Cover Story

June 21, 2011

The great California foreskin fight of 2011

By Jonah Lowenfeld

Tweet

Share

As luck would have it, the day local Jewish leaders gathered in Santa Monica to discuss the community’s response to a proposed ballot measure aimed at banning circumcision in that city was the very same day the proposition was rescinded by its proponent.

Twenty-five people came to the meeting at the Milken Family Foundation offices on Fourth Street on June 6, including high-ranking Jewish professionals, local rabbis of all stripes and other Jewish community leaders.

Catherine Schneider, senior vice president for community engagement at The Jewish Federation of Greater Los Angeles, who orchestrated the two-week-long effort to fight the proposed ballot initiative, said the prevailing atmosphere in the room that morning was of deep concern.

“People had very strong opinions of what this would mean for their communities,” Schneider said.

“One of the concerns that I had was that people not look at this and say, ‘Look what those nuts in Santa Monica are doing,’ ” said Richard Bloom, the city’s mayor, who attended the June 6 meeting. Bloom, who is Jewish, spoke first. He pledged his full support to fight against the measure.

Bloom’s other concern — one expressed by many others at the meeting — was that people might not take the situation seriously. An entire genre of Jewish humor focuses on ritual circumcisers, or mohelim. (Have you heard the one about the wallet? How about the one about the storefront with the clock in the window?)

But aside from writers of pun-filled newspaper headlines, nobody involved in this fight is joking.

A measure identical to the one submitted and quickly rescinded in Santa Monica is set to appear on the ballot in San Francisco in November 2011. If passed, the new law would make circumcision of a minor — for any reason other than a medical emergency — a misdemeanor, punishable by a $1,000 fine and one year in county jail. The Bay Area Jewish Community Relations Council (JCRC) is currently leading a broad-based campaign against that proposition, which could cost as much as $500,000 — none of it tax-deductible. Last week, lawmakers in Sacramento and Washington, D.C., independently announced that they would try to derail the ballot initiative by legislative means.

And, if you listen closely to the individuals on both sides of the Great Foreskin Fight of 2011, it becomes clear how committed they all are to their respective causes. Also apparent is just how complicated the debate around circumcision is — religiously, legally and, yes, medically.

Lawyers on both sides of the debate argue vociferously about what rights a parent should have vis-à-vis a child and whether cities should have any authority in matters of medical care. The foremost American medical authorities neither recommend routine infant circumcision nor explicitly discourage parents from circumcising their infant sons, leaving doctors and researchers to argue vehemently in favor and against the procedure and accuse one another of practicing junk science.

Meanwhile, mothers and grandmothers, fathers and grandfathers have been staking out opposing positions with equal passion. And while the overwhelming majority of religious leaders — particularly Jewish ones, but others as well — have spoken out against the proposed ban, a small band of Jews are working to make the decision not to circumcise one’s son into a legitimate Jewish choice.

Who are the intactivists?

Of the three anti-circumcision activists — intactivists, as many call themselves — who became the faces of the campaign to ban the practice in California cities, two are relative newcomers to the movement. But the fight over circumcision has been going on for decades, and the histories of all three can all quickly be traced back to the roots of the anti-circumcision movement, a small but vocal group that has never enjoyed as much attention as it is getting today.

Jena Troutman is the mother of two young sons who was behind the short-lived attempt to ban circumcision in Santa Monica. As an active member of the “natural birth community,” Troutman, who works as a midwife’s assistant and is a certified lactation educator and birth doula, is emblematic of a certain subgroup of the   intactivist movement.

Natural moms are, Troutman explained, the kind of moms who insist on delaying the cutting of a baby’s umbilical cord, to ensure that babies get as much of the placental blood as possible. These moms wear their babies and co-sleep with them. They oppose unnecessary Caesarean sections, prefer home births and are fierce advocates of breastfeeding. Some, Troutman said, question the need for and safety of vaccinations, and it’s no surprise, then, that they’d also be against circumcision.

“We call ourselves ‘lactavist intactivists,’ ” Troutman said. Troutman, who looks young for her 30-odd years and still has the voice of a much younger woman, is an unlikely candidate to spearhead a political campaign that was bound to be controversial.

“I was popular in high school,” Troutman said in an interview last week. “I’ve been popular my whole life. I don’t like it when people don’t like me.”

Troutman’s first exposure to intactivist ideas came in college. A women’s studies professor asked Troutman to explain why she thought circumcision shouldn’t be considered mutilation. “I said, it just isn’t; it’s just what’s done, and it’s not that bad,” Troutman recalled.

Troutman has come a long way since then, boasting a near-100 percent success rate in convincing her clients to keep their babies whole. In the last two years, Troutman has become much more active. In 2010, she founded wholebabyrevolution.com, a Web site for “parents still seeking answers to their circumcision questions.” She drew 30 people to a Genital Integrity Rally at Venice Beach in April as part of a nationwide campaign, and said she staged a few other protests outside local Santa Monica hospitals.

“I just can’t stand that I look over and see St. John’s and know that little babies are being cut in there,” Troutman said.

And so, in May, after hearing news of a toddler’s death following his circumcision in a New York City hospital, Troutman contacted Matthew Hess, the president of MGMBill.org.

Hess, 42, lives in San Diego and has been a devoted intactivist for more than a decade. Hess, who isn’t Jewish, was circumcised as a baby in a hospital setting. Sometime in his late 20s, he began to notice a “slow, significant decline in sexual sensitivity.” He found his way to the Web sites of a few prominent intactivist groups, and was shocked by what he found.

“It showed what a normal foreskin looked like and the nerve endings that it contained,” Hess said. He found the photographs of particular interest. “It showed all kinds of circumcision damage. It showed what’s lost when you’re circumcised.”

Hess, who is married and has no children, used a “nonsurgical foreskin restoration” technique that entails pulling the remaining skin over the head of the penis and keeping it there, which, Hess said, can reverse the keratinization, or toughening, of the skin on the head of the penis. Hess said his sexual experience improved dramatically as a result. “It was night and day,” he said.

Radicalized by his own experience and frustrated by the rate at which routine circumcisions were still taking place in the United States, Hess became politically active.

In 2002, Hess went to a biennial symposium organized by the preeminent education organization in the intactivist movement, the National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers (NOCIRC). The four-day event, which took place in April and was NOCIRC’s seventh such conference, featured speakers from all over the United States and Canada, as well as from Europe, Australia and Israel. In all, about 100 people attended, and Hess left feeling energized.

“What can I contribute?” Hess remembered thinking. “What’s not being done?”

The answer was the MGM Bill. The acronym stands for Male Genital Mutilation, and Hess, who is not a lawyer (he wouldn’t disclose his profession, saying only that he does not work in a field related to medicine, circumcision or religion), took the language of the Federal Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation Act of 1995 and altered it to apply it to men. “It wasn’t like no one had ever thought of it before,” Hess said. “I was just the first one to do it.”

Indeed, when Congress was considering outlawing female genital mutilation, or FGM, some lawmakers had anticipated exactly this consequence. In an article dated Oct. 12, 1996, about the passage of the law prohibiting FGM, New York Times reporter Celia W. Dugger noted that the proponents of the law had some difficulty getting it through Congress, for two reasons. “Some members simply could not believe that the practice actually goes on,” Dugger wrote. “And some were worried that it would lead to proposals to abolish male circumcision.”

Hess purchased the domain name mgmbill.org on Nov. 21, 2003, and began soliciting comments on his modified version of the FGM law a few weeks later. Starting in 2004, and every year since, Hess and his network of volunteers have submitted copies of the MGM Bill to the president of the United States and to every member of the House and Senate. Hess and his partners across the country have also annually submitted state-specific bills to every lawmaker in their states.

In eight years, only one lawmaker, then Massachusetts state Sen. Michael W. Morrissey, has formally introduced the bill into a committee. It took three years, but on March 2, 2010, Hess and 16 other intactivists testified in favor of the bill at a public hearing before the Massachusetts Senate Joint Committee on the Judiciary. Three people testified against it, including one representative from Christians and Jews United for Israel. The committee rejected the bill and it expired at the end of the legislative term.

In 2011, the MGM Bill was again submitted to federal lawmakers as well as legislators in 14 different states. But in 2010, Hess had decided to try a new tactic: city-based ballot initiatives.

Lloyd Schofield, the proponent of the San Francisco ballot measure that could ban circumcision in the city, went to his first NOCIRC symposium in July 2010 in Berkeley. Hess was there, but Schofield doesn’t remember talking to him. “I think I just shook his hand,” Schofield said in a recent interview.

Schofield refuses to talk about himself much and wouldn’t even confirm the information he apparently gave to a San Francisco Chronicle reporter (who also found him somewhat reticent) in November 2010.

“So who is Schofield?” the Chronicle’s Heather Knight wrote. “He won’t say much other than that he’s a 58-year-old who used to work for a ‘major hotel chain.’ He lives with his partner near Buena Vista Park, and they have no children. His Facebook page notes he’s a fan of ‘The WHOLE Network,’ ‘Bring Back Saving Penises’ and ‘Catholics Against Circumcision.’ But don’t bother asking whether he had the procedure done himself.”

Schofield, who was raised Baptist, said he didn’t have to think much about circumcision. “I just knew this was wrong all my life,” he said.

Schofield said he thinks Marilyn Milos, the Bay Area founder of NOCIRC and the godmother of the intactivist movement, recommended him to be the San Francisco proponent for the MGM ballot initiative.

“I don’t think I was the first choice,” Schofield said, but he and Hess talked and e-mailed a few times, and eventually Schofield agreed to serve as proponent. Schofield didn’t do much of the collecting of signatures, and the first time he and Hess ever spoke to one another in person was on the morning of April 26, the day that they — along with Milos and others — delivered the more than 12,000 signatures that had been collected in support of the San Francisco circumcision ban to the office of the city’s department of elections. 

On May 18, 2011, San Francisco city officials announced that the ballot measure that Hess had written and that Schofield had put forward for San Francisco had qualified for inclusion on the November ballot.

The next day, in solidarity with Schofield, and in memory of Jamaal Coleson Jr., the toddler who died after being circumcised in New York, Troutman submitted her ballot initiative to the Santa Monica City Clerk.

“I think I talked to him once,” Troutman said of her contact with Hess. Hess modified the text of the ballot initiative to make it appropriate for the City of Santa Monica. All Troutman had to do was download the file.

“I printed out the papers,” Troutman said, and took them to City Hall. “It took me five minutes to submit.”

On a single page

1 | 2 | 3     Next Page

A version of this article appeared in print.

---

Post your comment below!

Click here to return to the homepage.

COMMENTS

We welcome your feedback. Comments may not exceed 700 characters.

Privacy Policy

Your information will not be shared or sold without your consent. Get all the details.

Terms of Service

JewishJournal.com has rules for its commenting community.Get all the details.

I am a male genitally mutilated and hate it like 200,000 other men restoring their foreskins via foreskin restoration: www.tlctugger.com

My penis, my body, my choice, my human rights - I didn’t consent to genital mutilation would’ve said no and am suffering.

Please keep your kids whole info: www.WholeNetwork.org
68% US moms are now keeping their boys whole.
No medical organization IN THE WORLD recommends genital mutilation of humans.

Doctors Oppose it: www.DoctorsOpposingCircumcision.org
www.DrMomma.org

Comment by Techydude on 6/21/11 at 7:41 pm

Bris shalom = no cutting, mutilation is a violation of the torah and harming kids.

All my Jewish friends have kept their babies whole. www.JewsAgainstCircumcision.org www.BeyondTheBris.org

Bris shalom and keep the kids whole!

Comment by Techydude on 6/21/11 at 7:42 pm

Wow, coming together to fight for the right to cut up infant penises.  Charming.  :/
Every person has the primal right to an intact body.  Babies are born perfect!

Comment by Lauren on 6/21/11 at 7:49 pm

How many of these people who are so concerned about foreskins are ALSO AGAINST the mutilation of infants in the womb, who are murdered during abortion?  My guess is that all of them are proudly PRO-ABORTION.

Comment by PrayerWarrior4SP on 6/21/11 at 8:26 pm

Is this not part of the sacred COVENENT that Abraham made with God?  How can you turn your back on God in this manner?

Comment by PrayerWarrior4SP on 6/21/11 at 8:29 pm

One VERY important fact is missing in this article, as well as the entire debate. Historically, Jewish circumcision was merely a tiny symbolic blood letting that preserved the integrity and function of the foreskin. It wasn’t until much later that the ENTIRE foreskin was removed. If Jews are so determined to preserve their heritage, then WHY are they performing such a drastic amputation (Pariah,) and not just the less invasive tip removal? Even that would preserve the frenulum and offer protection for the glans.

