News & Politics

Rant

Mass. Bill Would Ban Circumcision

Posted 27 months ago|772 comments|5,015 views
Written by
Rudi Stettner
 Moderator
Every year when Jews celebrate Hannukah, the story of the Maccabean revolt against the Greeks is told. In ancient Greece ,Judaism was permitted as a philosophy. It was as a way of life and a system of laws that the Greeks opposed Judaism. One of the commandments that was banned under Greek rule was circumcision. In Greece as well as under subsequent totalitarian regimes through the ages, there were those who risked death and imprisonment to fulfill this biblical commandment. After the age of eight days, a Jewish male is supposed to be circumcised. It is a clear commandment. It can not be wished away by the government on behalf of those who practice Judaism.

A man named Charles A. Antonelli of Massachusetts is waging a campaign to pass a law that would compel Jews and Muslims living in Massachusetts to violate the tenets of their own faith by forbidding circumcision on anyone under the age of 18 unless there is a pressing medical need. The bill does not merely overlook the requirements of Jewish and Islamic law. It specifically bans circumcisions that are performed on minors for religious reasons. It bans a commandment that has been performed for thousands of years around the world and for the entire time that the United States has been in existence.

This bill purports to protect the rights of children not to be encumbered by irreversible procedures that could not be done later in life. A close examination of the statute shows that it does not ban abortion. Perhaps Mr. Antonelli has a blind spot in his vision of freedom for the children of Massachusetts.




If passed, the bill would make Massachusetts a state where parents have no right to prevent their children from being taught about homosexuality in public school and no right to practice circumcision as a religious ritual. There is in Massachusetts a pattern of second guessing and undermining parental values and judgements when clash with "enlightened " values. Those parents who subscribe to non religious circumcision as being medically desirable would under the Antonelli statute be banned from exercising their medical judgement on behalf of their children. It also creates a legal and psychological precedent of questioning years after the fact parenting decisions made in good faith on behalf of children by their parents and guardians.

I lived in a town that banned fluoridation of the water. Fluoridated water is generally credited with preventing tooth decay. My parents decided that the school system in my town was good enough to outweigh the problems created by non fluoridated water. I have no intention of setting up a web site blaming my parents for the state of my teeth. A recurring theme of the web sites condemning circumcision is a sense of mournful loss for a foreskin that is gone forever. Parents make decisions all the time on behalf of their children. A child might need surgery. The parents take the child to a mediocre doctor who causes the child injury. Is Antonelli going to step in and sue the parents?

I was taught to read using the phonics method in Catholic schools. My sister was taught using the whole word method, in which words are looked at and memorised. With the exception of dyslexic students, phonics works better as a method to teach reading. My sister is still annoyed that she was taught using the whole word method. But she got over it. She got two degrees and makes a good living.

There are many arguments for and against circumcision. Anyone can look them up. There is a theological debate as well. In America we have the right to choose our faith and our expressions of religious faith. We have a right to exercise good faith medical judgment as well.

There is a wellspring of emotion that is evoked by the Antonelli bill, a piece of proposed legislation that knowingly takes aim at a religious practice. It could well be renamed the Edict of Expulsion From the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, because it could well expose Jews who circumcise their children to a fine and up to fourteen years in prison.

I am surprised that the news articles that report on this bill mention that Antonelli is "Delivery Compliance Administrator for IBM Global Services in Boston". It is unfortunate that IBM is saddled with an employee who is working so hard to pass what amounts to hate legislation. I sincerely doubt that the bill will pass. Because if it did, I would look with disfavour upon traveling to Massachusetts, buying products made there or dealing with financial institutions that have their corporate headquarters in Massachusetts.

Those who wonder if there will ever be peace between Jews and Muslims can look at this bill and see a united front forming against the Antonelli bill against the circumcision of minors.

Although this bill seems to affect only Jews and Muslims, its reach is far more insidious, injecting the reach of the state into the lives of families living in Massachusetts. Anyone who wonders if there is not a malignant quality to the philosophy of the nanny state need wonder no longer. Charles A. Antonelli is here to protect us from ourselves, whether we want it or not.

Reprinted with permission from Rudistettner.com


*********************************************************

To support this author, shop from the links with this article, or those ads on rudistettner.com.
EMAIL|FLAG THIS POST
COMMENTS
THE RONBOT HUNTER
THE RONBOT HUNTER
27 months ago: First I would think this nut wants to get rid of both Arabs and Jews.

You Jews should call all the Jew centers and have him taken out of office.

But I don't know if the Arabs have that much power there, to do as much good.

At the very least call his office and insult the SOB for the scum that he is.

SILENCE IS ACQUIESCENCE, AGREEMENT, AND DISHONOR

let him have it, give him hell each and every day.

THE RONBOT HUNTER
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

http://freedom-school.com/law/prison_treatise.shtml

http://freedom-school.com/keating/how-a-prisoner-funds-america.pdf

http://freedom-school.com/admiralty/how-to-beat-criminal-charges-in-admiralty-courts.pdf

Mr Shawn
Mr Shawn
Little Rock, AR
27 months ago:
AMEN, and thank god, I fully support this bill 100%, being Jewish does not make you special and no it does not justify mutilating the genitals of infants. If they want it dont, I would allow it at 13, or whenever the bah mitzvah thing happens.

I am not Anti-Jewish or Anti-Muslim, but I am for protecting human rights and circumcision is a violation of that, religious rights and freedom does not supercede that of another human being.

Thank god people are finally realizing that males need the same protection as females from genital mutilation.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
27 months ago: I like the first comment that was on the linked article:

"This will never pass. However, I will say that I must respect this legislator for respecting the rights of his constituents to put proposals before the legislature even when it may appear on the surface that he is endorsing something he is not. It shows he respects the will of the people... even if this bill is a joke that will never see the light of day."

I didn't see anything in the bill that mentioned homosexuality and are you saying that if the state banned abortion, than it would be okay for it to ban circumcision?

Mr. Shawn, how exactly is circumcision mutilation, and how is it even remotely comparable to partial or total removal of the female genitals?
Mr Shawn
Mr Shawn
Little Rock, AR
27 months ago: Take a male and take a female infant, cut off the males arm an the females hand, now is the males worse because you cut off his entire arm, absolutely not, you still violated his body and cut off part of him without his consent. That is the major point here.

Now, if you want to get technical, female circumcision is its most common form, I believe its something like 98% of female circumcisions are like this, is removing the clitoral hood, the equivalent to the male foreskin, removing it has the exact same damaging effects.

But still, it all boils down to one thing, you are still removing part of someones body without their consent and violating their rights, the amount removed really does not matter, but in reality, they are not as different as you think. It is a sexist double standard that one is illegal and the other is not.

And here are some sources that also explain how the two are comparable.

http://www.boystoo.com/fgm&mgm.htm
http://www.circumstitions.com/FGMvsMGM.html

Also, regarding it being mutilation, the definitions of mutilation.

1. To deprive of a limb or an essential part; cripple.
2. To disfigure by damaging irreparably
3. To make imperfect by excising or altering parts.

1. The foreskin is a normal, protective and beneficial, is it a limb, no, is it a normal, healthy body part that is not meant to be removed, yes.

2. The damage cause it not fixable and is permanent, even foreskin restoration cannot give you back everything.

3. Pretty self-explainatory.
C Antonelli
C Antonelli
Quincy, MA
27 months ago: The bill does not seek to prohibit religious circumcision. Adult males may still choose circumcision for themselves if they believe their God demands it. This bill focuses is on minors, where civil law must take precedent over religious texts. It codifies that the human rights of every individual exist first, and no amount of parental preference can supersede that in the pursuit of subjective, unprovable spiritual or cultural benefits. Unless we're opening the law books to strike any law that violates a religious dictate governing what one person may do to another, there is nothing objectionable on this front. Are we opening the law books in this manner for a purge of religiously objectionable civil laws?

Read the ENTIRE bill before commenting please -- you can see it at http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/senate/186/st01/st01777.htm

It's not the "Antonelli bill", it's the MGM Bill -- see http://MGMbill.org for more detail about it in EVERY STATE, it's the SAME BILL being voted upon in Minnesota, so it's NOT just Massachusetts.

It is ILLEGAL in the United States to circumcise baby girls. Therefore, according to the 14th amendment, boys are guaranteed equal protection under the law. One of the problems with that is that many people see female and male circumcision as totally different things. Many people who view female circumcision as barbaric, but view male circumcision as perfectly acceptable.

- Charles Antonelli
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
27 months ago: Mr. Shawn/C. Antonelli,

Let's compare apples to oranges:

"Clitoral hood removal is basically an elective surgery whose purpose is usually to serve for the enhancement of sexual response in the woman. However, this procedure should not be confused with clitoridectomy, infibulations or excisions which are all forms of Female Genital Mutilation. These procedures are usually done on non-consenting women or girls with the intention of minimizing or eliminating their enjoyment of sexual pleasure so that there is less chance of them needing to change sexual partners in search for enhanced sexual pleasure."

http://tinyurl.com/yhskqoh

Now if you want to compare clitoral hood removal to male circumcision, that's fine since the procedures are cosmetic and may in fact enhance pleasure. But to compare male circumcision to female genital mutilations such as removal of the clitoris is not at all analogous and reflects a lack of knowledge with respect to sexual anatomy.

If we're going to outlaw male circumcision, you might as well add all forms of piercings until adult hood - there's no practical difference.
Rudi Stettner
Rudi Stettner
 Moderator
27 months ago: The bibliccal commandment specifically mandates circumcision on the 8th day of life or as soon as possible. By postponing circumcision to adulthood, you are banning the practice of a commandment in Judaism. There is no way around that. There are many doctors who consider circumcisionto be medically preferable. There are those who feel the opposite way. The Antonelli bill takes sides in this dispute and lends the force of law to obe side in a medical dispute.

I am very aware that the bill permits circumcision to adults. This contravenes directly Jewish law. It deprives the Jews residing in Massachusetts of the right to practice their faith as mandated by scripture. This is a legally accurate description of the effect of this bill. Mr. Antonelli, you know that full well. This fact belongs on the table.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
27 months ago: My prediction: (and no, it's not a pun)

I like this new way of replying to individual posts, but it is a bit tedious trying to keep up with several conversations, when comments are being inserted out of the natural linear chronology.

In this manner, I can go back in time, and predict that Rudy has hit on a really hot button topic, and comments will easily surpass 140 in a short period, say, less than two days.

I also predict that this post will generate at least ten new members, most of whom we will never hear from again, and revive a few welcome voices like aNonimous Voice.

My final prediction concerning this post. Many people will get the willies about tips on circumcision, and beat it. Some goobers make the cut, and some can't.
27 months ago: Mr. Stettner says:

I am very aware that the bill permits circumcision to adults. This contravenes directly Jewish law. It deprives the Jews residing in Massachusetts of the right to practice their faith as mandated by scripture.

Jews have no such right, so they can't be deprived of it. The first amendment guarantees us freedom of religion, freedom to believe anything we want, even something as absurd and evil as that God the Creator wants us to mutilate one of God's finest creations, human sex organs.

While guaranteeing the right of complete religious BELIEF to everyone in the USA, the constitution does NOT guarantee freedom of religious PRACTICE to ANYONE. Religious PRACTICE is an entirely different matter from religious BELIEF, according tot he USA Supreme Court. Religious PRACTICE must meet the test of not violating the human and civil rights of anyone. Just because you can BELIEVE anything you like about what God wants you to do, doesn't mean you can DO it with impunity.

For example, I may believe 'til the cows come home that God want's me to cut off what little remains of Mr. Stettner's ****. My sincerely held religious BELIEF to that effect gives me NO RIGHT WHATEVER to even THREATEN Mr. Stettner with partial-**** amputation, let alone DO it. I believe Mr. Stettner would agree. Everyone else has the same right to their own ****, or what remains of it, as Mr. Stettner does. The fact that he's a Jew has nothing to do with it. He is protected by secular law like everyone else, as is every other Jew, Muslim, and person in the USA. Jewish law, that mishmash of self-contradictory bronze-age insanity found in the Torah (not ALL of which is insane, by the way, especially the part about not marking bodies and cutting human flesh) is not what is enforceable as law in this country, thank God. We don't have to sacrifice animals and stone adulterous women to death just because tells Bible tells us to. Adulterous women have a right not to be stoned to death, even if Jewish. Babies have a right not to be chopped up in some stone-age sexual sacrifice, even if Jewish. Jews are not some lesser form of human or sub-human animal. They have the same human rights as everyone else. You want to see some REAL anti-Semitism, in the FLESH? Go to a bris. Bris kills Jewish babies, not Mr. Antonelli's good bill. It protects them. They need it. We all need it. Get real, people.
Gumbee65
Gumbee65
Canada
26 months ago: You are referring to:

REYNOLDS v. UNITED STATES.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
98 U.S. 145
OCTOBER, 1878, Term


Which states:

"Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship, would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice? Or if a wife religiously believed it was her duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband, would it be beyond the power of the civil government to prevent her carrying her belief into practice?

So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed. Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? The permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.... "
27 months ago: Mr. Stettner says:

I am very aware that the bill permits circumcision to adults. This contravenes directly Jewish law. It deprives the Jews residing in Massachusetts of the right to practice their faith as mandated by scripture.

Jews have no such right, so they can't be deprived of it. The first amendment guarantees us freedom of religion, freedom to believe anything we want, even something as absurd and evil as that God the Creator wants us to mutilate one of God's finest creations, human sex organs.

While guaranteeing the right of complete religious BELIEF to everyone in the USA, the constitution does NOT guarantee freedom of religious PRACTICE to ANYONE. Religious PRACTICE is an entirely different matter from religious BELIEF, according tot he USA Supreme Court. Religious PRACTICE must meet the test of not violating the human and civil rights of anyone. Just because you can BELIEVE anything you like about what God wants you to do, doesn't mean you can DO it with impunity.

For example, I may believe 'til the cows come home that God want's me to cut off what little remains of Mr. Stettner's ****. My sincerely held religious BELIEF to that effect gives me NO RIGHT WHATEVER to even THREATEN Mr. Stettner with partial-**** amputation, let alone DO it. I believe Mr. Stettner would agree. Everyone else has the same right to their own ****, or what remains of it, as Mr. Stettner does. The fact that he's a Jew has nothing to do with it. He is protected by secular law like everyone else, as is every other Jew, Muslim, and person in the USA. Jewish law, that mishmash of self-contradictory bronze-age insanity found in the Torah (not ALL of which is insane, by the way, especially the part about not marking bodies and cutting human flesh) is not what is enforceable as law in this country, thank God. We don't have to sacrifice animals and stone adulterous women to death just because tells Bible tells us to. Adulterous women have a right not to be stoned to death, even if Jewish. Babies have a right not to be chopped up in some stone-age sexual sacrifice, even if Jewish. Jews are not some lesser form of human or sub-human animal. They have the same human rights as everyone else. You want to see some REAL anti-Semitism, in the FLESH? Go to a bris. Bris kills Jewish babies, not Mr. Antonelli's good bill. It protects them. They need it. We all need it. Get real, people.
Gumbee65
Gumbee65
Canada
26 months ago: The Documentary Hypothesis has become the standard for Biblical Scholars.
It clearly states that Genesis 17 (covenant thru circumcision) was introduced far after Genesis 15 (covenant thru the cutting of animals). This discovery was accepted by religious and non-religious by utilizing source criticism.

