I agree. Female genital mutilation is not supported in this country, why male circumcision/genital mutilation? If a male wants the procedure when he is 18, let him make the choice.

if anything, I draw the opposite conclusion from this tragedy. If circumcision is desired, it's very safe if done when the child is very young and while using local anesthetic. The fact is this child was older and was given general anesthesia, which probably contributed to his death far more than the actual procedure

@ dysphoria, the same could be said about body piercings also.

Wow, A lot of people jumping to a conclusion before the test results are even in. We do not know if it was SID's case, complications from anesthesia, or infection yet. For that matter it could have been many other possibilities. You cannot diagnosis from an article. Why not just wait to the test results, which will never be printed by the media?

The kid was ...a little older than expected. Should happen right away, if the parents so choose to do such a thing. However, people, people, it is the parents choice; not the governments. Let's remember that.

@ Captain Original -- it is NOT a parent's "choice" to mutilate their child's genitals. if you want to believe a religion, great, but forcing it on a newborn is barbaric. if and when the young man wants to have that done, it should be HIS choice at an appropriate age.

A young man has less of a chance surviving that. Furthermore, Jews don't become Jewish for the most part. Jews are born that way. Circumcision needs to happen at a VERY young age if the parents so choose it, period. The older the kid is; the more likely there will be complications.

As for your aspect on barbarism; welcome to America! Our cows are slaughtered as babies; we call it Veil (delicious). Our public school system herds our kids LIKE cows, but it's good, right? Our people want to see the photos of Bin Laden's brain shot out, barbaric but 'proof'? America is barbaric. Get over it.

"We do not know if it was SID's case...."

He was two....SIDS can only happen if you're under the age of one, thus the name sudden infant death syndrome.

Ultimately, being born without a foreskin is called aposthia, which is recognized as a medical birth defect...so not having a foreskin is considered to be different. If not having a foreskin at birth is noted as a medical problem, then why are we forcing baby boys to be surgically altered for no immediate health reasons?

Oh, and both Moses and Mohammed were born aposthic...so there's your argument about religion and circumcision...let's look like our prophet or the guy that led us into the promised land, because they were the great leaders, right? So our argument today to circumcise our sons is so they "look like daddy". That's where we get it from.

eric: it is safer if done earlier, but if you've ever watched one, it is quite traumatic for an infant. i always used lidocaine to do a local block, but know of some physicians who do not use any analgesia. even when doing a local block the babies are still pretty traumatized. I really think we need to be asking if it's necessary or if it can wait for a person to make an informed decision.

Why don't you worry about your kids and I'll worry about mine. For a group that wants the govt to butt out of everything, you sure think differently when it benefits your agenda.

eric: it is safer if done earlier, but if you've ever watched one, it is quite traumatic for an infant.

My infant son actually slept through it with local anesthesia. No trauma. It is a much more painful experience when it is done later in life. The parents can offer their son certain lasting medical benefits virtually pain free if they make the judgement call to do it very early on (with a competent practitioner).

I find it interesting that many people claim it is "much more painful" when circumcision is performed later in life. How can you know? Infants can't talk to tell you this. (And without anesthesia, they scream and scream.) An infant's nervous system and pain receptors are just as (perhaps more) sensitive than a grown man's. It's just that infants can't tell you how much pain they are in, and you forget the pain (who can remember being an infant?) It doesn't mean they don't suffer. People used to claim animals and people of other races don't feel pain the way we do. It is just a lie, to make yourself feel like less of a monster for hurting others.

@usmelib, I also am against people piercing their baby's ears. Again, let them wait until they are 18 and can make their own decision.

It is your baby, but that body you just birthed belongs to them. Why mess it up/cut parts off/pierce things that aren't yours? It is cruel and unfair.

How can you know? Infants can't talk to tell you this.

In my experience, infants tell you by means of crying when they are uncomfortable about anything. They have no reason not to.

(And without anesthesia, they scream and scream.)

If it is done without anesthesia, the practitioner should lose their license, IMHO.

When circumcision is done later in life, the resulting wound is larger and takes longer to heal. Thus, regardless of how the pain is managed during the procedure, the pain during recovery is invariably greater when it is done later in life.

Mr Equality,

Oh, and both Moses and Mohammed were born aposthic...so there's your argument about religion and circumcision...let's look like our prophet or the guy that led us into the promised land, because they were the great leaders, right? So our argument today to circumcise our sons is so they "look like daddy". That's where we get it from.

Your source please, because it's not biblical?

Say, Kayner -

Re: your post 1.10...Why don't you worry about your kids and I'll worry about mine. For a group that wants the govt to butt out of everything, you sure think differently when it benefits your agenda.

I'm (you're) not clear on which group or agenda you're for or ag'in, but the issue here is whether parents are worried about, or properly protective of, their own children. Your "I'll worry about mine" is exactly the problem if you want to sexually mutilate an infant. Who speaks for the infant? Not the law...

Who speaks for the infant? BEEZUP

I don't know what kind of parent you are, but if you claim to be a good one, I would like to know who took over your parenting skills to do it for you? Because that is exactly what you think you are qualified to do in everyone elses home. Religions can't force their beliefs on others, yet you feel you can force yours on those same people.

The parents speak for their child. It seems to me that someone like you that doesn't have any faith in the parents, probably needs to go back and have a heart to heart with your own parents. That is probably why you have no faith and feel you have to raise someone elses kids, because you still wish someone would have intervened while your parents were doing such a bang up job.

You worry about your mystical little land and I will continue to raise mine.

Say, Kayner...

I'm glad you saw and responded. I'm not trying to slam you, or force you into some sort of submission. What I'm interested in is why you think a parent's "right" to abuse a child is somehow sacrosanct.

I'm no parent at all. And I'm completely cool with my (not-perfect) parents. I don't see how you got the idea that I want to meddle in child-raising.

And I don't see how anybody can hide behind a claim of "family business" when it comes to chopping up baby penises. It's such an obviously, powerfully weird idea that no one could today introduce it and not be thought of as a Gacy-class pervert. Worse, even. Can you imagine an Idaho Identity compound where they enforced this practice? The Feds would trip over each other trying to lock 'em up, and any normal person would join that posse!

Any normal person ought to understand that children can't defend (or even express) themselves - that's why the law/community should. Parents routinely abuse their children behind closed doors, in the name of discipline, or religion, or just because they're twisted SOBs. Those "parents speak for their child???"

And, "religions" routinely force their beliefs on others. Read a history book, or the newspaper.

Kayner -

If you ever come back to this (you're probably as tired of it as I am), please understand that an attack on the man is not an effective attack on his argument.

The reason I "have no faith" in some parents is because they demand the right to cut up their babies. For medical, cosmetic, religious reasons, I don't care. Protect the babies. WTF is hard to understand about that?

You don't know me, let alone my parents, but you believe my presumably tragic childhood would justify my wishing "someone would have intervened." I've seen other attacks on Mr Equality here on this discussion that posit his tragic circumcision-gone-wrong. Well, then... that and any other single case seems to solidly found the concept that babies should be protected, and from their parents' twisted ideas, too. Honestly, read a newspaper - there's F'd-up folks out there, and a lot of those newsmakers seem to be parents. Serial killers supposedly start out small, with the neighbors' cats. Maybe abusive parents start out with baby steps, too, thinking their kids are objects and not little people.

As many times as I've reread your posts, I'm still not sure what you stand for (or object to) here, and I don't think you have directly insulted me or mine. Also please understand that your up-to-the-edge supposition in any real-time tavern would immediately garner you a hockey forward's smile.

Try to restrain yourself when you contact the real earthlings. They really do bite. Espescially the defenseless.

I doubt that the circumcision was done for religious reasons. Jamaal Coleson Jr. , poor kid, does not sound Jewish. The name Jamaal is of Arabic origin.

@eric: neonatal circumcision is never "desired" by the person most directly concerned. Little Jamaal is just as dead whatever the direct cause; the ultimate cause was the decision to cut off part of his genitals.

@Captain Original: There is no good reason that cutting a healthy, normal, non-renewable, functional part of a boy's genitals off should ever be a parent's choice. The law already acknowledges that, for every other part of the boy's body, and for the most nearly corresponding parts of girls, and fot adults. Why is the male infant foreskin alone fair game?

@TJW: Your evidence that it is "safer"? Why should it be? Newborns are very vulnerable. A baby's penis is tiny and any mistake is magnified when he grows up, like writing on a balloon. (And few doctors get to see the final outcome of their work.)

@Kayner: Babies are not their parents' property. "Religions can't force their beliefs on others" That is exactly what we say. Knives even less than beliefs.

@DaeB: You get no guarantee of "a compentent practitioner". It is often given to interns for practice. "See one, do one."

You get no guarantee of "a compentent practitioner".

