The Circumcision of Infants is Morally Abhorrent and Should Be Illegal

reply to post by LightOrange


Well, if this isnt a good enough reason for it, I dont know what is.

There is compelling evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%

WHO

I agree that this practice is disgusting and wrong. No one, especially a baby, should be subjected to such a thing. It's pure sadism.

People who actually believe in the circumcision of babies are scum. I don't care what you think about circumcision itself, you can think what you like about it, adults should be able to decide what they want to their own bodies, that's not in dispute. But If you think that parents have a right to make that choice, you're a low, low human being. I couldn't adequately put into words how little I think of you.

The sooner it's made illegal the better. I can't wait until all the rats and filth in America are jailed for their acts of barbarism.

The comments in here are enough to make you sick. Deny ignorance? Bunch of inhumane tyrants.

The necessity for circumcision is abundantly evidenced, and although it may be needless to state any reasons for doing this operation, nevertheless I will mention a few:
1. Reduced tendency to convulsions in infancy arising from irritable nervous system.
2. Habit of masturbation not so likely to be formed.
3. Lessened irritability of child or adult.
4. Amorosity reduced.
5. A hygienic condition promoted.
6. Venereal diseases not so readily contracted, and consequently:
7. Fewer pelvic diseases in women.
8. For impotency in old men, as has been advocated.
The ease with which this operation can be done by the use of the instrument here described is so marked that a person could circumcise himself, provided he did not become faint-hearted. Only one-quarter of [the] time required for other methods is needed. The operation is practically bloodless, as all ligatures are uniformly placed and tied before the clamp is removed.

www.historyofcircumcision.net...

I literally about spit my coffe out at about number three, I was laughing that hard.

Really, a person thought to cut off sensitive skin because of these reasons? #6 and 7 notwithstanding, it is kind of a funny list.


E.T.A - Oh ok, I get it now, it is only getting better.

The T-model penis Wan reports that Goldstein was inspired by watching a mechanic at work with a tyre lever on a Ford motor car. In a broader perspective, his invention may be seen as part of the drive for speed and efficiency so characteristic of American industry in the 1920s, and the application of Fordist production line techniques to surgery. Circumcised penises would henceforth roll out of the hospitals with the same speed and efficiency as Henry Ford’s cars poured out of his factories, all as standardised and uniform as the T-model itself. Wan’s article is well worth studying, both for its historical information and the insights it affords into the standards of medical ethics current among American urologists.

www.historyofcircumcision.net...

reply to post by Doodle19815

2. Habit of masturbation not so likely to be formed.

That one is false

reply to post by Juggernog


That is what my husband said as well!

I can't possibly wrap my head around the history of this. Guess I will be reading up on circumcision for the remainder of my free time today.

Originally posted by Juggernog
reply to post by LightOrange

 

Well, if this isnt a good enough reason for it, I dont know what is.

There is compelling evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%

WHO

Never thought to question mainstream "science" eh?

There appears no clear pattern of association between male circumcision and HIV prevalence. In 8 of 18 countries with data, HIV prevalence is lower among circumcised men, while in the remaining 10 countries HIV prevalence is higher among circumcised men.

www.measuredhs.com...

Circumcision magically reducing your chance to get infected is a flat out lie.

Studies in Africa claim that adult male circumcision significantly reduces the risk of men acquiring HIV. Many professionals question the reliability and validity of these studies. However, some others take the leap of recommending adult male circumcision as an HIV prevention strategy in Africa for up to 38 million men. Publishing such a report in the United States appears to support the American cultural practice of circumcision. Such judgments are dangerous.

For American society, circumcision is a solution in search of a problem, a social custom disguised as a medical issue. Beware of culturally-biased studies on circumcision posing as science, and take your whole baby home.

www.circumcision.org...

OP, if you're interested, this topic has been covered ad infinitum on ATS. I mention that, because both sides of this debate have found some very interesting info in their research into this. It's well worth the look into old threads on this. Very educational.

Here's an old thread I did on circumcision fwiw. San Francisco's Anti circumcision...

Jeez......

I was checking out instruments that are used in the procedure...........yikes.

www.noharmm.org...

(Can't post pics because some of them are graphic.)

