Is Circumcision Another Form of Genital Mutilation?

(SAN DIEGO, Calif.) - Circumcision is flying to the front of medical and political arguments as Americans face the idea that we as a society may be gravely in error in our choice to allow doctors to complete circumcisions of young boys, particularly those just born which is the common approach in most cases.

Experts on both sides of the argument are esteemed researchers, but a closer look at what circumcision really brings us; campaigns for Viagra and a lack of sexual satisfaction in men, shows that it may be among our worst and most cruel cultural practices.

Talk about a subject that takes people out of their comfort zone. It is hard to learn that your life is not what it was really meant to be, that everything about our sexual lives is impacted by the fact that part of us was cut off and tossed when we were infants, without a voice to complain.

Now the movement is stepping forward with legislation that would curb or end the practice in our hospitals. The MGM Bill to End Male Genital Mutilation in the U.S. could change the way our society treats its young boys.

"The legislation that we are proposing would give boys the same protection from genital cutting that girls have enjoyed since 1997," said Matthew Hess, the group’s president. "Circumcision removes erogenous tissue in both sexes and results in a measurable loss of sexual feeling. It is a traumatic and disfiguring surgery that should not be performed on children unless there is a clear, compelling, and immediate medical need – period."

Hess says genital cutting of girls has been prohibited in the U.S. since 1997 when the Female Genital Mutilation Act took effect, requiring women to be eighteen years old before consenting to any type of genital surgery. The law has been credited with helping to keep forced female circumcision from spreading to the U.S. from Africa and the Middle East, where it is much more common.

Boys were not included in the law, however, and as a result circumcision is still performed on nearly 60% of U.S. newborn males by physicians, religious practitioners, or family members.

A Frankfurt, Germany, regional appeals court pushed circumcision further into the legal gray area recently when it found that the circumcision of an 11-year-old Muslim boy without his approval was an unlawful personal injury. And in November, the Oregon Supreme Court heard a case filed by the mother of a 12-year-old boy trying to protect him from being circumcised by his father for religious reasons. (Oregon Courts Have No Right to Force Circumcision) The court’s decision on the Oregon case is pending.

Anti-circumcision advocates say the latest blow comes from a Johns Hopkins University report that suggests men who are circumcised are at less risk of contracting the AID's virus. People who have studied the subject for years, like Marylin Milos in San Francisco with the National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers, call the information into question and believe it is a death sentence for many.

"People aren't going to stop getting AID's because they're circumcised. This gives false hope and it isn't responsible information for medical professionals to be putting out there."

It does seem like an overly optimistic thought to suggest that a man could have unprotected sex with a person who has AID's without protection and somehow avoid getting sick because his foreskin is removed.

The conservative press group Voices of America published the article about circumcision and AID's yesterday, this is the opening paragraph:

"Epidemiologist Ronald Gray from the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health led the original studies looking at circumcision and HIV risk. In order to convince skeptical men, he says they needed to know if men would be willing to be circumcised and what it would do to sexual performance and satisfaction."

Perhaps the word "convince" says it all. Doctors make money from circumcising young male children.

If you jump past the Biblical origination of the story and flash forward about 1850 years, you learn that Jewish people were actually scorned for their circumcisions in most western societies. But then a belief developed in England that circumcising boys would reduce masturbation. That is all it took, along with the money the practice represents for European and American doctors and hospitals.

Marylin Milos cites other developments over the years including locker room phobia, largely eliminated now as most west coast states are shying away from forcing young students to disrobe in front of one another.

This practice according to Milos, reduces the feeling that men experience during sex. That diminished quality has lifetime implications. She says it is that diminished feeling that leads to men seeking cures for erectile dysfunction.

She says pro-circumcision advocates also released through medical journals decades ago, a connection between uncircumcised men and penile cancer, which was proven to be false information. Instead, she says that in the case of many circumcised men who contract penile cancer, it begins at their circumcision scar.

This is a subject just gaining momentum in this country and it isn't likely to lose steam as parents and others become increasingly aware of a number of problems associated with the practice. The online dictionary Wikipedia clearly defines the practice of circumcision as mutilation.

Wikipedia states, "Mutilation is an act or physical injury that degrades the appearance or function of the (human) body, usually without causing death." Circumcision is listed alongside burning and amputation, as a form of mutilation or maiming.

Salem-News.com Top Stories

Two Wars with No Way Out

No One Owns the Future

The Ugly Origins of Trump's America First Policy

A One-State Solution Could Transform the World

rewilding LA: Matilija Dam History and Ecosystems

Comments Leave a comment on this story.

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.

loveunderlaw September 8, 2014 8:21 am (Pacific time)

THIS MAKES ME RAGE ! ANYONE SEXUALLY MUTILATING THOSE THAT CAN'T GIVE CONSENT DESERVES TO DIE. IF THE WESTERN WORLD DOESN'T STAMP OUT THESE BACKWARDS ASS PRACTICES OF THE ABRAHAMICS, THEN WE TRULY CAN'T CALL OUR NATIONS "CIVILIZED" ! ISLAM, CHRISTIANITY, & JUDAISM NEED TO BE SHUT DOWN FOR GOOD, ALL THEY DO IS TO BRING MISERY AND DEATH TO OUR WORLD. THE EVIL ABRAHAMIC "GOD" NEEDS TO BE RELEGATED TO THE DUNG HEAP OF HISTORY TOO FOR PROMOTING SUCH EVILS DONE TO THE INNOCENT AS "GOOD", AND A PART OF HIS SO CALLED COVENANT WITH MANKIND.

TJ October 20, 2010 1:11 pm (Pacific time)

I am intact, somewhere I read that when foreskin is removed, hospitals keep it unitl they have enough then it is sold so why don't they give the money to the poor boy that lost it. I don't believe in cutting off something that gives great pleasure, can the same be said for those who have none? I don't think so! Think about removing some other body part we were born with like changing your sex when the parent wanted a girl but got a boy. I understand that this sometimes happens during circumision when doctors screw up, poor kid. When I think about something else to add here I will be back, thank you.

Jon October 5, 2009 1:51 pm (Pacific time)

I've been reading all the previous comments on this matter, and let me tell you, they're pretty funny. All about the "rights" and "freedoms" as an American. It's just a little piece of skin! I'm circumcised, but I don't rant on about how much I do or don't like it. Oh well, debate on!

sirius August 3, 2008 12:38 pm (Pacific time)

PS: and I can't spell - that should be "relevant." And I am sirius. I read the whole policy statement, and clearly Sigismond did not. He simply stopped after reading the part he likes. The medical establishment is not afraid of calling it what it is. Why is Sigmisond, who is neither cordial nor honest, afraid of this term?

Anonymous August 3, 2008 12:23 pm (Pacific time)

"Sigismond" (March 21,2008) is the one who can't read. The revelent paragraph from the American Academy of Pediatrics clearly states that circumcision involves amputation of the foreskin. Here it is: The elements that are common to the use of each of these devices to accomplish circumcision include the following: estimation of the amount of external skin to be removed; dilation of the preputial orifice so that the glans can be visualized to ensure that the glans itself is normal; bluntly freeing the inner preputial epithelium from the epithelium of the glans; placing the device (at times a dorsal slit is necessary to do so); leaving the device in situ long enough to produce hemostasis; and amputation of the foreskin. You can read it yourself at http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics%3b103/3/686 It's amputation. Without consent.

Jono May 20, 2008 1:21 am (Pacific time)

Susan "wow, what a biased article", cut yr boy did you?

john doe May 14, 2008 1:35 am (Pacific time)

Circumcision is only done to babies because they can't kill the parents or doctors to stop it from happening. They grow up and don't know what was done to them and will never know what was cut off from their body.

Anonymous March 21, 2008 12:21 pm (Pacific time)

"the American Academy of Pediatrics - hardly an anti-circ group - describes circumcision as amputation in their position paper in "Pediatrics Vol. 103 No 3 March 1999, pp. 686-693" " Sirius do you you lie or can't you read? That's what is says in this statement: PEDIATRICS Vol. 103 No. 3 March 1999, pp. 686-693 AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS: Circumcision Policy Statement Task Force on Circumcision Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In circumstances in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision. If a decision for circumcision is made, procedural analgesia should be provided. It's not enough to be anticirc, one must also be honest. Cordially yours, Sigismond

krusty February 26, 2008 2:10 am (Pacific time)

I think circumcision is basically a form of mutilation, clipping your fingernails is not because they'll grow again.

sirius February 10, 2008 7:13 pm (Pacific time)

Neal Feldman is the jackass: the American Academy of Pediatrics - hardly an anti-circ group - descirbes circumcision as amputation in their position paper in "Pediatrics Vol. 103 No 3 March 1999, pp. 686-693"

Avendexora February 3, 2008 7:40 pm (Pacific time)

Wow stormboy, thats a shallow post. Are you going around checking penises to see if they're cut or intact? A WHOLE penis looks no different than a cut penis when erect. The foreskin retracts during the state of arousal. Circumcision permanently exposes the glans suggesting an erect looking penis in its flaccid state. It takes a sick mind to want to see that on a newborn.

Jason S February 2, 2008 12:22 pm (Pacific time)

--"If my parents hadn't had me cut, I would be resentful. Uncut is unattractive and harbors filth. " And what about guys cut that would rather be uncut? At least you would have been given a choice. Attractiveness is subjective and everyone will feel differently so no point in making a permanent choice (especially where many parents now were born with high circ rates, kids now will grow up with lower rates). Filth isn't a problem if you take showers... the smegma you see as unclean, I see as what keeps the penis healthy, sensitive, and provide lubrication. --"All of this hooplah is another attempt at removing parental rights (socialism)." No, it is about genital integrity and personal choice. --"I suspect a few uncut guys are making trouble too. They know they are unattractive and want all new boys to share the shame of their ugliness." Heh, your arguments are getting worse and worse, try getting back on topic instead of attempting to classify those against circumcision as some sort of negative/bad/dumb/etc group of people. And again, your "ugly" argument is subjective. --"Animals are uncut. We are humans and should rise above the base animal in the spirit of cleanliness and health." Lol, you end on "animals are uncut". Most animal's penis wouldn't function without some sort of foreskin. But I doubt that is what you are getting at, you think humans, being intelligent beings we are, are able to improve upon nature's design. I guess that depends on what you are trying to get from circumcision and what you are willing to lose (nerves, mobility, easy masturbation, less rawing friction for partner) and what medical stuff you believe is accurate and think is applicable to you (UTI, STD). However, this is a choice you should get to make for yourself... especially with how the most important thing, medical information, changes all the time and the decision to circ is permanent.

Van Lewis February 2, 2008 12:04 pm (Pacific time)

StormBoy says, "If my parents hadn't had me cut, I would be resentful." And inappropriately so since you can correct what you say you would have resented. (You don't know that you would have resented it, however. The far greater likelihood is that you would have been grateful to them, because you would have gotten to learn first hand, so to speak, just how much sexual pleasure a normal, intact foreskin provides to its owner. You would have been, like the 999 uncut men out of 1000 who never choose circumcision, well-informed enough to be happy that you have a whole penis, instead of just a piece of one. Those of us with just a piece of a penis cannot correct the mistake our parents and their doctor or mohel made. Ever. We can mitigate the damages through non-surgical foreskin restoration, but we can never be genitally and therefore sexually normal, whole men in this life. "Uncut is unattractive" To you. So carve your penis into whatever you want to, to make it more attractive. Don't mutilate other people's penises. "and harbors filth." So chop your foreskin off if you like. Chop off your ears so you won't have to wash behind them. Chop out your large intestine so it can't harbor "filth". Just don't chop up other people who might prefer to wash and evacuate normally. "All of this hooplah is another attempt at removing parental rights (socialism)." Parents have no rights to harm their children, therefore there are no "parental rights" to remove when it comes to genital mutilation. "I suspect a few uncut guys are making trouble too." My penis is intact and there's gonna be trouble! "They know they are unattractive" To you. So leave them alone. "... and want all new boys to share the shame of their ugliness." If a boy gets to be 18 and wants to "beautify" his OWN body by cutting off the most sexually pleasurable part, his choice. Chop away. Just don't impose YOUR sick standard of beauty on innocent bystanders through unnecessary and always harmful and sometimes lethal surgery. "Animals are uncut." It is against the law to mutilate animals. Boys should have at least as much right to protection as laboratory rats. "We are humans and should rise above the base animal in the spirit of cleanliness and health." You have a sick view of animals.

StormBoy February 2, 2008 7:27 am (Pacific time)

If my parents hadn't had me cut, I would be resentful. Uncut is unattractive and harbors filth. All of this hooplah is another attempt at removing parental rights (socialism). I suspect a few uncut guys are making trouble too. They know they are unattractive and want all new boys to share the shame of their ugliness. Animals are uncut. We are humans and should rise above the base animal in the spirit of cleanliness and health.

Avendexora January 28, 2008 1:41 pm (Pacific time)

The Nacirema people have a varied and diverse culture including the practice of many forms of body modification. All rituals of this kind are voluntarily performed except one: the birth rite of 'noisicmucric' (noi-zik-mook-rik). In this article, how and why the Nacirema rationalize forced ritual amputation will be explored. In Nacirema culture this rite is widely practiced by parents who believe it is their right to decide whether or not part of their newborn's body will be ritually amputated. The rite is performed by one of the medicine men shortly after birth. He takes the baby away from its mother to a secluded area where she can't see or hear what will happen. The baby's arms and legs are tied down so that the baby can't move. The medicine man then amputates a natural normal and healthy part of the baby's body and throws the removed part away. Discussion of the rite is considered taboo by most Nacirema and is rarely mentioned in their culture except to remind themselves of the benefits of the rite and the dangers of not having it done. The Nacirema believe that all females are born perfect by design while males are born flawed with part of their bodies 'unclean' that must be amputated in order to maintain good health. They believe if this is not done at birth then it will only have to be done later when it would be much more traumatic, though only a few who have not had it at birth, ever have it done later. For those whose fathers also had the rite, the Nacirema consider it even more important to have the rite done or otherwise the boy will suffer great mental harm when he realizes he has a body part that his father does not have. For those Nacirema men whose parents choose not to put them through this rite, they face a lifetime of social rejection. Their male peers will make fun of their status. Nacirema women consider men who haven't gone through the rite as ugly, unhealthy, and not 'normal'. They openly claim to sexually prefer men who have gone through the rite because they believe it is more attractive, healthier and looks more 'natural'. Even when visiting a medicine man on an unrelated matter, if he notices the rite hasn't been performed he will often encourage that it be done to ward off any potential future problems. For a Nacirema mother if she doesn't want the ritual performed on her baby, it would be as if she were rejecting her father, brothers, and even her own husband, all of whom have gone through the rite and consider it important to continue the tradition. Also if she already has had one son done then having to explain why one was not done would make her feel uncomfortable. She will often reason that the father should be the one to decide since he knows what it is like to live without the body part in question; thus removing the responsibility of the decision from herself and placing it on the father. For a Nacirema father who has gone through the rite, he is usually only vaguely aware that some men do not go through it. If he decides to not let his son undergo the rite then he has to ask himself why was it done to him. The idea that his son might be allowed to keep a body part that he doesn't have anymore makes him feel uncomfortable. It is emotionally painful for men to acknowledge that part of their body was amputated without their consent leaving them literally less of a man and most can't do it. Instead he repeats the reassuring reasons, originally from the medicine men, that he has heard on the rare occasions when it was mentioned in Nacirema culture; thus removing the responsibility of the decision from himself and placing it on the medicine men. However what most Nacirema parents don't realize is that the medicine men no longer believe that performing this rite is justifiable for health reasons. This is rarely mentioned since it makes those who have gone through the rite or consented to have it done on their sons, feel uncomfortable. The medicine men who actually perform the rite believe they are not responsible since, even though it is their position in Nacirema society to be the authority about these things, they are just doing what the parents want; thus removing the responsibility for the decision from themselves and placing it on the parents. It is interesting to note that the people who decide that the body part in question is useless rarely include anyone who actually still has that body part. Also they do not consider whether the baby, whose body it is, wants part of his body amputated or not, and instead they believe that the baby will thank them for it later. Contemplating not performing this ritual amputation makes Nacirema parents and medicine men feel so emotionally uncomfortable that the Nacirema consider this too much for anyone to bear when they can simply amputate part of the infant boy's body so everyone who can speak will feel a whole lot better; thus the birth rite of 'noisicmucric' is perpetuated. * At your discretion, you may watch the following 2 minute video excerpt below of an actual Nacirema Medicine Man performing the ritual of Noisicmucric on a newborn baby. http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?vid=163488 If you are still not sure who the Nacirema are and what Noisicmucric is, then try them backwards.

