Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
pogi

Circumcision

Recommended Posts

Religious circumcision is the argument used for pedobaptism by many pedobaptists. Col. 1 or 2. It just seems to us like many people blow off the idea that there could ever be some some good reason for an infant having a religious ceremony that keeps it from harm (circumcision), or imparts benefit (baptism). We agree that religious circumcision is no longer efficacious. Under the Old Covenant, was it okay to be uncircumcised until you were old enough to choose? Was it good or bad for Jewish parents before Christ to choose, in disregard for health reasons, to circumcise the baby boys? 

Tuesday is the Feast of the Circumcision in the Catholic Church, where, according to the Catholic faith, our Lord shed enough blood to satisfy for our sins. There are other reasons for more blood...all attributable to the exceeding love of God for sinners. A belated Merry Christmas to all.

Rory

Edited by 3DOP

Share this post


Link to post

I had a friend that was circumcised at age 12. After seeing his discomfort  for many days , I cannot recommend doing it later in life. Yes, I know Abraham did it to his whole crew. They probably took the next week off?

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, strappinglad said:

I had a friend that was circumcised at age 12. After seeing his discomfort  for many days , I cannot recommend doing it later in life. Yes, I know Abraham did it to his whole crew. They probably took the next week off?

If it's so traumatic later in life, why wouldn't it be so for a helpless infant who has no say in the matter?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

I had to laugh out loud when I read the list of potential problems if one circumcised their son.

These are actual documented risks, with actual infants behind each case who unnecessarily suffered.  I don't think it is a laughing matter.  Informed consent, is a medical ethic that I, for one, am a strong proponent of.  It is funny (not really), until it happens to your child.  Even if the risks are small, we NEED to know them. It is all about risk vs benefit.  Without knowing the risks, how can a parent make informed consent?  

14 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

I have never met a single person that had any problem with such problems.

Therefore it doesn't happen?

Pain - inescapable, even with anesthesia. 

Post operational infections are very common - more common and more serious than UTI infections that circumcision is supposed to prevent. 

botched circumcision - unfortunately very common as reported by pediatric urologists who do their best to repair unfortunate cases. 

I administer the yellow fever vaccine to international travelers.  There is about a 16 in a million chance that the vaccine can cause very serious, life threatening reactions including multiple organ failure and death.  The risk is very small, but we don't give the vaccine to anyone who wants it, just for fun.  There is no point at putting people at greater risk from the vaccine than the disease - that is bad medical practice and completely unethical.  We only administer it when it is medically indicated for travel to an endemic area for an extended period of time. Medical ethic states "first do no harm".  That is being violated with medically unnecessary circumcision.  

Quote

 

Death is the ultimate harm entailed with any surgical procedure. In cases of true medical necessity, a certain risk of death may be legitimately acceptable to the patient in the overall picture, in balance with the hoped-for benefits. However, when a surgery is medically unnecessary, elective, non-therapeutic, cosmetic, and undertaken without the consent of the patient – as is virtually always the case with infant circumcision – any risk of death, no matter how small, is unacceptable and unethical.

Most deaths are related to excessive bleeding and to infection, as well as to less frequent causes, such as anesthesia accidents and cardiac arrest.

Bollinger, calculating from assumptions about general death rates for male newborns and post-hospital complication rates, estimated a circumcision death rate of 9.0/100,000 for the first 30 days of life.[169] O’Donnell, adjusting Bollinger’s methods with a different set of statistical assumptions, projected a rate of 1.4/100,000.

 Earp, et al. analyzed data from the largest U.S. inpatient database on nearly 10 million circumcisions over a 10 year period, looking for excess early mortality in infants who had undergone circumcision.[176] The early death rate attributable to circumcision was found to be 2.0/100,000, with infants circumcised in teaching hospitals and those with co-morbid conditions such as bleeding, cardiovascular, or fluid/electrolyte disorders having a significantly higher risk of death.[176] It should be noted that only deaths that occurred within the same hospital admission as the circumcision could be tracked from this database, thus an unknown number of deaths occurring after initial hospital discharge are not accounted for in this estimate.

https://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org

 

14 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

As far as I am concerned it is a personal choice and is no concern to anyone outside the family.

Would you say the same thing about female genital mutilation?

I agree though that medically unnecessary genital cosmetic surgery should be a personal choice.  Not only should it not be a concern to anyone outside the family, but it also should not be a concern to anyone inside the family.   

