I am strongly supportive of the pro-genital mutilation position and fell that our Government needs to be more active in encouraging these practices.

Stop using the government to steal tax payer money for your religious laws.

Hmmm, it appears that these funds are being "cut off"!

Now if we could only save the money from those government paid murders (abortions).

An anti Semitic bill introduced by a low life skinhead. This guy should go back to Nazi Germany where he belongs. Oh wait, that's right, it is illegal in Germany to be a Nazi.

I think it's a great idea. You shouldn't be having children if you can't afford them and you're on Medicaid to begin with. Maybe having a doggie wiener will scare off the girls these guys are going to try and have unprotected sex with. This might go a long way towards breaking the welfare generational cycle.

This is great! We can finally find empathy. We don't want to fund your religious ritual mutilations, and you don't want to fund our secular abortions. My mother is european, thank you. And so do my four brothers.

I see now, you want this unwanted child of an hiv crack mother, known through modern medical scans to be deformed and/or diseased, so you can mutilate the infant bodies and twist their minds with your delusion that it is all part of some miraculous plan..... to hold the american taxpayer/healthcare consumer responsible for the bill, you stupid, idiotic.............. ah, what's the use.........

My sons circumcision was not a religious choice. It was my choice. Not everyone that has this procedure done is a religious zealot or even goes to church.

Could we possibly institute Government funding for brain transplants for the religious kooks out there?

Svenolafson

I think it's a great idea. You shouldn't be having children if you can't afford them and you're on Medicaid to begin with. Maybe having a doggie wiener will scare off the girls these guys are going to try and have unprotected sex with. This might go a long way towards breaking the welfare generational cycle

I must argue this point, as I too have a , pig in the blanket or as YOU stated a doggie wiener.... And NOT all of US turtle necks are on some Medical aid, or run around having unprotected sex....

Well both I and the wife got operations after our 2 (and ONLY 2) little girls were born.... We did not want to have any more kids, and not be able to raise them properly and financially....

As for the uncircumcised part, if you must call or refer to some of us as doggie wiener, I would prefer (BIG DOG Sausage) thanks

you know why politicians wear tie's...to keep the foreskin out of their eyes......

Spend 50m for a foreskin think tank summit. There must be a good use for them. Catfish bait?

Philip, I appreciate your argument, but it's pretty inaccurate. First of all, the rate of penile cancer is more like 1 in 100,000 (although it's so rare that really accurate numbers are difficult to come by. Perhaps you're confusing it with testicular cancer?) Also, most of the studies that have been done on HIV and other STD transmission have been done in Africa, and those results really aren't applicable to the U.S. population (the incidence of STDs is much lower here, condoms are much more prevalent, and the sanitary conditions are much better).

the sanitary conditions are much better).

Conditions perhaps, but what about personal sanitary habits? If statistics show 75% of men do not wash their hands after using the bathroom, what are the odds of uncircumcised men NOT keeping their foreskin clean?

Is it time to form the two "camps"? You know, "Pro-choice" (the right to circumcise - or do what I see fit with "my body" or "my child"), and "Anti-choice" (banning the practice and taking away that "right") ?

With all the other waste in state govt's. they decide to focus their attention on their dicks can anyone say Anthony Weiner.

Now the Government is obsessed with male genital parts.

When are they going to get out of our private lives?

It is a choice, not the Governments. The Muslim women have certain genital parts cut off at an age where it is traumatizing.. Are they going to make rules such as this for them, living here in the US?

Try to find some other way to save money---like; stop spending on ridiculous researches that mean nothing to a human.

First off I'm going to guess there are more important things to worry about at this time?

Second, genital mutilation is really a little over zealous in describing this procedure. We are not talking about genital mutilation like in some third world countries where the women's genitals are mutilated so she doesn't feel any pleasure. People need to get that thru their heads and make the right association here. We are talking about an extra flap of skin, that serves no purpose, being removed. Mostly this is a cosmetic surgery but does have some hygiene benefits as well. Otherwise there is nothing else going on here, also you are talking about a procedure that takes all of 5mins to do. Saying that, do I think Medicaid should pay for it? Probably not. Fund it only if there was conclusive evidence that not having it done does lead to other issues like increased infections ect thus resulting in other costs that are likely to be far more than the circumcision procedure. This though, also leads to the fact more sexual education and health classes are needed anyways and more people need to use protection.

