Circumcision Immoral

[CatholicMax]

[quote name='-I---Love' post='1496918' date='Apr 10 2008, 11:03 PM']Thanks for the good topic thread, I enjoy.

After reading the arguments I am pretty much decided on the side of no circumcision.

To sum up this is b/c:

Unnecessary complications in country like US w/ good hygiene
God's creation is good as is
Pain inflicted unnecessarily
Seems to be perpetuating an ignorant/tainted motive practice as common place

It's lame and rude to comment that ppl must have an infatuation w/ a subject b/c they bring it up.

It's annoying when ppl time and again say "Why are we talking about this little issue, when there are so many more important ones?" Seriously this line should be replaced with some silly spam fiddler phrase.[/quote]
I am glad that this thread is doing good for at least someone. if i can educate even one person that makes it worth it.

[quote name='Paladin D' post='1496929' date='Apr 10 2008, 11:14 PM']It's not that hard to clean under the foreskin...
Pull back, wash, done.

It takes 5 to 10 seconds tops.
... if the average guy can't do that, then what else can he do?[/quote]
seriously if you cant figure out how to keep yourself clean then you have issues

[MissScripture]

[quote name='CatholicMax' post='1496555' date='Apr 10 2008, 04:35 PM']I will certainly admit i have been forceful in some of my arguments but you must also admit you have pretty much blown me off. you dont care what i say or what the evidence is. you know what you want the answer to be and so no matter what that is going to be the answer. and your not the only one some people have all but outright said so. what upsets them is that they want X to be true and its not and rather than us good arguments which get shot down they make a move to try and make me appear irrational ignoring any facts which are presented.[/quote]
I take offense to this response. I have never taken a side with this. You assume you know what I think, when, in fact, I have never stated such. You get further with people if you didn't act like you know it all.

[CatholicMax]

[quote name='MissScripture' post='1496974' date='Apr 11 2008, 12:48 AM']I take offense to this response. I have never taken a side with this. You assume you know what I think, when, in fact, I have never stated such. You get further with people if you didn't act like you know it all.[/quote]
Miss you can take offense if you want. You have stated your position

[quote]So, you say that the studies for circumcision are flawed and that because the AMA says something it is so? I'm sorry if I've been taught to be skeptical of things, just because an organization with a nice name happens to say it's so.[/quote]
In a debate you are required by the very nature of a debate to come down on one side or another when you get involved. which is what you did when you made this statement, and what you said more or less 'I do not believe what the AMA says" this implies (also from what you have said in other posts) that you are for circumcision. so if i am wrong then correct me and I will apologize. Where on this debate do you lay? I am not acting like i know it all however some of you are finding it necessary to attack me because you do not like the data and you cannot provide valid arguments for your side. this is a debate forum and if you are undecided in a matter you should ask questions of both sides. and make it clear that you are not sure.

You however Miss have only been responding to me and not to the other side.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='-I---Love' post='1496918' date='Apr 11 2008, 05:03 AM']Unnecessary complications in country like US w/ good hygiene
God's creation is good as is
Pain inflicted unnecessarily
Seems to be perpetuating an ignorant/tainted motive practice as common place[/quote]
I'm pretty much in agreement. The hygiene argument seems similar (in some cases) to the "we don't trust them to keep clean so we'll make it easier for them". Now in a country with bad sanitation, I would probably feel different, but living in the UK (where they don't do non-therapeutic circumcision anyway) I don't have a problem with it. And I don't believe in unnecessary pain.

On the whole I still think that, as far as the Church is concerned, it is only wrong if the person believes that circumcision is necessary for salvation.

All that being said, I'm ultimately glad my son is uncircumcised, and don't plan on circumcising any future sons, either (which will be a non-issue if we're still in the UK, but anyway).

[Aloysius]

[quote]On the whole I still think that, as far as the Church is concerned, it is only wrong if the person believes that circumcision is necessary for salvation.[/quote]
I am not convinced of that. The reasons you quoted clearly make a case for it being a natural law thing, and the Church would require us to support the natural law. In addition, the Ecumenical Council of Florence did specifically state "Therefore it [the Church] strictly orders all who glory in the name of Christian, not to practise circumcision either before or after baptism, since whether or not they place their hope in it, it cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation."... now, in another thread I have argued and I do retain my position that the word "observed" refers only to a ritual type observance, and in the context of the Bull of Union with the Copts, it is clearly exhorting the Copts not to practice it ritualistically even if they don't believe it is necessary for salvation. no, it cannot be observed ritualistically at all; the ONLY way it can be practiced is if one believes it to be the only possible way to prevent diseases, as Pius XII.

