The Pain of Circumcision Impacts Babies (and the Adults They Become)
Circumcision is excruciatingly painful for a baby. Analgesia does not eliminate the pain of the amputation; the harm and pain persist long after any anesthesia has worn off. In addition, researchers observed a strong reaction to pain by circumcised babies undergoing vaccinations at four- and six-months and equated this reaction with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
Circumcision encodes the brain with pain and trauma, disrupts the maternal/infant bond, interferes with normal breastfeeding and sleep patterns, and undermines the baby’s first developmental task of establishing trust. Circumcision, for the baby, is a primal wound.
The pain may not be remembered consciously, but the body and the psyche will never forget the traumatic experience. Those who remember or who have recovered circumcision memories in therapy describe the excruciating pain and terror associated with the experience.
While providing pain relief to infants who must undergo therapeutic circumcision is ethical, even if all pain was eliminated from non-therapeutic circumcision, we would still oppose the forced, non-therapeutic circumcision of non-consenting minors on the grounds of human rights.
Whether or not infants feel pain has been an issue over the years. In 1656, Felix Wurtz, in The Children’s Book, asserted the idea that the less mature the infant, the greater degree of pain experienced. An infant’s pain was considered very real in the mid-19th century. In 1898, in his book, Therapeutics of Infancy and Childhood, A. Jacobi cautioned against chloroform, which produces shallow respirations, and ether, which has a detrimental effect on kidneys and lungs. He was aware of the need for analgesia in the newborn and the difficulty accomplishing it successfully.
This understanding was lost when Charles Darwin, in his 1872 book, The Expression of Emotions in Man and Animal, claimed that children’s physical responses to pain reflected sensory or emotional reactions to pain, but were just reflex actions, reinforced by habit. Even up to the 1980s, physicians performed surgery, including open-heart surgery, on infants without anesthesia. But, we now know that Wurtz was correct. Babies do feel and experience pain.
During the 1980s, Anand and Hickey monitored pain responses of babies undergoing circumcision and, in their landmark 1987 New England Journal of Medicine article, “Pain and Its Effects in the Human Neonate and Fetus,” concluded that infants feel as much—or more—pain as adults. It took another twelve years for the American Academy of Pediatrics to recommend analgesia for babies undergoing circumcision. Still, today, more than 50% of babies are circumcised without pain relief.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
We're so concerned with doing the "right" thing that we completely turn our back on doing the smart thing.
Circumcision has been practiced for thousands of years and THERE'S A REASON FOR THAT. The foreskin of the penis traps debris during ejaculation and urination which can lead to a number of complications, such as irritation, inflammation, and infection (including urinary tract infection). While UTI's are pretty uncommon, they happen 10 times as much to uncircumcised babies as they do to circumcised ones. Recent studies also indicate that circumcision decreases a male's chance of getting penile cancer , and may reduce their chances of getting STD's, including HIV .
And yes, I've read all the literature on the psychological stress inflicted on boys who've been circumcised. Who really thinks that a kid is going to get PTSD from having their tip snipped? Sigmund Freud? Big surprise there.
When it comes to circumcision, you need to weigh the risks versus the benefits. You can either inflict pain on your baby (for a very short amount of time) or you can put them at a greater risk for penile infections for the rest of their lives.
Can someone please tell me that this whole debate is a big joke. Please. I cannot believe that there is even a debate on this topic. Wouldn't psychologists offices be flooded with men suffering from issues as a result of their circumcision or the resulting lack of bonding with their mothers? There are hundreds of millions of men who are circumcised and barely any are reporting mental issues as a result of their circumcision nor sexual problems. Wow.
Do you think killing babies and children by circumcising them is a JOKE?
http://intact.wikia.com/wiki/Death_By_Circumcision
http://www.circumstitions.com/death.html
http://www.cirp.org/library/death /
Genocides, wars, the death penalty , excision, rape, and circumcision
http://circabolition.multiply.com/journal/item/344/Genocides_wars_the_death_penalty_excision_rape_and_circumcision
My son slept through the plastibell procedure....he was in my arms, what pain????? I cannot imagine he was in pain when he was sleeping and was breastfed right after.
As far as adults my husband , brother and dad are all are, esp. from the era when there were no plastibells and no pain meds, I have to yet to see one of them in a psychiatric institute or office. My dad is a physician, my brother is a physician, I am a physician and my husband is a MBA with a very good job and an awesome father and husband. Really who are these papers researching and what kind of procedures they are researching?
Then as a physician you are aware that circumcision is an unethical procedure right?
There is very good information that say circumcision is painful for the child amazingly the AAP didn't even recommend anesthetic untill 1999. Tell me what would you have removed without anesthetic? But that is besides the point even if it was a painless procedure it wouldn't be any more ethical than removing saya childs earlobes. I am sure that could be done painlessly but it wouldn't be ethical.
The AAP Committee on Bioethics report states, "Pediatric health care providers. . . have legal and ethical duties to their child patients to render competent medical care based on what the patient needs, not what someone else expresses. . . . The pediatrician’s responsibilities to his or her patient exist independent of parental desires or proxy consent." (American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Bioethics. “Informed Consent, Parental Permission, and Assent in Pediatric Practice.” Pediatrics 95 (1995): 314).
Having your girlfriend rip off the pasts and run away screaming when she sees your uncircumcised stuff!
No, not really folks, that was a bit of comedy, but the matter at hand is a parent's right to do what they think is best for their child, they should not be required, or even pressured to circumcise their child or not. This choice should ALWAYS be in the hands of the parents, not of an activist organization or even a physician. the best that can be done is to encourage expectant parents to look into the arguments on either side, and take the decision in stride, with lots of care in mind for their baby boy.
Brady says "...the matter at hand is a parent's right to do what they think is best for their child ... This choice should ALWAYS be in the hands of the parents ..."
Then why did Congress take that choice away from parents in 1996 when they prohibited parents from even pricking their daughters' foreskins with a pin? Doing so is a federal felony. You can't have it both ways. Either parents get to mutilate their sons' AND their daughters' sex organs, or neither. Make up your mind.
Um....there's no reason to "mutilate" (or alter) a girl's vagina. A labia, clitoris, or any other external part of her vagina does not pose a risk for infection - the foreskin of a penis does.
From what I've heard from uncircumcised adult men, the foreskin is just a pain in the ass to deal with. So, do the benefits outweigh the risks? The benefits of not circumcising being...uh...I can't think of any...and the risk being infection at worst, and really fracking annoying at best?
Livvy, your ignorance is showing. Every year millions of parents in this world have reasons good enough for them to mutilate their daughters' sex organs. The UN estimates that about 3 million girls a year are genitally mutilated at their parents' request or at least assent. If there were no reasons to mutilate girls' sex organs Congress would not have had to pass a law making it a felony to do so. Girls get infections too. We give them antibiotics, not genital amputations. Boys can be given antibiotics, too. Here's a benefit of not circumcising for you: If you're not circumcised you can't be killed by being circumcised. There are many more. Study it.You have a to to learn. Enjoy it.
The reason congress passed a law against female circumcision is because all forms of "female circumcision" not only involve removal of the clitoris (an unnecessarily cruel act) , but often lead to urinary and reproductive tract infections, caused by obstructed flow of urine and menstrual blood, various forms of scarring, and sometimes infertility.
You're argument is fundamentally flawed. You say "Either parents get to mutilate their sons' AND their daughters' sex organs, or neither." As Rebecca Cook, author of Reproductive Health and Human Rights, so accurately pointed out, "[female circumcision] in whatever form it is practiced, is not at all analogous to male circumcision."
Not only does penile circumcision pose no lasting damage to a male, it has health benefits. Studies have shown that uncircumcised males are ten times more likely to get urinary tract infections than circumcised males. Medical journals have produced scores of studies indicating that male circumcision reduces the chances of contracting HIV , and one particularly large study recently found that penile circumcision reduces the risk for contracting certain stds. Don't believe me? Read the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/27/health/27std.html
Not only that, but leaving on the foreskin of the penis poses a risk for a plethora of other infections. Yes, there are antibiotics, but if you knew anything about antibiotics (and I have no faith that you do) you'd realize that most antibiotics do more harm than good. Antibiotics are incapable of distinguishing good bacteria from harmful bacteria, so when you use them you're doing a number on your immune system.
My favorite line in your argument: "You have a to to learn." MY ignorance is showing? Please.
5) Now you try to bring out the big guns : "Medical journals have produced
scores of studies indicating that male circumcision reduces the chances of
contracting HIV , and one particularly large study recently found that penile
circumcision reduces the risk for contracting certain stds. Don't believe
me? Read the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/27/health/27std.html "
I've already read it and lots more besides, but I also read the other side
of the argument. Scores of studies have been published in medical journals
contradicting those you mention. If you want to understand the actual
science involved as opposed to parroting only those that support your own
preconceived notions, you can't just read one newspaper article. You have to
see all sides of the question and argument. Study it:
http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV /
http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/info/HIVStatement.html
http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV.html
http://www.circumcisionandhiv.com /
Did you know that studies have shown that female genital mutilation reduces
the likelihood of the mutilated woman getting HIV from an infected male
partner? Is that a good enough reason to cut YOUR foreskin off, WITHOUT your
PERMISSION? And studies have shown that women are more likely to contract
HIV from infected males who are circumcised than from males who are
genitally intact? Is that a good enough reason for females to prefer intact
males to circumcised ones as sex partners?