14 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

It just struck me as odd due to minimizing any potential problems with non-circumcision while blowing up the risks of circumcision. 

I am not minimizing or blowing up anything.  Everything I have presented is well documented. 

Edited by pogi
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Religious circumcision is the argument used for pedobaptism by many pedobaptists. Col. 1 or 2. It just seems to us like many people blow off the idea that there could ever be some some good reason for an infant having a religious ceremony that keeps it from harm (circumcision), or imparts benefit (baptism). We agree that religious circumcision is no longer efficacious. Under the Old Covenant, was it okay to be uncircumcised until you were old enough to choose? Was it good or bad for Jewish parents before Christ to choose, in disregard for health reasons, to circumcise the baby boys? 

Tuesday is the Feast of the Circumcision in the Catholic Church, where, according to the Catholic faith, our Lord shed enough blood to satisfy for our sins. There are other reasons for more blood...all attributable to the exceeding love of God for sinners. A belated Merry Christmas to all.

Rory

Circumcision has never been practiced religiously to "keep it from harm". That is a medical argument, not religious. 

I don't have a problem with religious or medically indicated circumcision. 

Edited by pogi

Share this post


Link to post
38 minutes ago, pogi said:

These are actual documented risks, with actual infants behind each case who unnecessarily suffered.  I don't think it is a laughing matter.  Informed consent, is a medical ethic that I, for one, am a strong proponent of.  It is funny (not really), until it happens to your child.  Even if the risks are small, we NEED to know them. It is all about risk vs benefit.  Without knowing the risks, how can a parent make informed consent?  

Therefore it doesn't happen?

Pain - inescapable, even with anesthesia. 

2

Pogi, I understand that they are potential risks, but what is the probability for each of them?  Also, aren't there a list of problems with non-circumcision?  I will review this thread, but when risks were mentioned for those not circumcised they were belittled because they rarely happened. As I stated, it is the logic of the issue I contend with.

I cannot report a single problem in any circumcision within our family or any of our friends throughout my entire life.  Not a single one. Why inflate the risk? If you inflate the risk for one, then do so for the other is all I am saying. 

Pain - how many times is each and every mortal will experience pain?  You make it sound like their life will be pain-free or at least, should be pain-free.  

This appears to be a very personal issue for you and one, which you don't appreciate any conflicting information or experiences. I just don't have the issues you have and it is not one of my soap boxes. 

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Wouldn't a 'personal choice' be made, well, by the person, not the person's family?

And as I've noted, when I was Young Men president, we had at least half a dozen boys in our ward who were suffering from and complaining about the consequences of their circumcisions. Many of them were very angry about it. Not cool. I'm glad you and your sons don't have any problems, but it seems rather calloused (pun intended) not to care about the suffering and discomfort of others.

Do you get to choose the color of your hair? How about the size of your feet? What about the size of your nose?  Some people will suffer because all three pose problems for them personally. They dye their hair; simply endure the utter anguish of having feet that they don't like, and have rhinoplasty to cure the last.  Individuals can find a plethora of crap to whine about. 

If I am going to invest emotion in things it is the persecution of Christians in the Middle East and North Africa; the starvation of children worldwide; the lack of education on college campuses; and the demise of social order. I am NOT going to invest emotion in someone whining about what their parents did to them or did not do to them.  

I am more than stunned that you actually know not one, not two, but six individual young men, all in a single location, that bemoaned that they suffered from having had been circumcised. I will bet dollars to donuts that something else motivated these complaints. How do you meet six and I meet none, zero, double eggs in my entire lifetime?  Doesn't that seem weird to you?  What the heck were the consequences for them?  This just boggles my mind and is beyond the pale of believability. I am not buying into the whine unless you bring out a few tons of cheese to go with it. 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Pogi, I understand that they are potential risks

Did your medical provider inform you of the potential risks before circumcision, or did you just become aware of the risks in this thread?  If you were not informed of the risks before the procedure, then how was informed consent maintained?

2 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Also, aren't there a list of problems with non-circumcision?  I will review this thread...

Please do review this thread, I have already addressed this.

2 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

I will review this thread, but when risks were mentioned for those not circumcised they were belittled because they rarely happened. As I stated, it is the logic of the issue I contend with.

