Circumcision?

[~Mrs. A2J~]

And the funny thing is... no matter how many websites I come across that have the "Circumcision Debate" going, it's never really the men who are up in arms about it.

My hubby wishes he was never circumcised. Especially not on the basis of "ifs" and "maybes". I think circumcision is just like anything else medical - if it ain't broke don't fix it. Like for example jessesgirl's examples with the tonsils. A tonsilectomy is a routine proceedure with minimal risks to it but do we go out and have our kid's tonsils taken out as a child just so in the event they might have problems with their tonsils as an adult they can "bounce back quicker"? Is there any other surgery that we would have done to our children, let alone our new born infants, that was NOT medically necessary? I just don't understand why it's done with circumcision.

As a side note, I don't have a problem with anyone who circ's for religious reasons. I don't agree with their interpretion as IMO there is a new "circumcision" covenent now but I "understand". I don't really understand the other reasons (slight potential medical, asthetics, supposedly cleaner, be like daddy, etc) though.

 

[Melbelle]

My son is circumcised, I have my beliefs and that is why he was circumcised.

 

[Redguard]

My hubby wishes he was never circumcised.

A2J only feels that way because you always tease him about his, and he knows how you feel about circumsized penii.

 

[TexasSky]

My mother was a nurse, and she favored circumcision because of Smega. If a person is not careful to keep clean smega can cause issues. I didn't know if my son would be as clean as a mother hopes or not, so I had him circumcised.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has changed its mind year after year about whether there are or aren't medical benefits.

The biggest problem that I'm aware of is that if a man is not careful to clean himself properly he can develop uniary tract infections from the dead skin in nether region.

In March of 2007, the World Health Organization endorces circumcision for HIV/AIDS prevention. (I have no idea why).

The American Urological Association also endorses circumcision.

The foreskin acts like a repository for cells that the body sheds, secretions from the glands, and urine residue. This acts like a petri dish for bacteria.

When a man becomes a man, and begins to have erections, the inside layer of the foreskin is often stretched in such a way that it is "external" during sex, therefore being exposed to whatever the outer skin of the males sex organ is exposed to. When the erection leaves, the foreskin falls back into place and the bacteria it may have been exposed to is then drawn back with it, and "protected" until the man carefully cleans himself, and therefore greatly increases the risk of contracting any disesase that the man might have been exposed to. (This could even be the common cold if the man is having sex with a woman who engaged in certain activities with someone who had a cold.)

Beyond that, new parents are told, "Don't retract the foreskin." If, however, you don't, you have automatically increased the risk of the child getting an infection because you cannot prevent urine residue from accumulating there, and you are not really cleaning it if you don't retract the skin.

 

[jessesgirl]

Actually I had my tonsils out as a child because I fought strep throat SO MUCH by the time they took them out. I don't know that to be a routine procedure...but that is a different thread. My point was misinterpreted, though. Jesse's should have been taken out as a child and they weren't. It was so hard on him as an adult where it would have been easy on him as a child. Rather, he had them taken out as an adult and it was miserable...for him and me! LOL Imagine me 8 months pregnant pushing around a 300 man in a wheel chair! If Justin struggles with his tonsils (strep throat, tonsilitis, etc.), I'll take them out as a child...just like I had him circumsized to avoid future issues (as well as for other reasons).

 

[-~Truth_N_Trust~-]

penii.

 

[jessesgirl]

Ha, penii...that's kinda funny.

 

[Mama_Piadosa]

My first post was to address the medical / cultural aspects of circ- this one is to address the Biblical aspect.
(FWIW- I am calling no one an "abuser" my older two boys are circ'd. When you know better you do better.)

The Apostle Paul is very clear that circumcision does not carry *any* spiritual benefit for Christians:
Galatians 5:2-6
2Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. 4You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. 5But by faith we eagerly await through the Spirit the righteousness for which we hope. 6For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.

