1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Should circumcising be illegal even for religious reasons

Discussion in 'Health and Wellness' started by Salty, May 26, 2011.

  1. Gina B

    Gina B Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    16,944
    Likes Received:
    1
    Yep, as a medical need because their caretakers failed in doing their job and both that I saw had reached a point where urine had difficulty getting through because of closure due to their caregiver's negligence.
    It would be more logical to automatically remove everyone's appendix at birth. SO many more people turn out with a medical need to have their appendix removed and come close to death, many more than turn up with a medical need for circumcision.
     
  2. Benjamin

    Benjamin Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    8,423
    Likes Received:
    1,160
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Ohh, really?!? Ever heard of the "All or Nothing Fallacy"? :laugh:
     
  3. Gina B

    Gina B Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    16,944
    Likes Received:
    1
    No, but feel free to explain! I'm listening.
     
  4. dcorbett

    dcorbett Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2003
    Messages:
    3,414
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Since there is a touch of openness going on here....I would say this:

    The father of my children made the decision for my son - his own
    personal knowledge of the topic was involved.

    My son is circumcised. I have never once heard him complain.
     
  5. Melanie

    Melanie Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2002
    Messages:
    2,784
    Likes Received:
    7
    I am dead against female circumcision as it is really a mutilation and a power control thing.This is done in the name of religion.

    For boys, my generation (my brothers) were circumcised for "health reasons" which were probably spurious in hindsight. They are not Jewish. If I had sons I probably not circumcise them unless there was a definite health issue..and my husband was not fussed about it.
     
  6. Salty

    Salty 20,000 Posts Club
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    38,982
    Likes Received:
    2,615
    Faith:
    Baptist
    But the question is "Should the government prohibit it?
     
  7. Benjamin

    Benjamin Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    8,423
    Likes Received:
    1,160
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Hopefully you already know that was a rhetorical response which denies logic in and of its self. But…since you’re listening:

    Me: Y = Circumcision is a practical procedure which removes an unnecessary fold of skin that commonly collects bacteria, germs, fungi, sweat and dirt; therefore it provides a more hygienic environment… besides that I’ll add the procedure is often needed on older boys and men to treat phimosis or to treat infection (Why do they use this treatment? …better Hygiene eliminates the cause!), it also reduces UTI’s in both sexes – Urologist report a 10:1 higher rate of UTI’s in un-circumcised younger boys. (Look up the studies on this through a vested source such as Google Scholar). Circumcision generally decreases urological problems especially in later life and almost completely eliminates a very rare but invasive penile cancer and reduces risk of cervical cancer in female partners (Why the reduction? …better Hygiene!).

    Your premise: SO many more people turn out with a medical need to have their appendix removed and come close to death, many more than turn up with a medical need for circumcision.

    Your conclusion: (Even while confirming personal knowledge of common urological problems associated with un-circumcision) State: X = It would be more logical to automatically remove everyone's appendix at birth.

    First off, I seriously doubt there are more medical needs for penectomies than circumcisions. Secondly, the common reason for a penectomy is penile cancer which although rare is almost completely eliminated amongst those with early circumcision.

    Some paraphrasing on building an “All or Nothing Fallacy”: A person who wants us to accept X may not only ignore other alternatives besides the reasoning for Y but also “exaggerates or distorts” Y. Typically makes use of dysphemisms toward Y and euphemisms towards X. In other words, this rhetorical ploy is designed to only leave one “reasonable” alternative because the only other one provided is really a strawman. You can also think of it as a false dilemma or a false dichotomy. In actuality it does not logically support your argument against Y, it does not even address my reasoning, what it does is alter the argument to a rhetorical: “All” appendixes should be removed on a (questionable) claim that more people need this medical procedure in an attempt to prove “Nothing” should be done in either case through making a strawman comparison.

    This common rhetorical ploy is closely related to the “Perfectionist Fallacy”; it comes up when a plan or policy is under consideration and goes like this:

    If policy X will not meet our goals as well as we’d like them met, (i.e., “perfectly”) then policy X should be rejected…It then includes the All or Nothing Fallacy in a rhetorical attempt to compromise the reasoning for Y through a strawman comparison.

    IOW’s, there ain’t a bit of logic (“The branch of philosophy concerned with whether the reasoning presented for a claim, if those reasons were true, would justify accepting the claim.”) in your argument. You did not even address my reasoning for my claim; you simply offered a rhetorical dichotomy which does nothing to draw out the truth and call it “logical”.