Avendexora January 27, 2008 9:25 pm (Pacific time)

Forcing someone into a religion by marking him into that religion is robbing the child of his inalienable right to his Freedom of Religion. Its our job to preserve his rights.

Joe January 26, 2008 2:02 pm (Pacific time)

Utah Valley State College panel talks about the unethical and profit driven nature of circumcision. http://deseretnews.com/user/comments/1,5150,695246990,00.html

faxon January 26, 2008 12:06 pm (Pacific time)

Anonymous, you said it yourself, it's mutilation. No religion has the right to mutilate others, and the government has a duty to protect its citizens from such mutilation. An infant should not have to sacrifice any body parts, let alone his sexual parts. Even a rape victim gets to keep all sexual body parts, which goes to show how serious a sexual abuse circumcision is.

Anonymous January 26, 2008 7:56 am (Pacific time)

The first amendment's prohibition against government establishment of religion prevents outlawing male genital mutilation. Certainly not: no civilized country law may ever permit human sacrifice, either under religious pretext or not.

Sigismond January 26, 2008 7:52 am (Pacific time)

"It should be illegal to perform this needless operation without the penis owner's consent." A needless operation is illegal and contrary to medical deontology, whatever the opinion of the person to operate may be. Cordially yours, Sigismond

Van Lewis January 25, 2008 8:36 pm (Pacific time)

Misha is safe for the moment. The fight for human rights goes on. http://blog.oregonlive.com/breakingnews/2008/01/oregon_supreme_court_blocks_fa.html#comments Court blocks father from circumcising 12-year-old son Posted by The Oregonian January 25, 2008 08:14AM Categories: Top Stories The Oregon Supreme Court on Friday blocked a divorced former Southern Oregon man from circumcising his 12-year-old son against the wishes of the boy's mother. The court ruled that the trial judge failed to determine whether the boy wanted to have the procedure. The child's mother, Lia Boldt, claims that circumcision is dangerous and that her son is afraid to say he doesn't want the procedure. Go here for the court's decision. The court ordered the case back to the trial judge to determine the boy's wishes. James Boldt, who converted to Judaism several years ago, wants to circumcise his son. As the custodial parent, he argued that he has wide latitude to make decisions for the boy. The lower courts sided with the father. The case attracted national attention. An anti-circumcision group based in Seattle said the practice was dangerous. Jewish groups joined the fray out of the concern that the Oregon court would restrict circumcision. -Ashbel "Tony" Green

Mom January 25, 2008 8:14 pm (Pacific time)

Equal rights for girls AND BOYS. It should be illegal to perform this needless operation without the penis owner's consent. I can't believe that in the United States of America we have a law that is so discriminatory. Why protect just girls?

Van Lewis January 24, 2008 4:13 pm (Pacific time)

Jason S's otherwise admirable recent post contains an error: "A big problem with the who(le) circumcision thing is that there is no clear medical information. Nearly every benefit/drawback will have another study that says the opposite, or minimizes whatever the study finds...." That is largely true but not true where it counts, in the basic anatomical research. There we find clear, recent, vitally important medical research and information on the previously unknown neuroanatomy of the male foreskin. In the early 1990s, North American medical researchers discovered a previously unknown human sense organ in the inner prepuce, just inside the foreskin. It encircles the prepucial opening in the flaccid penis. It contains the highest density and greatest number of nerve endings, estimated at 20,000 to 40,000, so far discovered in the penis. The discovery was published in the British Journal of Urology in 1996. A confirming article appeared in the same medical journal in 1999. Since that time NO contradictory information or research has appeared in the scientific literature. The modern, accepted neuroscience of the human penis reveals a highly complex, highly specialized, highly vascularized, highly innervated sense organ contained within the tissues of the foreskin. A careful sensitivity of intact and circumcised penises published in 2007 confirms from the experiential side what the anatomical studies demonstrated in the 1990s. The inner distal foreskin is where most of the sensitivity of the penis resides. It is destroyed by circumcision. This sense organ is the real target of circumcision and always has been. The purpose of circumcision was always to remove most of the sensitivity of the penis, to deaden the penis, to break the most fundamental human bond, the sexual/love bond between man and woman, to steal the deepest human energy and loyalty from man and woman and acquire it for other purposes, other interests of other parties. The whole endeavor is massively evil. It is anti-sexual, anti-family, anti-man, anti-woman, anti-child, anti-human. And this evil is dressed up as religion and medicine and aesthetics and anything else those pushing the amputation think we'll fall for. We've done enough falling. Just say no to their mad mutilating of children's healthy sex organs.

Jason S January 24, 2008 1:42 am (Pacific time)

Ah, another circ posting here... I left the last one cause it just spiraled in to insults and bigotry. Glad you are attempting to keep on top of it, it was pathetic. A big problem with the who circumcision thing is that there is no clear medical information. Nearly every benefit/drawback will have another study that says the opposite, or minimizes whatever the study finds.... yet circumcision continues on. Circumcision has a long history of trying to be the cure of something and despite things being disproved, it continues on. However, would you really try to say a majority of boys would NEED circumcision before they are old enough to decide for themselves? Most medical procedures are done when there is a medical issue. Tonsils, wisdom teeth, appendix, etc... Circumcision should be no different, no point in going through needless pain. Out of all the pro-circ studies, there is no big medical need for circumcision that cant wait until the kid can decide. As for personal preference... you are really going to push a permanent cosmetic preference on your kid? What about that big nose and ears that stick out?

Bob Carveth January 23, 2008 4:32 am (Pacific time)

For those parents who sexually mutilated their child on the lies of a circumciser ! How are you going to apologise to him for turning him into a sexual cripple?, he was born a sexual being and you have deprived him of this right. Here is a copy of letter from a son to his father regarding his mutilation by his parents. "you and mom just went up the hill on a dogwalk, and I'm sitting here and decided to write this message. I'm tired of keeping this secret from you and right now I don't know whether or not it's still a secret. that book that you got me could have been a coincidence or it could be you trying to tell me that you know what's wrong with me, honestly I have no idea what it is. I've been trying to tell you since I found out back in February but I've found myself completely unable to do it. I found that it's easier to say it through an email and not straight to your faces. so what is it that I'm talking about? well I'm sure that you have figured it out already but I'll go ahead and say it anyways. I found out that I was circumcised last February and I've resented the two of you a little more every single day. It completely destroyed me when I found out because I feel as if you don't think of me as a person, instead I think you see me (or saw me) as a pet that doesn't have any thoughts ideas or opinions of its own. and that's why you said "yes" to that doctor 18 years ago, because you thought that I wouldn't be able to make the decision myself. It's as if you believed that my body belongs to you, and not me. As if you thought that I don't have the right to make this life changing decision myself because I am your property. That's why I've been treating you the way I have for almost a year. I'm sure you've noticed that I go out of my way to not be in the same room as either of you, and how I treat you with as much disrespect as I dare. I feel as if I can't trust anyone any more because the two people that I trusted most in life turned out to be the ones that have hurt me the most. I'm sure you've also noticed that I've been playing video games a lot more than I used to, I find that it's the only way for me to be able to release my anger and resentment for you. that's right, this is the reason why I've been playing video games so much and I think that without them I probably would have turned to drugs to try to get rid of my problems. I'm not trying to make you feel bad or anything, it's just the truth. this is how I've felt every day since I found out. I can't get it out of my head, I'm thinking about it all the time and it's driving me crazy. Nobody (especially my age) should ever have to go through what I'm going through. and I shouldn't have to, I shouldn't be having this problem, I shouldn't have been circumcised. you spent about 2 to 300 dollars to have me circumcised, but I would give anything to have it undone, anything. but I can't, it's a permanent change that I got no say in even though my body should belong to me and me alone, and I can't believe that out of all the people in the world who had done it, it was the two of you. I understand that you didn't think that I would interperate it this way. You were probably thinking that I should "look like dad" or something like that, but I still resent you for it and I don't think i'll ever be able to forgive you. Thank you for giving me that book, if you hadn't I probably would have kept this to myself a lot longer and I probably would end up in an even worse condition than I am in now. " I bet your friendly circumciser didn't tell you how he was going to stuff up your son psychologically did he???

Dan January 22, 2008 9:56 pm (Pacific time)

I too am complaining! I have never, since the age of three when I first was told about it, EVER approved. Even THEN I could tell that the reasons given did not add up. I staunchly decided that if I ever had a son, he would never be forced into it without his OWN consent. To make matters worse, I was able to recall the "operation". Never in the rest of my life did I feel such overwhelming pain, anguish, and terror. I grew up feeling like I was "almost" human, not fully. I had been FIXED as if I was a pet instead of a child.

Luke T January 22, 2008 8:17 pm (Pacific time)

This is definitely a sensitive issue. I admire the loyalty and commitment of those who advocate foreskin removal, in spite of the inherent strangeness of the practice. Perhaps circumcision status is a matter of pride. Like God's people having their ears cut off, being laughed at, and they cope by capitalizing on it and make it their membership requirement. Of course, it is common knowledge that foreskin removal isn't required of Christians nor for American citizenship. Eventually it will just go away. We should give special notice to pro-circumcision people, because they are so unusual and because the practice is so historically unusual. Someday I'll explain it to grandkids and they won't believe that people actually cut off foreskins.

Jeffrey Sanger January 22, 2008 7:12 am (Pacific time)

Thank goodness our culture is moving in the right direction on this, though many will be dragged kicking and screaming. Indeed, while the medical profession is no longer about curbing masturbation the still derive a great deal of financial benefit from circumcision. My son's body will never be altered in any way unless he chooses for it to be. PS: if circ really helped prevent AIDS, why is the infection rate in the US so high when so many of our boys are circumcised?

Van Lewis January 22, 2008 5:23 am (Pacific time)

Cheo says, "Anyone out there willing to draft the Circumcision Complication and Injury Statistics Collection Act?" How about the Circumcision Injury, Complication and Death Statistics Collection Act?

Bob Carveth January 22, 2008 4:15 am (Pacific time)

A friend wrote to me when I advise him of my recall of this event he said "I wonder if circumcision is ever put on the medical records as "cause of death". The doctors write the records and can ascribe a death to infection without mentioning that the circumcision wound was the point of entry. Also they can write "exsanguination" instead of bleeding to death from a circumcision wound. The baby Evans died in Cleveland during an operation to repair a botched circumcision. He died of reaction to the anesthesia. Now he would have not needed the corrective surgery and anesthetic if he had not been circumcised. But the hospital was adament to correct the "impression" that he died from circumcision. It was the a violent reaction to an anesthetic (and not during a circumcision) that killed him-not circumcision according to them." He added "the medical establishment is very good at covering their tracks. There are likely far more serious injuries and deaths from circumcisions than we hear about. We only hear about the cases that go to court. But doctors/hospitals can largely hush things up. Uninformed parents would have a very hard time getting good documentation from a hospital as to what went wrong. The guilty write the records, and professional courtesy does not allow a doctor to squeal or even pass judgment on another doctor."

Bob Carveth January 22, 2008 4:09 am (Pacific time)

Many years ago when working on a large sheep station one of the station worker's wife was due to have a baby. Late at night there was a knock on my door and a tearful station hand was there and proceeded to tell me the child had died. He told me the doctor advised him that the child was born frail and did not survive. But the doctor told him that he won't charge him for the circumcision. It has taken this long for me to work out that the doctor murdered the child with an unnecessary painful operation especially since the child was fighting for its life.The only charging that should have taken place would have been having the doctor charged with murder.

Joe January 21, 2008 8:01 pm (Pacific time)

Tim - I am very sorry to hear your story. Though I hope some good will come out of that through your reporting. There are numerous avenues that could be taken along this line. I would like to see stories that dispel the numerous myths surrounding circumcision particularly the notion that it is somehow "necessary" and "totally harmless" but also perhaps stories that provide useful information to those who already have intact boys, such as proper hygiene (the fact that no special care is needed) and that no one should be retracting boys to "clean". Such stories would be useful and informative; If you haven't already, perhaps you could connect with NOCIRC or DOC for that information and story leads. Again sorry to hear your story.

cheo January 21, 2008 3:40 pm (Pacific time)

No sooner than I submit the previous comment do I run across what today is, sadly, the most reliable (though highly incomplete) indicator of botched circumcision prevalence: Baby blogs. ---------> "We also have to make an appointment with the urologist to get his circumcision corrected." -------> http://thecadwalladers.blogspot.com/2008/01/harris-is-4-months-old.html ---------> Anyone out there willing to draft the Circumcision Complication and Injury Statistics Collection Act?

cheo January 21, 2008 3:05 pm (Pacific time)

Tim, as a reporter personally experienced with the harm circumcision can cause, one possible avenue of investigation is exposing more of the botches which otherwise never come to light. They are numerous, but since no law requires collecting accurate statistics, doctors/hospitals obviously don't want to talk about it, and parents generally prefer their grief to stay private, the public is not informed of what really goes on. ========================================================================== Take this case from Illinois in 2007, for example: "Instead of removing only the foreskin, the entire head of the boy’s penis was removed, the lawsuit alleges.The suit also claims the boy later underwent corrective surgery and will require more operations in the future." --------> http://www.jg-tc.com/articles/2007/07/19/news/doc469edde7e929a511952004.txt ------------> What's unusual about this case is that we KNOW about it. How many others are settled out-of-court with the requirement that the unfortunate little incident not be publicized?

Gary January 21, 2008 2:39 pm (Pacific time)

Dear Tim, Thank you for hosting this forum. I hope you will think about what to tell your son as he grows, what happened to him and why. And I wonder, how much extra damage must have been done to him for you to consider needing to tell him? The truth is, any amount of circumcision is damage enough to need to tell him the complete truth. He deserves it, we all did. My son, adopted at birth, had a cleft lip repaired, and we've NEVER hidden it from him, weaving the story into our lives all along. Any kind of scar, and make no mistake, a normal circumcision produces a scar, deserves to be recognized and disclosed. I sincerely hope you will do so.

