question about babies

[Backroads]

barbaric practice

Do you think the God of Jacob felt that way?

Law makers are discussing the possibility of removing this religious exemption and make it completely illegal unless determined to be medically necessary.

This is why I don't like the idea of removing the religious exemption in any country.

There is a lot of religious significance to it for some faiths.

[Guest]

Yep. This argument goes on and on forever. Because one side refuses to listen to the other. At least the AAP is not blind enough to only see only one side of the argument.

So, instead of treating those who opted for circumcision to the rack and public burning of Bad Parents, maybe you can acknowledge that we're not just stupid idiots making this decision for vanity reasons - like cutting a toe or stuffing feet in small shoes or putting neck rings. We don't make you feel like stupid idiots for opting not to cut your boys.

It's funny to me that every cut male that I've ever asked while researching this when my son was born said they never felt deprived of their skins and have no problems being cut. EVERY ONE of them. Including my dad who had it cut at age 10 without anesthesia together with 4 of his brothers/cousins - just an uncle with a knufe, a wood block, banana leaves and the salty sea.

I'm done with this stupid thread.

Edited February 18, 2014 by anatess

[carlimac]

I really don't see what the big deal is. My husband has never missed his. Not ever. I suppose you could wait and allow your sons to make the choice, but by then it's a huge pain in the um...you know what. Your son may very well harbor lots of resentment toward you for not having it done when he was a newborn. Just something to think about. Time needed off work that they could have used vacationing instead? What do they tell their buddies or curious co-workers about their surgery? Seriously. Just get it done and be done with it. No regrets or hassle later. His future wife will thank you.

[Finrock]

Hi Vort. I hope you're doing well. :)

Leave your son's penis alone. If he wants to cut part of it off, let HIM do it when he's an adult.

As an adult, infant boys will not receive the benefits associated with circumcision.

Easy. You can stop propagating such a barbaric practice in the next generation.

Hyperbolic nonsense.

The sooner routine infant circumcision dies out, the better for us all.

Again, nonsense and completely contrary to medical evidence. Evidence shows that circumcision is better for all of society.

The argument, "Why fix if it isn't broken" is hypocritical. We provide vaccines to our children even though they have nothing wrong with them in order to prevent issues. It is better to prevent an issue than to cure it. Circumcision provides this type of protection.

There are a multitude of reasons why circumcision should be done to all infant boys. The benefits far outweigh the risks.

EDIT: And anesthesia takes care of the hurtful/painful part. Although I think it is safe to say that no male who was circumcised as an infant has any recollection of the event anyways.

-Finrock

Edited February 18, 2014 by Finrock
Clarification

[Vort]

Do you think the God of Jacob felt that way?

Honestly? Yes, I think he did. But circumcision was already practiced among many people, including Hebrews, as a derivative of sex ("fertility") cult practices. I expect God simply co-opted existing practices and redirected them for his own purposes.

It should also be noted that "circumcision" in ancient Israel involved removing only the tip of the foreskin, leaving the rest of the foreskin intact. It was only with the Maccabean revolution in the two centuries before Christ that the rabbis (not the prophets) insisted on the far more radical and damaging denuding of the glans as "circumcision". This was done in direct response to the Hellenization of the Jews. Many wealthy Jewish families wanted their sons to attend Greek academies (γυμνάσιον, Latinized as gymnasium, where γυμνός (gymnos means "naked"). Such attendance depended on the boy being physically perfect, which is to say, no deformities or missing body parts. Under some circumstances, Hebrew boys could regrow the shape of the missing tip of their foreskin using the "pondus judaeus". This device was an ancient soft tissue expander that worked by applying tension to the remnant foreskin. (Other Jewish men used this to avoid being identified as Jews and persecuted during the reign of Antiochus, immediately preceding the Maccabean period.) The rabbis saw such activity as a revocation of the Abrahamic covenant, and so demanded that the circumcision be made far more radical so that it could not be as easily undone.

Short version: The circumcision established by the Abrahamic covenant was not the radical circumcision performed today on American babies.

And for the record, I don't think you or other parents evil for having circumcised your babies for social reasons. Obviously, I think you misguided and poorly informed, but I don't think ill of you. However, doing something hurtful in ignorance is far different from seeking to justify that hurtful action later on.

