Should I Circumcise My Baby?

[classylady]

Circumcision of boys has been an emotional and hot topic for years. Parents should educate themselves on the matter, make a decision about it and then be at peace with their decision. I had 3 boys (4 when I count my stepson). My husband and I educated ourselves, made a decision about it, and now neither of us is agonizing about our decision. Sure, there's more information out there than years ago, but, I'm not going to worry about it. None of our sons have complained about our choice. There's no need to make this such a difficult choice. Do what you feel is best, and be at peace with it-- no matter what your decision is. You may even make a different decision with your older boys than with your younger ones. That's okay too. Don't overly worry about it!

Edited August 29, 2016 by classylady

[Guest]

I believe in stabbing my children with hollow metal shards and forcing chemicals into them on a scheduled basis. 

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, unixknight said:

Are you prepared to carry that "elective mutilation" phrase to its logical conclusion, that God commanded it of the Israelites?  Because the use of that particular phrase is obviously meant to be evocative of something awful, and yet it's something that was roughly the equivalent of Baptism for an awful lot of people for an awful long time. 

Can't have it both ways.

Nevertheless, God commanded an awful lot of things during Old Testament times that modern readers could--and do--find deeply disturbing.

Just_A_Girl and I did choose to have the procedure done for our son, because we have extended family members who reported the same sorts of issues @Carborendum alluded to.  But thanks to information from folks like @Vort, it was something we took very seriously.

Edited August 29, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[Anddenex]

The first time I heard the term "elective mutilation" or "genital mutilation" was from Christopher Hitchens (a notorious Atheist), and in similar reference to the morality thread from a former member regarding the morality of God. Hitchens concludes that circumcision is evidence of an immoral God.

Personally, these hot words are pathetic attempts to make a medical procedure more than what it is. My father having been one who was circumcised as a young boy, due to complications, he made sure each of his boys were circumcised to prevent the possibility of us experiencing the same issues. I could care less that I am circumcised and think it is more laughable when people term circumcision with a phrase that includes "mutilation." I have seen the scars of young men and women who mutilate their bodies (for whatever reason in their hearts) and this doesn't come close to circumcision. I have lost my penis foreskin -- big deal...move along. My wife is still happy with her circumcised husband. We have children. If a person believes the silly term "genital mutilation" supports their ideology. OK, your choice.

Mutilate -- "to cause severe damage" nothing severe was done to my body

Mutilate -- "to ruin the beauty of (something) : to severely damage or spoil (something)" nothing on my body lost its beauty, nor was it spoiled (still works properly)

 

[Guest]

I have no strong feelings one way or another (probably since I have only had a daughter).  For that reason, if I ever have a son, I probably just won't mess with it... why fix it if it ain't broke?  But I don't think it really matters one way or the other in the grand scheme of things.  Having had the procedure myself, I certainly don't think I suffer any long-lasting consequences.

Edited August 29, 2016 by DoctorLemon

[pam]

I made the decision to have my boys circumcised and I'm at peace with that decision.  It's a personal decision.  There is no right or wrong answer in my opinion.  I feel like those that chose to have it done are being condemned for it on this thread and that's just not right.

[Vort]

1 hour ago, pam said:

I made the decision to have my boys circumcised and I'm at peace with that decision.  It's a personal decision.  There is no right or wrong answer in my opinion.  I feel like those that chose to have it done are being condemned for it on this thread and that's just not right.

There is a difference between condemning an act and condemning an actor. Even LDS doctrine recognizes that those who sin in ignorance are not condemned the same way as those who sin knowingly. Routine elective circumcision of a healthy infant boy or girl may not be a sin (or then again, it may be), but whether a sin or simply a bad idea, those who do so with the best of intentions are not culpable in the same way as those who do so knowing that they are disfiguring their child. I do not believe anyone here has implied otherwise. The point is that routine elective infant circumcision is a bad thing, not that the parents who elect to circumcise their infant son or daughter are horrible people. I honor my parents and think they were wonderful people, even while I disagree with the fact that they had their sons circumcised. They did the best they knew how with the knowledge and cultural background they had.