6) "... leaving on the foreskin of the penis poses a risk for a plethora of
other infections."
Amputating it opens the flesh of the penis to viral and bacterial infection.
Ever heard of MRSA? See
http:// http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/DOC/mrsa.html
MRSA can kill a freshly circumcised baby . Don't believe me? Look at this:
http://infocirc.org/fourn.htm
7) "most antibiotics do more harm than good" I am no fan of indiscriminate
and unnecessary use of antibiotics, just as I am no fan of unnecessary
circumcisions in healthy boys OR girls OR intersex children , but the
negative effects of antibiotics can be ameliorated by the positive effects
of probiotics. We can easily reestablish our good bacteria. Injuring
permanently and risking killing perfectly healthy children by amputating
their normal, healthy body parts now to try to avoid a very unlikely future
need for antibiotics is irrational in the extreme. Once you start
involuntary prophylactic surgery, where do you stop? About 1/3rd of women
now get breast cancer . Not 1 in 100. 1 in 3! Does this mean we need to
redirect circumcision funds to cutting out baby girls' breast buds to
prevent them from betting breast cancer when they are adults? I wouldn't be
in favor of that and I hope you wouldn't either. If a grown woman with high
risk of breast cancer wants her breasts removed that's her business. Nobody
should make that decision for her when she's a baby or a girl. They are HER
breasts. No one else's. Same with the boy. It's HIS foreskin. No one else's.
How many day-old babies do you know who are out having unprotected sex every
night? NONE of them are at ANY risk of the stds you're advocating protecting
them from by mutilating their only sex organs for life. Crazy, lady. HIS
penis, HIS foreskin, HIS decision.
8) "MY ignorance is showing?" Yes ma'am. Big time.
Here is how Jewish Nobel Laureate Harvard biologist, George Wald, ended his
important essay on the subject:
"This is no time to circumcise males. They need all the female element they
can get. [As Wald makes clear in his essay, the clitoris is considered
"male" in the unconscious {and sometimes conscious} mind, and so is excised
in some tribes to make the girl "fully female". Just so, the male foreskin
is considered "female", and is amputated to make the child "fully male". VL]
For every child is born into the world with much of one sex and a little of
the other. The mistake is by a mutilation to take that little of the other
sex away. It should be left as nature evolved it, as in the child, so that
all our lives we can go on being much of one sex, and always a little of the
other."
You can read more at http://StopInfantCircumcision.org/crick-wald.htm
Male genital mutilation damages FEMALES, not just males, just as female
genital mutilation damages males, not just females. We can't damage one sex
without damaging the other. We're in this thing together, and have been for
a very long time. We're not getting rid of each other any time soon.
Our real problem is not female genital mutilation, and it is not male
genital mutilation. Our real problem is human genital mutilation. The sooner
women and men realize this the sooner we'll find ourselves in a much safer
and happier and more pleasurable world. I look forward to it.
Lizzy, if it's any comfort to you, we're ALL ignorant, in our own ways.
Enjoy learning. It'll make your life so much happier.
The most painful part of circumcising infant males is the retracting of the foreskin . On the infant the foreskin is hard to retract and is extremely painful to retract. Uncut boys suffer far more pain growing up than boys who are circumcised.
This is because of the retracting of the foreskin which goes on for uncuts during their younger years. Contrary to what is being told to parents about not retracting the foreskin and cleaning it on baby boys and toddlers, those boys who's parents did not retract their foreskins to clean under them, many have developed cysts.
When a baby boy is being circumcised, the retracting of the skin and the breaking of the adhesion is extremely painful. This is what uncuts have to go through every day when they are young, if left uncut. After the foreskin is retracted and freed from the glans (head of the penis), a special protective cap is placed over the head of the penis. The foreskin is drawn over it and a clamp is placed on the base of the foreskin sandwiching the foreskin between the cap and the ring clamp. This actually causes minimal (if any) pain, because once the foreskin gets clamped and the clamp seats in completely, the skin turns numb and dies. The actual cutting involves no pain.
Baby boys hate being strapped down and their foreskins retracted. The rest of the procedure is brief discomfort. Babies will cry frantically in the same manner when they are getting vaccination shots and when they are taken away from their nursing .
Don't assume that you know all about why a baby is crying frantically. Babies cry frantically about a lot of things, that's why they're babies.
All of you anti-circs here, don't get mad at me or be irrational about anything I've stated here. Just look at the facts I've presented here and start to be rational and honest. Your logic is not accurate.
Before you come up with your own logic, know the medical, histological, biological, physiological and genetic facts. Then you'll know foreskins can't be compared to anything else and seriously need to be cut off from all males routinely.
Then you may start to come out of your self-deception of defending foreskin and realize that the routine Circumcision of all males is a very wonderful standardization no male should ever be deprived of.
This guy is giving mutilationists a bad name on PURPOSE! He is writing this madness trying to make people think that ALL mutilationists are this irrational and this sick in the head. His purpose is the same as that of the rest of us intactivists, protecting children from unnecessary harm, trauma, mutilation, and the possibility of bering killed by circumcision , he's just going about it in the opposite way from us. We're two sides of the same coin.
Great work, Mister Truth! Keep giving genital mutilationism a bad name!
Mistertruth, you just babbled on and on and on about a bunch of nonsense. I think even most pro- circumcision extremists would think your posts are very irrational.
"... the routine Circumcision of all males is a very wonderful standardization no male should ever be deprived of."
Every male should be the one to make his OWN decision, when he is a competent adult, about what he wants to be deprived of and what he wants to keep. Anonymous liars have NO business substituting their own perversions for the free will of the persons the anonymous liars wish to mutilate. What a hideous sickness! Can you say "human vivisection"?
"Beware of the dogs,
beware of the evil-workers,
beware of those who mutilate the flesh!"
Paul of Tarsus, Philippians 3:2
"Mass involuntary circumcision has failed to achieve any of the public health benefits its advocates have claimed for it; but even if it had achieved them all, there can be no scientific or ethical justification for depriving anyone of sovereignty over his own sex organs. Neonatal circumcision violates bodily integrity and imposes on an unconsenting individual a diminished penis for life. In the wake of the Nuremberg trials, it is inappropriate for doctors to persist in performing or advocating involuntary penile reduction surgery on healthy, normal individuals. The totalitarian concept of involuntary prophylactic surgery espoused by circumcision advocates has no place in modern medicine or the civilized world. The key to decreasing the transmission of STDs is education , not amputation."
P M Fleiss, MD; F M Hodges, PhD; R S Van Howe, MD, in
Immunological functions of the human prepuce
SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED INFECTIONS (London),
Volume 74, Number 5, Pages 364-367,
October 1998
http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/STD/fleiss3 /
There is a shame and poor sense of self-esteem which universally afflicts all uncut men. It is obvious that the foreskin was meant to be cut off and doesn't suit men at all. That's why Circumcision is the first operation to ever be performed in the history of humanity, during the time the first males existed on Earth.
Many uncut men suffer from psychological problems too. Because they're more in love with their foreskin than with their penis. But when it comes to using their penis, it doesn't work as good with the foreskin on it.
Many uncut men think getting circumcised is big deal when it is not. If you're an adult and have foreskin, all you need to do is contact a Urologist, he or she will set up an appointment at the hospital for you. You'll get general or local anesthetic. You will be circumcised and not even feel anything. You might think they're still circumcising you, when they tell you, "we're all done." When you heal up about 3 to 4 weeks later, you will be amazed with your new circumcised penis.
You didn't lose a foreskin at all, you gained an awesome circumcision. It's a completely different state, and there is no irritation or discomfort, just constant cleanliness and sexual arousal. Circumcised men have far more fun during sex, enjoy far more sexual stimulation during intercourse, are always clean, and don't suffer from the problems of penetrating the vagina like uncut men do.
On top of all that, no more pain and injury to the penis during sex, as well as no more infections, very lowered risks of catching or giving infections and diseases between you and your partner.
The sex is far more better, not only for the circumcised man, but also his woman who gets far more turned on and stimulated by the stimulation of the circumcised penis. Not to mention she's not at a severe risk for getting infections and possible cervical cancer from the foreskin's secretion of viruses (HPV and Tyson's Cells).
Tyson's Cells instantly bind to the HIV / AIDS cellular molecule.
If people weren't so ignorant, and knew these things, then no one would tolerate the troublemakers and deviants in the "Anti-Circumcision Lobby".
I hope all of you men who have been circumcised as babies, but are on the Anti-Circumcision side, start to snap out of your deceived state and realize that you have the best lot.
For all of you men who are uncut and want to get circumcised but are scared, don't be. There's more invasiveness and pain involved getting a tooth pulled than with getting circumcised. It's very minor an operation, but highly advantageous for all men/males. Just because this involves caring for the penis and not the teeth, some people become immature and irrational.
For all of you uncuts who defend your foreskin state, even though deep down inside of you, you'd like to get circumcised (this is how all uncut men really feel, trust me I know), just know that you are deceiving yourselves. So why should you try so hard to deceive others down to your self-deceiving state?
If you want an even better state than you have, try circumcision, you'll be very happy after you do so. You'll even be asking why you weren't circumcised when you were a baby.
If they want to force the HPV Vaccine on girls for the prevention of Cervical Cancer, then Circumcision also should be forced on all guys. One standard will do just fine, no need for a double-standard.