Why are you so sure that this is part of the real Jewish Law? I ask this question sincerely.
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
27 months ago: I think Mark is correct in that female gentile mutilation is horridly debilitating and made so the woman will not have pleasure which is totally different than male circumcision.
On the other hand I can see that forcing a minor to have part of their body cut off is a basic violation of rights.
Then again there is one study that said HIV is reduced 50% if men are circumcised.
But then that just might be because they were too sore to mess around for a long time.
26 months ago: "Altruist," shame on you for thinking "outside the box"—just what the baby circumcisers don't want you to do! Those African studies to which you refer, which purport to document immunological changes that reduce HIV and STDs in their test (circumcised) group were, of course, primarily (perhaps exclusively) measuring changes in BEHAVIOR!!!

Their fundamental assumption is that people are sexual machines; their copulation frequency, rate of change of partners, etc., will all remain constant—come hell, circumcision, or high water. These ridiculous spoofs in the name of science have no way to measure the affect of shame, pain, and gain in their "studies." And yet not one of these so-called "scientists" will even begin to admit to the fact.

Just as you stated, if the circumcised group, after undergoing their scarring, traumatizing surgery (which may very well have made them sexual outcasts in a uncircumcised society—perhaps even to their own wives or girlfriends), isn't "messing around" as much as the uncircumcised group, they won't be contracting as much HIV or as many STDs as the other group which continues to go their "messing-around" way.

How many men are going to contract AIDS or STDs when they have, to some degree, become social outcasts or otherwise inhibited, reduced to masturbation instead of seeking out their customary sexual outlets? Is this not a change in BEHAVIOR? How can any "scientist" regard this as immunology?

The point is that genuine "scientists" won't be passing off behavioral studies as immunological studies. If they do, they are lying through their teeth. And pro-circumcision "scientists" or "doctors" who are so eager as to grasp at these wretched straws to perpetuate advocacy and practice of an antiquated, barbaric practice merely prove the bankruptcy of their case—and how personal prejudice has perverted and impoverished their own capacity for scientific reason.

markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
27 months ago: Al,
...because they were too sore to mess around for a long time.. .

You got that right and I know from experience. It took me until I was five years old before I well enough to play doctor with the girl next door. It wasn't just the lingering pain but the psychological scarring, and knowing that I was missing a vital part of me.

Decades later, the terror of losing my foreskin is still with me, and I believe I'm suffering from post traumatic stress syndrome. Every night I relive the terror of my birth and subsequent mutilation. The anger is never ending as I call my mother every weekend and scream at her, "give my foreskin back you evil witch!"

*TWEET* *TWEET*
TxHeat
TxHeat
Porter, TX
27 months ago: It is time to stop the gender-based double standards relating to circumcision and take into account both medical science and the human rights of boys when it comes to circumcision. The male foreskin is packed with high sensory fine-touch nerve endings. Removing the foreskin is gynecologically equivalent to the removal of the clitoral hood, one of several forms of female circumcision that are all illegal as a routine procedure. Why aren't boys given the same protection?
A recent study using fine-touch medical instruments for the first time ever to study the sensation on the penis found circumcision removes the most sensitive part of the penis. (http://www.livescie nce.com/health/070615_penis_sensitivity.html)

Recently, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians found there is "no evidence to support routine circumcision of newborn and infant males," and, "There is evidence that circumcision does result in memory of painful experience," and said parents should wait until their child is old enough to give informed consent. (' http://www.smh.com.au/national/letters/no-evidence- to-support-routine-...

Even more recently, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia declared "routine removal of normal tissue in a healthy infant, is not recommended," and also addressed the ethical considerations of removing healthy, functioning tissue from a baby boy who cannot consent. (https://www.cpsbc.ca/files/u6/Circumcision-Infant-Male.pdf)
NYSCOF
NYSCOF
Old Bethpage, NY
27 months ago: F.Y.I. Modern science shows that ingesting fluoride does not reduce tooth decay. Therefore, not consuming fluoridated water did not cause your teeth to rot.

more info http://www.FluorideAction.Net
THE RONBOT HUNTER
THE RONBOT HUNTER
27 months ago: YOU FORGET ON THING! These are the religious believes of millions around the world.

And now is threatened by unlicensed attorneys here.

If these millions have no problem with it, how can a few unlicensed attorneys, who are not licensed by any government or agency demand the removal of their rights?

A statute is NOT a positive law, which means that it has been tested to see if it does not violate the Constitution.

Every single Statute is color of law.

JEFFERSON’S MANUAL OF PARLIAMENTARY
PRACTICE. Is the guide that proves my claims.

Every statute passed by the legislature since 1933 is a fraud upon the Constitution.

http://freedom-school.com/law/prison_treatise.shtml

http://freedom-school.com/keating/how-a-prisoner-funds-america.pdf

http://freedom-school.com/admiralty/how-to-beat-criminal-charges-in-admiralty-courts.pdf

THE RONBOT HUNTER
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
27 months ago: Why do we ban genital mutilation on a girl with Federal law, but support it on a boy? The foreskin gets removed in either case.
The difference is that female genital mutilation is associated with Islamic people.
This, any way you want to look at it, is totally sexist.
It is more than a little religiously bigoted as well.
Why should a boy be denied a healthy part of his body? What if wanted to have his foreskin? Many adult circumcised men feel personally and sexually violated, and they have every right to.
Contrary to popular belief, the glans is not the seat of male pleasure. Much stronger sensations come from the inner foreskin and frenulum. Maimondes, rabbinical scholar, and world renowned physician, wrote, "Circumcision weakens the power of sexual excitement."
http://jewishcircumcision.org/spectator.htm

Many opt for a bloodless bris.
Would Judaism continue without circumcision? Russian Jews seem to think so. If you can explain why removing the foreskin of a girl is wrong, but removing the foreskin of a boy is OK, I'll be happy to listen.

It's his body. He should be the only one making that decision.
Tom Tobin
27 months ago: Content Removed by Mark Lyndon
27 months ago: It's illegal to cut the prepuce off a girl regardless of cultural or religious considerations. Why don't boys get the same protection?

Everyone should be able to decide for themselves whether or not they want parts of their genitals cut off.
27 months ago: Anyone arguing about how much worse female cutting is, you're entirely missing the point. Stop being a tool. Parents have no right to remove healthy, functional tissue from a newborn child's GENITALS. Period. Nothing justifies it for either sex. The child hasn't chosen his religion, so why are you mutilating him in the name of it? Mutilate your OWN genitals so you can't reproduce, leave newborns penises alone.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
27 months ago: If circumcision was purely religious (it's not - been practiced since pre-historic times) and it was comparable in any fashion to female genital mutilation (the proposition is absurd as noted previous), it would have been outlawed long ago.

For salient objective medical facts on the subject, see Academy of Pediatrics policy statement:

http://tinyurl.com/3h3hl

...F.Y.I. Modern science shows that ingesting fluoride does not reduce tooth decay...

That's a falsehood from an obvious quack science website. For example, it notes signatures of "Doctor" of Chiropractics and lawyers who are opposed to fluoridation - that's anti-Science - when they're reduced to having petitions from Pseudo-doctors such as Chiropractors and lawyers as "proofs" against fluoride, it's a sign of absolute desperation. And they got 397 nurses against fluoride - gee, that's like what, .000001% of nurses.

Actual facts and supporting data are at:

http://www.bfsweb.org/documents/Reviews.PDF

and

http://www.ada.org/public/topics/fluoride/facts/index.asp
27 months ago: Are we saying that it's OK for Jews to circumcise boys, but it's not OK for Muslims to remove the same part from girls? All in the name of religious freedom? It's OK to slant Federal law to discriminate against Muslims, but not Jews?
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
27 months ago: Brett,

When one exaggerates circumcision as mutilation and implies it's castration, that's just as irrational as the religious zealots who insist it has to be done because their imaginary god demands it. It's about as mutilating as an ear piercing and it's practiced well beyond mere religion for either reasons of hygiene, health, or cosmetic perceptions. Read the Pediatrics policy above.

We can go back and forth on this issue but one thing is for certain - the bill is dead on arrival and there's no political or medical impetus to ban the practice.

I think Rudi bringing up the matter is just part of the religious right agenda to whip up some persecution fever.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
27 months ago: ...It's OK to slant Federal law to discriminate against Muslims, but not Jews?...

Why do you keep making a false comparison between male circumcision and female genital mutilation - they aren't comparable as noted.

Also, male Muslims do get circumsied too as well as Jews, some Christians, and others who aren't religious at all; maybe you're just wanting the government to discriminate against Jews?
27 months ago: To say that male circumcision and female circumcision cannot be compared is to promote an obvious falsehood. Of COURSE they can be compared! Watch me:

Male and female circumcision differ in some relatively unimportant respects, they are similar in other relatively more important respects, and they are identical in some extremely important respects.

Let's look at just a few examples, of many possible ones.

Differences primarily concern differences in anatomy between male and female sex organs. Most female circumcision is amputation of the prepuce, or foreskin. Female foreskins are almost always much smaller than male foreskins. That's a big difference, but a relatively unimportant difference compared to the ways in which they are similar and identical. There are also large differences in both sexes as to how much tissue is amputated (if any), but those large differences are within each sex, not between the sexes. Female circumcision goes all the way from not even touching the girl's genitals, just waving the circumcision "tools" above them (a traditional non-violent form in Indonesia being supplanted by physically damaging medicalized versions where real flesh is ablated), to Phaoronic infibulation, in which all the external genetalia and varying amounts of the internal are removed and the vagina sewed almost closed. Male circumcision goes all the way from a symbolic nick in the foreskin to removal of all the skin from the navel to the **** (traditional in Yemen) on the man's wedding night. Nice, huh?

OK, how are MGM< and FGM identical? Well, both can and do kill some of the boys and girls who fall victim to them. I consider that very important, and usually the children's parents do too, whether anyone else takes death seriously or not. Both are human rights violations. Both can result in inability to reproduce. Both diminish or eliminate sexual; pleasure, depending on the extent of the damage, again varying more within each sex than between them.

Out of space

27 months ago: The average ear piercing doesn't remove the most sensitive 50% of the skin from your penis.
From Mirriam-Webster:
1 : to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect
2 : to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of : cripple

The difference is, I have one, and I consider it an essential part.
I consider taking half the skin off of my penis to be to alter it radically. You don't, markbyrn. It's a difference in perception, not an exaggeration. There are no reasons of hygiene or health which support circumcision, coming from any medical society, except possibly the WHO, who are prematurely jumping on three incomplete African studies like they are a lifeboat. I read the pediatrics policy above. It says 'potential benefits', 'these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision', 'the Academy concluded that there was no absolute medical indication for routine circumcision'.
There is no medical impetus, because they are still getting paid
"between $150 and $270 million" annually, as the article you cited states.
What happened to 'first, do no harm'. If you think it's no more harmful than an ear piercing, try sticking a pin through the skin of your penis. Then think about the more sensitive half which is gone.
27 months ago: If you had taken the time to read what I posted, markbyrn, I posted equivalent procedures...removing the foreskin of a boy, and removing the foreskin, or clitoral hood, if you prefer, of a girl. On a girl, it is a Federal felony. On a boy, it is common practice.
That is sexism. It is also legislating against religious tradition of Muslims. When people protest about their religious tradition being taken away, they should also consider whether or not Muslims are being given the same freedoms as they have, and whether or not genital surgery on a baby is in the best interests of the baby, regardless of gender.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
27 months ago: ...The difference is, I have one, and I consider it an essential part. I consider taking half the skin off of my **** to be to alter it radically. You don't, markbyrn...

Yep, we'll agree to disagree - good luck with the cause.
27 months ago: and to you, too, markbyrn.
27 months ago: Content Removed by RantRave Admin
James Mac
James Mac
Australia
27 months ago: "Are you telling me that it is more humane to be hurt in the presence of those who supposedly love and care about you? Are you saying that it is more humane if a child's first sexual experience involving another human being is associated with blood, pain, and alcohol?" Jody McLaughlin
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
27 months ago: Just because a procedure involves the sexual organs does not make it a sexual experience. Getting kicked in the nads is not a sexual experience, and neither is a girl's getting hurt on the seat of bicycle. If every time something happened with my genitals was considered a sexual experience, I would be drinking as much water as I could hold, eagerly looking forward to my next trip to the urinal.
Alex Layton
Alex Layton
 Administrator
Puyallup, WA
27 months ago: Wow. There are some pretty strong opinions out there.

However, I'm going to have to insist you keep the name calling to yourself.

Thank you.
smiley1221
smiley1221
Westmont, IL
27 months ago: Its a shame this isn't going to pass. There are a LOT of things in the torah/bible that are NOT ok to practice these days (human sacrifice, animal sacrifice).. dear god, why do we let this continue in this country? I'm an unhappy survivor of this. Everyone out there who is against this bill - Are you aware that as a parent in this country you can circumcise a 16 year old against his will - legally? It doesn't happen often but I know first hand accounts of this. And there are lots of muslim docs happy to do it to an unconsenting minor. If not outright ban - we need some control of this stuff on the books.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
27 months ago: Brett, so you're reduced to defending the issue with juvenile name calling and more comical hyperbole with the penectomy comparison.

If circumcisions was just a Jewish ritual and only done by Jews as some have falsely implied, there could be a peep hole of a chance to make it illegal based on anti-Semitic inclinations alone.