I am ashamed of the fact that I allowed my first son to be circumcised. But I did not allow that shame to blind me to what was going on, and my other three sons were left intact. I cannot give back to my oldest boy what was taken from him shortly after birth, and I rue that foolish decision almost daily. But there is no reason for my other sons, or for my grandsons, or for any other of my male descendents, to suffer for my first foolish decision. I expect to answer to God for my first action, but I will not have to answer for having continued mutilating my later sons' genitals just because I had done it to my first and was too proud (or perhaps horrified) to recognize my act and repent of it.

I do not hate or resent my parents for having had me circumcised. They did the best they knew. But by the same token, I do not say, "Hey, it was good enough for me, so it's good enough for my posterity from now to eternity."

Take the emotion and defensiveness away. Look at this for what it is: Parents cutting up their sons' genitals. This is not good. The madness must stop. Let it stop with our generation. Maybe it's a small thing, but it's real, and it is not good.

Parents should not be surgically modifying their infants' healthy genitals. It really is as simple as that.

[Jenamarie]

Hi Vort. I hope you're doing well. :)

As an adult, infant boys will not receive the benefits associated with circumcision.

Hyperbolic nonsense.

Again, nonsense and completely contrary to medical evidence. Evidence shows that circumcision is better for all of society.

The argument, "Why fix if it isn't broken" is hypocritical. We provide vaccines to our children even though they have nothing wrong with them in order to prevent issues. It is better to prevent an issue than to cure it. Circumcision provides this type of protection.

There are a multitude of reasons why circumcision should be done to all infant boys. The benefits far outweigh the risks.

EDIT: And anesthesia takes care of the hurtful/painful part. Although I think it is safe to say that no male who was circumcised as an infant has any recollection of the event anyways.

-Finrock

Given my family's medical history, my daughter's breast tissue poses a far greater health risk than do my sons' foreskins. Should I have her breasts removed now, as prevention, before they become risky, or should I let them perform their God-given biological function until such time as a real threat occurs?

[Bini]

Given my family's medical history, my daughter's breast tissue poses a far greater health risk than do my sons' foreskins. Should I have her breasts removed now, as prevention, before they become risky, or should I let them perform their God-given biological function until such time as a real threat occurs?

I made the same point.

[MarginOfError]

As an adult, infant boys will not receive the benefits associated with circumcision.

This doesn't match up with the benefits you've cited. All of the benefits given in the links you've provided are benefits to adults. And the only one that has any statistical consensus behind it is in regards to the transmission of HIV. Since infants aren't likely to be having sexual intercourse, I don't think that you can claim the infant is going to miss the benefits of circumcision.

It's also worth pointing out the when you do find statistical evidence of a benefit, such as in the transmission of HIV, those benefits are found in areas that already have significant public health problems. Perform those same studies in a region with markedly better public health policies (like, cheap and easy access to clean water, for example), and those benefits will disappear.

Again, nonsense and completely contrary to medical evidence. Evidence shows that circumcision is better for all of society.

Not quite. Evidence shows that in some regions, circumcision has benefits for society. But extrapolating those results to the world population would be inappropriate.

The argument, "Why fix if it isn't broken" is hypocritical. We provide vaccines to our children even though they have nothing wrong with them in order to prevent issues. It is better to prevent an issue than to cure it. Circumcision provides this type of protection.

There are a multitude of reasons why circumcision should be done to all infant boys. The benefits far outweigh the risks.

The benefits in some observational studies seem to outweigh the risks. But nearly every one of those risks can be mitigated through proper education about how to keep the foreskin clean.

The pamphlets you link to are simultaneously entertaining and maddening to me. It touts that circumcised men can have up to 20 fold decrease in risk for penile cancer--a condition that affects between 0.0003% and 0.001% of the adult male population. Best case scenario: the stated reduction in risk is overstated, but a smaller risk reduction may be present. It is highly unlikely that this reduction would be clinically meaningful.

How about a 60% reduction in risk for prostate cancer? Prostate cancer is something of a bogeyman. Yes, lots of men get it. Very few men who develop prostate cancer die from prostate cancer, even when it goes undiagnosed. We're taking a good long hard look at how we treat prostate cancer because there is a lot of money that could be saved by not treating non aggressive prostate cancers.

Based on the pamphlets, I'd say the only claimed benefits worth looking into are for old men and men with diabetes. Neither of those conditions apply to infants.

