circumcision & Catholic teaching ?

[rayne89]

Like I said you make your choice regarding your children and I’ll make mine. I still don’t agree with your interpretation of the vocabulary you used. I still think you are being extreme.

I am very familiar with surgery I have had several -the first one at 7 months old. In no way do I consider circumcision mutilation, torture, unethical or a violation of human rights. Parents make decisions for their children without their consent all the time. So is getting a baby’s ears pierced a violation of her human rights?

When my daughter was infant I chose to give organic baby food -I did not accuse those who didn’t of poisoning their child.

Extremism loses credibilty. If you need to be extreme your makng up for lack of factual evidence. I’ve read the pro’s and con’s of circumcision -and not from biased anti-circumcision sources but from credible medical ones. I would have chosen to circumcise if we had had a son. You don’t have to worry about me “mutilating” any of our furture children because due to health reasons getting pregnant again would be too dangerous for me.

And you should check the responses from the apologist section about circumcision that I posted. Obviously the church disagrees with the accusations your throwing at those parents who chose to circ their sons.

 

[duskyjewel]

Parents make decisions for their children without their consent all the time. So is getting a baby’s ears pierced a violation of her human rights?

Actually, for all the reasons I have stated, my older daughter did not get her ears pierced until she was 5 and wanted it for herself. My four-year-old still doesn’t have her ears pierced. And yes, I do think it’s wrong. You are putting a baby through a painful procedure which is cosmetic only, benefits her in no way, and has a risk of infection. They don’t understand why they hurt, and they can’t say no, I don’t want you to do that to me.

Just because parents have the power to make decisions doesn’t make every decision they make correct. Might doesn’t make right, in other words. We are obligated to respect our children as people with all the rights we have, and to protect them as being unable to defend those rights.

You have not addressed my point about legality. Why is it that cutting off female foreskins (at its least invasive, this is what female circumcision is) is illegal in the United States, but cutting off male foreskins is not? And how is it that we can accept one class of people being legally protected from having their genitals altered, but not another? I thought we were supposed to have moved beyond giving one class legal rights that other classes do not have. How can this be moral?

 

[Rob_s_Wife]

Actually, for all the reasons I have stated, my older daughter did not get her ears pierced until she was 5 and wanted it for herself. My four-year-old still doesn’t have her ears pierced. And yes, I do think it’s wrong. You are putting a baby through a painful procedure which is cosmetic only, benefits her in no way, and has a risk of infection. They don’t understand why they hurt, and they can’t say no, I don’t want you to do that to me.
**That’s … um ignorant at best. It never occurred to me to leave the choice of sticking them with a needle up to a 5 yr old. **

---

**I got both my dds’ ears pierced between 3 and 5 weeks of age. They didn’t cry one bit and there was less than 1 teeny drop of blood. I took them to the best location and saw to it they got the best care afterwards, which most older children are not responsible enough to do. Neither have ever had a single problem with their earrings. My mother waiting until I was 12 and I promptly showed my irresponsible age and got them both infected due to lack of care. Yet according to you that would have been smarter. **

Just because parents have the power to make decisions doesn’t make every decision they make correct. Might doesn’t make right, in other words.
It’s not an issue of might. It’s an issue of being the adult, with more wisdom and care for their well-being than they are capable of having for many years after their birth. It’s an issue of being the parent.

---

We are obligated to respect our children as people with all the rights we have, and to protect them as being unable to defend those rights.

No we are not obligated to do any such thing. In fact, I’ll go so far as to say I think it’s bad parenting to do so. They do not have ALL the same rights as we have and they shouldn’t have all the rights as we have. Rights require responsiblity and a child is not capable of accepting those responsibilities.

---

I thought we were supposed to have moved beyond giving one class legal rights that other classes do not have.
Then you thought wrong.
1. Lots of classes have rights others do not. Like front row parking for the handicap, not that I mind, but still it’s a right they have that I do not.
**2. Legal does not make a moral right either. **

 

[duskyjewel]

No, legal does not make a moral right. However, most of our legal code is based on moral codes, that is its origin.

