Circumcision is one of the most prevalent procedures done to male infants in the United States, but there are many who question the value of circumcising boys, and it has dropped to the lowest level since the 1960s. According to this article, circumcision helps prevent kidney and urinary tract infections. It is also being used in Africa to fight the AIDS epidemic there.
Another study showed circumcised men have more genital warts than uncircumcised men. Recently, an Alabama man had his penis amputated during a botched circumcision, so the procedure can have major complications. Of course, Judaism requires circumcision, although the Apostle Paul successfully argued against the requirement for Christianity.
[poll id = 416]
Wheat & Tares 
Other,
I will let other religions and traditions practice infant circumcision if they choose (I wish they wouldn’t), but there is not requirement in Christianity, especially in the LDS varieties. We would have already had a revelation undoing what Paul settled if it was needed; and I see a revelation for woman and priesthood before I see one reinstating circumcision.
As for other cultures, I take no issue, and in the proper circumstances I can see that it may have value. This would be in connection to rites of passage/manhood/initiation, or other ritual and cultural practices, for adolescent and adult males. Never female.
Not common practice here.
I wouldn’t say I think of it as benign, but since it isn’t routine I haven’t thought much about it.
It seems to be a cultural practice, just like ear piercing and make up. I think the positives, as well as the negatives, are grossly exaggerated.
To all those who voted that they had it done to their kids because they didn’t want their kids to be embarrassed — this is one of the many awesome things about living in Europe: circumcision is not the norm. I think in the US the culture is also starting to shift on this subject, so why not be an early adopter of the trend to let your baby keep his body parts?
It it has potential health benefits, of sufficient likelihood, it is rational. If it is for religious reasons–to be obedient–it is barbaric. They already had head coverings as a way to continually genuflect to their god. The ancient, pre-Abraham proscription against the meat of cloven-hoof animals was based on pigs’ disgusting eating and hygiene habits. It was simple luck that pig meat is also highly susceptible to trichina infestation (a rational reason). Given the sparse evidence, even now, of notable health benefits, circumcision didn’t even have that silver lining.
Maybe Romans ch. 14 applies — let every parent decide for themselves, without condemning others who decide differently.
By the way, Muslims also circumcise.
I had it done for my sons because that is the way my husband is. However, if I had to do it again I would probably opt out. Boys don’t actually shower in the locker room anymore, so the parent’s fear that their child will be different is no longer quite so valid. Also, in other cultures it isn’t the norm so if you aren’t in a 100% white community there is variety. I’m going to guess that my grandchildren won’t be. I don’t think the benefits of one vs. the benefits of the other is compelling enough, so I would, in the future, choose the do nothing (stay intact) route and will recommend that to my children.
When first-worlders call circumcision barbaric, it’s just a politically correct way of expressing their indifference to the AIDs epidemic in Africa. It reduces the probability of HIV infection by 60%, people. That’s huge. We should be shouting it from the roof tops.
So here’s what I want to know. Somewhere out there is someone who was uncircumcised and sexually active. Then, either for religious or medical reasons, became circumcised. I want that guy to go on the record. Does it feel better or worse after having been circumcised? Once you have the answer to that question then you have all your answers.
I have three sons. My oldest is fourteen, I had him circumcised because his father wanted him to look like him. My six year old is also circumcised because I wanted him to look like his brother, but by the time he was born I had done a lot of reading and felt really wrong about it. I regretted it the minute I handed him over to the doctor. So we left our youngest (now three years old) intact. The younger two bathe together and neither of them has ever noticed the difference. Performing cosmetic surgery on a newborn’s genitals is just…so weird. I feel like with my first I was really young and didn’t know better, but I will always regret the choice I made with our middle son.
Also, good read on the subject: http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2014/02/female-genital-mutilation-and-male-circumcision-time-to-confront-the-double-standard/
I agree with Last Lemming. From a public health point of view, circumcision in Africa is quite effective in dealing with AIDS. I think the health benefits are being overlooked by many who don’t understand the medical benefits.
The poll doesn’t allow us to say that “I did it for my children because nearly everyone does it, and I don’t want my sons to be embarrassed by being uncircumcised” AND yet we now think “It is barbaric”
I have one son and we elected to have him circumcised. I watched the procedure and heard him scream at a pitch unheard of before or since. When I carried him back to my wife I told her that if we had another son he’d be circumcised over my dead body (had 3 more girls).
I should have originally added that my wife is a NICU (neo-natal intensive care) nurse, and she has expressed that enough, not many, but enough, circumcisions have post-op issues that we will not be doing this to any sons we eventually have. She has also expressed it is painful and is traumatic. So, that's the deciding factor for me.
Last Lemming and MH,
I agree there are benefits, but it isn't just circumcision alone that is effecting the HIV infection rate, from the WHO fact sheet:
Outside of the medical reasons (infections via foreskin damage), this is a good example of ritual reinforcing other factors like education, training, and counseling, that are part of the, um, package. The experience isn't something you are likely to forget or ignore, and it can provide a deeper [psychological] commitment to safe sex practices, if just deciding to undergo that surgery isn't commitment enough already. It wouldn't be the surgery (ritual, ha!) alone though that changes your behaviors. It is a profound enough permanent physical change, both visually and tactilely, that it can effect your thoughts, attitudes, and behaviors regarding sex from that point on. “See the change, be the change.”
I also want to point out that on the fact sheet the word voluntary is used five times, seven if you count the header and a link at the bottom of the page. These are adults that are making this choice, not infants having the choice made for them.
Jeff Jardine,
There are guys on record. Here is one example, and circumcision.org has some resources if you would like other examples. Most studies also agree there is a loss of sensation, like this one.
Rarely, but of note, some express over stimulation and increased sensation (and, I guess in this case that isn't good either).
In my mind, the Christian exception from circumcision is false doctrine. The requirement of circumcision was given to Abraham as a token of the covenant he made with God. subsequent male followers of God were also circumcised as part of the covenant, which is still in force today and recognized by The Church. We know that coming of Christ did away with the shedding of blood as a sacrifice and replaced it with the Sacrament and the sacrifice of a broken heart and contrite spirit.