Finally, there are many people who chose this for their kids and do so without any religious reasons. The religious argument here is just a crutch because their isn't much more of an argumentto be had. Allowing this to happen does not harm the child. The this should be his choice argument is also crap. You as a parent are supposed to make some decisions for your kids and this is one that is fine to make. People who argue that point are likely the ones who say McDonald's shouldn't have toys in happy meals because they don't know how to tell their kids no, we aren't going to McDonald's. If a child was harmed by this practice I would say no way outlaw it. But they are not. Again should medicaid pay for it, probably not. However, it should not be made illegal either. It is time to stop trying to make laws to control every part of a persons life. There are other things we need to worry about and in this case if you are going to argue for this being banned make some legitimate and valid points not ones that stir up support from people who have negative feeling about certain groups or religions or use comparison and descriptions that barley come close to accurately describing what is going thus further stir up support from people who talk and act before they sit down and think about what they are doing.

First off, circumcision is not genital mutilation. To call it that is absurd. It is not done to cause pain, deformation or loss of sensation in the area. Anyone who thinks otherwise is not basing their conclusion on logic or facts, but simple emotional bs instead.

If any man feels "violated" by being circumcised, then that's their problem. How can you feel violated by something that:

A. You don't even remember because you were too young

B. It didn't hurt, disfigure or impair your bodily functions in any way.

It would be like saying you feel violated because your tonsils were removed when you were a baby.

I'm sorry but this is a ridiculous issue, created by a bunch of people with a warped idea of what genital mutilation really is, no real medical knowledge and far too little common sense.

If the state government wants to cut funding for it, I have no problem with that. However, no federal, state or local authority has any legal right or justification to ban people from having it done.

Shelter,

As for the uncircumcised part, if you must call or refer to some of us as doggie wiener, I would prefer (BIG DOG Sausage) thanks

You got it my BIG DOG Sausage friend!

dano,

Spend 50m for a foreskin think tank summit. There must be a good use for them. Catfish bait?

I know one guy who makes wallets out of the discarded foreskins. He sells them for $250 a piece. I asked him one time why they were so expensive. He said they were special wallets. I asked how so? He said when you rub em they turn into suitcases!

SO what's the big damn deal? They aren't outlawing circumcisions totally, all they're saying is that the state won't pay for an elective surgery. If you want it done pay for it yourself.

Get a grip!

Only California, specifically San Fran, would try to ban a harmless procedure due to some nitwit making a big deal out of nothing. California is going down, and this is all they have to legislate? Does anyone not Jewish or Arab really care about a little piece of skin being taken off with the parents permission and before the child is old enough to remember? The only genital mutilation going on here is in the mind of the idiot trying to get this passed.

Jeez, with all the crap going on in the world, you would think the news would be a little more relevant? Frackin' idiots.

The hypocrisy is laughable. They will fund abortions but not circumcisions. This means one can abort a fetus and be assured that when that fetus is discarded in some dumpster, its little foreskin will be intact.

This is nothing more than an exercise in people imposing their personal agenda on others.

What about the recent findings that uncircumsized men are more likely to spread AIDS? I would think that Medicaid is being penny wise and pound foolish here, since in the long run each AIDS case will cost them far more than they save by a simple, quick operation on a newborn. But of course politicians have no reason to think beyond the next election cycle.

... paying someone to amputate a healthy functional body part from an unconsenting minor is not just a waste of taxpayer money — it's also a violation of human rights....

I agree; we were born perfect; and there is no need for this unnecessary religious ritual to be performed on baby boys. When they grow up, they can always decide whether or not they need to be circumcised.

TomTom,

You know, people like you really need to get your facts straight before opening your mouths.

The VAST majority of circumcisions are not done for any "religious ritual". They are simply a standard medical procedure.

By the way, human beings are not born perfect. Only the delusional would think so.

