Circumcision is Messed Up

[Reeniee]

FGM and male circ are not comparable in any way. One is a pagan practice designed to destroy a woman's ability to receive pleasure from sex, while the other is small removal of excess skin either as a sign of the covenant or for health benefits. There are no health benefits from FGM.

The Catholic Church teaches that circumcision isn't necessary for salvation, but is left up to believers to decide.

If it was left up to believers to decide that would be okay, but it's being done to babies who are not choosing it at all.

 

[Tallguy88]

If it was left up to believers to decide that would be okay, but it's being done to babies who are not choosing it at all.

Christianity and Judaism both traditionally do not wait for the children to reach the age of reason to be inducted into the faith. Jews circumcise within days of birth, Christians Baptize a few weeks to a few months after birth. Only certain Protestant denominations wait to do a "believer's only Baptism". And of those, several do a "dedication" of the infant which is spiritually supposed to do the same thing as far as I can tell.

 

[Norbert L]

Here's Mayo Clinic on the subject:

Circumcision (male) Why it's done - Mayo Clinic

I would add another very important aspect to the discussion. Freedom. Given a fair assessment of "The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) says the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks."
People should be wary of a greater injustice, an idea that wishes to impose their will on others and in so doing mutilate the parents right to chose whether or not to circumcise their newborn.

 

[Reeniee]

At what point do the parents not have the "right" to make physical changes to their babies bodies? Do they have the right to break their babies fingers if they want. How would you respond to someone claiming people are trying to "mutilate" (is that really the word you meant to use?) the parents right to decide to break their child's fingers?

 

[Tallguy88]

At what point do the parents not have the "right" to make physical changes to their babies bodies? Do they have the right to break their babies fingers if they want. How would you respond to someone claiming people are trying to "mutilate" (is that really the word you meant to use?) the parents right to decide to break their child's fingers?

Is there a medical benefit to doing that? There are reputable medical associations which say circumcision has legitimate medical benefits that outweigh the risks.

 

[samir]

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.

Christians started circumcising their children to help keep them out of Hell by reducing their temptation to commit the mortal sin of masturbation. Christians circumcise their daughters much less frequently now than they did in the past but male circumcision is still commonly done because doctors recommend it.

 

[Tallguy88]

Christians started circumcising their children to help keep them out of Hell by reducing their temptation to commit the mortal sin of masturbation. Christians circumcise their daughters much less frequently now than they did in the past but male circumcision is still commonly done because doctors recommend it.

I've never heard of Christians practicing FGM.

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

I guess there is a good point about this topic. And that is we christians fight HARD about a baby has the right to life (referring to abortion) and that its not fair to the baby who had no choice in the matter. And yet when it comes to circumcision its like we have a total opposite view of "The baby has no choice, we do this for them!". Guess it does sound hypocritical.

No, I don't mean as an adult.......I think I would regret it if I had it done as an adult....for the pain alone......you'd have to stay indoors for two weeks just to avoid seeing a hot girl that could possibly make "it move" before being healed.

LOL. True. I thought about a vasectomy but I am 100% freaked out about seeing my wife at all and tempting things to become "interested". Ugh that pain would be terrible. Of course knowing I am awake when they do the procedure (and watching the video online) make me like "Nope!!!!!".

I'm talking about a person who had it done as a baby who wish their parents had given them a choice.....who wish the skin was still left there. If I could hear that from one person I would understand and maybe even agree with the OP

Ah I see. I have heard many people who had it done to them as a baby say they wish they were given the choice. Though usually not having anything to do with health issues but more so they just didn't like not having a choice. Which is why I always count their arguments about it null and void. Unless they had a legit reason they weren't happy about it then it just comes down to a pure "it was against my will" thing.

 

[RaymondG]

Ah I see. I have heard many people who had it done to them as a baby say they wish they were given the choice. Though usually not having anything to do with health issues but more so they just didn't like not having a choice. Which is why I always count their arguments about it null and void. Unless they had a legit reason they weren't happy about it then it just comes down to a pure "it was against my will" thing.

Very interesting........I bet if you talked to them about phimosis they would change their tune real quick

 

[Tetra]

Very interesting........I bet if you talked to them about phimosis they would change their tune real quick

I also have phimosis and truthfully, hasn't been too big of a deal for me. The cream I use has almost taken it away entirely. I suppose everyone has varying degrees of it though.

 

[RaymondG]

I also have phimosis and truthfully, hasn't been too big of a deal for me. The cream I use has almost taken it away entirely. I suppose everyone has varying degrees of it though.

