Register
Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 910111213 LastLast
Results 301 to 330 of 370
  1. #301

    Re: The good news, when some of us are too tired to stand the good fight

    From my perspective, it doesn't matter a damn bit what women think about a circumcised or natural penis. This is not about women and their bodies nor does it have to do with any mutilation of female bodies other than to show the hypocrisy of a double standard due to cultural differences. It is a man's body that is mutilated in infancy by his parent or not mutilated. Using such words as "mutilate" and the furthering of information about the sensual nerve fibers in the foreskin will eventually (hopefully) stop this act on males who are not given the right to decide about their own body. Whether parents were not sufficiently educated when they mutilated their sons in the past, has little to do with the present and future. I believe that my parents did not intend to mutilate me when they circumcised me as a two day old boy. They followed cultural customs under the incorrect believe that this was best for males. I doubt very much that they were told that this would reduce my sexual pleasures as an adult. It was a time when such things would not have been discussed by the medical community. That was then. Maybe, this bylaw will lead to stopping this act on males without their permission.
    Last edited by tenni; Jun 8, 2011 at 12:55 AM.

  2. #302

    Re: The good news, when some of us are too tired to stand the good fight

    Quote Originally Posted by drugstore cowboy View Post

    The overwhelming majority of males on this planet are intact or uncircumcised without and are living perfectly fine without HIV/STDs, penile cancer, or the other dire problems that circumcision proponents declare happen to all or most men who have foreskins that simply don't happen at all to men who are cut.
    what i can find is that rates of HIV / aids and STI transmission is higher where condoms are not used...... and that there is no difference between cut and uncut males when it comes to using condoms.....

    I would love to see your study / stats.... and I mean valid study / stats that show that uncut males are mostly disease free with or without the use of condoms, cos it would be a study that I would find most interesting.....

    I tried the NZ sexual health sites and none of them have any studies that support your statement as they too, talk about the usage of condoms, not the state of the penis....

    I wonder if that has a lot to do with the fact that females can carry and transmit STIs etc... and they do not have penises but can also use condoms....
    The only thing more painful than a broken heart, is catching yourself in your zip and having very cold hands

  3. #303

    Re: The good news, when some of us are too tired to stand the good fight

    Quote Originally Posted by tenni View Post
    From my perspective, it doesn't matter a damn bit what women think about a circumcised or natural penis. This is not about women and their bodies nor does it have to do with any mutilation of female bodies other than to show the hypocrisy of a double standard due to cultural differences. It is a man's body that is mutilated in infancy by his parent or not mutilated. Using such words as "mutilate" and the furthering of information about the sensual nerve fibers in the foreskin will eventually (hopefully) stop this act on males who are not given the right to decide about their own body. Whether parents were not sufficiently educated when they mutilated their sons in the past, has little to do with the present and future. I believe that my parents did not intend to mutilate me when they circumcised me as a two day old boy. They followed cultural customs under the incorrect believe that this was best for males. I doubt very much that they were told that this would reduce my sexual pleasures as an adult. It was a time when such things would not have been discussed by the medical community. That was then. Maybe, this bylaw will lead to stopping this act on males without their permission.
    .

    the constant argument that a females opinion doesn't matter cos they do not have a penis, shows a great deal of ignorance on the behalf of some of the people in the thread

    the thing is.... females are parents and make up a lot of solo mothers, with the power of choice over circumcision ...... and watching people in the thread, tell females their opinion is not really of value, is a very stupid thing for anti circumcision advocates to do.... cos its insulting one of the parents that can choose to circumcise or not...... and implying that a female doesn't have the right or ability to decide for her children
    The only thing more painful than a broken heart, is catching yourself in your zip and having very cold hands

  4. #304

    Re: The good news, when some of us are too tired to stand the good fight

    [QUOTE=Annika L;201602]Oh, but I've had it on good authority (and only two pages ago) that this debate is coming to its end on this thread! Why leave just before the show ends anyway?

    QUOTE]

    I do not think I was much wrong either reading the subsequent posts to my statement. Unpredictable thing debate when it is uncontrolled. I am prepared to argue the matter ad infinitum just as so many others seem to be.

    What matters is not what we say in these pages but what occurs in the wider world. That is where the battle is being won and lost. This isn't even a skirmish, just a little local bit of bother.

  5. #305

    Re: The good news, when some of us are too tired to stand the good fight

    Quote Originally Posted by jamieknyc View Post
    I see that exposure of what the people pushing this referendum stand for hit a nerve. Their teacher Julius Streicher shouted the same sort of things at his execution at Nuremberg.
    I was going to apologise for my previous outburst. I dont think I shall bother now. Play it if you wish, I've bitten, didn't like the taste much and spat it out. Now if you don't mind can we concentrate on the argument?

  6. #306

    Re: The good news, when some of us are too tired to stand the good fight

    "the constant argument that a females opinion doesn't matter cos they do not have a penis, shows a great deal of ignorance on the behalf of some of the people in the thread

    the thing is.... females are parents and make up a lot of solo mothers, with the power of choice over circumcision ...... and watching people in the thread, tell females their opinion is not really of value, is a very stupid thing for anti circumcision advocates to do.... cos its insulting one of the parents that can choose to circumcise or not...... and implying that a female doesn't have the right or ability to decide for her children."


    OK....if that is what you understood from my post, then let me correct this. It doesn't matter what women think about the form of penis because it is not their body as I stated. They should not have the right to mutilate a male infant unless there is a medical penial emergency. It matters if a parent (mother or father) thinks that they should circumcise their male infant or wait for the man to decide about his own body and circumcision at a later date. There is a need to alter perspectives in North America on this matter. The solo mothers or solo fathers should not have this non medical right. It is not their body. As I stated, I do not believe that my parents or any parent intended male infants harm and I suspect that they were not informed properly about the nerve endings in the foreskin being of anything but not relevant. That is how I suspect that the matter was treated. It is time to stop such incorrect information continuing this custom. It is not however the end of my world that I am circumised and I'm happy with my pecker. I don't miss what I can not remember but I see it as time to stop this custom. The number of men who have commented and gone from natural to cut as an adult is sadly lacking on this thread. Those are the guys to listen to but let your baby boys decide as an adult.

    The opinion of a woman doesn't matter as far as to which form of penis gives them pleasure from intercourse. Several women have spent time posting and thinking to state that the form of penis didn't affect them during intercourse. That point is not relevant as far as parents circumcising infant boys.