Comment by Clay on 6/21/11 at 8:33 pm

Thanks for that summary, more balanced than many. A search of it, however failed to find the word “ethics” or any discussion of human rights.

Times change, and many practises that were once acceptable are now intolerable. Mozart and Haydn wrote some of their most famous works for castrati, and apparently had no problem with the custom of making boys into eunuchs for the sake of their voices. People can no longer be property, though the same verses of Torah that enjoin circumcision of sons also enjoin it of slaves.

Comment by Hugh7 on 6/21/11 at 8:37 pm

In my own lifetime I have seen the position of women improve immeasurably. (My own mother worked for women’s rights but thought nothing of being referred to by my father’s first name, prefixed by “Mrs”) ALL cutting of females was outlawed in 1997, without any religious exemption (though many devout Muslims think it is required). So the tide has gone out on human rights abuses, leaving the cutting of infant male gentials sticking out like a rock in the sand. Time to see it for what it is, an irrevocable intrusion into a male’s most intimate part, and an invasion of his human right to the free exercise of his religion, when he is old enough to think about it.

Comment by Hugh7 on 6/21/11 at 8:38 pm

“Anyone born in the United States is protected by the Constitution, which provides the protection of religious freedom,” Milos said. “If you mark a baby as a Muslim or a Jew, you’ve denied his religious freedom, have you not?”

Does Milos also believe that infant baptism, Sunday School and years of a child attending religious services is also a violation of a child’s constitutional rights?  Will that be the next thing that is banned?  Will it be demanded that we raise Godless children so as to not “mark” them. A very slippery slope indeed.

Comment by PrayerWarrior4SP on 6/21/11 at 8:40 pm

Clay, you said the following:“Historically, Jewish circumcision was merely a tiny symbolic blood letting that preserved the integrity and function of the foreskin. It wasn’t until much later that the ENTIRE foreskin was removed.”  But in Genesis, the Hivites were defeated when, on the third day after circumcision, and still sore from the procedure, they were attacked.  That does not sound like the ancient story from Genesis is talking about a “tiny blood letting.”  Sounds like the Hivites in Genesis received a full circumcision to me.  Where are you getting your information?

Comment by PrayerWarrior4SP on 6/21/11 at 9:15 pm

This long article left out the root of this dispute. Matthew Hess writes that his life was changed by 1992 book ‘The Joy of Uncircumcising’ by psychologist Jim Bigelow, loaded with anonymous near identical alleged quotations from men expressing their feelings of outrage and violation.

The real motivation lies in the subheading of the first chapter:
‘To Inform Christians About the True Nature of Circumcision’

‘Christians?!!!’ What?!!! Not ‘Americans’? The original Biblical method of circumcision, you know like Jesus had, was maybe OK but the Talmudic Rabbis, the Pharisees don’cha know radicalized the procedure until it is the one that Monster Mohel performs.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 6/21/11 at 9:18 pm

As a psychologist, Bigelow suggests that the abuse of children that is circumcision is a cause of a cycle of abuse, violent crime and male suicides.

Matthew Hess does not include the Bible Thumping and antisemitic elements of the book when referencing it, nor the negative reviews and debunking Bigelow’s book received at the hands of medical researchers.

SSDD

Comment by Ben Plonie on 6/21/11 at 9:19 pm

PrayerWarrior I have many conservative views.  I am not pro-choice.  And I am for banning circumcision.  It is painful for babies.  Watch a few videos of it being performed - with the sound on.  Boys who are circumcised are needlessly traumatized (at a minimum, in the moment of the act) and are not willing, consenting participants of their genitals being cut on.  Parents consent to this for their children, assuming it is safe and more necessary than not.  Making circumcision illegal would actually help parents to become more informed of the facts.  Infant baptism doesn’t cut off part of a child’s genitals.  Sunday School doesn’t cut off part of a child’s genitals.  I agree with Milos.

Comment by CP0 on 6/21/11 at 10:02 pm

A foreskin is not a ‘genital’. It is to genitals as earlobes to ears. A circumcision performed by a mohel is a minor plastic procedure with near zero complication rate and lifelong benefits.

Non-Jews should not have it performed without a good reason, which I leave to parents and doctors. Jews have such a good reason, in fact mandatory which is that it is a necessary element in Jewish identity. Banning it amounts to banning our religion, despite what you may hear from non-authoritative sources. I have attended enough circumcisions not to need a video, but infants cry more from the restraint than the procedure, and generally fall asleep without trouble immediately following it.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 6/21/11 at 10:18 pm

“that the Lord’s covenant and his two definitive promises (prodigious reproduction success and a lavish land grant (all of Canaanite land) appears first in Genesis 15, an earlier J text there is no mention of circumcision.” “To seal this covenant the only requirement is that Abram offer several sacrificial animals- a heifer, goat, ram, dove, and one other bird. Here we find no mention of circumcision, no change of name, no mention of Isaac or Ishmael.”

Comment by Frank McGinness on 6/21/11 at 11:10 pm

It was the Judean Priests who wrote Genesis 17 (P text) 13 centuries after Abraham’s putative lifetime that called for male circumcision of infants. A initiation rite not so much for the infant but of the father who must circumcise his son himself for he is cognizant of the event whereas the infant is not. These type of circ.s were the cutting off the acroposthion (the part that hangs past the glans). No damage of tearing the foreskin from the glans. It was 140AD when priests called for mandatory radical circumcision also medically aka Penile Reduction that more k=skin than whta remains and 75% of male’s sexual receptors.

Comment by Frank McGinness on 6/21/11 at 11:13 pm

Male circumcision and sexual function http://tinyurl.com/3zpo3uq

The official viewpoint of KNMG and other related medical/scientific organisations is that non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors is a violation of children’s rights to autonomy and physical integrity. Contrary to popular belief, circumcision can cause complications – bleeding, infection, urethral stricture and panic attacks are particularly common. KNMG is therefore urging a strong policy of deterrence. KNMG is calling upon doctors to actively and insistently inform parents who are considering the procedure of the absence of medical benefits and the danger of complications.

Comment by Frank McGinness on 6/21/11 at 11:18 pm

While this article covers a lot, it still leaves out the human rights implications of forcing a non-medically necessary, permanently altering surgery upon someone who cannot consent. I’m also bothered by “When talking about circumcision, a procedure in which the foreskin that covers the penis is surgically removed…”. The foreskin is *part* of the penis. If that were changed to “When talking about circumcision, a procedure in which 1/3 to 1/2 of the penile skin is amputated…” it would be much more accurate.

Comment by Jonathon Conte on 6/21/11 at 11:24 pm

Circumcision is a religious ritual that is historically contentious, and ethically problematic. Through the ages, it has been something that Jews have fought hard to preserve. This background predisposes Jewish doctors and physicians to only see the good of circumcision, while dismissing any evidence to the contrary. I think this article does a disservice not mentioning that Edgar Schoen is also Jewish. I’ve nothing against Jewish physicians, but being part of a people to whom circumcision carries that much of an importance is a conflict of interest. To him, no child ever dies after his circumcision; it’s always something else. That’s a bias, and I think it needs to be exposed.

Comment by Joseph4GI on 6/22/11 at 1:56 am

“How many of these people who are so concerned about foreskins are ALSO AGAINST the mutilation of infants in the womb, who are murdered during abortion?  My guess is that all of them are proudly PRO-ABORTION.”

That’s a big assumption, a straw man and a red herring. Would it be consistent to be pro-circumcision AND pro-life? Cutting up a child in the womb is wrong, but doing it outside is A-OK? I’m pro-life. Is there any smart remark you have for me?

Comment by Joseph4GI on 6/22/11 at 1:59 am

“Does Milos also believe that infant baptism, Sunday School and years of a child attending religious services is also a violation of a child’s constitutional rights?  Will that be the next thing that is banned?  Will it be demanded that we raise Godless children so as to not “mark” them. A very slippery slope indeed.”

Yes. A slippery slope. Although, the law forbids all female circumcision, even the religious kind. Parents cannot deny a child a blood transfusion, nor can they force them to handle snakes or drink poison.

Comment by Joseph4GI on 6/22/11 at 2:00 am

“A foreskin is not a ‘genital’. It is to genitals as earlobes to ears. A circumcision performed by a mohel is a minor plastic procedure with near zero complication rate and lifelong benefits.”

So then having a child’s earlobes removed by a mohel would also be “minor plastic procedure” with “benefits then?

This is a very fallacious argument. If the foreskin is “not a genital,” then neither is the labia or clitoral hood. Women are having those removed in the west now, with “zero complication rates.” THAT’S OK to remove from a child, right?

Comment by Joseph4GI on 6/22/11 at 2:05 am

My final post on this article: For a Jewish publication I must say this is actually quite balanced. Near-perfect presentation of both sides of the debate. Does a better job than CNN, FOX etc. Thank you for at least trying to present both sides equally. My one peeve is that you didn’t reveal the conflict of interest in one of your doctors; Schoen is Jewish and he performed his own share of circumcisions. “It’s hard to get a man to understand something, when his livelihood depends on his not understanding.” ~Upton Sinclair - Shalom Alechem

Comment by Joseph4GI on 6/22/11 at 2:08 am

Frank, it doesn’t matter when the account in Genesis was written down…you either believe the Hivite story occurred or that it didn’t. 

How much else in the Holy Book have you determined is a hoax?

Comment by PrayerWarrior4SP on 6/22/11 at 4:10 am

I also commend your balance, Jonah Lowenfeld.  You spoke with both sides of the argument, in a respectful manner, with no name calling or sensationalism.  This is the essence of journalism, and so often absent.  Thank you, and congratulations.

Comment by Tom Tobin on 6/22/11 at 4:19 am

words from Dr. Edgar Schoen:
“When you hear of a death during circumcision,” Schoen said, “you can bet your bottom dollar that it was an anesthesia death, not a circumcision death.”. “Not only did the circumcision not cause their death,” Schoen added, “but had they had newborn circumcision, it would have saved their lives.”

If Jamaal had never been circumcised, he would be alive today.  Whether he died from bleeding out, or from anesthesia, it makes little difference to him or his grieving family.  The more we hide the effects of circumcisions gone horribly wrong, the more they will continue.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/26/nyregion/26circumcise.html

Comment by Tom Tobin on 6/22/11 at 4:22 am

The benefits of an education on the functions,care and use of the male and female prepuce,can supply us with a lifetime of benefits,and replace the potential benefits and known risks and harms caused by excising infants and children’s prepuces. The prepuce is a sexual pleasure sensing organ at the union of three different organs, the epidermis, the reproductive and the renal system, with nerves that relay pleasure to the brain. It’s better to learn how to keep it healthy than cutting it off because of lack of knowledge. Religious, ritual, and routine excision of the prepuce has caused more infant deaths and world wars than being educated in cleaning to avoid delirium.

Comment by Frederick Rhodes on 6/22/11 at 4:28 am

Religious rites between human rights and human sacrifice

In ethical terms, no religion is allowed to torture and mutilation (human sacrifice), above all upon the child.


In legal terms, no religion may exempt itself from constitutional human rights:

- French declaration of human rights (26 August 1789):
.Article 4: “Freedom consists in being allowed to do all that does not harm others.”

- Universal declaration of human rights of the United nations organization (1948):
.Article 1: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.”
.Article 5: “No one shall be subjected to torture, cruelty or degrading treatment or punishment.”

Comment by Sigismond (Michel Hervé Navoiseau-Bertaux) on 6/22/11 at 7:51 am

- Universal declaration of the rights of the child of the United nations organization (20 November 1959):
.Principle 10: “The child shall be protected from practices that… may foster racial, religious or any other form of discrimination…”

Comment by Sigismond (Michel Hervé Navoiseau-Bertaux) on 6/22/11 at 7:53 am

- International convention on the rights of the child of the United nations organization (20 November 1989)
.Article 14-1: “States Parties shall respect the right of the child to freedom… of religion.”
.Article 19: “States parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child against all forms of physical or mental violence…”
.Article 24-3: “States Parties shall take all effective and appropriate measures with a view to abolishing traditional practices prejudicial to the health of children.”

Comment by Sigismond (Michel Hervé Navoiseau-Bertaux) on 6/22/11 at 7:56 am

These principles are not negociable. But the great problem is that the child is not in a position to negotiate. If we do not defend them, who will?