Nevertheless, and not withstanding the ignorance or good intentions of parents who circumcise, naming the act of circumcision itself as a mutilation of the genitals -- which by any reasonable definition of terms is exactly what it is -- is not an evil thing. Societies evolve, and some things that were considered normal or even desirable come to be viewed as bad, while some things that were considered evil or perverse come to be accepted and even celebrated. Sometimes we agree with such societal shift, as in the acceptance and place in society of those of African descent; sometimes we disagree, as in the normalization and overt celebration of homosexuality as a lifestyle. But each such change should be judged on its own merit, not on blanket name-calling or demonization of those who dare to proclaim a contrary viewpoint.

Edited August 30, 2016 by Vort

[jerome1232]

The idea that it's inconvenient to circumcise oneself later in life if one wishes to do so being used to justify a cosmetic surgical operation on an infant's genitals strikes me as bizarre. I too view the whole thing as genital mutilation that is only acceptable due to cultural reasons. It may be inconvenient to circumcise later in life but those who were circumcised can never be intact again, ever. Circumcision amputates the most sensitive part of a male's anatomy and also modifies sexual function.

 

All so that we don't have to clean one extra body part while we shower? Come on.

I personally didn't circumcise any of my boys and I strongly encourage parents to very carefully consider whether this procedure is necessary. It is no longer part of a covenant with God. I'm sure many of you would be concerned if I began sacrificing sheep on an altar because "Hey, it used to be a commandment so it can't be a bad thing right?... right?"

[SilentOne]

1 hour ago, jerome1232 said:

It is no longer part of a covenant with God. I'm sure many of you would be concerned if I began sacrificing sheep on an altar because "Hey, it used to be a commandment so it can't be a bad thing right?... right?"

If you take away the covenant and ceremonial aspects from each, then in your analogy circumcising would be like killing animals, which is not a bad thing per se.

[jerome1232]

21 minutes ago, SilentOne said:

If you take away the covenant and ceremonial aspects from each, then in your analogy circumcising would be like killing animals, which is not a bad thing per se.

Great! When are you bringing fido over?

You are right, it was a poor comparison. It doesn't convey what I actually wanted to convey. Maybe. I brought it up only because no one* is ritually sacrificing animals on an altar before eating them. Imho it would be a very strange thing to do. Likewise justifying circumcision based on the fact that it was once a sign of a covenant is equally very strange. In my opinion.

*No regular sane people at least, I hope. I'm speaking of contemporary Christians.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

11 hours ago, classylady said:

Circumcision of boys has been an emotional and hot topic for years. Parents should educate themselves on the matter, make a decision about it and then be at peace with their decision. I had 3 boys (4 when I count my stepson). My husband and I educated ourselves, made a decision about it, and now neither of us is agonizing about our decision. Sure, there's more information out there than years ago, but, I'm not going to worry about it. None of our sons have complained about our choice. There's no need to make this such a difficult choice. Do what you feel is best, and be at peace with it-- no matter what your decision is. You may even make a different decision with your older boys than with your younger ones. That's okay too. Don't overly worry about it!

Classylady, I really like this.  I have four sons, a couple were circumcized, a couple were not.  Back when I was trying to decide, it seemed like such a big deal, but since then it hasn't been.  I think it might have come up in conversation once with the boys and I just explained that sometimes people's opinions change over the years.  I once believed in circumcision and now I don't.  They were fine with that.  None of them have complained.  

Even though I'm against circumcision personally, I think parents should be able to make the choice they feel is best for their boys.  Same with immunization, home school and so many other parenting decisions . . . 

[Guest]

4 hours ago, jerome1232 said:

I brought it up only because no one* is ritually sacrificing animals on an altar before eating them. Imho it would be a very strange thing to do.

While "strange" is a personal and relative term, the first statement is not true.  I had a religion professor tell me of a farmer friend of his who would always say a prayer just before slaying any of his animals.  Just praying may not be unusual.  But the way my professor related -- with all the details -- it sounded very much like a religious ceremony.  Also, the way my professor related it he made it sound as if that is the thing we should all be doing.

7 hours ago, jerome1232 said:

The idea that it's inconvenient to circumcise oneself later in life if one wishes to do so being used to justify a cosmetic surgical operation on an infant's genitals strikes me as bizarre.

