I can't circumcise my dog, cat, or daughter. Why can I remove 35% to 50% of the skin of my boy's healthy genitals?What is so wacky about preventing surgery the kid has no need for, with no proven medical benefit, only what the AMA and AAP call 'potential' benefits? What adult goes in for an operation, when the doctor can't tell them what the benefits will be?Is it the people who want unneeded genital surgery on children who have the problem? Or the ones who feel the need to do it? It is violent.Legally, I agree with the article, and the judge. Male circumcision needs to be dealt with on the Federal level. If it was not anti-Semitic to ban the Islamic tradition of female circumcision, it wouldn't be any more anti-Semitic to ban male circumision. Either banning both is wrong, or banning both is right, but banning one, and not the other, is legal sexism, and unethical.
@TLCTugger: What part of the "healing arts professional"'s job is removing healthy parts from a non-consenting person? How is this healing, when there was no medical problem to heal in the first place?This is an amazing euphemism. I suppose it does sound better than "child penis reducer", or "professional amputator", or "inflicter of unnecessary pain".The bigger question, is, why are we as a society, clinging like a drowning man to a piece of wreckage, to keep alive a 3,000 year old painful practice, which the medical society of no country recommends as needed, or beneficial? Why is is so precious, that there is this endless squabbling about 'parental rights', like you have the parental right to cut off any other living part of your child? You can't punch them in the eye. The eye will heal. When the circumcision heals, the most responsive parts are still gone. You can't tattoo them. A tattoo doesn't remove anything. You can't take a kidney, though they have two of them. But you can take half the skin of his, but not her, genitalia. The doctor can then sell it to a cosmetics company, or a biogen company for skin grafts, and make a handsome profit twice. He or she doesn't even have to inform you. And it's all legal, if not legit, or ethical. It is your only chance to take something which doesn't belong to you, and get away with it, except perhaps for high finance.Man, if you were trying to explain this to a person from somewhere else, can you imagine the contortions on their face as they were trying to understand it?
@Mom: I don't like the idea of *you* circumcising *your* child.If it's a girl, that's a Federal crime. If it's a boy, even though it seriously damages the most responsive parts of the genitals, you get a free pass. That is legal sexism. Plain and simple.If you can't do it to a girl, or a dog, or a cat, why should you be able to do it to a boy?There is no proven medical benefit, as we keep hearing all along. The American medical community just whispers it, so they can continue to make a profit. In my lifetime, the circumcision rate in the US has dropped from an estimated 90% to 32.5%, according to a CDC researcher at an AIDS conference. The Canadians, British, New Zealanders, and Australians have all stopped doing it routinely. The main reason there is such an emphasis on Southern Africa, apart from the tribes who have always done it. are the scientifically poorly designed studies by people who have been pushing for circumcision all along, and the WHO. The WHO which is run by the same people (the United Nations) who have actively engaged in sexual trafficking of females, selling oil from countries despite boycotts, failure to police their own corruption, etc. The WHO recommends the Mogen clamp for circumcision. Trouble is, the company went out of business from lawsuits, because kids were getting their glans chopped off or severely damaged, and the court settlements put Mogen out of business.There is no other permissible operation, with no proven benefit, which removes healthy parts, just in case something might go wrong later, from an non-consenting person, causing them great pain. All that is accomplished, is that his sensation is diminished for life. How can it be otherwise, when you are removing approximately 20,000 nerves, and turning an internal part into an external one?Some day, somebody is going to have the guts to take the issue to the Supreme Court. There, either female circumcision is going to be struck down, or male circumcision is going to be Federally outlawed. The laws of the nation say that you cannot discriminate on the basis of gender, and that is exactly, precisely, what circumcision does.Give the kid a break! Let him decide which healthy parts he keeps, when he is old enough. Don't scar him for life.Who owns it, and gets to live with the results, anyway? You? Or him?
@pjpd: Really? You think people who oppose circumcision are political gays? On what are you basing that assumption?Many are mothers.I myself have been with the same girl since 13. We're 57.What could possibly make you think that a penis with 35% to 50% of its skin removed might just possibly be desensitized? Just because it used to be a mucous membrane, like the inside of a mouth or vagina, and now is as dry as the skin on your arm? Because the head has been rubbing against underwear, instead of safe in its sheath until it is needed?Smegma, well, what can I say. Guilty. Or not. I have a foreskin, and haven't seen any on me since the age of 4, when the foreskin first went back. By the way, women produce 10 times as much as the men who produce it, and I haven't heard a guy complain yet.Talk about trivial, and narcissistic. People who complain about people who want to see kids stop getting surgery to remove a healthy body part, in a painful operation they don't need, which has no proven benefits, only 'potential' benefits, according to the AMA and AAP. People who put their ego, and need to believe something fake, above the comfort and well being of a kid.People like, well, you, silencenolonger. What is it they say about silence? Better than to speak, and remove all doubt?
@Rubystars: Are they bad people, when they remove 35% to 50% of the skin of their child's genitals?No. Simply well intentioned, but misguided. That's a pretty serious error. It makes the kid feel less than he was meant to by nature, for life.
@Ricky: Sorry, Ricky, but the number of states which don't support Medicaid funding for circumcisions is steadily dropping, and will continue to do so. I know a number of people are working on it in my state. There is no reason for the state to pay for unneeded surgery on the genitals of an infant.This is not where our tax dollars were meant to go.The recommendations of the AAP and CDC are increasingly becoming a moot point. People can see that they have been lied to, repeatedly in the past, and are choosing not to circumcise on their own. The CDC researcher who let the cat out of the bag, that the circumcision rate has dropped to 32.5% must have gotten kicked. The truth is, Americans look at the dropping rates in Canada, Britain, New Zealand, and Australia. Then, they look at the lower rates of infections in European countries. Then, they think, "Do I really want to put my kid through a painful operation, that no one says is medically necessary?"The rate will continue to drop, even if the AAP and CDC make an announcement.People are savvy enough to read the data from the hyped up studies, and see that it does not correlate with what actually happens. For instance, most Americans are circumcised. Did it help save any of the people infected with AIDS?
@muman613: You have just insulted every San Franciscan, and every gay person, and everyone who practices sex other than vanilla. I'm not thinking you have the moral high ground in this conversation."But as I said circumcision has been a custom for 3000 years and it will not change..."This could have been a quote from a Muslim in 1995, just before female circumcision became a felony.How about we all follow Abraham's example. Cut off the tip of the foreskin if you want, voluntarily, at age 99, if you want to?
All Comments »
The San Francisco Examiner
Website powered by Foundation