Tuesday, October 27, 2009

Dr. Sears Statement on Circumcision

By William Sears, M.D.
Read more from Sears at AskDrSears.org


Circumcision is a decision that many parents face, and there is a lot of misconception and out-of-date information that parents read today. Here is a summary of the pertinent issues that you should consider when making this decision.

1. Medical benefits - THERE ARE NONE! Do not circumcise your baby because you think there are some medical benefits. A recent review by the American Academy of Pediatrics looked at all the data from the past decades to see if there truly were any medical benefits. Their conclusion - NO. There are no significant medical benefits that make circumcision worth doing.

Here are a few benefits that we used to think were true, and now know are not.

* Cleanliness - although a circumcised penis does not produce any of its own antibodies or natural lubrication like an intact ('uncircumcised') penis does, THIS IS NOT A MEDICAL BENEFIT. As an infant the foreskin is tightly adhered to the glans (head) of the penis and does NOT produce anything anyway. As an adult, the intact penis can be rinsed in the shower just like a woman rinses her genitals. In addition, there are many health benefits for the antibodies and natural lubrication produced by the intact penis.

* Decreased risk of STD's - this was a myth that we now know is not true.

* Decreased risk of penile cancer - it used to be thought that circumcised men had a much lower chance of cancer of the penis. We now know that this benefit is much smaller than previously thought. The AAP determined that this benefit is so tiny, it is not worth circumcising for this reason.

* Avoiding infections in the foreskin - occasionally intact foreskins get irritated. This is easily treated with warms water and washing. Rarely, the irritated foreskin becomes infected. This requires antibiotics, but is easily treatable. Even if this does happen in a person's lifetime, it is not a reason to circumcise at birth.

* Avoiding the need to do it later on - VERY RARELY, someone has a problem with recurrent infections in the foreskin that need antibiotic treatment. Some of these men then need to be circumcised in an operating room under general anesthesia. This is extremely rare, however, and is not a reason to circumcise everyone at birth.

* Avoiding bladder infections (or UTIs) - it used to thought that circumcised boys and men had a much lower chance of bladder infections. The AAP now knows that this benefit is very small, and is only true for the first year of life. After that, there is no difference in the number of bladder infections. Again, not a reason to circumcise.

THEREFORE, IF YOU DECIDE TO CIRCUMCISE YOUR CHILD, DO NOT DO SO BECAUSE YOU THINK THERE IS ANY MEDICAL BENEFIT.

2. Religious reasons - some people choose to circumcise for religious or cultural reasons. This is a personal decision.

3. Don't want to be teased - while this may have been true in the U.S. decades ago, the truth is that your intact kids will be in good company in the locker room when they are teenagers. Less and less people in the U.S. are now circumcising their boys and we currently see the majority of baby boys leaving the hospital intact (uncircumcised). In addition, almost 90% of the rest of the world's men are intact.

4. Too much trouble to take care of - some people think that an intact penis is too much trouble to pull back and clean, especially during childhood. Well, the truth is, you are not even supposed to pull back the foreskin until it naturally comes back on its own sometime between the ages of 3-years to the teenage years (depending on the boy). So there really isn't anything to even take care of until then. Intact = Don't Retract! Only Clean What is Seen.

5. Want your boy to look like dad - the main difference that your child will notice between him and dad is the hair. He won't even notice any difference in the penis until he is old enough that you can then explain to him the difference. At that point, what man and his son compare genitals?



Intact
vs.
Circumcised

So, what are the reasons TO circumcise that have not been scientifically dispelled as myths?

Here is the list:

Religious reasons - as discussed above. That is all. There really is no good reason to circumcise other that personal preference and religious reasons.

What are the reasons NOT to circumcise?

Consider these:

1. Leave nature alone - whether you believe God created all men and women with a prepuce organ (nicknamed 'foreskin' in men), or nature simply evolved all men and women this way, there must be some reason that all mammals have foreskins. Why change something that God/nature has created?