As far as comparing circumcision to vaccination--well that's just ludicrous. When the death rates from infant UTI start to approach the death rates of infant and child measles, then maybe we can talk. Or when infant UTI becomes a communicable disease, then maybe we can talk. Until then, that comparison should never see the light of day.

So, again, I'll point out that statistically speaking, there's absolutely no objective reason to circumcise or not circumcise an infant. The whole argument is a matter of spin and emotional rhetoric.

[Bini]

I continue to agree with Vort. Even if you've circumcised your first son or sons (or never have another son), you can still make a difference, by discontinuing the encouragement or practice of such an unnecessary procedure. Maybe one day, less people will be less informed. Stop removing your child's body parts.

[Bini]

MOE, I respect your knowledge in knowing the facts based on statistics. I think the point is more about removing a body part that is not yours to remove. Why do it if there's virtually no difference in outcome (according to your research)? Then let the child live as a whole person and that decision can be made down the road.

We don't put infants and children into surgery to remove parts based on WHAT IF? And, especially if the removal of it doesn't make much a difference at all, then let them keep it.

[Swiper]

Theological question: Did God make a mistake when he gave man a foreskin? If not, isn't it then a violation of his creation to remove it?

[MarginOfError]

MOE, I respect your knowledge in knowing the facts based on statistics. I think the point is more about removing a body part that is not yours to remove. Why do it if there's virtually no difference in outcome (according to your research)? Then let the child live as a whole person and that decision can be made down the road.

We don't put infants and children into surgery to remove parts based on WHAT IF? And, especially if the removal of it doesn't make much a difference at all, then let them keep it.

We remove sixth fingers and sixth toes routinely. What makes the foreskin any different.

Not to say that I advocate circumcision. I am neither for nor against. But that's just to make the point again that the argument is all about spin and emotion.

[MarginOfError]

Theological question: Did God make a mistake when he gave man a foreskin? If not, isn't it then a violation of his creation to remove it?

This is also a ludicrous argument.

Playing out the logic in this supposition, if God made a mistake when he gave man a foreskin, then God ceases to be God. But if God did not make a mistake, then commanding circumcision violates his own creation by removing it? Wouldn't that also cease to make him God?

The problem with the argument you're bringing up is that it is based entirely on subjective reasoning. As such, I don't think it has any place in the discussion.

[estradling75]

Interesting note... God gave males the foreskin and then commanded Abraham and all the males in his house to be circumcised. A law that remained in force until Christ came and got his church up and running.

This puts God in the camp of Parents who have Circumcised their Sons... While he has rescinded the command to circumcise. But he has not given the command that we must Not circumcise. God seems to be fine with either at this point. Which puts him also in the camp of Parents who have Not Circumcised their Sons... If God seems to be ok with either way why can we all be ok with it?

[Anddenex]

Let's the parents decide...go with what you feel.

My father was circumsized when he was 4 becuse his foreskin kept getting caught in his zipper...my poor father. To this day, my father is still frustrated with his parents for not circumsizing him while a baby, because he now has memory of the excruciating pain that comes with circumcision.

On my mission, a 40 year old went through circumsion...even in a day and age of cleanliness and he was doing what the doctors said, but for some reason he was always getting an infection, so he removed it as an adult...ya, he was wishing during the healing that he was circumsized as a child.

Do or do not...who cares...make a decision and run with it. Don't let others determine you either way.

[Vort]

Let's the parents decide...go with what you feel.

My father was circumsized when he was 4 becuse his foreskin kept getting caught in his zipper...my poor father. To this day, my father is still frustrated with his parents for not circumsizing him while a baby, because he now has memory of the excruciating pain that comes with circumcision.

On my mission, a 40 year old went through circumsion...even in a day and age of cleanliness and he was doing what the doctors said, but for some reason he was always getting an infection, so he removed it as an adult...ya, he was wishing during the healing that he was circumsized as a child.

Do or do not...who cares...make a decision and run with it. Don't let others determine you either way.

You would not say the same about cutting off your infant's toe. You would not even say the same about circumcising your daughter -- a practice that many thousands of women defend as virtuous and healthful. Your cavalier attitude is unwarranted.

[Vort]

Interesting note... God gave males the foreskin and then commanded Abraham and all the males in his house to be circumcised. A law that remained in force until Christ came and got his church up and running.