But as it's done by Muslims, various Cristian sects, other religions, and the non-religious to the point of 70%~ of the US population, you're a dreamer if you think any state in the union will make it illegal. But good luck - it's always good to have a cause no matter how small.
27 months ago: Almost every man I know has been circumcised, and I have never heard a one of them complain that they are missing an "essential" part of their anatomy. There are many arguments for and against circumcision. Personally, I don't see what the big deal is. I probably wouldn't circumcise my son, just for that fact that I don't think the benefits are significant enough to justify the risk. That being said, I believe it would be a violation of religious freedom to ban circumcision. There are risks associated with every medical procedure, and I don't believe that is an argument sufficient enough to ban a religious practice that has existed for thousands of years.
27 months ago: It is not a violation of religious freedom to ban circumcision. Freedom of religion is freedom to BELIEVE ANYTHING you like about religious matters or nothing at all, NOT to DO ANYTHING you or your group wants to do in the name of religion. BELIEVING is not banned by this bill. What it bans is a - sometimes religious, sometimes not - DOING, a PRACTICE that violates human and civil rights of people to whom it is done when they are too young to give their permission, or, being old enough, when they don't give their permission. Religious freedom definitely does NOT mean that everybody has the right to do whatever they think or their group thinks God wants them to. They don't have that right.
nhguy78
nhguy78
Hudson, NH
27 months ago: We do not live in a Theocracy. Did you know that in Switzerland dogs have more rights than American baby boys? Did you know that dead human beings have more rights than living, healthy baby boys? Why is this?

Circumcision has almost no effect on United States' HIV infection rates.

There are so many European Jews and Muslims that are not circumcised. I don't hear them complaining.
nhguy78
nhguy78
Hudson, NH
27 months ago: We do not live in a Theocracy. Did you know that in Switzerland dogs have more rights than American baby boys? Did you know that dead human beings have more rights than living, healthy baby boys? Why is this?

Circumcision has almost no effect on United States' HIV infection rates.

There are so many European Jews and Muslims that are not circumcised. I don't hear them complaining.

In the land of LIBERTY, this should be a RAVE not a RANT.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
27 months ago: nhguy78, are you implying that circumcision is illegal in Switzerland - it's not.
nhguy78
nhguy78
Hudson, NH
27 months ago: Just the opposite... dog tail and ear docking is illegal. That means dogs have more rights that a newborn baby boy.
smiley1221
smiley1221
Westmont, IL
27 months ago: Noone complains because the 38% (proof of this in a study - http://www.cirp.org/pages/riley/intact) of us that are unhappy being circumcised are too embarrassed to say anything. I know jews who are unhappy they were circumcised. How many people who feel victimized does it take to convince others there is psycological harm in this practice? 1, 10, 100, 1000?? I know sites with 40,000 members who are so FRUSTRATED that they are trying to restore what the doctors have taken from them.
nhguy78
nhguy78
Hudson, NH
27 months ago: Here are some links for you:
http://circumcisionworld.com/GLOBAL%20HIV%20PREVALENCDE.JPG
http://circumcisionworld.com/GLOBAL%20HIV%20PREVALENCDE.JPG

I wonder why Germany and China are so low in HIV infections? Why is the US so high?
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
27 months ago: nhguy78 : Member Since Feb 19th, 2010
smiley1221: Member Since Feb 19th, 2010
James Mac: Member Since Feb 19th, 2010
Brett: Member Since Feb 19th, 2010
mandoman: Member Since February 19, 2010
Mark Lyndon: Member Since February 19, 2010
TxHeat: Member Since February 19, 2010
Mr Shawn: Member Since February 18, 2010
C Antonelli: Members Since February 18, 2010

Is one guy logging in with multiple new accounts or has nocirc.org sent the troops in to bombard this rant? Welcome aboard to one or all! :)

...I wonder why Germany and China are so low in HIV infections? Why is the US so high?...

Gosh, I guess it wouldn't have anything to do with failure to use prophylactics.

"Several tests show that circumcised men have substantially reduced risks of contracting HIV. In response, several campaigns have been launched to circumcise men."

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/kenya/091117/male-circumcision-kenya-AIDS
nhguy78
nhguy78
Hudson, NH
26 months ago: Ok, then logic would have it that Africa is so high because of lack of prophylactics.... NOT foreskin.

Oh and uh, I found this site from facebook.
nhguy78
nhguy78
Hudson, NH
26 months ago: Ok, then logic would have it that Africa is so high because of lack of prophylactics.... NOT foreskin.

Oh and uh, I found this site from facebook.
27 months ago: nobody is saying a foreskin is an essential part of a man's anatomy.
they are saying it feels terrific. you can reproduce just fine without it. but, after being perfected by 120 million years of mammal evolution, in truth, it is your birthright. you should be able to feel all that nature intended, and not have half or more of what you could have been able to feel taken away, by anyone, no matter how well intentioned. "My God told me to do it" just doesn't sound as final as it may have a century or two ago. It is a violation of a person's civil rights.

markbyrn, you might not want to criticize Brett for hyperbole.
the circumcision rate in the US is less than 56%, and dropping fast.

whether or not circumcision is legal in Switzerland, is not pertinent. what is pertinent is that removing healthy body parts from an unconsenting person is not reasonable behavior. it violates all medical ethics, and moral codes. we make that statement as Americans, towards those who would alter the genitals of girls, but for boys, there is some 'magical' exception.
sugarpop, pick your poison...a violation of religious rights, or a violation to the right to your whole body, as nature created it.
it's an unresolvable conflict.
smiley1221, you are right. no man is going to say he is unhappy with his circumcision, at the risk of being humiliated by other guys. but in the anonymity of the internet, they say it all the time. WebMd, man to man, for instance. who says, "I'd like less nerves on my genitalia, please"? I purposely used that word, because it just looks smutty when the medical term for male genitalia gets **** out.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
27 months ago: "perfected"?

Seriously? Is this as good as it gets? Are we at the end of road concerning genetic mutations?

"no man is going to say he is unhappy with his circumcision, at the risk of being humiliated by other guys. but in the anonymity of the internet, they say it all the time."


I know quite a few guys who elected to have circumcisions while in their twenties, to control infections AND to increase their sexual pleasure. This seems to be just another bandwagon to jump on for people who want to blame someone else for their inadequacies.
nhguy78
nhguy78
Hudson, NH
27 months ago: markbyrn: notice that the Kenyan/African campaigns is geared towards ADULT circumcision who have themselves agreed to the procedure.

You said that the US HIV rates are so high because of lack of prophylactics. If that is true then why is Germany's and China's rates so low? Do they use more condoms than the US?

Since when is it ok, though, to do this to newborns when these studies are geared towards adults?
27 months ago: "You said that the US HIV rates are so high because of lack of prophylactics. If that is true then why is Germany's and China's rates so low? Do they use more condoms than the US?"

YES. YES THEY DO. Abstinence-only education, the glory of US sex ed, results in a bunch of dumb teenagers having sex with no clue as to the facts of pregnancy, STDs, or contraceptives. Germany, and the rest of Western Europe, has this delightful trend of TEACHING about sex, not trying to ignore it. As a result, they have a much higher rate of contraceptive use. You only have to google the issue to verify my claims.
nhguy78
nhguy78
Hudson, NH
27 months ago: Ummm yeah. U.S. sex ed. the reason why the US is interested in pushing families to pay for circumcisions is because they don't want to push condoms. It's amazing what they will promote/condone in the name of avoiding responsibility.

Wack your baby's genitalia so he doesn't have to wear a condom because you know a condom just invites MORE SEX - especially as teenagers.
nhguy78
nhguy78
Hudson, NH
27 months ago: I would think circumcision is actually a capitalist means to an end. Of course why pay for a measley condom when you can pay at least $400 for a surgery that will forever change the kids body?

$2 ... $400 Your choice.
27 months ago: "I would think circumcision is actually a capitalist means to an end. Of course why pay for a measley condom when you can pay at least $400 for a surgery that will forever change the kids body?
$2 ... $400 Your choice."

The funny part is you're serious. I'm done with you because you lack the necessary critical thinking skills to participate in this discussion. I'm very sorry you've spent so much time worrying about a small piece of skin on your extremities rather than enhancing your intellectual capacity for more advanced thought.
nhguy78
nhguy78
Hudson, NH
27 months ago: I'm glad you're done but really, too bad because I've got more.

Why ignore the facts that a 2 dollar condom can do the same protection (if not better) as a 400 dollar surgical procedure?
27 months ago: I try to get out, but they keep dragging me back in.

"Why ignore the facts that a 2 dollar condom can do the same protection (if not better) as a 400 dollar surgical procedure?"

Why does it have to be an either/or scenario? Your requirement for a polarization of the situation is a clear example of your extremism and pure emotional attachment to the situation. Why don't you start looking at the bigger picture than the little tiny itty bitty fragments you throw out as talking points?

US vs Germany has a lower rate of condom usage, directly correlated to the high prevalence of abstinence-only education in the US, which as a corollary also results in a higher rate of teenage and unwanted pregnancies as well as increased rate of STD infection.

This is relevant because circumcision has been shown to reduce the risk of HIV infection versus uncircumcised. That means, all other things being equal (ie. individual uses/doesn't use a condom), circumcision grants an extra benefit.

As a result, it further validates my point (used in other parts of this discussion) that circumcision is beneficial and useful as preventive medicine.
nhguy78
nhguy78
Hudson, NH
27 months ago: circumcision as preventive medicine .... on a newborn who is not sexually active? That's not logical.
27 months ago: AV claims, "circumcision is beneficial and useful as preventive medicine."

Fine. Convince grown men who have a full deck and a full dick of that and you're in the circumcision business. Get rich, for all I care. Just quit conscripting babies who can't defend themselves. Let's make it a free market in circumcision services, for adults only. Parents have no right to have perfectly normal, healthy, living body parts chopped off of their children. What sex the child happens to have been born is 100% irrelevant. EQUAL RIGHTS UNDER LAW. Go promote baby mutilation in some other galaxy.
27 months ago: "You said that the US HIV rates are so high because of lack of prophylactics. If that is true then why is Germany's and China's rates so low? Do they use more condoms than the US?"

YES. YES THEY DO. Abstinence-only education, the glory of US sex ed, results in a bunch of dumb teenagers having sex with no clue as to the facts of pregnancy, STDs, or contraceptives. Germany, and the rest of Western Europe, has this delightful trend of TEACHING about sex, not trying to ignore it. As a result, they have a much higher rate of contraceptive use. You only have to google the issue to verify my claims.
nhguy78
nhguy78
Hudson, NH
27 months ago: No one is against voluntary circumcision for adults. The goal of this bill is for the protection of newborns babies. If you think that non-Jewish/non-Muslim children are fair game and collateral damage for your religious beliefs then we need to protect non-Jewish/non-Muslim children from those beliefs.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
27 months ago: Hey markbyrn

He's got you there. You know how much your religious beliefs influence your rational decision making.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
27 months ago: I was only responding to the bogus inference that US HIV rates were because of circumsion. Quite the contrary - it's been shown that cicumsion can reduce HIV. What does religion have to do with that? In fact, let me re-quote what I said earlier: When one exaggerates circumcision as mutilation and implies it's castration, that's just as irrational as the religious zealots who insist it has to be done because their imaginary god demands it. It's about as mutilating as an ear piercing and it's practiced well beyond mere religion for either reasons of hygiene, health, or cosmetic perceptions. Read the Pediatrics policy above.

Even though we appear to be in general agreement on this topic, did the bit about religious zealots doing it for their imaginary god tick you off? O.o
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
27 months ago: Nah, you know me better than that. I'm a live and let live guy. I don't know why my parents chose to have me circumcised, I'm sure it was NOT for religious reasons, considering the fact that I never saw the inside of a church until I was in my teens. I think it was more for health and cosmetic reasons.

I haven't spent a lot of time observing anyone else's equipment but my own, but to me, the only thing uglier than a circumcised **** is an uncircumcised ****.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
Content Removed by Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
27 months ago: Well I guess the short scientific word for urinary meatus is off limits here. I wish the deletion of the word had contained 5 asterisks instead of 4. It gives the impression that I was using the vulgar word which starts with a D.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
27 months ago: **** is off limits? Can we say vagina?
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
27 months ago: Wah, this is sexist! We can say vagina but not P-e-n-i-s?
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
27 months ago: Seems that way. We can talk about a lot of penises, but we can't single out one particular ****. Truthfully, I'd rather talk about vaginas. Seems to hold more of interest for me, for some reason.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
27 months ago: That's because your p-e-n-i-s has been barbarically mutilated and castrated through circumcision, and you now have vagina envy. It's called post foreskin removal syndrome, and I have the disease myself. *TWEET* *TWEET*
nhguy78
nhguy78
Hudson, NH
27 months ago: some people circumcise for cosmetic reason which baffles me. why would anyone look at a baby boy's p-e-n-i-s and think I think I like his p-e-n-i-s to look a little more this way or that?
27 months ago: Me too!!!! The envy part. Not fair that women get to have control of all of them!

As for the foreskin removal syndrome, huh? Never missed it.
27 months ago: Actually, it's a whole lot worse than that. You can HAVE a whole vagina and all that goes with it, but not a whole ****. Are you getting it yet?
27 months ago: It's a lot worse than that. We can have whole vaginas and all that goes with them but we are not allowed to have whole penises. That's not just sexist. It's diabolic.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
27 months ago: ...We can have whole vaginas and all that goes with them but we are not allowed to have whole penises...

ಠ_ರೃ
nhguy78
nhguy78
Hudson, NH
27 months ago: sixholdens: oh well - well since you never missed it, maybe the doctor should have removed a little extra.
Alex Layton
Alex Layton
 Administrator
Puyallup, WA
26 months ago: This has been corrected. You don't have to say "p-e-n-i-s" anymore. You can just spell it out like normal.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
26 months ago: ...You don't have to say "p-e-n-i-s" anymore. You can just spell it out like normal...

Alex, my circumcised **** thanks you and as diminutive as it is, the feckless cause of foreskin salvation can now move forward unencumbered by dashes.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
26 months ago: I take my gratitude back since p-e-n-i-s is still being censored.
Alex Layton
Alex Layton
 Administrator
Puyallup, WA
26 months ago: Well. Now I feel like a dick.

Let me see what the deal is and get back to you.
Alex Layton
Alex Layton
 Administrator
Puyallup, WA
Content Removed by RantRave
Alex Layton
Alex Layton
 Administrator
Puyallup, WA
Content Removed by RantRave
Alex Layton
Alex Layton
 Administrator
Puyallup, WA
Content Removed by RantRave
26 months ago: Maybe it being held in a penal colony.
Alex Layton
Alex Layton
 Administrator
Puyallup, WA
26 months ago: Penis Penis Penis!
Alex Layton
Alex Layton
 Administrator
Puyallup, WA
26 months ago: There we go. It works now.

penis
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
26 months ago: It works here but it's still getting censored in the emails.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
26 months ago: Correction, it does work - got the emails minus the dashes. All this trouble over some excess penis skin - who would have guessed.
26 months ago: Mark, you asked for it and now I think it only fitting you get alex to allow you to change your handle to reflect the newly added word. A crown for all to see held high on your....Naw....
27 months ago: One of the three African studies which are so loudly held up as an example, was designed by none other than Harvard School of Public Health's own Daniel Halperin, whose grandfather was a mohel who Daniel publicly emulates. It doesn't take a genius to guess which way that study was going to go. None of those three studies was completed. The six which were completed, showed a lower HIV infection rate for men with foreskins, in 6 countries. These studies are largely ignored.
Nobody attempts to explain why European men often practice unsafe sex, have foreskins, and have a much lower HIV infection rate than American men, who are mostly circumcised.
27 months ago:
Parents make decisions all the time on behalf of their children.