With that mentality, you will likely want to avoid all medical procedures. The fact is, we knew ahead of time who would be handling it and that they were both competent and highly experienced. We would have accepted nothing less. We spoke with them a number of times, including immediately before and after the procedure. Thus, in our case, the competency of the practitioner was indeed guaranteed. Direct parental involvement in a child's healthcare is something I highly recommend.

@Hugh: see my further posts. I am in no way in favor of routine newborn circumcision. It is "safer" in the newborn period because general anesthesia is not used. that doesn't make it right.

Maybe there was a reason the kid was getting this done at 2. Parents may have not wanted one which would explain why it wasnt done at birth. Complications may have happened (an infection) and so they had to do the circumcision. We don't know why the kid had the circumcision so we can't really judge the parents that harshly

Also, my son was circumcised at about 18hrs old. We did not do it for religious reasons. We did it because I have seen what happens when a young child ends up getting an infection. It isn't pretty and can result in a necessary circumcision at an older age. I also requested NO local anesthetic of any kind. I watched them perform this procedure. My son didnt cry at all. He didnt cry for 2 hours and only cried then because he was hungry. He never cried when I cleaned him during a diaper change. I really don't believe it hurt that much. When a baby is in pain, they will cry. If they dont cry, then it probably doesn't hurt and certainly doesnt hurt a lot.

@DaveB: "With that mentality, you will likely want to avoid all medical procedures." You should avoid all unnecessary medical procedures. Especially on other people. Especially when they can not give consent. My point was that, without the extra precautions you took, circumcision (especially) is given to inexperienced surgeons.

@Becca: the main cause of "infections" is premature forcible retraction, i.e. meddling. With circumcision so common, few US doctors or parents are well-informed about the normal male genitals. (The only thing doctors are taught about the foreskin is how to cut it off.) Did you enquire how common the infections you saw are, or how effective non-surgical treatment is, before deciding on prophylactic surgery? You instructed (contrary to the AAP recommendation) NO anaesthetic and he didn't cry for two hours? That's because he went into shock. Words don't fail me, but MSNBC won't let me use them.

My son did not go into shock. A lot of doctors dont use anesthetic when doing this procedure. The dr that did my sons procedure asked about anesthetics and I said no. He said thats good because there is no reason to actually use anesthetics.

I chose no anesthetic because of family history of problems with anesthetics. We recently found out that he is allergic to at least some anesthetics. I am glad I found out later when it was easier to control than sooner when it could have caused more damage.

Circumcision is our cultures "stoning". It is barbaric, and needless. Jewish people even suck the blood by mouth from the penis spreading STD's to innocent babies. No joke. If someone wants to be circumcised let them do it at 18yrs or 16yrs old with a parents permission. Religious dogma will simply have to adapt it's rituals to modern times, it can do it - it has to. Parents can not tattoo their children without committing a crime, why should a parent be able to mutilate a child's genitalia simply because God told them to, or even because they think it's a good elective surgery to have for any reason. Major health organizations no longer recommend elective circumcision, though for now the choice is left to the parent. Infant genital mutilation needs to be outlawed, and it will be very soon. Barbaric and sickening, and with life long irreversible major effects including less sensitivity (on of the reasons the Church so liked the procedure in the first place - less sexuality/masturbation).

http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/br_4.html

Mezizah (the practice of orally sucking the bleeding penis with the mouth) is not outmoded or discarded. The photos below were published by the Jerusalem Post Magazine. We have reason to believe the practice has become more frequent since then.

The Circumcision Ritual

Circumcision consists of three actions: milah— cutting the foreskin with a knife, peri'ah— ripping the membrane with a fingernail, and mezizah — applying the mouth to the baby's bleeding penis and sucking blood from the wound.

Milah: The child having been placed upon a pillow resting upon the lap of the godfather or "sandek" (he who is honored by being assigned to hold the child), the mohel exposes the parts by removal of garments, etc., and instructs the sandek how to hold the child's legs. The mohel then grasps the prepuce between the thumb and index-finger of his left hand, exerting sufficient traction to draw it from the glans, and places the shield (see Fig. 1, next column) in position just before the glans. He now takes his knife and with one sweep excises the foreskin. This completes the first act. The knife (see Fig. 3) most commonly used is double-edged, although one like those ordinarily used by surgeons is also often employed.

Peri'ah: After the excision has been completed, the mohel seizes the inner lining of the prepuce, which still covers the glans, with the thumb-nail and index-finger of each hand, and tears it so that he can roll it fully back over the glans and expose the latter completely. The mohel usually has his thumb-nail suitably trimmed for the purpose. In exceptional cases the inner lining of the prepuce is more or less extensively adherent to the glans, which interferes somewhat with the ready removal; but persistent effort will overcome the difficulty.

Mezizah: By this is meant the sucking of the blood from the wound. The mohel takes some wine in his mouth and applies his lips to the part involved in the operation, and exerts suction, after which he expels the mixture of wine and blood into a receptacle (see Fig. 4, below) provided for the purpose. This procedure is repeated several times, and completes the operation, except as to the control of the bleeding and the dressing of the wound.

Some use a straw to draw the blood so they don't have to use mouth to penis, WTF are mouths and fingernails doing anywhere near a surgical procedure much less one on an infant!?!

http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/std/std-bris.shtml

Communicable Disease

Before the Bris: How to Protect Your Infant Against Herpes Virus Infection
Caused by metzitzah b’peh

Circumcision has health benefits. Recently,
however, the Health Department has documented several cases of herpes infection in newborns after circumcisions that included metzitzah b'peh.
Metzitzah b'pehis a religious practice performed by some mohelim
(religious circumcisers) in the Jewish community. Some of these infants became
seriously ill. One baby died, and another suffered brain damage.

Because there is no proven way to reduce the risk of herpes infection
posed by metzitzah b'peh, the Health Department recommends that infants
being circumcised not undergo metzitzah b'peh.

How metzitzah b'peh spreads herpes

In metzitzah b'peh, the mohel places his mouth on the freshly
circumcised penis to draw blood away from the cut. If the mohel is infected with
oral herpes (as most adults are), metzitzah b'peh can expose the infant
to the herpes virus. While severe illness associated with this practice may be
rare , there is a definite risk of infection. Oral herpes spreads easily through saliva, especially when saliva touches a cut or break in the skin, such as during metzitzah b'peh.Most people with oral herpes don't know they are infected and don't have symptoms. Even without symptoms, however, people can spread the infection.

Because the immune system of newborns is not developed enough to fight
serious infection, herpes infections pose grave risks to infants.

There is no proven way to reduce the risk of metzitzah b'peh

Although a mohel may use oral rinses or sip wine before metzitzah
b'peh, there is no evidence that these actions reduce the spread of herpes.

And besides awesome cities like S.F. working on banning infant genital mutilation for both sexes, there are efforts to push it to a Federal level as well:

http://articles.cnn.com/2005-04-08/justice/colb.circumcision_1_male-circumcision-fgm-baby-boys?_s=PM:LAW

Any form of infant circumcision, even performed with anesthesia in a hospital, done for any reason other than medical necessity (for anyone under 18yrs old) should be illegal, period. We should not tolerate infant genital mutilation even in the name of God, especially not in the name of God! And certainly not in the eyes of the law. It's up there with Sharia law as far as I am concerned & as far as the Gov should be concerned.

@Hugh: see my further posts. I am in no way in favor of routine newborn circumcision. It is "safer" in the newborn period because general anesthesia is not used. that doesn't make it right.

How do babies not feel pain? Do tell! Or is that not what you are saying, it would be an extreme amount of pain, no way around that as far as medical organizations are concerned. Circumcision is quite a way to be introduced to this world :( Being genitally mutilated w/o pain killers or even with pain killers by the only people you have to depend on - the baby might not be able to think like that, but instincts come built in. Who knows what effects it can have on emotional & social growth!?! I don't know. I do know that infant circumcision is wrong, and painful.

http://www.fisher-price.com/fp.aspx?st=10&e=expertadvice&content=132542

For many years it was a routine practice in the United States and several other countries to perform circumcision on newborn boys. It was also routine to do circumcision without anesthetic or analgesic (numbing or pain relief) based on the assumption that newborns did not experience pain or would not remember it. However, recent studies have shown that newborns do experience pain and show changes in heart rate, blood pressure and stress hormones with circumcision.

@Hugh: see my further posts. I am in no way in favor of routine newborn circumcision. It is "safer" in the newborn period because general anesthesia is not used. that doesn't make it right.

How do babies not feel pain? Do tell! Or is that not what you are saying, it would be an extreme amount of pain, no way around that as far as medical organizations are concerned. Circumcision is quite a way to be introduced to this world :( Being genitally mutilated w/o pain killers or even with pain killers by the only people you have to depend on - the baby might not be able to think like that, but instincts come built in. Who knows what effects it can have on emotional & social growth!?! I don't know. I do know that infant circumcision is wrong, and painful.

Just an FYI... You should learn some reading comprehension...