They were not belittled, they were put in proper context of risk vs benefit - including alternative preventative measures that don't require genital mutilation, and are actually WAY more effective. 

2 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Pain - how many times is each and every mortal will experience pain?  You make it sound like their life will be pain-free or at least, should be pain-free.  

Because we experience pain in mortality you are arguing that we have no moral/ethical obligation to reduce unnecessary and avoidable pain/suffering in our children?  We have no moral obligation to protect our children from unnecessary pain?  Because we can't avoid pain, should child abuse be legal? Torture?  How would you like to undergo surgery on your genitals without anesthesia or inadequate anesthesia?  That is torture, plain and simple.  Believe it or not, it is still common for providers to not use anesthesia or inadequate anesthesia - they rarely wait the adequate time for it to fully kick in. 

One of the reason female genital mutilation is pretty universally regarded as unethical is because it is painful.  Why is one ethical and one not?  Before answering that, please, please, please read the following article:

https://www.dovepress.com/female-genital-mutilation-and-male-circumcision-toward-an-autonomy-bas-peer-reviewed-fulltext-article-MB

2 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

This appears to be a very personal issue for you and one, which you don't appreciate any conflicting information or experiences. I just don't have the issues you have and it is not one of my soap boxes. 

I do appreciate conflicting information.  I have actually studied both sides very well and considered all arguments.  There simply is no good ethical argument to be anti female genital mutilation and pro male genital mutilation.  

Edited by pogi
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

I cannot report a single problem in any circumcision within our family or any of our friends throughout my entire life.  Not a single one. Why inflate the risk? If you inflate the risk for one, then do so for the other is all I am saying. 

Your personal experience says nothing of the larger picture.  

Acknowledging  that there are risks is not inflating them.

We administer over 1,000 yellow fever vaccines in our travel clinic every year.  Not once have I seen a serious adverse reaction to this vaccine.  Some of my colleagues have worked in this clinic for over 15 years and have never seen a serious reaction.  That doesn't make it ethical for us to administer the vaccine when the risk of adverse reaction (even if it is small) to the vaccine is greater than the risk of disease.  You don't appear to understand medical ethics.  Low risk does not mean no risk.  Each individual matters, even if they are the rare exception who has a reaction to a relatively safe vaccine.  They matter.  Their suffering matters. 

Edited by pogi

Share this post


Link to post

For over 2,000 years, until the latter 19th Century, the practice of bloodletting was commonly accepted as a means of therapy. It gradually faded from popularity, until it is today widely regarded as a pseudoscience. 

I liken circumcision to bloodletting. The fact that it has in the past been widely accepted without complaint does not do much to commend it. We need from time to time to think critically about some practices that are entrenched in our collective behavior and honestly determine whether they really are worthy of perpetuation. 

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, pogi said:

Circumcision has never been practiced religiously to "keep it from harm". That is a medical argument, not religious. 

I don't have a problem with religious or medically indicated circumcision. 

Hi pogi.

I could have been clearer about my meaning. I was referring to the possible spiritual harm to the child whose parents neglected to have circumcised under the Old Covenant. I was simply wondering how others here might explain the penalty for an uncircumcised male child whose "soul shall be destroyed out of his people: because he hath broken my covenant." (Gen. 17:14)  

You wrote the quote above in reply to my interest in circumcision for religious purposes. I don't have any interest in the medical side except to find it a little disturbing that God would prescribe a religious procedure that is physically harmful for the recipient of the procedure. That is why I would tend to hope that males in the Old Covenant could avoid apparent harm to the soul, being "destroyed out of his people", without doing something that causes harm to the body.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
19 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Hi pogi.

I could have been clearer about my meaning. I was referring to the possible spiritual harm to the child whose parents neglected to have circumcised under the Old Covenant. I was simply wondering how others here might explain the penalty for an uncircumcised male child whose "soul shall be destroyed out of his people: because he hath broken my covenant." (Gen. 17:14)  

You wrote the quote above in reply to my interest in circumcision for religious purposes. I don't have any interest in the medical side except to find it a little disturbing that God would prescribe a religious procedure that is physically harmful for the recipient of the procedure. That is why I would tend to hope that males in the Old Covenant could avoid apparent harm to the soul, being "destroyed out of his people", without doing something that causes harm to the body.

