Circumcision is Messed Up

[Joshua_5]

1). What do you mean by apples and oranges?
2). What do you mean by making a weak case when I asked a simple question?
3). If you don't readily have an answer, then don't respond. This is a free speech forum, not for any kind of intimidation, the question was specifically to know if females were included in the circumcision and if female genital mutilation is part of it.
5). I didn't manufacture the term "mutilation", Human rights activists did.
So, don't crucify me if you are not properly informed on this topic.
While we look at it from the Christian stand point, it should also be looked at from the Society stand point which we are.

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.

 

[RaymondG]

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.

You dont have to apologize for me....As i already apologized for myself. If you were as good at spotting the good as you are at spot the negative...you would be well on your way to heaven. You should try to read all replies before you respond. Good luck to you.

 

[RaymondG]

Have to say this seems quite sexist.

Have to say, I dont agree with you. But it doesnt matter what you are i think about it, because the comment wasnt for you and the person it was for thought it was sexiest. I have since apologized already for it, and she knows she wont receive another message like that from me again.

now you come along and try to open again a closed can of worms. to think, Heaven will be filled with people who will continue to step on a man who is already down a out? You can keep that heaven....I'm going to search for a different one.

This was obviously upsetting to the young lady, whether i intended it our not, and here you come, quoting it again after i tried to make it right...

I've since removed that part of the comment.....not to hide from my mistake (my intention was to leave it).... But because I know there will be others, like you, reading to and fro, seeking whom they can devour......

 

[Tetra]

So, still no answer as to why the bible speaks of it positively when using the metaphor in regards to hearts and ears (and negatively of the uncircumcised status of the Philistines), but somehow the actual symbol the metaphors were based on is "messed up"? Some might not personally like the idea and its not a salvation issue, but I think its going too far for a Christian to call the covenant sign of circumcision "messed up".

I've explained several times as to why I think it's messed up. This is mainly because there is no reason for it's current practice other than aesthetic and cultural reasons. Circumcision was (past tense) a sign of the covenant, it currently has no religious significance to Christians.

I understand you might not like my choice of words, to be honest though, I'm not concerned.

 

[JCFantasy23]

I'm circumcised. I intend for any male children of mine to be as well. It's just the way we do, plus it has health benefits, both for the man and his sexual partners. All of my sister's had their boys circumcised, and so did my brother. His wife is a nurse and works in a hospital, so she knows the benefits.

I had my son circumcised as well. Articles and studies are disputing a lot of the health claims now, but I stand by what I did. My best friend's husband wasn't circumcised and ran into some minor issues. I work in Administration with foster kids and when the kids (very young) ended up in the system without someone to look over them and had poor hygiene (didn't know better yet), we had issues with some that weren't circumcised that required a few doctor treatments. One had to end up getting circumsized at three/four because of bad problems/negligence, which is more traumatic.

 

[SPF]

American Academy of Pediatrics.
1. The health benefits of male circumcision include a drop in the risk of urinary tract infection in the first year of life by up to 90 percent

2. Circumcised males are far less likely to get infected with a long list of sexually transmitted diseases. It drops the risk of heterosexual HIV acquisition by about 60 percent. It drops the risk of human papillomavirus [HPV], herpes virus and other infectious genital ulcers.

3. It also reduces the chances that men will spread HPV to their wives and girlfriends, protecting them from getting cervical cancer.

I don't believe that the OT practice of circumcision is still in effect today, however one important thing to remember is that the majority of OT laws actually served a health purpose beyond just simply being a law. Just because the law aspect of circumcision is not in effect does not mean that it isn't still a good thing to do.

The bottom line on this issue is that doctors are not unanimous, but most never are. As parents we need to do our best to make sure we are making choices for our children that are in their benefit. My 5 year does not give me his consent for shots at the doctor, or for me to take him to the dentist to have his teeth cleaned. But I'm not interested in his consent, nor would having it make any difference. As an adult, and as the parent to my 3 boys, I do the best I can to make responsible and informed decisions about their healthcare.

Doctors are split on immunizations. We were selective with our first two children regarding shots and schedule of receiving them. With our third we are just trusting the pediatrician. Everything seems good so far.

Our pediatrician thinks it was a good idea to have our boys circumcised. I was circumcised, and I'm glad I was.

 

[RaymondG]

My 5 year does not give me his consent for shots at the doctor,

Good point. And shots are known to kill thousands a year, yet parents are looked at mostly negatively if they dont give them. Yet for circ.....many are worried about hurting the baby.

I was circumcised, and I'm glad I was.

If you want to be more glad, check out phimosis......Never even heard about it until this thread.....wouldnt wish it on my worst "enemy" and would try to avoid it at all cost!

But, I have to give the OP a pass....There was one circ male here who wished he had a choice. Jesus left the 99 to go to the 1.....so I have to follow, lol. I can no longer refute that the OP has a valid point.

 

[Tetra]

1. The health benefits of male circumcision include a drop in the risk of urinary tract infection in the first year of life by up to 90 percent

So UTI is a sufficient reason to permanently alter someone body? That's silly, antibiotics are sufficient.