    "The statement about the ignorance of many people on this thread with regard to parents and circumcision seems "selective interpretation" and inflamatory rather than rational and calm in my opinion.
    Last edited by tenni; Jun 8, 2011 at 6:30 AM.

  7. #307

    Re: The good news, when some of us are too tired to stand the good fight

    Quote Originally Posted by tenni View Post
    [I]

    OK....if that is what you understood from my post, then let me correct this. It doesn't matter what women think about the penis because it is not their body as I stated. They should not have the right to mutilate a male infant unless there is a medical emergency. It matters if a parent (mother or father) thinks that they should circumcise their male infant or wait for the man to decide about his own body and circumcision at a later date. There is a need to alter perspectives in North America on this matter. The solo mothers or solo fathers should not have this non medical right. It is not their body. As I stated, I do not believe that my parents intended me harm and I suspect that they were not informed properly about the nerve endings in the foreskin being of anything but not relevant. That is how I suspect that the matter was treated. It is time to stop such incorrect information continuing this custom.

    The opinion of a woman doesn't matter as far as to which form of penis gives them pleasure from intercourse. Several women have spent time posting and thinking to state that the form of penis didn't affect them during intercourse.

    "The statement about the ignorance of many people on this thread with regard to parents and circumcision seems "selective interpretation" and inflamatory rather than rational and calm in my opinion.

    no, I did not get it from your post tenni... its happened a few times in the thread and its some of the anti circumcision advocates that did it.... but it was not you doing it.....

    telling a mother of male sons that her opinion didn't matter cos she did not have a penis, then slamming her for having a opinion that the advocates did not agree with...

    telling me that supporting the rights of another female to express her opinion was irrelevent as she was not a parent or a mother, yet she is anti circumcision and pro rights of choice....

    telling a male that was circumcised as a adult, that his opinion about his circumcision was incorrect, cos studies said different.....

    telling females that their opinions do not matter when it comes to sex with cut / uncut males, while posting studies involving females preferences of cut or uncut penises, to support a anti circumcision stance.....

    telling a circumcised male father that his study showing the statements of males circumcised as adults was invalid cos it was part of a hiv aids study... and then studies about hiv / aids and circumcision, are posted by anti circumcision advocates......

    so tenni, if its selective interpretation and inflammatory, why have other members noticed the same thing going on and posted about how they are seeing the same thing I am...... and the ironic thing is, that telling the ladies that their opinions do not matter, means that sammie and katja, who are both anti circumcision and pro rights for children, are having their opinions rubbished by the same people they are standing with... the people that want a end to circumcision.....

    all that aside.... tenni... who better to know about your penis than you.... who better to know if you are happy with the way your penis works than you..... who better to know if you have any issues over your circumcision than you.......
    I am circumcised and I am the same way as you.... I am happy with my penis.... and I am getting a lil pissed off with being told that I can not be happy with my penis cos some study by somebody I have never met, is posted as proof that I can not be happy with my penis cos its cut, therefore I am not allowed to be happy with my body cos somebody else has a issue with circumcision......

    so, grab a beer ( or perfered drink ) and join the ranks of the males that are not allowed to be happy with their penises.... cos we are cut males... and are not allowed to be happy.... as stated by anti circumcision males in this thread
    Last edited by Long Duck Dong; Jun 8, 2011 at 7:01 AM.
    The only thing more painful than a broken heart, is catching yourself in your zip and having very cold hands

  8. #308

    Re: The good news, when some of us are too tired to stand the good fight

    "all that aside.... tenni... who better to know about your penis than you.... who better to know if you are happy with the way your penis works than you..... who better to know if you have any issues over your circumcision than you.......
    I am circumcised and I am the same way as you.... I am happy with my penis.... and I am getting a lil pissed off with being told that I can not be happy with my penis cos some study by somebody I have never met, is posted as proof that I can not be happy with my penis cos its cut, therefore I am not allowed to be happy with my body cos somebody else has a issue with circumcision......

    so, grab a beer ( or perfered drink ) and join the ranks of the males that are not allowed to be happy with their penises.... cos we are cut males... and are not allowed to be happy.... as stated by anti circumcision males in this thread"


    Well, I agree with most of the quoted section. Those of us who were circumcised as infants can be happy with what we have. This may be particularly true if we have lived our lives unware about the sensual pleasures by having a foreskin. We will never know or be able to compare. I won't be unhappy now that I know either. I won't want to regrow my foreskin since I'm told that won't bring back the nerve endings.

    I don't think if any guy has posted this..funny/pecular sorta issue. Many young men tend to orgasm quickly. Over time most guys learn some control or it happens naturally. This early ejaculation can be a problem for some guys and really isn't funny to those guys. Wouldn't it be amusing if being circumcised was easy on ..easy off...lol Young guys could be circumcised to slow down their pre mature ejaculation. Older guys could bring out their "ol foreskin" and reconnect it if the sensations reduce with age...lol This is maybe a fantasy for today but who knows where technology might go if demand..lol. The discussion of the role of foreskin and ejaculation may be an amusing point of this thread.
    Last edited by tenni; Jun 8, 2011 at 7:10 AM.

  9. #309

    Re: The good news, when some of us are too tired to stand the good fight

    Selectivity in debate is a time honoured and inevitable consequence of debate. It is done sometimes deliberately and sometimes inadvertantly. Often it is done because in a structured and formal argument no one can cover every angle involved in an issue and time does not allow anyone to have the time to do so.

    In an informal argument, some people try to debate as honestly as their knowledge, instincts and beliefs allow but we are human and with the best will in the world not one of us will ever be the perfect debater. We sidetrack and distract, ambush and talk crap, take detours round the houses, are rude and often personal. For many reasons we are also selective. It doesn't make pleasant reading, but it is the best we are able to do in the circumstances we find ourselves.

    We can be as rude or polite as we like, and argue about the rights of parents and the roles of law and the medical profession and the medical evidence. We can argue about all the studies we like and their value. But what it all comes down to is this, just actually owns our bodies and has the power of decision over them?

  10. #310

    Re: The good news, when some of us are too tired to stand the good fight

    honestly sammie, I would love to believe that we do..... but lol disease and illness have a way of showing us that we do not have control and ownership.... its something that only exists when we have a choice.....IE surgery ( most ), diet, exercise etc....