He said general anesthesia isn't used. It isn't. When something is used, it is called a local anesthetic. (not general) If you don't know the difference you should look it up... Major difference and local is much safer for the newborn than general.

Arguments/opinions come off much better & understandable w/o personal attacks, fyi. My confusion does not result from you, it results from attempting to comprehend why such a barbaric act is still socially accepted, and how anyone can argue in it's favor for anything other than medical necessity - a barbaric act against infants/newborns by supposed loved ones, not only w/o any pain relief & for no good reason - but in many cases with insanely cultic rituals such as vampire sucking the wound after ripping the skin of the penis with a fingernail specifically trimmed for the procedure!?!

http://kidshealth.org/parent/system/surgical/circumcision.html

Even up until recently, though, anesthesia hasn't been universally used, so it's important to ask your doctor ahead of time what, if any, pain relief will be utilized with your son.

Also, both General and local wear off long before post surgery pain & recovery are overcome. Whatever type of anesthesia is used, there is a prescription for allot of pain for a while, until full recovery - and pain & discomfort even after that for a long time. There are even suggestions/reports of PTSD in circumcised children. Even local pain relief requires a needle into the penis which in itself causes an extreme amount of pain, otherwise you are left with pain relief creams which are universally accepted as less effective in pain relief.

http://nsrc.sfsu.edu/article/circumcision

Though, admittedly, my first inclination is to write this off as insane, there is some legitimacy to the circumcision come crisis argument. In Understanding Circumcision: A Multi-Disciplinary Approach to a Multi-Dimensional Problem, editors George C. Denniston, Frederick Mansfield Hodges, and Marilyn Fayre Milos concur that “trauma can occur at any point in the life cycle from infancy to childhood” and that “many children have described their circumcision experience in the language of violence, torture, mutilation and sexual assault” resulting “in the development of long term PTSD in many cases.”

Of course, PTSD is nothing to laugh about (at least not out loud). More and more circumcised men are coming out every day with stories so vivid, you’d think they fought in Nam. And although little is currently known on the psychological impacts of circumcision, doctors now believe that infants as young as eight days old do feel pain, not to mention the neurological capacity to retain, store, and remember painful incidents. Mothers are quite susceptible to circumcision-PTSD as well.

According to psychiatrist Rima Laibow, circumcision significantly impairs mother-infant bonding. She argues that circumcised boys carry around unconscious rage toward their mothers for betraying and abandoning them in their time of need, lending to trust issues further down the road. And mothers, some already dealing with post-partum issues, find themselves knee deep in guilt for allowing their child to be put in a position of undeniable pain.

http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/DOC/statement06.html

Male circumcision has many adverse effects that do not appear until later in life. These effects usually are overlooked and ignored in most discussions of male circumcision.

Emotional Effects

Memory starts before birth

¹ and newborn infants have fully functioning pain pathways.² One would expect, therefore, to find psychological effects associated with the genital cutting operation.

Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a normal response to an abnormal event. Neonatal genital cutting is an event in which a newborn infant experiences extreme levels of pain, terror, and helplessness,³ so it fulfills the criteria as a psychogenic for PTSD. Levy (1945) reported that children experience behavior problems, such as night terrors and a fear of nurses and doctors, after surgery, including circumcision.⁴ Cansever (1965) tested boys before and after circumcison and reported that the ego seeks safety in total withdrawal.⁵ Levy found their symptoms to be similar to combat neurosis, now known as PTSD.⁴ Taddio et al. (1997) studied the behavior of babies at first vaccination. They found that circumcised boys have a much stronger reaction to pain of vaccination than do girls and intact non-circumcised boys, which the authors suggested is an “infant analogue” of PTSD.⁶ Other authors also have reported PTSD in circumcised males. Rhinehart (1999) reported four cases of PTSD secondary to neonatal circumcision in middle-aged men that he encountered in his psychiatric practice.⁷ Ramos & Boyle (2001) reported PTSD in 70 percent of Philippino boys who experienced ritual circumcision and 51 percent of Philippino boys who experienced medical circumcision.⁸

Circumcised males often feel great anxiety regarding their circumcision. This manifests itself in a reluctance to talk about circumcision or an assertion that “I’m circumcised and I’m fine.”⁹ van der Kolk (1989) reports some traumatized males also have a compulsion to reenact or repeat the trauma.¹⁰ These feelings emerge as the “adamant father” syndrome. Typically, a circumcised father will irrationally and adamantly insist that a son undergo circumcision, although this is contrary to contemporary medical advice. Some circumcised doctors also exhibit anxiety by pushing medically unnecessary circumcision on their patients¹¹ or writing medical journal articles to defend the practice.^12,13 This has caused the medical literature on the subject of male circumcision to become voluminous and polarized because other doctors write letters and articles to refute the false claims of circumcised doctors.¹³

Circumcision of the newborn usually is performed in the first week of life (the perinatal period), and, as reported above, clearly is traumatic for most boys. Several authors report that perinatal trauma causes self-destructive behavior in adult life.^{10, 14-17}

Circumcision is cyclic trauma. Many males, who were circumcised as infants, grow up to become circumcisers themselves, in an unending repetitive pattern of abuse.^10-13,17,18

Also, even in many medical circumcisions preformed today in hospitals, no pain relief of any kind is used, and in almost every cultic circumcision, absolutely no pain relief is used along with some SUPER crazy SUPER gory SUPER unethical practices - as if "normal" circumcision wasn't enough to make me say "WTF!?!".

"...ripping the skin of the penis with a fingernail specifically trimmed for the procedure!?!"

Y' know...

I didn't think this could get any creepier, but your posts just make me want to take a long, hot shower, then go punch a mohel (settle down, I'm joking).

And then knock some sense into the AAP (not joking.). And file complaints with Child Protective Services.

And go take another long, hot shower.

Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a normal response to an abnormal event. Neonatal genital cutting is an event in which a newborn infant experiences extreme levels of pain, terror, and helplessness. This manifests itself in a reluctance to talk about circumcision or an assertion that "I'm circumcised and I'm fine."

I've got a buddy who did a couple tours in-country as a USMC crypto during the SE Asai wargames. He was no baby, he was 18 with a 16. He's wrapped a little too tight (anger management, and control-freak), and he's officially classified as disabled due to PTSD forty years later. But he never talks about it, so it's all good, right?

At least he's not some troublemakin' whiner. Suck it up, walk it off!

Beezup:

Tell me about it, I feel guilty just talking about it knowing it's an accepted practice. Please forgive me for exposing you to it :( It took me a while to accept it as truth! I am glad I know though, it does seem to be clearly crossing a line of child abuse/endangerment. I really wanted it to be crazy Internet folk lore or an exaggeration. I got to see pictures too! One has to wonder what other crazy cultic rituals fall under the radar in modern day western cultures or especially in purely religious countries such as Rome or Israel. We hear (thanks to Fox & Republicans) all about unacceptable practices of Islamic cultures for instance - but in all my years, until recently I had never even heard of just how dirty & unethical Jewish circumcision can actually be. I was convinced circumcision was a bad think already based on what I knew - "Mezizah " and the finger nail thing made me want to puke, and my skin was probably whiter than Christmas snow at that moment of realization as to the full extent of the barbarity of it all.

At least he's not some troublemakin' whiner. Suck it up, walk it off!

That's very unempathetic of you :p but I think possibly just maybe perhaps it might be that your point is well taken :) I think that is where the following comes in from an above post #1.29:

Of course, PTSD is nothing to laugh about (at least not out loud). More and more circumcised men are coming out every day with stories so vivid, you’d think they fought in Nam.

Hey james ca. and Beezup,

If THAT makes you want to take a long hot shower, this made me want to vomit. Once I read this it brought my anger and disgust to a whole new level. This was posted in the New York Times at the beginning of this year. It's an article about a baby who had died shortly after birth. His family was Jewish, but still wanted to have him circumcised before they buried him. The article begins with this:

My hands trembled as I grasped the tiny sleeve of skin with my forceps and separated it from his pale, still penis. He lay weirdly motionless on a utility table, which I had draped with a slate-blue operating-room towel.

His parents knew he was going to die shortly after birth, but wanted to spare him any pain and still do the "ritual" for THEIR religion. Now, normally the mutilation of a corpse is a crime by common law, and in some cases, the dismemberment of a body is a specific criminal offense. Since he was deceased and it clearly wasn't medically necessary, I don't see how religion can somehow trump the fact that they are dismembering the penis of a deceased baby. Yeah, the title of this article is also called "A Young Life Passes, and a Ritual of Birth Begins" Oh, and Beezup, the article was written by the person who performed the circumcision, he was a doctor, not a mohel. I just wonder how doctors and people can get around assault, sexual assault, and dismemberment of a body and use pseudo religious reasons to justify it.

Oh, and before anyone jumps in here, and begins to scream anti semitism because i called circumcision "dimemberment", Merriam Webster defines dismemberment as: " to cut off or disjoin the limbs, members, or parts of or, to break up or tear into pieces". Seeing that cutting off the entire foreskin is disjoining and cutting off a part of the penis, and tearing it into pieces, circumcision is nothing but dismemberment.

