Mothering Forum banner
721 - 740 of 752 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1 Posts
A third option for the circumcision decision

If you are coming at this from a Judeo-Christian perspective, you may find the Kindle book, "Biblical Circumcision vs. Modern Circumcision" very informative and helpful. That Amazon Kindle book reports on a lot of research and posits a surprising third option, which may well have been what Michaelangelo depicted on his statue of David.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,521 Posts
You should clarify what you are talking about. Your post makes no sense at all. There is no third option. Its either intact, or cut off. Maybe you are referring to a symbolic circumcision, then say so, and define what you mean....cant stand wafflers....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
My, my, this is quite the bandwagon. Does anyone here have a mind of their own? For all of the people on here who have used God's name in their posts, they all seem to have forgotten that it was God who first commanded Abraham to circumcise himself, his sons and his tribe, lest they be "cut off" from their people! And to those who think the Old Testament is null and void, Jesus himself was circumcised and spoke of it agreeably in the New Testament. So you can all say what you want to say and do what you want to do, but I'll take God's word into consideration long before a human being's. I'm really surprised that so many of you have either forgotten that or just don't care. My son is circumcised, as is my husband, and so will my next son be. To each their own. Medical problems can happen with any procedure that is done, and that is just a fact. It is certainly sad when it is a person's genitals that are negatively affected, but there are many other tragic medical issues that plague people too. I've yet to run across a forum on this site on the woes of the genital mutilation that women suffer in the middle east, having their clitorises removed so they can't even have an orgasm, while men here complain about their orgasm not being as spectacular as they would like it to be. Now that's a tragedy. :crying:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
974 Posts
My, my, this is quite the bandwagon. Does anyone here have a mind of their own? For all of the people on here who have used God's name in their posts, they all seem to have forgotten that it was God who first commanded Abraham to circumcise himself, his sons and his tribe, lest they be "cut off" from their people! And to those who think the Old Testament is null and void, Jesus himself was circumcised and spoke of it agreeably in the New Testament. So you can all say what you want to say and do what you want to do, but I'll take God's word into consideration long before a human being's. I'm really surprised that so many of you have either forgotten that or just don't care. My son is circumcised, as is my husband, and so will my next son be. To each their own. Medical problems can happen with any procedure that is done, and that is just a fact. It is certainly sad when it is a person's genitals that are negatively affected, but there are many other tragic medical issues that plague people too. I've yet to run across a forum on this site on the woes of the genital mutilation that women suffer in the middle east, having their clitorises removed so they can't even have an orgasm, while men here complain about their orgasm not being as spectacular as they would like it to be. Now that's a tragedy.
You need to study God's word more and to also understand that the way God commanded Abraham to circumcise himself and future sons looks nothing like an American hospital circumcision. The whole point of being circumcised was a form of sacrifice with the shedding of a few drops of blood. Just the very end was snipped, they didn't have probes which forcibly detached the attached skin on their 8 day old babies. In fact if they had tried to perform circumcisions the way it is done in US hospitals nearly every baby would have died as they did not have the equipment. The form of circumcision you now see in the US came about because John Harvey Kellogg lead the way to prevent boys from masturbating because he knew removing the whole or nearly the whole foreskin would reduce sexual pleasure. It had nothing to do with what God had commanded and was instead a perversion of God's truth. How often has man done that? God gave man a foreskin for sex, he didn't design it that way to remove it all, he just wanted them to show an outward sign of their faith among the pagan nations. If you read up about the early Olympics you will see some Jewish men tried to pull down their foreskins to try and look Greek. You can't do that with a full hospital circumcision. You might also want to read the New Testament and see that circumcision is of the heart and in the body it avails a man not. We are no longer under the old system of sacrifice but rather a sacrifice of our lives to Christ. I hope you decide to research this over prayerfully.

