Russell Crowe: Pro-abortion Foreskin Man
I really, really like Russell Crowe as an actor.
But as a person Crowe clearly has missing brain synapses that have rendered him a bonehead.
As the Huffington Post reports today, Crowe took to Twitter yesterday [Warning: vulgar] to castigate male circumcision.
That’s fine. My opinion differs on the topic, but whatever…
But then Crowe got stupid. His very next tweet, after “stand[ing] for the perfection of babies”?
The absurd illogic is almost too obvious to point out. But I must.
Removing a piece of skin the size of a postage stamp from a newborn baby is “barbaric and stupid,” the logic being that “[b]abies are perfect,” but suctioning that same baby’s brains out to kill him moments before birth is not, the logic being it’s “a woman’s choice”?
[HT: Stephen M.]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Wow, what’s a bigger hypocrite? Pro-abortion people who hate circumcision? Or pro-abortion people who claim to be vegan?
Oxy morons.
Like professional athletes, professional actors should never be sought after for sage advice nor wisdom. They are not qualified.
Ummm…apparently he really got bonked on the head one too many times during the filming of Cinderella Man. Why would he take up anti-circumcision as a cause anyway? Then he says ABORTION is okay?? WTH? It makes no sense. I guess I should also point out an anti-Jewish flavor to his tweet when in reference to circumcision he says, “..I will always believe in God, not man’s interpretation of what God requires”. Time to put the bong down Russell. You’re embarrassing yourself on many levels.
Circumcise him while he is still in teh womb then. Who are you to tell a woman what she can and can’t do with her body?
BS”D
It’s actually Foreskin Man #2 featuring Monster Mohel that is getting all the attention for it’s vile anti-Semitic content. Glenn Beck did a good job on his show. There is also the issue in California that 13-year-old girls can have abortions without parental consent but intactivists will not let a 17-year-old boy have a brit milah even with parental consent. Of course, the intactivist slogan is “His Body, His Choice.” Jews who support unlimited abortion in the name of “woman’s body, woman’s right” beware: you are aiding and abetting Judaism’s enemies.
And here’s the thing about “celebrities” opening their big, stupid mouths: I cease to keep their acting careers and their opinions separate, and so I cease to watch their movies. Maybe if everyone responded like that, they’d stick to acting.
His “don’t like it then bye” is classic fingers-in-ears liberal, too, because it tells anyone and everyone who disagrees with him to just sit down and shut up. You know, sort of like how the president talks about people who disagree with him.
I agree with Bobby. I guess all they need to do is figure out a way to circumcise male babies while they’re still in-utero, and then pro-choicers will have no problem at all with circumcision, since a woman can do what she wants with “her body.” (I’ve yet to figure out how “my body” had XY chromosomes, and later a penis, when I was pregnant with my son…)
For the record, my son is not circumcised, as my husband and I consider it to be an unnecessary cosmetic procedure.
I’ll never watch his movies again.
Meh, another celeberty full of hot air, whether they’re right or wrong.
While I am pro-life and Christian, I have to say that the argument goes both ways in regards to circumcision vs. abortion. Christians look very illogical to the world when they fight so hard to bring babies into this world only to cut their penises up once they’re born. Please understand, and be educated on what the foreskin is and does. It is not just “a piece of skin the size of a postage stamp.” Also please understand I am not talking anti-Sematic here. Most of the circumcision that goes on in America is not for religious reasons anyway; it has become a cultural custom, to mutilate our baby boys at birth. Christians are not understanding Jesus and the Bible if they argue in favor of circumcision saying, “The people of the Bible circumcise so I must have my sons done too.” Paul argues against circumcision, going so far as to having harsh words for those who do push circumcision. New Testament Christians are NOT to circumcise!
Further, I do not think it is right to call people stupid and illogical either, and this will not further pro-life efforts.
Check out Peaceful Parenting to learn more about the functions of the normal foreskin (as God made it), and gentle parenting in general. plus here’s an article titled, “Circumcision: What I Wish I’d Known.”
http://www.drmomma.org/2009/12/circumcision-what-i-wish-id-known.html
I like the idea of firing back…”circumcise the boys in the womb then” because it will put them in the logical conundrum of “my body…but not my body…but my body…but not my body….WAAAAAAAAHHH!” Good idea!
As for circumcision, Jesus was, I am, and my sons are. I like the fact that not only is sex perfectly fine, but I have never had any infections or other issues down there, and neither have my sons. We like it and we support it. If you don’t, that is fine too.
KUDOS to Russell Crowe for speaking out against genital mutilation – a clear human rights violation. This practice needs to be eradicated. And religion should no longer receive a pass for treating children that way. It’s mind-blowing that people who are opposed to the genital mutilation of children are treated as if *they* are the bad guys. Muslims in America are not allowed to cut the genitals of their little girls for religious/cultural reasons. Boys deserve equal protection under the law. Or does no one care about human rights and the Constitution?
CynDaVaz: I’m sorry, but do not ever compare male circumcision to female “circumcision” i.e., mutilation. Highly offensive.
If you force circumcision on a baby, you force it on the man he will become, and that means it’s NOT a postage stamp worth of skin, it’s 15 square inches of tissue, several tens of thousands of nerve endings and all of the protective, sexual, and immunological functions it would have performed for the man.
It’s really offensive to say that someone doesn’t deserve the right to refuse amputation of part of their body because it is small when they are a baby. How large were your labia when you were an infant? Does the fact that they were smaller than a postage stamp mean that some insensitive person could steal them from you? I’m guessing you think not.
Find out more about male and female mutilation. They are in fact, very similar. Just like pro-aborts don’t like to learn and understand the facts of fetal development, so pro-MGM’s don’t like to be informed of the truth of the foreskin and the damage that circumcision does to that boy.
FTR, I do not see the logic in Russel Crowe’s comments either. He is congratulated on his FB page for standing up for babies who have no voices, yet he is in favor of killing babies in the womb who have no voices! Let’s get rid of the hypocrisy in ALL camps, people!
I did not circumcise my son because of religious reasons, or even because “it has become a cultural custom”. I did it because I had multiple men (friends & family members) who had not been circumcised tell me that they wished they had been, due to decades of cleanliness issues and frustration. I have a close female friend that has had numerous feminine issues caused primarily by the fact that her husband is uncircumcised and has introduced bacteria and germs into her body and it reacted in such a way that she may never be ‘normal’ again. It’s not always a cultural thing or religious thing. Please don’t assume that I would in any way advocate “mutilating” my son. Some of us actually believe (and have the evidence to back it up) that it is healthier for boys to be circumcised. http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/ate/menshealth/204651.html
http://www.mdhil.com/2010/12/male-circumcision-turn-life-healthier/
I agree that we should not allow actors to separate their professional and political lives. If you want to use your fame to shoot off your mouth about political issues, fine. But you should expect that people may hold your views against you and refuse to watch your films. Please note that I am not saying they should not speak their minds. They have every right to do so. But with freedom comes responsibility. So they should be prepared for the consequences.
Has anyone else seen “Father of the Year” with Robin Williams? That is without question the most heinous movie I have ever seen. And I have not watched anything with him in it for a couple of years now as a result. And my “no watch” list keeps growing.
Finally, every male in my family is also circumcised. But I admit that it is a practice about which I am not well-educated. Honestly, my sons were circumcised so they would “be like Daddy.” I have also heard that it results in better hygiene, but I really do not have the facts to support it or to oppose it.
Cindy, as I said, male circumcision and female mutilation are not at all comparable. Female mutilation involves removal of the clitoris and sometimes sewing together the labia. This is one of the highest forms of misogyny – removal of a woman’s ability to orgasm. Plus it creates other obvious health woes.
Like it or not, male circumcision does not do the same. In fact, some studies say it increases sexual pleasure, along with enhancing male hygiene. I understand some people oppose it as unnecessary, antiquated, and even a form of torture.
But it cannot begin to be compared to female mutilation. To do so is to diminish the gravity of female mutilation. To do so is misogynistic.
It is rather interesting that those of us with circumcised penises are not complaining and I am quite thankful that my parents had it done when I was an infant, because it saves me from having to do it later. I did the same favor for my sons as well. Unlike abortion, in which a child cannot “thank” his parents for aborting him, since he is dead. The two are not the same in the least.
Anyway, I don’t miss a greasy and infection-prone flap of skin any more than I miss a skin tag. I feel better without it and my wife feels the same. If you don’t agree, its not like abortion, and you are free to not circumcise your sons. For us, we think it is a good thing.
That’s quite a logo they gave Foreskin Man there. I can’t help but picture it on a chair in the JLA watchtower next to the Super S, and the Bat-shield, and Flash’s bolt, and GL’s lantern…
Yeah, I think I’m going to be in the corner dying of laughter for a while.
WELL SAID Cindy…you took the words out of my mouth.
I agree that its ridiculous to be anti-circ and pro-choice. Its an illogical argument.
But circ’ing a baby is not “removing a postage stamp sized piece of skin.” Its actually the equivalent of removing a functioning organ the size of a 3×5 card, in adulthood. It has serious risks to the baby, ones that can never be reversed.
I’m all for bodily integrity for all humans. That means that their bodies remain intact in utero AND after birth.
I’m currently pregnant with a boy and he will absolutely be circumcised after birth. My father was uncircumcised most of his life and developed unavoidable complications that forced him to receive the procedure in his mid-50s. I will never subject my son to what my father went thru that year if it can be avoided by a simple procedure when he is a few hours old. Babies will not remember the procedure (at least my husband and brother don’t remember theirs!) and the removal of a small piece of foreskin a day after birth simply cannot be compared with the horrific female genital mutilation that occurs in their tween years. Just my two cents.
So, those who are against circumcision should immediate stop shaving and cutting their hair and nails as well, since that ruins the integrity of their bodies.
This is an interesting article on circumcision that I hadn’t read before: http://nymag.com/health/features/60146/
Jill, not true. Many men have difficluty getting to orgasm and even maintaining an erection due to circ. FGM and MGM IS in fact, very similar. It is remvoing and/or damaging the healthy functioning genitals of a human being. There are NO PROVEN HEALTH benefits. No health organization in the world recommends it for this very reason. There are many forms of FGM, the one you mention is the extreme. Many are done to remove part or all of the labia and are “less extreme”. I find it odd you are horrified by FGM but seem indifferent to MGM…
With all due respect Jill, I stand with you on a lot of issues, but this one, I can not back you up on. Yes Russell is a hypocrite, but your views on circ are a bit skewed and part of that may be lack of knowledge about it.
Helena, health issues due to uncircumcision are a hygiene issue only. If the man properly cleans himself, he will not get or give infections. We teach our girls how to wipe and clean themselves properly, why cant we teach our boys? Or should we remove the labia on our girls as well, because its easier to keep clean? An uncirc’d male is no more likely to get infections than an intact man. Please dont assume that. You absolutely have the choice to do with your son as you wish, but please get your facts straight. A website with your “backed up points” isnt convincing those of us that know the truth. Your sources are weak. NO health organization in the WORLD supports circ, due to there being NO proven benefits.
Whoa. NYDoula writes, “health issues due to uncircumcision are a hygiene issue only. If the man properly cleans himself, he will not get or give infections.”
I’d love to put her across a table sharing a coffee with my father for 30 minutes and have her say that to his face.
The NYT article posted by Kel seems pretty accurate to me. And that guy didn’t claim to have any particular “hygiene” issues with his foreskin.
Bruce, thats ridiculous. Hair and nails are dead. A foreskin is a living, functioning organ. Its is not a “greasy and infection-prone flap of skin”. How distatseful and disrespectful! I am so proud (as are my sons) that they have healthy intact genitals, the way God made them. He doesnt make mistakes that we need to “correct” be removing. All you need to do to care for it is wash it to avoid infections. How hard is that?
I had never heard of MALE circumcision being declared a form of mutilation/abuse. I didn’t realize there were people so ardently against it. I always figured Christians did it because they thought they were doing the right thing for the baby’s health and Jews did it for religious reasons. I always thought that was one of those things that either you did have male babies circumcized or you didn’t and either way was fine.
Shelly, anyone is able to get an infection, clean or not. But to say that a man should be circ’d to avoid it is absurd. I have a circ’d son and two intact sons. My circ’d son has had mor infections and issues that my intact boys who have had none. Its isnt an issue of circ or uncirc. You are not more or less likely to get an infection either way. I shouldnt have said “health issues due to uncircumcision are a hygiene issue only. If the man properly cleans himself, he will not get or give infections”. It should have said that “health issues due to uncircumcision are typically a hygiene issue. If the man properly cleans himself, he will not get or give infections in most cases.”
Kel’s article means nothing. Again, an anecdotal source. Find a real source (such as the WHO or the AAP) and back up your argument.
Dear Shelly, Have you ever watched a video of the “simple procedure”? Just because the baby doesn’t remember does not mean there is no pain, no psychological trauma or damage. Please investigate further. It is very possible that your father had troubles with his foreskin because it was not cared for properly and/or it was retracted before it was ready. Caring for an intact penis on a baby is much less complicated that keeping a circumcision wound clean. One must NOT retract the foreskin, only wipe the outside. If an infection were to arise in a boy or man, antibiotics are available to combat it, among other things. This is what we do with girls and women when we encounter infections: we treat it, we don’t cut it off.
Here is one article about neonatal circumcision.
http://www.drmomma.org/2011/01/neonatal-circumcision-video-for.html
I do so hope you change your mind, Shelly, and when you see your little guy’s face and hold him in your arms, you do not subject him to this kind of unnecessary treatment.
NYDoula,
Being part of a generation who were circumcised as a matter of routine, I can tell you that there is no problem with arousal and pleasure in the males of my generation. That there may be some males who claim circumcision as the causal nature of their dysfunction does not establish a causal nature. Statistically, they are outliers.
The anti-circ movement is rooted in dubious science and strident polemics, none of which amounts to convincing medical evidence.
I agree with Jill when she says:
“But it cannot begin to be compared to female mutilation. To do so is to diminish the gravity of female mutilation. To do so is misogynistic.”
The simple fact is that circumcised men lead normal, healthy sex lives, while circumcised females have been robbed of that capacity. It is especially humorous when women argue with men that this isn’t so. I once heard a circumcised male graduate student challenge a female graduate student maintaining this argument to join him in bed for an empirical demonstration of his ability to feel immense pleasure.
As a pick-up line, it was crass and classless. As scientific argument goes, it was priceless.
Jill, there are different degrees of FGM, and contrary to popular belief, most women who are circumcised can orgasm. When we say males have no sexual problems like circumcised women do, we should ask why we have such a huge need for pharmaceuticals such as Viagra. The male circumcision we see today was introduced into our culture in order to curb masterbation! The arguments people use for FGM and MGM are the same: hygiene, stop infections, “better sex”. They are not as different as we have been led to believe! Dig deeper, keep researching, you may be surprised as I was to learn all these facts.
I think a lot of the “debate” can be avoided once parents understand HOW the penis functions
http://mommymattersonline.ning.com/video/the-penis-sex-education-101
Interesting how many proaborts are vocally opposed to male circumcision but claim abortion is a parenting decision.
Both my boys are circumcised and if I had to do it over again, I would have researched the issue. However, I am 100% in agreement with Jill that to compare male circumcision to female circumcision is offending and terribly misogynistic.
As far a Viagra, I attribute the wide-spread use of it to the misuse of sex in general, not circumcision.
Gerard, just because you havent had any issues sexually doesnt mean it doesnt happen. Just as you can say just because your baby survivied a circ, doesnt mane some havent. Just because they are the minority doesnt exclude them forma alife of pain and complications. Again, your points are anecdotal. You want to talk convincing medical evidence? Did you miss the point of NO HEALTH organization support it because medically, there are no proven benefits?
And to clarify, there is no “anti-circ movement”. It isnt a movement. Its the truth of life. The US and Israel are the ONLY 2 countries in the world who routinely perform infant circumcision. The “movement” that you speak of is to inform the minority of the risks of the procedure and the truth behind it.
It shouldnt be happening, just as FGM shouldnt be happening. Why do we support a womans right to genital integrity, but not a mans? Its a human rights issue across the board. The baby boy doesnt have a say, just as the aborted baby doesnt have a say. Not sure how some can support one and not the other. Just like Crowe.
I respectfully disagree with all people who support infant circumcision. I dont come on here to argue, and I probably wont change your minds, just as you wont change mind. And thats not my intention anyway. But I wont sit by while half truths and myths are spread about circumcision. As a mom who has encountered both, parents deserve the truth because once its done, it can never be undone. You choose it knowing the facts, thats your decision, but please state the facts, and not stories of your uncle’s borther’s neighbor, or a magazine article.
I am a pro-life, conservative, Christian, intactivist. They all go hand in hand.
Jews circumcize. Christians do not need to. this is not anti-semitic. This argument takes the focus away from life and into a new arena, and weakens the position on life. My son is not circumcized, and I am a 100% prolife, 100% Christian with the UTMOST respect for all Jewish people. I did not circumcize my son because I do not believe in MURDERING or MUTILATING my babies.
Circumcision (for whatever reason) cannot be compared to the intentional destruction of an unborn child’s life. Period.
NYDoula, did you read the examples of studies she mentions in the article I linked?
Good grief…I stand by what I said earlier…I had no idea this was such a big issue. I always figured some people circumcized male children for health and/or religious reasons and others didn’t because they decided not to. Now you all are saying it’s mutliating male babies and akining it to abortion?
Look, I’m a very pro-life mama. When I circumcized my offspring, I did it out of thinking that it was because it was going to be helpful to their health. I have since learned (before this post on this blog) that isn’t so if I have any other boys I won’t do it, but gee whiz, folks, don’t lump me in with folks who support abortion because by golly I sure don’t support abortion and I thought I was doing a good thing for my male offspring!
I’m not a fan of circumcision, because I see it as a procedure that should only be done for religious or medical necessity. Even then, it should be done under medical supervision and with anesthetic. And rabbis should never be permitted to suck the blood from the wound: I read about Jewish babies who were infected with herpes that way.
However, I agree with Jill that male circumcision is not a huge deal compared to abortion. Does Russell Crowe really think he’s not a hypocrite? It’s fine for parents to have their baby murdered, but not if they have the baby’s foreskin removed? I don’t know what to think about how important a foreskin is, but cutting off someone’s arm is still a far cry from killing them.
As for the comparison between male circumcision and female genital cutting/mutilation, keep in mind that there are different types of the female genital cutting/mutilation that are practiced in different places. The most severe type is infibulation, where the clitoris is excised and the labia are sewn together, leaving a small hole for menstrual fluid and urine; it has to be reopened and sewn shut whenever she has sex or gives birth. This is the procedure endured by Waris Dirie and countless other girls. Other kinds remove the clitoris and/or labia. A less severe type just removes the clitoral hood, and this one is probably the most analogous to male circumcision.
I hang out on a lot of pregnancy/parenting boards, and it seems to me that most families choose to circumcise because they either assume that “everyone” circumcises and they don’t want their sons to feel “left out” in locker rooms when they’re older, or because they want their sons to “look like dad.”
Both are rather poor reasons, in my opinion.
Currently in the US it is illegal to perform any unnecessary procedures on the genitals of an infant girl- even a ceremonial pinprick for people whose customs and culture require female circumcision. Certainly, a pinprick would cause no permanent damage and the girl would probably grow up to become perfectly functional. I am not saying this should be legal, because it shouldn’t be, but what I am pointing out here is that infant girls are protected from any and all genital modification while it is encouraged for boys. It is an unnecessary procedure performed on innocent babies and children. It is painful and can lead to life altering, and sometimes even life ending, consequences. There are hundreds of thousands of American men currently undergoing the years long process of foreskin restoration in an attempt to regain some of what they’ve lost.
It is not prudent as preventative medicine, regardless of any anectdotal evidence one might have. It can carry horrendous complications (google circumcision complications and look at some pictures if you don’t believe me) and there are men who regret that they were circumcised and feel violated.
Jill, I often agree with you, and agree that Crowe’s opinions are not consistent, but I hope that you would look more into the history of circumcision, the way the procedure is performed and the information about it.
Remember parents, if you have an intact son the care of his penis is simple: if intact don’t retract, only clean what is seen.
We should all be fighting for the right to life, freedom and physical integrity of all human beings from conception to death.
Athena…”hundreds of thousands”? Um. No. You’re going to have to provide an accurate statistic on that, because I’m calling B.S. on that.
It is funny, actually REALLY funny, watching a bunch of women argue about this, while the men who have posted (myself and Gerard, who are both circumcised) do not have a problem with it and I have had it done for my sons as well. The truth of the matter is that there is no weighty evidence against it, but there happens to be some evidence for it.
And no, NYdoula, I do not miss my foreskin and am very happy not to have it. I suspect that millions of men feel the same way. If you would like to do a survey of them, be my guest.
Also, Gerard, your post wins this argument. Hands down!
Male Circumcision Offers a ‘Critical’ 60% Reduction in HIV Risk, UN Finds http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-03/male-circumcision-offers-a-critical-60-reduction-in-hiv-risk-un-finds.html So getting circumcised may actually save alot of lives whereas being aborted doesnt.