"... Circumcision is the first operation to ever be performed in the history of humanity, during the time the first males existed on Earth."
Or did you figure it out on your own?
I know. You proved it scientifically, right?
Also, micro-trauma and surface tearing to the foreskin takes place along with painful sex to the male. The sex act is not as complete and thorough for the male, when he's got foreskin. Circumcised men enjoy sex far more than men who still have their foreskins. Women also universally say they are more stimulated physically without the there foreskin to trap the penis while inside of the vagina, all the man does is masturbate in his own foreskin, and not stimulate the woman. Just as stated previously.
There are too many bad things about foreskin to not just make it mandatory and routine for all males period.
There are many people with psychological problems who can't seem to understand this. Gaining a circumcision by eradicating a problematic foreskin is a wonderful gift all men should never be deprived. If they are to be properly cared for.
I know all about this subject, I am a guy who got circumcised at 18 years of age, because someone thought circumcision wasn't a good idea when I was born, even though my mom wanted me circumcised. I am now 33 years old and I'm happily enjoying my circumcised state that I was deprived of having during the years before I was 18.
I can tell you it isn't fair to leave a male with his foreskin. It should be standard medical procedure in all hospitals that after a boy is born he is also circumcised along with his umbilical cord being removed. If lay people just left most Doctors alone, Circumcision would standard practice for all boys.
Doctors, whether they are for or against circumcision for baby boys, will tell you it is a good idea. Lay people who aren't even Doctors don't have any right to decide about circumcision. If people studied biology, anatomy, histology, bio-chemistry, mathematics, physics, chemistry, medicine , morphology (structures and functions), then they wouldn't be ignorant lay people, easily deceived by the deviants out there.
It is intolerable that lay people are even being allowed a choice over something they do not understand, because they're too lazy to get a real education . Doctors fear lawsuits from a stupid dumb-downed society of simpletons. So they lie and say it's optional. But if Doctors were left alone and decided what is right like it should be, then it would be like it used to be, where all boys were routinely circumcised. There wasn't the problems back then, when boys were routintely circumcised like there is now.
Societies of the world including all of North America are being degraded by a new Socialist structure bent on promoting poorly developed citizens, so it is easier to control them. If the anti-circumcision lobby took care of their psychological problems and got with the program, there would be no more an "anti-circumcision lobby".
If lay people got educated properly, there would be no more believers of the lies of the anti-circumcision lobby.
If people moved against all the despicable Socialists running our Government and the world-over, and locked them all up, we would see a return to a well-developed citizenry world-wide.
Those of you men here who were circumcised as a baby, you have the best lot. You have the advantages of any adult male who got circumcised as an adult, but you had yours from the beginning, so you have it the best. Do not let a bunch of people with psychological problems from the "anti-circ lobby" spread their sickness onto you. Just ignore it, it's nonsense.
My suggestion to expectant parents of a baby boy is to arrange for the Doctor who will circumcise your son ahead of time. Don't wait till the last minute. I believe only Doctors who are very proficient and experienced in doing circumcisions should be the only Doctors that parents should allow to circumcise their sons.
Don't let some E.R. Room Doctor that you have no history data of their career just circumcise your son. Make sure the best Doctor for circumcising baby boys is contacted, at least 3 months before the expected time of birth of your son comes around.
Then your son will get the best circumcision and have a good life down the road. Boys left with their foreskins, (I was one of them) have all sorts of problems they do not deserve. Such as bedwetting, lots of smegma, excruciating pain to the penis head anytime the skin is retracted, painful sex, weak erections, constant foul odor which doesn't go away for more than 10 minutes after taking a thorough shower, problems with penetrating the vagina, personal shame, and a 75% higher chance of injuring the penis and acquiring some type of disease, ailment, infection, sores and even STDs' and AIDS .
Not to mention the highly un-aesthetic state of having a foreskin oddity down between your legs. Even in nations where a majority of the males are not circumcised, most men in those society are shy to be seen naked.
Van Lewis, actually your ignorance and bias is showing. Your logic is incorrect. Genetics, Histology and Medicine isn't always coherent to logic. Foreskins are bigger than Clitoral Hoods, but this doesn't mean there are "more nerve endings" in them. That is all wrong what you say.
You see, all embryos' start out as female. The Chromosome blueprint for all human fetuses is always XX or female. But after the 1st Trimester, if the blueprint changes to an XY Chromosomal sequence, then the embryo will modify into a male.
The labia minora will fuse into the scrotum, the ovaries into the testes, the urethra will form through the clitoris, the clitoris will turn into the penis, and the clitoral hood will elongate with it into what becomes a foreskin .
Everything else forms into male parts, except for the foreskin.
The foreskin becomes an inferior version of the clitoral hood. In vascular tissue, in nerves and in blood vessels.
Also, due to the change in hormones and cellular make up from female to male, the foreskin no longer has the protective function and histology as it did when it was the clitoral hood.
The foreskin become a foul obstructive and Human Papilliom Virus & Tyson's Cells secreting redundant appendage. That is because the penis head is meant to be exposed and not covered up by foreskin. The penis is meant to do what the clitoris is NOT meant to do.
The penis has its functions, foreskin is contrary to the functions of the penis.
When the female modifies into the male, the elongated Clitoris Hood now elongated into a degraded, inferior, obstructive and infectious Foreskin, obstructs and imprisons the penis from it's external and outward functions.
Foreskins, even though much bigger than clitoral hoods are not the same, because the histological, bio-chemical, structure and function of the Foreskin is no longer the same as the Clitoral Hood.
Also, Foreskin impedes the sexual, medical & hygienic functions of the penis. Just because something is bigger doesn't mean it's density in useful nerve cells higher. Nerve Density is the amount of nerve cells per given unit of volume. More volume doesn't necessarily mean more nerve cells.
The morphology of the foreskin itself is counter-penile and problematic for maximizing the normal functions of the penis.
The Clitoral Hood is proven to be NOT of the flawed histological and degraded make up as the Foreskin. The Clitoral Hood was design to protect the Clitoris, because the Clitoris does NOT have functions like the penis does. This Clitoral Hood which elongates into a degraded and inferior Foreskin, wasn't meant for the functions of the penis.
This is why since the beginning of human time, it was common sense to cut off the foreskin. Science and Medicine have proven that Foreskin and the viruses it secretes not only inhibits sexual function and leads to sexual dysfunction in men and higher disease rates in both partners. But also, stimulation to the vagina by the penis and penis to the vagina is poor because due to the foreskin keeping the head inside of it during the process. The uncut is simply masturbating inside of his foreskin and giving no stimulation to the woman.
Also the viruses and bacteria that foreskin secretes, mainly HPV (Human Papilliom Virus) cells, gets lodged into the vagina and breeds internally. HPV is the leading cause of Cervical Cancer. Truly educated women should never sleep with men who have not been completely circumcised of all their foreskin. Most educated and experienced women out there who do know better, refuse to sleep with uncut men. Because they know better not to, and have had bad sexual experiences with uncuts.
Mistertruth has invented imaginary biology 101: "You see, all embryos' start out as female. The Chromosome blueprint for all human fetuses is always XX or female. But after the 1st Trimester, if the blueprint changes to an XY Chromosomal sequence, then the embryo will modify into a male."
Completely wrong. As every Jr. high school C- science student knows. The sex of the child is determined at conception - not "after the 1st Trimester" as "Mistertruth" falsely claims, by whether the fertilizing sperm contains an "x" or a "y" chromosome. If "x", female; if "y", male. There is a very small percentage of more complex situations, but "x" for female and "y" for male is the basic pattern.
All males, females and intersex children deserve to have their human rights to bodily integrity respected and protected from the ignorance and rank falsehoods of anonymous liars like Mistertruth.
Van Lewis, I am a Scientist. I'll explain to you the facts.
The Apparent Sex is known at conception, but it truly is not known until the second trimester.
The True Sex of the child is not known until at least the second trimester. Ask any pregnant woman and she will tell you this.
It is a "yes and no" answer to the question, 'Is the sex of the child known at conception?'
Chromosomal changes lead to the hormonal shifts which then induce changes in organs and body structures from female to male if the male child is to be born.
Cell differentiation is starting from the egg, with data input from the sperm. The sperm governs the manipulation, but needs a vehicle, this being the egg (female blueprint).
Van Lewis, your emotions and half-educated opinions do not count as facts.
The well-being of males and their partners is enhanced by routine circumcision of all males. Uncuts experience more pain, suffering and medical problems overall, as do their female partners because of the uncut male's foreskin.
Don't let your irrational emotions cloud your judgment Van Lewis, if you choose to know the facts instead of your opinions.
Lastly, do not call me a liar just because you're out of touch with reality.
- Mister Truth -
First he claims he's an engineer. (I don't have that reference at the moment. Maybe I'll see it again and provide it later.) Then he claims
"Van Lewis, I am a Scientist. I'll explain to you the facts."
Mistertruth May 7, 2009 9:32AM
Notice the capital "S" in "Scientist".
Here's one of his scientific "facts":
"Uncuts experience more pain, suffering and medical problems overall, as do their female partners because of the uncut male's foreskin ."