Comment by Sigismond (Michel Hervé Navoiseau-Bertaux) on 6/22/11 at 7:56 am

Please see “A Message to Jewish Americans on Circumcision” from the Jewish Circumcision Resource Center at http://www.jewishcircumcision.org/62011NewsRelease.htm

Comment by Ronald Goldman, Ph.D. on 6/22/11 at 2:41 pm

@PrayerWarrior: Baptism wipes off, circumcision does not. Circumcision does not just “mark” children, it marks them, for life, sometimes in more senses than one.

Comment by Hugh7 on 6/22/11 at 3:06 pm

Children are not property.

My parents don’t walk around with MY PENIS on their bodies.  My parents don’t pee through MY PENIS.  My parents don’t make love with my wife with MY PENIS.

So why on earth should my parents have any right to have a perfectly normal and healthy part of MY PENIS cut off?...

PS - I’m Jewish.  Children’s bodies aren’t property of their parents’ religion or culture either.

Comment by Ben on 6/22/11 at 4:38 pm

CPO,

“Watch a few videos of it being performed - with the sound on.”

On anti-circumcision websites? I have watched one where a doctor tortured a black infant in a video in conjunction with a circumcision. Viewers were apparently to believe that this was a normal circumcision. The depths that anti-circs will go to to bs people disgusts me.

Apparently they do the same type of thing with brisses. I read an article where a Rabbi actually had to show a father a real life bris after he had watched one of those tortures in a bris setting on the internet.

http://www.interfaithfamily.com/life_cycle/pregnancy_and_birth_ceremonies/Handling_Hesitations_over_Circumcision_One_Couples_Story.shtml

Comment by Michael on 6/22/11 at 5:03 pm

PrayerWarriorSP, abortion is a surgery to prevent a person.  There is no evidence that the fetus is sentient, or feels pain.
Circumcision is the flaying alive of a real, live, actual person.  They scream like they are being murdered, because it must feel that way.  What is more sensitive than a genital, and more painful when it is being cut open?
I think you need to see one live, in living color, as I have.  I pray to forget his screaming, but it doesn’t happen.  It is as vivid to me now as when I heard it, 37 years ago.  I never believed a human could make a sound like that.

Comment by Tom Tobin on 6/22/11 at 5:04 pm

Techydude, you are not restoring like 20,000 other men.
Google search returned 670,000 results.  If each man used one method, and only one, that would be 670,000 men.
There is an army out there, who is silent, doing the same thing you are doing.  Thanks for voicing it.  It’s worth the effort.

Comment by Tom Tobin on 6/22/11 at 5:07 pm

“While this article covers a lot, ...”

Now now Jonathon. “forcing”, “permanently altering”, “someone who can’t consent”, “amputated”. Behind your rhetoric is a very minor and effectual preventative medical procedure that parents should consider for their boys at an age when parents are responsible for all decisions concerning their children’s care.  Christians and Jews believe that God told Jews to do this long before science worked that out.

Comment by Michael on 6/22/11 at 5:12 pm

Joseph4GI

In case you are still reading…

“So then having a child’s earlobes removed by a mohel would also be “minor plastic procedure” with “benefits then?”

No you are conflating two different points. One is that the foreskin is not genitals. The second is that removing the foreskin as a neonate is a minor procedure known to have benefits.

Comment by Michael on 6/22/11 at 5:17 pm

“Schoen is Jewish and he performed his own share of circumcisions. “It’s hard to get a man to understand something, when his livelihood depends on his not understanding.” ~Upton Sinclair”

At 85 his livelihood depends on circumcisions?

Comment by Michael on 6/22/11 at 5:19 pm

Frederick,

“The prepuce is a sexual pleasure sensing organ…”

Abraham Lincoln once asked how many legs a dog would have if you called its tail a leg. He answered his own question by saying that it would have four legs. Simply calling the tail a leg doesn’t make it so. No matter how many times anti-circs adopt Kellog’s idea that the prepuce is sexual it doesn’t make it so. That is so blatantly obvious from the research it is a ludicruous (but ubiquitous) suggestion.

Comment by Michael on 6/22/11 at 5:25 pm

I have never heard Jews address the harms and losses that result from circumcision, except in the context of denial. Why do they so vehemently deny that circumcision has any negative effects? You would almost think that they don’t understand English. Once the American medical establishment acknowledges the permanent, tragic, and lifelong harms of circumcision, I imagine that Jews are going to going to have extreme difficulty justifying the practice of this ritual. They are going to call male sexual anatomy itself anti-Semitic. All intacivists are saying is that if circumcision isn’t good for men, then it isn’t good for Jewish men, either.

Comment by Granville on 6/22/11 at 5:34 pm

“If Jamaal had never been circumcised, he would be alive today.  Whether he died from bleeding out, or from anesthesia, it makes little difference to him or his grieving family.”

How is this relevant to whether or not Jews can legally circumcise? If 2 year old Jamaal was circumcised at 8 days of age (as he would have been if Jewish and would normally have been circumcised around that time if done for prophylactic reasons) there would be no need to use GA and he would be alive. I don’t know whether he was circumcised as a Muslim or circumcised as medical treatment. If the latter then how many other people die during medical treatment without the treatment being condemned?

Comment by Ben on 6/22/11 at 5:52 pm

“All intacivists are saying is that if circumcision isn’t good for men, then it isn’t good for Jewish men, either.”

With Nazi propaganda comic pictures of blonde haired heroes and evil Mohels. Yeah right!

Comment by Michael on 6/22/11 at 5:55 pm

Like Jews it looks like the neo-Nazis in Storm Front are also united on the issue. Is there a pattern emerging here?

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t756283/

If these anti-circs really cared about kids they wouldn’t torture them and they would promote sound preventative medical practices in the kids interests. So there must be some other motivation…

Okay I’ll avoid the conspiracy theory you have catalyzed in my thinking. Obviously ignorance and naivity is the only motivation for many.

Comment by Michael on 6/22/11 at 6:04 pm

“Why do they so vehemently deny that circumcision has any negative effects?”

Perhaps there is more openness to Science. Ever noticed the correlation between circumcision and Nobel prizes?

Comment by Michael on 6/22/11 at 6:10 pm

“How is this relevant to whether or not Jews can legally circumcise? “

This is how.
http://www.forward.com/articles/2860/

Comment by Tom Tobin on 6/23/11 at 4:43 am

Michael, respectfully, do you know how absurd it sounds, to correlate circumcisions with Nobel Prizes?  Would you use that same argument, if it was women who were circumcised?  Was Alfred Nobel circumcised?

Comment by Tom Tobin on 6/23/11 at 5:03 am

There is no medical benefit to being circumcised.  You are confusing religious tradition with medicine. as Dr. Schoen does.Why do Scandinavians have a much lover rate of penile cancer, HIV, and HPV infection than Americans, who are 80% circumcised?  Why did Canada, the UK, Australia, and New Zealand stop?  Because there were no obvious health benefits, which outweighed the very real risks of surgery.

Comment by Tom Tobin on 6/23/11 at 5:14 am

You can point to studies in South Africa and Uganda, where the science used was weak.  Why is there never a study scientifically designed, in some place medical, like Boston?  Answer: They don’t want to have to come to the conclusions that many other countries have, that it is not a benefit, after all the medical propaganda campaigns. They would be vulnerable to lawsuits.

You also make the mistake of believing that because you don’t have a foreskin, they have no value.  They make entry much more gentle and easy.  They have more nerves, which are exquisitely responsive, than the part which is not removed.

Comment by Tom Tobin on 6/23/11 at 5:15 am

Don’t look at circumcisions from anti-circumcision sites.  Please, look at all of them.
You will see ones from hospitals, which look oh so gentle, with the child properly anesthetized, which look relaxing.  You will see some where the kid screams bloody murder.  The circumcision I witnessed was of the bloody murder type.  You can’t tell me that cutting the most sensitive part of the body, and tearing it apart with what doctors call “blunt trauma”, is gentle.

Comment by Tom Tobin on 6/23/11 at 5:16 am

It is not a benefit to the child.  It is closer to torture, flaying alive.  The fact that you underwent it, does not justify the next person going through it.  Does Judaism equate with cruel treatment of children?  I don’t think so. I hope not.

Comment by Tom Tobin on 6/23/11 at 5:17 am

The presence of a foreskin does not mean your enemy anymore.  Russian Jews, even in Israel, still have theirs, and manage to retain a strong Jewish identify.
I personally apologize to you for the images presented in Foreskin Man.  I do not agree with its contents.  I’m sorry that Jews, and humans in general, had to see that.
All my best,
Tom

Comment by Tom Tobin on 6/23/11 at 5:18 am

Thanks for an much more in depth article than the recent ones I’ve seen on this subject.  One additional subject is the fact that the World Health Organization has launched an effort to circumcise as much of Africa as they can.  This includes introducing infant circumcision into areas it has never been done before.  See http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/index.html The first link on that page is to a 134 page early infancy circumcision manual, which gives reasons why that is the best time to do it.  The second link is to their country by country efforts to promote circumcision.  They have financial support from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Comment by Ricky on 6/23/11 at 5:45 am

Both the American Academy of Pediatrics and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have been promising new recommendations on the subject of infant circumcision.  See http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/research/male-circumcision.htm and http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/17/health/research/17circ.html?ref=health

Some anti-circumcision activists fear that they will recommend that all newborn males in the US be circumcised.  Here is a preemptive strike against that:
http://www­­.huffingt­o­npost.co­m/­christi­ane­-north­rup/­we-ne­ed-to­-sto­p-circ­umc­is_b_47­06­89.html

Comment by Ricky on 6/23/11 at 5:58 am

To whom is this promising?  Certainly not the baby, who is having half the skin of his genitalia removed.
It’s all based on 3 unscientific studies which were never finished, in South Africa, and one in Uganda.  If the proof is so true, why is it not coming from California, or New York, or Massachusetts, or Texas?
Why do they ignore all the science from the rest of the world, which comes to the opposite conclusion?
Cutting a healthy part off of someone else’s body is not ethical, whether it is a male or a female.  It is taking something which does not belong to you…whether it is the CDC, Bill Gates, or a religion.

Comment by Tom Tobin on 6/23/11 at 6:02 am

I agree with Joseph.  This is a fairly balanced article.  Intactivists are not anti-semetic or anti-gay .  Intactivists are anti- unnecessary genital mutilation, anti- baby torture, anti-human rights violations, and anti-no rights for bodily autonomy.

Comment by Doulalee on 6/23/11 at 6:04 am

Tom Tobin, you describe it as being like “torture” and “flaying alive”. My son cried more at his first hair cut then his circumcision. My daughter seemed to find vaccination more painful. Isn’t that just a little bit of an exageration? I read online about a man who circumcised himself without anaesthetic. How painful can it be?

Something that improves health entails removal of skin. Yet I keep reading about how unethical it is to remove that skin because the skin is healthy. Is it just me or does that claim in that context sound strange?

Comment by Deni on 6/23/11 at 7:05 pm

Hi Deni to answer you question. Nelson Mandela (Xhosa tribe) said his circumcision was blinding white light of electrical fire that burned throughout all his veins. One tribe says if the initiate can say his wish while cutting then he gets that wish. No one ever has gotten his wish. Considering the foreskin contain 75% average of the male’s sexual receptors, is highly enervated as man’s primary sexual platform to give full body orgasms- then one must consider what the opposite of this would be when cutting. The Vietcong used the foreskin to torture with burning cigarettes. Consider cauterizing the penis when after cutting off it’s foreskin.

Comment by Frank McGinness on 6/23/11 at 8:37 pm

@Deni:Circumcision is done to the most sensitive part of the body. It means tearing, clamping, cutting, and burning and sometimes stitching.  Men have fainted (the egyptian hieroglyph says with the inscription reading “Hold him and do not allow him to faint”. Here’s two contemporary men who say it like it is “Unimaginable pain!” http://bit.ly/mMoZR PAIN: 3,928 island villagers males&females; all ages forced circ’d into Islam by Muslim clerics.

