Thank you sooo much for making this video! My son is now 6 and I was attacked by my non denominational in laws for not considering circumcising for my son. I was told over and over by them that it is in the Bible and I told them that was the old covenant the covenant is baptism! They still argued but I did my research and men in my family never had one and they were just fine! I also followed a group on Facebook I believe it’s called saving our sons. Very informative.
Way to stay strong!! I hope if it comes up in conversation again it gives you some points to make :) I was also informed about a documentary about circumcision that is on Netflix if you’d be interested! It’s called “American Circumcision.” I haven’t gotten to watch it yet, but the trailer draws me in a lot!! I plan to watch it this week.
Not too long ago the subject of female genital mutilation in another country came up. I said to them where was the outrage here in the United States?because it already happens to boys being circumcised and they said again about it being in the Bible and when I schooled them we had a silent table lol.
I haven’t had a son so I can’t speak from personal experience per se, but a close family member was circumcised. He was an anomaly where instead of losing weight, he gained, and the little ring around the foreskin was too tight and deformed the tip of his penis. I had decided long ago that if I had a son, he would be left intact. If he wanted to have it removed as an adult, that was his prerogative, but that would not be a choice I’d make for my child.
I had my tonsils out at around 3 and I have a vague memory of a nurse bringing ice cream as a treat. My foreskin being cut off was before my conscious memory and hasn't brought any benefits, let alone ice cream.
Precisely. If women removed the breasts there would be no risk of breast cancer. But I never hear that being suggested. Stop messing around with healthy tissue.
🙌🏼 Exactly!! I know some women who do that if they have a high risk of developing breast cancer, but still! It’s not nearly as routine as a circumcision, and when it IS done, the benefits FAR outweigh the risks. Leave healthy tissue alone is right!!
@@alimariehere But if it is women, and not infant girls, whom decides to have their breasts removed for fear of cancer. It is at least an adult, making what is hopefully, an informed decision about their own body. When parents decide to circumcise their infant son, they take away the choice, not only from the boy, but the man that he will eventually become. That said. I agree with everything you said in the video. Bravo.👏👏👏
Sure! But yes, the point would be for a parent to choose for their infant daughter to remove whatever would cause the breasts to eventually grow to prevent cancer down the line.
@@klausrasmussen2307 I was a bit unclear in my OP. Sorry about that! Of course I mean if something of equal magnitude was done to a baby girl on a traditional basis.
Marie thanks for posting this. I am intact and have dealt with a certain amount of anxiety because male doctors haven't always been nice about it, but it is more comfortable to be intact. I honestly laugh at the argument that circumcision improves hygiene because I am actually too dry and washing too much makes me uncomfortable and chapped, like dermatitis. Thanks for debunking that myth along with several others. The one concern I have is that I'll be able to find someone who loves me because I do look different, but it's not worth getting surgery for. It also baffles me that circumcised men don't complain more about pain; it seems like having the penis head out all the time should hurt. And I may he contrary, but I don't think circumcision makes a man more attractive; it actually looks strange to me.
Absolutely! The removal of the foreskin at birth definitely desensitizes the head of the penis which would be why it's not painful for circumcised males... But I appreciate you giving your input on this as you do experience the sensation of an exposed vs. covered head as an adult. It goes to show even further how accurate these types of statements are! Thank you!
@@alimariehere Thanks so much Marie...I'll try to explain this as concisely as possible and to explain the connection. I have always been a little different from other people; in my late teens I was diagnosed with a high-functioning autism that had evaded detection, and also OCD. Periodically I struggle with some depression as well. I am a creative person and have always had a somewhat obsessive nature. In my early teens though I created a comic strip/storyline about a teenage boy whose best friend is a miniature woolly mammoth. Her name is Ellie. Ellie is also a friend of mine in stuffed animal form that I tend to want to have along with me on my adventures. Going to the doctor is a big anxiety for me because of how I have been treated about being uncircumcised, and Ellie helps me feel less afraid and alone, and somehow more "complete." I have even written a piano song about her. I have felt some pressure to try and find a new friend or abandon my storyline creation because of some negative experiences I have had with other people, including sometimes my own family members, but even when I've tried to start something new, I keep dreaming about Ellie...she seems to always be there when I'm exploring the vast reaches of my memories, concerns and stories. I'm feeling a strong desire to "go back to her" in terms of making her my favorite animal again and resuming sleeping with her and having her in my pouch when I go out. Do you think that's okay? My heart and tenderest feelings do seem to be with her. Thank you! If you want to know more about my stories, comics, or just about Ellie I'd be happy to share! 😊
@@alimariehere I apologize if my effort to explain the Ellie situation didn't make sense or was hard to understand; my autism also affects my speech patterns and sentence structure. If you don't understand something just ask me to rephrase
Im uncircumcised and all you have to do is shower n clean it no medical benefits for it unless medically necessary its better sex for both parties and should be up to the person i never had a complaint or anything and its also got me nude model jobs and other things hearing stuff like this especially from a woman is good because we men shouldnt have an opinion for what women do with their bodies but men should be given a choice bless you Ali And also being uncircumcised i can just pull my skin back and it looks circumcised with the foreskin pulled back but id its left retracted too long the tio gets dry and har to push forward also you have to be easy while having intercourse because you can damage your frenulum
Obviously circumcision is not a work of righteousness. Cutting the genitals of a child is an act of extreme unrighteousness. Righteousness is helping your fellow man and not causing harm to any of God's creatures.
Hey, great video for Catholics and other Christians considering this issue. One small correction that I would like to add. You say that "with proper cleaning procedures, pulling back the foreskin and cleaning underneath it..." In young children, the foreskin is usually fused to the glans (head) of the penis, and will usually later be able to be pulled back. In general, before it unfuses naturally, you should *not* force it back to clean under it. This can actually injure it and cause scar tissue and cause infections, and this belief is perhaps one of the main reasons of why there are so many stories in the U.S. of boys and men having to be circumcised at a later date.
America is so strange to request such things to kids at such a young age. Thank you so much for your informative video on this sensitive subject. My blessing and hugz
Absolutely! I feel like there will be more :) After talking about it, I didn’t realize how passionate I was about it! I’ll continue studying and learning and sharing along the way ☺️☺️🐊
I think this is a great video but I wanted to point out some very important points. 1) The foreskin of a child shouldn’t retract and must not be retracted. It is attached by a membrane which will break naturally sometime when a child is about 10 years old to puberty. The only person ever to retract a foreskin should be the owner of the penis. 2) You missed off death as a risk. In the US alone over 100 babies a year die due to circumcision. I did the maths once, and to prevent 10 easily treatable water infections, 1 baby will die. Remember water infections are very rare in boys. Most clear up on their own or there are antibiotics. 3) The very poorly conducted, unethical and abandoned research which insinuated a reduction in HIV has been discredited. You only have to look at the USA, with the highest circumcision rate in the developed world, and the highest HIV infection rate in the developed world, to see the opposite is probably true. 4) Circumcision is a highly traumatic event for babies and research shows an increased sensitivity to pain in circumcised babies compared to their intact peers. This indicates a continuing trauma in the child. 4) An infant is not capable of giving consent. Many men are very angry when they realise they were mutilated as babies. Some are trying to regrow their foreskin. Others are trying to sue the doctors of their parents. Please stop mutilating babies.
YES! PREACH! "I want my son to be unnecessarily deformed and mutilated like me! Yay!" Don't forget to remove your breasts so that you never get breast cancer!
Makes no sense to me... And those who choose to remain ignorant are a whole different story lol Have you seen the documentary “American Circumcision”? It’s on Netflix.
@@alimariehere I warmly recommend you to watch Eric Clopper one man show: Sex & Circumcision . It´s a different jewish point of view on circumcision. ruclips.net/video/eZfBwwWqIGw/видео.html
@@alimariehere Those who choose to remain ignorant? Like those who choose to believe in Catholicism? You actually believe the Bible is the word of God and the Pope is the vicar of Christ? Tell me, what do you think happens to non-Catholics after death? Do Jews and Muslims go to hell? What about Hindus and Buddhists and atheists? I'd like to know what you choose to believe...