Even if this were true, and it's far from it, it certainly would not justify circumcising ANYONE involuntary, let alone babies and children . Men could choose circumcision for themselves and still get these alleged "benefits" if they wanted them more than they wanted a normal, healthy, whole, complete penis. If pain, suffering, and medical problems were a valid excuse to kill OTHER people's normal, healthy body parts, guess what? We could prevent virtually ALL pain, suffering, and medical problems by killing not just the foreskin, but by killing the entire BABY! Why just eliminate SOME pain and suffering when it's so much easier and quicker to eliminate ALL of it?! "It only hurts for a moment! He won't remember it anyway!" etc.
This is why human rights are so profoundly important. Virtually every nation in the world has adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a part of its national law , starting on December 10, 1948. Google it. Read it some day. It is fundamental law that we all live under. We don't always obey human rights law, lord knows, but we are subject to it all the same, because we have agreed as a nation and a world to be subject to it.
"... the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice."
Martin Luther King, Jr.
16 August 1967
Human beings have to be protected from Mister Many Falsehood's and the many similar irrational assaults by religiously or politically or personally irrationally motivated killers. There are plenty of them out there. Have you noticed?
"Don't let your irrational emotions cloud your judgment Van Lewis, if you choose to know the facts instead of your opinions."
Back at ya' dude.
"Lastly, do not call me a liar just because you're out of touch with reality."
The pot calling the kettle black?
The foreskin internalizes an organ "meant" to be EXTERNAL? "Meant" by WHOM? By Mister Many Falsehoods! Actuially, circumcising EXTERNALIZES and organ meant (by God/Mother Nature/ evolution ) to be INTERNAL.
Don't let Mister Many Falsehoods twist and distort YOUR reality as he attempts to mutilate and distort the reality of every male on the planet.
"The well-being of males and their partners is enhanced by routine circumcision of all males. Uncuts experience more pain, suffering and medical problems overall, as do their female partners because of the uncut male's foreskin."
Easy to claim, impossible to prove. That's why you don't even try.
The question is NOT whether anyone KNOWS the sex of the child at conception. 100% of humanity can be 100% ignorant of the sex of 100% of the egg/sperm complexes at conception. That is not the question. The question is whether the sex of the child is DETERMINED at conception by the x or the y sex chromosome in the sperm that fertilizes the egg. I say it it is. That is what I was taught in biology class by a Nobel laureate Harvard biology professor. You say it isn't? Prove it. Provide your evidence. Perhaps I was wrongly educated. Prove your unsupported assertions, Mr. Anonymous Scientist.
I'm not sure if you're just young and impressionable. But if you work with objective science long enough, into your 30's and 40's, you'll realize there is a distinct engineered pattern. From sources higher than the very human condition, Intelligent Designer.
All matter and energy is constant in the universe, it cannot be created or destroyed. No human put it all there. No random chance or Nazi Racist "Evolution" False Doctrine explains all of the DNA that has ever been manifested.
Objective Science points to an Intelligent Designer, far greater than any human's capabilities. Studying genetic sequences over the years, this is what is revealed.
Dr. Crick the Geneticist who won the Nobel Prize along with Dr. Crick, firmly believes in an Intelligent Designer, a Creator, A Supreme Being who put all of this here in its distinct pattern.
Socialism and Nazi Fascism is becoming the norm now. The youth have been poisoned with all sorts of false doctrines by traitors against objective science.
Such as Nazi Fascists who get hired at Universities by the Socialists. They have a PhD after their names also with other titles. These Scientists are liars. Because you can't be a liar unless you know the truth then say the opposite of the truth. That is what most of these University Professors are today: Nazi Fascists.
They are paid large sums of money to lie to the kids and break their faith in the actual truth. Just because they have a PhD after their name, doesn't mean they are telling you the truth.
A lot of Universities will fire the honest scientists for pointing out the genetic proof behind Intelligent Design. Many scientists today are either greedy or they are Nazi Fascists who want to see a Socialist Planet.
So they speak lies to people like you Van Lewis and you believe them.
You fail to see the lack of logic between the sexes as well. The Creator engineered that into the sexes and appointed them for specific roles on Earth.
However, with false logic like yours, you seem to think the functions of the clitoris is the same as the penis. The functions of the penis is diametrically opposite to the clitoris.
The foreskin which comes with the clitoris when it changes into the penis, is no longer needed on the penis, if the penis is to be 100% functional to it's true design.
That is why all holy books in all of human history speak about the Creator testing males to be circumcised. To see if they would just obey the Creator.
Now medical science proves all types of reasons to circumcise every
male on Earth.
Aside from enhancing sex for males, circumcision prevents all sorts of
afflictions and diseases.
If all males on Earth were circumcised, the HIV / AIDS , STDs', Cervical Cancer, Urinary Tract Infections and genital infection rates for both sexes would reduce by as much as 70%!
Saying Circumcision is "not medically necessary" is completely irresponsible and false.
Maybe one day a woman in your family will die of cervical cancer that a pathologist attributes from the Human Papilliom Virus (HPV) secreted by
her partner's foreskin. Maybe you will run into men later on in their older age who get circumcised and report their sex lives are far better than it was with having a foreskin.
I have seen a lot of ardent opponents of circumcision who later become proponents of circumcision. Because many snap out of their irrational emotional states by being correctly educated and then become objectively rational.
"MisterI Truth" says to me, "I'm not sure if you're just young and impressionable."
If you have told the truth about your age, I am about twice as old as you, and half as impressionable.
"But if you work with objective science long enough, into your 30's and 40's, you'll realize there is a distinct engineered pattern. From sources higher than the very human condition, Intelligent Designer."
A lot more intelligent than you, I have to admit. And S/He designed human sex organs correctly, too. Your attempt to replace God by redesigning the penis in your own image is blasphemy and heresy and arrogance in the extreme.
"Objective Science points to an Intelligent Designer, far greater than any human's capabilities."
Trust this designer's design for the human sex organs, not "Mister Truth"'s perverted design.
"Dr. Crick the Geneticist who won the Nobel Prize along with Dr. Crick, firmly believes in an Intelligent Designer, a Creator, A Supreme Being who put all of this here in its distinct pattern."
"Mister Truth's" hero, Dr. Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the structure of the DNA molecule, strongly opposed genital mutilation of all children . See http://www.nocirc.org/symposia/fourth/endorse1.pdf He, too, was a great scientist, a Nobel laureate, like George Wald, and unlike "Mister Truth". See http://montagunocircpetition.org /
"These Scientists are liars."
So was Francis Crick, PhD, a liar when, according to you, he said there is an intelligent designer?
"Because you can't be a liar unless you know the truth then say the opposite of the truth. That is what most of these University Professors are today: Nazi Fascists."
Nazi Fascist doctors were convicted at Nuremberg after World War II of the crime against humanity called "human vivisection". They cut up living healthy human beings. That's human vivisection. Circumcision is the very same crime against humanity.
Another rank falsehood: "That is why all holy books in all of human history speak about the Creator testing males to be circumcised. To see if they would just obey the Creator."
"Mister Truth" just makes it up as he goes.
His agenda: "Now medical science proves all types of reasons to circumcise every
male on Earth."
And medical science is smarter than God so forget the Intelligent Designer and the Intelligent Design and go with psychopaths like "Mister Truth".
"Aside from enhancing sex for males, circumcision prevents all sorts of
afflictions and diseases."
And if you let me cut the end of your penis off you will become a millionaire by the time you're 15.
"If all males on Earth were circumcised, the HIV / AIDS , STDs', Cervical Cancer, Urinary Tract Infections and genital infection rates for both sexes would reduce by as much as 70%!"
And if we cut the entire penis off we'd reduce it almost to zero! Why be satisfied with 70% when 99.999% is so easy to obtain?
"Saying Circumcision is "not medically necessary" is completely irresponsible and false."
Saying Circumcision is "medically necessary" is completely irresponsible and false. NO ONE in medicine claims that circumcising is medically necessary.
"Maybe one day a woman in your family will die of cervical cancer that a pathologist attributes from the Human Papilliom Virus (HPV) secreted by her partner's foreskin."
There is an effective vaccine against HPV now. Mutilating penises is contraindicated.
"Maybe you will run into men later on in their older age who get circumcised and report their sex lives are far better than it was with having a foreskin."
Maybe you will run into men later on in their older age, as I have, who get circumcised and report their sex lives were completely destroyed by circumcision/genital mutilation.
There is an easy, rational solution to the problem. Let men decide for THEMSELVES about their OWN penises. "Mister Truth" has no business chopping up anybody's penis but his own, which, apparently, he did. Fine. He just doesn't know where to stop. He's a psychopath. Seek wiser counsel.
Van Lewis thinks Circumcision doesn't prevent diseases. When it has been proven that if all males were circumcised on Earth, afflictions such as AIDS , STDs', Cervical Cancer, Urinary Tract Infection, Kidney Scarring, Balantis, Phimosis, Hyperactive Kidney Neurosis and male sexual dysfunction in older age could ALL be reduced by as much as 70%!
If you look at regions and groups of the world where Circumcision is required by law for all males, such as the Jews and Muslims, they don't seem have any issues with STDs', AIDS, Cervical Cancer, "erectile dysfunction", "sexual dysfunction", urinary tract infections and genital health .
Infants are too young to make any choices about their health. That is why Routine Circumcision of Infant Males is the base standard medical procedure within all responsible medical circles. Provided irrational members of lay society and Nazis don’t interfere with responsible Medical Science.
