Parents face so many difficult decisions when it comes to having a child: decisions about nursing, sleep patterns, discipline, teaching methods and, in the case of boys, whether or not to circumcise. In addition to being the most common surgery for males in the U.S., circumcision has been practiced in various cultures for centuries. Yet when it comes to the health and best interest of your newborn, is circumcision the way to go?
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
If anesthesia is the standard of care, why are there not civil penalties for the many, many circumcisions still performed without it?
There is ample evidence that circumcision has a lasting effect:
http://knol.google.com/k/george-hill/circumcision-and-human-behavior/2y9nanfagw8nr/13 #
But as the paper describes, some circumcised men react by trying to spread circumcision far and wide.
- GenitalIntegrityPolicy August 7, 2008 4:27PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(14)
Side: No
While the AAP says infants should recieve pain relief, half of babied do not during their circumcision. And, most only receive EMLA topical creme, which is ineffective as numerous studies have show. The most effecitve is the ring block, but only a small fraction of boys get this, and even then it does not eliminate pain. In addition, most boys are not given post-operative pain relief.
Pain from the procedure can and does effect boys later in life. There are many studies which show this.
The pain and trauma of circumcision far outweighs any scant benefit it provides. We don't circumcise our girls (or pets), let's not do it to boys, either.
- Dan Bollinger August 9, 2008 5:37AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(13)
Side: No
Schoen's objection is nonsense. It is not NoCirc that is unaware of anesthesia, it is the US medical profession that decided against anesthesia at the outset of the medicalization of circumcision, since anesthesia would interfere with the genital pain of the babies and children, which pain was an intended part of the "treatment". The circumciser quacks of the nineteenth century were, according to them, inflicting as much pain as possible and surgically removing as much sexual pleasure as possible. This medical policy against pain relief was not reversed until 1999, with the AAP's declaration that if circumcising is chosen, pain relief is "essential". How many babies did Dr. Schoen circumcise without using anesthesia during his long career as an active circumciser? So now suddenly Schoen has discovered anesthesia? The only way to prevent all the many pains of circumcision is to not circumcise. It costs nothing to do nothing, and doing nothing, in this case, is by far the wisest course.
- Van Lewis
August 18, 2008 2:04PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(7)
Side: No
Health Canada has just issued a warning against the local anaesthetic cream (EMLA) that Prof. Schoen recommends, especially in the case of children:
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/medeff/advisories-avis/public/_2009/emla_ametop_pc-cp-eng.php
and the manufacturers once warned against using it on babies, but stopped doing so for no apparent reason.
Anaesthetic only works for a few hours, but the pain of circumcision, when urine enters the wound, lasts for weeks.
"there is no evidence that European men, who are uncircumcised, have fewer emotional difficulties than do the 120 million American males who are."
- except that there are tens of thousands of US men who are so enraged by having been circumcised that they are going to considerable trouble to reverse it, and branches of NORM, the National Organization of Restoring Men, all across the US. There are none in Europe (except NORM-UK), for an obvious reason.
- Hugh7
March 18, 2009 7:54PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
Morris: "The anti-circs are living in the past (as usual)."
Well, excuse me, but it's not us who repeatedly, monotonously post the same picture (a colourful piece of papyrus mass-produced for modern tourists, touched up from an ambiguous carving) of a religious rite 2500 years old, again and again to show how wonderful circumcision is because it's so old.
- Hugh7 August 26, 2008 9:27PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(5)
Side: No
Morris: "Anesthetic is strongly advised. It needs only be a local moreover. EMLA cream, for example,"
Until May 21, 1999, the makers of EMLA cream advised: "Pediatric Use: Controlled studies of EMLA Cream in children under the age of seven years have shown less overall benefit than in older children or adults... Due to the potential risk of methemoglobinemia and the lack of proven efficacy, EMLA Cream is not recommended for use prior to circumcision in pediatric patients."
The warning was required by the US Food and Drug Administration since February 4, 1998. On May 21, 1999, the makers of EMLA announced that the FDA had reversed this policy and now allows the use of EMLA on babies older than 37 weeks of gestation. No reason was given. No new research was cited. The makers of EMLA added: "EMLA is not recommended for use on mucous membranes."
- Hugh7 August 26, 2008 9:33PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(6)
Side: No
Morris: "if applied 2 hours before the op" - and just how many babies are prepped two hours before their circumcision? - "means no pain during or after, since the effect lasts 6 hours."