sometimes it feels as if the American use of it is evolving into a sort of blind ritual... in which case whether or not one placed hope in that ritual, it would be wrong to observe on merely traditional or ritualistic grounds. ie, don't circumcise your sons just because you were circumcised.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1497017' date='Apr 11 2008, 09:57 AM']I am not convinced of that. The reasons you quoted clearly make a case for it being a natural law thing, and the Church would require us to support the natural law. In addition, the Ecumenical Council of Florence did specifically state "Therefore it [the Church] strictly orders all who glory in the name of Christian, not to practise circumcision either before or after baptism, since whether or not they place their hope in it, it cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation."... now, in another thread I have argued and I do retain my position that the word "observed" refers only to a ritual type observance, and in the context of the Bull of Union with the Copts, it is clearly exhorting the Copts not to practice it ritualistically even if they don't believe it is necessary for salvation. no, it cannot be observed ritualistically at all; the ONLY way it can be practiced is if one believes it to be the only possible way to prevent diseases, as Pius XII.[/quote]
Good point. I guess I was thinking more of explicit condemnations of circumcision specifically, though I didn't know about the Bull of Union with the Copts.

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1497017' date='Apr 11 2008, 09:57 AM']sometimes it feels as if the American use of it is evolving into a sort of blind ritual... in which case whether or not one placed hope in that ritual, it would be wrong to observe on merely traditional or ritualistic grounds. ie, don't circumcise your sons just because you were circumcised.[/quote]
I can see that, to a degree. Like I said, had we had our son in the US, we may never have thought anything of it. It's so routine in the US. I had also grown up being told that it was necessary to prevent later problems, though I question that now after looking at it more.

[Justin86]

[quote name='CatholicMax' post='1496907' date='Apr 11 2008, 01:48 PM']I would suggest that you talk to a psychologist it is actually very easy. if you were to read studies of children who are raped at young ages they suffer from PTSD and many of them never remember it happening. you are assuming that memory rely's on your ability to actually recall the event that happened. however you should note that one of the symptoms of PTSD is suppressed memory. Many soldiers who go to war and see their best friend die in front of them dont remember the event ever happening yet they will break down in tears if they see a pair of green shoes. I am not saying this happens to that extreme i am using this to illustrate a point it is proven though that circumcised men are more susceptible to pain, and that they are more fixated with certain types of sex.[/quote]
You clearly are not that well read in child development. One does not have an actual memory until the age of three. In very rare cases it can occur at two. Exactly how does one suppress a memory one is not capable of having?

How much of your infancy do remember? None? Thought so. I'm sorry you lost a child in such a bizarre way, but you really need to study child psychology and child development before saying ridiculous things like this.

[quote]Tattoos and circumcision are not the same because yet again NO not one major medical association in the world supports circumcision.[/quote]
And they've come out saying tattoos are healthy? Since when do we need major medical organizations coming out in support of it to justify medical reasons anyway?

[quote]it is no more difficult to clean than a circumcised penis.[/quote]
So says all the uncircumcised. Exactly how do you know the difference?

[quote]well that and tattoos are not forced on babies without their consent.[/quote]
So are haircuts. My parents told me the first time they cut my hair I cried, so it was clearly against my will. Maybe I'm suppressing that memory too?

[quote]and there is one other thing to consider. Tattoos unlike circumcision can be undone. so no they are not the same.[/quote]
Not really. The removal actually leaves permanent scaring. Once you get a tattoo there's really always going to be some sort of permanent mark there no matter what you do to it.

[quote]however this does not mean i think tattoos are moral. i think that however is a completely different argument.[/quote]
Tattoos are mutilation. Circumscion is mutilation. It's not a different argument at all.

[quote]i would be rather interested however if you could find a case where a tattoo killed someone?[/quote]
Well, for starters a lot of people have an allergic reaction to the ink, and while for most it's not fatal, but like with any allergic reaction for some it will be. And don't even get me started with how many people get HIV and AIDS and other terminal diseases as a result of infected needles because they had to go out and get inked. I would imagine tattoos resulting in death are a lot higher than death from circumcision.

[Justin86]

[quote name='CatholicMax' post='1496961' date='Apr 11 2008, 03:16 PM']seriously if you cant figure out how to keep yourself clean then you have issues[/quote]
Oh come now, how am I expected to know how to clean with parts I don't have? It's almost like asking me to know how to douche. I don't have that. I don't know.

