Circumcision Immoral

[Lil Red]

+J.M.J.+
this is an issue i struggle with, but my husband says that if we have any boys that we should circumcise. he is not Catholic, but it is important to him. and he feels that if we don't circumcise that our boys will wonder why they are not like their daddy or (later) other boys.

but still an issue i struggle with.

[Archaeology cat]

I had been under the impression that male circumcision was frowned upon more in those cases where people considered it to be a necessary act for salvation, but if that was not your motivation, it was fine (depending on how you personally feel about circumcision). I'm fairly ambivalent towards it, personally. My son was not circumcised, simply because non-therapeutic circumcisions are not performed in the UK. Were we in the US, I'm not sure whether we would have had him circumcised or not. I'm leaning towards not (because I'm not sure about clotting and everything without the Vit K injection, which I didn't want for other reasons), but I can't say with certainty since I wasn't in that situation.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='Lil Red' post='1496388' date='Apr 10 2008, 06:19 PM']he feels that if we don't circumcise that our boys will wonder why they are not like their daddy[/quote]
That is something I've thought about, to be honest.

[prose]

This thread has given me lots to think about.

In regards to the HIV/AIDS thing, abstinence would be the answer. Ultimately if everyone (and I mean EVERYONE) remained chaste and monogamous, there would not be a problem. Eventually HIV/AIDS would have no way to spread and it would stop (not immediately, but it would).

The thing is, rapists tend to not be chaste and monogamous, they probably wouldn't choose so.

I think to say AIDS is a bigger problem than sex is true, but it is only bigger because promiscuity has made it so.

[CatholicMax]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1496365' date='Apr 10 2008, 11:52 AM']The Church says circumcision is ok for medical reasons. Get over it.
Both my boys were snipped WITH anesthetic.
There are much more important issues in life.[/quote]
Actually that argument doesnt work because the American medical association says there is no valid reason to circumcise baby boys. Which again means your doing it for your own reasons. Its simple enough to say what i did was wrong but i didnt know. but to persist in error is not wise.

[Paladin D]

[quote name='Lil Red' post='1496388' date='Apr 10 2008, 02:19 PM']he feels that if we don't circumcise that our boys will wonder why they are not like their daddy or (later) other boys.[/quote]

I've come across discussions on other message boards simply based on this reason. It's interesting to point out that statistics show that circumcision in the United States is dropping: [url="http://www.cirp.org/news/columbusdispatch01-15-06/"]Circumcision rates decline nationally, albeit more slowly in Midwest[/url].

Also do take into consideration, male circumcision is the exception to the norm in the international community (including Europe). The United States is one of the very few countries that has a large percentage of circumcized males.

[CatholicMax]

[quote name='Deb' post='1496366' date='Apr 10 2008, 11:52 AM']You know, your premise is kind of based on false information. You took your CCC quote, not out of any part that dealt with circumcision but, on kidnapping and torture. Very out of context. So, here for all, is the complete CCC 2297/2298. The only time circumcision is brought up in the CCC is to mention Christ's circumcision and listing it as one of the liturgical signs of the Old Covenant.

[i]Kidnapping[/i] and [i]hostage taking[/i] bring on a reign of terror; by means of threats they subject their victims to intolerable pressures. They are morally wrong. [i]Terrorism[/i] threatens, wounds, and kills indiscriminately; it is gravely against justice and charity. [i]Torture[/i] which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity. Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended [i]amputations[/i], [i]mutilations[/i], and [i]sterilizations[/i] performed on innocent persons are against the moral law.[sup][url="http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt2art5.htm#91"]91[/url][/sup]

[size=2]In times past, cruel practices were commonly used by legitimate governments to maintain law and order, often without protest from the Pastors of the Church, who themselves adopted in their own tribunals the prescriptions of Roman law concerning torture. Regrettable as these facts are, the Church always taught the duty of clemency and mercy. She forbade clerics to shed blood. In recent times it has become evident that these cruel practices were neither necessary for public order, nor in conformity with the legitimate rights of the human person. On the contrary, these practices led to ones even more degrading. It is necessary to work for their abolition. We must pray for the victims and their tormentors.[/size]</FONT>[/quote]
your own argument falls short because if you look at the whole text [quote]Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law[/quote] is given in saying this is only when such things can be done. so then the question must be asked is circumcision medically necessary and again every major medical association in the world says NO! and when you take that in context with Pius XII then we see the chruch is clear enough it cant be dont unless the area is diseased, this is the same reason you cant remove a uterus even if, if the woman gets pregnatnt again she will die you can only remove the uterus after it is torn not preemptively.