Dear Gary, we are one of those families who discloses all and believes that with the proper amount of education they will understand and forgive our decision. He also can learn from it and I think generations in the future will be better off in this regard. Thanks for taking the time to write
Tim

Van Lewis January 21, 2008 10:53 am (Pacific time)

It's True also says, "When I was 8 years old my parents decided to have my tonsils taken out. I was constantly getting infections and sore throats before that. There is no easy answer or one size fits all." America's experience with tonsils and appendixes should teach us something about foreskins. Not that long ago it was thought throughout most of medicine that the tonsils and the appendix were vestigial, left-over organs that had no real function in the body, were always getting infected, were more trouble than they were worth, and that they should be removed, even when healthy, to prevent problems later. (Sound familiar?) A few doctors and many in the public still think this, but now medical science and most U.S. doctors know that both of these organs perform important health services for the body, particularly for the body's immune system. Prophylactic tonsillectomies and appendectomies are no longer permissible in today's medicine. Fast forward to the foreskin. Few U.S. doctors today understand the important functions, including immunological, protective and sexual functions, it performs. It is far behind the tonsils and appendix in getting the attention and respect it deserves from U.S. medicine and the public. But we are making progress even with the sex organs. Medicine is slowly coming around, despite their very high social and financial liability when it comes to admitting the truth about penises. The truth is that God/Mother Nature/evolution is a lot smarter about how to make the whole human body, including its sex organs, than all U.S. physicians put together. Education on this subject cannot happen without waking up to the astounding realization of how ignorant and how badly mistaken we have been. It can be painful to wake up to our mistakes - our sexual sins against our own children, really - but we can't learn if we refuse to, and learning is about the only way we have of improving things for ourselves and those we love. So gear up for the pain from the past, folks, in order to prevent unnecessary pain and damage and death in the future. That's intactivism. It's a worthwhile calling.

Van Lewis January 21, 2008 10:27 am (Pacific time)

It's True says, "Maybe that is the answer. Let each adult decide what they want but do not force it on a baby." That IS the answer; no forced circumcision of anyone of any age, genital mutilation of informed and consenting adults only. That is the exact proposal of mgmbill.org before Congress and many state legislatures, including Oregon's. Please support it by asking your state and federal legislators to pass it.

Van Lewis January 21, 2008 10:19 am (Pacific time)

I, too, am happy with the new policy regarding comments. This surprises me because usually I support freer discussion. But perhaps we have had enough of that here for now. Thank you Tim for your efforts to help us all do better work on your site. I too express my sincere gratitude to you and Bonnie for giving us this opportunity, both to discuss this particular issue, and others of importance. On the subject of circumcision, genital alteration or cutting or mutilation, whatever you want to call it, it is often said that the complication and damage rate is far too high. For instance, Tim said that Dr. "Leveque says injuries during circumcision are not rare enough by any means." Every child circumcised is injured. It's just that some are injured more seriously than others, all the way down to completely injured, that is, killed. The injury and complication rates are actually always 100%. It's only a question of degree, how much is any particular child injured? There is no general injury. It's every individual child who is injured. There is no way to reduce the injury and complication rates below 100% except to stop circumcising/mutilating. Injuring children and risking their lives unnecessarily is wrong. That's why I support and work for passage of the Florida Genital Integrity Act and the U.S. MGM Bill through http://mgmbill.org. We need to give ALL children the same legal genital protection that girls now enjoy throughout the USA the the federal anti-female genital mutilation act and in addition in quite a few individual states through state FGM laws.

Henry Ruark January 21, 2008 7:00 am (Pacific time)

To all: Please note Tim's very clear and surely needed statement of operating policy for this S-N channel: "...we have implemented a new program for comments and it means debasing and personally insulting comments are out and intelligent speech and mature dialog are in. We have always had hopes and dreams tied to this site and I want people to look at it as a positive place to visit." Let me frankly and freely acknowledge mine own failings in this regard, intended as defense of the channel after what surely felt like strong attacks on mine own integrity and personal/professional operations. Right-or-wrong, I admit Tht sometimes I allowed emotion to carry my Comment too far and too harsh, too...so I apologize humbly and sincerely, right here on the public record for all to see. I've discovered my own lack of commonsense approach to others and learned from the damage plainly seen here by the same failings mirrored, inevitably, by others, when they, too, felt under attack. As responsible, accountable Americans enjoying the high pleasure of open, honest dialog with our fellow ciizens we owe Tim and Bon our gratitude for their patience and courage, and we also now owe them determined compliance with this policy. "Go it, friends !"; the famous philosopher and educator John Dewey knew what was sensible and right when he declared "Conversation is the foundation of democracy". YOUR best effort can help us all to achieve what Tim sets out above as the goal and continuing objective here. "Thank you all...and God Bless, Too !!" --that was oft-repeated line from a small but wise first-grader I once encountered... !!

It's True January 20, 2008 8:05 pm (Pacific time)

When I was 8 years old my parents decided to have my tonsils taken out. I was constantly getting infections and sore throats before that. There is no easy answer or one size fits all.

It's True January 20, 2008 8:01 pm (Pacific time)

I had a cousin that decided as a thirty year old adult to get cirumcised. Maybe that is the answer. Let each adult decide what they want but do not force it on a baby.

cheo January 20, 2008 3:39 pm (Pacific time)

Tim King said "debasing and personally insulting comments are out and intelligent speech and mature dialog are in." -------> Great policy.

=============================================================================

Tim said "there is a specific tool that is used to perform circumcision." -------> You are referring to the Gomco Glamp. http://www.cirp.org/library/procedure/gomco/

=============================================================================

Tim said: "One of my sons was injured during circumcision and he has a scar from it. There were many follow up trips to the doctor in the first weeks just to deal with that." -------> Very sorry that happened. His scaring must be more than the usual scaring caused by every circumcision, which is already substantial.

==============================================================================

Tim said "I personally am very disturbed by circumcision, and I am in touch with many people on the subject. There will be more articles in the future about circumcision." ------> Thank you so much for your reporting on this, Tim!

Tim King January 20, 2008 2:06 pm (Pacific time)

I greatly appreciate the comments here, and I will point out again that we have implemented a new program for comments and it means debasing and personally insulting comments are out and intelligent speech and mature dialog are in. We have always had hopes and dreams tied to this site and I want people to look at it as a positive place to visit.

I asked Dr. Phil Leveque about this yesterday, knowing that he has performed more than his fair share of most medical procedures over the years. I need to ask him the name of it again, but there is a specific tool that is used to perform circumcision. Also for the record, doctors do not use an anesthetic on an infant before cutting the foreskin; they feel it as we would feel it today and it is indeed their life's first experience. The tool doctors use is placed around the penis and it pushes down to make the foreskin catch between the device's cutting blades. Leveque says it is tricky even for a doctor with experience to use, and there is risk to the infant. One of my sons was injured during circumcision and he has a scar from it. There were many follow up trips to the doctor in the first weeks just to deal with that. Leveque says injuries during circumcision are not rare enough by any means. So anyway, he says the doctor places this thing on the penis of the baby and after it is in place, "you just start cranking it down" he said. He also said everyone in the room holds their hands over their ears as the baby screams. I personally am very disturbed by circumcision, and I am in touch with many people on the subject. There will be more articles in the future about circumcision.

Anonymous January 20, 2008 1:47 pm (Pacific time)

So what if some anti-Semites are against circumcision? They would be, wouldn't they? The fact is that very, very few Intactivists are anti-Semitic, and in fact it's estimated that 15% of Intactivists are Jewish. The list of celebrants of Brit Shalom (non-cutting naming ceremonies) at shalom dot notlong dot com includes about 15 rabbis - are they anti-Semitic too? In the US, 97% of circumcision is not Jewish, and in the world the proportion is even greater. The problem with circumcision is not its association with Judaism but its breach of babies' rights to security of person, to their property rights (and if you don't think a foreskin is property, ask how much they're worth) and to their autonomy. Let's keep the focus on human rights. Van makes a good point that circumcision contributes to anti-Americanism. The rest of the English-speaking world is suprised and horrified that the US continues this "barbaric" practice when they have tried it and given it up - and without any resulting epidemics.

Van Lewis January 20, 2008 10:04 am (Pacific time)

Anonymous, at January 19, 2008 8:08 pm, tries to smear intactivists generally and by extension intactivism itself with the charge of anti-semitism. Why do so anonymously? Why not do so openly? Anti-semitism is a serious charge. Serious charges should be leveled by serious, identifiable people, not by cowardly people hiding behind masks, a la the KKK, making blatantly false allegations. Such mudslinging is a tired old tactic of the genital mutilationists, a transparent attempt to continue to avoid the real issue, which is the serious human rights violation that circumcising healthy children always constitutes. Many conscientious Jews, understanding the real human rights issues, are highly effective and committed intactivists. There have been intactivist Jews for thousands of years. Jesus and St. Paul come readily to mind. Read the New Testament. Many of the founders of the Jewish Reform movement in the 1800s opposed circumcising. In more recent times, the Jewish Nobel laureate Harvard biologist, George Wald, wrote and worked for genital integrity for all children. See http://StopInfantCircumcision.org/crick-wald.htm Today the honor roll of Jewish intactivists is long and growing. But does the human rights violation of infant and child circumcision contribute to anti-semitism? The famous Jewish psychiatrist, Sigmund Freud, said it does. The French intactivist psychoanalytic researcher and writer, Sigismond, who has Jewish ancestry, can give us the relevant reference and quote. Does circumcising contribute to Anti-Islamicism? Anti-Americanism? I think it does. Those who mutilate for life their own healthy children's healthy sex organs inspire understandable mystification, fear, disgust and loathing in many genitally intact people and societies. They often regard us, I think with some justification, as clueless sexual lunatics and see us a violence-prone violators of the most basic tenents of civilization. Trying to smear the basic, valid foundations of intactivism with the false accusation that anti-semitism is what at bottom motivates it is a reprehensible tactic that does not serve Jewish babies well. Anti-semitism doesn't motivate intactivism. Humane concern for human beings and human rights does. It is circumcising itself that is one of the strongest motivators of anti-semitism. It isn't intactivists as a whole who are anti-semitic. We are not. In general we are people concerned for the protection of the universal human rights of all people; Jews, Muslims, Christians, atheists, boys, girls, intersexed, everybody. Some intactivists may feel sorry for and somewhat alienated from Jews. Generally this is due to the emotional pain caused by the horror that circumcising healthy children inspires and is, and is not in any sense virulent anti-semitism directed against all Jews. We are anti-circumcision, pro-intact, pro-intactivism, pro-human, including pro-Jewish humans. It is circumcising itself that is anti-semitic. Anything that always injures and sometimes kills innocent, healthy Jewish babies, as circumcising does, is obviously anti-semitic because of the damage it inflicts on semites. Disliking all Jews in general is reprehensible prejudice and bigotry. That's one thing. Injuring and killing Jews is another. The latter is a more serious offense, even when it's Jews doing it.

Anonymous January 20, 2008 7:47 am (Pacific time)

"Even John Gesheker hasn't bothered to hide his anti-semitic feelings regarding this situation." Since you cannot prove this affirmation, you should be sued for libelling. Indeed, it is totally unwarranted. John is a member of DOCS AGAINST CIRCUMICISION, together with Rabbi Mark Reiss... The Jews against circumcision are not anti-memitic, the Jews for circumcision commit antiSemitic serial pedo-sexual criminality. Fighting the Jewish circumcising extreme-right is not antiSemitic but Pro-Semitic. Cordially yours, Sigismond

Bob Carveth January 20, 2008 5:00 am (Pacific time)

Problems with the foreskin are extremely rare, but when they arise a knowledgeable doctor can always determine what is needed to fix them without surgery. In the rare case of infection they would treat it just as an infection in any other part of the body: they use antibiotics. Most infections of the foreskin are actually caused by washing the foreskin with soap. Serious, life-threatening infections may occur following circumcision. Studies have found that the rate of serious post circumcision infection can be as high as 10 percent. Virulous infection germs can easily enter the circumcision wound because it is so large. Studies have documented numerous cases of horrifying infections caused by circumcision, including tetanus, diphtheria, staphylococcus, streptococcus, bacteremia, septicemia(blood poisoning), meningitis, tuberculosis, and impetigo. In some instances, agressive and antibiotic-resistant strains of streptocoous have swept through hospital nurseries, infecting every circumcised baby and putting them at risk of serious debility and death. Some infections are so serious that they can spread rapidly to other parts of he body, resulting in umbilical phlebits, and scrota abscess. Many of these infections have resulted in death. Even outside hospitals, a circumcised baby is at risk of grave infection. Because babies wear diapers, the raw wound is exposed to fecal material and urine. Any doctor advocating circumcision is probably circumcised himself and has no idea how a natural penis works.He could be well aware of the damage he is doing, or he could be oblivious to the facts due to poor training. All parents should read Kristen O'Hara's book "Sex as nature intended it" This outlines fully how circumcision effects the male sexually. Basically it leaves them a sexual cripple and they will never in their life enjoy sex as nature intended it.

Anonymous January 19, 2008 8:08 pm (Pacific time)

Julian said: "Jews, who like to distance themselves from Muslims and Africans on this issue are the most likely to bring up phony medical issues as the reason for circumcision, but it is significant that Jews don't do it for medical reasons - they simply sell it to gentiles as a healthy practice." Wow... what a shocker. An anti-circ coming up with famous anti-semitic routines. Honestly, it's well-known that anti-semites hide behind the PC mask of being an "intactivist". Even John Gersheker hasn't bothered to hide his anti-semitic feelings regarding this situation. Not surprised that more and more intactivist end up showing their true colors when the ybecome frustrated.

Brent January 19, 2008 1:36 pm (Pacific time)

Nice to see an article that bravely tells the facts. When our son was born we had to say "NO" to circumcision 5 times. Two hospital nurses sat us down and tried to convince us that when our son was in a nursing home someday it would be unpleasant for caregivers to deal with complete genitalia.

Godsofchaos January 19, 2008 12:51 pm (Pacific time)

"Its about time males were protected of their inalienable rights as an American."Avendexora I say abortion must stop before we can pat ourselfs on the back about inalienable rights of an America.

Avendexora January 19, 2008 10:35 am (Pacific time)

I honestly think Neal's comments are helpful. They show just how abusive pro-MGM can be. Comments like his is actually helping our cause. --- I'll be happy when this Bill becomes Law. Its about time males were protected of their inalienable rights as an American.

Godsofchaos January 19, 2008 6:43 am (Pacific time)

"I too would like to hear what condition circumcision fixes or prevents that can' t be managed in a less invasive, more effective, and more ethical way in the rar e times when problems might occur."Joe I know infection is one. I knew someone at work had to get circumsied at 32 because he had a infection on the foreskin. It was being joked around the office. Of course I know it was rare case but there are medical reason why circumscison may occur. The only thing I remember him saying about the circumsion was "it hurt like h...".

Bob Carveth January 19, 2008 6:01 am (Pacific time)

I feel so sorry for all those children in the States being sexually handicapped for life by failed medicos who are unable to compete in the real world of medical practice. They know the damage they are doing to the child, but their obsession for the money they obtain for this totally unnecessary operation is greater than the child's best interest. The only reason a child needs to be circumcised is in the extremely rare case when a child is born with a deformed penis..in that case the foreskin is used to repair the damage and this is operation is carried out by a surgeon not a two bit circumciser.If your legislators made it illegal to charge fees for circumcising, the practice would stop overnight.

Van Lewis January 19, 2008 5:37 am (Pacific time)

Stacey Green says, "parents have a right to say that they don't want their sons subjected to those medical problems since there is a fix." This is false. Genital mutilation is no "fix". Parents have NO RIGHT to actively harm their healthy children unnecessarily at any time for any reason. Doing so is always child abuse. If a medical problem develops in a child, then appropriate medical treatment for it is the child's right and the parent's responsibility. Do your job and go get it for the child. Parents could prevent ALL medical problems for their children by cutting EVERYTHING off of the child. Cut out all the teeth, NO CAVITIES! Cut out the breasts, NO BREAST CANCER! Cut out the heart, NO HEART ATTACKS! Cut out the brain, NO BRAIN CANCER! Sorry, Stacy. You're just wrong about parents' alleged "rights" to chop up their children's healthy bodies. When it comes to children's healthy bodies, including their healthy sex organs, all the rights are in the children. What the parents have is responsibilities. Fulfill them.