    I have the choice of what I can and can not do with my body ( arguing with the hospital over the need for more surgery and losing, I need it, they will not do it )... so I know that running down the road is not a good idea... nor trying to power lift 180 kgs as I did when I was younger ( much to the doctors horror )....

    yes I smoke ( much to the doctors horror ) cos it is my body... and I know that giving up smoking is good for me and will help me live longer ( having more surgeries, and being in more pain is a good thing ???? ) but I have people telling me that smoking is wrong and I have to stop ( ahh whose body is it again and whos right is it....... not mine apparently..... according to the anti smokers ) and as such I should have the right to terminate my * lease * on my body and let my soul upgrade to the pent house version of a body...lol ( legally I am not allowed to... its my body but not my choice.... unless.... my friend, MR .45 calibre has a say )

    so yeah sammie, its my body, my choice..... I think... let me check with the anti smokers and the hospital and the dietician and the doctor.... cos they seem to disagree
    Last edited by Long Duck Dong; Jun 8, 2011 at 7:30 AM.
    The only thing more painful than a broken heart, is catching yourself in your zip and having very cold hands

  11. #311

    Re: The good news, when some of us are too tired to stand the good fight

    littlerayofsunshineyour position is so stereotypical 'cookie cutter' of female members of cultures that embrace MGM.
    Quote Originally Posted by littlerayofsunshine View Post
    FWIW, I did not say that I am pro circ.
    Yes, you are pro circ. Contrast this with your different opinion about female circumcision. Female circumcision should be a parent's decision if you stand by your moral criteria.
    Quote Originally Posted by littlerayofsunshine View Post
    I just said that it should not be banned. I also would never have an abortion, but would never stand against a woman's right to choose.
    Different subject altogether, but related in a way that contradicts your argument.
    The core moral argument of abortion is self determination (you didn't know this?!?). A woman's right to the functions of her own body (while pregnant). True. But killing, circumcising, or any other abuse of the baby after it is born is infringing on the baby's rights to its own body (whether MGM or FGM) and in direct contradiction to the moral tenant supporting abortion.
    Quote Originally Posted by littlerayofsunshine View Post
    Circ should be left to choice of the parents. You don't know what my children have between their legs, and I would rather keep it that way. I find it kind of creepy you're more concerned with what's between their legs than I am.
    **Sigh** diversional, silly.
    Quote Originally Posted by littlerayofsunshine View Post
    And male and female circ DOESN'T compare. You can't compare a paper cut to an AMPUTATION. Which is essentially what female circ is.
    My, how radical feminist. Female pain and mutilation is far worse than male; I understand your logic. Then your opinion on modern female circumcision performed in hospitals still suffers from your bias?
    Quote Originally Posted by littlerayofsunshine View Post
    Men who are cut or uncut are typically not looked at as less of a man and stigmatized as a woman who has had her sexual organ REMOVED, and is deemed as a broken unsexual, unsatisfiable mutation of what a woman should be.
    Wow, you are way out, here; I don't think you want to play this card; it is very detrimental to your position. In cultures where FGM is practiced, uncircumcised females are looked on as dirty, poor, second rate. Just like in cultures where MGM is practiced, uncircumcised males are looked upon as dirty, poor, second rate.
    Quote Originally Posted by littlerayofsunshine View Post
    IF breasts weren't necessary to feed children in many countries, I am sure there would have been practices in place to remove them too, because those countries and groups that practice female circ want women desexualized not less sexualized (YES I KNOW I CREATED WORDS THAT DONT REALLY EXIST>>LOL). They do perform breast ironing which is "supposed" to lessen breast tissue and keep puberty at bay and to cause chest/breast scaring to make them less attractive. This is in addition to what I have already stated on the subject of Male v. Female circ.
    But breasts aren't necessary in most of the free world. There is baby formula available to most of the free world. There is baby formula available to you. If your had your male children circumcised to prevent cancer (an extremely rare cancer, occurring almost exclusively to men of abysmal hygiene; that is now entirely preventable with HPV virus immunizations), then clearly you've already had a double mastectomy because you would never inflict morality that would savagely victimize an innocent child but ignore the same to save your precious flesh. To the point, you view your breasts as disposable as the flesh of your innocent infant males, right?
    Quote Originally Posted by littlerayofsunshine View Post
    So you attempt to generalize me and claim to know my standings, So in correction to your consistent argumentativeness.. I am for choice and basically want you to stay out of my kids pants.
    LittleRayOfSunshine,
    No one here, except perhaps you, has gotten into your kids' pants with any harmful intent. I wonder if you can realize this; I suspect not. Neurosis, cognitive dissonance/adaptive preference formation will follow. People have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance. They do this by changing their attitudes, beliefs, and actions. Dissonance is also reduced by justifying, blaming, and denying.

    Of all your argument here I find the "FGM isn't the same as MGM" the most important and alarming.
    Yes, FGM and MGM are far more alike than unalike.
    Every single MGM is different from the next; just as every single FGM is different than the next. How much the tissue damage, how aggressive the tissue damage... so the "it's different" argument by presenting the worst of what you're opposed to and contrasting it with the 'best' of what you're ignoring... is invalid. I might just as well point to the most unsavory Jewish circumcision where not only is the penis is ripped and cut apart (as in every MGM, Jewish or not), but if there is no bleeding, the priest sucks on the penis to produce blood so there is a blood sacrifice acceptable to God (little known fact of the Hebrew culture); and then contrast that with anesthetized modern female circumcision in a hospital.
    but lets go over it again.
    MGM and FGM are customs, VERY seldom medically required.
    FGM and MGM are painful and cause permanent physical harm to the victim.
    MGM and FGM are intended to rob the victim of sexual feeling/sensation without destroying basic reproductive function.
    FGM and MGM are performed without consideration of the personal rights of the child to their own body.
    In cultures where FGM and MGM is practiced there are great efforts via wives' tales, etc, to medically, pseudo scientifically, or socially justify the custom.

    **Sigh**
    The very topic of 'how much pain can I inflict upon an innocent child without warping that child'...
    **Sigh**
    In order to gain true scientific perspective on the effect of sexually traumatizing a newborn infant... we would have to cut off all sorts of other appendages of the human body, reducing their function and feeling (morally justifying it under "well, if they never know it, they will never miss it" ethics/logic)...
    ...puts us down in the level of Josef Mengele. We would have to perform this study by the tens of thousands minimum, over a lifetime (80-90 years) using double blind medical standards (please note, none of the pro circumcision medical 'studies' were unbiased double blind studies).

    Aside question, why aren't there hundreds of funded studies on the benefits of female circumcision (against dirty snatches, disease, cancer) just like there are on male circumcision?
    Aside answer, social bias and custom.

    This is one topic where the truth is very ugly (especially to those who cling to custom).