There are several parts of this passage that are hard to understand.  1) Why did God only command males to be circumcised, and not females?  Were females not part of the covenant? 2) How do we explain verses 7 and 9 if we believe that Christ fulfilled the law?  If Christ fulfilled the law, as both Latter-day Saints and Catholics believe, then did God misspeak in saying that it will be an everlasting covenant to Abraham and his seed after him, throughout their generations? 3) Why circumcision?  Why would God command such a painful and potentially dangerous procedure to be practiced as a token of covenant?  No doubt many infant descendants of Abraham died from infection without antibiotics and without sterile techniques being practiced.  Children die today from infection, so I can imagine the numbers were much higher back then. 4) Along with your question, how could God condemn an 8 day old infant for breaking his covenant if he has no agency in the matter?

I am sure that there is a reasonable explanation for all of these questions, as we clearly cannot take these passages at their word, or else circumcision would still be enforced today. 

Quote

 

7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.

8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.

9 And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.

10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.

11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.

13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.

14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

 

 

19 hours ago, 3DOP said:

You wrote the quote above in reply to my interest in circumcision for religious purposes. I don't have any interest in the medical side except to find it a little disturbing that God would prescribe a religious procedure that is physically harmful for the recipient of the procedure. That is why I would tend to hope that males in the Old Covenant could avoid apparent harm to the soul, being "destroyed out of his people", without doing something that causes harm to the body.

Circumcision is both harmful to the integrity of the male genitals as created by God, it is harmful in terms of physical pain, and it is not without risk, so I really don't know how to answer your question other than saying that sometimes the Lord requires sacrifice of us.

The KJV reads, "cut off out of his people" rather than destroyed.  So, one could interpret that passage to mean that the individual's soul is not being destroyed, but that he would no longer be counted among his people.  I also wonder if this passage was intended to be directed at the father, as the infant cannot really break a covenant of his own will. I also wonder if, at a later date when the child had developed accountability and moral agency, if he would not have been accepted back into the tribe if he decided to be circumcised in adulthood, like Abraham.  There is a lot we don't really know.  But one thing I have a strong conviction of is that God would not destroy an infants soul because his parents neglected to fulfill their responsibilities. 

Edited by pogi
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
On 12/31/2018 at 3:07 AM, Storm Rider said:

Do you get to choose the color of your hair? How about the size of your feet? What about the size of your nose?

No, I don't get to choose the size or shape of my feet. But if I'm born with normal feet and my parents decide to alter that by binding them when I'm little so that they look like this:

5efc166506e713ad6ebedf98ef6a4efe.jpg

Then yeah, I get to 'whine' about that. Same if my family decide to alter the size or shape of my nose without my permission, as happened to this woman in Afghanistan:

article-0-0CFA7C3F00000578-503_224x312.j

I am genuinely stunned that you thought it was a good idea to compare the way people are born with an invasive elective surgery that permanently alters the way a person is born.

Quote

I am more than stunned that you actually know not one, not two, but six individual young men, all in a single location, that bemoaned that they suffered from having had been circumcised. I will bet dollars to donuts that something else motivated these complaints. How do you meet six and I meet none, zero, double eggs in my entire lifetime?  Doesn't that seem weird to you?

I'm not sure you've actually followed this thread, but as I noted above, I live in a nation where no public hospitals perform circumcisions. Many of the members in our ward are migrant families who've come out of circumcising cultures. Most of these families have travelled back to the homeland to have their sons circumcised there, often when the boys have been around 12 to 16 years of age. These boys know very well how their male anatomy felt and functioned both before and after genital cutting. Not all of them have complained about the effects, but many have.

Quote

What the heck were the consequences for them?

I mentioned these earlier in the thread too. The glans of the penis and the inner layer of the foreskin are, by design, filled with specialised nerve endings that respond to things like fine touch (not dissimilar to the eyes), stretching/rolling, and so forth. Removing the foreskin constantly exposes this tissue (it's mucus membrane, not actual skin) to the outside world, including clothing. This dries the mucus membranes out, and the constant friction of clothing on nerve-rich, previously protected flesh is maddening. The purpose of these nerves is sexual pleasure, of course, but constantly exciting pleasure receptors in a dry, rough environment quickly morphs into something ranging from extreme discomfort to excruciating pain. (Imagine constantly rubbing your dried-out eyeball on even the softest textile, 24-hours per day.)

