Circumcision: Yes or No?

[Valley Oak]

Is circumcision necessary? Should it be practiced on all or most male infants? Is circumcision a good thing?

[Alex]

I don't think nature got it wrong.

Circumcision is originally a religious ritual not a medical necessity in any way - ask the millions of lifelong healthy uncircumcised guys in the world.

Otherwise, my opinion is that we have no right whatsoever to mutilate the body of a new life. I believe they have the right to the option to do it or not later in life as they choose.

Also PLEASE research the neurological impact/programming of inflicting this much intense trauma and pain on a totally impressionable new life on the male body's most powerfully sensitive area.

My 10 year old son is very glad I didn't circumcise him (or vaccinate - another issue begging serious research before blindly believing what the government is telling you) and is having no medical problems whatsoever from not doing it.

Alex

[vdeva]

I believe circumcision is sexual violence and mutilation. Is can't be excused as a religious practice. It is time to move on & change this practice.


Is circumcision necessary? Should it be practiced on all or most male infants? Is circumcision a good thing?

[Valley Oak]

I agree with you 100%. Any suggestions on how we can start doing something about it?

Here is a website of an anticircumcision group:
www.nocirc.org

Edward


I believe circumcision is sexual violence and mutilation. Is can't be excused as a religious practice. It is time to move on & change this practice.

[Alex]

I was not at all excusing it as a religious practice. Yes, it is barbaric sexual violence used by religions to set seeds of submissiveness, fear and control that all further growth then stems from, from this earliest moment of the body's receptivity to influence/learning/programming.



I believe circumcision is sexual violence and mutilation. Is can't be excused as a religious practice. It is time to move on & change this practice.

[HolisticKids]

A couple of years ago I watched a video of a baby boy being circumcised. It was shown at a summit put on by the Alliance for Transforming the Lives of Children. It was one of the saddest, most disturbing and distressing things I've ever witnessed, and I'll never forget it. After it was over and this little guy calmed down, his eyes said it all. He had a kind of blank stare that had a sense of hopelessness and betrayal. There was not one person in the whole room that was not in tears.

I don't think many people even think about the ramifications of cutting off a sensitive body part of so many baby boys right when they are beginning to develop their beliefs about who they are and what the world is about. Right after birth is a time for babies to bond with their mothers and to be nurtured and honored for being the magnificent beings that they are. This bonding period is crucial to their well-being and their future relationships with themselves and others. It is during this crucial time that they are subjected to this abusive, violent practice for no valid reason. Please allow baby boys to choose when they are older whether or not they want to be circumcised.

My friend, Sharon Wikoff, wrote a wonderful story for little boys who are not circumcised. It is a conversation between a 5-year-old boy and his dad about why his penis is different from his dad's. It's a great little story to read to an uncircumcised little boy that tells him how much he is loved and honored. It can be downloaded from www.healthychild.com (https://www.healthychild.com) or get in touch with Sharon at 887-2633 or [email protected] ([email protected]).

[HolisticKids]

I agree with you 100%. Any suggestions on how we can start doing something about it?

Here is a website of an anticircumcision group:
www.nocirc.org (https://www.nocirc.org)

Edward

Edward,

Keep on talking about it and raising awareness. And support the NOCIRC people to get their message out. I think that many babies get circumcised because their parents don't really think too much about it – it’s just the “thing to do”. They just think they are "supposed" to do it, just like vaccinating (that other issue that no one really wants to talk about). Education/Awareness is the key. New parents really need to become questioners and avid researchers and not blind followers. There are detrimental things that are being done to babies that are considered the "norm" and acceptable to society that parents really need to look more deeply into.

Jane

[Moon]

My 10 year old son is very glad I didn't circumcise him (or vaccinate - another issue begging serious research before blindly believing what the government is telling you) and is having no medical problems whatsoever from not doing it.