    I am against customary FGM and MGM on the basis it is a person's right to their entire body unless they chose, as an informed adult to modify their own body (or something is horribly medically wrong and requires extreme action like FGM).
    Last edited by Bluebiyou; Jun 8, 2011 at 2:51 PM.

  12. #312

    Re: The good news, when some of us are too tired to stand the good fight

    Quote Originally Posted by jamieknyc
    I see that exposure of what the people pushing this referendum stand for hit a nerve. Their teacher Julius Streicher shouted the same sort of things at his execution at Nuremberg.
    Quote Originally Posted by Katja View Post
    I was going to apologise for my previous outburst. I dont think I shall bother now. Play it if you wish, I've bitten, didn't like the taste much and spat it out. Now if you don't mind can we concentrate on the argument?
    Being critical of the Jewish religion and being critical of religious rites of male genital mutilation is not even close to the same thing as hating an ethnically Jewish person or someone being an actual Neo-Nazi or Anti-Semite who hates Jews as well as Palestinians since they are Semitic people as well.

    By the logic these Jewish groups are using, we can't be critical of Christianity, Islam, or any other religions either.

    Which is rather hypocritical since these Jewish groups do claim that all people who practice Islam are ubiquitously against Jews or Israel which is not true.

  13. #313

    Re: The good news, when some of us are too tired to stand the good fight

    The Jewish Question

    I deliberately invoke the previous WWII intention of this phrase as an argument to MGM and FGM. Think about it when the table is turned.

    Doubtless, the Jewish community (not in entirety as has been previously pointed out) will oppose the San Francisco measure. Even those procircumcision Jews outside the SF area will oppose it to save their right to harm their babies for the sake of tradition and culture. Once the measure comes up, it spells the end... of MGM... faster, if the measure passes in SF.

    On another note, the legal jewish argument fails for at least the following reasons:

    1. The torah shows many examples of Jews killing philistines, Sampson is a great example. Israelis can't go on doing it... oh, wait, Palestinians are being killed nearly daily by Israeli forces and this is ignored by the world unless Israelis are killed (and then just to show the death ratio of Jew vs Palestinian)... my bad. Bad example.

    Start again

    1. Law prevents Jews from sacrificing big and little animals to God. Killing, mutilating, and burning animals has been a Jewish custom (in direct worship of God) for millennia.
    2. Laws prohibiting female circumcision sets a legal precedent against male circumcision. A different set of rules for a different gender is not legally viable (no moral basis).
    3. The victim (of MGM) cannot give informed adult consent to permanent damage to his penis. In cases such as personal consumption of peyote, the law is inclined heavily to lean toward the worshipper (of strange religious customs) who can chose for him or her self, in worship of God, consumption of peyote - potential drug problems - consumption normally prohibited by federal laws. However, an infant cannot choose for himself (lack of informed self adult consent). MGM is something inflicted on an innocent 3rd party.


    Bring up a child to worship God however you will, but harming the child, especially irreversible destruction of an innocent party, is outside the protection of religion.

    End legal argument.

    Jamie knyc is showing himself to be highly zionist. To not collude with zionism is to be anti semitic, I think that is his point. Judging from his posts (from a previous thread "we all know the REAL reason", and other posts from this thread), we (folks against harming children) were so hateful and against Jews that we invented this thing called 'morality' just so we could criticize many (but not all) Jews for harming babies and thus defeat them (in the arena of their religion). Yeah, that's it. That's my motivation, that's our motivation, certainly. I was so hateful of Jews, I walked the moral path.

    Wow, Jamie, I realize I exaggerated your position here slightly, but the scary part is... I didn't exaggerate very much...

  14. #314

    Re: The good news, when some of us are too tired to stand the good fight

    When the Anti-Circ crowd is as adamant about the childs right to live as they are about a piece of skin, I would be more inclined to support their view.

    As it is, they worship a piece of skin and foresake the child for political expediency.

  15. #315

    Re: The good news, when some of us are too tired to stand the good fight

    Molestation
    Mutilation

    The words fit.
    I stand that FGM and MGM are unquestionably both.
    I have stated before and will state again that I have not nor will ever date or marry a woman who is a child molester or a proponent of child molestation (very difficult in USA). Although, I have been stupid from time to time in reducing my standards.

    Mutilation is the deliberate destruction of healthy tissue.
    No argument - standard neonatal male or unindicated preadolescenct female circumcision is mutilation.

    Molestation
    At what point did the male or female child give their adult consent to this sexual harm/engagement that has no medical basis?

    Uh, tying down an innocent male newborn to deliberately, horribly, destroy part of his his healthy penis is not molestation? WTF?!?

    Perspective:

    If an adult (m or f) picks up an infant (and therefore incognizant) child and sucks upon it's genitals for sexual gratification... it is clearly molestation.
    If an adult (m or f) picks up an infant (and therefore incognizant) child and mutilates it's genitals for social conformity... it is still clearly molestation.

    What is the difference to the child between an adult that performs non permanent physical harm in pursuit of sexual gratification

    and

    an adult that knowingly, permanently, with apathy aforethought, harms an innocent child for his/her sole social conformity needs?

    What is the difference in terms of harm to the child?

    Molestation
    includes knowingly, sexually, harming an innocent child.
    (for those of you who harmed, did you think the foreskin was part of the elbow... knee... toe...?)
    You contracted someone to sexually harm an innocent.
    How could you do that?
    What lapse was there?

    If you're sorry and repentant that's fine! That's more than fine, you're really human! We can make horrible mistakes in this test called 'life'.
    else
    If you can give back the 12-15 (typical loss) square inches of the most sensitive, most evolutionary advanced flesh, reconnect all the nerves, arteries, veins, basically undo the evil you have done, then offer it to your male child upon maturity. Tell him all he's missed and all he is missing and all he will miss without a complete penis.
    But of course, you can only destroy, so the last line is ludicrous.
    You are no more than the most destructive males you might criticize.
    else
    If you're female, guilty, unrepentant, then you're a cunt... a filthy radical feminist. One who regards feminist rights, then suddenly becomes brain-dead when it regards rights of an infant male and his rights to his penis.

    Again, I repeat my stand against FGM or MGM. I stand upon a humanist platform.