[CatholicMax]

[quote name='Cathoholic Anonymous' post='1496379' date='Apr 10 2008, 12:04 PM']And as I pointed out (and you ignored) HIV is not spread solely through sex. In some countries (i.e. the whole of Latin America) the main mode of transmission is from a mother to her unborn baby. People can get HIV through unsanitary conditions in hospitals (i.e. reused needles, which is a HUGE problem in poorer countries) or unhygienic sanitation (again, a very serious problem in the developing world). Furthermore, it is possible to carry HIV and not know that you have the virus, so stop making it sound as though its a disease that is spread through nothing but promiscuity and that abstinence will suddenly make it go away. Abstinence won't make extreme poverty go away and cause pristine hospitals to spring up overnight, complete with needles and other equipment all sterilised in beautiful clean boiling water (another thing that developing countries tend to lack). Abstinence won't make rapists go away. (HIV-infected men sometimes rape women as 'punishment' in certain areas where the infection is rife - I was watching a documentary on it quite recently.) Abstinence is not the answer to everything. Yes, it is important, but it is not the sole response to the problem. Again, as I have already pointed out, the Catholic Church's response to countries with a severe HIV/AIDS problem is not just to promote sexual abstinence but to address the numerous other factors that cause this horrific disease to be perpetuated.[/quote]
I agree with what you said but the problem is that all of this has no valid place in this argument. no it doesnt make rapists go away but what does circumcision and rape have to do with one another? I hope you are not proposing the absurd that we should cut little boys penises because they might grow up and be rapists? HIV and AIDs are spreac not mostly through unsanitary conditions but through promiscuity [url="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3610487.stm"]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3610487.stm[/url] as a matter of fact HIV and AID's are most commonly spread through homosexual acts and when women get it, it actually tends to be from men who are bisexual. as for mothers passing it on to their children again this is no argument for circumcision as it is incumbent on the child to be responsible and abstain unless you are proposing that they should be allowed to use condoms which is of course another problem in and of itself.

My point still stands there is no morally acceptable reason to preemptively remove a healthy part of the human body.

[CatholicMax]

[quote name='Lil Red' post='1496388' date='Apr 10 2008, 12:19 PM']+J.M.J.+
this is an issue i struggle with, but my husband says that if we have any boys that we should circumcise. he is not Catholic, but it is important to him. and he feels that if we don't circumcise that our boys will wonder why they are not like their daddy or (later) other boys.

but still an issue i struggle with.[/quote]
The church has spoken. this is a matter which your husband needs to become more educated about. [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXal6eR8_NI"]Just like Dad[/url]. you are cutting of 20,000 nerves for no reason and you are risking complications some of which cannot be detected until they are adults. It is important to obey the Church, and it is important that you and your husband become more educated that is always a good place to start.

[Lil Red]

[quote name='CatholicMax' post='1496420' date='Apr 10 2008, 11:43 AM']The church has spoken. this is a matter which your husband needs to become more educated about. [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXal6eR8_NI"]Just like Dad[/url]. you are cutting of 20,000 nerves for no reason and you are risking complications some of which cannot be detected until they are adults. It is important to obey the Church, and it is important that you and your husband become more educated that is always a good place to start.[/quote]
+J.M.J.+
umm, did you see where i said my husband was not Catholic? (though i'm trying ) a lot of things he doesn't really care what the Church teaches. i'm trying to start with the major things, ya know, like the Eucharist, baptism, Church authority, Mary.

besides, we haven't yet been blessed with a boy, just one girl.

honestly, your post comes off as very judgmental to me. i do try to obey the Church in all things.

[Lil Red]

[quote name='Paladin D' post='1496408' date='Apr 10 2008, 11:31 AM']I've come across discussions on other message boards simply based on this reason. It's interesting to point out that statistics show that circumcision in the United States is dropping: [url="http://www.cirp.org/news/columbusdispatch01-15-06/"]Circumcision rates decline nationally, albeit more slowly in Midwest[/url].

Also do take into consideration, male circumcision is the exception to the norm in the international community (including Europe). The United States is one of the very few countries that has a large percentage of circumcized males.[/quote]
+J.M.J.+
thank you, that link is very interesting.

[Deb]

I would still like to know why circumcision is such a big issue? Compared to abortion, euthanasia, war, hunger etc., seems like a lot of anger over this little snip.

[CatholicMax]

[quote name='Deb' post='1496442' date='Apr 10 2008, 01:14 PM']I would still like to know why circumcision is such a big issue? Compared to abortion, euthanasia, war, hunger etc., seems like a lot of anger over this little snip.[/quote]
Abortion, Euthanasia, huger we agree, war? well i hope your not one of the lefty "Iraq us an unjust war" type. War is a big thing(i dont know if i would call it an issue) but it is necessary for security and stability of the world, bad people only understand one thing, force.

as for such a big thing for such a little snip let me put it this way. why dont we remove your clitoralhood? that is one type of female circumcision, and hey why is it such a big deal for such a little snip. i mean its an even littler snip than male circumcision. Argument from size is not an argument.

