K
kamz
Guest
Ha, thats funny
- Status
K
kamz
Guest
kamz:
I’ve been posting here for almost 3 years and this is like the zillionth time this topic has come up and each time it ends up getting closed since women feel the need to throw hurtful unchristian remarks, that is sad.I do respect you & I’m glad we’re on the same side. I just don’t agree with your line of reasoning here! But this certainly is an interesting, thread, isn’t it?
When it comes down to it there is nothing wrong with circing or not circing a baby boy, it is up to each parent, if the church wants to get involved and lay down some rules, I’m open to that but until that happens, I’m very happy that my husband and I were allowed to make this decision between us, we didn’t take it lightly, we read on it and researched it and prayed about it and for our family this was the right way to go and I’m sure each family goes through that too. It’s time to start reaching out in support to eachother.
Peace
M
MariaG
Guest
I remember when I was researching the issue, one of the articles I was reading talked about there being no medical reason to circumcize infants. It then went on to talk about a ?% ( I was going to put 10% but I am no longer positive of the percentage, but it was significant enough in my mind) higher number of infections in young boys who were uncircumcized as opposed to those who were circumcized.
But there was absolutely no medical reason to circumcize infants.
Never quite understood how the with a higher rate of infection translates to absolutely no medical reason.
But there was absolutely no medical reason to circumcize infants.
Never quite understood how the with a higher rate of infection translates to absolutely no medical reason.
M
mominne
Guest
mominne:
I’m glad the decision was between you and your husband & I do truly respect that. I definitely fall into the “crunchy mother” line of thinking on most things. Though I believe very deeply that I’m doing the right things in the way we live, the thing I believe most in is the sanctity of the family. The role of the mother and father in decision making on behalf of their children should be carefully guarded. There are many (misguided I believe) liberals in the natural living community, from which I have many friends. The thing that scares me about so many of them is that they would like to force their belief system on others through the government. When I engage in these debates, my main goal is to bring another point of view to the table. I hope that parents consider all of the facts and opposing points of view and do not simply make decisions based on conventional wisdom or cultural norms. If I’ve caused people to think a little harder about certain things, I’m happy. Beyond that I’m just happy to know that the vast majority of kiddos of the parents on this board have parents that love them and are trying to bring them up in the faith. That is awesome. I know I’ve rambled, but for whatever reason, I thought I’d share!
B
beckyann2597
Guest
We are expecting a 3rd child and the topic of conversation came up. We have a family friend whose husband is not circumsized and she has told me that she has had many infections that she attributes to it. We will have our sons circumsized, and that is one of the main reasons.
K
kamz
Guest
kamz:
thank you so much for sharing, I can tell you are a very good, caring, loving mother who is putting her children first and foremost and that is what I think we are all doing and that is why many get touchy because we all love our kids so darn much and any time we feel someone (even if it wasn’t the intention) suggesting we don’t think of those kids first and foremost, we are like cats with the hair standing up on our backs. I know I would certainly lay down my life for my children without a second thought so I admit to getting my hairs up sometimes too, I’m trying so hard to be the very best mom to these children that God wants me to be that there is plenty of self doubt each day that maybe I’m not doing my best, I can be my worst enemy and I come here to find support from other moms, being a mom is not easy and it is good to hear other ideas than our own and also to realize others worry about doing the best for their kids too.
Peace to you and thanks for sharing
K
kamz
Guest
Well, as long as the decision is between you and your husband and prayerfully considered, you’ll do the very best you can do and feel good about it.
I know my hubby and I had to make the choice together, both had to understand it, witness if happen and be 100% with it, I didn’t think I could watch my sons be circ’d but I did as did hubby and I’m glad I did and I’m thankful to wonderful doctors who allowed me to hold my sons right away and comfort them.
congrats!!
J
James_Miller
Guest
The Catholic boys in Mexico are not circumcised. Nor are the Catholic boys of Italy, Spain, Portugal, Poland, France, Germany, Quebec, 
etc… It is ok for American Catholic boys to be circumcised but it is NOT because they are Catholics (for goodness sake) but because they are following American social custom (not created by Catholics).
etc… It is ok for American Catholic boys to be circumcised but it is NOT because they are Catholics (for goodness sake) but because they are following American social custom (not created by Catholics).