No where is there a point where the Abrahamic Covenant was done away from.
As for medical science, those that put all their faith in medical science are apt to be disappointed as one study proving one thing is usually replaced by a later study proving the opposite.
I thought it was benign until I was faced with the choice to hand over my helpless little guy. I did as much research as I could and decided I just couldn’t do that to him. I have never yet felt regret. He’s an adult now, but we’ve never talked about it. There’s some conversations mom doesn’t easily get invited into.
However, my nephews are circumcised, and I don’t think their parents are barbaric.
I didn’t spend 9 months making a perfect little human just to chop of important parts for no reason! I can’t imagine looking at my perfect little newborn and sending him off to pain and permanent damage.
This will be an ignorant question, but how does circumcision impede AIDS? Are viruses hiding in the foreskin? My FIL got circumcised around age 35 (after he had fathered all his kids) because MIL was supposedly getting frequent infections. I shudder just thinking about it being done later in life. My two sons are circumcised — my wife’s OBGYN was Jewish – I don’t think we thought that much about in the 80’s.
It’s BABARIC. My 3 boys are intact, healthy, and happy!
In my family of origin, circumcision is not the norm. When I married a circumcised man, I was disturbed that he was missing part of his penis. When I learned that his parents chose this for him and that it was considered “normal,” I was rather horrified. We did not circumcise our son. While there are potential medical benefits to circumcision, those benefits can be achieved through far less invasive and risky means.
I do believe it is barbaric to alter the genitals of a minor child (male or female) without clear and immediate medical need (abnormality that impedes urinary function, for example). Adults can do whatever they want to their own bodies. Your body, your choice.
Acts 15, Moroni 8:8, and D&C 74 make it clear to Mormons that circumcision is religiously unnecessary.
Yes, a very spiritual experience: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPthgNqG1YY&feature=youtu.be&t=2m20s
My son is 8 months and is intact (uncircumcised, which btw is not the correct term), as is my husband. There was no way in hell I’d allow anyone to perform unneeded cosmetic surgery on my child!
And to those saying it prevents illnesses, last I checked condoms were the best way to prevent STIs, including AIDS/HIV.
As far as cleanliness goes, it requires no more effort than washing your hands.
for more information, please check out theWHOLEnetwork.org
As an LDS Christian it is absolutely wrong and barbaric to perform circumcisions on newborns. It is literally saying that you feel Christs sacrifice in the garden and the whole atonement was worthless and you’re will choosing to offer blood sacrifice in the old law of Moses. That’s what circumcision is, it’s the law of Moses, and if you circumcise you then should follow the whole law of Moses because you can’t pick and choose once you reject the law of Christ. And if anyone is wondering ancient Abrahamic circumcision was NOT amputation of the foreskin like it is today but a ritual nick to draw a drop of blood. (wouldn’t even make sense when you take into account God wouldn’t choose to put his chosen people into that much harm because he risk or infections would have been much higher back then and with no antibiotics to cure them a LOT of male Jews would’ve died)
Why do we need the internet and research to know that cutting a penis hurts and is wrong? I had not researched circumcision prior to my son’s birth in 2001. When he was born, the doctor and nurse came in and said they were there to take him for his circumcision and I panicked! I didn’t want him to be away from me! I asked if it had to be done and why do they need to do it? They explained that about half of boys have it done and that I didn’t have to get it done if I didn’t want him to have it done and I said no and was so relieved that he didn’t “have to” have it done, eventhough I knew hardly anything about it. Now, here I am, two more sons later, all intact and I know exactly what circumcision involves and I am SO glad I trusted my instincts no one tried to talk me into it! When my family heard that I had not circumcised they were shocked and I received comments like, “he will get cancer” and “his thing will get infected”. They are all healthy and perfect. Cutting babies is wrong, that’s all there is to it!
Circumcision is fine and dandy….IF the person choosing it is an informed adult. Cutting the genitals of innocent healthy normal children is unethical and a violation of their body rights. Circumcision does not prevent HIV infection…….the majority of men who died of AIDS in the Eighties and Nineties in the U.S. WERE circumcised! Only healthy sexual choices and use of condoms will prevent HIV infection. The push to circumcise males in Africa is a farce…..and an expensive farce……PEPFAR dumps millions of dollars into the Africa circumcision effort….what a waste of money!
Circumcision is an act of violence against a helpless infant. Religious and cultural arguments usually go a long way with me, but not when it comes to cutting off an important part of an infant’s body for no good medical reason. It should be against the law. And anyone who says that it’s a part of Judaism should read up on the counter-arguments from a Judaic perspective.
Its barbaric and medically harmful!
Not only is it barbaric and medically harmful, but it’s also a blatant violation of human rights and medical ethics.
We can’t have a complete conversation about circumcision without discussing what the foreskin is, what it does, and why it’s there in the first place.
The foreskin is erogenous tissue, containing thousands of sexually sensitive nerves. The foreskin is also designed to work as a linear bearing during intercourse, improving sensation and comfort for women.
Google “functions of the foreskin” to learn more!
It’s completely horrid and should be out lawed
Circumcision without anesthesia should be illegal.
Americans circumcise their sons because they feel that the natural penis is a Weird Dick. They fear that cut boys make fun of intact boys. They fear that American women will refuse to date intact men. Parents project into the future deep seated insecurities inherited from their school days.
Circumcision discards the most sexual bits a man has. Those bits significantly enhance a woman’s sexual experience.
There is no evidence that intact Europe and Japan have worse urological and STD health than the circumcised USA.
Jeff Spector: the Promise made to Abraham does not cover those of us who do not claim descent from Abraham. Circumcision makes no sense for Christians; the reasons were eloquently set out in by Paul.