This puts God in the camp of Parents who have Circumcised their Sons... While he has rescinded the command to circumcise. But he has not given the command that we must Not circumcise. God seems to be fine with either at this point. Which puts him also in the camp of Parents who have Not Circumcised their Sons... If God seems to be ok with either way why can we all be ok with it?

By this logic, you can put God in the camp of Parents Who Have Killed Their Children, Parents Who Have Allowed Their Children to Be Raped, etc.

Justifications of the form "God anciently allowed such-and-such supposedly abominable practice, so therefore it's perfectly okay" are always weak.

[Guest]

It's also weak to compare removal of some skin to removing an entire body part, and to infer that removal of the skin renders the part useless. That's not the case.

[estradling75]

By this logic, you can put God in the camp of Parents Who Have Killed Their Children, Parents Who Have Allowed Their Children to Be Raped, etc.

Justifications of the form "God anciently allowed such-and-such supposedly abominable practice, so therefore it's perfectly okay" are always weak.

Difference is God commanded circumcision and never gave an command not to circumcise. All your counter points God has given clear commands Not to Do it.

By your logic because God commanded circumcision he is a mutilator... And that he should have just left the Penises alone. Either you have to rebuke God for his actions or acknowledge that circumcision can be ok to be done to little babies for no other reason then parents believe it is the right thing to do.

[Bini]

It's also weak to compare removal of some skin to removing an entire body part, and to infer that removal of the skin renders the part useless. That's not the case.

Maybe not "useless" but it does affect sensitivity and perhaps even changes the sensational pleasure for a male as time goes on.

When I started off as a CNA I had the responsibility of showering patients. Some of these patients were uncut males, in various stages of their lives, some young and some beyond middle-aged. I learned that you use a wash cloth to clean underneath the foreskin and not to use spray from the showerhead to rinse because of sensitivity - sometimes extreme sensitivity. I know with cut males, this is not the case. My point being, removing the foreskin does in fact hamper (to some degree) the sensation of the head of the penis. This is why many medical professionals believe that uncircumcised men maintain longer sex lives, due to the head being protected.

[Vort]

It's also weak to compare removal of some skin to removing an entire body part,

Not when the skin is the body part. Amputating the foreskin removes 1/3 to 1/2 of the nerve endings in the distal end of the penis, and completely alters the mechanical properties of sex. The foreskin is far more than "some skin".

and to infer that removal of the skin renders the part useless.

No one claimed the penis was "rendered useless". But if you don't have a foreskin, then the foreskin is indeed rendered useless.

[Vort]

Difference is God commanded circumcision and never gave an command not to circumcise. All your counter points God has given clear commands Not to Do it.

By your logic because God commanded circumcision he is a mutilator... And that he should have just left the Penises alone. Either you have to rebuke God for his actions or acknowledge that circumcision can be ok to be done to little babies for no other reason then parents believe it is the right thing to do.

Using your own logic:

Either you must rebuke God for his actions in commanding Nephi to kill Laban or you must acknowledge that killing a drunken man can be ok to be done for not other reason than the killer believes it is the right thing to do.

[estradling75]

Using your own logic:

Either you must rebuke God for his actions in commanding Nephi to kill Laban or you must acknowledge that killing a drunken man can be ok to be done for not other reason than the killer believes it is the right thing to do.

Utter fail... Please take the time to read my posts. I explicitly say that for all your examples there was a clear don't do it from God. Thou Shall not Kill is a commandment. God can give an exception no one else. There is no commandment that says Thou Shall not circumcise to counter God's command to Abraham and to Ancient Israel. The closest we get in the scriptures is that it doesn't matter any more.

[Anddenex]

You would not say the same about cutting off your infant's toe. You would not even say the same about circumcising your daughter -- a practice that many thousands of women defend as virtuous and healthful. Your cavalier attitude is unwarranted.

As I said, not for you or anyone else to decide what a parent chooses. The person who is being cavalier is you...I am well within my realm of stewardship...parents decision.

I thought we were talking about circumcision which the Lord commanded...? Did the Lord command circumcision for daughters?

[Vort]

Utter fail... Please take the time to read my posts. I explicitly say that for all your examples there was a clear don't do it from God. Thou Shall not Kill is a commandment. God can give an exception no one else. There is no commandment that says Thou Shall not circumcise to counter God's command to Abraham and to Ancient Israel. The closest we get in the scriptures is that it doesn't matter any more.

Utter fail at proclaiming a fail. Your logic was garbage. That was my point.