T
thomasf
Guest
My only response to this subject whenever it comes up is the story of my sister’s father in law. At age 60+ something he had to be circ’d because his foreskin was torn, infected, etc and he couldn’t properly urinate. And he was in great pain. He had it done and was in more pain for another month. He said it was the worst thing ever. Then after it healed and it was better he said he felt like a new man without all the problems with his foreskin he had all his life. He was of the opinion that if people knew of the problems he had in life with it, every boy would have it done.
I don’t remember having it done, i was just days old. And now I’ll never have to worry about having those problems.
Seems like a no-brainer to me.
I don’t remember having it done, i was just days old. And now I’ll never have to worry about having those problems.
Seems like a no-brainer to me.
L
laariii
Guest
I’m really suprised that non-jewish & non-muslims still do this.
It’s not common where i live(12.9% in 2003)
It’s not common where i live(12.9% in 2003)
D
duskyjewel
Guest
Haven’t read the whole thread (awfully long), so I don’t know if this came up already…
Females have foreskins too. Why isn’t it OK to cut those off? Why would you NEVER consider circumcising your daughter, but you do it to your boys? That right there, as far as I am concerned, ends the debate. My boys have the same right to expect that their bodies will not be cut up as do my daughters.
I think alot of the objections Americans have to uncirced boys just show our immaturity. Bad smells? Well, an unwashed vagina smells pretty bad too. So be clean. Looks wierd? Only because we are used to looking at mutilated penises. So grow up and learn to accept what is, don’t make it be what you want. Look like dad? Seriously, wouldn’t you think something was pretty amiss in a family where dad and sons stood around comparing thier penises to one another? And plus, they all look different. I have two uncirced sons, and their penises look different from one another, and from their circed father’s.
I really think this is a human rights issue. My husband and I have no right, whatever our reasons, to force unnecessary COSMETIC surgery on our sons. We have no right to force them to assume the risks that come with surgery (infection, nerve damage, anesthesia complications) for no good medical reason. (Example: My youngest son just had surgery in March, to repair the beginnings of an inguinal hernia. His scrotum was painfully swollen and if left alone, the condition could lead to bowel strangulation, which can lead to death. THAT is a case where the risks of surgery were outweighed by the benefits. Wanting his penis to look a certain way does not meet that standard.)
Another thing I think many people are not educated about is the origin of mass circumcision in the United States. Before the Victorian late 1800s, there was no history of mass circumcision in the U.S. It was started by Victorian doctors, caught in the same anti-sexual mass hysteria as the rest of the culture, to punish little boys for masturbating. We can debate the desirability of masturbation as a behavior, but I think we can all agree that dragging a child to a doctor and having a living, functioning part of his penis cut off without anesthesia (to have a “salutary effect on the mind”) is more than any parent should do as a reaction to it. Yet that is where this started. The practice moved to the time of birth as a preventative for masturbation. That whole disgusting, unethical mess is NOT a heritage I want to pass on to my sons.
And while anesthetics are used today in most cases, there are still times and places where they are not. And no one knows how effective or safe those drugs are for newborns. Then, once the initial anesthetic wears off, the baby has at least many days of pain and tenderness on one of his most sensitive parts.
I just don’t understand why anyone wants to take a brand new baby and give him all that pain and risk.
Females have foreskins too. Why isn’t it OK to cut those off? Why would you NEVER consider circumcising your daughter, but you do it to your boys? That right there, as far as I am concerned, ends the debate. My boys have the same right to expect that their bodies will not be cut up as do my daughters.
I think alot of the objections Americans have to uncirced boys just show our immaturity. Bad smells? Well, an unwashed vagina smells pretty bad too. So be clean. Looks wierd? Only because we are used to looking at mutilated penises. So grow up and learn to accept what is, don’t make it be what you want. Look like dad? Seriously, wouldn’t you think something was pretty amiss in a family where dad and sons stood around comparing thier penises to one another? And plus, they all look different. I have two uncirced sons, and their penises look different from one another, and from their circed father’s.
I really think this is a human rights issue. My husband and I have no right, whatever our reasons, to force unnecessary COSMETIC surgery on our sons. We have no right to force them to assume the risks that come with surgery (infection, nerve damage, anesthesia complications) for no good medical reason. (Example: My youngest son just had surgery in March, to repair the beginnings of an inguinal hernia. His scrotum was painfully swollen and if left alone, the condition could lead to bowel strangulation, which can lead to death. THAT is a case where the risks of surgery were outweighed by the benefits. Wanting his penis to look a certain way does not meet that standard.)