2. Circumcised males are far less likely to get infected with a long list of sexually transmitted diseases. It drops the risk of heterosexual HIV acquisition by about 60 percent. It drops the risk of human papillomavirus [HPV], herpes virus and other infectious genital ulcers.

3. It also reduces the chances that men will spread HPV to their wives and girlfriends, protecting them from getting cervical cancer.

This is true... just teach safe sex. Not only that, there is an HPV vaccine now. Before anyone says "no sex is safe sex"... a condom reduces the chance of HIV transmission by 98% - 99%. Circ or not, it won't make a difference.

The reason doctors are torn on this issue is because the medical "evidence" isn't sufficient to justify permanently altering someone's body... and I think most are coming into agreement on this... hence why it's no longer recommended on a medical basis in Canada, and why the practice has decreased substantially:

"The circumcision of newborn males in Canada has become a less frequent practice over the past few decades. This change has been significantly influenced by past recommendations from the Canadian Paediatric Society and the American Academy of Pediatrics, who both affirmed that the procedure was not medically indicated. Recent evidence suggesting the potential benefit of circumcision in preventing urinary tract infection and some sexually transmitted infections, including HIV, has prompted the Canadian Paediatric Society to review the current medical literature in this regard. 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

If it's not for medical reasons, and it's not for religious reasons... then the only reasons, are cultural or aesthetic. I think if that's the case, it's completely unethical.

The attitude of "I want my kid to look like me" (not saying you personally have this attitude, speaking in general) is an example of an unethical practice. You don't change someones body forever to suit your own needs... that's really messed up.

 

[SPF]

If it's [circumcision] not for medical reasons... it's completely unethical.

The problem is that you keep repeating this, yet as has been cited numerous times, there are educated people that disagree with you. Thus, you're starting to come off as disingenuous in that you are turning a blind eye and ignoring educated people that disagree with you as if their words don't mean anything.

"The American Academy of Pediatrics believes that circumcision has potential medical benefits and advantages, as well as risks. Evaluation of current evidence indicates that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks and that the procedure's benefits justify access to this procedure for families who choose it..."

Medical benefits, including:

• A markedly lower risk of acquiring HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.
• A significantly lower risk of acquiring a number of other sexually transmitted infections (STIs), including genital herpes (HSV), human papilloma virus (HPV), and syphilis.
• A slightly lower risk of urinary tract infections (UTIs). A circumcised infant boy has about a 1 in 1,000 chance of developing a UTI in the first year of life; an uncircumcised infant boy has about a 1 in 100 chance of developing a UTI in the first year of life.
• A lower risk of getting cancer of the penis. However, this type of cancer is very rare in all males.
• Prevention of foreskin infections.
• Prevention of phimosis, a condition in uncircumcised males that makes foreskin retraction impossible.
• Easier genital hygiene.

Circumcision is not necessary. There are many people that are not circumcised that never have any medical problems. Circumcision is a preventative procedure that does have health benefits. At best Tetra, what you should be saying is that while there are health benefits to a circumcision, you don't think they are enough to justify the procedure.

 

[dentonz]

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.

I'm curious why you specifically asked for the female perspective instead of the perspective of us circumcised males? I know that there are mistakes made in every type of surgery, but I have never met a man that had any problem whatsoever with being circumcised. I have met men who wished that they would have been, but not the other way around.

 

[Tetra]

At best Tetra, what you should be saying is that while there are health benefits to a circumcision, you don't think they are enough to justify the procedure.

If you look at my response to you, that's exactly what I did say... and yes, my position, as well as the majority (stats would indicate due the reduction in the amount of circumcised children) now hold.

I'm not only arguing that it's not "enough to justify the procedure", I'm in fact arguing I think based on the list of medical "benefits", I believe it to be immoral.

Note in my response to you, I argue from sufficiency as well as admit there are benefits regarding STI's:

So UTI is a sufficient reason to permanently alter someone body? That's silly, antibiotics are sufficient.


This is true... just teach safe sex...

 

[Tetra]

I'm curious why you specifically asked for the female perspective instead of the perspective of us circumcised males?

I'm actually really curious to know how mothers may deal with fathers who wish to circumcise their children. How they feel about it etc.

I know that there are mistakes made in every type of surgery, but I have never met a man that had any problem whatsoever with being circumcised. I have met men who wished that they would have been, but not the other way around.

Personally, I don't know of many who have talked about it either way. One or two in my lifetime I suppose. However, I have no issue with someone deciding for themselves to be circumcised when their older. Nothing wrong with that in my opinion.

 

[Tallguy88]

I'm actually really curious to know how mothers may deal with fathers who wish to circumcise their children. How they feel about it etc.


Personally, I don't know of many who have talked about it either way. One or two in my lifetime I suppose. However, I have no issue with someone deciding for themselves to be circumcised when their older. Nothing wrong with that in my opinion.

Every mother within my family has had their sons circumcised. My sister in law is even a registered nurse and had her son circumcised.

 

[SPF]

my position, as well as the majority (stats would indicate due the reduction in the amount of circumcised children) now hold.

