Author Topic: The Morality of Circumcision  (Read 730 times)

annamack

The Morality of Circumcision
« Reply #10 on: December 25, 2017, 01:36:01 PM »
It's only rarely required for hygiene / medical reasons.
It's usually done for religious reasons, reasons of vanity , or having the misfortune of having some really ignorant parents.
I'm bound by certain Professional Codes of Conduct which make it imprudent for me to comment further on the pros and cons of the medical arguments.
Ditto, on any vaccination disputes.

Hygiene is the most spurious of reasons - do these pro-mutilators not wash?!!  Some absolute f@#!wit on NOW even gave possible future trench warfare as a good reason for mutilating babies!   :facepalm:

« Last Edit: December 26, 2017, 07:38:28 PM by Mithrandylan »
 
The following users thanked this post: Nick

annamack

The Morality of Circumcision
« Reply #11 on: December 25, 2017, 01:41:26 PM »
Hi guys, if you go to the comments section of the NOW article, you will see a lively discussion (why does this always happen to me :facepalm:) about the morality/prudence/practicality of circumcision as a medical/hygienic procedure. The original issue was a question posted which asked specifically and ONLY about it's morality. Unfortunately, people like to make the opinion they have of it being supposedly impractical/imprudent into the equivalent of it being immoral (which is an obvious fallacy). Any comments of good will appreciated. Merry Christmas! :party:

I still think that you're wrong  :lol:

Great. Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas to you, too - and you're still wrong.  And you still haven't provided me with an "absolute authority" that condemns castration, female circumcision, any other type of amputation for absolutely no good reason!  That's probably because the Church expects us to use at least some basic reasoning of our own. 
« Last Edit: December 26, 2017, 07:38:36 PM by Mithrandylan »
 
The following users thanked this post: Nick

TKGS

The Morality of Circumcision
« Reply #12 on: December 26, 2017, 05:42:28 PM »
So if mutilation of the body is okay, then I'm gunna get me sum more tattoos , okay ?

Regardless of the morality of the issue, this would be a pretty shallow reason for getting more tattoos.
« Last Edit: December 26, 2017, 07:38:43 PM by Mithrandylan »
 
The following users thanked this post: SedeForChrist

Mithrandylan

  • Administrator
  • TTF Apprentice
  • *****
  • Posts: 445
  • Thanked: 276 times
  • Gender: Male
  • Divínum auxílium ✝ máneat semper nobíscum
Re: The Morality of Circumcision
« Reply #13 on: December 26, 2017, 07:48:46 PM »
I wouldn't say it's immoral, although parents have something of an obligation to be informed about health matters for the care of their children.  In theory someone might arrive at the decision to circumcise through negligence.  But on the other hand, the idea that circumcision is healthy (which it isn't) has somewhat entered the popular mind, sort of like brushing your teeth.  And I don't think parents are irresponsible for not knowing that fluoride isn't good for you, so usually I wouldn't think that someone was irresponsible for circumcising their son.  But it's definitely something to spread the word about. 
I wear it for a memorable honor,
For I am Welsh, you know, good countryman.
 
The following users thanked this post: Nick, annamack

Mithrandylan

  • Administrator
  • TTF Apprentice
  • *****
  • Posts: 445
  • Thanked: 276 times
  • Gender: Male
  • Divínum auxílium ✝ máneat semper nobíscum
Re: The Morality of Circumcision
« Reply #14 on: December 27, 2017, 09:43:31 AM »
I do think it's fair to call circumcision "mutilation."  I think many are under the impression that medical circumcision is the same as the Old Covenant circumcision, but it isn't at all.  Medical circumcision, as a matter of course, permanently injures the generative faculty and makes it less facilitative of the generative act, since it removes the entire foreskin (The Old Covenant Circumcision did not).  In fact, I believe that the doctor who made it popular was an American Puritan in the nineteenth century who recommended it for those very reasons.  The idea is that it would make it painful for boys to engage in self-abuse.  And I suppose that is not a terrible motive, but still a utilitarian principle, so ultimately wrong.  Now medical science thinks that self-abuse is something to be encouraged, so they dropped the original motive for medical circumcision and they pitch the idea that it's more hygienic.  As Annamack said, just wash.  Problem solved.  Easily, and without mutilation.
I wear it for a memorable honor,
For I am Welsh, you know, good countryman.
 