But there is no other decision like this one - to cut a normal, healthy, functional, non-renewing part of the anatomy off, absent any medical indication except being male. The most nearly corresponding part of the female anatomy is specifically protected by Federal law - and in fact the proposed law is closely modeled on that one, so it simply grants males gender equality in this area.

Abortion is a different issue, and the law recognises this in the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, signed by George W. Bush in 2002, which ensures that every infant born alive is considered a person under federal law.

Religious freedom inheres to the individual, not the family or the community, and it stops where another individual's body begins. Many customs of great antiquity are now condemned as human rights violations, and no longer permitted. There is a movement within Judaism to welcome boys without cutting them, and contact details for celebrants of Brit Shalom (Brit B'li Milah) are at http://shalom.notlong.com
smiley1221
smiley1221
Westmont, IL
27 months ago: The circumcision spoke of in the bible was likely only a minimal circumcision, not the radical circumcision performed today in the US. Maybe this bill should only target full circumcision to get around freedom of religion? A minimal circumcision would impact sexuality much less than what is performed today.
27 months ago: I'm all for the bill. It's fine if people want to practice their religious beliefs, but forcing those beliefs on children and infants should never be okay. I think it's highly wrong for a child's body to be altered in ANY way that isn't absolutely medically necessary. Children should be left alone so that they can grow and make their own informed decisions when they become adults.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
27 months ago: What the Hebrews knew thousands of years ago is being scientifically backed now. Studies have shown repeatedly that Human Papilloma Virus is less prevalent in circumcised men than non-circumcised men. Women who are partners with circumcised men are less likely to develop cervical cancer. Circumcised men develop less urinary tract infections, and are less likely to develop penile cancer.

I think the anti-circumcision crowd would sing a different tune if it were about anything other than sex. Should we require an age limit to pin back a child's ears, remove an extra limb, or do any sort of body modification?

As far as increase or decrease in pleasure due to circumcision, it all just depends on who you are. Read a hundred studies. You'll get an even split on the sexual pros and cons.
nhguy78
nhguy78
Hudson, NH
27 months ago: How dare you condone assault of my body against my will. You actually want medically unnecessary things done to NEWBORN BABIES without consent? That is cruel, barbaric and technically illegal.

Medical ethics dictate consent BY the patient for elective surgery. For some reason they overlook the medically-condoned mutilation of perfectly healthy newborn baby boys who are incapable of saying "no."

As far as your indication that there is a split on the sexual pleasure pro and con... the man without will NEVER know what he is missing.

All of the studies you are indicating have ALL taken place on adults. Do you know why? Because they KNOW it is a terrible idea to inflict this sort of treatment on babies.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
27 months ago: I don't condone the assault of your body against your will. Your parents had that call, not me. You can stretch that foreskin till it drags the ground if you so desire. I am grateful that my parents chose to have me circumcised when I was a baby, and I didn't have to endure it later when I would remember it.

"the man without will NEVER know what he is missing."

On the flip side of that coin, the man WITH will never know what that extra flap of skin is interfering with.


"All of the studies you are indicating have ALL taken place on adults. Do you know why? Because they KNOW it is a terrible idea to inflict this sort of treatment on babies."

What world are you living in? In my world, the adults are the only ones having sex. We have a word, and a place, for people that that have sex with babies.
nhguy78
nhguy78
Hudson, NH
27 months ago: With what is the foreskin interfering with?

My point exactly (about adult-based studies)... You have yet to see a study of adult HIV risk but on an infant is because IT IS AN INFANT. You don't fiddle with baby genitalia.

It sounds like you want a circumcision on a baby before he gets sexually mature so the teen/adult doesn't have to deal with it. Grow a pair of testicles, please. If YOU don't want it done as an adult, WHY THE HECK would you force it on an unconsenting baby boy? It sounds like you are a scared little man and can't take the pain that is being forced on an incapacitated individual. I think there is a word for people like that: COWARD.

It is YOUR duty as an mother/father to protect your child from people trying to sacrifice body parts to some blood thirsty person. If you deny the child that protection, you have failed as a parent... and you are a COWARD.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
27 months ago: "With what is the foreskin interfering with?"

You'll never know, unless you have a circumcision.

"It sounds like you are a scared little man and can't take the pain that is being forced on an incapacitated individual."

I already have a pretty good pair of testicles, why would I want to grow more?
I already endured that pain, and other pain much worse than a tiny snip snip, and I'M NOT THE ONE WHINING ABOUT IT. I'm grateful that my parents had it done then, and I don't have to get a much (MUCH) larger piece of useless flesh cut off now.

I would suggest perhaps you grow a pair, and stop telling me how to raise my children. I would never presume to tell you how to raise yours.
nhguy78
nhguy78
Hudson, NH
27 months ago: I do have a circumcision. I hate whoever did this to me. It's spilled milk, though, I realize. You say that I'll never know unless I have a circumcision. Well because I do, I can attest to bleeding and complete destruction of sensitive nerve endings in the glans. Yes, even a chunk of my glans was taken along with the foreskin. I can't feel nearly as much as my husband. What else am I missing? I can only imagine.

Just so you know... I was circumcised and then abandoned to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. How is that for child abuse? How is that for "cut and run", huh?

What do you say for people like me? What sort of rationalization do you have for children who had body parts sacrificed to god or the gods of the medical establishment?

Where was my consent form? Where are my rights for bodily integrity? I will say this again:

At birth in the United States, I had less rights than dogs in Switzerland. At birth in the United States, I had less rights than dead bodies here. At birth in the United States, I had less rights than girls at birth.

The allowance of circumcision in the United States for parents' whim is sexist, ageist and places the rights of dead bodies higher than my rights at birth. Where is the outrage? My body, my rights!
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
27 months ago: Sorry about your circumstances. A botched circumcision is a horse of an entirely different color than the vast majority of routine circumcisions. PERHAPS YOU CAN FIND THE DOCTOR WHO DID THIS AND SUE HIM FOR MALPRACTICE.

I've been circumcised all but a few days of my entire lfe, and I have no complaints. Neither does my wife.
27 months ago: "All of the studies you are indicating have ALL taken place on adults. Do you know why? Because they KNOW it is a terrible idea to inflict this sort of treatment on babies."

No, it's because surveying a bunch of children is a stupid idea. Performing studies on children for any long-term effects is also counter-intuitive because its the exact opposite of LONG TERM.

" medically unnecessary things"
It has already been pointed out that there are numerous documented benefits, all medical, to being circumcised. Prevention of a variety of infections is called PREVENTIVE MEDICINE.

Other things that are medically unnecessary-anything and everything that contains more than 100% of the RDV of Vitamin C while claiming it helps stave off sickness. To the contrary, it acts as a diuretic and dehydrates you, weakening your body's defense system while you urinate the massive excess of water-soluble Vitamin C away.
nhguy78
nhguy78
Hudson, NH
27 months ago: that's because you are an adult. would a child want that done to them? have you asked? you support the mutilation of children because of you like how it feels on you and how your wife likes it? isn't that a bit pedophilic?
nhguy78
nhguy78
Hudson, NH
27 months ago: I wonder why you consider yanking back immovable skin and noticing blood to be preventive medicine? I wonder why completely removing healthy tissue to be preventive medicine?

Since when is removing organs considered EVER to be preventive medicine? There must be a diagnosis first. What dagnosis could a newborn baby boy have that would warrant a circumcision? REALLY?
27 months ago: "that's because you are an adult. would a child want that done to them? have you asked"
I question your mental rationality. Someone asks why studies aren't done on children, I respond by pointing out that it would be futile because you can't measure outcomes in the short term, which is what a study on children would be. If you do the study on an adult you get their experience as a child AND as an adult with a fully developed rational mind (one hopes).

You know why that's important? Because here's what kids WANT done to them: to be given candy, to be given puppies, to be given toys, to be given ice cream, to be given whatever shiny object catches their eye, to be given lots and lots of hugs.

Know what kids DO NOT want done to them? To be taken to the doctor, the dentist, the schoolhouse, etc.

Also, fun fact, people change from being a kid to being an adult. How many people hated spinach as a kid and now eat it as an adult? I bet there's quite a few given how its a cliche. The point is, they didn't want it as a child (age 0-17) but want it now as an adult (ages 18-80ish).

So, what YOU are saying is that you think we should make decisions based upon how it affects 17 years of their life versus how it affects over 60 years of their life?

"you support the mutilation of children because of you like how it feels on you and how your wife likes it? isn't that a bit pedophilic?"
Please, fool. I fight the evil cult of Scientology. I've been subjected to far worse ad hominem attacks than that. Your actions sicken and disgust me and leave me with nothing but contempt for your low brow attempt to undermine my credibility through your asinine insinuations. Why don't you grow some maturity and stick to debating facts rather than trying to call me a pedophile?
27 months ago: "I wonder why you consider yanking back immovable skin and noticing blood to be preventive medicine? I wonder why completely removing healthy tissue to be preventive medicine?"

You mean like surgical removal of the wisdom teeth to prevent crowding, impacted growth, or other maladies?
You mean like removal of the tonsils to prevent infection?
Are those the kinds of removals of healthy tissue you're referring to?

" There must be a diagnosis first. What dagnosis could a newborn baby boy have that would warrant a circumcision?"
You clearly do not understand the difference between preventive and reactive. Preventive medicine means you do something so you never have a problem to diagnose. Reactive medicine means you do something after a problem has occurred and been diagnosed.

Here's my diagnosis for every newborn baby boy. I am not a doctor, but I still feel confident that my diagnosis will be highly accurate.

He will grow up, have genitals, and be at risk for contracting urinary tract infections in said genitals. He will probably also have sex with those genitals, and be at risk for contracting HIV through sex. He will also probably get dirty and decide to not shower or bathe on occasion, and be at risk for skin infections in those areas he doesn't clean (like his genitals). There's also the possibility of phimosis for any number of reasons.

AS HAS BEEN MENTIONED, circumcision has been shown in studies to reduce the risk of those events occurring. For phimosis, it prevents it completely because there is no foreskin. Circumcision has even been linked to reducing the risk of penile cancer.

That is ALL preventive medicine because it PREVENTS (oh my god, its like the two words had a common root) MEDICAL ISSUES.
27 months ago: You're making assumptions about someone else's future sex life, to justify cutting off part of their ****. Someone could make similar assumptions to justify surgery on a baby girl's genitals, but you'd probably see that as wrong.

Tonsils no longer get routinely removed anyway, and outside north America, neither do wisdom teeth unless there's a problem. I still have my tonsils and all four of my wisdom teeth for instance. I'd gladly give those up to avoid circumcision though.

In the UK, less than 1 in 100 males is ever circumcised for a medical reason, and it's getting rarer. Almost no-one is circumcised (unless their parents are Muslim or Jewish), and almost no-one has a problem. It's not like people given the choice are queuing up to get circumcised.

You seem to have ignored or discounted the possibility that circumcision might actually remove something useful.

We could operate on baby girls to prevent breast cancer later in life. That would save the life of about 10% of them, but we wouldn't do it. (Some people with a particular gene do undergo elective mastectomy in early adulthood).

Btw, penile cancer is really rare - rarer than vulval cancer in women for instance, but we wouldn't cut parts off baby girls. Penile cancer is also rarer than breast cancer in men. There are also countries which don't circumcise where it's rarer than in the USA, where most men are circumcised.

(to be continued shortly...)
27 months ago: You can find all the medical society quotes at their own websites:

Canadian Paediatric Society
"Recommendation: Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed."
"Circumcision is a 'non-therapeutic' procedure, which means it is not medically necessary."
"After reviewing the scientific evidence for and against circumcision, the CPS does not recommend routine circumcision for newborn boys. Many paediatricians no longer perform circumcisions."

RACP
"After extensive review of the literature, the Paediatrics & Child Health Division of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians has concluded that there is no medical reason for routine newborn male circumcision."
(almost all the men responsible for this statement will be circumcised themselves, as the male circumcision rate in Australia in 1950 was about 90%. "Routine" circumcision is now *banned* in public hospitals in Australia in all states except one.)

British Medical Association
"to circumcise for therapeutic reasons where medical research has shown other techniques to be at least as effective and less invasive would be unethical and inappropriate."
nhguy78
nhguy78
Hudson, NH
26 months ago: I still have my wisdom teeth and tonsils, thank you.
27 months ago: As far as the original poster:
"Although this bill seems to affect only Jews and Muslims, its reach is far more insidious, injecting the reach of the state into the lives of families living in Massachusetts. Anyone who wonders if there is not a malignant quality to the philosophy of the nanny state need wonder no longer."

It is truly insidious to keep people from cutting healthy flesh from newborns.
Imagine, how those children were to suffer, if they were able to not bleed, and keep all of their parts. No anesthesia, no gangrene, nothing. Horrible, just horrible.
How dare the state tell us what parts of our children's genitals we can cut off, and what parts we can't. That malignant, cancerous, nanny state, trying to look out for the pain level of our children like that. They should have all the medically unjustified surgery I as a parent desire, just because I have the say. Who do they think they are. How dare they try and lump us with Muslims, when our genital cutting is so special, so different!