I have heard Christians say that they circumcise b/c it is in the Bible and they feel it gives a spiritual blessing to their children. The verses above very clearly contradict that idea. Christians have never circumcised historically. People in the US didn't start until the mid 1800's as a punishment for (and supposed prevention of) masturbation, and from there all sorts of medical claims have been attached to the practice. In Europe and Asia today circumcision is still uncommon unless you are Jewish or Muslim. Only 1/3 of the world's male population is circumcised - the US is an anomaly as one of the only Western countries to do it routinely - and those intact men around the world are not having significant problems with their foreskins.

For Old Testament Jews, the foreskin was a blood sacrifice that showed the sign of the covenant - it signified belonging to the nation of Israel by the shedding of blood and being visibly marked. But for Christians, JESUS is our blood sacrifice. That is why Paul writes that our hearts are circumcised by the Holy Spirit, and that the Holy Spirit is what marks us visibly as Christians. Physical circumcision doesn't contribute to that spiritual blessing in any way.

The supposed health arguments that removing the foreskin prevents diseases do not apply to Old Testament circumcision since the whole foreskin was not removed back then - only the tip of the foreskin that extended beyond the glans which was cut off. It wasn't until the time of Hellenism when Jewish men started stretching out their foreskins to appear uncircumcised and blend in with the Greeks that rabbis started removing a lot more of the foreskin so that they couldn't blend in.

Plus, Adam and the first human males were all created with a foreskin - and God didn't create defective people who needed surgery to make them 'clean' and 'healthy' - they were created perfect, the way God intended them to be. Circumcision was a rite and sign for the Jews that involved personal blood sacrifice and visibly set them apart - it was not something intended for all people everywhere or else God would not have created men with a foreskin in the first place. It was a foreshadowing of the role the Holy Spirit would play in marking us as belonging to God and identifying us as belonging to Him.

 

[~Mrs. A2J~]

A2J only feels that way because you always tease him about his, and he knows how you feel about circumsized penii.

LOL No, I love it just the way it is

My mother was a nurse, and she favored circumcision because of Smega. If a person is not careful to keep clean smega can cause issues. I didn't know if my son would be as clean as a mother hopes or not, so I had him circumcised.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has changed its mind year after year about whether there are or aren't medical benefits.

The biggest problem that I'm aware of is that if a man is not careful to clean himself properly he can develop uniary tract infections from the dead skin in nether region.

In March of 2007, the World Health Organization endorces circumcision for HIV/AIDS prevention. (I have no idea why).

These are all things that can happen when a male gets older and can choose whether to take care of himself. Why do we assume that a male can't/won't clean himself?

The American Urological Association also endorses circumcision.

No, it doesn't. It says there are both advantages and disadvantages.
http://www.auanet.org/about/policy/services.cfm#circumcision

The foreskin acts like a repository for cells that the body sheds, secretions from the glands, and urine residue. This acts like a petri dish for bacteria.

When a man becomes a man, and begins to have erections, the inside layer of the foreskin is often stretched in such a way that it is "external" during sex, therefore being exposed to whatever the outer skin of the males sex organ is exposed to. When the erection leaves, the foreskin falls back into place and the bacteria it may have been exposed to is then drawn back with it, and "protected" until the man carefully cleans himself, and therefore greatly increases the risk of contracting any disesase that the man might have been exposed to. (This could even be the common cold if the man is having sex with a woman who engaged in certain activities with someone who had a cold.)

Beyond that, new parents are told, "Don't retract the foreskin." If, however, you don't, you have automatically increased the risk of the child getting an infection because you cannot prevent urine residue from accumulating there, and you are not really cleaning it if you don't retract the skin.

You should NOT retract the foreskin UNTIL it retracts on its own. One of the biggest factors in men needing circumcision later in life is because as infants they had their foreskin forcibly retracted. As an infant the foreskin is adhered to the glan in order to keep bacteria and nasties OUT. Once it retracts on its own THEN the male needs to make sure they retract it in order to clean.