  16. #316

    Re: The good news, when some of us are too tired to stand the good fight

    Here are more cases of how circumcision really is genital mutilation.

    $$$ 1,200,000 Recovery
    One Million Two Hundred Thousand Dollar Recovery

    Bronx County N.Y.
    Plaintif Nozik #20875/90
    11-22-95

    3 year old Jewish Russian Immigrant child Operated by a Mohel in the
    Urologist's outpatient clinic. Consent was for urologist to perform circ.
    Instead, Mohel negligently amputated the head of the of the penis. The
    urologist attempted to reattach the penis and transferred the boy to Bellvue
    hospital by ambulance. 80% of the head of the penis necrosed and was lost.


    one month long trial
    $500,000 Outpatient Clinic
    $550,000 Urologist
    3rd party (not stated in report-possible the Anesthesiologist?) $150,000
    Mohel declared bankruptcy

    BOY DIES FROM CIRCUMCISION

    Gaines said the ordeal began July 18, when she and
    his mother, British Gaines took the boy to Doctor's
    Hospital-Airline for a circumcision. Brenda Gaines said
    they believed the 30-minute procedure went successfully
    until a doctor told them the boy's heart had stopped in the
    operating room shortly after the operation.


    NEW YORK (AP) -- A clinic has agreed to pay $1.2
    million to an 8-year-old immigrant boy who was mutilated
    during a botched circumcision five years ago, his lawyer
    said.

    The settlement was reached a month after a civil
    trial began in state Supreme Court on allegations the boy,
    then 3, lost part of his penis during the operation,
    according to his attorney, Mark Pruzan.

    The boy and his family, who asked that their names
    be withheld, are Russian immigrants who were referred to the
    Brook Plaza Surgical Ambulatory Center in Brooklyn by
    agencies that help new Jewish immigrants.

    The clinic's attorney, Neil Ptashnik, was quoted in
    Wednesday's Daily News as saying that the settlement was
    ``a business decision'' that carried ``specifically no
    admission of guilt.''


    The clinic, a doctor and the rabbi who performed the
    operation were being sued for causing ``permanent shortening
    and disfigurement of the penis.''


    BOY IN COMA MOST OF HIS 6 YEARS DIES

    The Associated Press

    Spartanburg, South Carolina

    A boy who was in a coma for more than six years while a legal battle raged
    around him has died. But the legal fighting will continue.

    Allen A. Ervin was born in July 1985 and had been on life support since
    December 1985, when his brain was damaged from oxygen deprivation during
    circumcision.


    FAMILY GETS $2.75 MILLION IN WRONGFUL SURGERY SUIT

    by Vincent Lupo
    American Press Staff Writer

    The family of a young boy, whose penis had to be
    amputated after it was severly burned during a routine
    circumcision
    perfromed at a state-run hospital, was awarded
    $2.75 million by a jury in 14th Judicial District Court.

    Jurors made the award against the State of Louisiana
    Department of Health and Human Resource (DHHR) and the LSU
    Board of Supervisors. The family of the boy asked that they
    not be named.

    According to testimony during the week-long civil trial
    before Juge L. E. Hawsey Jr., the boy who was 2 years old at
    the time, was to undergo a routine circumcision at W. O.
    Moss Regional Hospital on February 2, 1984.

    A third-year surgical resident undergoing training
    through the LSU medical program supervised the operation in
    which an electrosurgical instrument manufactured by Valley
    Lab of Boulder, Colo., was used. The device, commonly used
    to stop bleeding during surgery, can cut tissue through heat
    transmitted by an electric current.


    "Facts: 3 July 91: Plaintiff was born at the Oak Knoll Naval Hospital in
    Oakland, California. Twelve hours following a normal delivery by C-Section,
    the Plaintiff underwent an elected circumcision. During the course of the
    circumcision, Dr. Tam, a pediatrician, amputated approximately 30% of the
    distal glans penis and transected the glandular urethra. A less than
    successful attempt was made to reattach that which had been excised.
    Subsequent plastic surgery has been attempted and there is resultant
    deformity at the tip of the penis.

  17. #317

    Re: The good news, when some of us are too tired to stand the good fight

    Here's a link to a gallery of mutilated penises or botched circumcisions.

    http://circumstitions.com/Restric/Botched3sc.html

    For those of you who reading this thread who have never seen an intact penis with a foreskin here are some pictures of them next to cut penises.

    http://circumstitions.com/Restric/comparison.html

  18. #318

    Re: The good news, when some of us are too tired to stand the good fight

    Most men in the world are intact with foreskin, and have no issues with being intact with a foreskin despite what pro-circ advocates like to falsely claim happens if you're intact with a foreskin.

    There are 23 medically advanced nations. The U.S. is the only nation which routinely circumcises nearly 63% of its newborn males. Our country represents less than 1/20th of the world population, yet it performs more than half of all infant circumcisions worldwide. If the foreskin is so prone to problems, why haven't other advanced nations adopted routine circumcision? One can't help but wonder why the U.S. is the only medically advanced nation that performs routine infant circumcisions without any medical indication.

    Routine Infant Circumcision is limited to English speaking countries. The practice was intoduced to the U.S. through England, but they abandoned it nearly 50 years ago, practicing it now at the rate of only 1%. The rate is 3% in New Zealand, 10% in Australia and 20% to 25% in Canada. RIC is not offered in most non-English speaking countries. It never caught on in Europe, Asia, South or Central America. If the majority of men elsewhere in the world were having medical problems because their penises were left intact, wouldn’t these countries begin the practice?

    Worldwide Statistics

    The population of the United States is 260 Million. The entire world population is 5 Billion, 700 Million. Out of those, 2 Billion, 647 Million are males currently living. 18% of them are circumcised.

    Of the world's male population, the breakdown of the circumcised and intact are:

    79 million American infant circs
    9 million American child or adult circs
    13 million Canada, UK, New Zealand & Australia infant circs
    27 million rest of world infant circs
    44 million child or adult circs other parts of world
    315 million Muslim child/adolescent circumcisions

    487 million = TOTAL MEN CIRCUMCISED WORLDWIDE (18%)
    2 billion 160 million = TOTAL MEN INTACT WORLDWIDE (82%)

    2 billion 647 million = Total Men Living Worldwide

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Out of the Worldwide Total of 487 Million Circumcised Men:

    65% occur as Muslim cultural circumcisions
    15% occur in other countries
    3% occur in other English speaking countries
    17% occur in the U.S.

    **Above statistics complied by Demographics International

    U.S. Statistics

    According to the National Center for Health Statistics in Washington, D.C., the latest figures on circumcision for the four basic regions of the U.S. as of 1994 (the latest reported date) are:

    Northeast 69.6%
    Midwest 80.1%
    South 64.7%
    West 34.2%

    Average for entire U.S. is 62.7%

  19. #319

    Re: The good news, when some of us are too tired to stand the good fight

    Here's an excellent article.