To Out of the Box:
Sure. Ancient Hebrews were prescient about the HPV virus, which probably had yet to evolve back when they instituted circumcision as a sign of the covenant.
This is ignorance. Jewish women have a genetic ability, scientifically proven, to be able to ward off HPV. It has nothing to do with circumcision. Other scientific studies have shown that men with foreskins have less incidence of HPV infection, than circumcised men.
Do you make this stuff up as you go along?
Boys who are circumcised at birth have a smaller incidence of UTIs. Boys with foreskins have smaller incidence of UTIs than girls. No one is suggesting that we circumcise girls, to prevent UTIs. Why not treat boys with UTIs with antibiotics?
When you get an infection, should we just cut the part out of you? Or would you perhaps like to take the antibiotics? Or be given a choice between antibiotics and amputation?
We're not an anti-circumcision crowd. That is a device you are using, to cut us off from the herd, and dismiss us. It's not going to work. The numbers of every country which is keeping medical records, show that it is more costly to circumcise, than it is to treat people for whatever tiny percentage of genital problems which arise. When the anesthesia wears off, if the baby even gets it, salty urine hits the wound. How would you like that happening to you now?
Are you really suggesting that a foreskin is like an extra limb? Is the foreskin of a dog, a cat, a mouse, an elephant, a whale, like an extra limb? Is it a deformity to you? Or is it a normal body part, which every mammal except the spiny echidna is born with? Are you advocating we tattoo our children? How about genital piercings? Hey, what's the difference, right? It's all body modification.
The difference is, those things are chosen by adults. We don't genitally pierce babies. Why is cutting parts off of their genitals OK, for males, I mean.
We circumcised our first son, on medical advice of three doctors. What we didn't know at the time, was that all three were incredibly ignorant of normal human anatomy. Now, this doesn't surprise me a bit. There aren't even pictures or drawings or text which include a foreskin, in American anatomy and physiology texts. This helps them make "between $150 and $270 million" annually, as we are informed by the medical community. No one can diagnose phimosis at three, since it is normal at birth, and normal up until puberty or so. We left the **** of the second son alone. He thanked us.
As far as pleasure, well, who knows. Do you think that if you cut the skin off of half your hand, your hand would feel as much pleasure? Do you know of any mucous membrane, anywhere on the body, which stays as sensitive, when it becomes an external part, as when it is an internal part? If you dried out a mouth, would it feel as sensitive? How about a female g
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
27 months ago: "No one is suggesting that we circumcise girls, to prevent UTIs."

That is because circumcising a girl would have no effect on UTI's. Look at the anatomy of a girl, compare the location of the urethra and the location of he clitoral hood to the location of the male urethra and foreskin.


Are you also against mandatory vaccinations, the introduction of foreign matter into the body of your child? Should we wait until he or she can give consent to this invasive procedure?
nhguy78
nhguy78
Hudson, NH
27 months ago: Vaccinations do not involve removing healthy tissue from boys. Duh.
27 months ago: Out of the Box: Are you aware that there is now a vaccine for both males and females against the human papilloma virus? Why do you advocate surgery as preferable to a vaccination?

Do you know there is no definable difference in cervical cancer rates in The US? Do you know an estimated 70% of Americans will have a human papilloma virus infection sometime in their life despite a 80% circumcision rate? It appears all the millions of circumcisions have done little good in any fight against HPV.

Did you know that those urinary tract infections are *maybe* only in the first 6 months of life. Why are these infections treatable in girls with simple antibiotics and in males require surgery? Do you know girls contract these infections at a rate 4..5 times greater than boys? Something's wrong here.

Did you know penile cancer is one of the rarest of all cancers? Did you know it is the same type of skin cancer that people get from too much sun exposure? Did you know it is 100% curable through a 10 minute office procedure? Isn't it extreme to expose 108,999 men to the risks of surgery for the benefit of one? Did you know approximately 6 babies will die as a direct result of the surgery you propose to protect one elderly man from this iminently curable cancer?

Your examples of other body modifications are poor examples. They are all addressing birth defects. A foreskin is not a birth defect.

If the issue of sexual pleasure and damage is so much up in the air, shouldn't we stop doing it until there is a consensus and we know what the effects are?

I doubt I'll get a rational answer to these questions but it should be interesting.
27 months ago: This question is deeper than just the surgery; it bears on the rights of both the baby and the parents. Should we (the State) take full control of all newborns and rear them as neutrally as possible until they attain adulthood? And upon their becoming adults, then return them to the parents for some purpose that since they are already weaned, potty trained, educated and numbered, I cannot fathom? Should we take away all outside influences and just provide the bear minimum of stimulus to keep each child entertained while educating them in all aspects of human life, withholding nothing and ensuring full knowledge of each and every aspect of all religions, sexual orientations, psychotic deviations, any and all manner of abuse, pleasure, the entirety of all emotions and effects of gluttony and starvation. Basically, teach and show them everything that a parent should and should not expose their child to plus a few thousand other questionable ideas.

That is where this type of legislation is heading. Meddling in the rights of parents vs. the rights of their children and who gets to call the shots before a child reaches adulthood.

Should a baby be circumcised? Is male circumcision different from female? Is it a religious, health, or personal decision? Who should make it?

As long as the parents are still in control of their offspring, they get to say if a baby is or isn't. Yes, the type of female circumcision generally done in this day and age is to prevent pleasure and should be stopped. Yes, Yes/Maybe, Yes if you still have it after adulthood. Final answer to my own questions - the parents get to make it, preferably very soon after birth or they should leave it up to the child to make after adulthood.

Any way you cut it, we need to keep the state out of it. The reason females were treated differently on this matter is because it was used as a way to control them when they reached puberty, was never a health issue, no matter how misguided of one for males.
Restoring Tally
Restoring Tally
Knoxville, TN
27 months ago: I think it is great that this Bill has been introduced. It is about time that people are made aware that circumcising infants is not right.

I was circumcised as an infant and I do not like it. I am restoring my foreskin and the difference is amazing. After all, it is part of my sex organ. I want it all. Every male deserves to have his complete sex organ, unless he wishes to have it cut up. His Body, His Choice.
Restoring Tally
Restoring Tally
Knoxville, TN
Content Removed by Restoring Tally
27 months ago: This question is deeper than just the surgery; it bears on the rights of both the baby and the parents. Should we (the State) take full control of all newborns and rear them as neutrally as possible until they attain adulthood? And upon their becoming adults, then return them to the parents for some purpose that since they are already weaned, potty trained, educated and numbered, I cannot fathom? Should we take away all outside influences and just provide the bear minimum of stimulus to keep each child entertained while educating them in all aspects of human life, withholding nothing and ensuring full knowledge of each and every aspect of all religions, sexual orientations, psychotic deviations, any and all manner of abuse, pleasure, the entirety of all emotions and effects of gluttony and starvation. Basically, teach and show them everything that a parent should and should not expose their child to plus a few thousand other questionable ideas.

That is where this type of legislation is heading. Meddling in the rights of parents vs. the rights of their children and who gets to call the shots before a child reaches adulthood.

Should a baby be circumcised? Is male circumcision different from female? Is it a religious, health, or personal decision? Who should make it?

As long as the parents are still in control of their offspring, they get to say if a baby is or isn't. Yes, the type of female circumcision generally done in this day and age is to prevent pleasure and should be stopped. Yes, Yes/Maybe, Yes if you still have it after adulthood. Final answer to my own questions - the parents get to make it, preferably very soon after birth or they should leave it up to the child to make after adulthood.

Any way you cut it, we need to keep the state out of it. The reason females were treated differently on this matter is because it was used as a way to control them when they reached puberty, was never a health issue, no matter how misguided of one for males.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
27 months ago: "any way you cut it"


too funny!@!@!
27 months ago: There are a multitude of things we as parents do to our children that “mutilate” them. We modify their behavior, their physical well being, their looks; we even “mold” them to re-act in certain ways that are pleasing to us, the parents. There is no way that we, as citizens of the US, would vote to take away our rights as parents to raise our offspring in what ever manner we see fit. There are even those out there who would object to being told they cannot abuse their children in the manner they have been taught and that has been upheld in courts across the nation. Don’t believe me? Just tell a devout Jew, Christian, Muslim or any other faith that they can no longer force their child to attend or study the religion of their parents. Or take it the other way, tell an atheist that they have to teach their child any or all of the religions above (and not as an educational lesson, as something to believe in). A parent’s right. It’s a really big one, one I won’t relinquish without a fight.

Should that right extend to penile modification? I’ll have to say yes, but with one caveat, education before, not after. Let’s make it a requirement that the parents be educated about the procedure, the pros and cons, the possibility of pain and complications, the social and the personal side from the perspective of those who are and those who aren’t, not just the father’s and especially not just the religious views.
nhguy78
nhguy78
Hudson, NH
27 months ago: just as some states require education BEFORE abortion, so, too, should education BEFORE circumcision. I still do not support routine infant circumcision. Included in this circumcision should be actual viewing of the actual procedure of a baby boy before the decision is made.

Too many times adults toss their responsibility aside and leave it up to medical staff. Maybe if they hear the terror screams from the baby, they will realize their choice is a serious one.
Restoring Tally
Restoring Tally
Knoxville, TN
27 months ago: This Bill is about protecting the bodily integrity and genital integrity rights of infants and children. It is not about religion. It is not about indoctrinating children. It is about equal protection under the law. Either we allow parents to have their daughters' genitals cut because we allow the sons' genitals to be cut, or we outlaw genital cutting of both girls and boys.

Parents rights are limited. Parents do not own their children. Parents do not have the right to arbitrarily cut their children. Heck, a guy in California is facing jail time for tattooing his young son. A woman in Georgia is in trouble for tattooing her children. Parents rights stop when they want to permanently modify the bodies of their children without a medical need.

For a baby born healthy, circumcision is unnecessary. It permanently removes a healthy part of the body. When it comes to circumcision, the owner of the body parts should decide if it should be altered or cut. Because there is no medical need for non-therapeutic infant circumcision, the owner of the sex organ should decide what happens to it when he comes of age. His body, his choice.
Restoring Tally
Restoring Tally
Knoxville, TN
Content Removed by Restoring Tally
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
27 months ago: Welcome aboard Restoring Tally! It's amazing that we've generated 10 new members from this topic alone. It's obliviously a very sensitive subject O.o
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
27 months ago: ...Vaccinations do not involve removing healthy tissue from boys. Duh....

No but they involve injecting artificially constructed microbes into healthy tissue - gotcha!
nhguy78
nhguy78
Hudson, NH
27 months ago: attenuated or non-pathogenic... gotcha. Doesn't cause disease. Doesn't remove healthy tissue, preserves bodily integrity.

for those of you who NEED a circumcision for religious reasons - check out the non surgical practice. It's gaining acceptance.
27 months ago: You guys are hilarious, with your logical backflips to justify baby cutting.
It's so hard to admit that your parents swallowed the party line, and did something which was not in your best interests. I don't blame them one bit. The medical propaganda machine, as you may have noticed, comes out with a new study, about every 3-6 months, proving once again that there may possibly be some scrap of evidence which points to the conclusion that circumcision could be beneficial.
With an HPV vaccine here, and an HIV vaccine on the way, they are going to have to get more and more creative.

You guys need to wake up and smell the coffee. Specifically, sixholdens, God forbid that the state take away our precious right to give surgery they don't need to children. That is just stepping on our toes. I want to be able to take my kid's eye out, so I can aim him towards a career as a pirate. When you can medically justify the surgery, the state should let it happen. If there is not a medical reason, perhaps you should think twice about what your real attachment is to the surgery, and work it out in your head, rather than carving your irrational opinion into the flesh of someone too young to defend himself. If you had heard the screams I heard, the hair would still be sticking up on the back of your neck. Are you saying we should allow genital cutting for females, or do you want that repealed federally, so we can do as we please as parents? Or are you maintaining the sexist double standard, that it's OK because it is a boy we're cutting? As long as we're in control of our children's genitals, we should do as we please, without that pesky state interfering, is that your stance, succinctly put? If so, let's circumcise you again, so you can see how much fun it is for the baby. Perhaps you will develop some compassion. Molding your kid is a little different than surgically altering them. All I can say is, if you can't make that distinction, I don't want to be your kid. Who is going to educate the parents on the pros and cons of circumcision? The doctors who are being told to by the AMA, but still manage to shrug and say "the parents wanted it, so I did it", while managing to make money off both the circumcision, and selling the foreskin to the cosmetics or skin graft industry, without even parental knowledge? It's a cash cow, an addiction which is hard to give up. Free money. No one complains, because they either don't tie meatal stenosis, or hidden ****, or painful erections to the circumcision, or they feel guilty that they indirectly caused the problem, and shut up.

markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
27 months ago: ...You guys need to wake up and smell the coffee...

You keep drinking the circumcision = castration Kool-Aid and I'll drink the coffee.
nhguy78
nhguy78
Hudson, NH
27 months ago: routine infant circumcision = child sacrifice without the death (even though there have been instances of that, too)
27 months ago: Fortunately for me, I don't drink coffee. You go ahead and poke out his eye and see how that affects your rights and freedoms....

As for the state getting a bigger toehold on a parent’s job, ignore at your own risk. My point is that once the state begins to take away parental rights, there will be no stopping them.

"Molding your kid is a little different than surgically altering them." If you believe that brainwashing is comparable to surgical modification of the circumcision or similar type surgery in the degree of damage caused, then you need to do some research into the effects of negative and positive re-enforcement techniques used on children. Let’s just use those of the middle east for starters. Such lovely children. They already scream for your and my head on a platter and many have helped drag dead Americans through the streets. Last I checked, having had a circumcision never caused anyone to lust for blood, at least not near as much as parental molding.
27 months ago: Out of the Box, most of those guys who got circumcised, did so, because they thought they would fit in, not because there was a real problem. In Finland, the last percentage of guys who got circumcised was 0.009%. This is a more realistic figure for the number of foreskins which require surgery for medical reasons. Doctors offer circumcision as the first option in the US, because it makes them money, and it's what they know.
Infections can be cured with a tube of Monistat, just like in women.

I am not blaming anyone for my penile inadequacies, but thanks for the comic inference. The guys who had circumcisions to increase their pleasure, how did that work out for them. Let's see...I'm not that good in math, but I'll take a shot at it.
There are about 20,000 nerve endings in the foreskin. You remove them, and somehow magically increase the messages from the remaining nerve endings.
Gee, I'm not convinced. Whatever floats the boat of a consenting adult.

I'm glad you didn't have to 'endure' a circumcision later. As I said, that guy is 0.009%. How many unneeded circumcisions get done, hurting 100% of the babies (unless you think surgery is painless, or they really administer it correctly, or even make an attempt), to justify that tiny number? If this were any other part of the body, would you even consider it? Removing everybody's little toe, because one in a thousand is going to cause a problem? Get real.

My favorite quote of total ignorance is "On the flip side of that coin, the man WITH will never know what that extra flap of skin is interfering with." Let me help you figure it out. There are 7 billion people on the planet. Between 20 and 25% of them are circumcised. Foreskins have been evolving on mammals for 120 million years. If there was a chance that they were interfering with sex, those individuals would no longer be in the gene pool. Let me assure you that the two most erotically responsive parts of the man organ, the frenulum and inner foreskin, are always damaged, or even removed, by circumcision. You have no idea what you are talking about. Perhaps you would benefit from getting out more.

to markbyrn:
an injection (vaccination) is not the same as an amputation. an injection is a deposit, not a withdrawal.