On vaccination, there is a compromise solution available: homeopathic nosodes.
Many homeopaths recommend them in place of vaccinations, but they can also be used
along with the immunizations, to protect the immune system.

[jborges3]

Why be in a hurry to mutilate an infant's genitals?

There seems to be an idea that it is best to get it done very young because most adult men wouldn't want to have part of their penis cut off.

Isn't that in itself an indication that maybe it isn't a good idea to cut part of a babies penis off? It is always something a male can choose for himself later in life. (if given the chance)

Can anyone give me some good reasons to do this to a baby?

[karenclark]

I think all parents who choose to do this should be required to be there and watch every detail, or help perform it. The ones who do choose to circ often say "he slept through the whole thing" but I've read that it's because they are so traumatized that their brain/body just shuts down as a way of protecting themselves. I believe it!

[pamelaL]

I think all parents who choose to do this should be required to be there and watch every detail, or help perform it. The ones who do choose to circ often say "he slept through the whole thing" but I've read that it's because they are so traumatized that their brain/body just shuts down as a way of protecting themselves. I believe it!

the circumcision I saw as a student nurse was THE most barbaric thing I ever witnessed in 30 years of institutional work - and I saw some pretty barbaric events (like police brutality in the ER and more). I cannot imagine a baby sleeping through it!! The baby was strapped down, naked, cold and mishandled in the most painful way. I say, leave the poor fellow's body intact. If the male wants to have a body part (that Nature intended for him to have) cut off, let him make that decision for himself later. Sheesh - one would think our babies were our possessions!

[Dynamique]

The fact that they have to strap the infant boy down to something quaintly called a "Circumstraint" should be a clue. This "young mammals cannot feel pain" myth seems to be very pervasive. Perhaps it is some sort of psychological coping mechanism. But it is indeed a myth.

According to my buds the NoCirc folks, a few years Marin General did a video of a boy being circumcised to show to parents dealing with the "circumcision decision." The staff decided that it was too disturbing to show to parents... yet they continue to do the procedure. go figure.


the circumcision I saw as a student nurse was THE most barbaric thing I ever witnessed in 30 years of institutional work - and I saw some pretty barbaric events (like police brutality in the ER and more). I cannot imagine a baby sleeping through it!! The baby was strapped down, naked, cold and mishandled in the most painful way. I say, leave the poor fellow's body intact. If the male wants to have a body part (that Nature intended for him to have) cut off, let him make that decision for himself later. Sheesh - one would think our babies were our possessions!

[scorpiomoon]

I have just finished reading several articles on female circumcision and while no one has discussed this here, I have a very strong sense that no one should be put under the knife, have anything removed surgically-- for any reason until the individual has the ability to say "i would like for you to remove my clitoris/foreskin," Otherwise it is an act of abuse, period. I say who here would like to volunteer themselves for this surgery??

[nurturetruth]

I second this and agree with you, Scorpiomoon...completely!

NO ONE should be put under a knife for ANY reason until that individual has he ability to speak and choose for themselves. and yes...otherwise it can be an act of violating ones will.

Granted, I do know of and have surrounded myself with some wonderful Jewish friends...and they just don't view circumcision as abuse or violating ones will. I have also heard, in Jewish tradition, the baby is cuddled and held in the parents arms during the procedure...rather than straddled down or held down . Not that "being cuddled" while being "cut with a knife" is better...or that I agree with it.

If I had birthed a son, regardless of my faith and ritual practices..., I would give my son the right to choose what to do with his body...when he was old enough to make such a decision.

Dynamique: YOU stated the following :

"According to my buds the NoCirc folks, a few years Marin General did a video of a boy being circumcised to show to parents dealing with the "circumcision decision." The staff decided that it was too disturbing to show to parents... yet they continue to do the procedure. go figure. "

The fact that Marin General decided the video was too disturbing to show parents and yet they continued to offer and do the procedure TELLS ALL!!






