The Moral Question of Circumcision ~ Dr David Lang
Вставка
- Опубліковано 16 січ 2017
- The topic is The Moral Question of Circumcision. My guest is Dr. David Lang, adjunct professor of logic at Boston College and of systematic Thomistic philosophy at Our Lady of Grace Seminary, also in Boston.
veritasradionetwork.com/reconq...
Excellent analysis of a very important and controversial topic! Thank you! I instinctively knew this was wrong (now I know why) and was able to spare my sons and grandsons from this barbaric procedure.
Literally no one with a heart can condone the practice as it is today, after actually seeing it performed on a baby.
Not wanting children to be sexually mutilated shouldn't be controversial.
the issue violates ,so many ethics ,from the right to choose for your own body to body integrity , It is so wrong in so many levels.
This is very interesting. I've never considered the Catholic view about circumcision. It really is a questionable "medical" practice - perhaps it should be outlawed.
Except for Jewish religious ritual, simply because we must protect freedom of moral conscience and free exercise of religion.
KA Fleury
According to whom? Free exercise of religion is an innovation of the Enlightenment, and religious freedom was condemned by Pope Pius IX in the Syllabus of Errors.
Mark Williams According to God, who doesn't impose Himself on anyone, but woos gently.
KA Fleury
Of course. God does not force anyone to follow him, but Christianity should be the law of the land in Christian countries, and those who disagree should go elsewhere.
Mark Williams The United States wasn't established as a Christian country.
For the folks perhaps wondering: the reason why babies can't undergo general anaesthesia at such a young age is because their liver has not yet sufficiently developed to efficiently metabolise general anaesthetic drugs. If one were to ignore that, the baby could get irreparable liver damage and jaundice etc.
It's shameful how silent church men have been on this subject and that they continue to leave this fight to secular MRA's.
Most critics of routine infant circumcision in the USA are concerned mothers of childbearing age. While MRAs do denounce RIC, MRAs are also few in number and have little influence on decision making in the vast majority of families.
There are evangelical Protestants who believe that the Promise Made to Abraham encompasses Christians as well, but this belief is contradicted by several passages in Paul's letters.
Mainstream Christian theologians have been silent about the rise of RIC in the USA and the persistence of that practice. Hence the discussion in this video is a very rare one. Before 1920-40, it was widely believed that circumcision encouraged men to have better sexual morals. After the Third Reich, I surmise that Christian theologians feared that a moral critique of RIC would be perceived as an attack on Judaism. This fear of appearing antisemitic makes it very difficult for well educated Americans to form and express a critical opinion about RIC.
"Extra skin"
It's not extra. It's exactly as much as God found fit.
Let us not speak of appendicitis them. If God placed your appendix where it is, it must be needed, and should not be removed, even if it is going to kill you. How nice!
Aren't you a true Christian, and a Humanitarian.
Idiots are all around, and they will conquer the world, not by their intelligence but, by their numbers.
the Council of Florence (1438-1435) ordered "all who glory in the name of Christian not to practice 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."
Thank you for exposing the brutality we inflict on our baby boys with the influence of the enemies of Jesus Christ. I didn't know the history and difference of the practice of the old Hebrew law, and today's total mutilation and destruction of a whole organ. I hope new parents have the opportunity to hear this talk.
Oh lord... Ignorance is bliss isn't it? "Brutality"....lol "enemies of Jesus Christ"... "Mutilation".... "Destruction of a whole organ"???? Dramatic much?
@@mario9133 Should be even more dramatized.
@@davejohnpell3274
I agree. The effeminating of the modern male is dramatic.
"[The Catholic Church] strictly orders all who glory in the name of Christian not to practice circumcision, either before or after baptism, since whether or *not* they place their hope in it, it cannot possibly be observed without the loss of salvation." The Council of Florence
This seems to me to refer to *all* circumcision, not just the "Abrahamic ritual" (whatever that is). Where "Abrahamic ritual" ends and "medical procedure" begins is entirely arbitrary, and the above quote makes no distinction.
