Hey, there! Log in / Register
Copley Square protester not working for tips
By adamg on Thu, 10/01/2015 - 11:05am
J. Tammaro spotted this "intactivist" in Copley Square this morning, urging people to vote against circumcision, even though there are no circumcision-related ballot questions in the works for the 2016 ballot.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
(No subject)
What is this, a picture for
What is this, a picture for ants?!
Who do we thank for this "tip
Who do we thank for this "tip"?
I work in Copley and see
I work in Copley and see these people out there every few weeks on my way home. Seems like a pretty strange cause to get this passionate about.
Protesting the pinning down
Protesting the pinning down of newborns and removing parts of their sex organs for religious/aesthetic reasons in a modern society isn't a worthwhile cause?
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_LfLvqfh2GMM/TCo6ztOoXII/AAAAAAAAAE4/wMQwsePS4p...(2).JPG
i have never met a guy who
i have never met a guy who wished he could turn back the clock and stop his circumcision from happening. protesting it seems like a foolish platform for a normal person to have... only a pedo would be so concerned about baby dong.
Such people do exist
I don't have a dog in this hunt, but there are men who feel pretty strongly about this. I know that most people consider it a jokey topic, but it isn't a joke to everyone (not even getting into the, ah, accidents that happen sometimes during circumcisions, resulting in more than the loss of a little bit of skin).
How many have you asked?
I find that really hard to believe. Most likely, you have never actually talked to anyone about their circumcision.
I actually have talked about this topic with quite a few guys over the years, and it's pretty common for them to wish they were uncut. I'm one of them.
Hello!
My name is Jim; some folks call me Suldog. Now that you've met me, feel free to recant your post.
Most guys aren't going to talk about their circumcision. It's past history, nothing can be done about it, so why discuss it? However, if I am asked if a child should have it done, I will vehemently argue against it, as will some others, I'm sure.
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
please explain why you would
please explain why you would undo the procedure? what ill effects did it cause you? or is this some sort of sovereignty-of-the-body thing?
Ban it on babies
Circumcision is NOt the problem - it's doing it to children that is the problem. Make them wait until the child is an adult and let the adult choose whether or not they want to be circumcised.
Performing this on infants is barbaric and it amazes me that hospitals still do it (to children)!!!
I'm circumcised and proud of it
Or at least I'm not ashamed of it. And it wasn't done for religious purposes (though if I ended up going the Judaism route, it will be easier.)
Most guys don't talk about it since most guys don't remember what was going on with their lives when they were a month old (and yes, I do know it is done earlier than a month.)
There is nothing medically wrong with circumcision, and as long as I have a functioning penis, why should anyone care about the decisions my parents made back in the day?
Nothing medically right about it
In fact, it has nothing to do with medicine at all. Except for the fact that any surgery involves risk of complications ... medical complications that aren't necessary for a newborn to risk.
You have never met my husband, then
Or my kids, who have thanked us repeatedly for not foisting compulsory, non-consenting cosmetic surgery on them.
I also wonder how long it will be before a family sues for the right to have their girls mutilated because it is legal for boys to be circumcised.
I would also like to see it banned from insurance absent valid medical indication. That got rid of much of the practice in Canada, as it is entirely cosmetic.
"Or my kids, who have thanked
"Or my kids, who have thanked us repeatedly" Really, repeatedly?
Resident Gay Guy here
Wow.. and the resident gay man on Uhub I'll say..
I'm cut. I'm glad I was cut. And I'm glad many other guys are cut.
However, for me its about a hygiene issue. I can't tell you how many times I've gone down in a guy and they've had 'cheese' or a strong fishy odor down there. I know it's gross to think about it, it's true. Some guys don't understand the meaning of "Personal Hygiene", especially if they are uncut.
Yeah people need to clean and take care of it, but I know some guys who have excessive skin, and even after a few hours after a shower and being trapped in your undies.. that smell and cheese can re-appear. And then of course, the guys who don't clean well.... ewww :)
From this point of view.. at least in gay world, it's a toss up. Many like uncut and many do not. It all relative to who you ask and the audience you are asking it to. Some people say uncut is more sensitive (and I can second that from personal experience with other men), but cut guys will say the same thing. So again. It's a wash.