The following users thanked this post: Nick, annamack

SedeForChrist

Re: The Morality of Circumcision
« Reply #15 on: January 01, 2018, 10:55:44 AM »
I do think it's fair to call circumcision "mutilation."  I think many are under the impression that medical circumcision is the same as the Old Covenant circumcision, but it isn't at all.  Medical circumcision, as a matter of course, permanently injures the generative faculty and makes it less facilitative of the generative act, since it removes the entire foreskin (The Old Covenant Circumcision did not).  In fact, I believe that the doctor who made it popular was an American Puritan in the nineteenth century who recommended it for those very reasons.  The idea is that it would make it painful for boys to engage in self-abuse.  And I suppose that is not a terrible motive, but still a utilitarian principle, so ultimately wrong.  Now medical science thinks that self-abuse is something to be encouraged, so they dropped the original motive for medical circumcision and they pitch the idea that it's more hygienic.  As Annamack said, just wash.  Problem solved.  Easily, and without mutilation.

Honestly, what planet do you live on. No one, with supremely rare exceptions, who has been circumcised, experiences any of these things. Whether you are circumcised or not you can masturbate without problem, you can have children without problem, and you can use the bathroom without problem. I would like to state for the record that I neither concede that I have done any of these things, nor do I definitely state my own status with regard to circumcision. If it was such a huge problem, there would be outcries, there would be mass problems with people who are circumcised. Where is it? It doesn't exist. And maybe you should save your outrage for something truly immoral, like abortion and gay marriage.
 

SedeForChrist

Re: The Morality of Circumcision
« Reply #16 on: January 01, 2018, 11:00:38 AM »
I wouldn't say it's immoral, although parents have something of an obligation to be informed about health matters for the care of their children.  In theory someone might arrive at the decision to circumcise through negligence.  But on the other hand, the idea that circumcision is healthy (which it isn't) has somewhat entered the popular mind, sort of like brushing your teeth.  And I don't think parents are irresponsible for not knowing that fluoride isn't good for you, so usually I wouldn't think that someone was irresponsible for circumcising their son.  But it's definitely something to spread the word about.

So where are all the men and boys who supposedly have problems from circumcision? I've talked to many guys I know about this, circumcised and not, and they really have no experiential differences, some are married with kids, some are single, some are teens etc. No one has problems using their genitals for the actual purposes they were made for because they were circumcised. In what way is it unhealthy, it isn't.
 

SedeForChrist

Re: The Morality of Circumcision
« Reply #17 on: January 01, 2018, 11:04:24 AM »
Hi guys, if you go to the comments section of the NOW article, you will see a lively discussion (why does this always happen to me :facepalm:) about the morality/prudence/practicality of circumcision as a medical/hygienic procedure. The original issue was a question posted which asked specifically and ONLY about it's morality. Unfortunately, people like to make the opinion they have of it being supposedly impractical/imprudent into the equivalent of it being immoral (which is an obvious fallacy). Any comments of good will appreciated. Merry Christmas! :party:


I still think that you're wrong  :lol:

Great. Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas to you, too - and you're still wrong.  And you still haven't provided me with an "absolute authority" that condemns castration, female circumcision, any other type of amputation for absolutely no good reason!  That's probably because the Church expects us to use at least some basic reasoning of our own.

Not the subject matter and don't care. What does castration have to do with circumcision? castration renders one infertile, circumcision never does. Try this book, great section on castration and it's morality: https://www.amazon.com/Medical-Ethics-C-J-McFadden/dp/B0000CLD7A/ref=sr_1_sc_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1514826206&sr=8-1-spell&keywords=mcfadden+mdeical+ethics

Spoiler alert: it's debated and unsettled!!
 

Mithrandylan

  • Administrator
  • TTF Apprentice
  • *****
  • Posts: 445
  • Thanked: 276 times
  • Gender: Male
  • Divínum auxílium ✝ máneat semper nobíscum
Re: The Morality of Circumcision
« Reply #18 on: January 01, 2018, 11:15:52 AM »
I do think it's fair to call circumcision "mutilation."  I think many are under the impression that medical circumcision is the same as the Old Covenant circumcision, but it isn't at all.  Medical circumcision, as a matter of course, permanently injures the generative faculty and makes it less facilitative of the generative act, since it removes the entire foreskin (The Old Covenant Circumcision did not).  In fact, I believe that the doctor who made it popular was an American Puritan in the nineteenth century who recommended it for those very reasons.  The idea is that it would make it painful for boys to engage in self-abuse.  And I suppose that is not a terrible motive, but still a utilitarian principle, so ultimately wrong.  Now medical science thinks that self-abuse is something to be encouraged, so they dropped the original motive for medical circumcision and they pitch the idea that it's more hygienic.  As Annamack said, just wash.  Problem solved.  Easily, and without mutilation.