Comment by Frank McGinness on 6/23/11 at 8:40 pm

Official viewpoint of KNMG & other related medical/scientific organisations is that non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors is a violation of children’s rights to autonomy and physical integrity. Contrary to popular belief, circumcision can cause complications– bleeding, infection, urethral stricture and panic attacks are particularly common. KNMG is therefore urging a strong policy of deterrence. KNMG is calling upon doctors to actively and insistently inform parents who are considering the procedure of the absence of medical benefits and the danger of complications.

http://knmg.artsennet.nl/Diensten/knmgpublicaties/KNMGpublicatie/Nontherapeutic-circumcision-of-male-minors-2010.htm

Comment by Frank McGinness on 6/23/11 at 8:45 pm

CA Jury awarded$429,484 infant’s glans pulled into circumcision clamp,cut off,doctor says parents accepted risk.Tank v.Berberich 5/12/09 http://tinyurl.com/mxkf2z
http://www.circumcisionandhiv.com/2010/07/j-steven-svoboda-circumcision-lawsuits-.html
http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/atlanta-lawyer-wins-11-573890.html $11 million circumcision lawsuit winhttp://www.quranicpath.com/misconceptions/intact_sex.html Qur’an quotes

Comment by Frank McGinness on 6/23/11 at 8:54 pm

In a definitive 2009 survey, USAID found that in 10 of 18 countries with data available, circumcised men were actually MORE likely to have HIV than intact men. They found that CONDOM USE, not circumcision status, was correlated with lower HIV. Here is the original document: www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/CR22/CR22.pdf;http://www.iasociety.org/Default.aspx?pageId=11&abstractId=2197431 “Is male circumcision protective of HIV infection?” protective effect of circumcision in only one of the eight countries

Comment by Frank McGinness on 6/23/11 at 8:57 pm

http://tinyurl.com/yfl54cu Brain Visualization Research during Male Infant Circumcision by Dr. Paul D. Tinari Ph.D.
http://cpj.sagepub.com/content/25/8/412.abstract Neonatal Cortisol Response to Circumcision with Anesthesia
(circumcision with local dorsal penile nerve block doesn’t work.)
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(10)61303-7/fulltext Oral sucrose as an analgesic drug for procedural pain in newborn infants: a randomised controlled trial
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100901/hl_afp/healthbabiessugar_20100901230509 Facial paralyzing effects of sucrose
http://bit.ly/ZDEfA Imagine having penile wounding that must be torn apart everyday for a year

Comment by Frank McGinness on 6/23/11 at 9:01 pm

Okay Tom I won’t become a comedian. Females don’t tend to get circumcised and I am unaware of any medical benefits in doing so so I wouldn’t be discussing it.

It is clearly established that there is medical benefit to being circumcised.  As regards Scandinavians I don’t know if it is genes or weather so I can’t answer that. As regards HIV I note the breakdown of HIV infection in the US of A. Of course the HPV thing together with HIV in Scandanavia suggests that they are unstereotypically sexually conservative. Do you know what they are like for STIs generally?

I’m not sure all those places have stopped circumcision.

Comment by Michael Bates on 6/23/11 at 10:45 pm

Have you considered that the studies were performed in Sub Saharan Africa because of the prevalence of HIV?

It isn’t the most sensitive part of the body.

“Why do they ignore all the science from the rest of the world, which comes to the opposite conclusion?”

They are just going on the best research available.

You say cutting off a healthy part is not ethical. That is like saying stabbing someone is not ethical. In both cases it normally wouldn’t be. However if circumcision is involved in the former it is and if vaccination is involved in the latter it is. They are both proven methods of improving health. Then of course there is the freedom of religion issue…

Comment by Michael on 6/23/11 at 10:56 pm

Frank,

“In a definitive 2009 survey, USAID found that in 10 of 18 countries with data available, circumcised men were actually MORE likely to have HIV than intact men. They found that CONDOM USE, not circumcision status, was correlated with lower HIV. “

Of course like other responsible institutions that took that view at the time they then updated and support the circumcision program. Please look at their 2010 comments.

http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/global_health/aids/TechAreas/prevention/malecircumcision.html

Comment by Michael on 6/23/11 at 11:01 pm

Michael, you said “They are both proven methods of improving health.(circ. & vaccines)”
That 70% of the world’s men are intact should indicate how less beneficial circumcision weighs overall. I and many find vaccines suspect too. On the bases of true science, it just isn’t there. I’m against forced genital cutting of all types. Men who can freely choose, okay. I chose it very young, was happy until puberty that showed I made a most stupid decision. My experience bases my suspicions.

Comment by Frank McGinness on 6/24/11 at 12:57 am

Of first world nations, the USA has the highest rates of circumcision AND the highest rates of HIV. This real world fact should be the end all.

http://tinyurl.com/yks9apv 1/5 HIV Infections Caused by Medical Staff (5million/yr,Africa,09) papers backed by Royal Society of Medicine
http://mysite.verizon.net/dortfay/science.html Science and Circumcision - Basic tenets of science
http://tinyurl.com/ygmmrk7 Science News “Odds are, it’s wrong” (Science fails to face the shortcomings of statistics)
http://tinyurl.com/yayafgo ” #Circumcision and HIV/Aids; time to cut losses” by Gawaya Tegulle Africans are starting to smell a rat

Comment by Frank McGinness on 6/24/11 at 1:00 am

I foresee a day when there will be lawsuits and class actions by uncircumcised men and their partners who are victims of HIV and HPV and their associated cancers, in which the scientific facts and their validity will be brought to bear. What did we know and when did we know it; and I guarantee that the witch doctors quoted by McGinness won’t be in the testimony.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 6/24/11 at 2:09 am

Michael
The USAID report is unambiguous. The WHO findings are unambiguous. The CDC data is unambiguous. The on-the-ground hands-on experience of the medical and scientific communities of the last century is unambiguous. As in so many areas, the antisemitic and progressive communities have figured out that words take precedence over facts and ideas in the brave new world. Sheepskins ruling sheepheads.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 6/24/11 at 2:52 am

Ah Ben Plonie. You’re right. Witch doctors won’t be in the testimony because I didn’t quote any witch doctors. And I think those doctors I quoted from PubMed
U.S. National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health, the nations of Denmark and Sweden would be insulted by your name calling. Yeah like, intact men have historically rushed to throw about lawsuits and class actions period. Contrary it will be and has been those who have been cut and parents who grieve over botched, penile amputations, and death of their loved children. History speaks.

Comment by Frank McGinness on 6/24/11 at 3:30 am

The original research was posted here.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/05/AR2007030500357.html
Showing Langerhan’s cells in the prepuce produce langerin proteins that have been proven to kill HIV and other virus, as our epidermal anti virus defence.

Comment by Frederick Rhodes on 6/24/11 at 8:17 am

This was very damaging to the procirc party so they edited it and presented it to the UNAIDS, who fell for it.

Comment by Frederick Rhodes on 6/24/11 at 8:27 am

In the Bible, circumsion is direct by the Lord of all creation…..perfectly normal for parents to have their male babies circumsied.  What isn’t normal is FGM (female genital mutilation) which the pagan muslims perform on five (5) year old girls…..they cut out these littles ‘clitoris.’  Why aren’t these individuals who are complaining about circumsion ‘complaining about little girls forcably being mutilated’ with scissors or any other homemade instrument that is available.  Those liberal Californians are a bunch of COWARDS!!!  I think they are afraid those pagan muslims will come after them?  The California liberal commies and homosexuals are the main reasons California is in debt!

Comment by terrence0117 on 6/24/11 at 11:09 am

This last comment violates logic so much, I can’t even begin to comment on it.
But, thanks for playing.

Comment by Tom Tobin on 6/24/11 at 11:11 am

If the last comment violates logic than I assume you must be like one of those ‘the last comment’ was referring to.  If you are a liberal commie or a homosexual than anything mentioned by the Bible will never be logical to you or those like you.  You type of people have been blinded, from the truth, by your master ‘satan.’

Comment by terrence0117 on 6/24/11 at 11:18 am

When they ask you if you’ve been taking your meds, do you answer “Yes”?

Comment by Tom Tobin on 6/24/11 at 11:20 am

I don’t like the comment about FGM. I support male circumcision, I am learning on The Torah, He teach as to be purity and respect.

Comment by naahama on 6/24/11 at 12:00 pm

I am a gentile who was circumcised years ago and never thought about it until much later when I first heard the anti arguments.Most of the boys I knew were also circumcised, and I remember thinking how strange they looked. So I do think that much of the pressure to have a male child circumcised is social, and it must be incredibly so for one who is Jewish. It does appear to me that the anticircumcision arguments must prevail in our modern age, for to perform medically unnecessary surgery on a helpless infant, inflicting pain on this child, is morally suspect. I do think, however, that the author of this piece gave a very balanced presentation , and I commend him for a good article.

Comment by bn on 6/24/11 at 12:05 pm

“Like Jews it looks like the neo-Nazis in Storm Front are also united on the issue. Is there a pattern emerging here?

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t756283/”
I held my nose and went to that site, and it seems the neo-Nazis are as divided as everyone else.* The American Nazi Party and the KKK have nothing to say about circumcision. Intactivism is NOT driven by antisemitism.

*indluding Jews: a poll in San Francisco found 5% support the proposed age-restriction and 13% would not circumcise a son today. http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=d7d6384b-1f89-4eee-933b-9946e1b5b459

Comment by Hugh7 on 6/24/11 at 2:09 pm

Can anyone think of an INTACT physician or researcher arguing strongly for the medical benefits of infant circumcision? Virtually every doctor I know in Canada who still performs circumcision, is circumcised. How many pro-circumcision studies do you ever see being published out of Sweden or Denmark or Japan? Most intact men would never consider cutting that part of their genitals off.

Comment by Christopher Guest MD, FRCPC on 6/24/11 at 4:31 pm

With all due respect, Dr. Guest, I think you have made a silly remark.  Why wouldn’t a doctor who thinks there are health benefits to circumcision have himself circumcised, first of all?

Comment by Ricky on 6/24/11 at 5:57 pm

Perhaps, Dr. Guest you can answer some questions about Canada, which I gather now has a large population of “intact” adults. 

1. Are the any scientific studies of how often Canadian urologists perform circumcisions on adults for medical reasons?

2. How would Canadian physicians react if the American medical organizations AAP and CDC recommended that all male babies born in the US be circumcised.  Even some anti-circumcision people in the US think that will happen: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/­christi­ane­-north­rup/­we-ne­ed-to­-sto­p-circ­umc­is_b_47­06­89.html

Comment by Ricky on 6/24/11 at 6:03 pm

@terrence: “Why aren’t these individuals who are complaining about circumsion ‘complaining about little girls forcably being mutilated’ with scissors or any other homemade instrument that is available.”

1) ALL female genital cutting, no matter how minor and surgical, is punishable under US Federal law.

2) Last year the AAP’s “Bioethics Committee” flirted with allowing a token ritual nick to girls’ genitals “much less extensive than neonatal male genital cutting”. It was us Intactivists who led the charge that caused them to back down within a month.

Comment by Hugh7 on 6/25/11 at 2:31 am

What religion or sect has ever practiced “a token ritual nick to girls’ genitals”?  Why should you “Intactivists” care?

Comment by Ricky on 6/25/11 at 3:26 am

Hi Ricky, I’m a circumcised Muslim woman, and I can tell you that many Muslim familes choose this route as opposed to the traditional female circmcision, which is removing the clitoral hood (foreskin). Personally, if they have no problem banning Muslims from practicing a blood ritual that dates back to the same time we should have gender and religous equality. Doesn’t matter which parent is Jewish or Muslim,  I don’t see why Jews are getting so bent out of shape when nobody came to our defense when our customs were banned…and no, it’s not mutilation. Did anyone here know that some Ethiopian Jews circumcise their daughters? Was the FGM bill in 1995 ever considered “anti-Semetic”?

Comment by Akilah Mohammed on 6/25/11 at 9:03 am

Another thing that really annoys me is how people talk of Jewish circumcision like it’s an episode of “24” or something, and if the 8th day thing isn’t upheld, your son will detonate. We live in a world where science and reasoning trump religious superstition, and it’s been proved by research that male circumcision wasn’t even an original covenant with God, nor was it ever mentioned in the beginning. Trust me, there are more Jews than you think that do not circumcise, like in Russia, England and other parts of the world, and they’re just as Jewish as anyone on this site.

Comment by Akilah Mohammed on 6/25/11 at 9:08 am

Finally, does anyone else think it’s funny and ironic how Jews and Muslims are arguing about their religious freedoms being taken away, so they can hopefully circumvent democracy and have this this ban blocked so they can continue to take away other people’s religious freedoms. Last I checked Judaism forbids forced conversion and harming children…I’ve read the Torah and Talmud…

Comment by Akilah Mohammed on 6/25/11 at 9:10 am

I do agree that attacking the SF ballot initiative on religious grounds is the wrong way to go.  Right now the opposition to it has switched to challenging it as a violation of laws that say that medical procedures are regulated at the state level.  Of course the Intactivists can try to get a statewide initiative on the ballot.  But for that they will need over half a million signatures.

Comment by Ricky on 6/25/11 at 9:25 am

Ricky, I can understand if there was a legitimate medical reason that this might have some merit, but statistics prove that for the rest of the world, a medically necessary circumcision is downright rare. Do you think God/Allah would give us something we wouldn’t need, or we would evolve defective and need corrective surgery at birth, when you’re most vulnerable? That makes no sense to me whatsoever. The FGM bill allows for medicine to intervene if need be…women have labial adhesions as girls that often need correction, and to deny someone medical care is against the law.