I've shared his story before, but one of the young men I helped reactivate kept getting fungal infections in his groin area. Creams and ointments would help, but then the infection would just come back again. The doctor finally solved the mystery: three or four years post-circumcision, this boy was still simultaneously wearing two pairs of very tight underpants in order to try to protect himself from the agonising discomfort of his still-sensitive penis rubbing against anything, including his clothing. A double layer of form-fitting clothing was keeping his groin area so sweaty that it was almost impossible to clear up the jock itch. Out of necessity, he resumed wearing a single pair of normal underpants, but then the discomfort was aggravating.

The body really has only one solution for this: over time, what were previously thin mucus membranes highly sensitive to fine touch not only dry out but thicken and harden into something resembling skin, blocking much but not all of the sensations caused by turning internal body parts into external body parts. I'm not sure how complete this process ever is, though. The young man mentioned above is now 25 (and recently married), and he says that he's still not 100 per cent comfortable down there but that he's reached a stage of tolerance. Garments were an especial challenge for him since none of the styles for men replicates the snugness of simple undies, and he just had to learn to chafe all the time as a consequence of all the rubbing that occurs when parts that were clearly designed to hang free are allowed to enjoy freedom of movement.

I realise that in places like America where circumcision is routinely performed on infants, all of this discomfort and eventual callousing of the glans and whatever remains of the inner foreskin overwhelmingly happen when boys are too young to 'whine' much, as you called it, and to boys whose memories of being 100 comfortable in their own sex organs are not readily available for comparison. But something my mum pointed out to me when I was younger is that one can always spot a male who's been circumcised since he's frequently digging around in his pants, 'adjusting' things and trying to find a point of comfort. This is certainly more noticeable in boys than in men (whose mothers have probably told them many times to stop doing that in public), but I can assure you that one of the things I most noticed living in America is all the digging/scratching/adjusting that seem to occur. Our small number of circumcised boys/men here do the same thing. There it seemed like nearly every male was doing it. This is simply not normal behaviour in non-circumcising nations/cultures.

Quote

Individuals can find a plethora of crap to whine about ...

I am NOT going to invest emotion in someone whining about what their parents did to them or did not do to them ...

I am not buying into the whine unless you bring out a few tons of cheese to go with it. 

I genuinely don't know how to respond to deeply disturbing comments like this.

Edited by Hamba Tuhan
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I have no regrets circumcising my two sons.  They were young, I am sure it hurt but they got over it.  Have not had one word of complaint from them about it. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

I have no regrets circumcising my two sons.  They were young, I am sure it hurt but they got over it.  Have not had one word of complaint from them about it. 

See my post about blood letting. 

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

I have no regrets circumcising my two sons.  They were young, I am sure it hurt but they got over it.  Have not had one word of complaint from them about it. 

Talked to my 26 year old son and he said it's no big deal. I apologised to him. But it didn't seem to bother him. 

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/30/2018 at 1:38 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

For over 2,000 years, until the latter 19th Century, the practice of bloodletting was commonly accepted as a means of therapy. It gradually faded from popularity, until it is today widely regarded as a pseudoscience. 

Interesting fact: While bloodletting as a general cure-all is certainly regarded as pseudoscience nowadays, bloodletting for specific medical conditions is still very much in practice today. You can even order FDA approved medical leaches for the procedure. :o

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

No, I don't get to choose the size or shape of my feet. But if I'm born with normal feet and my parents decide to alter that by binding them when I'm little so that they look like this:

5efc166506e713ad6ebedf98ef6a4efe.jpg

Then yeah, I get to 'whine' about that. Same if my family decide to alter the size or shape of my nose without my permission, as happened to this woman in Afghanistan:

article-0-0CFA7C3F00000578-503_224x312.j

I am genuinely stunned that you thought it was a good idea to compare the way people are born with an invasive elective surgery that permanently alters the way a person is born.

I'm not sure you've actually followed this thread, but as I noted above, I live in a nation where no public hospitals perform circumcisions. Many of the members in our ward are migrant families who've come out of circumcising cultures. Most of these families have travelled back to the homeland to have their sons circumcised there, often when the boys have been around 12 to 16 years of age. These boys know very well how their male anatomy felt and functioned both before and after genital cutting. Not all of them have complained about the effects, but many have.

