# Christian Circumcision?



## Casey (Nov 4, 2006)

Can I have some pointers to arguments, writings, etc., pro and con, concerning whether Christian parents should have their newborn boys circumcised? I'm asking this in the context of non-religious reasons (i.e., for health benefits, etc.). Apparently this is routine practice in the USA (but no where else in the world!). Thanks.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 4, 2006)

_Circumcision_, i.e. the removal of foreskin, is solely clinical today and has nothing to do with Christianity. The title of this thread should be 'Circumcision for health benefits'. 

One of the reasons for circumcising is Balanitis. Balanitis can lead to Phimosis. 

See this: http://www.emedicine.com/emerg/topic51.htm


----------



## SRoper (Nov 4, 2006)

I believe the AMA does not recommend non-therapeutic circumcision. Today it is mostly done for cultural or aesthetic reasons.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 4, 2006)

SRoper said:


> I believe the AMA does not recommend non-therapeutic circumcision. Today it is mostly done for cultural or aesthetic reasons.



Not necessarily:


> The AMA supports the general principles of the 1999 Circumcision Policy Statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics, which reads as follows: Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision.



http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;103/3/686


----------



## LadyFlynt (Nov 4, 2006)

I used to be for circ...I am now anti circ after some study. mothering.com has a forum with a section on circumcision.


----------



## ReederKidsMom (Nov 5, 2006)

When we were trying to make our decision we decided just match father with son. We didn't want our son to think he looked funny or differnet in any way.


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Nov 6, 2006)

LadyFlynt said:


> I used to be for circ...I am now anti circ after some study. mothering.com has a forum with a section on circumcision.



So although the Israelites were obeying God's command, they were not making the wisest decision – medically speaking? It is a serious question. I am curious.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 6, 2006)

My wife and I are both nurses and we studied this extensively before our son was born:

Most of the studies still show some limited benefits - which would be amplified greatly in a bronze age ancient near eastern culture. 

Though, there is a growing movement that dislikes this practice and are giving a lot of advertizement to those studies which do, in fact, show little or no benefits to this practice. 

A big anti-circ movement is underway in the Men's magazines. Men's Health had an article last year (my wife takes a black marker to the objectionable pics before I get the mag if anyone is wondering) against circumcision and their argument was largely that it decreased sensation during sects (I know...I am avoiding the censor here)....

Of course, our God being reasonable, is out to also bless his people with his commandments. Has there ever been a commandment that yielded better health benefits if disobyed? Is circumcision the first?


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Nov 6, 2006)

trevorjohnson said:


> My wife and I are both nurses and we studied this extensively before our son was born:
> 
> Most of the studies still show some limited benefits - which would be amplified greatly in a bronze age ancient near eastern culture.
> 
> ...



Interesting, I have always heard the opposite. Either way, this point is not related to health benefits.



trevorjohnson said:


> Of course, our God being reasonable, is out to also bless his people with his commandments. Has there ever been a commandment that yielded better health benefits if disobyed? Is circumcision the first?



This is my point exactly.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Nov 6, 2006)

Yes, that is one of the reasons.

Have you ever seen an infant go into a semi comatose state (constant sleep) after a circ? Have you ever watched a circ done? I have seen both. I've seen botched circs as well. I've read articles of boys that have died from the practice (though rare, the jews recognize this fact as they are given an exemption if they have lost 2 boys from circ infections). 

As far as hygiene is concerned...most ppl introduce bacteria and such like by forceful retraction of the foreskin in babies and young boys. You are NOT supposed to retract...natural retraction comes latter. Infection is not common in young intact males unless they are not caring for it in the manner they are supposed to (ie., not retracting). (info gathered from mothering.com)


Wife to a circ'd male, mom to a botched circ son (considered medically to be uncirc'd), a circ'd son, and the next son will not be circ'd.

On the issue of Israel...most of the laws were for medical benefit. Circumcision, I think there is medical benefit on both sides. I seriously think it should be weighed out. If you think of the FGM in comparison...we like to scream outrage at one, but not the other?


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Nov 6, 2006)

Fgm?


----------



## LadyFlynt (Nov 6, 2006)

Female Genital Mutilation...otherwise known as Female Circumcision.


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Nov 6, 2006)

LadyFlynt said:


> Female Genital Mutilation...otherwise known as Female Circumcision.