April ~Circumcision (for whatever reason) cannot be compared to the intentional destruction of an unborn child’s life. Period.
I agree April!
RooForLife, that study was conducted on “[m]ore than 350,000 men in eight African countries…”
Hygiene practices in the United States are superior to those in those countries, so the data in that study isn’t applicable to men in the United States.
Has some stats for us http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm
Dr. Nadal is a pro-life male doctor. Three things that I think combined right there that gives his input to be one of the most important on this topic. I agree with what he said 100%.
My hub is circum. and has NO issues with sexual stuff, in fact, he clearly stated he is thankful his mother chose that for him :)
With that having been said, I think whether you do, or do not, circumcise, that is your decision for the health and well-being of your child and it is always done with good intent. So no matter which you choose, just don’t bash the ones who choose the opposite as you. :) I think all of you are great parents. :D
-Jenni Coffin Prolife advocate
Did anyone else hear that the reason circumcision was biblically mandated for the eighth day was that that is when Vitamin K really kicks in to aid in blood clotting? Curious.
I believe Paul was comparing the circumcision of the heart in the new birth process to the circumcision of old. But he wasn’t forbidding it. Any more than that pork was now as healthy as beef.
Wow.
I have mutilated my three sons.
Good to know.
****
Thank you, April!!
Circumcision (for whatever reason) cannot be compared to the intentional destruction of an unborn child’s life. Period.
JoAnna, Roo’s link states the following: The UN-sponsored researchers say the pocket between the foreskin and the tip of the penis gives viruses and bacteria a spot to grow, and circumcision eliminates it. They also say foreskin has been shown in studies to be rich in cells that carry HIV into the body.
It doesn’t mention hygiene practices as a factor here. Viruses and bacteria are a part of life for us all, not just those in third-world countries. I don’t understand how you can say this study is not applicable to all men.
Maybe we should take a chant from the pro-abortion side: “My penis is nobody’s penis but mine…you rub your own penis, let me rub mine!”
lol Bruce
There haven’t been rigorous studies on the subject of restoration, but 200,000 is the number used by norm.org, which is a site for information about foreskin restoration, so it could be off. There are companies that do nothing other than make restoration devices, so there must be a market. Even if it was just one man left feeling violated, it is still wrong.
I am happy that you are happy with your circumcision, but you can’t miss something you don’t remember having, so saying that you don’t miss it doesn’t add to your argument.
I also don’t think it is funny that women discuss and argue about circumcision. As the mother of an intact boy I probably know more about and have more experience caring for an intact penis than a circumcised man does (except ones with intact sons). Even hearing the foreskin described as a “flap” makes me think that it is not even being properly visualized.
I know that parents that circumcise love their children, so I hope that I am not coming off in a different way. I am also not insisting that circumcised men are (necessarily) sexually crippled. My husband is circumcised, almost all men in my generation are, and I am thankful that he hasn’t suffered from his circumcision as some men do. Some men are crippled by their circumcisions and they didn’t consent to them.
The truth is that most men, barring a harsh physical malformation or a harsh circumcision complication, will be happy with the penis they have. But for those who aren’t, an intact man can choose to be circumcised but a circumcised man cannot become uncircumcised. His only recourse is to restore a “faux-skin,” but his real foreskin and the specialized nerve endings in the foreskin are gone forever.
I am not trying to make people feel guilty for circumcising their sons, nor am I saying it wasn’t done out of love, because I know it was.
Carla, I don’t have a son, but I suppose I mutilated my daughter’s fingers. She grew fingernails, even as an infant, they were there naturally to protect the skin of the fingers. I clipped them when they got longer o.0 …..
LOL.
Again, we all have our own views, but no one should be bashed, that is imature. Carla, you didn’t mutilate nothing, you did something with the intent for the well-being of your sons based on current medical research. It is not a fashion statement (LOL). I think you did fine. :)
-Jenni Coffin
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Jenni-Coffin-Pro-Life-Educator/191344774243205
On another note, I have a pro-life activist friend who has two sons, one circm one not! She said she for sure agrees with circumcision after having seen both affects./etc. And the boys both agree LOL.
But, some people think different. I think since I do not have a penis I would rather take this information from a man who KNOWS a bit more, and a doctor, and a prolifer… all three of those describe Dr. Nadal I believe. I must agree with him on this, he went to med school after all, has the parts to discuss, and is prolife (big thing for me personally) ..
I think no matter which you choose is great. I can google and find research (and 50 million blogs) to support both sides of the argument, so one can say you cannot ignore facts about circumcision and that is fine, then another can say you cannot ignore facts about un-circumcised boys and that is fine too.
Respect! lol. Did anyone get the point of this article though? I must say in reference to the main topic, Russel Crowe is INSANNNNEEEEE haha
Good hygiene practices help minimize the effect of the bacteria and viruses in that “pocket.”
My first cousin had to have surgery at age 2 to repair a botched circumcision. I bet his parents wished they’d never circumcised him.
In fact, my pediatrician told me he was glad that we hadn’t circumcised our son; he was born at 36 weeks and was 6lbs 4oz. Our pediatrician said that healing from a circumcision could take his energy away from eating and growing, and he needed all the energy he could get for those two purposes.
Athena, on the contrary, one who has a circumcised son will not know as much as you because you have one “intact”? Sure, but it goes both ways. One may not know as much about circumcised boys if they do not have one. It was interesting to have a friend though who had a boy of each, she was great word on this lol. I posted above about her in my last comment.
But, others may have both in this world somewhere and feel the opposite in your defense! I respect your opinion on it Athena :) I disagree, but I understand.
-J.C.
“The truth of the matter is that there is no weighty evidence against it, but there happens to be some evidence for it.”
Bruce, wrong again. Take the exact opposite of what you said…There is NO EVIDENCE for it, and a lof of evidence against it. Again, why no medical authority in the world recommends it.
And no, NYdoula, I do not miss my foreskin and am very happy not to have it.
Where did I say you miss your foeskin?
I suspect that millions of men feel the same way.
Dont speak for other men. I know many who dont regret it was done (but then how can they even say that when they know no different?), I know many who wish it were done, and many who had it done as an adult and regretted that. Just because I’m a woman doesnt mean I dont have the right to speak out against it. Just as you being a man doesnt mean you dont have the right to speak out against abortion. I have a right to defend those who have no voice, the unbron, and the circumcised, even though I’m female. Now THATS misogynistic, you saying I have no right to speak.
“My penis is nobody’s penis but mine…you rub your own penis, let me rub mine!”
I agree! Have yourself circ’d and leave other people’s penises (including your sons) alone.
Athena…you take the words in my head and make them sound better on the screen. Thank your for standing up for our boys.
And to everyone who thinks they are being attacked for circ’ing, I hope you know I am not. I circ’d my first son and I didnt do it to “mutilate” him. I did it because it was what I thought was best at that time. I have since learned differently and my last 2 boys are intact. Every decision we make as parents we do out of the best interest for them. I believe that whole-heartedly. I just wish I had been told the truth before I circ’d my first son. I only hope to serve as a resource for people considering circ and to help dispel myths about it. Not to offend or to judge. Please forgive my words if you felt that way. :)
Athena, perhaps “flap” was wrong. We always referred to them as “turtle-necks” in high school, and the lone guy with one was, unfortunately, constantly reminded of it.
NYdoula, you must have missed this: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm
BRuce your comments are not my approach at all, but they are sure making me laugh… lol.
I am not sure what ‘medical authority’ refers too. Does that mean doctors? Because all over the world doctors DO in fact recommend it, I believe there is a prolife, male (so he has the parts in question so knows a tad better IMO) doctor above who posted…
DR. NADAL can we get your input on this?
My personal input is do it or don’t do it, and I think it is fine. I am not a medical professional nor am I a male, just my opinion.
TY for that link from the CDC Bruce, very informative. I like that it wasn’t a blog or opinion article link. :) TY again
Actually the whole, “this is just like how men can speak out about abortion” is actually wrong too. Abortion affects men and women. Circumcision only affects men. It is not the same, in the least. Now, once a man has a wife, he should discuss the matter with her, but barring that, it really is not any of your business. Abortion, on the other hand, concerns us all. I would be careful, if I were you NYdoula, from reaching for things that are not there.
JC, the “medical authority” I was referring to was the World Health Organization and the American Academy of Pediatrics. I only mention these two because they are the only ones that directly affect the US, but NO MAJOR HEALTH organization in the WORLD recommends routine infant circumcision because “there are no proven health benefits.” Their words, not mine.
If that seemed convoluted, here is the cliff notes version. Men can speak out on abortion, because males are aborted as well, and men are fathers of the children who are aborted. For circumcision, the situation is different. Women do not have penises, and the foreskin that is removed is never removed from a female’s penis, because there is no such thing. Now, I’m not saying you cannot have an opinion…you can and you should. But your opinion on this matter, unlike the situation with abortion, does not carry as much weight as a man’s. Similarly, a woman’s decision to shave her legs or have some sort of surgery on her “lady parts” is a decision in which a woman’s opinion weighs far more heavily than a man’s. This is because she experiences the equipment first hand, while a man does not, and his opinion on the matter (while valid) is not the same as hers.
Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision. – American Academy of Pedeatrics. Linked in my name above.
“Actually the whole, “this is just like how men can speak out about abortion” is actually wrong too. Abortion affects men and women. Circumcision only affects men.”
“Men can speak out on abortion, because males are aborted as well, and men are fathers of the children who are aborted.”
Wrong again Bruce, though you play a fun game! Circumcision affects women because #1 these are our sons being cut and #2 these are our future husbands being cut. So guess what…I have just as much authority to speak on this issue because these are my sons and future husbands to someone. It isnt my call to cut them or not. Its their body, they decide.
The CDC site is informative on this. And with all due respect the American Academy of Pediatrics FULL quote should be put in this, so it is not simply ‘they do not recommend it’ so others know what they FULLY said:
” Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision.”http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;103/3/686
These places you mention do not recommend it but they also do not oppose it at all. It is a neutural thing, which it should be, the parents decision. All the medical authorites neither oppose nor recommend it. They all however do list the health benefits.
Again I don’t care who does which, I just don’t want misinformation out there on the medical authorities opposing it (if one assumes that) or not having the full quotes is all. :)
NYDoula, you said it was THEIR words that they said there is no medical benefits, now I went to BOTH websites of the places you listed, both list medical benefits. ……. just saying…. please don’t quote them falsely.
J.C.
LOL
Little late now to be worried about circumcising my boys, eh?? :)
Actually, NYdoula, you haven’t backed up any of your statements successfully so far, and instead have been refuted at every turn. So, while this may indeed be some sort of a game to you, it is also abundantly clear that you are losing said game. I have a wife who has a vagina, by the way, but I have absolutely no idea what it is like to have a vagina. Her opinion on all things vaginal weighs far more than mine, because she has first hand experience. Likewise, unless you are sporting a penis, NYdoula, your opinion, while valid, does not carry as much weight as your husband’s.
Carla, you could always have their foreskins replaced and then removed again.
BRuce, on your last comment, just to put my two sense in as a woman, this is why I think Dr. Nadal (A male, medical professional) and his opinion above is important to notice.
Those with a voice should always advocate for those without, regardless of the sex of either party.
Well, right, J.C., I agree. It is ridiculous to have to say the following, but in the age we live in, you can’t avoid it: THIS IS NOT TO SAY THAT A WOMAN’S OPINION ON PENILE FORESKIN DOES NOT MATTER, but it is to say that she will never know what it is like to either have or not have foreskin on a penis. Therefore, while her opinion matters, it is not the same as a man’s. The same goes for all things vaginal. Now…what we’re we talking about? Thank heavens its Friday. All this penis and vagina talk is getting out of hand.
Circumcision and abortion are not the same. One takes the life of males and females and affects men and women equally. One removes the foreskin of a penis that carries with it medical benefits and a few risks. I suppose, in some sort of remote and highly irrational way, they are related, but not on this planet. As such, just as a discussion on the pros and cons of certain kinds of tampons will be more fruitful among women with experience than among men, a discussion on penile pleasure and circumcision will be more fruitful among men with experience than among women.
Health benefits from the World Health Organization, THEIR real words, not mine. This includes HIV reduction and many other health benefits. There are also risks, but I think the benefits outweigh IMO. Either way you choose is FINE, but do not make things up about what medical authorities say (or be misleading on it) and please provide full quotes and links. Here is W.H.O. > http://www.who.int/hiv/pub/malecircumcision/infopack/en/index.html
//NyDoula:“there are no proven health benefits.” Their words, not mine.//
And above I put American Academy of Pediatrics FULL quote, so it is not simply ‘they do not recommend it’ so others know what they FULLY said:
” Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision.”<a href=”http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics” rel=”nofollow”>http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics</a>;103/3/686
Again, don’t give a whoot which you do, but please do not mislead or spread misinformation or false quotes on medical organizations. Not trying to offend. God Bless.
Bruce, I’m not here to win or lose, just dispelling some myths about circumcision. My opinion carries just as much weight as my husband’s (who is also an intactivist, while circ’d himself). I never claimed to “know what it was like” to have a penis…I only claim to defend the boys who are having this done routinely. As the truth about circumcision is exposed, less and less people are consenting to this unnecessary surgery.
“The CDC data, reported by the New York Times, showed that the incidence of circumcision declined from 56 percent in 2006 to 32.5 percent in 2009. According to these statistics, non-circumcision or genital integrity has become the normal condition among newborn boys in the United States.”
Your lack of tact for intact men is appalling btw.
For example, I do not know the difference between tampax pearls and regular tampax, except for (I think) the former is a newer product that kind of looks like anal beads and the second has been around longer. Aside from that, I can’t tell you about ease of use, absorption, or whether or not they feel different. I would base my preference on whatever my wife wants. As for penises, in particular my sons’, she asked me about circumcision because she valued my opinion because I have experience walking around with one of those things. She had an opinion, but valued mine more because of the subject. On the other hand, when she was pregnant with our sons, the child was a product of the both of us and God, and concerned all of us equally. What concerned the child’s life concerned all of us equally. What concern’s the born child’s penis concerns us both too, but my opinion was valued more because of experience. With my daughter, in terms of tampon use when she is old enough, my wife’s opinion will matter far more than mine. It isn’t a sexist thing…its a truth thing.
On those who stand up for those without a voice, I AGREE SO MUCH ATHENA!!! I think people with education (Such as doctors, that is why I brought up dr. nadal, and yes having the parts I think does give certain input we could not) helps.
This is why, we will stand up for our sons and do as parents should, do what we feel is the best for their well being! Whether it be circumcising or NOT circumcising! We can choose the best for our OWN sons, but we should nt choose for other people’s sons.
NYDoolie, J.C. and I have both provided ample evidence which contradicts your opinion on the matter. The TRUTH of the matter, as you say, has indeed been exposed, in the very links we have provided (such as the one in my name…click on it for more information). So, I’m not sure why you keep beating your drum with a broken stick. Circumcision is not evil, and no one needs to be an “intactivist” or any other silly tag. The facts contradict you on the matter. And you are indeed correct, you do not know what it is like to have a penis. This is probably comforting news to your husband as well.
Bruce, really??? Comparing cutting off a healthy functioning body part off of a new innocent infant to shopping for tampons???
Now you mock me by changing my name… *sigh*
This is over. You want to have a discussion about a topic like adults, then fine. But I’m not going to sit around while you insult me. Glad to see you were able to remain a grown up through a disagreement.
NYDoula, I noticed you did not acknowledge my above comments/links/real quotes from the two places you mentioned and misquoted completely (World heath org. and APP) … That is fine I am not trying to make you “wrong” or me “right” Just saying… there are health benefits, there are reasons people do this, if Bruce wants his son(s) to be circumcised, the point is, is WE should have NO SAY in what him and his wife decides. If he asks for advice that is fine, but we should never tell him he is wrong or right for that decision. Because there is NOT a wrong or right for HIS son, that is his/his wife decision 100%. I think I made my point. God Bless you both.
Dools, the only one I see leaving this discussion is you, partly because you lack evidence to back up your claims. Anyhoo…yes, the situation is indeed similar, because of how I described it. You don’t have a penis. You claim all of these horrible things about circumcised penises and circumcision, but have no first hand experience, nor any experience in your own family. All you have are a couple of questionable anecdotal experiences (which I have my own to refute yours, but do not use, because that does not qualify as evidence) and some hyperbolic statements which have already been dissected. This is how a debate goes. If you do not want to debate, that is fine, but do not get upset about it, Dools, because after all, you’re the one who weighed in on it to begin with. :)
How about this analogy, Dools. You have a vagina. You want some sort of medical intervention that carries with it benefits and risks done on your vagina and on your daughter’s vagina. You ask me what I think. Me, not having a vagina, will look up some medical data on it, and finding some benefits and some risks, will leave it up to you, since you have a vagina. Your opinion, as a person who has a vagina, will weight more than mine, since I do not have a vagina. Does that make sense, or do I need to draw pictures? Because frankly, they always end up looking like strange dinosaurs when I draw anatomical parts.
Sorry JC, I was too caught up in my Bruce argument. I have this link below that gives the actual statements to many various health organziations. I cant find the WHO statement because they have recently changed their site and my bookmark isnt working. I’m leaving now, but i will find it and get it back to you later!
http://www.nocirc.org/position/
Bruce, again…DONE. You are childish and detestable in your remarks. I find you apalling and disrepectful.
Dools, that does not qualify as an answer to any of my questions or analogies, but rather is an escape. Methinks you doth protest too much. After all, unless you point them out, I see nothing “destestable (sic) and appalling” in my remarks. So, lets hear it, unless you are really “done” this time, as opposed to last time. I’ll hang around and wait. :)
Well WHO never made that statement, because they would not say there is no health benefits then say there are health benefits and have several pages showing them on their website, that would be unprofessional and contradictory. You said the only two that mattered were the two health orgs that you listed, or they were most important, all I did was show the links above where you can go see where they clearly believe and list all health benefits. (again, not pushing you that I am right or anyone is wrong). That website you just linked (nocirc.org) is a anti-circ webpage, I will choose to ignore it, it is a very bias source. I will go by the APP and WHO that you said were top health organizations a moment ago. And you two knock it off before I separate you both! :)
Posting a website so obviously biased as “no circ dot com” as an answer to the CDC and the APP statements showing that the operation is largely “not a big deal” is not going to qualify as evidence. You need to provide far more convincing evidence.
If da’ Noo Yawk Doooolah (my best attempt at a NYC accent…pathetic, I know) or anyone else was offended by my reference to uncircumcised penises as “turtle necks” be advised that I was merely being the messenger. He actually referred to it as a “sweater” himself.
I suppose a picture, completely safe for work, would speak 1000 words: http://battalionarmour.com/nu/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/00240m.jpg Now THAT is a turtleneck!
For example, I do not know the difference between tampax pearls and regular tampax, except for (I think) the former is a newer product that kind of looks like anal beads and the second has been around longer.
Thanks for my daily giggle Bruce. I’ve never bought the pearls because they are more expensive but I don’t think they actually look like a pearl necklace. I think they might be called pearls because of the sheen of the applicator.
When the subject of circumcision came up with our first son, I listened to his dad. Health was listed as one reason but he also brought up the “turtle neck” subject and stated that the few boys who were not circumcised when he was in school were terribly picked on.
Praxedes… don’t buy the pearls, the cheaper ones are better! I’ll tell you why, they are very sleek,thin,SHARP plastic and they can pinch and/or CUT you down there EEEEEK! yeah… LOL Happened to me twice, I was like… DONE. ok TMI I know…. back on topic now.. ahem.
My husband is not circumcised, and wishes he was. I agree with (most of) Bruce’s posts on the subject.
For men who were not circumcised when they were little, why not just go and get it done now then? What, it would hurt too much? Yes, it would have been better that your parents did it to you when you were tiny without anesthetic and when you had no say in the matter. If a grown man cringes at the thought of going through that trauma, why do we do it to our baby boys? Often it is done without pain relief, and even when there is anesthesia, it is sadly inadequate. I, as a mother wish to help inform people what is really going on, hoping that maybe one less little one will have to go through this pain. I shudder at the violence being perpetrated against babies: from conception, abortion, during birth when medical intervention is rampant, early separation of mother and baby, circumcision, harsh physical discipline of the youngsters, the list goes on and on.
Gosh I wish I could get all the links right now for you, but so many of the “studies” that pro-circ people rely on to argue for doing it are totally biased and not good scientific technique. One study on pain in infants being circumcised was stopped as it was deemed unethical. The HIV/circumcision have major, major flaws in their design, one of them noting that fewer men were infected by HIV in the weeks following being circ’ed. Um, maybe they were a little less sexually active? One also has to ponder just how much money is to be made in the circumcision business. Similar money to be made as in the abortion business.
I have read all the comments so far and will start by saying this is a one of comment, not intending to get into a discussion. I am pro-life and I am very much against Female Genital Mutilation as well as Male Genital Mutilation. I am from the UK. Here we do not routinely circumcise infant boys or girls. We suffer NO health complications from not doing so. Did you know that Egyptian Muslims routinely use the same excuses for FGM as I am hearing on all US ‘populated’ websites/blogs/pages etc.