@@endofscene All love (willing the good of the other as other) comes from Jesus Christ as the Logos of Creation; actually Jesus is Love itself and love incarnate. When helping someone out of love, for example, Jesus is allowed to act and in fact is already acting in the heart of that person, knowingly or unknowingly. Because no good thing, however small, can exist as separated from Jesus Christ, but all which is moral and good participates in Him. A Muslim of good will, or Buddhist, for that matter, may sincerely and genuinely assume and believe that Catholics are mistaken, given the extent of his knowledge, and his social and cultural roots, through no fault of his own. The fullness of truth is in Christ and in His Church: but everyone, every person of good will may be saved as long as actions are in accord to conscience, which God put in every man regardless of beliefs. At the same time that does entail that many valuable and precious seeds of truth can be found in other religious systems as well, just not in their fullest form. The Fathers of the Church, for example, recognized the greatness of Pagan thinkers, and as in the case of Plotinus borrowed part of his philosophy (neoplatonism) and solutions into Christian theology. It's all explained in the Cathechism. And in the Rosary we are called to recite this prayer: "O my Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of hell, and lead all souls to Heaven, especially those in most need of Your Mercy." We don't always lead exemplary lives, as we are fallible humans, but Catholicism is a beautiful religion, if you take the time to explore it. People will let you down, as in every other walk of life. But the principles we adhere to are reasonable and moral. We understand that God is Love, and also Reason, so we are encouraged to scrutinize and evaluate everything in the light of the intellect and not just accept things mindlessly and by blind faith. Please read the Catechism of the Catholic Church for yourself, it's a beautiful book www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/ Peace and good
@@marcbrmb Obviously there are dozens of forms of Christianity and many Christians would disagree with many of your beliefs. "..we are encouraged to scrutinize and evaluate everything in the light of the intellect and not just accept things mindlessly and by blind faith." On what basis do you believe every Catholic pope to be the vicar of Christ? I would say that this belief is mindless and blind because you automatically accept it without question.
I find it endlessly ridiculous that the very religions that teach that we are made in God's image, and that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, also teach that God commanded infant male circumcision :) So much for intelligent design!
@@alimariehere Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. You who are trying to be justified by the lawhave been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. Galatians 5:2-4 Therefore it strictly orders all who glory in the name of Christian, not to practise circumcision either before or after baptism, since whether or not they place their hope in it, it cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation. Papal Bull of Union with the Copts 1442 www.cirp.org/library/cultural/councilflorence/
I am of the Christian faith (not Catholic) but as you stated circumcision is not necessary to be right with God. Originally the covenant between God and Abraham circumcision was just a tiny nick at the very tip with complete healing and no impact on the function or appearance of the foreskin. The person still retained the whole foreskin and example of that would be the statue of David who is circumcised according to the convent and still appears to be fully intact. Jewish leaders (man not God) didn't like the fact that you really couldn't tell the difference and started the practice of removing the entire foreskin calling it the law of God. Man changed God's law, think about it, man changed God's law and represented it as a requirement. Changing God's law is blasphemy. Jewish people technically are not following the law of God since they entirely changed what God said circumcision was suppose to be. When Christ came and died for our sins the old law was eliminated and circumcision was now spiritual or of your heart cutting away the bad and NOT of the flesh. God made all male mammals with a foreskin and there is a purpose for everything. Human males just like females are born perfect. It was man who started this whole barbaric practice of gentile mutilation. God would never change or mutilate his perfect creation. Any person who believe in circumcision is basically saying their little boy wasn't perfect and God made a mistake so lets cut off a part of his body to make him perfect. Think how sick it really is, cutting a part of newly born person's genitals off without their consent because you believe this will make him perfect. American people look at people from 3rd wold countries as barbaric, uncivilized and beneath them but the reality is they are no better.
I'm not aware of any evidence that the original brit milah "was just a tiny nick at the very tip with complete healing and no impact on the function or appearance of the foreskin." I think most of what you have written in your comment is false. If you can back it up with references then I'm willing to be proven wrong, but I doubt you can.
@@endofscene OK maybe not a minor nick but here you go: By: James E. Peron, Ed.D. Milah: Symbolic Circumcision of Covenant The original Biblical circumcision of Abraham's time was a relatively minor ritual circumcision procedure in which only the redundant end of the foreskin extending beyond the tip of the glans was removed. This was called "Milah". It is from this term that the Jewish Religious Covenant circumcision ritual Bris Milah or Brith Milah got its name. Following "Milah", a penis so circumcised would still contain a considerable portion of the foreskin and the penis would have continued to go through its natural development since most of the foreskin would have remained intact. Protection of the glans would still have occurred. The foreskin would not be stripped back off the glans and would naturally separate from the glans gradually as the child matures, much as it would had the child not been circumcised. The sensitive frenulum would not have been disturbed or moved, and the foreskin remaining would continue to cover and protect a substantial portion of the glans, especially when flaccid, and the glans would appear as uncircumcised. There would be minimal loss of sensitivity or intended protection. This type circumcision continued throughout the ages and during the time of Christ. The circumcision of Christ would have been this type circumcision as referred to in the bible. Indeed, biblical reference to circumcision is strictly this form of circumcision. It continued into the New Testament. It has been argued that Michelangelo's David should show David as Circumcised. Interestingly, Michelangelo presented David precisely as he should have appeared following an infant "Milah" circumcision. His glans is essentially covered with only the tip of the glans showing. Changes to the Ritual Circumcision Procedure: No other feature was added to the religious ritual until about 140 AD when a second step to the ritual circumcision procedure was introduced. Periah: The laying bare of the glans After performing "milah", the cutting back of the end of the infant's foreskin, a second step, periah was then performed. Periah consists of tearing and stripping back the remaining inner mucosal lining of the foreskin from the glans and then, by use of a sharp finger nail or implement, removing all of the inner mucosal tissue, including the excising and removal of the frenulum from the underside of the glans. The objective was to insure that no part of the remaining penile skin would rest against the glans corona. If any shreds of the mucosal foreskin tissue remained, or rejoined to the underside of the glans, the child was to be re-circumcised. This is a much more radical form of circumcision. It was dictated by man, and is not the biblical commanded circumcision rite. [Italics mine] Its introduction has a bizarre history. The rabbinate sought to put an end to the practice of youths desiring to appear uncircumcised by stretching the remaining foreskin for social economic benefits and for sports competitions. By introducing the painful and debilitating "Periah" they would obliterate the foreskin completely such that proper circumcised Jew could not disguise "the seal of the covenant". From this point in Jewish history, the male's glans is directly affected by the circumcision procedure, and the denuded glans and traumatized infant will heal with considerable nerve damage and loss of sensitivity. Again, it is important to note that this is not the Covenant circumcision of Abraham defined in the Bible.
@@gymrat3203 "Relatively minor", i.e. minor in comparison to brit periah. However, I still think "minor" is a terrible description. To my mind, a minor penile injury would be a scratch or a paper cut. Ablating up to one quarter of a boy's penis skin is not a "minor" injury! Are you aware that the acroposthion (the part cut off in the original brit milah) contains the most sensitive parts of the foreskin? The acroposthion would be the part that Mr Peron calls "redundant". I don't know about you, but my acroposthion is definitely not redundant! I don't think any part of a baby's penis is redundant! In my experience, people who try to minimise the original brit milah are Christians trying to make their religion look better. They can't get over the fact that their God commanded this shit! The really f**ked up thing is that infant male circumcision isn't actually the worst thing the JudeoChristian God commanded! It truly is a terrible religion.
This is a very insightful piece. I was circumcised and so was my son. It was something done that most of us didn't even think about, but assumed there was some medical benefit from doing so. It is kind of like my decades long view that the Catholic Church had gone astray without really looking into the evidence one way or the other. One wonders how many things we do out of habit or culture and just assume there is some good reason why.
Thanks, Scott! There really are so many things that get done out of routine or habit that aren’t necessary... Especially when it comes to child birth and infancy, it seems! It’s good that we have more evidence-based research to give people the opportunity to process the information and learn. I don’t think if someone chooses to have their son circumcised for a medical prevention deal that it endangers someone’s salvation... but I think separating it out is imperative so that misconception doesn’t survive. Check out “American Circumcision” on Netflix if you have it! I haven’t seen it yet, but the trailer looks amazing!
@@alimariehere The papal bull of communion with the Coopts & the council of Vienna. As well as Pius XII in the early 1950s. And the Catechism's ban on all Non-therapeutic surgeries. The non-enforcement by the church is really appalling.
Thanks for dispelling some of the myths around circumcision and Catholicism. So many falsely believe that circumcision is necessary for their religion.
I don't know why she compares foreskin to tonsils and the appendix... What is the connection? Why not compare it to any other body part? Or, why not be accurate and compare it to the clitoral hood and inner labia?
I compared it to tonsils & appendix because in the United States, those are considered "routine" procedures just like foreskin removal. Yes, the clitoris is the sister of the foreskin, but in the context I was speaking about tonsils and the appendix, it was in regard to routine procedures.
Why would 3 UTIs in 6 months necessitate a circumcision? What do they do for girls who have 3 UTIs in 6 months? (Which is more common anyway.) Chop off their labia?
Your teaching in this video about infant circumcision deserves great credit. You did your homework with the facts. Infant circumcision is barbaric and everyone considering it for their babies should watch the video. Circumcision on a male will sexually cripple that man for life. If you don't believe it.........DO THE RESEARCH!!!
“Do not think I have come to abolish the Law (Torah) or the Prophets; *I have not come to abolish them* but to fulfil them! For truly I say to you, *until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a stroke, will pass from the Law (Torah)* [until all is accomplished]. Therefore *whoever relaxes one of the least of the commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of the heavens,* and whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of the heavens. But I tell you this: unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you won't even enter the kingdom of the heavens." Matthew 5:17-20
Born in 1982 and wasn't cut. But I can thank being born outside the United States as the most likely reason for not being cut. Also, I believe your information on 1 in 3 men being cut could be wrong. I heard 70-80% of men worldwide are NOT cut, which means 20-30% are cut, i.e. 2-3 out of 10 or 1 out of 5. :)
In 2007, it was 33% according to the WHO... 2/3 of those being Muslim. NCBI in 2016 estimated 37-39% of men worldwide are circumcised. So that’s actually a little higher than 1/3... I’m not sure where you got your stat!