However, I know three different guys who had reconstructive surgery to bring back the skin. And I know two guys who had circumcision as an adult.. you want to talk about painful? It's very painful (*watches every guy in the room grab their crotch with a look of pain on their face*)
Someone asked above why you would want to undo it. From what I was told by the three different guys who had it done.. most said it was about sensitivity down there. But one said it was a 'liberating' to do so.
If I had a child, would I want him cut? Yes I would. But for me, it's more about cleanliness than anything else.
(and wow this post just made me look like a big old whore.. but I do speak from a lot of experience with men)
Question for Cybah
Do you honestly think a blowjob is safe sex?
In other words, intact or not, shouldn't a casual encounter involve a condom?
As my mother used to say, and now I say as a mother: "If you can't be good, BE SANITARY!"
Really don't wanna answer that
I really don't wanna answer that Swirl. Because the term 'safe sex' is relative to who you ask. If you ask someone in the medical field, yes they are going to tell you to use a condom for oral.
But for most gay men.. you are liable to get dirty looks if you say "please wait let me put a condom on before you blow me". Only because most gay men I know won't have oral sex with a condom on. You lose most of the feeling with a condom on.
Can you define 'safe sex'?
Oral sex is considered a pretty safe sexual act. Even without a condom oral sex is very low risk for all STD's and close to zero for HIV.
TMI
just sayin'
oh i know
but I can bring alot to the conversation about cut vs uncut :D I have a lot personal experience.
You don't speak for me honey
I'm gay, too, and you, my friend are an embarassment to to my community. Perhaps your negative experiences with intact men are the result of your slumming with low rent pieces of trash? Maybe you're such a gross and nasty bear that only dirty pigs will have anything to do with you, thus your negative experience.
Wow..just wow! I thought I liked you until I read this ignorant diatribe.I expect more from "My People".
Get out the popcorn!
For this fight! Maybe Cybah wasn't doing his favors in the tea room where the boys could wash.
maybe you should
Sounds like you need to get the stick out of your ass.
Ignorant? ha! Embarrassment? really? Not everyone sits home on Friday nights and watches reruns of Sex in the City while downing a tub of Ben and Jerry's.
Sounds like someone is jealous because some of us are getting some while others (you) are not.
Thats becasue
they have no idea what those extra thousand nerve endings feel like. Can't miss what you never had....
Oddly
That guy's getup has me craving KFC.
(It's been at least a fortnight. Damn you Col. Sanders!)
Saw two other protesters
with these same signs a few weeks ago at DTX. The back of one sign said "Don't cut baby penis." It was kind of bizarre.
More graphic protesters
In front of the BPL.
Sorry but why is this just making me laugh?
I won't make any middle-school level jokes but good heavens...the bloody crotch--really? If this is the biggest worry these guys have...I have never met anyone who regretted being circumcised or seemed to be suffering in any way because of it. Comparing it to any kind of FGM is plain ridiculous, unless you can find some poor fellow who had the end lopped off or maybe the whole thing sewn shut.
See Posting Entitled "Hello!", Above
Insofar as comparisons, I only do so because I think BOTH practices are hideous. One is usually more so (although there have been many cases of botched circumcisions. Some, in earlier days before total understanding of the psychological implications, were resolved via reconstructive surgery and the raising of the boy child as a female. For instance, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer)
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
one practice is rooted in
one practice is rooted in preventing women from enjoying sex, the other comes from goofy religious and hygiene concerns, but does not, by design, prevent sexual pleasure. they are not in the same ballpark, the same league, sport or universe.
Sorry, It's no laughing matter...
when you've seen it botched, as I have, even to the point of sex-reassignment surgery. It's just NOT necessary to take that risk on a perfect, newborn baby boy. And, it's not a universally accepted practice, even in developed countries. Heck, it wasn't even common in the USA pre-World War II.
However, even though I am opposed to routine male circumcision, I wouldn't equate it with FGM either.
Well, of course.
There's nothing funny about any botched surgery on anyone but the sight of a grown man acting out what looks like a seventh grade girl's menstrual nightmare to protest male circumcision IS funny. And of course there are risks to any surgery but the positives seem to outweigh the risks. http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2012/08/27/159955340/pediatrici...
Very funny headline!
However, it is a medically unnecessary procedure, in most cases, and not without risks.