I am so sorry to the mamma's on here who are going through such heart ache.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
992 Posts
My, my, this is quite the bandwagon. Does anyone here have a mind of their own? For all of the people on here who have used God's name in their posts, they all seem to have forgotten that it was God who first commanded Abraham to circumcise himself, his sons and his tribe, lest they be "cut off" from their people! And to those who think the Old Testament is null and void, Jesus himself was circumcised and spoke of it agreeably in the New Testament. So you can all say what you want to say and do what you want to do, but I'll take God's word into consideration long before a human being's. I'm really surprised that so many of you have either forgotten that or just don't care. My son is circumcised, as is my husband, and so will my next son be. To each their own. Medical problems can happen with any procedure that is done, and that is just a fact. It is certainly sad when it is a person's genitals that are negatively affected, but there are many other tragic medical issues that plague people too. I've yet to run across a forum on this site on the woes of the genital mutilation that women suffer in the middle east, having their clitorises removed so they can't even have an orgasm, while men here complain about their orgasm not being as spectacular as they would like it to be. Now that's a tragedy. :crying:
Wow! I prefer to believe that God or natural evolution, or whatever version of creation you believe in, did not make a mistake. Men are born with foreskins for a reason. If I ever decide to make a sacrifice I would rather it be on my terms and not forced on me by someone else. In fact as a guy who was circumcised in infancy I'm mad as hell that I was robbed of my foreskin! As for your comments on FGM - what's the difference? Genital mutilation is genital mutilation. The sex of the victim is immaterial.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18 Posts
My, my, this is quite the bandwagon. Does anyone here have a mind of their own? For all of the people on here who have used God's name in their posts, they all seem to have forgotten that it was God who first commanded Abraham to circumcise himself, his sons and his tribe, lest they be "cut off" from their people! And to those who think the Old Testament is null and void, Jesus himself was circumcised and spoke of it agreeably in the New Testament. So you can all say what you want to say and do what you want to do, but I'll take God's word into consideration long before a human being's. I'm really surprised that so many of you have either forgotten that or just don't care. My son is circumcised, as is my husband, and so will my next son be. To each their own. Medical problems can happen with any procedure that is done, and that is just a fact. It is certainly sad when it is a person's genitals that are negatively affected, but there are many other tragic medical issues that plague people too. I've yet to run across a forum on this site on the woes of the genital mutilation that women suffer in the middle east, having their clitorises removed so they can't even have an orgasm, while men here complain about their orgasm not being as spectacular as they would like it to be. Now that's a tragedy. :crying:
PapasMama, as a newbie to commenting myself, I don't want to overstep, but I'll hope you'll notice that:
1) Mothering.com has a widely divergent group of faiths represented. An Appeal to Authority Conveniently Forgetting Paul) is unlikely to persude much of the readership.
1a) Dude I knew in high school took it upon himself to convert me to Christianity based on my "Jewish" (actually, Germanic) last name. He and I were on the cross-country team; upon discovering that I was uncircumcised one day after a particularly muddy practice when we had to shower at the school gym versus going home stinky, he decided I was still in need of saving from my obviously incorrect version of Christianity, because, foreskin, again conveniently forgetting Paul.
1b) Does it give you the willies that there are uncircumcised Christians like me out there?
1c) Dude mentioned in 1a) eventually came to (what I think is) a more accepting version of Christianity, and, in one particularly infamous incident while I home from college, took the "over" in whether I would be able to stuff more than $3.00 of quarters under my foreskin, and was rewarded for it.
2) Your comment, "to each their own," seems to extend the possibility that it is okay to be uncircumcised, but that interpretation seems to be contraindicated by the rest of your comment. Reminds me of a guy I worked with who's wife was pregnant and took it upon himself to announce to a bunch of us having beers after work that while he and his nine-year-old son were circumcised, and his unborn son #2 wouid be circumcised, he had no issue with guys who were uncircumicsed. Fast forward two weeks when he, his nine-year old son, the same bunch of us, and our sons had played an absurdly intense series of pick-up basketball at the base gym and decided to shower there before decamping to a friend's house for a cookout. The gym had gang showers and the dads agreed that it would be okay for everyone to shower together. Dude goes ballistic when he sees I'm uncircumcised; he had only agreed that I could shower in front of his son because he knew I was a deer-hunting, pickup-driving-in-high-school, skinny dipping from railroad trestles guy and that obviously meant that I was circumcised. I think that the bare-assed argument I had with him (along with another uncirumcised co-worker he hadn't yet noticed) probably damaged his son more than his seeing my foreskin.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
555 Posts
Papas mama,

I find it ironic that you express disgust at female circumsion and defend male circumsion. Both are cruel acts of sexual assault.

But as you are coming at this from your particular brand of religion that you have aligned yourself with, probably nothing we say will have any impact.

I'm sorry for your sons and I encourage you to broaden your mind.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,206 Posts
My, my, this is quite the bandwagon. Does anyone here have a mind of their own? For all of the people on here who have used God's name in their posts, they all seem to have forgotten that it was God who first commanded Abraham to circumcise himself, his sons and his tribe, lest they be "cut off" from their people! And to those who think the Old Testament is null and void, Jesus himself was circumcised and spoke of it agreeably in the New Testament. So you can all say what you want to say and do what you want to do, but I'll take God's word into consideration long before a human being's. I'm really surprised that so many of you have either forgotten that or just don't care. My son is circumcised, as is my husband, and so will my next son be. To each their own. Medical problems can happen with any procedure that is done, and that is just a fact. It is certainly sad when it is a person's genitals that are negatively affected, but there are many other tragic medical issues that plague people too. I've yet to run across a forum on this site on the woes of the genital mutilation that women suffer in the middle east, having their clitorises removed so they can't even have an orgasm, while men here complain about their orgasm not being as spectacular as they would like it to be. Now that's a tragedy. :crying:
It never ceases to amaze me when people use their religion to try to convince others, and even more so, when they don't even know their own religion very well.

You should extend "to each their own" to your children.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
38,824 Posts
I have removed a few posts made to this thread that contained attacking comments. If you cannot post with respectful sharing of information and disagreement then you will be removed from the forum.

