Circumcision and non-religious people

[Nakosis]

Circumcision, is a religious ceremony. Traditionally, only certain religions practiced this. In the modern age, non-religious people, in some instances, have started doing this tradition. Is it intellectually honest to say that circumcision, is 'not' a religious ceremony anymore? It is obviously, to me. In fact it is a culturally and geographic specific ceremony, at that.


The claim that circumcision is non-religious, to me, might be some sort of rationalization, for some people being...adhered/?/ to a blatantly religious tradition?

It's cultural.

 

[Desert Snake]

Whether it began originally as a purely religious practice or not is irrelevant. The fact is that there are many people today who circumcise because of health benefits, cleanliness issues, or simple aesthetic preferences. Whether one agrees with their decisions or not, the fact remains that they are circumcising for reasons that have nothing to do with religion.

Great, then you still have the issue of whether it violates some one elses personal rights as to making their own choice about circumcision.

 

[Desert Snake]

It's cultural.

Do you agree that circumcision is in origin, religious? I find that obvious, personally, however, taking that to the topic of ''cultural'', ok, great, but then, many of these people who practice circumcision, are self proclaimed Christians; well, the Bible makes it clear that once you circumcise, physically, then you are under the entire Torah laws. Now, if Christians who are circumcising because of cultural reasons, simply state that they disagree with these verses, then, wonderful, they can make those arguments in a non-religious context. But, it seems, Christians who practice circumcision are merely sidestepping the issue. Basically picking and choosing verses. This isn't some 'vague', thing in the Bible.

 

[Levite]

Great, then you still have the issue of whether it violates some one elses personal rights as to making their own choice about circumcision.

People make medical and aesthetic choices for their kids all the time, from getting tonsils out to piercing ears. "Violating someone's personal rights" is not a particularly credible objection to circumcision. If you don't believe in it, don't do it.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

For many it is a religious ritual, many do it because of tradition, and many do it because they falsely believe it is somehow more clean and sanitary.
However, unless it is medically necessary, because it is a body modification it is not suitable to be performed on children.

 

[kepha31]

Parents of newborns are hard pressed to find a doctor to perform a circumcision; it simply is not done as a matter of routine. They stopped doing routine circumcisions in the 60's. If guys were born before then, chances are you have been circumcised. Phimosis is a condition where the foreskin is too narrow to pass urine properly, making circumcision a medical necessity.

It is quite likely that the early Hebrews first encountered the idea of circumcision among neighboring non-Jewish peoples, but that does not mean they regarded it as a religiously good thing for non-Jews to do. Circumcision was regarded as a religiously good thing only for Jews because for them it symbolized a special covenant with the one true God (Gen. 17). The Hebrew scriptures are silent in a religious appraisal of non-Jewish circumcision; they seemed indifferent to the fact that some pagans circumcised.

.Baptism is now the “circumcision” of the new Covenant (Col. 2:11-12)

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Parents of newborns are hard pressed to find a doctor to perform a circumcision; it simply is not done as a matter of routine. They stopped doing routine circumcisions in the 60's. If guys were born before then, chances are you have been circumcised. Phimosis is a condition where the foreskin is too narrow to pass urine properly, making circumcision a medical necessity.

That may be how it is in Canada, but in America it is still frighteningly normal and routine to have a piece of your infant lopped off.

 

[Curious George]

Only if kids are not taught to wash themselves.

Yes, because it is so easy to make sure a child cleans behind their ears, let alone underneath the foreskin. Obviously that child who didn't wash his or her hands after using the restroom must have bad parents who didn't teach them to wash themselves. Lol, your argument fails.

 

[kepha31]

That may be how it is in Canada, but in America it is still frighteningly normal and routine to have a piece of your infant lopped off.

That's too bad. Just guessing, but perhaps in America it's all about money. How much does a doctor get for performing an unnecessary procedure? $6-800? Parents have the right to refuse, and more would if they got an education. They should go into the hospital nursery on circumcision day and listen to the babies screaming. Or talk to a maternity nurse, or do some reading. It's RARELY necessary.

 

[Jumi]

Yes, because it is so easy to make sure a child cleans behind their ears, let alone underneath the foreskin. Obviously that child who didn't wash his or her hands after using the restroom must have bad parents who didn't teach them to wash themselves.