Honestly, what planet do you live on. No one, with supremely rare exceptions, who has been circumcised, experiences any of these things. Whether you are circumcised or not you can masturbate without problem, you can have children without problem, and you can use the bathroom without problem. I would like to state for the record that I neither concede that I have done any of these things, nor do I definitely state my own status with regard to circumcision. If it was such a huge problem, there would be outcries, there would be mass problems with people who are circumcised. Where is it? It doesn't exist. And maybe you should save your outrage for something truly immoral, like abortion and gay marriage.

Who's outraged?  And to be clear, I didn't claim one way or the other that circumcision actually made self-abuse more difficult to perform, I said that the man responsible for introducing it as a medical good sold it on those grounds. 

I think that the normalcy of circumcision is unfortunate, and I think that in the same way that people should be aware of the benefits of eating real food and not being petrified of natural fats or sugar, people should be more aware of the truth regarding circumcision. 

Now, you seem to be saying that there's no difference at all.  I would disagree, on biological grounds (which are the grounds that this discussion should be had, really; if circumcision really did provide some proper medical benefit that couldn't reasonably be had otherwise, then there wouldn't be any discussion to be had).  I'll try to tread delicately here.  Biologically speaking, there is not a more sensitive part of the body than that which the foreskin covers.  The foreskin protects, and it also acts as a sheath of sorts, and functions in a lubricative way for the generative act.  The foreskin is ordered specifically toward the protection of the male faculty and the facilitation of the generative act.  Not dissimilar to eyelids, in some regards.  Without that protection, there is a de-sensitization which follows from the unavoidable scarring which will occur over the years due to the lacking protection.  Of course it doesn't make sexual activity (of whatever kind) impossible, and we are accustomed to whatever we are accustomed to so an uncircumcised male would naturally think that everything works just the way it's supposed to, the same way that someone who has lived with a food allergy for years but not known it thinks that you "just feel [such and such a way]" after you eat.  In the objective order of things though, the gradual desensitization over time is a proper injury to the male faculty and it does, particularly due to that desensitization, make the generative act relatively more difficult.  These are problems which are solved simply by leaving the foreskin and letting it do what it is designed to do.  The only medical argument at all in favor of circumcision is cleanliness, but cleanliness is not an equitable trade for a permanently injured male faculty.  And as mentioned before-- just wash, and the problem is solved.
I wear it for a memorable honor,
For I am Welsh, you know, good countryman.
 
The following users thanked this post: SedeForChrist

SedeForChrist

Re: The Morality of Circumcision
« Reply #19 on: January 01, 2018, 12:23:06 PM »
Thank you moderator. I think my problem is not the practicality of it so much. We can debate that all day and I think we can agree to disagree on that.

Two points I need to make though, and I think you will agree. First, circumcision is not intrinsically evil. The Church maintains a neutral stance on the matter. Even castration/other dubious medical procedures for certain purposes are morally debated, see https://www.amazon.com/Medical-Ethics-C-J-McFadden/dp/B0000CLD7A/ref=sr_1_sc_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1514826206&sr=8-1-spell&keywords=mcfadden+mdeical+ethics
Second, practicality does not affect morality of necessity. Third, we cannot impute sin to parents who, even doing the research (assuming the practicality to be amiss for the sake of argument), decide to circumcise their children. The Church does not do so, so neither can we. So neither with NFP properly understood. Finally, it is very dangerous and potentially scandalous to the uneducated to impute sin where none exists, especially in matters of medical ethics (or any complex moral subject) the matter of which is either under dispute or a neutral stance being taken, the Church leaves the decision to the parents. And, that the state banning circumcision (as some have seemed to favor in other conversations) is very dangerous, as it sets the precedent for the state to become intrusive into the private lives of it's citizens it is supposed to protect, not control. Obviously in principle, that which is intrinsically evil, at least as far as action is concerned (murder, rape, stealing, abortion, gay marriage etc.) should be illegal or punished if done, but in practice such things are not all illegal, in fact many encouraged. Therefore, if the state is unwilling to prohibit acts contrary to the natural law, which it should, then neither should it's citizens demand a ban on those things which are not only NOT intrinsically evil, but by common sense should be left to the individual or parents (as the case may be). I think I will end here, unless documentation of the intrinsic evil of circumcision can be provided.