Because as a country we do not circumcise our medical professionals also know proper care of an intact penis – judgiong by the comments I read by distraught mothers and by the legal professionals who work full time to ‘advise’ those professionals who have just forcibly retracted an intact penis.
We do not have a big occurance of infections in our intact popluation – in fact we have a lower occurance of HIV… something some are claiming circumcision is a ‘cure’ for – many men are posting on fb for instance that they thing that being circumcised means they no longer need to practise safe sex – that is a scarey claim to make.
As a woman I also am affected as to whether a man in cut or not – the foreskin has a ‘rolling’ action and assists pleasurable sex with a natural lubrication effect – needing much less lubrication is the woman. The ridges also act to enhance pleasure. Men who claim they are just fine with their cut penis just don’t realise the difference – the fact that the head of a cut penis becomes calloused over time with thicker skin means that their will be much less sensation, let alone the glans, frenulumn and foreskin. If you are so sure I challenge you to visit one of the restoring sites and compare.
The big thing though that has not been mentioned that i think demonstrates why i think pro-life people should take a look at circumcision is about the death rate. Yes did you know that there is a death rate… A perfect boy is born and due to a misunderstanding that one of his perfectly functioning parts could some day have a problem, he dies from circumcision. Wow that must be rare though, right. No. Over 150 male baby boys die every YEAR. And that’s not counting those over the age of 1. You have had cots with a much less possibility of an injury being pulled of the market because of the risk. It’s equal to the occurance of SIDS… but because there is a lot of money to be made, the practise continues and Doctors etc continue to reccomend it, practise it and make even more money at fixing the (many) issues.
You will notice that i have not included any links to back up what i am saying. Well i could but again a challenge if you are really interested (an if you are not – you wouldn’t bother with the links anyway). US links are either going to be pro-circumcision or against circumcision. Deliberately search for NZ, Australian and UK links. You will still understand the language but you will find un-biased information. Instead of posting a silly comment with LOL after – please educate yourself. You could still end up por-circumcision at the end but it would be propery informed rather than informed by the very organisations that are benefitting from the cut by selling the foreskins – (Yep yuck they go into skin care ranges etc)
Remember – I am not intending to make anyoone feel guilty. We as parents make the best decisions we can – but please make it an informed decision. Now you know that you can’t trust US pages for unbiased information, you have a challenge.
Cindy wrote:
Paul argues against circumcision, going so far as to having harsh words for those who do push circumcision. New Testament Christians are NOT to circumcise!
Well… hold on, a moment. St. Paul does not argue against the physical act of circumcision per se (i.e. he doesn’t see the act as an intrinsic evil; that very idea is ludicrous), but against those who are hoping that circumcision, along with observing the rest of the Old (Mosaic) Law, will save them. St. Paul (curiously enough) had St. Timothy circumcised (see Acts 16:3… which was particularly odd, given St. Paul’s comments to St. Peter, as recounted on Galatians 2:11-14… but I digress)… so obviously it wasn’t a case of him saying “don’t ever circumcise!” Rather, it was a case of eradicating an early heresy (of the Judaizers). If the circumcision were not done in the hopes of “buying” salvation via the Old Law, St. Paul would have no issue with it; and I do not think that many people today practice circumcision for that reason… do you?
NYDoula wrote, in reply to Helena:
A website with your “backed up points” isnt convincing those of us that know the truth. Your sources are weak. NO health organization in the WORLD supports circ, due to there being NO proven benefits.
Not so fast, friend. First of all, off-hand dismissal of someone else’s sources really doesn’t firm up your own position (to spectators) very much. Secondly, would you care to check with all of those “health organizations” to which you give such weight, and see how many of them tolerate (or even advocate) abortion? The results might be rather telling…
I think there is something innately wrong with having a baby boy, and then having a perfectly normal part of his body cut off for no compelling reason.
And Bruce, women may not have foreskins, but every single person in the world who has one has a mother. Barring mothers who do not raise their sons for whatever reason (adoption, her death, etc), she will be part of the decision-making process for this procedure when he’s a baby. Women have a right to be informed and have opinions regarding circumcision.
I have no religious reasons for circumcising any child of mine, so the only reason I would allow such a thing to be done is if my child had a specific medical issue that would be helped by the procedure.
Circumcision is supposed to reduce HIV transmission, but any son of mine is going to be raised to not engage in risky sex anyway. If he takes that risk anyway, that’s his decision, not something I’m going to anticipate with a circumcision procedure when he’s a baby.
Circumcision has been said to heighten genital sensation, but removing a girl’s clitoral hood would do the same thing and I don’t see any great cultural movement towards doing that routinely. And again, when I have a baby boy, why should I worry about enhancing the sex he won’t be having for twenty or thirty years?
Any son of mine can go get circumcised when he’s old enough to want it, to understand the risks and benefits, and make that decision himself. I refuse to trample on his bodily autonomy whether he’s in my womb or outside of it.
Hey CC from teh UK.
Believe it or not, we have a regular pro-choicer who goes by CC on here. Just so we don’t confuse the two of you, could you add something to your name like “UK CC” or “pro-life CC” or something so that we can quickly distinguish the two of you? Thanks, God love you.
Paladin, the silly thing is that, yes, I hear American Christians saying regularly, “It’s in the Bible, Jesus was circumcised so we should too.” So many seem to think that just because we find this practice being done (in the OT), we should do it. What about all the dietary laws, should we follow them then? No, we don’t adhere to those because we are in the New Testament times. Also, I am not Catholic, but did you know that the Catholic church has an official stance against mutilating the body?
http://guggiedaly.blogspot.com/2010/07/catholics-and-circumcisiondo-you-know.html Here is a good article spelling it out for Catholics.
Note that Timothy was a man, not a newborn, able to decide for himself. It was part of Paul’s teaching to “be all things to all people in order to win some.” I have no problem if a person wants to do alter something on himself, but I am against surgically altering a healthy baby boy because of misconceptions of what our faith requires of us. So many Americans call themselves Christians, circumcise and think that’s what is right. My argument is that these folks are uninformed about a.)True Christian faith, b.)Healthy, normal foreskin function, c.)The procedure of circumcision. I wish Christians would start to see the light on this, that there is no neutral when it comes to inflicting unnecessary cosmetic surgery on our babies.
BS”D
Why Jews theologically reject intactivism and the notion that a baby is born “whole”:
http://ajws.org/what_we_do/education/publications/dvar_tzedek/5771/tazria.html
Turnus Rufus the wicked asked Rabbi Akiva: “Whose deeds are better—Those of G-d or those of humans?” Rabbi Akiva answered, “Those of humans are better.”…Turnus Rufus asked, “Why do you circumcise yourselves?” [Rabbi Akiva] replied, “I knew you would ask me about that, which is why I pre-empted and told you that things made by humans are better than things made by G-d.” Rabbi Akiva then brought Turnus Rufus two items: stalks of wheat and baked rolls. Rabbi Akiva said: “These [the stalks of wheat] are the deeds of G-d, and these [the baked rolls] are the deeds of humans. Are these [baked rolls] not more beautiful?” — Midrash Tanchuma, Tazria 5
Turnus Rufus’s initial question is audacious, surpassed in its daring only by Rabbi Akiva’s surprising answer. We would expect the great sage to laugh at the suggestion that the omnipotent and benevolent Master of the Universe can even be compared with earthly humans, who, we learn in Bereishit, are made from dust and will return to dust.[Genesis 3:19] And yet, Rabbi Akiva’s almost blasphemous response dares to rank the work of humans higher than that of G-d. In his estimation, circumcision—the symbol of our covenant—acts as a bold reminder that G-d did not create a perfect world; rather, G-d left the world unfinished, inviting us to be partners in creation.
If you wish to ‘know more’ or not believe the APP and WHO and medical research on the benefits, and decide to not believe the proof on the HIV reduction on circumcised men (listed on the CDC, APP, and WHO, all major health organizations, the top actually) then that is on you. I have NO problem with someone who doesn’t or does circmucise. It is up to the parents and both decisions are made for the health and well-being of their son, no one outside that circle should EVER tell another parent what they did was wrong, no matter which side you are on, period, it shows a lack of maturity as well. If someone asks you for advice, then go ahead and give the advice.
But….. with that having been said, I wonder if the person who just compared FGM to male circumcision even BOTHERED to read Jill Stanek’s and Dr. Nadal’s comments way up above. Both prolife medical professionals with education more than most of us on it, beyond the “internet” *gasp* lol
I agree with Jill, it is offensive to compare such things, and she explained why up above. :)
I also do not believe propaganda from bias websites over the actual pediatric (APP) and world health org. (WHO) and CDC websites on this, seeing how they all collaborate with one another, they do not contradict each others medical research, they are all top medical research and health organizations, and they all say that they neither recommend NOR oppose circumcising, and ALL say that there are tons of health benefits even beyond the HIV thing (which they all confirm). I listed in a previous comment of mine the links to each one of these webpages where it shows the benefits and theiwr quotes NOT taken out of context.
I do not CARE if someone circ. or doesn’t circ. their son, that is THEIR choice for THEIR child for the well-being of THEIR child, if they ask for my personal advicve sure I will give it. But no matter which they choose, I will never be the propoganda hugging one who ‘knows more than all the major medical authority organizations’ to act like I know otherwise, it is rude and unfounded.
So, whether you do or don’t circumcise your son, I praise you parents for doing what is best for YOUR child and respecting other’s decisions as well. :)
God Bless.
To say that all forms of female circumcision is barbaric and mutilation but male circumcision is just fine is ethnocentric. The removal of the clitoral hood(a common form of FC) is completely analogous to the removal of the foreskin. Add the fact that male circumcision was promoted in the country under the Victorian era belief that it prevents masturbation and it becomes a glaring example of Americanized genital mutilation. Since then it has survived under in the name of preventing everything from unheard of cancers(ie penile) to syphillis. The reality is that there are no significant medical benefits to the procedure otherwise European, Australian, Canadian, and South American men would have more urogenital complications, and they don’t! I long for the day when this country follows the rest of the civilized world and sees routine infant circumcision for what it is, a violation of bodily integrity in the name of blind conformity.
If you don’t believe me, see what medical organizations around the world who aren’t blinded by profit margins have to say:
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2010/05/30/royal-dutch-medical-association-male-circumcision-medically-unnecessary/
And if it is in someone’s religion I respect that as well. Jesus was circumcised, so was his disciples, so was the Apostle Paul and Timothy, and tons more, btw I am speaking from what I see written in the New Test. :) BUT, religion is a whole nother debate, in the end instead of debating it here why not go talk to your minister or preacher about it. :)
Again, I agree with the medical professionals.. Jill clearly stated up in a way above comment how it is offensive and absurd to compare male circ. to female circ. And really it is ignorant to compare them as equal. Sorry, true, maybe listen to the doctors… lol… or not. not my choice :)
Nicole your link is to a news blog page. Nonetheless, I will just recommend the CDC website and the two leading health medical authority organizations in the U.S. (The APP and the WHO). I can paste the links (although I already did way up above) as well where it debunks a LOT of what I hear people saying (that is simply propaganda) :)
For example, I do not know the difference between tampax pearls and regular tampax, except for (I think) the former is a newer product that kind of looks like anal beads and the second has been around longer.
LOL Bruce!! Hahaha sorry I just had to crack up. At first I had no clue what you were talking about… then I realize you were referring to the pearls on the package. They are normal tampons… just shinier. hahaha sorry that just made me giggle alot.
//Jill Stanek: Cindy, as I said, male circumcision and female mutilation are not at all comparable. Female mutilation involves removal of the clitoris and sometimes sewing together the labia. This is one of the highest forms of misogyny – removal of a woman’s ability to orgasm. Plus it creates other obvious health woes.
Like it or not, male circumcision does not do the same. In fact, some studies say it increases sexual pleasure, along with enhancing male hygiene. I understand some people oppose it as unnecessary, antiquated, and even a form of torture.
But it cannot begin to be compared to female mutilation. To do so is to diminish the gravity of female mutilation. To do so is misogynistic.//
I think she said it best, and I think she got her information straight from the leading American medical authority organizations and an accredited medical university, as opposed to bias websites, google, blogs, etc….. I will have to agree with her on this one of this comparison she addressed :)
End of story: Whether you circ. your son or not, as long as you did it for the right reasons then GOOD for you, I praise you!!!! I sure as heck will never be so rude as to push my personal opinions and views on you for the choice you made or are going to make unless you directly ask me to tell you what I think you should do with YOUR child :).
The blog links to the actual document from the Royal Dutch Medical Association.
The AAP speaks of “potential” benefits such STD prevention while still not recommending it. They are pretty much alone in the civilized world in their flippant attitude to procedure, most likely due to the profits their members make from it.
And any reduced risks of STDs is irrelevant. STDs are preventable through non-surgical means. Europe has a low STD rate compared to us, and virtually no one there is circumcised. Cutting healthy tissue off of non-consenting newborns is hardly necessary.
I am sorry I did not realise I would be confused- it is late here and I need to sleep which is why I cannot keep adding to the debate. I of course can put UK after any of my future (and in the morning) comments.
In support of the Christian commentators thought – a quick thought that every UK Christian I have talked to since becoming interested in this topic, take Paul’s letter’s to mean that if we circumcise our babies as part of the law – then we are creating a situation where we are ‘in debt to keep the whole Law. You who do so have been severed from Christ…you have fallen from grace. – Gal 5:3’
Because circumcision is not ingrained into our culture we class it with sacrificing animals – something we would have been required to do under the law but in the New Covenant it is not neccessary. Unless it’s neccessary – who would do this – I think every parent here would agree that it’s done because of a real or percieved benefit. Again I want to stress that I do not want to make any parent feel guilty about a decision they have taken in the past but ask that in light of this discussion, you go and research yourself, using unbiased sources, so that any future decisions are informed decisions. There are men I have personally talked to who are currently sueing their parents, no longer recognising their parents because they feel abused and not heard in their anger at being circumcised against their will. Please don’t let that be you, by not informing yourself and continuing to be flippant about it.
Your religious freedom ends where my body and my human rights begin under the 14th amendment and equal protection whereas FGM is banned so boys are equally protected. There is no religious exemption for female circumcision.
Jews Against Circ Bris shalom requires no cutting and my Jewish friends kept their kids intact: http://www.JewsAgainstCircumcision.org
Muslims against circ: http://www.quranicpath.com/misconceptions/circumcision.html
I am genitally cut and hate it like 200,000 other men restoring their foreskin to undo some of the damage and sexual diminishment of genital cutting: http://www.tlctugger.com We would have said NO to having our penises being genitally mutilated against our will.
Keep your kids intact all the info you need: http://www.WholeNetwork.org Doctors Oppose it: http://www.DoctorsOpposingCircumcision.org Jews oppose it http://www.JewsAgainstCircumcision.org
//nicole:
The blog links to the actual document from the Royal Dutch Medical Association.
The AAP speaks of “potential” benefits such STD prevention while still not recommending it. They are pretty much alone in the civilized world in their flippant attitude to procedure, most likely due to the profits their members make from it.
And any reduced risks of STDs is irrelevant. STDs are preventable through non-surgical means. Europe has a low STD rate compared to us, and virtually no one there is circumcised. Cutting healthy tissue off of non-consenting newborns is hardly necessary.//
Sorry, I go by the leading AAP and WHO in my country, America, and they seem to have the most solid research, which is why this is taught in all medical universities as well, unless they are wrong too. Before talking about HIV (which is not always an STD so please do not make it come across as SOLEY an STD) please go to the CDC or one of the accredited websites of America’s health organizations (Which would be CDC, AAP, WHO) and read up a bit on the HIV thing, cause I can tell you clearly do not understand it. And the APP lists many benefits and some risks, as does the WHO as well. And you say they are alone in the world, the APP, on their stance on this? really? Cause the world health org. (the WHO), actually say the exact same things, as does the CDC, almost to the T. Here in America, those are the accredited research and medical authorities that doctors, medical universities, and medical orginizations are to go off of. Sure anyone can be bias and go by something else or believe propaganda, etc. whatever, I have nothing against that. Just making my point lol. In the end, there are risks and benefits. you, me, no one here, has any right to order or yell that YOU have to circumcise YOUR son because THEY think it is right, nor can they tell you NOT too circumcise YOUR son because THEY think it is right. This decision should NEVER be up to someone who is NOT the parent, as long as the parent is a caring parent doing it for the right reasons and has spoken to a doctor, then butting in or saying others who do or do not circumcise are doing something bad to their sons, or belittle/judge/tell them we are right they are wrong etc. No matter which side of the debate, we have no say, and never should, in this decision coming from other loving parents to THEIR kid. :)
Amen. God bless you all.
Just to help those on both sides of the debate here, and avoid bias websites/blogs/research and stick with the accredited American top medical authority organizations, here are some helpful links :)
CDC HIV and circumcision information:
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm
CDC Circumcision recommendations:
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/research/male-circumcision.htm
Benefits and risks(to be fair to both sides) straight from the World Health Organization:
http://www.who.int/hiv/pub/malecircumcision/infopack_en_3.pdf
An informative article on Circumcision by Edgar J. Schoen, MD from the AAP pediatrics:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/118/1/385.full?sid=048e5c95-e3fa-462a-8000-2fbc616908bd
I’m tired now, goodbye all and I support all you parents on BOTH your decisions in this debate! :P
-J.C. Prolife advocate/educator
No problem CC UK. Glad to have you here (and a pro-life CC to counter the pro-choice CC… bwahahahaha!)
HIV is preventable without circumcision! Whether it slightly reduces the risk is irrelevant. Risky sexual practices lead to HIV, not being uncircumcised! Again, Europe has a lower STD rate than the US. There is no need surgically alter anyone without their consent to prevent the spread of disease. Think least invasive means…
J.C. What’s the APP anyways?
I stated AAP many times then once typoed in the same comment ‘APP’, APP stands for a typo, if you read the rest of everything I said I assumed you would see that. AAP = American Association of Pediatrics. :)
Did you really not read the rest or catch that it was a mere typo? Kind of like “Anyways” instead of “Anyway” in yours ;)
Yes, we all do silly typos. :)
God bless all.
Greg, are you pro-choice or pro-life?
If you are pro-life, then your view is balanced and fair, that we have no right to take sharp objects to babies for something that doesn’t save their lives. (of course my parents had a right to take me for surgery when I had appendicitis).
If you are pro-choice, then you would be a hypocrite like Russell Crowe.
People do have a variety of opinions on circumcision, but we can all agree that if you can’t circumcise a baby at one week after birth, you should not advocate killing the same baby before birth.
J.C. I hadn’t gotten to your comment with the correct “AAP” yet. I was reading several times APP and I thought you were referring to a different organization that I did not know of.
I saw this from Jill’s page:”Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.”
This is the part where I make an effort to protect the postborn innocent human life. I believe in that child’s right to his or her own body once he or she is born (as well as in the womb). For me pro-life and pro-intact do go together.
Cindy wrote:
Paladin, the silly thing is that, yes, I hear American Christians saying regularly, “It’s in the Bible, Jesus was circumcised so we should too.”
Ah. Well… I can’t really help them with their position; they’re on their own. :)
So many seem to think that just because we find this practice being done (in the OT), we should do it. What about all the dietary laws, should we follow them then? No, we don’t adhere to those because we are in the New Testament times.
Mostly, yes; the Letter to the Hebrews makes it rather plain that the New Covenant fulfills the Old (which is therefore rendered obsolete), but there are some OT things (such as the Ten Commandments) which obviously remain in force.
Also, I am not Catholic, but did you know that the Catholic church has an official stance against mutilating the body?
I do know that. However, the Church does not necessarily agree with any given person’s definition of “mutilation”, and She doesn’t make a habit of micromanaging such things, either (unless the definitions are crystal-clear, the matter is grave, and the need is urgent). For example: are pierced ears “mutilation”? What of pierced eyebrows, noses, lips, etc.? What of tattoos? The Church has not pronounced on any of the above in any sort of blanket condemnation. There are very select cases (such as medically unnecessary amputations, flaying someone alive, etc.) which the Church clearly calls “mutilation”, but many other cases are not categorized thusly, one way or the other.
(BTW: I read the material at the link you provided… and I’m afraid the author is very badly confused about many aspects of Church teaching. Some details are correct, but ripped from any meaningful context; other details are simply wrong. I given her full marks for her enthusiasm and attempt to piece together a case, but I’m afraid it has more than a few holes in it. Details available on request.)
Note that Timothy was a man, not a newborn, able to decide for himself. It was part of Paul’s teaching to “be all things to all people in order to win some.”
Right. My point was simply to refute the mistaken idea that “Paul preached against circumcision, so we must not do it!” I think that’s as mistaken a view as is its opposing view (i.e. the mistaken view that “the Bible taught circumcision, so we must do it!”).
I have no problem if a person wants to do alter something on himself, but I am against surgically altering a healthy baby boy because of misconceptions of what our faith requires of us.
I agree, up to that point; I see no clear moral obligation on this issue, one way or the other.
So many Americans call themselves Christians, circumcise and think that’s what is right.
Well… one would have to build a rock-solid moral case before saying (with certainty) that they are NOT right… or, worse, that they are WRONG.