2. Sensation and sexual pleasure - the foreskin is filled with nerves (70,000+ which is more than any other body organ), and is therefore extremely sensitive to touch. This enhances sexual pleasure. The foreskin is also the only part of the penis that has muscle - 'smooth muscle tissue' - which is not found anywhere else on the genitals.

3. Protects the glans (head) of the penis - the glans is another highly sensitive area and meant to be an internal organ. The foreskin protects the glans from constant rubbing and chaffing against clothing that desensitizes and calluses it over the years. This preserves sexual pleasure.

4. Ethical issues - there are groups of people worldwide, including highly esteemed medical societies, that oppose routine circumcision because they feel it is unethical for anyone to decide to alter the penis of a child without the child's consent. Parents who are deciding whether or not to circumcise their son may wish to consider the impact this may have in the future if the child decides they wish they were not circumcised.

So, when making this decision, the first thing to ask yourself is this - "Do I have any good reason to circumcise my baby?" If your answer is for religious reasons, then follow your faith. If not, and you can't think of any other significant reason other than just "because", then consider the above information as you make your decision.


For more answers to common parenting questions, see Ask Dr. Sears or check out a copy of his hugely popular book, The Baby Book: Everything You Need to Know About Your Baby From Birth to Age 2.


Hear from another physician, Dr. Dean Edell, on infant circumcision: 


Dr. Bob Sears on circumcision: 


[END NOTE]

While we appreciate Dr. Sears' direct and simplified version of an answer to this often pondered question, we are not in agreement in terms of genital cutting for religious reasons. Baby girls are currently protected (by law) against any form of circumcision because of the religious views of their parents. Baby boys deserve the same legal protection. If it is not okay to cut one child, it is not okay to cut another - no matter the personal religious views of those advocating for the genital mutilation. When a girl or boy reaches an age when s/he can decide upon the religion of his/her choosing, s/he can at that point also decide what to do with her/his own genitals.

For more resources written by Jews on the topic of Judaism and Circumcision, see these links.

For more resources written by Christians on the topic of Christianity and Circumcision, see these links.

For more resources written by Muslims on the topic of Islam and Circumcision see:
http://www.quranicpath.com/misconceptions/circumcision.html
http://www.quran.org/khatne.htm