Gonna to take that nice, hot shower now...

To put that in even more context, with the foreskin going up the head, and then rolling back into itself - in terms of surface area being removed, it can be up to 50% of the penises skin, and at least 25%. That's one quarter to one half of the penis skin that is removed!?! It's not just a lill snip to say the least...

Heavy sigh.

Just for records sake, here's the article Mister Equality mentioned! (I had to look it up to make sure it wasn't hog wash - I wish it was...)

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/25/health/views/25cases.html?_r=1

And it's from 2011!

James @# 1.29 ,

ripping the skin of the penis with a fingernail specifically trimmed

I'm fairly sure you are mistaken about that practice .
It would be a stupid way to accomplish such a surgical procedure
since it is much more easily done with a surgical tool just for that purpose .

I've had a circumcision done on me when I was an infant . It's no big deal and
it offers a degree of protection against some serious STDs .They are starting to do
a lot of circumcisions in Africa to prevent AIDS .

I wish it were untrue :( Believe me I thought it was just anti-Semitic propaganda at first, and did quite a bit of goggling before believing it to be fact.

If you are not familiar with NCBI, it is the "National Center for Biotechnology Information", a U.S. government-funded national resource for molecular biology information. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1173163/ (NOTICE THE ".GOV" INSTEAD OF A ".COM" - THAT REMOVES THE INFO ABOUT THE FINGERNAIL FROM "TROLL STATUS" OR MISINFORMATION)

Notice the dates on the NCBI.Gov/Jerusalem Post articles. They are very fresh, they are not historical accounts from times past - it is in the form of a current debate being had in 2000, this millennium which is barely more than a decade young.

I highlighted the part on using a fingernail: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1173163/

BMJ. 2001 January 6; 322(7277): 10.

PMCID: PMC1173163

Israel's health ministry ends circumcisers' monopoly

Judy Siegel-Itzkovich

Israeli doctors will be able to apply for certification to perform circumcision under the health ministry's plans to end a long standing monopoly held by non-medically qualified practitioners. The move follows the ministry's decision not to contest a lawsuit brought to the High Court of Justice by a private clinic group in Tel Aviv.
Mila Tova (good circumcision in Hebrew) took the ministry to court for refusing to certify its three urologists for performing circumcisions. The health ministry has since agreed to issue a directive to Israeli hospitals allowing them for the first time to certify doctors able to perform such procedures. Acting ministry director general Dr Boaz Lev said, "The ministry itself will not set down what type of doctor can perform them."
The new rules will in effect "doom the profession" of non-medical ritual circumcisers (mohels), according to Rabbi YosefWeisberg, head of the national commission that supervises these traditional practitioners. Rabbi Weisberg, a certified mohel who has performed the ritual on tens of thousands of infants, says that many of his colleagues in the Tel Aviv area have already quit the profession to become teachers or kosher-food inspectors, as custom has slowly dried up.
Many secular parents—and even some religiously observant ones—have chosen uncertified physicians to circumcise their sons. "The public have more confidence in doctors, even though Orthodox ritual circumcisers [all of them male] have a lot more experience and expertise," Rabbi Weisberg says. He adds that many parents nowadays want the circumciser to wear surgical gloves when performing the brit mila (ritual circumcision), even though Jewish law prohibits this except in unusual cases, as when the mother has hepatitis B or HIV. Jewish law, he says, "requires that the edge of foreskin be ripped using the fingernail, and you can't do this wearing gloves. There are also parents who insist on the injection of anaesthesia, but this too is forbidden by Jewish tradition. Physicians will not care about these strictures."
Mila Tova, founded by scientist ZviPaltiel and four other businessmen, protested when the ministry refused to include its doctors on the list of approved circumcisers or to permit advertising of its services in the media. The ministry adopted the new policy last month when it realised it could not limit the practise of circumcision only to non-medical professionals.
Paltiel says that hundreds of circumcisions have been performed in Mila Tova's three clinics since it opened last year. "We do not perform the naming ritual or recite blessings, but family members may do so themselves if they wish. The surgery is performed in a sterilised operating room, with an assisting nurse. Unlike ritual circumcisions, in which friends and relatives surround the baby and a festive meal follows, we allow neither guests nor food. We use a medication to eliminate pain from the injection of the anaesthetic, surgical gloves, and equipment that some rabbis say are forbidden by Jewish law. But it is clean and does not cause the baby pain. Babies suffer in a traditional circumcision. We want to spare them the pain. Giving the baby the end of a diaper dipped in wine to suck may relieve the pain a bit, but it isn't enough."

Articles from BMJ : British Medical Journal are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

Here's an article from the Jerusalem Post written there by Judy Siegel, the same person who wrote the entry for the British Medical Journal/NCBI: http://www.cirp.org/news/jerusalempost12-13-00/

By Judy Siegel

(December 13) - Monday's High Court of Justice ruling that any physician approved by a hospital can perform circumcisions will in effect mean the end of the profession of non-medical ritual circumcisers (mohalim), according to Rabbi Yosef Weisberg, national supervisor of the Health and Religious Affairs ministries' and Chief Rabbinate's national commission in charge of mohalim.

Weisberg, a certified mohel who has performed the ritual on tens of thousands of children, told The Jerusalem Post that already, many mohalim in the Dan Region have changed profession to kashrut supervisors and Talmud Torah teachers because of the lack of work, as secular parents and some religious ones as well, have chosen physicians to circumcise their sons. "The public has more confidence in doctors, even though mohalim have a lot more experience and expertise in circumcision," Weisberg said with dismay. He added that parents - even some religious ones - want the circumciser to wear surgical gloves when performing the brit mila (circumcision), but Jewish law prohibits this except in unusual cases as when the mother is a hepatitis B or HIV carrier. "The sages require that the edge of foreskin be ripped using the fingernail, and you can't do this wearing gloves. There are also parents who insist on anesthesia, but this too is not permitted by Jewish law. Physicians will not care about these strictures." The High Court dealt with the issue when Mila Tova, a private clinic using urological surgeons, protested against the Health Ministry's refusal to include the doctors on its list of approved mohalim. When it realized that it could not limit circumcision only to mohalim, the ministry decided to adopt a new policy in which any hospital director could grant approval to doctors to perform a brit mila.

Ministry Acting Director-General Boaz Lev said that according to existing laws, any M.D. can perform any medical procedure. "I wouldn't expect a hospital director to allow an intern studying psychiatry to do circumcisions, as he and the doctor would have to bear responsibility," Lev said. "But the ministry itself will not set down what type of doctor can perform them." Weisberg, author of an authoritative book on circumcision, Otzar Habrit, said that he knows of many physicians who have closed their practices and taken up the profession of circumciser. "They charge NIS 2,000 for a brit, and - unlike mohalim - they don't visit the family to see the baby before or after it. The official rate for mohalim is NIS 500."

Cite as:

• Judy Siegel. Court Ruling Threatens Traditional Circumcision. The Jerusalem Post, December 13, 2000.

(File prepared 15 December 2000)

This is a site dedicated Catholic idology (only matters in that it's not a site dedicated to being anti-circumcision) I already posted it in an above msg so I won't block quote it: http://www.fisheaters.com/circumcision.html

The title of that article is :

Israel's health ministry ends circumcisers' monopoly

So focusing on the subject , it is :
1] about Israel , not the US
2] about the end of the religious monopoly on circumcisers . Now anyone can elect to have a doctor do this procedure .
3] This article is a decade old . It is about outdated practices that have fallen into disuse .

You don't have to believe, but it is true and I have provided irrefutable proof from very legitimate sources. I can understand how one's initial inclination would be to resist believing such outrageous sounding cultic practices still exist or even that they ever existed for that matter - but it is verified truth.

Try reading my actual response . This was a minority practice even at its most
prevalent . But now even the Israelis are abandoning it in favor of doctor's procedures .

The references I cite are from 2000, as much as anyone would like - that is as good as yesterday and there is no reason to assume it is any accurate concerning today with a practice thousands of years old. I understand the desire not to believe - but I speak the truth. The minority who practice it are supported by the silent majority - and as well, this is just an extreme side of an already barbaric act of male infant genital mutilation in the form of a religious/cultic ritual or a done in a hospital by a regular doctor.

That last msg posted before I was finished editing, happening allot lately :)

Here is the further elaborated & edited version - please discount the last one - thank you.

The references I cite are from 2000, as much as anyone would like - that is as good as yesterday and there is no reason to assume it's any less accurate today with a practice thousands of years old. I understand the desire not to believe - but I speak the truth. If it's a minority who practices it, they are supported by the silent majority - If you have any reference to show it is only a small minority or that it is not practiced or so adamantly defended as it was just ten years ago, I would really like to see it/them. Also, this is just an extreme side of an already barbaric act of male infant genital mutilation wither in the form of a religious/cultic ritual or done in a hospital by a regular doctor - the practice is barbaric to begin with, this just brought it to a whole new unbelievable level, right up there with the vampire sucking of the infants penis spreading STD's & some of the worst aspects of even Sharia law.