Van Lewis January 19, 2008 5:26 am (Pacific time)

cheo says, "Van, as bad as circumcision is, most people" (who circumcise) "don't do it because they know it's harmful," Of course. I agree. They do it because they don't know any better. "and it doesn't make them bad people." Of course not. I don't even believe that there is such thing as a fundamentally bad person. "Misinformed, probably." Yes. "Influenced more by fad and culture than by fact and consistent ethics, yes." Yes. "However it does not indicate any particular clinical diagnosis." It does not ALWAYS, or USUALLY indicate true mental illness and evil intent. However, mental illness and evil intent DO SOMETIMES motivate it. I don't think it's helpful to help the people who do it for evil purposes keep the evil intentions motivating it hidden. There are active circumcisers who do it trying to suppress sexuality, to harm, to damage sexual function. In fact, that was the avowed intent of British and US medicine in the 1800s when they introduced genital mutilation of healthy children into medicine. That intent has not died out. It started it, and it helps maintain it today. We have to point out the facts. I'm NOT saying these people are fundamentally evil in nature. I don't think they are. I think they are in the grip of and possessed by outside evil forces. They can be freed and get over it and become their own good basic selves again, buty some of them resist the process mightily. "I agree with Tim King on this, that we should raise the bar." So do I. " We don't need to argue... " We need to argue. "... avoid ad-hominem." We don't need to call people nasty names. Neal, of course, says he's not calling names when he calls us "whackadoos", etc, which he has done at least hundreds of times on this and the other forum. According to him, he's just "observing reality 100% accurately". When he does it, it's God's word from on high. When anyone else does it, it's "whackadoo." "We can make a powerful individual rights case on the merits." The fact that we have to, and that we have such difficulty succeeding at it, shows the depths of ignorance and depravity into which our nation has sunk on the subject of sex and human sexual and bodily rights since genital mutilation started masquerading as medicine here in the 1800s. "We can educate those who don't understand normal male anatomy." Some of them. Many adamantly refuse to be educated on the subject, but even they can serve as good examples of attitudes and behaviors not to emulate. "We can win and protect genital integrity for American boys." We are winning and protecting, but ignorance, and the active preference for it on the part of many in the mutilated population, and mental illness, denial, and active evil make the process, so far, a slow one, regrettably. But I think the pace is picking up. Maybe one day soon the dam will break and genital mutilation of children will be swept away in this very sick, hold-out country and around the world. I hope so. I'm trying to help, as I have been since 1961. "Thanks for your help towards this goal!" You're welcome. And thank you, too, and everyone who is helping. The future is pulling for us to succeed. We will.

Jim January 19, 2008 4:53 am (Pacific time)

I agree, if an adult would like to be circumcised they can be but a parent does not have the right remove a healthy part of their child's body just because they think the child would be better off without it. Let the person decide when they are adults.

Joe January 18, 2008 6:46 pm (Pacific time)

Stacey Green said: "Foreskins now cause more medical issues than they are worth, and parents have a right to say that they don't want their sons subjected to those medical problems since there is a fix." cheo said: "could you please provide evidence for your assertion that circumcision fixes more than it breaks?" I too would like to hear what condition circumcision fixes or prevents that can' t be managed in a less invasive, more effective, and more ethical way in the rar e times when problems might occur.

Joe January 18, 2008 5:38 pm (Pacific time)

Godsofchaos said: "nameless was anon said: "I'm complaining about mine . It has caused me untold grief, and violated my human rights."cheo I was circumcisied and I am fine with it. I think the point is if an intact man is unhappy, he can go 'fix' it. Whereas if a circumcised man is unhappy, his options are somewhat more limited, close to n one. So if circumcision is a non-therapeutic, medically unnecessary, surgery why wouldn't you leave the option to him? This is the only path that is easily corr ected and the only path that makes rational sense. If only one man is unhappy wi th his RIC that is one too many; an unhappy intact man has options.

Godsofchaos January 18, 2008 4:44 pm (Pacific time)

"nameless was anon said: "I'm complaining about mine . It has caused me untold grief, and violated my human rights."cheo I was circumcisied and I am fine with it.

cheo January 18, 2008 2:56 pm (Pacific time)

nameless was anon said: "I'm complaining about mine . It has caused me untold grief, and violated my human rights."

nameless was anon January 18, 2008 1:56 pm (Pacific time)

Finally, no more insults? Thank you. I agree with choe, "Even one person circumcised without their consent or medical indication is too many." If only one person complains about their circumcision, then it's time to stop. I'm complaining about mine. It has caused me untold grief, and violated my human rights.

cheo January 18, 2008 1:05 pm (Pacific time)

Neal Feldman said: "cheo - providers are hardly going door to door drumming up business." ----------> Actually, they do go door to door drumming up circumcision business. Those doors are conveniently located in the hospital where new mothers spend some time after giving birth. They then solicit for unnecessary cosmetic surgery, often repeatedly until getting the answer which makes them a profit. If they routinely solicited consent from new mothers to give newborns a nose-job, it wouldn't be tolerated, and it shouldn't be tolerated for foreskin amputation either. --------------------: Neal also said: "So long as male circumcision is legal there will be providers and those seeking the services should have access to the service providers." ------> Nose-jobs are legal. They require informed consent of the patient. You are right, individuals seeking a circumcision should have access to a provider, just like for other cosmetic surgeries. But also like other cosmetic surgeries, no doctor should perform them on healthy, normal infants. -------------------: Neal then said: "Are you suggesting that providers be banned from providing the services?" ------------> Of course not. But the same informed consent rules should apply as it would to removing a finger, that is, no doctor should remove it unless it's medically indicated, and there is no more conservative treatment. ------------------------------------ The reality is, if circumcisions were performed only for medical reasons or with informed consent of the patient, the circumcision rate for non-ritual circumcision would be microscopic.

Julian January 18, 2008 11:13 am (Pacific time)

Stacey Green - The infant foreskin is fused to the penile shaft just like the fingernail is fused to the nail bed. Cell differentiation works slowly over years to free the foreskin and make it retractable, just as the cell differentiation allows the nail to grown beyond the bed where it can be painlessly and safely clipped. If adults whose foreskins are fully retractable want to cut them off, no one is stopping them. But it is the height of insanity to remove a baby’s fingernails entirely just so you won’t have to clean them or clip them later on.

cheo January 18, 2008 10:38 am (Pacific time)

Stacey Green, could you please provide evidence for your assertion that circumcision fixes more than it breaks? All the medical associations disagree. They say there is no medical reason for the surgery. --- Also, did you know that the foreskin itself provides sexual sensitivity? The most sensitive parts are there. It's an integral part of normal male sexual anatomy. Why should parents have the right to alter the sexual development of a child through surgery?

Stacey Green January 18, 2008 10:18 am (Pacific time)

"Nature designed the foreskin for a reason" - yes, there was a reason for it tens of thousands of years ago when early humans walked through tall grass with no underwear on. We have wisdom teeth, tail bones, remnants of a third eyelid and goose bumps that are evolutionary leftovers as well. Foreskins now cause more medical issues than they are worth, and parents have a right to say that they don't want their sons subjected to those medical problems since there is a fix.

cheo January 18, 2008 10:06 am (Pacific time)

Van, as bad as circumcision is, most people don't do it because they know it's harmful, and it doesn't make them bad people. Misinformed, probably. Influenced more by fad and culture than by fact and consistent ethics, yes. However it does not indicate any particular clinical diagnosis. I agree with Tim King on this, that we should raise the bar. We don't need to argue avoid ad-hominem. We can make a powerful individual rights case on the merits. We can educate those who don't understand normal male anatomy. We can win and protect genital integrity for American boys. Thanks for your help towards this goal!

Van Lewis January 18, 2008 9:31 am (Pacific time)

mina says, "this is an awesome article. every person should have the right to decide what parts of their bodies to keep or dispose of. I always wonder what's wrong with the common sense organ of folks who don't understand this seemingly basic concept." The common sense organ (that would be the brain) is damaged by the trauma and amputation caused by circumcising. For the record and preemptively, that is not "hysterics, hyperbole and histrionics". That is scientifically proven fact. "Male neonatal circumcision and brain damage" http://cirp.org/library/psych/brain_damage/index.html "Brain Damage Linked to Child Abuse..." http://mcleanhospital.org/PublicAffairs/20001214_child_abuse.htm "How Culture Shapes the Developing Brain" http://MontaguNOCIRCpetition.org/pdf/culture_brain-ttf_spring_2002.pdf

cheo January 18, 2008 9:28 am (Pacific time)

Circumcision makes a whole lot of men very angry. Either they are angered by loss of erogenous body parts taken without consent, or they are angry at the idea that they have indeed lost anything of value from their sexuality. -------------------------- It's all a big mess and needs to end. -------------------------- Even one person circumcised without their consent or medical indication is too many.

mina smith January 18, 2008 7:52 am (Pacific time)

this is an awesome article. every person should have the right to decide what parts of their bodies to keep or dispose of. I always wonder what's wrong with the common sense organ of folks who don't understand this seemingly basic concept.

Van Lewis January 18, 2008 7:38 am (Pacific time)

Neal says, "... pointing out over 6000 yrs of cultural history is not 'puffery'" No but it is irrelevant to the question of whether medically unnecessary genital mutilation of children's healthy sex organs is a human rights violation. The antiquity of a practice does nothing whatever to justify it. Rape is older than circumcision. So is murder. Neither is justified just because it's old. Neither is genital mutilation of healthy children.

Van Lewis January 18, 2008 7:31 am (Pacific time)

Neal says, "Here is the definition of p*&^%$#&h: n. A person with an antisocial personality disorder, manifested in aggressive, perverted, criminal, or amoral behavior without empathy or remorse." In my 100% honest perception of reality that is a perfect description of adults actively mutilating the healthy sex organs of children. It is psychopathic behavior, undeniable evidence of internal psychopathy on the subject of children's healthy sex organs. If Neal can give his 100% honest assessment of reality, why can't I give mine? (Editor: Since Neal has now used the censored word, may I, too, please?)

Editor to Van: I'm ready to start pulling down every post that anyone complains about. I know you came to us with this article and everyone around here is working with me to bring the bar up. Repeating the word that started this regardless of the context is not helping me. I am trying to change the direction Van, please help me.

Godsofchaos January 18, 2008 6:29 am (Pacific time)

"Americans, particularly American women, who are the ones who make the decision to circumcise their newborns, are not aware that the US stands alone among industrialized nations; nor are they aware of the anatomy and function of the infant foreskin; nor are they aware that it was originally done to curb masturbation and was meant to be painful as a way of punishing the boy; nor are they aware that the foreskin is fused to the penile shaft in the infant and need not be retracted until it develops over a period of years." Julian Wow someone hasn't read Genesis chapter 17. Circumcision was originally made as a religious ceremony to prove you walked with God in the old Covent.

Julian January 18, 2008 12:20 am (Pacific time)

Feldman - The figure isn't 20% of the world's population over 6,000 years but less than 20% of the population today. It remains a tiny minority even counting all the millions of Muslims and Africans. It has never made an inch of headway in northern Europe or Japan in spite of the ever-changing "health" reasons having been touted for the last hundred years. Americans, particularly American women, who are the ones who make the decision to circumcise their newborns, are not aware that the US stands alone among industrialized nations; nor are they aware of the anatomy and function of the infant foreskin; nor are they aware that it was originally done to curb masturbation and was meant to be painful as a way of punishing the boy; nor are they aware that the foreskin is fused to the penile shaft in the infant and need not be retracted until it develops over a period of years. But that new mother will be persuaded to sign a paper giving her "informed" consent because a bunch of Jews don't want anyone to know that the "medical reasons" are just so much malarkey to hide the fact that they share a barbaric ritual only with Muslims and Africans.

Hugh January 17, 2008 11:12 pm (Pacific time)

Neal Feldman wrote: "As I recall the entire argument set during the legislative session was how the practice is used to deaden the sexual pleasures of girls so they will remain chaste and only want sex for procreation. That was apparently the core argument that carried the vote against the practice." Sorry, when I asked for a reference, I didn't just mean "Where did you hear it?" (answer: in some legislative body - like everything said there is true?) but something more convincing, like a Somali circumciser herself saying why she does it. "Sounds pretty damned intentionally harmful to me. How about you?" No, actually, because that's very much why male circumcision was medicalised in the 1860s. Boys were getting "irritated" (ie aroused) and needed to be "calmed". (For some other "reasons" see circumstitions dot com slash Stitions h t m l "However comparisons between FGM and male circumcision are apples and oranges (if not apples and bowling balls) and as such irrelevant anyway..." So you say, but the evidence you just brought contradicts that. The main difference between Male Genital Cutting and Female Genital Cutting, apart from the first two letters, is that MGC is something we do, and FGC is something they do. The whole effort to distinguish them ("apples and bowling balls" indeed!) depends on that. If FGC were abolished, how civilised would holding a baby boy down and cutting a healthy part of his genitals off look?

Phillis Almgren January 17, 2008 9:38 pm (Pacific time)

The decision to remove a foreskin should only be made by the owner of the foreskin. Children are not property or slaves to do with as we will. By leaving my son intact, he still has a choice that he can make about his body someday. Nature designed the foreskin for a reason. I would be thrilled to see this this law pass.

Susan January 17, 2008 9:26 pm (Pacific time)

Wow, what a biased article! This should be on the op-ed page.

Stacey Green January 17, 2008 9:19 pm (Pacific time)

Um, if Amnesty International, which is all over human rights issues, doesn't consider male circumcision an HR violation, and the AAP and their Canadian and Australian equivalents acknowledges the possibility of medical benefits, do you think sane people are going to listen to a bunch of pen-s-obsessed anti-circers? No way.

Joe January 17, 2008 8:30 pm (Pacific time)

Tim - I want to commend you on an excellent article. Hopefully, it will help people realize that the US is defiantly a hold out among the few countries that ever routinely practiced infant circumcision. I think you're right there is a good chance that we'll see some legal prohibition in a year or so, though unfortunately not in the US. Back in mid December Paul Mason, the Children's Commissioner in the Australian state of Tasmania, received the support of the Australian Medical Association to ban non-medically indicated neonatal circumcision (there would be a religious exception). Article here: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/09/2113665.htm If and when this occurs, hopefully, more people in the US will stand up and realize that its time we stopped non-medically indicated infant circumcision too. RIC was stopped in Britain in the early 50s, New Zealand in the late 60s/70s, Australia in the 80s/90s and Canada in the 90s it is long past time the US caught up.

Jennifer Vaughn January 17, 2008 8:22 pm (Pacific time)

I am glad to finally read an article that frames circumcision as the human rights violation that it really is. Whether the baby is female or male, it should not matter. All should be protected from this unnecessary procedure. The owner of the healthy body part being removed cannot give consent, therefore it is unethical. Unfortunately myths about the benefits of circumcision are abundant and it is a slow, uphill battle to educate the masses (about FGM in Africa and other countries, and about MGM in the USA.) Circumcision is also highly profitable for the doctors performing the surgery and the organizations that sell foreskins. YES, foreskins are sold for various purposes; including high end wrinkle cream for rich people's faces. I'll bet 99% of parents didn't know THAT when they handed their babies over to be altered. I didn't. In fact, I wasn't given full disclosure of all the risks involved; (including infection from super bugs like MRSA, accidental dismemberment, or death) or exactly how the procedure would be performed; or about the true functions and natural benefits of the foreskin, which would be lost to circumcision; or about the numerous and common medical complications that can arise from circumcision (some of which my sons suffered from.) I am so sorry for what was taken from my dear sons. I will regret it for the rest of my life. I am so sorry for the pain that they suffered. I am sorry that they (and their future girlfriends and wives) will not get to experience all the benefits of intact intimacy. Everyone deserves the right to genital integrity and I sincerely hope that the Male Genital Mutilation Bill will pass, so that boys will enjoy the same protection that girls have in this country.