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul M. Vance
    Is it ethical to perform
    routine infant male circumcisions?
    By M. Paul Vance

    Ethical Discussion

    Circumcision-the most common surgery performed in the U.S.- is a procedure in search of a disease.

    But let us suppose that circumcision causes no "harm" to the male: that it does not lead to death between one in twenty-four thousand and one in five hundred thousand cases; that no penises are inadvertently ablated and that no chromosome XY infants are raised chromosome XX; and that circumcision does not remove erogenous tissue and lead to altered sexual practices.

    Let us suppose that adequate pain control techniques are developed (and used) so that during the procedure infants do not rupture their stomachs, vomit, and stop breathing due to overwhelming, intractable pain. Let us suppose that a safe post-operative analgesic is also developed so that the infant does not suffer irritation as urine and feces bathe his raw penis.

    Let us also suppose that circumcision prevents masturbation; that circumcision prevents penile cancer, and that circumcision prevents cervical cancer; and that circumcision prevents sexually transmitted diseases; and that circumcision cures meningitis; and that circumcision prevents childhood diseases; and that circumcision prevents urinary tract infections; and that circumcision prevents HIV infections.

    Let us suppose all these things.

    If we suppose all these things-then, is routine infant circumcision ethical? No.

    Medical professionals and parents have fearlessly faced the daunting task of deciding whether an extremely invasive and painful procedure fraught with complications will be medically beneficial to the newborn male at some time in his life. But that is not the issue-the issue is whether an infant male has an "inherent right, inalienable right to his own intact body." (192)

    There can be no justification for amputating normal tissue from a normal child.

    "I think I could accept a deformity that was an accident of nature, but I can't accept that someone did that to me. I have never been able to accept the fact that when I was a baby someone cut part of my penis off." (193)

    "We recognize the inherent right of all human beings to an intact body. Without religious or racial prejudice, we affirm this basic human right. We recognize that the foreskin, clitoris and labia are normal, functional body parts. Parents and/or guardians do not have the right to consent to the surgical removal or modification of their children's normal genitalia. Physicians and other healthcare providers have a responsibility to refuse to remove or mutilate normal body parts. The only persons who may consent to medically unnecessary procedures upon themselves are the individuals who have reached the age of consent (adulthood), and then only after being fully informed about the risks and benefits of the procedure. We categorically state that circumcision has unrecognized victims. In view of the serious physical and psychological consequences that we have witnessed in victims of circumcision, we hereby oppose the performance of a single additional unnecessary foreskin, clitoral, or labial amputation procedure. We oppose any further studies which involve the performance of the circumcision procedure upon unconsenting minors..." (194)

    Routine infant circumcision violates principles I, III, IV, and V of the American Medical Association Principles of Medical Ethics:

    "A physician shall be dedicated to providing competent medical service with compassion and respect for human dignity." (195)

    Physicians are not ethically obligated to provide the care a patient's parents or physician's superior want the physician to perform. The physician's primary ethical loyalties are to his own conscious and to the welfare of his patient.

    Numerous studies, cited above, have conclusively shown that circumcision is an extremely painful operation; equally numerous also previously cited studies have conclusively shown that effective intraoperative pain relief is available; and physicians have been repeatedly advised-with little avail-to anesthetize infants while they are being circumcised (196, 197, 198).

    Routine infant circumcision does not save lives or reduce suffering and it is not medically indicated. It simply is not compassionate to perform an extremely painful, medically unnecessary operation even with (and that is not the case here) the patient's consent.

    The foreskin has several functions: protection of the glans during infancy and throughout life, to facilitate copulation, and to detect sensual stimuli. Removing non-diseased, functioning tissue from an infant at the parent's request violates the infant and does not respect the infant's "human dignity".

    Circumcision is a non-therapeutic procedure with definite risks and only potential benefits. Proper penile hygiene accomplishes the same potential benefits-without the pain or loss of function-and is far less intrusive. Circumcising 100,000 infants without anesthesia to prevent one case of penile cancer later in life, or circumcising 195 infants without anesthesia to prevent one case of hospitalizable urinary tract infections is not "competent medical service".

    "A physician shall respect the law and also recognize a responsibility to seek changes in those requirements which are contrary to the best interest of the patient."

    The U.S. has realized that routine female circumcision is "genital mutilation"-that it violates the female's privacy and harms the female physically and psychologically for life.

    Routine circumcision began in the U.S in the 1870's to prevent children (boys and girls) from masturbating and as a punishment for masturbation, and to prevent/cure a variety of psychological disorders in males and females of all ages. All the original reasons for instituting routine infant circumcision have been disproved; not a single "new reason" for routine male circumcision is accepted outside the U.S. and Canada. Does the U.S. and Canada know something the rest of the world doesn't know?

    No.

    It is time for the U.S. to realize that routine male circumcision-although currently legal-is unethical. Routine male circumcision mutilates the genitals, violates the male's privacy, and physically and psychologically harms the male for life. Let it be said here-as is true for most of the females who have been mutilated in Africa, the Middle East, and the U.S.-that most U.S. male victims do not realize they are victims.

    Physicians break no law or principle by refusing to circumcise infants. By agreeing to circumcise however, physicians serve the interests of everyone except the person he is ethically obligated to serve: the infant. Circumcision removes normal functioning tissue, inflicts great pain, and induces long-lasting behavioral changes. Circumcising physicians are not performing a procedure "in the best interest of the patient".

    "A physician shall respect the rights of patients..."

    Like it or not, an infant is a person.

    All patients, including infants, have the right to privacy and bodily integrity-physicians have the duty to refrain from violating these rights without sufficient justification.

    A parent's desire is not sufficient justification for a physician to violate an infant's rights.

    "Physicians shall continue to study, apply and advance scientific knowledge, make relevant information available to patients, colleagues, and the public...."

    As covered previously, circumcision is an extremely painful procedure that permanently removes functioning tissue. Complication rates of circumcision exceed benefit rates; extra hospitalization times for circumcision exceed urinary tract infection hospitalization times; deaths to circumcision approximate deaths to penile cancer. Recommending-even tacitly-circumcision as a beneficial procedure is a failure on the part of the physician to "study, apply.... (and) make relevant information available to patients". Physicians have an ethical obligation to "apply...scientific knowledge" by dissuading parents from seeking to circumcise their infant boys and girls

    Physicians who circumcise also violate the medico-ethical principles of autonomy and non-malifience.