Circumcision outside of Judiaism is a crazy American fad that is long overdue to expire. Every mammal, male and female have a foreskin. Nature didn’t get this wrong. The male foreskin serves 16 different functions. It’s not “just skin” learn more, know more, do better. Stop cutting babies and leave the decision to the man baby boys will.some day become. http://Www.thewholenetwork.org
Jeff Spector said: “We know that coming of Christ did away with the shedding of blood as a sacrifice” —- the shedding of the infant’s blood during circumcision IS a sacrifice Christ did away with. Have you read Galatians 5:2? If you accept circumcision, Christ has NO VALUE to you. If you REALLY follow the Old Testament then you have to find a “doctor” or mohel who will circ the OT way – that is just barely cutting the overhang, not completely scalping the penis and usually removing the frenulum too. Good luck with that as I don’t think you will find ANYONE willing to do that. Christian circumcision is a heresy and an oxymoron.
It is a medically unnecessary cosmetic procedure. The poll options are definitely skewed because there was no basic option of not supporting circumcision without saying it’s “barbaric”.
Mel:
“the shedding of the infant’s blood during circumcision IS a sacrifice Christ did away with.”
As I review Galatians 5. I notice no mention of blood. What I do see is that if one is circumcised, according to this letter attributed to the Apostle Paul, Christ shall profit you nothing. In other words, If I read it correctly, he is saying that if a male is circumcised the Atonement of Christ has no affect?
I doubt many would accept that explanation. And, as a matter of record, very little blood is involved in a circumcision. In many Jewish homes, it is performed by a Rabbi or Molel, who is not a Doctor. I have my own personal experience with that one.
“The Promise made to Abraham does not cover those of us who do not claim descent from Abraham.”
Now, that’s an interesting statement since all Jews, Christians and Muslims claim descent from Abraham, the Father of many nations, through his sons, Issac and Ismael.
In order to know about circumcision, you have to know about foreskin. If you’re just looking for statistical support of ‘benefits’ of not having a particular organ, then you’re not looking at the whole picture. Imagine how many eye diseases you’d prevent my cutting out eyes. Foreskin is a FUNCTIONAL ORGAN. Removing it is therefore detrimental, because you remove its functions. They are protective, immunological, and sexual. Removing the foreskin removes 20K sexually responsive nerves, specialized fine touch receptors, protection for the mucosal surface of the glans, langerhan’s cells which have been shown to kill HIV, etc. None of these facts matter, of course, unless you’re deciding about your OWN body. Men have a right to refuse amputation of THEIR body parts. Unless you’re responding to an emergency that threatens the immediate health of a child (which a normal foreskin does not) you have no business “deciding” which parts stay or go.
I do know a guy who was sexually active before he ended up cut. He hates it, the feeling is gone, he has a hard time with sex, the older he gets the worse it’s getting.
So it messes with a man.
There is your answer Jeff.
Newest reports out of Africa show that the HIV infection rate is climing among the newly circumcised men, while the rate among the intact men has stayed relatively level.
“So it messes with a man. There is your answer Jeff.”
Real proof at last! How wrong am I. I was only talking about the religious aspect. I have always pitied people whose lives seem to revolve around sex…..
In addition to being harmful, circumcision of newborns and children meets the definition of Aggravated Sexual Assault, in addition to trampling on the individual’s inalienable Rights of self-determination and security of the person from abusive influences, as circumcision is a needless surgery when less than 1 in 16,000 might ever benefit from the procedure in their lifetime: don’t inflict it on people who have no medical need of it!
It is an egregious assault on the child’s Rights to freedom of self-determination, freedom of religion, and freedom from harm! Less than 1 in 16,000 men might ever benefit from a circumcision in their lifetime: it is preposterous not to wait and see until it becomes medically evident to perform surgery for a justifiable purpose! Otherwise, circumcision without need is a cosmetic alteration that meets the definition of Aggravated Sexual Assault!
#40 Aggravated sexual assault? hmmm interesting
But if it helps lower Aids in Africa then I am all for Africans getting snipped.
As for me, I thank God he sent us gentiles the apostle Paul!
AIDS is much more barbaric than loss of foreskin. Are all of you who oppose circumcision also against vaccines? (I think we’ve been over-run with some people without a sense of balance. Jeesh.)
There are zero benefits to routine infant circumcision. The risks are great and certainly do NOT outweigh the only mild benefit (less than 1% decrease in risk of UTI in the first year. But increased risk longterm). It is extremely painful, harmful and a complete violation of human rights.
Jeff Spector: Here is the answer to your question about guys who have experience with both
Now, with regard to your “bible” questions (assumptions), I think you are picking and choosing from what it written in order to justify the practice of circumcision as a Christian practice. It is not! Clearly, you are rejecting the Apostle Paul’s testimony regarding circumcision, but there is no basis for your claim that it not authentic (anymore than any of his other writings). If you discard the NT teachings about circumcision, then you might as well discard the entire book of Hebrews, Romans, Galatians, Philippians, Ephesians and 1 Corinthians as well. Circumcision was a sacrament of the Jews, not the Gentiles! Nowhere in the bible was any Gentile commanded or expected to be circumcised. You need to dig a little deeper as to what the bible really says about circumcision, and whether or not the Christian Gentiles were ever included into the Old Covenant. Some of your facts are just incorrect. You said: “all Jews, Christians and Muslims claim descent from Abraham, the Father of many nations, through his sons, Issac and Ismael.” That is not an accurate statement. While it is true that both Jews and Muslims claim descent from Abraham, Christians do not (unless they were Jews or Muslims who converted to Christianity). Christianity was embraced by Gentiles after the death of Christ (Romans, Greeks, etc), and not largely by the Jewish decedents of Abraham. This occurred after Christ instructed his disciples to go and make disciples of all nations. But being a disciple of Christ did not mean inclusion into the Old Covenant, it meant inclusion into the New Covenant in Christ. The New Covenant replaces the old (see: Jeremiah 31:31-34; Hebrews 8:6-13). Please examine the following verses before making a determination about the importance of circumcision (a work of the flesh) to any Christian of faith.
Romans 3:29-30
29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30 since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith.