Meh
I had the snip-snip as did most of my friends. No one got sick or hurt.
I don't see what the big deal is. I'm just as happy to have had the operation done (as an infant).
People say there are no side effects
I couldn't walk for a year :(
When did you have it done?
I haven't been keeping up on the research other then knowing this procedure is almost universal done to Jewish infants.
Also as an infant
'twas meant as a joke.
ha
I'm still looking for that spot on the ceiling where they said someone wrote gullible.
*WHOOSH*
*WHOOSH*
Oddly Enough...
... there are also lots of women who were victims of genital mutilation who will gladly perform the same on another female.
( See "Who Performs FGM" )
No bullshit - if you are just fine with having had the operation performed on you, good for you. Me? I would have liked having the opportunity to decide for myself, thanks.
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
But...
If I was going to have it done I'd want it to be done as an infant and infants can't make decisions. It's not like ear piercing or a tattoo.
Unlike FGM I believe this should be left up to parents and their [board certified] doctors.
Like I Said...
... and I honestly mean it - If you have no problem with it having been done to you, fine. I am not as happy about it having been done to me. I have to say, however, that if you think it's LESS than an ear piercing, I'm a bit incredulous.
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
Sometimes Evolution Needs A Push
You're just so much better off. Foreskins are just plain disgusting. And since the invention of pants they have become wholly superfluous.
So...
...why don't we remove infants' appendixes and wisdom teeth?
On the one hand, it's rare to have problems as a result of the surgery. On the other hand, it's rare to have problems if you don't have the surgery. In that case, doesn't it make sense to not have the surgery unless it seems warranted in the individual case, and especially to refrain from surgery on infants and children without a clear medical need?
Non-Invasive
Removing those things, and its hardly clear the appendix is superfluous, is a little more involved.
Surgical removal of an organ covering
That's non-invasive?
Um ... I take it you never took pathophysiology.
Yeah
Of course it's more involved then ear piecing which is why it should be done shortly after birth if at all. (Ear piecing can be done once the child grows old enough to have a say.)
To say the child should be given the choice is the same as saying it shouldn't be done -- by the time the child is old enough to choose the risk of the procedure increase. It's like saying the child should have the choice between breastmilk and formula.
It's fine if you're opposed to it. I'm just annoyed at people who demonize it and the parents who make the decision.
High costs for the medical system
Circumcision is, put bluntly, a profit center for hospitals. They get to do a whole bunch of medically unnecessary work and get paid for it by insurance.
In Canada, when that full insurance subsidy of cosmetic surgery for infants was removed and parents were asked to pay out of pocket, a lot of them though a lot more deeply about what their choices were ... and didn't do it.
Your journalistic pun skills are a cut above the rest!
Saw this dude and another guy at Dewey Square a few weeks ago.
No really is this just about
No really is this just about what was/is a standard medial practice or the only remaining outlet for antisemitism?
FGM is a serious issue
FGM is a serious issue because it isn't done for medical or aesthetic reasons and has serious life altering consequences. For males it's a meh issue usually used by antisemites to literally be dickheads.
HPV is now established as the cause of cervical cancer
At one time male genital mutilation was defended due to lower rates of cervical cancer for the partners of Jewish men without knowing why.
We show our sexual, racial, and cultural bias by attacking African female genital mutilation as primitive and barbaric while defending the practice for white, European-based, Jewish male victims.
except for one key difference
Circumcision is usually performed in a hospital by a medical professional when the male is an infant. The men I know who've been circumcised are still very capable of enjoying sex. Female genital mutilation, however, is usually performed in secret, in unsanitary conditions, and in such a way that the best case scenario results in a woman deriving no enjoyment from sexual intercourse. That's after she grows up, of course: female genital mutilation is performed on girls no older than 15, in most cases, as a "rite of passage."
Institutional genital mutilation makes it OK?
Some might argue that abortion in a clinical context does not make that OK either.
Circumcision results in diminished sexual enjoyment (for the man) resulting from desensitization of the constantly exposed glans. The receptive partner may also have an opinion.
Just admit that circumcision is an archaic cultural tradition (just as FGM ones in Africa) with no rational justification.
look at you, talking about "no rational justification"!
Look, I'm an atheist, so I don't see any reason to carry on with old religious practices of any kind - but I also see that, in most cases, circumcision is far less harmful than female genital mutilation.