I want to thank you guys, for the humor. Now, please, if you can, actually justify unneeded medical surgery on the genitals of children too young to consent. Or tell us why the state shouldn't stop those misguided enough to believe there is a benefit, medically, when none has been proven, and allow unproven surgery to be done to healthy kids. Or please, justify why boys should be allowed religious genital surgery, and girls denied it. I'm all ears. Really. Step up to the plate, and convince me.

27 months ago: " Or please, justify why boys should be allowed religious genital surgery, and girls denied it. "

Because there is not a religion on earth that has religious genital surgery for girls. I have noticed that many people here seem to think Islam promotes female circumcision. It does not. And what is often called "female circumcision" is better known as "female genital mutilation" because they're not removing the clitoral hood, they're removing the entire clitoris as well as other parts to dramatically blunt sexual experience. It is not religious at all.

So, all these arguments being made about "double standards" are done. If you keep making them, you are pointedly ignoring evidence that disproves your statements before you've even made them, and I will then subsequently question the status of your mental health or capability for rational thought.

Summary: NO RELIGION ON EARTH HAS FEMALE CIRCUMCISION. NONE.
nhguy78
nhguy78
Hudson, NH
27 months ago: You can keep saying that Islam does not condone but it doesn't make it disappear. In fact, it happens all the time from Turkey on south. Why else would Egypt attempt to illegalize it?
27 months ago: I am making the point that every one trying to make the point that "girls can be banned from religious circumcision and boys can't be??!?!?!" IS WRONG. THERE IS NO FORM OF FEMALE CIRCUMCISION THAT IS RELIGIOUS.

Ergo, you're arguing apples and oranges because it is convenient for you that there are people out there who perform mutilation on women and then falsely claim its religious, and then you take that and manipulate it for your own ends. Its incredibly self serving and disgusts me far more than any aspect of male circumcision does.
nhguy78
nhguy78
Hudson, NH
27 months ago: AGAIN, you say that it is not religious but I beg to differ. Why is it so prevalent in Islamic society? If you have a problem with that fact then you need to fight against it. Regardless of the fact that it is EMBRACED in Islamic society. Iraq, Egypt, Sudan Indonesia, Iran, Yemen....

If this is being being done by fakes reasons in Islam then you need to speak up against it. Regardless the outcome, it still happens.
27 months ago: markbyrn, please point out the place where I likened circumcision to castration.
Thanks!
C Antonelli
C Antonelli
Quincy, MA
27 months ago: A Jury awarded $429,484 to an infant whose **** was allegedly disfigured for life by surgery.

On Nov. 12, Evan Tank was circumcised by pediatrician and mohel Ralph Berberich, who accidentally cut the tip of Evan's ****. Plaintiff's counsel claimed that Berberich failed to remove adhesions tethering the foreskin to the glans, causing the glans to be pulled into the clamp along with the foreskin. Hence the glans was cut off along with the foreskin.

Berberich countered that **** trauma is a recognized complication of the procedure and that Evan's parents had accepted the risk. The doctor argued that, rather than an error on his part, Evan probably had an unusual penile anatomy that caused his **** to be pulled into the clamp.

Blame the victim! And isn't a paediatrician supposed to know about, and look out for, "unusual penile anatomy"!!??!!

http://circumstitions.com/news/news34.ht...
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
27 months ago: Children have died from complications from vaccines, and have died or contracted serious illnesses from botched piercings and tats. Your argument is specious since it's an act of malpractice.
27 months ago: No, but you would presume how to raise their genitalia.
God didn't make them good enough for you?
Is circumcision an addition, or a subtraction?
When was the last time you heard a man say, "I'd like less genitalia, please".
You don't get it. It's not your genitalia. It's not your property. It belongs to someone else, not you. He has a civil right to have all of his body, not just the parts you approve of. Circumcision is stealing.

Know what happens during circumcision? The foreskin and head a fused together, for the protection of the head. They cut the foreskin, and then use some tool to separate the two. The medical term for it is "blunt trauma". This gives an indication of how gentle they're being at the time. They tear the foreskin from the head. The head is left an open wound. Often, the foreskin remnants heal to the head, causing skin bridges. If you think that your rights as a parent outweigh the potential for pain to your child, be my guest. Please allow me to feel sick, disgusted, and a little let down by a parent who would choose this for their child. I will work to get the law passed. You feel free to work to shoot it down. But, please, think about what is really happening, and don't just blow it off. You might be a tough guy. If someone put your eye out, would you want someone to put your kid's eye out, to toughen him up? Please, tell me how you know a foreskin is useless flesh. I have one, and I would call it one of the least dispensable parts of my body. You don't know what having one is like, and call it useless, extra, potentially in the way, without having the slightest contact with one. Enlighten me. How did you reach that conclusion?
I feel what is coming to my brain from between my legs. It is direct experience.
27 months ago: Know what happens when men shave? Numerous chemicals are applied to the skin, then violently spread across the entirety of the face and neck. Razor blades are scraped across vital areas of the body, including the jugular vein, trachea, and esophagus. The slightest errant move slices into the skin, leaving a painful cut that often bleeds far longer than it would on the rest of the body. The body's own hair, a ward against cold and a product of evolution, is forcefully removed along with an entire layer of the epidermis. For significant parts of the population, hair will regrow into the skin and cause massive, visible skin problems for the entirety of their post-pubescent life. These irritations are incredibly disruptive to even the simplest of daily activities. Finally, toxic chemicals are applied, falsely simulating a cooling feeling to dull the pain experienced by the process.

WE MUST BAN ALL SHAVING!!! LOOK HOW DANGEROUS IT SOUNDS WHEN I DESCRIBE EVERYTHING IN GORY, OVER DRAMATIZED DETAIL TO CREATE AN INVOLUNTARY PATHOS RESPONSE THAT APPEALS TO THE NON-LOGICAL PART OF YOUR BRAIN.

I particularly liked this sentence: "The head is left an open wound." Know what else is "an open wound"?
Paper cuts. Really, any wound that goes through all the layers of the skin and isn't covered by a bandage or other dressing is "an open wound". But I know it sounds so much more dramatic, like a gunshot, so that's why you use it.
nhguy78
nhguy78
Hudson, NH
27 months ago: Men, shaving? Is that the best you have?

You're talking about grown MEN. This bill is about newborn baby boys. Big difference. Men have the ability to say no. Newborns do NOT.

Shaving is a choice that men make. Duh.

This is about the baby's right to bodily integrity that includes genital integrity. Many nations have this law but for some reason ignore the genitals for protection. The United States have gone out of their way to include girls on their website for their outreach to eliminate girls' genital integrity.

Do you understand the anatomy of a p-e-n-i-s? The glans and associated parts are all internal part. The foreskin is an external part. When you remove the external part you leave a permanent opening to the outside. I'm not even talking about the surgical scar. I'm talking about the mucous membranes that are now exposed to the air and are effectively incapacitated. It leads to keratinization of previously unkeratinized parts and desensitization of those parts.

Have you see a keratinized glans versus an unkeratinized glans? The former is shiny and moist (perfect for sex). The latter is dry, shriveled and grooved (need lube?).

Did you know that this surgery removes the immune cells that sequester viruses from infection? These are called Langerhans Cells. They are also present in the parts of the body removed in female circumcision. The way these cells work is that the virus tries to gain access to blood stream but are captured and sequestered.
27 months ago: "Men, shaving? Is that the best you have?
You're talking about grown MEN. This bill is about newborn baby boys. Big difference. Men have the ability to say no. Newborns do NOT."

You clearly missed the point. I was demonstrating the fallacious use of graphical description of circumcision to pointedly portray it in a negative light. That same technique can be used to demonize just about any regular activity.

I could have done the same thing with clapping, by pointing out that you're submitting your body to repeated concussive blows which kill blood cells, damage muscle tissue, place strain upon your skeletal system and joints, and subjecting your nervous system to an enormous overload.

Or maybe running, and how you're subjecting your entire back and spine to injurious forces with every single concussive stride? I can go on, but hopefully now my point is clear.

Also, I'm doubting the extent of your level of formal education.
27 months ago: "It leads to keratinization of previously unkeratinized parts and desensitization of those parts."

Funny, science says otherwise.
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/f...

Masters, William H.; Virginia E. Johnson (1966). Human Sexual Response. Boston: Little, Brown & Co. pp. 189–91. ISBN 0-316-54987-8. (http://www.circs.org/library/masters/)

Bleustein, Clifford B.; James D. Fogarty, Haftan Eckholdt, Joseph C. Arezzo and Arnold Melman (April 2005). "Effect of neonatal circumcision on penile neurologic sensation". Urology 65 (4): 773–7. doi:10.1016/j.urology.2004.11.007. PMID 15833526. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15833526)

"The former is shiny and moist "
Congratulations on having a shiny tool. Remind me how that's important?
"The latter is dry, shriveled and grooved (need lube?)."
No, why? Do YOU have trouble stimulating women? That's really nothing to be ashamed of, and I'm sure it has nothing to do with your shiny schlong.
nhguy78
nhguy78
Hudson, NH
27 months ago: You missed my point, then, too, because I am saying that your comparison is ludicrous.

Graphical representation is absolutely necessary and an educational way of teaching people of what really happens much like calling abortion murder of unborn children.
nhguy78
nhguy78
Hudson, NH
27 months ago: ummm yes I do. I'm gay. Duh.
nhguy78
nhguy78
Hudson, NH
27 months ago: Masters and Johnson also tried to convert gays to heteros. Their study was from all the way back in 1966. Fun people.

The Bleustein research doesn't have anything to do with pleasure sensory receptors.
27 months ago: Neither Masters & Johnson or Bleustein et al actually measured the sensitivity of the foreskin itself. Circumcision doesn't seem to make much difference to the sensitivity of the glans, but the glans isn't that sensitive anyway - it's about as sensitive as the heel.

The Sorrells study found that the most sensitive parts of the **** are removed by circumcision. Even on a circumcised man, the most sensitive part is not the glans (it's usually the scar line, or the frenulum if that wasn't removed).
27 months ago: "Graphical representation is absolutely necessary and an educational way of teaching people of what really happens much like calling abortion murder of unborn children."

It's also the preferred method when you want to avoid logic and rational thought and just want to resort to fear-mongering and emotionally based responses. So, it's not so much "necessary" as "justified in your mind". In fact, it's really the same type of education you might use to provoke an angry mob into action, particularly if you're lacking in other justifications or points of discussion.

So kudos on feeling you have no options but to resort to low brow tactics in achieving your goals. I sardonically wish you the best in your endeavors at pretending to advance the human race into an enlightened state.
27 months ago: Then, congrats on having a shiny P-E-N-I-S. May it be a peacock's mantle for you in attracting suitable mates.
nhguy78
nhguy78
Hudson, NH
Content Removed by nhguy78
nhguy78
nhguy78
Hudson, NH
27 months ago: Mark, I posted earlier but didn't refer to your comment about sensitive compared to heel...

My husband would beg to differ.
27 months ago: My last reply looks stupid. I was replying to a post by Out of the Box, which he apparently subsequently deleted.

Mr. Antonelli, God bless you for the work you are doing. I know how difficult it is to take the heat, when a bunch of people believe something with their whole hearts, and it is just not the right thing to do. This American obsession with circumcision (penile reduction surgery) has got to stop, one way or the other. The medical community is going to perpetuate it forever, because they will never study it, and slay the cash cow. Britain, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia have all put a stop to it. None has found it to be medically beneficial. Even the US says that the 'potential' benefits don't outweigh the risks, but still the bloodletting continues. What can I do to help?
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
27 months ago: Mandyman

Sorry dude, I only deleted one post, due to a glaring typographical error, which I reposted immediately with the3 necessary corrections. The great thing about this site is that when a post gets deleted by the author or the admin., it says "Content Removed by ________"

Maybe you just didn't post your reply correctly.
27 months ago: "What can I do to help?" If you live in Massachusetts, attend the hearing and speak up for human rights for everyone: http://www.mgmbill.org/hearing.htm If you live in the USA, go to http://MGMbill.org and join the effort to get this human rights legislation passed in the US Congress, and whatever state you do live in. If you live on Planet Earth, get legislation rolling in your country to protect EVERYONE'S unalienable human right to bodily integrity.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
27 months ago: I was being jocular although you and the large anti-circ group who joined Rant Rave yesterday to bombard this topic compared female genital mutilation (clitoridectomy, infibulations, etc) to male circumcision - the comparison is comically absurd and reflects ignorance of sexual anatomy and function.

Another poster who resorted to juvenile name calling compared circumcision to having half a d**k. If you want to argue the issue of consent, that's fine but spare us the overwrought hyperbole and false comparisons.

But let's be pragmatic. Even in countries where circumcisions is not uncommon and even discouraged, it's not illegal. It is common here in the USA and if you think any law will be passed to prohibit it, you're smoking the wacky tobacky. If you can't convince a guy like me who's been circumcised that we've been horribly mutilated and victimized, the cause is pretty shallow.
27 months ago: I did not liken circumcision to castration. I am the guy who said that circumcision leaves you with a perfectly functional ****.
I don't care if I joined yesterday. That does not give you the right to paint me with someone else's brush. I never said anything about half a d**k.
Please spare me the lying about what I said.

I called it mutilation, and backed it up with a Mirriam-Webster dictionary quote.
I called it amputation, and will back that up with a dictionary quote, if desired.
I never called it castration.
I've I haven't convinced you yet that you have lost something valuable, then your denial is so thick, nothing will penetrate.
For the sake of discussion, let's say you have 20,000 nerves in your ****.
Now, imagine having 40,000 nerves. Circumcision removes about 20,000 nerves.
Don't you think that input from 20,000 nerves might be a pleasurable thing?
Might it not be desirable? If someone came up to you on the street, and said, "Hey buddy, I can make you feel something incredible", and you somehow magically got the sensation from the 20,000 nerves you used to have, that are now gone forever, might that not be mindblowing? What if you were given a choice? Might you not pick the genital with the more powerful sensations?

I look around at all this denial, and say to myself, "If these guys had any inkling of what they are missing, they would kill the doctor who did this to them."
27 months ago: @markbyrn:
It's "comically absurd" to think that there's a fundamental distinction between cutting parts off female genitals or cutting parts off male genitals. The people that cut girls certainly don't think there's a difference, and neither did the US doctors who were still cutting girls till about the early 1970's.

Some forms of female circumcision do less damage than the usual form of male circumcision. Sometimes there's just an incision with nothing actually removed. One form just removes the clitoral hood (the female foreskin), so it's the exact equivalent of cutting off a boy's foreskin.

Nowadays, it's illegal even to make an incision on a girl's genitals though, even if no tissue is removed. Why don't boys get the same protection?

