This is a quick post. So I was originally FOR circumcision, if our first child had been a boy we would have definitely circumcised. But thankfully she wasn't.
I reasoned "if God commanded it as a sign of his people, then there must have been a reason for doing it!"
Though I did admit that Paul did say in the New Testament that it's not necessary.
Some thing I was pondering today: If 1 in 3 baby boys have complications from circumcisions today. And 1 in 100 (I believe that's the statistic) die from complications from circumcision: how in the world did the the Jewish people survive?
And then Dr Mama answered my question: THIS post is SO interesting. So they didn't amputate a bunch of stuff like they do today? They just cut a little slit? Really? I'm not sure, I haven't read all the information posted, I do wonder about when Jonathan (or was it David) went and cut off 1,00 foreskins of the philistines in 1 Samuel: if he cut off the foreskins was it really a slit? How'd that work? Or is it translated in light of current circumcision not true historical Hebrew fact (which I find that some times the people who translated were blinded by their own cultural bias and understanding)...Who knows, I need to read into it more...But it's an interesting thought.
Either way, the hubby and I have both agreed we are most definitely not going to be circumcising our sons. We believe that God made the human body perfectly, we can't say that and then cut off a part that came with our son. Also its' an unnecessary medical intervention, we don't like those in general!