Pain occurs whenever urine gets in the wound until it is healed, every few hours for a period of one to two weeks.
"This is often used with the Plastibell - a plastic device that slips on to the head of the peni.s, and the foreskin is then tied. The foreskin and plastic device drops off after a few days. The foreskin is not cut off the shaft of the penis."
Strictly speaking this is true, since the foreskin only covers the shaft of the penis during an erection, in someone old enough for it to have separated from the glans, but if Prof. Morris is trying to suggest that there is less pain because the foreskin is not cut, he is being less than candid. The foreskin is clamped. A slit is made in the dorsal side of the foreskin.The foreskin is sliced off. The surgeon trims as much tissue as possible.
- Hugh7 August 26, 2008 9:38PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(6)
Side: No
Hugh, you might not know if you haven't tried it, but tying off a highly sensitive part of the body is extremely painful. Cutting off the blood supply affects the nerves, as well, and they react strongly.
Morris is being shamefully untruthful, again.
- geskoi August 26, 2008 10:18PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(6)
Side: No
Morris: "Recent research on a birth cohort followed closely for over 25 years has shown that circumcision has NO effect on breastfeeding, learning ability, and every other index of the many factors studied (Fergusson et al. 2008)."
This is the same birth cohort that allegedly showed circumcision protected against STDs, a claim later withdrawn, and then contradicted by a birth cohort with more circumcised men in it.
"The only adverse effect was in the uncircumcised group, who exhibited a higher incidence of lower respiratory tract infections."
So is Prof. Morris now claiming circumcision protects against lower respiratory tract infection? This is about as likely as the 19th century claims about TB and epilepsy.
"Isn't it interesting that NOCIRC chooses to ignore high quality research findings when they contradict their claims."
The way Prof. Morris ignores e.g. the Dickson study showing no protection against STDs, or the many studies showing no protection against HIV or UTI?
- Hugh7 August 26, 2008 9:42PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(5)
Side: No
"There are no long term memories associated with circumcision. This myth is perpetrated by the anti-circs to prey on those who are psychologically (or psychiatrically) vulnerable or disturbed, or those who are foolish enough to be duped into believing their sexual problems have something to do with their circumcision --- this ploy is used for not only propaganda but to increase their membership."
So what does Prof. Morris have to say about Taddio A, Goldbach M, Ipp M, Stevens B, Koren G. Effect of neonatal circumcision on pain responses during vaccination in boys.
Lancet 1995; 345: 291-2. which showed that circumcised babies reacted more strongly to the pain of being vaccinated than intact ones, months after their circumcisions?
- Hugh7 August 26, 2008 10:06PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(5)
Side: No
Morris: "Their historical diatribe about pain felt by children is a waste of time, when all agree that anesthetic should be used."
Not quite all. Doctor X claimed:
“* he/she had tried using local anaesthetic … but found that the infant appeard to be in just as much pain, if not more * the needle to inject the anaesthetic is very painful, as is the local anaesthetic itself * there is a concern about the increased chance of infection … * there is a concern regarding potential allergic reaction to the anaesthetic * local anaesthetic tends to distort the site of the circumcision and make it more difficult to perform * the period of restraint for the infant in the cirucmsion board is prolonged when using local anaesthetic, and the restraint causes the infant distress * in the community, local anaesthetic is not used, and not the standard of care”
and this was in the report absolving Dr X from blame in the death of a baby after a Plastibell(TM) blocked his urethra.
- Hugh7 August 26, 2008 10:11PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(5)
Side: No
I can't but feel that all your numerous charges of desperation in defeat, emotive rants, propagandist statements are all amusingly ironic incidences of the pot calling the kettle black.
I think this particular extract will go a small way to illustrating that point.
"This is all purile [sic] propaganda and scare tactics to confuddle the reader... The only adverse effect was in the uncircumcised group, who exhibited a higher incidence of lower respiratory tract infections."
And are you HONESTLY trying to imply that the foreskin might induce lower respiratory infections?
If so - it is most certainly YOU who is living in the past. I thought all the self-respecting pro-circs had quietly buried the more outrageous sounding purported health benefits from male and female circumcision a few decades back. If not, it would be good for you to name which benefits from this list that you endorse - so that we might more fully understand your condition and position.