It's impossible to convince most circumcised women that they've been "mutilated" btw. (they generally go ballistic if you use that word)

No-one's expecting this law to pass, but maybe it will raise awareness, and maybe more people will get to decide for themselves whether they have parts of their **** cut off.
27 months ago: "Nowadays, it's illegal even to make an incision on a girl's genitals though, even if no tissue is removed. Why don't boys get the same protection?"

Because there hasn't been centuries of female-dominated societies maiming young boys' genitals (and I do mean maiming in the sense of lopping off several inches of **** or whittling down the entire tip) for the sole purpose of preventing them from experiencing sexual desire or pleasure.

Do you intend to ban the removal of vestigial tails until the individual is 18? That's a medically unnecessary procedure since the tail is in no way threatening loss of life, limb, or eyesight. But I'm pretty sure a child would have preferred the parents be able to go "Yeah, cut that off" at birth rather than waiting until they were 18 or were able to argue and demonstrate in a court of law (a lengthy and difficult process) the fitness of the child to be able to make a decision for themselves. Because until then, they get to be "monkey boy/girl" at school.
27 months ago: There are forms of female circumcision that are worse than the form of male circumcision that you're used to. That doesn't make male circ right though. I think I'd actually rather lose up to about 25% of the glans than be circumcised.

It's generally circumcised women that promote, defend, and perform female circumcision btw.

You're comparing a vestigial tail with a normal part of anatomy. Maybe one person in a million is born with a vestigial tail (excluding the coccyx). Over 99.9% of boys are born with a foreskin though, and it just so happens to include the most sensitive part of their ****, which is why this is a big deal.

The foreskin isn't just some bit of skin there to protect the glans. Even on a circumcised man, the glans isn't usually the most sensitive part (it's usually the scar line, or the frenulum if that was left intact).

There's no other way that people are allowed to cut off healthy normal living tissue from a child, so why do we make an exception for the male prepuce?
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
27 months ago: No Mark, Clitoridectomy and infibulations are illegal since they are mutilations to repress female sexual function, and that's what the laws have been made to prevent. Again, comparing apples to oranges.
27 months ago: Talking of apples and oranges, you keep comparing tribal female circumcision with western medical male circumcision. There are plenty of countries where doctors cut girls in surgeries using pain relief. Conversely, 79 males *died* of circumcision in the Eastern Cape province of South Africa.

All forms of non-medical female genital cutting are illegal in the US though, including removal of the prepuce - the *exact equivalent of male circumcision*. Hardly an apples and oranges comparison. It's illegal even to make a pin-prick on a girl's genitals, yet boys routinely have the most sensitive parts of their genitals cut off. How does that make sense?

It's worth remembering that no-one except for Jewish people and Muslims would even be having this discussion if it weren't for the fact that 19th century doctors thought that :
a) masturbation caused various physical and mental problems (including epilepsy, convulsions, paralysis, tuberculosis etc), and
b) circumcision stopped masturbation.

Both of those sound ridiculous today I know, but how that's how they thought back then, and that's how non-religious circumcision got started ie to repress male sexual function. If you don't believe me, then google this: "A Short History of Circumcision in North America In the Physicians' Own Words". Heck, they even passed laws against "self-pollution" as it was called.

Over a hundred years later, people keep looking for new ways to defend the practice.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
27 months ago: To repeat, I was being jocular and exaggerating in the same way that you were comparing male circumcision to female genital mutilation and saying it was an anti-Islamic sleight as though Muslims don't also practice male circumcision and are allowed to do so as anybody else is.

This post has been most entertaining.
27 months ago: Anonymous voice, you sound like your lips are moving, but nothing is coming out.
A foreskin is not a vestigial tail, or a birth defect. It is more like an eyelid.

markbyrn, you were not being jocular. you were being pissed. I was comparing apples to apples. I compared removing the clitoral foreskin of a girl, with removing the penile foreskin of a boy. That is an exact analogue.

Don't bother trying to wiggle out. I remember what was said, and it's all in print anyway.

Nothing to say about the 20,000 nerves, or the denial?
Glad I could entertain you.
I still fail to see why, if something was removed from you, without your consent, you would want to keep it OK for someone else to do the same thing. Isn't that a little mean-spirited? Like, if I can't have it, no one else should be allowed to have it, either?
Especially when you hear how painful and traumatic the operation is, and how much joy a foreskin can bring its owner, and its owner's partner?
27 months ago: anonymous voice, are you really that insensitive to pain in others?
Please, let me give you a paper cut on your man part.
Then, please allow me to cut around it, and peel it like a carrot.
I think if you think about it long and hard enough, you'll begin to see the difference.
You are some piece of work.
I'm sure babies everywhere will be thanking you for both your compassion, and your insight.
27 months ago: mandoman, are you really this overly dramatic in every aspect of your life? Do you go around over dramatizing everything in order to try an convey your point?

I'm not a sadist and thusly do not enjoy pain. But try to remember that as an adult you have the amazing ability to remember that "pain is bad", "pain occurs when my body suffers damage", and "pain is even worse on sensitive areas". So then, when you as an adult put all that together and think about circumcision, its extremely discomforting and apparently quite horrifying to you as well.

I find the thought of it very discomforting. When I think of the act of circumcision, it brings me the exact same discomfort that the thought of being stabbed in the stomach brings. The same discomfort as the thought of having pretty much most violent acts to me. Why? Because humans have that amazing power called conceptualizing wherein we go "Wow, that would really suck!"

Sadly, it appears you allow the logical side of your brain to be completely displaced by that primitive side which succumbs to thoughts of fear and emotional responses. I truly hope that you one day discover its okay to every now and then go "Hey, wait a second, I'm allowing myself to stop seeing the big picture here because of my fears".

Cause here's the thing. I'm sure that little boy cried and hollered a storm. Probably was screaming bloody freaking murder. I've seen that exact same reaction from kids getting vaccinated, who have to be forcibly held down by their parents (as in both). It's because in children, that primitive portion of the brain is more developed than the critical thinking portion and so ANY pain makes them freak out like the devil himself has come for them.

Now, you said you watched a little boy get circumcised. Did you remember to stick around and ask him about it? What about 10 years later? Did he still remember it as freshly, if at all? How about 20 years later?

Like I said, if I thought about it, I'm sure I'd feel all uncomfortable and icky.
YET I HAVE NO MEMORY AT ALL WHATSOEVER IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM OF MY OWN CIRCUMCISION. So the logical portion of my brain goes "Okay, so lets just move on with everything else, shall we?"
nhguy78
nhguy78
Hudson, NH
27 months ago: The fact remains that you are a sadist if you INSIST on removing healthy tissue from a child against their will.
27 months ago: The pain isn't really the issue. We could cut parts off baby girls without it hurting much, but that wouldn't make it right.

Circumcised boys do show more problems breastfeeding though, and exhibit greater response to vaccination years later.
27 months ago: See, you use "healthy tissue" to describe it in the same manner as if it were a kidney, or a lung. For those, which are crucial parts, I'd agree.

But what it boils down to is that you are steadfastly intent on restricting the freedoms of parents to choose whether they wish to have this performed for their child. This is in fact a potential stepping stone for direct government intervention in overruling every aspect of the parental process because Big Brother feels (for whatever reason, be it lobbyists/special interests/whatever) that it is a no-no.

The overall effect upon the child, whether the circumcision is performed or not, is miniscule and wholly dependent upon the individual case. There is no grand "if X then Y" as there is with female genital mutilation where across the board it is fully evident that the procedure is destructive and damaging and done purely to maintain male dominance in the culture. It should remain a choice and your efforts should be directed at providing parents with information to make a choice, not trying to outlaw it en masse simply because a portion of the population disagrees with it for whatever reason. By doing so, you contribute to the further curtailing of individual freedoms in society and further lead us to a world where there is no longer choice.

Were it a matter where the choice was of greater significance on the grand scale of things, then perhaps government intervention might be required. But it isn't. Stop trying to use the government to coerce everyone into conforming to your opinion, and stick to informing them for when they have to make the choice.
nhguy78
nhguy78
Hudson, NH
27 months ago: No one is disagreeing with the "crucial part" point you're bringing up. The point you're avoiding that some unknown person was able to trump my right to make that decision for myself at an age of my own choosing.

Who's body is it? Mine. Who's right is it? Mine.

Oh, I almost forgot. You're all for parental rights to trump all that boys *might* want for their bodies.
27 months ago: The people who practice female circumcision consider it a part of their religion.
I'm not sure how the recipients feel about it.
I know how baby boys feel about circumcision, because I have been there to witness the screams. I thought someone was killing him, and ran in.
To tell the truth, I have regretted it ever since, and it was 35 years ago.
That image of his total helplessness, and agony, is burned into my cortex. If I could have that experience surgically removed, I would. I didn't even know the kid. I hope he is OK today. All I know is, torture is gentler than what this kid was experiencing, and he was letting the world know.
27 months ago: anonymous guy, I am not being overly dramatic. I am being passionate. There is a difference.
You have a sick feeling in your stomach when you contemplate circumcision. I have told you why, because some really sick things have happened to you. You compartmentalize, and tell me that you shut it off with logic.
Is this a reasonable response? I don't personally think so. A reasonable response, is to not want this awful event to happen to someone else. You have some memory of it. Your stomach is telling you so. I had a buddy who had a repressed memory of it. Whenever we discussed circumcision, even if he brought it up, he crossed his legs, and put his arms folded in front of his crotch. You can't tell me that it was coincidence. That is a defensive posture, coming from unconscious memory.
The part of you that is telling you to move on, is a defense mechanism, against this trauma. It's not logic. It is protection.
Do you want to see this drama played out, time and again?
There is no reasonable reason to defend circumcision. You can see it in the statements by the AMA, and AAP. How many times can they say 'not medically needed", and in how many ways?
I am not dramatizing to make a point. For God's sake, I had my son circumcised....not for valid reasons, but we had it done on medical advice....after seeing the circumcision. He had anesthesia. This is sick stuff. Nobody should be put through it.
You think you saw the same thing in a vaccination. I can promise you you did not.
Babies sometimes scream so violently, that they actually break their bladder while being circumcised. Though the kid may have yelled, they don't strap you into a circumstraint for a vaccination. It's the baby equivalent of a straight jacket. Please explain to me how circumcision is different from being flayed alive. The distinction is in the semantics, not in the details of what is happening. At least in flayed alive, it is your regular skin, like an arm or a leg, and not the most sensitive skin, like your man parts.
I feel like you and markbytm are saying, "Yes, it's painful, but it's OK. It's somehow better, though I can't quite figure out how. Keep doing it."
27 months ago: anonymous voice, what makes you believe that most European men wear condoms?
I'd like to see that piece of research, thanks.
27 months ago:

But what it boils down to is that you are steadfastly intent on restricting the freedoms of parents to choose whether they wish to have this performed for their child. This is in fact a potential stepping stone for direct government intervention in overruling every aspect of the parental process because Big Brother feels (for whatever reason, be it lobbyists/special interests/whatever) that it is a no-no.
The overall effect upon the child, whether the circumcision is performed or not, is miniscule and wholly dependent upon the individual case.
Were it a matter where the choice was of greater significance on the grand scale of things, then perhaps government intervention might be required. But it isn't. Stop trying to use the government to coerce everyone into conforming to your opinion, and stick to informing them for when they have to make the choice.

Stop. You are killing me. Circumcision removes half the skin of a ****, typically.
That's a medical fact you can confirm yourself. You are saying it is insignificant?
If someone told you you could have twice the sexual pleasure you are having now, and more, this is insignificant? You think that parental choice in being able to select or not select circumcision, trumps the ability to keep half of the skin of your ****, on your own body?
What are you thinking?

Man, you and I have our differences, but this is a biggie. My freedoms are so dependent upon genital cutting. What will they take away from me next, if I can't carve up my son like a Thanksgiving turkey, and pretend it's for his own good, or to prevent some future bugaboo that's unlikely to happen. The boogie man is going to get him if he's not cut.
Get off it. This is someone else's p-e-n-i-s. Are you that insecure, that you can't allow him to make his own choice. You have to do it for him? While he's still under your control? It takes a big man to take a piece of his son's d-i-c-k, when he can't fight him off. nhguy78 is right. There is a word for it. It's called coward, or bully.
27 months ago: "Though the kid may have yelled, they don't strap you into a circumstraint for a vaccination"

What part of it took both parents to hold a child for a vaccination did you not understand?

"I had a buddy who had a repressed memory of it. Whenever we discussed circumcision, even if he brought it up, he crossed his legs, and put his arms folded in front of his crotch. You can't tell me that it was coincidence. That is a defensive posture, coming from unconscious memory."

So when a guy does that upon mention of vagina dentata, is that from repressed unconscious memories of placing his **** into a tooth filled vagina? No, it's an instinctive reaction to a stimulus of "hey, this would be painful" and then you protect on instinct what would be suffering the pain if it were real. That's it. With rare exceptions, memories do not begin to fully form until age 4.

"I feel like you and markbytm are saying, "Yes, it's painful, but it's OK. It's somehow better, though I can't quite figure out how. Keep doing it.""
Really, so all the arguments about how its potentially beneficial, you think that's me going "GEE WHIZ! I just don't have a clue why I support a person being able to do this!"

"'not medically needed""
Let me enlighten you as to what "medically needed" means. The medical profession uses a very literal definition of the word "need". It means actions necessary to prevent loss of life, limb, or eyesight, or to prevent serious infections or diseases. Ergo, Advil for a headache is not medically needed because your body is going to be just fine without it. Sudafed when you have a cold, is not medically needed. But, people still do it because its beneficial. Just because something isn't needed doesn't mean it isn't useful.
Mr Shawn
Mr Shawn
Little Rock, AR
Content Removed by Mr Shawn
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
27 months ago: This topic must hold the record for comments - 140 and counting. Appears to be all dudes too, and we're arguing about our penises. It's just not right O.o
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
27 months ago: Not a record yet, but getting close. Scroll up to the top to see my prediction.
James Mac
James Mac
Australia
27 months ago: Anonymous Voice: your callousl dismissal of the suffering and loss of others is just appalling. By your logic, it's okay to punch a dimentia victim in the face, or to rape your own child. Hey, they won't remember. Oh, and lt's not forget the all-important parents rights!

It boils down to this; it is either acceptable to forcefully remove healthy living tissue from an infant or child or it is not acceptable. Arguments that somehow seek to place the male foreskin in a different category are weak, foolish and heartless.
27 months ago: Did I miss something? I keep looking down for something flopping around on the ground lke a fish out of water. Is this crap for real? You have go to be kidding me. The clinical reason for circumcision is to reduce infections. Period. I would rather see a little skin removed that a whole lot of rot before it was too late.
Mr Shawn
Mr Shawn
Little Rock, AR
27 months ago: Please back that bull**** you posted.
nhguy78
nhguy78
Hudson, NH
27 months ago: My body, my rights. period.
Content Removed by The Cypress Gang
27 months ago: That was too weird. Like Deja Vu of my circumcision from birth.
James Mac
James Mac
Australia
27 months ago: First Circumcision
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouCFU1xs0...