Neal Feldman January 17, 2008 8:01 pm (Pacific time)

Jason - Interesting how zero attacks is a 'constant barrage'. it is YOU making the attacks, not I. I suggest you stop projecting and deal with your own issues of denial before you start trying to counsel others. Ah well...

Jason January 17, 2008 8:00 pm (Pacific time)

Neal, you don't even comprehend the facts when Tim chimes in. I am sorry that my "pathetic and feeble snipes are as meaningless as"... I am. In your mind, I believe that you are 100% RIGHT: You don't ever attack anyone, you just tell them in plain words how pathetic they are for having an opinion that is different from yours.

Neal Feldman January 17, 2008 7:59 pm (Pacific time)

Tim King - No problem Tim. Look back at this thread I was nothing but accurate, truthful and as respectful as one could be under the circumstances. If you want to see the lowering of the bar check Van and the Whackadoo band. A fact I've pointed out all along in this thread from the start. Ah well...

Tim: Roger that Neal, I want to be clear that I am not directing this at Neal or any one particular person. Neal is a staff member of this organization and we have a business relationship beyond these comments. We deal with matters on another level as well, so please understand that I am asking everyone right now to stop the insults. It isn't a blanket rule, but right now I have several comments with continuing insults flagged and put aside. I have not deleted them, not yet at least, I do want everyone to understand that this is changing. I am so happy that you all come here, I am no saint either, let me throw that one right out on the table. I have gotten into big ugly scraps in this section. But I have also been able to make friends and learn things and find common ground, even convince people of a point of view they didn't have. So please work with me, I need to work on stories, you are all intelligent people with a good point, thanks.

Neal Feldman January 17, 2008 7:51 pm (Pacific time)

Tim King - Just because someone whines an irrational position that they do not want to post because they will be 'attacked' does not mean their claim is legitimate. Such tactics are common in steath efforts to censor. They may be homophobic bigots who know if their post their hate-mongering screeds they will be pointed out as homophobic bigots posting hate-mongering screeds. This is not an attack. This is not 'name-calling'. This is accurate descriptiion. Keep that in mind. Ah well...

I love ya' buddy, please just help me and I think we car raise the bar, I think the comment in that one instance against you was a ridiculous thing to say for the record. I just want us to work together, you as part of the team can help along with our regular visitors.
Thanks,Tim

Jason January 17, 2008 7:48 pm (Pacific time)

Tim, deal with Neal's constant barrage of attacks and his denial about his behavior, and you would solve 50% of the problem!!!

Neal Feldman January 17, 2008 7:47 pm (Pacific time)

Jason - I am neither floundering nor attacking people. Nor am I saying how great I am. I am merely pointing out the facts accurately and honestly. Your pathetic and feeble snipes are as meaningless as you are. Ah well...

Jason January 17, 2008 7:45 pm (Pacific time)

Neal, to the extent that you have to belittle everyone who differs from you, you are going to have to get used to the assumption that you, really do, have some serious issues that need to be addressed. Unless and until you take a more mature approach, I have to question your motives. You just aren't getting with the program.

Neal Feldman January 17, 2008 7:44 pm (Pacific time)

Julian - And anynone knowledgeable on the subject knows it is easier to start something than to stop something. so the practice of male circumcision spread. Folks found benefit or at least no harm from it so it proliferated. Especially considering the hundreds of millions of circumcised males who see no harm from being circumcised you have, as I correctly stated, one heck of a long row to hoe to change the paradigm. Thinking it will change in a year as Tim suggested, especially with the first amendment issues ism as I said, ludicrous. I stand by my assessment. If I'm proven wrong so be it but I think no odds maker on the planet would give odds less than a million to one, if even that good, that male circumcision would be illegal in the US by 2009. (within a year) Ah well...

Jason January 17, 2008 7:42 pm (Pacific time)

Neal, I like to see you flounder and I like to see how you attack people. I am going to learn, myself, to call people names, and talk about how great I am.

Tim King January 17, 2008 7:42 pm (Pacific time)

I have been asked to remove a word ain a comment and I did it. Legal wording was used and it appears a big line has been crossed and I don't mean in just this case, but in a more general way. I have people email me and tell me that they would not ever write comments here because they are immediately attacked and insulted by our regular comment posters. Bonnie and I are not sure exactly how we are going to deal with this, but I suggest to everyone that they just begin toning it down on their own. That would resolve the problems without the potential editing that we are considering. For the record, this is a business, not an arm of the government, therefore we are not bound to follow any rule we don't choose to follow. We have this news site for the people, it isn't meant to just be a battling ground.

Trust me, I am really serious about this. Please work with us to raise the level of the dialog on this site.

Neal Feldman January 17, 2008 7:34 pm (Pacific time)

Julian - 20% of the world population over 6000 years is what? Billions? Hardly what any sane intelligent person would call a small number. Dance around all you want but pointing out over 6000 yrs of cultural history is not 'puffery'. It is amusing how dishonest your ilk are... anything against you you just minimize and dismiss any anything that really does not support you you over-inflate, exaggerate, etc to try and make it useful to you. And you wonder why you are considered dishonest and lacking in credibility? Ah well...

Richard L. Matteoli January 17, 2008 7:32 pm (Pacific time)

Neal: Re: Sensitivity loss from an assault on a minor - I will involve two issues hoping it would not be to much for you. ((1)) What I consider a REPORT and you consider Sophistry even if I give you a reference that you request that supports your position like my previous post: ((2)) And, being that a goldfish has a memory of three seconds and I have no knowledge of the pond you live in, I will repeat just for you from Dr. Rabbi Moses Maimonides, 1135-1204, in his "Guide to the Perplexed": "The bodily pain caused to that member is the real purpose of circumcision. None of the activities necessary for the preservation of the individual is harmed thereby, nor is procreation rendered impossible, but violent concupiscence and lust that that goes beyond what is needed is diminished. The fact that circumcision weakens the faculty of sexual excitement and sometimes diminishes the pleasure is indubitable. For if at birth this member has been to bleed and has had its covering taken away from it, it must be indubitably weakened. The Sages, may their memory be blessed, have explicitly stated: 'It is hard for a woman with whom an uncircumcised man has had sexual intercourse to separate from him...' The perfection and perpetuation of this Law can only be achieved if circumcision is performed in childhood... The parents of the child that os just born take lightly matters concerning it, for up to that time the imaginative form that compels the parents to love it is not yet consolidated."

Neal Feldman January 17, 2008 7:03 pm (Pacific time)

People Are Dumb - It seems the dumb one is you. I said male circumcision is no more 'amputation' than my clipping my toenails is. That happens to be a true statement. Amputation: 1. to cut off (all or part of a limb or digit of the body), as by surgery. This means arms, legs, fingers or toes. It does not mean foreskins, it does not mean toenails. Do you get it yet? You whackadoos love to try and change and stretch definitions to fit your extremism for your hysterical hyperbolic histrionic laden screeds. This is just one example. Your ravings that male circumcision is 'a sex crime' or 'child abuse' or 'human rights violations' are more of the same and all they do is insult the intelligence of the sane intelligent folk who read your spews. As I just clearly and conclusively proved amputation is NOT defined as 'cutting off any body part' as then cutting off toenails or shaving or cutting your hair etc would also be amputation. They clearly are not. I never said that curring one;s toenails was exactly the same as male circumcision. It seems if either of us is a jackass it would be you. I merely said that neither of the two are 'amputation' which is an entirely true and accurate statement. Only a complete idiot would argue against that as you are trying to do. No wonder you come across as a disingenuous fool. Ah well...

Julian January 17, 2008 6:54 pm (Pacific time)

Puffery about circumcision's 6000 year old staying power neglects to mention that it has never been practiced by more than a small minority -fewer than 20% of the world's men are circumcised. Jews, who like to distance themselves from Muslims and Africans on this issue are the most likely to bring up phony medical issues as the reason for circumcision, but it is significant that Jews don't do it for medical reasons - they simply sell it to gentiles as a healthy practice. I believe it was Feldman who made fun of the notion that a deeply ingrained custom could be be changed overnight, but he forgets that the dramatic change from a nation of gentiles with no history of circumcision was essentially changed in two generations to a nation of circumcised without a single compelling argument - just ever-changing rationalizations.

Neal Feldman January 17, 2008 6:50 pm (Pacific time)

Van Lewis - I do not claim you are crazy. You clearly demonstrate yourself to be crazy. I merely point it out. But your irrational tendencies and penchant for hysterics, hyperbole and histrionics in lieu of more reasonable, intelligent, credible and legitimate methods of argument support this as well. You can whine and cry and shrilly shriek about these facts all you like... it does not alter the accuracy or truth of these honest assessments in any way. It just further supports them. And to accuse me of projection as you so feebly and pathetically did is utterly laughable. How can I be projecting when I point out your hysterics, your hyperbole and your histrionics when I am not practicing hysterics, hyperbole or histrionics in any way? How can I be projecting dishonesty when I am being nothing but 100% absolutely honest? How can I be projecting irrationality when I am being entirely rational? The same goes for all the rest. It is that clear you cannot deal with the truth and the facts about you and your actions/tactics. It would appear there may bery well be consideral legitimacy to the findings you referred to that says your ilk suffer from mental disorders. Remember, YOU cited the experts saying such.. I merely point out the aspects you present in your posts that clearly support the findings. And your calling me a psychopath is libel/slander. Here is the definition of psychopath: n. A person with an antisocial personality disorder, manifested in aggressive, perverted, criminal, or amoral behavior without empathy or remorse. Good luck proving your claim true since it is so clearly and demonstrably false to any sane and intelligent person. I believe the editors tend to frown somewhat on libel/slander in the comments on the site. The one of us clearly in denial of psychological issues is you, Van. I pointed this out long ago. So your Johnny come lately attempt at the projection you so ludicrously and falsely accuse me of is quite feeble and pathetic. And you pull out the 'point your finger more fingers point at you' lame tripe? LMAO! You are so desperately unhinged it is sad. Funny as hell, but sad. It is quite clear who the loon here is, Van... You and your fellow travelers. That much has already been shown clearly and conclusively. You even provided citations for it. But continue as I know you will in your standard typical playbook. I pegged you immediately last time and you have done nothing to change the assessments and everything to substantiate them further. You are clearly just too deep in your delusional denial to realize it. You are clearly the one desperately and demonstrably in serious need of professional help. Ah well...

Richard L. Matteoli January 17, 2008 6:38 pm (Pacific time)

Neal: Circumcision of a minor is an assault regardless of your denial. I said nothing about ear piercing. Yet there are different type of piercing. Some are innocuous, others can create problems. If a tongue piercing is too forward and metal inserts are placed it can chip and crack the teeth. Also some penile piercings performed in Asia can cause discomfort and even bring damage to females.

Neal Feldman January 17, 2008 6:30 pm (Pacific time)

Jason - Spare us all your irrelevant (and off topic) crap. Thanks. Ah well...

Jason January 17, 2008 5:42 pm (Pacific time)

Neal, could you please expound on the degree to which to possess the following P*&^^%$$h Traits? -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Editor: Sorry, I know things get frustrating but I am taking this one down from here forward, it isn't necessary and it isn't what the site is for, and we are putting a halt to all of the over the edge name calling here and over the top suggestions about people's character. I want to bring the frustration level down on all counts, that is the point. -- --

Jason January 17, 2008 5:40 pm (Pacific time)

Van Lewis, to call Neal a P%^&**((&h would be giving him too much credit. I also pick up some type of characteristic (bona-fide DSM) personality disorder. I would have to know more about how his parents and environment treat him to put my finger on it. But thanks for giving it a shot!

Anonymous January 17, 2008 4:49 pm (Pacific time)

What Ifind so cute is that these couple dozen people think they're about to kill a religious practice that has survived unbelievable amounts of persecutions throughout history. At one point, it was even made illegal by the Greeks and the Romans when they ruled the world. And circumcision remains alive and well. It's so sweet that yo uthink so highly of yourselves, so sorry that you'r ethorwing your life away because this bill won't go any further than all these congresspeople's toilets. Just with the company it deserves. But keep it up. I get achickle every january when no one takes you sweriously and you still think you're the Messiah coming to save humanity with that bill. At least the laughs last ntil march when you guys do your pathetic march so we can get a second chuckle. You really should think of doing something around Thanksgiving. it gets a little boring when anti-circs dont' make a fool of themselves for a while.

Tammy Swanson January 17, 2008 4:11 pm (Pacific time)

CIRCUMCISION- Originally a 10,000 year old blood ritual done to satisfy the 'sky god'. From "What the doctor may not tell you about circumcision" by Dr Paul Fleiss

Godsofchaos January 17, 2008 4:06 pm (Pacific time)

"A child has a right to his/her genitals the way God made them."People Are Dumb " 9 Then God said to Abraham, "As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. 10 This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring. 13 Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.""Genesis 17:9-14 Seems God would disagree with you. He seems to want the opposite.

People Are Dumb January 17, 2008 3:24 pm (Pacific time)

Someone commented about how circumcision is like cutting toenails. I am amazed at how stupid people are. Toenails grow back you jackass. The foreskin is filled with 240 of nerves specially designed for sexual response. The foreskin allows for the penis to experience the natural gliding mechanism. The foreskin is kept in place by the Frenulum, which is one of the most sensitive parts of the male body. The frenulum is often amputated at circumcision. Circumcision is amputation of the foreskin. When a body part is cut off, this term is referred to as amputation. Wake up people! Would you have the clitoral hood of your infant daughter removed? It's the female equivalent to the male prepuce. It's time to end this barbarism. A child has a right to his/her genitals the way God made them.

Godsofchaos January 17, 2008 3:19 pm (Pacific time)

"Circumcision is listed alongside burning and amputation, as a form of mutilation or maiming."Tim King You do realize that amputation and burning are desperate life saving medical operations?

Van Lewis January 17, 2008 3:17 pm (Pacific time)

One of the primary tactics that mutilationists have used for ages to get away with their hideous sex crimes usually against defenseless children has been to proclaim that people who object to the mutilationists' genital assaults against others and crimes against nature are crazy. For example, "Drs R. Dagher, M.L. Selzer, and J. Lapides from the Section of Urology and Department of Psychiatry at the University of Michigan Medical Center published an analysis of the anti-circumcision movement. Drs Dagher, Selzer and Lapides conclude that opposition to circumcision is a form of mental disorder." See "Insanity in American Psychiatry" at http://www.math.missouri.edu/~rich/MGM/insane.html Notice that this is the technique used almost exclusively by Neal Feldman. Those who disagree with his assessment are "screaming nutballs", "hysterical", "idiotic, dishonest, delusional or some combination of these" "Whackadoo" "incoherent" "raving". This is pure projection on Feldman's part. He thinks everyone is as crazy as he is. The p#$%^&*#h has two basic choices. He can look and see his own p^%$#&*^%$#^&*y, admit he has a problem, and seek help, or (the usual choice) go into total denial of his own p^%$#&*^%$#^&*y and project it onto others. When Neal points his finger at us, three fingers are pointing back at him. Who is the real looney here? According to Neal, it ain't him. But you knew that already, didn't you.

Editor: I have been asked to remove a word above by Neal Feldman and I did it. It appears a big line has been crossed and I don't mean in just this case, but in a more general way. I have people email me and tell me that they would not ever write comments here because they are immediately attacked and insulted by our regular comment posters. Bonnie and I are not sure exactly how we are going to deal with this, but I suggest to everyone that they just begin toning it down on their own. That would resolve the problems without the potential editing that we are considering. For the record, this is a business, not an arm of the government, therefore we are not bound to follow any rule we don't choose to follow. We have this news site for the people, it isn't meant to just be a battling ground.