Prevention/cure of: masturbation, bed-wetting, epilepsy, paralysis, convulsions, headache, insanity, idiocy, paralysis, strabismus, rectal prolapse, hydrocephalus, clubfoot, alcoholism, arthritic hips, asthma, balanitis, blindness, boils, cervical cancer, chicken pox, epididymitis, epilepsy, gallstones, gout, hernia, HIV, hydrocephaly, hydrocoele, hypertension, insanity, kidney disease, kleptomaina, leprosy, moral depravity, paraphimosis, penile cancer, plague, phimosis, posthitis, prostate cancer, rheumatism, schistosoma, spinal curvature, stomach infection, tuberculosis, urinary tract infections and/or yeast infections.
- lordpasternack
December 7, 2008 5:29PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
13
8
8
9
11
2
1
2
7
4
4
3
5
4
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
The Pain of Circumcision Impacts Babies (and the Adults They Become)
- From NOCIRC
By National Organization of Circumcision Information - Making a Safer World for Children
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Lack of evidence for "yes"
I notice in reading the responses to this thread that the people on the "NO" side of the argument have presented numerous medical papers to support their claims, and have cited where their statistics came from.
The reponses on the "YES" side of this argument have yet to do either, and the research they have cited has been outdated.
Who are you going to believe? The ones who actually provide medical literature to back up our claims, or the ones who don't?
- ebsarver
August 11, 2008 3:32PM
Reply to this Recommend (11)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
What medical literature?
The medical literature is meaningless in this case. It's all theory and based on whether it causes pain or not. The rest is theoretical bunk. The scientific evidence in favor does exist and based on health issues and preventing possible infection.
- tbcass
October 1, 2008 7:14AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Leboyer's respecting the umbilical chord and circumcision
More than 90% of Leboyer babies prove to be ambidextrous. Therefore, it seems that the one and only birth trauma is the premature cutting of the umbilical chord; one does not destroy an organ while it is functioning.
The trauma of circumcision is very obviously similar; the same cause: violence, will have the same effect: the child, intimately terrorised for life, will accept without discussing the most stupid obligations: “Put the pencil in your right hand!” But the submission induced by circumcision is very obviously much deeper; the child will repeat the crime on his own children.
But one cannot solve the world's problems easily; the bosses of gynaecology today profit of Semmelweiss's discovery, their successors alone will profit by Leboyer's... However, it is possible that researchers should find out one day that the mother gives her baby some last provisions during these ultimate moments before complete physical separation.
Sigismond
- Sigismund
August 22, 2008 9:29AM
Reply to this Recommend (6)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Are You for real?
I was circumcised and do not feel at all traumatized. What a bunch of pseudo psychological babble.
- tbcass
October 1, 2008 7:17AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Early cut of the cord and circumcision, same old song!
Here a more elaborate version that should convince our friend tbcass:
BIRTH WITHOUT VIOLENCE, EARLY CUT OF THE CORD
AND CIRCUMCISION: NEUROTIZING TRAUMAS
“Leboyer babies” are particularly peaceful, gay and lively. They smile from their first day, which was rare before. An enquiry disclosed that between 90% and 100% of them become ambidextrous . Leboyer has announced its publication; he never did and seems to rely upon word of mouth the recommendations of his book – a poem from beginning to end: cutting the cord after the pulsations have ceased (but for cardiac difficulty), never separating the child from the mother, extreme gentleness, filtered lights, etc. Following him, Karen Strange, an American midwife and specialist of resuscitation of new-borns, brings a river to the validity of the techniques brought back from the country of Gandhi by the yogi gynaecologist; she gives lectures but does not publish. She observed that, right before birth, the mother delivers the baby a bolus of blood that is stored in the placenta. This inflow of blood is not only provisions, heavily burdened in iron; the rise in pressure enables the heart to fill in the air cells of the lungs, preparing them for their next task. So, it is demonstrated that nature has forecast everything and that man’s meddling into the plans of nature is irrelevant. At all events, being born within gentleness has long-term positive psychological effects and, if everything goes well, the only birth trauma is that of the early cut. One does not destroy a functioning organ without lastingly traumatizing the brain. It must be added up to this plea that, since the baby is immunized against maternal flora, strictly rooming them in with the mother protects them against UTIs. But what is the psychological mechanism of the trauma that forbids ambidextrality?