Actually I had my tonsils out as a child because I fought strep throat SO MUCH by the time they took them out. I don't know that to be a routine procedure...but that is a different thread. My point was misinterpreted, though. Jesse's should have been taken out as a child and they weren't. It was so hard on him as an adult where it would have been easy on him as a child. Rather, he had them taken out as an adult and it was miserable...for him and me! LOL Imagine me 8 months pregnant pushing around a 300 man in a wheel chair! If Justin struggles with his tonsils (strep throat, tonsilitis, etc.), I'll take them out as a child...just like I had him circumsized to avoid future issues (as well as for other reasons).

But this is my point, you had your tonsils removed because they HAD to be removed for medical reasons. Why do we remove a boy's foreskin on the slim chance that he might need it done later when we don't do that for anything else?

 

[jessesgirl]

Because we are the parents and we know whats best for our kiddos

 

[~Mrs. A2J~]

Because we are the parents and we know whats best for our kiddos

LOL Why didn't you let on sooner that you were clairvoyant so knew to get Justin done as a baby

 

[jessesgirl]

I am SO good like that

 

[Leanna]

That would make an interesting discussion, but I for one am not convinced that all parents know what is best for their children, which is why there are daily news reports of abuse and murder of children as well as a host of minor issues.

 

[jessesgirl]

I think that's a given, isn't it? I was making a general statement for those of us who DO try and do what's best for our kids, not the rest of the world. I guess, like I said, I thought that was a given.

 

[~Mrs. A2J~]

I don't think that was really necessary. I was simply trying to say that we do the best we can and make the best decisions based on what we know as parents. I guess I should have spelled that out in order NOT to get patronised.

Sorry, I was only playing and not meaning to offend hence the

 

[jessesgirl]

Ok, well I just wanted to make sure I wasn't misinterpreted as being argumentative...sorry, long day . That wasn't the effect I was going for either...hence the

 

[jgonz]

For Old Testament Jews, the foreskin was a blood sacrifice that showed the sign of the covenant - it signified belonging to the nation of Israel by the shedding of blood and being visibly marked. But for Christians, JESUS is our blood sacrifice.

But the one thing doesn't follow the other... Circumcision was (and IS) the sign of G-d's Covenant with Abraham and His promises to him and his descendants. That has really nothing to do with Jesus being our blood sacrifice. Jesus was/Is our Passover lamb sacrifice... the once & forever Atonement for our sin. The Covenant with Abraham had nothing to do with Atonement.

If you read Galatians in context, you'll see that Paul was talking to the Judaizers... the Jewish Believers who were insisting that a person HAD to become Jewish Before they could become a Christian. Obviously that's not true... we are saved through Faith, not physical circumcision. That's why Paul said circumcision didn't have any value~ no value in Becoming a Christian. Paul was a practicing Jew. He didn't change who he was, and he didn't change his background or faith when he became a Believer in Messiah. Jesus didn't come to start a new religion~ He came to fix what had been messed up, remind everyone what G-d's original instructions were, and fulfill prophecy~ by being our Atonement through His blood.

 

[Hadassah]

Amen JGonz.

The circumcision Paul speaks of is that which is done when one converts to Judaism. There are two teachings within Judaism as to when one should be circumcised as a convert - one proponent says "IMMEDIATELY: And you must take on the whole of the oral and written Torah!" (The standpoint of the Judaizers of Paul's day), and the biblical standpoint that one could sojourn with Israel, be what was referred to as a "G-d fearer" and learn the Scriptures and keep the feasts allowed until such a point you felt comfortable taking everything on yourself and you wanted to seek full inclusion into Israel.
It wasn't something you went lightly into. Some people remained their whole lives as "G-d fearers" and only their children were fully integrated into the House of Israel, whereas they were in the middle.

This is as much a concern to rightly divide and understand this segment of Scripture now, as it was in Paul's day, otherwise we completely misunderstand what he speaks of and how important to understand -- that he is speaking of the fact one can still be uncircumcised and have full faith in G-d and be saved, whereas this group said essentially (and it is recorded in Talmud as said by this group) that there is no salvation for those who are not circumcised who come to truth later in their life from the Gentile nations.


