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

[Katja]

my interpertion of the word * harm *
harm
–noun
1.
physical injury or mental damage; hurt: to do him bodily harm.
2.
moral injury; evil; wrong.
–verb (used with object)
3.
to do or cause harm to; injure; damage; hurt: to harm one's reputation.

what is your defination of harm ??? any action against a child that results in pain and suffering unless its done by a parent that loves their children ???

I know the definition of harm. And it does not involve the necessity and efforts to repair and heal. To do nothing is harm.

[Long Duck Dong]

I know the definition of harm. And it does not involve the necessity and efforts to repair and heal. To do nothing is harm.

so surgery does not damage tissue, flesh and muscle, per the defination of harm.... ???? got it and I can now go tell all the surgeons that they were wrong, my body doesn't bear scar tissue from surgeries, its scar tissue from them doing nothing about my injuries

and to do nothing is to harm a person.... tell that to the elderly and terminal that want to die, and can't cos they have their lives artifically prolonged by medical science and the legal system.... cos I am pretty bloody sure that they will tell you that they want you do nothing cos keeping them alive is prolonging their suffering, not easing it.....

so tell me again that I am wrong for applying your rule of thumb to that situation, cos you have a different rule of thumb for that situation.....
while I apply the same rule to that that I apply to children and circumcision...

I will harm a person by my actions as there are times that I have no choice but to do so..... regardless if I agree with the reasoning for my actions or not

[csrakate]

Please LDD....you are splitting hairs and misconstruing simple wording and in doing so, you are confusing your very own theory. One minute you are saying that scar tissue as a result of possible life saving surgery is doing harm yet you argue that we should "do no harm" to allow the elderly to die without intervention. To "do no harm" is simple....and can be better explained by Hippocrates himself:

"The physician must be able to tell the antecedents, know the present, and foretell the future - must mediate these things, and have two special objects in view with regard to disease, namely, to do good or to do no harm."

I don't necessarily subscribe to the "anti-circumcision" platform, but using those terms, you can see where they get the argument that it is, perhaps, "jumping the gun" for actual prevention of disease. It's not the same thing as the scenarios you attempt to compare it to.

[Katja]

so surgery does not damage tissue, flesh and muscle, per the defination of harm.... ???? got it and I can now go tell all the surgeons that they were wrong, my body doesn't bear scar tissue from surgeries, its scar tissue from them doing nothing about my injuries

and to do nothing is to harm a person.... tell that to the elderly and terminal that want to die, and can't cos they have their lives artifically prolonged by medical science and the legal system.... cos I am pretty bloody sure that they will tell you that they want you do nothing cos keeping them alive is prolonging their suffering, not easing it.....

so tell me again that I am wrong for applying your rule of thumb to that situation, cos you have a different rule of thumb for that situation.....
while I apply the same rule to that that I apply to children and circumcision...

I will harm a person by my actions as there are times that I have no choice but to do so..... regardless if I agree with the reasoning for my actions or not

I said to repair and heal. If the option, knowledge and capacity exists to do those then of course doing nothing is to harm. In the very loosest sense there may be 'harm' to unaffected tissue but that is not aimed at inflicting harm on a human being but is an endeavour to save them and heal. When we have the knowledge to repair and heal and the ability to do so, then doing nothing is without doubt to do harm.

To do nothing but allow one to die a natural death can also be to harm. I am not saying that we should artificially keep them alive, but as their lives ebb we should use all our resources and knowledge to allow them to pass away as peacefully and as painlessly as possible. It is their choice that we do nothing, yet until they make that choice, every effort must be made to keep them alive as comfortably and painlessly as possible while expending all efforts to preserve their lives. To do other is to harm.

To euthenase is to harm, yet is aimed at relieving suffering and allowing a person to die with some dignity and as peacefully as possible at a time of their choosing. We are ending deliberately a persons life at their request so by definition it is to harm. But it can also be a great act of mercy and one which has brought many relief from their agonies and suffering.

What we are debating is choice. No parent can allow their child to suffer needlessly when treatment is available which will heal or at the very least relieve suffering. That may be harm in your books but not mine. It is not the same as taking away from a child the choice of whether to keep or lose a part of his penis when there is no medical reason to do so. That is harm.

You may bandy the word 'harm' about all you like LDD, and you may use it in any way that you wish. Because with every word you utter to distract from the real debate, you do nothing to further any real consideration of it. We disagree on what this little four letter word really means and will never agree. I suggest we move on and get back to the real issue, and on this interpretation of a small but very important word I intend to say no more.

[Long Duck Dong]

Please LDD....you are splitting hairs and misconstruing simple wording and in doing so, you are confusing your very own theory. One minute you are saying that scar tissue as a result of possible life saving surgery is doing harm yet you argue that we should "do no harm" to allow the elderly to die without intervention. To "do no harm" is simple....and can be better explained by Hippocrates himself:

"The physician must be able to tell the antecedents, know the present, and foretell the future - must mediate these things, and have two special objects in view with regard to disease, namely, to do good or to do no harm."

I don't necessarily subscribe to the "anti-circumcision" platform, but using those terms, you can see where they get the argument that it is, perhaps, "jumping the gun" for actual prevention of disease. It's not the same thing as the scenarios you attempt to compare it to.

well kate....

its like my father, who needed urgent major surgery to save his life and it was a high risk op..... and I signed the papers.... and people will automatically think I did it to save his life.... the truth is the opposite, i did it in the hopes it would end his life.....

now immediately, thats seen as cold and heartless.... not the actions of a loving person that cares about somebody, cos i am wishing death on them.....

the fact that my father has a life long alcohol problem and its destoryed his marriage, his life etc etc, will not be taken into account and nor will the action that his health is failing and he will suffer greatly as he dies.....

all that will be seen by people, is me standing by watching my father suffer to hell and back... and their best wishes would be with me..... yet if they knew that I signed those papers in the hope that he died on the operating table and never suffered a day longer, I would be seen as a cold hearted bastard....... and not the fact I wait to see my fathers suffering come to a end

circumcision is the same principal... if as a parent I act pre emptively with circumcising a child, its wrong, how dare I do that..... but it can be done out of love... cos if that child was not circumcised and grew up, suffering greatly with issues... then asked me why I had not had him circumcised as a child cos now its going to take 6 months to heal... what can i say ???

I could have acted in the best interests of him and prevented the issue of future suffering, and got told I was a bad parent,.... or not acted and as a result of my inactions, he suffers......

in my fathers case, my actions were right and wrong, I acted to end his suffering which is generally seen as wrong.... but his suffering ended, which is seen as right.... now he suffers another type of pain cos of my action.... and where are the people that judged me on my actions.....??? no where to be seen...

in the case of a child, my actions would be right and wrong... I would not act to circumcise him... and that would be seen as right.... then he would suffer later in life and my inaction, seen as wrong.... but when he suffers the pain of a adult circumcision.... where are all the anti and pro circumcision people ??? no where to be seen.....