The explanation of lateralization by neurology of the brain seems tautological 68 to us. The very existence of ambidextrous tends to prove that lateralisation of the brain in the matter is a consequence, not a cause. For the early cut provokes submission (or opposition) to adult norm. Absurd, this submission or opposition does not stem from trust but from unconscious terror issuing from brutal extinction of placenta alimentation before its natural, gradual and peaceful stopping. Nature has provided, for some time, a double system of alimentation in oxygen and nutrients; as long as the cord pulses, the placenta allows progressive adaptation. Cutting by iron does not only forbid alimentation in iron. Occurring before natural term, it brutally interferes into the management of their body by the babies. It necessarily provokes a terrible anguish and is felt as cruel assault. Intimately and for life terrorised by adults including the mother, the child will foolishly comply with the collective norm. A first trauma, the early cut creates neurosis, its conformism and stream of inhibitions. A priori, the placenta is the property of the baby, no one but nature has the right to separate them from it.
Leboyer also condemned circumcision. What is true for the cord will a fortiori be so for the very rich in erogenous nervous ending foreskin. Much more invasive since destructive, circumcision provokes much graver trauma. The same cause: violence, induces the same effect: a deep submission: repetition of the absurd crime.
Ritual or medical cuts result in separating the child from the mother. Consciously or not, the matter is, from attendants to birth (nurses, mid-wives, gynaecologists), individual or collective appropriation of the baby within compulsive paedophilia. All pretexts are valid in order to have the baby for oneself for a while: "Now for weighing!" but the balance is in another room, or else, the mother catches a cold and the child must absolutely stay in another room, etc. Leboyer revolts against that tyrannical behaviour. His message can be summarized by: “Let the baby, their placenta and the mother alone.”
The examples of Galileo, Copernicus, Freud... etc., have shown that one does not solve the world's problems easily. Now, medicine is a world of pride, prejudice, dogmas and coteries in the hands of all-powerful mandarins. It took hall a century in order to accept the discovery of unhappy Semmelweiss's (hygiene). So is it for Leboyer's who did not get the Nobel prize. However, Jacobsen has correlated birthing techniques with adult behaviour, concluding his enquiry so: “obstetric procedures should be carefully evaluated and possibly modified to prevent eventual self-destructive behaviour.” So, creating massive fanaticism, the invasion of an Arabian land by some rescued from Nazism emanates from victims of neonatal circumcision and of the early cut of the cord...
- Sigismund
October 21, 2008 8:31AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I'm unconvinced
There's greater things in the world to be concerned with.
- tbcass
October 21, 2008 9:26AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The greatest joy in life comes from protecting children
Do you not understand that the reason neonatal circumcision is not performed in Europe and has not been since a seminal paper in this area documented deaths of children from this unnecessary practice is because children die from this practice.
Do you not believe in protecting male children from being subjected to circumcision simply because thay are boys and not girls?
What exactly are you unconvinced of?
Surely the greatest thing in life and of concern to all of us is the protection of children from adults who would take a knife to their genitals when they are too young to defend themselves.
- Nocirc of Northern Ireland
October 23, 2008 4:41PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Letter to the editor of the British medical journal
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/335/7631/1180 #183746
- Sigismund
November 10, 2008 9:07AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Most psychological traumas are absolutely unconscious
All psychologists agree that not feeling anything does not mean that one has not been hurt deep inside, which explains some of our strange behaviours (find by yourself which).
As for sexual mutilation, female or male, it is first the dreadful castration of the very specific organs of autosexuality.
It is also a threat of exclusion and thus death, for both boys and girls.
For girls it is the definite castration of an erectile organ.
In addition, for boys, it is a threat of castration ("I only cut you a little bit, but if you do not behave, I'll cut the rest of it!")
Cordially yours,
- Sigismund
February 2, 2009 5:22AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Absolute stupidity
To suggest that pain caused by circumcision, after the far more traumatic process of being born, will somehow cause permanent psychological harm is so ludicrous that it's laughable. These guys should have their doctor's degrees destroyed for such stupidity. Should Boys be circumcised? I don't care. I was and it certainly didn't hurt me.
- tbcass
October 1, 2008 7:10AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
permanent psychological harm from circumcision
Many studies show that infant circumcisions cause long term psychological, emotional, and neurological negative effects to include a lowered pain tolerance, and not bonding as well with the mother. When babies are circumcised their cortisol levels go through the roof, most go into shock, and some even stop breathing. I don't believe that being born can be anywhere near as traumatic as having attached foreskin forcefully ripped off the glans, then for the skin to be cut all the way around near the top, cut all the way around near the bottom, and for all the skin in between to be cut off. The worst thing about a baby being circumcised though is that his sexual pleasure capacity will be decreased for life.