Comment by Akilah Mohammed on 6/25/11 at 9:30 am

Thank you Akilah for letting me know that the ritual nick is actually part of Muslim practice for some families.  I agree that it was outrageous and discriminatory that it is officially banned.  Have there been any prosecutions because of the ban?

Comment by Ricky on 6/25/11 at 9:31 am

If there were a true medical need for a circumcision, the ban would not prevent that, but most circumcisions are either religous or traditional (there wasn’t a valid health assessment that resulted in the circumcision being required) In order to perform surgery, there must first be a valid medical reason, if not, it is medically unethical and constitutes medical fraud. The foreskin isn’t a birth defect, being born aposthic, or without a foreskin, is a legitamite recognized birth defect, that often times needs surgical correction. My question is, if being born without a foreskin is considered a birth defect, why are we intentionally defecting our son’s genitals in the name of religion?

Comment by Akilah Mohammed on 6/25/11 at 9:34 am

Akilah, if it were settled that infant circumcision is not beneficial for health reasons, you would be right.  However if you look at my previous postings, I give references to activities of the World Health Organization, CDC, AAP which show that they are convinced of the long term health benfits.  Why else would the WHO be introducing infant male circumcision into African countries where it has never been done? Why have the WHO and UNAIDS been circumcising adults in Uganda and other places?

Comment by Ricky on 6/25/11 at 9:41 am

Jews Against Circumcision
http://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org

Questioning Circumcision: A Jewish Perspective
http://www.jewishcircumcision.org
Beyond the Bris Milah - Jewish Intactivist Parenting Blog
http://www.beyondthebris.com

Comment by A Jew Against Circumcision on 6/25/11 at 10:54 am

There is no immediate health risk for being born normal and intact, therefore the possible future “benefits” are completely moot. Why? It’s normal to have a foreskin. Secondly, the WHO and UNAIDS have done 3 studies, all incomplete, because the results didn’t show what they wanted them to. 10 of the 18 countries who were circumcised had higher HIV rates than those who weren’t, and urinary tract infections are the most common type of infection, that is easily cured with antibiotics, not surgery, and women have 5 times the UTI’s than men do.

Comment by Akilah Mohammed on 6/25/11 at 11:27 am

You’re citing long term health benefits to suggest that being born perfect, or in God’s image, as the Jews are taught, is somehow dirty, when in fact, women have more infections and HIV cases than men do. All of the studies done in a foriegn country have no standing on medical practice here because a)we have access to condoms and medical care b)our HIV rates and circumcision rates have been the highest in the world amongst other developed countries and c)removing normal sexual tissue isn’t the best prevention method. There is no other bodily surgery that any doctor can peform at birth without immediate medical need, regardless of what future benefit might become of it.

Comment by Akilah Mohammed on 6/25/11 at 11:28 am

And finally, to touch on your citing the AAP. The AAP’s “circumcision task force” is composed of 7 doctors, 4 of whom are Jewish. It’s funny how when they wrote the decision about female circumcision, they listed all of the damage rhetoric, but touched nothing on the validity of it in Islam, yet when they concluded with male circumcision, they found it was important that people take into account religion and culture. Funny how 4 of 7 Jewish doctors are telling us it’s important to keep up with a primarily JEWISH tradition, when less than 2% of the US population is Jewish. Circumcision isn’t even mentioned in the Qu’ran which is why most Muslim scholars don’t see it as valid.

Comment by Akilah Mohammed on 6/25/11 at 11:31 am

And no, the AAP does NOT recommend circumcision, nor does it believe that the health claims warrant routine circumcision. They cite that the health claims are minute at best, and even then, women get more of the same problems that they recommend surgery for men for, but antibiotics and condoms for women. Pretty sexist if you ask me, especially in a country where everyone is supposed to have equal rights…yes, even babies.

Comment by Akilah Mohammed on 6/25/11 at 11:34 am

We’re just trying to stop circumcision, we’re not trying to undermine your faith. A great man admits when he is wrong and this is one of those times.

I am mutilated by this barbabric act, my life is destroyed because of it. If you force me to associate this with your religion then you force me to eradicate it.

Comment by MrCardboard on 6/25/11 at 12:08 pm

Ricky,
Sorry for the delay. To answer your questions:
1. I’m not aware of statistics for medically necessary circumcisions in Canada, but I do know that in Finland where the circumcision rate is essentially 0%, the incidence of medically necessary circumcision is 1 in 17,000 (by age 18). Some feel this is even too high as physicians tend to be a little too quick to grab the scalpel for many problems.

Comment by Christopher Guest MD, FRCPC on 6/25/11 at 12:14 pm

2. As you may well know, the AAP has been all on their own wrt circumcision in the past. From about 1989-1999, the AAP tried to convince every other medical association in the world that circumcision was “necessary” and was largely unsuccessful, until they reversed their position in 1999…

Comment by Christopher Guest MD, FRCPC on 6/25/11 at 12:19 pm

...I’m honestly not sure what would happen in Canada as the RCTs from Africa have really blurred the issue. My guess is the Canadian Peadiatric Society would keep its head buried in the sand like usual and stay neutral. I think the grass-roots opinion among Canadians is that circumcision is a misguided health measure from the past that is now unnecessary .

Comment by Christopher Guest MD, FRCPC on 6/25/11 at 12:25 pm

Ricky,
If I thought there were health benefits to circumcision (which I don’t) I would choose to remain intact and I would not circumcise my children (male or female). It seems to me, that any potential health benefits would still be overshadowed by lifestyle choices, and I am completely convinced it would diminish sexual pleasure.

Comment by Christopher Guest MD, FRCPC on 6/25/11 at 12:33 pm

If parents choose to follow God’s law (the Bible)for religious purposes and get their male sons circumcised than that is not the state’s (government) business PERIOD!

Comment by terrence0117 on 6/25/11 at 1:52 pm

Wrong again, terrence. I’m a circumcised Muslim woman, and the government has already banned all Muslims from partaking in this ancient and honorable tradition that has been passed down for generations. And don’t you dare say they aren’t the same or it’s mutilation. I had my clitoral hood (foreskin) removed, which is the same as what happens to Jewish boys. If I don’t have the right to circumcise my daughter, why do Jews think they get special preference?

Comment by Akilah Mohammed on 6/25/11 at 2:49 pm

Akilah,
I agree with every post you’ve made. Thank-you for recognizing that males deserve the same universal right to genital integrity as females. Also, thank-you for sharing your own difficult experience, which I think helps people realize that all children deserve to be protected.

Comment by Christopher Guest MD, FRCPC on 6/25/11 at 8:31 pm

The reason Jews have to have special preferences is that without female-whatever-you-call-it you are 100% a proper Muslim, while without a Jewish circumcision a man is not a Jew at all. Female-whatever is is a pre-Islamic African cultural relic and not religious at all. You can call it ancient and honorable but there are no Islamic Koranic or legal requirements for f-w. There are such clear Biblical sources for Jews and a large body of secondary legal literature.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 6/25/11 at 9:33 pm

Dr Guest,
Your own comment indicates the need for a libertarian approach to the issue. Try this;

If I thought there were health risks to circumcision (which I don’t) I would choose to circumcise my male children. It seems to me, that any potential health risks would still be overshadowed by lifestyle choices, and I am completely convinced it would enhance the totality of Jewish life.

Capiche?

Comment by Ben Plonie on 6/25/11 at 9:40 pm

Ben,
I am not Jewish so I’m not sure if this question even makes any sense, but might it not enhance the totality of Jewish life even more if Jewish men were allowed to make a conscientious and informed decision, at the age of 18, to fully embrace their faith and choose this ceremony for themselves?

Comment by Christopher Guest MD, FRCPC on 6/26/11 at 3:38 am

From a physicians point of view, the boy is our patient, not the parents. We have no ethical right to modify their bodies without medical urgency or unless the benefit SUBSTANTIALLY outweighs the potential for harm. I believe there is no substantial benefit to circumcision, as do virtually all medical associations, and hence religious/cultural traditions should not trump scientific judgment and medical ethics.

Comment by Christopher Guest MD, FRCPC on 6/26/11 at 3:56 am

I believe it is unethical for physicians to participate as “cultural brokers” in this practice. Non-therapeutic circumcision violates our most sacred principles of medical ethics: primum non nocere, beneficence, autonomy, justice, and proportionality. Our ethical obligation is to the boy, not to conspire with the boy’s parents.

Comment by Christopher Guest MD, FRCPC on 6/26/11 at 4:06 am

Dear Dr. Guest.  I’d like to thank you for posting your opinions.  I respect your thoughts and convictions as a person and a physician, and truly wish that all or at least more physicians had the ethical, moral, and professional beliefs that you have. I agree with you completely as a mother, a birth doula, and an intactivist.

Comment by Doulalee on 6/26/11 at 4:46 am

WHY CAN’T PEOPLE MIND THEIR OWN BUSINESS. IF THEY DON’T LIKE THE IDEA OF CIRCUMCISION DON’T DO IT. IT IS YOUR CHOICE AS YOU SHOULD LET IT BE OTHERS

Comment by BERNICE on 6/26/11 at 7:41 am

Bernice, the government stepped in and banned all types of female circumcision, even religious types, which constitutes 80% of female circumcisions worldwide for Muslim women. We don’t have a choice to cut our daughters, so why should we have a sexist double standard applied to our sons, just because their parent’s are Jewish? I was circumcised at age 7 as prescribed in Islam, but there was no exceptions for anyone, not even if somone added an eight day clause. It’s moot, it’s his body, his religion, his penis, his choice. If I could choose to have my clitoral hood back, I would, but it’s still discriminatory to one religion and not the other.

Comment by Akilah Mohammed on 6/26/11 at 7:56 am

Female circumcision is not prescribed in Islam as I mentioned earlier, in part for you to disprove me if you could. You did not. A Muslim woman is in 100% good standing with Allah if not her grandmother if she has not been cut. Therefore this ban is luckily not in restraint of your religion, and if it was I would be supportive of activism and civil disobedience on your part to continue it.

That is not true of Jewish males, who are not considered Jewish without a circumcision, and whose guardians are in serious violation of Jewish law every minute that he is in that state. Therefore a ban is in restraint of our Jewish religious practice.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 6/26/11 at 8:09 am

To complete the thought, the procedure is well within the range of options permitted to parents in deciding for their children.

Several years ago the NY City Board of Education acted in a highhanded manner in promoting an ideological curriculum. At a protest demonstration one parent said - “Mr. School Chancellor, they are not your children, they are our children”. This discussion is very much on that order.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 6/26/11 at 8:10 am

Yes, but your children are not your possessions.  They came to earth through you.  You, as parents, do not own their bodies or souls. This is in regards to their bodies, a choice only they have the right to make.

Comment by Doulalee on 6/26/11 at 8:22 am

Some of can’t mind our own business, and just stand by while babies are being mutilated.  Someone has to speak up and try to protect these innocent babies that have no voice of their own.  If they want to be circumcised as adults, fine.  It’s their decision alone to make.

Comment by Doulalee on 6/26/11 at 8:27 am

Good point. You may or may not be aware that you are promulgating an ideological view no less than I or anyone else, a form of humanism. In the classical Jewish ideology, the essential human spirit and soul was created by God, and we are all God’s possessions and servants. After a couple of millennia, it came down to Abraham’s progeny, and male circumcision on the eighth day is the seal of that covenant with God. In the course of time and events, it is also the citizenship requirement in the Jewish nation.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 6/26/11 at 9:31 am

It goes without saying that the Greek ideal, New Age philosophy etc. do not accept that. Of course the Greeks and Romans thought nothing of leaving their unwanted infants, especially female infants out on a hillside to starve, and marking and killing their slaves, and in the New Age we have late term abortions, sex-changes, piercing and tattoos and all manner of cultist practices. I might make the point that the amputation of a parent through divorce mutilates a child far worse than the loss of a foreskin, and is as little his choice.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 6/26/11 at 9:31 am

Perhaps you could take comfort from the fact that absolutely no body modifications are permitted in Jewish law for either sex with that exception that proves the rule. Not even an unnecessary wound. Strictly speaking not even elective cosmetic surgery (not speaking of burn restoration or cleft palates here). From a public health standpoint that sounds like a good deal, and you and I know that you have never ever taken a stand on those topics (correct me with proof if I am wrong).