I would still be walking the middle ground and standing right there beside my father and the child while the other people are off somewhere distance, arguing their way is right... while avoiding being in a situation where they see the results of their own stance and statements......

if people want to be anti circumcision, go for it, but instead of posting child circumcision vids, go make friends with a adult that is having a adult circumcision and watch him barely able to walk around and unable to have sex, and spend 6 months with him until he is fully healed.... then tell me that infant circumcision is cruel.... but many people avoid that or never see it... but by god will they harp on about how cruel it is to a child and how the child suffers... for a couple of days......

[Darkside2009]

Quote:from CSRAKATE

..."The physician must be able to tell the antecedents, know the present, and foretell the future - must mediate these things, and have two special objects in view with regard to disease, namely, to do good or to do no harm."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If a person has gangrene in their leg that hasn't responded to anti-biotics, then with their permission, after explaining all the possible outcomes, we remove the leg to stop the gangrene spreading throughout the body and killing the patient.

The loss of the leg is regrettable, the post-operative pain and suffering to the patient is regrettable, as is the scarring that ensues.

The operation is undertaken for the greater good of the patient, it saves his/her life and is preferable to the patient keeping the infected leg and dying, when the gangrene spreads throughout the body.

The benefit, gained by the patient, outweighs the risk of the surgery and the post-operative pain and suffering.

It is a simple enough concept, and one which most people have no problem understanding, or agreeing with, (as evidenced by CS's above quote).

There may be some adults, who when informed of all the available choices, will decide to keep the leg and die with their body intact. As informed adults, that would be their choice. I would suggest it is a choice few if any adults would opt for.

In contrast, routine circumcision on infants, does not convey any benefit to the child, to outweigh the danger inherent, in any operation to a child so young.

If it is not broke, don't fix it.

[Long Duck Dong]

I said to repair and heal. If the option, knowledge and capacity exists to do those then of course doing nothing is to harm. In the very loosest sense there may be 'harm' to unaffected tissue but that is not aimed at inflicting harm on a human being but is an endeavour to save them and heal. When we have the knowledge to repair and heal and the ability to do so, then doing nothing is without doubt to do harm.

To do nothing but allow one to die a natural death can also be to harm. I am not saying that we should artificially keep them alive, but as their lives ebb we should use all our resources and knowledge to allow them to pass away as peacefully and as painlessly as possible. It is their choice that we do nothing, yet until they make that choice, every effort must be made to keep them alive as comfortably and painlessly as possible while expending all efforts to preserve their lives. To do other is to harm.

To euthenase is to harm, yet is aimed at relieving suffering and allowing a person to die with some dignity and as peacefully as possible at a time of their choosing. We are ending deliberately a persons life at their request so by definition it is to harm. But it can also be a great act of mercy and one which has brought many relief from their agonies and suffering.

What we are debating is choice. No parent can allow their child to suffer needlessly when treatment is available which will heal or at the very least relieve suffering. That may be harm in your books but not mine. It is not the same as taking away from a child the choice of whether to keep or lose a part of his penis when there is no medical reason to do so. That is harm.

You may bandy the word 'harm' about all you like LDD, and you may use it in any way that you wish. Because with every word you utter to distract from the real debate, you do nothing to further any real consideration of it. We disagree on what this little four letter word really means and will never agree. I suggest we move on and get back to the real issue, and on this interpretation of a small but very important word I intend to say no more.

the real debate ??? snorts..... go be with a adult male that has a adult circumcision that takes 6 months to heal, and tell him every day, about how grateful he should be to you for your stance that he had the right of choice about being circumcised..... cos he will tell you that it fuckin hurts a lot... and right of choice is a lousy painkiller......

lets be honest katja, a adult male circumcision is something you will never have the experience of having.... and thats a shame, cos i would love to hear what you had to say about it after having a adult male circumcision.....

[Darkside2009]

Quote by LDD.

...if people want to be anti circumcision, go for it, but instead of posting child circumcision vids, go make friends with a adult that is having a adult circumcision and watch him barely able to walk around and unable to have sex, and spend 6 months with him until he is fully healed.... then tell me that infant circumcision is cruel.... but many people avoid that or never see it... but by god will they harp on about how cruel it is to a child and how the child suffers... for a couple of days......
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have already answered this question before, but just for your benefit.

An adult in full possession of his faculties can rationalise that his pain will abate and his penis eventually heal. The operation can be conducted under General anaesthetic.

By contrast, an infant can't rationalise that the pain will abate and eventually cease, neither can he rationalise that his penis will heal. All that he can feel is the pain, he has no idea of how long it will last. As an infant, he cannot be given General anaesthetic because of the inherent risk in doing so.

All that he knows is that the person who normally cares for him is not stopping or preventing the pain he is suffering.

To say that the adult takes six months to heal and the infant will heal in two days is not only incorrect, it is utter nonsense. An infant's immune system is not as developed as an adult's, the risk of post-operative infection is greater.

I respectfully suggest, that you review, and edit, your arguments before posting them, as scraping the barrel for excuses only serves one purpose.

[Darkside2009]

Quote: LDD.

...lets be honest katja, a adult male circumcision is something you will never have the experience of having.... and thats a shame, cos i would love to hear what you had to say about it after having a adult male circumcision.....

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can hear what the infant had to say about it, simply by viewing the video link posted in this thread. If you can't hear it well enough, try turning up the volume.

[Darkside2009]

Quote: LDD.

...lets be honest katja, a adult male circumcision is something you will never have the experience of having.... and thats a shame, cos i would love to hear what you had to say about it after having a adult male circumcision.....

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

Using the same logic as demonstrated here, does that mean I should not have an opinion on slavery, or of rapists? After all, I've never owned a slave, or raped anyone.

[drugstore cowboy]

May 25, 2011|By Martha Groves, Los Angeles Times

Performing a circumcision on a boy under age 18 — even for religious reasons — would be illegal under a measure that a San Diego group hopes to place on Santa Monica's November 2012 ballot.

Go SD!

[drugstore cowboy]

To "do no harm" is simple....and can be better explained by Hippocrates himself:

"The physician must be able to tell the antecedents, know the present, and foretell the future - must mediate these things, and have two special objects in view with regard to disease, namely, to do good or to do no harm."

Removing the foreskin of an infant boy is nothing but genital mutilation and is causing the infant boy nothing but harm any way you want to define it.

[Long Duck Dong]

Quote: LDD.

...lets be honest katja, a adult male circumcision is something you will never have the experience of having.... and thats a shame, cos i would love to hear what you had to say about it after having a adult male circumcision.....

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

Using the same logic as demonstrated here, does that mean I should not have an opinion on slavery, or of rapists? After all, I've never owned a slave, or raped anyone.

you have the option of doing it... the freedom of choice..... but I need to check something with your statement...

are you refering to non consentual stranger rape, or the legal defination of rape and the same with slavery, is it the defination of people in chains, or the legal defination.....

the reason I ask, is that sex without consent, is legally a form of rape, if the female doesn't give consent.... and husbands have been charged with marital rape....

with slavery, the removal of freedom of choice by means of intimidation, coercion or mental / emotional manipulation, is a form of slavery.... and that includes people in relationships and marriage where they have limited freedom and rights... including forms of BDSM...

what I said to katja is not that she doesn't have the right to a opinion, but that I would like to hear her opinion, if she was able to experience a adult male circumcisin...... as I have often said the only people that can really tell you about adult circumcision, are the ones that have experienced it... and they have first hand experience and knowledge of what it is like.....

it comes back to what I have been saying that what first time parents say, is often very different to second time parents.... as they learnt from the first experience that things we say, sound good to us... but often we do the opposite.... and that is why they change their wording.....

but yes I know, I am wrong... I am always wrong... cos its me saying it... and the fact that many peoples say the same thing as I do, doesn't make me right, it still means that I am wrong, they are right.....