Right now I am happy that I have two GIRLS. I don't know how I would make the decision to do this to my baby boy.

Originally posted by Juggernog
reply to post by LightOrange

 

Well, if this isnt a good enough reason for it, I dont know what is.

There is compelling evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%

WHO

Yes, that's absolutely compelling.. although I'm not sure that what you're asserting is really based on any facts at all. Either way the decision should be for someone who is considering circumcision for themselves. What infant do you know who has to worry about the sexual transmission of HIV? It should be a personal choice that can be decided by an individual when they have enough experience with life to decide for themselves, not a parental one based on religion that the child may or may not agree with when they become an adult..

another anti-circumcision thread ?

posted by the unclean as usual
never by a circumcised person

with the usual chorus of anti-semites
[because you know the Jews WILL violate any anti-circumcision laws]

it is not easy to clean, else why were american tax dollars spent teaching africans [uncircumcised of course] how to wash properly? racist jokes aside people are not stupid over there.

but some seem to like being passive-aggressive disease vectors for AIDS and any number of STD's, bacteria, etc.
or the idea of knocking up their sex partner EVERYTIME [premature ejac.]

if you like your sex quick and tidy [less than 10min], fine, just don't get pissed and post an anti-circumcision rant
when your woman dumps you for whoever can last long enough to give her, her 1st real orgasm.

maybe circumcision should be forced on all men, eh?
oh, don't like it?

then what business do you have with my junk or that of other peoples and their kids?

find a real evil in the world, to go on a crusade for, yeah, i went there, as much of the anti-circumcision crusade is backed by xtian fanatics, like those quiverfull freaks, who want to force each, every xtian woman
INTO HAVING 20 BABIES [for the lord, of course]

we get it already, unclean ones, you've got an agenda.

bad luck with that,

reply to post by DerepentLEstranger


Nice job outing yourself, JIDF.

Keep throwing around that "anti-semitism" rhetoric, us 'goyim' get a kick out of it.

Originally posted by AdamsMurmur
reply to post by DerepentLEstranger

 

Nice job outing yourself, JIDF.

Keep throwing around that "anti-semitism" rhetoric, us 'goyim' get a kick out of it.

nice job making a fool of yourself,

i'm a known anti-zionist here

but thanks for confirming my post

Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger
another anti-circumcision thread ?

posted by the unclean as usual
never by a circumcised person

. Could not be more wrong.

maybe circumcision should be forced on all men, eh?
oh, don't like it?

then what business do you have with my junk or that of other peoples and their kids?

What a foolish statement. I couldn't possibly care less about what you do with your own junk, but forcing your children to not have a choice about the aesthetics and condition of theirs is absolutely disgusting. Your children are people and they will grow up to be adults who may not have wanted that; they do NOT belong to you and you have absolutely no right altering their body in a permanent fashion.

we get it already, unclean ones, you've got an agenda.

bad luck with that,

Quoted for the reinforcing of the sheer insanity of your argument.

reply to post by LightOrange

What infant do you know who has to worry about the sexual transmission of HIV?

Umm.. Male infants do grow up and have sex, at least most of them do.

And daaamn... who in their right mind would get this procedure as an adult? Hell no

Also, there are several studies out there about the circumcision reduces hiv infection theory.
Regardless of what informal studies were done in Africa, there is a real connection.

Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger

Originally posted by AdamsMurmur
reply to post by DerepentLEstranger

 

Nice job outing yourself, JIDF.

Keep throwing around that "anti-semitism" rhetoric, us 'goyim' get a kick out of it.

nice job making a fool of yourself,

i'm a known anti-zionist here

but thanks for confirming my post

>known anti-zionist around here
>calling uncut men 'the unclean'

How convoluted. And no, I'm personally not "xtian" nor am I on some "crusade." Just telling it like it is.

Still, I love how all these words get thrown around when people begin to criticize and become suspicious of the usefulness of certain acts, methods, and so on. MSM will keep deluding the public into thinking circumcision is a superior decision with baseless claims like the WHO article at the top of this page, just to justify the act.

Not buying it.

Originally posted by Juggernog
reply to post by LightOrange

 

What infant do you know who has to worry about the sexual transmission of HIV?

Umm.. Male infants do grow up and have sex, at least most of them do.