Im happy it is not that bad for you. But from the pictures I've seen.......I cant see how anyone could be upset that their parent removed all possibility of this happening to them. im mean.....Ive never even heard of this.....never knew it could happen.....

 

[Tallguy88]

Circumcision also reduces the risk of STDs, specifically HIV. It also decreases the risk of the woman getting uterine cancer.

 

[Tetra]

Im happy it is not that bad for you. But from the pictures I've seen.......I cant see how anyone could be upset that their parent removed all possibility of this happening to them. im mean.....Ive never even heard of this.....never knew it could happen.....

Well, like any condition if it's left untreated, it gets worse. It's hardly the end of the world though, I can still properly clean myself for example. So I'm rather grateful I've been left intact.

Here's the thing though, it's always easier as adults to sit back and ponder what we would have preferred. It's our bodies and we're grown. We don't know what someone else would prefer though.

Circumcision also reduces the risk of STDs, specifically HIV. It also decreases the risk of the woman getting uterine cancer.

This is true, however the reduction isn't significant. Using protection also reduces the risks of STI's.

Here's the thing, it's heavily debated in the medical field... most of the "benefits" are easily preventable though education. Also, the benefits aren't substantial for things like urinary tract infections. There are a huge number of people within the medical community reversing their position that they once held.

Consider the Canadian Paediatric Society position on it:

While there may be a benefit for some boys in high-risk populations and circumstances where the procedure could be considered for disease reduction or treatment, the Canadian Paediatric Society does not recommend the routine circumcision of every newborn male.

Newborn male circumcision | Position statements and practice points | Newborn male circumcision | Canadian Paediatric Society

 

[Tallguy88]

Well, like any condition if it's left untreated, it gets worse. It's hardly the end of the world though, I can still properly clean myself for example. So I'm rather grateful I've been left intact.

Here's the thing though, it's always easier as adults to sit back and ponder what we would have preferred. It's our bodies and we're grown. We don't know what someone else would prefer though.


This is true, however the reduction isn't significant. Using protection also reduces the risks of STI's.

Here's the thing, it's heavily debated in the medical field... most of the "benefits" are easily preventable though education. Also, the benefits aren't substantial for things like urinary tract infections. There are a huge number of people within the medical community reversing their position that they once held.

Consider the Canadian Paediatric Society position on it:

Newborn male circumcision | Position statements and practice points | Newborn male circumcision | Canadian Paediatric Society

I agree that it shouldn't be done on every newborn, just the ones whose parents want it done.

 

[Tetra]

I agree that it shouldn't be done on every newborn, just the ones whose parents want it done.

This I suppose this is where we differ... I don't belive it should be the right of a parent to chose that.

 

[Tallguy88]

This I suppose this is where we differ... I don't belive it should be the right of a parent to chose that.

Why not? Parents have full authority to make medical decisions on behalf of their children.

 

[Tetra]

Why not? Parents have full authority to make medical decisions on behalf of their children.

Because it's the permanent alteration of someone's body without consent, for mainly cosmetic / cultural reasons. Since the "benefits" aren't substantial, and can often be circumvented though education, and since it removes the function of the foreskin from the human body... I don't think parents should have this right.

Also, the idea that some want to permanently alter someones body, just so that they can look like them is unethical. Not saying necessarily you're advocating that, just saying it's something I have often heard.

 

[Tallguy88]

Because it's the permanent alteration of someone's body without consent, for mainly cosmetic / cultural reasons. Since the "benefits" aren't substantial, and can often be circumvented though education, and since it removes the function of the foreskin from the human body... I don't think parents should have this right.

Also, the idea that some want to permanently alter someones body, just so that they can look like them is unethical. Not saying necessarily you're advocating that, just saying it's something I have often heard.

Since it is medically sound, it won't be outlawed in the US. I know in my state, Medicaid will pay for the procedure, as will most insurance companies. They wouldn't pay for a purely cosmetic procedure.

 

[Tetra]

I was circumcised as an adult and I must say it made sex with my wife much more.....pleasurable......

I'm very happy you had the opportunity to make that decision for yourself, and end with a positive result!!

 

[grandvizier1006]

It really isn't that bad. People who aren't circumcised make it out to be equivalent to female genital mutilation. It's not. Stimulation is still possible. Sex is, obviously, still pleasurable. If anything a circumcised penis is merely "different" than an uncircumcised one. the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] in women is more analogous to the glans of the penis (the head) than the foreskin. Since the glans is obviously not removed in circumcision, while in women the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] is removed, the latter is much worse than the former. This is why the latter is illegal and discouraged by the WHO and the former is treated neutrally.