A med student's experience in his own words:
"I say it's torture, but it's really not, because it's a medical procedure that's done by a professional." ..But sort of hearing the little baby just sort of screaming throughout is painful. It's painful to watch. ... he basically screams and screams and screams until he exhausts himself and... then... passes out for a little bit and then wakes up and starts screaming again. At the end of the day you can't really ask the baby whether they're feeling anything ... there's not really a consensus on whether the baby gets a local injection to prevent feeling anything."
James Mac
James Mac
Australia
27 months ago: The Cypress Gang: does it really prevent infections? Does the U.S. really have less 'infections' than the rest of the (non-cutting) world? Nope, sorry. It's a myth - check it out. The U.S. has THE WORST sexual health of all the developed nations. While you're at it, check-out the increased risk of MRSA infections for baby boys, where the raw circumcision wound provides an easy entry point for dangerous 'hospital' infections.

Even if the health myths were true, it's still no justification for cutting the best (protective, sensitive, mobile) parts from a baby's p-e-n-i-s.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
27 months ago: ...cutting the best (protective, sensitive, mobile) parts from a baby's p-e-n-i-s...

I'm really starting to feel bad about losing my foreskin - somebody needs to get sued. Is there a lawyer in the house and does a mobile foreskin receive phone calls?
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
27 months ago: I have all sorts of differing ideas why people started doing it.

Here's another one. A tiny uncut male organ requires a lot of care, namely, washing, pulling back the foreskin and cleaning thoroughly the parts that cant be given a quick wipe. Now, call me a prude, or a Freudian throwback, but how healthy can it be, psychologically speaking, to have your earliest pleasurable genital experiences tied to your mother?

Can anyone quote a study about the ratio of uncircumcised gay men to circumcised gay men? Or even the ratio of men who have fantasies about being intimate with their mother?

Just thought I'd give this topic new life.
27 months ago: Don't you mean scrubbing as not to get infected?
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
27 months ago: TCG

Exactly. Scrubbing by the mother, until the age at which the boy can be trusted to do this himself. What is that age, 2, 3, 4? 10?
Mr Shawn
Mr Shawn
Little Rock, AR
27 months ago: It requires no intense scrubbing, please learn what you are talking about before posting bull****, it makes you look unintelligent and obviously uninformed which seems to be the biggest problem in the US.

http://www.kidshealth.org.nz/index.php/p...
Mr Shawn
Mr Shawn
Little Rock, AR
Content Removed by Mr Shawn
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
27 months ago: Uninformed? Perhaps. Unintelligent? Never.

The two don't go hand in hand. Many people far less intelligent than I have taught me things I would never have bothered to learn on my own.
27 months ago: "A tiny uncut male organ requires a lot of care, namely, washing, pulling back the foreskin and cleaning thoroughly the parts that cant be given a quick wipe."

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. Pulling back the foreskin is quite the worst thing to do because it is normally attached to the glans at birth and separates by itself, usually over a period of years and sometimes not until puberty.

Premature forcible retraction will expose raw tissue and INCREASE the risk of infection. It is highly probable that many of the boys who "got infections and had to be circumcised" (whose stories are told and retold as further reasons to circumcise) were victims of this mistreatment.

Only clean what is seen.

The best person to decide when his foreskin is ready to retract is the boy itself, and he will need no encouragement to do so. And then keeping it clean is quick, easy and (don't tell anyone) fun.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
27 months ago: I'll start our own little poll.

OOTB Circumcised , straight, no Oedipus syndrome.
27 months ago: so your father is still with us?
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
27 months ago: No, sadly he passed away a few years back. But even so, I still have no desire to wed my mother, or even to emulate her, even though she is a wonderful person.
27 months ago: sorry to hear about your dad. glad to hear your mom is still your mom.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
27 months ago: Thanks. Yeah I'm glad too. None of that "She's my bestestest fwend in the whole wide world" hogwash. She's my mother.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
27 months ago: What really makes a person look unintelligent is having to resort to expletives (or as your friend Spongebob calls them, "sentence enhancers") to convey a thought. Take your time, get a dictionary or a thesaurus, and I'm sure you can find the correct words to express your frustration.
Mr Shawn
Mr Shawn
Little Rock, AR
27 months ago: @ Out of the box, you are uninformed on how to care for an infants ****, actually, with an intact infant ****, you DO NOTHING, just like washing a finger, you pull it back and you will harm the baby. Cut infant penises, require more care because you have to care for the wound.

and you people act like when they get older its a major cleaning ritual, its not, only takes a second, you have to wash your **** no matter what, cut or uncut.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
27 months ago: As it turns out, Mr Shawn, you appear to be correct about the care of an uncut foreskin. I never thought I would ever be having this conversation in the first place, so I'm laughing a lot.

Everyone, disregard my previous comment about washing a baby's privates. The other comments still stand, and the poll too, if anyone is interested.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
27 months ago: What happened to the short-sighted circumcisor? He got the sack.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
27 months ago: Har
27 months ago: If he was a she would it be a bag?
James Mac
James Mac
Australia
27 months ago: I wonder if any of the 'parental choice' crowd here would support the right of a curcumciser to fondle the organ to make it larger and easier to work with before the cutting starts and then to suck the blood from the raw wound with his mouth once the the cutting's finished? Or would this be over-stepping the line...?

I assure you, both are legal and both happen.

A couple of years ago in New York city, babies were found to have died from herpies, contracted from an infected rabbi. What did the authoritities do? You would think the perpetrator would be arrested, or at least for the practice to be halted immediately. You'd be sadly mistaken. The decision not to act, but to institute 'protocols' to prevent infection was taken (by the same man who now heads-up the CDC) and the pedophillia continues to this day.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
27 months ago: You got a link to Snopes for that fantastical story? And here's a story about a Dentist who raped a 15 year old patient while she was under sedation.

http://www.examiner.com/a-1049627~Dentis...

Using your logic tree, Dentistry must end!
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
27 months ago: Never mind, I found it:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles...

In the case of 'ultra' Orthodox Jews who perform that unsanitary practice, I'd make it illegal.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
27 months ago: and to quote the summary of the article,

'According to Jewish Week, a New York publication, “Out of concern over the transmission of disease, mohels serving other segments of the Jewish community have for decades used sterile glass tubes or sterile gauze for suctioning instead” (Jewish Week, 23 December)'.
TLCTugger
TLCTugger
Northbrook, IL
27 months ago: Mayor Bloomberg and the NYC Health Commisioner (Frieden, presently head of the CDC) ruled that NYC Mohels COULD continue to suck baby penises.
27 months ago: WHAT, markbyrn? You'd make it ILLEGAL for parents to practice our own religious convictions by hiring herpes infected mohels to chop off the business end of our sons' penises and suck on the bloody stump, risking killing the child from herpes infection? WHY? What has made you go over to the dark side? Surely you realize this is just the first of many steps down the slippery slope to total government control of our lives! What's a few dead babies compared to permanent loss of our adult freedom to do any damn thing we please to our kids, including human vivisection, human sexual sacrifice? Our ends justify our means. Too bad for the kids. Serves 'em right for having idiots for parents.

Anybody here know how to spell sarcasm?
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
27 months ago: Yes all this overwrought excess skin advocacy is starting to win me over. If I wasn't so well endowed I'd be tempted to sue my parents and waste several years of my life regrowing my long lost foreskin. I will offer some advice though. Change your tact and appeal to the religious right. Make a convincing argument that the foreskin prevents p-e-n-i-s nudity and that circumcision leads to pornography. Now that will cause a groundswell of support from Pat Robertson to Don Wildmon. Good luck!
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
27 months ago: I don't know.

Rudi?
What says the Law about who must perform the circumcision? Is it still considered compliant if not performed in the synagogue, or by a Rabbi? Is a procedure done in a professional setting still considered to be following the Law?
James Mac
James Mac
Australia
27 months ago: So it's a slippery slope, innit? You reckon fondling and cutting of children's genitals is okay, but sucking is not. Whereas I reckon adults should keep their hands, knives and mouths away from children's genitals.

Once you start making excuses or exceptions, you're becoming an apologist for the sexual abuse, mutilation and exploitation of helpless and innocent children. Be a man, face and accept your own losses and see all genital cutting for what it truly is.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
27 months ago: No, you're finding isolated examples of abusive practices and implying that's how it's universally done - you're grasping for straws. Whether it's a tattoo, piercing, circumcision, root canal, or brain surgery, it has to be done in a sterile manner and that's how it's normally done. If there's a group of religious nutters still doing this type of dangerous abuse, it has to be stopped. The same would apply to forcing a religious zealot to allow life saving medical care for a child; e.g. blood transfusions that violate their religious principals.
James Mac
James Mac
Australia
27 months ago: Markbyrn, you're highlighting to everyone your prejustices and odd social conditioning.

I actually find the oral suction less abhorent than the cutting itself, although abhorent nevertheless. The cutting is painful, disfiguring (scarring) and damaging in a range of ways (including destroying the exquisite, frictionless gliding function).

It's said that Japaneese nannies would suck on little boys in order to soothe them. Of course, this was in a different time with different cultural beliefs and values.

Equally, scarrificaton of boys chests was an important part of Australian aboriginal culture, now recognized as violent, painful and abusive and prohibited.

There is no place for genital cutting (or other forms of interference) in a civilized society.
Gregoire
Gregoire
27 months ago: **** me easy Batman.
I'm kinda thinking that maybe 50% of the antis are perfectly content with sucking a baby's brains out two minutes before the starting pistol on the downhill vaginal freestyle.
And Oh crap...I love the reasoning about sensitivity!
Slam your freakin' member in a car door and tell me how much better it feels because you DON'T have a foreskin.
Oh, my...what a buncha girls...you sound like friggin Cosmo articles...
To think of all those wasted orgasms that coulda been so much better. Oh gee Marsha, I only had an 8.732 on the Richter scale when I coulda had a 10...(oooh, how the earth moved for me that time!)
Gee, how disappointing.
Yeah that's why this whole world is such a joke...some men ain't gettin' enuff pleasure!
The point is, just how much you want some **** in a public office telling you to do with you and yours?
Yes, I believe Abraham heard from God.
And did damn well what he oughta by marching Isaac up that hill ready to slaughter him.
nhguy78
nhguy78
Hudson, NH
27 months ago: Our argument relies on my right to my own body. My body is not YOURS to do as you please. You and everyone who believes religion has every right to destroy what god has given me are a disgrace to the civilized world.
27 months ago: When did your parents relinquish their rights over you? At birth or at adulthood? The state requires that they maintain responsibility over you (the child) until you attain the age of adulthood. That responsibility includes full control over your physical and mental well being and unless their care is going to kill you or harm you in a quantifiable way, your parents will keep their rights over you, the child. If they make a decision about your care that you don't like latter in life, you can sue them.

If you were a parent you would not fight for the right to take those rights away.
27 months ago: The reason Abraham is revered by Jews, Christians and Muslims alike is that he DIDN'T kill Isaac. He realized that the child sacrificing religious culture in which he had grown up was WRONG about what God wanted, and he told it to go to Hell, bravely came back down the mountain with his son still alive, and got away with it, ending child sacrifice for all of us. The same thing is happening now with sexual child sacrifice. Many people are realizing now that God NEVER wanted ANY parent to harm ANY child, we're coming back down the mountain with our children's sexual body parts still alive, and we're getting away with it, and ending sexual child sacrifice for future parents and children. Abraham is our mentor.
jimfromcalif
jimfromcalif
Dos Palos, CA
26 months ago: There is no reason to make up stories to defend Abraham. Abraham is recognized only as having been obedient to God. BTW, God does not take kindly to being called "it." Hell is the place reserved for those who do not accept his plan of salvation.

The established covenant included circumcision for a very good reason, and that was to take away some of men's sexual pleasure so they would focus more upon
God. In commanding that it be done to innocent children, God asked obedience. It is nothing more than that. However, the deal was off when God came to Earth as Jesus, the Messiah. When he arose from the dead, be became part of the New Covenant, thus abolishing the old one. Circumcision is no longer part of God's covenant with anyone and it should no longer be practiced by anyone.
27 months ago: OK. Deep breath.
Though circumcision was practiced by the Egyptians in ancient times, and the Jews lived among them as slaves and/or workers, and were often circumcised too, the man credited among Jews with coming up with circumcision as a part of their religion was Abraham. He was 99 when he circumcised himself, and declared it a sign of the Jews' covenant with God. This is the same man who almost killed his son, Isaac, as a sacrifice to God, until God told him not to.
Today, when old men cut off body parts, or attempts to kill their son, usually they get taken away someplace where they can't hurt themselves or others.
Is Abraham the grandfather of religious nutters, as you call them, or not? One has to wonder how his actions would be interpreted within today's societies, of any religion.
markbyrn, you think that if circumcision is performed under sterile conditions, it's OK.
Everybody who has a foreskin is telling you that it's not OK. It's a huge violation of one of a person's most basic rights, the right to their healthy body parts, no matter if the knife is sterile or not. I don't find myself grasping at any straws to make my arguments, and sense that others are not, either. It is you, and anonymous guy, who are grasping at straws, to come up with excuses for doing the unethical, and to us, unthinkable. We are thinking, who welcomes a beautiful, perfect baby to this planet, with a knife in their hands, saying, "I know this hurts, but it's for your own good". That's a lie. It is not for their own good. It is to mark them, the way a cattle brand marks the cattle. Men with circumcision scars spend vast amounts of text trying to lessen the function and the value of a foreskin. They protect the head, keep the **** free from infection and disease by keeping urine and feces away from the head, and keep the head moist and supple. Out of the Box mocks a shiny head. I can tell you mine is mucous membrane, more like the inside of my mouth, or a vagina, than like the dry skin on my arm. The **** of a circumcised man looks comparatively less alive to me. It is dry, dull, and the blood flow is less obvious from color.
One sick joke is the concept of African circumcision. Every year, people get infected, because the circumciser uses the same knife on everybody, without sterilizing it.
I believe 79 people have died in the last year of their African circumcisions. Every week or two it's in the news.
Circumcision is almost never a life saving event. You would have to go to things such as frostbite, and gangrene, two very rare events, to find a medical justification for circumcision.
Almost no baby needs surgery. They certainly don't need half the skin of their **** stripped away.
James Mac
James Mac
Australia
27 months ago: I have a foreskin.

I spent thousands of hours over several years growing a replacement from my remnant organ.