Circumcision and infant pain

[thinkandmull]

I use to struggle with the “problem of pain” but now understand better how God could allow, nay, even sustain a person in pain and yet not be doing wrong because it is all for a greater good. I don’t see, however, how God could command people to do something to an infant that causes it pain when He could prevent the pain. So I believe know that the Jews used some kind of pain killer when infants were circumcised.

What do you think?

 

[BartholomewB]

I use to struggle with the “problem of pain” but now understand better how God could allow, nay, even sustain a person in pain and yet not be doing wrong because it is all for a greater good. I don’t see, however, how God could command people to do something to an infant that causes it pain when He could prevent the pain. So I believe know that the Jews used some kind of pain killer when infants were circumcised.

What do you think?

Of course they didn’t. There’s nothing wrong with circumcision.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

Life is full of pain, from birth to death.

 

[billcu1]

Of course they didn’t. There’s nothing wrong with circumcision.

There’s nothing wrong with circumcision and it’s also not needed. I am glad I was “clipped” I don’t need that thing. As for sexual pleasure I really don’t care. They used to think infections were more common with the foreskin. Well I’m going to leave it at that this is kind of OT.

 

[porthos11]

I was circumcised as an infant and have absolutely no recollection of the event. So as far as I’m concerned, it never really happened, except for the obvious physical evidence.

Therefore, it’s no big deal for me, and I’ll bet it’s no big deal for any other guy who was circumcised as a baby.

 

[TARRAT]

Being born is traumatic. The head is squeezed. The air is new and colder than they are used to. They now feel hunger for the first time. And all is forgotten. Nobody remembers any of that and are none the worse for it.

 

[JerryZ]

Not to mention that some people have HAD to be circumcised (not due to religious beliefs) in their ripe old age BECAUSE they were in pain.

Believe me you have NO idea how painful it can get if you suffer from the condition.

.

 

[Catholic1954]

My grandson never seemed to notice it.

 

[billcu1]

Being born is traumatic. The head is squeezed. The air is new and colder than they are used to. They now feel hunger for the first time. And all is forgotten. Nobody remembers any of that and are none the worse for it.

The skull is still quite pliable when being born. After an infant is born the plates of the skull bind together more tightly.

 

[ethereality]

how God could command people to do something to an infant that causes it pain …] infants were circumcised. …] What do you think?

First, I think it is important to ascertain whether what God commanded is the same practice currently done in American hospitals. fisheaters strongly argues here and here that what God commanded the Jews to do was radically different from what Americans do to their infants today. So I think it is important to distinguish between Biblical circumcision and modern American male genital mutilation. I think the pain is also substantially less, in proportion to the reduced amount of flesh being cut away.

As for pain, as C.S. Lewis observes in The Problem of Pain, it can serve to point us out of ourselves towards a greater reality. This would explain pain adult converts would have experienced. As for infants who apparently lack cognitive resources to integrate it, perhaps their suffering is the consequence of sin corrupting our environment, as other things like natural disasters and allergic reactions: Perhaps sin results in an environment whereby humans must develop pain receptors at an earlier age than was God’s original plan. (We need more defense mechanisms in response to more attacks.)

You might also note that God deliberately causes women to suffer more pain in childbirth as a punishment for original sin – and, apparently, increases their reward proportionately for bearing children.

 

[Deus_tecum]

Hmmm…we tell folks one reason abortion is wrong is because a baby feels pain. What other chunk of healthy flesh would you cut off your baby and claim “it’s no big deal”? There is no logical reason to mutilate boy’s genitals.

 

[Ignatius]

I believe that the Jews used some kind of pain killer when infants were circumcised.

Do you have any evidence of this?

 

[porthos11]

Hmmm…we tell folks one reason abortion is wrong is because a baby feels pain. What other chunk of healthy flesh would you cut off your baby and claim “it’s no big deal”? There is no logical reason to mutilate boy’s genitals.

That is your decison and is to be respected.

Other parents feel differently and because there is no moral prohibition on it from the Church, their decision is to be respected as well.

It IS no big deal, and I speak as a circumcised fellow. And I would hardly call myself mutilated. And yes, I am glad I was circumcised as in infant. No big deal.