Going into more detail on proper intact care and the many reasons to keep boys intact would be a good idea in Sears' statement -- for their own health/immunological benefits, to avoid the impact that circumcision has on breastfeeding, development, stress hormones, pain response, colic, sleep, attachment, fussiness, post-traumatic stress, brain function, sexual experience later in life, etc. There are so many reasons to protect babies' wholeness and they are not covered in enough detail in this brief response.

~~~~ 

Further information on the prepuce, intact care and circumcision linked at: Are You Fully Informed?

32 comments:

  1. Sears doesn't say, "I will report you to the authorities if you have your son circumcised." He needs to set the example.

    Sears also doesn't say what he should about circumcisions he has perpetrated in the past. At the VERY least he should refund the misbegotten fees he collected. If Sears would make a public announcement and say he is making a donation to NOCIRC in the amount of the estimated fees he's collected over the years for circumcision, then I would have some respect for him.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The way Dr. Sears starts this article is pretty matter-of-fact: "MEDICAL BENEFITS - THERE ARE NONE! Do not circumcise your baby because you think there are some medical benefits."

    Parents: PLEASE be aware of the pro-cutting websites full of mis-information that are run by Brian Morris and his circumfetish band of men (those who are turned on by genital cutting of infants). Their sites are designed with skewed information and the AAP has specifically spoken out AGAINST the sites they post. There simply are NO 'pros' to genitally cutting a newborn baby.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It's really sad about these "circumfetish" people. It is very, very sad because I got some of their literature (though a secret contact) and it really is a sex perversion. Some of them (adults) get re-circumcised every few years to keep it "tight". The pain turns them on. Also reading about babies being circumcised turns them on sexually and if they are doctors, then circumcising babies turns them on sexually too. Sadly they have infiltrated medical circles and seem to be behind things like the drive in Africa to get all males circumcised now, and from now on all baby boys. Circumcision is a trauma to babies, and removes not only healthy tissue, but the most sensitive part of the penis, the ridged band at the tip of the foreskin. This will affect men's sex lives and that of their partners. The glans was designed to be an 'internal organ" and after circumcision it becomes insensitised. Thanks for making this public, and we must keep on speaking up. Having perverts running the show is not okay!

    ReplyDelete
  4. I ♥ Dr. Sears ;)

    ReplyDelete
  5. yay, i hope he updates the books and says this too!!

    ReplyDelete
  6. wow, Patricia! That's so interesting b/c I think in the back of my mind that the sexual fetish is what's driving this practice...but I haven't any firsthand information on it. I mean, when you break down the process, it is the exact same as rape...a stronger human overpowering another human, sexual overtones...pain on the genitalia...and then everyone else denying it or covering it up...

    ReplyDelete
  7. You said it Guggie! It really IS a sexual assault. poor little baby boys :(

    ReplyDelete
  8. OMG, Patricia!! That is SICK! (Ooo Guggie, I said it was "SICK"! LOL)
    I agree, 1005 that it IS sexual assault, and I do not have any nice thoughts or opinions on any parent who subjects their child to this nor do I have any nice things to say about any physician or Mohel who mutilates babies like this!

    ReplyDelete
  9. I really wish my bro and his wife who are expecting their first son in a few weeks would seriously read this stuff. I am so worried for my nephew having to face genital mutilation. It makes me sick. I am gonna steal him at birth, lol. He says it is the christian thing to do. She says she seen men in the nursing home with sores that weren't circ. I say that was an old testimate thing between the jews and God and heck those old men who weren't circ'd would have been years earlier if their foreskin would have been such an issues....it was lack of care on their nurses on that part. Pray they read this information! I have sent them things before but they blow it off. Even videos. It shocks me.

    ReplyDelete
  10. It is actually AGAINST Christian beliefs to do this! And the men in the nursing homes...I have 2 things to say about that.

    1. the nurses aren't caring properly for them

    and

    2. That means they had a full and enjoyable sex life because they were whole and had a fully functioning penis....80 years of pleasure that might have been taken away from them if they were cut up at birth.

    Most men who are circumcised can not fully function sexually after around 45 -50 years old....because they have become so desensitized and calloused from the constant rubbing on their clothing, etc...that they can't feel anything where they should be feeling EVERYTHING!