Comment by Ben Plonie on 6/26/11 at 9:31 am

You can also take comfort in the fact that nobody in the entire world except for Jews who freely choose to conform to Jewish practice gets circumcised because of Jewish law. There are no Monster Mohels. There are no lists, no hunting parties looking for foreskins, no Uzis in the hands of ultra-Orthodox Jews, no Satanic or sadistic or perverted delight in causing pain or mutilation or dysfunction. Jews do not coerce even other Jews to practice circumcision. If you have a problem, we are not your problem. And we have no problem.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 6/26/11 at 9:33 am

If we did, you would know it. There should be legions of Jews (and Muslims) out there mourning their foreskins and clamoring for justice and revenge. Instead, there is unprecedented unity in opposing this measure, and the only opponents you will see called Jews are a few unaffiliated cranks and weirdos for whom Judaism other than perhaps cultural is unimportant at best and hateful and evil at worst.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 6/26/11 at 9:37 am

For affiliated Jews, for whom we ask no more than an exemption to the ban, an uncircumcised male is Biblically and by associated Jewish law not a Jew, using the classic definition of a Jew as including both what one is and what one does. An uncircumcised Jew will be an object of communal derision and disgust, will not be accepted by a Jewish school or marry a Jewish woman. (Maybe a Jewish man these days, LOL.)

Comment by Ben Plonie on 6/26/11 at 9:37 am

Ben, I may be Muslim, but from my readings of the Torah and Talmud (I was a theology major) any male born of a Jewish mother is Jewish, regardless of whether or not he’s circumcised. If the mother is not Jewish, and the father is, he’s not technically Jewish, so circumcising him violates the Torah’s commandment against forced conversion. Do I need to remind you that the whole circumcision clause was added centuries later during the Babylonian era, that it never was even uttered by God to Abraham, and that in reality, a bunch of mortal Rabbi’s held a conference and ADDED it much later? Your covenant is a fraud. Sorry to break it to you.

Comment by Akilah Mohammed on 6/26/11 at 9:49 am

Also, doesn’t the Torah say not to harm children? The last I checked, morals trump any written text, as the text was written by mortals, not God. The Torah, Talmud, Bible and Qu’ran for that matter are all interpreted texts that cannot be validated as true, as they were only religious versions of historical events. Every religion has their own interpretation, but just because the Jews wrote a book first and then updated it to allow genital cutting doesn’t make it any more acceptable than female circumcision.

Comment by Akilah Mohammed on 6/26/11 at 9:52 am

Your readings of the Torah are incorrect, theology major. I will show you where the Torah documents my facts, and you can show me where it documents yours (no, you can’t). What you will find from a legal point of view is that membership in the nation passes through the female, and membership in the tribe and inheritance passes through the male, and a Jewish mother is only a minimum requirement for a natural born citizen pending the circumcision and certain other life events, and not participation in our spiritual life which the Torah considers our essence.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 6/26/11 at 10:08 am

The rest of your post runs contrary to our internal continuous history naming names and places and dates, and consists ENTIRELY of conjecture for which there is not a shred of evidence. Neither infants nor anyone else should be harmed, and male circumcision performed properly harms neither the infant nor his inner adult. Refer back to my comment regarding the relentless assault including the intellectual intifada against us dating back to before the Greeks and in modern times to the ‘Enlightenment’ rebelling against Christianity but which threw out the Jewish baby with the Christian bathwater. In your case it is the hangups you have with Islam, understandable from our point of view.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 6/26/11 at 10:13 am

Dr. Guest,
I haven’t forgotten you, but as you can see I can’t get a minute to focus on you, and now I have to leave for the afternoon. I hope you noticed that many of your points have been addressed in the preceding posts. You asked, “might it not enhance the totality of Jewish life…” Of course, the short answer is ‘no’.

Thank you for your respectful and rational tone. That is something I can work with. Because of that, your ‘anti-’ comments are the only ones worth reading on this and the other dozen blog posts on this site.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 6/26/11 at 10:37 am

Guest 2
The whole discussion is apples and oranges. I don’t dispute the viewpoint of opponents of routine infant circumcision. I don’t dispute most of the things you have said. I totally get it. If circumcision did not exist it would not occur to me to invent it. If I was not a Jew I would not be motivated have it done, nor to investigate or debate it. But it does and I am and I do.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 6/26/11 at 10:45 am

Guest 3
I understand your suggestion. There is a model for it; the Amish community allows its children the decision at adulthood whether or not to continue in their lifestyle and community. Technically, they can all vote with their feet and go out of business. While I rather like and admire the Amish people and wish them well, that would not bother me personally, any more than if the Shakers and the Quakers and the Anabaptists and who-all disappeared. I understand with no hard feelings that that is where you are in relation to the Jews.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 6/26/11 at 10:45 am

Guest 4
But it doesn’t work that way for us (or our opponents on this and other issues. I don’t want to work too hard to prove that there are massive, historic and growing movements who want us to die and disappear; religiously, politically, culturally, in every way, all for ‘good reasons’ and the general welfare. As tiny a people as we are, for them everything we do is wrong and harmful, and threatens their own ideas of right and wrong. Please use CTL-F and search for my previous post regarding Bigelow. That is the source of this current movement, not human rights or medical ethics.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 6/26/11 at 10:48 am

It is amusing too see this theme in slightly modified form immediately reflected in the posts of Frank McGinness. With the best of intentions, don’t exempt yourself from the same cultural and other biases as anyone else.

The founding basis for Jewish identity mandates our continuation through our children, and forever. Not to get too technical, but we are hereditary priesthood modeling God’s will on earth. In a strictly cultural sense if not theological perhaps more like Shinto than anything else. It’s more than a religious tradition, and it trumps everything.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 6/26/11 at 10:53 am

Guest 6 (forgot to number preceding)
Not always easy or comfortable or compatible with the majority view. Destiny, y’know. But always from innocuous to beneficial, and our unique track record of survival and success as a community and nation attests to that. In that light you can understand that all responses of the theme
of “But surely my boy, you understand that there is no god, or God wouldn’t say that, or the Bible is not authoritative, or your way is a misunderstanding and a matter of opinion etc.” are a waste of time.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 6/26/11 at 10:54 am

Guest 7
A physician of integrity cannot subscribe to the hysterical blabbering quality of the criticisms on these posts. Certainly medical societies cannot take stands advocating routine elective surgical procedures. The real story is that they cannot justify advocating against it except for the famous Dutch medical society. At the moment, Holland is busy banning kosher slaughter, and it is no coincidence in my view.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 6/26/11 at 11:04 am

Guest 8
Other than that, it is fair to say that the procedure is minimal and innocuous for practical purposes; from a technical aspect a very minor plastic procedure with near zero morbidity in competent hands, and even that near completely avoidable. There is evidence, debatable if you insist of various benefits etc. The essence is that those to whom it is important for whatever reason should be left alone.

I know all about primum no nocere and all that, but a riper field for its application is late-term abortion and sex-change operations and radical cosmetic surgery and implants and liposuction etc. whose morbidity dwarfs circumcision and benefits are dwarfed by circumcision.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 6/26/11 at 11:06 am

Ben, if you understand the arguments and the principle that everyone is created equal, even with respect to religious tolerance, then why do you feel it’s so pertinent that Jews be allowed to force their religious beliefs in the form of surgery on a baby that has no covenant with God? The first amendment says nothing to the fact that anyone can cut genitals for religon, but Reynolds v United States says that the government can regulate religious practices. If bodily autonomy and the freedom of religon is ensured for women, why are boys, regardless of their parents religion, any different when it comes to EQUAL protection?

Comment by Akilah Mohammed on 6/26/11 at 11:07 am

and ben, you can continue to talk about religion, but the bottom line is the first amendment applies to all natural born citizens…even males. This ban will go forward and it will one day be equal for everyone, not just Jewish parents who think it’s great and a laughing matter to sexually abuse their children in the name of God. And no, God never said to cut yourself, a bunch of rabbis made that up centuries later…everybody knows that…

Comment by Akilah Mohammed on 6/26/11 at 11:14 am

Ben(first)
I’m afraid you won’t get into a very interesting debate about Jewish theology with me as I have very limited knowledge about any religion. I have read Maimonides on the subject (as well as his excellent writings on other medical topics) but I understand that many Jewish scholars find him somewhat medieval with respect to issues of sexuality. Unfortunately, I have to stick to the medical side of this or I won’t be much use to anybody here…

Comment by Christopher Guest MD, FRCPC on 6/26/11 at 2:29 pm

Ben (cont)
...we are talking about a surgical amputation here and I take issue that the claim that circumcision is minimal. If you are like most circumcised men, I bet the most pleasurable part of your penis is located between the circumcision scar and the coronal sulcus. The histological reason why this area is the most pleasurable is because this is where the prepuce used to be and the prepuce is the most densely innervated part of the penis. Intact men have much more of this highly erogenous tissue…

Comment by Christopher Guest MD, FRCPC on 6/26/11 at 2:35 pm

Ben (cont)
...Is this going to shorten your lifespan? No. Is this going to lead to depression and mental illness and sexual dysfunction? No. But, I do believe that the decision to amputate this erogenous tissue from your penis should have been your decision because it’s your body. If you don’t own your own body, what do you own? ...

Comment by Christopher Guest MD, FRCPC on 6/26/11 at 2:43 pm

When my wife wanted to circumcise our son 24 years ago, I put my foot down and said “no”. As every Jewish husband knows its not a easy and safe to stand up to your wife, but I did it and I am glad.

Comment by Stan R on 6/26/11 at 2:58 pm

Ben(last)
As an outsider, it just seems like circumcision is such a fundamental failure in human compassion and kindness. I’m sorry, but I just don’t understand it. Got to go for dinner…will look for your comments later.

Comment by Christopher Guest MD, FRCPC on 6/26/11 at 3:07 pm

Stan, I understand how hard it is to go against your family’s beliefs. I have 6 siblings, and talk to only two.
It took a lot of courage to do what you did. You put him first.

Comment by Tom Tobin on 6/26/11 at 3:54 pm

Ben Plonie your wise comment will probably prove almost prophetic. “I foresee a day when there will be lawsuits and class actions by uncircumcised men and their partners who are victims of HIV and HPV and their associated cancers, in which the scientific facts and their validity will be brought to bear. What did we know and when did we know it; and I guarantee that the witch doctors quoted by McGinness won’t be in the testimony.”  Even medical associations are painfully slow at updating to the current state of science. I read a paper calculating the number of lives lost from HIV due to slow action on this issue. The realities of this inertia are sobering.

Comment by John on 6/26/11 at 5:37 pm

Dr Guest, if it is as simplistic as the infant being a patient how on earth do you get consent to other medical procedures? Obviously at that age consent is for parents.

Comment by John on 6/26/11 at 5:38 pm

Dr Guest you may not believe in a substantial benefit and nor do many medical associations but that these misunderstandings don’t justify your pronouncements about science and ethics. Research scientists who work in the area do point to substantial benefits. Your erroneous ideas about the erogenous prepuce probably interferes with an accurate understanding of the actual proportionality, preventative medical procedures cannot be written off as doing harm, it is a good thing to do, and parents necessarily make decisions for infants. For Jews there is a consideration that is equally independent of science as your beliefs and that is a divine mandate.

Comment by John on 6/26/11 at 5:42 pm

Akilah Mohammed you say that “the traditional circumcision” involves removing clitoral hood. Do you really believe that to be the traditional norm in Muslim countries compared to what most people associate with FGM or is that just an intactivist disingenuous ploy to argue against circumcision? WHO categorises FGM as Type 1a (your type), Type 1(b) cutting off clitoris, Type II removing clitoris and labia minora, Type III narrowing vaginal orifice using labia with or without clitoral excision, and Type IV being pricking, piercing, incising, scraping or cauterization of genitalia. The following web page shows the distribution: http://www.fgmnetwork.org/intro/world.php

Comment by John on 6/26/11 at 5:47 pm

John, the rates of HIV, HPV, and penile cancer infection are lower for uncircumcised Danes, Swedes, and Swiss, than they are for mostly circumcised Americans.
Yours is a fun paranoid fantasy, but it’s not going to happen.  Each man is responsible for his own safe sex.
More likely, will be increasing lawsuits, on behalf of men who felt harmed by unintended consequences of their circumcisions.  Some have already won in court, something you can’t say for your grim prophesy.

Comment by Tom Tobin on 6/26/11 at 6:59 pm

No national medical organization in the world advocates
routine infant circumcision for disease prevention, or anything else.  It’s not a misunderstanding.  It is based on hard science.  The benefits of circumcision, if there are any medical benefits at all, are outweighed by the very real surgical risks.
Dr. Guest has it right.  His ideas are not erroneous.
You are confusing medicine with religion.  Removing half the skin from a boy’s body does him no good, and lessens his sensation, as the mohel and doctor Maimonides noted hundreds of years ago.