@@stwebThe proportion of circumcised men is greater than the proportion of circumcised males. This is because most circumcisions are not performed on infants but on older children. I think it is quite possible that the worldwide percentage of circumcised *men* could be upwards of 33% (most of them are Muslim); whereas the worldwide percentage of circumcised *males* (i.e. all ages) is probably closer to 25%. Btw If you don't mind me asking, where were you born?
Circumcision is definitely NOT a necessity unless you are a practicing Jew. I've been told by pediatricians there's no evidence it is medically necessary or helpful. Having said that though, I'm not sure I'd say it is mutilation either. Yes, technically mutilation may fit to describe this but it's barely a fit. Mutilation in it's connotation implies much more than infant circumcision is. I'm sure circumcision can have adverse health risks, as ANYthing can but I doubt it's significant. Banning the practice is an overreaction. One of Ali-Marie's stated risks is pain the infant can't understand. I concur it is pointless to cause unnecessary pain to an infant. It is why I haven't had any of my sons circumcised. That doesn't mean though that I think there is ANY pain the infant CAN understand. The infant can no more understand the pain from circumcision than he can from getting a vaccination via needle. I have had all my children vaccinated because though there is pain, there is also a significantly greater risk to their health were they not to get vaccinated. I don't mind at all that my infants didn't understand the pain from their shots. I think it's great to be informed about how unnecessary this practice is because it allows Christians to really give their all in those areas that really matter when it comes to serving the Lord rather than simply seeking to identify with an aspect of salvation history that has since been replaced with something infinitely more powerful, baptism. Circumcision has been fulfilled in baptism. How backwards it is to circumcise your infant son but deny him baptism until he chooses it for himself.
That last point tho!!!! 🙌🏼🙌🏼🙌🏼 Last night when I was discussing with someone I actually went to say “amputate,” and it truly is that! They amputate the foreskin! 😱😱
It's also no necessary for Jews. According to the old law violation one law is like violating all laws, and (nearly all) Jews don't even pretend to care about the other laws. So they can't claim "old law" if they want to cut the genitals of a baby.
You are wrong, sorry to say, but a child's foreskins is NOT being meant to retract until they're reaching puberty. Don't do it to your son(s) as infants, just clean it with - water - not 'holy water - just water. As the time comes the foreskin will 'automatically' retract itself, without parents trying to 'intervene'. My mum was a midwife and nurse following up on 'her' children, be it male or female. Retraction in young boys was NEVER done. I'm talking about the late 1950's until NOW. Circumcision was and is so seldom done on normal boys. And the stigma of more UTI infections and more chance to Aids is totally WRONG. Cervical cancer is wiped out (the vaccine) and even before that it was exactly the same with uncircumcised/circumcised partners. Why has uncircumcised Europe had such a little rate of the US feared infections ? Explain me that. Your son wouldn't 'need' a circumcision if you had not retracted a self-cleaning organ.(urine is sterile) You did open the door to infection, yourself with that retraction, opening the way for Escherichia coli (a vital bacteria found in human intestines and droppings) - circumcision wont make this 'risk' go away. Normally a broad-spectrum antibiotic treatment will sort it out. I know I will not get a lot of positive reactions to my posting (probably a lot of negatives) , but I try to be scientific.
Did I say something about retracting the foreskin? I think I meant as an adult if I did. I personally have not had to care for a boy baby at all, but doctors do give that guidance! I appreciate the reference to the low incidence of infections in Europe!!
@@alimariehere Excuse me (and I think you're a fine women and mother) - but you clearly said, I quote : 'My child is now six months old and has three UTI's, we consider him having him circumcised it is now medically necessary because the foreskin isn't retracting ..." Have the M.D.'s told you that? - It's not normal for a six month old male baby to have his foreskin retract 'on it's own' - it happens spontaneously at a later age (say 8-12 year depending on the child as a median) - not SIX months - his UTI's have VERY probably NOTHING to to with his foreskin. Can the boy pee normally - I suppose so - Urine is almost sterile - it contains normally only few bacteria. I personally find THREE UTI infections very strange - you should go ASAP to a university hospital, for a decent diagnosis and care (and simple circumcision won't do nothing to heal him) You care for your child - I also do.
Jan Verboven what??? I’m about to delete your comments because they don’t make sense. I don’t have a 6 month old son. You must be confusing me with a different video.
Jan Verboven No worries... I appreciate the passion you have! 😅 I definitely did not talk about having a 6 month old circumcised due to 3 UTIs tho.. Not me 😂
you need to speak more of these relevant issues. Christianity shouldn't adhere to this religious malpractice of sexual mutilation. the way you explained things, people listened..
The popular TV show The Doctors make a mockery & laughter about circumcision. First, there are very effective vaccines for HPV, so HPV & cervical cancer are not indications to circumcise males. Second, the most important factor all women can control regarding HPV is to limit her number of sexual partners regardless of circumcision or not. Regarding hygiene, most men who are natural intact can clean themselves, & most natural intact men would have to not clean their penises for weeks before smegma would appear. Circumcised or not all body parts require periodic basic cleansing. The Doctors discussions about circumcision never come across as objective, but always lean toward circumcision is advantageous, & it is the parents choice. There are muslim families that would choose to have their female infants's genitals cut also, but that became illegal in 1996. Americans chose not to provide equal protection to male infants. The Doctors are neither thorough, accurate, nor genuine regarding male infantile circumcision. Good physicians scrutinize published medical research articles. A good physician does not look discriminatively for select support for predetermined convictions (as for circumcision). Good physicians recognize human right for body integrity, something never once mentioned by The Doctors. For over a hundred years, the medical industry has struggled to find one condition, disease, or another that circumcision either prevents or cures. None of the circumcision "benefits" were true in 1870, 1900, 1930, & none are true today including the decreased likelihood of contracting HIV. Circumcised or not, a condom need be used, so that in practical reality, there is no HIV relevant benefit with circumcision. I was rarely disturbed by any surgical involvement, EXCEPT each & every infant circumcision was quite disturbing, not just because of the procedure, but medical staff's treatment of, & often sexually inappropriate statements directed at infants while clamping, crushing, & cutting viable living part of his penis off. Most parents' have no clue what can & does go on during infant circumcisions. What actually occurs on regular basis is nothing like the demonstrations & tutorial videos you see on websites or television. These are of the most gentle & well performed, & do not represent what actually occurs during most circumcisions. Most infant circumcisions do not occur under sterile conditions recommended by AAP, but at best "clean" conditions. I've seem residents not wash their hands before putting on procedure gloves & performing circumcisions. Most circumcisions are performed by inadequately trained interns & residents, & I've observed 2 & 3 residents take turns going at infants' penises so that they can each sign off for the "circ" that day. They usually call it a "circ" as for the horrific circus they participate. As such, what should be 15 to 20 minutes becomes an hour or more of torture for the baby. AAP recommends adequate pain block. Almost 100%, your child will not receive even marginally adequate pain block. No, they will not, & when you are assured such by medical staff, that assurance is all lies. Oh, yes! Even the most skilled at circumcision are challenged to get adequate pain blockage from cream & injection anesthetics combined, & certainly residents in training are not even marginally skillful in injecting infantile penis for pain blockage. Each boy has slight anomalous or differing placed neuro-vascular pathways, & neuro-vascular pathways are not palpable in infant penises. Not at all. Therefore, each such injection itself is simply additional pain the baby must endure before the clips, clamps, crush, & cutting. Many or even most don't bother with lidocaine injections because the skill level to attain adequate injection technique is not possible without repetitive practice, trial & error. Further, the residents rotate & change so that there are always newbie interns & residents going at infants' penises in hospitals. The staff will provide seemingly genuine reassurance, but that assurance about your babies comfort & pain control is almost always COMPLETELY false. It is pitiful that North American (US & Canada) people are still engaged in a self inflicted & self sustained dilemma over infantile circumcision. All other advanced countries of the world abandoned infantile circumcision many decades ago. If circumcision had any advantages, United Kingdom's National Health Service (NHS) would not have stopped "compulsive routine" male infantile circumcision. Instead, NHS found disadvantages, complications & cost far outweighed "perceived" benefits, & further, that personal perceived benefits were greater than actual benefits. It is American fetish & perversion that defies understanding an infant's penis needs no manipulation or cutting, & keeps male infantile circumcision perpetuating. This & the medical industry would loose about a billion a year in billings if all parents decide not to circumcise. So doctors promote circumcising & disregard the potential harm & boy's right to bodily integrity. Infantile circumcision indicates something profoundly disturbing & sick about Americans, & of course Americans refute this degeneracy. American insistence on continuing to circumcise male infants is disturbing to the rest of the modern world & the most medically advanced countries (See International Refute to AAP 2012 circumcision decision report on official AAP website). Americans prefer staying uninformed, maintaining misinformation, & to ignorantly continue circumcising infant males no matter what. American people prefer ignorance & circumcised penis, even if that means the lives of a certain number of boys each year, & thousands of other (slightly or severely) botched circumcisions, the results of which remain for a male's lifetime, & most doctors have examined a number of circumcision mishap burdened penises. Still, The Doctors maintain an active popular circumcision proponent role rather than genuine medical integrity when discussing circumcision. Physicians who accommodate the resulting demand for infantile circumcision are in disregard of basic moral ethics of medical practice. It is strange that circumcising male infants has become an OB/GYN function. OB/GYN doctors have no other involvement with after birth care, specifically train & specialize about the female genitourinary system, but go at infant penis's to circumcise. Does that make sense other than it adds to OB/GYN insurance & medicaid billing? OB/GYN physicians found an additional obscure billing revenue, & from what I have observed, OB/GYNs are the most brutal when circumcising baby boys. I attended morbidity conference when an OB/GYN doctor reported she amputated the penis of a 3 day old baby. After the presentation, nearly all doctors' comments were concern about pending litigation & case effects on the woman's medical career. Only one doctor made a comment about damage to the child's body & life. That doctor said something like, "He's never going to have much length, but with good reconstructive surgery, he might still be able to father children without resorting to in vitro." Tragedies like this are not so rare, & instead, very few get any publicity, & that goes the same for deaths that occur from circumcision. Perhaps such catastrophic circumcision incident rates are low. more importantly, the catastrophe rate is 0% for those who don't get circumcised. So why does the medical industry have involvement & accept such unnecessary risk at the expense of infants? Oh, that's right, a billion a year in billings. Most doctors are in the know, & certainly would not allow interns or residents (who do most of the circumcising) to go at their own sons' penises. The same doctors will tell you it's fine & risks are minimal for your sons. When you choose to circumcise, & it doesn't turn out right, take a look in the mirror to see who's to blame.