I am a pediatric hospitalist, and as part of my job I perform circumcisions. I don't particularly support them, but I have found that if the parents truly want their son circumcised, there is little to be done to dissuade them and so I do the best procedure i can.

I am a little surprised at my colleague TJW's comment, because my first thought on reading this article was that it was probably an anesthesia related death rather than a fault of the circumcision itself, because at 2 the child would need to be fully anesthetized for the procedure.

Thus really a treatise on the pros and cons of circumcisions per se is not really appropriate here, and merely feeds the desire for controversy intended by the writers of this article...

my understanding is circumcision is a lot more difficult in the adult patient with higher rates of complications. Im not a pediatrician, but is this not true?

kidsmd,

I think you are right regarding the desire for controversy. Of all the unfortunate deaths of a toddler that may have happened over the last month, this one was published on MSNBC. The writer knew hearts and minds would be set aflame.

eric: you are correct it is a much more difficult the older a person gets.

No doubt all above are correct about msnbc seeking to create controversy, but I think it gives us all a chance to look at a larger issue, so from that standpoint I don't mind playing into their hand.

kidzmd1: I agree that this was not likely a complication of circumcision itself, but more likely due to anesthesia, however there would have been no need for anesthesia if the procedure were not done in the first place. I too have performed circumcisions, and have not had a complication with any I've performed, but have stopped doing them because I don't feel they are justified. My partners do continue to do them, so within my practice I do have that luxury when families insist on having them.

Especially in the era of health care reform, and at a time when greater and greater emphasis is being placed on evidence based medicine, I would consider it appropriate to discuss both in this forum and the office setting the medical necessity of a procedure or lack thereof. The medical evidence behind performing circumcisions is weak.

I think a question everyone should ask is; why should society pay for a procedure that permanently alters a person's anatomy, risks complications, and provides marginal benefits from a medical viewpoint?

p.s. the debate was going to start regardless of my comment, so i figured I might as well get it started with some real information rather than just emotion.

It goes into religion, which a government or a group of people should have NO right to take from any one. If it's in there to circumcise their boys, we don't get a say. Furthermore, isn't there complication with uncircumcised penis? Infections for those who don't properly care for that type of anatomy? Either way there are issues. So what's the point in considering a debate?

TJW--I lived in Europe for years and there was not a single man around who was circumcised. (Very few Jewish people around). I cannot help but think that circumcision is an unnecessary and cruel practice. If someone feels compelled to have it done for religious reasons, have it done as an adult. So what it's a bigger deal. It will impress the seriousness of the commitment upon the "sufferer."

TJW using your argument, why should society (us taxpayers) pay for anyone else's medical treatments? After all, any procedure can be labeled as "permanently changing anatomy" (i.e. my tonsils and appendix will never grow back) EVERY procedure carries some risk (indeed, I experienced sepsis after the initial appendectomy which kept me in the hospital an additional 2 weeks) and there are many procedures which provide "marginal" benefit (i.e. spending tens of thousands to prolong someone's life by a few weeks).

In any case, a quick search on pubmed reveals many peer-reviewed articles with the findings you claim, but the thing you left out, is that uncircumcised males have higher incidence of sexual dysfunction! So any marginal UTI/STD health benefits aside, I'd rather not have any sexual dysfunction, ever!

MmmMmmBeer: I'm sorry you had such a complicated and painful course following your appendectomy. I wouldn't wish that upon anyone and I'm glad you recovered.

I do think your statemtent regarding paying for medical treatment is a little off of the point I was trying to make above. Tonsillectomy and appendectomy have well-established benefits for a much higher proportion of people than does circumcision.

For a well-written statement about circs, you can see the AAP website.

I agree that experience was horrible! Based on WBC count and temp, they said I had 36 hrs. or so...not fun at all. Anyhow true, my statements were exaggerations (and tongue in cheek) regarding appendectomy and expensive treatments, but show just how easy it is to find information out there supporting one's argument. I will point to "Circumcision in the United States" printed in the JAMA 1997. I agree with you the medical benefits may be nill, but the "other" benefit, i.e. engaging in more diverse (aka. FUN) sexual practices, is a benefit in my book!

to each his own on that account. If a guy wants to make that choice for himself later in life, then more power to him, but I don't think it should be a routine right of passage because a person is born male.

Susi-Oh

there was not a single man around who was circumcised.

This really begs the question.

@Kdzmd: "I have found that if the parents truly want their son circumcised, there is little to be done to dissuade them"

How about just saying No? "We don't do that here." "We don't conider it ethical." "There's nothing wrong with it the way it is."

They can't tie YOU down and make you circumcise anyone you don't want to. You'd soon find the backbone to refuse if the child were a girl, or if it was any other, comparable part of his body they wanted you to cut off, or if it were an adult man to be circumcised against his will.

"It is more difficult the older he gets" because he can resist better. How about waiting till he wants it or needs it? He almost certainly won't.

@MmmMmmBeer The (Laumann) study to which you refer did not find that circumcised guys have more fun, but that slightly more of certain ages and races had certain ill-described sexual practices. It's been surmised that they did so, not because they were having more fun but less, and needed more exotic kinds of stimulation to reach orgasm., but really the differences were too small to draw any conclusions. In any case, if adults think they can have more fun by having part of their genitals cut off (or all), it makes much more sense to wait until they're old enough to decide that kind of thing for themselves.

I am kind of thinking that they may have had it done for medical reasons. The article doesnt say, but most people that want their kids circumcised do it while they are infants (usually less than a few days old) Most 2 yr olds that have it done is for medical reasons (infection being a big reason)

I hate the idea of causing any more unwarranted offense to this (or any) family. I'd offer them only peace, and my sincere condolences.

So allow me to be clear: regarding the general concept of circumcision, aren't we talking about a medical need, resulting from negligent childcare? From my admittedly limited understanding, tearing and subsequent infection of the intact foreskin might be a problem for a man or teenager, but not a 2 yr-old.

I realize this question opens up even more distasteful worm cans... uncomfortable parent duties, parental education standards, some sort of child protective authority/inspection, criminal liability, et c.

I am not sure what all medical problems can arise where a 2 yr old would need to be circumcised (and this may have been totally elective, I do not know) but there are some problems that can occur that arent an issue of not caring properly for the child. (for example, a deformity that is not noticed until the child gets a little older) I would guess those would be even rarer than things like infections, but I honestly don't know the statistics.

You can't prove that.

Maybe you can't...

@ randy,... if you remove some of the most sensitive skin on the body, there will be less sensation -- it stands to reason, not really a point to argue.

Studies have shown that sensitivity is not affected:

http://www.circlist.com/considering/sensitivity.html

http://www.webmd.com/baby/news/20030430/circumcision-does-not-affect-sensitivity

I would consider datat that either supports or refutes the notion of differential sensitivity to be suspect. It would be very difficult to construct a really good study with direct comparisons. For the majority of males, they either were circed as infants or are not circed at all. Few men have experienced both sides.

@Dave: Circlist is a circumfetish site, for men who get sexual pleasure from the idea of circumcising or being circumcised. It is hardly a credible source of information.

The Bleustein study, to which the webmd site refers, measured only the sensitivity of the outside of the foreskin. The ridged band, where most nerves are concentrated, is on the inside.

@TJW: You are right to be skeptical. The Sorrells study, however, did look at both kinds in detail and found sites on the foreskin to be much more sensitive than any but a tiny spot on the circumcision scar. We have no certainty that adult circumcision has the same outcome on the nervous system as neonatal circumcision, when the child passes through puberty and learns his erotic response with what he has left. Certainly men who wanted to be circumcised are not the best subjects for an objective description of sexual differences.

Here is a page of studies and accounts that suggest circumcision is detrimental: www.circumstitions.com/Sexuality.html and one that indicates that for centuries before "medical" circumcision was common, it was taken for granted that the foreskin itself gives pleasure: www.circumstitions.com/Pleasure.html

Circlist is a circumfetish site, for men who get sexual pleasure from the idea of circumcising or being circumcised.

Your comment above is nonsensical. Your bizarrely fallacious attempt to dismiss that site calls into question your grasp on reality and doesn't change the fact that the site references a vast amount of medical information that is highly damaging to your chosen, contrary position. I encourage you to stop mixing medications before trolling on the internet, and look beyond circumphobic sites for a better understanding of this subject.

Hugh -

@Dave: Circlist is a circumfetish site, for men who get sexual pleasure from the idea of circumcising or being circumcised. It is hardly a credible source of information.

Really?!?!?! So a website that does not coincide with your point of view is a fetish site?!?!?! I didn't get that impression at all when I referenced that site. I also referenced several sites that were against circumcision. I am not going to claim those sites are not legitimate because they are fetish sites for guys who get off at the thought of not being circumcised.