Ron Low January 17, 2008 1:48 pm (Pacific time)

I found this reader's comment quote shocking: ^^ Male circumcision is no more 'amputation' than clipping my toenails is. Get a clue. ^^ To say this one would have to be ignorant of the fact that nails lack pain receptors and they grow back. One would have to be ignorant of the fact that the part amputated in circumcision possess half the sensual pleasure-receptive nerve endings a male will ever have. One would have to ignore the exquisite rolling/gliding action the normal slack skin provides during intimacy. Notice the writer referred to clipping his own nails, and amputating SOMEONE ELSE'S skin. Ironically, the skin of that someone else is fused to the glans at birth, in a manner similar to the adhesion of a nail to the nail bed, and must be painfully torn away from the glans before any cutting can even commence. What's so hard about respecting an infant's basic human rights? No national medical association on earth recommends infant circumcision. It's cosmetic penile reduction surgery, and only the victim has a moral right to consent to that.

Ron Low January 17, 2008 1:39 pm (Pacific time)

Not to be base, but foreskin feels really good. HIS body, HIS decision.

Neal Feldman January 17, 2008 12:13 pm (Pacific time)

Jason - as usual you shoot but miss the target. I present the tactics of "being more reasonable and rational," as the virtue... not myself as the virtue. I merely follow the virtue while your ilk clearly chooses not to. I am suggesting that you try it because you are going to convince very few with your easily discredited current methods of hysterical hyperbolic histrionics and general irrationality and disingenuousness (if not outright dishonesty). Ah well...

cheo January 17, 2008 12:00 pm (Pacific time)

Notice....Neil declined to "state the general principles of medical ethics regarding amputations which apply without exception to all body parts" ..... Wouldn't even give it a try .... Can't say I blame him, I don't think it can be done ...... ... About the only thing he demonstrates is his lack of a dictionary .... I guess if the truth "sounds" bad, that's reason enough to deny it .... .... Amputation, amputation, amp - u - tation..... That's what it's called when external body parts get cut off ...... don't be shy, Neil, just come out and say it, you favor foreskin amputation: We already know anyway ........ ....... ....... This is truly such a vexing problem for many men ......... And I'll admit, I empathize with his position .... Circumcised men have a choice: Admit they've been deprived of something important, or rage against the truth .............. Rage on Neil, Rage on

Jason January 17, 2008 11:58 am (Pacific time)

Neal, you have new terms for your "admonishments": hysterical hyperbolic histrionics. You are a blow-hard and need to re-take your basic journalism class. You have forgotten what they usually teach newsmen.

Jason January 17, 2008 11:55 am (Pacific time)

Is this website a two-man-show? Neal seems like it is his mission to "chest-pound" and Henry has to get people "out of the tree". It gets REALLY old hearing the same old bantering over and over and over and over...

Jason January 17, 2008 11:42 am (Pacific time)

Neal, you are right again, everyone else is inferior and you, "being more reasonable and rational," are always to be emulated. Don't hurt yourself with all your self-horn tooting!

Neal Feldman January 17, 2008 11:32 am (Pacific time)

cheo - More hysterical hyperbolic histrionics and desperately attempting to misapply terms or stretch their definitions completely out of shape to fit extremist positions. Male circumcision is no more 'amputation' than clipping my toenails is. Get a clue. Your ridiculous ravings have no effect on me as I ignore them as the irrelevant spews they are. When you can come up with something reasonable, credible, legitimate, fact-based and intelligently presented without the usual hysteria, hyperbole and histrionics I will give it the respect it is due. But this garbage you intactivists spew is worthy of no respect whatever. Ah well...

Neal Feldman January 17, 2008 11:23 am (Pacific time)

Richard L. Matteoli - Your apparent problem is you see everything as an 'attack' while I, being more reasonable and rational, do not. I see a girl or guy getting their ears pierced. I do not see it as an attack. Apparently you do. I'm perfectly comfortable on mys= side of the definition divide re: attack. And yes, what you present is sophistry or just plain hysterical hyperbolic histrionics (though admittedly you are far more on the sophistry side than the other compared to the likes of Van Lewis and others... at least you make an attempt to appear sane where they do not even try). I've presented the relevant definitions that support my usage of the terms. No one has shown my usage to be inaccurate or untruthful. Ah well...

Neal Feldman January 17, 2008 11:14 am (Pacific time)

Jack - actually it is not to forgo sexual pleasure. I am circumcised and get a great deal of pleasure from sex so you are completely full of it. It, from the jewish tradition, a sacrifice but not of pleasure just of a tiny bit of flesh and blood. Harmless. (as we all watch Van Lewis go apoplectic in irrational outrage yet again LOL). FGM and male circumcision may have superficial similarities but that does not make them the same or even comparable. A matchbox car and a real F-117 jet have similarities too but they, also, are not the same and not even comparable in any sane, intelligent and rational sense. And the risks from male circumcision done competently in competent facilities is virtually nil. At worst a one in a million case and that INCLUDES incompetent procedures in unsatisfactory facilities. Ahain the hysterical, hyperbolic histrionics of the intactivists without anything even approaching a fact based, well reasoned, intelligent, rational and sound argment. And you still have done nothing to even come close to surmounting the first amendment obstacle your ilk have in the US with your agenda. My, what an utter shock! O^o And no one is 'ripping off their babies' foreskin'. Just more hysterical, hyperbolic histrionics in lieu of anything legitimate from the intactivist side. As usual. Ah well...

cheo January 17, 2008 11:03 am (Pacific time)

Doctors have professional responsibilities ... particularly to their patients ... I ask anyone here to state the general principles of medical ethics regarding amputations which apply without exception to all body parts ... It seems to require a special exception to find non-therapeutic circumcision ethical ... in other words, it is not ethical ... Doctors violate their professional ethics by amputating healthy body parts without medical need and without informed consent of the patient ... States could easily fix this abuse of a medical license... States can prevent insurance from covering it (there are many such insurance regulations) ... They can drop it from Medicaid ... 18 year olds can act too, seeking a legal judgment to compensate their damages from being mutilated by a doctor ... ... Doctors practice specifically to provide competent medical care ... They are unambiguously regulated by the state ... ... ... The state, however, does not regulate religious practitioners, so that's a totally different and more challenging issue ... still important ... still a rights issue ... All humans deserve bodily integrity no matter who their parents are ... ... ... ... ... Now, to those who aren't ready to celebrate mightily upon abolishing the "medicalized" yet unnecessary foreskin amputations, which are the vast majority of all those in the USA, and who would belittle this achievement because it is not 100%, well then, you would also need to be totally dissatisfied with ending all MGM in the USA, because after all, there still exist people outside the USA ... ... ... ... ... ... Now, can we all just get along, and not mutilate any babies?

Neal Feldman January 17, 2008 11:01 am (Pacific time)

Jason - Oh poor Jason... you cannot seem to comprehend that I do not call names... I accurately describe truthfully. If you cannot argue a point rationally, reasonably, intelligently and honestly with facts instead of hysterical hyperbolic histrionics whose fault is that? And if you do not like what your actions and statements are when accurately described then I suggest you change your actions and statements to something you like the accurate description of more. Sound like a plan? Ah well...

Richard L. Matteoli January 17, 2008 9:09 am (Pacific time)

Neal: #1 to: ((1)) Re your post to Hugh who was arguing the excuses given and not the motivations. I was happy to see you getting into motivations. You said. "Sounds pretty intentionally harmful to me." Being you have never referenced anything and I can't remember how many times I have referenced and recommended people to Google the name Lloyd deMause on this article's above mentioned other Salem discussion which appears in blue, in my SOPHISTRY, where one may find deMause's reference to Kitahara's position in "A Cross-Cultural Test to the Freudian Theory of Circumcision." which states: "Genital Mutilation, which is always a punishment for growing up, is - rather a self-punishment for real maternal incest for which children blame themselves." ((2)) Punishment!!! Sounds pretty damned intentionally harmful to me. ((3)) Our only adamant difference that I can see is that I feel a genital attack is a genital attack regardless of the victim's sex. It does not matter if the attack comes from the right, left, top, bottom, who prepetrates the attack, what excuse is given, or how extensive to a clitoral hood, clitoris, labia majora, labia minora, foreskin or the entire prepuce, male or female - a genital attack is a genital attack - - - just as much as the cases of mothers who use cigarettes to burn their little boys penises - not pretty.* (4) Reference*: Monteleone, James A., "Recognition of Child Abuse for the Mandated Reporter," - oops another example of me making connections in my sophistry.

Jack January 17, 2008 7:05 am (Pacific time)

Hey Neal, The core of the reason for Jewish MALE Circumcison is to forego pleasure. This was a sacrifice to god of a pleasurable thing. Male circumcision removes a pleasure sensory site. This has been talked of and documented over history. No one can contest the fact that many nerve endings are lost. There is also obviously a loss of function. Yes MGM and FGM are similar in many ways. On health, HIV is less of a danger in the US then STAPH. The chance of having a problem from circ is higher than any possible HIV reduction (ofh and there is no reduction of HIV for AMERICAN circed men -- the US stucy was not done by circfetish freaks). Circed US boys have a much higher (I believe 10 times) chance of getting methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Dont rip off your babies foreskin. Let them have the pleasure and the health benefits of being intact.

Neal Feldman January 17, 2008 1:13 am (Pacific time)

Hugh - As I recall the entire argument set during the legislative session was how the practice is used to deaden the sexual pleasures of girls so they will remain chaste and only want sex for procreation. That was apparently the core argument that carried the vote against the practice. Sounds pretty damned intentionally harmful to me. How about you? However comparisons between FGM and male circumcision are apples and oranges (if not apples and bowling balls) and as such irrelevant anyway which is why I initially let the question pass... so as not to embarrass you any further. Ah well...

Jason January 17, 2008 1:11 am (Pacific time)

Anyone who disagrees with Neal will be taken to task and called names, including neocons. It is the favorite act from the "regular-posting" employees. I don't think this site is going to last long.

Neal Feldman January 17, 2008 1:09 am (Pacific time)

Van Lewis - Nice try at spin-doctoring but you have not done a thing to show the terms you quoted are not accurately applied to your methods and actions and to yourself as well. Mussolini was only trying to get the trains to run on time, after all... that excuses everything, huh? You have done nothing to disprove the accuracy of the descriptive terms applied to you and your statements and everything to support that accuracy. Ah well...

Neal Feldman January 17, 2008 1:05 am (Pacific time)

Richard L. Matteoli - Yes, you heard me... Sophistry. 1. a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning. Fallacious: 1. containing a fallacy; logically unsound. This accurately describes what I applied it to. you have done nothing to prove otherwise. But what else is new? Ah well...

Neal Feldman January 17, 2008 1:00 am (Pacific time)

Aaron Ireland - Ah another hysterical hyperbolic histrionic intactivist whackadoo heard from. Gee whiz they just come out of the woodwork don't they now? Oh dearie me! Where did they find me? Right here in the comments section as I recall. So I'm a 'rude dude' huh? Why? Because I fight dirty using facts, intellect, reason and the truth to confront whackadoos whose only apparent ability is to rant and race incoherently, irrationally, dishonestly and hysterically? I guess guilty as charged. I will accept the public service award next Thursday. Thank you all. My position is religion based huh? I guess you missed that whole comment below from me which shows your claim to be just as ignorant of BS as the rest of your ludicrous tripe. 'Short-lived reality' huh? 6000 years is short-lived? My goodness what the hell does it tale to form a long trend in your warped mind I have to ponder!? And how long have you been a religious bigot btw? Just curious. Ah well...

Neal Feldman January 17, 2008 12:52 am (Pacific time)

Van Lewis i Fascinating tactic... prove you are not equating male circumcision to the Holocaust (remember you brought the word into the comments, Van) by equating ma;e circumcision to the Holocaust. Uhm.. yeah, right Van... anything you say. Uh huh... (get the nets and prep the rubber room, guys!) Ah well...

Hugh January 16, 2008 10:15 pm (Pacific time)

I asked Neal for a reference to his claim that Female Genital Cutting is intended to harm. He doesn't have one, it seems. Ah well...

Van Lewis January 16, 2008 8:48 pm (Pacific time)

Neal characterizes me and my work supporting equal human rights for all children this way: "lying" "hysterical" "hyperbolic" "histrionics" "unhinged loon" "whackadoo" "extremist" "inability to comprehend concepts" "you whine and wail and shrilly shriek" "delusional" "obsessed extremist" "irrational and deluded whackadoo" "idiotic" "unsupported" "hysterical hyperbolic histrionic claims and rants" ""screaming nutballs like you" "hysterical hyperbolic histrionics" "idiotic, dishonest, delusional or some combination of these" "Whackadoo" "hysterical hyperbolic histrionics" "extremism and irrational hostility to and ignorance" "your incoherent raving screed". Whew. And all I'm doing is trying to save babies' lives and bodies from genital mutilation aka stone-age insanity. It lives, folks. But love will conquer all, even this.

Richard L. Matteoli January 16, 2008 8:19 pm (Pacific time)

Godsofchaos: ((1)) I'm talking about genital rituals. Not going to bite on your inflecting your other issue in the other forum. Write an article and have Salem print it like Van did. ((2)) You are 20 steps ahead of your issue, now just get the 2 books I recommended and fill in the gaps. (a) Catherine Bell, "Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice." (b) Erich Neumann, "The Great Mother." ((3)) GOC: You do REMEMBER your genital surgery but cannot access it. ((4)) References to start with: (a) Chamberlain DB, "Babies remember pain," Pre- and Peri-Natal Psychology, Vol. 3, No. 4; pp., 297-310, Summer 1989. (b) Anand KJ and Scalzo FM, "Can adverse neonatal experiences alter brain debelopment and subsequent behavior,"Biology of the Neonate, vol. 77, No.2: pp. 69-82, February 2000. (c) Anand KJS, Phil D, Hickey, "Pain and its effects in in the human neonate and fetus," New England J. of Medicine, vol. 317, No. 21, pp. 1321-29. (d) Jacobsen B, Ecklund G, Hamberger L, Linnarsson D, et al. "Perinatal origin of adult self-destructive behavior,' Acta Psychiatr Scand, 76, No. 42: 364-371, October 1987. (e) Jacobson B, Bydgeman, "Obstetric care and proneness of offspring to suicide as adults: case-control study," British Medical Journal, 1998: 317: 1346-1349, 14 November.

Richard L. Matteoli January 16, 2008 7:34 pm (Pacific time)

Neal: Sophistry? Get real. Yes, I studied Aristotle, Plato and the others. But the present day use of the word 'sophistry' implies 'deception.' You're carrying over from the other forum. I'm making educated connections and have referenced them with academic publications. Yet, I do not need to survive within the Hallowed Halls of some educational institution which demands PUBLISH OR PERISH. The true sophists are those who have pimped genital rituals for the last 150 years. I graduated from the Hallowed Halls and left to be a clinician for 34 years. And, I've seen a lot of BS and money made from in-fashion surgical procedures that have been later proven useless. All I can say about these so called papers supporting any reason for genital mutilation is that 'Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.'

Aaron Ireland January 16, 2008 7:01 pm (Pacific time)

Where in the hell did you locate this neal feldman character? He is one rude dude, completely unaware of whatever the hell he is trying to say that equates to "keep cutting the ends off little baby's penises." Mr. status quo I guess you are there Feldman, why don't you put your own obviously religiously biased retarded blatherings and get on a bus for Alabama man, that's where narrow minded fools flourish. White guys that all want the world to do EXACTLY what they say, at least people are talking about this, at least this reporter is connecting with experts. I see Van who is an esteemed researcher taking this beating from some mindless arrogant fool and I have to speak up. This is a short-lived reality that will soon change and Jews and Muslims will have to deal with it.