why is it such a big deal
[quote]AUTOPSY FINDINGS
...
MEDICAL CAUSE OF DEATH

(1) Immediate cause of death: a) Multi-organ ischemia, due to or as a consequence of b) exsangination [loss of blood], due to or as a consequence of c) circumcision
(2) Other significant conditions contributing to death: Post-surgical exsanguination

Classification of the event: Accidental
Date signed: 19 January 2004
T.E. Chico Newell, Coroner

[The evidence would justify classifying Ryleigh's death as Iatrogenic and recommending that circumcision of infants be removed from the category of elective procedures.][/quote]
[quote]THE DADE COUNTRY MEDICAL EXAMINER DEPARTMENT, [b]Miami, Florida[/b]
Name....MANKER,.Demetrius.....June.23,19
3....11:00am.........Case No. 93-1711

EXTERNAL EXAMINATION:

The body is that of a 25-1/2 inch, 15 pound, very pale appearing Negro male appearing consistent with the stated age of 6 months. ... No anomalies are evident.

When initially viewed, a large amount of congealed blood covers the head of the penis. Removal of this disclosed a circumcision site that appears unremarkable along the dorsal surface of the penis. Ventrally, however, a gaping defect of approximately 12 x 14 millimeters is evident with a large amount of extravasated blood in the subcutaneous tissues extending along the shaft of the penis nearly to the scrotal sac.
...
CAUSE OF DEATH:
Exsanguination
[b]DUE TO:
Penile Circumcision[/b]

[signed]
Charles V. Wetli, M.D.
Deputy Chief Medical Examiner[/quote]

[quote]Dustin Evans Jr was born in [b]Cleveland, Ohio in October 1998[/b]. He was circumcised by a Dr Russell soon after, who took so much shaft skin that the scar healed as a wideband stricture (a tight "collar") around his penis, preventing him from urinating. When he was given sevoflourane, an anaesthetic, in order to "revise" his circumcision, he immediately died of cardiopulmonary arrest.

His father said, "You think, 'What could go wrong with a circumcision?' The next thing I know, he's dead."

Oddly, the report of Cuyahoga County Coroner, Elizabeth Balraj MD, says
IDENTIFYING MARKS AND SCARS: None
EVIDENCE OF RECENT THERAPY: [does not mention his circumcision]
EVIDENCE OF RECENT INJURY: None[/quote]

[quote]Contemporary OB/GYN® Archive
February 1997

MALPRACTICE

By Richard Ballad

Septicemia secondary to circumcision

A child was born without incident in a [b]West Virginia [/b]hospital and was circumcised before discharge. Two days later, the baby boy was brought to a health center where the doctor did a follow-up examination. Four days after that, the child was rushed to a hospital emergency room after developing a fever and undergoing seizures. The ER physician telephoned the doctor who had performed the circumcision and decided not to admit the child. The next morning, the mother brought the infant back to the ER where he suffered more seizures and was noted to have a greenish cast to the penis. That afternoon the child was transferred to a medical center, where he died 4 hours later.

The cause of death was found to be septicemia derived from an infection secondary to the circumcision. Both physicians were sued for negligence for failure to admit the child to the hospital on the first visit to the ER. After 6 months, a settlement of $150,000 was reached.[/quote]

I can go on if you would like but i think you get my point. If your husband were to circumcise your daughter even by just removing the clitoralhood you would prob. freak. [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3e2eKFxxfxk"]there is no difference between male and female circumcision[/url]

I am not angry you are projecting anger onto me because angry people are irrational and you dont have to listen to them. so by making me "angry" everything i say is irrelevant, you do this because you don't care what anyone tells you, don't matter. you have put a big sign up that says "I reject reality in favor of my own".

Edited April 10, 2008 by CatholicMax

[CatholicMax]

[quote name='tgoldson' post='1496215' date='Apr 10 2008, 06:53 AM']Similac for all? Sorry - removing a small part of the penis is not comparable to removing the entire breast. The penis w/o its foreskin functions just fine.

I do agree with you, but not to the point of this ridiculous comparison.[/quote]
we dont have to remove the entire breast they do not remove the entire penis we can just remove most of it. the breast will still function.

[cathoholic_anonymous]

[quote name='CatholicMax' post='1496418' date='Apr 10 2008, 07:39 PM']I agree with what you said but the problem is that all of this has no valid place in this argument. no it doesnt make rapists go away but what does circumcision and rape have to do with one another? I hope you are not proposing the absurd that we should cut little boys penises because they might grow up and be rapists?[/quote]

No. I was pointing out that in countries where HIV is rife and the life expectancy stands at 35, it is necessary to do all in your power to prevent the spread of HIV - and circumcising a baby boy might reduce his risk of contracting the disease in his later life. The reduction would only be slight, but in the countries that I'm talking about your chance of surviving into adulthood are slight.

I used the example of rape to show that HIV is not spread solely through extramarital sex. Two different issues. Don't conflate them.

And I agree with what Deb said. You seem extremely preoccupied by circumcision, given the enormity of other issues facing the Catholic community.