I stumbled across this recently while going down a different rabbit hole and it stunned me. I missed this previously. It leaves me wondering why I am circumcised. I am a bit bitter still and always about having the tip of my penis chopped off in the name of tradition, Now I see this and wonder what justification my parents could have had in reality? Was it all just peer pressure? They were southern baptists, supposedly believing in NT over OT in any conflict. This is deep in the NT:
Galatians 5:2-6
2 Listen! I, Paul, am telling you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no benefit to you. 3 Once again I testify to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obliged to obey the entire law. 4 You who want to be justified by the law have cut yourselves off from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. 5 For through the Spirit, by faith, we eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything; the only thing that counts is faith working through love.
I am an Atheist, Ex-Christian, Ex-Southern Baptist Apostate in my 40s. I talked to my mother about it, when I had a son. She said she just didn't want me to stand out and circumcising was just what everyone else was doing. It drove home the point that my mother has never really thought for herself on any of that and much of it had impact on me. I'm thankful that my kids won't have to go through all of that.
I'm venting because it dug up an old wound for me. As always, I'd love to hear some feedback.
That's just wrong. You realize people outside the US are mainly uncircumcised, right?
And phimosis isn't that common though. In many cases, it can be resolved without circumcision. We don't need to circumcise every male at birth because they have a small chance of phimosis needing circumcision later on.
Arguing that it should be removed at infancy because of phimosis is like arguing we should remove toenails because they can become ingrown.
Yes and you realize in many of those countries thousands of boys and men are in pain exactly because they're not circumcised, right?
Appendicitis isn't common either but we remove that without issue.
You dismiss all off the medical arguments out of hand because "there's not that many". How insulting to people suffering.
But you don't remove the appendix preemptively, but if it's medically necessary - same way circumcision should work.
You always remove the appendix before it becomes an issue. If u don't you die. Same with a preemptive mastectomy.
The "loss" from a circumcision in most cases is minimal especially when compared to the risk of infection.
No, when you remove it it is already an issue, it's just not deadly yet.
Also, yes, phimosis can almost always be corrected without circumcision, and it's not as urgent as appendicitis.
There is no need to mutilate the penis and remove a non-useless part that actually protects and lubricates the head, allows for better sensitivity, temperature control, etc. etc. only to not have to do it in some rare medical case that is not even urgent.
I have no idea what you're on about; you're probably misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm clearly not saying there aren't medically-necessary reasons to get circumcised---it's obviously is needed in some cases. I'm saying it's unnecessary to give them to all males at birth. People shouldn't undergo surgery before it's deemed necessary.
And the appendix isn't removed at birth or before an infection, it's removed when it's necessary.