I don't because God commanded this for all His chosen people forever and also baby Jesus was circumsized too. The reason I ask is because there was talk about female circumsion today and this guy told me that all circumcision is mutiliation. Well this is what the Greeks and Romans thought too, but they didn't have the Bible like we do. Female circumcision (removing the clitoris) is abuse and should be illegal but male circumsion should not be illegal because it is much different. Am I right here?
2006-10-27 11:04:54 · 23 answers · asked by Anonymous in Family & Relationships ➔ Family
Plus if men aren't circumsized they could end up in Hell after Judgment Day...I'm serious here.
2006-10-27 11:06:57 · update #1
Plus if men aren't circumsized they could end up in Hell after Judgment Day...I'm serious here.
2006-10-27 11:06:59 · update #2
Thats fine to do..its more hygenic and its for religious reasons...
2006-10-27 11:07:42 · answer #1 · answered by fajita 7 · 2⤊ 6⤋
Yes, it is child abuse. It should be illegal unless two doctors say it is medically indicated.
Jesus said specifically that it was no longer necessary! Fortunately more and more parents are agreeing that it should not be done. So if you don't think Jesus was lying, then it should be obvious that it is not to be done.
People are opposed to this barbaric practice because it removes a healthy and functional body part for no good reason. The hygiene and disease arguments for it are just untrue and have repeatedly been shown to be totally unfounded. If you wash an intact penis, it's clean. If you don't wash a cut penis, it's dirty!
Circumcision cuts down on sexual enjoyment for both the man and his partner. There can be serious complications, including having to amputate the whole penis! And for what? So some shallow twit can think it looks cuter? This is something that should never be done to a healthy boy - they are born perfect and should be allowed to remain that way. I hear porn stars are usually cut and shaved and otherwise made into caricatures of a real man, but that's a pretty sick role model to follow!
2006-10-29 08:01:55 · answer #2 · answered by Maple 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Not only is it NOT child abuse to have your infant son circumcised, it could be considered abuse NOT to do it when its lifelong benefits are so well proven.
Any time soon after birth is fine, but the Jewish practice of doing it on the 8th day actually has strong medical science behind it. This is the point at which the baby is strongly producing his own Vitamin K, which helsp with blood clotting and thus prevents excessive bleeding.
2015-12-23 21:30:07 · answer #3 · answered by Roddy 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No where in the Bible does it say that men will get sent to hell on judgment day because they aren't circumsized. Where on earth do people come up with such ridiculous ideas?
2006-10-27 11:11:51 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
Yes, it is child abuse! To inflict unnecessary elective surgery on a helpless baby boy is definitely child abuse.
To inflict body modifications on a baby boy because of his parents religion is also child abuse. You do not know that the boy will want to follow the religion of his parents. So why should he bare the mark of that religion until he is old enough to make that choice by himself. It is a meaningless contract (or sacrifice) made by someone else.
Baby Jesus was circumcised on his eighth day because he was born to Jewish parents, HE DID NOT MAKE THAT CHOICE it was done to him!
The New Testament doesn't require circumcision that was in the Old Testament and was part of Jewish law. Not a requirement for Christians.
Until genital mutilation is eliminated in this country who are we to tell the rest of the world how to run things.
2006-10-31 08:43:49 · answer #5 · answered by cut50yearsago 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
It would have been much simpler to have done the procedure right away but regardless, it is a simple and done with anesthetic, relatively painless one.
Female circucision involves removal of the clitoris guaranteeing little or no pleasurable sex stimulation for the female and is considered genital mutilation.Male circumcision removes extra skin only. Besides being a religious practice, it has a healthy benefit, it lessens the risk of developing some infections later in life due to the lack of a place for bacteria to breed..
Nobody ever went to hell for not being circumsized, those who are saved are forgiven for ALL their sins.
2006-10-27 11:16:06 · answer #6 · answered by ©2009 7 · 3⤊ 4⤋
Removing a clitoris is entirely different than circumcision. The clitoris is comprable to the penis in the pleaure it gives either sex. Male circumcision just involves the removal of the foresikn, for sanitariy reasons. Who cares if the Greeks and Romans did not have the bible. No one is going to hell because their foreskin is removed!
2006-10-27 21:44:25 · answer #7 · answered by amberk57 2 · 4⤊ 3⤋
I have two sons and totally believe that I did the best for them by getting them circumcised right after they were born because of hygienics issues. As far as circumcising girls, I think it is wrong on every account. There have been girls that have died after this practice.
I do not see in the Bible that uncircumcised men go to Hell. I looked this subject up specifically and don't see it. Maybe I missed it, but I don't feel it is there after looking, maybe it is in a specific religion's bible.
2006-10-27 11:42:26 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
do no longer make this decision for him. enable him decide. If he needs it performed, he can do it while he's older. make certain you recognize a thank you to bathe him. the two my brothers are "uncut" and that i bear in mind having to tug returned the foreskin to bathe them for diaper adjustments and by using baths. somebody stated which you're actually not meant to try this and that i do no longer think of that's the ideal option. I bear in mind them getting rashes under there...??? possibly double verify together with his well-being practitioner. offering you do no longer circumcise him, of course.
2016-12-28 06:43:43 · answer #9 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
had my son circumsized at the age of six for medical reasons,and it haunted me for a long time after many years in fact,the pain he had to endure was awful,but he says today that he was glad it was done even though he remembers the pain to this day,done for medical reasons then it has to be done but i dont know if i would have ever volunteered him for this operation,hope this helps
2006-10-27 11:28:51 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Look it's not abuse. I think that nowadays you have to get your baby penis circumized. because i work at a hospital and i'm a CNA so i have to clean up old men (not a fun job)but anyway they get infection all the time and are hold to keep clean. you should have your son circumsized. it's healthier. and whoever told you that it is mutiliation is freak and needs to read a medicial book.
2006-10-27 11:11:24 · answer #11 · answered by *~*Ash*~* 2 · 3⤊ 4⤋