That statement made anything else you ever have to say, in any forum (or in person) moot.

The circlist website links to a discussion group ("Circlist has always permitted, and will continue to permit, circumcision related fetish/sexual postings/materials, straight, gay or otherwise. Individuals may use CIRCLIST to make contact with one another, including for sexual purposes. The list is not just a medical interest list, but rather all things circumcision, including circ-fetish, sexual info, medical info and a place to meet up with fellow circumcision enthusiasts and proponents. ").

If you have a password, circlist will admit you to stories with titles like "Brothers of the Blade" and "A Knife for Jeremy". Circumfetishists call themselves "circumsexuals" and they have conventions. I wish I was making this up.

Just one more reason to be ashamed of being human... maybe it's time for God to flush this toilet again.

Mister,

Some reliable stats on death from circumcision, please.

grump,

here is a website that lists, with full credits, many deaths due from circumcision. While most autopsy reports will simply state "blood loss" or "cardiac arrest" as the cause of death, rarely do the reports say anything about what led to it. In many cases, the death occurred immediately or soon after the circumcision, so anyone who wants to argue that it wasn't the direct cause is full of crap...why else would a baby bleed to death if he wasn't operated on and had no other bleeding conditions?

Regardless of my "stats" or any "stats", should we need "stats" on deaths of babies that could have been prevented by leaving their natural penis alone? How many boys have to die before we start caring?

I see no web site.

death rate from circ is very rare indeed. there are plenty of other potential complications. as mentioned by my colleague kidzmd1 above, it is unlikely the child died from the circ.

for more information on the official position of the American Academy of Pediatrics, you can go to their website at www.aap.org or follow this link to their policy statement on circumcision.

be aware that the last time the issue was addressed at the level of a policy statement was in the late 1990s.

As to the greater social question of whether we should be doing circs, see above. As with many things that are deeply ingrained into our social consciousness, there will be no easy answer.

Mister..... where are your statistics of 'many deaths due from circumcision'?

In my mind, this whole argument to circumcise or not is similar to the abortion debate.

I personally am very uncomfortable with the idea of abortion. That does not mean that I would not let a woman make the choice to have one.

I believe a mother and father should have the right to choose whether or not their son has the circumcision procedure performed. To make a law against it would prohibit the parent's right to make a choice.

MSNBC keeps removing my link

www dot circumstitions dot com slash death dot html

Oh so an anti-circumcision website is making negative claims about circumcision? What a surprise! How about some peer-reviewed data from academia?

In any case, we men are strong, we can tough it out. Protect the females I say, we're good.

Wow, again....

Men don't need protection as babies, when they're most vulnerable, but women do? How about some peer reviewed data about your claims? Men lose more skin, and more sexual function when they're circumcised (Male circumcision type 1 removes 20,000 nerve endings, type 1 female removes roughly 4,000). So men are "tough" and therefore don't need the same protection or deserve the same rights and laws as women do? And yes, while that site is against circumcision they also back their claims up with medical data. Everyone here is blabbing some religion/something an old book told them to do or social conformity. There is no medical data to back up the religious or social claims regarding circumcision, so they don't belong here. Finally, like I said earlier, how many more baby boys have to die before people start caring? Or do we only care if a girl dies from her "mutilation" Wow dude, you really are a sexist hypocrite.

also, intact men do not have more sexual dysfunction, circumcised men do. If you remove 20,000 highly specialized nerve endings, you can't seriously expect that it's somehow going to improve your sexual function. Why are most of our men in our country circumcised and we have the highest number of adult men on Viagra than any other country? We also have the highest STD and HIV rate of any developed nation in the WORLD, and we're trying to tout this religous pseudo science as STD prevention, and we're living proof that it does nothing to prevent STD's!

Mister,

Men from Alpha Centauri are circumcised and that's good enough for me.

Haha mister you are funny! You try to knock on an obviously-facetious comment with your "facts," but the truth is you have used an obviously-biased website as your source. Nice going....clearly you have issues determining what is real from what is a joke/junk science!

As a real doctor said above, deaths from circumcision are RARE, no babies are dying as a direct result of the procedure, likely complications from anesthesia (which kills adults too, don't you know?) As America is founded on freedom of religion, yes that too has a place in this discussion. And last, as I mentioned, pubmed is not some 2000 year old book telling people what to do. It is a collection of peer reviewed medical journal articles from around the world. This nice one titled "Circumcision in the United States" was published in the JAMA, here's an excerpt from the abstract:

"We find no significant differences between circumcised and uncircumcised men in their likelihood of contracting sexually transmitted diseases. However uncircumcised men appear slightly more likely to to experience sexual dysfunctions, especially later in life. Finally, we find that circumcised men engage in a more elaborated set of sexual practices."

So I don't know where you get your notions that "intact men do not have more sexual dysfunction, circumcised men do. If you remove 20,000 highly specialized nerve endings, you can't seriously expect that it's somehow going to improve your sexual function." Clearly there are some PhD's and MDs who disagree with you. Actually I do know where you got that notion, it was from your biased website that is full of junk science! Good day, my point has been made.

plus, the ladies love the look, win-win I'd say!

your reaction: "wow dude"

Actually, when you promote something from the 1850's and try to come up with new justifications for the procedure every 10 years, doctors will say anything to keep their perceptions and beliefs up. Circumcision was claimed to stop masturbation by Dr. John Kellogg and even to stop blacks from raping white women. We're so used to this procedure that we'll do anything to keep it going, because Americans know everything, we're never wrong, we're better than everyone else, and because you were probably circumcised at birth, you claim that there's "nothing wrong with your penis" and sensitivity. Really? Do you have something to compare this to? And yes, circumcised men engage in more elaborate sexual practices because they have difficulty getting off and need additional stimulation. The glans penis becomes cornified after years of being exposed, and the nerve endings that are left in the glans are desensitized after new skin grows on the glans as it adapts to its new environment. It doesn't take a rocket scientist or even a doctor to see the correlation that if you remove something, or have less of something, you will have some sort of side effect or problem that arises, otherwise, men wouldn't be born with a foreskin. How many men on this board actually want less of a penis, yet you're sitting here telling me that circumcision has no health problems, when essentially you have less of a penis than you did to begin with. Yeah, that makes sense. You don't need to be a doctor to figure out cause and effect. If female circumcision causes sexual side effects, doing it to men will to, it's just common sense.

Folks,

Mister got a botched circumcision and has taken up this cause to somehow make himself feel "whole" or "justified".

He is a troll on a rant, full of rage and misinformation.

Ignore him. No ones mind will be changed by further exchanges with him.

Say, Grump -

Re: your post 7.6...

Yeah, there is at least one similarity between abortion and circumcision; the innocent is assaulted by those charged with his care.

I cannot imagine what effulgent education/experience left you with the idea that parents have "rights" to mutilate their babies, but you really deserve a big timeout to think through your position. I'm serious; if you just chalk up circumcision as another whiner subject, and blast right past it, reflexively thinking "Life's hard, get a helmet!", then you are not thinking at all.

If you think this is an intrusion on religious freedom, then try this: My religion teaches that we should give thanks to God by cutting off a healthy baby's single thumb or testicle as a sacrifice; it won't impair the child's life, and it teaches humility and resilience. Should I have the "religious freedom" to thank my God? No, of course not. The law should protect those who cannot protect, nor even speak for, themselves. Except for boy babies...

In many states, parents can't legally tatoo a minor. What we're talking about generally, regardless of how common it is, is sexual mutilation of an infant by his parents in collusion with his physician, who has sworn to "do no harm." I'm willing to believe - well, half-believe - there was a good medical reason for this surgery on a 2 year old, and that no one meant to lose or torture this child. As for the millions of other infants... well, just read what the doctors and nurses who perform this surgery say. It's freakish torture that a sane man wouldn't wish on a Gitmo tourist.

It cuts the risk of penile cancer? How many penile cancer cases are there? Have you ever known one? Removing eyelids would eliminate the risk of styes... and babies wouldn't feel it. Maybe.

For the record, I'm a 50-ish cicumcised-at-birth dude. Do I remember it, obsess about it, think it changed my life in any way? No. But I'd be pretty well PO'd if they cut off my fingertips to prevent the possibilty of hangnails.

The reason this this subject always lights up the message boards isn't some weird titillation, it's because thinking people defend the innocent.

Go ahead, call me a troll... that's what's important here, right? Not the tortured babies.

Re: 7.6... Yeah, there is at least one similarity between abortion and circumcision; the innocent is assaulted by those charged with his care.

I cannot imagine what effulgent education left you with the idea that parents have "rights" to mutilate their babies, but you really deserve a timeout to think through your position.

In most states, parents can't tatoo a minor. What we're talking about here, regardless of how common it is, is sexual mutilation of an infant by his parents in collusion with his physician, who has sworn to "do no harm."