I mentioned these earlier in the thread too. The glans of the penis and the inner layer of the foreskin are, by design, filled with specialised nerve endings that respond to things like fine touch (not dissimilar to the eyes), stretching/rolling, and so forth. Removing the foreskin constantly exposes this tissue (it's mucus membrane, not actual skin) to the outside world, including clothing. This dries the mucus membranes out, and the constant friction of clothing on nerve-rich, previously protected flesh is maddening. The purpose of these nerves is sexual pleasure, of course, but constantly exciting pleasure receptors in a dry, rough environment quickly morphs into something ranging from extreme discomfort to excruciating pain. (Imagine constantly rubbing your dried-out eyeball on even the softest textile, 24-hours per day.)

I've shared his story before, but one of the young men I helped reactivate kept getting fungal infections in his groin area. Creams and ointments would help, but then the infection would just come back again. The doctor finally solved the mystery: three or four years post-circumcision, this boy was still simultaneously wearing two pairs of very tight underpants in order to try to protect himself from the agonising discomfort of his still-sensitive penis rubbing against anything, including his clothing. A double layer of form-fitting clothing was keeping his groin area so sweaty that it was almost impossible to clear up the jock itch. Out of necessity, he resumed wearing a single pair of normal underpants, but then the discomfort was aggravating.

The body really has only one solution for this: over time, what were previously thin mucus membranes highly sensitive to fine touch not only dry out but thicken and harden into something resembling skin, blocking much but not all of the sensations caused by turning internal body parts into external body parts. I'm not sure how complete this process ever is, though. The young man mentioned above is now 25 (and recently married), and he says that he's still not 100 per cent comfortable down there but that he's reached a stage of tolerance. Garments were an especial challenge for him since none of the styles for men replicates the snugness of simple undies, and he just had to learn to chafe all the time as a consequence of all the rubbing that occurs when parts that were clearly designed to hang free are allowed to enjoy freedom of movement.

I realise that in places like America where circumcision is routinely performed on infants, all of this discomfort and eventual callousing of the glans and whatever remains of the inner foreskin overwhelmingly happen when boys are too young to 'whine' much, as you called it, and to boys whose memories of being 100 comfortable in their own sex organs are not readily available for comparison. But something my mum pointed out to me when I was younger is that one can always spot a male who's been circumcised since he's frequently digging around in his pants, 'adjusting' things and trying to find a point of comfort. This is certainly more noticeable in boys than in men (whose mothers have probably told them many times to stop doing that in public), but I can assure you that one of the things I most noticed living in America is all the digging/scratching/adjusting that seem to occur. Our small number of circumcised boys/men here do the same thing. There it seemed like nearly every male was doing it. This is simply not normal behaviour in non-circumcising nations/cultures.

I genuinely don't know how to respond to deeply disturbing comments like this.

Just now read this post, wow. I wish I could shout this out to the rafters on how this is so unnecessary. Thanks for going into depth after having found some time, appreciate it. We in America are pretty naive about those in other countries like you've explained. And come to think of it I've seen male adjusting quite a lot, now I know why. 

Also, after watching the Netflix on circumcision in America, it mentions the problems during intercourse that happens and I'm thinking the women suffer as well as the men, they wouldn't have to endure the thrusting that is needed vs. without circumcision it takes very little of that. Sorry if too graphic. I'm old enough that I don't care, it is what it is. 

 

Edited by Tacenda

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Amulek said:

Interesting fact: While bloodletting as a general cure-all is certainly regarded as pseudoscience nowadays, bloodletting for specific medical conditions is still very much in practice today. You can even order FDA approved medical leaches for the procedure. :o

Similarly, I would not oppose circumcision “for specific medical conditions,” only as a routine neonatal procedure whether needed or not. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Also, after watching the Netflix on circumcision in America, it mentions the problems during intercourse that happens and I'm thinking the women suffer as well as the men ...

Yeah, this is a whole other issue. As a never-married male, I have no firsthand knowledge of this, but there's been at least one study on this point that has come out of Scandinavia in recent years. I'm not going to search online for it now as I'm at work, but I'll do so later if you haven't found it already. Removing the only moving part from human sexual anatomy is inevitably going to alter the mechanics of intercourse, as is intentionally dulling the sensitivity of one partner.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
On 12/31/2018 at 10:09 PM, carbon dioxide said:

I have no regrets circumcising my two sons.  They were young, I am sure it hurt but they got over it.  Have not had one word of complaint from them about it. 