And when they are grown ups, perhaps they would like the instrument they use to perform such a task completely in-tact, and who is to say they shouldn't be allowed to?

And daaamn... who in their right mind would get this procedure as an adult?

Um...Anyone who would take your argument on HIV as compelling enough to justify it?

I don't see how anything you've asserted so far is an acceptable argument for parents to be the sculptors of their childrens' current and future genitalia.

What a tragic practice, stupid and mean. Not quite the same as female circumcision in Africa but like one of the posters said, it's nature's way of keeping the pleasure nerve endings well tucked away until they are used for their natural purpose. There was a man I knew who'd walk around naked to show people the tragedy that occurs when too much of the foreskin in removed - an anti-circumcision advocate. I was lucky - my parents had me circumcised but the doctor, bless his soul, took off just a little bit.

it's not an esthetic issue, it's hygienic [the esthetic argument is no different, from the claim that being gay is a choice]
all that's missing is the apples to oranges comparison of circumcision to female genital mutilation
for emotional impact BS

here are a few links which i know the inactivists won't bother reading, that's just fine with me:
knowledge is power
and those who choose to remain ignorant cannot complain
when the consequences of their ignorance manifest.
so these links are for those who would educate themselves not for those who willfully promote ignorance.

www.circinfo.net...

In 1971 the American Academy of Paediatrics (AAP) Committee for the Newborn came out with a statement that said there are "no valid medical indications for circumcision" [Committee., 1971], although this statement had only a slight effect on the rate of newborn circumcision in the USA.

In 1975 the statement was modified to "no absolute valid ..." [Thompson et al., 1975], which remained in the 1983 statement, but in 1989 it changed significantly to "New evidence has suggested possible medical benefits" [American, 1989]. In his 2008 book, the Chair of the 1989 committee, Dr Edgar Schoen, recounts his experiences on this committee [Schoen, 2008]. He describes the 1975 Statement as “safe, but misleading and a misrepresentation of the facts”, saying “The 1975 Task Force Chair, Dr. Thompson was upset by this sleight-of-hand word change [of substituting the word “absolute” (in the 1975 statement) for the word “valid” (in the 1971 Statement)] by the neonatology group and in 1983 when the 1975 “no absolute medical indiction” statement was reiterated by both the AAP and the ACOG, he expressed his frustration in an editorial in the American Journal of Diseases of Childhood, but there was not much he could do by then”.

However, in its 1999 Statement [Lannon et al., 1999] the AAP went backwards. Although the literature review it conducted was academically weak, it did, nevertheless, mention the vast array of benefits. The major flaw of this document was that it fell short of stating the obvious, if it had used a more balanced literature survey, in recommending circumcision. This may have been quite understandable, given medico-legal worries in the face of very hostile, politically active anti-circumcision groups.

In a joint response the Chair of the 1989 AAP Taskforce on Circumcision, Edgar Schoen, and others more expert than those on the 1999 Taskforce, rebutted the 1999 statement [Schoen et al., 2000c; Schoen et al., 2001]. Others also leveled valid criticisms [Bailis, 2000; Kunin, 2000].

Surprisingly, in 2005 the AAP reaffirmed its 1999 policy [American, 2005b], in effect suppressing all of the very strong affirmative evidence published since its 1999 statement. Schoen strongly condemned the AAP for ignoring the 7 years of extensive research findings since 1998 [Schoen, 2006a]. Further to this, in 2007, when challenged by Schoen [Schoen, 2007b], a Section Editor of the top journal in the field, Pediatrics, called for the AAP to reassess its position in the light of new data [Elder, 2007a].

The various statements by such real experts highlight the information that follows in the present much more comprehensive and better-balanced internet review.

It is clear that providing a scientifically accurate Statement by a pediatric body is difficult in the face of minority lobby groups whose agenda tends to be a political one rather than medical or scientific. This is not to detract from the clear scientific weaknesses in the 1999 AAP Statement and their pamphlet [Bailis, 2000; Schoen et al., 2000c].

Dr Edgar Schoen stated that the benefits of routine circumcision of newborns as a preventative health measure far exceed the risks of the procedure [Schoen, 1993]. He has continued to this day to campaign for public education of the benefits of circumcision, publishing a very worthy book on the topic in 2005 [Schoen, 2005b] and another in 2009 [Schoen, 2008].