    Autonomy. For individuals without decision-making capacity, it is at times necessary to violate their present autonomy so as to preserve their future autonomy. (For example, treating an unconscious individual).However, circumcision is non-therapeutic: the infant does not need the operation. Thus, by circumcising the infant, the physician violates the patients autonomy by forever negating the patient's right to decide whether or not he will be circumcised.

    Non-malifience. As healers, physicians are bound to practice beneficence and non-malifience. Beneficence commands the physicians to attempt to heal, treat, or alleviate suffering in his patient; non-malifience directs the physician to avoid unnecessarily harming his patient. Circumcising physicians refrain from practicing beneficence and do malifience. Prior to circumcision, the infant is not diseased, does not require treatment, and is not suffering. Here then, the physician can indirectly practice beneficence by recommending to the parents not to have their son circumcised. However, if the physician agrees to circumcise the infant, he inflicts extreme pain on an infant: he inflicts a wound that serves no purpose other than being a result of fulfilling-not the infant's-but other peoples wishes. The only term that can describe such an act is malifience.

    Evil is unspectacular and always human, and shares our bed and eats at our own table. W.H. Auden



    192. Milos, Marilyn, National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers (NOCIRC), http://www.nocirc.org/

    193. Denniston, G.C. (1989) "First, do no harm." The Truth Seeker (3):37

    194. Excerpt, Declaration of the First International Symposium on Circumcision http://www.nocirc.org/declare.html

    195. American Medical Association Code of Medical Ethics Council on the Ethical and Judical Affairs 1996-1997 Edition,

    196. 1996 Position Statement: Routine Circumcision of Normal Male Infants and Boys. Australian College of Paediatrics.

    197. Lannon, Carol M., (1999). "American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on Circumcision, Circumcision Policy Statement." Pediatrics 103(3).

    198. 1996 Position Statement: Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS) Canadian Medical Association Journal 154(6): 769-780

  20. #320

    Re: The good news, when some of us are too tired to stand the good fight

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluebiyou View Post
    You are no more than the most destructive males you might criticize.
    else
    If you're female, guilty, unrepentant, then you're a cunt... a filthy radical feminist. One who regards feminist rights, then suddenly becomes brain-dead when it regards rights of an infant male and his rights to his penis.

    Again, I repeat my stand against FGM or MGM. I stand upon a humanist platform.
    Wasn't and isn't my intention to involve myself in this latest spat over infant circumcision, but wish you hadnt said that, Blue.. as a filthy radical feminist myself really do wish you hadn't said that.. cos u know zactly where I stand on this issue.. am not gonna make a big hoohah bout it, just think u should hang your fucking head in shame for those words.... it makes feminism sound dirty and that feminism has come down on one side of this argument which it has not in the US to the best of my knowledge.. and in Europe mostly feminist views on circumcision reflect me own... yes Blue it always was gonna take a lot 2 make me say ne thing but ya managed it hun.. congratulations on a job badly done.
    Do not think so little of me as to grant me your tolerance. Allow me your acceptance and understanding of who and what I am with the love, respect and dignity with which I do you.

  21. #321

    Re: The good news, when some of us are too tired to stand the good fight

    You are born with foreskin or clitoral hood. It is supposed to be there!!! If you don't have it, you have know clue how good it fuckin is. Like any part of your body, keep it clean!!

  22. #322

    Re: The good news, when some of us are too tired to stand the good fight

    Quote Originally Posted by drugstore cowboy View Post
    Being critical of the Jewish religion and being critical of religious rites of male genital mutilation is not even close to the same thing as hating an ethnically Jewish person or someone being an actual Neo-Nazi or Anti-Semite who hates Jews as well as Palestinians since they are Semitic people as well.

    By the logic these Jewish groups are using, we can't be critical of Christianity, Islam, or any other religions either.

    Which is rather hypocritical since these Jewish groups do claim that all people who practice Islam are ubiquitously against Jews or Israel which is not true.
    The anti semetic argument is one which is quite fascinating. It is an easy argument to make that the most anti semetic group on earth are the Jewish people themselves, particularly the more extreme elements of orthdox Jews, since the actual amount of semetic blood within most is so diluted by centuries of inter breeding with other ethnic groups after Jews were forced to flee Palestine in the very early Christian era.

    I don't know what my personal ethnic history is going back to the 1st or second century, but my hair, skin and eye colouring suggests northern European/scandinavian/german. I may live in Northern Europe but I am neither scandinavian or german. My paternal grandmothers maiden name suggests Italian (Anthony from Antonio), and my maternal grandfather (Sinclair from St Clair) French both much more recently. I am neither Italian or French either ethnically or culturally. My surname is of Pictish origin, and the Picts are known to have been little dark people, and although quite little, I am hardly dark. I am none of these things.

    The arguments I make on this issue are not ethnic, although it can be said that there is a religious element to it, but they are human and a desire to allow chidren to grow as nature intended them. That I would also include Jewish and Islamic chidren in any bill to abolish circumcision is not out of animosity or religious prejudice. It is out of concern for young children and for them to be allowed at some stage in their lives to decide for themselves what to do with their body.

    Once we burned witches because of interpretation of scripture. Our ancestors did many things which now we consider unfortunate and barbaric in the name of God because of what scripture and tradition told them. The issue of circumcision of infants to my mind is no different and that in this day and age, both Islam and Judaism should move on.

    Attempts by some to paint this as as some kind of nazi plot and born out of anti semetic prejudice just dont hold water. Freedom of religion I agree with but not when it harms helpless human beings for no reason other than some ritual steeped in the ancient past.

  23. #323

    Re: The good news, when some of us are too tired to stand the good fight

    Quote Originally Posted by JP1986UM View Post
    When the Anti-Circ crowd is as adamant about the childs right to live as they are about a piece of skin, I would be more inclined to support their view.

    As it is, they worship a piece of skin and foresake the child for political expediency.
    As many people who are pro infant circumcison are as likely to be pro abortion as those of us who are anti and vice versa. So that argument holds as much water as Lisa's bucket.

    Would you like some straw?