[Long Duck Dong]

Quote: LDD.

...lets be honest katja, a adult male circumcision is something you will never have the experience of having.... and thats a shame, cos i would love to hear what you had to say about it after having a adult male circumcision.....

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can hear what the infant had to say about it, simply by viewing the video link posted in this thread. If you can't hear it well enough, try turning up the volume.

where is the video of the adult.... ???? you know... the one that is not used cos it doesn't have the shock value or work the sympathy angle..... cos believe me, there is a lot more skin, tissue and blood involved so its a lot more graphic....but its harder to feel the same sympathy for a adult as it is for a child..... so the child vid is used cos most people would react to it....

my point is proven there by way of the comments about how its better if a adult goes thru it than a child.... yet if people saw the mess it made of a adult... then they would realise the truth of what they are saying......

[Long Duck Dong]

Quote by LDD.

...if people want to be anti circumcision, go for it, but instead of posting child circumcision vids, go make friends with a adult that is having a adult circumcision and watch him barely able to walk around and unable to have sex, and spend 6 months with him until he is fully healed.... then tell me that infant circumcision is cruel.... but many people avoid that or never see it... but by god will they harp on about how cruel it is to a child and how the child suffers... for a couple of days......
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have already answered this question before, but just for your benefit.

An adult in full possession of his faculties can rationalise that his pain will abate and his penis eventually heal. The operation can be conducted under General anaesthetic.

By contrast, an infant can't rationalise that the pain will abate and eventually cease, neither can he rationalise that his penis will heal. All that he can feel is the pain, he has no idea of how long it will last. As an infant, he cannot be given General anaesthetic because of the inherent risk in doing so.

All that he knows is that the person who normally cares for him is not stopping or preventing the pain he is suffering.

To say that the adult takes six months to heal and the infant will heal in two days is not only incorrect, it is utter nonsense. An infant's immune system is not as developed as an adult's, the risk of post-operative infection is greater.

I respectfully suggest, that you review, and edit, your arguments before posting them, as scraping the barrel for excuses only serves one purpose.

a adult can rationise out why a operation is being done.... and a child can't ? true.... now go back to what I have said, about harming a child and while we as adults can rationise things out and do the we do it cos we love the child, the child doesn't understand that we put them thru surgery to make them better, they understand it fucking hurts.....

as I said to katja, we can rationize and reason out why we do things to children, and how it may be right in our eyes, but it still fucking hurts...... now you are saying that adults can rationize pain and reasoning but children can't......

why are you using the stances I have, if my stances are wrong and do not apply to the issue.... are you going to tell yourself that you are out of line now... or does that only apply to me ?

[Bluebiyou]

the real debate ??? snorts..... go be with a adult male that has a adult circumcision that takes 6 months to heal, and tell him every day, about how grateful he should be to you for your stance that he had the right of choice about being circumcised..... cos he will tell you that it fuckin hurts a lot... and right of choice is a lousy painkiller......

Likewise.... go be with an adult female that has had an adult mastectomy that takes... to heal... and tell her why she shouldn't have been spared the pain by routine neonatal double mastectomy.
I think the females (requiring adult mastectomies) will outnumber the males (requiring adult circumcision) more than 10 to 1.
With over a magnitude of difference, shouldn't we start lopping off breasts of females at birth?
Due to the high rate of female breast cancer - 1 in 8 women in a lifetime, plus all the women who develop other breast problems that would be more easily 'solved' by just loping the breast off. Men on the other hand have 1 in 5000 lifetime chance of developing penile cancer. Less than 1% of the adult male population are circumcised for any valid medical reason at all (closer to .1% actually)

lets be honest katja, a adult male circumcision is something you will never have the experience of having.... and thats a shame, cos i would love to hear what you had to say about it after having a adult male circumcision.....

wow, that ... is really... stretching... kinda blips over and warps reality of any perspective...
Should I lop off the healthy legs of my children at birth - because some people lose their legs in automobile accidents, and some to disease? - sort of logic...
"My children have a 75% probability of having a painful death in their lifetime so I should euthanize them at birth so they don't have to go through that pain" would be the ultimate conclusion of the logic you're using, LDD.

[Long Duck Dong]

Likewise.... go be with an adult female that has had an adult mastectomy that takes... to heal... and tell her why she shouldn't have been spared the pain by routine neonatal double mastectomy.
I think the females (requiring adult mastectomies) will outnumber the males (requiring adult circumcision) more than 10 to 1.
With over a magnitude of difference, shouldn't we start lopping off breasts of females at birth?
Due to the high rate of female breast cancer - 1 in 8 women in a lifetime, plus all the women who develop other breast problems that would be more easily 'solved' by just loping the breast off. Men on the other hand have 1 in 5000 lifetime chance of developing penile cancer. Less than 1% of the adult male population are circumcised for any valid medical reason at all (closer to .1% actually)

wow, that ... is really... stretching... kinda blips over and warps reality of any perspective...
Should I lop off the healthy legs of my children at birth - because some people lose their legs in automobile accidents, and some to disease? - sort of logic...
"My children have a 75% probability of having a painful death in their lifetime so I should euthanize them at birth so they don't have to go through that pain" would be the ultimate conclusion of the logic you're using, LDD.

females generally do not have developed breasts at birth..... so its going to be a lil hard to do a mastsectomy on underdeveloped breasts isn't it......

boys are born with a foreskin.... so it can be removed.....

now I would suggest you go to the library and find some books with pics of babies in them and then go view some adult porn, so you can see the difference between a baby and a adult female, and then you will see how hard it is to do a bloody mastsectomy on a baby.... and why its done on maturing or matured females.....

and in answer to your seond statement
no, blue.... I am not suggesting you do that... I am letting you decide as a parent of your children, decide what is best for your children.... and watching you tell other people how to bring up their children according to the rules of bluebiyou..... and honestly, if my children has a 75% chance of a violent death... I would think very seriously about what i am letting my children get involved in, if the risks are that high... so blue, I will politely suggest you move to a remote island in the middle of nowhere if you are really that concerned about the risks to your chidlren in todays society....

btw, are you related to sue bradford in NZ, the greens party politician that got spanking banned in NZ, to protect the children.... yet she was often seen belting her own 4 children and screaming at them, while telling other people how wrong they were with the way they brought up their own children
and her idea was that it would reduce the number of cases of children abuse by empowering the children...... strange enuf, the cases of infant death by abuse have tripled and are climbing....... and where is sue bradford ??? she quit parliament and got the hell out of government.....