- Allen706
October 1, 2008 8:40PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Nice Try
The problem with such "studies" is that they are impossible to prove. I and no one else I know believes that circumcision has had any such long term effects. If what you say is true and given that the vast majority of babies are circumcised there should be more immediate problems. Shock? I don't believe that. If true there would be immediate consequences, even death! Trust me, circumcision didn't bother my sexual pleasure or if it did I don't care. It's still great. Overall I think that with all that goes on in the world worrying about circumcision is a waste of time.
- tbcass
October 1, 2008 11:43PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
There are different types of shock
I didn't mean a type of shock that is a life-threatening emergency. Some people refer to it as shock, but maybe that's not a good word for it. What I meant by shock is that because of the extreme pain of circumcision often times babies go into a state of dissociation, or semi-unconsciousness, or unresponsiveness.
- Allen706
October 2, 2008 6:17AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I'll tell you what's painful!
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
November 11, 2008 12:07AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Parents get to mutilate WHO?
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.
- Van Lewis
December 11, 2008 7:11PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Vaginal foreskins?
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
April 7, 2009 5:07PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Yes, girls have foreskins too
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.
- Van Lewis
April 7, 2009 9:07PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Aw....somebody failed in debate.
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.
- Livvy
April 8, 2009 8:00PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Yes, Livvy, your ignorance IS showing
You have fallen victim to many falsehoods and errors. Here are a few:
1) "all forms of 'female circumcision ' ... involve removal of the clitoris"
Nope. Read what the UN has to say about the four types of FGM they
recognize. ONLY the SECOND of them NECESSARILY involves the removal of part
or all of the clitoris. The other three may or may not.
http://www.who.int/reproductive-health/fgm/terminology.htm
http://www.who.int/reproductive-health/publications/fgm/fgm_statement_2008.p
df
Three out of four forms of 'female circumcision' may involve no damage to
the clitoris whatever.
2) Quoting Rebecca Cook, you say she says, ""[female circumcision] in
whatever form it is practiced, is not at all analogous to male
circumcision."
Wrong again. One kind of Type I FGM, according to the UN, is "Partial or
total removal of the ... prepuce" The prepuce is the foreskin. Girls have
'em. Boys have 'em. They develop from the same tissues in the fetus, boy or
girl. They are homologous, and amputating them in girls is therefore
strictly analogous to amputating them in boys. Boys' foreskins are far
BIGGER than girls' foreskins, and contain far more nerve endings, but girls'
foreskins are just as important to girls, I believe, as boys' foreskins are
to boys, whether the girls and boys know how important they are to them or
not. And guess what? Girls' foreskins are important to boys, and boys
foreskins are important to girls, whether the boys and girls know the score
or not. These organs co-evolved. They evolved together. Or, if you wish,
were designed for each other by God, or Mother Nature.
3) Now here's the real killer: "Not only does penile circumcision pose no
lasting damage to a male" WOW! Are you really THIS ignorant? Or are you
deliberately lying? Does killing a boy (or a girl, for that matter) by
circumcising him or her do "lasting damage"? It does permanent damage, as in
ETERNAL damage. No one can ever bring that dead child back to life, Livvy,
boy, girl or otherwise. What sex the child happens to have been born is 100%
irrelevant to the question of whether circumcising healthy children damages
them, puts their lives at risk unjustifiably, and violates their human
rights. Boys and girls lose their clitoris, their penis, their glans, their
labia, their foreskins, every day, thousands upon thousands of them. In
every case, it is permanent damage. Boy, girl or intersexed, all are
permanently damaged, whether they live or die from the brutal and
unjustified mutilation.
4) You claim male circumcision "has health benefits". The professional
pro-mutilationsists do not. What they claim is that for healthy children it
has "POTENTIAL health benefits". In other words, no benefits at the time of
the mutilation. The only thing that happens then is trauma and permanent
damage. What they HOPE is that DOWN THE ROAD, some few of the many mutilated
will avoid some unlikely illness or difficulty.
Take the example you cite: "Studies have shown that uncircumcised males are
ten times more likely to get urinary tract infections than circumcised
males." Wow! That sounds scary as heck, doesn't it? "TEN times more likely!
Chop off all those nasty ol' foreskins and save 90%!"