Another thing I think many people are not educated about is the origin of mass circumcision in the United States. Before the Victorian late 1800s, there was no history of mass circumcision in the U.S. It was started by Victorian doctors, caught in the same anti-sexual mass hysteria as the rest of the culture, to punish little boys for masturbating. We can debate the desirability of masturbation as a behavior, but I think we can all agree that dragging a child to a doctor and having a living, functioning part of his penis cut off without anesthesia (to have a “salutary effect on the mind”) is more than any parent should do as a reaction to it. Yet that is where this started. The practice moved to the time of birth as a preventative for masturbation. That whole disgusting, unethical mess is NOT a heritage I want to pass on to my sons.
And while anesthetics are used today in most cases, there are still times and places where they are not. And no one knows how effective or safe those drugs are for newborns. Then, once the initial anesthetic wears off, the baby has at least many days of pain and tenderness on one of his most sensitive parts.
I just don’t understand why anyone wants to take a brand new baby and give him all that pain and risk.
A
astegallrnc
Guest
After prayerful consideration and review of the medical literature, my DH and I chose to circ our DS.
R
rayne89
Guest
Good for you. I see you have a very strong opinion, that’s fine -your welcome to it. It doesn’t change my mind. If we had had a boy he would have been circumcised. It is not inhumane - I think your exasgerations hurt your credibilty. This what what we would have chosen, you are free to chose differently.
D
duskyjewel
Guest
Uh…okay. What exaggerations? Point them out and I will address them.
D
duskyjewel
Guest
And since the original thread asks about Catholic teaching, the Catechism is very clear:
PART THREE: LIFE IN CHRIST
SECTION TWO THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
CHAPTER TWO YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF
Article 5 THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
II. Respect for the Dignity of Persons
2297 Kidnapping and hostage taking bring on a reign of terror; by means of threats they subject their victims to intolerable pressures. They are morally wrong. Terrorism threatens, wounds, and kills indiscriminately; it is gravely against justice and charity.
Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity. Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law.
I provided a quote of the whole section here to avoid anyone claiming I edited it to my preference, and bolded the most relevant parts. Preventing possible future illness does not meet the definition of “strictly therapeutic medical reasons” because in order to be therapeutic, care must be alleviating a current problem. Hygiene concerns do not meet this definition either. And frankly, my sons have never had any problems in this regard. Circumcision, in the absence of a medical problem, does meet the definition of a directly intended amputation or mutilation.
PART THREE: LIFE IN CHRIST
SECTION TWO THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
CHAPTER TWO YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF
Article 5 THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
II. Respect for the Dignity of Persons
2297 Kidnapping and hostage taking bring on a reign of terror; by means of threats they subject their victims to intolerable pressures. They are morally wrong. Terrorism threatens, wounds, and kills indiscriminately; it is gravely against justice and charity.
Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity. Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law.
I provided a quote of the whole section here to avoid anyone claiming I edited it to my preference, and bolded the most relevant parts. Preventing possible future illness does not meet the definition of “strictly therapeutic medical reasons” because in order to be therapeutic, care must be alleviating a current problem. Hygiene concerns do not meet this definition either. And frankly, my sons have never had any problems in this regard. Circumcision, in the absence of a medical problem, does meet the definition of a directly intended amputation or mutilation.
A
astegallrnc
Guest
I disagree.
R
rayne89
Guest
Ok…
a) the use of the word mutilated
The use of the word unethical
The use of the term human rights issue.
No one knows how effective or safe the drugs used for circumcision is for newborns. Really? Local anesthesia is used every day for numerous procedures including countless circumcisions on infants. Obviously if there was a problem something would have come to light by now.The FDA just lets doctors use any old medication without testing for safety of effectiveness.
It’s removing some skin not open heart surgery.
Now if you don’t like the idea don’t do it. You don’t have to accuse those who chose differently of being unethical penis mutilators or violating the human rights of their children.
a) the use of the word mutilated
my hubby is cir’d and his penis looks perfect to me, nor was any essential part removed. Foreskin is not essential or God wouldn’t have instruct jews to remove it.
The use of the word unethical
Obviously circumcision is well within approved standards in the US. (And in Jewish circles around the world.)
The use of the term human rights issue.
Circumcision is neither unlawful nor torture, nor is an one being executed.
No one knows how effective or safe the drugs used for circumcision is for newborns. Really? Local anesthesia is used every day for numerous procedures including countless circumcisions on infants. Obviously if there was a problem something would have come to light by now.The FDA just lets doctors use any old medication without testing for safety of effectiveness.
It’s removing some skin not open heart surgery.Now if you don’t like the idea don’t do it. You don’t have to accuse those who chose differently of being unethical penis mutilators or violating the human rights of their children.
R
Rob_s_Wife
Guest
You could try reading the thread to start.**Circ-ing did NOT start with the notion it would prevent masturbation. It was done well before then by the upper classes who could afford it. Lower classes didn’t get it done because they didn’t generally get any medical care at all and shoddy care at best. **
For the most part it can be a very safe procedure with very little, if any, pain. (Procedures vary greatly - do research and ask your dr what method he is using!)
As others have said, not everyone does it “just for looks”.
You have read things that have led you to your choice.
Others, such as myself, have read information (maybe even the same information!) that led us to our choice.
**And I don’t decide what to do for my sons according to what I do or don’t do for my daughters. That’s silly. They are not the same. Maybe I should force my sons to wear bras because they have breasts too? (It’s not their fault their flat-chested!) Why should only girls suffer the inhumane torture of the underwire?
However, if you want to go down that road - there actually are modern day locales in Africa, Asia, and South America that do in fact “clip” girls too. It’s a sign of ignorance and poor upbringing in those areas to come from a family that didn’t see to it the procedure was done.
****Human rights my booty. We have a human right to life, liberty, and the mere pursuit of happiness.
**
D
duskyjewel
Guest
Ok…
a) the use of the word mutilated
Etymology: Latin mutilatus, past participle of mutilare, from mutilus truncated, maimed
1 : to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect
2 : to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of
The parts I colored green make the point of why I used this word. I don’t soft-pedal, and I don’t euphemize.
my hubby is cir’d and his penis looks perfect to me, nor was any essential part removed. Foreskin is not essential or God wouldn’t have instruct jews to remove it.
One’s opinion of how a penis looks is totally irrelevant. Which is one of the things anti-circers try to point out. Jewish circumcision was not only different from what is practiced today (a small cut, not the removal of the whole foreskin, from what I have read) it is completely irrelevant to what Christians should do. Acts of the Apostles tells us that much. The foreskin comprises up to 80% of total penile skin and cutting it off disrupts the entire circulatory structure of the penis. Its underside is mucus membrane with specialized immunological cells. I guess it’s not essential, in that a person can live without it, but it would seem to be a fairly essential part of penile structure.
The use of the word unethical
Obviously circumcision is well within approved standards in the US. (And in Jewish circles around the world.)
So because the majority thinks it’s right, it is? Since when have Catholics EVER subscribed to that thinking?
The use of the term human rights issue.
Circumcision is neither unlawful nor torture, nor is an one being executed.
Have you ever had a functioning part of your body cut off, and then had to deal with pain for days afterward while it healed? I think whether it’s torture or not should be left to the people having it done to them. Even necessary surgery can feel like torture. The only reason it’s not illegal in this country is because we are sexist. Female circumcision is expressly illegal in the United States. A law that makes something illegal for one sex but not another would seem to be unconstitutional and violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. If this question ever got before the 9 Supremes, I don’t see how they could allow it to stand.
No one knows how effective or safe the drugs used for circumcision is for newborns. Really? Local anesthesia is used every day for numerous procedures including countless circumcisions on infants. Obviously if there was a problem something would have come to light by now.The FDA just lets doctors use any old medication without testing for safety of effectiveness.
No one can do trials on infants…it’s unethical BECAUSE THEY CAN’T CONSENT. And many drugs are used on children that have been tested on adults but not on children. Any doctor who is being honest will admit that that in and of itself is a huge experiment, because children react differently and it can’t be predicted. And the FDA is not the panacea you would believe it to be. Doctors use medications in all kinds of unapproved ways every day. Example: Cytotec for inducing labor. It’s an off-label, unapproved use, but the FDA has not stopped it.
Now if you don’t like the idea don’t do it. You don’t have to accuse those who chose differently of being unethical penis mutilators or violating the human rights of their children.
- Status