Hey, there! Log in / Register

Bill would outlaw infant, childhood circumcision, with no exceptions for Jews, Muslims

The state legislature's Joint Committee on the Judiciary holds a hearing March 2 on a bill that would ban "genital mutilation" on people under 18, with the threat of a 14-year jail sentence for violators.

The bill as currently written would ban circumcisions done for religious reasons:

[N]o account shall be taken of the effect on the person on whom the operation is to be performed of any belief on the part of that or any other person that the operation is required as a matter of custom or ritual.

The bill would grant exemptions for procedures done for health reasons.

Via Chaz.

Free tagging: 


Ad:


Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

This seems highly unlikely.

Whit

up
Voting closed 0

;-)

up
Voting closed 0

True -- most rituals are. And yet people cling to rituals. This is not a law I would support even though I personally oppose circumcision.

up
Voting closed 0

Circumcision is a sacred cow, and I always wondered why people who advocate for bans on female mutilation procedures tend to seriously downplay the seriousness of cutting boys while pushing for clear bans for girls.

I also wonder how long it will be until the exemptions from this unnecessary surgical practice are used to bust the bans on female procedures - even if those procedures tend to be far more drastic?

Clearly a gender equity issue that self-described radical feminists simply don't want to think about - or society at large, either.

Not to mention the ENORMOUS waste of health care and insurance money on this sacred cow of a unecessary cosmetic procedure! When they stopped covering it in Canada, it suddenly wasn't as popular.

up
Voting closed 0

To me, this is craziness. How can people be so passionate about outlawing something that is so much less of an issue than something like abortion? I would put money on the fact that most of the anti-circumcision folks are pro-choice. Why allow someone to choose to kill their babies (and yes, they've found that is painful to the unborn to have its limbs sucked off its body and its head crushed) and NOT allow someone to choose something like circumcision?

up
Voting closed 0

What does one have to do with the other? I agree - abortion is a much more sensitive and serious subject, but why do we not get to discuss circumcision until abortion is dealt with?

Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com

up
Voting closed 0

Hey Suldog,

What does one have to do with the other? I agree - abortion is a much more sensitive and serious subject, but why do we not get to discuss circumcision until abortion is dealt with?

He isn't saying you don't get to discuss circumcision. Just that if you believe that male circumcision should be banned outright, with all choice removed from the parents, then it is not logically or ethically compatible to also be pro-choice on abortion. He is adding to the discussion, not ending the discussion.

I found this point interesting because as he points out, it's very plausible that the loudest and most hysterical voices calling for an outright ban of circumcision in these comments would also consider themselves pro-choice on abortion.

up
Voting closed 0

My foreskin might have grown up and discovered a cure for cancer?

up
Voting closed 0

I guess I was seeing these tangents from the main discussion - abortion, female genital mutilation - as distractions from an issue I consider very important, being raised by those with different axes to grind, rather than as strictly cogent. I still do, but I can see where others might disagree.

As for the plausibility of "most" of the "loudest and most hysterical" considering themselves pro-choice on abortion, yes, it's plausible. So is the opposite, from where I sit. I'm not entirely convinced of the right to terminate life in the womb, yet I'm certainly opposed to any genital modification being performed without consent of a person who has exited same.

Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com

up
Voting closed 0

You're wrong. I oppose circumcision and abortion. Don't make assumptions. I think that abortion is extremely painful to a baby/fetus. I also think that circumcision is painful but much less than an abortion is to a baby boy. I think both are forms of child abuse and should be punishable by law. I hope I see an end to both abortion and circumcision in my lifetime.

up
Voting closed 0

The overwhelming majority of abortions take place before the 20th week of pregnancy. The fetus is incapable of feeling pain until the 24th week of development. It's likely that it takes even longer than that due to the milieu of chemicals the fetus swims in acting as analgesics.

Also, a fetus isn't a child by legal standards, so it isn't child abuse. Thus, abortions aren't punishable by child abuse laws.

You should adjust your thoughts on the matter to fit the facts otherwise you're living in a fantasy world. I'd bet that's probably hoping too much for you though.

up
Voting closed 0

This was over a year ago. Let it go, man, let it go.

up
Voting closed 0

...while there is a certainly good reasons to ban many forms of genital mutilation, to throw circumcision in there without exception does a disservice to people. studies have shown that men who are not circumcised have a greater risk of contracting & spreading HIV to a female partner, have a higher risk of syphilis, UTI's, penile cancer, and HPV, as well as a greater chance of spreading that to a female partner. infants who are circumcised show a much lower risk of complications than adults who are circumcised. so to wait can be cruel.

i am not saying that all boy infants should be circumcised; i am saying there are sometimes medical reasons, not to mention religious ones, that parents should consider. and if they are going to write that the DPH has to instruct people on this risks of the procedure, they should also inform them of the benefits.

on the other hand, cutting an infant girls labia off has *no* medical benefits at all. different story, and shouldn't be lumped in together.

and don't even get me started on the part about hermaphroditic genitalia.

this is just a crazy bill.

up
Voting closed 0

"studies have shown that men who are not circumcised have a greater risk of contracting & spreading HIV to a female partner, have a higher risk of syphilis, UTI's, penile cancer, and HPV, as well as a greater chance of spreading that to a female partner. infants who are circumcised show a much lower risk of complications than adults who are circumcised. so to wait can be cruel."

I dont know where you are getting this information, but as someone who has studied this topic in length I can assure you this could not be further from the truth.

up
Voting closed 0

... the CDC, among other places. although the CDC does not go so far as to make any recommendations about policy and circumcision, they are pretty specific about the risks and benefits.

up
Voting closed 0

The degree to which they reduce the spread of venereal disease is minuscule. And everybody should be using condoms anyhow unless they're in a monogamous relationship.

The fact of the matter is that upwards of 1/2 of a male's orgasm related nerve endings reside in the foreskin. There is zero reason to do this to children. If an adult of sexual maturity wants to mutilate his or her own genitals go right ahead. But it is cruel and savage to do it to unwilling infants.

up
Voting closed 0

That, madam, is not a fact. It's a fallacy, and I'm tired of women perpetuating it.

up
Voting closed 0

The government isn't necessarily the best place to go for science and health information. For example, Look at all the misinformation they've been pumping out for years regarding nutrition, fat, sugar, cholesterol, etc. The ideas behind the food pyramid combined with farm subsidies have been a major factor in the rise of obesity.

up
Voting closed 0

So you're saying circumcision is a scam cooked up by the foreskin lobby and perpetrated by the government? Sounds plausible.

Here's an idea, why don't you just go off into your little corner, practice "family bed" and keep telling yourself that itching and burning you're feeling is an orgasm while the rest of us who don't want to leave skeletons pockmarked with the syph and would rather not have to experience penile cancer in their lifetimes. Much like the folks who have the fossils win the evolution debate, we the clipped have the CDC. Put up some numbers, sacred cow eaters. Here's an idea: Why don't you just dig up the Canadian government's reasoning for dropping circumcision. My guess is that they consider it an elective, like a nonesssential tonsilectomy or appendectomy. I'm also guessing they don't cover nonessential mastectomies, either, regardless of whether or not the patient is genetically inclined toward breast cancer.