Come back with some facts and save the emotionally driven bs for people dumb enough to listen to it.

Idaho Dragon

You know, people like you really need to get your facts straight before opening your mouths.

The VAST majority of circumcisions are not done for any "religious ritual". They are simply a standard medical procedure.

Idaho, I do get my facts straight before I open my mouth; that is how I know that Abraham and his son Ishmael were the first people in history to be circumcised - the year was 1716 BC - why don't you try reading Gen 17: 9-14 before criticizing someone who has done his homework.

TomTom,

I hate to break this to you, but just because Abraham and Ishmael had it done nearly 3000 years ago has NOTHING to do with the practice of circumcision today. Not to mention the fact that The Bible is not exactly an historically accurate work, so using it to try and back up your argument doesn't help your case.

Circumcisions today are not done for religious reasons. The practice may have started that way all those years ago, but that is not the case today. It is a standard medical procedure that has nothing to do with religion anymore.

I'm sorry if the logic of that escapes you, but that's your problem. And I will always criticize those who try to use some kind of emotional argument that has no basis in facts or logic.

TomTom,

The fact that Abraham and his descendants were circumcised has nothing to do with the practice of circumcision in the United States. And, furthermore, the Jews were not the first to practice circumcision. The ancient Egyptians also practiced it long before Abraham. Be that as it may, the practice of circumcision in the United States has nothing whatsoever to do with religion. The United States has historically been a Protestant Christian nation, and Christians, whether Catholic or Protestant, have never required circumcision as a religious practice. The practice of circumcision in the United States goes back to the 1870's and was for medical reason; not religious.

Idaho Dragon

...It is a standard medical procedure....

For the prevention, or cure, of what malady?

TomTom,

Idaho, I do get my facts straight before I open my mouth; that is how I know that Abraham and his son Ishmael were the first people in history to be circumcised - the year was 1716 BC - why don't you try reading Gen 17: 9-14 before criticizing someone who has done his homework.

Done your homework eh? There are paintings in caves and Egyptian tombs depicting circumcisions that go back well before 1716 BC. By the way, where in the world did you get a date of 1716 BC from the book of Genesis? My guess is you're making things up as you go along. Idaho was spot on with you.

Mickey-1983943

...The ancient Egyptians also practiced it long before Abraham....

When, before Abraham, did these Egyptians practiced circumcision?

As has been noted repeatedly on these posts, there is plenty of medical evidence to support the claim that removing the foreskin reduces a male's chances of getting uterine tract infections, STDs and certain cancers. While arguments can be made as to the validity of the medical evidence, the evidence is enough that it can't be ignored out of hand, as some on here would claim.

As has also been noted, the foreskin serves no physiological purpose and causes no harm if removed. Also, the foreskin serves as a high risk area for the accumulation of bacteria, so it can pose a potential health risk to the male. Granted, that risk is also based on the hygiene habits of the male, but that doesn't change the fact that it does increase the risk even if the male's hygiene habits are good.

Therefore, there are perfectly good reasons for circumcision that have nothing to do with religion.

Svenolafson
...By the way, where in the world did you get a date of 1716 BC from the book of Genesis?

Svenolafson, not only did Abraham and his first son Ishmael got circumcised in the year 1716 BC when Abraham was 99 and Ishmael was 13; but Abraham himself was born in the year 1815 BC in Iraq and arrived in Canaan in 1740 BC at the age of 75.

If you want more, here is more:
Abraham's second son, Isaac, was born the following year, 1715 BC.
Isaac had Esau and Jacob at the age of 60 in the year 1655 BC.
Jacob and his entourage of 70 arrived in Egypt in the year 1525 BC.

Maybe the VINE isn't the place to bore you with all of these dates; but if you ever need the date of any historical event, contact me.

