S
sanctareparata
Guest
Thanks KAMZ. I realize that’s what she said.
Doesn’t address my thoughts, though.
Doesn’t address my thoughts, though.
- Status
K
kamz
Guest
thank goodness the Catholic church is clear that it is up to each parent and it is not a sin and it is not immoral, so anything you say against it is merely your own opinion and has nothing on the Catholic churches teachings… as those are the teachings I care about for my family… not someone else’s personal feelings
B
Brendan
Guest
Note the differece between God ALLOWS and God COMMANDS.
God may allow evil to occur, He does not Command it to happen.
Anything that God Commands, is, by definition a Moral Good.
And as God is Unchanging, so is the Moral Law.
S
sanctareparata
Guest
But you forgot something:
“He ***allowed ***concubines. He even ***commanded ***His people to destroy entire nations - not just the men but the women and innocent children.”
I understand the allowances, but He still commanded His people to take toddlers and small children and murder them…
B
Brendan
Guest
That is not necessaryily a violation of the Moral Law either.
God Himself killed the first born of the Egyptians in order to free the Israelites from slavery.
Did God violate His own Moral Law in doing that?
S
sanctareparata
Guest
Since God is the giver and taker of life, He can take the lives of the firstborn Egyptians as He so pleases. But who killed the innocent children? Human men. They were commanded to do it by God - after they had killed their fathers, they were to go back and slaughter the infants and children as well. If a human man today were to do such a thing outside of the command of God, it would be considered immoral.
Therefore, why isn’t it that if a human man today circumcises a helpless child outside the command of God, why is that not considered immoral? That is the question I have.
There is no command for it today, rather a rebuke not to do it from both NT and whatever Council that was that someone quoted earlier from. Here it is: “Therefore it strictly orders all who glory in the name of Christian, not to practise circumcision either before or after baptism, since whether or not they place their hope in it, it cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation.”
My other concern is that in OT times, circumcision was radically different than it is now. Calling what happened then and what happens today by the same name of *circumcision *is misleading, in my opinion. This is why I think so:
God is the creator of the perfect human body. He intended that men have foreskins for a reason. As has already been stated, the foreskin performs a function in sex (natural lubrication, etc), it protects the glans which was intended by God to be an internal organ, it keeps the glans sensitive, soft and supple, and it has self cleaning properties.
So why would God, by His very nature, desire that a normal, natural, healthy part of the human body He Himself designed be cut? Because cutting then didn’t affect the foreskin to such an extreme that it renders it useless. A “snip” off the end (as was done in OT times) does not ruin any of the aspects of the foreskin. It can still glide in intercourse, it still protects, it still keeps the glans mostly covered. It still serves its God given purpose.
But what is done today is NOT the same as what was done then. Today’s radical surgery completely removes the foreskin, the ridged band, the layers of mucosa, the frenulum, and traumatizes the glans with an additional wound.
Calling both circumcision doesn’t serve my thoughts here - if we call what God commanded “slicing” and what we do today “amputation” you can see my concern that it just isn’t the same thing. Today we remove the healthy functioning part of the body that God intended to be there for a very definite purpose. That is my issue/concern. It just isn’t the same.
So to say that it isn’t immoral because God commanded it defies my logic for two reasons: God no longer commands it and instead the NT speaks out against it, and today’s circumcision is vastly different than the literal “snip” God did command.
This is all medical reasons aside, of course.
Therefore, why isn’t it that if a human man today circumcises a helpless child outside the command of God, why is that not considered immoral? That is the question I have.
There is no command for it today, rather a rebuke not to do it from both NT and whatever Council that was that someone quoted earlier from. Here it is: “Therefore it strictly orders all who glory in the name of Christian, not to practise circumcision either before or after baptism, since whether or not they place their hope in it, it cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation.”
My other concern is that in OT times, circumcision was radically different than it is now. Calling what happened then and what happens today by the same name of *circumcision *is misleading, in my opinion. This is why I think so:
God is the creator of the perfect human body. He intended that men have foreskins for a reason. As has already been stated, the foreskin performs a function in sex (natural lubrication, etc), it protects the glans which was intended by God to be an internal organ, it keeps the glans sensitive, soft and supple, and it has self cleaning properties.
So why would God, by His very nature, desire that a normal, natural, healthy part of the human body He Himself designed be cut? Because cutting then didn’t affect the foreskin to such an extreme that it renders it useless. A “snip” off the end (as was done in OT times) does not ruin any of the aspects of the foreskin. It can still glide in intercourse, it still protects, it still keeps the glans mostly covered. It still serves its God given purpose.
But what is done today is NOT the same as what was done then. Today’s radical surgery completely removes the foreskin, the ridged band, the layers of mucosa, the frenulum, and traumatizes the glans with an additional wound.
Calling both circumcision doesn’t serve my thoughts here - if we call what God commanded “slicing” and what we do today “amputation” you can see my concern that it just isn’t the same thing. Today we remove the healthy functioning part of the body that God intended to be there for a very definite purpose. That is my issue/concern. It just isn’t the same.