So what else should be done to change kids bodies so they don't have to learn how to cope with their bodies?

Lol, your argument fails.

Well I think yours does.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Yes, because it is so easy to make sure a child cleans behind their ears, let alone underneath the foreskin. Obviously that child who didn't wash his or her hands after using the restroom must have bad parents who didn't teach them to wash themselves. Lol, your argument fails.

Technically it's far more sanitary to wash your hands before you use the restroom to have clean hands before you touch a place that is ideal for bacterial growth. And any concerns about the "harder to keep clean" are tossed out the window with basic proper hygiene such as bathing.
Ultimately, it is your argument that fails because you believe reasons that are false to be good reasons to perform a non-medically necessary body modification on a non-consenting child. You believe it is ok to strip the child of autonomy when it is unnecessary to do so, to perform a permanent alteration of their body.
Body modifications should always require consent with the only exception being that it is medically necessary. But if this condition is not met, body modifications are not suitable and should not be performed on children, especially those who cannot consent.

 

[Curious George]

Technically it's far more sanitary to wash your hands before you use the restroom to have clean hands before you touch a place that is ideal for bacterial growth. And any concerns about the "harder to keep clean" are tossed out the window with basic proper hygiene such as bathing.
Ultimately, it is your argument that fails because you believe reasons that are false to be good reasons to perform a non-medically necessary body modification on a non-consenting child. You believe it is ok to strip the child of autonomy when it is unnecessary to do so, to perform a permanent alteration of their body.
Body modifications should always require consent with the only exception being that it is medically necessary. But if this condition is not met, body modifications are not suitable and should not be performed on children, especially those who cannot consent.

Yes, I believe it necessary to make choices for a child.

Yes, I believe these choices will permanently alter a child's life.

Yes, I believe plenty of research documents that circumcision makes cleaning easier.

The bottom line is, that you can use all the graphic and weighted language you want. Emotional appeals do not change the rationality behind this. Decisions are made for children, and that a decision can be deferred until later does not mean it ought to be deferred until later. I imagine that there are people who complain about the choices their parents saw fit to make. But circumcision does not do lasting harm, excepting of the circumstances when there is error or contamination.

Now, if you have evidence that would somehow show that parents are harming their children, I would listen. But, I do not see a missing foreskin any more harmful than a pierced ear.

I will agree that circumcision is certainly not necessary. And while there most certainly is hygienic benefits, I don't think this hygienic benefit is of any particular great importance. But don't try to imply that these actual, documented, benefits are "tossed out the window." I get that it would be convenient, for them to be tossed out the window. But let's face it, just because a kid gets a cavity does not mean they aren't brushing. People clearly want to dismiss facts. I imagine that the best way to do so, is not saying that the reason for those facts existence is bad parenting and improper hygiene. Rather, try acknowledging those facts and saying whatever hygienic benefit does exist does not outweigh the costs.

 

[Curious George]

So what else should be done to change kids bodies so they don't have to learn how to cope with their bodies?


Well I think yours does.

Ahh, well that is a much better argument. At least you are not being dismissive of the actual benefits anymore. Shall I assume you acknowledge the benefits now?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Now, if you have evidence that would somehow show that parents are harming their children, I would listen.

For one, circumcision removes a very sensitive piece of skin, actually, where most of the nerve endings in the penis are concentrated.
For second, body modifications should never be performed on someone who does not understand them, does not know what is going on, and cannot consent to them (unless it is medically necessary).

 

[Curious George]

For one, circumcision removes a very sensitive piece of skin, actually, where most of the nerve endings in the penis are concentrated.
For second, body modifications should never be performed on someone who does not understand them, does not know what is going on, and cannot consent to them (unless it is medically necessary).

For one, questions regarding sensitivity are clouded in bias. That a section is removed causes temporary pain is undeniable. That this somehow causes future harm beyond this short time period of pain is really what is in question.

For 2, what makes "body modifications" different than other decisions which have permanent effects?

Also, vaccines are not a medical necessity, but permanently modify the body. That vaccines have great value does not change the fact that they are not a medical necessity.

 

[dawny0826]

Circumcision, is a religious ceremony. Traditionally, only certain religions practiced this. In the modern age, non-religious people, in some instances, have started doing this tradition. Is it intellectually honest to say that circumcision, is 'not' a religious ceremony anymore? It is obviously, to me. In fact it is a culturally and geographic specific ceremony, at that.