[Darkside2009]

Quote: LDD

where is the video of the adult.... ???? you know... the one that is not used cos it doesn't have the shock value or work the sympathy angle..... cos believe me, there is a lot more skin, tissue and blood involved so its a lot more graphic....but its harder to feel the same sympathy for a adult as it is for a child..... so the child vid is used cos most people would react to it....

my point is proven there by way of the comments about how its better if a adult goes thru it than a child.... yet if people saw the mess it made of a adult... then they would realise the truth of what they are saying......
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is no video of an adult circumcision posted here, for the simple reason that the topic we are discussing on this thread is the routine circumcision of infants. Everyone here seems to understand that but you, why is that?

However, in the interests of fairness. If you think it is relevant by all means post a video of an adult having a circumcision. We can compare screams, from an infant that doesn't know what is happening to it, with an adult that does.

Now you can scrape up one excuse after another to try and distract the discussion from the topic, the only effect these excuses are having is to make you look more and more absurd with each post you make.

The only stance I am adopting is against the routine circumcision of infants. It is a stance I have held and maintained throughout this debate.

I have no difficulty differentiating between an operation performed for medical reasons, that has a benefit to the patient. Compared with one that is performed for cultural reasons, that has no benefit to the patient whatsoever, and puts his life at risk for no good reason.

Neither do I have any difficulty differentiating between the risks of an operation to an adult, and the risks of that same operation to an infant child.

Neither do I think an infant will heal in a couple of days after a circumcision, apparently you do for some reason, although all the evidence is to the contrary.

[Darkside2009]

[QUOTE=Long Duck Dong;201111]

what I said to katja is not that she doesn't have the right to a opinion, but that I would like to hear her opinion, if she was able to experience a adult male circumcisin...... as I have often said the only people that can really tell you about adult circumcision, are the ones that have experienced it... and they have first hand experience and knowledge of what it is like.....
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You most certainly implied that Katja's opinion was invalid, simply because she had not been circumcised herself and then went on to compound it by saying only those who had had an adult circumcision could tell us about it.

That would exclude the opinions and experience of those surgeons who have performed such operations and the nurses and spouses involved in post operative care. Not to mention the doctors and pharmacists who decide what might be safe doses of analgesics to give you to combat the pain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

but yes I know, I am wrong... I am always wrong... cos its me saying it... and the fact that many peoples say the same thing as I do, doesn't make me right, it still means that I am wrong, they are right.....[/QUOTE)

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

Then you end your post with maudlin self-pity. Very droll, really! The debate is only served if you remain rational and save the drama for those that appreciate it.

[Katja]

Let me deal with this hypothesis of me being male and circumcised. Why would I, other than if it were required medically undergo such a thing? I would not. But if I did, it would only serve to reinforce my hatred of it being inflicted upon a new born child. Most of those adult males who undergo such an operation will not have had their sons circumcised, and I am quite sure that because of their experience it would reinforce their belief that their decision to leave their son penile intacto the right one.

Circumcised fathers mostly do not remember their circumcision. They dont at a day or two old. But if they did, or they could be placed into the body of an uncircumcised male for the duration of an adult circumcision, I doubt very many of them would be pro infant circumcision either. That too is a hypothesis, but equally as valid as having it done to me.

I will now deal with female mastechotomy of an infant. Infant females do not have fully formed breasts it is true. But it is perfectly feasible for the tissue which in time will develop into breasts to be surgically removed. I know of no instances, but I would have thought it likely that the immature breasts of young girls have been removed for perfectly sound medical reasons but not many in society would recommend it as a precaution against disease and having it done for any other reason without the permission of the person concerned is an illegal act. As indeed is removal of female genital tissue. Why then do we allow male genital tissue to be removed without the permission of the individual concerned?

[Long Duck Dong]

[QUOTE=Darkside2009;201122]

what I said to katja is not that she doesn't have the right to a opinion, but that I would like to hear her opinion, if she was able to experience a adult male circumcisin...... as I have often said the only people that can really tell you about adult circumcision, are the ones that have experienced it... and they have first hand experience and knowledge of what it is like.....
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You most certainly implied that Katja's opinion was invalid, simply because she had not been circumcised herself and then went on to compound it by saying only those who had had an adult circumcision could tell us about it.

That would exclude the opinions and experience of those surgeons who have performed such operations and the nurses and spouses involved in post operative care. Not to mention the doctors and pharmacists who decide what might be safe doses of analgesics to give you to combat the pain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

but yes I know, I am wrong... I am always wrong... cos its me saying it... and the fact that many peoples say the same thing as I do, doesn't make me right, it still means that I am wrong, they are right.....[/QUOTE)

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

Then you end your post with maudlin self-pity. Very droll, really! The debate is only served if you remain rational and save the drama for those that appreciate it.

darkside... learn the difference between opinion, and personal experience will you... for christ sakes....

I have personal experience as a circumcised male, katja doesn't... neither of us have the personal experience of being circumcised as a adult male..... we both have opinions about it..... but lack the personal experience.....
therefore we have opinions not based on personal experience of being circumcised as a adult male

I said to katja that if she was to EXPERIENCE a adult circumcision on her OWN penis, I would be curious to see if it changed her OPINION about adult male circumcision after EXPERIENCING what a adult male goes thru.....

it does NOT make her opinion invalid, cos if it does, it makes the opinion of ANY person that have not EXPERIENCED a adult male circumcision ( and I am refering to being circumcised, not being the doctor or nurse etc that does the op or hands out the pain meds ) totally invalid as well.... cos their OPINION is not based on personal experiences.....

again, katjas OPINION is not invalid cos she doesn't have a penis, it simply means she lacks the personal EXPERIENCE of being circumcised, something I have, but we both lack the personal EXPERIENCE of being circumcised as a adult male, so we both only have OPINIONS about it

[Katja]

And I say to you LDD, why would I want to? It has no bearing, but if it did, I repeat, it would certainly reinforce my beliefs regarding routine infant circumcision.

I do believe most women, and men for that matter, were they to experience your hypothesis would feel preciseley the same where they were pro or anti routine infant circumcision at the outset.

[Darkside2009]

1. Quote: LDD.

...lets be honest katja, a adult male circumcision is something you will never have the experience of having.... and thats a shame, cos i would love to hear what you had to say about it after having a adult male circumcision.....


2. ...what I said to katja is not that she doesn't have the right to a opinion, but that I would like to hear her opinion, if she was able to experience a adult male circumcisin...... as I have often said the only people that can really tell you about adult circumcision, are the ones that have experienced it... and they have first hand experience and knowledge of what it is like.....

The first account is what you actually said to Katja, the second account is what you claimed to have said. Two different things entirely, the first was condescending the second wasn't.

As she will never have a male circumcision because of her gender, and you will never have an adult male circumcision, because you are already circumcised, the point was entirely invalid. Her opinion on the matter is just as valid as yours. So your condescension to her was uncalled for and merely compounded by the sarcasm which followed.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote: LDD.

but yes I know, I am wrong... I am always wrong... cos its me saying it... and the fact that many peoples say the same thing as I do, doesn't make me right, it still means that I am wrong, they are right.....