I was circumcised as a baby; my dad did not have it done; now that he is older he does have some problems . Interesting topic. I’m a Vatican II child 🤣. I wonder how the Pre-Vatican II Catholics viewed this topic? 🤔 If you don’t get it as a baby; speaking from a dudes perspective you will certainly not get circumcised when you older.
It has always been against Catholic Doctrine to believe circumcision aids in salvation in any way shape or form. It is merely an outward sign that was no longer necessary once baptism was introduced & Christ was resurrected.
Ali-Marie Ingram Yes very true. My mama decided for me. St. Paul went rounds and rounds with the Jews about the circumcision of the Greeks. I ♥️St. Paul.
@Jim Marquez-Medina Most circumcisions are not done during infancy. The fact you don't know this shows how ignorant you are about this topic. Circumcision has never been a Catholic custom. Historically there was no such thing as a circumcised Catholic. Nothing to do with "Vatican II"!
You share some really helpful info and points concerning the health aspects of this, Ali-Marie -- they'll definitely factor into my considerations if I ever have a son! Just 2 points I'll make. (1) Even though circumcision is not a part of the new covenant, I think the fact that God DID formerly command it and give it such centrality (and that grace never contradicts nature) means that we should refrain from regarding it as inhumane or as violating moral principles (not that you quite say this exactly). I think of it as, basically, morally neutral in itself. (2) More a side note, on your mentioning certain European efforts to have the procedure banned: I think we should strongly resist such attempts. For one thing, since circumcision IS still required in and central to both Judaism and Islam (at least), banning it would pretty much force all committed members of those faiths into exile. And also, while I absolutely believe children have fundamental "rights," I've been quite worried when I've come across some of the loudest proponents of "children's rights." Frequently today the concept is being used to undercut the rights of *parents* to raise their kids in accordance with their beliefs and values, when these beliefs/values run afoul of the current majority opinions among sociologists etc. So when that term is used in the current climate I see a bit of a red flag going up. But yes, the main point of your video I truly find really informative! :)
Remember. Freedom of religion also includes freedom from religion. Irreversible religious bodily modifications, is hardly freedom from religion. Not only that, but it is in fact, taking away the religious choice of the individual. And yes. The rights of the child supersedes the rights of the parents. Children aren't mini humans with mini human rights. They have exactly the same rights, as an adult human.
@@klausrasmussen2307 No, it's not true that children have "exactly the same rights" as adults (want to let 5 year olds drive or vote?), just as they don't have the same responsibilities. They, and their formation, are directly dependent on the care of others. The only question is whether we affirm (with more or less every society in history) that these "others" are first and foremost their parents and immediate family, or whether we believe that children primarily belong the state or some other collective, and are subject to this collective's latest theories on how they "should" be raised. A good example of how far today's intelligentsia is already going to classify ALL religious formation of children as violation of their "rights" is former Irish president Mary McAleese's statements last year: www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/mary-mcaleese-baptised-children-infant-conscripts-1.3540624. The sooner we all reject this way of thinking, the better.
So, Peter, it’s important to understand that the initial Jewish ritual was not entire removal of the foreskin, it was a minor cut. Eventually that grew into full removal due to human corruption.
I also think this is why I lean toward proper education and true weighing of risks vs benefits instead of just going with whatever the culture says is “right...”
@@Peter-GG No of course they can neither vote nor drive a car. But initially, they can't even walk or talk. This has nothing to do with rights, only maturity. And yes, parents are guardians, custodians of children. Not owners or landlords. And neither are the state. Just like adults. Children are individuals, with individual rights.
I don't care either way because I think that the pros and cons are equal. But... I think that if a father is circumcised then the son should be to. And vice versa.
Have you actually done research on it though to make that kind of statement? There isn’t enough discussion on botched circumcisions, and it DOES make a huge impact on the brain of the baby boy. (Which is similar to the deal when men say they couldn’t imagine not being circumcised... How could you know if you don’t know any different?) You say it’s personal preference, but it goes totally against protecting the bodily integrity of the baby/child/human. Cutting off healthy tissue for the possibility to prevent infection or inflammation of the tissue you’re cutting off doesn’t make sense. As many have stated- women may as well cut off their breasts to prevent breast cancer. If that was a cultural norm, would you do that to your infant daughter as well?
It is personal preference - for the person whose penis it is. There is no evidence that intact sons have issues with circumcised fathers. I should know - I'm one of them! And I've never met an intact guy who had a problem because his father was circumcised (there are millions of such people).
Also- the clitoris has 8,000 nerve endings. The foreskin has 20,000. This is more an argument for a female to understand what is missing, but I’m sure a male can imagine.
The religious freedom would come into the fact that Jews do not have their children circumcised at the hospital, their rabbi performs the surgery [without anesthetic]. It is a ceremony similar to a baptism, so I wouldn’t think banning it as a preventative medical procedure would interfere with the religious freedom of it....... I don’t think. I know there is some dissension within the Judaic faith today about the circumcisions for the lack of anesthetic reasons, etc.
I don’t think I’m educated enough at this point to have a final stance. Initially my inclination is to say not at this point. There are some benefits for prevention, I just think there should be required education prior to just saying, “Yup, dad’s circumcised, so the kids will be circumcised.”
What religious freedom? The freedom to mutilate an infant? Circumcision is a violation of Human Rights not religious freedom. And how much can we concede to parents to grant their freedom? Can they cut a finger? a hand? a clitoris? So why are you horrified by Female Genital Mutilation if it´s done as a religious ceremony? Or can we tolerate religious wars in name of freedom? You can mutilate your own body in name of your God, not the body of a non-consensual individual. Actually we do not even know the religious of the child: it will be him to decide what to believe and what to do with his body.
As an Atheist I have to say I respect the catholic stance against MGM. Thank u.
Absolutely! Such an important, heartbreaking topic!!!!
No reason to circumcise. Boys are born with a foreskin for a reason! We're all born perfect as is
Thank you sooo much for making this video! My son is now 6 and I was attacked by my non denominational in laws for not considering circumcising for my son. I was told over and over by them that it is in the Bible and I told them that was the old covenant the covenant is baptism! They still argued but I did my research and men in my family never had one and they were just fine! I also followed a group on Facebook I believe it’s called saving our sons. Very informative.
Way to stay strong!! I hope if it comes up in conversation again it gives you some points to make :)
I was also informed about a documentary about circumcision that is on Netflix if you’d be interested! It’s called “American Circumcision.” I haven’t gotten to watch it yet, but the trailer draws me in a lot!! I plan to watch it this week.
Not too long ago the subject of female genital mutilation in another country came up. I said to them where was the outrage here in the United States?because it already happens to boys being circumcised and they said again about it being in the Bible and when I schooled them we had a silent table lol.
Will definitely take a look at that movie thank you so much!
Right?! The removal of the clitoris is what “female circumcision” is considered. If only more people understood...
@@alimariehere You should definitely watch American Circumcision when you get the chance! Its really well done!
never cut a baby, catholic or otherwise
I haven’t had a son so I can’t speak from personal experience per se, but a close family member was circumcised. He was an anomaly where instead of losing weight, he gained, and the little ring around the foreskin was too tight and deformed the tip of his penis. I had decided long ago that if I had a son, he would be left intact. If he wanted to have it removed as an adult, that was his prerogative, but that would not be a choice I’d make for my child.