Also on statistics, there is a national disparity :in the Western States it is very low ,in many other states 50/50 ,but many regions in the USA still have a 75% ,some even higher neonatal male circumcision rates
This video was as complete and comprehensive on the subject of circumcision that I've ever heard in my own 30 years plus research on the subject. This video and the expertise of Dr. David Lang makes this video a great educational study. There is little or no study ever given to the public by the "experts " on the FUNCTION AND PURPOSE OF THE FORESKIN . Few people are aware of the fact that medical schools here in the USA refuse to teach foreskin studies . The reason is simple : many of the doctors and professors belong to religions where infant circumcision is part of their religious rituals. They prefer to keep it undercover than reveal the barbarity and cruelty associated with that procedure. A QUESTION TO THESE PEOPLE : DID GOD MAKE A MISTAKE WHEN HE CREATED FORESKINS ?? DID GOD WANT BABIES TO BE MUTILATED, DISFIGURED, TORTURED AND SEXUALLY CRIPPLED FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIFE ?????..............YOU THINK THAT I'M EXAGERATING ??? DO THE RESEARCH AND WATCH THE CIRCUMCISION VIDEO !!! This country seems to be at the top of the list in it's barbarity toward children IN OR OUT OF THE WOMB !!!
How “ironic” that circumcision and pornography (with a several decade delay) both rose in this county at the same time.
How “ironic” that these gentlemen haven’t made the connection 🤦♂️
The Council of Vienne (1311), for example, decreed that Christians should not be lured into Judaism or be circumcised for any reason.
reading this on FGM : As this practice is nearly always carried
out on minors, it "is a violation of the rights of children, and also
violates a person’s rights to health, security and physical integrity,
the right to be free from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment,
and the right to life when the procedure results in death," points
out WHO. wouldn't this also apply to newborn and children male circumcision.Read more Show less
any one who can deliberately cause so much pain and psychological trauma to a newborn baby is a heathen
never cut a baby
good observations. Even when I thought I knew it all ,every time I learn more. About reproduction, yes ,if you think about it all mammals have a foreskin ,or prepuce covering their glans. If dogs, cats, horses, did not have this covering the glans would be dry , having them not want to have intercourse, hence not reproduce.
correct, hence all other Catholic and Christian nations in the world ,never took the practice of male circumcision ,such as Europe ,and Latin America.
Christ was circumcised. As a circumcised man I can normally tell when another man is uncircumcised, they tend to carry themselves differently.
Except among Jews, for whom male circumcision has long been a religious ritual, the practice does not appear to have been widespread in the United States before the 1940s.
Routine infant circumcision was common in urban maternity wards as far back as 1900. Back then, circumcision was a minority practice because being born in a maternity ward was likewise a minority practice.
I just finished watching the Women's March .I know it is a women's issue group, but the kept saying as mothers they are fighting for human rights, reproductive rights, their son's rights: www.cbsnews.com/live/ .Over and over the anti-male circumcision rights movement kept coming to my mind in every aspect .What about men's right to body integrity ? Every issue that they mentioned ,it came to my mind how unconscentual infant male circumcision violates men's right in every aspect. From sexism to bias . Even for Muslims to realize that Islam DOES NOT MANDATE CIRCUMCISION. Islam mandates body integrity .The Bible says :we are created in God's image.
Virtually every mention of a "human rights" issue sends my mind back to
the issue of circumcision, which is far more egregious and widespread
than virtually all other human rights issues that are talked about
today. I was actually in Washington D.C. for the inauguration, the
protests, and the women's march. I actually tried talking to some people
about infant circumcision. Some people were mildly interested. But by
and large nobody cared. I wish I had been louder and bolder in talking
about circumcision.
@@gregorymalchuk272 The radical feminists don't really care about men's rights. However, there are some women (Marilyn Mihos, for example) who have long championed the abolition of elective male infant mutilation.
@@gregorymalchuk272 Radical feminists don't really care about men and their rights. However, some courageous women (for example, Marilyn Mihos) have long championed the abolition of male infant mutilation.
27:15
Where’s the evidence that the procedure changed?
I'm a Catholic and I was medically circumcised as an infant. I have never suffered any ill consequences and have 3 daughters today. I am glad that I am circumcised.
Please do not assume that other circumcised men agree with you. Many circumcised men are not aware of how circumcision has left them with a subpar penis.
alnot01 Define "subpar" penis. What percent of the population don't agree? Is circumcision the sole cause of their "subparness?"
John Coontas Talk to a woman whose been in long term relationships with both kinds of men. Talk to circumcised men over the ages of 40 or 50, who admit that as they aged, their pleasure from PIV gradually faded.
Please appreciate that the adverse effects of infant circumcision vary a lot by individual, partner and age. If you are circumcised and fine, that's great. But do not assume that all circumcised men are as fortunate as you are.
alnot01 From my comment, where did I say all uncircumcised men have no problems? I was talking about me. I am 45 years old and have no problems, and I am glad that I am circumcised. No assumptions were made.
I'm not going to talk to women and their fornicator's penis. Secondly, how do these men that you mention know that their loss of PIV pleasure is because they were circumcised? Has anyone ever looked into maybe the circumcision was performed poorly and not due to the circumcision itself if it was done correctly?