The Case Against Circumcision does not accept posts of religious debate. If you would like to discuss such topics it may be appropriate in the Religious Studies forum or in a thread devoted to followers of a particular faith who wish to discuss application of teachings of their fath. But in this forum it is inappropriate and not something we wish to host so let's please end the discussion of religion here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
413 Posts
You should clarify what you are talking about. Your post makes no sense at all. There is no third option. Its either intact, or cut off. Maybe you are referring to a symbolic circumcision, then say so, and define what you mean....cant stand wafflers....
Actually, no it's not. There is a third option, where the foreskin is partially removed. A family member made this decision for his son. The end portion of the foreskin was removed, about 25% of it, instead of all of it. Not what we are choosing for our son, but it's an option.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
413 Posts
I've yet to run across a forum on this site on the woes of the genital mutilation that women suffer in the middle east, having their clitorises removed so they can't even have an orgasm, while men here complain about their orgasm not being as spectacular as they would like it to be. Now that's a tragedy.
Possibly because in most of the developed world, female genital mutilation is illegal... sadly, male genital mutilation is accepted, if not encouraged.

To many people, BOTH are abhorrent.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,206 Posts
Actually, no it's not. There is a third option, where the foreskin is partially removed. A family member made this decision for his son. The end portion of the foreskin was removed, about 25% of it, instead of all of it. Not what we are choosing for our son, but it's an option.
Aside from the ethical problems with removing any percentage of foreskin, there are physical complications with this, too:
http://www.moralogous.com/2012/02/18/he-doesnt-even-look-circumcised/
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
413 Posts
I don't agree with the procedure, I was just pointing out that it's not necessarily "all or none" when it's performed. The idea behind the partial is that most of the foreskin is left intact, so the glans is covered, but the part that extends past the glans is removed so that there is less skin to cause possible "problems."

Again, I didn't say that I support this particular option, just that it's out there and some people are choosing it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,521 Posts
I don't agree with the procedure, I was just pointing out that it's not necessarily "all or none" when it's performed. The idea behind the partial is that most of the foreskin is left intact, so the glans is covered, but the part that extends past the glans is removed so that there is less skin to cause possible "problems."

Again, I didn't say that I support this particular option, just that it's out there and some people are choosing it.
So what.
Both options are a violation of bodily integrity on a defenseless infant. It really doesnt matter how many different kinds of penis cutting there are, none of them should be allowed except on a consenting adult.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,206 Posts
I don't agree with the procedure, I was just pointing out that it's not necessarily "all or none" when it's performed. The idea behind the partial is that most of the foreskin is left intact, so the glans is covered, but the part that extends past the glans is removed so that there is less skin to cause possible "problems."

Again, I didn't say that I support this particular option, just that it's out there and some people are choosing it.
But it removes the dartos muscle which holds the foreskin shut, and the ridged band, which provides much of the sensory awesomeness of the foreskin... And it's still non consensual amputation. As they say, there is no right way to do a wrong thing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
413 Posts
And again....

I do not agree with either procedure.

I was correcting your comment that the foreskin is either all there or all gone. Because that is inaccurate; there is a procedure that removes only part of the foreskin.

In my opinion - and evidently yours too - ANY removal of ANY part of the foreskin should be only with the consent of the person who owns that foreskin. And until that person is eighteen, they can't give that consent.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
68 Posts
I am a regret mom. I bought into all the myths I heard growing up and never researched the procedure (or the Bible) myself. I regret consenting to it. Our third son is intact and healthy. Also, he is my happiest baby. Coincidence? Hmm....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
992 Posts
I am a regret mom. I bought into all the myths I heard growing up and never researched the procedure (or the Bible) myself. I regret consenting to it. Our third son is intact and healthy. Also, he is my happiest baby. Coincidence? Hmm....
I don't believe that is a coincidence - it is well known that the trauma of circumcision can often disrupt breastfeeding. A person's implicit memory begins in their mother's womb and everything that baby is exposed to leaves a trace on it's brain. So, no trauma results in a peaceful, happy baby.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1 Posts
Ancient superstition violates human rights

All babies, boys and girls alike, have a fundamental right to a normal body, unaltered by genital surgery, a brutal, sexual violation of another human being's body. American doctors have bowed down to a cruel superstition and betrayed American parents. The Royal Dutch Medical Association puts it bluntly in their official policy statement: "The official viewpoint of KNMG and other related medical/scientific organisations is that non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors is a violation of children's rights to autonomy and physical integrity. Contrary to popular belief, circumcision can cause complications - bleeding, infection, urethral stricture and panic attacks are particularly common. KNMG is therefore urging a strong policy of deterrence. KNMG is calling upon doctors to actively and insistently inform parents who are considering the procedure of the absence of medical benefits and the danger of complications."
http://knmg.artsennet.nl/Publicatie...rapeutic-circumcision-of-male-minors-2010.htm
 
721 - 740 of 752 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top