    Sad, sick world we live in.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Christians do not follow the Old Testament belief. You may want to pass this along to your brother and his wife. There are so many more Christian resources out there as well that are anti-circumcision. It is un-Christian to believe that circumcision gets anyone into Heaven. Christians are not supposed to be circumcised. http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/circumcision.html

    ReplyDelete
  12. Peaceful Parenting has some great bible based stuff on this blog about how anti-Christian circumcision is! You should print it out and give it to the Pastor of your Brother's church. If he feels it's Christian then he should be wiling to discuss it with the Pastor right?

    ReplyDelete
  13. it sounds like this is a case of willful ignorance. if people genuinely wish to become informed, they can - there is enough evidence, research, testimonials, doctors speaking out about the horrors of genital cutting, historians showing how DIFFERENT prepuce amputation is today than the 'blessing cuts' in antiquity, religion professors demonstrating how NO religions in antiquity did what we do today to infant boys... there is NO medical organization in the world that recommends circumcision. And there are many reasons this is the case. so if parents DESIRE to genitally cut up their newborn baby (as sadistic and sad as this is) while staying blind to all the harm they are doing in the process... unfortunately they still have the legal right to cut up their baby (as long as he is a HE and not a SHE) in the United States. it is for the babies born to THESE parents that we need the MGM Bill to pass quickly. http://www.mgmbill.org/

    ReplyDelete
  14. yes, yes, yes, and YES! because no-one should have the right to mutilate someone against their will! I hope we pass a similar bill here in Canada. SOON!

    ReplyDelete
  15. Guggie - agree fully with your statement as well. It seems that (while we cannot scientifically study this in a 'hard science' fashion) that it is the sexual dominance of one over another and the sadistic sexual fetishes that keep this going for the boys who are subjected to it each year. Just as the majority of those who repeatedly rape WERE sexually assaulted themselves at some point, the majority of those who sexually assault a newborn through the mixing of knives/pain/blood/genitals were also the victims of such an attack in their own infancy.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I'm sorry, but it's not entirely true. I do not have any boys, but if I did, I would not have them circumcized, but your facts conveniently leave out studies that say the opposite.

    http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm

    ReplyDelete
  17. Regarding religion, it may be a "personal choice," but since when do medical doctors have a duty to become a parent's personal mohel? Do doctors NOT have the duty to adhere to medicine and to medicine only? Do doctors have the duty to circumcise GIRLS to comply with a parent's "personal religious choice?" Why boys only?

    If you're Jewish and you're considering having your son circumcised, it may be something to think about. You will have to debate about calling that mohel or not.

    But a doctor has absolutely no business performing non-medical religious ritual in a hospital. Charging money to perform non-medical elective cosmetci surgery on a healthy, non-consenting individual constitutes medical fraud. It is a violation of basic human rights, and one of these days doctors will be held responsible by the victims they mutilate.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Nikki -

    The purpose of this site is to catalog (and share with those interested) empirical, research-based studies and commentary from those in the fields of human development, medicine, birth, human sexuality, lactation science, attachment science, psychology, psychiatry, sociology, and related areas that pertain to the optimal well-being of babies, children and family units. It is not the place for back-and-forth arguments between those who are not well versed in the literature or research on any given topic herein. Everyone has an opinion -- but this site is not for 'opinions' but one that attempts to maintain some integrity as per the accuracy of information posted. Although it is apparent you are not familiar with, or up-to-date on, the outcomes of the HIV/circumcision 'studies' in Africa, I will respond to your accusation that 'facts' were left out of Dr. Sears' statement and point readers to additional accurate information for further investigation into this subject.