    Anyway, circumcision is an old and often heated debate. Back to the OP: If some want to live with nasty “smegma” fine, but I would challenge anyone trying to infringe on my right to provide better hygiene than that for me and mine.
     
  8. Gina B

    Gina B Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    16,944
    Likes Received:
    1
    LOL! Ben, there's been a misunderstanding. When I said "remove the appendix," you apparently took that as a reference to something completely different. The appendix...as in the appendix related to the intestines...removing it via an appendectomy.

    I do appreciate you taking the time to explain.

    As for it not being needed...there is a reason for that male covering. God created humans and I simply cannot accept that any part of the human body does not serve some type of purpose. Altering it certainly was Biblical at one point for those of the Jewish faith. That is no longer in effect, the reason was never given as a medical one but as a physical method of religious identification and as all other rituals, was later fulfilled replaced with the spiritual as in the (now) past once was shown through the physical as an example of what was to come. And that did happen, and the scriptures now refer to circumcision as being a matter of the heart.

    So what I'd really like to see is an explanation of why you believe circumcision when a body is healthy is now somehow an improvement on how God fashioned the human body. I can't help but find that view to be irreverent and disrespectful towards our Creator. I may simply be missing out on something here and I'm perfectly willing to have it taught to me.
     
  9. Melanie

    Melanie Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2002
    Messages:
    2,784
    Likes Received:
    7

    It seems a bit silly to me, I mean if the folks were dead keen to do so and say went to another country in order to do so legally would the American government prosecute the child and/or family, would it need to be undone, and how would they deal with the issue without making an enormous publicity thing and humiliate all concerned.
     
  10. Benjamin

    Benjamin Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    8,423
    Likes Received:
    1,160
    Faith:
    Baptist
    My bad, I presumed you were just getting a bit aggressive in your argument. :)

    I can't say I totally disagree with changing things about the way God created us. I've always felt this way about getting my tonsils out at 17, I wish hadn't let my mother arrange this because I believe they have a purpose. But a little skin is a small physiological change in comparison and God Himself even had men do this. My argument centers on the benefits of better hygiene.
     
  11. jaigner

    jaigner Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2009
    Messages:
    2,274
    Likes Received:
    0
    This whole conversation is becoming painful.
     
  12. th1bill

    th1bill Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2009
    Messages:
    1,029
    Likes Received:
    30
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Before my son was old enough to have all of his nervous system developed, seven days after his birth, I had him circumcised to avoid some of the diseases I had witnessed among my men as a result of the Fore-skin not being removed after birth My mother told me she had it done to me that I would not suffer as an adult because of her witnessing the suffering of most of her seven brothers because they were born on the bed at the Farm and never saw a doctor for anything more than an injury.

    Should the government pass a law requiring the Fore-Skin be left in place until adulthood? And as a result of one or even 5% of the population being offended by a clean, disease free appendage? Go back and read the Constitution! This country was founded on Individual Rights by Deists and Christians. That, of course brings the scriptures into play.

    Remembering that the writers of God's Word ad no symbols in their sentence structure to use for emphases, we look or God to repeat a point for that purpose and the more it appears, the more important it is. So how many times is the subject breached in the Word? i believe, from the past 21+ years of study that God means for men to be Circumcised and that the Government will do well to close it mouth, put it pencils and pens down and just go home fo a while when-ever this subject is pushed into the eye of the public!
     
  13. Gina B

    Gina B Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    16,944
    Likes Received:
    1
    That would have gone beyond aggressive to needing help. :laugh:
     
  14. abcgrad94

    abcgrad94 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2007
    Messages:
    5,533
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Gina, I think it might have something to do with protection, as God created Adam and Eve naked. Disease and infections weren't on earth before the fall. Now that we all wear clothing, perhaps that protection/covering is no longer needed. Just my guess.

    For the record, I don't think the government needs to stick its nose in our kids' diapers.
     
  15. Gina B

    Gina B Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    16,944
    Likes Received:
    1
    Good point! Stick their nose in our kids diapers? LOL Just the wording of that is probably the strongest argument yet, that made me giggle! I can just picture a long-nosed politician making house calls and checking all the infant males then pointing his finger at the parents going "no no no" and handing them a written fine.
     
Loading...