Comment by Tom Tobin on 6/26/11 at 7:00 pm

As far as consent with an infant, the parents give consent to procedures intended to restore the infant to health.  With a healthy infant, it is a violation of medical ethics, to remove any part of them. 
Why would a G*d create a body with a foreskin, the result of 4.7 million years of evolution, and then mandate that it be removed from the male?
It takes a lot of chutzpah to correct a circumcised Muslim woman on female circumcision.

Comment by Tom Tobin on 6/26/11 at 7:01 pm

Hello again Tom,

“You are confusing medicine with religion.  Removing half the skin from a boy’s body does him no good, and lessens his sensation, as the mohel and doctor Maimonides noted hundreds of years ago.”

The irony is that scientific research contradicts the ideas of that mohel.

Comment by Michael on 6/26/11 at 9:30 pm

Tom,

Re: your very precise comment about organisations

Just to avoid misunderstandings ... You would be aware of national and international organisations who support circumcision for disease prevention but the current target is adult men because HIV is what they are trying to urgently prevent. You would also be aware that many national organisations acknowledge that circumcision can prevent certain diseases. You might even be aware that some opposing circumcision have publically expressed concern that the AAP and the CDC might start advocating it. Indeed wasn’t there an email campaign involving hundreds of thousands of emails to pediatricians to try to stop that happening with AAP?

Comment by Michael on 6/26/11 at 9:32 pm

Tom,

“It is based on hard science.  The benefits of circumcision, if there are any medical benefits at all, are outweighed by the very real surgical risks.”

If you take the risks from the large studies it would be hard to substantiate that. The AAP hold that the risk for infants is between 0.02% and 0.06% with most complications being minor bleeding or redness. Would you say that the medical benefits can’t be shown to exceed that?

Comment by Michael on 6/26/11 at 9:36 pm

There is no medical organization of any country which recommends routine infant circumcision for medical reasons. USA: “Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. “. UK: ” The BMA considers that the evidence concerning health benefit from non-therapeutic circumcision is insufficient for this alone to be a justification for doing it.”.

Comment by Tom Tobin on 6/27/11 at 4:49 am

Canada: “The 1996 position statement says that “circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed”, and the 2004 information to parents says: ‘Circumcision is a “non-therapeutic” procedure, which means it is not medically necessary.”. Australia: “the RACP believes that the frequency of diseases modifiable by circumcision, the level of protection offered by circumcision and the complication rates of circumcision do not warrant routine infant circumcision in Australia and New Zealand”.

Comment by Tom Tobin on 6/27/11 at 4:51 am

Netherlands: he Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG) stated in 2010 that non-therapeutic male circumcision “conflicts with the child’s right to autonomy and physical integrity.” They stated that there are good reasons for legal prohibition of male circumcision as exists for female genital cutting.
Sweden:
“Gunnar Göthberg, chairman of the Swedish Pediatric Surgeons Association (Svensk barnkirurgisk förening), compared the procedure to female genital mutilation. “
“Critics claim that non-medical circumcision is in violation of the United Nation’s Declaration of the Rights of the Child”

Comment by Tom Tobin on 6/27/11 at 4:57 am

Here is a Canadian physician (a pediatric urologist) who has a different opinion than Dr. Guest.  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2422990/?log$=activity
Here is an example of a completely different spin on Finland that Dr. Houle gives:
In addition, in Finland, where the rate of circumcision has been cited as low, it has been reported that about 7.1% of uncircumcised male infants will require circumcision later in life (M. Gissler, National Research and Development Center for Welfare and Health, written communication, February 2000).

Comment by Ricky on 6/27/11 at 6:54 am

Finland’s infant circumcision rate is 0.006%.
Finland’s Ministry of Social Affairs and Health reported in 2004 that, “some 500-1000 circumcisions are performed as a therapeutic measure annually in Finnish hospitals”,[ amounting to 710 nationwide cases in 2002.
source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevalence_of_circumcision
^ “Circumcision of boys: A study on international and Finnish practices” (PDF). Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, Finland. 12 February 2004. pp. 8.

Comment by Tom Tobin on 6/27/11 at 7:00 am

An international medical organization that advocates infant circumcision is the World Health Organization. http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/index.html
On page 23 of their June 2010,
“Progress in male circumcision scale-up: country implementation and research update”, they list their infant circ activities in various African countries.  In Feb 2011 put out a 143 page illustrated, highly referenced, training Manual for early infant male circumcision under local anaesthesia”.  The early pages detail the case why infant circ is preferred to doing it later and the health benefits of circumcision, going well beyond HIV prevention.

Comment by Ricky on 6/27/11 at 7:53 am

Right.  I said “no medical organization of any country”.  That is true.
The WHO based its pronouncement on the 3 unfinished South African studies.
That data is truly weak, and there are enough statistical holes in those studies to make it akin to Swiss cheese.  Not one country has changed to recommending routine infant circumcision.

Comment by Tom Tobin on 6/27/11 at 8:05 am

Since circumcision saves many lives by reducing the transmission of HIV and otther stds, it should be mandatory, just like vaccines are.

Comment by Peter on 6/27/11 at 8:34 am

Wrong Mr. Tobin.  The WHO manual has many pronouncements on circumcision going well beyond HIV.  The HIV studies were terminated because the people running them thought thought the early results made it unethical not to advise the uncut group to get circumcised right away.  However in Uganda the participants, including those who remained uncut were tracked for 5 years.  The results still showed that circumcision was 70% effective against female to male HIV transmission. http://www.hivandhepatitis.com/2011_conference/croi2011/docs/0311_2010c.html

Comment by Ricky on 6/27/11 at 8:54 am

If that is true, than why has no country changed its recommendation, and instituted routine infant circumcision?
Please consider these logical points:
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0030078
http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV-SA.html
http://www.iasociety.org/Default.aspx?pageId=11&abstractId=2197431
http://www.interscientific.net/AOE2007.html
You are hanging onto a myth, and a scientific inaccuracy.
The HIV, HPV, and penile cancer rates are substantially lower in foreskinned Denmark, Sweden, and Switzerland, than they are in the mostly circumcised US.

Comment by Tom Tobin on 6/27/11 at 9:17 am

drmomma.org is not a refereed medical journal.  The 230 infant circumcision deaths per year is ridiculous.  As far as real studies go, no deaths associated with newborn circumcisions, covered by insurance, in regular US hospitals during the 5 years 2005-2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/17/health/research/17circ.html?ref=health The Dutch KNMG document, you like to cite estimates on page 6 that the number for all infant circumcision deaths in the US is 2 per year.

Comment by Ricky on 6/27/11 at 9:19 am

as long as goyerment doesnt ban the right to pray with rattlesnakes or engage in ritual canabalism I think banning bris milas is okay

Comment by Shushan on 6/27/11 at 9:23 am

Mr. Tobin, the results of circumcision research in Africa are new and will take time for the impact to filter through the world-wide medical community.  We all await the AAP and CDC recommendations, which a couple of years overdue, but are sure to have an impact on circumcision rates when they come out.  I urge you to spend some time educating yourself, eg by reading some of the references I provided, instead of just repeating talking points from anti-circ websites attacking refereed medical articles whose results they don’t like.

Comment by Ricky on 6/27/11 at 9:31 am

I woud urge you to do the same thing, Mr. Ricky.
Since the medical organizations never list circumcision as the actual cause of death, what is the actual number, if you know it isn’t 230.
Did I make up the actual deaths reported in the press?

Comment by Tom Tobin on 6/27/11 at 9:53 am

Is the New York Times medically biased?  Or are they simply reporting that a mohel with herpes caused the death of an infant?  How about interscientific.net,  plosmedicine.org, and iasociety.org?  Are those anti-circ sites?
Your information is at a minimum as filtered and biased as mine, if not more so.
Daniel Halperin, whose study you so empower, is the grandson of a mohel, and publicly emulates him.  How unbiased do you think that study is, exactly?
I would say from the CDC researcher’s leak that the circumcision rate in the US is down to 32.5%, that your projections are unfounded.
Respectfully,
Tom

Comment by Tom Tobin on 6/27/11 at 9:54 am

No, Mr. Tobin, you don’t get the credit for making it up, you copied the 230 number from somebody who made it up.  There is no list, anywhere, of 230 cases in a year of circumcision deaths in the US, copied from newspapers.  I find it funny that you gleefully copy and believe the 32.5% decline from 2005 to 2009 in insured, hospital newborn circumcision rates from the NYTimes article, I cited, despite the caveats given there that the numbers were preliminary and dismiss the 0 deaths during the entire period coming from the same study.  By the way, circumcisions done by mohels are not included, as you would know if you actually read the article.

Comment by Ricky on 6/27/11 at 10:23 am

Good luck with that attitude, Mr. Ricky

Comment by Tom Tobin on 6/27/11 at 10:32 am

John, the WHO has some of the least accurate information regarding female circumcision, and the fact you quoted their “facts” proves my point. Type 1a is in fact the most common form of FGM - They aren’t classified by severity, but by how often they are performed. Type 4 is a ritual nick, which is rarely performed. Yes, there are 4 different types, but only one type is the most common form, type 1a, which is prescribed in Islam. Anything else is strictly forbidden. You speak of infibulation like many people do, which is mostly a scare ploy to win the argument.

Comment by Akilah Mohammed on 6/27/11 at 5:48 pm

Infibulation began during the Roman empire when it was done to MEN, not women, and in fact, there are 4 types of both male “circumcision” that are still being performed today. There are some tribes in Yemen that flay the penis of its men and sew it to their scrotums, but no men jump to the conclusion that all male circumcisions inolve that. Type 1a, is the least invasive and the most performed of the 4 procedures, and in fact, the same WHO you quoted stated in 1976, that when compared to male circumcision, had no harmful effects and if done properly was acceptable. Funny how things can change when people have an agenda.

Comment by Akilah Mohammed on 6/27/11 at 5:50 pm

Ricky, earlier you stated the CDC and AAP were “convinced” when no they aren’t. The AAP has said for years that the risks don’t outweigh the benefits and that doing so is not medically necessary and they actually state that it is not recommended routinely. The CDC has actually removed most of their findings about circumcision having any benefits, but as long as the fetish driven scientists keep making up new reasons to harm children, this will never stop. What ever happened to being born “perfect” and all of that. Why do you assume being intact automatically makes you incapable of hygiene or safe sex?

Comment by Akilah Mohammed on 6/27/11 at 6:09 pm

Tom,

“Right.  I said “no medical organization of any country”.  That is true.”

I have noticed how carefully those types of statements are worded. As more medical organisations catch up to the science no doubt they will be reworded accordingly

I am not surprised that the WHO recommends infant circumcision but I was unaware of it. When performed on infants it is obviously safer, more convenient, ensures that the protection against HIV is in place even if sexual intercourse commences in early teens, and more cost effective and adds many benefits beyond the HIV protection later on.

Comment by Michael on 6/27/11 at 6:49 pm

“I have noticed how carefully those types of statements are worded. As more medical organisations catch up to the science no doubt they will be reworded accordingly”

Michael, the AAP released an updated version of circumcision in May of this year, updated it to include HIV, and STILL said that they don’t recommend it for all male babies, and that UTI’s and HIV can be avoided with proper hygiene and safe sex. They even say it’s not essential to a child’s health. Explain that please.

http://www.healthychildren.org/english/ages-stages/prenatal/decisions-to-make/pages/Circumcision.aspx

Comment by Akilah Mohammed on 6/27/11 at 8:07 pm

I must also point out that these “trials” while flawed beyond belief, “proved” that it might reduce contracting the disease, but nothing about spreading it. 80% of our men are circumcised and we still have the highest HIV rate of any industrialized nation. Spreading the virus is about viral load, not having a foreskin. The “partial protection” it provides must also be used in conjunction with a condom, which further reduces sensations, which is why most cut men don’t like using condoms.

Comment by Akilah Mohammed on 6/27/11 at 8:10 pm

One more thing, to all of you who call circumcision the new AIDS vaccine, I need to inform you of how dangerously stupid that is. Example: a vaccination for Measles is about 99% effective, and, those who have the vaccine are immune to it, and it is permanent protection from the disease. In circumcision, the 60% reduction rate that they tout is for each sexual encounter, not all lumped into one. There is no cure for AIDS, so if you’re circumcised, the first time you have sex you might not get HIV by chance, but the NEXT time you have unprotected sex, you might fall into the 40% category that can still get HIV. Then what? So much for that vaccine argument…

Comment by Akilah Mohammed on 6/27/11 at 8:14 pm

I would bet that all those circumcised Americans who have died of HIV, would tell you that their circumcisions did little or nothing to protect them from the virus.
If you still need a condom, you don’t need circumcision to ‘protect’ you.