During the period 1985-92 there was an increase in the frequency of post-newborn circumcision (to over 80% in one study [Wiswell & Hachey, 1993]) and during that same time Schoen points out that the association of lack of circumcision and urinary tract infection (UTI) has moved from "suggestive" to "conclusive" [Schoen, 1993]. Moreover, this period heralded the finding of associations with other infectious agents, including HIV. In fact he goes on to say that "Current newborn circumcision may be considered a preventative health measure analogous to immunization in that side effects and complications are immediate and usually minor, but benefits accrue for a lifetime" [Schoen, 1993].

Through the 1990s and into the new millenium the rate of circumcision has continued to rise. In the light of an increasing volume of medical scientific evidence pointing to the benefits of neonatal circumcision, the pediatric professional bodies of various countries have been forced to review the evidence and formulate more up-to-date policy statements. These documents MUST be read in their ENTIRETY to be fully comprehended. (Isolated quotes have been taken from these by anti-circumcision groups to fuel their propaganda.)

en.wikipedia.org...


www.forward.com...

For some doctors, however, recent studies showing that circumcised heterosexual African men are around half as likely as their uncircumcised counterparts to contract HIV simply back up what they have claimed all along: that circumcision is not only harmless but also beneficial. Edgar Schoen, a pediatric endocrinologist who was the chair of the 1989 American Academy of Pediatrics’ Task Force on Circumcision, claims that there at least 10 known medical benefits provided by circumcision. For example, there is some evidence that circumcision decreases the risk of infant kidney infection early in life and helps prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.
***
At the end of the day, every couple has to make its own decision, said Rabbi Donni Aaron, head of program designed to train Reform mohels. But, she added, most of the parents she has encountered eventually choose to circumcise their sons, and that trend is unlikely to change any time soon. “If for thousands of years it was clear that the practice was harmful,” she said, “it would have gone away a while ago.”

Hounded by Anti-Circumcision Activists? Here are the answers to their one-sided arguments! www.circlist.com...

Accusation:

Taken together, the clinical benefits to a child during childhood do not merit making the circumcision decision a parental choice. Leave him to decide once he becomes responsible for his own healthcare choices.

Rebuttal:

The principal responsibility of parenthood is to act at all times in the child’s best interests. Amongst many other things, that creates an obligation to take medical decisions that the child, by virtue of age, cannot comprehend.

Some benefits of circumcision are lost if elective circumcision is deferred until adulthood. These are:

Greater expense in consequence of the greater complexity of the procedure post-puberty

Requirement for initiative and determination to arrange a circumcision

Slower to heal

Implications of time off work or school

Probability of a less satisfactory cosmetic outcome

No benefit in terms of protection against infant urinary tract infections and the attendant risk of kidney damage

No benefit in terms of protection against cancer of the penis later in life

Risk of greater exposure to sexually transmitted diseases if onset of sexual activity precedes circumcision

(There may, in addition, be good cause to circumcise a child for therapeutic medical reasons, but that’s a different issue.)


Aside from any suspicions that the argument in favour of deferral is actually a covert argument against circumcising at all, CIRCLIST suggests that the existence of these additional benefits of neonatal circumcision do justify the matter being decided by parents. Note that the above list identifies additional benefits; neonatal circumcision also conveys all the same benefits as adult circumcision.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Accusation:

We don’t circumcise animals, so why circumcise humans?.

Rebuttal:

Foreskins are unique to humans; other mammals have something properly termed a ‘penis sheath’. Our evolutionary divergence may well date from the time when our ancestors first walked upright, a posture less likely to expose the penis to mechanical damage. Our unique anatomy has, unfortunately, produced a unique set of problems. But human ingenuity has also produced a solution - circumcision.

jezebel.com...#!5192599/the-anti+circumcision-movement-puts-their-skin-in-the-game


blog.imperfectparent.com...

So if you think that you need circumcision for health or hygiene reasons then you must accept that humans are not perfect design - which is an evolutionary stance not a religious stance that says humans were built in the eyes of God.

So atheists should circumcise, religious people should not - strange world.

For me - this is child abuse