Comparing foreskin to the penis is like comparing the umbilical cord to the abdomen. No need to go there Van Lewis, you are stepping out of the limits of reason and sanity. Foreskin isn't the penis. Try not to forget that. The penis is the glans, shaft, erectile tissue and urethra.
Foreskin is just the tubular skin which obstructs and inhibits the glans or head of the penis. That is why so many males, shortly after they are born, world-wide, their foreskins are routinely removed.
Foreskin isn't the penis.
Van Lewis, I understand you are passionate about your anti-circumcision stance. However, you aren't being rational about the overall facts.
When you straighten out your psychological problems first, then we can continue on with an objective and rational conversation regarding Circumcision.
Have a nice day.
"Van Lewis thinks Circumcision doesn't prevent diseases."
False. Circumcision prevents all diseases of the foreskin if all of the foreskin tissue is removed and killed. We can similarly prevent all diseases of the heart if we remove all heart tissue, and all diseases of the brain if we remove all brain tissue. We can prevent all diseases period if we remove all tissue period. But is killing tissue the best way we have of preventing disease of tissue? I don't think so.
"When it has been proven that if all males were circumcised on Earth, afflictions such as AIDS , STDs', Cervical Cancer, Urinary Tract Infection, Kidney Scarring, Balantis, Phimosis, Hyperactive Kidney Neurosis and male sexual dysfunction in older age could ALL be reduced by as much as 70%!"
Mister Falsehoods lives in a world of falsehoods.
"If you look at regions and groups of the world where Circumcision is required by law for all males, such as the Jews and Muslims, they don't seem have any issues with STDs', AIDS, Cervical Cancer, "erectile dysfunction", "sexual dysfunction", urinary tract infections and genital health ."
They just kill each other's children after they've sexually crippled and mutilated their own children for life, apparently having nothing more pleasurable to do.
"Infants are too young to make any choices about their health."
So wait until they are old enough and well educated enough.
"That is why Routine Circumcision of Infant Males is the base standard medical procedure within all responsible medical circles."
Mister Falsehoods is spinning his far-out yarns again. Here is the fact of the matter: No national or international medical association in the world recommends routine circumcising healthy children of either sex, because, as hard as they look for it, they say in so many words that they cannot find adequate medical justification to recommend it. "Routine Circumcision of Infant Males" is illegal in the USA. It's the way doctors used to go about it, before lawsuits brought by irate Jewish parents finally put a stop to it in the late 1960s.
"Provided irrational members of lay society and Nazis don’t interfere with responsible Medical Science."
Apparently "irrational members of lay society and Nazis" have taken over medicine worldwide then, because "Routine Circumcision of Infant Males" is advocated by no national medical society in the world. Not even in Israel or the USA.
"Comparing foreskin to the penis is like comparing the umbilical cord to the abdomen."
Dreamland.
"No need to go there Van Lewis, you are stepping out of the limits of reason and sanity."
If you are within them, I'm glad I'm not.
"Foreskin isn't the penis."
War is peace, too, right?
"Try not to forget that. The penis is the glans, shaft, erectile tissue and urethra."
Letting compulsive genital mutilationists define the foreskin and penis is like letting criminals define crime .
"Foreskin is just the tubular skin which obstructs and inhibits the glans or head of the penis."
Incomplete, false definition. Mister Falsehoods is not living in the real world. The foreskin is NOT "just ... skin". It is also muscle (that's right, guys, they stole real MUSCLE out of your penis), blood and blood vessels, tens of thousands of specialized nerve endings, immunological cells, and a whole lot more. There's a complex, specialized SENSE ORGAN in there! Just discovered by science in the early 1990s. Google "ridged band" if you don't believe me. Google it if you DO believe me.
"That is why so many males, shortly after they are born, world-wide, their foreskins are routinely removed."
The real reasons are that doctors and other circumcisers do not know what they are doing when they mutilate and amputate normal, healthy, living sex organs. If they knew, most of them wouldn't be doing it. A few, the really insane, evil ones, would keep going with it.
"Foreskin isn't the penis."
And Richard Nixon wasn't a liar and a crook. Right.
"Van Lewis, I understand you are passionate about your anti-circumcision stance."
I am passionate about babies' and children's right to live, to be free from sexual abuse and genital mutilation by adults, and to pursue their OWN happinesses in their OWN ways.
"However, you aren't being rational about the overall facts."
Sez you, Mister Many Falsehoods. You wouldn't know a rational thought about penises if it came up and bit you on the ass.
"When you straighten out your psychological problems first, then we can continue on with an objective and rational conversation regarding Circumcision."
You are not capable of having one. You have proved that for all to see.
"Have a nice day."
Thank you. Same to you. May every day be far better for you than the day before.
LOL.
Can I E-mail you a dictionary so you know what the correct definition of mutiliation is? You can't say that to me, because I know nipping and tucking extra useless skin is not mutilation, lol.
Having foreskin removed is as if it was never there.
Because it's not supposed to be on males after birth.
Sorry, but this is just funny now. lol
Getting your intestines ripped out with a back-hoe is mutilation.
Not Circumcision, hahahahaha.
"Hahahahahahahahahaha. LOL
LOL."
The glee of insanity there.
"Can I E-mail you a dictionary so you know what the correct definition of mutiliation is?"
Sure. Or post your definition of mutilation here for all to see. I'll compare it to definitions in standard dictionaries and get back with you.
"You can't say that to me,"
I already did.
" because I know nipping and tucking extra useless skin is not mutilation, lol."
The foreskin is not "useless extra skin". That's just one of your many falsehoods. I can't tell if you really believe that falsehood is true, or you know better and are just trying to spread as many lies about foreskins as possible, or are a closet intactivist trying to give genital mutilationism and genital mutilationists and genital mutilators very bad names with your berserk insane ravings, but I do know that bad names for mutilationism is what you are actually achieving, so thank you very much for what you are doing, whyever you are doing it.
"Having foreskin removed is as if it was never there."
It's a fantasy world you live in. The problem is you want to drag the rest of the world into it with you. No thanks.
"Because it's not supposed to be on males after birth."
Sez you, bozo.
"Sorry, but this is just funny now. lol"
Glad you're enjoying your madness. It will really be hard on you if you ever go sane on this tragic subject, assuming you're not a closet intactivist, of course, and already are sane on it, just working the other side of the street from most of us straightforward types.
"Getting your intestines ripped out with a back-hoe is mutilation."
Nope. That's death. Post your definition of mutilation.
"Not Circumcision, hahahahaha."
When circumcision kills babies their parents don't usually laugh much about it.
The glee of insanity are people who think circumcision is "mutilation".
Is it me?, or are you anti-circ nuts the world's biggest sissies?
Are you anti-circumcision nuts going to sue your mother because she gave birth to you?
Did you know being born is 10,000 times more painful, traumatic & a set-back than being circumcised?
Either way, circumcised or not, it isn't an issue when it comes to sexuality. Although everything is more efficient being circumcised.
You anti-circs are sissies and girly-men.
There's bigger issues to be concerned and prepared about. Things are going to change in this country and in the rest of the world for the worst.
No one is going to care about these debates and arguments regarding Circumcision, when what is soon going to come upon the world takes place.
Mommy boys aren't going to make it through what is coming.
Whether you have a nasty, stinky elephant trunk or you are of the high ranks of the circumcised, there's other issues of far greater importance to be concerned about.
When the dollar collapses here soon and the Treaty of Rome and Treaty of Lisbon are installed over all of North America, where Fascist Socialism becomes the new rule, be prepared to worry about real issues not Circumcision.
Getting your intestines ripped out during warfare doesn't necessary mean "death". Can hold them back and get to the medics, keep as much dirt & debris out. Get put back together by surgeons.
Not everyone who gets their intestines ripped out dies. But that would be an example of what mutilation really is, NOT a foreskin trim. Which is a valid preventative medical procedure which is healthy.
You anti-circs are just a bunch of babies.
You anti-circ nuts are nothing but a bunch of cry-babies and wusses.
Circumcision has done you a lot of good and you don't want to even appreciate that.
For you uncuts, don't think you have what circumcised men do not. You can't even get it up all the way and use "it" properly when it comes to sex.
Circumcised men can tell you uncuts that you are missing your Circumcision.
This debate ends here.
Mister Many Falsehoods says, "Is it me?, or are you anti-circ nuts the
world's biggest sissies?"
I don't know if it's you - since you advocate imposing this insane stone-age
genital attack on helpless babies I think a pretty good case could be made
for it - but I do know it isn't us genital integrity human rights activists.
I myself have had to endure public name-calling, stupid insults to my
manhood from ignorant people half my age (see your own above for a minor sample),
false arrest and illegal jailing twice now simply for advocating for babies
who literally cannot speak for themselves yet, and other ridiculous and
sometimes expensive public abuses at the hands of private special interests
and out-of-control public power. The real sissies and wusses are those
pitiful males who complain that their parents didn't circumcise them when
they were babies so they wouldn't have to experience the pain as adults and
"wouldn't remember" the pain they would have experienced as infants. Now
we're talking about real cowards. Have you ever made such a cowardly
complaint, Mister Many Falsehoods?
The Bible and Christianity and so-called "White Culture" all comes from the Middle East / India. As does Circumcision and many other Hebrew and Shem-mite Customs of the Sages and Priests in those regions. Maybe Circumcision isn't meant for Europeans and it is privy to the Priests and Sages of Egypt, Persia, Jews and The Middle East and India. From where all civilization originated from.