Yes to everything. Honest, real, and simple.
Thank you! 🙌🏼🐊🐊
Adding it to my “videos I love” playlist!
I had my tonsils out at around 3 and I have a vague memory of a nurse bringing ice cream as a treat. My foreskin being cut off was before my conscious memory and hasn't brought any benefits, let alone ice cream.
😅😅 Oh gosh. It’s not even funny, but I feel you’re making a joke! It’s really so sad!
I'm circumsised and want my foreskin back😂😂
You’d be surprised how many men feel that way!!
Same here
😢
Precisely. If women removed the breasts there would be no risk of breast cancer. But I never hear that being suggested. Stop messing around with healthy tissue.
🙌🏼 Exactly!! I know some women who do that if they have a high risk of developing breast cancer, but still! It’s not nearly as routine as a circumcision, and when it IS done, the benefits FAR outweigh the risks.
Leave healthy tissue alone is right!!
@@alimariehere
But if it is women, and not infant girls, whom decides to have their breasts removed for fear of cancer. It is at least an adult, making what is hopefully, an informed decision about their own body.
When parents decide to circumcise their infant son, they take away the choice, not only from the boy, but the man that he will eventually become.
That said. I agree with everything you said in the video.
Bravo.👏👏👏
Sure! But yes, the point would be for a parent to choose for their infant daughter to remove whatever would cause the breasts to eventually grow to prevent cancer down the line.
@@klausrasmussen2307 I was a bit unclear in my OP. Sorry about that! Of course I mean if something of equal magnitude was done to a baby girl on a traditional basis.
Marie thanks for posting this. I am intact and have dealt with a certain amount of anxiety because male doctors haven't always been nice about it, but it is more comfortable to be intact. I honestly laugh at the argument that circumcision improves hygiene because I am actually too dry and washing too much makes me uncomfortable and chapped, like dermatitis. Thanks for debunking that myth along with several others. The one concern I have is that I'll be able to find someone who loves me because I do look different, but it's not worth getting surgery for. It also baffles me that circumcised men don't complain more about pain; it seems like having the penis head out all the time should hurt. And I may he contrary, but I don't think circumcision makes a man more attractive; it actually looks strange to me.
Absolutely! The removal of the foreskin at birth definitely desensitizes the head of the penis which would be why it's not painful for circumcised males... But I appreciate you giving your input on this as you do experience the sensation of an exposed vs. covered head as an adult. It goes to show even further how accurate these types of statements are! Thank you!
@@alimariehere Marie is it okay if I ask you one other thing? It's distantly related...I'll try to explain.
Feel free!
@@alimariehere Thanks so much Marie...I'll try to explain this as concisely as possible and to explain the connection. I have always been a little different from other people; in my late teens I was diagnosed with a high-functioning autism that had evaded detection, and also OCD. Periodically I struggle with some depression as well. I am a creative person and have always had a somewhat obsessive nature. In my early teens though I created a comic strip/storyline about a teenage boy whose best friend is a miniature woolly mammoth. Her name is Ellie. Ellie is also a friend of mine in stuffed animal form that I tend to want to have along with me on my adventures. Going to the doctor is a big anxiety for me because of how I have been treated about being uncircumcised, and Ellie helps me feel less afraid and alone, and somehow more "complete." I have even written a piano song about her. I have felt some pressure to try and find a new friend or abandon my storyline creation because of some negative experiences I have had with other people, including sometimes my own family members, but even when I've tried to start something new, I keep dreaming about Ellie...she seems to always be there when I'm exploring the vast reaches of my memories, concerns and stories. I'm feeling a strong desire to "go back to her" in terms of making her my favorite animal again and resuming sleeping with her and having her in my pouch when I go out. Do you think that's okay? My heart and tenderest feelings do seem to be with her. Thank you! If you want to know more about my stories, comics, or just about Ellie I'd be happy to share! 😊
@@alimariehere I apologize if my effort to explain the Ellie situation didn't make sense or was hard to understand; my autism also affects my speech patterns and sentence structure. If you don't understand something just ask me to rephrase
Do not pull back the foreskin of an infant or child. Doing so will cause problems and is considered assault.
Im uncircumcised and all you have to do is shower n clean it no medical benefits for it unless medically necessary its better sex for both parties and should be up to the person i never had a complaint or anything and its also got me nude model jobs and other things hearing stuff like this especially from a woman is good because we men shouldnt have an opinion for what women do with their bodies but men should be given a choice bless you Ali
And also being uncircumcised i can just pull my skin back and it looks circumcised with the foreskin pulled back but id its left retracted too long the tio gets dry and har to push forward also you have to be easy while having intercourse because you can damage your frenulum
Obviously circumcision is not a work of righteousness. Cutting the genitals of a child is an act of extreme unrighteousness. Righteousness is helping your fellow man and not causing harm to any of God's creatures.
It's a work of extremely defective psychology.
Hey, great video for Catholics and other Christians considering this issue. One small correction that I would like to add. You say that "with proper cleaning procedures, pulling back the foreskin and cleaning underneath it..." In young children, the foreskin is usually fused to the glans (head) of the penis, and will usually later be able to be pulled back. In general, before it unfuses naturally, you should *not* force it back to clean under it. This can actually injure it and cause scar tissue and cause infections, and this belief is perhaps one of the main reasons of why there are so many stories in the U.S. of boys and men having to be circumcised at a later date.
I see you already addressed this in a reply to a comment below.
America is so strange to request such things to kids at such a young age. Thank you so much for your informative video on this sensitive subject. My blessing and hugz
Absolutely! I feel like there will be more :) After talking about it, I didn’t realize how passionate I was about it! I’ll continue studying and learning and sharing along the way ☺️☺️🐊
I am an American and completely agree with you.
I think this is a great video but I wanted to point out some very important points.
1) The foreskin of a child shouldn’t retract and must not be retracted. It is attached by a membrane which will break naturally sometime when a child is about 10 years old to puberty. The only person ever to retract a foreskin should be the owner of the penis.
2) You missed off death as a risk. In the US alone over 100 babies a year die due to circumcision. I did the maths once, and to prevent 10 easily treatable water infections, 1 baby will die. Remember water infections are very rare in boys. Most clear up on their own or there are antibiotics.
3) The very poorly conducted, unethical and abandoned research which insinuated a reduction in HIV has been discredited. You only have to look at the USA, with the highest circumcision rate in the developed world, and the highest HIV infection rate in the developed world, to see the opposite is probably true.
4) Circumcision is a highly traumatic event for babies and research shows an increased sensitivity to pain in circumcised babies compared to their intact peers. This indicates a continuing trauma in the child.
4) An infant is not capable of giving consent. Many men are very angry when they realise they were mutilated as babies. Some are trying to regrow their foreskin. Others are trying to sue the doctors of their parents. Please stop mutilating babies.
YES! PREACH! "I want my son to be unnecessarily deformed and mutilated like me! Yay!"
Don't forget to remove your breasts so that you never get breast cancer!
Makes no sense to me... And those who choose to remain ignorant are a whole different story lol
Have you seen the documentary “American Circumcision”? It’s on Netflix.
@@alimariehere I warmly recommend you to watch Eric Clopper one man show: Sex & Circumcision . It´s a different jewish point of view on circumcision.
ruclips.net/video/eZfBwwWqIGw/видео.html
@@alimariehere Those who choose to remain ignorant? Like those who choose to believe in Catholicism? You actually believe the Bible is the word of God and the Pope is the vicar of Christ?
Tell me, what do you think happens to non-Catholics after death? Do Jews and Muslims go to hell? What about Hindus and Buddhists and atheists? I'd like to know what you choose to believe...
@@endofscene All love (willing the good of the other as other) comes from Jesus Christ as the Logos of Creation; actually Jesus is Love itself and love incarnate. When helping someone out of love, for example, Jesus is allowed to act and in fact is already acting in the heart of that person, knowingly or unknowingly. Because no good thing, however small, can exist as separated from Jesus Christ, but all which is moral and good participates in Him.
A Muslim of good will, or Buddhist, for that matter, may sincerely and genuinely assume and believe that Catholics are mistaken, given the extent of his knowledge, and his social and cultural roots, through no fault of his own. The fullness of truth is in Christ and in His Church: but everyone, every person of good will may be saved as long as actions are in accord to conscience, which God put in every man regardless of beliefs.
At the same time that does entail that many valuable and precious seeds of truth can be found in other religious systems as well, just not in their fullest form. The Fathers of the Church, for example, recognized the greatness of Pagan thinkers, and as in the case of Plotinus borrowed part of his philosophy (neoplatonism) and solutions into Christian theology. It's all explained in the Cathechism. And in the Rosary we are called to recite this prayer: "O my Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of hell, and lead all souls to Heaven, especially those in most need of Your Mercy."
