It was never needed. Any supposed benefits are explicitly a lie and always have been, with the only exception being phimosis, an issue that doesn't present/become an issue until after puberty and therefore doesn't justify routine infant circumcision.
This isn't true. My kid sons are cut, my nephews were born in a hospital that considered it a cosmetic surgery. As babies, and toddlers my nephews had UTI's constantly while my sons had none. The original religious purpose sometimes has a common sense reason.
You may not like my experience, but my nephews probably liked being in the pain of all those UTI's even less. Every time I watched them I had to go crazy with bath times to help them.
My comment stated experienced fact, no opinion. It was heart breaking to see the discomfort, and be pretty much helpless. If me sharing my lived experience of watching my sons vs my nephews triggers you, that's a you problem.
Oh wow, anecdotal experience. Whew lads, I guess I was wrong despite all the evidence to the contrary, better keep up with the barbaric mutilation.
Tell me, why do we not cut off clitoral hoods? It's entirely analogous to a foreskin, yet we only mutilate one half of the population. Better yet, you're arguing in the name of hygiene, the only (minor) "benefit" of routine infant mutilation. So I ask you, will you be also advocating for the removal of newborn's ears since there are so many out there that do such a poor job of hygiene when it comes to their ears? Maybe we should also lop off young women's breasts once they develop as a preventative to breast cancer?
Or is it that we should only resort to such measures as a response, and not as a preventative since it's so utterly insane that you would actually defend mutilating children?
That's not even a comment in good faith. Take your loser self somewhere else. My sons are old enough to bring me edibles. Go make your own personal experiences which happens to be the beginning of of studies get enough data.
The projecting fallacies here are so very lame.I don't care you don't like someone else experience. Collecting experience is how enough data is achieved. You are not keeping a bubble.
Many people would like to ignore that curcumcisn wasn't really talked about for some people. I personally did find it disgusting the extra care that uncut boys needed when they were little.
And were those UTI's going to cause irreparable damage? Probably not.
In all likelihood they'd more or less grow out of those as they got older. As their immune system matured, and as they figured out how to properly maintain the proper hygiene.
Circumcision in the Old Testament has baptism as an analog in the New Testament. Both are declarations of allegiance designed to set God's people apart from the other nations. Both play zero role in being elect (many, if not most, circumcised hewbrews apostatized. The surgery did not save them.)
However, the New Testament gives circumcision a shrug, but repeatedly instructs believers to be baptized. There is less than zero reason to get circumcised as a Christian.
The military used to require it and some troops still elect to get one after starting active duty. It's "no longer needed" provided you don't plan on living outside of polite society for extended periods.
There is no health benefit to routine infant circumcision, and the only health problem that circumcision helps with is phimosis, something that has nothing to do with "polite society" as you allude to societal medical quality, since phimosis isn't a disease/infection.
Either you're incredibly ignorant, or you're coping with the reality that you've been going along with a very evil lie that you could have easily seen was false if only you cared to see.
Speaking as someone who was circumcised as a baby:
I get it. I don't necessarily agree with you, but I get it.
I'd be fine if the practice was eventually outlawed.
It's a symbolic practice that is no longer needed due to Jesus dying for us. I never understood it anyway.
It was never needed. Any supposed benefits are explicitly a lie and always have been, with the only exception being phimosis, an issue that doesn't present/become an issue until after puberty and therefore doesn't justify routine infant circumcision.
This isn't true. My kid sons are cut, my nephews were born in a hospital that considered it a cosmetic surgery. As babies, and toddlers my nephews had UTI's constantly while my sons had none. The original religious purpose sometimes has a common sense reason.
You may not like my experience, but my nephews probably liked being in the pain of all those UTI's even less. Every time I watched them I had to go crazy with bath times to help them.
Surprise, surprise. The feminist comes out as pro-genital-mutilation, but only for boys.
My comment stated experienced fact, no opinion. It was heart breaking to see the discomfort, and be pretty much helpless. If me sharing my lived experience of watching my sons vs my nephews triggers you, that's a you problem.
Oh wow, anecdotal experience. Whew lads, I guess I was wrong despite all the evidence to the contrary, better keep up with the barbaric mutilation.
Tell me, why do we not cut off clitoral hoods? It's entirely analogous to a foreskin, yet we only mutilate one half of the population. Better yet, you're arguing in the name of hygiene, the only (minor) "benefit" of routine infant mutilation. So I ask you, will you be also advocating for the removal of newborn's ears since there are so many out there that do such a poor job of hygiene when it comes to their ears? Maybe we should also lop off young women's breasts once they develop as a preventative to breast cancer?
Or is it that we should only resort to such measures as a response, and not as a preventative since it's so utterly insane that you would actually defend mutilating children?
That's not even a comment in good faith. Take your loser self somewhere else. My sons are old enough to bring me edibles. Go make your own personal experiences which happens to be the beginning of of studies get enough data.
Your nephews had poor hygiene and were seldom bathed properly, therefore children should be surgically mutilated?
The projecting fallacies here are so very lame.I don't care you don't like someone else experience. Collecting experience is how enough data is achieved. You are not keeping a bubble.
Fucking disgusting.
Many people would like to ignore that curcumcisn wasn't really talked about for some people. I personally did find it disgusting the extra care that uncut boys needed when they were little.
And were those UTI's going to cause irreparable damage? Probably not.
In all likelihood they'd more or less grow out of those as they got older. As their immune system matured, and as they figured out how to properly maintain the proper hygiene.
Its not symbolic.
Circumcision in the Old Testament has baptism as an analog in the New Testament. Both are declarations of allegiance designed to set God's people apart from the other nations. Both play zero role in being elect (many, if not most, circumcised hewbrews apostatized. The surgery did not save them.)
However, the New Testament gives circumcision a shrug, but repeatedly instructs believers to be baptized. There is less than zero reason to get circumcised as a Christian.
The military used to require it and some troops still elect to get one after starting active duty. It's "no longer needed" provided you don't plan on living outside of polite society for extended periods.
There is no health benefit to routine infant circumcision, and the only health problem that circumcision helps with is phimosis, something that has nothing to do with "polite society" as you allude to societal medical quality, since phimosis isn't a disease/infection.
Either you're incredibly ignorant, or you're coping with the reality that you've been going along with a very evil lie that you could have easily seen was false if only you cared to see.
He's like those coping that the lockdowns were okay and useful but ''no longer necessary''.
No. It was harmful all along.
Citation Needed
Funny how the military of other countries never needed this and their men weren't dying of dick infections.
I never heard a word about it either way over 20 years.