Circumcision has been a 'typical' given in my family regardless of our belief in Y'shua. My dad's side has Jewish Heritage on both sides, and it was a 'given' this is what would be done even as assimilated as his side of the family is in the Lutheran, Methodist and Baptist churches. For us, it is a commandment and we're obeying it is one reason, and the health benefits for both parties (a man and his wife) are additional benefits.

For DH it was also a 'given' as he has direct Jewish parentage (no questions about it), and us seeking to obey Scripture as we understand, and what 'hell' he had to go through this past summer.
He and I both don't want that for our little ones.


I've been reading up on the differences in having a Mohel do the circumcision on the 8th day, and what is done in hospital prior to or even after the 8th day - and I can see why so many moms are opposed. It's brutal, it's uncaring (no human contact except the doc doing the surgery itself), it's invasive and it is performed when the body is not ready, willing or accepting of the procedure itself.


When a Mohel circumcises, the baby is held and kept warm, he is in company of others, and no clamping or pulling etc is done. The foreskin is removed quickly and efficiently, and baby may sometimes have petroleum jelly and gauze applied after... sometimes not.
He's recovered in his diaper, hugged and loved on, fed and almost always falls asleep right after the procedure.


In the hospital, if it is done prior to the 8th day there are medical risks of the baby's blood not clotting properly, clamps are used (OUCH!!), the nerves are not ready for it, and the lack of human contact alone is enough to strike fear in a child. He's put on a papoose, his arms and legs held and the procedure done.

From various medical sources:

A new born child is prone to bleeding especially between the second and fifth days of life. The blood clotting factor, Vitamin K is insufficiently in evidence in the bloodstream until the seventh day of life and another blood factor necessary for blood clotting,called prothrombin, is at its one time high peak on the eighth day. Therefore, of all the days of a baby's life, the eighth day is the optimum day for an operation to facilitate wound healing.

An interesting note, even for sacrifices, G-d commanded that the baby animal (lamb, calf, goat..) be left with his mother (dam in KJV) for 8 days and not be taken until that time.

Mohels generally have so many hundreds and thousands of successful and uncomplicated circumcisions that they can testify to, whereas almost any doctor that's had a few hours training can do a circ' in hospital.. Not exactly my idea of expertise and reassurance..

That frightens me. I wouldn't consent to that unless it were a last resort. We're definitely calling a Mohel, no question about it.


Here's a few different resources I could dig up. I had others in books, but my entire library is still in Alabama and I don't know when we can afford to send it here.

Personal story: At my Grandson's Brit Milah
About.com: Judaism: Brit Milah
Wikipedia: Brit Milah
Hanefesh: Brit Milah (Circumcision)
Ritual Circumcision (Brit Milah) and research
Samuel A Kunin, MD: Mohel - Why Circumcision?
Biblical Accuracy and Circumcision on the 8th Day

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2204WebMD: (Hospital) Circumcision overview
WebMD: "What about Circumcision?"
http://www.giveshare.org/BibleStudy/176.circumcision.html

 

[Sadpenguin]

We decided against it, on the grounds of being an unnecessary alteration of my baby's body without his consent.

I have heard that circumcision lowers the risk of certain STD's, including AIDS, but there are other, much better, ways of reducing that risk (like abstinence/faithfullness, or condoms).

Supposedly intact boys need to learn to clean very carefully to avoid infection. A friend of mine had her sons' done later (ages 2, 4 and 6) because of recurrent infections. We only bath our children a few times a week and since our son is now 8 he cleans himself. I'm not sure how adequate a job he does because he's too busy playing but he has never had a problem with it (ie no infections).

Mind you, in 8 years of parenting we've never had any ear infections or UTI's either, so maybe it's just us.

That's absolutely not true about reducing the risk for STDs.

 

[CelticRose]

Actually it is for AIDS. The virus multiplies more readily in the warm moist conditions under the foreskin. I wish I could remember the show I caught the tail end of because the results of the investigation, carried out in Africa, were not expected & quite horrifying ~ to the point they were encouraging circumcision amongst tribes that traditionally don't practise it.