I believe the latest statistics indicate that more than 55% of newborn boys are still being circumcised in the US. So at least here in America "the majority" are still in favor of circumcision.

I would be interested in understanding what you think "immoral" means. To me, something immoral would also be sinful. So what I hear you saying is that parents who have their child circumcised are actually sinning. I don't know that it's possible to engage in an immoral activity without sinning, do you?

So for you to tell a parent who sees this list:

Medical benefits, including:

• A markedly lower risk of acquiring HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.
• A significantly lower risk of acquiring a number of other sexually transmitted infections (STIs), including genital herpes (HSV), human papilloma virus (HPV), and syphilis.
• A slightly lower risk of urinary tract infections (UTIs). A circumcised infant boy has about a 1 in 1,000 chance of developing a UTI in the first year of life; an uncircumcised infant boy has about a 1 in 100 chance of developing a UTI in the first year of life.
• A lower risk of getting cancer of the penis. However, this type of cancer is very rare in all males.
• Prevention of foreskin infections.
• Prevention of phimosis, a condition in uncircumcised males that makes foreskin retraction impossible.
• Easier genital hygiene.

...that they are sinning by having their child circumcised seems a bit extreme to me. Also, given the above list, and endorsement by the American Association of Pediatrics who's aim is the protection and health of children, seems inappropriate.

The bottom line is that it's factual that there are beneficial reasons behind being circumcised. So given that fact, I don't see how anyone could hold the position that circumcising their child is immoral.

Also, you just as recently in your post #164 said:

I've explained several times as to why I think it's messed up. This is mainly because there is no reason for it's current practice other than aesthetic and cultural reasons.

This is what I'm referring to by being disingenuous because it's been noted many times before that post that there are health benefits. Ignoring the health benefits and repeating this false notion over and over doesn't make the facts go away.

 

[Tetra]

I believe the latest statistics indicate that more than 55% of newborn boys are still being circumcised in the US. So at least here in America "the majority" are still in favor of circumcision.

I would be interested in understanding what you think "immoral" means. To me, something immoral would also be sinful. So what I hear you saying is that parents who have their child circumcised are actually sinning. I don't know that it's possible to engage in an immoral activity without sinning, do you?

I suppose I would argue many things could be potentially immoral which are not exactly defined in the Bible... For example, recreational use of opiates.

I guess "majority" would be relative to your geographic location. I'm Canadian and the current stat is at 32%... and dropping.

The bottom line is that it's factual that there are beneficial reasons behind being circumcised.

No one is denying that, it's the degree to which it's beneficial...

Let's suppose we can agree on those medical "benefits", there is absolutely no reason one can't allow their child to make that decision for themselves when their older.

It sounds like the benefits are just a justification to continue permanently altering someones body without their consent.

 

[SPF]

Consent is a non-issue to me. Are you a parent? As a parent I make decisions all day long every single day for my children based upon what I believe is in their best interest without their consent, or directly against their consent. That's my role, especially while they are minors.

 

[Tetra]

Consent is a non-issue to me. Are you a parent? As a parent I make decisions all day long every single day for my children based upon what I believe is in their best interest without their consent, or directly against their consent. That's my role, especially while they are minors.

I am the parent of 2 children, and I wouldn't say consent is a "non-issue"... it can or cannot be an issue, it would depend on the situation.

 

[Joshua_5]

Have to say, I dont agree with you. But it doesnt matter what you are i think about it, because the comment wasnt for you and the person it was for thought it was sexiest. I have since apologized already for it, and she knows she wont receive another message like that from me again.

I didn't intend offense. I just didn't want someone to feel like her opinion didn't count on an issue where it was quite valid (maybe even more valid), because of her gender. I in turn apologise to you, for coming across too hard.

 

[Joshua_5]

So UTI is a sufficient reason to permanently alter someone body? That's silly, antibiotics are sufficient.

Its just excess skin. To be without an ugly, nuisance flap of skin and for health benefits for the child and his future wife? Don't make it out to be more than it is. Do you also have a problem with ingrowing toenails being removed?

I suppose I would argue many things could be potentially immoral which are not exactly defined in the Bible... For example, recreational use of opiates.

I guess "majority" would be relative to your geographic location. I'm Canadian and the current stat is at 32%... and dropping.

But how many of that reduced statistic have to go and get circumcised later, with more risk and pain? And how many will have to suffer the health consequences of uncircumcision, and just wish they had been circumcised?

I am the parent of 2 children, and I wouldn't say consent is a "non-issue"... it can or cannot be an issue, it would depend on the situation.

You are saying the procedure is done without consent. Its not - it is done with the consent of the parents, who are responsible for the child's care.

 

[Tetra]

Its just excess skin. To be without an ugly, nuisance flap of skin and for health benefits for the child and his future wife? Don't make it out to be more than it is. Do you also have a problem with ingrowing toenails being removed?

Fallacious argument, false analogy.

But how many of that reduced statistic have to go and get circumcised later, with more risk and pain?

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.

You are saying the procedure is done without consent. Its not - it is done with the consent of the parents, who are responsible for the child's care.

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