Most of the Scientists and Engineers in the West per capita are Easterners anyway.
It is probably true that the Western Races aren't meant to be circumcised and in Europe their Circumcision rates are low, while they aren't having problems.
But the British-Celtic races within the British Isles were civilized and educated by the Middle Eastern/Hebrew/Arab/Jewish/Hindu civilizations. All this prior to the Renaissance when The British were a primitive and backwards people lacking any technology , whereby Circumcision was also added to their civilization.
At one time in all English-speaking lands and colonies, Circumcision was the law and no British or English-speaking woman would ever accept that her son would walk around with foreskin . America is just the last of the groups to slowly do away with Circumcision.
Whether Circumcision is meant for you or it is not, it is not the worst thing in the world to lose your foreskin.
There's a great many advantages of being circumcised too. So stop crying about something that also has a lot of advantages in its own rite!
Lastly, you anti-circumcision crusaders are a little on the intolerant, racist or bigoted side. You know how many groups especially Jewish and Muslim people you offend when you speak of "banning" Circumcision? You are telling people in the world, for which Circumcision is meant for them to ban an integral part of their culture's custom for their sons. That will never happen, whether racist intolerance towards Circumcision one day becomes a law here in the coming Fascist re-structuring of North America.
People will have home Circumcision or perform bloodless Circumcisions with the disposable Tara Circumcision Clamps, which are popular in Eastern countries, There is no way Circumcision can be "banned" for infants males, just like there is no way you can ban tattoos or ear piercing.
If you anti-circumcision crusaders despise Circumcision then that is your right. You don't have to get circumcised, you can say no to your sons getting circumcised, and those of you who are circumcised you can practice skin-expansion placing slight tension on your penile shaft skin forward until new skin cells grow. After two to three years you have two to three more inches of skin covering up the head, as a restored foreskin. You have all the rights to do those things as you see fit.
But you can't tell others, especially those who are Jewish and Muslim and other parents who believe in Circumcision for their son that they "cannot" circumcise their sons. If you anti-circumcision crusaders think that is okay to prevent parents from having their sons circumcised, then you are nothing but Nazis and Fascists. No decent and sane people will support your nosiness and interference into other Cultures and Race's business.
Just wanted to write all this and lay down the facts. If there has been any immaturity on my part within my previously-written comments and posts here, please disregard all that. But if you despise Circumcision then that means you can either remain un-cut, restore your foreskin and leave your sons uncut. That is your right.
But it is NOT your right to tell or even try to stop parents who want their sons to be circumcised. Just like those parents who absolutely refuse to allow their sons to be circumcised, also have that right too.
"You have all the rights to do those things as you see fit."
Yes we do. But baby boys don't have the same legal protection for their (much larger) foreskins that girls have for theirs. This violates constitutional requirements for equal protection of the law .
"But you can't tell others, especially those who are Jewish and Muslim and other parents who believe in Circumcision for their son that they "cannot" circumcise their sons."
Of course we can. We've already told Muslim and all other parents that they can't chop off (or even pin-prick) their daughters' foreskins. Our constitution requires equal protection of the law for all.
"If you anti- circumcision crusaders "
Ahhh. No more "nuts". Thanks.
"think that is okay to prevent parents from having their sons circumcised, "
Not only is it ok. It's constitutionally required and highly beneficial to their sons. One day they will thank us.
" then you are nothing but Nazis and Fascists."
Nazis were happy to have an easy, quick way to identify Jews: "Mutilated penis! Send him to Auschwitz!" We want Jews to have the same human rights that the rest of us have. That makes us the opposite of Nazis when it comes to circumcision and Jews.
"No decent and sane people will support your nosiness and interference into other Cultures and Race's business."
One day Congress or the President or the Supreme Court will. Congress has already interfered with some Muslims' culture of mutilating their daughters' sex organs. Decent, sane people already support us. WE are decent, sane people. Come to one of our conferences and talk with us if you don't believe me.
"Just wanted to write all this and lay down the facts."
You're improving, but you have a long way yet to go to get your so-called "facts" straight.
"If there has been any immaturity on my part within my previously-written comments and posts here, please disregard all that."
Thank you. I will try to do so.
"But if you despise Circumcision then that means you can either remain un-cut, "
Not an option for the millions of boys mutilated oin this planet every year, more than 1 million every year in the USA alone.
"restore your foreskin and leave your sons uncut. That is your right."
Yes. We are hard at work exercising our rights, including our right to work for equal protection of the federal anti-genital mutilation act for all children in America, regardless of race, religion , sex or any other factor. http://MGMbill.org
"But it is NOT your right to tell or even try to stop parents who want their sons to be circumcised."
Another falsehood from Mister Many Falsehoods. They are free to WANT their sons to be mutilated. What they are not free to do without violating equal protection and human rights law is to MUTILATE their sons. It is our right and our responsibility to try to prevent them from doing so. Advocating equal legal protection of universal human rights for all is EVRYONE'S right and EVERYONE'S responsibility.
"Just like those parents who absolutely refuse to allow their sons to be circumcised, also have that right too."
Of course we do. But the primary rights are the rights of the person whose sex organs they are. We call them "privates" for a reason. The sex organs involved do NOT belong to the parents. They do NOT belong to the doctors or the priests or the imams. They do NOT belong to the GOVERNMENT! They belong to the person whose body grew them. They are strictly private property. You rail against "Socialism", and yet you advocate turning over private sex organs to the government for legally required mutilation! THEFT! Of sex organs by government!! WHY?
" whether racist intolerance towards Circumcision one day becomes a law here in the coming Fascist re-structuring of North America."
We are not racists or Fascists. We advocate genital protection for ALL children , REGARDLESS of race, religion , sex, etc. The Fascists are the VERY few people such as yourself (or have you recanted your former position now?) advocating authoritarian, totalitarian, INVOLUNTARY UNIVERSAL genital mutilation of males. You are, or have been, WAY out of line with that madness.
"People will have home Circumcision or perform bloodless Circumcisions with the disposable Tara Circumcision Clamps, which are popular in Eastern countries, There is no way Circumcision can be "banned" for infants males, "
There IS a way it can be banned. http://MGMbill.org It has already been banned in the USA for females and soon will be for males. Does that mean that no one will every violate the law ? Of course not. If there were no law violators there would be no need for law. But if they DO violate the law the same punishment will await those who circumcise male children as exists for those who circumcise female children. That is simple "Equal Justice Under Law", the principle inscribed in stone above the entrance to the US Supreme Court. We will win there some sweet day on the principle.
" just like there is no way you can ban tattoos or ear piercing."
The Torah bans tattoos. I don't know anyone trying to ban tattoos or ear piercing by law . We are trying hard to ban all involuntary genital mutilations and amputations including those of all healthy children and we are making progress toward our goal. One day we will succeed. Because work is hard - that's why they call it "work"! - doesn't mean it's impossible.
"If you anti- circumcision crusaders "
Thanks for not calling us "nuts", finally. We are not nuts. You're learning. We have Nobel lauteates with us. Some of the world's greatest scientists, and many other people nowhere near being "nuts".
" despise Circumcision then that is your right."
Thank you. We despise all human rights violations, not just circumcision/genital mutilation.
"You don't have to get circumcised, "
So how could I have avoided it? How can ANY baby prevent ANY adult from circumcising him or her?
" you can say no to your sons getting circumcised, "
Thanks to some Jewish parents in the late '60s who sued the doctors who circumcised their sons, successfully changing the practice from "routine infant circumcision" where the doctors didn't even ask the parents if they wanted their son circumcised to "elective circumcision" in which a parent had to give their consent to the circumcision. But parental consent to non-therapeutic surgery is invalid. The AMA says prophylactic circumcision is non-therapeutic. There is no illness, disease, injury or deformity present. Therefore no "therapy" is possible, therapy being medical treatment for illness, disease, injury or deformity. Where no illness, disease, injury or deformity is present parental consent to surgery is invalid and doctors doing it are committing unethical and illegal acts; human vivisection, a crime against humanity.
" and those of you who are circumcised you can practice skin-expansion placing slight tension on your penile shaft skin forward until new skin cells grow."
We can. It takes years and the end result is not as good as a natural foreskin. No man should have to work for years to get back an inferior version of his sexual birthright.
"After two to three years you have two to three more inches of skin covering up the head, as a restored foreskin."
Minus the ridged band and the tens of thousands of nerve endings in the original.
"Maybe Circumcision isn't meant for Europeans ..."
Circumcision/genital mutialtion is not meant for anyone who does not choose it for himself or herself.
"It is probably true that the Western Races aren't meant to be circumcised ..."
No one who doesn't mean to be circumcised is meant to be circumcised by the only person who counts.
"But the British-Celtic races within the British Isles were civilized and educated by the Middle Eastern/Hebrew/Arab/Jewish/Hindu civilizations."
Hindus traditionally have never circumcised. They have too much respect for the body to do so.
"All this prior to the Renaissance when The British were a primitive and backwards people lacking any technology , "
The British did not lack all technology prior to the Renaissance.
"whereby Circumcision was also added to their civilization."
Circumcision was not introduced to the British Isles before the Renaissance, if that's what you meant to claim. It only began to come into vogue during the long reign of Queen Victoria, from the mid-1800s.
"At one time in all English-speaking lands and colonies, Circumcision was the law "
There has never been a law REQUIRING circumcision in any English-speaking country or colony.