Van Lewis January 16, 2008 7:00 pm (Pacific time)

Neal says to me - "So now you try and equate male circumcision with the Holocaust?" Of course not. How could you have dreamed up such an idiotic idea? I merely pointed out the similarity of laws in Germany in the 1940s to the law proposed on this forum that would declare that Jewish and Muslim boys have lesser human rights than all other humans. "When I accurately pegged you as a whackadoo I had no idea how accurate indeed I was! Wow! You must really be desperate, idiotic, or both!" It is the babies being mutilated for life who are desperate (go watch some of these despicable sex crimes on the internet, Neal; mgmbill.org has plenty of links to them), and the people doing the mutilating who are the idiotic whack-a-doos. They should whack their own doos. St. Paul said it best: "I only wish that those troublemakers who want to mutilate you by circumcision would mutilate [or castrate] themselves." Galatians 5:12 "Ah well.." The pitiful whine of the self-deluded strikes again.

Neal Feldman January 16, 2008 5:43 pm (Pacific time)

Van Lewis - Your words "Neal Feldman claims that the first amendment's prohibition against government establishment of religion ". Sure seems that you were referring to the prohibition against a govt religion. That is what the Establishment Clause refers to. So you are again lying in reference to your claims regarding my statements. Big surprise. LOL! My reference, in fact, referred to the separation of church and state aspect and the free exercise clause of the amendment. And while it is true that not any religious practice is allowed the presumption is that such is allowed unless it is shown that it should not be. Cases of true human rights abuses (human sacrifice etc) are obvious. But you have one heck of a long row to hoe to qualify male circumcision as such to a degree that the first amendment does not protect the religious rights. And no amount of hysterical and hyperbolic histrionics will aid your cause. In fact such practices only make you look like an unhinged loon. I keep trying to point this fact out to you and your fellow traveler whackadoos but your extremist obsession clearly blinds you to any reference to sense, sanity or credibility. Your inability to comprehend concepts such as 'clearly and demonstrably at risk of mortal peril' does not help your position much either. Even if something has a risk of death that is irrelevant. Walking down to the corner has a risk of death. Taking a shower has a risk of death. For the courts to step in between a family and their rights there needs to be an IMMEDIATE and CLEAR case where if it does not step in death WILL in all likelihood occur. As much as you whine and wail and shrilly shriek you have not credibly substantiated the risk of death from male circumcision by competent personnel in competent facilities beyond about a million to one shot. Sorry but under no sane definition is a one in a million chance anything even remotely approaching clear and immediate case of mortal peril. You might as well try and ban baseball. And I realize your delusional state prevents you from seeing sense, Van, but it is clear and obvious to any sane and intelligent person looking at my text vs your text that you are the obsessed extremist, not I. As I have already pointed out I do not even have a horse in the race. I just dislike seeing irrational and deluded whackadoos making al manner of idiotic and unsupported hysterical hyperbolic histrionic claims and rants without someone pointing out the facts. Most sane people when confronted with screaming nutballs like you roll their eyes and move away. So then when you have an area where only you and your fellow travelers are left you consider that yours is now the majority view... when in fact you are just in an area the sane folks have abandoned to the crazies. You really need to learn to notice these facts, Van. And as for flying off the handle, that would be you and your fellow traveling whackadoos, not I. Flying off the handle would be more accurately identified by hysterical hyperbolic histrionics. Those are the tactics of your crowd, not mine. You need someone to point out, clearly, that just because you say something does not make it true. This is clearly evident by the fact that most of what you say is patently idiotic, dishonest, delusional or some combination of these. As for 'universally accepted human rights' you clearly lack understanding what the term 'universally accepted' means. It means EVERYONE AGREES. Not some, not most but everyone. Clearly not everyone agrees with you and the Whackadoo band on this issue. This is just one example of what I'm talking about regarding your tendency towards hysterical hyperbolic histrionics. Since you clearly cannot use a dictionary I will help you out/ Here are the relevant definitions of the three terms. Hysterical: 2. uncontrollably emotional. Hyperbolic: 1. having the nature of hyperbole; exaggerated. Histrionics: 2. behavior or speech for effect, as insincere or exaggerated expression of an emotion; dramatics; operatics. Are we a bit clearer on the terms now or do I need to further sub-define terms for you into itty bitty words? You even say it outright.... "Parents "rights" be damned, Neal." I think your extremism and irrational hostility to and ignorance of the entire body of family law as well as constitutional law is completely apparent in that statement of yours as well as the rest of your incoherent raving screed. Ah well...

Neal Feldman January 16, 2008 5:08 pm (Pacific time)

Hugh - I'm not the one making the comparisons... I am merely responding to the intactivists who are. Please at least TRY and get your facts right even when they disprove you, ok? Ah well...

Neal Feldman January 16, 2008 5:05 pm (Pacific time)

Van Lewis - So now you try and equate male circumcision with the Holocaust? When I accurately pegged you as a whackadoo I had no idea how accurate indeed I was! Wow! You must really be desperate, idiotic, or both! Ah well...

Neal Feldman January 16, 2008 4:24 pm (Pacific time)

Richard L. Matteoli - Sorry but what ou read into 'what they are saying' does not track. I never thought of it as such and I doubt most circumcised people think that way. So lay off the sophistry BS OK? You are not helping your side with such disreputable tactics. Ah well...

Van Lewis January 16, 2008 4:21 pm (Pacific time)

Neal again - "... you are ignorant when you claim the first amendment only prohibits a govt religion." I made no such claim. "It also protects the free exercise of religious faith as well." But not the totally free exercise of any religious practice anyone wants to practice; according to the US Supreme Court. Religious practices are not legal if they violate people's civil or human rights. Calling sex crimes "religious" doesn't protect the criminal. Neal: "The most relevant comparison in this would be Christian Scientists etc who eschew medical treatment for their kids. Yes, in the interests of the child's LIFE the govt can, and has, taken temporary custody from the parents to administer CLEARLY AND DEMONSTRABLY LIFE SAVING measures." Prohibiting the humans rights violation of genital mutilation would have saved MANY children's lives in this country and others. Neal: "But before the govt (or any credible court) will even CONSIDER such action, which in the law is considered quite drastic and extreme, the child's LIFE must be in clear and demonstrable mortal peril." Mutilating children's healthy genitals injures ALL of them unjustifiably in various degrees and kills some of them, 100% dead. "I'm sorry that your extremism" The extremists are the parents like you who think they have a right to chop healthy body parts off of their children if their children happen to have had the misfortune to be born male, and the mutilators who think they have a right to do it if one parent is misinformed enough to sign an invalid consent to mutilate healthy human tissue without the adult informed consent of the person proposed to be mutilated. "... seems to prevent you from thinking clearly on the issue" You are the extremist who can't think clearly on the subject. You already admitted on the other forum that you had never even thought about circumcision before my article appeared. Since then you have been flying off the handle about it. Go do some actual research. Read. Learn something for goodness sake. I have been studying this subject carefully since 1961. I have helped a Jewish Nobel laureate Harvard biologist learn the subject, in 1975 and after. See http://StopInfantCircumcision.org/crick-wald.htm You are the loony here, Neal, not me. "... but the fact remains that even if every death your ilk tries to attribute to circumcision..." Your "ilk" tries to excuse every death caused by circumcision. "...was in fact due solely to the procedure and not, insteas as virtually every one of them clearly is, just a matter of incompetence of the practitioner or some other effect," There are many babies and children dead from genital mutilation, in this country and others, who would not have died if they had not been circumcised. The fact that you and the medical profession and the mohels want desperately to attribute the cause of the death to "incompetent operators" (all operators who mutilate healthy children are incompetent; they are violating human rights and the first law of medicine; that's incompetent) and to direct consequences of the mutilation instead of the mutilation itself just shows how dishonest and inhumane and inhuman you really are. "... the rate of risk of DEATH because of circumcision is, quite simply, minuscule and remote." It is hundreds to hundreds of thousands of times higher than winning the Florida lotto with one ticket. You have hundreds to hundreds of thousands of times greater likelihood of killing your child by circumcising him or her than you do of winning the Florida lotto with one ticket. You can call that "miniscule" all you want to. It is insanity to injure your child and risk killing your child unnecessarily, even if the chances WERE miniscule. They aren't. "And minuscule and remote risks do not, and likely never will, justify the violation of the first amendment rights of the parents. Period." Parents have NO RIGHT to HARM their children. NONE. NOTHING gives ANY parent the right to harm their child unnecessarily. Nothing. Not he first amendment. Not the second. Not all ten put together. Not the Bible. Not ANYTHING in this world or the next. Parents CERTAINLY have no right to recklessly endanger their children's lives. "Now in the case of teens or pre-teens there is case law supporting taking the opinion of the child into account and giving it considerable, though not total, weight in the process." That's a start. It takes time to win human rights battles when they are fought against long time customs. Every heard of slavery, Neal? Segregation? I grew up in the segregated south. I'm used to hearing the argument, "You'll NEVER win. Maybe in 100 years but we'll all be dead before Negroes (that wasn't exactly the word they used) attend Leon High." Blacks attended less that five years later, Neal. "But the vast majority of circumcisions done on minors at the behest of the parent(s) occur before the age of one..." Because it's so much easier to hold infants down. "and no court gives the wishes of infants much weight as you really cannot discern them anyway." Only those in deepest denial cannot discern the wishes of babies being circumcised, and most of those poor excuses for human beings have never even had the thought enter their little pea brains that infants could even HAVE wishes, let alone that adults could discern them. "In cases of split custody the parent with physical custody usually tends to take precedence but not always." The best interests of the child always take legal precedence. Not that adults can always correctly discern what those are. "Courts grant physical custody because they feel the best interests of the child are there." Right. They make mistakes, as in Misha's case, but they try to give custody in the best interests of the child. Parental "rights" have nothing to do with it. Courts even take children away from parents when the courts decide that is in the best interests of the child. Parents "rights" be damned, Neal. When it comes to healthy body parts, all the rights are in the child whose body parts they are, none of them are in the parent, much as you wish it were not so. "As such the courts require significant reason, which your side in its hyperbolic histrionics" Pointing out universally accepted human rights violated by genital mutilation is hardly "hyperbolic histrionics". "... has yet to credibly present," To you, Neal. You will not even believe a dead child. You will always look for excuses to dismiss the evidence of the dead baby's body in front of you. That is because you are in deep, deep denial on this issue. Even killing babies and children essentially for nothing cannot wake you up from your slumber. Not everybody is this dead to children and to life, Neal, and you can't keep everybody there with you, dead forever. People are waking up to this stone-age madness and will continue to. The times they are a changin', Neal. "... before it intrudes on that parent/child paradigm." The U.S. congress and courts have ALREADY intruded on the so-called "rights" of parents to mutilate their children's genitals. South Africa has already made it illegal to circumcise children. Australia is headed in that direction with the support of the Australia Medical Association. You're behind the times, Neal. "Like I said before you are free to ignore me," I don't believe I have. I have paid a lot of attention to what you have said and I have responded to an awful lot of it. "... you are free to ignore reason, logic and sanity... " As are you and you have proved that you can do it. "... it's your choice." And yours. "I'm just pointing out how your efforts might be more productive elsewhere since (at least in the US) your efforts are doomed from the stsrt." That's what the human-rights-abusing segregationists told me in the 1950s, Neal. I didn't let them slow me down then and I won't let you human-rights-abusing mutilationists slow me down now. Fighting those ugly battles got me ready for this one. "Ah well..." One of the real problems you seem to have, Neal, is an unjustified superiority complex. People who think they know everything already have a real hard time learning anything new. That would be you.

Neal Feldman January 16, 2008 4:20 pm (Pacific time)

cheo - providers are hardly going door to door drumming up business. I've never seen an ad for circumcision services in my entire life nor ever been called or approached in any way. From what I read of your question it asks about a problem that does not exist. So long as male circumcision is legal there will be providers and those seeking the services should have access to the service providers. Are you suggesting that providers be banned from providing the services? How would that be different from banning parents from seeking the services? Wouldn't that have the same effect of banning abortion... people would still seek services but from disreputable and incompetent practitioners to the detriment of those being circumcised? Ah well...

Hugh January 16, 2008 4:08 pm (Pacific time)

Neal Feldman wrote: "in most cases the FGM practice was specifically to harm the female in question". Can you give a reference for that? Since when does something done to one's own people, INTENDED to harm, become a custom? Especially a custom performed by females on females. Fact is, just like the male variety (yet another of many similarities), Female Genital Cutting is believed by its practitioners and its recipients to bring such benefits that it would be folly to give it up. But opposition to Male Genital Cutting does not rest on its similarity to the female variety. It is an evil in its own right. Maybe when FGC has been abolished and MGC stands out in sharp relief, we will be allowed to condemn it without this endless invidious comparison. But why wait? The flaws in the African studies are many, but in brief: - not double blinded (of course); strong experimenter and experimentee effects (both heavily invested in circumcision being protective; subjects paid to take part); differential treatment of the two groups; high dropout rate; neglect of non-sexual transmission; trials curtailed as soon as "protection" reached significance. Cheo. Yes, it would be easier to put religious circumcision in the "too hard" basket, and wait till Routine Infant Circumcision was ended, when isolation might make many of the religious think again. But if human rights really do accrue to all humans, then to do that would be to discriminate against some babies on religious grounds, to say that their human rights were less than those of other babies. The best I can suggest is that we try to fight the two battles on separate fronts and not let one struggle confound the other, as happens again and again. Tim: thanks for an excellent article! It's great to see new voices joining the fray. I don't know if Ronald Gray is motivated by money, or like many others, has some murkier motivation. The fear that other men may be enjoying something we can not is powerful, especially in sexual matters, and many men's reaction is to try to make the world like themselves. Some do in in the only place they can, their sons' penises. Others have bigger ambitions.

Van Lewis January 16, 2008 3:09 pm (Pacific time)

cheo says, "I respectfully submit that it should be an acceptable political compromise (to the fundamental right to an intact body) to prevent the medically unethical practice of non-therapeutic circumcision under the guise of medicine, while not interfering with ancient religious practices. We should not let the difficult religious issues cloud the very clear and pressing need for medical reform to protect young boys." To do that you have to pass another unconstitutional anti-genital mutilation law. One is too many already. The first one violates boys' and intersexed children's constitutional right to equal protection and human rights to life, security of person, bodily integrity, etc. You suggest that the next one should violate Jewish and Muslim boy's civil and human rights. What happened last time a major national government argued and passed laws saying that Jews don't have the same rights as everybody else? Can you spell "h-o-l-o-c-a-u-s-t"?

Godsofchaos January 16, 2008 2:15 pm (Pacific time)

"And once the people accept it, they are more easy to control."Richard L. Matteoli Especially since ,unlike child brith, I can't remember being circumsied thus I live in fear of an non memory.(sarcasm)

Jack January 16, 2008 2:12 pm (Pacific time)

The HIV and Circ is always reported as 50% blah blah blah. However they miss the trial in Africa that shows circ men transfer HIV more reeadily to Women than intact men do. Then there is Staph issues and risk of the cut itself including death(more staph risk in US than HIV). Then there is the US study that there was ZERO reduction in HIV transmission for US men both for Gay sex AND for heterosexual sex. The John Hopkins fools so much want circision to be medically useful. Somehow the press reports it in a favorable way for their "cause". What a sick cause!

Richard L. Matteoli January 16, 2008 12:40 pm (Pacific time)

Neal: Sorry for the typo. Yes, there are so many factors in the transmission of HIV. The one thing common to them all is "Behavior." There has always been a push by medicine and others to use this genital ritual as a means of controlling people's behavior. By demonizing the human prepuce they are telling men that they are inherently defective and lacking. And once the people accept it, they are more easy to control. Another example is God's punishment of Eve where she will have pain in childbirth.

cheo January 16, 2008 12:34 pm (Pacific time)

Neal Feldman, You've responded to those you consider extreme (full ban on circumcision). What about the more moderate view which respects the separation of "church" and "medicine", and stays out of the religious side? Do you object to a ban on medical professionals: A) Soliciting for unnecessary surgery (neonatal circumcision) B) Accepting proxy-consent for cosmetic surgery which corrects no abnormality (neonatal circumcision) C) Performing amputations of healthy tissue without informed consent of the patient (neonatal circumcision) If so, can you explain why a different standard should be applied to the male foreskin versus other sensory organs?