That's fine.  I've said similar things about people getting worked up over sports.  Anything will seem bizarre to someone who has a different way of thinking.

7 hours ago, jerome1232 said:

I too view the whole thing as genital mutilation that is only acceptable due to cultural reasons. It may be inconvenient to circumcise later in life but those who were circumcised can never be intact again, ever.

Not true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreskin_restoration

7 hours ago, jerome1232 said:

Circumcision amputates the most sensitive part of a male's anatomy and also modifies sexual function.

ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE!!!

This is one of the three major points that those who oppose circumcision make.  And it is absolutely false.  

1) The foreskin is not a sensitive part of the body.  You may not have a clear understanding of what circumcision actually is.  Female circumcision does do this.  Male circumcision does not.  This is another major difference between the two that makes the comparison unwarranted.
2) It has little to no effect on sexual function.  How many people in the US are circumcised?  How many of them can never stand at attention?  How many of them lose their libido over this?  The rampant immorality in the country ought to tell you that this is not true.  The millions of fatherless children in the country ought to tell you this is not true.  Many more factors ought to tell you this isn't true.  

Do you honestly believe that circumcision is going to lead to species extinction?

7 hours ago, jerome1232 said:

All so that we don't have to clean one extra body part while we shower? Come on.

Nope.  That's not the nature of the problem.  If that were all it was, that wouldn't be worth thinking about.  What I'm talking about has nothing to do with how often I shower or clean myself -- or when (post-coital).  This is quite different.  If you're intact I would find it difficult to believe that you wouldn't have problems with it.  But you may be one of the many I've come across who have problems but don't realize the problems are caused by the foreskin.  If you're circumcised, you really don't know what it's like.

7 hours ago, jerome1232 said:

It is no longer part of a covenant with God. I'm sure many of you would be concerned if I began sacrificing sheep on an altar because "Hey, it used to be a commandment so it can't be a bad thing right?... right?"

I'm aware it's no longer a covenant with God.  Whether it is or not has nothing to do with the argument.  But the last part of this quote is close to the correct message.  And I'm having trouble understanding why this is not a valid argument with anyone.

It's not like it was a single event or an exception to the rule.  It WAS the rule for thousands of years.  We're not talking about  a cultural tradition.  We're talking about a commandment from the Lord.  When it was done away with it was never even advised against nor was it forbidden such as with polygamy.    And we have NOTHING from the Lord -- even from modern prophets -- that say anything negative about it.  NOTHING.  

Name one commandment that was the rule for an extended period of time and where NOTHING bad is said about it where we have a moral obligation to abstain from?  Without the moral obligation, what is the basis for the vehement disagreement here?

The church has counseled against ear piercings, tattoos, and many other forms of "objectionable" behavior with regard to our bodies (see @mordorbund's earlier post) .  But we have heard nothing regarding circumcision.  With that in mind what is the justification for comparing it (from a religious viewpoint) to female circumcision or any other type of bodily mutilation.  And to compare it to abortion or homosexuality is completely unjustified since it is not a sin.  

Anything can be compared to anything horrific when put in the right context. A man in my ward compared leaving the lights on in the church to viewing pornography.  Yes.  Making such comparisons does not necessarily put it into the same category.  That is all mental gymnastics.  I compare circumcision to scraping away of callouses or cutting away the skin off of a blister.  That's about how much function the foreskin has.  That is my justification for making such a comparison.  Is that considered "mutilation"?  Not by the definitions that @Anddenex  gave earlier.

If we just look at Jews alone, it seems that the only side-effect of the practice is that it increases the chances of receiving a Nobel Prize or having doctors and lawyers in the family.

7 hours ago, Vort said:

But each such change should be judged on its own merit, not on blanket name-calling or demonization of those who dare to proclaim a contrary viewpoint.

I only see "demonizing" being done by people on your side of the fence.