How do you get past the equal protection thing? I hardly think handicapped parking is in the same ballpark here. And besides, the argument behind that is to EQUALIZE access. We are saying, with our legal code, that it is OK for parents to surgically remove a certain part of a boy’s body, but that it is not OK for parents to surgically remove the equivalent part of a girl’s body. I don’t get how that stands with our Constitution.

As for the apologist quotes…well, one thing that stood out to me was that there must be medical reasons to justify an amputation to make it permissible. The medical justifications for circumcision are flimsy at best, and most have been debunked. What’s left seems to be an argument over hygiene, which does not need surgical remedy, and penile cancer, which is extremely rare even in the elderly population in which it occurs. Also mentioned were UTIs, which further research has shown are due to structural defects in the urinary tract, not intact or circumcised status, when recurrent.

BTW, why is it when I say, “I believe this is a human rights issue,” I get accused of extremism, yet when someone else says they circumcise because they believe it is cleaner, even though the experience of millions of boys, their mothers, and men worldwide says that that is not necessarily so, that person is not an extremist? (Yes, I went back and read through the thread.)

 

[Rob_s_Wife]

No, legal does not make a moral right. However, most of our legal code is based on moral codes, that is its origin.

What? Umm no, that certainly is not it’s origin. Like most legal code, our laws are based on a need for social stability,economic growth, and power. Not pretty, but more accurate, imho. And completely off topic.

How do you get past the equal protection thing?
Simple, cultural differences have never been given equal protection. At the very least, this is a matter of cultural differences. It is a cultural norm here and so it is respected. It is not a cultural norm to clip girls and it is not respected here. It is a cultural norm in some countries for girls to marry at 12 or 13, but it is illegal here.

---

I don’t get how that stands with our Constitution.
Actually niether issue is in our constitution at all, like most of our laws.

---

one thing that stood out to me was that there must be medical reasons to justify an amputation to make it permissible.
The penis is not amputated anymore than cutting a fingernail is an amputation of a finger.
We do not have to have medical reasons to cut our finger nails or to remove a 6th toe. The simple fact that it is there and may one day pose issues is enough reason, whether it ever actually does or not.

---

The medical justifications for circumcision are flimsy at best
One can say the same for arguments about the justification for not doing it. They boil down to: “It’s just not natural.” and “It might hurt.” Yet there’s many things we do to children that some would claim is not natural and could hurt and yet no one blinks an eye at doing.

BTW, why is it when I say, “I believe this is a human rights issue,” I get accused of extremism, yet when someone else says they circumcise because they believe it is cleaner, even though the experience of millions of boys, their mothers, and men worldwide says that that is not necessarily so, that person is not an extremist? (Yes, I went back and read through the thread.)

Actually, cleanliness is a matter of perspective and may be entirely and personally true. Human rights however presumes the entire world is in agreement and no one should have a choice. That is what got you labeled extreme, imo.

---

Human rights are right no matter what time period or culture you encounter. Defenseless children and elderly shouldn’t be slughtered, people shouldn’t be starved while others watch while eating plenty. Those are human rights issues and snipping a bit of foreskin for any reason does not come close to being on the scale of a human rights issue.

 

[duskyjewel]

I never said it was IN the Constitution. Just how ignorant do you think I am? But there is a federal law protecting girls from circumcision, and no federal law can violate the Constitution.

Also, duh, the penis is not amputated. The foreskin is amputated. To address your comments about how medical justifications for not doing circumcision seem flimsy to you…since when do we have to medically justify leaving the body alone? I think those that want to go cutting parts off of it are the ones who need to offer justifications.

 

[litllulu]

I have never seen an adult uncircumsized penis before. But the women I know who are married to such men claim they suddenly have yeast infections that they have never had before.