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

You complained loudly enough when you thought anti-circumcisionists were making jibes at pro-circumcisionists, by calling them, mutilated, monsters and child molesters. Yet you engage in the same inflammatory behaviour yourself. Your apology has been notable by its absence.

Civility doesn't cost anything.

[BiDaveDtown]

y
with slavery, the removal of freedom of choice by means of intimidation, coercion or mental / emotional manipulation, is a form of slavery.... and that includes people in relationships and marriage where they have limited freedom and rights... including forms of BDSM...

You're wrong about slavery and BDSM.

What's done in BDSM even within Master/slave total power exchange relationships is not actual slavery at all.

In a Master/slave relationship it's all totally consensual and the slave has control over what happens to him/her and can leave or terminate the relationship at any time.

Not everyone that has a Master/slave relationship even does it full time like you're assuming. Many people who are in consensual Master/slave relationships only do them during sex only.

A Master/slave BDSM relationship has nothing to do with modern or historical non-consensual slavery and should not be compared to it.

This has nothing at all to do with circumcision or Male genital mutilation so why are you even bringing it up as a topic at all?

I found this article and it's an excellent read and it actually has to do with the topic unlike your posts.

http://www.fathermag.com/health/circ/gmas/

Genital Mutilation American Style
How a father discovered, too late, that circumcision is not a good thing.

by Rio Cruz

Most Americans, when presented with the information that approximately 97% of the world's infant male population is not circumcised, are rather astounded. "But I thought everybody was circumcised. I thought it was a medically necessary thing to do," said a friend when I brought up the issue a few weeks ago.

"Nope," I replied, "not even close. The foreskin is not a birth defect needing remedy by the A.M.A. Nobody in all of Europe, non-Muslim Asia, or Latin America is routinely circumcised. In fact, the only people who routinely cut off the most erogenous part of their boys' penis are Jews, Muslims, certain tribal groups in far-flung parts of the world and... the United States. Everybody else leaves their sons intact as nature made them." This is a fact. Indisputable. Most leave their girls intact, too.

Roughly one million baby boys a year in this country are rudely welcomed into the world by the amputation, without anesthesia, of an integral, sexually important part of their anatomy. By definition, the removal of a normal, healthy, functional body part is mutilation. Pure and simple. These one million babies represent around 60% of all male infants born in this country, a figure that is down from a high reached in the 1970's and 1980's of around 90%. And what is truly astounding is that, while we become incensed over the female genital mutilations going on in Africa and other third-world countries far, far away, we ignore the routine mutilations perpetrated here against our own sons.

The sexism of this perspective is stunning. In fact, in 1996 the U.S. Congress, eager to appease feminist groups and appear to be the Great White Protectors of American Girlhood, passed a law against female circumcision or any other form of genital modification of girls below the age of consent. This was pure political theater, baby kissing, butt patting. As a society, we simply do not cut the genitals of baby girls in this country... only the genitals of baby boys. Passing a law against female genital mutilation (FGM) was a slam dunk for the politicians. They could look big and strong and macho and foursquare in favor of protecting babies... as long as the babies were girls, that is. In our culture, unlike other more civilized societies, it is perfectly acceptable to amputate the male prepuce against the shrieking protests of the victims. Our national chauvinism has blinded us to our own human rights abuses, against our sons, and does not allow us to see anything wrong.

I never saw anything wrong with it either until I witnessed my own son being circumcised. The doctor assured me it was a simple little snip of extra skin that had no function and that really didn't hurt the infant. "You want him to look like you, don't you?" Well, since I really hadn't thought much about it, and since I, too, had gone under the knife at birth, I said "Sure. I guess so. Why not?"

He didn't answer the "Why not?" but it was soon apparent to me. My newborn son was taken from his mother's warm, nourishing breast and placed naked on a cold, plastic board called a Circumstraint. His little legs were spread-eagled and strapped down with Velcro bands and his arms were strapped to his sides. He immediately protested and began to cry. The doctor draped a thin cloth with a hole in the center over his shivering body and drew his little penis through the hole.

The doctor washed my baby's penis with an antiseptic solution. He took a pair of steel hemostats and, holding the penis in one hand, inserted the tip of the hemostat into the opening of the foreskin and began pushing it between the foreskin and the glans, ripping the two structures apart. The foreskin and glans were tightly fused together by the normal balanopreputial membrane called the synechia, similar to the membrane that attaches the fingernail to the finger. It's the body's way, in part, of protecting against harmful bacteria.

My baby was shrieking now, his protest going from a simple cry to what sounded like screams of sheer terror. His body was rigid, contorted as he strained against the straps and the pain. If the Circumstraint had not been bolted down, it and my child would have crashed to the floor. Every instinct I had told me this was not right, that I should be protecting my son instead of acquiescing to the barbaric spectacle before me. But I am a "civilized" man. I have been socialized to accept what the doctor is doing. It's the right thing to do. Right?

The foreskin did not easily give up its hold on my son's glans. The doctor continued to rip the skin with the hemostat. My son was shaking, tossing his head from side to side, his fists and eyes were clenched, sweat beaded on his brow.

The doctor finally got the glans and foreskin separated, then clamped the foreskin tight with another hemostat and cut the skin vertically with scissors. The wound was bleeding profusely. He tried to insert a steel cone into the tissue but had to force it because the incision was too short. My son stopped screaming. His eyes were glazed and rolled back. He appeared to be sleeping, but he was really in a state of complete and total shock.

The doctor put a large metal clamp around the bleeding foreskin, the cone supposedly to protect the glans, and he proceeded to crush the nerves, the blood vessels and tissue of the foreskin with the clamp. He took a knife and sliced around the clamp, letting the foreskin drop onto the cloth. My son lay motionless on the board, completely disassociated into some other, more hospitable space. The doctor looked at me and winked. He left the room. A nurse gave my son back to his mother. Welcome to America, little man.

"Why not?" I ask again. I'll tell you why not. Because my son had absolutely no medical condition requiring the amputation of his perfectly normal, natural, healthy foreskin. None! There is not one child born in this country who has any condition requiring this procedure, yet out of cultural inertia, greed on the part of circumcising physicians and hospitals, flat out abject ignorance on the part of both doctors and parents, and the satisfying of psycho-sexual compulsions on the part of certain sadistic practitioners, the grisly business continues. And, it continues to fill the pockets and coffers of physicians, hospitals and clinics to the tune of approximately one billion dollars a year.

Perhaps protecting this cash cow is one of the reasons I could not get even one of our area's circumcising physicians to agree to an interview on this subject. Not one! "That's much too emotional an issue to discuss," said one. "There are concerns for legal liability," said another. Others gave no reason. They simply refused to be interviewed. Still others never returned my calls. They all seem brave enough when armed with steel knives, clamps and scissors against an infant's naked penis, but try to engage them in adult conversation on this issue and they flee into the shadows.

However, one well-known, popular family practice physician who does not perform circumcisions but who, nevertheless, preferred not to go on record for this article, said that circumcisions were done en masse in this country because "It's really a question of cosmetic surgery. It's an elective. It's tradition. There is no medical justification for it," she said. "We simply do it at the request of parents. It's their decision to make." But only if the child is a boy. Remember, girls are protected by law from such parental requests.