Edited August 30, 2016 by Guest

[unixknight]

Ok, let's put aside the sparring for a second and go realtalk mode, @Vort, because I'm inclined to think you don't really mean to be as inflammatory as you're coming across but that's what happened.  So here's the thing, and I'm sincerely looking to lay this one to rest peacefully here so work with me:  You obviously have strong feelings on the subject and that's fine.  The problem here is that you're using some strong terms which are very inflammatory and insulting to people who see things differently hand have made choices along those lines.  Is it your intention to cause that response?  Again, I think it probably wasn't, but I think you're smart enough to see why it's a problem.  You aren't showing any respect whatsoever to your brethren who see it differently and decide differently, and you have no moral basis for that.

You don't get to make up your own sins, dude.  The Church isn't saying circumcision is a sin, you are.  I think that you're trying to be generous by separating the people who make the choice to circumcise their sons from the decision itself, but it isn't coming across that way at all.  This isn't a matter of "love the sin, hate the sinner" because this is not a sinful thing.  If you want to call it sinful then you need to cite some scripture or statement by the General Authorities to back that up, otherwise you're coming uncomfortably close to preaching false doctrine.

[pam]

Well now that I feel like I've been told I sinned in ignorance regarding this...I'm done with this conversation.  Again....I'm at peace with my decision.  If others feel that it's best not to have this done...that's fine.  I get that.  But please don't call me ignorant (which was mentioned twice now).

[anatess2]

I'm still scratching my head.  I have 2 sons.  They're circumcized a few hours after birth.  Same doctor.  He didn't remove anything.  Just sliced the thing open.  It bled and they used the blood to do some pediatric tests.  Anyway, my boys have "turkey necks" down there.

By the way, the decision was made as a family (my side, my husband's didn't care one way or the other even as my husband had his done as an infant).  Every male member of my side of the family had it done.  My dad and his 5 brothers had it done all at the same time when my dad was 10 years old and his oldest brother was about 15.  They have crazy stories about going to this guy with a machete and chewed banana leaves on the seaside... whacked their things open and they ran to the sea.  They're all like - Australians have roundabouts, we have the guy with the machete.  My brothers and cousins had it all done in varying ages - some at birth (both my brothers had theirs at birth), the others a bit older with some in their teens.  My oldest brother was the first to have a son among my siblings and he didn't get it done.  His son asked to have it done at age 12.  My sister's son was next and she didn't get it done either, he asked to get it done when he turned 12.  My other brother's son asked to get it done when he was around 10 and whined that my brother, who is a neurologist who does circumcisions for free as a service to the town, should have had it done when he was a baby.  So when my boys were born all of my siblings told me, just get the thing done and be done with it.   So we did.  That's the thing about tight knit families... it becomes Tevye Tradi----tion!  And then, of course, my boys, now in their teens, hear the family stories and they are like, "My parents are the best!", so we take a bow.  Hah!

 

Edited August 30, 2016 by anatess2

[Guest]

32 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I'm still scratching my head.  I have 2 sons.  They're circumcized a few hours after birth.  Same doctor.  He didn't remove anything.  Just sliced the thing open.  It bled and they used the blood to do the required pediatric tests that they do.  Anyway, my boys have "turkey necks" down there.

Well, if it doesn't gross people out, this looks like a time to get away from the debate for a bit and describe the various procedures.

1. You've described the "splitting" procedure.  That's less invasive.  But it does leave the rather noticeable "turkey neck" you describe.
2. There's the "pull n cut" procedure.  This is simply pulling it forward by hand and cutting it off.  Many doctors apply a local anesthetic.
3. There's the "constricting" procedure.  This involves the use of something like a rubber band and a hardened surface (a dome shaped device) to pull the foreskin over.  Tightening the elastic material over the hard dome device and constricting the skin for an extended period.  This causes the skin to die and fall off naturally.  Done properly, this is relatively painless.  If the doctor is in a hurry, it can be easy to mess up.
4. There's the squeeze n' cut procedure.  This involves pulling the foreskin forward and pinching it with a clamp.  This is the favored procedure among Jewish mohels I've worked with.  The pinching is not intended to cause the foreskin to die as in the constricting procedure.  It is meant to reduce the amount of blood so that less blood is spilled during the cutting.  It also acts as a non-chemical anesthetic.  They then cut the skin at the edge of the clamp.  The more skilled mohel will be able to pull forward enough to minimize the "turkey neck".  The most skilled will produce no blood during the process.  Three of my sons never even whimpered during the process (without anesthetic).  The other one was done by a less skilled mohel who didn't do the best job.  But it wasn't botched either.  The earlier mohel moved to Israel and was thus unavailable.
5. I'm sure there are other methods that are available.  But this is enough to give the general idea.