I am happy to hear that there were no complications and no complaints from your sons.  My son doesn't appear to have any complications either, which I am happy about, and I don't anticipate it being an issue for him later.  Having said that, I don't think that the mostly neutral (other than being excruciatingly painful) experience that most people have justifies the unethical practice in general.  This is a human rights issue.  A parent should have no right to mutilate the otherwise healthy genitals of their sons without their consent, unless it is religiously or medically indicated.   There is simply no justification for exposing them to the pain and the risk of it for purely cultural reasons - even if most of them turn out ok.  The only ethical justification would be if there was a significant medical benefit to the practice, but neutral outcomes ("they got over it, no complaints") do not ethically justify the mutilation of otherwise healthy genitals, as created by God.  Culturally, we don't think like that.  But we need to start. It is the only reasonable approach to ethics.  I am confident that this practice will one day be looked at as one of the major human rights violations of our time.  

Do you have any daughters?  How would you feel about female genital mutilation for them?  If it is unethical and a violation of human rights for females (even if most of them get over it and have no complaints), then it should be the same for males as well.     

Edited by pogi
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/27/2018 at 7:37 PM, pogi said:

It was not simply a covenant with Abraham, but it was with all of his posterity after him as well.  What in your opinion is the covenant that replaced the covenant entered in by circumcision, with references if you have any please?  I ask because the following  passage sure makes it sound like the original will stand "throughout their generations".

Also, what do you mean "the law is still being fulfilled"?  Moroni 8 states that the law is already done away in Christ. 

What I mean is by being the head of the third seal/dispensation the covenant received through Abraham applied to all in his dispensation. 

I do not look at circumcision being a part of the law despite what the Book of Mormon appears to say. However, to the extent that our circumcision is through Christ, this is still being fulfilled through a circumcision of the heart. What I meant that the law is still being fulfilled was referring to the law of Moses - not the sign of circumcision. The law of Moses will not be completely fulfilled til the end.

As for your statement about Muslim female circumcision being just a nick - that appears to be very much dependent upon local culture and traditions. From what i have read and heard, it seems it often involves complete removal of the clitoris and even sewing up part of the labia. 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

What I mean is by being the head of the third seal/dispensation the covenant received through Abraham applied to all in his dispensation. 

That's fine if that is how you interpret that.  I just don't know how you came to that conclusion based on the scriptures provided.  To "all your seed throughout their generations" doesn't sound limited to Abraham's dispensation to me, or else it seems to me that would have been clarified.

Just to clarify, you don't think the covenant applied to Moses' dispensation?

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

I do not look at circumcision being a part of the law despite what the Book of Mormon appears to say. However, to the extent that our circumcision is through Christ, this is still being fulfilled through a circumcision of the heart. What I meant that the law is still being fulfilled was referring to the law of Moses - not the sign of circumcision. The law of Moses will not be completely fulfilled til the end.

I see circumcision becoming part of the Mosaic law in Leviticus 12:1-8.  Some of the requirements changed slightly from Abrahamic times.  For example, previous to the Levitical law, it could be performed anywhere by anyone; after the law, it had to be performed in the home where it was born, by the father.  After the law, there were other temple offerings required with the circumcision, and a period of cleansing, that were not required before it became law.  So, I do see the Book of Mormon's depiction of it as a law to be accurate. 

I also interpret the fulfiment of the law of Moses different from you, based on the following passages in 3 Nephi 15.  I do see it as being fulfilled/ended and replaced with a new law. 

Quote

 

2 And it came to pass that when Jesus had said these words he perceived that there were some among them who marveled, and wondered what he would concerning the law of Moses; for they understood not the saying that old things had passed away, and that all things had become new.

3 And he said unto them: Marvel not that I said unto you that old things had passed away, and that all things had become new.

4 Behold, I say unto you that the law is fulfilled that was given unto Moses.

5 Behold, I am he that gave the law, and I am he who covenanted with my people Israel; therefore, the law in me is fulfilled, for I have come to fulfil the law; therefore it hath an end...

8 For behold, the covenant which I have made with my people is not all fulfilled; but the law which was given unto Moses hath an end in me.

 

I am curious about the circumcision of the heart though.  Do you see that as a priesthood covenant or more of a purification akin to the mighty change of heart?  If you see it as a priesthood covenant, when and how do we enter into it?  What is the priesthood ordinance associated with it?

