Circumcision is Messed Up

[CodyFaith]

lol @ calling something the God of Abraham considered holy and made the Israelite's a covenant with "messed up".

Just because we aren't commanded to do it any more doesn't mean the act itself suddenly became "messed up".

 

[RaymondG]

I have the same problem, my doc gave me some cream called Betaderm 0.05%, works well for me.

However, this still doesn't justify permanently altering a child's body on the basis of maybe getting phimosis in the future.

Ive never heard of phimosis. Just googled it...... now I have to go call my parents and thank them for multilating me when I was a few days old....

Also, I was extremely religious most of my life, and I've never heard circumcision linked to Christianity....only physical sanity.

 

[Widlast]

I don't get circumcision at all... and to be honest, to me it seems messed up that Christians still practice it.

No matter how you justify it, it's the genital mutilation of an un-consenting child. If you have proof that it's not, love to hear it.

Also, if it's so important, why aren't people simply allowing their child to make that decision when they're older?

Does anyone know why Christian's are still practicing this? I'd really love the female perspective on this from Christian mothers as well.

What does consent have to do with anything?
Nobody asked you whether you would be born or not, who your parents would be, what race, creed, culture you would be born to.
It is the covenant with Abraham. If you don't like it, take it up with God.
I would assume that the conversation would be hilarious.

BTW it is NOT mutilation, check your definition.

 

[Tetra]

lol @ calling something the God of Abraham considered holy and made the Israelite's a covenant with "messed up".

Just because we aren't commanded to do it any more doesn't mean the act itself suddenly became "messed up".

Lots of things in the Bible were acceptable then, that if they occurred today we would consider messed up.

1 Samuel 15:2-3
"2 Thus says the LORD of hosts, 'I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel, how he set himself against him on the way while he was coming up from Egypt. 3 Now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey."

If someone went out and "put to death both man and woman, child and infant" I would say it was messed up. Just because something was once acceptable, does not make it so today.

 

[Tetra]

What does consent have to do with anything?
Nobody asked you whether you would be born or not, who your parents would be, what race, creed, culture you would be born to.
It is the covenant with Abraham. If you don't like it, take it up with God.
I would assume that the conversation would be hilarious.

BTW it is NOT mutilation, check your definition.

Ummm... can you please explain how the covenant with Abraham and circumcision is applicable to Christians today?

Definition of mutilate
Definition of MUTILATE

transitive verb
1: to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect <the child mutilated the book with his scissors.
2: to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of : cripple

The permanent removal of a functioning part of the human body is mutilation.

I'm not even going to deal with the consent thing, that fact you don't think consent matters is seriously messed up.

 

[Widlast]

Ummm... can you please explain how the covenant with Abraham and circumcision is applicable to Christians today?




The permanent removal of a functioning part of the human body is mutilation.

I'm not even going to deal with the consent thing, that fact you don't think consent matters is seriously messed up.

If it functions it is NOT MUTILATED.
The fact that you think that God needs to consult YOU on anything is absurd.

 

[Tetra]

If it functions it is NOT MUTILATED.

By removing the foreskin, you're removing function.

The fact that you think that God needs to consult YOU on anything is absurd.

I never said He had to.

You made the implication that the covenant He made with Abraham is relevant to Christians today... please tell me how.

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

I guess the better question is why did you make the topic if you don't want to hear what anyone has to say?

You've been given proof that it is not "mutilation" and actually is healthier. My parents did it to me and those I talk to who didn't have it done, they seem to have manby complaints about having that extra skin. From decreased sexual pleasure, UTIs and other issues. I'm thankful it was done because even with knowing how useful it is to have done, I wouldn't do it myself because its sounds painful to have done.

Is it biblically required? No. But its done for health reasons. As quoted by someone else:
"It is for entirely nonreligious reasons—to promote cleanliness and health—that many physicians recommend circumcision of baby boys by a competent surgeon."

So if you think its terrible, thats fine. If you don't want to do it. Thats fine to. But if someone else wants to then its up to them. I'd do it to my son to. Also on a side note I have seen stories from people who are uncut and have had sex then eventually got cut and they said things were much better for them (sexually and health wise). So to me thats reason enough to do it. Heck if your a guy and have taken a pee, sometimes it "dribbles" after. So if your winky dink hides back in the skin right away you dribble urine inside and it sits there and can give you a UTI and other issues.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

One reason may be that penile circumcision can permit better genital hygiene to some extent ...

This is of course inaccurate, and at any rate the physical damage involved in circumcision is rather worse.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

You've been given proof that it is not "mutilation" and actually is healthier.