" and no British or English-speaking woman would ever accept that her son would walk around with foreskin."
Many British and American women have protected their sons from circumcision.
"America is just the last of the groups to slowly do away with Circumcision."
England didn't do away with it slowly. On December 24, 1949, Douglas Gairdner MD wrote an article in the British Medical Journal called ""The Fate of the Foreskin: A Study of Circumcision" http://cirp.org/library/general/gairdner . The British Health service read it and eliminated circumcision from the list of medical services it wouldn't pay for, and circumcision in Britain ended practically overnight in 1950.
"Whether Circumcision is meant for you or it is not, it is not the worst thing in the world to lose your foreskin."
It's the worst thing in the world for you if it kills you. I have a long and growing list of names, dates and locations of deaths by circumcision: http://intact.wikia.com/wiki/Death_By_Circumcision
"There's a great many advantages of being circumcised too."
None if it kills you.
"So stop crying about something that also has a lot of advantages in its own rite!"
The claimed "potential" advantages are tiny and grossly overblown. People are entitled to cry when adults are so ignorant and hard-hearted that they will chop off normal healthy sense organs from their own children . Anybody who hasn't cried about this is mentally ill.
"Lastly, you anti-circumcision crusaders ..."
So you're not calling us "nuts" any more? PROGRESS! We'll take what we can get.
" are a little on the intolerant, racist or bigoted side."
Nope. It's people who chop off other people's sex organs who are intolerant and bigoted against human nature.
"You know how many groups especially Jewish and Muslim people you offend when you speak of "banning" Circumcision?"
Offending ignorant, intolerant people is not a crime . Chopping up other people's bodies without their permission is.
"You are telling people in the world, for which Circumcision is meant for them "
Circumcision is not meant for anyone who does not mean it for themselves.
" to ban an integral part of their culture's custom for their sons."
Many cultures have already banned circumcision for their daughters. Some have for their sons. One day all will do so. That's progress in human rights. It takes time. In case you hadn't noticed.
"That will never happen, "
It will happen. The sooner the better.
(continued below)
"The British Health service read it and eliminated circumcision from the list of medical services it wouldn't pay for, and circumcision in Britain ended practically overnight in 1950."
That should read "The British Health service read it and eliminated circumcision from the list of medical services it would pay for, and most circumcision in Britain ended practically overnight in 1950."
I think genetics play a small role in how harmful circumcision is to a male, and if he'd be likely to have problems with his foreskin. In my opinion though, for all races, healthwise and sexually circumcisions do many times more harm than good.
The biggest causes of foreskin problems in the U.S. are foeskins being forcefully retracted on little boys, overwashing, and doctors not knowing how to fix simple foreskin problems without circumcision. U.S. medical schools do not teach how to take care of foreskins, and they don't teach how to fix foreskin problems without circumcision. In countries like Finland, Sweden, and Denmark where they know how to take care of foreskins, only about 1 in 18,000 males ever needs to be circumcised for a medical reason in their whole lives. Lots of males circumcised as a baby have problems with their circumcision also though, problems like skin bridging, pieces of the glans tearing off called pitting, and too much skin being cut off, etc.,etc.
In my opinion circumcising baby boys should be against the law . Because in my opinion for most males circumcisions do severe sexual damage and little good. Some countries tried to make circumcising minors against the law, but because of protests from Muslims and Jews they weren't able to. So I don't think it could be made against the law to circumcise little boys in the U.S., but I hope that eventally the circumcision rate will be going way down in the U.S.
I never tried to stop parents from having their baby boys circumcised. I'm just giving my opinion which is that it should be against the law to circumcise baby boys because in my opinion for most males circumcisions do a lot of harm and not much good. Males should have the right to decide for themselves if they are going to be circumcised or not, that decision shouldn't be up to their parents.
You know to look at the diversity in the world and genetics on an objective sense, perhaps Circumcision isn't for everyone. Perhaps certain genetic-types need Circumcision whereas others do not. This is why Circumcision is distinctly found in some groups where they are well-versed in promoting it, whereas in other groups it is merely tolerated, elected or flat-out despised. Perhaps this is true, because certain population groups do okay being left uncut without adverse pathological secretions and dysfunction whereas other groups really need it. Maybe Circumcision isn't for all genetic-types and perhaps other genetic-types seriously need it for their males.
Probably this is why Circumcision is part of certain cultures and races as functional part of their societies whereas in others it is unheard of and not practiced, whereby everyone is functional and healthy being left not circumcised. This is probably the real truth about why the statistics are so different based on regions of the world, regarding circumcision . I'm not just talking about environment factors for needing circumcision, but also the genetic-level for the different races of the world based on their engineered genetics.
If you study genetic sequences on the engineering level, the nucleotide, mtDNA and haploid-diploid Chromosome analysis points to highly synthetic genetic sequences in all human races not akin to anything found within nature. Except for the Elements involved, aside from that Humans in all Genetic/Racial sequences are not anything in nature. Even the genetic-defects, all human have between 50 and 5,000 genetic defects, out of 32 billion bits of genetic data.
None of the animals possess genetic defects with actually more bits of genetic data than humans. Mathematically-incompatible with any type of probability and statistics which reflect " evolution ". "Evolution" was nothing more than the Racist Nazi Businessman's false doctrine to play god on earth among the many difference Species of humans, within one Human Race. Something higher than us engineered us, with distinct advantages and purposely installed the defects and advantages. So we're not so low as well as not so high as whatever Being or Beings engineered us.
Charles Darwin wasn't even a Scientist, he was a Racist and Chauvinist. His senseless theories were laughed by all the leading Geneticists in his time, including the father of modern Genetics, Dr. Gregor Mendel. Business people liked his Nazi Doctrines, so of course the rich fascists promoted him. Even to this day his insanity infects the youth of today, who believe in false doctrines which are not even scientific to say the least. Liars know the truth, but say the opposite of the truth. Whereas the ignorant just don't know enough information to correctly reject a false doctrine when presented to them.
Charles Darwin also influenced Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin and Karl Marx. But in his later years Charles Darwin wrote another book even claiming that his theories don't make any sense and lead to much oppression by tyrants who used them to their advantage, upon the ignorant and un-scientific public.
Many Honest Scientists are losing their jobs now, and the Dishonest Scientists who agree to lie to students and the public, are the ones being kept with a job. We live in a Business Nation, The USA, which isn't really a nation at all, but a Super Corporation. Money not the truth governs the higher echelons of the executives of this Super Corporation.
Perhaps Circumcision is meant for certain genetic lines of the Priests and Sages, not of Western Origin. It is known that everything that is found in so-called "Western Civilization", is of Eastern origins. Everything from Mathematics, Chemistry and Physics, the basis for all electronic and mechanical inventions, without, none of them could ever be built or invented, all of which came from the East. The Pre-Islamic Middle East / India are the sources for all the technology we have today, along with China.
Western Civilization is all about Business, Marketing and Distribution not Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry and Medicine. But because the West knows how to make tons of money and market everything, do they have all the best equipment. Usually designed and build by Eastern Engineers, Technicians & Scientists, and then sold, marketed and financed by Westerners.
"Perhaps certain genetic-types need Circumcision whereas others do not."
So would you then agree to eliminate "medical" circumcisions of healthy infants and children and wait until a man is 18 so he can decide for himself whether for genetic or other reasons he WANTS to get himself circumcised?
"Liars know the truth, but say the opposite of the truth. Whereas the ignorant just don't know enough information to correctly reject a false doctrine when presented to them."
I can't tell if you are a liar who knows the truth or just ignorant and therefore can't reject the false doctrine of infant and child prophylactic circumcision . You had a choice. You chose circumcision for yourself at 18. So far, you seem happy with your choice. I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is you or anyone else choosing circumcision for anyone in the world other than themselves. It's wrong to chop up other people's bodies without their informed adult written consent. Duuuhhh.
Babies are totally helpless, defenseless, and vulnerable. People who speak out against the genital mutilation of baby boys are not girly-men, but are heros.
Today on the Howard Stern show, Howard Stern denounced circumcisions, and said circumcising baby boys is an act of cruelty and barbarism. In the future hopefully many more celebrities will speak out a lot more against circumcising baby boys, and create awareness about how harmful circumcising baby boys is.
Howard Stern works for the New World Order, and he thinks all of you are retarded. He endorses Circumcision and mass- circumcision of his children , but to you the gullible girlymen, he will, "speak out against circumcision as being cruel." LOL. Howard Stern is only there to mess with your head.
If you think Howard Stern is a reliable source for information, then you're beyond hope. lol
To keep you distracted, the misleaders running this country and world are spreading disinformation constantly. Especially about controversial topics. So you people will get riled up and stay distracted on what's really going on with the demise of the USA.
Uncut baby boys experience far more pain and harm from foreskin infections than with Circumcision.
Seems like you people are very cruel but don't even know it.
Circumcision has nothing to do with "genital mutilation".
Allen, one day your peter won't work and stay hard with your pseudo-foreskin and you'll secretly go get re-circumcised.
Then your woman, she'll confess she likes it like it was before you skin-expansion stretched all of you shaft skin down over your head.
Don't feel bad if you decide to get re-circumcised in a few more years. Because right now you have mental problems. But people learn from their mental problems and grow out of them completely. You'll know a lot later on from your mental problems that you eventually get past.
Circumcision was invented so sexual intercourse is enhanced. I.E., "can bang the babysitter when no one is looking".