Not many years ago it was perfectly accepted for dog owners to amputate the tail and cut the ears of their pets for cosmetic reasons. It was the owners' choice to make. Social consensus now holds this to be inhumane treatment of animals and few veterinarians will accede to such requests. The idea that anyone would even consider circumcising their pet for any reason at all is abhorrent. Incomprehensibly, it is still perfectly acceptable for parents to consent to the cosmetic amputation of their son's prepuce, a far more injurious operation than an ear clipping or a tail docking. As a society we should be ashamed of this fact.

The idea that parents have the right to request amputation of normal, erogenous tissue is central to the debate surrounding this issue and highlights the ethical void enveloping the medical establishment. Leading medical ethicist and professor at the McGill Center of Medicine, Ethics and Law, Dr. Margaret Somerville, has stated publicly that circumcision, as performed in our country, is nothing short of "criminal assault." How could it be otherwise? If parents requested that their newborn have a healthy ear or a pinky finger or the tip of its nose amputated at birth so as to conform to family tradition or to look like Daddy or Mommy or the other kids in the neighborhood, or because it might get some sort of infection later in life, any ethical doctor would refuse to do it. If it was done, both doctor and parent would be hauled off to jail where they belong. Of course! Primum non nocere--First, Do No Harm!--the prime directive of the Hippocratic oath... until it comes to mutilating a boy's genitals. Then all ethical concerns are off.

It was precisely this ethical void that prompted nurse Marilyn Milos to establish the National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers (NOCIRC) in 1986. These centers now have branches in almost every state of the union and throughout the world. "There really was no other choice," she said. "Baby boys were and are being routinely tortured and mutilated all over this country for no medical reason whatsoever. The doctors know this, the attending nurses know this. Yet the inertia of years of social conditioning and medical practice has immunized them against the pain and lifelong trauma they inflict on normal babies. It's the most grievous medical scandal of the century!" She videotaped a circumcision to show parents what the cutting entailed. The hospital authorities promptly censored the video and shortly thereafter she was fired from her job. "I simply wanted parents to know what they were subjecting their infants to. I wanted them to know what I wished I had known before allowing my own sons to be cut. I wanted them to make an informed decision on behalf of their sons. The medical establishment knew this would be devastating to their income and to their image as providers of loving care. They fired me for my efforts because they couldn't silence me. It's the best thing they could have done, however, because now I am no longer muzzled by an economically-motivated medical community. I am free to promulgate the truth of this barbaric practice and help put a stop to it."

Help put a stop to it is exactly what she has done. NOCIRC has spawned a grass-roots movement all across this country and has been largely responsible for the drop in circumcision rates over the past ten years. Milos' efforts have also prompted other health-care practitioners to enlist in the cause. Doctors Opposing Circumcision (DOC) was founded in 1996 and now counts physicians from all over the world among its ranks. "Many doctors recognize that no one has the right to forcibly remove sexual body parts from another individual," says Dr. George Denniston, President. "They recognize that doctors should have no role in this painful, unnecessary procedure inflicted on the newborn. Routine circumcisions have been found to violate not only the Golden Rule, but the first tenet of medical practice, 'First, Do No Harm'. Amazingly, circumcision violates all seven principles of the A.M.A. Code of Ethics, and yet doctors continue to do it!" Dr. Denniston goes on to point out that, "Circumcision is not surgery, by definition. Surgical procedures have been defined as: repair of wounds, extirpation of diseased organs or tissue, reconstructive surgery, and physiologic surgery (i.e. sympathectomy). Routine circumcision does not fall into any of these categories. Therefore, routine infant male circumcision is not a valid surgical procedure."

Part 2 in next post.

[BiDaveDtown]

Part 2 of the article in previous post.

Besides the pain of the initial crushing and cutting, circumcision harms in many other ways. First, the male glans and inner foreskin, just like the glans clitorides and inner labia of women, are actually internal structures covered by mucous membrane that, when exposed to the air and harsh environment through circumcision, develop a tough, dry covering to protect the delicate, sensitive tissue. It's sort of like if you went around with your eyelids pulled back or your tongue sticking out all the time or if a woman were to walk around with her labia pulled back exposing the clitoris and internal lining to the air. The moist, warm membranes of eye, tongue, clitoris or labia would react to the dry air and defend against it. The nerve endings would become dulled because layers of cells build-up in a process called keratinization. This keratin, a tough, insoluble protein substance, is the chief structural constituent of hair, nails, horns, and hoofs. Over time, these once exquisitely sensual organs acquire all the sensitivity of an old garden glove.

Circumcision is not simply the cutting off of useless skin. Author Gary L. Harryman innumerates what circumcision destroys:

***Its connective synechia, which fuses the foreskin to the glans while the penis develops.

***Approximately half of the smooth muscle sheath called the dartos fascia.

***Most of the erotogenic nerve endings on the penis, including the densely innervated ridged bands, reducing the sensitivity of the penis to that of ordinary skin.

***Specialized epithelial Langerhans cells, a component of the immune system.

***Thousands of coiled fine-touch receptors, including the Meissner's corpuscles.

***Estrogen receptors--the purpose and value of which are not yet fully understood.

***Ectopic sebaceous glands, which lubricate and moisturize.

***The protective covering of the glans, normally an internal structure. The foreskin shields from abrasion, drying, and callusing, and protects from dirt and other contaminants.

***The entire immunological defense system of the soft mucosa, which may produce antibacterial and antiviral proteins such as lysozyme, also found in mother's milk, and plasma cells, which secrete immunoglobulin antibodies.

***Lymphatic vessels, the loss of which interrupts the lymph flow within a part of the body's immune system.

***The frenulum, the sensitive "V" shaped tethering structure on the underside of the glans is also usually amputated, severed, or destroyed.

***The apocrine glands, which produce pheromones, nature's powerful, silent, invisible signals to potential sexual partners.

***As much as 50% or more of the total penile skin, radically immobilizing and desensitizing whatever skin remains.

***The "gliding" mechanism. If unfolded and spread out flat, the average adult foreskin would measure 15-20 square inches, the size of a postcard. This abundance of specialized, self-lubricating skin gives the natural penis its unique-hallmark ability to smoothly "glide" back and forth within itself, permitting non-abrasive intercourse, without drying out the vagina.

***The pink to red to dark purple natural coloration of the glans.

***10% to 20% of its circumference because its double-layered wrapping of loose foreskin is now missing making the circumcised penis thinner.

*** As much as one inch of the erect penis' length due to scarring and shrinkage from loss of the mobile, richly vascularized foreskin.

***Several feet of blood vessels, including the frenular artery and branches of the dorsal artery, the loss of which interrupts normal blood flow to the shaft and glans of the penis, damaging its natural function and possibly stunting its growth.

*** An estimated 240 feet of microscopic nerves, including branches of the dorsal nerve.

*** Perhaps most importantly, between at least 10,000 to 20,000 specialized erotogenic nerve endings of various types, which can discern slight motion, subtle changes in temperature, and fine gradations in texture.

