Is circumcision mutilation?

  • Thread starter Thread starter YHWH_Christ
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
YHWH_Christ said:
but imo the pros outweigh the cons.
Click to expand...
I’m my opinion Freyja is my goddess but catholics think it’s a demon so opinion is only worth so much.

As for doctors I provided stats.

Also not all “pros” are equal to “cons” one to one.
 
The CDC and AAP still very much recommended circumcision and have doubled down on their defense of it in recent years. If it’s good enough for them then it’s good enough for me. Also all we can have is opinion on this topic because the debate certainly hasn’t been settled.
Also not all “pros” are equal to “cons” one to one.
Click to expand...
Yes, this is why I said the pros outweigh the cons.
 
Last edited:
That’s is indeed a very weird take. What if the tables were flipped? Would you opt for a cosmetic surgery for your newborn daughter if a portion of the US male population found it aesthetically pleasing? (Which by the way is a US only issue since women in other countries have no issues with men that are intact)
 
That’s a false dichotomy. Because it is factual that female circumcision is mutilation and thus would be unethical in any circumstance including for “aesthetics”. This is not the case for males.
 
Last edited:
I never knew the Church even taught anything about it. When asked if I wanted it for my kids, I figured if it was good enough for Jesus, it was good enough for them.
 
Having joined the world of parenthood in the last year, I am a member of a large online community for mother’s/parents which has a heavy US slant.

The topic of circumcision comes up A LOT, but for where circumcision is not very common (Europe, Australia etc), the view is that it is akin to mutilation. A large number of American mothers are also now hoping the anti circumcision brigade when the subject arises.

My husband was circumcised for medical reasons, but my son has not been. The subject of it even being an option never even came up. As it stands, only about 3% of children in the UK are circumcised shortly after birth, the remaining 5% who do have the procedure done are due to medical reasons. Overall rates are very low here and the general outlook is ‘why cut bits off a baby when you don’t have to?’
 
Last edited:
I have thought that in order to remove a bodypart morally, there should be a somewhat acute medical need. A hypothetical, contingent health benefit wouldn’t cut it.

The Catechism 2297 states:
Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations , mutilations , and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law.
Click to expand...
 
The AAP doesn’t recommend it.

They leave it to the parents.

Most of the world doesn’t do it unless it’s for religious reasons.
 
No, it is intrinsically evil to perform cosmetic surgery on an infant’s genitals. Now that we know better.
Or any cosmetic surgery on any baby body parts.
Unless possibly if said baby is going to spend a lot of time in the desert, which is perhaps why it’s commonly done in a certain region of the world and in fact has religious significance there.
 
Last edited:
stormer83 said:
That’s is indeed a very weird take. What if the tables were flipped? Would you opt for a cosmetic surgery for your newborn daughter if a portion of the US male population found it aesthetically pleasing? (Which by the way is a US only issue since women in other countries have no issues with men that are intact)
Click to expand...
Yes this is exactly the same question. Let’s say not a full FGM but some lesser form of cosmetic surgery on baby girls’ genitalia, for the hypothetical future preference/ pleasure of any sex partner?
That doesn’t seem weird?!
 
27lw said:
No, it is intrinsically evil to perform cosmetic surgery on an infant’s genitals.
Click to expand...
What religious authority are you citing besides yourself?

It’s pretty obvious where you stand on the issue of male circumcision, but let’s refrain from making stuff up.
 
YHWH_Christ said:
So how do you guys feel about the practice of circumcision in western nations for medical purposes? Obviously I’m not speaking about religious circumcision since we are under the new law (although many Orthodox Christians in Africa still practice circumcision as a popular custom) but I’m asking about it more as a social issue. Many people consider circumcision to be a form of genital mutilation and that it should be banned. What do you think?
Click to expand...
Not a problem.

The Church allows it for medical reasons so it cannot be considered mutilation.
 
Montrose said:
40.png
YHWH_Christ:
So how do you guys feel about the practice of circumcision in western nations for medical purposes? Obviously I’m not speaking about religious circumcision since we are under the new law (although many Orthodox Christians in Africa still practice circumcision as a popular custom) but I’m asking about it more as a social issue. Many people consider circumcision to be a form of genital mutilation and that it should be banned. What do you think?
Click to expand...
Not a problem.

The Church allows it for medical reasons so it cannot be considered mutilation.
Click to expand...
Two questions:
  1. What about the catechism citations upthread? Do you just ignore those?
  2. What about the approximately 100 baby boys who die in the USA annually due to botched circumcision? For those in the “circumcision is no big deal” camp, how is routine circumcision defended?
 
Last edited:
27lw said:
Two questions:
  1. What about the catechism citations upthread? Do you just ignore those?
  2. What about the approximately 100 baby boys who die in the USA annually due to botched circumcision? Do you glibly say “Not a problem?”
Click to expand...
Stop being rude.

It is allowed by the Church to be circumcised for medical reasons therefore it is NOT A PROBLEM as far as the Church is concerned because it is not considered mutilation.
There is nothing in the CCC that says circumcision is mutilation.
 
YHWH_Christ said:
Ummm maybe because a lot of women do prefer men who have been circumcised.
Click to expand...
And a whole lot of women prefer men who haven’t been circumcised as well.

I’m also willing to bet there are a bunch of women in the “don’t care” camp.

Furthermore, if women are following Catholic teaching, they’re not going to be checking out their fiance’s privates before marriage, and same for the man checking out his fiancee.

In any event, this thread is about circumcision for medical reasons, not about circumcision to make your parts look more appealing to potential partners (which also opens the door to a whole lot of other enhancements you might do). If there is a medical issue after you are married that affects your spouse, then the proper thing would be for both spouses to discuss with a doctor and come up with an appropriate course of action for them.
 
Last edited:
I apologise for rudeness and I edited.
Do you think that the 100 baby boys who die in the USA is defensible for routine circumcision?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top