The claim that circumcision is non-religious, to me, might be some sort of rationalization, for some people being...adhered/?/ to a blatantly religious tradition?

Our son will be born this winter. We have decided to circumcise IF and ONLY if the procedure would be deemed safe days after birth by an attending physician. Both my husband and I are well educated as to what the procedure entails and the risks and potential benefits of the procedure.

Our reasons for choosing circumcision for our son are different. For myself, religion does influence my thoughts, though perhaps not as much as perceived benefits and my ideals of practicality. It's a medical procedure - not a religious ceremony, even though I attach religious value to it.

Though, religion still influences decisions in regards to male infant circumcision - culture absolutely plays a significant part. The choices made by our parents and grandparents still influence us. Though male infant circumcision isn't recommended to be offered as a routine procedure following births in America - pediatricians and obstetricians alike continue to initiate the discussion and provide the choice.

I'm of the opinion that culture, experience & influence impact such decisions as much as religion does. It's challenging to comment in blanket label terms as to how people rationalize such choice.

 

[Jumi]

Ahh, well that is a much better argument. At least you are not being dismissive of the actual benefits anymore. Shall I assume you acknowledge the benefits now?

You seem to like putting words in my mouth, CG. I'll repeat what I've said on this thread and the other one in case you actually think I've changed my mind.

Sure, you can circumcise your kids, but it's unnecessary unless it's required by your religion. Having hygiene problems with foreskins is rare. I see no reason to circumcise unless it's for a medical condition like phimosis as evaluated by a medical professional. In Europe it's basically only Muslims, Jews and Africans who have a tradition for circumcision. I have a friend who was circumcised for phimosis and it provided relief for him, but it wasn't all positive for him.

You can educate yourself and make your decision or if it was decided for you before you can still look at the studies with an objective view on your mind.

 

[Curious George]

Our son will be born this winter. We have decided to circumcise IF and ONLY if the procedure would be deemed safe days after birth by an attending physician. Both my husband and I are well educated as to what the procedure entails and the risks and potential benefits of the procedure.

Our reasons for choosing circumcision for our son are different. For myself, religion does influence my thoughts, though perhaps not as much as perceived benefits and my ideals of practicality. It's a medical procedure - not a religious ceremony, even though I attach religious value to it.

Though, religion still influences decisions in regards to male infant circumcision - culture absolutely plays a significant part. The choices made by our parents and grandparents still influence us. Though male infant circumcision isn't recommended to be offered as a routine procedure following births in America - pediatricians and obstetricians alike continue to initiate the discussion and provide the choice.

I'm of the opinion that culture, experience & influence impact such decisions as much as religion does.

This, how can any say this is abuse, or "mutilation?"

That I come to a different decision, does not mean that dawny and her husband are wrong, or bad, or guilty of abuse.

Parents need to make decisions, some of those decisions are one's which reasonable minds will disagree. To try to take this decision away from parents requires a damn good reason. With circumcision, there just is not any good enough reason to justify taking the decision from the parents.

I understand that there are those who vehemently oppose this medical procedure, but they only do so from a perceived moral high ground and countless emotional appeals and incongruous analogies.

 

[Jumi]

I'm not forbidding you choice. Almost no one does circumcision in my neck of the woods in Europe outside of religious reasons(Muslim, Jewish, some African traditions) and nothing has convinced doctors here that it has use outside of medical conditions. In the US it's popular of course, I suggested that Dr. Kellogg(of Corn Flakes antimasturbation fame) might have been a cause for popularity there.

 

[Curious George]

You seem to like putting words in my mouth, CG. I'll repeat what I've said on this thread and the other one in case you actually think I've changed my mind.

Sure, you can circumcise your kids, but it's unnecessary unless it's required by your religion. Having hygiene problems with foreskins is rare. I see no reason to circumcise unless it's for a medical condition like phimosis as evaluated by a medical professional. In Europe it's basically only Muslims, Jews and Africans who have a tradition for circumcision. I have a friend who was circumcised for phimosis and it provided relief for him, but it wasn't all positive for him.

You can educate yourself and make your decision or if it was decided for you before you can still look at the studies with an objective view on your mind.

I certainly agree that major hygienic problems are rare, but urinary tract infections and smegma are hardly rare.