TomTom,

The exact date of when the ancient Egyptians began practicing circumcision is not known, but this is what one expert on ancient Egypt says, "Circumcision was also practiced from early times by the Egyptians, yet probably they did not attach so much importance to this curious custom as the Jews and Mohammedans. It first became a religious token amongst the Jews, who zealously tried to distinguish themselves in all ways from the surrounding heathen; had the Egyptians regarded it as a divine institution they would have mentioned it more frequently." Life in Ancient Egypt by Adolf Erman, 1971, Dover Publications. "From early times", in terms of Egyptian civilization may mean as early as 3,000 B.C., if not earlier. Far earlier than Abraham. Any anthropologist will tell you that the Jews are not the only people who have practiced circumcision. It has been a wide-spread practice among many peoples.

TomTom - Please listen to Sven, Mickey, and Idaho. They all have valid points and while your dates and most of your points are true facts you have missed the main point they are stating in reference to your first post about circumcision being directly related to religion and basically that you have implied that is the only reason it is done. To which you are wrong and as Idaho said there are some personal hygiene benefits, as well as the piece of skin serving no purpose, no harm done to the child, you can't remember it since it is done day of or a few days after birth, simple and quick procedure, and the fact that people of other religions or no religious background have this procedure done. I think we all agree that medicade really doesn't need to fund this (unless like I posted earlier the hygiene part prevents enough other possible disease that would have to or could end up being treated using medicaid funds thus offsetting the cost), which was the main point of the entire article, but your misguidance about the religious implications and what seems to be your fear of religion in general shows the same ignorance as others who are continuing to link the practice as solely a religious ideal. This is a practice that should be left alone and should also be a choice that anyone can have done if they see fit, to themselves or their child. Stop listening to the media and buying into the hype of current moment hot topics or others who spew their hate and ignorance. For a name like TomTom you sure seem to be lost.

Now the Government is obsessed with male genital parts.

This is anything new?

Hey, the women are doing the same thing.....dousing themselves with offensive "perfumes" to cover their body odor. Circumcision is WRONG. It is the responsibility of the parents to TRAiN their boys (and girls) on proper genital hygiene early in life. Believe me, circumcised men can be just as smelly as uncircumcised men. The WHO study is a farce on HIV being spread by uncircumcised men more than circumcised. If that were the case, we'd have far fewer cases of AIDS int he US since for decades we have had "forced" circumcisions in this country.....yes FORCED.....by doctors and hospitals, often doing it WITHOUT the parents' permission. Thank god, I slipped by back in the 40's. I was the only uncircumcised male in my country school. Foreskins live!!!!! Male circumcision is just a brutal as female circumcision that so many people are against.

The less that insurance companies pay out, the more that doctors and hospitals will "unbundle" services. A lot of insurance companies already make parents bring their infant sons back if they want circumcision, so it is as much just another insurance issue as it is greed on the part of the doctors and hospitals.

They still make Jade and High Karate??? Girls! Look out for guys that stink from cheap cologne!

Talk about stupid laws. I live in a state where Medicaid pays for Viagra but not for BCPs.

It's nothing more than cosmetic surgery, so it should not be funded. I never knew it was until this article. How ridiculous. For the life of me I can't understand why anyone would mutilate their sons. I love my son, why would I torture him? Teach them how to clean themselves and when they're old enough they can decide on their own if they want a circumcision.

And just so you all know, not all of us women wear cheap perfumes. I rarely wear any at all....if you keep yourself clean, you don't need to.

Why would elective surgery be covered by Medicaid? If it such an important part of your religion, it should be funded by your religious organizations.

I agree that medicare should not cover the procedure. When my son's were born insurance did not cover the cost of the circumcision. As having a penis was not my scope of experience I left the decision up to my husband. He wished for them to have the procedure done and was present when the doctor did it. This was done the day after they were born. We took great care through the healing process and I can guarantee that my sons do not remember any consequence of the process. So for those of you who wish to override a parents choice for their own children and their life long welfare...Pi$$ off.

Anti-trust proponent...I don't even want to know how you know that you were the only uncircumcised kid in your country school. That is a bit TMI.

Many Jewish families pay for the procedure themselves. This is just a Skinhead who wants everybody to be a skinhead. This is not about saving money. Just another piece of s#it trying to legislate hate.

anti-trust proponent,

Believe me, circumcised men can be just as smelly as uncircumcised men.