Circumcision may be a "sacred cow," but it's a hell of an effective prophylaxis against the statistically significant maladies the CDC mentions.

up
Voting closed 0

look at WHO rates for all of the "important maladies" you are dredging up here, and see that other developed countries with low circumcision rates actually have better outcomes.

Yeah, I know - reality is a real pain in a global world.

I'd be interested in your public health background - and your definition of statistically significant versus statistically valid and generalizable. You can get a statistically significant outcome in a study that lacks power and doesn't properly control for confounding variables. That doesn't make it valid.

up
Voting closed 0

You haven't presented one bit of evidence yet, Double X Chromosome.

up
Voting closed 0

You are being ridiculously angry and defensive over what is your right to mutilate babies.

If you had any research abilities, you would know that in parts of the world where people do not forcefully rip off part of the genitals of little boys, like Finland, Japan, I could go one with a list of at least a hundred more countries, penile cancer is as rare, or rarer, than in the US. So are STDs, and here is why: because penises who aren't circumcised don't have calluses, it takes less rough fucking to get off, with less risk of causing wounds and blood-loss.

up
Voting closed 0

You are being ridiculously naive in your effort to take away a parent's right to choose.

If you stepped beyond your agenda for just a moment, you would understand that those countries' health care and sexual education standards have a great deal to do with their cancer and STD rates. Your callus assertion is incredibly off base, as any teenager can tell you it doesn't require "rough fucking" to get off. As for the "foreskin as foreplay" argument from a few comments back, there are a lot more pleasurable, fun ways to engage in foreplay than by sticking it in. Perhaps that "vaginal dryness" has a lot more to do with people's general ignorance of foreplay in American society than with a little flap of skin on their dick.

I understand where the anti-circumcision folks are coming from: You can't ban female genital mutilation and still have a male circumcision that, at best, has minimal health benefit. However, you win nobody over to your argument when you try to portray male circumcision as some sort of ghastly abomination on par with removing a clitoris, portions of the labia and, basically, a girl's entire sexual stimuli. It just isn't. Circumcised men get on just fine and, honestly, aren't going to lament a non-significant loss in sexual stimulation they never had. As with many issues, you can only be mad at your parents about it for so long.

The better tact may be trying to make parents realize that, by having their son circumcised, they are justifying some whack job's argument for mutilating his or her daughter. Circumcision and FGM are very different things, but the former opens the door to the latter. I get that. However, in this country, taking away this not only religious, but cultural tradition and, more importantly, a parent's choice, is a very touchy subject.

Swrrly... I am against a ban and will continue to push back vehemently against anyone who calls for one. However, I think making it clear that it's an elective procedure and treating it (i.e. billing it) as such would be effective. In a private health care system, where that practice would alienate far more people than it would engender, that's going to be tough.

up
Voting closed 0

during sex, i think it's safe to say -- you're doing it wrong.

sheesh kids. a little foreplay. a little lube. and only "rough fucking" between consenting adults who like it rough.

up
Voting closed 0

Seriously, the day I start shedding blood during my normal vanilla sex is the day I quite lol. Maybe he is referring to forcible rape or something?

up
Voting closed 0

...not always the most reliable ;)

but i am a wee bit lazy today and figured it was faster and easier than writing down the gazillion articles they linked to from peer-reviewed medical journals.

up
Voting closed 0

Or not, but lets pretend anyways, mmmm k?

up
Voting closed 0

I'm in public health and aware of the problems with these studies - even if you don't consider the point of view of the scientists who are promoting them, they have serious statistical deficiencies which preclude inferences to be drawn with any degree of certainty. They got into pop culture because they validate a sacred cow - not because they have scientific validity.

Infant circumcision is unnecessary cosmetic surgery. Full stop. We should not condone it if we are to sanction female genital mutilation, and we certainly shouldn't be paying for it with our healthcare dollars! If the parents of a child with a large facial birthmark have to pay to have that birthmark removed because it is "cosmetic", then so should the parents of a child who wish to have ANY cosmetic surgery performed.

up
Voting closed 0

... i get your point on the fact that it is elective surgery, and i somewhat agree. but that is a far step from making a law that *bans* it.

up
Voting closed 0

Killing healthcare coverage makes parents think it over, and that leads to drastic reductions in the procedure. This is especially true now that it is considered to be inhumane to not use anesthesia during the procedure, which raises the costs and the risks enormously.

I would love to see it banned until the person in question can make the decision ... but killing insurance coverage goes much farther much faster.

As for the "medical benefits", then why do people in countries where this is not routine practice have lower rates of the diseases in question? Probably because universal healthcare - which doesn't pay for it - also means better access to routine and preventative care. Or, maybe, because many of the studies were done on premature or otherwise at-risk children.

up
Voting closed 0

Why is it that whenever this comes up the most vocal critics are women? Most men I know have been circumcized and none of us sit around crying about how we were mutilated. My equipment works just fine thank you and I would appreciate it if you left it be.

up
Voting closed 0

I second that. I'm glad you feel so strongly about it, but circumcision isn't an issue most people feel so badly about. I've heard women say "But you don't get a choice, you have no say," as if we're stage managing which implements are used to shape our heads as we exit the womb or what length of umbilical cord is left when they cut it. They try to use the same arguments applied to childhood vaccines, but without the detrimental effects. "You're maimed!" Really, well so are most of our friends. The fact is there is no empirical evidence that circumcision does more harm to male genetaila than good or that your presumed "cruelty" doesn't at least marginally impact spread of and succeptibility to certain diseases. If you don't want it covered by a state plan, that's fine, but a ban does not fly. Whether by parents in a child's early stages or by adults later in life, circumcision is a choice -- one those parties should be allowed to make.

up
Voting closed 0

Proponents must show that the benefits outweigh the risks in order to justify the 1) loss of consent and 2)costs of the procedure. Statements from professional pediatric physician societies and best-practice health impact assessments around the world have found otherwise, and most health care systems globally do not pay for the practice as a result.

But, hey, whodat's superstitions and sacred cows outweigh all of that medical and scientific expertise and data. Keep on believin' man!

up
Voting closed 0

How is the burden of proof on the proponents? Male circumcision is both legal and recommended by this nation's health agencies. This nation and other developed nations hashed out the "loss of consent" (again, whatever... this proceedure is being performed with either parental or patient consent) and the "cost of the procedure" isn't an issue for the private companies invovled or for state why it shouldn't be. If those opponents put forth the same effort you have, I don't forsee elective male circumcision going anywhere anytime soon. Now I'd like to know your public health background.

up
Voting closed 0

Swirrly,

Is it true that you are advocating banning the practice of male circumcision, rather than simply advocating a reduction in its popularity or its coverage under standard medical insurance?

