Wed 12 Sep, 2012 01:58 pm
There are indeed a large number of anti-circumcision web sites around the internet but if you look closely you will see that they all basically mirror one another. There is a major financial contributor to the anti-Semites, anti-circumcision cause in the USA. By funding the setting up of hundreds of sites he and his cohorts think they can fool the public into thinking there is a very large anti-circumcision movement. In reality it is a very tiny movement but it makes a lot of noise.
They have failed to convince people in respect of every tactic they have used (and there have been around a dozen different major lines of attack over the years) and so now they are trying to denigrate the small number of web sites established to tell the truth about the medical benefits of circumcision. They say that all the medical evidence is flawed. They call the sites 'fetish' sites and their owners 'child abusers' and 'fetishists' despite the fact that most pro-circ sites are run by highly respected medically qualified doctors and researchers.
If anyone has a 'fetish' it must be those deluded anti-circ campaigners who will spend years hanging weights on their penis in the hope of re-creating a foreskin.
Only by trying to shock and worry people with their myths, lies and half-truths can the anti-circ folk hope to win any support. If they can make a few insecure teenagers think that their lives have been ruined by an infant circumcision they hope that these males, when they become fathers, will roundly reject circumcision for their sons. Not going to happen. Being a pediatric nurse who assists with circumcisions on a daily basis, and growing up in a Circumcised Society, the reality is Medical studies are not even really needed to show and prove the benefits of male circumcision as the millions of circumcised boys and men who are on the earth already are a living testament to its beneficial outcome.
The anti-circ movement is one of HATE, ANGER, GUILT, and Manipulation. They do NOT represent the truth, or the facts of circumcision and they never have. They are on there way out and they are now scrambling in a desperate attempt to hold onto a system that is based on nothing more than Lies and Falsehoods.
I had already spent the hard yards and knew what the research was pointing to so the AAP findings are no surprise..
But given the ludicrous claims of the anti-circumcision movement that have been premised on circumcision not providing medical benefit it is good to get the word out there authoritatively. Spending many years consulting research is a commendable thing and all accolades to the AAP for doing so.
It sounds like the anti-circumcision movements haven't got past the HIV research from the 80s. That obviously makes a good straw man given the more recent RCTs. But of course the AAP have considered more recent and powerful research - hence their findings.
Anti-circumcision activists also still conflate removing a bit of skin from the penis with removing an entire organ and don't see the illogic of such disproportionally or irony of their argument considering the consequences of penile cancer which neonatal circumcision avoids virtually completely. I guess if they have their head in the sand with the science they probably also never read what those of us who accept science are saying.
So they keep talking about cutting off breasts and their imaginary 20, 000 nerve endings. They derive comfort from the higher incidence of deaths from breast cancer and justify torturing baby boys with UTIs and having them suffer permanent kidney damage in 50% of cases because in their minds removing some skin is the equivalent of a pre-emptive mastectomy.
For these souls doctors are conspiring to make money from circumcision and couldn't possibly be trying to protect their patients with accurate health information. No the unsubstantiated anti-circumcision websites must be infallible.
Yes anti-circumcision activists go ahead and ignore the AAP. Leave the boy unprotected until he is approaching a responsible age when he might start practicing safe sex and leave him until he has missed most of the medical benefits particularly at ages when he is most vulnerable then offer him a procedure with at least ten times the complication rate, less likelihood of a good cosmetic outcome, and six to eight times the recovery period when stitching, uncomfortable mobility, disruption of school or work, and sexual abstinence are factors. While you are at it don't let him know that circumcision improves sexual pleasure and tell him to ignore authoritative information like the AAP so that he can make an 'informed' choice. Instead direct him to websites including the surprisingly candidly titled "circumcisions" website.
Still think I’m wrong? Read more:
Edit [Moderator]: Links removed
The article has some good points. However the second last word presumably should be "circumstitions". There is a circumstitions website that is full of verifiable fiction. Readers who don't follow this issue normally might not be aware of it and thus that point would be lost on them.
It will be up to merciful mothers to spare their sons this humiliation. With a few exceptions, most circumcised men are too defensive to own up to their loss.
Does your visual incapacity affect the quality
of your participation in your band ??
Dick Scalper wrote:
It will be up to merciful mothers to spare their sons this humiliation.
With a few exceptions, most circumcised men are too defensive
to own up to their loss.~Dick Scalper
I was circumcised at several months of age,
because of repeated infections.
In retro-spect, I 'm very glad
for those infections,
because I 'd NOT
wish to remain in an un-circumcised condition, looking like that
The AAP does not "support" circumcision. People are over blowing this whole thing.
#1 Most parents have no clue what the AAP states about most or even any parenting issue no matter what it is. The impact the AAP has very small overall to begin with, even on an issue like circumcision.
#2 The ONLY thing that changed in the AAP's statement (not recommendation) is that the POTENTIAL (which it always said) benefits of circumcision MAY outweigh the risk. Which it previously stated "The potential benefits may not outweigh the risk".
The AAP still does NOT recommend or support routine infant circumcision. Their statement specifically states this.
There is no magical growing pile of evidence to support circumcision. That is a blatant lie.
Also, medical "experts" in middle eastern and African countries recommend full female circumcision for its endless health benefits. What do you say about that? By your logic, to hell with human rights--as long as something has a potential health benefit, lets do what ever we want to people.
Breast cancer effects 15% of women in the US. But, nowadays, because of new advancements in baby formulas, breasts are pretty much "useless tissue." If females had bilateral mastectomies done at birth, it would save tens of thousands of lives per year. And it would lessen the tragic impact breast cancer has on families in the US and save on BILLIONS of dollars for health care. This is a PROVEN scientific fact.
I love a good laugh...2 questions: 1) are u jewish? 2) would you let your 11 day old baby a. get a tattoo (no...why not?) b. get a piercing (no...why not) c. get breast implants (no...why not?)...then why would you willingly and for non-medical reasons mutilate, defile, deface and deform your babies body (under the guise of some religious fable). You twat. Love, Bernmeister.