When your shaft skin gets all shabby you won't be able to stick it in as hard as you used to. LOL.
I guess you'll live and learn, right? Ha ha ha.
:)
Foreskin restoration will make it less likely for me to ever get ED. Because there is a lot more stimulation from the glans and inner foreskin remnant being so much more sensitive, and a lot more stimulation from the foreskin constantly stretching and unstretching. Since I'm well informed on how to take care of foreskins, it will be extremely unlikely for me to ever have any problems with my restored foreskin.
I've read about some uncircumcised males having sex into their 80's. I've never heard of any circumcised males having sex into their 80's, maybe some have, but I've never heard about it. I probably won't have sex into my 80's, but if I do my restored foreskin will help. I've read though about some uncircumcised men in Europe having sex at brothels into their 80's. Also Hugh Hefner, who is in his 80's and who is not circumcised, says that he still has sex several times a week.
Your despicably negative attitude toward babies says it all, doesn't it.
Circumcising baby boys is mutilation because a healthy, very important body part is cut off when it's not medically necessary. The foreskin is a very important body part, because for many males the foreskin makes sex much more pleasurable and satisfying. That's because the foreskin has thousands of high pleasure giving nerve endings in it, the foreskin keeps everything covered and much more sensitive, and the movement of the foreskin adds to sensations. I know that circumcision is not mutilation to you though "mistertruth", because you believe the foreskin is useless, and that there are all kinds of great benefits of circumcision. But for many males, circumcision means the loss of a very important body part, and for many males circumcision does little or no good, so for many males circumcision definitely is genital mutilation. I just wanted to give my opinion on this, and I hope Van Lewis gives his opinion about it also.
I will tell you that you physically have the best lot being circumcised as a baby. What you're suffering from is completely psychological, because you bought into all the fallacies of the anti-circ nutjobs. They're only being promoted to further increase the conflict and division between people. All part of the plan with the Socialist/Communist Agenda.
You were circumcised as a baby and think you have be "harmed", you're thinking very wrongly. Allen706 you were circumcised as a baby, that means you have the best lot. If you think you don't, then your problems are all psychological not physical. You have been duped into thinking you are "missing something important", when in fact you are not missing anything truly important whatsoever.
I'm just clearing up the deception that is being perpetrated upon society by these creepy Socialists/Communists and focusing on the facts and actual physical experience. So that more of you may not be deceived and incited into thinking you have been "harmed" when you actually have the best lot being circumcised as an infant.
Mutilation is defined as violent injury, mayhem to limb, organ to cause ceasing of the biological functions of an organism.
Circumcision can’t be classified as mutilation, because no ceasing of the function of an organ, limb by mayhem is existent. If anything Circumcision enhances the function of the penis organ.
Take care. Bye.
"Mutilation is defined as violent injury, mayhem to limb, organ to cause ceasing of the biological functions of an organism. "
Where did you get that weird definition, Mister Many Falsehoods? Did you just make it up? Why not read a dictionary? Quote us a real definition from a real dictionary, not your mutilated version.
I googled "tyson's cells" and the only results that came up are from you Mistertruth. Are you inventing things or what? I assume you mean the Langerhans' cells. The purpose of the Langerhans' cells though is to detect invading viruses and bacteria so it can be killed. All skin and mucous membrane have Langerhans' cells on it, not just the foreskin . It is just a theory that Langerhans' cells help the HIV virus infect.
The foreskin cannot secrete HPV, anymore than the glans and shaft skin can. Some studies have shown that uncircumcised males are more likely to get STD's. But also some studies have shown uncircumcised males are less likely to get STD's. Also the CDC states that the U.S. has the highest STD rate of any industrailized country in the world.
For an uncircumcised male to wash, all he has to do is pull back the foreskin and rinse off. That's it. If he has to do any more than that, then he has a medical problem that could easily be fixed without circumcision.
I was circumcised when I was a baby. My greatest feelings come from my inner foreskin remnant, but the best parts of my inner foreskin were cut off. Since I started restoring, my glans has become many times more sensitive, and my inner foreskin remnant has become much more sensitive and pleasurable. So I know circumcision did me severe sexual harm.
I have heard from many males circumcised as an adult who said sex was much better before they were circumcised. Many males who restore say that greatly improved sex for them. Many uncircumcised males say that the foreskin is the best part. In many countries like Sweden, Finland, and Denmark, only 1 in thousands of males ever gets circumcised for any reason not counting Muslims and Jews.
Me being circumcised as a baby definetly was genital mutilation, and many males who were circumcised as a baby strongly feel the same way as I do.
It doesn't take long after thorough washing under the foreskin and penis for the rot and filth to secrete back within an hour.
I remember when I would take a really thorough shower, with washing and scrubbing all over, under the foreskin, penis, everywhere, until no more odor was present. Then dry off, get dressed and within an hour when using the bathroom, that horrid fishy odor comes right back.
This is the foreskin's underside secreting the Human Papilliom Virus and Tyson's Cells beneath. It never stops secreting.
In my former non-circumcised days, when I would wake up, I needed to get right in the shower, and wash all that rot and filth off. It was pretty disgusting to say the least.
I don't know if that's how women's vaginas' are when they wake up, so many of them push people out of the way to get in the shower. If that is how a woman's life is, I think maybe I have understood something of the many problems women have.
Being clean and circumcised now is great. No more of that rot and filth. No more redundant foreskin either which gets in the way. As for protection and comfort I found out that spandex briefs feel virtually like foreskin is covering my head while in the flaccid state, but without the rot and filth of a foreskin.
Because nylon, spandex, lycra, micro-fiber and all other synthetic-based fabrics and are based on polymers of repeating chains of carbon and hydrogen, much like the polymer make up of skin. Oil is the basis of all synthetic fabrics and plastics. Oil also originates from all the dead plants, humans and animals from the ancient world, which under heat and pressure eventually homogenized into crude oil .
Anyway, I have the comfort, protection and support with the right underwear. My arousal is quick, penetration of the vagina is superior, stimulation and reach is superior, there's no more foul rot and filth during sex, it's all clean, there's no more pain during sex, no more abrasions and injuries during sex, and on top of that it looks nice, whereas foreskin just looks ugly and as if it isn't natural but deformed.
If we forget about looks and focus on function, sexual stimulation, prevention of injury and hygiene, Circumcision is 100 times better than foreskin.
Either way Allen706 I can say there is no adverse effects on sexuality whether circumcised or non-circumcised.
Anyone who claims otherwise just doesn't know any better, because they never had a foreskin for 18 years, then got circumcised and then lived in the circumcised state for another 16 years, like I have.
You only think you are "missing a great thing" Allen706, because of all the anti-circ nutjobs messing with your head.
These anti-circ nutjobs are a lot like the Feminists/Communists working on breaking up the family. They have messed with so many decent women's heads that they actually believe their loving husbands are "harmful" to them and end up divorcing them for no reason.
The Courts have been hijacked and taken over by the Communist/Feminist movement. So of course they are bias against men. All part of the plan in the Communist/Socialist plan to break up the family.
Allen706, there are great advantages of being circumcised. You have no experience with a real foreskin, so you don't really know what it is like. You only think you know what it is like.
In order to make sure that you are not opinionated Allen706, are you circumcised?, or are you non-circumcised? If you are circumcised were you circumcised as a baby or as a toddler or as an adult?
Last that I recall, you were circumcised as a baby. I can prove to you that your issues are psychological not physical. Please read what I have to tell you down below.
I feel that I am unique as to correctly answer people's questions about Circumcision.
That is because I know what it is like to have foreskin up into adulthood. I also know what it is like to be circumcised as an adult and be in the circumcised state for well over 16 years now.
That is why I can claim what you state are myths.
There is NO adverse effects on sexuality with Circumcision.
When the penis is inside the vagina, the foreskin doesn't have any feelings, because of the fact everything is already so slippery and wet, inside of it. Then the foreskin itself is slippery and wet. All combined I couldn't feel any stimulation to the foreskin during sex.
As a matter of fact I needed to pull back the foreskin physically while I was inside of any girlfriend I had to gain any stimulation.
After my Circumcision was done and it healed in four weeks. The inner foreskin remains 1/3 to 1/2 running up the shaft, from the head. That penile zone is very erogenous and is usually left behind when done by a qualified circumciser, i.e. a Urologist or OBGYN.
After being circumcised I had far more stimulation and excitement with the redundant double-layer foreskin removed, tightly exposing the penile zones which are responsible for erogenous stimulation.
I know this not from reading any articles or watching any videos but from actually physically experiencing this.
Overall, there are an equal amount of advantages in both circumcised and non-circumcised states, to validate that Circumcision has no effect on sexuality.
If anything, Circumcision promotes MORE stimulation during sex, with all the redundant skin out of the way and only the more erogenous tissue and skin zones being directly and tightly exposed.
I can tell you that orgasms are much more powerful and my reach much more deeper and wider through the vagina, after being circumcised.
When not having sex, when flaccid, and also for masturbation there might be some more level of protection and comfort having foreskin.
But any issues with that have been resolved by wearing spandex and nylon type briefs and using natural lubricants when masturbating.
Basically the same amount of comfort and protection as the foreskin provides when in the flaccid state also exists by wearing the correct type of underwear while in the circumcised state. So that issue has been resolved.
On top of that, no more filth and rot developing down there as is the case with the non-circumcised.