And occasionally a boy will lose his life from this needless operation. It has been estimated that as many as 209 babies die every year from circumcision and related complications.

It's no coincidence that circumcision has its greatest detrimental effect on sexuality. Maimonides (or Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon, a twelfth-century philosopher, legal scholar, and physician often called "Judaism's Aristotle") said: "As regards circumcision, I think one of its objects is to limit sexual intercourse and to weaken the organ of generation as far as possible, and thus cause man to be moderate... The bodily injury caused to that organ is exactly that which is desired; it does not interrupt any vital function, nor does it destroy the power of generation. Circumcision simply counteracts excessive lust; for there is no doubt that circumcision weakens the power of sexual excitement, and sometimes lessens the natural enjoyment; the organ necessarily becomes weak when it loses blood and is deprived of its covering from the beginning."

The "weakening" of sexuality was precisely the reason circumcision was introduced into medical practice in the United States as a "prophylactic" during the 19th century. Until that time, the practice was virtually nonexistent. Here in good ol' God-fearing, Puritanical America, masturbation was not only considered sinful, but was deemed a major health peril as well. Countless maladies were thought to accrue from this "degenerate" practice, and, in 1888, J. H. Kellogg--the All Bran laxative king--together with other Victorians of his ilk, began proselytizing for mass circumcision as a deterrent to "self abuse." Their purpose was to keep the male youth of America from masturbating, going blind and insane with hair growing on the palms of their hands. Kellogg said, "Tying the hands is also successful in some cases... Covering the organs with a cage has been practiced with entire success. A remedy which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision... The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment."

These self-promoting defenders of public health and morality claimed that circumcision also cured a vast litany of masturbation-related ills and proselytized for its mass acceptance as an "immunizing inoculation." They claimed it cured everything from alcoholism to asthma, curvature of the spine, enuresis, epilepsy, elephantiasis, gout, headache, hernia, hydrocephalus, insanity, kidney disease, rectal prolapse and rheumatism. In the face of rationality and modern research, contemporary circumcisionists have abandoned most of these claims but have now updated their list to include cancer, urinary tract infections, sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV, and premature ejaculation.

The cancer argument has been an especially effective scare tactic, prompting officials of the American Cancer Society to write a letter to the American Academy of Pediatrics condemning the promulgation of the myth that circumcision prevents penile cancer. "The American Cancer Society does not consider routine circumcision to be a valid or effective measure to prevent such cancers... Perpetuating the mistaken belief that circumcision prevents cancer is inappropriate."

Of course it is. Penile cancer is an extremely rare condition, affecting only one in 100,000 men in the United States. Penile cancer rates in countries that do not practice circumcision are lower than those found in the United States. Fatalities caused by circumcision accidents may approximate the mortality rate from penile cancer, and, for circumcised men who do contract penile cancer, the lesion may occur at the site of the circumcision scar. Portraying routine circumcision as an effective means of prevention distracts the public from the task of avoiding the behaviors proven to contribute to penile and cervical cancer: especially cigarette smoking and unprotected sexual relations with multiple partners. The ACS has recently reiterated this position on their web site and also notes that "...circumcision is not medically necessary."

On a recent BBC radio broadcast of "Case Notes", pediatric urologist Rowena Hitchcock pointed out that "Even using the figures of those who support circumcision one would have to perform 140 circumcisions a week for 25 years before you could prevent one case of cancer. Of those cancers, 80% are treatable and they are avoidable by simply pulling the foreskin back and washing it, which I would prefer to 140 circumcisions a week for 25 years."

The "cancer prevention" argument would have greater persuasive appeal if applied to breast cancer in women. The American Cancer Society estimates that 44,000 women will die of breast cancer in 1998. This same year, by comparison, an estimated 200 men, most of them beyond 70 years of age with poor hygiene habits, will die of penile cancer. If amputating healthy tissue is an antidote to cancer, it would make far more "sense" to routinely perform radical mastectomies on adolescent girls and remove the breast buds of all newborn females than to amputate the foreskin of male infants to prevent such comparatively paltry numbers. But nobody in their right mind would suggest this as appropriate therapy... except when applied to infant boys, that is. Go figure.

The HIV scare is another in the continuing effort of circumcision advocates to view their favorite "surgery" as a hedge against disease. Despite the fact that the United States is a "circumcising country," where the majority of sexually-active men are cut, we nevertheless have the highest HIV infection rate among advanced industrialized countries. In fact, the U.S. has an infection rate 3.5 times greater than the next leading country, or 16 cases per 100,000 population. None of the other advanced industrialized countries circumcise routinely. France, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Germany, Sweden, Norway, New Zealand, Finland and Japan all have near-zero infant circumcision rates, yet their AIDS infection rate goes from 3.5 cases per 100,000 down to 0.2, respectively. Consequently, not only is it clear that circumcision does not prevent HIV or AIDS, the infection rates suggest that circumcision may actually contribute to HIV infection by depriving the penis of the natural immunological protection of the foreskin. But rest assured, as soon as medical science debunks these latest "benefits" for mass mutilations, the pro-circumcision industry will invent new reasons and new diseases for continued use of their favorite treatment of nonexistent ills.

Such persistence in the face of overwhelming evidence against routine circumcision should alert us to the fact that irrational, more emotional and compulsive forces may also be at work. These forces have been identified and were alluded to earlier: the seldom mentioned psycho-sexual pleasure derived by some, possibly many, circumcising physicians.

The notion that the ranks of circumcising doctors harbor what have been termed "circumsadists" and "circumfetishists," comes as a shock to many parents who never considered the notion. They realized they were being pressured insistently by their pediatrician or urologist to have the procedure done, but it never entered their minds that darker motives may have been at issue. "The idea that we turned our son over to some pervert who got off sexually by handling and cutting our baby's penis just makes me sick," said one mother when learning of this possibility. "I had no idea such people existed."

Few people outside the medical profession do realize this. As with the Catholic church and the pedophiles lurking within the folds of its priesthood, the medical profession has coalesced around a wall of lies and silence that allows these sadists to do their work in obscure anonymity.

One person who does recognize their prurience is John Erickson. He has done extensive work on this subject and maintains a web site dedicated to the Memory of the Sexually Mutilated Child. "It would never occur to most parents that the doctor's real reason for wanting to circumcise their child might be sexual," he says. "They hold their doctors in such high esteem that this whole area of surgical sexual perversion never comes up."

Carla Miller, founder of Patients in ARMS, a non-profit advocacy group dedicated to reforming medical standards and eradicating patient abuse, who herself was sexually mutilated by an American doctor, has also given serious thought to this issue. She echoes the words of others who likewise have been victimized. "Like rapists, serial killers, and other sociopaths, serial circumcisers probably get a chemical high from doing the circumcision. The very act of shredding and mutilating a baby's penis with knives, clamps, electrocautery guns, or fingers affects the circumciser's brain chemistry like a drug, as irresistible as heroin. Carving, crushing, burning, and slicing a baby's penis, reducing it to gore, getting his hands covered with penis blood, and filling his ears with shrieks and screams of agony and terror are the potent elixir the serial circumciser needs to make himself feel alive."