Romans 10:9-12
9 Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We have been saying that Abraham’s faith was credited to him as righteousness. 10 Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before! 11 And he received circumcision as a sign, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them. 12 And he is then also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also follow in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.
Ephesians 2:11-13
11 Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called “uncircumcised” by those who call themselves “the circumcision” (which is done in the body by human hands)— 12 remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
1 Corinthians 7:17-19
17 Nevertheless, each person should live as a believer in whatever situation the Lord has assigned to them, just as God has called them. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches. 18 Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised. 19 Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God’s commands is what counts.
Galatians 5:2:6
2 Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3 Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. 4 You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. 5 For through the Spirit we eagerly await by faith the righteousness for which we hope. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.
Galatians 6:12-15
12 Those who want to impress people by means of the flesh are trying to compel you to be circumcised. The only reason they do this is to avoid being persecuted for the cross of Christ. 13 Not even those who are circumcised keep the law, yet they want you to be circumcised that they may boast about your circumcision in the flesh. 14 May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. 15 Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is the new creation.
Philippians 3:2-3
2 Watch out for those dogs, those evildoers, those mutilators of the flesh. 3 For it is we who are the circumcision, we who serve God by his Spirit, who boast in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh—
Circumcision does NOT prevent the spread of HIV, CONDOMS DO!
Bryce,
Thanks for all the information, but you miss an important point in all this. Circumcision is a taken of the Abrahamic covenant. Where did it ever say the Abrahamic covenant was fulfilled in Christ? Mosaic law, yes. Abrahamic, no.
I’ll save my personal opinion for another comment. For reference, here’s the scriptural background:
It was originally commanded as part of the Abrahamic Covenant, predating the Mosaic law by 500 years. It is an “everlasting” ordinance and every major OT (and most NT) figures, from Moses to David to Jesus himself was circumcised. (Gen. 17:10-13)
“This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. 11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. 12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. 13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.”
However, this statement comes from the same guy who claims the Lord wanted him to kill his own son, so I tend to be skeptical. Interestingly, this “everlasting” token, sign, and covenant has been rejected by every dispensation since then. Significantly, both St. Peter and St. Paul specifically said it was unnecessary, saying the spiritual state of the heart mattered more than the physical state of the genitals.
Acts 15: 7, 24, 28 “And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them… 24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment…For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things.”
Gal 5:2, 6 “Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing…For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.”
In the New World, Moroni recorded that his father Mormon received a revelation saying the circumcision was done away as part of the Atonement.
Moroni 8:8 “Listen to the words of Christ, your Redeemer, your Lord and your God. Behold, …little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin…and the law of circumcision is done away in me.”
Significantly, Joseph Smith also received a revelation confirming that circumcision was considered part of the mosaic law (although it was revealed generation before Moses’ birth) and was not to be practiced in the Mormon church (see D&C 74)
In summary, Peter, Paul, James, Mormon, Moroni, and Joseph Smith all have canonized statements against circumcision.
Maybe circumcision was the Israelites’ “blacks and the priesthood” issue: an uninspired decree that became cultural, and went on for generations until someone authoritative finally questioned the Lord about the practice.
It’s 2014,if you seriously think skinning an infant’s genitals is beneficial then your knuckles must hurt from dragging on the ground.
Note this is from an Australian researcher: http://www.nbcnews.com/health/kids-health/circumcision-rate-falls-despite-health-risks-n69891
And from Africa: http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/
MH,
It appears the argument against circumcision is a lot like the vaccine issue. A lot of misinformation coupled with hysterical reaction to something that has been safely done for more than 5000 years.
From the Guide to the Scriptures on the LDS.ORG website:
Abraham received the gospel and was ordained to the higher priesthood (D&C 84:14; Abr. 2:11), and he entered into celestial marriage, which is the covenant of exaltation (D&C 131:1–4; 132:19, 29). Abraham received a promise that all of the blessings of these covenants would be offered to his mortal posterity (D&C 132:29–31; Abr. 2:6–11). Together, these covenants and promises are called the Abrahamic covenant. The restoration of this covenant was the restoration of the gospel in the last days, for through it all the nations of the earth are blessed (Gal. 3:8–9, 29; D&C 110:12; 124:58; Abr. 2:10–11).
The covenant is still in force today so why is the token not in force? Where does it say that. i realize all the words Paul used, but nowhere is the scriptures that say the covanet is fulfilled and the token no longer required.
Jeff Spector: “Circumcision is a taken of the Abrahamic covenant. Where did it ever say the Abrahamic covenant was fulfilled in Christ?” – It’s actually said MANY times throughout the bible by both Peter and Paul.
A couple of points to make here first:
1) The old covenant of Abraham only ever included the Jews, not the Gentiles. So even if it were still binding (everlasting so to speak), it would still not apply to non-Jewish Christians, because Gentiles were never part of that covenant, nor were Gentile converts to Christianity ever commanded to be circumcised! So the covenant would only ever apply to the actual descendants of Abraham, not the Greeks or the Romans.
2) The term “everlasting” in the bible doesn’t necessarily denote that something WILL BE everlasting, only that it is INTENDED to be everlasting. It was an expression that a rule or law is ALWAYS in effect (until it is superseded, done away with, broken, abolished, or fulfilled). When you read Genesis 17, the scripture tells us the purpose and intent of the covenant.
Genesis 17:9-14
9 Then God said to Abraham, “As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. 10 This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring. 13 Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.”
You MUST keep my covenant, God told Abraham. He goes on to say that anyone who breaks the covenant is cut off from his people. The implication is that they would be no better than the Gentiles (the “uncircumcised” who were not God’s people) at that time. The problem is, the Jews did NOT keep the Old Covenant. The “everlasting” covenant ended up being NOT everlasting after all because it was the Jews who broke it. A covenant is a promise, and the promise was broken by the Jews. That is why God pledged to give a new promise in the New Covenant.
Jeremiah 31:31-32
31 “The days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah.
32 It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them” declares the Lord. 33 “This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel after that time,” declares the Lord. “I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God, and they will be my people.
Look at what Paul says in Romans 2.