I have just finished reading several articles on female circumcision and while no one has discussed this here, I have a very strong sense that no one should be put under the knife, have anything removed surgically-- for any reason until the individual has the ability to say "i would like for you to remove my clitoris/foreskin," Otherwise it is an act of abuse, period. I say who here would like to volunteer themselves for this surgery??

https://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w67/nurturetruth/pierced-1-1.gif

[ThePhiant]

are you saying voluntary genital mutilation is OK?
how about sex change operations, would you consider that genital mutilation?


I have just finished reading several articles on female circumcision and while no one has discussed this here, I have a very strong sense that no one should be put under the knife, have anything removed surgically-- for any reason until the individual has the ability to say "i would like for you to remove my clitoris/foreskin," Otherwise it is an act of abuse, period. I say who here would like to volunteer themselves for this surgery??

[lifequest]

If you want to slice this subject down to its essence, it is an act of tribal identification. Then an identification with a nation, a faith and so on. Carried on by Christians who felt a connection with their roots in Judaism. So could the revulsion with the act be rooted in disgust with the religion one was born into?

With the speed that Jews are intermarrying, the practice may decline in a few generations by itself. The same people that caused me to go under the knife also provided a roof, three squares a day and also forced me to go to school and learn about things outside myself. So I harbor no resentments whatsoever... maybe there's a therapist who could set me straight and realize that I need help?

If one is consistent with their vow to never genitally mutilate an infant, I would hope that they also consciously avoid injuring other species like spiders, ants and so on.

[jborges3]

maybe there's a therapist who could set me straight and realize that I need help?


Overcomming denial can be a difficult first step to recovery.

Take some time and practice getting in touch with your inner foreskin.

[ThePhiant]

are you referring to foreskin-envy?



Overcomming denial can be a difficult first step to recovery.

Take some time and practice getting in touch with your inner foreskin.

[Willie Lumplump]

If one is consistent with their vow to never genitally mutilate an infant, I would hope that they also consciously avoid injuring other species like spiders, ants and so on.

Man disturbs nature by planting crops. Nature tries to return to equilibrium by sending hoards of pests--insects, mites, and nematode worms--to eat up the crops. Man tries to defeat nature's return by killing the pests. Your philosopy of avoiding injury to "ants and so on" places you squarely on the side of nature but also puts you in opposition to agriculture.

[Willie Lumplump]

I have a very strong sense that no one should be put under the knife, have anything removed surgically-- for any reason until the individual has the ability to say "i would like for you to remove my clitoris/foreskin,"

Circumcision greatly reduces the risk of contracting AIDS. Not so much a problem in this country, but in countries like Botswana where 1/3 of the adult population is infected with HIV, circumcision could save many lives.

[jborges3]

Circumcision greatly reduces the risk of contracting AIDS. Not so much a problem in this country, but in countries like Botswana where 1/3 of the adult population is infected with HIV, circumcision could save many lives.

Oh, that's really good, you know, I bet if we cut off a little bit more baby penis then that might even further reduce the risk of contracting AIDS. In fact, I bet we could all but cure AIDS in one generation if we just cut off all of each new born penis ...

... and guided by statistics we will of course be starting in Africa

Nice to meet you Willie, I'm feeling like a smart ass today so don't take my sarcasm personally :)

[Willie Lumplump]

Oh, that's really good, you know

Well, it IS good news. In some studies, circumcision reduced the chance of HIV infection by 70%. Over the continent of Africa, that figure would translate into millions of lives saved.

[ThePhiant]

millions of lives saved?
for the last couple of decades I have been hearing about this rampant spreading of AIDS spreading across Africa.
how come there are still people alive over there???
with all the starvation, cholera. malaria, you'd think AIDS could easily wipe out this continent' population????
what is the truth???????????





Well, it IS good news. In some studies, circumcision reduced the chance of HIV infection by 70%. Over the continent of Africa, that figure would translate into millions of lives saved.