My argument is that these folks are uninformed about a.)True Christian faith, b.)Healthy, normal foreskin function, c.)The procedure of circumcision.
Perhaps; if that’s so, then by all means, let us educate them. I would, however, ask that we not confuse such a scenario with the very different (and untrue) claim that “it is definitely immoral to circumcise any child, whatsoever” (as opposed to “doing it without proper education and/or with false religious reasons”).
I wish Christians would start to see the light on this, that there is no neutral when it comes to inflicting unnecessary cosmetic surgery on our babies.
Well and good; that is your sincere opinion. (By the way: I have no particular desire to see the practice promoted or discouraged; I see no clear moral imperatives on either side of the issue, and it seems to be safe to leave it to the prudential judgment of the parents and/or individuals.) But your task, now, is to show how it is definitely “unnecessary”, how it is merely “cosmetic”, and how one cannot licitly be neutral on the issue.
I am a circumcised male with an uncircumcised son.
He has no problems with hygiene and infections. He is two years old, so we are still responsible for his hygiene, but I will make sure he is well-informed and knows how to take care of himself when he is older.
If he wishes to be circumcised, he can make that decision when he is older. We did not want to cut part of his body off without his permission. Simple as that. If he wants to be cut, I will gladly support him. I just wasn’t going to make the decision for him as an infant. Unless a complication happens. then he will remain uncut unless he makes a different choice for himself.
And for those who say it is very painful for adult men, I doubt it is much less painful for infants and it doesn’t matter if they remember or not. I was there when my wife’s cousin was circumcised, that seemed pretty traumatizing for the poor little guy. I don’t see how the fact an infant can’t remember the pain is relevant. I don’t remember a lot of painful events from my childhood, doesn’t mean they should have happened to me.
Anyway, I see it more as a body integrity issue than a parenting issue. Just because my wife and I made our son doesn’t mean we get to do whatever we want to his body without a damn good reason. This is just my opinion, I certainly don’t judge parents who make other decisions. Though I do wish that all little boys had a choice in this, rather than it being made for them.
And Russell Crowe is the ultimate in hypocrites. I applaud speaking out for helpless infants, of course. That includes speaking out for the ones being murdered in their mother’s wombs. That surpasses a common, mostly neutral medical procedure in my book.
Oh hey, I just came across this site with a bunch of articles on Christians and circumcision. Neat.
http://www.acts15.net/
Hope this helps :)
1) Crowe is a hypocrite. I don’t think anyone can dispute this.
2) I am ALSO a medical professional, and my specialty is pediatrics. Jill and Gerard, I hate to disagree with you on this, but you are both wrong.
While there are some forms of FGM that go far beyond, in much of the so-called “civilized” world (both Muslim and non-Muslim) the form of FGM practiced is completely analogous to MGM as practiced in the U.S. In fact, until 1996, it was completely legal to perform the type of FGM that is analogous to MGM (removal of the clitoral hood) in the U.S.
We claim it is anti-Semitic to ban MGM (my three Jewish sons are intact) but are willing to be viewed as anti-Muslim to ban FGM. (I’m not necessarily pro a law preventing MGM but the double standard is clear.)
The supposed “health benefits” studies are highly flawed. The one done in Africa, for instance, fails to take into account that culturally men in Africa view the foreskin as a natural condom and therefore do not use condoms appropriately while circumcised men do know they need to do so…. the study doesn’t prove that circ reduces the risk of HIV… it proves what we already knew, condom usage decreases the risk of HIV.
Circ affects women. The motions used in intercourse by men who are circ’d are different than the motions used in intercourse by men who are not. In addition, the lack of foreskin prevents the natural secretions of the vagina during intercourse from remaining in the vaginal vault. So called “dry” or “frigid” women are often simply women married to circ’d men.
Worldwide the circ rate is continuing to go down, as it is in the U.S. The only societies that have issues in adulthood with men “needing” circumcision are the ones where doctors are unfamiliar with care of the intact penis.
Wow the author is a moron on so many levels. For one abortion does not involve sucking out a fetus’ brains just before birth and two it’s about choice! I’m pro-choice because I support a woman’s right to have control over her own body and make her own choices about her body – because like it or not the woman is the only one who has to deal with the lifelong and potentially life threatening consequences of pregnancy. I am anti-circumicision because I don’t believe in taking away a man’s choice of what is right for his penis before he is old enough to consent. I can’t believe how dense so many people are to not realize it isn’t about what is lost (fetus/foreskin) but about the ability for one to make their own choices regarding their own body.
Pro choice/anti circer says:
June 10, 2011 at 9:38 pm
Well, some of us would like the person with the body to make the decision (the fetus would be the person with the body in question). Just as your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins, the pregnant woman’s right to do as she pleases with her body ends where it ends the life of a completely different human being… one with its own unique DNA, blood type, etc….
JackBorsch, I agree with everything you said.
Carla, I don’t think that the fact that circumcision is over and done with for so many boys and men means the conversation isn’t worth having. Abortion is over and done with for so many children, but we talk about it because it’s NOT over and done with for other ones in the future, and what we say today can affect what people do tomorrow. There is never any reason for anyone to feel guilty about circumcision, IMO, but I do think that it’s worth discussing and debating even if it can’t “change the past.” It can change the future.
The difference being said fetus cannot survive without it’s host. If it could, then protect it’s rights all you want. The rights of the mother always trump that of a fetus because she is here and a living contributing member of society, said fetus is not. Forcing a woman to CTT makes her nothing more than an incubator with less rights than an animal.
Don’t feed the troll, y’all…
By that argument choicer, then a person on life support has no rights. Neither does an astronaut in a space suit, since they both need something else to survive. Keep in mind babies after 24 weeks are viable and CAN live without their “host” (or Mother, as I like to call her).
So Pro-choice/Anti-circer, as Bobby Bambino mentioned, you would of course approve of a woman obtaining a circumcision for the fetus while in utero (this may be possible one day). After all – it’s still “her” body then – so “her” choice.
I think this is a matter of preference. I would circumcise my sons, but if others feel differently, that’s up to them.
Also – Tampax pearls are awful. You pay more for a product that doesn’t work as well. That statement made me LOL though.
I have to say choicer on this one I really want to put her or him in medical school. The logic is very flawed, very closed minded, and very selfish on the abortion debate. Good lord… I have no words….
10 months ago I was pro-circ. I think I even commented on this blog in favor of circumcision in the past. My husband is very happy to be circumcised. We circumcised our 3 boys. I thought it was the right thing to do for health reasons. My husband was 100% in favor of it. If I had only had 2 boys I’d still be in favor of it. But the doctor messed up on my 3rd son. She cut off too much skin on one side and after he turns one, he will most likely have to undergo reconstructive surgery.
I started doing a lot of digging and found out that the health benefits aren’t really worth it. We did it with good intentions, but I won’t circumcise any future boys. It is too risky.
I don’t write this to judge anyone’s decisions. God knows we all try to do the best we can for our children, but if your child turns out to be one ofhrue small percentage that is damaged by circumcision, it will change the way you feel about it.
Then you should be fine with voluntary induction at 24 weeks gestation. Just because technically it CAN survive does not mean it will.
As for inutero circumcision, if you want to take the medical risk, go for it, that would be your choice because at that point the fetus has no rights.
Mother/host, same difference.
Bruce,
Mrs. Nadal (a NICU/PICU/ Pediatric Nurse for 21 years) just finished reading this thread, while howling with laughter, and referring to the opposition as clueless.
As I type this, Mrs. Nadal is laughing and saying that she never realized how miserable and dysfunctional our marital relations have been over the past nineteen years. The fact is that NYDoula has presented no credible scientific evidence, while we know that STD’s and HIV are higher in uncircumcised men. The same goes for UTI’s.
As for telling parents that we have no right to make these decisions for our children, there’s no polite way to say, “shut up and mind your own business.” These are parental discretionary issues, the same as having a child vaccinated or not.
Thanks mom and dad. I’m glad that I don’t know what I’m missing, but everything in my doctoral training says it isn’t worth it.
And yet Scandinavian countries(which have the lowest circ rates in the world) also have some of the lowest STD rates in the world. By the way some on the pro-cutting side speak, one would think European men were penile timebombs. The reality is they have no increased urogenital complications than American men. Cultural bias is a powerful thing.
NYDoula/Pro-life/anti-circer, are you changing your moniker to the latter now? It would help everyone in the discussion to know whom they are addressing. Please choose one moniker – either one – and let us know. Thank you! :)
Doctor Nadal, UTI’s are more common in women than in men, circumcised or not. So why don’t we remove the labia of girls before they can remember it?
Cindy, while we’re at it, let’s remove everyone’s tonsils and appendices at birth. You don’t want to put your children through tonsilitis and appendicitis, do you? Don’t bother with anesthetic; they won’t remember it.
I wish my gallbladder had been removed at birth.
Cindy,
Let me know when you want to act like an adult and I’ll answer a serious question.
Clever way to avoid actually answering…
Nicole,
It wasn’t a question. It was a snark. If you wish to defend that as a question, then you also fail to see the junior high school level there.
From the Journal, Pediatrics. 2000 Apr;105(4 Pt 1):789-93.
Infants <1 year old who were born in 1996 had 446 UTIs (292 in females; 154 in males); 132 (86%) of the UTIs in males occurred in uncircumcised boys. The mean total cost of managing UTI was 2 times as high in males ($1111) as in females ($542). This higher total cost reflected the higher rate of hospital admission in uncircumcised males with UTIs (27.3%) compared with females (7.5%); mean age at hospitalization for UTI was 2.5 months old for uncircumcised boys and 6.5 months old for girls. In 1996, total cost of managing UTI in uncircumcised males ($155 628) was 10 times higher than for circumcised males ($15 466) despite the fact that uncircumcised males made up only 35.1% of the male patient base in 1996, reflecting the more frequent occurrence of UTI in uncircumcised males (132 episodes) than in circumcised males (22 episodes), and the larger number of hospital admissions in uncircumcised males (38) than in circumcised males (4). The incidence of UTI in the first year of life was 1:47 (2.15%) in uncircumcised males, 1:455 (.22%) in circumcised males, and 1:49 (2. 05%) in females. The odds ratio of UTI in uncircumcised:circumcised males was 9.1:1.
And here’s a ton of microbiology, all documented and footnoted:
http://www.circinfo.net/urinary_tract_infections.html
Happy Reading!!
UTIs are easily treated with antibiotics. No amputation of highly ennervated tissue necessary.
Gerard, it is so sad to see you react to this conversation in almost the same identical mocking tone towards those who disagree with you as the pro-aborts take towards those of us who are pro-life. I expect more from you, although this is not the first time I’ve seen you do this over the years. Please take a step back and realize that it is not necessary.
Are you aware that one of the reasons for the higher rates of UTIs in intact boys is because people are unused to proper cleaning of the intact penis? Even nurses, otherwise highly educated and intelligent, that I have worked with have insisted that the foreskin must be retracted and cleaned under. That is the fastest way to exponentially increase the risk of a UTI. That skin is fused to the glans specifically to prevent the proliferation of bacteria in that area. And the parenting boards are full of stories of parents who have taken their child for a pediatric visit and were shocked to see the doctor retract their newborn or toddler son’s foreskin. The foreskin naturally begins to retract anywhere between age 3 and puberty. It is not necessary to force the process.
Proper care of the intact penis means wiping it off just like a finger… that’s all there is to it. Only clean what is seen.
Also, be very careful with the website circinfo. There are some circ fetishests (men who receive sexual pleasure through circumcising children) who are highly active on that site and love to mess with the data and documentation over there.
Elisabeth,
There is troll behavior, and then there is troll behavior. There are times when the opposition have staked out parameters that preclude any rational discussion. They don’t want one, yet they feign sincerity. It is this that I mock, not their beliefs. The method is not everyone’s cup of tea, and in academia the trolls would receive expletive-laced dismissals from not a few professors for their behavior.
Can you give some back-up information on the documentation? I’ve read dozens of articles whose references I obtained from that site.
Not from work…. I have that stuff at home… like I said its going to be a long weekend and I will probably be working/sleeping until Monday evening. I will get back to you with that at that time.
Not all of what is on circinfo is suspect… sometimes the problem is more what *isn’t* there… they scrub info that disputes their point of view.
For example… the data on UTIs. It isn’t that it isn’t true… it’s that it (1) really isn’t enough of a reason to remove an otherwise normal and healthy body part and (2) understanding causative factors that aren’t listed. I would love to know what percentage of those boys with UTIs and foreskins had been prematurely forcibly retracted. That makes a big difference in interpreting the data. After we subtract out the number of boys who would have had UTIs anyway (going by the data you posted .22%… I’ve seen higher but for now we’ll go with that) we have to ask is it having a foreskin that causes the increase, or is it having a forcibly retracted foreskin that causes the increase? In many boys the foreskin will quickly readhere to the glans and thereby cut off that area from being available for bacterial colonization. In others, however, it does not. That is where a perfect breeding ground for bacteria can be found….
So, is the answer amputation of an area that contains muscle tissue, skin tissue and over 40,000 nerve endings? Or would a less extreme answer be education of the purpose, function, and proper care of the foreskin? Which is the less invasive, less costly measure?
Looking at STDs and HIV… I discussed the African studies and the inherent flaws due to the culture in which they were conducted and some important cultural key points above… it skews the interpretation of the data to the extreme! Is the key to preventing STDs and HIV to amputate foreskins (which still does not eliminate the issue) or to educate men that they should (1) not be promiscuous… a monogamous marriage between two people who were virgins when they married carries no risk of STDs, or, barring that, to properly use condoms (which they should be doing anyway if they are sleeping around with others who are also sleeping around?)
When looking at the least invasive measures to deal with just about every “problem” known to happen with intact men (yeast infections are easily treated with monistat, same as with women…. balanitis is easily treated with a steroid cream and stretching the foreskin, and so on) versus surgical amputation of a body part that has several distinct functions and the inherent, if small, risks of any surgical procedure… why does education not win, hands down?
Part of the problem is that men who have been circumcised all too often view any “attack” on circumcision as an attack on their own male organ. When anyone points out that there may be sexual benefits for both partners from an intact status… circumcised men are quick to defend their sex lives! My husband has no depth perception. He was born that way. He has no idea what it means to see in a way that includes depth perception. It doesn’t make him less of a person or incapable of seeing and making his way through life… but there are certain aspects where he loses out on detail that is readily available to those with depth perception. In the same way, men who were circ’d at birth certainly are still capable of a certain level of sexual satisfaction and ability to please their partner. And I’d take a kind, gentle, caring lover without a foreskin over a selfish jerk with a foreskin any day of the week…. But there are certain levels of detail of sensation that are simply not there anymore. Having been without them since birth, circ’d men simply don’t know they exist.
I understand we’re ranging into TMI territory here, BIG TIME…. but any woman with a husband who is intact can attest to the fact that it is often possible to bring a man fully to satisfaction simply by… shall we say… paying attention to the foreskin sufficiently. I would consider my repertoire of ways to enjoy my husband to be vastly limited were I to have to work without the presence of his foreskin.
Well, lunch break is just about over. I’ll check back later if I get a chance!
There are times when the opposition have staked out parameters that preclude any rational discussion.
I don’t think it’s an irrational question. If you’re going to say that the possibility of getting a highly treatable, almost-always-mild infection from leaving the male body in its natural condition is justification for cutting off a part of a baby’s body, then I think that bringing up other body parts that may be prone to treatable, sometimes-mild conditions that we DO NOT cut off as a pre-emptive attack is a valid point. I don’t know of any professors in “academia” who would curse out someone who asked such a question.
I find it interesting when people who argue against condoms bring up HIV rates as an argument in favor of circumcision. I would bet that using a condom lowers your risk of HIV more than being circumcised does, but that doesn’t make it “the right thing to do,” and if someone came in here and said, “But condoms lower HIV risk!” you’d say that they do not lower HIV risk enough, or in the appropriate manner, to be “a good thing.” The right thing to do by all other arguments you’d make, of course, would be to have sex in the natural way God intended, which would reduce your HIV risk to almost 0% without the use of temporary devices or permanent surgery.
Elisabeth, I always enjoy reading your comments on this subject. I had no idea about the flaws of the HIV studies due to improper education, but it makes perfect sense.
The man I love and am grateful for every single day happens to be circumcised. We are VERY happy together. I never think about his lack of foreskin and the only time I even think about circumcision is when actively debating it. It is possible to be perfectly satisfied and to also decide that you don’t want to perform cosmetic surgery on your child. For what it’s worth, he has no desire to cut off our hypothetical child’s foreskin either. He does not feel any particular anguish over being circumcised, but he does not see “it doesn’t bother me” as a valid reason to remove part of a child’s body.
Heather, I’m sorry about your son’s complications. A friend of mine went through something similar and her son is happy and healthy now. You’re a good parent, and your son will be ok.
Alexandra,
You’re right. What was I thinking??
Actually, the question made as much sense as equating cutting off a nose with removing someone else’s teeth.
As I said earlier, there is no polite way of saying shut up and mind your own business. This hectoring of parents for a decision that is intensely private and on the same order of prudential judgement as whether or not to vaccinate really needs to stop. Not vaccinating a child has personal and public health ramifications. An unvaccinated child is more likely to acquire and spread disease than a vaccinated child. An uncircumcised male is more likely to acquire STD’s/AIDS than a circumcised male. I respect the decision of parents in the case of vaccinations, and do the same with circumcision. The Harpies need to back off.
That people are using pseudo-science in the process is all the more disturbing. That the one’s most animated are women is laughable. Are your husbands all really that miserable about their ability to enjoy you in bed? It must be so, from the breathless tales of decreased sensation and pleasure.
Oh, the inhumanity of it all!! Hundreds of millions of men unable to be satisfied because their shmeckle is missing!!
O tempora! O mores!
I’ll get serious about this when your mutilated husbands all check in with their function and satisfaction ratings. In the interim, it was presciently observed by another male here that the standard-bearers of this issue all seem to be women. Just sayin’….
My family is from the UK and I spent most of my childhood there. None of the males in my family are circ’d. And none of them have had issues with UTIs, at least none in my immediate family. I really wouldn’t know about others. I get them all the time, however. Perhaps I should have been circumcised..
Anyway, my partner is intact. He is also from the UK (where it is the little boys who are circumcised who get snickered at in the locker room, btw). I have had partners who have been circumcised as well as those who have not been. I will say that there is a difference between the two. And that sex with an intact man is better. It is definitely more comfortable, and more pleasurable as well. I was not going to comment, as I think this issue is most definitely TMI, but Gerard, you mocking or criticizing women for having an animated opinion about whether to allow someone to take a blade to their son’s genitals, or about their husbands’ private parts is pretty rude, and I think that women do have a right to speak up about the subject.
Purely anecdotal, but the brother of one of my best friends here in Chicago was the victim of a botched circumcision as a newborn. He is now in his 40s, and even after two extremely painful surgeries he will never be capable of sexual intercourse. He tried to commit suicide in his 20s because of this. His situation is just heartbreaking and his story alone would be enough for me to never, ever do that to a son of mine.
Elisabeth,
Thanks so much for speaking up so eloquently and for providing the information and statistics that you did. Like Alexandra, I wasn’t aware about all the factors going into the HIV studies. I hope your long weekend working goes by quickly.
Len, your favorite anchor baby. ;)
My two cents.
Please don’t equate circumcision to abortion, Cindy.
I have done both. My boys are alive and healthy and my daughter died.
In your zeal to educate the masses you have offended.
Also Cindy,
since you believe FGM is comparable to male circumcision I am wondering if you would volunteer your lady parts for the procedure and then report back here with your findings? Thanks.
Carla, the point is that parents are volunteering their babies’ boy parts for amputation. Girls are protected by law, and boys should be too. If I choose to offer my OWN parts, that’s my business and fine by me if anyone wants to have that done to themselves. My point is that babies do not have a say if they get aborted or if they get circumcised. That’s pretty much where the comparison between abortion and circumcision ends, and there is no need to be offended by these arguments. I am sorry you feel offended, and I am sorry you have suffered from abortion.
Thank you, Elisabeth, for all your comments. Alexandra, thank you also, as I did believe we WERE having a rational discussion, but then condescension and arrogance has entered in, telling certain people to shut up. Do we not all have a right to express our opinion and share info we have learned?
I was not joking about removing healthy parts preemptively, just in case an infection would set in, as this is an argument that is used by pro-circ people. In other medical cases, we treat with medicine, or in the least invasive way possible at first, rather than surgically remove. My three intact sons have never had a UTI, thankfully even though my 1st son’s pediatrician ignorantly retracted his foreskin at every visit and told me to do so at every bath time :( Out of my 2 daughters, one of them had a very bad UTI just after she potty trained, around two years of age, but my other daughter has never had one.
I think if we get back to the main topic: Russel Crowe is a hypocrite for being against circumcision and yet for abortion. And I believe that pro-lifers have something to look at in themselves in regards to circumcision: We protect babies from harm in the womb, but then we need to protect them from harm once they’re born.
Unless people have a religious reason, there’s really no good reason to routinely circumcise a baby. It’s like if we customarily trimmed baby girls’ vulvas just for the heck of it or something. Personally, I wish people wouldn’t circumcise baby boys, period, but at least “covenant between God and Abraham” is a better reason than “he won’t look like his dad!”