We don't always lead exemplary lives, as we are fallible humans, but Catholicism is a beautiful religion, if you take the time to explore it. People will let you down, as in every other walk of life. But the principles we adhere to are reasonable and moral. We understand that God is Love, and also Reason, so we are encouraged to scrutinize and evaluate everything in the light of the intellect and not just accept things mindlessly and by blind faith. Please read the Catechism of the Catholic Church for yourself, it's a beautiful book
www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/
Peace and good
@@marcbrmb Obviously there are dozens of forms of Christianity and many Christians would disagree with many of your beliefs.
"..we are encouraged to scrutinize and evaluate everything in the light of the intellect and not just accept things mindlessly and by blind faith."
On what basis do you believe every Catholic pope to be the vicar of Christ? I would say that this belief is mindless and blind because you automatically accept it without question.
I find it endlessly ridiculous that the very religions that teach that we are made in God's image, and that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, also teach that God commanded infant male circumcision :) So much for intelligent design!
Huh??? Circumcision does not condemn. 🤦🏻♀️
@@alimariehere Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. You who are trying to be justified by the lawhave been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. Galatians 5:2-4
Therefore it strictly orders all who glory in the name of Christian, not to practise circumcision either before or after baptism, since whether or not they place their hope in it, it cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation. Papal Bull of Union with the Copts 1442 www.cirp.org/library/cultural/councilflorence/
I am of the Christian faith (not Catholic) but as you stated circumcision is not necessary to be right with God. Originally the covenant between God and Abraham circumcision was just a tiny nick at the very tip with complete healing and no impact on the function or appearance of the foreskin. The person still retained the whole foreskin and example of that would be the statue of David who is circumcised according to the convent and still appears to be fully intact. Jewish leaders (man not God) didn't like the fact that you really couldn't tell the difference and started the practice of removing the entire foreskin calling it the law of God. Man changed God's law, think about it, man changed God's law and represented it as a requirement. Changing God's law is blasphemy. Jewish people technically are not following the law of God since they entirely changed what God said circumcision was suppose to be. When Christ came and died for our sins the old law was eliminated and circumcision was now spiritual or of your heart cutting away the bad and NOT of the flesh. God made all male mammals with a foreskin and there is a purpose for everything. Human males just like females are born perfect. It was man who started this whole barbaric practice of gentile mutilation. God would never change or mutilate his perfect creation. Any person who believe in circumcision is basically saying their little boy wasn't perfect and God made a mistake so lets cut off a part of his body to make him perfect. Think how sick it really is, cutting a part of newly born person's genitals off without their consent because you believe this will make him perfect. American people look at people from 3rd wold countries as barbaric, uncivilized and beneath them but the reality is they are no better.
I'm not aware of any evidence that the original brit milah "was just a tiny nick at the very tip with complete healing and no impact on the function or appearance of the foreskin."
I think most of what you have written in your comment is false. If you can back it up with references then I'm willing to be proven wrong, but I doubt you can.
@@endofscene OK maybe not a minor nick but here you go:
By: James E. Peron, Ed.D.
Milah: Symbolic Circumcision of Covenant
The original Biblical circumcision of Abraham's time was a relatively minor ritual circumcision procedure in which only the redundant end of the foreskin extending beyond the tip of the glans was removed. This was called "Milah". It is from this term that the Jewish Religious Covenant circumcision ritual Bris Milah or Brith Milah got its name.
Following "Milah", a penis so circumcised would still contain a considerable portion of the foreskin and the penis would have continued to go through its natural development since most of the foreskin would have remained intact. Protection of the glans would still have occurred. The foreskin would not be stripped back off the glans and would naturally separate from the glans gradually as the child matures, much as it would had the child not been circumcised. The sensitive frenulum would not have been disturbed or moved, and the foreskin remaining would continue to cover and protect a substantial portion of the glans, especially when flaccid, and the glans would appear as uncircumcised. There would be minimal loss of sensitivity or intended protection.
This type circumcision continued throughout the ages and during the time of Christ. The circumcision of Christ would have been this type circumcision as referred to in the bible. Indeed, biblical reference to circumcision is strictly this form of circumcision. It continued into the New Testament. It has been argued that Michelangelo's David should show David as Circumcised. Interestingly, Michelangelo presented David precisely as he should have appeared following an infant "Milah" circumcision. His glans is essentially covered with only the tip of the glans showing.
Changes to the Ritual Circumcision Procedure:
No other feature was added to the religious ritual until about 140 AD when a second step to the ritual circumcision procedure was introduced.
Periah: The laying bare of the glans
After performing "milah", the cutting back of the end of the infant's foreskin, a second step, periah was then performed. Periah consists of tearing and stripping back the remaining inner mucosal lining of the foreskin from the glans and then, by use of a sharp finger nail or implement, removing all of the inner mucosal tissue, including the excising and removal of the frenulum from the underside of the glans. The objective was to insure that no part of the remaining penile skin would rest against the glans corona. If any shreds of the mucosal foreskin tissue remained, or rejoined to the underside of the glans, the child was to be re-circumcised.
This is a much more radical form of circumcision. It was dictated by man, and is not the biblical commanded circumcision rite. [Italics mine] Its introduction has a bizarre history. The rabbinate sought to put an end to the practice of youths desiring to appear uncircumcised by stretching the remaining foreskin for social economic benefits and for sports competitions. By introducing the painful and debilitating "Periah" they would obliterate the foreskin completely such that proper circumcised Jew could not disguise "the seal of the covenant". From this point in Jewish history, the male's glans is directly affected by the circumcision procedure, and the denuded glans and traumatized infant will heal with considerable nerve damage and loss of sensitivity. Again, it is important to note that this is not the Covenant circumcision of Abraham defined in the Bible.
It really is SO sad & nearly sickening after actually thinking about it and doing research. I just want people to be educated :(
@@gymrat3203 "Relatively minor", i.e. minor in comparison to brit periah. However, I still think "minor" is a terrible description. To my mind, a minor penile injury would be a scratch or a paper cut. Ablating up to one quarter of a boy's penis skin is not a "minor" injury!
Are you aware that the acroposthion (the part cut off in the original brit milah) contains the most sensitive parts of the foreskin? The acroposthion would be the part that Mr Peron calls "redundant". I don't know about you, but my acroposthion is definitely not redundant! I don't think any part of a baby's penis is redundant!
In my experience, people who try to minimise the original brit milah are Christians trying to make their religion look better. They can't get over the fact that their God commanded this shit!
The really f**ked up thing is that infant male circumcision isn't actually the worst thing the JudeoChristian God commanded! It truly is a terrible religion.
This is a very insightful piece. I was circumcised and so was my son. It was something done that most of us didn't even think about, but assumed there was some medical benefit from doing so. It is kind of like my decades long view that the Catholic Church had gone astray without really looking into the evidence one way or the other. One wonders how many things we do out of habit or culture and just assume there is some good reason why.
Thanks, Scott! There really are so many things that get done out of routine or habit that aren’t necessary... Especially when it comes to child birth and infancy, it seems! It’s good that we have more evidence-based research to give people the opportunity to process the information and learn. I don’t think if someone chooses to have their son circumcised for a medical prevention deal that it endangers someone’s salvation... but I think separating it out is imperative so that misconception doesn’t survive.
Check out “American Circumcision” on Netflix if you have it! I haven’t seen it yet, but the trailer looks amazing!
The Roman Catholic Church maintains a standing papal bull banning circumcision.
Really? Where would I find that?
@@alimariehere
The papal bull of communion with the Coopts & the council of Vienna. As well as Pius XII in the early 1950s. And the Catechism's ban on all Non-therapeutic surgeries. The non-enforcement by the church is really appalling.
I use to be catholic and I'm uncircumcised
Thanks for dispelling some of the myths around circumcision and Catholicism. So many falsely believe that circumcision is necessary for their religion.
I don't know why she compares foreskin to tonsils and the appendix... What is the connection? Why not compare it to any other body part? Or, why not be accurate and compare it to the clitoral hood and inner labia?
I compared it to tonsils & appendix because in the United States, those are considered "routine" procedures just like foreskin removal. Yes, the clitoris is the sister of the foreskin, but in the context I was speaking about tonsils and the appendix, it was in regard to routine procedures.
Why would 3 UTIs in 6 months necessitate a circumcision? What do they do for girls who have 3 UTIs in 6 months? (Which is more common anyway.) Chop off their labia?
Furthermore "risk of infection" is their new lie to justify it, since hardly anyone falls for "phimosis" anymore.
Your teaching in this video about infant circumcision deserves great credit. You did your homework with the facts. Infant circumcision is barbaric and everyone considering it for their babies should watch the video. Circumcision on a male will sexually cripple that man for life. If you don't believe it.........DO THE RESEARCH!!!
You're doing the Lord's work. Keep on!
“Do not think I have come to abolish the Law (Torah) or the Prophets; *I have not come to abolish them* but to fulfil them! For truly I say to you, *until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a stroke, will pass from the Law (Torah)* [until all is accomplished]. Therefore *whoever relaxes one of the least of the commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of the heavens,* and whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of the heavens. But I tell you this: unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you won't even enter the kingdom of the heavens." Matthew 5:17-20
Born in 1982 and wasn't cut. But I can thank being born outside the United States as the most likely reason for not being cut.