If so, I'd like you to understand that for Jewish people, circumcision is not the faddish medical procedure that comes in and out of fashion every century or two, as it may be for elements of the general population. In Jewish tradition it is known as Brit Mila, and is the primary sign of the covenant between the individual and their deity, which stretches in its historical account all the way back to Abraham. When I say primary covenant, that is what I mean - predating the written bible and I think all other rituals.

I don't think that it matters to Jews whether the rest of the world circumcises their sons, for whatever reasons they may choose. Historically, non-Jewish medical cultures have advocated both for and against circumcision on grounds of sexual health, increasing/repressing sexual pleasure, etc. These discussions should not have religious overtones, and I would hope that people would make the best decisions available to them based on current medical knowledge.

An outright ban on male circumcision, however, would be a direct assault on one of the central aspects of Jewish life. It would be akin to banning kosher meat or bible reading.

This is unnecessary and in fact deranged. It is a natural result of a broken thought process - trying to pretend that male and female circumcision as practiced today are equivalent. Why not advocate for changes in female circumcision so that it does not permanently damage sexual function? If, over time, female circumcision cultures evolved to be a minor peck at less important parts of the anatomy, rather than the full-on clitoris removal plus occasional sewing-shut that we hear about today, wouldn't that be better for everyone?

up
Voting closed 0

How is it deranged to demand that a human male have a choice about whether a piece of his skin is cut off without his permission?

The fact that religion endorses it it irrelevant. Religion endorsed slavery, segregation and would try to keep gays from getting married. I have no problem outlawing religious practices. We follow the Constitution, not the Bible. If cannibalism were a religious practice, would you be OK with that?

The medical community has been chickenshit on this issue. They know it's not really medical necessary. We have showers and soap and we know how to communicate methods of cleanliness now we didn't eons ago. Even then it was probably largely unnecessary.

Male circumcision will no doubt be recognized as barbaric in the future for the simple fact that you're cutting up a human being when it is not *necessary* and without his permission. That. Is. Obvious. Deal with it.

up
Voting closed 0

Anondude,

How is it deranged to demand that a human male have a choice about whether a piece of his skin is cut off without his permission?

Well, I'm certainly not advocating this universally, for all people, nor for any medical reason. As I mentioned earlier, the Christian and atheist worlds seem to go through "fads", where for a hundred years or so all babies are circumcised, and then none are, etc. I don't know why this is, and if people like you want to end the current fad of universal male circumcision, I think that's fine.

It is deranged, however, to try to BAN a practice so central to Judaism, as part of your pendulum-swinging-back fad culture. Through thousands of years of shifting medical understanding, and shifting levels of comfort and security living within so many different national cultures, Jews have preserved this practice because it is key to their understanding of the covenant between their deity and Abraham. Not to over-dramatize, but many people have been imprisoned, exiled, tortured, and killed to preserve Judaism and its rituals during times when they have been banned, both in ancient empires such as Greece and Babylon, and in very modern empires such as the formerly-communist Russia.

In other words, as the flowing tides of secular ideas go back and forth on the universal benefits of circumcision, do as you see fit. But do not try to universally ban it for others.

Male circumcision will no doubt be recognized as barbaric in the future for the simple fact that you're cutting up a human being when it is not *necessary* and without his permission. That. Is. Obvious. Deal with it.

Seeing traditional male circumcision as "barbaric" is just another fad. It has been seen in many other ways before. Perhaps familiarity with truely barbaric practices would illustrate the difference for you.

up
Voting closed 0

"Jews have preserved this practice because it is key to their understanding of the covenant between their deity and Abraham."

That is not true. This "covenant" is a fiction and therefore cannot be understood in the way you are implying. "Understanding" such a covenant would be like "understanding" what was in the mind of the white whale, Moby Dick. Nothing can be a "key" to this understanding, because such understanding is not possible. It terrifies me to perceive that you are serious about mutilating the innocent bodies of little boys and girls because you think that GOD has told you to. This is perfectly psychotic. You need to see a doctor.

up
Voting closed 0

Calm down, Sabby. Let's not get that leather vest in a twist.

up
Voting closed 0

I am glad that you say "We follow the Constitution." The last time I checked, Amendment 1 to the Constitution of these United States says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..." What you are proposing, i.e. banning male circumcision for Jewish people is a clear violation of Amendment 1 to the U.S. Constitution.

up
Voting closed 0

I do not agree with the bill but we have banned religious practices in the past. Actually the ban on the same practice on females has been banned even though many Muslims hold that it is part of their religious beliefs.

up
Voting closed 0

...whose sect favors polygamy (and authorizes marriages of very young teens).

up
Voting closed 0

And not planning to circumcise any boy-children.

Many of the Bambara people of West Africa believe that people will die if they touch a clitoris.

Do you support allowing Americans with this cultural belief to mutilate their female children?

up
Voting closed 0

Jew here - And not planning to circumcise any boy-children.

Well, your boys will then not be part of the most constant and consistent aspect of the Jewish covenant with the lord since, literally, thousands of years ago. That is of course your choice. But it is not a "Jewish" perspective, as I'm sure you'll agree.

Many of the Bambara people of West Africa believe that people will die if they touch a clitoris.
Do you support allowing Americans with this cultural belief to mutilate their female children?

Well, actually Eeka I brought up this piece of deranged reasoning specifically in my last post. You have a situation where there is a truly bad practice (female genital mutilation, which in that case practically removes the clitoris and permanently damages sexual function of women in a major way) and a practice that doesn't hurt Jews and is core to the religion.

For whatever reasons, ignorance or political correctness, some people find it impossible to construct a world view where they can think about the two practices separately. So my response, as above, is that a better response might be to consider:
1. Traditional male circumcision and full-on clitoris removal aren't really the same
2. Why is the male version less harmful, or perhaps in some cases beneficial? Because it doesn't remove vital organs or cause horrible damage
3. So perhaps a better response to the problem would be to encourage the Bambara people to make their ritual less harmful

Do you not agree that that might be a better path, or are you committed to the idea of banning traditional male circumcision outright?

up
Voting closed 0

"Why not advocate for changes in female circumcision so that it does not permanently damage sexual function?"

Are you fucking insane? I won't advocate for that because there is not the tiniest reason to modify any healthy girl's sexual organs in any way. Where on Earth would you get such an idea?

"In Jewish tradition [circumcision] is known as Brit Mila, and is the primary sign of the covenant between the individual and their deity"

Oh, I see! You ARE fucking insane.

up
Voting closed 0

You'll never know what loss of sensation you're experiencing as a result of your circumcision. Men who have gotten it done in adulthood, usually for religious reasons, claim that the sensation loss is significant. Why do that to someone? It's cruel...

up
Voting closed 0

Oh, word?:

up
Voting closed 0

That study was carried out by proponents of circumcision on paid volunteers for circumcision. There's bias already. (It was carried out in order to make circumcision more palatable in sub-Saharan Africa.)
"From baseline to month 24, rates of any reported sexual dysfunction decreased from 23.6 percent to 6.2 percent for the circumcised group, and from 25.9 percent to 5.8 percent for the uncircumcised group." So something else altogether made a big improvement in their sexual function during the course of the study, whether they were circumcised or not. Without knowing what that something was, who's to say it didn't affect the circumcised men more than the intact men? And this was a very short-term study. The effects of circumcision are lifelong.

