Circumcision Immoral

[CatholicMax]

[quote name='Deb' post='1497109' date='Apr 11 2008, 09:45 AM']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.[/quote]
No i really am not angry like i said i was but not anymore. I am driven which is different.

and yes, they did such a bad job that the cut the entire tip off and he bleed to death. one serious problem is that at that age you dont know how each child is going to bleed form even just the littlist cut.

Edited April 11, 2008 by CatholicMax

[praying4carmel]

You Know Max, I don't think anyone has even said Welcome to you yet..

Well..Welcome.

My heart goes out to you.

You too Deb.

[-I---Love]

[quote name='Justin86' post='1497050' date='Apr 11 2008, 10:14 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?[/quote]

While I have no citations at hand, I recall reading convincing evidence back when I use to be a psych major that infants can indeed remember things. This "memory" is certainly not the same as me recalling what I ate for breakfast yesterday, but nevertheless is perhaps a hidden rememberance that affects the child maybe unbeknownst to him, maybe later becoming aware. I don't doubt this in the least.

And good argument Aloysius. Interesting what Florence said.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='CatholicMax' post='1497321' date='Apr 11 2008, 05:06 PM']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.[/quote]Most english babies are not, most americans have been.
As to the AMA, circumcision has been classified that way in the past. The AMA is not the end-all and be-all of medical opinion, and certainly not the final say in medicine.

[CatholicMax]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1497508' date='Apr 11 2008, 06:43 PM']Most english babies are not, most americans have been.
As to the AMA, circumcision has been classified that way in the past. The AMA is not the end-all and be-all of medical opinion, and certainly not the final say in medicine.[/quote]
no but the BMJ and the and all the other major medical associations in the world classify it the same.
which means that you dont want to acknowldge the facts and what to continue in wrong belief

[Deb]

[quote name='CatholicMax' post='1497323' date='Apr 11 2008, 04:08 PM']No i really am not angry like i said i was but not anymore. I am driven which is different.

and yes, they did such a bad job that the cut the entire tip off and he bleed to death. one serious problem is that at that age you dont know how each child is going to bleed form even just the littlist cut.[/quote]

Babies do not have a large quantity of blood in their bodies to begin with so Doctors have to be very careful with instructions on what is normal and not normal amounts of blood to be lost from any operation or injury. I really am so very sorry for your loss.

[BeenaBobba]

I don't think I will have my future sons circumcized. Personally, I don't see the point. Yes, they may look different from a lot of their peers, but it's been said that infant circumcision is declining here in America, so it may not even be too big of a problem.

P.S. I'm really sorry to hear about your son, CatholicMax.

[Aloysius]

this thread should not become a tangent for discussing things like tattoos, but it is not mutilation in the sense intended by the CCC in my estimation any more than ear piercings are mutilations; however, the point I was making is that circumcision is clearly an entirely different animal... there is a longstanding tradition of the Church actively and pro-actively opposing the concept of circumcising for reasons based not only upon the natural law, but also on covenant theology and such. I personally see a huge difference between a tattoo and a circumcision, and I definitely believe that the removal of the foreskin is definitively mutilation whereas the artistic use of ink and scars on a body, within reason, is not mutilation insofar as it does not make a substantial alteration to the body and has a purpose.

circumcision once had a purpose which made it acceptable (as it was a divine purpose) too, so it is not that in theory nothing at all can be done to change the look of the body. it is not an inherent evil because otherwise God could not have used it as a sign of his covenant; it is, however, something which is not acceptable for a purpose for Christians but is only acceptable if it can be shown that it is the only good medical therapeutic option; it cannot be considered acceptable for any cultural reason, religious or otherwise, but only for medical reasons; however in my estimation tattoos and ear piercings can be used for cultural reasons. the reason circumcision cannot be done for cultural reasons is precisely because it was used as the sacred sign of the covenant... it's like how a sports team retires a jersey. we are not ancient Israel, nor should we want to be; it is a new era and as Christians we are called to acknowledge that in part by not using the sign of the old era as any type of cultural sign whatsoever.

I know not all religious art was totally banned under the First Commandment, the point is that it was mostly banned however and it is only through the incarnation that images are so redeemed that we can use it completely without fear. the only religious art in ancient Israel was the few things God commanded directly, other than that they did not make graven images because creation had to be redeemed before images could be freely used for sacred purposes again.

[CatholicMax]

[quote name='Deb' post='1498833' date='Apr 13 2008, 08:16 PM']Babies do not have a large quantity of blood in their bodies to begin with so Doctors have to be very careful with instructions on what is normal and not normal amounts of blood to be lost from any operation or injury. I really am so very sorry for your loss.[/quote]
Thank you for your consolation, however this does not have any real baring on the conversation other than explaining death really does happen.

my question is in light of your statement does that mean you agree with my assertion.

[Deb]

[quote name='CatholicMax' post='1500066' date='Apr 15 2008, 02:22 PM']Thank you for your consolation, however this does not have any real baring on the conversation other than explaining death really does happen.

my question is in light of your statement does that mean you agree with my assertion.[/quote]


Yes I do. You have opened my eyes to not only the dangers of circumcision but also to the church teaching on it. Thank you.

[CatholicMax]

[quote name='Deb' post='1500078' date='Apr 15 2008, 01:52 PM']Yes I do. You have opened my eyes to not only the dangers of circumcision but also to the church teaching on it. Thank you.[/quote]
Then unless there is someone who wants to refute what has been said, I think this debate has successfully been concluded.

[CatholicMax]

[url="http://www.fathermag.com/health/circ/"]http://www.fathermag.com/health/circ/[/url]
just posting this link for the benefit of those who might look at this thread later