[Aloysius]

I hold unequivocally that it is immoral for a parent to get their newborn infant tattooed. point mooted, or for anyone to get tattooed against their will. the cutting off of dead skin cells is NOT mutilation at all, so haircutting or fingernail cutting are totally irrelevant to the point. we're talking about doing something to living flesh.

once you have reached the age of reason, tattoos can be acceptable in my estimation, though there are those who disagree. but after reaching the age of reason it certainly would not be acceptable, except to treat a disease you already have, to get circumcised as that would clearly violate the meaning of the Ecumenical Council of Florence and Pius XII's explanation of when it can be allowed. It cannot be allowed on the basis of mere cultural preference or ritualistic observance even if that ritual does not intend to accomplish any spiritual good.

the ending of the old covenant definitively means that one cannot voluntarily undergo circumcision; and actually (quite ironically) the ending of the old covenant may also be considered the basis of why one might now voluntarily be tattooed, as the incarnation of Christ redeems the use of images in art and devotions; whereas they were forbidden in old testament times due to their connection with pagan deities.

it has been well established that the Catholic Church considers circumcision only morally permissible if it is done for strictly necessary therapeutic reasons (the motivation for which is intricately tied up in its fight against the heresy of judaizing, as well as sacramental theology, as well as its understanding of the nature of man and natural law). if you cannot establish absolutely necessary medical reasons, then you cannot justify it according to Catholic principals. it's as simple as that.

[cmotherofpirl]

CS Lewis said when you think the answer is simple it is usually simply wrong.
The Church says it can be done for therapeutic reasons, the Peds and Ob say it should be done for therapeutic reasons, so you take their advice and have it done.
I am so sorry your son died tragically. I lost a baby to a miscarriage so I do understand the pain, you have such hope and they are dashed. I can see why you are on a personal crusade. Most of us here have a personal crusade for some personal reason and buttons that can be pushed. I am sorry we have in any way pushed yours.
But I will continue to disagree with you on this issue.

[Deb]

[quote name='CatholicMax' post='1496898' date='Apr 10 2008, 11:31 PM']If you must know. no i am not circumcised, I have my foreskin thank you. however my girlfriend in high school insisted on having it done to our son. who died. as you can imagine it is painful so i dont really bring it up, Am I angry? no, i was angry but i realized there is no point in being angry about it. education is the best cure for ignorance, i should have been wiser and done more research before agreeing and i made a mistake. no one has the right to risk a child's life on a procedure even if that risk is small its too much. that is not necessary however people should know the risks and they should also know the Church says no and for good reason too. and I pray deb I pray very hard that your sons are not one of the next to die because you elect to have an operation that violates morality and Church teaching.[/quote]

I am very sorry for the loss of your son. If you had started your thread with that knowledge, your points may have been a little clearer. Whether or not you acknowledge it, you are still angry. Did your son die because of the circumcision?
I have two sons in heaven myself and both died because of a decision I made that violated basic morality and church teaching. I know more than most people what a lack of knowledge can result in and I live with that pain every single day of my life. Luckily our Lord grants us forgiveness for our sins and our errors.
I will pray for your son when I pray for mine.

[Justin86]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1497079' date='Apr 12 2008, 12:11 AM']I hold unequivocally that it is immoral for a parent to get their newborn infant tattooed. point mooted, or for anyone to get tattooed against their will. the cutting off of dead skin cells is NOT mutilation at all, so haircutting or fingernail cutting are totally irrelevant to the point. we're talking about doing something to living flesh.[/quote]
I agree with you on that. I was just trying to refute CatholicMax's ridiculous assertion that I somehow suppressed a memory before I even had one to begin with.

[quote]once you have reached the age of reason, tattoos can be acceptable in my estimation, though there are those who disagree. but after reaching the age of reason it certainly would not be acceptable, except to treat a disease you already have, to get circumcised as that would clearly violate the meaning of the Ecumenical Council of Florence and Pius XII's explanation of when it can be allowed. It cannot be allowed on the basis of mere cultural preference or ritualistic observance even if that ritual does not intend to accomplish any spiritual good.[/quote]
Tattoos are body mutilations any way you slice it. According to the CCC the body can only be mutilated for therapeutic reasons. Period.

[quote]the ending of the old covenant definitively means that one cannot voluntarily undergo circumcision; and actually (quite ironically) the ending of the old covenant may also be considered the basis of why one might now voluntarily be tattooed, as the incarnation of Christ redeems the use of images in art and devotions; whereas they were forbidden in old testament times due to their connection with pagan deities.[/quote]
Religious art was not prohibited in Old Testament times. God Himself specifically told the Israelites to build statues of angels on the Ark of the Covenant. Regardless of whether or not relgious art was prohibited under the old covenant however, the CCC still says body mutilation is only acceptable for threapeutic reasons. Art(religious or otherwise) is not a therapeutic reason.