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

As for your statement about Muslim female circumcision being just a nick - that appears to be very much dependent upon local culture and traditions. From what i have read and heard, it seems it often involves complete removal of the clitoris and even sewing up part of the labia. 

There are 4 types of FGM, you are referring to type 3 - sometimes called "infibulation".

Quote

This refers to a narrowing of the vaginal orifice with the creation of a seal by cutting and repositioning the labia minora and/or the labia majora, with or without excision of the external clitoris. This is the most extreme type of FGM, although it is also one of the rarest..

https://www.dovepress.com/female-genital-mutilation-and-male-circumcision-toward-an-autonomy-bas-peer-reviewed-fulltext-article-MB

 

Edited by pogi

Share this post


Link to post
33 minutes ago, pogi said:

That's fine if that is how you interpret that.  I just don't know how you came to that conclusion based on the scriptures provided.  To "all your seed throughout their generations" doesn't sound limited to Abraham's dispensation to me, or else it seems to me that would have been clarified.

Just to clarify, you don't think the covenant applied to Moses' dispensation?

Apparently contrary to common Church interpretation, I do not believe Moses was the head of a dispensation. I have heard things like Moses restored the priesthood, etc. This is not true. Moses received the priesthood from Jethro. The Mosaic law was for the purpose of living the Abrahamic covenant better. It was not a new covenant. 

So are you saying Yeshua broke the covenant which was to all generations by discontinuing the practice of male circumcision? How about Saturday Sabbath?

Quote

I see circumcision becoming part of the Mosaic law in Leviticus 12:1-8.  Some of the requirements changed slightly from Abrahamic times.  For example, previous to the Levitical law, it could be performed anywhere by anyone; after the law, it had to be performed in the home where it was born, by the father.  After the law, there were other temple offerings required with the circumcision, and a period of cleansing, that were not required before it became law.  So, I do see the Book of Mormon's depiction of it as a law to be accurate. 

I also interpret the fulfiment of the law of Moses different from you, based on the following passages in 3 Nephi 15.  I do see it as being fulfilled/ended and replaced with a new law. 

Not really. The Mosaic law included the covenant to love God and our neighbors as ourselves. This is continued as the central commandment by Yeshua. He did not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it. Fulfilling it does not mean the law ends. but recognizing the purpose of the law - the ends of the law. It is not a chronological ending as I read it. The law applies until every jot and tittle is fulfilled. :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, pogi said:

A parent should have no right to mutilate the otherwise healthy genitals of their sons without their consent, unless it is religiously or medically indicated.   There is simply no justification for exposing them to the pain and the risk of it for purely cultural reasons - even if most of them turn out ok.

l can't grasp your distinction here between 'religiously indicated' and 'purely cultural reasons'. Isn't a religious justification really just a cultural one? I don't think anyone would argue that point in the case of, say, Muslim commitment to female genital cutting.

Regarding circumcision being 'medically indicated', I asked our now former Relief Society president about this earlier this year. She works as a general practitioner, and she said our medical establishment here doesn't circumcise for 'medical' reasons as a rule because pretty much every genuine medical issue that Americans might be tempted to fix by simply amputating the foreskin has a non-surgical fix. And in the rare cases where a foreskin may need a non-surgical fix, that problem is virtually never going to be present when a boy is newly born anyway.

By the way, I haven't seen the film you watched, but did it note that most problems with foreskins that need to be fixed later are actually caused by people (parents or doctors) messing with them when boys are still young? When a child is born, the foreskin is firmly fused to the glans in the exact same way that a fingernail is fused to its nail bed. This is why the first step in infant circumcision always has to be forcibly tearing the foreskin away from the glans -- like ripping a fingernail off. People who have been taught erroneously that there's something inherently dirty about an intact penis and therefore start retracting a young boy's foreskin for 'hygiene' reasons actually create the tearing/bleeding/adhering that are likely to create problems later in life. It's essentially like pulling a fingernail back, allowing it to begin re-adhering and then doing it again.

No one needs to worry about cleaning inside/under a boy's foreskin since there is literally no 'inside' until much later in life. Separation occurs naturally around the time of puberty (almost as if someone designed it that way!). In my case, I was 13 years old when it happened.

 

Edited by Hamba Tuhan

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...