 

[duskyjewel]

Something like 90% of the men in the world are not circumcised. So probably at least 90% of the women in the world have had intercourse with an intact man. If a significant portion of them suddenly got yeast infections upon beginning sexual activity, I am sure we would have heard about that. Especially because circumcision advocates would be using it in their arguments. But health organizations and charity groups that provide health care would also be telling us about it. And I’ve never heard this from anyone before. Since I follow these issues, I am sure I would have heard of it at least once before, aside from anecdotal “my friend’s friend said…”

 

[rayne89]

I think Rob’s Wife response was sufficient. I’m not going to keep going back and forth with you. You can see the Catholic Church does not agree with your stance -the church is neutral on the subject. My husband is extremely glad he was circumcised. And since he is a man I will defer to his opinion. He would have wanted any sons we would have had circ’d and I would have agreed. It’s within our parental rights to make that decision -just like it is within your parental rights to choose not to.
God Bless.

 

[Rob_s_Wife]

Just how ignorant do you think I am? But there is a federal law protecting girls from circumcision, and no federal law can violate the Constitution.
**ahem. Actually any federal law can indeed violate the constitution until it is challenged in court, which may never happen or take decades to happen or happen the minute it’s made. For that matter, it can go all the way to the supreme court and be held up at one point and be turned down afterwards when brought before the courts again years later. The constitution is a living document. It is open to interpretation, change, additions, and so forth. **

To address your comments about how medical justifications for not doing circumcision seem flimsy to you…since when do we have to medically justify leaving the body alone?
All the time. Ask any woman who has had the upteenth conversation with her obgyn about why she does NOT need birth control.
Not one person has demanded that anyone justify why they do not circ their sons. YOU are the one telling everyone else they have to justify themselves. And they don’t have to. Not to you. Not to the courts. And so far, our kids or husbands aren’t complaining. So who are you to complain about it or demand justification?

I think those that want to go cutting parts off of it are the ones who need to offer justifications.
**Nope. You can think anythng you want, but they sure don’t need to offer anything. **

 

[KellyEr]

I’ve already done it to the boys I have and was contemplating whether or not to do it to my most recent boy. (all I have is boys) I felt that if I had known 7 years ago, what I know now, I would not have circumcised my boys at all, but how do I not circumcise my youngest and any future boys, when the ones I do have are circumcised. I feel that because I already did it, now I will continue to, but if I could go back and do it all over again, I would have chosen not to.

I have something to add that should be VERY helpful regarding this issue.

My daughter has 6 children, two of whom are boys. The oldest boy is 4 years old, the baby turns one in a month. The four year old is circumcised, the baby is not. My daughter did a vast amount of research while pregnant with the baby and is horrified that she ever put Sebastian (4 year old) through circumcision!
It will not be a problem for Oliver to see that his penis is different than Sebastian’s, mommy will say “Well, he’s circumcised and you’re not”. And kids just accept these things. I doubt he’s going to cry himself to sleep wondering why his penis looks different. He’ll likely cry more because he didn’t get as big a piece of cake! Or something similar.
But the real story is that Sebastian has to have surgery to correct scar tissue build up from the circumcision! Surgery to correct something that needn’t have been done. And this scar tissue build up is strictly the result of circumcision.
I will have my daughter join the discussion to give more info on what she learned about circumcision.
God bless you all in deciding what to do.
Greema~

 

[MooMooLohrer]

Hi Mom!!

Like my mom said, my older boy Sebastian is circed and my baby boy is not. I circed Sebastian for all the normal reasons you hear…“so he can look like daddy” (ummm…daddy has hair and is much bigger down there…), “so he won’t get teased in the locker room” (my dh doesn’t remember anyone’s penis from the locker room…) or “because everyone else does it” (actually in the NW United States more boys are left intact than circed.) So, when pregnant with Oliver (the baby) I happened upon a website that explained the circ procedure and it horrified me!!! I was literally sick with disgust. And sad that I had let it be done to my son without researching it at all or educating myself about the pros and cons.

So, I started researching it and realized it was a completely unnecessary thing to do. The foreskin is similar to our eyelid- it is a mucous membrane. It keeps out bacteria and other harmful things and the penis also makes a certain substance called “smegma” which is similar to vaginal mucus in a female. It is a natural cleansing agent. The foreskin also aids in intercourse as a natural “sleeve” in which the penis slides in and out of. It keeps the vagina from getting dry and chafed and needing extra lubricant. (Sorry, I know this is graphic.)

I am so glad that Oliver is intact. I became reassured that we’d made the right decision when Sebastian was recently diagnosed with Meatal Stenosis. A common complication of circumcision. ONLY circed boys get it. It is caused by the glans (head of the penis) being exposed to urine and feces in the diaper after a circumcision. Scar tissue forms around the meatus (urethral opening) from all the rubbing and chafing which would normally be protected by the foreskin. He will be having surgery to remove the scar tissue next week.

So, long story short…

It’s just not necessary and the old “arguements” for it just don’t hold water.

I hope this is helpful to someone.

God Bless you.
Stacy

 

[MariaG]

Hi Mom!!

Like my mom said, my older boy Sebastian is circed and my baby boy is not. I circed Sebastian for all the normal reasons you hear…“so he can look like daddy” (ummm…daddy has hair and is much bigger down there…), “so he won’t get teased in the locker room” (my dh doesn’t remember anyone’s penis from the locker room…) or “because everyone else does it” (actually in the NW United States more boys are left intact than circed.) So, when pregnant with Oliver (the baby) I happened upon a website that explained the circ procedure and it horrified me!!! I was literally sick with disgust. And sad that I had let it be done to my son without researching it at all or educating myself about the pros and cons.

I personally find making a decision based purely on cosmetic reasons to be very poor reasons and I am glad you chose to delve into the facts rather than basing your decision on such reasons for your next son.

So, I started researching it and realized it was a completely unnecessary thing to do. The foreskin is similar to our eyelid- it is a mucous membrane. It keeps out bacteria and other harmful things and the penis also makes a certain substance called “smegma” which is similar to vaginal mucus in a female. It is a natural cleansing agent. The foreskin also aids in intercourse as a natural “sleeve” in which the penis slides in and out of. It keeps the vagina from getting dry and chafed and needing extra lubricant. (Sorry, I know this is graphic.)

I am so glad that Oliver is intact. I became reassured that we’d made the right decision when Sebastian was recently diagnosed with Meatal Stenosis. A common complication of circumcision. ONLY circed boys get it. It is caused by the glans (head of the penis) being exposed to urine and feces in the diaper after a circumcision. Scar tissue forms around the meatus (urethral opening) from all the rubbing and chafing which would normally be protected by the foreskin. He will be having surgery to remove the scar tissue next week.

So, long story short…

It’s just not necessary and the old “arguements” for it just don’t hold water.

I hope this is helpful to someone.

God Bless you.
Stacy

I am sorry that your son has had complications from the circ. However, respectfully, I disagree with your conclusion and do in fact believe that there are medical reasons to choose to circumcize a boy.

Respectfully, you seem to be assuming that all who have chosen to circumsize did so for the rather superficial reasons you originally did instead of assuming that we just came to a diffferent conclusion than you did after due diligence, prayer and research of circumcision.

 

[Em_in_FL]

Ahhh… I love this topic!

Arguing back and forth… medical benefits both ways…

I just don’t see the big deal in all of it??? There are medical benefits to both choices… and I’m sure we can all find a long list of dandy online references that we can flash back and forth at each other (like having an http site makes a choice like this justified! LOL!)…

Who cares… honestly!?!
I just don’t get it!

 

[jrabs]

Ahhh… I love this topic!

Arguing back and forth… medical benefits both ways…

I just don’t see the big deal in all of it??? There are medical benefits to both choices… and I’m sure we can all find a long list of dandy online references that we can flash back and forth at each other (like having an http site makes a choice like this justified! LOL!)…

Who cares… honestly!?!
I just don’t get it!

You have captured my thoughts too.

Man - some people get sooo heated over what boils down to personal choice. Who can scare the other side into submission.

 

[duskyjewel]

How someone can see taking a newborn child and cutting a perfectly healthy, functioning part off of him as having no moral component and being merely a personal choice is completely beyond me.

Morally neutral personal choices are things like, what color am I putting in my hair today, what vegetable am I serving at dinner, what grade of gas am I putting in my car. Deciding whether to CUT A PART OFF YOUR SON is not just a personal choice on a par with what outfit to put on him!

I give up. I don’t know why I even get involved in these debates anymore, except that perhaps someone who has never thought about it before might get a different perspective and do some honest research. I love my country, but this is one area where Americans are just wacked. Don’t you think it’s odd that we are the only country that has this debate? Most people in the world leave their sons intact and never give it a second thought. The vast majority of the ones who do circumcise do it for religious reasons, which we as Christians do not have.

 

[sanctareparata]

Okay, so here’s where I’m jumping in though I said I wouldn’t.

“Who cares… honestly!?!
I just don’t get it!”

People care because the reasons for circing to some of us don’t make sense.

So it reduces chances of penile cancer. Girls have a greater chance of developing vulvar cancer but we do nothing to girls.

So it reduces chances of urinary tract infections. Girls have a MUCH greater chance of getting a UTI but we do nothing to girls.

It reduces chances of phimosis. Girls can also have attached labia that need the same steroid treatment boys with phimosis get, yet we do nothing to girls.

It reduces smegma. Girls have far more smegma but again, we do nothing to girls.

So we subject our infant boys who are born with perfectly normal and healthy foreskins to a surgical procedure which takes away their natural, God-given ability to have sex as nature intended (and takes away the “right” of the wife to also experience sex as nature intended), to feel normal sensation in the foreskin as nature intended, and to have protection for their glans as nature intended, to give them instead possible complications from the surgery and a risk of infection or death.

So, some of us wonder: WHY? Why is it that we so easily care for the bodies of our little girls, but the bodies of our perfect little boys need “altering”?

“What boils down to personal choice.”

We agree. For us too, the choice is personal. It belongs to the person who “owns” the penis, not his parents who will never have to live with it.

And that’s my issue with it. Adios!

 

[MariaG]

Ahhh… I love this topic!

Arguing back and forth… medical benefits both ways…

I just don’t see the big deal in all of it??? There are medical benefits to both choices… and I’m sure we can all find a long list of dandy online references that we can flash back and forth at each other (like having an http site makes a choice like this justified! LOL!)…

Who cares… honestly!?!
I just don’t get it!

You have captured my thoughts too.

Man - some people get sooo heated over what boils down to personal choice. Who can scare the other side into submission.

Wow, my take is totally different. I see, for the most part, those who circed saying that it is a personal choice with medical reasons for, and against, but the personal choice sided with more reasons than not when it came to making the decision for their child.

Whereas I see, at least lately, those who choose not to circ talking about body mutilation and “debunked” reasons to circ.

Seems like there is one side trying to scare the other into submission, not two.

 

[jrabs]

How someone can see taking a newborn child and cutting a perfectly healthy, functioning part off of him as having no moral component and being merely a personal choice is completely beyond me.

Morally neutral personal choices are things like, what color am I putting in my hair today, what vegetable am I serving at dinner, what grade of gas am I putting in my car. Deciding whether to CUT A PART OFF YOUR SON is not just a personal choice on a par with what outfit to put on him!

Ugh!

It is a personal choice. Period. It’s not one that you would make ( from what I understand of your post ) but it’s not your place to make that choice for others.

 

[jrabs]

People care because the reasons for circing to some of us don’t make sense.

So then just don’t do it. And that is your choice. See, that’s what I don’t get - why must your choice be everyone’s choice?

Why do you feel that you need to sway others? If parents have reasons that they believe are valid for or against circumcising, what do you care?