Nice try with the abortion red herring, btw.
(How can a man know if circumcision led to diminished sexual enjoyment if it was done when he was a baby? What's he comparing it to? Do you boys really talk about the varying degrees of ecstasy you experience in your tips?)
Sometimes, yeah
I'm a nerd, and have a notable number of weird nerd friends. We often talk about stuff like this. On one email list of which I'm a member (!), this topic was discussed at length (!) a couple years ago.
Although the self-reported frequency of coitus and ejaculation did not differ significantly between the circumscribed and uncircumscribed (about 40-50 men commented on the thread), as a group, the uncircumscribed men anecdotally reported greater sensitivity - which might mean greater pleasure during sex. About half the circumsized men said they did not have their sons circumsized (or would consider not having it done, if they were to have sons). None of the uncircumsized men said they had or would have a son circumsized.
Hard to say just how much bias was present in this informal survey, but there ya go.
interesting!
It's hard (wink, wink) to be objective on the subject, no doubt, but that's interesting to note. I've known a few circumcised guys who claimed that they were more sensitive than their uncircumcised cohorts - but I tended to dismiss that claim, because how would they know.
Someone should do a study.
Not to get too detailed but...
Can't the "sensitivity" issue go either way? Meaning--greater sensitivity doesn't necessarily equal greater pleasure. I honestly just don't see how you can compare since you can really only experience one or the other, unless you're one of those rare guys who goes in for it at age 35.
if any post called for getting too detailed, it's this one
That's true: sometimes sensitivity means pain instead of pleasure, but that could be for reasons other than whether a man is circumcised or uncircumcised. I imagine the guys who've had it done later in life are the only ones who'd be able to offer an actual comparative analysis of what it felt like before, and what it feels like now. Since most guys are either going to be cut or uncut all their lives, however, I wonder how possible it is for them to evaluate whether they think they have it better or worse.
Well
I really wasn't going to participate in this discussion, but someone else said that "pants make the need for foreskin obsolete." Actually, with that, and your comment above, the difference is likely that of a level of callousing, to an extent. The glans is very sensitive and by exposing it, it's going to endure friction that wouldn't naturally happen with the protection of the foreskin. Thus, the uncircumcised male is likely to have maintained a higher level of sensitivity due to that protective skin. The regular exposure, even to fabric, is going to cause some level of degradation in sensitivity, hardly (heh) to say that it's really detrimental to any measurable extent. But, let's be honest. Even if a guy is circumcised much later in life there still is the absence of all of those years without the protective skin around the glans. Still not going to be a fair comparison.
As far as my stance on the issue, I see it as a largely unnecessary procedure in places like the US. We are generally pretty clean (but there are exceptions, yes), and we have the proper channels to teach hygiene to our kids. But I don't really care much about the debate so much as I'd probably just refuse it if I ever have kids/boys.
Personally, I find these protesters to be funny for other reasons, although I think their motivations are like in the paragraph just above this one and nothing to do with anti-Semitism. And if they are, well, f them.
Additionally
in female genital mutliation, the labia are removed and then fused into one scar tissue organ such that the urethra and vagina empty out of one hole, and the hole remaining is not stretchy enough to accommodate intercourse or birth. Female genital mutliation renders the bulk of the reproductive system seriously damaged, by making menstruation, intercourse, and birth incredibly painful and dangerous.
Circumcision does no such thing: men who are circumcised can use their penises the same as men who are not. It does not damage the function whatsoever.
Try This
My circumcision was "perfect" (in the words of the doctor who performed it, according to notes made by my mother in a baby journal she kept.) I'm married, happily. I'm able to enjoy sex. I orgasm often and readily. However, go to Google and put in "botched circumcision", then click "images".
You will, if you have any compassion whatsoever, be sickened by what you see. And if you can look at some of those photos and still be in favor of this operation being performed on a routine basis on infant boys, with even the possibility of something like what you've seen occurring, then... well, you are what you are; I won't belabor the obvious.
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
I'll take you're word for it
rather than risk not being able to unsee those images. Good point - stuff happens.
Weak Argument
If you search google for "botched medical procedure" for any operation you'll find plenty of stories and graphics to make you lose your lunch. Plenty of people get serious infections from pieced ears too but as a percentage of total piercing it's so small as to not not make people avoid it.