    Dr. Sears' statement leaves out nothing pertaining to this matter re: the link you've included. The CDC made statements about 2 years ago (the link you pulled/posted was their revised statement for year end 2007 that were posted for online distribution Feb 2008) that pertained to the 'studies' being conducted at that time on African men in Africa (who commonly have sex with each other - male-male intercourse without condom use). A few carrying with them the goal to 'circumcise the world' were on a mission to show that adult circumcision (not infant - ADULT) could 'cure' some of our diseases. [This is not the first time this has been done -- circumcision has been claimed in times past to cure masturbation, blindness, deafness, syphilis, herpes, gonorrhea, cancer, etc. - see "CUT: Slicing through the myths of circumcision" http://www.cutthefilm.com/Cut_Website/Home.html ] In this 'new' effort to link HIV with the intact penis (89% of the world's men have an intact penis), men were rounded up in Africa (after all - it is the one place where people don't have many apparent human rights, right?) and they were systematically circumcised (as adults) without being given complete and accurate information about the consequences or side effects of prepuce amputation. Women were told this was "good for your husband, good for you!" Everyone was jumping on the African band wagon (in Africa) to "be like Americans". There was a lot of brain washing going on - and a lot of poorly constructed, unreliable, invalid 'research' being practiced. The majority of the onlooking world shook their head at this small group of American researchers with their circumfetish goals, and openly exposed the major flaws in their 'study'.

    Still, reports were tainted and passed around to the AAP, CDC, AAPS (Australia), IPA (international), CPA (Canada), WHO and the like. Most medical organizations threw it out immediately for being faulty, biased, poorly conducted 'research' that was obviously construed to 'prove' something that was untrue.

    (CONT BELOW)

    ReplyDelete
  19. (CONT FROM ABOVE)

    The CDC, however, chose to make statements based on initial readings of document (likely because several who were on the research committee were also CDC members, and also likely because the CDC is made up primarily of white, U.S.-born men coming from a highly circumcising culture). The CDC also must be 'careful' as per their recommendations because what they advise for or against impacts what Medicaid will and will not pay for. If Medicaid will not pay for infant genital cutting (more and more States' Medicaid does NOT cover it) then 'poor people' do not have the option to cut their babies and it become a class issue -- which the CDC tries to avoid.

    2 years pass... there is a LOT of media coverage in the U.S. about the "African studies" and HIV and circumcision... it sells newspapers, magazines, gets people to tune into Good Morning America and the like...

    Then we start seeing the REAL results of the studies (there were 3 started). They must end early because too many women are being infected with HIV from their newly-circumcised partners. Oops! It doesn't protect women from contracting HIV. http://drmomma.blogspot.com/2009/07/african-hiv-circumcision-study-ends.html

    And then we start finding the HIV rate INCREASING among the populations of African men who were circumcised for 'our' study. Oops again. Who would have thought - remove the 1 organ that is designed to PROTECT AGAINST bacterial and viral infections -- the ONE organ that produces its own antibodies, antivirals, and antibacterials - and you might just see MORE (not less) infection occur as a result. http://drmomma.blogspot.com/2009/09/hiv-increases-in-africa-where-most-men.html

    So the studies are ended. The CDC issues a new statement (which you didn't pull up and cite) stating that they will "look into all the data to make future recommendations" and at this point they (along with every medical and health organization in the entire world) do NOT recommend infant circumcision.

    Two major (obvious) points on this topic:

    1) The U.S. has the highest rate of HIV of any Western nation. We are also thee only nation were the majority of the sexually active adult population of men are circumcised. Countries that have the lowest rates of HIV - where it is virtually unheard of - also have virtually no circumcised men. Nations where men remain intact and where all populations are provided research-based sexuality education are those we see the least amount of HIV (and other sexually transmitted infections) within. If circumcision 'prevented HIV' then the U.S. would have the lowest rate of HIV in the world. Obviously just the opposite is true.

    2) Even if circumcision did 'prevent HIV' (which it certainly does not) BABIES ARE NOT HAVING SEX WITH EACH OTHER. If an adult man wishes to venture to Africa to have unprotected sex with another HIV-positive African man and he believes that being circumcised will protect him in this new endeavor - then by all means, he should have the right to amputate his prepuce organ. After all, it belongs to him. But BABIES are not going on these world-wide escapades to have intercourse with each other. BABIES have no one to protect them from the 'willy-nilly' cutting up of their bodies except the one who brought them into this world and is there to protect them from such harmful nonsense.