Neal Feldman January 16, 2008 11:59 am (Pacific time)

Richard L. Matteoli - I think you mean 'wasting disease', not 'waisting'. You have a point on the benefit of overestimating cases in Africa for increased US aid. But that fact only supports my side more as it reduces, if anything, the claimed numbers of HIV infected folks in Africa does it not? Just another of the 'other factors' I mentioned. Ah well...

Neal Feldman January 16, 2008 11:56 am (Pacific time)

Richard L. Matteoli - Again FGM does not have the religious significance male circumcision does and in most cases the FGM practice was specifically to harm the female in question, which is not the case in male circumcision as generally practiced. If you are grasping for cannibalism then you are really desperate. Other religious rights that have been violated do include some Amerind practices such as peyote use... but that is part of the failed prohibition policies of the failed War on Some Drugs... policies which have no shortage of constitutional violations. And such violations are being rectified. Sometimes the government overreaches and it takes a bit of time for correction to be implemented. But again your use of hyperbolic histrionics ill have no effect upon me or any other sane intelligent rational person. Ah well...

Richard L. Matteoli January 16, 2008 11:51 am (Pacific time)

Neal: ((1)) 'Here we go again... wackadoos off the mizzen! LOL! Again...' Yes, so here we go again. Semper Fi, though it seems we will always disagree on this subject. Better than being a wackadoo under the poop deck. ((2)) "Wackadoo" is the sound of all country western music. "Do wacka do," "Wacka do wacka do wacka do - do do", and all other variations. ((3)) Even the researchers as Halperin say other variables must be studied to expand complete understanding on this issue, including open sores - like the rampant herpes rate in Africa where men refuse to use condoms. As well as women practicing dry sex who insert things like newspapers to a magical mixture of baboon urine procured from their religious witch doctor to create vaginal dryness which causes rips and tears during intercourse. These should be looked into instead of relying purely on some magical transmission through an intact cellular structure within the prepuce.

Richard L. Matteoli January 16, 2008 11:30 am (Pacific time)

Neal, re: your post 11:02. I don't think you realize that the diagnosis of AIDS in Africa is not made on a blood analysis but rather many cases are diagnosed on percentages of weight loss, signs and symptoms. The more AIDS an African country has, the more American aid they can look forward to getting. In Africa the populace call it "Waisting Disease."

Neal Feldman January 16, 2008 11:25 am (Pacific time)

Julian - It is you whistling, not I. Medical necessity has nothing to do with it. Piercinf ears is not mecically necessary either, except matbe under the most bizarre circumstances imaginable, yet parents have the right to have their kids' ears pierced. and that does not even have religious implications. As already pointed out, the govt ONLY interferes with the family decisions on medical care etc in cases of clear and demonstrable risk to the immediate life of the child. Parents can choose to not vaccinate. (some vaccinations have risks of death comparable or more significant than the legitimate risk of death from competently performed male circumcision). Surgury can be refused. Other treatments can be refused. UNLESS the courts are convinced that the unless the courts act IN THAT SPECIFIC CASE the life of the child is in immediate mortal peril. Period. And trying to make it a 'human rights' issue is equally feeble. All the claim does is cheapen the term 'human rights'. It dilutes it so cases of REAL human rights abuses get lumped in with inconsequential things like this. These extremists refuse to face these facts and tend to drive away through their browbeating and harassment any who stand up against their insanity. They dislike me because I say what I mean and I mean what I say, the facts, logic and reason back me up and I get run off by no one. In fact if I think someone is trying to run me off my tendency is to stick around, even if I otherwise would have left long before, just to spite them... just to spit in their eye and say "you cannot run off everyone". So I will continue to point out these facts even if (and maybe a little bit because) it enrages these extremist fanatics. Ah well...

Richard L. Matteoli January 16, 2008 11:19 am (Pacific time)

Neal, re: your post on 16 Jan 12:27. It is as if you are supporting the ACCEPTABLE PERVERSION that is perpetrated under the guise of religion. Religious practices have been banned our United States. Female Genital Mutilation is now a crime for some in Islam and is practiced under the religious excuse. Also, many Native American religious practices have been banned. Some Native American practices as The Vow to the Sun and, for some, cannibalism has been banned. Don't want to burst your bubble but chief Pontiac was a cannibal - reference: William Weir, "Fatal Victories," USMC Reading List.

Neal Feldman January 16, 2008 11:12 am (Pacific time)

Oh, and to remind folks before Van and other whackadoos start trying to make theuir ridiculous claims (too late re: Van but whatever) I have no horse in this race, especially on the basis of religion. Though born into a Jewish household and circumcised around the time of my birth (to no ill effects whatever regardless of the shrill claims of Van and Co) I never really took to the family religion and I am a solitary practicing Wiccan. I have no religious requirements myself for circumcision, and I am done procreating having raised four daughters so male circumcision never came up. I merely point out the pretty insurmountable obstacle the First Amendment represents to the goals of these intactivists (in the US at least). And even if the US is the sole 'holdout' on the planet, so what? We are the only one with the first amendment. The rights of religious faith, while separated from govt power (or supposed to be, more work is needed in my opinion on that point), of our citizens is highly prized and protected. The US is not dictated to by the rest of the world. For good or ill historically it has pretty much been the other way around. But the US has a history of doing its own thing and if the rest of the world wants to squawk about it let them. I see nothing in this issue that would justify a significant change again for good or ill, in that attitude or policy. And it might be one thing to pass a law... it will be quite another for that law to survive constitutional challenge short of, as I repeat, a rewrite or repeal of the First Amendment. Ah well...

Julian January 16, 2008 11:08 am (Pacific time)

Neal Feldman is whistling past the graveyard on this one. The scientific committee of the AMA refers to infant circumcision as a non-therapeutic procedure. That means there is no medical justification for it. It will be argued that even though parents can consent to medical procedures for children unable to give their own consent, the question of medical necessity will undermine the right of parents to consent to circumcision. The ritual circumcision practiced by Jews, Muslims, and Africans may not be proscribed by appealing to religious freedom, but the fact that FGM has been made illegal is a precedent on the side of equal protection. Feldman makes it sound like Americans are trying to turn the tide on a world-wide practice, but fewer than 20% of the world's men are circumcised and the percentage hovers around 1% for medically advanced countries.

Neal Feldman January 16, 2008 11:02 am (Pacific time)

Julian - Your argument is nothing but pure sophistry. No one can know what other factors are in play in the HIV spread in the US and Africa (in the US it was deemed a 'gay disease' so ignored until it had clearly infected the common blood supply and crossed over to straights bigtime... by then the horse was out of the barn and it was too late, in Africa you have extreme poverty and a great deal of ignorance on medical issues to contend with) but you cannot say with absolute certainty that it would not have been much worse without the prevalence of circumcision. A very highly respected medical research community has said it helps against the spread of HIV so I am inclined to believe them unless someone produces credible and compelling evidence to disprove it. I'm sorry but flawed critical thinking, hyperbolic histrionics, rampant sophistry and feeble and pathetic attempts at browbeating, character assassination and/or misrepresentation/lies on the part of intactivists hardly comes even close to qualifying as such. Get it? Ah well...

Neal Feldman January 16, 2008 10:54 am (Pacific time)

Tim King - As you say time will tell. And while the clearly obsessed Van Lewis falsely claims I am obsessed on the topic (I have stated many times I am not and I have never demonstrated myself to be - I merely laugh at the hyperbolic histrionics of extremists such as Van) I merely point out the facts. There is no significant religion in the US that has, like at least several do regarding male circumcision, any kind of requirement for 'female genital mutilation'. And trying, as some text in the article does as well as how some whackadoos in the comments section try to do, to redefine terms or stretch definitions to fit the extremism only makes them look ludicrous, desperate, dishonest and (quite honestly) a bit unhinged. 6000 years of culture is not changed in a year. Anyone who has studied psychology, sociology or history as I have knows this as an unalterable fact. And one ignores unalterable facts at their peril. That is a truism of the universe applicable to any subject. Ah well...

Neal Feldman January 16, 2008 10:46 am (Pacific time)

Van Lewis - you are ignorant when you claim the first amendment only prohibits a govt religion. It also protects the free exercise of religious faith as well. The most relevant comparison in this would be Christian Scientists etc who eschew medical treatment for their kids. Yes, in the interests of the child's LIFE the govt can, and has, taken temporary custody from the parents to administer CLEARLY AND DEMONSTRABLY LIFE SAVING measures. But before the govt (or any credible court) will even CONSIDER such action, which in the law is considered quite drastic and extreme, the child's LIFE must be in clear and demonstrable mortal peril. I'm sorry that your extremism seems to prevent you from thinking clearly on the issue but the fact remains that even if every death your ilk tries to attribute to circumcision was in fact due solely to the procedure and not, insteas as virtually every one of them clearly is, just a matter of incompetence of the practitioner or some other effect, the rate of risk of DEATH because of circumcision is, quite simply, minuscule and remote. And minuscule and remote risks do not, and likely never will, justify the violation of the first amendment rights of the parents. Period. Now in the case of teens or pre-teens there is case law supporting taking the opinion of the child into account and giving it considerable, though not total, weight in the process. But the vast majority of circumcisions done on minors at the behest of the parent(s) occur before the age of one... and no court gives the wishes of infants much weight as you really cannot discern them anyway. In cases of split custody the parent with physical custody usually tends to take precedence but not always. Courts grant physical custody because they feel the best interests of the child are there. As such the courts require significant reason, which your side in its hyperbolic histrionics has yet to credibly present, before it intrudes on that parent/child paradigm. Like I said before you are free to ignore me, you are free to ignore reason, logic and sanity... it's your choice. I'm just pointing out how your efforts might be more productive elsewhere since (at least in the US) your efforts are doomed from the stsrt. Ah well...

Julian January 16, 2008 10:07 am (Pacific time)

In regard to circumcision and HIV it is enough to know that Africa and the US have the highest rates of HIV infection in the world. They are also the two places with the highest rates of circumcision in the world. If circumcision protects, it is hard to see who it has protected. Americans are generally not aware that they are alone among medically advances countries in the practice of circumcision. In Finland it is even illegal.

Tim King January 16, 2008 10:05 am (Pacific time)

Neal, the word is that we are a hold out country on this subject in many respects. I love your delivery but I don't agree and I predict that we will begin seeing the practice outlawed within the year. I could be wrong, but I certainly don't think it is baying at the moon, I think it is a lot more realistic than that and only time will tell. If we withdrew and didn't choose to pursue this highly debatable subject in the news then perhaps it would fall off to the side, but I don't see that happening.

cheo January 16, 2008 9:52 am (Pacific time)

Neal Feldman makes a valid point. Circumcision without medical indication represents a breach of medical ethics, and should not be permitted. These are the vast majority of circumcisions in America. We do everyone a disservice when we fail to separate "church" and hospital (as when we fail to separate church and state). By the time civil society gets it's act together and halts MGM (Male Genital Mutilation), as we are in the process of now, the more liberal elements of religions which circumcise will already be there with us, and will work to change the minds of others. I respectfully submit that it should be an acceptable political compromise (to the fundamental right to an intact body) to prevent the medically unethical practice of non-therapeutic circumcision under the guise of medicine, while not interfering with ancient religious practices. We should not let the difficult religious issues cloud the very clear and pressing need for medical reform to protect young boys.

Bonny January 16, 2008 8:02 am (Pacific time)

I can't help but wonder if this is a racket to help bolster medical sales. The benefits of this procedure are not enough to justify it.

Van Lewis January 16, 2008 5:56 am (Pacific time)

Thank you, Tim King, for this fine article. Neal Feldman claims that the first amendment's prohibition against government establishment of religion prevents outlawing male genital mutilation. This is a false claim which he has made before. The truth is that it is only religious BELIEF that enjoys complete constitutional protection via the first amendment; religious PRACTICE must meet the tests of not violating civil and human rights. That is the law of the land as explained by the US Supreme Court. Who to trust on the issue, Neal Feldman, or the US Supreme Court? The proof that this is true is the fact that the US Congress already passed a law against female genital mutilation that says specifically that beliefs of anyone that the practice is required religious ritual have no effect on the prohibition. The first amendment does NOT give parents the right to mutilate their daughters' healthy sex organs for religious or any other reasons. Neither does it give parents the right to mutilate their sons' healthy sex organs for religious or any other reasons. Why is that? Because it isn't an issue of females' rights or males' rights. It's an issue of human rights. All human beings have the right to life, to security of person, to bodily integrity. Being born one sex or the other has nothing whatever to do with it. We're all human, even males, believe it or not. Feldman's obsession with giving parents the right to chop up boys' (and ONLY boys') sex organs is ignorant, sexist and sick. His and our nation's ignorance and sickness in this regard cannot be allowed to injure and kill babies for nothing any longer. Dress it up as "religion" all you want to, adults injuring and killing children is a very ugly sight, one that the USA, finally, is learning to abolish. Child sacrifice is a thing of the past. We must end it once and for all. Abolish circumcision of all healthy children, not just girls.

Neal Feldman January 16, 2008 12:27 am (Pacific time)

Oh brother, here we go again... whackadoos off the mizzen! LOL! Again, like it or not, unless you rescind or amend the First Amendment to the US Constitution or get every religion on the planet to eschew the practice you are howling at the moon and will have no more effect than the howls of baying beasts do on the moon's orbit. Wisdom is knowing when you cannot change something so you save a lot of effort and frustration and you cease trying to before you start. No matter how deeply felt, no matter how shrill the shrieks, no matter how vapid the sophistry, unless that amendment is changed you are doomed to failure. Face the fact and move on to more productive pursuits that at least have a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding. Ah well...

Jeremy January 15, 2008 11:11 pm (Pacific time)

Hmmm... who to trust... John Hopkins Researchers, or anti circumcision groups. Gosh the choice is so.... "Anti-circumcision advocates say the latest blow comes from a Johns Hopkins University report that suggests men who are circumcised are at less risk of contracting the AID's virus. People who have studied the subject for years, like Marylin Milos in San Francisco with the National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers, call the information into question and believe it is a death sentence for many."

Richard L. Matteoli January 15, 2008 11:06 pm (Pacific time)

Mark Lyndon - re: your post Jan 15 3;21. NOT ENTIRELY TRUE. It is done every day by physicians. Society has this 'thing' about constitutes 'socially acceptable genitals." Medicine gets away with this and make a lot of money. Google: Cortical Adrenal Hyperplasia. Then Google: Intersex. These people, when and if they ever figure out what has happened to them are highly resentful. YES: Genital rituals are mutilations.

Sarah January 15, 2008 10:25 pm (Pacific time)

Thank goodness here in America Paul's immature sense of humor doesn't entitle him to cut other people's genitals... or does it?

Paul January 15, 2008 5:44 pm (Pacific time)

Because ant-eater penises look funny. And here in America, we worry about appearance rather than practicality.

Mark Lyndon January 15, 2008 3:21 pm (Pacific time)

Even making an incision on a girl's genitals without removing any tissue is illegal, yet boys routinely have the most sensitive part of thsir penis cut off. The UK, Canada and Australia have more or less stopped circumcising boys, so why is the USA still doing it?

[Return to Top]

Is Circumcision Another Form of Genital Mutilation?

Quick Links

DINING

MUST SEE SALEM

AUCTIONS - APPRAISALS

CONSTRUCTION SERVICES

ONLINE SHOPPING

Advertise with Salem-News