The news story above is written as if the proposed law is picking on Muslims and Jews. The wording quoted is actually exactly the same as existing state and federal laws outlawing female genital cutting. Do those laws pick on the religions and cultures that practise that?

up
Voting closed 0

Biased study? The CDC as "circumcision proponents?" C'mon.

"Female genital cutting." Not quite the language used in existing law, Hugh. Again, a HUGE difference between female genital MUTILATION and male circumcision. One is the complete eradication of genital sexual sensation. The other is a piece of inconsequential skin removed from the penis. I love how you people can't draw the distinction.

up
Voting closed 0

What I can't imagine is how fast I'd be if I were uncut with all of the added sensation you're claiming I'd have! My current girlfriend already says I finish way too fast!

Just kidding.

I don't have a girlfriend right now.

...

See. This right here is why guys don't talk about this in serious discussion, Suldog.

up
Voting closed 0

n/t

up
Voting closed 0

As for the "medical benefits", then why do people in countries where this is not routine practice have lower rates of the diseases in question? Probably because universal healthcare - which doesn't pay for it - also means better access to routine and preventative care. Or, maybe, because many of the studies were done on premature or otherwise at-risk children.

Not to mention a sex education curriculum that goes beyond "abstinence only". That probably has more to do it than a piece of skin.

up
Voting closed 0

...a lot of the HIV/AIDS studies were done on adult males (and females) in africa, where the disease rate is pretty darn high.

up
Voting closed 0

Correlation is not causation. Those lovely studies didn't consider any factors or influences on sexual behavior, partner choices, etc.

For example: men who are circumcised in Africa probably come from more religious families or communities than those who don't. Where said community and family morals might influence that child, when they grow up, to have sex with fewer partners, or not with high-risk ones (ie prostitutes.) The community may have more monogamous, long-term/life-long partners. They probably have fewer intravenous drug users, too. And it has fuck-all to do with the actual circumcision.

SHOCKING. Yet not considered. Most of the studies just said "hey, look, guys who are circumcised don't spread AIDS! We can prevent SCARY AIDS by circumcising boys!" You know what that is? That's Cargo Cult Science.

I'd be willing to bet that if you sewed a woman shut she'd be FAR less likely than the general population to get AIDS (and far less likey to spread it, too.) How do you feel about that? Huh. So, let's get this straight: it's okay to mutilate a boy, in the interests of preventing disease- but not to do the same to a girl?

We don't even have to go to those extremes. When a vaccine came out for HPV and the state debated requiring it, there was a holy shitstorm from parents about it. Funny how it's okay to mutilate your boy's penis for life for "sanitary reasons" or on religious grounds, but a shot in the arm to possibly save your daughter's life and keep them from carrying a disease that would kill others? HELL NO.

up
Voting closed 0

Brett and I are on the same page. Cargo cult science, indeed! And when will my health insurance pay for my sons to get the HPV vaccine?

As for Shady, well, I'm the mother of two boys who remain as the universe equipped them because I did my research and found out that it was a bogus mythological practice in the vast majority of cases. Their peers who were born in Hong Kong or Shanghai or Sydney are similarly unaltered. Their altered peers range from "who cares" to openly angry that their parents removed something without their consent - if I am to believe what my boys report.

Consent is the key word here. Most women can grok that issue. However, if you try to argue on a "woman's issues" forum that clipping boys is genital mutilation, be prepared to see a whole lot of minimization and dismissal of the very same issues that female mutilation raises, as well as charges of antisemitism! So I wouldn't be so quick to say that women are the promoters of this - it could just be that the public health field itself is gender balanced and that leads to your perception.

up
Voting closed 0

The FDA approved Gardasil for men and boys between 9 and 26 in October this past year. If your insurance was covering Gardasil for women and girls, it would probably cover men and boys now.

up
Voting closed 0

They had their physicals in September. I'll ask about it next time!

up
Voting closed 0

I have not ever once heard a guy complain about being "altered" and I grew up in situations where I was naked around other guys for numerous reasons (sports etc) and do not recall there being many people around here that still had the flap they were born with (maybe they changed out of view???) I even grew up at the tail end of the time when showers in facilities for boys were going from group shower to every boy gets his own little corral. Being the good catholic boys most of us were we of course openly talked about everything as soon as our parents and other adults left the room. I never even heard of there being a commotion about this until COLLEGE when I was in a history class and we hit the topic of feminism in other countries. The guys in the class were all kinda grossed out by what happened to the girls in Muslim countries but were unmoved when a group of our female classmates decided to try to convince us that it was the same as male circumcision. I remember having a talk with my mother about it once as a kid, we went over the reasons, they made sense and then I shelved it.

Honestly it disturbs me more that you have had enough conversations with your sons about other boys penises to gauge a consensus on the issue.

up
Voting closed 0

If I wanted my teen to have insurance-paid liposuction, because of the health benefits of self-esteem and all that, would you like your insurance money to pay for that? Especially if the law said I could force my kid to have that surgery, whether he or she wanted it or not? The costs are similar.

Most countries do not pay for this because it isn't necessary and entails risks common to any surgical procedure. Why should our health care dollars subsidize the practice?

up
Voting closed 0

...between sort of talking about this as a human rights issue and talking about it from a money/insurance issue. since this bill has nothing to do with insurance (but you keep referencing it), i am curious if your vehement argument still stands? am i correct in understanding that you have concerns that aren't money?

up
Voting closed 0

I have serious human rights concerns about this - not the least of which have to do with the legal precedent in this country where parents can compel even a non-infant child to undergo circumcision against his will. There was a recent case where a father successfully petitioned a court to force his adolescent son to be circumcised because he, the father, converted to Judaism. (although there was also a medical opinion that any doctor who performed the surgery on an unwilling child would have their license revoked, so I don't know if the kid actually was forced to go though with it) This ruling is only one "gender equity" argument away from removing the legal restrictions that prevent families from forcing their daughters to be mutilated.

That said, the best way to reduce or eliminate the practice, from a practical standpoint, is to do as other developed countries have done: make the parents pay for it and require the use of anesthesia for the surgery as recommended by pediatric medical societies. When Canada did this, there was an immediate and permanently large drop in surgeries.

up
Voting closed 0

I'm Jewish, and observant, and I think that SO goes against Jewish teachings. But I also don't think it's a whole hell of a lot different than forcing an infant to be circumcised when s/he can't give consent. If you grow up and then feel it's important to be circumcised, knock yourself out.

up
Voting closed 0

Hi Eeka,

I'm Jewish, and observant, and I think that SO goes against Jewish teachings.