Go ahead, call me a troll... that's what's important here, right?

Re: 7.16...

Sorry 'bout the half-double post... between my ol' dialup PC and Newsvine stalling, it took two days to shove this post thru the phone line, and it came out gummed-up.

Beezup.

yeah newsvine isn't the most reliable program. it keeps acting like i'm a new poster, but I've been using it for over a year. I've had to sign up again about 4 times now.

MSNBC keeps removing my link

www dot circumstitions dot com slash death dot html

http://www.circumstitions.com/ sounds alot like superstitions dont you think? Do you really think that is a credible source for information? They can't even spell circumcision correctly... either that or they wanted it to sound like superstitions...

Re: grump's post 7.8...

See also post 61.5.

Lmao. WHAT?! And wait till the kids 13 so he has a higher chance of dying or simply not recovering? Not good

An adult circumcision on a detached foreskin is different from an infant circumcision of a fused foreskin. If the former adult circumcision is reported to be painful, the infant circumcision involving separating skin from flesh is probably more painful than pulling fingernails. Even with topical anesthetic during the procedure, you know it's going to hurt for at least a week.

I watched my sons circumcision be done with no anesthetics and he didnt seem uncomfortable at all. Maybe the doctor you watched didn't know what he was doing...

Agreed. But there's little reason to pick on the religious reasons (religious group in question is 0.1% of US population) when nearly 100% of circumcisions have no religious justification.

maybe I missed that line in the article, but why does everyone assume the child was Jewish? More Christians are circed than Jews. I also agree with Vincent Denali most circs are just done out of tradition and for no other reason.

Mister,

I am sure we will not change each others minds.

Mister, a parent will choose that for their child. Sort of like a parent will choose the school their kid attends, the clothes their kids where, it is a PARENTS choice. Let your child choose the clothes he wants at a young age, there will be millions of lil' supermen and spidermen wandering the schools. Allow your child to pick the high school, they're gunna pick the one with 'self-direction' as an alternative method and not do anything. Whether the circumcision is good or bad to you doesn't matter, point blank. It's a parents choice. Same for abortion. Your individualized opinion is not counted for, neither is mine. This is reality.

Ok, once again, your arguments are nothing but red herring and straw man arguments.

A parent chooses many things in a child's life, you're right. But do we as parents have the right to circumcise our daughters if there are significant health benefits, or does that only apply to men? Where do we draw the line? You fail to mention at all that no health organization reccommends this procedure routinely, at all, and that this procedure is defined as medically unneccessary and non therapeutic. A parents choice for abortion is when the child is still in the womb. Once a child is born, it automatically has rights. If you killed your kid after she came out, you'd be charged with murder. If you cut on a girls genitals for your religion, you'd be charged with sexual assault. Parents choice?

Define what else parents can do to their own children's bodies. And don't say ear piercing. If a girl doesn't like what they did to her ears, she can take the earrings out and the hole will heal. If a kid doesn't like what clothes their parents choose, they can always change clothes when they arent at school. If a boy doesn't like his circumcised penis...whoops...sorry, you have to either have surgery to make a new one or go through years of the regrown process...

Also, religion is no other reason to justify this outdated practice. Muslims can't hide behind Islam to circumcise their daughters...it's still a crime to do it to any female unless there's an immediate health risk. Male urinary tract infections are not an immediate health risk that needs surgical correction, like many people tout for justification. If that were your argument, women get 5 times the UTI's than men, so could we cut on girls to prevent them? Would women go along with this, or would we hear an outcry from every women's rights organization on the planet? Yeah, it would be the latter, because removing any part of a woman's body without immediate health reasons is illegal, note the word immediate, not perceived future health benefits. If that were the case, more women get breast cancer than men, so removing breast tissue at birth would be an acceptable prevention method, right?

Religion is not a justification to me personally, but it is to many. People will rigorously follow their beliefs, do what they will to their child because of it and we seriously do not get a say. We also have no right to judge.

As for the rest of your argument, you make fantastic points. Where is the line? Female circumcision is personally a scary thought, but at the same time it's not my choice. Personally, I believe I cannot define what a parent has the right to do to their child. There has to be lines that shouldn't be crossed, but at the same time I didn't birth the kid. It's on the parents to make their choices, whether society sees them as positive or neglectful or barbaric. I mean, if we really want to get into it; why not be China? Let's regulate ALL births, regard ALL children as ALL the same and have parents follow ALL the same rules for parenting. Hell, if that's your issue then we might as well be China. You want to raise a nation, go for it, make it universal. Otherwise, we really don't get a say, in my opinion.

I agree with you 100%, however, there is no immediate medical reason for either male or female circumcision, so doing either violates the first amendment and the 14th amendment...the fact that we even have a female circumcision law is unconstutional. We don't have to live in China to want equal protection under the law. If they make it a crime to do it to a woman, and make a distinction based on their own cultural bias, why do boys have a double standard applied to them just because of someone else's religion or stupidity?

Yeah I dunno, lol. I never personally dealt with an issue like this, which is why I think it should remain up to the parents. Especially since this is the ONLY article I've ever read about a fatality..ever.

This is the only article, because the mainstream media has been obsessed with the horrors of female circumcision for years, and continue to call it "mutilation" and they've been trying to push the health benefits of the procedure for men for years, because 1) Jewish people do it, so if we tell them they can't we're called anti-semetic, and 2)other people do it, and since we're used to it, that makes it ok. It would be bad press if suddenly their HIV prevention method that they've crammed down our throats ends up killing people, wouldn't you think that would hurt their cause? Even if there was some minute health benefit, again where do we draw the line? We teach our girls to wash their genitals, but we perform genital surgery on our boys so they don't have as much hygiene to practice? Go down the feminine care aisle, and tell me how many items there are to reduce bacteria and "feminine odor" and then explain to me why women have more health care products for hygiene, and still end up with higher urinary tract infections than men do, which are primarily caused by e. coli....found in fecal matter caused by improper hygeine....

Mister- feminine washes are not recommended by doctors or any health care practitioner for women. Women have more UTIs than men because their anatomy is set up so that their urethra is shorter and also closer to fecal matter.

There is absolutely no benefit for female circumcision and in addition, it is generally done at a later age. In fact, most female circumcision can make sex uncomfortable or painful for women.

Male circumcision is proven to reduce transmission of STDs if not STD infections in males.

Yeah, exactly. so why do men need corrective surgery to prevent something they don't have wrong to begin with? And you're terribly wrong, I'm sorry. Since you obviously haven't read my earlier post, I'll post it again. Read slowly now.

Female Procedure Prevents HIV/AIDS

Stallings et al. (2009) reported that, in Tanzanian women, the risk of HIV among women who had undergone Female Circumcision was roughly half that of women who had not; the association remained significant after adjusting for region, household wealth, age, lifetime partners, and union status.

Female circumcision and HIV infection in Tanzania: for better or for worse?(3rd IAS conference on HIV pathogenesis and treatment) International AIDS Society

Now then, the type of circumcision they are referring to is the clitoral hood, and a small area around it. This area, such as the foreskin, is highly errogenous, and mucousal skin, meaning, it is easier to contract diseases and infections there. If removing a man's foreskin, that is mucousal, and according to you, can get infections because of this, then doing the exact same procedure to women would have the exact same effect. That's just logic and basic medical fact. This area, since it's mucousal when not cleaned properly, is more apparent in women because they do not have a scrotum that seperates the anus, correct. So since men have lower instances of these types of infections to begin with, you suggest that removing the foreskin which is mucousal, can prevent STD's in men. Well, the female parts are just as mucousal, and removing this skin would in fact reduce the amount of bacteria that builds up in that area, as the skin has dried out and is unable to become infected. Then, by your same argument, if the skin is more dry than before, it is less likely to become infected, that also means it would reduce the amount of infections a woman has. And you argument that it makes sex uncomfortable, you're wrong once again. They've done multiple studies, and the conclusion was the same, that type 1 female circumcision did not reduce their sensasions, nor did it make sex impossible.

You can continue to believe the myths that removing body parts in advance can decrease the chance of infection, but you can apply it to both sexes, regardless of race or religion, and you'd get whatever results you want. How about instead of pushing pseudo religious science turned medical faux pax we encourage people to practice safe sex, be faithful, and not use IV drugs. By the way, our country has the highest rates of circumcised adult men than any other developed country in the world, and the highest HIV rate of any developed country in the world, AND, you fail to mention that the most common forms of HIV transmission in our country are by anal sex and IV drug use. They've already done multiple studies that prove that circumcision does nothing for gay men, where anal sex is most likely to occur, or any type of anal sex for that matter, nor does circumcision have anything to do with whether or not you inject yourself...unless you shoot up in your penis, and then, we have a problem.

Captain Original "Whether the circumcision is good or bad to you doesn't matter, point blank. It's a parents choice. "

Does an American parent have the option to circumcise (amputation of only clitoral hood) their daughter?