Also, I believe your information on 1 in 3 men being cut could be wrong. I heard 70-80% of men worldwide are NOT cut, which means 20-30% are cut, i.e. 2-3 out of 10 or 1 out of 5. :)
In 2007, it was 33% according to the WHO... 2/3 of those being Muslim.
NCBI in 2016 estimated 37-39% of men worldwide are circumcised. So that’s actually a little higher than 1/3... I’m not sure where you got your stat!
@@alimariehere Could you please provide your sources? Thanks.
@@stwebThe proportion of circumcised men is greater than the proportion of circumcised males. This is because most circumcisions are not performed on infants but on older children.
I think it is quite possible that the worldwide percentage of circumcised *men* could be upwards of 33% (most of them are Muslim); whereas the worldwide percentage of circumcised *males* (i.e. all ages) is probably closer to 25%.
Btw If you don't mind me asking, where were you born?
Circumcision is definitely NOT a necessity unless you are a practicing Jew. I've been told by pediatricians there's no evidence it is medically necessary or helpful. Having said that though, I'm not sure I'd say it is mutilation either. Yes, technically mutilation may fit to describe this but it's barely a fit. Mutilation in it's connotation implies much more than infant circumcision is. I'm sure circumcision can have adverse health risks, as ANYthing can but I doubt it's significant. Banning the practice is an overreaction. One of Ali-Marie's stated risks is pain the infant can't understand. I concur it is pointless to cause unnecessary pain to an infant. It is why I haven't had any of my sons circumcised. That doesn't mean though that I think there is ANY pain the infant CAN understand. The infant can no more understand the pain from circumcision than he can from getting a vaccination via needle. I have had all my children vaccinated because though there is pain, there is also a significantly greater risk to their health were they not to get vaccinated. I don't mind at all that my infants didn't understand the pain from their shots. I think it's great to be informed about how unnecessary this practice is because it allows Christians to really give their all in those areas that really matter when it comes to serving the Lord rather than simply seeking to identify with an aspect of salvation history that has since been replaced with something infinitely more powerful, baptism. Circumcision has been fulfilled in baptism. How backwards it is to circumcise your infant son but deny him baptism until he chooses it for himself.
That last point tho!!!! 🙌🏼🙌🏼🙌🏼
Last night when I was discussing with someone I actually went to say “amputate,” and it truly is that! They amputate the foreskin! 😱😱
It's also no necessary for Jews. According to the old law violation one law is like violating all laws, and (nearly all) Jews don't even pretend to care about the other laws. So they can't claim "old law" if they want to cut the genitals of a baby.
What is the book you’re reading from?
Fascinating video!
You are wrong, sorry to say, but a child's foreskins is NOT being meant to retract until they're reaching puberty. Don't do it to your son(s) as infants, just clean it with - water - not 'holy water - just water. As the time comes the foreskin will 'automatically' retract itself, without parents trying to 'intervene'. My mum was a midwife and nurse following up on 'her' children, be it male or female. Retraction in young boys was NEVER done. I'm talking about the late 1950's until NOW. Circumcision was and is so seldom done on normal boys. And the stigma of more UTI infections and more chance to Aids is totally WRONG. Cervical cancer is wiped out (the vaccine) and even before that it was exactly the same with uncircumcised/circumcised partners. Why has uncircumcised Europe had such a little rate of the US feared infections ? Explain me that. Your son wouldn't 'need' a circumcision if you had not retracted a self-cleaning organ.(urine is sterile) You did open the door to infection, yourself with that retraction, opening the way for Escherichia coli (a vital bacteria found in human intestines and droppings) - circumcision wont make this 'risk' go away. Normally a broad-spectrum antibiotic treatment will sort it out. I know I will not get a lot of positive reactions to my posting (probably a lot of negatives) , but I try to be scientific.
Did I say something about retracting the foreskin? I think I meant as an adult if I did. I personally have not had to care for a boy baby at all, but doctors do give that guidance! I appreciate the reference to the low incidence of infections in Europe!!
@@alimariehere Excuse me (and I think you're a fine women and mother) - but you clearly said, I quote : 'My child is now six months old and has three UTI's, we consider him having him circumcised it is now medically necessary because the foreskin isn't retracting ..." Have the M.D.'s told you that? - It's not normal for a six month old male baby to have his foreskin retract 'on it's own' - it happens spontaneously at a later age (say 8-12 year depending on the child as a median) - not SIX months - his UTI's have VERY probably NOTHING to to with his foreskin. Can the boy pee normally - I suppose so - Urine is almost sterile - it contains normally only few bacteria. I personally find THREE UTI infections very strange - you should go ASAP to a university hospital, for a decent diagnosis and care (and simple circumcision won't do nothing to heal him) You care for your child - I also do.
Jan Verboven what??? I’m about to delete your comments because they don’t make sense. I don’t have a 6 month old son. You must be confusing me with a different video.
@@alimariehere If so, my deepest apologies to you for my wrongdoing.
Jan Verboven No worries... I appreciate the passion you have! 😅 I definitely did not talk about having a 6 month old circumcised due to 3 UTIs tho.. Not me 😂
you need to speak more of these relevant issues.
Christianity shouldn't adhere to this religious malpractice of sexual mutilation.
the way you explained things, people listened..
The popular TV show The Doctors make a mockery & laughter about circumcision. First, there are very effective vaccines for HPV, so HPV & cervical cancer are not indications to circumcise males. Second, the most important factor all women can control regarding HPV is to limit her number of sexual partners regardless of circumcision or not. Regarding hygiene, most men who are natural intact can clean themselves, & most natural intact men would have to not clean their penises for weeks before smegma would appear. Circumcised or not all body parts require periodic basic cleansing.
The Doctors discussions about circumcision never come across as objective, but always lean toward circumcision is advantageous, & it is the parents choice. There are muslim families that would choose to have their female infants's genitals cut also, but that became illegal in 1996. Americans chose not to provide equal protection to male infants.
The Doctors are neither thorough, accurate, nor genuine regarding male infantile circumcision. Good physicians scrutinize published medical research articles. A good physician does not look discriminatively for select support for predetermined convictions (as for circumcision). Good physicians recognize human right for body integrity, something never once mentioned by The Doctors.
For over a hundred years, the medical industry has struggled to find one condition, disease, or another that circumcision either prevents or cures. None of the circumcision "benefits" were true in 1870, 1900, 1930, & none are true today including the decreased likelihood of contracting HIV. Circumcised or not, a condom need be used, so that in practical reality, there is no HIV relevant benefit with circumcision.
I was rarely disturbed by any surgical involvement, EXCEPT each & every infant circumcision was quite disturbing, not just because of the procedure, but medical staff's treatment of, & often sexually inappropriate statements directed at infants while clamping, crushing, & cutting viable living part of his penis off. Most parents' have no clue what can & does go on during infant circumcisions. What actually occurs on regular basis is nothing like the demonstrations & tutorial videos you see on websites or television. These are of the most gentle & well performed, & do not represent what actually occurs during most circumcisions. Most infant circumcisions do not occur under sterile conditions recommended by AAP, but at best "clean" conditions. I've seem residents not wash their hands before putting on procedure gloves & performing circumcisions. Most circumcisions are performed by inadequately trained interns & residents, & I've observed 2 & 3 residents take turns going at infants' penises so that they can each sign off for the "circ" that day. They usually call it a "circ" as for the horrific circus they participate. As such, what should be 15 to 20 minutes becomes an hour or more of torture for the baby.
AAP recommends adequate pain block. Almost 100%, your child will not receive even marginally adequate pain block. No, they will not, & when you are assured such by medical staff, that assurance is all lies. Oh, yes! Even the most skilled at circumcision are challenged to get adequate pain blockage from cream & injection anesthetics combined, & certainly residents in training are not even marginally skillful in injecting infantile penis for pain blockage. Each boy has slight anomalous or differing placed neuro-vascular pathways, & neuro-vascular pathways are not palpable in infant penises. Not at all. Therefore, each such injection itself is simply additional pain the baby must endure before the clips, clamps, crush, & cutting. Many or even most don't bother with lidocaine injections because the skill level to attain adequate injection technique is not possible without repetitive practice, trial & error. Further, the residents rotate & change so that there are always newbie interns & residents going at infants' penises in hospitals. The staff will provide seemingly genuine reassurance, but that assurance about your babies comfort & pain control is almost always COMPLETELY false.
It is pitiful that North American (US & Canada) people are still engaged in a self inflicted & self sustained dilemma over infantile circumcision. All other advanced countries of the world abandoned infantile circumcision many decades ago. If circumcision had any advantages, United Kingdom's National Health Service (NHS) would not have stopped "compulsive routine" male infantile circumcision. Instead, NHS found disadvantages, complications & cost far outweighed "perceived" benefits, & further, that personal perceived benefits were greater than actual benefits.