To date, the medical establishment has done nothing to identify and excise such sadists from their midst. They continue to cut and torture in protected anonymity, cold and oblivious to the screams all around. Perhaps the institutions that hire them actually support their compulsions because they help provide a steady cash flow for all. For obvious reasons, such "circumsadists" relish doing these procedures and are a principal source for the hundreds of millions of dollars a year that fill their pockets and the coffers of the sponsoring hospitals and clinics.

It should be obvious to any caring, feeling person that amputating normal, healthy, sexually sensitive tissue for no valid medical reason whatsoever, especially when such a mutilative procedure is harmful both short term and long, performed against the child's screaming protests and with no informed consent, can only be regarded as an act of supreme cowardice, devoid of moral or ethical support. Given these facts, any physician who performs such acts should be held suspect, the onus of perversion entirely on him or her. A loving parent should think long and hard before offering their son to any circumciser.

The circumcision epidemic is a national scandal in this country and a crime against infant boys. Simply put, infant circumcision is child abuse. It is gratuitous genital mutilation and should be banned along with thumb screws, hot pincers and boiling in oil as nothing short of perverse. In a recent article appearing in ObGYN News, doctor Leo Sorger says, "Circumcision causes pain, trauma, and a permanent loss of protective and erogenous tissue. Removing normal, healthy, functioning tissue violates the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 5) and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (Article 13)."

Last year a group of civil rights attorneys took note of this fact and banded together to form Attorneys for the Rights of the Child (ARC). They are currently assessing this area of human rights concern and are starting to bring lawsuits against offending physicians and physician groups. Attorney J. Steven Svoboda, a former Human Rights Fellow at Harvard Law School and director of ARC, considers circumcision to be medical malpractice. "The medical profession, which has perpetuated this tragic disfigurement of baby boys' genitals, will now be challenged by an organization of legal professionals." If physicians cannot find the ethical and moral center sufficient to end this barbaric habit, then let a stop be applied by the courts. At the very least, it should make for spectacular theater. However you look at it, the case against circumcision is building towards critical mass and it won't be long before the whole putrid business falls of its own dead weight.

For more information contact:

National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers (NOCIRC)
Post Office Box 2512
San Anselmo, CA 94979-2512
U.S.A.
Telephone: (415) 488-9883
Fax: (415) 488-9660
http://www.nocirc.org/

Doctors Opposing Circumcision (D.O.C.)
2442 NW Market Street, Suite 42
Seattle, Washington, 98107
U.S.A.
http://weber.u.washington.edu/~gcd/DOC/

Attorneys for the Rights of the Child (ARC)
2961 Ashby Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94705
USA
Tel. 510-848-4437
E-mail: svoboda1@flash.net
http://www.noharmm.org/ARC.htm

Patients In ARMS
(Advocates Reforming Medical Standards)
7480 Gravies Road
Dieters, Missouri 63023
USA
(314) 274-ARMS
Carmilarms@aol.com

[Katja]

Ty BiDave for rescuing this chaotic, well distracted debate on infant circumcision from the inanity of those who would by their insistence in talking dross ruin a debate on an incredibly important issue of human rights. Interesting article and very much to the point which is more than can be said about some of the posts on this thread.

[tenni]

BiDave & Katja
It is an interesting article but the comment from Carla Miller seems probably sensationalized due to her own history? At least, I hope that the doctor who did my circumcision was not feeling alive by doing such a procedure.

"Like rapists, serial killers, and other sociopaths, serial circumcisers probably get a chemical high from doing the circumcision. The very act of shredding and mutilating a baby's penis with knives, clamps, electrocautery guns, or fingers affects the circumciser's brain chemistry like a drug, as irresistible as heroin. Carving, crushing, burning, and slicing a baby's penis, reducing it to gore, getting his hands covered with penis blood, and filling his ears with shrieks and screams of agony and terror are the potent elixir the serial circumciser needs to make himself feel alive." "

As far as BiDave comment, this is not an isolated approach to discussion and debate by this poster. I believe others have referred to this strategy as "circular logic" or circular reasoning". I'm not sure if it is or not but others have made such statements similar to your own.

" A Master/slave BDSM relationship has nothing to do with modern or historical non-consensual slavery and should not be compared to it.
This has nothing at all to do with circumcision or Male genital mutilation so why are you even bringing it up as a topic at all?"

[Katja]

The one part of the article I may take issue with is the part about serial circumcisers. I believe they are more likely to become desensitised rather than 'turned on' by the volume of circumcisions they perform over a number of years. Rather like a production line worker. Some may well get a high, but even that will involve being desensitised to the suffering of the child.

[tenni]

The term "serial Circumciser" is unusual to me but a minor point in the article. These people are doctors for the most part (excluding Jewish and Muslim?) and would be desensitized as they would be to any operation. I'm not certain but yes, I suspect that circumcision was part of a specialist category and not Family Practioner. I don't know what they think but suspect that most would have thought that they were doing something appropriate and look at it as no different from giving an injection to a child , tonselectomy and adnoid removal (which was also far more frequent at one time than may have been needed). Now, these may not be seen as equivalent to circumcision though by some. I was also a young child who had both of those operations done and I'm happy that it was. I was one that suffered from a lot of colds/sore throats and the medication available at one time may not have been as successful as today's meds. I remember crying with pain in my throat and ears particulary. Even though my parents prepared me for an operation as best as they could, once it started all hell broke lose with my behaviour. (lies about icecream and jello after..pfft I'm sure that I carried on screaming and fighting them off as a four to six year old as soon as they put the anesthetia over my face...lol (think that I can remember it just a bit too..lol) There was no kid size valium or needle to make me drowzy first. Yucky tasting, awful smelling ether. (no idea why I associated it with a taste but I still can vaguely experience the sensation...sick as a dog after too) I doubt that my doctor thought of himself as a "serial tonselectomist" even though that would have been a specialist category (ear, nose throat doctor)...lol I would have not been the only kid to fight until under I bet...lol (opps floating off topic kinda)

I do agree that I hope that it would be more desensitized rather than get pleasure. That would be just too creepy.

[Long Duck Dong]

You're wrong about slavery and BDSM.

What's done in BDSM even within Master/slave total power exchange relationships is not actual slavery at all.

In a Master/slave relationship it's all totally consensual and the slave has control over what happens to him/her and can leave or terminate the relationship at any time.

I never said it was actual slavery.... I said by defination......

" with slavery, the removal of freedom of choice by means of intimidation, coercion or mental / emotional manipulation, is a form of slavery.... and that includes people in relationships and marriage where they have limited freedom and rights... including forms of BDSM

I never said it was actual slavery, but a form of slavery..... and I would know cos I have been in the lifestyle and I still belong to some groups as a observer and advisor.......

some of the following, use the basis of slavery as a implied role, in their role play......

gorean lifestyle is a lifestyle where the female is property and the gorean master *sell / trade * their female property.... a slave has no rights at all, some people live it 24 / 7

master / mistress and slave, the slave has limited freedom and rights, be it consentual.....

rope play and bondage, the person is bound and tied up, restrained etc....