I understand where you are coming from, but this is ignorant. Many different schools of Jewish thought have debated the role, necessity, and form of male circumcision for thousands of years. You SO should read up on those Jewish teachings you reference.

You are absolutely free to choose whatever you want to do for yourself and your own children. Why must your first response not be to opt-out, but to ban? It is wrong.

up
Voting closed 0

@ShadyMilkMan - I have not ever once heard a guy complain about being "altered"

Hello. I was circumcised at birth and I do not like it. I even wrote about it on my blog. I, like many other circumcised men, am restoring my foreskin. The difference is amazing. My wife and I really like my restored foreskin. She no longer sufferes from soreness and vaginal dryness. I know both ways: circumcised and having a foreskin. Having a foreskin, even a restored one, is much better. It really ticks me off that part of my sex organ was removed at birth. I would prefer to have all my bits, thank you.

Circumcision was introduced in the United States to curb the sexual desires of boys and girls. Female circumcision stopped in the 1960s and was made illegal in 1996. But, male circumcision continues even though there is no overwhelming health reason to cut the genitals of infant boys. It is time for this Victorian era practice to end. Unfortunately, there are too many men who let their egos get in the way of recognizing that male circumcision removes part of the sex organ.

up
Voting closed 0

I'm complaining about having been altered without my consent.

Happy?

If you need more testimonials I'll round them up.

up
Voting closed 0

I was circumcised as an infant. While my dick seems to work just fine, and I've never had any complaints from my sexual partners, I am mightily pissed (absolutely no pun intended) that this surgery was done on me.

I could go on and turn this into a major rant, but I won't. As I say, my dick still works. And, heck, I only wonder about lost functionality every other time I take a piss. No, nothing to complain about.

I did feel the need, however, to stem any talk about "no men ever say they are affected by it" or whatever other nonsense. The only reason you don't here more men saying bad things is because it had become somewhat of a societal norm here in America. Now that people are actually questioning it, there may be more people willing to express their displeasure with having had this done to them when they could not fight it or have any say concerning it.

Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com

up
Voting closed 0

(and yes, "displeased" might be the wrong word, but you know what i mean). i ask every man i have dated their opinion on it, since i don't have a penis. i am always curious how they feel about it, would they do it to their son if they had one, etc. just because it is now the american norm, doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed. it always should be. it's important.

in fact, i am sort of fascinated with this UH discussion, and i am glad it's being talked about, even if i disagree with the proposed bill ;)

up
Voting closed 0

OK, maybe a couple of things.

The reason anyone probably doesn't hear men more often expressing displeasure with this procedure is because not a lot of men discuss their genitals in a serious way with other men. Whatever the reason - perceived homosexuality, macho posturing, some sort of stoicism - men do a lot of joking but not much serious discussing. This is the first time, in my entire life, where I've been more-or-less asked if I thought it was something good or not. And even Shady's dismissal wasn't a direct question; it was a statement.

The other thing I'd like to ask, of those who see circumcision as a boon, is this: If it's so frickin' beneficial and wonderful and all that, why don't we just circumcise all male animals as a matter of course? Give me a good reason for confining it only to humans and maybe I'll listen. Until then, no.

Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com

up
Voting closed 0

There's no need to do so to all of our male animals (assuming you mean pets and livestock). For the most part, we control our male animals' sex lives to keep them from pairing and spawning in ways we'd rather select against. In fact, circumcision would be tame...most male animals we neuter/geld as a matter of course (ever see the Dirty Jobs where Mike Rowe learns to pull out sheep testicles with his teeth?). Only the few that we choose for breeding would ever matter when it comes to wondering about circumcision. My guess is that they aren't usually planned to be alive long enough for it to matter anyways.

I'd bet most of our male animal compatriots would probably LOVE it if we were to only circumcise them instead.

up
Voting closed 0

... most would probably be quite happy if circumcision were the limit (and they had the knowledge of what it could have been.) However, even though my asking about it looks like a joke, it isn't. Let's confine the question to those animals we need for breeding, if that helps to focus. Again: If it's a beneficial procedure - lessens disease, whatever other reasons - then why not do it to farm animals, pets, etc.?

Proponents? Have an answer?

Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com

up
Voting closed 0

Breeders, as well as most farm animals, are kept relatively disease free for obvious reasons and I doubt the male pigs are Jewish. No matter what reasons there are for humans to be circumcised (and I'm making no assumption for or against the procedure), they will not correlate to the same living conditions/religions/lifestyles/etc of the animals in the way you're looking for. It's an impossible analogy to correlate to our own purposes for circumcision.

up
Voting closed 0

If we can't correlate, then that provides a good basis for reasoning that, at the least, it cannot be proven as clearly beneficial, no? I mean, you've got a liver, a pig has a liver, we know what happens if either of you loses that liver. It's bad. On the other hand, if you have a nasty parasite, and a pig has a nasty parasite, we know what happens when either of you is rid of the parasite. It's good.

But, if you have a foreskin, and a pig has a foreskin, the proponents of circumcision are willing to tell you that it's a good thing for you to get rid of the foreskin, but none of the supposed benefits are beneficial enough to matter to any other species?

Ah, skip it. This is just getting too weird. Still bugs me, though.

Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com

up
Voting closed 0

But then we'd have more to worry about from Snowball and Napoleon.

You know, the more I reread that subject line...I think I am going to skip it.

up
Voting closed 0

and it takes FOUR SKIN DIVERS to get that accomplished!

Haw haw haw!! hyuk hyuk hyuk!

up
Voting closed 0

but pigs don't have a foreskin. they have a penis that retracts into their belly, protecting it.

most animals do not have a foreskin like humans do. they have an extension of their skin and cartilage which forms a protective sheath.

up
Voting closed 0

"...forms a protective sheath."

Which is the main function of the foreskin, is it not? Ergo... something.

up
Voting closed 0

just saying that it's not growing off the penis, it's growing off the belly or groin.

and now i really think we've all spent a wee bit too long talking about pig penises. i am starting to feel a little pervy here. and not in the good way.

up
Voting closed 0

It brings new meaning to Pigs in a Blanket.

up
Voting closed 0

The American health establishment touts the benefits of male circumcision to prevent disease when they should be pushing the use of condoms and monogamy. As long the American health establishment and Jewish/Muslim religious and cultural adherents can get health insurers to cover male circumcision, then it will keep happening, regardless of the fact that any kind of circumcision is barbaric and primitive and archaic. Overwhelmingly, male and female circumcision seek to reduce sexual pleasure and thus, curb and control sexuality of both genders. I'm all for circumcision of consenting, competent adults. Leave children and vulnerable adults alone.

up
Voting closed 0

FGM and male circumcision are vastly different beasts. FGM is full removal of the clitoris. Male circumcision is removal of the foreskin. BIG difference. The latter would be the equivalent of scratching the clitoris. The former would be like lopping off the penis. Debate male circumcision on its own merits, but DO NOT equate it to FGM.

up
Voting closed 0

Uh, no, the female equivalent would be to amputate the clitoral hood. Do you think it would be OK to do that to girls? After all, they'd still have the clitoris! I mean, it would be quite desensitized since it'd have nothing to keep it moist and protect it, but it would still be there!

up
Voting closed 0

Thats simply not try anymore. The HIV study wasn't even completed! And it was in a country with low condom use. Condoms are better than circumcision for reducing HIV, STD's. Boys who are cleaned properly, do not get more UTI's than girls (actually way less). When the foreskin is forcibly retracted for excessive cleaning, infections occer more often. The foreskin should not be manipulated until it loosens in it's own in later childhood. Also the US have high rates of circumcision and high rates of HIV so the HIV argument does not hold water. And penile cancer is so rare, and the difference so miniscule that it dies not make sense to risk infections, mutilation and death. Yes, death.

up
Voting closed 0

"Infections, mutilation and death."