Romans 2:25-29
25 Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised. 26 So then, if those who are not circumcised keep the law’s requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised? 27 The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker. 28 A person is not a Jew who is one only outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. 29 No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a person’s praise is not from other people, but from God.
God says that the law will be put into the hearts of his people under the New Covenant, and Paul echos what God has declared by saying that circumcision is of the heart, not of the flesh. To answer your question about where the bible says the old covenant was fulfilled in Christ, you have to examine the what Peter and Paul have to say on the issue of circumcision. First of all, since God has indeed replaced the old covenant with the new one, the purpose for circumcision under the old covenant no longer applies. When God sent Jesus Christ to die on behalf of all mankind (not just the Jews), the purpose of circumcision died with him. Secondly, the Apostle Peter actually answers why we are not under the Old Covenant anymore in Acts 15.
Acts 15:5-11
5 Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.” 6 The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7 After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9 He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”
And the point that Paul was making is that anyone looking to be justified by following the Old Covenant has in fact put their faith in the flesh, and are seeking to justify themselves by a work instead of faith in Christ. The scripture makes it clear that it is not works of the law that saves us, but faith in Christ. Thus, the law of circumcision is upheld by faith in Christ, not by works of the law.
Romans 3:28-31
28 For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30 since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. 31 Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.
Galatians 3:28-29
28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Two things strike me from this conversation:
a) it is wholly understandable that many of those who have been circumcised would prefer to believe there are good and beneficial reasons for the practice, because to think otherwise would be to face uncomfortable things, and vice versa, so I think we have to recognise a certain amount of internal bias.
b) there appears to be conflicting evidence on benefits. So far as STDs are concerned there are other forms of protection, and I’d have thought penile cancer likely resulted from HPV infection as is the case for cervical cancer, so it too would fit in the STD category.
It’s actually External bias…..
Individual bias is what I meant… It’s getting late here, and I’m too tired to work out if your comment is a quip of some sort or a bona fide correction…
Genital cutting culture exists in many societies and in many different forms, mostly driven by deeply rooted beliefs in health, hygiene, social or other “benefits”. In some places it has evolved into a something that resembles a “medical procedure” as a curious form of “preventative medicine”. Even opinions of medical professionals are influenced by this culture. Boys and girls deserve the same protection against forced genital cutting.
Jeff Spector,
(This is only slightly tongue-in-cheek.)
Should we then be doing vicarious circumcision? What about your circumcision (assuming from your comments), or mine? Were they performed by an authorized priesthood worker? Are they valid? What about any sons you might have? Was the doctor authorized to perform this ritual so that the token might be accepted? Authorized witnesses present? If it was unauthorized or not properly witnessed, what would one need to do to remedy the situation (it is, by its nature, a one shot event)? What kind of records would have even been kept so that if we did need to take care of this vicariously we could? Should all uncircumcised converts be required to be cut before they can enter the temple (the temple then being a realization and aspect of Abraham's covenant)? Oh, do we have to do this again after resurrection? You know, the whole every whit again thing.
I would much rather have a circumcised heart, and leave that whole mess behind. Like I said, only slightly tongue-in-cheek, because if you are right, wow … sorting this out will be the new fifth mission of the Church.
“When first-worlders call circumcision barbaric, it’s just a politically correct way of expressing their indifference to the AIDs epidemic in Africa. It reduces the probability of HIV infection by 60%, people. That’s huge. We should be shouting it from the roof tops.”
Let me tear down this argument thoroughly
#1 that 60% number has been widely debunked. Many first world health organizations have publicly decried the methods used in that study
#2 it only ever claimed a reduction in Female to Male intercourse, which is rare. It has been proven that the procedure increases the Male to Female transmission rate far above any gains from the Female to Male protection
#3 US Has the highest rate of circumcision outside of Israel and the highest rate of HIV/AIDs, One contradicts the other
#4 A study done this year of the places in Africa where we have had the biggest pushes for circumcision show an INCREASE in AIDS cases, not a decrease as expected (further showing the study was flawed to begin with)
#5 It still requires use of a condom as it never ever said it completely prevented AIDS, therefore get cut and wear a condom, or just wear a condom
#6 Circumcision causes around 117 infant deaths per year in the US. That’s ten per month, 2.25 per week. You need to kill one baby in order prevent one case of AIDS as an adult. If this was a car seat the manufacturer would be out of business already.
#7 If getting your daughter’s labia remove prevented AIDS, would you go through with that? Why should a boy be any different?
I was wondering where all the votes were coming from. Welcome all who come from the link posted at The Whole Network “We are a grassroots, registered 501(c)3 non-profit organization dedicated to providing accurate information about circumcision and proper intact care.”
While their goals are laudable, I question the accuracy of anything they say or promote! Serious question–are they against vaccines too?
My views on circumcision are the same as they are for any other surgical intervention; it should be performed when and if there is a medical necessity, and other methods of treatment have failed. It is not “barbaric” or “mutilation” if there is a genuine need. Without genuine need, all surgery is extortion, not to mention abuse of the patient. Under any other circumstance, reaping profit from performing non-surgical surgery on healthy, non-consenting individuals constitutes medical fraud.
“Disease prevention” is a canard that only circumcising cultures believe; there is not a single disease that circumcision can prevent. Circumcision FAILS at preventing sexually transmitted disease, which is why circumcised men must still be urged to wear condoms. There is not a single doctor or “researcher” that can deny this fact.
Someone asked:
“Serious question–are they against vaccines too?”
This loaded question depends on a dubious premise; that circumcision is in fact comparable to a vaccine.
There are a few differences between vaccines and circumcision:
1. While vaccines strengthen the immune system against pathogens that cause disease, circumcision has no effect on the immune system whatsoever; circumcision does not, cannot function anything like a vaccine.
2. While circumcision removes a chunk of flesh from the penis, vaccines do not involve the removal of any flesh. Reasoning that a part of the body must be removed “to avoid adverse conditions or diseases” one can argue that a child’s breasts, appendix, gall bladder, a testicle, a kidney etc. all must be removed “to reduce the incidence of cancer.” When we talk about any other part of the body, it becomes obvious that this is not sound medicine.