One common part of circumcision is that of the separation of foreskin from the glans.  A large percentage of males are born with them actually connected.  This is not simply laying on the surface of the glans.  There is actual connective tissue.  Much concern is voiced by circumcision detractors about the additional invasiveness of the procedure for such males.  If you've ever seen the procedure, it really isn't that invasive.

After the procedure, a bandage and antibiotic ointment is applied for a time.  Some parents don't quite know how to properly care for the appendage during this time.  That causes some problems.  This is unfortunate because proper care is a rather simple thing.  But my sister who is not completely ignorant had some issues with her first born son.  Our older sister had to give her a bit of an education on the matter.  Then all was well.

After this discussion, I've become motivated to buy a clamp off of Amazon and do the thing myself.  I'll have to do it around the Holidays because of recovery time.

Edited August 30, 2016 by Guest

[unixknight]

26 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

After this discussion, I've become motivated to buy a clamp off of Amazon and do the thing myself.  I'll have to do it around the Holidays because of recovery time.

I dunno man... feels like something you should really leave the procedure to an expert.  I mean, I respect the whole DIY thing, but there are limits. 

[omegaseamaster75]

32 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

After this discussion, I've become motivated to buy a clamp off of Amazon and do the thing myself.  I'll have to do it around the Holidays because of recovery time.

I think you should go for it...keep us posted on the results....

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, unixknight said:

I dunno man... feels like something you should really leave the procedure to an expert.  I mean, I respect the whole DIY thing, but there are limits. 

I can understand that concern.  But I delivered my last baby without a professional.  After seeing six of them done by "professionals" I really wondered what I was paying them for.

Similar thing with this issue.  I've seen it done by "experts".  And I recognize some pitfalls.  So, I wouldn't do it to another son (if I had one).  But I feel pretty confident that I can do it.  But I haven't made up my mind with certainty.

5 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

I think you should go for it...keep us posted on the results....

If I do I'll let you know.

[unixknight]

34 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I've become motivated to buy a clamp off of Amazon and do the thing myself.

Does it look like this?

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Does it look like this?

LOL!!  I saw that.  And it really made me wonder.  He made it seem like they cut off the glans along with the skin.  Nope!  Not doing that!

[unixknight]

3 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

LOL!!  I saw that.  And it really made me wonder.  He made it seem like they cut off the glans along with the skin.  Nope!  Not doing that!

Haha inorite?!?!?!?

[Blackmarch]

On 8/29/2016 at 8:08 AM, ldsnet said:

"Will he be circumcised?" the nurse asked. One question a parent of newborn boy needs to answer is should I circumcise my baby? What, if anything, does The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have to say on the issue? Is there a stance on Mormon circumcision? Why is Circumcision Religious? The reason circumcision has a religious nature is because God told Abraham to be circumcised. "This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised." -Genesis 17:10 Circumcision has then been kept as a religious ritual among the Jewish people ever since. The Lord revealed to Joseph Smith that the Abrahamic Covenant was applicable to Latter-day Saints. Though the only portion of the covenant specifically mentioned is the promise of eternal increase. Do Christians Circumcise? Some Christians are almost certainly circumcised. While there isn't good data on a religious basis, there are simply too many circumcisions performed in the United States for none of them to be performed on Christians. The more interesting question is...

View the full article

There isn't any religious reason either way- we aren't bound bound to the ordinances of the Mosaic law anymore (we are still bound to what they symbolized or were supposed to teach however). there aren't many health reasons either way either. Probably closest i can think of is getting your ears pierced. If kept  it will require a bit more care than otherwise.

[omegaseamaster75]

You'll need a couple of things.....

[Guest]

It looks like this

 

Unfortunately, it isn't sold on Amazon anymore.  So, I'll be paying through the nose for another source.

And, no, the strap-down bed was not used on any of my boys.

Edited August 30, 2016 by Guest