 

[ethereality]

there is no moral prohibition on [the current practice of American hospitals, possibly different from Biblical practice] from the Church,

Oh really? The Church expects us to use our reason and apply general moral principles, which lead to the condemnation of male genital mutilation. The Church doesn’t have to explicitly denounce every single thing before we know it’s wrong or choose to stop doing it.

(And the Church’s silence does not imply one should respect an erroneous viewpoint. But yes, “in all things, charity” – to the person, not an idea.)

It IS no big deal, and I speak as a circumcised fellow.

You have the right to speak for yourself, not for everyone who suffered various operations at American hospitals.

And I would hardly call myself mutilated.

I would.

No big deal.

This is astounding. Because you personally think it is not a big deal for you, you declare it is not a big deal for anyone else? If this is what you mean, it is highly egocentric. For others it is a big deal, and that logically implies that it is not “no big deal”.

 

[ethereality]

Hmmm…we tell folks one reason abortion is wrong is because a baby feels pain.

I think this is actually incorrect. Who tells people feticide is wrong because the baby feels pain?

We tell folks the baby feels pain to try to wake them up to the fact that the baby is a person like them. Feticide is not wrong because the baby feels pain. It’s wrong because the baby is a person, etc.

 

[BartholomewB]

general moral principles, which lead to the condemnation of male genital mutilation.

General moral principles certainly do not lead to that conclusion. That’s just your prejudice, which is amply demonstrated by your choice of words, “male genital mutilation” instead of “circumcision”.

 

[Deus_tecum]

That is your decison and is to be respected.

Other parents feel differently and because there is no moral prohibition on it from the Church, their decision is to be respected as well.

It IS no big deal, and I speak as a circumcised fellow. And I would hardly call myself mutilated. And yes, I am glad I was circumcised as in infant. No big deal.

Your’s is a common belief. People tend to think that because they were mutilated as babies, and that most other guys were also mutilated, and such practice is legally and socially acceptable, that it is therefore good. We learned about this in Sociology years ago; that laws over time create a sense of right and wrong in a society. I find the phenomena fascinating. Muslims hope to achieve similar moral standards with the practice of female circumcision. Indeed already many burqa clad women feel their oppressed condition is right and good.

 

[DaisymaeD]

I thought I read somewhere that part of the circumcision ritual they give the baby a little wine. Sadly, I don’t have a citation for this.

 

[porthos11]

Your’s is a common belief. People tend to think that because they were mutilated as babies, and that most other guys were also mutilated, and such practice is legally and socially acceptable, that it is therefore good. We learned about this in Sociology years ago; that laws over time create a sense of right and wrong in a society. I find the phenomena fascinating. Muslims hope to achieve similar moral standards with the practice of female circumcision. Indeed already many burqa clad women feel their oppressed condition is right and good.

Maybe. I’m from the Philippines originally and I would not have it any other way. Circumcision is just expected. It’s not something that’s morally required, only that we believe that it’s the more hygenic practice. Feel free to disagree, but you don’t get to impose your opinion on others on this matter, just as we don’t get to impose ours.

I am not mutilated. I am merely circumcised. It IS acceptable and it IS fine. Just as remaining uncircumcised IS acceptable and IS fine. There is leeway for both positions.

 

[thinkandmull]

First, I think it is important to ascertain whether what God commanded is the same practice currently done in American hospitals. fisheaters strongly argues here and here that what God commanded the Jews to do was radically different from what Americans do to their infants today. So I think it is important to distinguish between Biblical circumcision and modern American male genital mutilation. I think the pain is also substantially less, in proportion to the reduced amount of flesh being cut away.

As for pain, as C.S. Lewis observes in The Problem of Pain, it can serve to point us out of ourselves towards a greater reality. This would explain pain adult converts would have experienced. As for infants who apparently lack cognitive resources to integrate it, perhaps their suffering is the consequence of sin corrupting our environment, as other things like natural disasters and allergic reactions: Perhaps sin results in an environment whereby humans must develop pain receptors at an earlier age than was God’s original plan. (We need more defense mechanisms in response to more attacks.)

You might also note that God deliberately causes women to suffer more pain in childbirth as a punishment for original sin – and, apparently, increases their reward proportionately for bearing children.

Women may have pain from child bearing because their bodies were corrupted. The Catechism says that God does not impose punishment but lets it take its course. Anyway, infants are innocent. I **totally **disagree with posters on here who are saying that a Good God could command something painful to an infant when He could have prevented the pain. That’s awful