You act as if this is a new procedure that hasn't been performed for centuries. There's about as much risk of the above as there is in a tonsillectomy. Anon, good nurse, anon.

up
Voting closed 0

Circumstitions

Easy enough to Google many other pages detailing the rates of infection and mutilation, among other hideousness. This was just the first I clicked onto.

Just because something has been done for centuries, that doesn't mean it isn't potentially dangerous.

Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com

up
Voting closed 0

When girl is circomsized it is very different than that of a boy. What you speak of is only one form of the female circomsizion, and they both have to do with the removial of the clitoris.
Here is writings of the matter out my college textbook:
Clitoridectomy. Cultures in some parts of Africa and the Middle East ritually mutilate or remove the
clitoris, not just the clitoral hood. Removal of the clitoris, or clitoridectomy,is a rite of initiation into
womanhood in many of these predominantly Islamic cultures. It is often performed as a puberty ritual
in late childhood or early adolescence(not within a few days of birth, like male circumcision). In modernday
Egypt, the vast majority of female adolescents, aged 10 to 19, are circumcised (El-Gibaly et al., 2002).The clitoris gives rise to feelings of sexual pleasure in women. Its removal is an attempt to ensure the
girl’s chastity, because it is assumed that uncircumcised girls are consumed with sexual desires. Cairo physician Said M. Thabit says “With circumcision we remove the external parts, so when a girl wears tight nylon underclothes she will not have any stimulation.”What effects does it have on the sexuality of women? A study of 250 female patients from the Maternal and Childhood Centers of Ismailia, Egypt, found that those who were circumcised were 80% more likely to complain of dysmenorrhea, 49% more likely to complain of vaginal dryness during intercourse, 45% more likely to lack sexual desire, 49% less likely to be pleased by sex, and 61% more likely to have difficulty reaching orgasm (El-Defrawi et al., 2001). But some groups in Egypt and in the Sudan simply perform clitoridectomies
because it is a social custom that has remained unchallenged (Missailidis & Gebre-Medhin, 2000). It is usually done by women to women (Nour, 2000). Some perceive it as part of their faith in Islam. However, the Koran—the Islamicbible—does not authorize it (Nour, 2000). The typical young woman in this culture does not grasp that she is a victim. She assumes that clitoridectomy is part of being female. As one young woman told gynecologist Nawal M.Nour (2000), the clitoridectomy hurt but was a good thing, because now she was a
woman. In many locales, clitoridectomies are performed under unsanitary conditions
without benefit of anesthesia. Medical complications are common, including infections, bleeding, tissue scarring, painful menstruation, and obstructed labor. The procedure is psychologically traumatizing. An even more radical form of clitoridectomy, called infibulation or Pharaonic circumcision, is practiced widely in the Sudan. Pharaonic circumcision involves complete removal of the clitoris along with the labia minora and the inner layers of
the labia majora. After removal of the skin tissue, the raw edges of the labia majora are sewn together. Only a tiny opening is left to allow passage of urine and menstrual discharge (Nour, 2000). The sewing together of the vulva is intended to ensure chastity until marriage.

My reference comes from my college class reading on human sexuality, from: Human Sexuality in a World of Diversity, Sixth Edition, by Spencer A. Rathus, Jeffrey S. Nevid, and Lois Fichner-Rathus. Published by Allyn and Bacon.
Copyright © 2005 by Pearson Education, Inc.

up
Voting closed 0

The foreskin is a normal body part. It is really no different from the clitoral hood of a woman.

The parents have no right to amputate a normal, healthy body part. This is ultimately a civil rights issue, plain and simple. As men, we do not demand any special rights or privileges. We merely demand the SAME rights and privileges afforded to women.

The hygiene issue is no excuse. We teach our little girls how to clean their private parts. If a little girl can be trusted to clean her private parts, then I'm sure that a little boy can be trusted to clean his. As a male, I find it to be VERY insulting to my intelligence (and also very degrading) to think that I somehow can't be trusted to keep my private parts clean, even though a little girl can clean her private parts without any trouble.

If I am ever able to track down the thief who stole my foreskin, then I WILL file assault charges.

up
Voting closed 0

... there is a bit of a difference, physically, between keeping a foreskin clean and keeping a vagaina clean. vaginas are basically self-cleaning.

please note, i am *not* saying that little boys can't easily be taught to keep themselves clean. they can. it should be part of parenting to teach your boy children. just that it's not exacly the same as little girls.

and if you want to go after the person who took your foreskin, i suggest looking at your parents who probably authorized its removal.

up
Voting closed 0

Indeed, I have considered suing my parents. It's just that I feel that the sick and twisted "doctor" who should have his license revoked is as much at fault as my parents. Cutting off normal body parts is something that you simply don't do.

up
Voting closed 0

Religion should not be an excuse to mutilate a healthy child in this day and age. If an adult male wants to be circumcised that should be his choice.

up
Voting closed 0

Let's also hold off on having our children attend religious ceremonies or Sunday School until they can make such decisions regarding religion for themselves.

up
Voting closed 0

Religion needs to stop being an excuse for anything that would ordinarily be viewed as abusive/illegal/harassing/discriminatory.

But taking your kids to religious observances isn't any different than making them play soccer or take piano lessons. Sure, it might not end up being their thing, but participating in any of the above (unless your religion is a lunatic fringe sect, in which case see above) is not abusive, and it probably does good things for the child's character and exposure to different things in the long run.

up
Voting closed 0

Let's also hold off on having children attend religious ceremonies or Sunday School until they're 18 and can make such decisions regarding religion for themselves.

up
Voting closed 0

Here's a topic that brings out the kooks.

Hands off my penis!

up
Voting closed 0

Scalpels off, too! Unless that is, what you as an adult, want ...

up
Voting closed 0

The American Academy of Pediatrics says it's a wash:
http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/f...

up
Voting closed 0

They AAP does not advocate for a ban, but here's the quote from the abstract and summary:

Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision.

So they do not recommend the procedure be performed routinely.