    (CONT BELOW)

    ReplyDelete
  20. (CONT FROM ABOVE)

    If someone is currently unread (not well versed) in the African 'studies' and the current, real, reliable statistics (not just the 'pop media' articles) surrounding HIV and circumcision, PLEASE look into the following sources from experts in the fields of human sexuality and health care to continue your investigation for accurate and complete information on the matter.

    Dr. Dean Edell on Africa/HIV/circumcision: http://drmomma.blogspot.com/2009/10/dr-edell-discusses-africa-aids.html

    The Truth About Circumcision & HIV: http://drmomma.blogspot.com/2009/08/truth-about-circumcision-and-hiv.html

    HIV/Circumcision Public Policy Site: http://www.circumcisionandhiv.com/

    The Nuts & Bolts of HIV in the U.S. and why Circumcision won't protect men: http://drmomma.blogspot.com/2009/08/nuts-and-bolts-of-hiv-in-usa-and-why.html

    Here We Go Again (Headlines): http://drmomma.blogspot.com/2009/08/here-we-go-again-new-york-times.html

    HIV Increases Where Men Circumcised: http://drmomma.blogspot.com/2009/09/hiv-increases-in-africa-where-most-men.html

    HIV/Circumcision Studies End Early due to INCREASED HIV rates among women: http://drmomma.blogspot.com/2009/07/african-hiv-circumcision-study-ends.html

    Teen Sexual Health: STDs Lowest in Nations with INTACT boys: http://drmomma.blogspot.com/2009/07/adolescent-sexual-health-in-europe-and.html

    The First Cut is the Deepest: http://drmomma.blogspot.com/2009/09/first-cut-is-deepest.html

    History of FEMALE and male circumcision in the U.S. (by medical journal citations): http://drmomma.blogspot.com/2009/09/history-of-female-circumcision-in.html

    Protect Your Intact Son: http://drmomma.blogspot.com/2009/08/protect-your-uncircumcised-son-expert.html

    Bloggerheads Response: http://drmomma.blogspot.com/2009/09/new-york-times-bloggingheads.html

    MGM: Male Genital Mutilation and HIV: http://drmomma.blogspot.com/2009/09/stop-male-genital-mutilation-by-derek.html

    American Baby Lies and Misquotes: http://drmomma.blogspot.com/2009/07/american-baby-magazine-circumcision.html

    A Response to Skeptics: http://drmomma.blogspot.com/2009/07/circumcision-response-to-skeptics.html

    Take Your Whole Baby Home: http://drmomma.blogspot.com/2009/06/take-your-whole-baby-home.html

    Male Circumcision Hurts Women: http://drmomma.blogspot.com/2009/10/male-circumcision-hurts-women.html

    Male Circumcision & Women's Health links: http://drmomma.blogspot.com/2009/07/how-male-circumcision-impacts-women.html

    Book: "What Your Doctor May Not Tell You About Circumcision" by Drs. Fleiss & Hodges:

    FUNCTIONS OF THE FORESKIN (this should be required reading for anyone thinking of amputating the prepuce from another human being): http://drmomma.blogspot.com/2009/09/functions-of-foreskin-purposes-of.html

    ReplyDelete
  21. Dr. Fleiss & Dr. Hodges book link was left out of the previous post: http://www.amazon.com/Doctor-About-Circumcision-Performed-Unnecessary-Surgery/dp/0446678805/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1261210605&sr=8-1

    ReplyDelete
  22. Honestly, I think we're too harsh on the parents. They're just victims of misinformation. Our energy should be focused on the American medical establishment who continue to bury knowledge necessary to preserve the integrity of the intact male body. American doctors are instructed to remove the "unknown". They do this in spite of every medical organization in the world who recommends against it. Australia, in light of those "African, circ to prevent AIDS" fabricated "studies", banned unwarranted circumcision in their hospitals. We all need to be careful to not alienate the mother lest we face a serious backlash. please don't hate me. I'm just say'n, is all

    ReplyDelete
  23. David Vernon has written an excellent examination of the religious reasons for circumcision and the fact that there are NO religious reasons that stand up to scrutiny that suggest circumcision should take place. See: http://web.mac.com/david.vernon/The_Canberra_Journal/The_Scribbles/Entries/2007/10/28_Circumcision_—_mutilation_or_necessity.html

    ReplyDelete
  24. Thanks to Dr Sears for hastening the demise of this barbaric practice. It is strange that we are horrified about accounts of female genital mutilation, yet male genital mutilation is still carried out in supposedly progressive societies.

    We also condone another barbaric assault of unproven medical benefit on our children: the injection of toxic substances while subscribing to the bizarre notion that this has something to do with disease prevention.

    Genital mutilation and vaccination are both superstitions which have no place in an enlightened society. They should both be consigned to the rubbish tin of
    obsolete cultural practices, for the benefit of our children and future generations.

    ReplyDelete
  25. God the video's of the poor babies just breaks my heart!!!

    ReplyDelete
  26. Actions speak louder. How about Dr. Sears throw some weight against Calif. AB768 and fed. HR2400 (poll at POPVOX www.popvox.com/bills/us/112/hr2400 ).
    These bills are citing INTO LAW: "(1) Male circumcision has a wide array of health and affiliative benefits." Even more ominous, these laws are being built to withstand any assaults on circumcision including any circumcision lawsuit thus effectively saying "tough!". Their biggest fear is coming in less than 3 years when cut 18 year olds have the legal standing to sue the fed./state for being equally protected as females are.

    On Monday AB 768 was amended and several new coauthors were added.

    AB 768 sponsors:

    Introduced by Assembly Members Mike Gatto and Fiona Ma

    Principal coauthors: Mark Leno and Darrell Steinberg

    Coauthors: Assembly Members Tom Ammiano, Marty Block, Mike Feuer, Linda Halderman, Jerry Hill, Bonnie Lowenthal, and Jeff Miller

    Coauthor: Senator Leland Yee

    Assemblywoman Linda Halderman is a physician.

    If you live in the district of one of the sponsors, please mail them a letter.

    The text of the bill changed a little. Section 1 (b) was revised and (c) was added.

    The text of the amended bill is:

    THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

    SECTION 1. Part 10 (commencing with Section 125850) is added to Division 106 of the Health and Safety Code, to read:

    PART 10. MALE CIRCUMCISION

    125850. (a) The Legislature finds and declares as follows:

    (1) Male circumcision has a wide array of health and affiliative benefits.

    (2) This section clarifies existing law.

    (b) No city, county, or city and county ordinance, regulation, or administrative action shall prohibit or restrict the practice of male circumcision, or the exercise of a parent's authority to have a child circumcised.

    (c) The Legislature finds and declares that the laws affecting male circumcision must have uniform application throughout the state. Therefore, this part shall apply to general law and charter cities, general law and charter counties, and charter city and counties.

    SEC. 2. This act is an urgency statute necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within the meaning of Article IV of the Constitution and shall go into immediate effect. The facts constituting the necessity are:

    In order to clarify the state's authority with respect to the regulation of the practice of male circumcision at the earliest possible time, it is necessary for this act to take effect immediately.

    ReplyDelete
  27. https://www.popvox.com/bills/us/112/hr2400/report#nation

    ReplyDelete
  28. I thank Dr. Sears for lending his voice, but I too must say that I disagree with saying that religion is a good reason to circumcise an un-consenting individual, and then later say that there are ethical issues about choice. If a person has the right to their full body, they have it even if their parents are religious. If a person who is religious isn't doing somethi ng wrong taking that choice, then neither is someone who thinks it looks better that way. \ /,,

    ReplyDelete
  29. If Dr. Sears did perform circ. in the past, isn't the guilt he undoubtedly feels about having done this, punishment enough???? As for religious reasons, he didn't say this is a legitimate reason, just one some people use. I think his statement is excellent.

    ReplyDelete
  30. It's good, but I agree, I don't think with all that information Dr. Sears should have been saying, If it's religious....follow your faith. He could have left this one out and just said, anyone (religious or otherwise, should take all the facts and at least make an informed decision). The bottom line is until cutting baby boys is made illegal, it is still legal for parents to make this decision. Right now we can only educate, educate, educate.... and hope parents see the light.

    ReplyDelete
  31. wow! i agree with dr sears for one hes trying to give a point to people if you dont see that then thats you fault.
    some of you really dont see what happens when your son gets older my husband has been dealing with his Circumcision that was messed up i see him cry i see him in anger because he feels pinches numbsness and hurts him during intercorse. yes if god wanted the boys to have a Circumcision he would of did it!!

    ReplyDelete
  32. There are two arguments that pro-circumcision activists use to refute the "circumcision desensitizes the penis and does not impair sexual functions" that goes:

    1) Desenstizing the penis glands actually delays the time it takes to reach an orgasm, thus prolonging sexual intercourse.

    2) Countries like Israel, the Middle-east and South Korea that have most men circumcised rarely complain about circumcision affecting their sexual lives and are obviously still able to have sex and reproduce.

    ReplyDelete

LinkWithin

Related Posts with Thumbnails