  24. #324

    Re: The good news, when some of us are too tired to stand the good fight

    Well gee Sammie, I for one, as the mother of three sons am pro circ and pro abortion. I don't mean abortion as a means of birth control but in cases where the child is the result of rape, incest or has severe medical issues that would not only result in the death of the child but also the death of the mother if carried to term. But just because I am doesn't mean that anyone who supports circumcision as a medical need is also pro abortion. Two completely distinct different issues.
    Standing hand in hand with my love

    Cara ch' 'm blaidd



  25. #325

    Re: The good news, when some of us are too tired to stand the good fight

    There is now 324 replies (including me) to this awful thread.
    JEM

  26. #326

    Re: The good news, when some of us are too tired to stand the good fight

    Quote Originally Posted by DuckiesDarling View Post
    Well gee Sammie, I for one, as the mother of three sons am pro circ and pro abortion. I don't mean abortion as a means of birth control but in cases where the child is the result of rape, incest or has severe medical issues that would not only result in the death of the child but also the death of the mother if carried to term. But just because I am doesn't mean that anyone who supports circumcision as a medical need is also pro abortion. Two completely distinct different issues.
    Well gee DD, I havent said anything different. It isn't me that raised the issue so I suggest u take it out on your chum.

  27. #327

    Re: The good news, when some of us are too tired to stand the good fight

    Quote Originally Posted by Long Duck Dong View Post
    .

    the constant argument that a females opinion doesn't matter cos they do not have a penis, shows a great deal of ignorance on the behalf of some of the people in the thread

    the thing is.... females are parents and make up a lot of solo mothers, with the power of choice over circumcision ...... and watching people in the thread, tell females their opinion is not really of value, is a very stupid thing for anti circumcision advocates to do.... cos its insulting one of the parents that can choose to circumcise or not...... and implying that a female doesn't have the right or ability to decide for her children
    You are quite right LDD. The woman's opinion does matter and matters a great deal. She is a parent every bit as much as the father, and has the same rights and duty of care to her child her husband or partner.

    An American couple (now both also British naturalised citizens) of my aquaintance who are resident in this country had a son several years ago and the father wished his son circumcised. The mother did not. Under the laws of England and guidelines which exist for such disputes, the child was not circumcised. A infant cannot be unless both parents agree, and these rules are pertinent to religious circumcision as well as cultural. The father was prevented legally from taking his son out of the country against the mother's will to prevent just such a circumcision taking place in the land of their birth.

    This whole debate is about whether or not in the case of infant circumcision, the parents should retain that right absolutely. Few of us on this side of the debate, and are anti infant circumcision, would ever dispute that a mother's rights and duty of care, legally and morally are, and should be, equal to the father's. I assume few on the other side do either, but one can never be quite sure about such things.

  28. #328

    Re: The good news, when some of us are too tired to stand the good fight

    Quote Originally Posted by jem_is_bi View Post
    There is now 324 replies (including me) to this awful thread.
    You are quite right. It is an awful debate. Sometimes however awful debates need to be conducted however much we dislike them. This is especially true when it is something which is long established and dear to our heart is under challenge and severe threat.

  29. #329

    Re: The good news, when some of us are too tired to stand the good fight

    Quote Originally Posted by jem_is_bi View Post
    There is now 324 replies (including me) to this awful thread.
    This thread is not awful.

    What's awful is mutilating a child's genitals under the ruse of religion, hygiene, and because you think it will help prevent HIV and other STDs better than safer sex and using a condom will.

  30. #330

    Re: The good news, when some of us are too tired to stand the good fight

    Quote Originally Posted by Darkside2009 View Post
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Kosher means pure or clean according to Jewish law, in regard to food, prepared according to Jewish dietary law.

    In Judaism the female is not circumcised, just the male at eight days old.

    A valid medical procedure in the eyes of whom? Certainly not in the eyes of your own countries medical associations, or cancer associations. Not in the eyes of their counterparts in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, UK, Germany, France, I could go on but suffice to say of every other industrialised country in the World. Hardly my own personal opinion.

    Considered preventative care by whom? Insurance companies? You pay the premiums they will happily insure you against any risk, even that of a satellite in outer space falling down and hitting you on the head.

    And there are fewer such insurance companies accepting that it is preventative care each year, which is why the rate for routine circumcision of infants is falling year by year in the US.

    Calling an uncircumcised person a freak is insulting too. I got over it so will they and you.

    As to a circumcised male posting on this board that they don't feel they are missing any pleasure. If they were circumcised as infants, how would they know? They don't have a history of having a sex life whilst having a foreskin to compare it with. I've never been to Vegas, how am I meant to know what I might be missing if I've never been there?

    In circumcision, a great many nerves are removed completely. The nerves simply aren't there to transmit the sensation they would otherwise have had. If the nerves and sensation are absent, the pleasure can only be curtailed, it cannot be enhanced without the nerves to transmit it.

    No, studies are invalid if they do not prove what they set out to prove. In order for a study to be viable the correct methodology has to be adopted. Too many variables and you just get useless data.

    The study has to be capable of achieving the same results if the procedure is followed elsewhere. Verification is the key.

    Now if you had been following the thread from its inception and the links posted, you will have seen the holes in the Ugandan experiment and how it was discredited.

    Not just, that it was discredited, but that it put poorly-educated people at risk, by making them think they were immune to HIV. Leading many of them as a consequence, into behaviour that increases their risk of their being infected by HIV and other STI's. So instead of providing protection from what it set out to do, it makes the complete opposite more likely to occur.

    So in conclusion, it is not just a matter of personal opinion. It is a matter of a human infant being allowed to grow as God and Nature intended, free from the whims of any other person. To make cosmetic choices about their body a choice for them, and them alone and all the excuses in the World can't change that.
    QFT.

    It is an antiquated barbaric practice that mutilates babies, why wouldn't a caring mother care about causing pain to their infant son?

    Jennifer Margulis, a contributing editor at Mothering magazine, recently blogged about the topic on Babble.com and says if parents knew more about the procedure, they’d be running for the hills when asked whether they want to circumcise their baby.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer Margulis editor of Mothering Magazine
    “Most parents do not watch their baby being circumcised and do not know that the procedure can be excruciatingly painful, even with anesthesia. Anyone who has ever witnessed a circumcision and heard the high-pitched scream of a newborn having part of his penis cut off (you can watch one on the Internet if you don't believe me) knows that this surgery causes pain.”

    "Circumcision is barbaric and stupid. Who are you to correct nature?" the Oscar winner Russel Crowe tweeted Thursday. "Is it real that God requires a donation of foreskin? Babies are perfect."

    "I will always stand for the perfection of babies. I will always believe in God, not man's interpretation of what God requires," Crowe shared. "Last of it, if you feel it is your right to cut things off your babies please unfollow and f**k off; I'll take attentive parenting over barbarism."
    Last edited by drugstore cowboy; Jun 15, 2011 at 1:10 PM.

 

 

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Back to Top