3. While all respected medical organizations recommend vaccines for all children, not a single respected medical organization recommends the circumcision of children. All of them, including the AAP in their latest statement, say that that the benefits simply aren’t great enough.
Those who oppose needless surgery in infants or other non-consenting individuals aren’t necessarily opposed to vaccinations. And they do not oppose surgery when and if there is a clear medical necessity.
Let this be clear.
See http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/news/news/2011-11-15-ama-adopts-new-policies.page
See http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/27/science/benefits-of-circumcision-outweigh-risks-pediatric-group-says.html?_r=0
I am not inclined to support circumcision (especially for certain reasons that I think are flimsy — like the social reason that people sometimes use of not wanting their kid to “look different” from their father or “seem strange” to their partners waaaaaay down the road). And I also agree in general that it probably shouldn’t be done to children without their permission (and that if someone wants to have it done, they can decide themselves when they are older)…And finally, it seems like whatever possible health benefits it could have are not very relevant for nations with first-world conditions. But I wish that the intactivists would more often soberly address the perception of the medical benefits of circumcision.
Joseph, you say that not a single respected medical organization recommends the circumcision of children, and that all of them say that the benefits simply aren’t great enough.
Do you not view the World Health Organization as respected? Do you not view the Centers for Disease Control as respected? Or is your opposition more against the circumcision of children?
It seems to me that if the intactivists would address the perception that circumcision seems to be effective in reducing the risk of HIV (which is not the same as saying that it “completely prevents” it, so the fact that many intactivists keep attacking that strawman just hurts credibility and makes it seem like they are not really wanting to address this particular issue), then they probably wouldn’t get as much pushback.
If anyone is interested in a video that addresses ALL possible arguments against neonatal circumcision, I invite you to watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWw9R52a9zw
This vid pretty much covers the issue from every conceivable angle, and I have yet to show it to a person who maintained a prior position of supporting it for infants. The more you learn about the history of the procedure, the current justifications for the procedure, the typical results of the operation itself, and the functions of the foreskin, the more likely you are to be less supportive of it. The logic behind routine circumcision among infants in developed countries quickly evaporates.
I have actually successfully converted two of my closest friends from being avid circumcision supporters to going against the procedure now. A third friend who was strongly for it (mostly for reasons that he acknowledge make no sense anymore) and is now only “indifferent” about the procedure after viewing the video, admitting that he wouldn’t insist on it anymore, but would still leave the decision up to his wife (who is Jewish).
Circumcision alters sex dramatically. Foreskin feels REALLY good.
Informed adults can decide for themselves.
So how do you guys feel about breastfeeding?
The parts that are cut off the MALE are some of the most highly innervated parts of the human. A whole range of sensation and sexual and protective function are lost. The lips, fingertips and nipples have similar touch sense. The thousands of nerves provide sensory input that is pleasurable. The movable erogenous tissue is AWESOME for the owner. As it is natural, it makes sex better for women as well (naturally). To take this away from another person without their consent is heinous. To do this to a newborn baby is creepy, child abuse and a human rights VIOLATION.
EVERY HUMAN (male and female) has the RIGHT (a human right) to reach adulthood with all of the tissue (particularly all of their erogenous tissue) that THEIR genetic code provides.
forgetting:
“Should we then be doing vicarious circumcision?”
Well, that opens up a whole new can of worms now doesn’t it.
If a male wishes to convert to Judaism, he is required to be circumcised. For an adult male that is quite a thing to ask. Abraham knew all about that request.
My whole point is that I’ve never seen a definitive answer to why Christians no longer practice circumcision according to the covenant that God made with Abraham. Many believe, including the LDS Church, that the covenant is still in force and the promises made to Abraham are being fulfilled in our day. Notwithstanding all the arguments made in the Epistles of Paul, which do not adequately address that particular issue. Those that confuse the fulfillment of the law of Moses by the sacrifice of the Savior (called “the Law”) for the Abrahamic covenant are misinformed.
Whether men are circumcised or not is their business.
Bryce, I watched your video and I wouldn’t say it is a source of unbiased information. It was heavily biased.
US Has the highest rate of circumcision outside of Israel and the highest rate of HIV/AIDs
The bolded statement is not even remotely close to being true. The infection rate among US adults is less than 1 percent. In many African countries, it exceeds 10 percent and in maxes out at 26 percent in Swaziland. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2155rank.html
As for the absurd figure of 117 US deaths per year due to circumcision, here’s a takedown worth reading (admittedly from a biased source, but they need some representation here). http://circumcisionnews.blogspot.com/2010/05/fatally-flawed-bollingers-circumcision.html
Interesting article by Associated Press on some tribal forced circumcision going on in Kenya.
And FWIW, there are comments from people who I’ve never seen darken the door at W&T. Did some anti-circumcision folks do some recruiting amongst like minded people? I’m sort of on the fence, but the incessant refrain of being “barbaric” seems a bit overboard. At any rate, we’ll be intact upon the resurrection, so it’ll be kind of cool to check things out.
IDIAT,
We definitely got picked up by a 501(c)(3) that opposes circumcision.
(Note to self: bring easy traffic with talk of circumcision…Add to list along with porn and homosexuality.)
Mormon Heretic: “Bryce, I watched your video and I wouldn’t say it is a source of unbiased information. It was heavily biased.”
Please be specific. What information presented in the video would you say is “biased”. More to the point, is there any information in the video that you find to be “faulty”, “misleading”, or otherwise, “incorrect”. If so, please point that out!
Bryce,
I’ve already listed several people in the post who say it is beneficial. Not one “expert” in the video claimed any benefits. Therefore it is one-sided. You yourself said, This vid pretty much covers the issue from every conceivable angle” but only interviewed opposers, not supporters. That’s why it is biased. Where were the supporters? The video didn’t talk to a single one.