[Willie Lumplump]

millions of lives saved?
for the last couple of decades I have been hearing about this rampant spreading of AIDS spreading across Africa.
how come there are still people alive over there???
with all the starvation, cholera. malaria, you'd think AIDS could easily wipe out this continent' population????
what is the truth???????????

AIDS has not spread across Africa evenly as was feared 20 years ago. In the Congo, infection rates have hovered around 4% or so. In Botswana, infection rates are the highest in Africa, about 30%. In Uganda, infection rates reached 30%, then rapidly declined to 10% (for reasons that are still being intensely debated), and are now on their way up again. In South Africa, infection rates are very high, approaching those in Botswana. Why infection rates vary so much among countries is, as I say, still being intensely debated. Only partial answers are available. The decrease in Uganda appears to have resulted from an intense "No grazing" campaign by the government combined with empowerment of women who essentially ran prostututes out of town on a rail. Infection rates are generally low among tribes that practice male circumcision and often high among tribes that don't.

[Dixon]

...Infection rates are generally low among tribes that practice male circumcision and often high among tribes that don't.

Hi, Willie;

I'm wondering if the research you cite controls for confounding factors like the sanitation problems in parts of Africa (especially those areas where people have to walk miles to get a little water) and the fact that there's a high incidence of blood contact involved in areas where extreme female "circumcision" often causes bleeding associated with sex. I'd bet that areas high in male circumcision would also be low in female circumcision (due to the fact that each practice is associated with a different religious tradition), thus less infection through blood contact, and conversely, areas high in female circumsicion would be low in male circumcision. Thus the inverse correlation between circumcision and infection would be secondary to the positive correlation between female circumcision and infection, rather than being due to some causative connection between male uncircumcision and infection.

Even if there is a causative connection, I would argue that prophylactic circumcision of those too young to give informed consent makes no more sense than prophylactic double mastectomies for all female infants to prevent later breast cancer. Such prophylactic mastectomies would save thousands of lives--presumably more than circumcision would--but would you endorse them? If not, then surely consistency requires that we not endorse prophylactic circumcision either.

(BTW, it just occurred to me that the term "Willie Lumplump" could be a fanciful name for male genitals, as they consist of a willie and 2 lumps).

See ya;

Dixon Wragg (and you can interpret that name any way you wish!)

[Willie Lumplump]

I'm wondering if the research you cite controls for confounding factors like the sanitation problems in parts of Africa

I don't know the details of the reports, but as far as I know, sanitation doesn't have a lot to do with the transmission of HIV.


Thus the inverse correlation between circumcision and infection would be secondary to the positive correlation between female circumcision and infection, rather than being due to some causative connection between male uncircumcision and infection.

What you're saying is that women who have been circumcised and contracted a bacterial infection are less likely than healthy women to transmit HIV to a man. That doesn't seem probable to me.


I would argue that prophylactic circumcision of those too young to give informed consent makes no more sense than prophylactic double mastectomies for all female infants to prevent later breast cancer. Such prophylactic mastectomies would save thousands of lives--presumably more than circumcision would

In areas where HIV is prevalent, the risk of HIV infection is vastly higher than the risk of contracting breast cancer, and in any case breast cancer tends to affect women much more than men and specifically older women who have already raised children. AIDS strikes down people in the prime of life because that is when people are most sexually active. Prophylactic mastectomies might save thousands of lives, but millions have already died from AIDS, millions more who are already infected will die, and if the virus is not stopped, additional millions will become infected in the future and die.


(it just occurred to me that the term "Willie Lumplump" could be a fanciful name for male genitals, as they consist of a willie and 2 lumps).

That is about the most original comment that I've run across at this website. Makes me wonder what was on Red Skelton's mind when he invented the character.

[Valley Oak]

I have voted: 'NO' to circumcision on this poll because I know that this barbaric practice has no justification for it other than religion and that it is indeed mutilation. I like calling a spade a spade!

Edward