I suppose "not recommend" is not exactly the same as "recommend not", but I dispute your assertion that they "says it's a wash".

up
Voting closed 0

If you don't recommend it, but you don't recommend against it, that's a wash.

up
Voting closed 0

I recommend washing it.

up
Voting closed 0

It's illegal to cut off a girl's prepuce, or to make any incision on a girl's genitals, even if no tissue is removed. Why don't boys get the same protection? Everyone should be able to decide for themselves whether they want part of their genitals cut off.

The supposed health benefits just aren't there.

up
Voting closed 0

They will have to throw thousands of Jews into prison before we stop a sacred practice of the mystical binding of a man to his patriarchal lineage. The Romans and Babylonians tried to stop, the KGB tried to outlaw brit milah and Mivkvah, to no avail.

I have known non-religious intermarried couples where they professed not one care about tradition or circumcision, but when the child was born, a welling up of mystic transcendence helped the Jewish partner overcome cowardice to provide their sons with the requisite connection to our sacred forbears.

All you who inveigh against my holy tradition, come and fight, bring out your hostility for all to see in its naked light, we will not halt our practices, especially, Brit Milah.

G-d Damn the stain of gentile culture. The worst thing that has ever happened to this poor earth was the misled beatification of a Nazarite epileptic, and the creation of a Catholic Church.

up
Voting closed 0

I would agree, that it's unlikely to stop religious types from doing in their own homes. But it's worth it just to stop those who do it for no reason other than "daddy had it done".

up
Voting closed 0

Worth it to whom?

up
Voting closed 0

Who let Walter from "The Big Lebowski" in?

But seriously, you might want to tone down the "stain of gentile culture" and ranting against the Catholic Church, especially if you're taking a tone of religious righteousness here. What's different about your use of the term "stain" to describe gentiles-- which is actually a pretty offensive term, by the way-- and the use of the same term by anti-Semites to describe Jews?

up
Voting closed 0

... rhetoric was over the top -- Here is the "real thing" (TM)

Real live religious hate speech.

up
Voting closed 0

The real last name of your "patriarchal lineage" is Vilenski.

Rather than worrying about how well a clipped penis ties you to your mystical bonds, maybe you should start by undoing the shackles of some Catholic Irishman's transliteration on your forefather's Ellis Island forms. Your superstitious rituals aren't any better or more purposeful than any other religion's superstitions, bubala.

PS - Does it make me even more holier than thou to say that the worst thing that ever happened to Earth was the creation of ALL religions, yours included? Isn't that just the ultimate irony?

up
Voting closed 0

...cause Kaz is _rolling_ today!

up
Voting closed 0

Philip Roth, is that you?

up
Voting closed 0

Hey guy,

They will have to throw thousands of Jews into prison before we stop a sacred practice of the mystical binding of a man to his patriarchal lineage. The Romans and Babylonians tried to stop, the KGB tried to outlaw brit milah and Mivkvah, to no avail.

I'm with you there - no question...

G-d Damn the stain of gentile culture. The worst thing that has ever happened to this poor earth was the misled beatification of a Nazarite epileptic, and the creation of a Catholic Church.

Ok, lost you there pal. What on earth are you talking about? Why are you "damning" Catholics? You must be confused about the article.

I could understand if you were attacking post-religious atheistic culture, since that is where it seems that this argument is coming from. Not from any Christian church. In fact, if ever such a ban on circumcision, or for that matter kosher slaughtering, were to be enacted here for the non-religous reasons presented, I would think that the Catholic church and other organized American Christian groups would be among the first and loudest defenders of Jewish religious freedom.

Consider that possibility.

up
Voting closed 0

Since you're a crazy wacko extremist one.

up
Voting closed 0

What if it is a commandment in my religion to cut off my daughter's clitoral hood? Are you going to make a religious exemption for me?

up
Voting closed 0

Wow, and here I thought I'd had a harmless procedure done that I have no memory of (although I'm sure it hurt at the time...I couldn't walk for a year!) and, on balance, am glad was done. But now, after reading this thread, I'm going to call my folks tonight and scream at them because they've apparently mutilated me without my permission (I'm also going to have some stern words about me not signing off on that measles vaccine) and first reading reams of medical journals and weighing the opinions of thousands of properly peer-reviewed public health officials. Thanks, UH!

up
Voting closed 0

Awesome.

up
Voting closed 0

weighing the opinions of thousands of properly peer-reviewed public health officials

Pubic health officials aren't "peer reviewed." RESEARCH is "peer reviewed". And thousands of public health officials haven't studied the issue. Just because something is published does not mean it has undergone "peer review". Peer review is what happens AFTER something is published.

A handful of researchers got MONEY to CONDUCT research and then they published in journals. Which newspapers then clamored about, without mentioning the significant problems with the research.

up
Voting closed 0

..and after 4 hours the comments devolve into petty bickering over semantics. Oh, the internet.

up
Voting closed 0

I peer review articles for journals all the time - and the results of my review and reviews of other selected reviewers are tied to whether an article gets published.

Then there are Literature Reviews, which are compilations of data across articles and journals and presentations and other sources. These are then put together as a body of evidence - sometimes as a meta analysis if they are similar enough, more typically as combined figures and tables sorted different ways. The discussions and conclusions from those exercises are then peer reviewed before publication.

Example: I recently selected, convened, and moderated a panel of peer-reviewers for a large literature review of peer-reviewed journal articles. I myself was not peer-reviewed, aside from a few complements on the new glasses.

up
Voting closed 0

You seem to be an expert on everything from peer reviews, to local customs, to planning /development and now penises. Bravo

up
Voting closed 0

and five boy-years of diaper changes. With two sons and babysitting time, I've probably spent more time cleaning them than you have.

Planning, development, peer review - all part of my job with air pollution science for public policy, dearie.

up
Voting closed 0

I would imagine it would not be okay to say that genital mutilation that conforms to the religious customs of Jews and Muslims is okay, where when it conforms to the customs of other cultures, it's not.

I can't imagine this bill actually being passed, but I don't think it would at all be appropriate for the government to dictate that some religious or cultural customs are more okay than others when it comes to a specific act. Change the language of the bill so that it reflects no surgical removal of labia, etc., it might have a better shot.

up
Voting closed 0

It names all the naughty bits and then says hands-off. For EVERYONE.

up
Voting closed 0

Well, unless you want to share your toy with a friend, I would hope...

up
Voting closed 0

Sounds reasonable to me.

up
Voting closed 0

So does travelling 4,000 miles to push a piece of legislation nobody asked for just because your home state isn't receptive. Maybe you should worry about whole human beings in California before lobbying for the rights of foreskins here in Mass.

up
Voting closed 0

I imagine any number of religious traditions made sense back in the days before soap, refrigeration, or modern medicine. The fact remains that it is a procedure that was came about during the Bronze Age because dudes couldn't (or wouldn't) reliably wash their wangs with soap and water. So a couple of village shamans figured out (I don't even want to know how) that, in the absence of basic hygeine, this would help... But if you keep your wang clean, you don't have problems. Same goes for STDs. Keep your wang "clean", and you won't have problems.

up
Voting closed 0

Therefore they should be banned. Infants can't vote, so why should they decide wheteher or not they want these abominations of nature (forskins)? Cut em all off and get the pacifiers ready. Frickin babies.

up
Voting closed 0

Won't this lead to backalley circumcisions?

up
Voting closed 0

Wouldn't this ban ultimately lead to back alley circumcisions?

up
Voting closed 0

I'm sure we'd eventually have a Supreme Court decision ("Rod v. Spade"?) that would allow us to establish clinics for the procedure if you wanted it ("Planned Peener Hood"?).

up
Voting closed 0

I agree. Even though I don't think boys should have to get circumcised at birth (neither of my boys are), I don't think it should be outlawed either. That will cause too many people who still think it is "necessary" to have it done under less than ideal circumstances. Since it is am optional surgery, it should be treated as such. Instead of having insurance cover it, or letting the government pay for it, let the parents pay for it, but let them have that option.