Jeff Spector: “Notwithstanding all the arguments made in the Epistles of Paul, which do not adequately address that particular issue. Those that confuse the fulfillment of the law of Moses by the sacrifice of the Savior (called “the Law”) for the Abrahamic covenant are misinformed.” – How do they not address that particular issue when they specifically discuss circumcision? Circumcision has nothing to do with Moses, but with Abraham. You cannot just dismiss everything that Paul and Peter say about it by claiming that it has nothing to do with the Abrahamic covenant. I’ve already shown you how that covenant was broken and consequently replaced.
“Whether men are circumcised or not is their business.” – Irrelevant. The issue is not whether men are circumcised or not. The issue is whether BABIES being circumcised is the business of other men (or women). And clearly, the answer to that question is NO. And when you choose to make a religious argument (from the standpoint of Christianity), then you need to back up your rhetoric, providing clear evidence (or at least a coherent argument) for why any Christian should practice this procedure in the name of their faith (which you have failed to do). I’ve stated repeatedly that no Gentile or Christian convert was ever commanded or expected to be circumcised in the bible, and I have not yet heard any counter-argument to that fact.
At the end of the day, any man who is not circumcised can make the choice to become circumcised if he wishes. Any man that is circumcised has no such choice available to him. That choice was taken away from him at birth.
Bryce,
“The issue is whether BABIES being circumcised is the business of other men (or women).”
They are called parents, Ed. Everything about their children is their business. I guess Catholics ought not to baptize their babies either even if it is part of their religious observance. Jews should not circumcise even though they still believe it is part of the covenant?
I’ve asked the question, where does it say the Abrahamic Covenant is fulfilled? It is you have have provided no proof of that. I’ll say it one more time, circumcision is a token of that covenant and Christ’s coming did not negate it.
Prove me wrong. I can take it.
Jeff Spector: “They are called parents, Ed. Everything about their children is their business. I guess Catholics ought not to baptize their babies either even if it is part of their religious observance. Jews should not circumcise even though they still believe it is part of the covenant?”
Well personally, now that you mention it, I don’t think Catholics should baptize their babies because that is contradictory to how the bible describes the purpose of baptism. However, baptism is harmless, circumcision is not. It is the permanent alteration and disfigurement of the body. Baptism is not painful, circumcision is. Baptism will not cause bleeding or infection, circumcision can. Baptism has never led to death, circumcision has. Whereas baptism is purely symbolic and spiritual, circumcision is physical. So for many reasons, the two things are not comparable. There are people in many African and Middle Eastern nations that believe in circumcision of females for religious or cultural reasons. They excuse it away as saying that it’s tradition, it’s safe, it’s cleaner, etc. Many of the same arguments used to defend male ritualistic circumcision in the US. But the logic you are using to justify male circumcision here (religion) would NEVER be considered to justify female circumcision, making it a double standard. Either religion can excuse away abuse or it can’t. You can’t allow religious mutilation in one sex, while condemning it in another.
“I’ve asked the question, where does it say the Abrahamic Covenant is fulfilled?” – And I’ve answered it. You have not responded to it. Again, read Jeremiah 31:31-32 and Romans 2:25-29.
“It is you have have provided no proof of that. I’ll say it one more time, circumcision is a token of that covenant and Christ’s coming did not negate it.” – You’ve said it several times but scripture plainly indicates that you are WRONG. It wasn’t Christ’s coming that negated it, it was his death on the cross that negates it. Salvation is by faith, not by works, and Christ is the redeemer of Gentiles as well as Jews, rendering the Old Covenant obsolete. What part about that do you not understand?
Hi Last Lemming,
117 circumcision deaths per year in the US is not absurd. It is conservative. It amounts to about 1 death of a healthy normal child per 10,000 hospital procedures. For the US which fails to carefully track outcomes any estimate is wrong by definition but they range from the 117 to upwards of 400 per year,.
BRAZIL has a well structured national health program that keeps very detailed records. These records show roughly 1 death of a healthy normal child per 7700 hospital procedures. so the US number is not from outer space. It’s quite feasible.
But EVERY child circumcision alters someone’s sexual experience dramatically forever without his informed consent.
I was circumcised, as were almost all male hospital births in the US in the 1960s. We knew better than God back then how babies should be handled. I was a bottle baby as well.
I don’t know if it’s outright “harmful” or not, but I do believe it affects sexual function (or at least enjoyment). I circumcised all three of my sons, since that’s what I was comfortable with in my ignorance, but if I had it to do over again, I would not do so.
Incidentally, Jeff (76) and Bryce (77), Jewish ritual circumcision was quite a bit less, um, “thorough” than modern medical circumcision. There were even little weighted clamp devices, dating back to Roman times, that Jews could clamp onto the remnant of the foreskin to stretch it out so that they could temporarily appear uncircumcised. I think the removal of a strip of foreskin, while still a physical modification, would have a lot less ultimate effect on form and function than the complete medical circumcision practiced in the US in the last 50-70 years.
New Iconoclast: “Jewish ritual circumcision was quite a bit less, um, “thorough” than modern medical circumcision.”
I actually knew that already. I’ve done some thorough research on the topic of circumcision for a college psychology course. Yes, you are correct, the original, “biblical” circumcision amounted to just cutting around the tip of of the foreskin, so that flesh was sacrificed. The bible said to circumcise “the flesh of your foreskin”, not circumcise “the flesh of your penis”. It was not a complete amputation of the foreskin like they do now. That trend started way later to prevent the Jews from trying to re-assimilate into Greek culture. The original circumcision was “just a little snip”. Now, circumcision is mutilation.
Icon,
“Jewish ritual circumcision was quite a bit less, um, “thorough” than modern medical circumcision.”
Hmmmmmmm, I never really compared. I had the ritual done in my Grandparent’s home so I guess I qualify under the Jewish circumcision.
Bryce,
“Now, circumcision is mutilation.’
I guess now we know where you really stand……
Jeff Spector: “I guess now we know where you really stand….”