Comment by Tom Tobin on 6/28/11 at 4:20 am

In regards to the Canadian Pediatric Urologist, and the 8 best reasons to circumcise. NOT ONE OF THE REASONS POSTED IS IN ANY WAY TRUE OR ACCURATE.  NOT ONE.  But I bet the proponents of this garbage have beautiful houses, cars, and boats.

Comment by Doulalee on 6/28/11 at 7:51 am

Dr. Houle’s 8 reasons to circumcise, are as valid as the figures she made up for circumcision in Finland, which I was glad to correct, with data from Wikipedia, source Finland’s Ministry of Social Affairs and Health.

Comment by Tom Tobin on 6/28/11 at 10:24 am

Wikipedia also reports that Drs. Schoen and Houle, two huge proponents of circumcision, reported very different figures for Finland’s rates, than Finland’s figures.
Schoen et al., however, reported in 2006 that data from 1996–1998 indicate a circumcision rate of about 7.1%;[47] Houle reported the same figure in 2007.[48] Finland’s Ministry of Social Affairs and Health reported in 2004 that, “some 500-1000 circumcisions are performed as a therapeutic measure annually in Finnish hospitals”,[49] amounting to 710 nationwide cases in 2002.[50]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevalence_of_circumcision
Good catch, Doulalee

Comment by Tom Tobin on 6/28/11 at 10:24 am

Thank you Tom.  I just cannot stand by and see, watch, listen, hear, or read totally inaccurate crap just to further line the pockets of the offenders.  Can’t do it.

Comment by Doulalee on 6/28/11 at 10:34 am

Foreskins are no more a danger or a nuisance, or a health hazard, on a male, than they are on a female.  They are the same tissue, protecting a similar part.
Why people get so excited about removing a protective part, I will never in this lifetime understand.

Comment by Tom Tobin on 6/28/11 at 10:58 am

I am saying so long to this discussion board so this is my summation.

1. As the famous cartoon caption of the 2 canines at work on their computers said, “The great thing about the Internet is nobody knows you are a dog”. One should thus never, never believe any personal testimony given here.  The best you will get is a link to something worth reading.

Comment by Ricky on 6/28/11 at 5:25 pm

2. There have been many comment boards recently on the SF ban ballot initiative and the vast majority of the postings have been from anti-circumcision fanatics.  The only interesting things they have to say are clues about where their obsession comes from.  I have detected several sources which I list in no particular order: anti-semitism, anti-Americanism, natural faddists (the kind of people who will tell you to throw out any food not bought at a whole foods type market, even nuts in the shell, because the pesticides will kill you),

Comment by Ricky on 6/28/11 at 5:27 pm

people of both sexes who find another person’s foreskin very sexually arousing.

3. Their main technique are encomiums to the foreskin, insults, bizarre analogies, outright lying and copying links from anti-circumcision websites. Any medical organization, no matter how prestigious, that is neutral or positive on circumcision must be denounced.

Comment by Ricky on 6/28/11 at 5:29 pm

4. The lack of consent objection, even if the procedure is medically desirable, is one of the stupider arguments they give.  Circumcision is just the most visually obvious alteration made to an infant and it pales in significance to the environmental and intellectual changes foisted on an infant without his consent.  Many of the latter are also impossible to reverse.

Comment by Ricky on 6/28/11 at 5:31 pm

Sorry, I forgot in 2. above:
circumcised men who either hate their parents in general or have convinced themselves that their sexual inadequacies stem from being cut,

Comment by Ricky on 6/28/11 at 5:40 pm

Wow, the article at first seemed to be making the point that it would be a shame if circumcision went away because so many jokes would tragically be lost. 

This isn’t about a culture’s right to identify as it wishes.  It’s about the BOY’S wishes and the fact that we can’t know them when he’s a baby. 

So many things about judaism have changed with the times.  When’s the last time most Jewish men asked a woman whether she was menstruating before approaching to discuss something?  The torah says he must avoid her, and stone adulterers, and circumcise HIS SLAVES.

Comment by Ron Low on 6/29/11 at 5:59 am

Bodily rights are inherent, raise him in the Jewish faith, and leave him to decide whether he wants to be part of the religious Jewish community, ethnically he is still Jewish.  This is a sensitive issue for Jewish people; they strive to keep all of G-d’s commandments. Abram circumcised himself as an adult to show loyalty to G-d. Would this not be an even more powerful sign of commitment to G-d for the sons of Abram too, rather than for them to be circumcised as children by adults?  Thereby the Jewish community could encourage men to show commitment to G-d faithfully and loyally, and it would be a sign of strong vibrant Jewish men.  Can we at least let the kids uncircumcised?

Comment by s on 6/30/11 at 3:45 am

Perhaps follow Abraham’s example more closely, and voluntarily circumcise at 99?

Comment by Tom Tobin on 6/30/11 at 4:24 am

If God made man in His image, why did He give him body parts that must be removed? Did God make a mistake when creating man?

Comment by Martin on 7/17/11 at 8:01 pm

Here’s a couple of points for you to think on, PrayerWarrior4SP.
Why would a G*d spend 120 million years, evolving foreskins on mammals, and another 4.7 million years evolving them on humans, and then ask that they be cut off?
Is circumcision taking something?  yes.  does it belong to the mohel?  no.  does it belong to the parents? no.
does it belong to the boy?  yes.  What is it called, when you take something which doesn’t belong to you?
stealing.  Is “Thou shalt not steal” also a tenet of the Jewish faith?

Comment by Tom Tobin on 7/18/11 at 5:31 am

Tom,

Perhaps the millions of years evolving them has to do with embryonic function and it is no longer needed at birth. Obviously after that time they are more trouble then they are worth. It is a bit rich to call obeying God’s directions stealing.

You guys have fluked it in but it won’t last. If the founder of an anti-circ group wasn’t extremely wealthy and wasn’t able to donate $1million in 2008 alone this wouldn’t be a public issue. People strongly opposing it would just be considered cranks. Also, if there wasn’t enough anti-semitism around for Foreskin Man to gain thousands of signatures on a petition the proposed law wouldn’t be an issue.

Comment by John on 7/19/11 at 5:22 pm

Spoken like a man who doesn’t have the slightest acquaintance with anatomy and physiology.
No longer needed?  Why would G*d put it there?
What do you call it, John, when you take something which doesn’t belong to you?
This would be a human rights issue, no matter what.  It was a human rights issue long before the million dollar donation, and will be a human rights issue until it stops.

Comment by Tom Tobin on 7/19/11 at 5:38 pm

People, Jews and non-Jews, were speaking out against circumcision for longer than Matt Hess, Foreskin Man’s creator, has been alive.  Jews worked hard in the 19th century, to remove circumcision, as an outdated part of their religion.

This is why it’s a human rights issue.
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/judge_to_confirm_4.6m_settlement_for_botched_circumcision/

Comment by Tom Tobin on 7/19/11 at 5:43 pm

“However, the connection of the Reform movement to an anti-circumcision, pro-symbolic stance is a historical one. Reformers hoped to replace ritual circumcision “with a symbolic act, as has been done for other bloody practices, such as the sacrifices.” As a result, many European Jewish fathers during the nineteenth century chose not to circumcise their sons, including Theodore Herzl. In the US, an official Reform resolution in 1893 abolished circumcision for converts, and this ambivalence towards the practice has carried over to classical-minded Reform Jews today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_circumcision

Comment by Tom Tobin on 7/19/11 at 5:44 pm

Is this true that half the abortion clinics in the US are run by Jews?
http://www.hli.org/index.php/abortion/465?task=view
http://www.davidduke.com/general/the-abortion-industry-is-led-by-extremist-jews_3618.html
I think the covenant of ritual abortion will replace the ritual prepuce excision covenant as a safer form of eugenics because if you just sexually wound a person, he can come back and bite you in your aspects.

Comment by Frederick Rhodes on 7/20/11 at 3:37 am

I am more optimistic; I think in the long run the ritual post-born abortion of antisemites will take the place of abortion of the innocent unborn.

I see this thread has gotten completely crazed and out of control. I will have to review it and correct the misinformation here.

Comment by Ben Plonie on 7/20/11 at 5:44 am

Ben said: ^^ ritual post-born abortion of antisemites ^^
and also
^^ I see this thread has gotten completely crazed ^^

It seems the inmates are running the assylum. 

John said: ^^ Perhaps the millions of years evolving {foreskins} has to do with embryonic function and it is no longer needed at birth ^^

That is for the informed adult owner to decide. 

^^ after that time they are more trouble then they are worth ^^

That is for the informed adult owner to decide. 

^^ if there wasn’t enough anti-semitism around for Foreskin Man to gain thousands of signatures on a petition the proposed law wouldn’t be an issue. ^^

Foreskin man was not ever used by SFMGMBill.

Comment by Ron Low on 7/20/11 at 7:19 am

I studied physiology at College…

I answered the purpose question already.

“What do you call it, John, when you take something which doesn’t belong to you?” It has no more value than the booger that parents might remove from a baby’s nose and since it is a health liability it has even less.

“This would be a human rights issue, no matter what.”

The only human rights issue is the right of parents to freedom of religion and the right of the baby to have their health protected by their parents.

The only reason it gets more attention than the baby’s equally imaginery human right to avoid vaccination is that money talks.

Comment by John on 8/15/11 at 9:13 pm

@John (see Gary’s Lost List and still think booger?)  It’s frightful you don’t see baby/children as having any human rights. What a sorry college education. You’re bucking the real world where 70-80% of men are having a fine time with all of their equipment. Yours is a clear case of denial. And that is amazing! And I get it.
First Conquer Thyself:

Comment by Frank McGinness on 8/15/11 at 10:47 pm

@John
Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy is when an individual harms another, usually under their care. Attention and self-glorification are achieved through their victim’s subsequent medical treatment.
Violence and abuse are often common in families, passed down.
Munchausen Syndrome in Collective Transmission occurs when such practices become an acceptable part of society often eventuating into full acculturation. In this way societies attach themselves to self-glorification with various explanations of justification. (Dr. Richard L. Matteoli The Munchausen Complex”)

Comment by Frank McGinness on 8/15/11 at 10:56 pm

John, you definitely need to get out more.
When you value a foreskin as much as a booger, well, there are about 3 billion men calling you on it. 
A booger is not alive.  A foreskin is.  A booger does not contain the three most erotically responsive parts of a man.  A foreskin does.  You flunked physiology in college.  Here is what a foreskin does…a computer-animated you tube video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujVvfOicRp4&feature=autoshare
Please, educate yourself.  To be that ignorant is dangerous, to yourself and to others.

Comment by Tom Tobin on 8/16/11 at 3:18 am

The American Academy of Pediatrics observes “Circumcision has been suggested as an effective method of maintaining penile hygiene since the time of the Egyptian dynasties, but there is little evidence to affirm the association between circumcision status and optimal penile hygiene.

Comment by Tom Tobin on 8/16/11 at 3:41 am

John the willfully ignorant wrote:

^^ It has no more value than the booger. . . it is a health liability ^^

Most of the world’s men are intact.  NOT ONE national medical association on earth (not even Israel’s) endorses routine circumcision.  The most recently updated national policy (Holland’s) says doctors must insistantly talk families out of circumcising due to “absence of medical benefits and danger of complications” and it describes the ethical problem with forcibly amputating sexually valuable body parts.  Read it here:
http://knmg.artsennet.nl/Diensten/knmgpublicaties/KNMGpublicatie/Nontherapeutic-circumcision-of-male-minors-2010.htm

Comment by Ron Low on 8/16/11 at 8:07 am

John yakked,” The only human rights issue is the right of parents to freedom of religion and the right of the baby to have their health protected by their parents.
The only reason it gets more attention than the baby’s equally imaginery human right to avoid vaccination is that money talks.”
John, exactly how many vaccines remove 35% to 50% of the child’s genital skin?
When is it protecting the child, to cut healthy parts off of him?

Comment by Tom Tobin on 8/16/11 at 8:31 am

Which is bigger, the parents’ right to do as they wish with the kid, or the kid’s alleged right to keep all of its healthy body parts?  Oh, yeah, that only holds true when the kid is female.
Legal sexism still reigns.  And people wonder why there was a San Francisco bill.

Comment by Tom Tobin on 8/16/11 at 8:32 am

Post a Comment

Name:
Email:

Type the word you see below:

Comment:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?