Posted on 05/19/2005 5:39:11 PM PDT by gobucks
That question was posed on Seinfeld. The character Elaine says, 'it had no face, no personality.'
Looks like a Corvet (sp?) to me. Sort of like those manufactured in the 70s or later.
I'm not sure how to respond other than by questioning your honesty.
Please provide chapter and verse.
I do not believe your request is honest, but I'll nevertheless provide it for the benefit of lurkers who might be genuinely ignorant.
5:2-6.
Before you screw up your son's penis forever, perhaps you should look into this a little more.
An uncircumcised penis is not supposed to be retractable until sometime between age 5 and age 15. There is absolutely nothing wrong with your son. I'm natural, and mine didn't partially retract until I was 8, and didn't fully retract until puberty. This is a perfectly natural condition and there is nothing wrong with it. DON'T TRY TO FORCE IT BACK! You'll only damage the penis. Just leave it alone. The foreskin is there to protect the glans from contamination during youth, when it has no sexual function.
We are consulting with a pediatric urologist about having it done
Get a second opinion! There is nothing wrong with your son! Your doctor is a quack who doesn't know what he is talking about!
Get it done while he's a little one, can't mess with it, and is far too young to remember the pain of it.
Your son will regret it forever if you circumcise him.
I don't know about the medical or aesthetic considerations. Apparently, a lot of people and professionals believe that circumcision is healthier and most women say they prefer it (although I'd bet most sexually active women have never had sex with an uncircumcised male so they wouldn't really know the difference, just what they're told).
But I can tell you from a standpoint of faith, circumcision is not a requirement and it doesn't mean anything with regard to one's Christianity. I don't know how Paul could have made this more clear. Christians are circumcised in the HEART. It is not that circumcision is done away with, but from the Christian standpoint, it is the REAL circumcision of the HEART that counts. Apparently, this was a major problem in the early congregation, as Jewish converts frequently tried to make Gentile converts get circumcised. They had a hard time grasping that circumcision was always a symbolic representation. Requiring physicial circumcision is requiring that the Law be followed, and not the law of love. If you require physical circumcision then you have to require everything else.
In fact, Paul said that uncircumcised persons who didn't know about the law but were still righteous (i.e. Abel, Noah, Enoch, etc.), then they would be counted as circumcised. Therefore, the same with Christians. Circumcision is a great example of how Jesus came, not to do away with the Law, but to FULFILL it. For Christians, circumcision is deeper than a physical act, and requiring the physical act would be an attempt to obey a Law we cannot fully obey.
Romans 2:25-28: "Circumcision is, in fact, of benefit only if you practice law; but if you are a transgressor of law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. If, therefore, an uncircumcised person keeps the righteous requirements of the Law, his uncircumcision will be counted as circumcision will it not? And the uncircumcised person that is such by nature will, by carrying out the Law, judge you who with its written code and circumcision are a transgressor of law. FOR HE IS NOT A JEW WHO IS ONE ON THE OUTSIDE, NOR IS CIRCUMCISION THAT WHICH IS ON THE OUTSIDE UPON THE FLESH. BUT HE IS A JEW WHO IS ONE ON THE INSIDE, AND HIS CIRCUMCISION IS THAT OF THE HEART BY SPIRIT, AND NOT BY A WRITTEN CODE. The praise of that one comes, not from men, but from God."
Well, we did as we were instructed, and the fusion problem first occurred when my son was 18 months old. It was discovered when a different pediatrician retracted him completely and he howled in pain. The foreskin swelled and was red for two days (my poor baby). Still, the fusion problem had already started.
The foreskin is not meant to retract in young children. It is a sexual organ meant to function when a boy is ready for sex, at puberty, and not before then. Retracting it in infants and toddlers scars the glans and foreskin and makes them both bleed and possibly fuse to each other in attempting to heal. You don't need to clean under the foreskin of an infant or toddler or young child. Just leave it alone!
Why would you think to say something so silly?
I understand that but the evidence isn't convincing enough to me to subject my son to that.
Regardless of whether I am pro or con, that statement is a gross exaggeration.
To be "equivalent" to a cliterectomy, the male circumcision would require excision of the entire glans penis (head of the penis).
The circumcision procedure originally practiced involved snipping off only the very tip of the foreskin.
The Pharisees changed this into the full circumcision of the foreskin around the time of Christ, done by cutting it off with a specially sharpened fingernail.
It had nothing to do with cleanliness, and there is absolutely zero evidence that circumcision does anything for a male except make him more susceptible to venereal diseases and deviant sexual practices like anal sex. The six countries with the highest rates of AIDS are Zimbabwe, Congo, Malawi, Kenya, Chad, and the US - all circumcising nations, and with AIDS rates of 16 to 97 per 100,000.
OTOH, non-circumcising nations like Japan, the nordic Countries, and Germany, have AIDS rates of 0.2 to 2.2 per 100,000.
Hardly a coincidence.
"Common speculation tends to link American circumcision practice to AIDS ... [examination of American males] discloses a very significant incidence of persistent suture holes, micro-sinuses, skin tabs and bridges, irregular scaring [near the circumcision scar, and subject to tearing from abrasion]" (Dr. John Swadey, New England Medical Journal, 1987)
The function of the foreskin in the male sexual organs is the same as the vulva and clitoral tip in the female - it protects the main sexual organs from dirt and contamination and retains fluids and natural lubrication around them (the glans or the vagina) and it serves a locus of sexual pleasure nerves (the foreskin and the vulva and clitoris).
Its only silly to the ignorant circumcised, who have no idea what they are missing.
To be "equivalent" to a cliterectomy, the male circumcision would require excision of the entire glans penis (head of the penis).
Not at all. The glans is the functional equivalent of the female urethra and vaginal opening. The clitoris is functionally equivalent to the male frenulum (which is also cut off in modern circumcision and is a locus of nerves intensely stimulated in sexual activity).
Are you a doctor?
Please see Galatians 5:1 to understand the tone of the reference you provided, or indeed the rest of the book.
How about if I ask Moses to ask you to circumcise your heart?
What will you make of that?
Thats very unusual since every woman I've known since I was a teenager prefers a cut man. They look, feel and smell better. I have never known any woman to prefer the uncut version.
I had both my sons cut and would recomend it for all boys.
Sadly, this can also happen to little girls. The skin of their opening fuses together. My girlfriend had this happen to her daughter and they had to surgically separate the skin. This was not a circumcision, but a medical procedure to open her up, particularly to ensure the passing of urine.
This doctor IS our second opinion.
As to regretting it, I have two neighbors who had to undergo circumcisions later in life (on at age 12 and one at age 48) due to infections. They both regretted NOT having it done as babies. Despite their situations, we initially decided not to have it done on our son, to leave him as God made him; however, this has not worked out for him.
I am a knowledgeable and experienced uncircumcised male with an uncircumcised son.
The only women who could have valid opinions on such a matter of preference are those who have actually experienced both.
Why do you think that?
Interesting.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.