I believe you. Trust me I believe you.

lol Svenoiafson

Anti-trust proponent...I don't even want to know how you know that you were the only uncircumcised kid in your country school

lol txmom, you took the words right out of my...... well, lets just say I was thinking the same thing you wrote.

Txmom32, sounds like you're from texas.

It pleases me to see that consideration is finally being given to this micabre parenting practice after decades of morality-laden regulative intrusion into the natural domain of the family in all other areas of child raising. The total experience has given, at times, the discomforture of a loss of civil liberties. But most children have been helped by a required discipline and educated civility taught to many children whom never should have had children.

I am only slightly horrified that you would abbrogate your primary responsibility to protect your children, to be their number one line of defense against all molestation and abuse, and.....mutilation, as to merely leave the decision to circumcise your new-born to your, I'm assuming, recently married husband. In contrasting behavior: my brother who married an irish catholic, was forced to treaten the pediatrician with a lawsuit if he so much as approach his son with a scalpal. I don't know how I could ever expect my son to trust me had I let that happen to him.

svenolafson and Lucy, he probably knows because back in the day the boys showers were open. So for years and years the boys were all naked in the same room together (the girls were too even twenty years later when I was in grade school). And if you think they weren't checking each other out to see who had what (because it matters to guys), you are delusional. I am also the beneficiary of a male who was born in the early forties and missed out on the mandatory mutilation. Both he and I are eternally grateful to that fact and yes, he knows how to keep himself clean. Anyone who thinks that there is 'no harm' doesn't have a clue. As for the 'virus and bacteria' argument, keep your penis clean and you won't have that problem. I think a better purpose for public funding would be to give all those baby boys vasectomies, then when they can afford to have it reversed they can start breeding.

I know where to find the money. Make all the churches pay property tax. If we are going with separation of church and state then go all the way.

Supporters of the ballot initiative say male circumcision is a form of genital mutilation that parents should not be able to force on their children.

Maybe this will be a stepping stone towards stopping medicaid funds that pay for brain mutilation or better know as partial birth abortion, or most total body mutilation aka abortion that at least one parent forces on it's child.

Hey Stevie ,I believe it said Jewish and Muslim religions neither one worships in a church.

Has anyone mentioned that more women get Cervical Cancer, because of many partners and those who are not circumcised?

Fact.

JamieNorwood,

I don't know how I could ever expect my son to trust me had I let that happen to him.

Really? Wow! After reading your blather I believe you son's foreskin removal would have been the very least of his problems. Yikes!

Yes, many people have mentioned it. No, many women get cervical cancer because they are exposed to the HPV. People that have unprotected sex with multiple partners are more likely to be exposed to HPV, men who are uncircumcised and do not practice proper hygiene are more likely to be carriers. This does not mean that all men should be circumcised, it means that you don't go BAREBACK with anyone unless you know their medical history.

Here we are again, Health Care, and ways to save money, even though like Breast Cancer Mammograms/Prostate exams, are not necessary as said by our Government. Are they in the Medical Field to know what is best for all US Citizens who take care of their health for preventive reasons?

http://www.circinfo.net/cervical_cancer_in_female_partners_of_uncircumcised_men.html

It always amuses me to see people talking about things they really know nothing about.

Fact: Circumcision is NOT genital mutilation. I'm sorry to inform all of you who think otherwise, but you are factually incorrect. Circumcision does not damage the nerve endings in the penis, nor does it affect sexual capability or feeling in any way, shape or form. It is not designed to cause deformity, lifelong pain or any other detrimental effect.

So, for those of you screaming about "genital mutilation", you are simply wrong. Get over it.

Many Jewish families pay for the procedure themselves

They also wait until the 8th day after birth and have it done by a mohel in a special ceremony called a bris. It's understandable that Medicaid wouldn't cover THAT. However, they should cover it for the average person who has it done by a physician before mother and baby leave the hospital.

Anti-trust proponent, male circumcision is no where near as brutal as female circumcision, that was probably the stupid statement of the day. Female circumcision removes, not just skin but nerves and the entire labia leaving a girl horribly deformed and unable to feel anything there, IF she survives. Idaho Dragon I agree totally, some people really need to settle down. Having a baby's ears pierced are actually more painful, takes longer to heal and is more obviously mutilating and no I am not about to get up and start militantly marching to stop that either.