No but no one's thinking about that. -.- I hate that people keep bringing up that point. Cause we get rid of circumcisions and abortions its all gunna turn into back-ally operations. GUARANTEED there are back-ally female genitalia operations in that aspect and I'll bet those don't work out either. God the people of this country frustrate me. How is it YOUR business if they do it to their son OR daughter anyhow?! It sucks, especially for a chick I'm sure, but it's not my kid. Not my business.

Captain Original wrote "Cause we get rid of circumcisions and abortions its all gunna turn into back-ally operations. GUARANTEED"

Look to all European nations and Australia as an example. Circumcision rates dropped during socialized medicine. No one will risk a child's life for health benefits that not a single American medical association is able to articulate as well as state that the risks of circumcision are less than the benefits. If circumcision is dropped from US health plans, you can be sure that parents will not pay $500-1000 (depending on area) for cosmetic genital surgery.

"Cause we get rid of circumcisions and abortions its all gunna turn into back-ally operations. GUARANTEED there are back-ally female genitalia operations in that aspect and I'll bet those don't work out either." Captain Original wrote TWO sentences there. TWO of them. Read the WHOLE thing. Do you work for TMZ or FOX cause you're awesome at out-of-context discussions.

Say, Captain Original -

So you are presenting the "they're-gonna-drink-anyway/let's-give-them-clean-needles" squishy ethics approach here. Well, to be more accurate, your analogy would have to involve getting the barflies' infants drunk, or giving junkies clean dope to shoot into their babies.

The question isn't how to ensure the highest care standard for a barbaric practice forced on an infant, it's why the hell any parent would do this to his kid, why the medical establishment condones or turns the blind eye on it.

As a general concept, I'm not in favor of more govt., nor of activist judges and little-guy flattening special interest groups. But I believe govt. should protect human rights, and clean up what it has screwed up (slavery, as an example). I can see a point here for changing this godawful playing field.

The little guy here is strapped to a surgical table. By his parents, and his doctor. We all know what happens next. And that's the reason it should become your business, my business, the child protective services' business. Maybe this thing should be outlawed, driven underground, maybe it belongs in back alleys.

P.S. Although I got dragged into this topic, I'm not some sort of activist, and I've got no skin in this game. Geez, I can't believe I just...

Anyway, I can identify with parents who feel an intrusive, busy-body searchlight headed their way. But the more I think about this subject, the crazier and more on-the-face-of-it evil it sounds. And I can understand a minority culture/race/religion also feeling persecuted again. I don't see how to reconcile that - if you think babies need protection from their parents' needless cruelty, then how can you "grandfather-in" any protection for that culture? This isn't polygamy, or even pederasty. It's infants - completely defense babies.

I can see where it could become an obssessive interest, boring a hole into my head ( or yours) from either side, much like Grump says, analogus to the abortion/right-to-chose moral conundrum. And much like abortion, I think making the parents watch an actual procedure would radically discourage the number of follow-throughs.

Not the last case, unfortunately...

Mister is a ranting troll full of misinformation. You will not change his mind and neither he nor us benefit from further discussion.

That "medical reason" is usually gross medical incompetence.

Stop conflating issues.

I agree with HH. vaccination has very well-established benefits for everyone. circumcision has very little established benefit, except in very few circumstances. Your idea of drastic is a bit misplaced. UTI in circumcised male infants has a rate of about 0.2%, and in uncricumcised males it's about 0.7%. So, circumcision reduces the rate of UTI in male infants 4-fold. The ABSOLUTE decrease is pretty small. It's a bit of a stretch to say circs "drastically" cut down infection rates.

I have seen quite a few people talk about the "drastic" or "dramatic" benefits to circumcising, but have yet to see any references given. If anyone has them, please submit so we can all be educated.

We've already made it a crime to do ANYTHING to a girl's genitals, regardless of religion, health or anthing else. And I know there are different types, so no red herring arguments here...there's also different types of male circumcision too (males got infibulated in ancient Rome). The most traditional female circumcision removes the clitoral hood (foreskin) and that's already a crime to do to a girl under 18, for any reason, even religion. I understand some practices are heinous and are damaging, but by making a distinction and a law seperating the two we already have created an injustice in this country. I agree with you 100%. it's nothing more than cosmetic, but if we create a law to protect women, we must do the same to men, otherwise we're violating the 14th amendment, and trampling on his religious rights, which the supreme court says is a right of all natural born citizens.

Louie's Mom, I think you're approach is correct. As I've said above, I used to do them, but don't anymore. However, as with most things deeply ingrained in our society, legislation is generally not the right way to change things. I recommend against circumcision to prospective/new parents, but if they go forward and one of my partners does the procedure, I don't think they are being cruel or "bad parents." In a lot of Europe the procedure is becoming rare, and on the coasts of the US. Things are changing, but not quickly.

Very well said Louie's Mom! And exactly how we came to the decision not to circumcise our boys... here's hoping more and more parents do their research before the decision needs to be made, instead of listening to their 'elders' and doing it just because...

Louie's Mom wrote "Honestly I think that the practice of circumcision is (slowly) diminishing"

Published US circumcision rate is 33% in 2009. I have not seen 2010, yet.

reference? Last I saw it was more on the order of 66%. In any case, it is dropping.

This is the argument of "let's talk about something else." (there is ALWAYS something else.) This baby died from something associated with an unnecessary circumcision. (Very few circumcisions are necessary). If people didn't do unnecessary circumcisions, babies like this one would not die. (And many, many men would not have lesser complications, and many men would not be resentful about having had their choice taken from them.)

Mister Equality is obviously an uneducated moron. First off, female circumcision is pointless and serves no medical use (ASK ANY DOCTOR). Male circumcision serves an actual purpose, keeping the area sanitary. If you religious, it is part of your connection with God. Mister Equality is clearly a ridiculous person, feeding false information, spewing idiot rhetoric, can't seem to retort any real comment, and even contradicts himself. He obviously has some sort of unhealthy fixation on male parts and probably feels inferior for being such an ignorant, uncircumcised dumb-ass, and most likely looks down on woman as inferior, when he is the true tiny intellect.

Mister Knowledgable: even male circ has questionable utility. see some of the other posts.

While I'm sorry to hear about your grandfather's experience, he is generally the exception to the rule.

We no longer do routine tonsillectomy, nor does every person have their wisdom teeth extracted as a rountine. Circumcision is another area where unnecessary surgery can have more complications than it's worth.

The way you tell it, his problem was his shame. Shame and guilt about all things genital have a great deal to do with the whole issue.

Have you ever met a man who worked hard all his life, provided for his famliy, served his country, and then was hit with a medical issue? It is a very hard thing for many people (in the past specifically men) to accept. And when it deals with a mans "parts" it is even harder to deal with.

Sure, type 1a, removing the clitoral hood, and some of the labia minora would have the same effect as a male circumcision. Both of these strutures trap microbes that cause infections and complications, and removing mucousal tissue that is more succeptable to infection would reduce these said infections, thus your argument for male circumcision, right? The foreskin is mucousal and traps things, so it should be cut off as a prevention, right? Wel, women don't have a scrotum that seperates their anus from their urethra, so when they go to the bathroom, they have more of a chance of getting ecoli into their urinary tract than men do...that's just a simple fact of life and anatomy. The clitoral hood and the labia minora are both mucousal structures that are more likely to get infected if not cleaned properly, and if the skin is removed, the area dries out, and cannot contract diseases.

The problem with doing this to both men and women is that it also reduces their natural sexual lubrication, this leads to more chafing and irritation. Why do you think we use so much KY jelly in this country, and have more cases of erectile dysfunction and penile problems than any other country, especially developed countries, in the world? We're cutting away a natural part of the body that has several functions and purposes, and removing that removes those functions, and as a result our body has to adapt to its new environment.

TWJ, just to let you know, the "Female Genital Mutliation" bill that was passed in 1995 stated that there was no religious exemption that came with any type of female cutting, removing the clitoral hood, a ritual nick, nothing. It's considered a federal offense, and can land you many years in prison, and in some states, you even have to register as a sex offender. Now, in this case, a baby died as a result of this parent's "choice", and are they charged with murder? No, of course not. Bodily rights only apply if you have a vagina in this country, and people like you keep it going. I should also note that under the 14th amendment of the United States Constitution, men are entitled to equal protection to the law. So having a law that specifically prohibits a surgery based on sexual bias is unconstitutional. If there were to be true universal rights for all, the "FGM" bill would either need to be abolished, or amended to include men.

Last year the AAP flirted with allowing a token, ritual nick of girls' genitals, "much less extensive than male genital cutting" to prevent worse befalling, but it was howled down - the policy lasted about a month. (It looks as though the AAP board didn't know what its "Bioethics Committee" was getting up to.) Now the same doctor who headed that committee and spoke in support of that policy (Douglas Diekema) is head of the committee considering male circumcision. The chance of any change in the direction of protecting boys is slim.