So to say that it isn’t immoral because God commanded it defies my logic for two reasons: God no longer commands it and instead the NT speaks out against it, and today’s circumcision is vastly different than the literal “snip” God did command.
This is all medical reasons aside, of course.
M
MariaG
Guest
IF we call. Amputating a limb and removing the foreskin are not the same thing either and it is a concern when people become so determined to be right that they rename a procedure to try to make/support their point.
A
argon091076
Guest
I have two boys and I read somewhere that its all about looks. That’s right. It is basically like getting a tatoo or something of that sort.
My two boys do not have it. My hubby does. We don’t think it is important. We will teach them about it and how it can be different from other boys. However, we will inform them about it so that whenever there comes a situation they will be well informed as to why they are not and others are.
It is not the most important thing. Plus, it is a private part (i.e., not something that will flaunted around). Plus, whenever they get into a serious relationship…we will see how serious it is and they will see, too.
I don’t see why they should get circumcised. There is really no scientific proof that makes it necessary.
My two boys do not have it. My hubby does. We don’t think it is important. We will teach them about it and how it can be different from other boys. However, we will inform them about it so that whenever there comes a situation they will be well informed as to why they are not and others are.
It is not the most important thing. Plus, it is a private part (i.e., not something that will flaunted around). Plus, whenever they get into a serious relationship…we will see how serious it is and they will see, too.
I don’t see why they should get circumcised. There is really no scientific proof that makes it necessary.
F
Fidelia
Guest
It is true that a lot more is taken off today than on OT times. But as far as what you call “cicumcision,” well, etymologically it has nothing to do with a penis and foreskin at all, to begin with. It simply means “cut around.” So you can’t really say cutting off x amount is circumcision, but more than x is not, or something like that.
I don’t think it is right to do to an infant who cannot consent, after having seen a video of one. But that is my personal opinion. Heck, I’m even against piercing the ears of an infant, and circumcision is a much more painful thing than that to do to a baby who can’t understand why they are hurting, imo. But just because it is not required anymore doesn’t make it inherently immoral. But it is an unnecessary procedure that parents should discuss and research and put thought into, and not have done to their baby ‘just because’.
A
argon091076
Guest
Also, if they are not circumcised, the child needs to be taught regular hygiene since early on and explaing him why he should have hygiene in that manner.
The foreskin should be pulled back and only water should be used to rinse it. This should become second nature to them and they should not have any problems.
The foreskin should be pulled back and only water should be used to rinse it. This should become second nature to them and they should not have any problems.
A
argon091076
Guest
I am with you. Circumsizing is torture for a newborn.
M
marybee
Guest
My son did NOT cry once, or after it. They used numbing meds.
S
sanctareparata
Guest
I never said amputating a limb. I never said that removing the foreskin was the same as amputating a limb.
I am only saying that it OT time, the foreskin was snipped but retained. Today it is completely lost. Is that what God intended? That is my question. That that which He created for a definite purpose is now *completely *removed?
I realize this, too. But every American person hear “circumcision” and visualizes what happens today to our boys. They don’t hear “snip as was done in OT times”. I was just “renaming” what it was because most people don’t know there is a difference past and present and/or what the word circumcision actually means.
F
Fidelia
Guest
Yea, once it is naturally able to be pulled back. an infant’s cannot be. they need to poke and prod to detach it before removing it.
R
rayne89
Guest
F
fix
Guest
Because it does not violate any moral principle. The foreskin is not a major organ, is not needed to live or perform the sexual act appropriately, it may be a source of pathology many times, and its removal is understood to be beneficial.
Not all preventive surgery is immoral.
A
argon091076
Guest
It seems that this particular thread/debate will continue for a long time…most of us trying to point out our reasons/opinions for or against. There are only opinions and not to make anyone feel bad, however, some take it wrong. LOL! …oh well…
A
argon091076
Guest
That’s good.
D
duskyjewel
Guest
This should be done ONLY once the foreskin becomes retractable on its own! Never to an infant. The foreskin and glans are fused at birth, and separate over time naturally. (This is also one reason why circumcision as practiced today is so brutal. They literally have to skin the baby’s penis to get the foreskin off!) If you pull it back forcefully before it is ready, you will injure your son and could cause scar tissue, which will cause you tons of problems later. If the intact penis is mistreated, then it can indeed become very problematic.
As for those who claim their sons never cried or even fell asleep… once again I can only talk about scientific research here and not opinion… when studies were done, it was found that not only do newborns feel pain, they feel it more acutely than adults or even older children. Also, that numbing medications, while helpful, are not very effective during the most painful parts of the procedure. Think about it…they put a topical numbing medication on the penis, but they are detaching the inner layers of skin from one another…the topical med doesn’t soak through. And, the “sleep” state that some babies seem to fall into during their circumcision was proven to actually be a shock reaction, wherein the trauma was so great that the baby’s brain shut down his consciousness in order to get him away from what he could not escape. Shock and trauma shut-down reactions were also observed in babies who seemed to stay awake but were very quiet. Sources to follow…
A
astegallrnc
Guest
Some physicians use injections rather than topical medications.
- Status