No such proof has been given, and indeed it would be impossible to prove this. It would be like trying to claim the removal of the cuticle region prevents hangnails.

 

[RaymondG]

Winky dink? Never heard of that......must be a biblical term. I have 3 sons..... Was going to apologize for the mutilation......but they have no idea what I'm talking about.......I don't think it's as big of a deal as we are now making it.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

Ummm... can you please explain how the covenant with Abraham and circumcision is applicable to Christians today?

It of course is inapplicable.

 

[Tetra]

I guess the better question is why did you make the topic if you don't want to hear what anyone has to say?

I like hearing what people have to say if they can provide good arguments.

You've been given proof that it is not "mutilation" and actually is healthier.

Can you show me that proof? Because it fits the definition of mutilation here:

Definition of MUTILATE
transitive verb
1: to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect <the child mutilated the book with his scissors.
2: to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of : cripple

... and actually is healthier.

That's medically debated. I do recognize there are arguments on both sides... however, I fail to see how the "benefits" justify permanently altering a child's body without consent. No reason a child cannot make the decision for themselves when their older.

So if you think its terrible, thats fine. If you don't want to do it. Thats fine to. But if someone else wants to then its up to them.

Because I believe it's unethical. I don't think it's the parents right to bring harm to a child... I don't care how socially acceptable people think it is.

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

No such proof has been given, and indeed it would be impossible to prove this. It would be like trying to claim the removal of the cuticle region prevents hangnails.

Here. The "American Academy of Pediatrics" said it was healthier. Not sure what other proof one would need.
Pediatricians Decide Boys Are Better Off Circumcised Than Not

Though like with any topic if someone hates the topic enough they don't care if proof is out there.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

we're no longer commanded to do this so what's the point of this thread?

 

[Tetra]

we're no longer commanded to do this so what's point of this thread?

Feel free to see some of the responses in the thread... seems everyone still loves to do it. I'm challenging that notion.

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

Can you show me that proof? Because it fits the definition of mutilation here:

Definition of MUTILATE
transitive verb
1: to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect <the child mutilated the book with his scissors.
2: to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of : cripple

I think you misunderstand what mutilation is versus what circumcision is. A males anatomy is not being cut off or destroyed. If we go by your definition then I could say when I cut my nails on my hand, I am mutilating my arm. Right?

Because I believe it's unethical. I don't think it's the parents right to bring harm to a child... I don't care how socially acceptable people think it is.

Well we can agree to disagree. Just like with anything. You find it harmful and unjust. I don't. And until its illegal no one will really care what someone else thinks about it. And I mean technically expanding on your view of what is unethical.... if my child was born with a 6th finger would it be unethical to remove it since it should be up to them? What if they were born with a tumor that takes up half the face? Is it unethical to take that off? Of course not. You do it to help the child. Not that a tumor on the face is the same as a extra flap of skin down below.

Which reminder circumcision cuts off a tiny bit of a skin. Thats all it is. Life goes on.

 

[Brandon C.]

One reason may be that penile circumcision can permit better genital hygiene to some extent ...[/QUOTE
OK so I have no stance in this because idk much about it, but doesn't it say some where not to mutilat the body. Also doesn't it say to get circumcised? Why would God not just leave out the for skin himself. I am not agensts God, I just wondered.

 

[Tetra]

Here. The "American Academy of Pediatrics" said it was healthier. Not sure what other proof one would need.
Pediatricians Decide Boys Are Better Off Circumcised Than Not

Though like with any topic if someone hates the topic enough they don't care if proof is out there.

No one is saying there isn't any benefits... however, there are also risks. I linked 2 studies conducted by the British Journal of Urology indicating some of them. Even if there are benefits, no reason a child cannot make that decision for himself when he's older.

I think you misunderstand what mutilation is versus what circumcision is. A males anatomy is not being cut off or destroyed. If we go by your definition then I could say when I cut my nails on my hand, I am mutilating my arm. Right?

You're altering the definition to fit your worldview. I'm claiming the human body is being mutilated by removing a piece which serves function. Just like removing my eyelid would be the mutilation of my body. Just because my eye still works doesn't mean my body wasn't mutilated.

Which reminder circumcision cuts off a tiny bit of a skin. Thats all it is. Life goes on.

Again, my eyelid is just a piece of skin... I'd like it to stay where it is too.

I'll maintain my position, don't think it's okay to cut off pieces of children.

 

[Tallguy88]

It of course is inapplicable.

It is a matter of Christian freedom.