Russell Crowe clearly wasn’t thinking or else just didn’t want to think here. Strapping a kid down, pulling back his attached foreskin, and cutting it all off is harmful, but at least the kid isn’t dead.
Just as Crowe is a hypocrite to say that circumcision is wrong, yet to kill the baby in the womb is ok, so Christians come across as hypocritical if they oppose violence in the womb, yet are ok with violence in the form of circumcision to they baby out of the womb :(
Cindy,
I have read all of your points and disagree with you. Not a battle I am willing to fight today.
But now I am a hypocrite by your standards because I am prolife but circumcised my boys. Oh well.
Maybe there is a Pro Intact site that you could find?
Gerard -
I don’t know why you are so condescending. It’s unnecessary. If a woman disagrees with you, however neutrally, she’s a “harpy” – why? The sexual satisfaction of my partner is NONE of your business, and it’s extremely disrespectful for you to bring it up.
Not vaccinating a child has personal and public health ramifications. An unvaccinated child is more likely to acquire and spread disease than a vaccinated child. An uncircumcised male is more likely to acquire STD’s/AIDS than a circumcised male.
You deliberately ignore my point that people claim to be in favor of condoms for these same reasons. I am fairly certain that a man using condoms correctly is even less likely to acquire and spread STD’s than a circumcised man not using condoms. But according to your belief system, no man should really be at risk of spreading STD’s in the first place. And you bristle at the idea of condoms as a public health solution. Why accept circumcision as a public health solution, then?
What parents do with their children is CONSTANTLY up for debate and re-evaluation. Things that would be considered abusive today were once considered “private family matters.” I am not saying that circumcision is abusive. I’m saying that talking about the reasons people do it versus the reasons people maybe shouldn’t do it is a VALID conversation to have, as part of a cultural respect for children as people, and as part of a constant search to balance that respect for individuals with the respect for parents’ authority. I think that talking about vaccines is a good thing, too – and I say this as someone who is fully vaccinated and would vaccinate any children I had, though not necessarily according to our currently recommended schedule (I’d need to look into it more). These conversations are important to have, otherwise you get people doing things because “it’s what we’ve always done,” and that is NEVER a good reason to permanently alter another human being, in my opinion.
That opinion, by the way, is not less valid because I’m a woman, anymore than your opinion on abortion is less valid because you’re a man. Yes, abortion and circumcision are different – but they both involve an adult making permanent choices for a child – not an adult making choices for himself or herself. You’re not talking about circumcising yourself – you’re talking about circumcising another human being – so you can’t reasonably play the “I have a penis so my opinion counts more” card. We’re not talking about your body. You can do whatever you want to your body and I will never, ever comment on it. But when other people’s bodies come into the discussion, objective evidence becomes relevant, and people of either gender are equally capable of evaluating that.
In an entirely non-instigatory way, I am interested in hearing why you call Elisabeth’s information pseudo-science. I am never too proud to read and absorb new information, because I actually consider that the point of having these discussions.
Of course I wouldn’t submit to having my clitoral hood removed! It’s for this very that I’m opposed to forcible surgical removal of the foreskin. Of course I support the right of an adult to make the decision for themselves.
Also, circumcision is not compared to vaccination. Without vaccinations, contagious(which HIV isn’t) disease would threaten the health and safety of us all. As Europe, Canada, and Australia prove, circumcision is not needed for such a purpose. And of course there’s the fact vaccines don’t remove healthy tissue.
Again, if there were any real benefits to circumcision European men would have greater health complications. The pro-cutting side conveniently ignores the rest of the Western World.
Well, isn’t it nice to know that the parents of Christ were apparently hypocrites, as well?
I didn’t realize circumcision was now considered “violence.” Interesting. I guess half the parents on the planet (or more) are child abusers, along with their physicians?
People who are pro-circ have given valid reasons as to why they are pro-circ or at the very least, neutral on the issue. People who are anti-circ have given valid reasons why they are against it. It’s really extreme to say that those of us who don’t agree with you are hypocritical Christians.
And to Mr. Crowe’s movies, I say, “Bye-bye.”
Wow, Nicole. “Pro-cutting?” As in, “We are for cutting babies?”
Ok, you people are just getting downright rude now.
Before things get *too* heated, may I offer a few words…?
First: I see absolutely NO conclusive evidence or reasoning to mandate (male) circumcision, or to condemn circumcision outright. None. With all due respect to those of zealous opinions: you’re welcome to them, but please remember that they are opinions, not proven, objective fact.
Specifically for those who claim that the Catholic Church condemns the practice: please know that this is absolutely false. The Catholic Church does not condemn the modern, non-religion-based practice, nor does She promote it. Quotes which “condemn” the practice (such as the quote from the Council of Florence) are specifically and explicitly condemning the “Judaizer” heresy (rejected in the Council of Jerusalem, cf. Acts 15) that eternal salvation of one’s soul can somehow be procured by adhering to one or more parts of the Old Law. (That’s how Church doctrine operates, by the way: in generalities, regarding universal moral principles.)
For those who suggest that circumcision is somehow “mutilation, by definition” (and therefore condemned as per the Church’s condemnation of mutilation): forgive me, but this particular argument is nonsense. (One can hold the *opinion* that the practice is “mutilation”; but to say that it “is definitely so, in the eyes of the Church” is simply wrong.) God *commanded* that the practice be done, for the better part of 2000 years (until it was superseded by Baptism), and God (Who is all-good and all-just) cannot ever command that an intrinsic evil (such as unnecessary mutilation) be done.
For those who say that St. Paul, etc., condemned *all possible* application of circumcision (due to its religious obsolescence) have not read St. Paul very carefully. Not only did he have St. Timothy circumcised “for the sake of the Jews in the area” (cf. Acts 16:3, which would have been gravely sinful and hypocritical of him, had he pronounced the practice to be absolutely forbidden), but he explicitly says that circumcision is irrelevant, one way or the other (cf. 1 Corinthians 7:18-19). It’s only the heretical belief that “circumcision (and/or the rest of the Old Law) will bring eternal salvation” which St. Paul condemns… as he makes quite plain.
For those who suggest that it MAY be unnecessary, and not worth the pain, potential risks, etc.; I think you make some excellent points; just, please, do not go further, and say that your opponents are provably wrong, or hypocrites, or damned, or any other such rash nonsense. You have strong opinions against the practice? Fine… state them, and hold them, as you wish (while keeping your temper, your civility, and your sense of right proportion and discretion). But do not go further, and start flaming and condemning anyone who disagrees with you; do not presume to speak “objective truth” when you have only your opinion to share. Your opinion is valid and valuable, but not universal, and not sufficient cause to attack others.
I’d also wish to admonish anyone who’d demand that circumcision be *mandatory* (and that non-circumcisers are “hypocrites, wrong, damned, etc.”)… but, frankly, I don’t see anyone on this board who’s said anything of the sort. That’s rather telling, in a way…
Have any of you ever seen a circumcision being done on a baby or young child? If not, a video? Hard to say this is not violent. http://www.drmomma.org/2011/01/neonatal-circumcision-video-for.html I already posted this further up, but I make it easier for you to hear one boy’s story.
Jesus’ parents were Jewish, and that’s what they did in those times. Jesus grew up, lived a perfect life, died on the cross in our place to pay for our sins, rose again and sent His Holy Spirit to live in His people…. Now WE are in the NT times. Jesus paid the price. Just because He was circumcised does NOT mean we are to circumcise our children.
There is ZERO Christian obligation to circumcise and I believe that we are to protect and respect our children.
Cindy, I agree that there is no Christian obligation to circumcise for religious reasons.
But you are QUITE insulting to say that those of us who do circumcise our boys do not protect or respect our children. We do it because we believe there are enough health benefits to warrant it.
Are the Jews who currently practice circumcision today hypocritical?
I am extremely disheartened whenever this contradiction comes up in the pro-life movement. We preach that ALL humans have rights and dignity, but then we ignore their right to a whole body at birth.
We preach that parents do not own their children, but then we ignore when parents choose medically unnecessary surgery for them at birth.
We preach that parents cannot predict the future and should not abort to save the baby from future pain, but then we ignore parents who try to tell the future with circumcision.
We preach that even the littlest among us can think, and remember, and feel, but then we deny what we just said once they are strapped down for their circumcision.
We preach that science agrees with our movement, but then we draw on outdated or flawed studies to justify our desire to cut our babies.
We preach that aborting based on gender is wrong, but then we defend circumcision based on gender.
Love your babies pre-born and born. Don’t abort them and don’t cut them.
(*sigh*)
Cindy, with all due respect: can you please give even ONE quote from this thread (or from this entire board) in which anyone claimed that circumcision was MANDATORY (either for religious reasons, or health reasons, or what-have-you)?
The circumcision performed in the bible isn’t remotely comparable to the slicing and dicing it involves today.
And since when is it rude to be factual? RIC does involve cutting babies.
I also love how no one can explain how circumcision is so beneficial in light of the fact that European men experience no more urogenital complications.
Paladin, thank you for your comments.
We have posted studies. Not outdated studies – studies from the past 10 to 15 years.
You most certainly ARE being rude. We have also posted facts and studies that support circumcision. If you’d like to post your studies about European men, please do so.
Love your babies pre-born and born. Don’t abort them and don’t cut them.
Stuff like this is what I’m talking about. Anti-circs apparently don’t believe the rest of us love our children. We’ve been essentially called child abusers, hypocrites, violent, and non-loving, right on these boards.
One other point, if I may:
Many of the comments from the circumcision-opposition side deal with the pain inflicted on the child. Are you unaware of the fact that (local) anaesthetic is now available, and used? Does this change at least the severity/intensity of your position?
“Stuff like this is what I’m talking about. Anti-circs apparently don’t believe the rest of us love our children. We’ve been essentially called child abusers, hypocrites, violent, and non-loving, right on these boards.”
So what exactly do y’all call people who strongly disagree with, especially when it has to do with children? I am not saying you specifically, but I have heard some horrible names lobbed toward anyone who disagrees with the stance here on abortion or birth control. I am wondering why there is a double standard.
And Dr Gerard. Really? A personal issue? REALLLY??? The people on this board constantly talk about whether a married couple can use condoms, condemning them, when that issue has absolutely nothing to do with anyone besides the couple. You don’t seem to mind having strong opinions or calling people sinners then, but you condemn others for being concerned about children? Sheesh. I think you lose the right to claim “personal issue” when you insert yourself into married couple’s sex lives. Name one reason why circumcision is more personal than a couple’s decision to use birth control.
And to the pro-intact people, I agree, I don’t like circumcision. But child abuse? As a survivor of child abuse I find the comparison offensive. People who circumcise their children are trying to do what they think is best for them, not abusing them out of anger or hate.
Everyone needs to chill and stop acting like anyone who disagrees in the devil. This is a seriously unproductive conversation when it just devolves into name-calling.
“Many of the comments from the circumcision-opposition side deal with the pain inflicted on the child. Are you unaware of the fact that (local) anaesthetic is now available, and used? Does this change at least the severity/intensity of your position?”
No. I’m not removing part of my son’s body without his permission. That’s it.
I hope that people who circumcise their children do use this anesthetic. If it is available, it is almost criminal to perform minor surgery without it. The more ceremonial circumcisions don’t seem like they use anesthetic, which I find deplorable.
Exactly, Jack,
I never mentioned the word “abuse”, because I do believe that parents are doing what they think is best! I am truly very sorry you have suffered from abuse in your life, Jack. However, I think that the information parents are getting is not always true – that’s why I speak out. I possibly would have had my first son cut (as all the males in my family, that I have ever heard of were circ’ed). BUT our medical system does not cover circumcision and since we didn’t have a lot of money at the time, we decided we couldn’t afford it. Plus, in all the pro/con information we read while pregnant, it looked like there wasn’t much of a good reason for it, and once I saw my little boy, I knew I could never have him cut and hurt him like that. I then had a very pro-circ doctor who was completely ignorant on how to care for an intact penis (which contributes to many a foreskin problem!) As I said in an earlier post, my son’s FS was retracted at every visit and I was instructed to do so at each bath. The doctor gave him a phony phimosis diagnosis, and the doctor nearly convinced me to have him circumcised around age 2, along with his 2 month old baby brother!!! His forskin has such a small hole, he cannot yet retract it at age 12. I got the internet then so I looked it up. I was relieved and reassured to read that the Canadian Pediatric Society did not recommend RIC, and that even if intact boys had a slightly higher incidence of UTI’s, this risk was reduced by breastfeeding.
Also, check my wording, I was pointing out that to the world (pro-choice on abortion) finds the pro-life people also look like hypocrites because they fail to give the baby boy a choice once he’s born. That’s what I’m pointing out. I am not saying “You people are hypocrites.” I am merely pointing out how that looks to the world. As much as Russel Crowe doesn’t make sense to us pro-life people, so we don’t make sense to the intactivists.
Jack wrote, in reply to Gerard,
And Dr Gerard. Really? A personal issue? REALLLY??? The people on this board constantly talk about whether a married couple can use condoms, condemning them,
Hold on. Show me where anyone on this board condemned a PERSON who used condoms. Many people (myself included) certainly condemned the PRACTICE as evil (even though the intentions of the people involved may not have been evil), but that’s a very different matter.
when that issue has absolutely nothing to do with anyone besides the couple.
…and God, and the rest of the Communion of Saints (i.e. the Body of Christ, both on earth and those who have gone before us and witness our “race”, cf. Hebrews 12:1), you mean. There is no such thing as a truly “private” sin; all sin weakens and sickens the Body of Christ (cf. 1 Corinthians 12:14-27), and mortal sin does so more severely. (Even by secular standards: would a suicide pact (for example) between a husband and wife be regarded as “having nothing to do with anyone besides the couple”?)
I think you lose the right to claim “personal issue” when you insert yourself into married couple’s sex lives. Name one reason why circumcision is more personal than a couple’s decision to use birth control.
“More personal” isn’t the right way to describe it. Contraception is an objective moral evil, and circumcision is not. If something is intrinsically evil, then no one may knowingly and freely choose to partake of it; if something is not intrinsically evil (but might or might not be evil, depending on how it’s used), then the decision (about whether or not to partake of it) is rightfully left to the prudential judgment of the competent authority (whether that be parents, government officials, or what-have-you). The whole notion of “is it private, or not?” is a red herring, and–frankly–it plays right into the hands of the pro-abortion crowd. Privacy is a good and necessary thing, within just limits; but it’s not a fundamental principle by which objective moral evil can be discerned.
When it comes right down to it my husband and I answer to God. Not to the world, not to Cindy.
We did what we thought was best for our boys and page after page of studies don’t change the fact that what is done is done.
I don’t appreciate any of the names that “procutters” have been called here and the insinuations. Beyond rude.
PS
I don’t give a flying fig what a proabort thinks about circumcision.
“Hold on. Show me where anyone on this board condemned a PERSON who used condoms. Many people (myself included) certainly condemned the PRACTICE as evil (even though the intentions of the people involved may not have been evil), but that’s a very different matter.”
Well, maybe you are right. You and others opposed to contraception condemn the practice, not the person. As I condemn the practice of circumcision, not the people who practice it.
“.…and God, and the rest of the Communion of Saints (i.e. the Body of Christ, both on earth and those who have gone before us and witness our “race”, cf. Hebrews 12:1), you mean. There is no such thing as a truly “private” sin; all sin weakens and sickens the Body of Christ (cf. 1 Corinthians 12:14-27), and mortal sin does so more severely. (Even by secular standards: would a suicide pact (for example) between a husband and wife be regarded as “having nothing to do with anyone besides the couple”?)”
Not everyone believes in God, not everyone who believes in God agrees with your view on the matter, and not everyone who believes in God is a Christian. Remember there are those who do not consider your convictions objective moral truth, even among your fellow Christians. There is certainly not a consensus on the matter, even on this board. Even if a sin affects everybody, how can you argue that those who believe (and have good reasons to condemn) that circumcision is wrong are misguided in fighting against it? If they have a moral conviction against it, then aren’t they morally obligated, by your own thought process, to fight against it?
“Contraception is an objective moral evil, and circumcision is not. If something is intrinsically evil, then no one may knowingly and freely choose to partake of it; if something is not intrinsically evil (but might or might not be evil, depending on how it’s used), then the decision (about whether or not to partake of it) is rightfully left to the prudential judgment of the competent authority (whether that be parents, government officials, or what-have-you). The whole notion of “is it private, or not?” is a red herring, and–frankly–it plays right into the hands of the pro-abortion crowd. Privacy is a good and necessary thing, within just limits; but it’s not a fundamental principle by which objective moral evil can be discerned.”
Again, not everyone shares your opinion on the Bible. There isn’t a consensus on the matter even in Christian churches, and secularists are certainly not going to be swayed by appeals to the Bible and the Church. And again, how in the world can you say that you are justified in condemning those “objectively immoral” practices, and then turn around and say that others cannot do that, because they don’t share your moral code?
A few replies to those who are shmeckel-obsessed:
Alexandra,
I like how the anti-circ crowd come here and denounce the practice with such stridance, quoting bad science, and using the argument that Europe no longer does it, as though what Europe does makes something acceptable. Europe also leads the world in euthanasia. Any takers on that one? If women are going to show up here and claim this almost-universal decreased sensation in circumcised males, then I think it fair to ask if their stridence flows from their husbands’ misery.
But no! Everyone’s husband seems mighty satisfied. It’s always some anecdotal story of someone else.
I detest people who try to leverage parents with shame and guilt over intensely private health decisions that are the duty and prerogative that come with parenting. If it’s done in the name of science, and bad science is used, then you’ll hear it extra loud from me. If your mutilated husband seems to be just fine with your conjugal expressions of love, if he seems to be lacking nothing more than a little extra skin, then I think you have no grounds for hectoring parents and making them second-guess their decisions. Parenting is hard enough without having to endure anti-scientific claptrap from women with circumcised yet satisfied husbands.
Your husbands relative satisfaction is the core issue here, and if you think my questioning that is rude, then look in the mirror before joining the torch and pitchfork crowd when discussing the penises and future happiness of other parents’ little boys.
Jack,
Go to other threads and show me where I have condemned people for using contraception. As for your last post, I think it evidence of your anti-Catholic bigotry eclipsing reason. If you can’t readily distinguish a moral imperative in one’s religion from a debate over the health benefits of circumcision, then you are denser than lead. Get well soon.
Jack wrote;
Well, maybe you are right. You and others opposed to contraception condemn the practice, not the person. As I condemn the practice of circumcision, not the people who practice it.
That, friend, would be a sensible way to go about things. Well said.
Not everyone believes in God, not everyone who believes in God agrees with your view on the matter, and not everyone who believes in God is a Christian.
That is true.
Remember there are those who do not consider your convictions objective moral truth, even among your fellow Christians.
That is also true… but remember that two opposites cannot be true at the same time. If I say that [x] is an objective moral evil, and another person says that [x] is not an objective moral evil, we cannot possibly be right at the same time; since there are only two choices in the matter, one of us must be wrong, and one of us must be right. It woudl be irresponsible of us to throw up our hands, and say that it’s too hard for us to wish to bother our heads about the matter! We must investigate, and find the truth… right?
There is certainly not a consensus on the matter, even on this board.
Beware that line of thought. “Consensus” is not a valid way to decide on matters of objective morality; otherwise, slavery would be “objectively right” in the USA in the 1700’s (since that was the consensus at the time), and also “objectively wrong” in the USA in the 2000’s (since that is currently the consensus), and other such nonsense.
Even if a sin affects everybody, how can you argue that those who believe (and have good reasons to condemn) that circumcision is wrong are misguided in fighting against it?
I am not arguing that. I am arguing that those who condemn, mock, sneer at, dismiss (as hypocrites, neglectful parents, heartless, etc.) or otherwise vilify those who do NOT oppose contraception are wrong in doing so.
If they have a moral conviction against it, then aren’t they morally obligated, by your own thought process, to fight against it?
Yes… within morally right limits. See above.
Again, not everyone shares your opinion on the Bible.
And again: opposing views (and it is the teaching of the Catholic Church, not merely my private opinion) and my views cannot both be true at the same time, and it behooves us to find out which is right, and which is wrong. We are not free to collapse into utter moral relativism, and claim, “No one can know the truth on this matter with certainty; it’s every man [or woman] for him- [or her-] self!” That’s moral timidity, not true tolerance.
There isn’t a consensus on the matter even in Christian churches,
See above; this matter will (and must) be determined by right reason, not by mere “consensus” (i.e. counting noses, or having a popular vote).
and secularists are certainly not going to be swayed by appeals to the Bible and the Church.
Not at first, certainly. But since God did, in fact, reveal His Word to us, am I to pretend that it does not exist, for the sake of safeguarding fastidious sensibilities of anyone who might disagree? They’re quite free to ignore (rather than mock) my Faith-based references, and concentrate on my “secular” ones, yes? (They’re also free to explore proofs for the existence of God and proofs for the authenticity/truth of the Gospels, but many eyes start glazing over when such things are brought up. Rather “convenient” for them, I admit, but: what is to be done?)
