Circumcision in Modern Times

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cabeelibob
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
That sounds pretty extreme to me. When we were expecting my son, I was quite concerned over whether or not to have a circumcision done. My husband was adamant that it was for the best, but based on the unbiased information I could find (the kind where people refrained from calling one another “idiots”, “sheeple”, “child abusers” or telling them that they needed to “do their research” because they came to a different conclusion then they did.) there really doesn’t seem to be any real harm in doing it, or really any real benefit either. (At least not a benefit that couldn’t be reached in other ways.) I discussed the procedure with my OBGYN, who is NAPRO trained, doesn’t prescribe contraceptives electively, and has no problem being counter-cultural if he feels it is in the best interest of his patients. The main points of his perspective were…

a) that there was a hygienic benefit to the procedure, but provided the parents were prepared to provide and teach appropriate hygiene to their son, it was far from necessary.
b) there was very little risk involved in the procedure and in over three decades of practice, he had never had a report of a circumcision injury or complication from any of the doctors in his practice.
c) that in the state where I live, circumcisions are performed by the OBGYN and not the pediatrician and that arrangement is preferable because the OB has significantly more training and experience in surgical procedure.
d) The procedure is not painful when done with proper local anesthesia and he doesn’t do any procedures on any of his patients in ways that cause unnecessary suffering unless they are hell-bent on it. (Only some of his adult patients insist on medical procedures without pain management.)
e) He has four sons that he loves dearly, all of which have been circumcised and he would never do anything to his children that he did not think was ultimately in their best interest.

Based on that conversation, I stopped arguing with my husband about the procedure, though I would have been just as happy to forgo it if it was left up to me.
 
That sounds like the most humane way to go about unnecessary cosmetic surgery on baby boys’ private parts. Nice!
 
I realize that you really want to believe that everyone who is a proponent of circumcision is secretly only concerned about making their ding-dongs look fashionable, but in charity, you might want to consider the possibility that when the vast majority of people are citing reason involving hygenine, health, protection from illness, etc, it might actually be possible that their intentions really are what they say they are.
 
I just wonder if it wasn’t prevalent in society to begin with, would people bring their baby boys to a doc and say “please, this would potentially eliminate hygiene issues if you would cut off part of my baby’s privates?” 🤣
 
Actually, I think that’s the wrong question. I wonder if we lived in a world where most people didn’t raise their sons with the intention and expectation of them being sexually promiscuous, would circumcision be so prevalent in society?
 
More babies suffer from serious complications due to “circumcision” than “uncircumcised” babies auffer from serious penile infections.

It was a procedure that was popularized by a Protestant who claimed it would prevent masturbation. Exactly the same reason women are “circumsized” in some parts of the world.
 
Both instances are very rare though. It was also pushed heavily, particularly in the military, to prevent syphilis and other VD.
 
I was in high school late 50’s early 60’s…in Australia…after playing sports we always jumped in the showers…you could always tell if any of the kids (boys of course) were European as they weren’t circumcised like aussie boys…don’t know what it’s like there now
 
My brother, who is a pediatrician said "this is hyperbolic nonsense.
 
Really shocking when you realize just how much mainstream Christian thought demonizes masculine sexuality while making a goddess out of female sexuality.

In any event, circumcision is a barbaric antiquated practice which should be outlawed.
 
Last edited:
Allegra said:
That sounds pretty extreme to me.
Click to expand...
I tend to prefer facts and evidence over extremities, so I’m curious what you find so “extreme.” My personal, first-hand experience? ([We’ve known for some time] (http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9712/23/circumcision.anesthetic/) that babies can feel pain even with or without anesthesia, by the way. I’ll trust that yours didn’t). The fact that routine infant circumcision isn’t recommended by any major medical organization?

Rest assured, this is a thread about whether Catholics are in any way compelled to have their sons circumcised. You haven’t violated any Church teachings with your decision, so I’ll leave the issue at that.
 
Cabeelibob said:
My brother, who is a pediatrician said "this is hyperbolic nonsense.
Click to expand...
If you are referring the article about circ. myths, it’s actually based upon a good deal of fact. For example, the myth that babies don’t feel pain or are given enough anesthesia for the procedure: google a couple videos of babies being circ’d.
But more to the point, there is no reason to do the procedure for the so-called hygiene/infection prevention concerns because those can be remedied with proper care (meaning, don’t forcibly retract foreskin), basic hygiene, and topical ointments or anitbiotics if there ever is an infection.
And foreskin has nothing to do with STD’s. (There is no link at all between foreskin presence/absence and extramarital sex. But there IS a link between extramarital sex and STDs. And there are NO studies showing that circumcision prevents STDs.)
 
Last edited:
Even for the Jewish people who still circumcise on the 8th day?
 
Your description of piercing shrieks of agony is what I was referring to, and I am (unfortunately) well-versed in the research regarding infant’s ability to feel pain and the long term effect of not using pain management on newborns, based on the justification that “they won’t remember it.” I’ve had to provide and quote it several times when dealing with nursing staff regarding my daughter’s many medical and surgical procedures. Nothing in this source indicates anything contrary to what my doctor said to me and what I related. The procedure should always be done under appropriate pain management and it won’t be painful. The fact that there are some people who think that babies should suffer without pain management just because “they won’t remember it” doesn’t really pose an argument against the procedure itself anymore than it presented a valid argument against my daughter’s tethered spinal cord release or PSARP surgery. (THe first of which they tried to medicate with Tylenol and the second of which they tried to alleviate with little plastic tubes of sugar water, which they left all over her bassinet as a bonus choking hazard) The issue isn’t the procedure. The issue is that there are medical professionals out there who actually find it acceptable to perform surgery on a child without proper pain management.
 
Yeah my brother, a pediatrician, says sometimes the babies don’t even cry.
 
Cabeelibob said:
Yeah my brother, a pediatrician, says sometimes the babies don’t even cry.
Click to expand...
True. My wife has noted the same in the hospitals. But most of the time, they do. And for those who do not, this is not proof-positive that they don’t feel pain. And even if we accepted that some of them don’t feel much pain, it’s still a needless procedure that puts a baby at more immediate risk that if his foreskin was simply left alone.
 
Freedom of religion is cool until you start performing irreversible surgery on people who are unable to consent. A religion that chopped off the little finger of infants would be regarded as barbaric.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top