For those who think it's the child's body, let them decide, do you let your kid decide whether or not they get their shots? It's their body, isn't it the same thing?

up
Voting closed 0

I love my foreskin, and would support a ban on circumcision. I feel bad for males that had their penis damaged. I know, I know, most of them say "it's fine, sex is good"...but very few men are able to experience sex with and without foreskin (including myself)

I do have a friend who had to get medical circumcision in his 20s. While he hated the painful week that caused....he said he preferred how sex felt while he had the extra skin, so he's glad it wasn't done at birth.

up
Voting closed 0

That's fine, but forcing your stance on others isn't going to help at all. Here's the deal: You take circumcision, we'll take abortion. There are some folks who would be just fine with that tradeoff, but I'm guessing there's be a hell of a lot that aren't. The arguments on each are too similar to ignore.

up
Voting closed 0

... is exactly what non-therapeutic neonatal circumcision does.

up
Voting closed 0

So does parenting. It's years of forcing your stance on someone else. However, there's a nuanced difference there.

up
Voting closed 0

The difference between responsible parenting and unnecessary surgery is not nuanced. It is kind of dramatic.

up
Voting closed 0

The medical community has taken a line of strict neutrality on male circumcision. That said, it is up to the parent to make that decision based on the facts presented. Many parents do just that, which constitutes responsible parenting. If a parent feels, based on statistical and empirical evidence, that the minimal hygenic and prophylactic benefit of a circumcision outweighs inaction, they and their doctor likely don't consider it "unnecessary surgery."

up
Voting closed 0

The medical industry makes lots of money with the million + infant circumcisions done every year in the US. The have a vested interest in continuing the practice of infant circumcision. Even still, the AAFP and the AAP have not found enough benefits to infant circumcision to recommend the surgery. The fact that they weasel out of condemning the procedure is most likely due to their financial conflict of interest.

It is not the parent's choice to permanently alter the body of their children absent a true medical necessity. It is unnecessary surgery because the baby is healthy and will continue to be healthy without the surgery.

His body, his choice.

up
Voting closed 0

How is NOT circumcising someone forcing anything?

Forcing = circumcise at birth. Kid never had a choice and can never take it back.

Not forcing = delay circumcision until kid is 18. Now it's a choice. He can keep the skin, or get rid of it. Everybody wins.

And no, your abortion comparison doesn't hold water.

up
Voting closed 0

How is NOT circumcising someone forcing anything?

I just don't understand this mindset, so common on this blog apparently, that if you choose to do something for your kid, you must make it universal (for medical reasons, of course). And if you choose NOT to do something for your kid, you must ban it outright (for human rights reasons, of course). I'm sure just as "highly educated" as the rest of these reflexive tyrants.

up
Voting closed 0

My abortion comparison holds plenty of water, but you chose to drink the sand.

The kid DOESN'T have a choice. That's the point. It's a parental choice -- one they are legally and morally entitled to make. A child doesn't get to chose whether it goes to school or not, a child doesn't get to chose when its parents leave it with a sitter, a child doesn't chose where it gets to live, what it gets to eat, what bed it gets to sleep on, what happens to its umbilical cord or what it is vaccinated for. It is up to a parent to make this decision, and the medical community has kept this decision in a parent's hands.

As a parent, I wouldn't want that choice stripped away based on flimsy evidence brought forth by individuals lacking the credentials to take a child's temperature.

up
Voting closed 0

Parents DO have a right to choose to vaccinate, send their children to school, etcetera. They do NOT, however, have a right to go cutting off body parts.

There are so many people like you who claim that a parent has every right to cut off a boy's foreskin. Yet I can guarantee that these are the same people who would scream bloody murder if a doctor were to do so much as make a pinprick in a little girl's foreskin.

That was a part of MY penis that they removed without MY consent (how would a woman feel if they cut off her clitoral hood)? I have to be reminded of this every time I go to the bathroom. If that alone is not a good enough reason to criminalize the practice then I do not know WHAT IS.

up
Voting closed 0

This Shouldn't even be a debate anymore. It's about time that This Sexual Abuse and Torture finally comes to an end. This mutilation with baby boys has really gone on way too long already and NEEDS to become Illegal Now. Male Genital Mutilation(Circumcision) does not reduce any diseases or is it hard to keep clean. All these "Excuses" are complete bullshit and anyone with a brain can figure that out. It's common sense that it doesn't and if it did then the US would not have such a high rate of HIV and other diseases over countries where baby boys are left Intact and they don't perform this torture and abuse. When people hear that women have their clitorises cut off in Africa, they go, "Oh, how horrible." Meanwhile why are men mutilated here every day? Of course, it's sexual mutilation. That's like saying, "You know what? If you cut off your arm you'll never get an ingrown nail on your hand!" That's a great benefit! In Africa they mutilate women and we think that’s barbaric, but we’re doing the same thing to men! Parents should not be allowed to make this decision. It should not be up to parental consent. If somebody wants to get a circumcision, let them do it when they're an adult. This seriously NEEDS to be stopped and eventually it will be against the law. It’s as barbaric as what goes on in Africa. There is no reason for circumcision, PERIOD! This is the way you are born for a reason. We’ve been conditioned to think that men aren’t clean who are uncircumcised, and it’s wrong. And it’s wrong to put kids through this kind of pain. There’s no reason for it at all!

up
Voting closed 0

Wah

up
Voting closed 0

... did you go to the public hearing on 3.2.10? did you voice your concerns?

up
Voting closed 0

Hi Nickolas,

This Shouldn't even be a debate anymore. It's about time that This Sexual Abuse and Torture finally comes to an end. This mutilation with baby boys has really gone on way too long already and NEEDS to become Illegal Now.

I know you feel strongly because you capitalized "Sexual Abuse and Torture". You may have some difficulty convincing me that I have been abused and tortured, however. But beyond that, something important needs to be brought to your attention: Circumcision is not mandatory. It is a choice left up to each set of parents.

Why don't you campaign to convince free individuals to not make this choice?
Why is tyranny your first resort?

up
Voting closed 0