And again, how in the world can you say that you are justified in condemning those “objectively immoral” practices, and then turn around and say that others cannot do that, because they don’t share your moral code?
Again, I do not say that (see above). I do, however, insist that–if they think circumcision to be objectively, intrinsically immoral (i.e. immoral, regardless of circumstances), and that any parents who have the practice done to their children are doing “provable wrong”–they must shoulder the burden of proof, and demonstrate that fact beyond all reasonable doubt. Otherwise, it’s merely childish and boorish to throw such condemnations around (since they’re mere opinions, and nothing more).
I just wonder how long it will be before the ‘intactivist’ enlist Anthony Weiner in their PR campaign?
Weiner is the pefect ‘victim’ to be their poster boy.
Weiner has name recognition and his circumcisioned pride and joy has already received plenty of exposure.
Ken,
Freud would be very proud of this thread.
“Go to other threads and show me where I have condemned people for using contraception. As for your last post, I think it evidence of your anti-Catholic bigotry eclipsing reason. If you can’t readily distinguish a moral imperative in one’s religion from a debate over the health benefits of circumcision, then you are denser than lead. Get well soon.”
Well that was certainly a kind response (/sarcasm). And accusing me of anti-Catholic bigotry is so untrue as to be laughable. There are many other churches, including the NON-CATHOLIC church I was raised in, that condemn birth control. Just as there are many that don’t. I don’t have a problem with Catholics. I disagree on their stance on condoms, just as I disagree with the practice of circumcision. No hate, disagreements. I would challenge you to find a single discriminatory comment I have made towards Catholics, ever. I may sometimes be guilty of a general Christianity bias, but I do make efforts to curb it and I do own up to it when I make the mistake of bias.
And I conceded to Paladin above that I conflated condemning the practice with condemning the person. Sorry that I misunderstood the stance, I apologize for the accusation.
And many people speak of birth control as a moral AND a health issue, as you well know. People here are arguing about both for circumcision. I am not too worried about the health issues, as the benefits of circumcision are fairly minor and the drawbacks of not-circumcising are as well. I am not opposed to circumcision on a health basis, just don’t believe the benefits of circumcision are enough to alter my child. This is an ethical and moral decision on my part. I don’t believe that removing a healthy part of a child’s body is right, unless the benefits far outweigh the risk. The health benefits you cited are not compelling enough. This is a health and moral issue, not a black and white topic.
“That is also true… but remember that two opposites cannot be true at the same time. If I say that [x] is an objective moral evil, and another person says that [x] is not an objective moral evil, we cannot possibly be right at the same time; since there are only two choices in the matter, one of us must be wrong, and one of us must be right. It woudl be irresponsible of us to throw up our hands, and say that it’s too hard for us to wish to bother our heads about the matter! We must investigate, and find the truth… right?”
Certainly. I can agree with that. The only difference is that I don’t see morality as objective as you do. There is a certain ethical code that applies to everyone (do not murder innocents, do not abuse people, others). The rest of the ways that people choose to live their lives within this basic code is much grayer. For example, I know many Christians who believe that women wearing pants is sinful. You may disagree with that assessment, I don’t know. The point is, these people can cite chapter and verse on why they have Biblical grounds for believing so. Yet many disagree. Most Christians do not believe that is an objective sin, but I haven’t seen them point to the verses to show that is true. But is it really hurting anyone that my wife wears jeans? I understand that the Catholic church doesn’t rely solely on the Bible, is my understanding correct? Then what do you say to the Protestants who think that looking for moral truth anywhere else is objectively sinful. I think reality is far more gray than organized religion realizes, which is one problem I have with it.
“Beware that line of thought. “Consensus” is not a valid way to decide on matters of objective morality; otherwise, slavery would be “objectively right” in the USA in the 1700?s (since that was the consensus at the time), and also “objectively wrong” in the USA in the 2000?s (since that is currently the consensus), and other such nonsense..”
But it seems to me to speak against the thought that religion has the inside line on objective moral truth. To be clear, I AM NOT BASHING RELIGION! I THINK IT HAS DONE MANY WONDERFUL THINGS FOR THE WORLD!
But it has also been used to justify many BAD things as well. Slavery was justified in secular thought and religion! With multiple Bible verses to back it up! I am certainly not denying that some great Christians fought for abolition, but the cold hard truth is that the same Bible they used to justify freedom was also used by to justify slavery. I am definitely not saying that Christians believe that today, anymore than secularists believe it today. But the Bible didn’t change, human thought evolved to realize that this was a hideous travesty. It certainly didn’t seem to have anything to do with objective morals handed down from God.
“Not at first, certainly. But since God did, in fact, reveal His Word to us, am I to pretend that it does not exist, for the sake of safeguarding fastidious sensibilities of anyone who might disagree? They’re quite free to ignore (rather than mock) my Faith-based references, and concentrate on my “secular” ones, yes? (They’re also free to explore proofs for the existence of God and proofs for the authenticity/truth of the Gospels, but many eyes start glazing over when such things are brought up. Rather “convenient” for them, I admit, but: what is to be done?)”
Of course you shouldn’t ignore your personal beliefs and the Bible, but unless someone already accepts the Bible as true, you won’t have much luck winning converts to your way of thinking that way. I don’t think it is wrong for you to argue that way, just ineffective.
I have looked into the arguments for God’s existence and Biblical accuracy, and am unconvinced either way. I don’t disregard religious arguments, but they are admittedly less effective on me than secular arguments. I don’t deliberately close my ears, but it is hard for me to take arguments at face value that come from a believe system that I have deep doubts about.
I will tell you what closes my ears the fastest, comments about penile obsession, accusations of bigotry, and jokes about sexual performance for those of us who think circumcision is a big deal. I don’t talk about those who disagree with me in that way (if I do, I apologize when I cool down). It is a very inappropriate way to debate.
“Freud would be very proud of this thread. ”
Classy. Good winning argument there.
Gerard,
Yes,
I believe I know that to which you are referring.
Siegmund either had, or observed in society, a fixation on the male reproductive delivery device.
[Doctor Joyce Brothers and her ties are phallic symbols. What about bow ties?]
In junior and senior high school the male students all showered together. At one of my jobs the male employees showered in the same large shower room.
I have seen many naked males from a safe distance and I will say, from purely an ascetic point of view, the modified member is more pleasing to the eye than the stock edition. I realize this is a subjective judgement and it would be illuminating to take a poll of both men and women and see what the results indicated.
My best friend in high school once told me he thought the male genitalia was more pleasing to the eye than the female. I do not believe he was/is a homosexual. He seemed to be focused exclusively on females and he never hit on me.
The worst sex I had ever had was great. [My wife might have a different perspective.]
All this conjecture about different levels of sensation and satisfaction associated with or without being modified is difficult to take seriously because it is as relative and difficult to measure objectively as the visual appearance. There are just too many variables at play.
My girlfriend once told me a female friend of hers had seen her first un-modified male and she thought he had been injured in some sort of industrial accident. I can understand how she could have made that mistake.
It just seems to me that common sense would indicate that if one condition were that much more preferrable than the other as far as hygiene, disease, infection and pleasure were concerned it would be manifestly obvious and men who were not modified would be having it done if consensus deemed it to be the preferrable condition.
Or, if the stock condition were deemed to be best, there would be a booming business in cosmetic surgery having the appendage restored to original condition.
That raises another question in my mind, but I dare not touch it with a…
Having read all that I read on this thread I don’t know if I would choose to be circumcised today or that I would have a male child circumcised today.
Pierced ears bug me.
I am not going go the restoration route and I don’t see any possibility of fathering any more male children so it is all a moot point to me.
GOD will have to show me if HE has preference today.
“I will tell you what closes my ears the fastest, comments about penile obsession, accusations of bigotry, and jokes about sexual performance for those of us who think circumcision is a big deal.”
JB,
Why?
What do any of those things have to do with circumcision?
Or is that your point: None of them have anything to do with aftermarket modification.
Jack wrote:
I don’t see morality as objective as you do. There is a certain ethical code that applies to everyone (do not murder innocents, do not abuse people, others).
I think we may be much closer to agreement than you suspect. “Objective” morality means “that which is true, regardless of personal opinions, views, knowledge, etc.” When you say that a certain code applies to everyone (i.e. they can’t just write it off as “that’s only your opinion!”), then you assent to objective morality. And yes, there are certainly grey areas, in at least two ways: (1) deciding on certain principles which are difficult to define, and (2) deciding on which specific actions fall into the moral categories. In other words: it sounds as if you *do* believe that morality is objective, but that it’s not always possible to “nail down” any given action as “moral” or “immoral”; if so, then I agree with you. SOME actions can certainly be “nailed down”, while others cannot; but that is not due to any lack of objective moral standards.
For example, I know many Christians who believe that women wearing pants is sinful. You may disagree with that assessment, I don’t know.
This is an example of (#2), above. It’s a clear moral principle (despite the fact that a “democratic vote” wouldn’t yield a unanimous result) that “enticing someone else to lust (i.e. encourage others to use one, even visually, as an object for one’s one selfish gratification)” is morally evil; but your example seeks to determine whether pants-wearing by women violates that principle. No two Christians could rightly disagree about the general principle (i.e. one of them would be wrong), but it’s quite possible for two Christians to disagree about the specific case and its categorization (i.e. whether women may licitly wear pants or not).
The point is, these people can cite chapter and verse on why they have Biblical grounds for believing so. Yet many disagree.
I know. This hearkens back to a few fundamental questions:
1) Does a supremely-perfect God (i.e. all-knowing, all-good, all-powerful, etc.) exist?
2) Did He, in the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, become man in order to save us from our sins?
3 Did Jesus Christ establish His Church, the Pillar and Foundation of Truth (cf. 1 Timothy 3:15), for the purpose of salvation, and to safeguard His Gospel from error and distortion (cf. Matthew 16:18-20, John 16:13, etc.)?
4) Would God leave His children without a sure way to know (with confidence) the fundamentals of His Gospel of salvation (as opposed to having everyone run about with private notions, no one being certain of the truth)?
There are other questions, of course, but these lay out the basic idea: if there is any truth in the universe at all, then it should be possible to answer these questions. We can know, through sane reason, that One Eternal, Unlimited, Uncaused Cause exists. We can also know, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the Gospels are reliable in content and in integrity (i.e. undistorted), and that Jesus Christ truly did come down as Man, preached the Gospel of repentance, suffered, died, rose again, and ascended into Heaven for the sake of our salvation. We also know that He would make provision for His Church to preserve that Gospel until the end of time, without error, and that He would make provision for His Church to interpret the same Divine Revelation without error.
The process by which this can be known is not easy… but no one said that it would be. It wasn’t easy to discover and implement modern medicine, either; but it was possible, and necessary. I ask only that you consider making that examination, yourself. For my own part: I almost lost my Faith in college, and I (with great pain and urgency) examined every last bit of doctrine that the Church gave me… and I found it to be sound. I pressed and tested it, and it held… and all the objections to it eventually showed themselves to be misunderstandings, distortions, or fallacies. I do not speak as someone who has never questioned these things, or who demands blind obedience. Far from it. (Trusting in a rightful, competent authority is rather a different matter; but I’ll discuss that at another time.)
Most Christians do not believe that is an objective sin, but I haven’t seen them point to the verses to show that is true.
I’d also add: “pointing to verses” is only one of several valid ways to demonstrate a point (and it leaves you the problem of deciding how to interpret those verses correctly), since “Bible proof-texts” are not the only way to show truth. (Take any math class, and you’ll see my point.)
But is it really hurting anyone that my wife wears jeans?
Do you mean that as a rhetorical question (i.e. as a disguised complaint against those who say “yes”), or do you really intend to find out?
I understand that the Catholic church doesn’t rely solely on the Bible, is my understanding correct?
That is correct, so far as it goes (though the Church teaches that all necessary salvific truths *are* contained in the [complete] Bible, even if only implicitly).
Then what do you say to the Protestants who think that looking for moral truth anywhere else is objectively sinful.
I would say that they may be sincere, but mistaken… since the Bible itself does not make that requirement. If that principle were a requirement (that one must restrict oneself to the Bible for such things, and to distrust all other sources), then they would be logically forced to distrust the principle itself, since it is nowhere in the Bible.
I think reality is far more gray than organized religion realizes, which is one problem I have with it.
I’d caution against making such a sweeping statement as that. One could look at any field of study and say, “Behold the confusion! This can’t possibly be very useful, and objective truth is not to be found here!” One would also be quite wrong, in most cases. The existence of grey does not disprove the existence of (or plenitude of) black or white.
[re: not using “consensus”]: But it seems to me to speak against the thought that religion has the inside line on objective moral truth.
Religion has “the inside line” on objective moral truth solely because moral truth is ultimately a religious thing (i.e. dependent on God, and His Nature), despite the fact that it can be known and discovered without direct recourse to Divine Revelation (i.e. it’s true because of God’s Nature–i.e. Truth, Itself–but it can be at least imperfectly and partially discovered by pure reason). Talk to any hard-core and/or militant atheist or agnostic, and you’ll soon find that any moral compass they have usually reduces itself to one of three things: (a) personal opinion/view, (b) utter pragmatism/utilitarianism [i.e. usefulness for this-or-that practical end… which is completely question-begging, anyway, since they cannot prove those “ends” to be good or evil, simply because they desire them!], or (c) inheritance from religious predecessors/culture.
But it has also been used to justify many BAD things as well.
That is true. This is why blind obedience is not advisable for moral matters. I, for example, would not obey even the Holy Father (the Pope) if he were to order me to rape someone; he is powerless to compel me to violate the Law of God… and the Law of God is not so amorphous or impossible to discern as many in our culture are wont to think.
the cold hard truth is that the same Bible they used to justify freedom was also used by to justify slavery. I am definitely not saying that Christians believe that today, anymore than secularists believe it today. But the Bible didn’t change, human thought evolved to realize that this was a hideous travesty.
Think that through, for a moment: you say that human thought “evolved” (i.e. improved) to the point where slavery was “recognized” as an intolerable moral evil. How so, if there are no objective standards by which morality can be measured? There *must* exist solid standards; do you see? Or else such statements as “evolving toward the moral truth” would be meaningless. How, for example, would an atheist object to slavery? If man is nothing but an accidental, purposeless collection of matter and energy, then why not exploit another human for one’s own pleasure and/or gain? I don’t pretend to answer your main question, here (which would be long in the writing!); but I want you to realize that there is far more here than might be seen at first glance… and that true, right religion is at the heart of it. The fact that religion is abused does not negate its position, or its truth.
It certainly didn’t seem to have anything to do with objective morals handed down from God.
Not explicitly, perhaps. Again, that’s a very long story… and I don’t pretend to be the best person on earth to explain it. I’ll try, if you wish, but the process will be wearying for all involved, I suspect.
I have looked into the arguments for God’s existence and Biblical accuracy, and am unconvinced either way.
I do wonder which ones you’ve seen…
@ yor bro ken
No they don’t have anything to do with circumcision. They are useless personal attacks. I generally stop listening to someone who uses those type of attacks. There are better ways to get your point across. For example, I disagree with Paladin on many different issues, but he is very respectful and rational even in disagreement, far more than myself. I tend to listen to him and pay attention to his arguments for more than someone who is derogatory to those who don’t agree.
That’s why I think it’s funny I got accused of anti-Catholic bigotry. I don’t think I have ever met a practicing Catholic in real life, and the ones I have met online (like Paladin or Jacqueline) have been nicer than many other people. Just because I heartily disagree with some of Catholic policies doesn’t say anything about what I think about Catholics.
Jack: you should have seen me years ago, on the old .usenet discussion boards; I was as bad as (if not worse than) the worst of the venom-spitting trolls that we see here. It took God a great deal of work to bring me around from that shameful past.
“In other words: it sounds as if you *do* believe that morality is objective, but that it’s not always possible to “nail down” any given action as “moral” or “immoral”; if so, then I agree with you. SOME actions can certainly be “nailed down”, while others cannot; but that is not due to any lack of objective moral standards.”
Well, we are closer to agreement than I thought. Teach me to generalize and assume. :D
“[On knowing of objective morality]… Religion has the inside line on objective moral truth solely because moral truth is ultimately a religious thing (i.e. dependent on God, and His Nature). Talk to any hard-core and/or militant atheist or agnostic, and you’ll soon find that any moral compass they have usually reduces itself to one of three things: (a) personal opinion/view, (b) utter pragmatism/utilitarianism [i.e. usefulness for this-or-that practical end… which is completely question-begging, anyway, since they cannot prove those “ends” to be good or evil, simply because they desire them!], or (c) inheritance from religious predecessors/culture.”
See, this is where you and most other religious people assume things too.
Rejecting utilitarian or consequentialist thought automatically is short-sighted in my opinion. Most societies throughout human history have shared some basic moral truths, and all of them are based on the well-being of humans. “Thou shalt not kill” and “Do unto others,” as well as other moral imperatives are not endemic to Christianity, they are found through many, many different cultures. Religious people see this as evidence for a Holy Lawmaker and Judge, and atheists see it as evidence that we evolved to treat each other certain ways for the advancement of our species. I am undecided as of now. We can get into “why” human well-being is the only intelligible basis for morality, but I don’t think either of us really wants that long conversation. Suffice to say that in the views of many, because we are human what improves our well-being is moral, and what damages it isn’t. Consequentialists are not that different from religious thinkers, the motivation is just different. You believe that moral laws are right because they are God-given, utilitarians believe that moral laws are correct because of the way they affect conscious creatures. I am definitely not getting into an evolution debate on this page, but many atheists see morality in the way that social structures have formed for the propagation and protection of the species. There is a lot more to objective morality than just religion. Many philosophers would disagree with your assessment. Doesn’t mean your wrong, I am just not convinced you are right.
“How, for example, would an atheist object to slavery? If man is nothing but an accidental, purposeless collection of matter and energy, then why not exploit another human for one’s own pleasure and/or gain?”
This is a galling stereotype. There are many, many reasons an atheist would oppose slavery. Some people think like me, and believe informed consent is the best way to determine morality. A slave is not consenting to be one, so this violates his rights. It does not matter how we came to be here, whether it be evolution or God, what matters is that we are sentient, thinking, feeling creatures. Causing harm to another sentient creature is bad for society, for the individual harmed, and for yourself. This is only one of the ways an atheist might think about treating others.
“[About arguments for God’s existence] I do wonder which ones you’ve seen…”
I have seen the philosophical arguments; the ontological, the argument from design, etc. I have read C.S. Lewis, William Lane Craig, and other theologians.
At the most, these arguments have me leaning towards deism or weak theism, I haven’t seen anything that shows me that any specific religion is the proper way.
http://guggiedaly.blogspot.com/2011/06/love-your-babies-pre-born-and-born-dont.html
If anyone is interested in further reading on circumcision.
Gerard –
I like how the anti-circ crowd come here and denounce the practice with such stridance, quoting bad science, and using the argument that Europe no longer does it, as though what Europe does makes something acceptable.
I have not mentioned Europe here, but I have asked you to elaborate on what Elisabeth has posted that is bad science. I don’t care what Europe does. Go back and read my comments and tell me what exactly I said that has warranted your condescension and disrespect.
Parenting is hard enough without having to endure anti-scientific claptrap from women with circumcised yet satisfied husbands.
What about from men who are circumcised yet satisfied partners then? Because I can get one of them on here, and he would also be very interested – yet again – to know what Elisabeth has posted that is anti-scientific claptrap. I’m not sure why my gender makes me unable to ask that question, but I can remedy the situation if necessary.
Your husbands relative satisfaction is the core issue here, and if you think my questioning that is rude, then look in the mirror before joining the torch and pitchfork crowd when discussing the penises and future happiness of other parents’ little boys.
NO. My partner’s satisfaction has NOTHING TO DO with my opinion on circumcision, and I have not mentioned the future satisfaction of anyone’s son. Sexual satisfaction is not something you can easily measure objectively and even if it were I would consider it tangentially related to the issue of elective, largely cosmetic surgery on infants. I have not expressed any opinion on the sexual performance of circumcised or uncircumcised men, nor have I expressed any opinion on parents who choose circumcision. I have questioned the assertion that anything that a parent does to irrevocably alter their child’s body or mind is EVER untouchable when it comes to mere dialogue, and the assertion that because something is over and done with, no discussion is merited. For that, you call me schmeckel-obsessed, a harpy, and you speculate on how satisfying my sex life may be.
Jack,
You accused me of condemning people who use contraception, and I challenged you to go to other threads and show me where I have condemned people. At 4:27 you responded with an elaborate dance and dodge.
Again, show me where I have condemned people for using contraception.
“You accused me of condemning people who use contraception, and I challenged you to go to other threads and show me where I have condemned people. At 4:27 you responded with an elaborate dance and dodge.
Again, show me where I have condemned people for using contraception.”
How is an admission I was wrong about what you said an elaborate dance and dodge?
As I said before, I mistook you disliking contraception with you condemning those who use it. And I apologize, as I did before, for misrepresenting your position. What else did you want to hear?
Now are you going to apologize for accusing me of a bias I don’t have? Or post some proof of this anti-Catholic bias?