It is American fetish & perversion that defies understanding an infant's penis needs no manipulation or cutting, & keeps male infantile circumcision perpetuating. This & the medical industry would loose about a billion a year in billings if all parents decide not to circumcise. So doctors promote circumcising & disregard the potential harm & boy's right to bodily integrity.
Infantile circumcision indicates something profoundly disturbing & sick about Americans, & of course Americans refute this degeneracy. American insistence on continuing to circumcise male infants is disturbing to the rest of the modern world & the most medically advanced countries (See International Refute to AAP 2012 circumcision decision report on official AAP website). Americans prefer staying uninformed, maintaining misinformation, & to ignorantly continue circumcising infant males no matter what. American people prefer ignorance & circumcised penis, even if that means the lives of a certain number of boys each year, & thousands of other (slightly or severely) botched circumcisions, the results of which remain for a male's lifetime, & most doctors have examined a number of circumcision mishap burdened penises. Still, The Doctors maintain an active popular circumcision proponent role rather than genuine medical integrity when discussing circumcision.
Physicians who accommodate the resulting demand for infantile circumcision are in disregard of basic moral ethics of medical practice. It is strange that circumcising male infants has become an OB/GYN function. OB/GYN doctors have no other involvement with after birth care, specifically train & specialize about the female genitourinary system, but go at infant penis's to circumcise. Does that make sense other than it adds to OB/GYN insurance & medicaid billing? OB/GYN physicians found an additional obscure billing revenue, & from what I have observed, OB/GYNs are the most brutal when circumcising baby boys. I attended morbidity conference when an OB/GYN doctor reported she amputated the penis of a 3 day old baby. After the presentation, nearly all doctors' comments were concern about pending litigation & case effects on the woman's medical career. Only one doctor made a comment about damage to the child's body & life. That doctor said something like, "He's never going to have much length, but with good reconstructive surgery, he might still be able to father children without resorting to in vitro." Tragedies like this are not so rare, & instead, very few get any publicity, & that goes the same for deaths that occur from circumcision. Perhaps such catastrophic circumcision incident rates are low. more importantly, the catastrophe rate is 0% for those who don't get circumcised. So why does the medical industry have involvement & accept such unnecessary risk at the expense of infants? Oh, that's right, a billion a year in billings.
Most doctors are in the know, & certainly would not allow interns or residents (who do most of the circumcising) to go at their own sons' penises. The same doctors will tell you it's fine & risks are minimal for your sons. When you choose to circumcise, & it doesn't turn out right, take a look in the mirror to see who's to blame.
Who eats it?
I was circumcised as a baby; my dad did not have it done; now that he is older he does have some problems . Interesting topic. I’m a Vatican II child 🤣. I wonder how the Pre-Vatican II Catholics viewed this topic? 🤔 If you don’t get it as a baby; speaking from a dudes perspective you will certainly not get circumcised when you older.
It has always been against Catholic Doctrine to believe circumcision aids in salvation in any way shape or form. It is merely an outward sign that was no longer necessary once baptism was introduced & Christ was resurrected.
Ali-Marie Ingram Yes very true. My mama decided for me. St. Paul went rounds and rounds with the Jews about the circumcision of the Greeks. I ♥️St. Paul.
The fact that we wouldn't get it done as adults is prolly an argument for that we shouldn't do it to our sons 😁 The pros don't outweigh the cons
@Jim Marquez-Medina Most circumcisions are not done during infancy. The fact you don't know this shows how ignorant you are about this topic.
Circumcision has never been a Catholic custom. Historically there was no such thing as a circumcised Catholic. Nothing to do with "Vatican II"!
@@jimmarquez-medina9543 Sounds like your mother didn't read the Bible.
Jobu?
#iamnotthankful and many #mendocomplain
You share some really helpful info and points concerning the health aspects of this, Ali-Marie -- they'll definitely factor into my considerations if I ever have a son! Just 2 points I'll make.
(1) Even though circumcision is not a part of the new covenant, I think the fact that God DID formerly command it and give it such centrality (and that grace never contradicts nature) means that we should refrain from regarding it as inhumane or as violating moral principles (not that you quite say this exactly). I think of it as, basically, morally neutral in itself.
(2) More a side note, on your mentioning certain European efforts to have the procedure banned: I think we should strongly resist such attempts. For one thing, since circumcision IS still required in and central to both Judaism and Islam (at least), banning it would pretty much force all committed members of those faiths into exile. And also, while I absolutely believe children have fundamental "rights," I've been quite worried when I've come across some of the loudest proponents of "children's rights." Frequently today the concept is being used to undercut the rights of *parents* to raise their kids in accordance with their beliefs and values, when these beliefs/values run afoul of the current majority opinions among sociologists etc. So when that term is used in the current climate I see a bit of a red flag going up.
But yes, the main point of your video I truly find really informative! :)
Remember. Freedom of religion also includes freedom from religion.
Irreversible religious bodily modifications, is hardly freedom from religion.
Not only that, but it is in fact, taking away the religious choice of the individual.
And yes. The rights of the child supersedes the rights of the parents.
Children aren't mini humans with mini human rights.
They have exactly the same rights, as an adult human.
@@klausrasmussen2307 No, it's not true that children have "exactly the same rights" as adults (want to let 5 year olds drive or vote?), just as they don't have the same responsibilities. They, and their formation, are directly dependent on the care of others. The only question is whether we affirm (with more or less every society in history) that these "others" are first and foremost their parents and immediate family, or whether we believe that children primarily belong the state or some other collective, and are subject to this collective's latest theories on how they "should" be raised. A good example of how far today's intelligentsia is already going to classify ALL religious formation of children as violation of their "rights" is former Irish president Mary McAleese's statements last year: www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/mary-mcaleese-baptised-children-infant-conscripts-1.3540624. The sooner we all reject this way of thinking, the better.
So, Peter, it’s important to understand that the initial Jewish ritual was not entire removal of the foreskin, it was a minor cut. Eventually that grew into full removal due to human corruption.
I also think this is why I lean toward proper education and true weighing of risks vs benefits instead of just going with whatever the culture says is “right...”
@@Peter-GG No of course they can neither vote nor drive a car. But initially, they can't even walk or talk.
This has nothing to do with rights, only maturity. And yes, parents are guardians, custodians of children. Not owners or landlords. And neither are the state.
Just like adults. Children are individuals, with individual rights.
So you're having a boy?!
You know I can’t answer that!! 😉
Happily circumcised in uk
I don't care either way because I think that the pros and cons are equal. But... I think that if a father is circumcised then the son should be to. And vice versa.
What I'm saying is anyone that argues for or against circumcision is probably wrong. It is all personal preference.
Have you actually done research on it though to make that kind of statement? There isn’t enough discussion on botched circumcisions, and it DOES make a huge impact on the brain of the baby boy. (Which is similar to the deal when men say they couldn’t imagine not being circumcised... How could you know if you don’t know any different?)
You say it’s personal preference, but it goes totally against protecting the bodily integrity of the baby/child/human. Cutting off healthy tissue for the possibility to prevent infection or inflammation of the tissue you’re cutting off doesn’t make sense.
As many have stated- women may as well cut off their breasts to prevent breast cancer. If that was a cultural norm, would you do that to your infant daughter as well?
It is personal preference - for the person whose penis it is. There is no evidence that intact sons have issues with circumcised fathers. I should know - I'm one of them! And I've never met an intact guy who had a problem because his father was circumcised (there are millions of such people).
No it's wrong to cut your son
Also- the clitoris has 8,000 nerve endings. The foreskin has 20,000. This is more an argument for a female to understand what is missing, but I’m sure a male can imagine.
He's getting snipped.
And his sister? Ripped and snipped too?
A vasectomy goes by the same diminutive term.
😢😢
Necessity
That’s why 70% of males worldwide aren’t circumcised, right?
I am a baby of the 80s. I will just leave it at that. Lol However, I do worry about the religious freedom of Jews with this being legally outlawed.
The religious freedom would come into the fact that Jews do not have their children circumcised at the hospital, their rabbi performs the surgery [without anesthetic]. It is a ceremony similar to a baptism, so I wouldn’t think banning it as a preventative medical procedure would interfere with the religious freedom of it....... I don’t think. I know there is some dissension within the Judaic faith today about the circumcisions for the lack of anesthetic reasons, etc.
Ali-Marie Ingram That makes sense. Thank you for the clarification.
@@alimariehere Would you support a circumcision ban?
I don’t think I’m educated enough at this point to have a final stance. Initially my inclination is to say not at this point. There are some benefits for prevention, I just think there should be required education prior to just saying, “Yup, dad’s circumcised, so the kids will be circumcised.”
What religious freedom? The freedom to mutilate an infant? Circumcision is a violation of Human Rights not religious freedom. And how much can we concede to parents to grant their freedom? Can they cut a finger? a hand? a clitoris? So why are you horrified by Female Genital Mutilation if it´s done as a religious ceremony? Or can we tolerate religious wars in name of freedom? You can mutilate your own body in name of your God, not the body of a non-consensual individual. Actually we do not even know the religious of the child: it will be him to decide what to believe and what to do with his body.