John Coontas where did I say what you think I said?
This conversation is not about you but about the nearly 1 billion circumcised men around the globe, two thirds of them being Muslim.
Why are you "glad" that you are circumcised? Have you ever been intact and fully conscious? I smell assumptions.
Which is worse, a woman in her 30s who spent a few years with a circumcised lover, followed by a few years with an intact one, or a doctor who circumcised 10 babies a week without anesthesia, and without telling the truth about it to the parents?
I know of at least one woman who was married 25 years to the intact father of her 3 children. She divorced, then remarried a circumcised man, with whom she has chronic sexual difficulties. This woman has become an elder stateswoman of the anti-circumcision movement in the USA.
"...how do these men that you mention know that their loss of PIV pleasure is because they were circumcised?"
ME. Because of reading and reflection. The question you raise here is a fair one, but deserves thoughtful honest research, not dismissal.
"Has anyone ever looked into maybe the circumcision was performed poorly..."
ME. The risk of surgical mistakes cannot be avoided. If a procedure is OK, except when it is botched, that is OK only if the occurrence of botches is, say, 1 in a 1000 or less. If 1-10% of RICs are botched, despite, 130 years of training and experience, that is a good reason to abandon RIC.
"...and not due to the circumcision itself if it was done correctly?"
ME. The distinction you are trying to make here has no operational content. Again, a procedure is not good if the outcome is good only if there are no botches. If the botches are frequent enough, the procedure has to be abandoned.
Unfortunately, while this clears up some issues regarding modern circumcision, this doesn't address the inherent morality of God commanding the Israelites to partake in the less extreme form of circumcision. Surely this act is still one that causes pain and a permanent impact to the child, no? Moreover, it would be understandable should the child have the ability to choose it- however, in Jewish law, one must be circumcised at 8 days old. There is no free will involved there!
If someone can reconcile these facts for me, I would greatly appreciate this. I've been struggling with this for a bit now.
I am working on a circumcision ban and MASSIVE government funding for tissue regeneration to regenerate our foreskins and make our bodies whole again. PLEASE watch my channel trailer where I explain how we might make this happen. Thanks.
God has sovereignty over all finite beings, which He created from nothing and thus OWNS. He could command any deed that would be reprehensible if done on merely human authority, for example the destruction of the idolatrous and perverted Canaanites in the OT. However, such extreme measures were rare even in OT times and under the New Covenant never occur. St. Thomas Aquinas explains that before the coming of Christ, mankind in general (including the Israelites) were coarse, hard-hearted, and "stiff-necked" (an accusation leveled against them by God Himself through Moses). After Christ's establishment of His Church, at least many human beings (namely, His true followers) have finally become more civilized and even holy. As the crucial line in one of the greatest Christmas carols ever written ("O Holy Night") says: "Long lay the world in sin and error pining, till He appeared and the soul felt its worth."
In the same breath that god commanded Abraham to circumcise every male in his household, he specifically included Abraham’s slaves.
Does God therefore condone slavery?
Sadly there are places that mutilate girls. FGM is a horrible practice that has sadly been practice here in the USA.
It seems that two doctoral degrees (not on anything related to circumcision, history, or religion) can't improve a poor accent.
Thanks for the compliment about my accent as well as the judgment about a degree in philosophy not being pertinent to ethical analysis.
@@davejohnpell3274 Thanks for your response. Exactly how much of the foreskin do you think ancient Jews cut off? And what is your evidence for this amount?
And why on earth is a Benedictine Monk speaking of this subject? A man formed in Philosophy, and Theology.
What part of the Churche's education in preparing to be a priest includes the male genitalia?
Brother.... Shouldn't you be pursuing better, more important, relevant, and humanitarian causes?
How about feeding the poor? How about teaching a child to read, and write? How taking care of the sick, or visiting a prison, or even a Nursing Home where an elderly person has been sitting for years, without the visit of a single family member? How about that?
Hogwash! All of it! Hogwash! Heaven help us!
Your criticism misses the mark. This is an ethical issue, and ethics is a major sub-discipline within both philosophy and theology. Did you ever hear of "moral theology", which is a mandatory subject for "education" in every seminary? And moral theology has traditionally subsumed topics in human sexuality under bio-ethics. Your other criticism reminds me of those who accuse anti-abortionists of not doing anything to help pregnant women or the poor, which is both irrelevant to the issue of the evil of abortion (even if the allegation were true) and actually slanderous (because the accusation is false).
@@davejohnpell3274
Circumcision is a Medical issue. Period.
Keep your religion, moral, ethical and etc. issues out of it.
@@mario9133no ethics needed in medicine? That’s a hot take