[CatholicMax]

[quote name='Justin86' post='1497050' date='Apr 11 2008, 08:14 AM']You clearly are not that well read in child development. One does not have an actual memory until the age of three. In very rare cases it can occur at two. Exactly how does one suppress a memory one is not capable of having?


How much of your infancy do remember? None? Thought so. I'm sorry you lost a child in such a bizarre way, but you really need to study child psychology and child development before saying ridiculous things like this.
And they've come out saying tattoos are healthy? Since when do we need major medical organizations coming out in support of it to justify medical reasons anyway?[/quote]You obviously are not read in psychology at all otherwise you would know that there are different types of memory. I have not read any studies saying tattoos are healthy if you could produce one i would be greatful and interested in looking more into the details.
And again I am read in psychology very well read actually, and again you are talking about a different kind of memory. again i use the example of the soldier who suffers from PTSD but yet suffers from it because of a suppressed memory. here is another example, I work with homosexuals in correcting their disorder. I discovered in conversation with his mother that he had been molested at 9 months. she also commented to me that unlike her other son he seemed to display a much more higher conscious of his penis and sexual acts in general.

[quote]So says all the uncircumcised. Exactly how do you know the difference?[/quote]
I am going to turn your argument against you. you say an uncircumcised penis is more difficult to clean. so says all the uncircumcised.

Please do not use such a ridiculous argument.

[quote]So are haircuts. My parents told me the first time they cut my hair I cried, so it was clearly against my will. Maybe I'm suppressing that memory too?[/quote]
again please do not be so ridiculous. cutting off a hair folical which has no nerves is much different than removing live tissue which has thousands of nerves. and you know that to compare the two is completely different. and yes if the memory is remembered as a traumatic its not that you suppress the memory but it will shape how you feel towards certain situations and people. come up with a comparable situation.

[quote]Not really. The removal actually leaves permanent scaring. Once you get a tattoo there's really always going to be some sort of permanent mark there no matter what you do to it.[/quote]
Actually the laser treatment has become rather good and though a combination of laser treatment and hypnosis you will have no scar whatsoever.
[quote]Tattoos are mutilation. Circumscion is mutilation.
It's not a different argument at all.[/quote]
you are getting no argument from me that Tattoo is mutilation. what makes the two a different argument is that we do not subject 8 day olds to Tattoos. I dont know any children here in the united states who are under the age of 13 who have tattoos. and those who are 13 or older got them of their own free will which still does not make it not mutilation however there is a still the difference.

[quote]Well, for starters a lot of people have an allergic reaction to the ink, and while for most it's not fatal, but like with any allergic reaction for some it will be. And don't even get me started with how many people get HIV and AIDS and other terminal diseases as a result of infected needles because they had to go out and get inked. I would imagine tattoos resulting in death are a lot higher than death from circumcision.[/quote]
again you are confusing the argument and using analogy's which are not equal. The biggest difference is that in one case you are talking about an innocent child who is being forced to undergo an optional treatment that is unnecessary and has a possibility of leaving him disfigured or dead. in the other you are talking about an adult who choose to have an optional operation done of their own free will and take upon themselves all the risks that go with it. VERY different.

[CatholicMax]

[quote name='Justin86' post='1497051' date='Apr 11 2008, 08:18 AM']Oh come now, how am I expected to know how to clean with parts I don't have? It's almost like asking me to know how to douche. I don't have that. I don't know.[/quote]
funny enough i figured it out and no one had to tell me. and its not that difficult to say do your son billy
"did you clean behind your ears? under your arms? and under your foreskin?"

[CatholicMax]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1497102' date='Apr 11 2008, 09:40 AM']CS Lewis said when you think the answer is simple it is usually simply wrong.
The Church says it can be done for therapeutic reasons, the Peds and Ob say it should be done for therapeutic reasons, so you take their advice and have it done.
I am so sorry your son died tragically. I lost a baby to a miscarriage so I do understand the pain, you have such hope and they are dashed. I can see why you are on a personal crusade. Most of us here have a personal crusade for some personal reason and buttons that can be pushed. I am sorry we have in any way pushed yours.
But I will continue to disagree with you on this issue.[/quote]
funny enough C.S. Lewis was not circumcised.

and by the way infant circumcision is classified as non-therapeutic this means that under church teaching it cannot happen.