua_5]

Meh got circumcised as an infant never cared or got mad about it as an adult. Some people just like to have things to cry about.

True. And some people will always cry. You lose more skin falling off your bike and grazing your knee than being circumcised, and the wound quickly heals and is forgotten about. If circumcision is the worst thing one has to complain about, one has a very easy life.