Whoa Nellie! Let's back up a minute and look at the actual claim. (It's been
shown not to hold water but let's ignore that for the moment.) What the
pro-mutilationists actually claim is that about 1 in 100 - about .01, 1% -
of genitally intact boys will get a UTI. And that about 1 in 1000
circumcised boys will get a uti - 1/10 of 1%, .001. So if we don't
circumcise the 1000 boys, the mutilation advocates say we can expect to see
about 10 of them come down with an easily and cheaply treated UTI. And that
if we spend around $300,000 circumcising the 1000 boys, instead of 10 UTIs,
we'll see about 1. A difference of 9 cheaply and easily treated UTIs. THESE
numbers are why the American Academy of Pediatrics, the AMA, and all the
rest of the 18 national and international medical associations that have
studied the matter say that nine easily and cheaply and less invasively,
more conservatively treated UTIs don't justify mutilating 1000 boys. Not
economically, not ethically, no way. Even if there were no risks and damages
from circumcising. And there are. Many serious ones.
(to be continued)
- Van Lewis
April 8, 2009 11:45PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Yes, Livvy, your ignorance IS showing (continued)
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.
- Van Lewis
April 8, 2009 11:46PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
You still fail at debate.
Your argument: male and female sex organs should be treated the same.
My argument: Yeah...They're NOT the same. Female circumcision causes problems that male circumcision does not. Male circumcision has been shown to have health benefits.
Your argument: you're ignorant - female circumcision happens all the time.
Side note: What does that have to do with anything?! This is a debate about PENILE circumcision.
My argument: Male circumcision and female circumcision are different. They aren't the same. The World Health Organization recognizes this, congress recognizes this, get with the friggin' program.
And then you go off AGAIN on how I'm so wrong about female circumcision! Whoa buddy.
And finally, you get around to a point. Congratulations. There's a first time for everything.
I've read a BUNCH on penile circumcision (because I plan on having my sons circumcised), and I'm unimpressed with the studies (and horror stories) against circumcision. A good chunk of anti-circumcision literature relies heavily on psychological studies that say circumcision has lasting psychological effects on males. I've read just a few too many studies that put forth stories of boys who have PTSD from their circumcisions. This is psychodynamic crap that should have died with Freud. The problem with these theories is that there is no way to test them. A theory that is untestable = pseuodo- science (not an actual form of science). And as far as the mortality rate of circumcision goes (not that there's one specific organization that's keeping score), the anti-circumcision dudes put it at between 1 in 240,000 - 500,000 over the last fifty years. One in five hundred thousand? Oh no, best not take my chances!
The complications involved in circumcision are statistically lower than the complications involved with uncircumcised men, according to studies that CAN be tested.
There are ample amounts of evidence for and against circumcision. But one major thing that the pro-circumcision guys have going for them is the relationship between circumcision and certain STD's. There have been over forty epidemiological studies done on whether or not circumcision prevents HIV . Only three studies are considered complete and accurate according to the WHO (because of the lack of causal relationship possibilities) and all three have showed that circumcision reduced the risk of HIV infection by over 50 percent (the highest being 60%).
This was not a small study. It didn't involve 2 guys in a lab somewhere. It took place in South Africa, Kenya, and Uganda (where HIV is more common than here) and involved years of research and work on the researchers part leading up to the study. Both UNAIDS and the WHO have said that circumcision is an effective intervention for HIV when used with consistently safe sexual practices.
That being said, there's nothing you can say to change my opinion on this. Just act like a big boy and agree to disagree already.
- Livvy
April 9, 2009 12:31PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
All Males Deserve The Gift Of Circumcision. (Part 1 of 4)
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
May 6, 2009 7:17PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
All Males Deserve The Gift Of Circumcision. (Part 2 of 4)
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.
- Mistertruth
May 6, 2009 7:18PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Circumcision Is A Gift All Males Deserve (Part 3 of 4)
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.
- Mistertruth
May 6, 2009 7:22PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Circumcision Is A Gift All Males Deserve (Part 4 of 4)
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.
- Mistertruth
May 6, 2009 7:23PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Huh????
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?
- Najma jay
January 9, 2009 9:29PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Where are your ethics?
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).
- Joe
February 18, 2009 10:50PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Is this a joke?
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.
- PhilyG
January 30, 2009 12:27AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Is this a joke?
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
- Sigismund
April 6, 2009 1:57PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Death By Circumcision
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 /
- Van Lewis
April 9, 2009 12:53AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Being compassionate vs. being smart.
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.
- Livvy
April 7, 2009 5:33PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.