Posted on 05/19/2005 5:39:11 PM PDT by gobucks
My mother-in-law said, "you don't talk about stuff like this. You just do it." She was referring to the decision soon upon Mrs. Gb and me regarding whether or not to circumcise our son ... he's due in a couple of weeks. She was singing in unison with a lot of other voices. This experience has revealed, like so many other topics (like unmedicated child birth, breast feeding, etc etc) that circumcision is another hot topic in the culture war. Folks have strong feelings about it.
I'm looking for Freeper advice about this. The internet, as usual, is awash with all kinds of things about this, but as with my first 'Pregnant Wife' post, I am betting Freepers will have an exceptionally different outlook on the matter. Bottom line, what is wrong with NOT circumcising him?
Status: At first, it was a no brainer. "I want him to look like his Daddy" is what Mrs. Gb said. I did'nt really dwell on this topic too much myself ... it just didn't seem important, and I didn't like the way I felt when I DID think about it.
But then I started doing some research. Turns out this subject is quite interesting; several very interesting threads exist here too. Anyway, when I learned that no health studies exist that prove circumcised boys have 'healthier' results, ahem, than non-circumcised boys, it boiled down to religious reasons yea or nea, and hence posting this in the religion forum.
Now, a covenant is a very, very interesting word, seldom used, and rarely understood it seems.
Covenant is evidently the only kind of 'promise' God deals in .. he doesn't contract, or bargain, or 'deal' ... or promise even. He convenants, and initially, circumcision was the mark of the coventees. But w/ the advent of Christ, and the near rupture of the early church over the issue, it suddenly became optional.
I have learned that in Europe, circumcision is quite uncommon. I have no idea how or why it became so common here. But I have been deeply questioning just what is gained by having my son within a few moments of birth getting cut 'down there'.
Mrs Gb, was talking to a neighbor down the street who had to have her son's procedure repeated, (she told the story in minute detail) because the OB who tried it the first time evidently slipped or something.... well, needless to say, we are leaning strongly to skipping this 'procedure' and telling him when he is older that he appears different from me simply because people didn't know any better back in the old days.
The neighbor, predictably, wouldn't dream of NOT circumcising her boys ... but she wasn't really quick with an explanation as to why.
Well, that is it. I look forward to helpful replies...
smegma.
I can quote some Scripture for you as well, if you like.
The answer is "yea."
or>
B. consider that some women don't really like the uncut version. Small consideration but it is still a consideration.
As far as cleanliness that just goes to parenting.
New Testament scripture?
And as for smegma ... I know what that is ... but, as I understand it, not an issue if we follow through in that matter as efficiently as we plan to do with his .... let's say teeth.
Some women don't 'like' uncut version? I don't really know what to say about that; never heard anything about it. But that aside, thanks for the response..
Not that I can recall. But then, Jesus never told us to have sex with a goat either. Does that invalidate the OT?
I didn't really know about until my Sister in-law mentioned it. I think your neighbor's comment was a nicer way of saying "ooooh yuk" at the thought of the "uncut version".
As an aside, my screename has nothing to do with this topic and my son's "procedure" healed super fast. A couple of days and it was as good as, ahem, new. (so to speak)
The place you want to go to is
http://www.nocirc.org
They provide factual information on male and female circumcision.
If you decide to go ahead with the procedure, make sure they apply some topical anesthetic first!
Ever read Galatians?
No son of mine is getting that barbaric procedure. Why get it done if a person isn't Jewish or Muslim?
We no longer use circumcision as a sign of the Covenant.
The first council of Jerusalem ended the debate, according to the Acts of the Apostles. At the council, St. Paul spoke forcefully about what he believed to be prerequisites for becoming a Christian, and he was told to return to the Gentiles and to tell them that all they need do was stop their pagan ways and not to eat food sacrificed to idols. Circumcision was not mentioned as a requirement. The church, with the supreme teaching imprimatur of St. Peter, decided it was not required.
I cannot venture into the health benefits of circumcision. I do know that, rarely, the foreskin can cause a constriction that impairs organ function, but that is easily remedied and is even more rarely threatening to life or health. Discomfort drives one to a doctor long before illness results. Cleanliness is the only reason I've ever heard advanced as an argument for circumcision, but I think that's kind of lame.
My parents opted for circumcision for me. Is it necessary for any reason? No.
Please enlighten me:
From my perspective in health care every year lots of men have to have theirs removed, evidently because they just didnt care enough to take care and things got messy and infected etc. This procedure would have to be worse as an adult. I have not read this but I have heard that circumcised have essentially zero risk of cancer and that "cancer will only develop in uncircumcised men" (albeit the risk is small even for the uncircumcised)
The two are not really equivalent.
Why don't you click on that link and enlighten yourself?
Weeelll...it brings on a "peak of awareness"...and a really loud scream.
Because that link is in my cache and FR is hard-coded into my machine. However, at the moment, I can't seem to get to any site not hard-coded into my local DNS server. Go figure.
Why give yourself extra work? Personally, I'm glad I was circumcised and I like the, er, streamlined form it gives.
While there is little difference among circumcised and uncircumcised men in reports of satisfaction with intercourse, women have a much higher rate of satisfaction when they have sex with circumcised men-- much like the guy who showers vs. the one who smells like a goat.
Circumcision is a whole lot less painful when done in infancy . . . and it puts the boy on track for giving his future wife the best sex she can get because circumcised men maintain better erections, longer erections and better and longer contact between the most sensitive part of the penis and the most sensitive part of his partner's vagina. As an added bonus, semen discarges are both fuller (quantity) and more complete (quality) much like a garden hose which is straight versus one which is kinked.
Circumcision is like the difference between fully naked, full contact sexual intercourse with the woman you love and a cheap poke inside the panties with a condom on and your testicles caught in your briefs. Forgive the graphic nature, but a sliding and sometimes uncooperative foreskin denies you both the full pleasure of fully nude, full contact sex-- breasts against breast, penis sliding back and forth freely inside your partner's vagina, testicles in contact with the outer lips of the female sexual orifice, hands against inner thighs, lips and tongues in full contact. Some of these contact points are, of course, possible with an intact foreskin, but all are not.
Is riding in a convertable with the roof down more sexy than riding in a boxy sedan with a leaky roof? Both will get you there, but only one does it in style.
Why do you think those who practice circumcision generally more fecund than those who do not?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.