I’m just making a realistic comparison between the two different procedures. And while the term mutilation is somewhat in the eye of the beholder, it doesn’t fit the dictionary definition of the word. “to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts”. Circumcision does in fact injury infants (hence the screaming). It does disfigure the penis (hence the scar). It does make the penis imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging part of it. So it’s really not a stretch to say that it is a type of mutilation. One might also describe piercings as a lesser form of mutilation. But describing the procedure as such is not indicative of where I stand regarding it in general. I’m totally for it if that’s what a guy wants to do. My only issue is that I think it should be the guy’s own choice. It shouldn’t be made for him when he can’t consent to it. And it should be done at an age where the guy can be anesthetized, and mentally prepared for what’s about to happen. Not straight out of the womb with no anesthesia.
FWIW From Encyclopedia of Mormonism under Dispensation:
The general consistency of the plan does not preclude differences in revealed counsel and direction appropriate to the diversity in times and cultures of different dispensations. Circumcision, for example, important in previous dispensations as a sign of a covenant, was not essential in later dispensations. Blood sacrifices required in Old Testament times to anticipate the Atonement were fulfilled in Christ, with new redemptive emblems of bread and wine being prescribed by Jesus.
Galatians 5:12 “I just wish that those troublemakers who want to mutilate you by circumcision would mutilate themselves.”
Philippians 3:2 “Watch out for those dogs, those people who do evil, those mutilators who say you must be circumcised to be saved.”
Mutilate: to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect (Merriam-Webster)
Routine infant circumcision (RIC) is the biggest controversy in USA pediatrics, and a major open problem in the social psychology of American sexuality. RIC is wrong for the following reasons.
1. Most doctors do not use effective anesthesia, in which case it hurts like hell. Lidocaine does not always extinguish the pain. General anesthesia is too expensive. Babies cannot take post-op pain killers.
2. The only advanced nations in which the typical adult male is circumcised, are Israel, South Korea and the USA. There is no evidence that the other nations pay a price for not circumcising their boys.
3. We do not know the consequences of RIC for adult sexual pleasure and function. We do not know whether circumcised men are more or less prone to PE and ED. American science has yet to interview a random sample of several hundred women who say they have been in long term relationships with both kinds of men. Because Mother Nature should rightly enjoy the benefit of the doubt, and we do not know the sexual consequences of circumcision, RIC should cease immediately.
Interesting link about adult circumcision: http://www.queerty.com/more-and-more-adult-men-are-snipping-off-their-foreskin-and-heres-why-20150130
MH
What exactly do you think is “interesting” about it?
Bryce, It would be interesting if you bothered to comment on more than this single issue. That would be REALLY interesting.
I’ve always been on the fence on this one,feeling that the decision STILL rests with the new parents. It seems that the medical evidence is in favor of circumcision for health reasons, but by no means decided.
The only thing that I’d want the Church to do is to make clear that the Lord doesn’t require that newborn males be cut to fulfill any ‘covenant’ requirements, since what Abraham et al. went with (and they were not likely the first either) is not in force at this time. That way, parents who are not comfortable won’t feel unduly pressured to performing what they might consider to be unnecessary mutilation on their young sons. Nor would there be conflict with cultures where circumcision is not practiced.
I find it interesting that the anatomy of males would have what appears to be a vestigial feature, or why even lopping off this piece of a young fellow’s most ‘plain and precious part’ was ever considered as a token of any covenant. After all, I assume that even since Abraham boys and men still covered themselves in public, so WHO would know? After all, no one but my beloved Snips knoweth whether I’m ‘compliant’ with the Abrahamic covenant or not, as well as wives No. 1 and No. 2 (in series). I take this all on faith, but the reasoning does elude me, and this one of the few Gospel topics to which I’ve not devoted research – maybe I don’t want to know.
MH “Bryce, It would be interesting if you bothered to comment on more than this single issue. That would be REALLY interesting.”
Well, the only relevant issue being discussed here is infant circumcision. You posted a link to a gay website that has an article about several Jewish men getting circumcised in adulthood. You claimed that this was “interesting”, but failed to address what you find interesting about it, or how it relates to the discussion of infant circumcision. So you haven’t really offered anything to the discussion.
Selfdo59, according to most pediatrics organizations in the developed world, infant circumcision offers no health benefits that exceed the risks of the procedure. Any alleged health benefits are minimal at best, and often questionable. Furthermore, benefit to risk ratio is not the appropriate measuring stick for which to decide on a non-medically recommended, unnecessary procedure. A measurement comparing benefit to risk is only valid when it comes to medically recommended procedures.
The correct measuring stick for a non-medically recommended, unnecessary procedure would be benefit to HARM ratio. And when examined in that context, the potential harm of the procedure far outweighs any potential benefits. A child cannot die from being left intact; he can die from being circumcised. A child cannot lose his penis from being left intact; a child can lose his penis from being circumcised. A male doesn’t lose thousands of sensitive nerve endings or sexual pleasure from being left intact.
The supposed benefits of circumcision are the following:
UTIs: An intact infant boy has a 1% chance of ever developing a UTI (which is far lower than an infant girl). In the rare case that a boy does develop a UTI, it can easily be treated in the same manner that girls are treated (antibiotics).
Penile Cancer: Boys NEVER get penile cancer. It is a disease that affects elderly men (circumcised and intact), and it is so rare that you’ve likely never met anyone who’s had it. Male breast cancer is more common than penile cancer!
HIV/AIDS: The US is the most “circumcised” developed nation, and it has the highest rate of HIV transmission (much higher than any European nation that doesn’t circumcise). The 3 African trials that have been cited as “evidence” that circumcision reduces the rate of HIV are documented as being highly flawed. In particular, such results would only ever apply in third world countries, not developed countries.
Phimosis: Phimosis is not a disease. It is rare, but normal condition that A) cannot be diagnosed until near adulthood, B) doesn’t pose a serious health threat, and C) is easily treatable with steroid creams. Circumcision is not required for this condition.
As you can see, the “benefits” hold very little water when broken down logically (which is why neonatal circumcision is discouraged in Canada, Australia, Germany, Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom).