Don't Retract Pack
- CONTACT / ABOUT
- INFO CARDS / WRISTBANDS
- INFO PACK
- LIBRARY RESOURCE LISTS
- LOCAL CHAPTERS
- GUEST AUTHOR
- Foreskin Friendly Physicians
- Don't Retract Pack
- Intact Care
- Judaism & Brit Milah
- Christianity & Circumcision
- Islam & Circumcision
- MGM Memorial
- Supporting Members
- Discussion Groups
- EXPOS & EVENTS
- SOS: Sponsor a Son
Fox News Report on MA MGM Bill
We have previously implemented the 1996 FGM Bill (on a federal level) to protect baby girls from non-medical genital cutting (no matter the reason their parents wish to cut them). The MGM Bill is certainly not radical by any means - it simply suggests that baby boys have equal basic human rights to bodily integrity as girls do. Why have a sexist law on the books that protects one sex and not the other? All human beings are born with the right to NOT be cut apart at birth without medical necessity.
It is unfortunate that this Fox news brief reiterates many of the myths thrown around in pop culture today -- those that are readily and repeatedly refuted when we dive into the medical literature on the subject.
Let's become fully informed before speaking on such topics.
It is troubling that Fox presents this bill (and the idea of granting basic human rights to boys equally with girls) as "taking away rights" from parents. This is not taking away rights - it is granting and protecting rights - for those who should have them in the first place.
The way this news clip is presented is very backward. Three blatant old-school myths are stated as though they are significant fact (reduction of STDs, UTI, penile cancer). Fox comments make circumcision appear as 'the norm', "Those who aren't circumcised face greater risks of..." At the same time, they minimize the catastrophic consequences we know to be true of circumcision. To top off their agenda, Fox only includes interview clips from pro-cutting passerbys. I suppose we should know by now what to expect from pop media news pieces - especially those coming from producers who are cut, uninformed, and in denial. But this is a really pathetic, biased, news brief. At least do a moment of research before reporting on the issue at hand.
Please take a moment and submit your own comment of response on the Fox page here.
NOTE: If link does not work, try clicking the title "Fox News Report" at the top of this page and trying again. Or, copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://www.myfoxboston.com/dpp/news/local/circumcision-ban-bill
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
The link isn't working. Did Fox take the clip down?ReplyDelete
If you are following Facebook's "Networked Blogs" link here to the peaceful parenting site, you need to first click on the actual blog post itself (to get out of Networked blogs) and then the links back to FOX will work.ReplyDelete
My submission to FOX Noise:ReplyDelete
"It's a question parents of baby boys have to decide but now there's a discussion on Beacon Hill that would take that choice away from parents in this state."
Why? Why is this a question parents of baby boys must decide?
Are the boys dying? Are they sick?
If there is no medical indication to circumcise healthy baby boys, how is it doctors are performing circumcisions, let alone letting parents "decide?"
"The Centers for Disease Control says lack of circumcision has been linked to sexually transmitted diseases, urinary tract infections and penile cancer."
Here are the facts:
"Studies" that say circumcision might "reduce" the risk of STDs are many, but the bottom line authors of such "studies" can't stress enough is the fact that circumcised or not, men must wear condoms. Circumcision does NOT prevent STDs.
UTIs are already an easily treatable and preventable disease. Girls are 4 times as likely to get UTIs as boys are. UTIs already clear up easily with anti-biotics; it makes absolutely no sense to prescribe circumcision to "reduce the risk" of an already easily treatable, easily preventable disease.
Penile cancer; this is a myth that for some strange reason simply won't die, despite the fact that the American Cancer Society has put this to rest a long, long time ago. According to the ACS:
"In the past, circumcision has been suggested as a way to prevent penile cancer. This was based on studies that reported much lower penile cancer rates among circumcised men than among uncircumcised men. But most researchers now believe those studies were flawed because they failed to consider other risk factors, such as smoking, personal hygiene, and the number of sexual partners.
Most public health researchers believe that the risk of penile cancer is low among uncircumcised men without known risk factors living in the United States. Most experts agree that circumcision should not be recommended solely as a way to prevent penile cancer."
FOX would do well to do its homework.
"In the US, common complications include minor bleeding and infection."
And death. Don't forget that. Last year, there were two reported deaths due to circumcision. It is estimated that at least 200 babies die a year due to circumcision complications.
Since circumcision is needless in healthy boys, this risk is indefensible, yet news outlets always seem to leave this little bit out.
oh gods! if you DO go to leave a comment, do NOT click to receive emails of comments that follow yours!! I just checked my emails and had 393 in my inbox!!!ReplyDelete
:( That makes me mad.ReplyDelete
bah, fair and balanced?ReplyDelete
that made me so so angry. What a horrible report, broadcasting false information, and seeming very biased towards circumcision. Not once did i see any fact that was pro-intact. i think that if they want to give information about circumcision and the cons, maybe they should also give information about the pro's.ReplyDelete
and the guy at the end sounded... See More ignorant, and took the well paved road of "wasting tax money", yet im sure he wastes tax dollars daily like everyone else does. He was obviously not informed and i think the news crew picked the most confrontational person they could find to interview.
They probably already had that done to them at one point, Nicole. :PReplyDelete
Not all rapists are bad either... if they use a date-rape drug...ReplyDelete
Numb cream or not, circumcised boys were butchered.
EMLA cream does NOT numb all pain! What are the chances it was applied properly anyhow? It has to be on the skin for a specific amount of time before the doctor starts stripping the foreskin from the glans and slicing it off.ReplyDelete
Pain relief is besides the point though; healthy boys are being mutilated, any which way you slice it...ReplyDelete
Not to may anyone feel extra guilty whatsoever, but it is counterproductive to willfully want to stick your head deeper into the sand...
I agree, Joseph. Pain is not an indication of morality. Simply removing the pain does not make something moral. Otherwise Sarah would have to also support rapists who knock their victims out with drugs.ReplyDelete
I wonder if a mother who cuts her sons will also circumcise her daughters? Or allow a doctor to tie her to a board and cut her clitoral hood off after getting a dab of cream on her clitoris?
I see nothing respectable about the non-consensual, cosmetic genital cutting of infants against their will.ReplyDelete
Respect your son's right to an intact set of genitalia. That's a good place to start with the respect. :)
Are objectors to the MGM Bill also protesting against the law (FGM Bill) which takes away their choice to circumcise their daughter?ReplyDelete
I'm sure some people consider cutting off genitals rape as well.ReplyDelete
It is genital mutilation and sexual assault, and I believe it to be NO DIFFERENT THAN THE TRAUMA OF RAPE.
Does someone justify it because their victim cannot protest?
Parents SHOULD NOT have the right to make this decision for their baby boys, case closed.
Let people make that decision for themselves when they are at the age of consent!
Here's a newsflash:
CIRCUMCISION IS TRAUMATIC AND SCIENCE HAS PROVEN THIS OVER AND OVER AGAIN.
I know MANY men who are STILL angry, depressed, etc. about being circumcised at birth.
THERE IS NO SOUND REASON (BARRING MEDICAL NECESSITY - WHICH IS RARE) TO CIRCUMCISE NEWBORN MALES AT BIRTH. IT IS MUTILATION, RAPE, AND ASSAULT.
If someone were to do this to their daughter, I'm sure we'd throw a fit, but it's okay to do it to a newborn boy? I don't think so!
EVERYONE should have the right to genital integrity.
I recommend definitely doing some research on circumcision and watching one before choosing it for a future son.ReplyDelete
I can understand the cultural pressure to do it, but the rate is about 50% right now & people are learning there is no medical reason to do it.
My own mom had my brother circumcised and he screamed every single time he peed for his first month. After she did some research she left my next brother alone, he NEVER cried as a newborn, he just ate and slept. Now he is a grown man & happily married & so glad he has everything God gave him :) He was also a baseball star all thru school & nobody gave him any crap about his intact body part in the locker room.
I have had 5 boys, all intact & very happy about it. Each time I had a baby in the hospital, the doctors THANKED me for not cutting him-they don't like doing it, they do it as fast as they can & they make mistakes.
One dr told me it really scares him to operate on such a tiny penis, it can be permanently damaged & there is no way to put back whats been taken.
I have 2 friends with cut boys who have "buried penis", their penises literally went back inside their body (!!) b/c too much was cut. The complication rate from adhesions alone is as high as 70%.
The main thing is that it works perfectly with a foreskin & is better for women too, more comfortable, its the design for every mammal--there must be a good reason for it.
Definitely check out this page it has a list of intact celebrities: http://www.circumstitions.com/ (near the top on the right) :)
Circumcision is a sex crime.ReplyDelete
It doesn't matter if they are numbed. Ever had a tooth worked on and still felt sore despite pain meds?
Dr. Mark Reiss, long time physician and executive vice president of the esteemed, Doctors Opposing Circumcision, discusses ample research which shows us that even those babies who don't scream and cry while being cut apart - even the 4% who do receive anesthesia - still show significant and detrimental physiological changes in body and brain activity. Those who do not scream bloody murder show (on neurological scans) to be lapsing into a state of neurogenic shock and/or coma (which can sometimes occur immediately). To the untrained eye (i.e. the parent who says 'my baby didn't cry') it appears as though the baby has just fallen asleep... How blind we sometimes are.
Circumcision is torture.
The male prepuce is a vital organ with immunological and sexual purposes.ReplyDelete
Here's what doctors learn about the male prepuce (foreskin):
This link will take you into a teaching film for medical students on the importance of the foreskin.
"The prepuce is primary, erogenous tissue necessary for normal sexual function. The complex interaction between the protopathic sensitivity of the corpuscular receptor-deficient glans penis and the corpuscular receptor-rich ridged band of the male prepuce is required for normal copulatory behavior." – Dr. Christopher Cold, M.D. and Dr. John Taylor, M.D.
Here is an American Plastibell amputation. I invite everyone who thinks they support this procedure to watch the entire video, with the sound ON:
If anyone wants a concise, authoritative review on the history of neonatal pain awareness in America, then please read this excerpt from Dr. David B. Chamberlain. His paper includes 123 APA-quality citations:
The Canadian Paediatric Society says that male neonatal circumcision should not routinely (i.e., in the absence of medical indication) be performed.33
The American Medical Association calls male neonatal circumcision a non-therapeutic procedure.34
The American Academy of Family Physicians equates male neonatal circumcision to a "cosmetic procedure."35
Male neonatal circumcision now is regarded as a non-therapeutic procedure that is totally unnecessary for a child's health and well-being. Furthermore, male neonatal non-therapeutic circumcision has significant risks and complications.36
Circumcision increases infant mortality because some babies die from complications of circumcision.37
Studies show that intact boys have better penile health during the first three years of life.39,40
Other drawbacks and disadvantages include psychological and sexual problems in adult life.40
This page with illustrations demonstrates the functions of the male prepuce:ReplyDelete
Here is another page, written by Dr. Peter Ball, on the function of the foreskin:
This page is my favorite, as it is most accurate due to showing real photos and slides to demonstrate how the foreskin works:
Here is the study showing pain in neonates led to reduced opioid receptors in the brain causing decreased pain sensitivity in adulthood. This means these adults had to receive more pain killers during surgery as opposed to healthy adults:
Here are studies showing that circumcision causes difficulties with breastfeeding, safe sleep cycles, behavior, bonding and infection.ReplyDelete
These are APA scholarly citations:
Jefferson G. The peripenic muscle; some observations on the anatomy of phimosis. Surgery, Gynecology, and Obstetrics (Chicago) 1916; 23(2):177-181.
Lakshmanan, S. Prakash S. Human prepuce: some aspects of structure and function. Indian J Surg 1980;44:134-137.
Fleiss P, Hodges F, Van Howe RS. Immunological functions of the human prepuce. Sex Trans Inf 1998;74:364-367.
Coppa GV, Gabrielli O, Giorgi P, et al. Preliminary study of breastfeeding and bacterial adhesion to uroepithelial cells Lancet 1990; 335:569-571.
Kendel DA. Caution Against Routine Circumcision of Newborn Male Infants (Memorandum to physicians and surgeons of Saskatchewan). Saskatoon: College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan, February 20, 2002. Photocopy.
Boyle GJ, Goldman R, Svoboda JS, Fernandez E. Male circumcision: pain, trauma and psychosexual sequelae. J Health Psychology 2002;7(3):329-43.
Section on Urology, American Academy of Pediatrics. Timing of Elective Surgery on the Genitalia of Male Children With Particular Reference to the Risks, Benefits, and Psychological Effects of Surgery and Anesthesia (RE9610). Pediatrics 1996;97(4):590-4.
J. Fred Leditsche. Guidelines for Circumcision. Australasian Association of Paediatric Surgeons. Herston, QLD: 1996
Geyer J, Ellbury D, Kleiber C, et al. An Evidence-Based Multidisciplinary Protocol for Neonatal Circumcision Pain Management. JOGNN 2002 31, 403-410.
Fergusson DM, Lawton JM, Shannon FT. Neonatal circumcision and penile problems: an 8-year longitudinal study. Pediatrics 1988;81(4):537-541.
Van Howe RS. Variability in penile appearance and penile findings: a prospective study. Brit J Urol 1997;80:776-782.
Boyle GJ, Goldman R, Svoboda JS, Fernandez E. Male circumcision: pain, trauma and psychosexual sequelae. J Health Psychology 2002;7(3):329-43.
Chessare JB. Circumcision: Is the risk of urinary tract infection really the pivotal issue? Clinical Pediatrics 1992;31(2):100-4.
American Academy of Pediatrics. Committee on Fetus and Newborn, Committee on Drugs, Section on Anesthesiology, Section on Surgery. Prevention and Management of Pain and Stress in the Neonate. Pediatrics 2000;105(2):454-461.
Anand KJS, International Evidence-Based Group for Neonatal Pain. Consensus statement for the prevention and management of pain in the newborn. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2001;155:173-180.
Fetus and Newborn Committee, Canadian Paediatric Society. Neonatal circumcision revisited. (CPS) Can Med Assoc J 1996; 154(6): 769-780.
(CONT FROM ABOVE)ReplyDelete
Council on Scientific Affairs, American Medical Association. Report 10: Neonatal circumcision. Chicago: American Medical Association, 1999.
AAFP Commission on Clinical Policies and Research. Position Paper on Neonatal Circumcision. Leawood, Kansas: American Academy of Family Physicians, 2002.
Williams N, Kapila L. Complications of circumcision. Brit J Surg 1993; 80: 1231-1236.
Baker RL. Newborn male circumcision: needless and dangerous. Sexual Medicine Today 1979;3(11):35-36.
Emde RN, Harmon RJ, Metcalf D, et al. Stress and neonatal sleep. Psychosom Med 1971;33(6):491-7.
Gunnar MR, Fisch RO, Korsvik S, Donhowe JM. The effects of circumcision on serum cortisol and behavior. Psychoneuroendocrinology 1981; 6(3)269-275.
Anders TF, Chalemian RJ. The effects of circumcision on sleep-wake states in human neonates. Psychosom Med 1974;36(2):174-179.
Marshall RE, Porter FL, Rogers AG, et al. Circumcision: II effects upon mother-infant interaction. Early Hum Dev 1982; 7(4):367-374.
Howard CR, Howard FM, and Weitzman ML. Acetaminophen analgesia in neonatal circumcision: the effect on pain. Pediatrics 1994;93(4):641-646.
Pisacane A, Graziano L, Mazzarella G, et al. Breast-feeding and urinary tract infection. J Pediatr 1992;120:87-89.
To T, Agha M, Dick PT, Feldman W. Cohort study on circumcision of newborn boys and subsequent risk of urinary-tract infection. Lancet 1998;352(9143):1813-16.
Outerbridge EW. Decreasing the risk of urinary tract infections (Letter). Paediatr Child Health 1998; 3(1):19.
Anand KJS, Hickey PR, Pain and its effects in the human neonate and fetus. New Engl J Med 1987; 317 (21):1321-9.
Lander J, Brady-Freyer B, Metcalfe JB, et al. Comparison of ring block, dorsal penile nerve block, and topical anesthesia for neonatal circumcision. JAMA 1997; 278:2158-62.
If the "non-consensual" is what makes rape wrong, then why would anyone support the non-consensual amputation of a healthy, functioning body part from a newborn?ReplyDelete
His body, his choice.
Anyone who believes the prepuce is just a 'little bit of skin' should read all the research Guggie listed above. The prepuce is FAR from insignificant. All our medical research demonstrates this.ReplyDelete
I'd much rather speak up for the innocent baby boys whose parents think it is their right to cut off their genitalia thinking "it's just a useless little flap of skin" and spout off what circumfetish man has poisoned people to believe for years which science DOES NOT support.
Those who didn't grow up with a prepuce - insults really mean nothing since you have no idea what you're missing.
Maybe we should cut off newborn females' clitoral hoods (their prepuce) for the same 'benefit'?
I mean after all, "it's just a flap of skin and harbors bacteria and looks nice" *sarcasm*
Geez, this is the kind of report I'd expect to see on CNN... Fox definitely dropped the ball on this one hardcore. Mainstream news sucks.ReplyDelete
More on topic, I've thanked my mom for not having me circumcised (against the doctor's wishes), and my wife and I don't plan on having my future sons circumcised either. There's just no positive point.
Of course, we should all remember that plenty of parents did believe in cutting of pieces of their baby girls. It is now banned, for ALL reasons, in America.ReplyDelete
Is anyone going to consistently protest that ban, too? Why the inequality? Why protect baby girls but not baby boys?
There are some who believe rape is wrong, but won't say anything for or against it. If they saw a man raping a woman in the bush, would they walk on by because that's his opinion, eh? (To rape is okay in this case - just his choice). Everyone has a right to make whatever choices they want. Just not the people who are having their "choice" raped or sliced away from them.ReplyDelete
In other words, they support the biggest people on the playground. They don't root for the underdogs. The victims don't get a choice or a voice. The rapists and mutilators get the defense.
Only the mentally unstable would expect actual informed journalism out of Fox News. Might as well go to Texas in August and complain that it's too hot and muggy, for all the good it'd do :)ReplyDelete
If you are missing a foreskin, then no, your body is not functioning normally. Of course, we recognize that with modern technology and medical services, even impaired or disabled bodies can be repaired or at least assisted to the point of functioning. And we as a society admire and support those who go to great lengths to do this. So for example we are inspired when a man missing both legs wins the special Olympics or when a girl in a wheelchair practices everyday to walk again.ReplyDelete
Those missing their foreskin can use modern products such as artificial lubricants to compensate for the lost lubrication and sex toys that stimulate their partner's clitoral area. They can also choose from several devices to begin restoring. No, you can't grow the prepuce back again. Like your eyelids, once it's cut off, it's gone forever. But you can slowly stretch some skin down around the glans to protect it and restore some sexual sensitivity.
For those interested in restoration, here is an FAQ article:
This is not an issue where "opinions" are a factor. It is cut and dry. Removing a body part that is normal, and has a function (not just a little piece of skin like some think) is not variable, on which opinions can be formed.ReplyDelete
It is total common sense- dont cut off an organ without reason.
There is not one reason that anyone who argues in favor of circumcision can give that is not completely false or wrong.
The little piece of skin, foreskin, prepuce, has many functions, and men who are so desensitized by not having the foreskin protecting and covering the head of the penis are paying the price later in life (40-50) when they need Viagra to get enough sensation to have an erection. The head, glans, of the penis is meant to be covered, it is an internal organ, but circumcision exposes the glans, and through the years of being exposed to air and clothing the skin becomes thicker, or calloused. If you dont believe me, check out the sales of viagra in Europe, Australia, New Zealand, compared to the sale of it in the U.S. Men in Europe are not circumcised, its not even an option parents there consider.
We are really behind the times here. Have you ever heard the stereotype of men in Europe being better lovers? You dont hear that about American men!
Of course this dosent even take into account what it does to to a newborn. The numbing cream- my aunt works in a hospital nursery, and she was telling me which doctors are "nice" and let it sit for a few minutes to work and which ones put it on and start slicing. It hurts me to my soul thinking of the trauma this imprints onto their new, taking the world in, brains. :(
It is a basic human right to keep your body intact. It's unethical to remove a perfectly healthy organ without the owner's consent.ReplyDelete
I love how people cite religion as an excuse to abuse their children (yes, I consider it abuse, whether you love your kids or not, the act is abusive and harms a child emotionally and physically, hinders breastfeeding and bonding, and causes permanent damage that is irreversible).
FTR, no religion requires circumcision.
If you're of the age of consent, feel free to be circumcised, but leave innocent babies alone. It's not unclean (it's actually cleaner), it's not "ugly," he doesn't need to look like daddy. After all, we're not giving our daughters cosmetic surgery to look like mommy, and we're not circumcising females to prevent infection/disease (and we all know females are more prone to infection down there).
Science has proven that the medical benefits of circumcision in a newborn do NOT outweigh the risks, and the AAP and WHO both state this formally on their respective websites.
The religious one is also interesting. I find the ramifications of the American circumcision being pushed on to the Jewish people after they fled the Holocaust to be quite interesting.ReplyDelete
Nevertheless, the majority of baby boys in America who have their foreskin taken from them are not Jewish. So it's a rather outlier argument.
I'm still waiting, of course, to hear from those who support male circumcision on why they won't protest against the ban on female circumcision.
Baby girls are circumcised for religious reasons, so it would seem honest and consistent to protest both bans.
Please feel free to read these three books. They contain information about original circumcision and the history of how circumcision has evolved.ReplyDelete
You will find that original circumcision, which was just a simple cut, is far less barbaric than circumcision of newborn males today, and did not involve removing the prepuce at all.
Many Jews choose not to circumcise today.
It also used to be a cultural norm to enslave Africans here in the US. It was so deeply embedded, in fact, it took a civil war to end it.ReplyDelete
Until we address the cultural aspect, people will not understand that it is not medically necessary to cut your son.
I think parents should be required to acknowledge the process of the procedure, that there are actually uses of the foreskin, and that many myths concerning circumcision are really not true.ReplyDelete
I just feel sad when a mother has her son circumcised without knowing facts, or when I hear that they didn't even know how its done.. Especially when said circumcision results in defect because it was done "convener belt" style and too little or too much was removed that results in severe scaring, or even later surgeries to fix the painful mistake.
If you can't watch then maybe it shouldn't be done.
I am fighting for the ban to be extended to baby boys.ReplyDelete
How ironic, that some sit here typing out that "I" have a choice and that "I" chose.
And yet their son now has no choice.
You "chose" to take his choice away.
And you assume upon the unconditional love of a child, simply assume that he won't be angry or hold a grudge against you. What hypocrisy! What arrogance!
If some are so against people "shoving their contrary views down their throat" then why are they insistent on shoving THEIR view of circumcision down THEIR son's throat?ReplyDelete
By choosing circumcision for him, a parent is forcing HIS/HER view about circumcision on this baby and this baby/man's penis.
He will have NO SAY in the matter.
Sounds pretty hypocritical to me.
How many women would have liked it if YOUR parents had had a doctor cut off your breasts because THEY wanted them off?
The really sad thing about these pro-mutilation types is that if it were culturally 'acceptable' to cut off infant girls breasts, I bet they would be all for it.
I really hope all pro-MGM cut men are just "fine" when they are middle aged, and will not have problems requiring Viagra, lubrication, and the like.ReplyDelete
But if they do, maybe they'll recall some of this information.
Too bad it isn't men who already know the consequences of prepuce amputation that are having kids - they'd be much less likely to repeat such things on their children.
I am so surprised at the number of perpetrator-protectors on this post on the FB thread! I usually run into one a month!ReplyDelete
He who passively accepts evil
is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it.
He who accepts evil without protesting against it
is really cooperating with it.
~ Martin Luther King, Jr.
The soft-minded man always fears change.
He feels security in the status quo,
and he has an almost morbid fear of the new.
For him, the greatest pain is the pain of a new idea.
~ Martin Luther King
We cannot withhold facts for fear of offending
because the importance of the information
outweighs people's right to not be challenged in their beliefs.
~ Maddy Reid
What saddens me is that we have a culture which even considers it normal, cultural or "an alternative" to strap down their newborns and cut at their genitals. With scientists saying only 96% of them receiving pain relief.ReplyDelete
What a sad mentality, that everyone thinks it's simply an "opinion" or a "parent's right" to cut body parts off little babies.
I just do not see how it is possible to talk about circumcision positively! How could something so negative be spun in a positive light?ReplyDelete
The only people I ever see get offended are the ones who are arguing for circumcision. People who are educated on the horrors of circumcision know their arguments are valid and backed up by scientific data.
People who are pro-cutting are only coming from an emotional point of view - thus their feelings are hurt.
Someone said (on FB) "wait till after the 7th day"ReplyDelete
Even waiting for edema to decrease does not reduce the risks of the operation. This is ignoring the science (which I have already posted above). A 7 day old will still have the endrocrine system, nervous system and brain functioning altered. A 7 day old cannot receive general anesthesia or pain medication. A 7 day old can still hemorrhage, get infected, suffer from adhesions, suffer from meatal stenosis and a host of other complications.
Scroll back up to the books posted that provide a review on Jewish practices that someone left here.
The American circumcision as we know it is not what the Jews practiced in their faith. Perhaps this is why so many Jews are protesting circumcision and choosing not to circumcise their children.
Newborn circumcision is a non-consenting, risky, medically unnecessary, painful, neurologically altering surgery that removes a healthy, functioning organ.
Questioning Circumcision -- A Jewish PerspectiveReplyDelete
A cut Jewish man writes a letter to his newborn son:
Risks and Complications
http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/safety/circumcision.html (clamping methods)
Intact vs Circed penis care
%Of Pain Control Actually Used
Pain Relief that SHOULD Be Used
Sexual side effects
Man discusses his own Circumcision -- 4mins
Welcome to America, Baby! -- 2mins
The three zones of penile skin shows just how extensive the foreskin is:ReplyDelete
Contrast and compare pictures of cut and uncut penises:
Circumcision causing uti:
Flesh Eating Disease, Meningitis, HPV, herpes and others increased with circumcision:
http://www.infocirc.org/fourn.htm (very graphic)
Circumcision scars can cause cancer.ReplyDelete
Carcinoma developed in circumcision scars on the penile shaft.
The tumors involved the prepuce (n = 1), prepuce and distal shaft (n = 1), circumcision scar line (n = 2), circumcision scar line and distal shaft
Video showing a computer generated model of the function of the foreskin during sexual activity.
Circumcision and complications with vaginismus
“The parents of a 6-week-old boy who bled to death after a circumcision at Rosebud’s Indian Health Service Hospital last year are suing the government for wrongful death.
According to documents filed Wednesday in federal court, Eric Keefe underwent a circumcision on June 13, 2008. His mother gave him Motrin and Tylenol for pain and he suffered massive blood loss at home that night, dying at the hospital the next morning.” (As a personal aside, it’s interesting to see that he was given Tylenol...per my posts to Daniel on the way it overloads the liver and depletes Glutathione).
(For those who are scared of the internet)
“What Your Doctor May Not Tell You About Circumcision: Untold Facts on America's Most Widely Performed-and Most Unnecessary-Surgery
by M.D. Paul M. Fleiss (Author), D.Phil Frederick M. Hodges (Author)
Where Cut-Off Foreskin Goes:
Face Cream's secret ingredient:
Harvesting Foreskins for commercial use:
Where do all the foreskins go?
Foreskins for Sale:
Near the bottom of the page - "Injectable collagen derived from newborn foreskin":
MSNBC Fact Sheet -- http://tinyurl.com/rdwsx
This commercial biomedical company sells foreskin-derived cell cultures(Search for Foreskin):
I don't believe the legislation is an attempt to 'shove' it on parents (parents SHOULD be given FULL INFORMED and ample information with which to make a wise choice for their child). However, it IS a law that serves to protect human beings already living in this country (or in this case, the State of MA). There is absolutely no reason that a law cannot be (and shouldn't be) in place to protect those who cannot protect themselves.ReplyDelete
The amputation of the prepuce is forever life-altering and we cannot (legally) amputate ANY other body organ or limb without medical need from a non-consenting person. We cannot even prick the prepuce organ of a girl without her consent or medical need.
And yet we can do whatever we please with the penises of minor boys?!
A court just recently ordered legal 'rights' to a boy (at the time 7 years old when it went to court, 11 when it ended) stating HE could decide whether or not to be cut when his father entered the Jewish faith. So "we" have decided that a 7 year old has legal rights over his penis.
What about a 6 year old?
4 year old?
2 year old?
At what point does a human male become really 'human'? With all the same basic human rights to bodily integrity that we grant to all girls, women, older male children, and men?
It is absolutely absurd to suggest infant boys should not be afforded this same basic right over THEIR body organs when we grant such rights to all others (as they should be).
Someone's right to practice their personal religion ends at the point where it maims or mutilates another human being.
The more one knows about circumcision, the more one is against it.ReplyDelete
The biggest problems circ'ed Daddies have with the circumcision of sons debate, is realizing and accepting that they themselves were victims of genital mutilation.
By thinking about circumcising their sons or not they are acknowledging they themselves were violated.
This debate is laughable because there is nothing to debate. Science proves that circ. is wrong.
In Europe where they have foreskins, the STD rate is LOWER. *The US has the highest circ. rate and the highest STD rate.
There have been lawsuits WON against doctors and parents who have circ'ed sons. Some doctors will not do circ's for this reason.
CUTTING OFF BREASTS...IT HAPPENS...CALLED BREAST-IRONING: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breast_ironing
Watch this video at the end of this page to see why INTACT men ARE better lovers! No lube or toys needed:
Boy the medical industry did well brainwashing the US into thinking circumcisions were needed. MOST INSURANCES DON'T COVER THE PROCEDURE FOR A REASON!
Guggie - thanks for the exceptional list of resources.ReplyDelete
There are also ample scholarly texts on this issue (many - actually, MOST, written by those in the Jewish faith!):
I'd HIGHLY encourage anyone who believes that prepuce amputation (circumcision) as it is currently performed in the U.S. has any religious justification, to explore the subject further. Our current method of madness has zero basis in old Judaic ritual.
Books, articles, videos, and links provided on this page are excellent places to begin: http://www.drmomma.org/2009/11/jack-black-on-circumcision.html
Judaism & Circumcision Resources: http://www.drmomma.org/2009/06/circumcision-jewish-fathers-making.html
Christianity & Circumcision Resources: http://www.drmomma.org/2009/06/information-on-circumcision-for.html
Islam & Circumcision Site: http://www.quran.org/khatne.htm
Catholicism & Circumcision: http://www.catholicsagainstcircumcision.org/
If you'd like to go straight to the scholarly books, here are several on the subject:
Marked in Your Flesh: http://astore.amazon.com/peacefparent-20/detail/0195315944
Questioning Circumcision: A Jewish Perspective: http://astore.amazon.com/peacefparent-20/detail/0964489562
Circumcision: A History... http://astore.amazon.com/peacefparent-20/detail/0465043976
Here is an American Plastibell amputation. This is a pro-circumcision, educational video with a doctor guiding you through the procedure. I invite everyone who thinks they support this procedure to watch the entire video, with the sound ON:ReplyDelete
What about the victims of circumcision?ReplyDelete
What about the ones who live with adhesions, the ones who can't urinate and needed more surgery, the ones who had their penis bend during the teen years b/c the doctor took too much off, the ones who had their penis cut off, or who were brain damaged, the ones who bled to death, the ones who had MRSA?
What about them?
Great read about a botched circumcision that resulted in the entire penis being removed. Also should be required reading for parents interested in circ'ing:ReplyDelete
In reading back, it seems I accidentally made it look as if the only victims of circumcision are those who experience additional complications. ALL newborns are victims of circumcision. Their choice was stripped away as readily as their functioning, healthy body part. :(ReplyDelete
We know from other countries (and some states - NM, some hospitals - several state clinics) that when you force mothers to hold their babies while they are being cut apart for the circumcision surgery, it ends almost overnight. No one (once they know of the horrors) wants to do such rape-like things to their beloved babies.ReplyDelete
But better yet, instead of forcing the mothers to watch their sons being mutilated, let's abolish this practice from our country.
I wish this ban on an unwarranted prepucectomy was in effect long before my first son was born. He would've been protected. :-(ReplyDelete
A doctor has no right to remove a healthy vital part of their patients body; especially in the absent of a medical need.
Too often "doctors" prey upon ignorant gullible naive parents in order to make a quick buck. If one was truly educated they would not consent or allow another human have a healthy part of their penis needlessly stripped away.
"informed consent" is nothing but a sick joke.