Is circumcision mutilation?

  • Thread starter Thread starter YHWH_Christ
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
As do almost all of the internet sites that say circumcision is horrible. I’ve been reading some of them, and…wow. People really need to get a life. These people seem to fancy themselves as culture warriors who are righting thousands of years worth of wrongs.
 
Xarto said:
I know two kids that had to have it medically done. They’re cousins and kept getting infections and inflammation there, apparently a family thing. They had it done as babies and have had no issues since. I don’t see a problem with it and there are times I wish I was circumcised.
Click to expand...
There you go - - an actual medical reason.
 
1Lord1Faith said:
As do almost all of the internet sites that say circumcision is horrible. I’ve been reading some of them, and…wow. People really need to get a life. These people seem to fancy themselves as culture warriors who are righting thousands of years worth of wrongs.
Click to expand...
Hmmm, who are the ones who have a weird thing? The people who defend routine chopping off parts of baby’s genitals, or the people who object?
 
I too don’t understand why there is a continuing discussion on this.

Circumcision is permitted by the Church for medical reasons and says the parents may decide.

Nobody has the right to contradict the Church or the parents.

That should be end of story.
 
Last edited:
Anesti33 said:
Armpits can breed bacteria, get stinky, and become infected, but I don’t chop off my child’s arms.
Click to expand...
This ^ shows the level of logic and reason that the anti-circumcision crowd apparently has to offer. Comparing foreskin to an arm.
 
Last edited:
The church does not allow it for medical reasons, the church allows it for strictly therapeutic reasons. There is a difference. Of course circumcision is reasonable for a disease or malady someone already has. Circumcising someone for a disease they might get in the future is much less so.
 
Inquiry said:
The church does not allow it for medical reasons, the church allows it for strictly therapeutic reasons. There is a difference. Of course circumcision is reasonable for a disease or malady someone already has. Circumcising someone for a disease they might get in the future is much less so.
Click to expand...
There is no difference.
 
No doubt. But not just that, it’s anti religion in general. Most Muslims do it as do most Christians in the US.
 
Last edited:
There’s a difference there, actually. Jewish circumcision is covenental. Muslim and christian circumcision is cultural.
 
27lw said:
40.png
Anesti33:
I know something else that prevents HIV infection, and does it 100% effectively.
Click to expand...
Yes.
Circumcision is used in Africa for HIV prevention, not in the industrialized world.
Click to expand...
Circumcision for HIV prevention accepts–encourages–the men to have promiscuous sex. There is a method of preventing HIV that is 100% effective no matter whether in Africa “or the industrialized world” (a racist insult to Africa).
 
Ah, no. Mutilation is wrong for much the same reason murder is. It usurps authority over our lives and bodies that belongs only to God. The circumcisions ordered by God cannot be mutilations because God ordered them. He’s not usurping his own authority.

Christians specifically can’t circumcise on God’s order. That doesn’t mean they can’t circumcise at all, but when they do it must be consistent with moral law.
 
My experience is that there is no point discussing this topic, because people who are in support of routine neonatal circumcision have strongly held beliefs that are not backed up by any science (and are actually flatly contradicted by science), and yet they will never change their minds.

The fact is that the foreskin is an entirely natural, healthy part of the male human anatomy, and it serves various useful functions. Not having a foreskin means missing out on those various useful functions. The purported benefits of circumcision are irrelevant to most men and boys. For example, not having a foreskin is only more hygienic if somebody is incapable of washing underneath his foreskin. Such cases are rare. For the vast majority of males, the penis can be washed perfectly well by retracting the foreskin during washing.

People sometimes compare male circumcision with female genital mutilation. The analogy is helpful only to a limited extent. There are many different kinds and combinations of FGM, but the most useful one to mention is removal of the clitoris. Removal of the clitoris would obviously be analogous to removal of part, or all, of the penis. A more useful analogy would be the clitoral hood. I wonder how many of those who support routine removal of the foreskin would also support routine removal of the clitoral hood. Unless you think it would be a good idea for female humans to routinely have the clitoral hood removed, I don’t see how you can justify routine removal of the foreskin.
 
It has many nerves, and so what @Anicette meant was that to remove it majorly reduces sensitivity. This is well known scientific fact, the most sensitive part of the penis is at the tip of the foreskin where the interior and exterior foreskin meet.
 
EmilyAlexandra said:
For example, not having a foreskin is only more hygienic if somebody is incapable of washing underneath his foreskin.
Click to expand...
Uncircumcised penis gets yeast infection. Circumcised does not. It’s that simple.

Urine gets under foreskin. Urine not a problem for circumcised. How many times a day do people urinate?

There is no difference in any testimony I’ve ever heard from uncircumcised males who get a circumcision as an adult as pertaining to sensitivity.

Desensitized penis is a myth and lie. There is no “tough skin” on the circumcised penis. Do you actually think that men would continue to circumcise males if there weren’t a benefit?

. . . .
 
Last edited:
My husband and I looked into this when we were expecting. The Church says we can do it, but not for religious purposes. The reasons it’s done in the West weren’t convincing to us, since it seemed to be primarily for “sanitary” reasons for which the teaching of basic hygiene is equally effective. Beyond that it’s simply unnecessary surgery, and it is in fact mutilation – just in fact, and I’m only talking about the Church’s definition of “mutilation” (not making any statement about intent or any of the other more emotional issues) - so we decided against it. And then we had a girl, so the whole thing was moot! 😄

The hospital did ask us about it before she was born - and in birthing class - and they gently discouraged it. But we had already made up our minds anyway. It did seem like most couples in class were making the same decision. And we were a generation older than most of them. So the trend in the US may be moving away from this.
 
It is rare for males to get yeast infections no matter if they have been circumcised or not.
 
I agree that it shouldn’t be called genital mutilation, since I believe that phrase should be reserved for the female variant that most usually causes great harm and pain. Not comparable.

But to bring up the aesthetics is… so weird. For example, many men today prefer women without pubic hair. What if there was laser treatments available to newborns without to many complications, that would ensure she wouldn’t grow pubic hair during puberty, would you have it done on your infant daughter so she might be more desirable to men as an adult? I reallhy hope the answer is no.
 
Last edited:
No it’s not rare. And it’s more common with a moist piece of folded skin. That is just a simple fact.
 
tuffsmurf said:
What if there was laser treatments available to newborns without to many complications
Click to expand...
What makes you think this ^ is even in the same ballpark as circumcision? Not even close.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top