circumcision & Catholic teaching ?

[duskyjewel]

Do you know that’s the same thing abortion advocates say? If you disagree with abortion, then don’t have one!

I bet you would argue against that reasoning until the cows came home on that issue, yet you accept the same flawed reasoning when it supports a choice you want to make.

 

[astegallrnc]

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.

As the apologist said here:

Circumcision was established by God and practiced by God’s people in obedience to him for thousands of years until it was superceded by baptism. Given that, we must assume that God would not establish a ritual for his people that can be considered deliberate mutilation and thus intrinsically immoral.

So, why did we circ our son? I do not consider circumcision immoral. As Em said, “there are medical benefits to both choices”. I have witnessed circs (assisted with them when I was in the nursery), read the medical literature (prefer to reach my own conclusions), and prayed. We chose to circ.

Of course, I can’t speak for anyone else.

BTW Sancta, your three children are GORGEOUS!!!

 

[jrabs]

Do you know that’s the same thing abortion advocates say? If you disagree with abortion, then don’t have one!

I bet you would argue against that reasoning until the cows came home on that issue, yet you accept the same flawed reasoning when it supports a choice you want to make.

And this argument always, always, always slays me! The 'ol equating circ to abortion advocates. Pahlease.

 

[duskyjewel]

I am not equating the two issues, I am equating the flawed arguing style. Personal preference has nothing to do with whether something is right, whether it is circumcision, abortion, euthanasia, etc.

And to those who keep insisting there are still medical benefits to circumcision…just where do you find this research? Because the research I have seen shows that every claimed medical benefit for circumcision has been disproven when fully studied. Perhaps I AM reading the wrong stuff…show me where the studies are that show all these benefits.

 

[MariaG]

I am not equating the two issues, I am equating the flawed arguing style. Personal preference has nothing to do with whether something is right, whether it is circumcision, abortion, euthanasia, etc.

And to those who keep insisting there are still medical benefits to circumcision…just where do you find this research? Because the research I have seen shows that every claimed medical benefit for circumcision has been disproven when fully studied. Perhaps I AM reading the wrong stuff…show me where the studies are that show all these benefits.

Every benefit?

I shouldn’t even have to find a study to point out the benefit of not having to get a circ done when an adult because of old age coupled with faulty hygiene.

 

[astegallrnc]

And to those who keep insisting there are still medical benefits to circumcision…just where do you find this research? Because the research I have seen shows that every claimed medical benefit for circumcision has been disproven when fully studied. Perhaps I AM reading the wrong stuff…show me where the studies are that show all these benefits.

We may be reading the same evidence. My interpretation of the evidence does not always agree with the author’s findings. I have read nothing conclusive, so I reach my conclusions after weighing risks and benefits. I consider myself capable of reading research, but since I am whacked maybe not.

 

[Em_in_FL]

I am not equating the two issues, I am equating the flawed arguing style. Personal preference has nothing to do with whether something is right, whether it is circumcision, abortion, euthanasia, etc.

HUH?
Is circumcision defined by the church as being morally wrong?
I’m pretty sure that document hasn’t come out of the Vatican yet…

Abortion, euthanasia… yeah… that tends to involve death.

 

[rayne89]

I am not equating the two issues, I am equating the flawed arguing style. Personal preference has nothing to do with whether something is right, whether it is circumcision, abortion, euthanasia, etc.

And to those who keep insisting there are still medical benefits to circumcision…just where do you find this research? Because the research I have seen shows that every claimed medical benefit for circumcision has been disproven when fully studied. Perhaps I AM reading the wrong stuff…show me where the studies are that show all these benefits.

Just did a quick look on the net right now, it’s been a while since I looked into it, I haven’t been pregnant in 11 years.-here’s a link to the MayoClinic web page mayoclinic.com/health/circumcision/PR00040

 

[duskyjewel]

Why do you insist on dodging the point I am making? Does personal preference make something right? If I had chosen stealing, lying, or something else not involving death would you have actually answered the point I was making? The only reason I even brought up abortion is because that is where you hear this reasoning (if you disagree just don’t do it) most often.

No, it seems the Church has not condemned routine infant circumcision, because God commanded the Jews to do it, so it does not fall under the Catechism quote I posted earlier. That is according to an apologist here on these boards.

Still, since the evidence I have found shows me that there is no medical reason to circumcise newborns, I don’t see how it doesn’t fall under the prohibition against intentional non-therapeutic mutilations and amputations. Since the medical community regards this as not settled, that is the nail they are hanging that on. Never mind that the medical community makes millions every year selling baby foreskins to innovative bandage-making companies, so I don’t know how objective they are being about this. Does the baby get compensated for the value of his foreskin? Are the parents even told that their son’s tissue may be sold to these companies? I think that outfits like the AAP backpedaled on strong statements against routine circumcision because of social pressure and profit motive. Doctors are not any more immune to that kind of thing than anyone else.

 

[MariaG]

Why do you insist on dodging the point I am making? Does personal preference make something right? If I had chosen stealing, lying, or something else not involving death would you have actually answered the point I was making? The only reason I even brought up abortion is because that is where you hear this reasoning (if you disagree just don’t do it) most often.

No, it seems the Church has not condemned routine infant circumcision, because God commanded the Jews to do it, so it does not fall under the Catechism quote I posted earlier. That is according to an apologist here on these boards.

Still, since the evidence I have found shows me that there is no medical reason to circumcise newborns, I don’t see how it doesn’t fall under the prohibition against intentional non-therapeutic mutilations and amputations. Since the medical community regards this as not settled, that is the nail they are hanging that on. Never mind that the medical community makes millions every year selling baby foreskins to innovative bandage-making companies, so I don’t know how objective they are being about this. Does the baby get compensated for the value of his foreskin? Are the parents even told that their son’s tissue may be sold to these companies? I think that outfits like the AAP backpedaled on strong statements against routine circumcision because of social pressure and profit motive. Doctors are not any more immune to that kind of thing than anyone else.

No but apparently you are missing the point many here are making. The article linked had several medical reasons as well as drawbacks to circumcision. The fact that you disagree that they qualify as medical reasons to justify circumcision does not mean others reach the same OPINION as you do.

 

[stadre]

I, for one, cannot direct you to my research. It has been almost 2 years, we were satisfied with our decision and I did not see the need to keep it. If we are ever so blessed to have another pregnancy, we will probably start over. After all, there may be new information out there by that time!

rayne89 has given you a link which does describe the medical benefits. It seems to me that since you are disagreeing, it is your responsiblity to prove these benefits false.

Arguements comparing circumcision to abortion (or lying, stealing, etc) and the sale of foreskins (??) do not change the benefits. As I was doing my research a couple of years ago, all of the anti-circ websites I found had anecdotes such as these. This is a serious medical procedure. I would not consider putting my child through it without cause. And the cause is not removed because there is a chance that the foreskin will be sold.

 

[astegallrnc]

The fact that you disagree that they qualify as medical reasons to justify circumcision does not mean others reach the same OPINION as you do.

Exactly! IMO, circumcision is therapeutic. It is not mutilation or amputation.

 

[kamz]

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

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”?

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!

go back and read my posts on this subject… having my mom tell me of all the woes my poor 69 yr old dad has had to endure with his uncircd penis and his fear of the pain at this age… believe me… I am thrilled we did what was right for our family… and as I was a witness to all 3 of my sons circs… it was so totally nothing… now… when my son fell and hit his head and had stitches… that was a scream… that was terrifying… this is totally up to a parent… you have your opinion but I would never think I was so high up to tell you that your choice is wrong… shame on any parent (including myself) who feel the need to try to come on these boards and make parents feel guilty for their choices… I won’t even tell you what I think of not circing one’s child… its not my business and those are not my kids… where is the charity on this subject??? And we call ourselves christians

 

[rayne89]

Duskyjewel please just be happy with the choice you made for your family and let the rest of us be happy what we would decide. My husband was circ’d as a baby. He does not feel mutilated, or tortured or that his human rights were infringed upon. He is very glad that it was done. It functions just fine and I have no complaints either. Nothing detrimental has happened to him, or our sex life. Most men in this country are circ’d -you don’t see them raising huge protests or screaming about their human rights being infringed upon.

The only place I saw something on the net about foreskin bandages is on a site called sexuallymutilatedchildren.com -sounds very unbiased to me . It may be true, I don’t know. I just didn’t see on a site that wasn’t pushing an agenda.

And calling people whacked because they don’t agree with doesn’t do much for your arguement either.

Enjoy your babies, be happy with your decision and allow other parents to make their own choices on what they feel is best.

 

[MariaG]

Enjoy your babies, be happy with your decision and allow other parents to make their own choices on what they feel is best.

Especially when many of those reasons ARE in fact based on medical facts.

 

[kamz]

Duskyjewel please just be happy with the choice you made for your family and let the rest of us be happy what we would decide. My husband was circ’d as a baby. He does not feel mutilated, or tortured or that his human rights were infringed upon. He is very glad that it was done. It functions just fine and I have no complaints either. Nothing detrimental has happened to him, or our sex life. Most men in this country are circ’d -you don’t see them raising huge protests or screaming about their human rights being infringed upon.

The only place I saw something on the net about foreskin bandages is on a site called sexuallymutilatedchildren.com -sounds very unbiased to me . It may be true, I don’t know. I just didn’t see on a site that wasn’t pushing an agenda.

And calling people whacked because they don’t agree with doesn’t do much for your arguement either.

Enjoy your babies, be happy with your decision and allow other parents to make their own choices on what they feel is best.

Great post… for me that is really what it is about… just enjoy your own children… be happy with your choices and don’t imply that others have done wrong with their kids… we are all good and loving parents who are trying to do the very best for our kids

 

[duskyjewel]

Okay, to take on the Mayo Clinic point by point:

First they say that circumcision makes it easy to wash the penis, but that cleaning an intact penis is also very simple. This is hardly compelling as a reason to circumcise. Also, according to a report in the British Journal of Urology, the circumcised penis actually presents with more problems and requires more care than the intact penis in the first three years of life. Some of these are directly related to cleanliness, such as irritated urinary opening and inflammation of the glans. (source: Van Howe, R., “Variability in Penile Appearance and Penile Findings: A Prospective Study,” BJU 80 (1997): 776–782)

Next they say that intact boys may be at up to 10 times more risk for UTIs than circumcised boys. That’s one way to say it. The other way to say it is that 96-99% of all intact boys still don’t get UTIs. (source: Wiswell, T., Smith, F., & Bass, J., “Decreased Incidence of Urinary Tract Infections in Circumcised Male Infants,” Pediatrics 75 (1985): 901-3; Wiswell, T. et al., “Declining Frequency of Circumcision: Implications for Changes in the Absolute Incidence and Male to Female Sex Ratio of Urinary Tract Infection in Early Infancy,” Pediatrics 79 (1987): 338-42.)

Next, they say that it may prevent future penile problems, and goes on to describe phimosis, though without naming it. Firstly, most American doctors and many parents are so ignorant of how the foreskin works that they may regard a normal foreskin as a problem. The foreskin is not supposed to be fully retractable until after puberty, and there is no set time at which this needs to happen. If all parties agree that the process should be helped along, steroid creams are often very useful. If real phimosis should be occurring, and the man himself regards the non-retractability of his foreskin as a problem or he is having painful or unpleasant symptoms, then circumcision can be pursued. The difference here is that a) there is a medical reason and b) the person who owns the organ is making his own decisions.