A few medical facts to chew on, including the United Nations and the WHO recommendations for scaling up circumcision, as well as CDC’s recommendation for universal circumcision.
Contrary to some assertions, I have spent a great deal of time on this matter. As a Ph.D. medical microbiologist, the literature dealing with STD’s (including HIV), as well as UTI’s and their relation to circumcision status have been central to my investigation of the epidemiology of these diseases. I presume people have asked for the data in good faith, so here is a small sampler of what is easily obtainable through a simple google querry. These are all Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Data:
“A systematic review and meta-analysis that focused on male circumcision and heterosexual transmission of HIV in Africa was published in 2000 [5]. It included 19 cross-sectional studies, 5 case-control studies, 3 cohort studies, and 1 partner study. A substantial protective effect of male circumcision on risk for HIV infection was noted, along with a reduced risk for genital ulcer disease. After adjustment for confounding factors in the population-based studies, the relative risk for HIV infection was 44% lower in circumcised men. The strongest association was seen in men at high risk, such as patients at sexually transmitted disease (STD) clinics, for whom the adjusted relative risk was 71% lower for circumcised men.”
Get the rest of that fact sheet here:
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm
“Although male circumcision should not be substituted for other HIV risk-reduction strategies, it has been shown to reduce the risk for HIV and some STDs in heterosexual men. Three randomized, controlled trials performed in regions of sub-Saharan Africa where generalized HIV epidemics involving predominantly heterosexual transmission were occurring demonstrated that male circumcision reduced the risk for HIV acquisition among men by 50%–60% (48–50). In these trials, circumcision was also protective against other STDs, including high-risk genital HPV infection and genital herpes (51–54). Despite these data, male circumcision has not been demonstrated to reduce the risk for HIV or other STDs among MSM (55). The World Health Organization (WHO) and the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) have recommended that male circumcision be scaled up as an effective intervention for the prevention of heterosexually acquired HIV infection (56).”
Let’s repeat that last line, because it is important:
“The World Health Organization (WHO) and the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) have recommended that male circumcision be scaled up as an effective intervention for the prevention of heterosexually acquired HIV infection (56).”
Get the rest here:
http://www.cdc.gov/std/treatment/2010/clinical.htm
“Report: CDC Considers Promoting ‘Universal Circumcision'”
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,541970,00.html
Then there is the following from the American Academy of Pediatrics:
American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on Circumcision. Pediatrics. 1999;103:686–693. [PubMed]:
“Over the past 3 decades, the AAP has published 5 policy statements on neonatal circumcision. In 1971, 1975, and 1983, the Academy concluded “that there was no valid medical indication for routine circumcision in the neonatal.” By 1986, the circumcision rate in the United States had declined from 90% to 60%. In 1989, new research examined the relationship between circumcision status and urinary tract infection (UTI), sexually transmitted diseases, and AIDS. The Academy concluded that newborn male circumcision has potential medical benefits and advantages as well as disadvantages and risks. The benefits and risks must be explained to parents and informed consent obtained. In their updated report, the Academy reviews newer research related to the benefits and risks of circumcision.”
“In 1993, Wiswell performed a meta-analysis of 9 studies and showed that uncircumcised male infants had a 12-fold increased risk of UTIs compared with circumcised infant males.”
“The AAP’s policy statement also discusses circumcision status and cancer of the penis. It is known that there is a 3-fold increased risk for the development of squamous cell carcinoma of the penis in males who are uncircumcised.”
Read the rest here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1477524/
That’s just a sampler.
Jack,
My deepest apologies for having missed your apology above.
Gerard,
No problem. I am sorry for not understanding your position on the issue. I am trying to learn more about religion and become more tolerant to other belief systems, but I am human and I make assumptions and mistakes. I promise you I don’t have anything against Catholics, though. The ones I have met have been really kind.
Paladin – you are amazing.
I find it very interesting that people are unable to see the human face of those who abort. They have decided that THEIR justifications for how they treat THEIR children are worthy and come from a place of love. Clearly, those who abort could not possibly feel the same way.
This condemnation will ruin your pro-life efforts. If you cannot meet people on their journey and show them a way to love, you will not be effective. That is a guarantee.
If you are so certain that your personal feelings about something excuse the way you treat a child, then you are not only dehumanizing your child; you’re supporting the abortion mentality and the culture of death.
Abortion exists in our culture because people are able to claim they can kill another person based on THEIR feelings and THEIR justifications.
Look closely, all of you, at your retorts and your defenses. You are disgusted by those who abort, yet you think the same as them.
I just want to apololgize for using the word mutilate… because while i made the decision for my son, i thought of it that way. This doesn’t mean that I am accusing others of mutilating their sons… because as i have stated elsewhere, it is not even NEARLY in the same category as abortion. there is at least some medical evidence to back circumcision, and NONE to support abortion.
I was in a grumpy mood when i posted that or I would have been more careful with my words. I just want to say that i think that we should remember that people have been circumcising sons for generations, because they were told it was best. Many doctors and other medical professionals still recommend it. I am 100% against it for any child of mine…
but again, PLEASE remember that most people who circumcise do it because they BELIEVE IT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THEIR SON!!!!! not because they WANT to mutilate their kids!!!!!! NOT EVEN CLOSE to the reasoning behind abortion! A lot of people are being hurt by the raging debate about this, and it is DIVIDING some loving friends! Russel Crowe is NOT an expert on ANYTHING!
Well, I’ll say it- mutilation mutilation mutilation. It’s mutilation for girls, & mutilation for boys, & it’s unethical, horrifying, & has no more health benefits for boys than it does for girls (although both are claimed).
Shame on anybody who willfully mutilates a baby *against* their religion (the Catechism prohibits it- my nuns were proper teachers)- for pity’s sake, we wouldn’t let anybody steamroll us into butchering our children’s genitalia, & they’re Jewish.
Abortion is the big red herring people feel so clever about throwing into circumcision debates (as if we hadn’t heard it in the past decades before). It has nothing whatsoever to do with torturing children outside the womb, so stop dropping it in.
Russell Crowe is a fine father, & clearly better educated than many (most) Americans.
Then again, You can’t be pro-life and pro-cutting either. Because if a fetus deserves the right to live, then a child deserves the right to his own body.
Kel says:
June 11, 2011 at 12:41 pm
Cindy, I agree that there is no Christian obligation to circumcise for religious reasons.
But you are QUITE insulting to say that those of us who do circumcise our boys do not protect or respect our children. We do it because we believe there are enough health benefits to warrant it.
Are the Jews who currently practice circumcision today hypocritical?
I would very much like to address the health benefits that are claimed to be justification for this surgical procedure. Preferably one at a time.
I would love to know which health benefits you looked to when you made the decision to circumcise so that a discussion could take place about the specifics… rather than the vague “health benefits”.
I am a Jewish mother who does not circumcise. Circumcision as performed at a bris is different in many ways from circumcision as it happens in a hospital, but even so, I chose not to do so for my sons. My husband is from the UK and not Jewish so of course he was not circumcised either.
——————————————————————————–
Kel says:
June 11, 2011 at 12:53 pm
We have posted studies. Not outdated studies – studies from the past 10 to 15 years.
You most certainly ARE being rude. We have also posted facts and studies that support circumcision. If you’d like to post your studies about European men, please do so.
There have been studies posted… I have yet to see one that actually indicates a true health need to circumcise.
For example Gerard’s posted study that shows that one of 47 boys who is intact will suffer a UTI. Okay, fine, I’ll take the study at face value and agree with that. Approximately 3 out of 100 boys will have a UTI. Where is the true health benefits in amputating 97 other foreskins to prevent complications in the 3 that can be easily treated with antibiotics?
It wasn’t so long ago that it was the rare person who made it to adulthood with tonsils and appendix. Now, however, there needs to be an acute medical crisis (appendix) or a long-term chronic health problem (tonsils) before either organ is removed.
Studies have been listed… but I fail to see how any of them are a true reason for circumcision.
I just wish people would be honest and admit that they circumcised (a) because they didn’t really think about it much or (b) because they wanted to.
————————————————————————————-
Paladin says:
June 11, 2011 at 1:10 pm
One other point, if I may:
Many of the comments from the circumcision-opposition side deal with the pain inflicted on the child. Are you unaware of the fact that (local) anaesthetic is now available, and used? Does this change at least the severity/intensity of your position?
1. As a nurse, yes, I am aware that these medications are available.
2. As a nurse, I am aware that they are often not used.
3. As a nurse, I know that they are of limited effectiveness even when they are used.
Did you know that many doctors will give a child for his only pain relief a pacifier dipped in sugar water? It doesn’t matter that the idea that it causes a “morphine like” response in the infant’s brain was disproven almost a decade ago…
But hey, at least we’re moving forward. It wasn’t that long ago that open heart surgery was performed on newborns with no anesthesia because it was believed that newborns were incapable of feeling pain.
—————————————————————————————-
Gerard Nadal says:
June 11, 2011 at 3:23 pm
A few replies to those who are shmeckel-obsessed
That comment was offensive and completely unnecessary and is a return to the mocking with which you begin to resemble the proaborts we argue with on a daily basis. Again, I ask you to refrain from doing this.
I like how the anti-circ crowd come here and denounce the practice with such stridance, quoting bad science, and using the argument that Europe no longer does it, as though what Europe does makes something acceptable.
Come here? Oh, come on… there may be long periods of time when I’m not active on line (I do have seven children and a full time job, remember?) but I’ve been posting on this site for quite a few years now. And I want to know what bad science I (or anyone else) has quoted.
If women are going to show up here and claim this almost-universal decreased sensation in circumcised males, then I think it fair to ask if their stridence flows from their husbands’ misery.
No, my husband is intact. Why would he be miserable? And I’ve never said anyone else was necessarily miserable, either. I have said that even at its best, circumcision removes thousands of nerve endings and therefore there are levels of sensation that are simply not available to circumcised men. I have also pointed out that you are unlikely to miss them, never having had them. There are those males, however, who had poorly done circumcisions who do have pain with intercourse. My guess is that being deprived one of life’s most basic married pleasures due to that pain would make a guy pretty miserable.
I detest people who try to leverage parents with shame and guilt over intensely private health decisions that are the duty and prerogative that come with parenting. If it’s done in the name of science, and bad science is used, then you’ll hear it extra loud from me.
Again… what is this “bad science” you keep mentioning? Please be more specific. Frankly, I think cutting off 97 healthy foreskins to prevent an illness in the other 3 that is easily treated with antibiotics is pretty bad science… at the very least it is bad logic.
———————————————————————————————-
Gerard… really, that’s the best you’ve got?
1. Back to the UTI thing. Again, have you not heard of antibiotics?
2. Back to the African study on HIV. I commented on that ages ago above. It’s not that the science is bad… it’s that the cultural ignorance misinterprets the science.
3. A 3-fold increase an extremely rare form of cancer… really?
Again… these are the types of arguments that used to be used for routine tonsillectomies and appendectomies. We have moved away from those practices because we recognize that it is best to use the least invasive form of prevention/treatment. Removal of an otherwise healthy body part is not the least invasive procedure and removing up to one hundred healthy body parts to catch a handful of potentially cancerous ones is not the least invasive way of managing it.
I would also like to point out that while circumcision may lower the risks of UTIs, HIV and penile cancer, it does not eliminate them. I might be more inclined to agree with the idea that it’s worth subjecting 90+ boys who will end up never having a single problem to a surgical procedue if there were a guarantee that then not a single one of them would have to face penile cancer, but that guarantee does not exist. 33% of those who would end up with penile cancer sans circumcision will still end up with it despite circumcision.
As a basis for comparison, far more women will endure breast cancer than men will face penile cancer. Heck, the rates for male breast cancer are higher!
http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/hpv/statistics/penile.htm – 800 new cases of penile cancer annually in the US. (which means even with universal, 100% circumcision rates, 264 men will STILL get penile cancer)
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/types/breast – 1,970 new cases of male breast cancer annually in the US.
Radical double mastectomy is obviously a more invasive procedure than circumcision but… unlike circumcision, it actually does prevent breast cancer. Why not implement that as a standard procedure in childhood?
That would be ridiculous! Yes, yes it would.
And claiming that it is medically advisable to circumcise based upon the data presented above is just as ridiculous.
You see, it isn’t the science I dispute… it is the conclusion drawn from it… it is the logic. The logic is faulty.
Testing to see if I can still post on this board. I just lost 30 minutes worth of work on my post because when I clicked add comment it was not added.
Circumcision and abortion are different issues. Abortion is in fact a whole spectrum of issues, from conception (IUDs and the morning after pill, which most people accept) to birth. Hardly anyone supports full-term abortion, and then only in cases that make it more like mercy killing, where the baby would have less-than-zero quality of life. Be that as it may, whenever they may begin, human rights do not END at birth.
Male and female genital cutting are not as different as all that. Tribal male circumcision kills scores of boys in one province of South Africa alone every year. (They don’t seem to keep good figures anywhere else.) Surgical female “circumcision” was done in the USA in the 1960s with a device that had a shield to spare the clitoris. It is as human rights and legal issues they may be compared, and all female cutting, no matter how minor, is outlawed across the USA since 1996 with no religious exemption. Why do boys deserve any less?
The medical benefits of circumcision are bogus or exaggerated – slight reductions in rare ailments of late onset that may be better prevented or treated by other means. It would take hundreds of circumcisions to prevent one UTI, thousands to prevent one penile cancer – even assuming the claims are all true. Circumcision is only claimed to reduce HIV transmission from women to men, when women are at more risk. The reduction is equivalent to adding the toss of a coin to your protective measures. It may even prove that the three trials were so faulty that it offers no protection at all. In 10 of 18 countries for which USAID has figures, more of the circumcised men have HIV than the non-circumcised – we don’t know why. And babies do not have sex. If a man wants to get circumcised to protect himself against HIV from unprotected sex with a woman, he always can.
The USA is the only developed country that still circumcises a majority of babies non-religiously. Europe didn’t “stop doing it” because they never have done it. The experiment of mass circumcision has been tried and it failed. Australia and New Zealand used to circumcise as enthusiastically as the USA in the 1950s. They’ve all but given it up, and there has been no outbreak of any of the things it was supposed to be good against. (And a generation has grown up looking different from their fathers, with no problems there either.)
circinfo.net is the personal blog of a circumcision advocate who never saw a reason for cutting he didn’t like and uses statistics dishonestly. Try http://www.circinfo.org instead.
“Russel Crowe is NOT an expert on ANYTHING!”
One doesn’t have to be an ‘expert’ to know that strapping a baby down and cutting off part of his healthy genitals is wrong.
The AIDS thing is largely misreported by the media/medical community and consequently misunderstood by the public. It was based on highly flawed African studies that have since been called into serious question. Circumcision does not prevent STDs/AIDS … only safe sex practices do that. And an infant will not be engaging in risky sex with anyone.
Also, if circumcision were really effective against AIDS (or other STDs), America should have lower rates of infection than in countries where baby boys aren’t routinely cut. And yet we do not – our rates are higher.
Further info on the AIDS/STD myth:
http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/
http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/vanhowe4/
http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV.html
http://www.circumcisionandhiv.com/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ali-a-rizvi/male-circumcision-and-the_b_249728.html
http://www.drmomma.org/2011/05/hivaids-rates-continue-to-climb-in.html
Videos on the AIDS/STD issue:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlsUg0sdAtE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54dlgodHkTQ
To really counter the HIV myth of circumcision, go to http://www.CircumcisionAndHIV.com
No health organization in the world recommends circumcision not even Israel. And here’s WHY:
In a definitive 2009 survey, USAID found that in 10 of 18 countries with data available, circumcised men were actually MORE likely to have HIV than intact men. They found that CONDOM USE, not circumcision status, was correlated with lower HIV. Here is the original document: http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/CR22/CR22.pdf
Thanks for the links, Gerard, though I would be more interested in knowing what the “bad science” you keep referring to is – I understand the arguments that circumcision is a medical solution to HIV risk and UTI’s. As I said before, I would be interested in your views on recommending condoms as a similar solution to HIV risk.
As a woman who has had a UTI or three, I don’t really view the possibility of getting a UTI a few times in life as a compelling reason for surgery. I would rather have my clitoral hood, personally, and I would much rather be able to make that choice for myself. It seems to me like cutting off a baby’s nose to prevent them from ever possibly getting a nosebleed.
Guggie,
I believe that you are way wrong here. The thinking isn’t the same. The abortion mentality is a mother exercising her right to kill her child.
Parents who circumcise are exercising their sacred obligation to determine what is best and healthiest for their child after discussing it with their physician, and then giving their informed consent. That you have equated the two processes is disgusting and shows your complete lack of emotional or intellectual depth.
HIV is 100% preventable without circumcision. If it were not Europe would have the highest rates in the world! Most HIV positive men in the US were circumcised. It’s not a reliable(nor the least invasive) means of prevention. If you cut off your feet you don’t have to worry about stepping on rusty nails, but it’s better just to wear shoes! The fact still remains that no national medical organization recommends RIC, and most have called it ill advised or unethical.
Carrie, that’s fine, but does it not serve a purpose to help parents to know the truth on the issue? You thought it was mutilation so you didn’t do it to your child. Maybe a parent would be motivated to think twice before irreversibly altering their child if they heard someone say it in those terms. I know the sincerity of the parents’ love for their children and their desire to do right by them, but I believe that most parents have been fed bad, wrong information on the subject, and they deserve – their baby boys deserve – to be able to give truly informed consent. Parents should watch a video, should read mothers’ testimonies of having their children circumcised from before they knew better. We are fed so many lies about so many things pertaining to parenting and on the issue of circumcision, the myths are rampant.
It isn’t a lie to state there are some medical reasons for circumcising. I didn’t find the minor benefits nearly compelling enough to circumcise my son. However, other parents do find them beneficial. I have no problem with parents being properly educated on the benefits and risks of the practice, but it is disingenuous to claim that there are no medical benefits at all. I don’t think they outweigh the risk and the harm, but that is simply my opinion. I don’t have the right to tell other parents how to raise their kids.
For an example, take spanking. I don’t agree with it and think it has the potential to be harmful. However, it is a parent’s right to discipline their children within legal limits, and it is not my place to take away parental rights. Child abuse =/= circumcision, spanking, other controversial parental rights.
“It isn’t a lie to state there are some medical reasons for circumcising.”
But using such logic, one could say there are medical reasons for removing healthy breast tissue from their baby girl – or any other body part for that matter.
No medical organization in the world recommends routine infant circumcision. And none of the ‘medical reasons’ given for circumcising healthy, normal foreskin are legitimate enough to override that child’s human right to an intact body.
If we’re going to protect little girls from ANY form of genital cutting (even the ‘ritual nick’ which is far less severe/invasive than what is inflicted upon infant males), then boys deserve equal protection under the law when it comes to the same subject.
At this point, boys are not being afforded equal rights, and this is unconstitutional
Elisabeth,
There are some comments that get hung up in the spam folder due to the number of links etc.
You can email a mod to fish your comments out for you. Sorry about that.
***************
Thank you to those who could actually speak about circumcision without judging those who have had their children circumcised. What a sickening thread.
And a quick way to shut down conversation.
This is a prolife blog. I wish you all much luck in your quest to find anti cutting and pro cutting, pro mutilating, anti mutilating blogs.
Bah.
I’m out.
Look closely, all of you, at your retorts and your defenses. You are disgusted by those who abort, yet you think the same as them.
Oh, well, this is great to know, considering I’ve been involved in pro-life activism for over 14 years now. Guess I should screw it and just go on over to the pro-abortion side, since I had both my boys circed.
Yeah, I’m out of this conversation, too. The condescension, accusations, and outright INSANITY thrown at those of us who chose to circumcise (and btw, don’t condemn those who chose the opposite) are enough to make me gag.
Guess I’ll just go back to taking care of my 3 kids, 2 of whom I “abused” and “cut” so gleefully after their births.
Thank you, at least, to Carrie, who sees that those of us who do circumcise do so because we believe it is in our sons’ best interest. Some of us don’t vaccinate because we believe it’s in our kids’ best interest, and some us DO vaccinate for the same reasons. Bottom line, my conscience is clear before the Lord, to Whom I answer, and Who entrusted me with my children I am raising up to serve Him.
Wow. Let’s not make this about something that it’s not (abortion), this is about the cutting off of healthy, functioning tissue from a non-consenting minor. Yes, there are forms of FGM that are very horrific, and there are also some forms that are equal to, or less than as horrific as male circumcision. The nuts and bolts of it is there is NO form of genital cutting that is acceptable. It is never, ever not wrong, horrific, mutilating, or traumatizing to forcibly cut the genitals of a non-consenting person. It doesn’t matter where, when, why, or how it is done. it is always wrong! It is not your body to alter. The person who is the owner of the penis is the only one who has a right to alter it. Same for the owner of the vulva. A baby is born with a foreskin and he can die with a foreskin and have led a perfectly healthy life. Most of the world’s men (>70%) die with their foreskin, so there’s your proof right there. Therefore circumcision is only done for cosmetic and religions reasons and is 100% unethical and a human rights violation. Period. End of story. There is no excuse for this kind of abuse.