What would be useful is real statistics about these procedures preformed in the US and the infection/mishap rate. It would also be good to see some hard numbers on the number of men who aren't circumcised and get various infections in that region that non-circumcised men do not get.
Cosmetic surgery
You don't need strong arguments to NOT perform cosmetic surgery on a newborn.
You need strong arguments in order to perform surgery on a newborn that is not medically indicated.
Those strong arguments are not there. Cosmetic surgery is not worth the well-documented risks of anesthesia and poor surgical outcomes. It doesn't matter how small those risks are, given that the procedure is unnecessary.
The "burden of proof" here is simply NOT on those who refuse unnecessary surgical procedures on newborns. It is on the back of those who claim that it should continue.
No one is put under general anesthesia
to get circumcised. And it is not strictly cosmetic. http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2012/08/27/159955340/pediatrici... It's up to the parents, clearly, and heavily influenced by religion and culture, but calling it "cosmetic" isn't accurate.
Any anesthesia
On a newborn, any anesthesia carries risks.
If I cut off the earlobes of a newborn because of my personal superstitions, you would call for my head. Why is it different because those superstitions are far older and shared?
Still unnecessary. Period. The rest is just shaky justification inflating extremely small risks of things happening when circumcision isn't employed, while downplaying the very real risks of unnecessary surgery on a newborn.
This is a massive waste of health care dollars. Full stop.
Also consider this
The very legality of circumcision for boys could become a legal wedge to force the legality of female genital mutilation.
As the courts seem fond of rulings that force non-assenting boys to submit to circumcision (even though the credentials of any surgeon who performs such a forced unnecessary operation on a verbally non-assenting minor can be revoked), this sort of lawsuit will eventually be brought and may prevail due to precedent.
Maybe
Maybe it's anti Muslim... They are the largest group to be circumcised... Muslims, Jews, and Americans. Most of the rest of the world I don't think has majority circumcised.
Just another
Boston slice of life.
Jokes aside,
the U.S. is the only advanced, western country (where the vast majority of people aren't Jewish or Muslim), where the majority of boys are routinely, arbitrarily circumcised at birth. Foreskin actually exists for reason, it's not just there for the hell of it. Now imagine if girls were routinely, arbitrarily circumcised in the U.S. at birth, imagine the outrage, as there is outrage and accusations of human rights abuses in societies were girls are routinely circumcised.
I'm circumcised and like it that way. But I recognize it was done to me as an infant, and I don't think that's OK; that should only be done if there are underlying health reasons, or the baby boy is in pain.
This dude is waaayyy off and leaning to the right
There is a legitimate reason for circumcision: it is found to reduce the transmission of AIDS.
http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/
I'm sure that's what new parents are thinking about
when having their baby cut. I suspect they are more thinking of their own personal discomfort at manipulating their infant boy's foreskin while bathing him, or mom's recalling encountering a less than clean foreskin when asked for a bj.
(and how do you know if he dresses to the left or right?)
There have also been several
There have also been several studies that show that circumcision does not prevent HIV (Connolly 2008)
Male circumcision and its relationship to HIV infection in South Africa: Results of a national survey in 2002, South African Medical Journal, October 2008
I'm surprised by some of the
I'm surprised by some of the comments on here (and that I might agree with Markkkk on anything), but really, there's no need for circumcision and it should be left up to the individual to decide (as in any other permanent mutilation, unlike, say, immunizations). I am not circumcised and approaching middle-age have had no problems or cleanliness issues (hey, you wash your anus and clean your ears, under your finger and toenails, and brush your teeth, don't you?).
The value of circumcision against the transmission of AIDS will never win the war against AIDS. We used to have forced sterilizations, why do we still have this?
Um, whut?
Oh. Really?
SMH
Yeah, I even upvoted Swirly
on this one, myself.
yay, i got both swirly & markkkk to reply to my comment!
who are both also against circumcision!
point is, circumcision is permanent - you can have it done when you're old enough to decide. cleanliness and sexual activity are also likely to be non-factors until you reach that age.
immunizations are important for the survival of our species, and therefore I support immunizing people who are not old enough to decide.
both, some may argue, are medically unnecessary. i suspect, however, that non-immunizers are pro-circumcision.