Next comes decreased risk of penile cancer. Penile cancer only happens in the very elderly, and is extremely rare even among them. And it seems that circumcision is not quite the remedy some think it is for this. A study in the British Medical Journal showed that the penile cancer rate was, at that time, actually higher in the United States than in Denmark, where circumcision is unheard of except in Muslim immigrants. (source: M. Frisch et al., “Falling Incidence of Penis Cancer in an Uncircumcised Population (Denmark 1943-90),” British Medical Journal 311 (1995): 1471.)

Finally they pull out the newest one…there may be a decreased risk of HIV (and other STD) transmission among circumcised men. This came out of the horrible maelstrom that is the African AIDS problem, so the follow-up study has also been done there. In Kenya, the research showed that it took 56 circumcisions to prevent one HIV infection, with the other 55 men receiving no such benefit. In Uganda, the figures showed that it took 67 circumcisions to prevent one HIV infection, and that the rate of moderate to severe complications from circumcision itself was around 4%. That means that the chance of having a meaningful problem from circumcision was about 2.5 times greater than deriving any HIV protection from it. (source: Goldman, R., “Circumcision Policy: A Psychosocial Perspective.” Paediatrics and Child Health 9 (2004): 630-633.) It would seem that even if there is some reduction in HIV transmission rates attributable to circumcision, it is miniscule and not outweighed by the risk of complications. Plus, if a man decides he wants this benefit, however small, he can still decide to get circumcised before becoming sexually active. It need not happen in infancy. Also, the United States has a very high circumcision rate and one of the highest HIV rates in the industrialized world. (source: Nicoll, A. “Routine Male Neonatal Circumcision and Risk of Infection with HIV-1 and Other Sexually Transmitted Diseases,” Arch Dis Child 77 (1997):194-5.) Even the American Medical Association states that “behavioral factors are far more important risk factors for acquisition of HIV and other sexually transmissible diseases than circumcision status, and circumcision cannot be responsibly viewed as ‘protecting’ against such infections.” (source: Council on Scientific Affairs, American Medical Association. Report 10: Neonatal circumcision, Chicago: American Medical Association, 2000.)

I could post pages, reams more stuff…but I think I’ve made my point. The medical benefits claimed for circumcision have either been completely disproven or called so into question that no one should be claiming to circumcise for medical reasons.

 

[duskyjewel]

Just to add the names of the corporations using foreskins for profit without compensating the owners of said foreskins: Advanced Tissue Sciences, Organogenesis, and BioSurface Technology (I got this from Mothering Magazine, which I am sure you all will regard as a biased source as well. Even I think they are nuts sometimes, but I’ve never seen them lie.)

 

[kamz]

this post is Actually about Catholic teaching and circing… the church states clearly it is up to the parent… so that is fine with me… my dad is not circd and at 69 he wishes he mom would have had him circd… he has suffered with pain for over 10 yrs and he is too scared to have an adult circumcision… my point is… not circing can later come up as an issue in life and if you are afraid of pain like my dad… then what??

 

[duskyjewel]

Yes, I know, and I did post from the Catechism, and had that shot down, and the claims of medical reasons for circing continued. I am just going where the thread leads. And I do actually use my moral beliefs as a Catholic as part of why I did not circ my sons. Which I also discussed.

Well, not to be unkind, but your dad is choosing his fear over solving his problem. No one is forcing him to live with his problem. This is what medical pain relief is for. If he had the surgery, yes, he would suffer pain for a week or two, which could be alleviated though not entirely removed with pain medications. But then he would come out the other side of it and be healed, and his problem would be over. He is refusing to see past the pain and choosing to stay where he is. Perhaps some counseling would be useful to help him get past the hurdle, along with some honest discussions with a urologist about his pain relief options and how long he would actually be in severe pain. How could a couple weeks be worse than the 10 years he has already suffered, and the rest of his life, with his problem?