Does anyone here know how a circumcision is preformed? For those who do not, I will explain:
First of all, as a baby and up until as late as puberty a boy’s foreskin is attached to the head of his penis, much like your fingernail is attached to your finger tip. So first things first, the doctor or mohel must restrain the newborn, because if he/she didn’t the baby would probably fling himself right off the table. So, in a hospital setting the nurse lays the baby in a circumstrait, a restraint designed specifically for this procedure, and straps his arms and legs down tight, so he can’t move at all. This alone is very upsetting to a baby, but it gets worse. In order to remove the foreskin the doctor or mohel must rip the membranes that fuse the two parts together. I’ll let you imagine how excruciatingly painful that must be. Think about ripping your entire fingernail off, ouch! (not just trimming the dead tip, foreskin is not dead) Most of the time no anesthetic is used, and if it is, it is in no way effective enough to completely numb the poor boy, simply because you cannot properly anesthetize an infant. Next the circumciser applies a clamp that crushes the delicate tissue and proceeds to cut it off. Slap some vaseline and some gauze on there and he is on his way. The poor baby will be in great pain for at least a week while his bloody, raw glans heal whilst sitting in a urine and feces filled diaper, how hygienic!
If we must compare, if being pro-choice (not pro-abortion like many say, there is a difference) and anti-circ is a contradiction, then being pro-life and pro-circ is equally hypocritical. You cannot fight so hard to keep a baby whole and not harm him/her while they are in the womb, but as soon as they are born start cutting parts off. I guess you think that while in the womb a baby is it’s own person, but once born belongs to the parents who can do whatever they wish with them? This makes NO sense.
I will never understand how it is not completely obvious to everyone that cutting off part of a baby’s genitals is sick and wrong! Does that sound normal?!?! I think everyone needs to leave children’s genitals alone. It’s really sick and twisted.
One more note I would like to make is that being pro-choice and being anti-circ can make sense together. They are actually both pro-choice. A woman’s body is her own, and no one else should have control over it. Equally, a man’s body is his own, and no one should be picking and choosing which parts he gets to keep, even if he is just a little baby at the time. The babies being cut grow up to become men, lovers, husband, and fathers. They have a right to their whole body!
Sorry for the delay, all… “real life” will intrude, from time to time. :)
Re: CT: :) Why, thank you! But… what did I do?
Re: Jack: I’ll write more in a bit, in reply to your last comment.
Kel and Carla, I have tried not to say anything that could be mistaken for condemning people who circumcise – I’m not sure if you’re talking about me or just generally – but I apologize for the general tone of the thread regardless. It’s obvious that virtually no parent would do anything they did not feel was in the best interest of their child, and you two clearly love your children very much!
I think it’s gotten pretty nasty on both sides, since there are accusations of being “schmeckel-obsessed” and having unsatisfied partners flying in the other direction. It’s a shame people can’t discuss these things civilly.
(*reading the above comments, after re-discovering the “200+ comment link” and feeling rather foolish for forgetting*)
Good grief. I have to say that this thread is getting downright disturbing; some people whom I respect, and whose posts I like (in addition to many other people whom I don’t know, or who are known trolls), are pulling out the machetes and flame-throwers, and going at each other as if it were Armageddon. Is that really necessary? For crying out loud, y’all… take a deep breath, calm down, and talk civilly, will you? I’m fully aware of the fact that the topic matter (and the differing opinions) can easily outrage those who disagree. That’s not an excuse to go into “FLAME-ON” mode!
In particular, to those who oppose the practice of circumcision: please understand that the parents (and others) who have had their children circumcised are (barring any clear evidence to the contrary–and this particular topic does not serve for that) good, loving parents who are trying their best to raise their children properly; and I hope you can understand that fiery, condemnation-laden language about such parents “mutilating” their children, being “hypocrites” for “claiming to be pro-life” while not regretting circumcision, and other such inflammatory nonsense will certainly serve to offend and outrage those whom you’re trying to convince. Knock it off, all right? There are other ways to show your strident opposition to circumcision, besides the “cut off heads and spray maledictions” way of doing things. When you use such inflammatory language, you give the impression (perhaps apart from your best intentions) that you’re attacking your opponents, rather than the position they hold. No parent likes to hear someone call them a mutilating, abusive, unloving, hypocritical “bad parent”. Would you respond well to that? I wouldn’t…
Yeah, this has gotten nastier than an abortion debate.
Seriously. Circumcision is NOT child abuse. It is very offensive to claim otherwise. People are trying to do what they think is right for their kids. I don’t like the practice, and I express that opinion, but accusing loving parents of being abusive is counter-productive and extremely rude.
Can’t you find a kinder way to oppose the practice?
christians involved in this debate must look at what our Holy Scriptures have to say
Gal. 5:6: “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love.”
Gal. 6:15: “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but a new creation.”
Col 3:9-11: “Do not lie to one another, since you have put off the old man with his deeds, and have put on the new man who is renewed in knowledge according to the image of Him who created him, where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave nor free, but Christ is all and in all.”
Now, then… Jack wrote, a bit ago:
Rejecting utilitarian or consequentialist thought automatically is short-sighted in my opinion.
I do not reject it automatically; I reject it because it is logically incoherent and question-begging (and ultimately vacuous). For example: if a utilitarian says, “Do not murder, since any philosophy which tolerates murder is inimical to the maintenance of the human species,” I could follow up with the question, “And why should I care about the maintenance of the human species, except insofar as it pleases and benefits me in particular?” If they say, “because such a selfish attitude is harmful to the species as a whole”, I could say, “but you’ve not yet shown me why I should care about that! Why not eat, drink, rape, steal and be merry, so long as I have the power to do so without harm to myself (and, perhaps, to those about whom I happen to care)?” Every utilitarian answer completely misses the fundamental point: the question of “why” any moral code in particular should be upheld.
Most societies throughout human history have shared some basic moral truths, and all of them are based on the well-being of humans. “Thou shalt not kill” and “Do unto others,” as well as other moral imperatives are not endemic to Christianity, they are found through many, many different cultures.
I agree… and I do not claim that Divine Revelation (e.g. the Bible, Sacred Tradition, etc.) is necessary, in order to know these; God has “written them on the human heart”, as it were, so that even the pagans know of these basic principles.
Religious people see this as evidence for a Holy Lawmaker and Judge, and atheists see it as evidence that we evolved to treat each other certain ways for the advancement of our species.
But do you see that the atheist view dodges the question, altogether? The fallacy known as “question-begging” means that a proposed answer introduces yet more relevant questions, and leaves the original question fundamentally unanswered; and this is a text-book case. Not only does it beg the question of “what, exactly, do you mean by ‘advancement of the species? By what standard are you measuring?”, but it assumes that the preservation of the species (as opposed to embracing death, annihilation, etc.) is a positive good… and many philosophers (Schopenhauer, Sartre, etc.) disagreed with that idea, as do all devout Hindus and Buddhists (who view existence as “being chained to a wheel of fire [i.e. karma]”). You might say, “Don’t be silly… it’s obvious!”, but then you’d be lapsing into raw opinion. Do you see the difficulty?
Suffice to say that in the views of many, because we are human what improves our well-being is moral, and what damages it isn’t.
:) So, here’s your homework question: what “question” does that above statement “beg”?
You believe that moral laws are right because they are God-given,
Not quite… though that’s a *very* long philosophical topic (i.e. the study of what makes things good and true).
[…] many atheists see morality in the way that social structures have formed for the propagation and protection of the species.
True… but again, this begs fundamental questions (e.g. why is the propagation of the species “good”?).
There is a lot more to objective morality than just religion.
I’m not sure that’s a helpful way to put things; I’d say, rather, that objective morality has its foundation in religion (since religion has its foundation in God, Who is the Ground of all things).
Many philosophers would disagree with your assessment. Doesn’t mean your wrong, I am just not convinced you are right.
Fair enough. Let the examination of “my” position commence! :)
There are many, many reasons an atheist would oppose slavery. Some people think like me, and believe informed consent is the best way to determine morality. A slave is not consenting to be one, so this violates his rights.
I think you might see, now, how this begs further questions, and does not answer any fundamental questions; it’s scarcely more than a mere opinion. Why, for example, is a violation of informed consent “bad”? And even if it “seems” bad to many, why should that stop anyone? If I’m a tyrant whose personal pleasure will be increased greatly by acquiring slaves, then on what moral basis would an atheist presume to say that my (Machiavellian/Epicurean) “people-using” world-view is immoral?
Perhaps this might make my position a bit more clear: I do not, in the LEAST, suggest that the typical atheist WANTS to “use” others (or commit any other sort of moral evil); most atheist friends of mine are genuinely good-meaning people who genuinely want to do no harm. But my “beef” is with atheism as a whole, not with the individuals; every good atheist preserves a “good” moral code *in spite* of his philosophy… not because of it. Push atheism to its limits (on issues of morality), and it collapses; and the individual atheists who still cling to “moral good” do so because of their good upbringing, their God-given temperament, and/or any number of other things extraneous to atheism, per se. It degenerates into saying, in essence, “because I want to act this way, and you can’t stop me from thinking it!”
It does not matter how we came to be here, whether it be evolution or God, what matters is that we are sentient, thinking, feeling creatures.
All right, let me play devil’s advocate: WHY does that matter?
Causing harm to another sentient creature is bad for society, for the individual harmed, and for yourself. This is only one of the ways an atheist might think about treating others.
I can easily agree with that, in practice… but the theory simply doesn’t support such (good) intentions. For example:
1) Why should I care about whether my actions are bad for society, or not, so long as they please me?
2) Why should I care about the individual being harmed, so long as it pleases me?
3) How is my (hypothetical) slave-owning bad for me?
Do remember: you need to assume atheism (i.e. no God) and materialism (no spiritual realities, and no afterlife, but only matter and energy, and complete annihilation when we die) when you answer these questions!
I have seen the philosophical arguments; the ontological, the argument from design, etc.
The ontological argument (if you mean the one by St. Anselm, and variations) is a very poor one (and, I think, provably wrong). The argument from design, unless you presuppose a great many (true but non-obvious) things, is rather weak, as well.
:) At the risk of boring you to death, you might check out the proof for the existence of God which I posted on my (sorely neglected) blog; I compiled what I thought were the best bits of several of those arguments (mainly revolving about the argument from causality), and I tried to make it systematic. (Follow the link on my name, and look for the “perma-link” near the top-right of the page.) I don’t claim that it’s water-proof, or even very good; but it may be a place to start. And if you find holes in it, let me know, and I’ll try to amend it to correct the problems (while using you for a free editor! Hm… I wonder how that fits into objective morality…)! :)
At the most, these arguments have me leaning towards deism or weak theism, I haven’t seen anything that shows me that any specific religion is the proper way.
That’s not their purpose. The main proofs for the existence of God are meant to show the necessary existence of a First, Uncaused Cause of everything else. (I think the Uncaused Cause can also be shown to be one, eternal, and unlimited, and also “all-good”.) At that point, it’s a battle not with other religions (that’s the province of another argument, such as “the reliability of the Gospels”), but with atheists and agnostics. If they say that “there is not God”, or “I don’t believe that the existence of God can be proven”, but then we DO prove it (even if it doesn’t prove the existence of the Judeo-Christian God, per se and directly), we can at least eliminate the atheist/agnostic position as being the inferior one, yes? Or, to put it another way: even a move from atheism/agnosticism to weak theism or Deism is a step toward the goal of reclaiming faith in God, and (ultimately) in Christ… and I think the “proofs” are capable of that much, at least.
Hm, well I just sent this as a FB message to someone, but I feel as though it should be publicly read instead, because I do want it addressed to everyone commenting or lurking who has felt attacked for circumcising their children. So:
I try so hard not to even SOUND judgmental on this, because the man I love is circumcised and i love him quite a bit ;) I am mostly just pro-dialogue, because I do know women who wish they had been exposed to some information earlier rather than later, the better to make a fully informed choice.
I remember there was one quote, I think from Christopher West maybe, where he took a moment in the beginning to stop what he was saying and apologize to women, for the individual men who had hurt them and the general ways in which male society had hurt them. It didn’t sound that generic, but then he’s a famous speaker and I’m not so I guess that’s got something to do with why I can’t make it sound good. Anyway, I am not an emotional person, and I have lived pretty cautiously and been fortunate to not really be hurt by men in extreme or obvious ways – but I just burst into tears reading that. It was so VALIDATING. For someone – one of ‘them,’ one of the hurters, not even a neutral party – to say, “No caveats, no blame-dodging (however correct it would be), no but’s: I’m sorry” – it really just validated so much implicit hurt that I guess I never thought would be even recognized, much less atoned for. It’s like all this anger and frustration I had forgotten I even had, just evaporated into thin air.
I try to remember that feeling sometimes. One of my greater flaws is, I believe, a sense of pride. I don’t like being wrong, and I REALLY don’t like being blamed for other people’s wrongs. But I try to remember how that one guy in particular never ever hurt me, and yet he affected me so deeply by NOT CARING that he individually hadn’t hurt me – by caring that I had been hurt, and that maybe he had hurt other people or even just allowed others to be hurt. And even more than I hate being blamed for things I didn’t do, I hate seeing people be hurt. Especially people I care about.
I’m sorry for the things that were said in this discussion. I’m so sorry for anyone who was called a name or felt slandered.
————
I haven’t shared too much of myself on this site in, like, years, because the nastiness is just not worth it for me, but I guess I have a few minutes to delete that if I feel like it thanks to the edit feature. ;)
Alexandra,
:) I’m glad you didn’t edit that out. You’re a gem. Thank you; that was classy!
(BTW: that *was* Christopher West, from your quote…!)
I needed to take a break from this thread and I’m glad I did. I want to apologize for spewing condescending and snarky remarks. I am generally a fair person and enjoy a good debate, but my emotions got out of hand. I promise on future threads that there will be less “human-like” responses, and more “Christ-like” responses.
I strongly feel that the decisions most parents make for their children are done out of love and what they think is best. I pray we can all remember that no matter what side of the fence we sit on in this issue.
Although I am very “pro-intact”, I also stongly believe that as Christians, it isnt fair to say that being a Christian means we have to be pro-intact. God speaks to our hearts differently and in His own time, and we are convicted of different issues through our walk. God is working in all of us, and His timing is never off.
Please forgive my arrogance. I pray my tongue is never that sharp again.
NYDoula,
I appreciate your comment very much. Thank you. I forgive you.
:) Things getting charitable again. Happy Paladin. Paladin go to sleep with mind at ease!
Thank you, everyone… just speaking for myself. Some seriously hard and good spiritual work has been done, today, and some notable spiritual battles have been won. The battle is the Lord’s! Amen, alleluia! (Good-night, y’all!)
NYDoula,
Understood, and forgiven. I think it’s time to retire this thread and move on to more productive and less incendiary topics, like ending abortion.
Abortion NO, circumcision NO. Many intactivists fall in this category, including yours truly. The typical American intactivist is a “crunchy” Mom, many of whom are passionate Christians. For these women, intactivism is just one chapter in a much larger book of compassion and gentleness.
Abortion YES, circumcision NO. This category includes the secular sexual liberals, like Crowe. This is the stance of many gay men, of intellectuals and college professors, of all sorts of sexual free spirits. They oppose circumcision because they are warm to the argument that it impairs sexual pleasure. Christopher Hitchens and other professional atheists are here. Some secular and liberal Jews are here.
Abortion NO, circumcision YES. This category includes orthodox Jews, some conservative Jews, many evangelical Christians, and many American cultural and political conservatives like Glenn Beck. This is the stance of the typical business owning GOP family, living in a comfortable suburban house. They don’t so much advocate circumcision as feel that the natural penis looks weird and is sexually off-putting. It is not good politics to accuse these people of inconsistency, and I submit that changing their circumcision YES to NO is not all that difficult.
Abortion YES, circumcision YES. The position of the typical less than orthodox Jew, and of the typical media professional, and the typical member of the American chattering class. In the USA and Canada, this is the politically correct position. These people don’t so much advocate circ as believe that it is a choice that parents should be free to make for a son.
Notice that both circumcision NO and YES are Bit Tents, uneasy coalitions of people who deeply disagree in other respects. American medicine, by saying that doctors should do to a son’s penis what his parents desire, are running away from the complexities outlined above.
Paladin, your outrage at the way some intactivists express themselves is well taken. I too have noticed in other forums the sort of language that dismays you, which has led me to place two rules on myself:
1. Never use any form of the verb “to mutilate.”
2. If American routine circumcision is a tragedy, the villains are the professors of medicine who have taught residents for 100+ years to circumcise screaming babies. To circumcise even though we have no research on its possible long term adverse consequences. All too often, parents are victims of the medical profession’s refusal to supply ethical leadership and common sense.
Some people come to intactivism because they have concluded that circumcision fetishizes the most sexual part of the male body. If this is the case, it is of course utterly inappropriate. Some men come to it because they blame their sexual difficulties on their being circumcised. Some women come to it because they have decided that their difficulties in climaxing from vaginal intercourse are due to their partners’ being circumcised. It is quite easy nowadays for a young woman in college or living in a big city to experiment with intact men her age. Some of these woman have discovered that they prefer men with all the moving parts, and have even blogged about that. Thus intactivism intersects with sex positive feminism, which is a durable ideological trend of recent decades. There are women who have concluded that circumcision damages women by diminishing their sex lives, and as such is patriarchal and demeaning to women. Hence the passions.
“Parents who circumcise are exercising their sacred obligation to determine what is best and healthiest for their child after discussing it with their physician, and then giving their informed consent.”
This “sacred” obligation is all too often blithely disregarded in many child rearing contexts. The peer reviewed medical literature does not speak to the long term adverse consequences of circumcision for sexuality, because medicine does not know how to talk about sex “scientifically”. Hence doctors do not know enough to advise parents. Hence parents are seldom in a position to give informed consent.
In my view, a huge common sense fact rules the roost here. Japan and continental Europe have never circumcised. The UK and New Zealand used to, but have given it up. It used to be the norm in Australia and Canada, but is now a minority practice there. If routine circumcision were beneficial, comparing the incidence of this and that across nations would be very revealing. All I have seen by way of comparisons of that nature is that the circumcised USA has much higher STD rates than continental Europe and Japan.
Tens of millions of adult Americans of both genders have never seen in the flesh a penis as Nature intended. Hence they are daunted by the prospect of raising a son who has a long sleeve on his short arm, and fear that he will be ridiculed in the locker room and bedroom. I am over 60 years old. If there is one thing I have learned about human nature, it is that most people cannot stand to be perceived as nonconformists. I know of no society where the circumcision rate has been stable for generations at a value not near 0 or 100%. Circumcision either becomes the rule or vanishes. The two styles do not mix.
Nadal, the following remarks of yours were rude and unprofessional.
“An uncircumcised male is more likely to acquire STD’s/AIDS than a circumcised male.”
ME. This is not true. The African clinical trials that supposedly ground that conclusion are an ethical botch.
“I respect the decision of parents in the case of vaccinations, and do the same with circumcision.”
ME. I have no reservations about vaccination, BTW. You have written things that are disrespectful of intact men and their sex partners. Before 1990 or so, to grow up intact n the USA was to belong to a despised and misunderstood sexual minority.
“That people are using pseudo-science in the process is all the more disturbing. That the one’s most animated are women is laughable. Are your husbands all really that miserable about their ability to enjoy you in bed? It must be so, from the breathless tales of decreased sensation and pleasure.”
ME. The pseudo science is everything written in support of routine circumcision before the work of Wiswell 25 years ago.
It is a raw fact that there are circumcised men who have sexual difficulties, especially after age 40 or 50. Do not sneer at this. There has been honest attempt to clinically examine a random sample of, say, 5000 American men, and take the sexual histories of them and their partners.
“Oh, the inhumanity of it all!! Hundreds of millions of men unable to be satisfied because their shmeckle is missing!!
“O tempora! O mores!
“I’ll get serious about this when your mutilated husbands all check in with their function and satisfaction ratings.”
ME. Your sarcasm degrades you and begs the question.
“In the interim, it was presciently observed by another male here that the standard-bearers of this issue all seem to be women. Just sayin’….”
ME. You are patronising the other gender in a shameful way. And just for the record, I am male, 100% straight lifelong, married for 27 years, have raised several children, grew up in gritty midwestern factory towns, have done heavy manual labor in steel mills and foundries, and have a PhD in a scientific discipline. I have all the moving parts that God saw fit to give me at birth. Retaining those parts required that my mother threaten to divorce my late father. I have never had issues with sexual health. My wife climaxes every time we come together. I deplore abortion on demand. But most relevant to this thread, I know what it is like to belong to a despised and misunderstood sexual minority, and so stand in solidarity with mutilated women, homosexuals, the transgendered, and the intersex.
Look, the abortion issue and this issue are separate! I don’t even BELIEVE in abortion but sex education and birth control to prevent it.
That aside, the foreskin is a very sensitive area of a baby boy’s body. Having it peeled from the glans and severed HURTS LIKE HELL! So, babies need compassion inside and outside of the womb!
Also, it should be up to the baby to decide when he grows up.
—Crowe, a once promising talent, now seems content to play
capstone agenda supporting ‘controversy’ between tired, routine
releases.