Ok, I don't see that as a comparison though. God did not command it.

So do you believe God command something that yielded better health benefits if disobeyed?


----------



## LadyFlynt (Nov 6, 2006)

Just for clarification...

1) I don't think Israel should disobey God regardless

2) Coming away from my dispensational/messianic leanings, I believe that baptism has replaced circumcision.

3) I see rational on both sides

4) I also understand that circumcision in Israel's day was different and less severe than medical circumcision that is perform today in America.

5) Comparison of FGM and MC is that both are radical multilation of the genitalia. One was commanded in OT of Israel, the other was not. Neither are commanded of Christians regardless of ethniticity. Both cause lose of tissue and nerves that are essential to the organs' self cleansing mechinism as well as feeling while DTD (however, I have not heard circ'd men complaining...not that I'm privy to the lockerroom). I have heard of certain men that received an extreme circ having problems (in the bedroom).

Are the modern day risks of the procedure worth it? Mayhaps we should find a Rabbi that knows what he is doing if one should choose to circ?

I only recommend reading on the subject, watch a few circ videos (which you can do online), and make an informed decision. That's my deal...I like to know what I am getting into. I hate it that I was not given all the information available in past years on this subject...and I mean all the info on BOTH sides of the issue.

My mentioning of FGM has nothing to do with one being commanded and the other not. It has more to do with moral and medical implications. PPL raise Cain over the idea of FGM...Same ppl treat MC flippantly.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 6, 2006)

Dear LadyFlynt;

Sorry your son had a botched circ. Do you think that this has factored in significantly in your opinions on this subject?

Being free from this practice because our religion is not joined to a civil state (only as far as general equity requires) and our ceremonial law is fulfilled in Christ, do it or don't do it...it doesn't merit rightousness.


Though, I will make a few points:

1) modern circ. is a lot cleaner and less gruesome than ancient near east rabbinical practice. 

2). MC is nothing like female genital mutilation. One involves little blood and does not impair sexual performance (though difference in sensation is reported...this is far from a limitation on performance). Female mutilation involves an invasive, bloody procedure, largely to make the female immune to any sexual feelings. It is butchery to say the least. Circ. is "just a little of the top" - unless a rare mistake is made.

Circ. is not "radical mutilation of the genitalia". The risks are really rare.

It is no double standard to be appalled at Nigerian women forcibly having their clitorises (sorry, I don't know the plural of this word) chopped off and babies having a relatively clean procedure occur. 

3) Again, God is wise and commanded things not only for His arbitrary will but for His People's blessings.

4). Babies need occasional retraction of their foreskin for the purpose of cleaning - if they soil themselves badly. It is a fact.

5) Infants spend most of their lives in a semi-comotose state. 


I understand your points. Why do it if you are uneasy about it? If uneasy, don't do it. 


I just posted because I do not believe the overstatements being made however.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Nov 6, 2006)

I understand, Trevor..believe me, I'm not offended. I like discussion.

Actually, my oldest's botch is not what led me against circ. He had gotten what was called a "half-circ"...basically circ'd by drs against circ because I insisted (medically he is considered uncirc'd and looks that way). We dealt with infections and such by ppl forcibly retracting him (including myself, following ignorant dr orders...not that all drs are ignorant, I know some really good ones). I was actually wanting to get him re-circ'd. I started reading and discussing with a group that is anti-circ, read articles on both sides, and after discussion with hubby and us watching a few circ videos we both decided against circ'ing.

On infantile semi-comatose state...I don't mean the normal. I had a son that came out of the room in hysteria. No one could touch him but me and even then he cried himself into a state of shock/exhaustion. He slept for 2-3 days straight, rarely nursing, screaming when anyone touched any part of him, and waking from nighmares (yes, he would start crying and screaming in his sleep as though someone was hurting him). He was 6mos old.

On FGM, there are varying degrees of such. Some it's just the clitoral hood (what would be the foreskin as this is the same tissue as in a male). Others, it's the entire clitoral tip. However, they rarely remove the entire clitoral tissue as that is extensive and runs on either side of the vulva and behind the pubic bone. I do not see a difference age makes however. MC happens to men of all ages, not just infants (though admittedly this is the majority group). The second most common group is elderly men...due to infections caused by inadequately trained ppl within hospitals and nursing homes (inadequate in intact care...not that they aren't good caregivers, just working within the scope of what they have been taught).


Don't worry, I'm not rabid on the subject. I won't call a person abusive for it. But I do encourage self education on the subject.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Nov 6, 2006)

btw, your #4 is wrong. The foreskin is sealed, usually until puberty. Retraction introduces bacteria and breaks the seal leaving room for the bacteria. There is fluid there that cleans out the small area that is not sealed inside the foreskin (in fact, it flushes out, there is rare chance of soiling entering as the fluid is always exiting). Wiping around the tip with water and not retracting is enough on a young child/infant.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Nov 6, 2006)

From an article that can be found here: http://www.mothering.com/articles/new_baby/circumcision/protect-uncircson.html

-Your son's foreskin should be cut off in order to facilitate hygiene.

My experience as a pediatrician has convinced me that circumcision makes the penis dirtier, a fact that was confirmed by a study recently published in the British Journal of Urology.1 For at least a week after circumcision, the baby is left with a large open wound that is in almost constant contact with urine and feces--hardly a hygienic advantage. Additionally, throughout life the circumcised penis is open and exposed to dirt and contaminants of all kinds. The wrinkles and folds that often form around the circumcision scar frequently harbor dirt and germs.

Thanks to the foreskin, the intact penis is protected from dirt and contamination. While this important protective function is extremely useful while the baby is in diapers, the foreskin provides protection to the glans and urinary opening for a lifetime. At all ages, the foreskin keeps the glans safe, soft, and clean.

Throughout childhood, there is no need to wash underneath the foreskin. Mothers used to be advised to retract the foreskin and wash beneath it every day. This was very bad advice indeed. When the foreskin becomes fully retractable, usually by the end of puberty, your son can retract it and rinse his glans with warm water while he is in the shower."

And...

"-Your son's foreskin is red, inflamed, itching, and uncomfortable. It has an infection and needs to be cut off.

Sometimes the tip of the foreskin does become reddened. During the diaper-wearing years, this is usually ammoniacal dermatitis, commonly known as diaper rash. When normal skin bacteria and feces react with urine, they produce ammonia, which burns the skin and causes inflammation and discomfort. If the foreskin were amputated, the inflammation would be on the glans itself and could enter the urethra. When the foreskin becomes reddened, it is doing its job of protecting the glans and urinary meatus.

Circumcision will have no effect on diaper rash. Change your baby's diapers more frequently and use a barrier cream until the rash clears. Harsh bath soaps can also cause inflammation of the foreskin. Use only the gentlest and purest of soap on your child's tender skin. Resist the temptation to give your child bubble baths, because these are harmful to the skin. Never use soap to wash the inner foreskin because it is mucous membrane, just like the inner lining of the eyelid.

Foreskin infections are extremely rare, but if they occur, one of the many simple treatment options is antibiotic ointment along with bacterial replacement therapy (Acidophilus culture). We don't amputate body parts because of an infection. Most infections of the foreskin are actually caused by washing the foreskin with soap. Leave the foreskin alone, remembering that it doesn't need any special washing, and infections will be unlikely to occur. "


----------



## LadyFlynt (Nov 6, 2006)

And from this article: http://www.mothering.com/articles/new_baby/circumcision/against-circumcision.html

"Care of the Foreskin
The natural penis requires no special care. A child's foreskin, like his eyelids, is self-cleansing. For the same reason it is inadvisable to lift the eyelids and wash the eye*****, it is inadvisable to retract a child's foreskin and wash the glans. Immersion in plain water during the bath is all that is needed to keep the intact penis clean.26

The white emollient under the child's foreskin is called smegma. Smegma is probably the most misunderstood, most unjustifiably maligned substance in nature. Smegma is clean, not dirty, and is beneficial and necessary. It moisturizes the glans and keeps it smooth, soft, and supple. Its antibacterial and antiviral properties keep the penis clean and healthy. All mammals produce smegma. Thomas J. Ritter, MD, underscored its importance when he commented, "The animal kingdom would probably cease to exist without smegma."27

Studies suggest that it is best not to use soap on the glans or foreskin's inner fold.28 Forcibly retracting and washing a baby's foreskin destroys the beneficial bacterial flora that protect the penis from harmful germs and can lead to irritation and infection. The best way to care for a child's intact penis is to leave it alone. After puberty, males can gently rinse their glans and foreskin with warm water, according to their own self-determined needs. "


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 6, 2006)

LadyFlynt said:


> Just for clarification...
> 
> 4) I also understand that circumcision in Israel's day was different and less severe than medical circumcision that is perform today in America.



Less severe? I see a dull knife of sorts. I would have to say that the Israeli circumcision was bordering upon barbaric in relation to todays.



> 5) Comparison of FGM and MC is that both are radical multilation of the genitalia. One was commanded in OT of Israel, the other was not. Neither are commanded of Christians regardless of ethniticity. Both cause lose of tissue and nerves that are essential to the organs' self cleansing mechinism as well as feeling while DTD (however, I have not heard circ'd men complaining...not that I'm privy to the lockerroom). I have heard of certain men that received an extreme circ having problems (in the bedroom).



Colleen,
The two practices cannot be compared. FGM is destructive and criminal; many times including the clitoris. It's intention is to make the woman like a eunuch.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 7, 2006)

Reading your links Colleen...intersting stuff....


----------



## LadyFlynt (Nov 7, 2006)

Scott, to say the knife was dull, is an assumption. They were not ignorant or between monkey and man beings. They were human and possibly more intelligient than us. I do believe they had the capabilities of creating a sharp knife with less than we require to make one today...but even that is an assumption.

My information comes from being told that there was a certain way a Rabbi pinched the nerves in the penis while performing the circumcision that worked like an anesthetic (probably better as most drs don't use an anesthetic on infants from my understanding...info from nurses that worked L&D floor nursery). I do admit to being limited in this area...but messianic aquaintances of mine mentioned it when they were looking for a Rabbi to perform their newborn's circ (they ended up having a girl, thus not needing the Rabbi).


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Nov 7, 2006)

LadyFlynt said:


> But I do encourage self education on the subject.



I guess my thinking is that the fact that God prescribed something beneficial in itself is enough for me. I don't feel I need to go crazy studying this because I do not believe God commanded something that would yield better health benefits if disobeyed. I am circumcised and my sons shall be. People botch beneficial things, that in itself does not make the thing unbeneficial.

in my opinion, We can research some things too much when the fact is God commanded something beneficial. That fact alone is enough to prove that what He commanded was not as harmful as the world likes to make it out to be.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Nov 7, 2006)

The point is, we don't have to do it.


----------



## SRoper (Nov 7, 2006)

LadyFlynt said:


> "... For the same reason it is inadvisable to lift the eyelids and wash the eye*****, it is inadvisable to retract a child's foreskin and wash the glans. ..."



It's funny considering the topic that _this_ is what gets censored!


----------



## LadyFlynt (Nov 7, 2006)

LOL...I know...got a kick out of that myself. The other irony...a woman informing men how to care for intact male genetalia.


----------



## Augusta (Nov 7, 2006)

My good friend decided not to circ her son so he would match his father. Her son finally had to have surgery at the age of 5 after years of problems and pain so bad that he actually held his urine for inordinate amounts of time and made himself sick. 

I agree that God would not command something that would yield better health benefits if disobeyed or that he would command something that was bad. I was present when they circ'd my son. I didn't like his discomfort but I thought it was a good thing at the time and would do it again for health benefits.


----------



## providenceboard (Nov 7, 2006)

We just had our 3 year old circumcized this morning. ( That's him in the picture! )

He was born at home, and to send him in to the hospital, would have really taken the fun out of having him at home with us. Besides, he looked fine, and that was the way God had made him. 

We are not really pro or con on circumcision, although we have read alot of the literature. There does not seem to be any very strong argument on either side, and it is certainly an area of freedom, religiously, that is.

The final reason to get him circumcised? His aim was terrible!

Jeff


----------



## elnwood (Nov 7, 2006)

Augusta said:


> I agree that God would not command something that would yield better health benefits if disobeyed or that he would command something that was bad.



Well, circumcision is supposed to represent the shedding of blood that points ahead to Christ's crucifixion. I'm not saying one way or the other, but it might be entirely appropriate for the people to take a bloody sign through removal of skin that is potentially not as healthy than if the skin were not removed. Being crucified is not exactly healthy either.


----------