Bike seats also bad for male genetalia
While I suspect uncircumcised men fare slightly better in bike shorts to preserve sensitivity, men still suffer from the risks of bike seats on their junk, nerves, and blood vessels!
And now we know....
...why MarKKK hates bicycles so much. A bicycle hurt his precious wabbly bits.
Debunked years ago
That theory from the 90's was debunked years ago.
You'll have to find another excuse.
Plenty of evidence
Plenty of evidence that sedentary lifestyle is linked to ED (and cardiovascular impairment, generally), though.
It's "genitalia."
It's "genitalia."
Thanks, guys
Instead of talking to my parents about the Red Sox and upcoming travel plans tonight, like usual, I'm going to scream my head off at them for the massive violation of my person in infancy that I wasn't even aware I was furious about until today
parsing
I'm purposely having "like usual" modify the second clause here...
Either that man has an
Either that man has an uncircumcised penis or he is a hypocrite. Either way this is hilarious
If we can't break 100 posts on a circumcision post....
If we can't break 100 posts on a circumcision post, we are not worthy.
Will we make the cut?
Will we make the cut?
Be-fore you know it...
...by the skin of our teeth
I don't know...
there's pretty stiff competition.
Joke's been beaten to death,
Joke's been beaten to death, innit?
here's a fun conversation starter
Some anti-aging creams use discarded baby foreskins as one of their active ingredients: http://jezebel.com/5978961/oprahs-loves-foreskin-on-her-face
That's okay
They are parts of already born babies.
Already born babies <<<< fetuses, right?
Here's my devil's advocate question
Are the libertarians here who are opposed to male circumcision okay with the government stepping in (per the ballot proposal) and removing the choice from the parents?
And for now I'm leaving the first amendment out of this.
This Libertarian Is Just Fine With It
It's a matter of protecting the freedom of a human unable to do so for himself. Nothing could be more libertarian than that, IMVHO.
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
So
The government should be interjecting itself into the parents' role?
Mind you, I am looking at this as "should the government ban" not "male circumcision is wrong"
Parent's role?
So, you are saying that I should be allowed to make any and all surgical changes to my newborn child that I see fit? Like, have their cheeks scarified and earlobes lopped or even have their ears shaped like Mr. Spocks?
Here's a mom that doesn't know about parental rights
In short, if your kid is under 18, you decide on things like health care choices. I think the line is at child endangerment. Feel free to point out unbiased scientific studies showing male circumcision to be inherently dangerous. Meanwhile, I will rely on the American Academy of Pediatrics and the anecdotal evidence between my legs for my opinion on the matter.
Simple Question
I won't argue it being inherently dangerous (although it most certainly is intermittently so, as anyone will see by following the links or suggestions I gave above.) But, here's a very simple question: If circumcision is beneficial, why don't we circumcise all of our male animals? For instance, our pet dogs.
I guarantee if anyone did that, they'd be criminally charged and most likely excoriated in the comments on these pages.
Are young human male babies less important than dogs?
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
The AAP's support of male
The AAP's support of male circumcision is lukewarm at best and that is only since 2012. Previous to that position, they were adamantly opposed to it for decades.
btw- In a hospital setting, it's the Obstetricians who perform the procedure and bill for it.
I thought the AAP's position was neutral
Which implies that it is not a very dangerous procedure. And yes, both my son and I were snipped at the Brigham by a trained medical doctor. Of course, if these moonbats have their way, it will be done outside of the purview of medical professionals.
No, the AAP's position was
No, the AAP's position was not neutral; previous to 2012, they were opposed.
And, true, in most cases, newborn male circumcision is not dangerous until it is. The point is that it is not a medically necessary procedure and it does carry some risks as well as pain to the newborn.
This discussion reminds me of what a doctor friend once said to me: "A minor procedure is a procedure that happens to someone else."
They were neutral in 1999
See here.
I cannot believe I am looking these things up. My point is the same as the article- it's the parents' decision. Live and let live.
It's kind of like veganism. I'm cool that Senator Booker is a vegan, and that he discusses his diet. But I am a healthy meat eater, so no one should get between me and my steak tips (or any meat product we choose to feed Waquiot Jr.)
some of you guys....
are being real DICKS about this .
I'll take your word for it...
...Dick Wadd.