I live in a state where Medicaid pays for Viagra but not for BCPs

They should pay for neither.

Jamie Norwood..

Txmom32, sounds like you're from texas.

It pleases me to see that consideration is finally being given to this micabre parenting practice after decades of morality-laden regulative intrusion into the natural domain of the family in all other areas of child raising. The total experience has given, at times, the discomforture of a loss of civil liberties. But most children have been helped by a required discipline and educated civility taught to many children whom never should have had children.

I am only slightly horrified that you would abbrogate your primary responsibility to protect your children, to be their number one line of defense against all molestation and abuse, and.....mutilation, as to merely leave the decision to circumcise your new-born to your, I'm assuming, recently married husband. In contrasting behavior: my brother who married an irish catholic, was forced to treaten the pediatrician with a lawsuit if he so much as approach his son with a scalpal. I don't know how I could ever expect my son to trust me had I let that happen to him.

You get the gold star for the day yes I am from Texas and I am guessing with such skill at detection you must be a neurosurgeon possibly a Forensic Pathologist. Good going for detecting minutia.

So now is where you must start to keep up. As far as the macabre (note I corrected your misspell) of circumcision...It is a very old practice not without it's merit in hygiene and identity....I do not believe that I will beg your forgiveness, nor that of legislators, ACLU and certain nature baby cults for doing what my child's father (my husband and the man I trust above all others) and I deemed the best choice for our sons. Under the supervision of both my OBGYN and the children's pediatrician. So as for discomfortune of civil liberties....what the hell is that...discomfortune...do you just make up words along with ideology? Are you just goof that is lost on a very bad LSD laced cannabis high and thought if you strung together consonances and the occasional vowel it would make you somehow intelligent. As for "recently married husband...Their older sister was three at their birth and let's just leave this polite in saying I was old enough to be a high risk pregnancy let alone being a twin pregnancy. We were certainly blessed and eleven years later no one has complained about missing a bit of foreskin.

As far as being horrified at what I would do I would suppose that you would need to consider that the children that I carried in my womb didn't just climb up their by themselves...hint I had some help making them and as he was a man I chose to Wed, sleep with and ultimately raise a successful family I would say he had every right to have some input into the disposition of our male children. Not only did he have input on them just being, the state of their respective penises but also on matters like: do they attend summer school or camp, do we restrict privileges when they get into boy brawls with each other, do we expect them to open doors for their sister and I or pull out our chairs, do we insist upon nightly showers and what are our thoughts about allowing them to go fishing at the lake alone. See it isn't that I just abrogate (note another corrected misspell) my responsibility with my children rather I respect and admire my partner and when it is appropriate we defer to personal experience in the absence of a manual.

So now here is a question...So your brother threatened (best guess at treaten, sorry if I am wrong) the pediatrician (which is like illegal and violent to threaten anyone) for an elective procedure. Would that be because your brother was drunk, high or just stupid? Perhaps your brother, sweet talker that he was, was possibly abusive to his young bride and felt that his was was the only way. In any case has their marriage lasted?

As for my boys trusting me...you are either daft or a lonely, childless, bitter individual or just thought you would try out some new vocabulary words (very badly may I add). Yes my children trust me as they have no reason to ever doubt me. There is nothing in their lifetimes that I have not done to make their lives better or more of an adventure. I am their mother, their protector and their giver of live. Their is nothing in their lifetime that has ever threatened them in the least simply because it would have to get through me first and where my children are concerned I can be quite a bitch.

Now this is very important as by the age of elven my son's have only been babysat only by people we trust. Have never had an injury inflicted upon them by another individual, save the playground scuffles which actually serve a purpose, have received the best in medical care, education and life enrichment that two parents (note that I include my darling husband in this) , who weren't the current President and first lady, could offer them. We have traveled to three continents together, 12 countries, lived abroad and well laugh just about every day, I discount the days they have caught a virus or cold which I would not hold their father accountable for illness, even though you might because you undoubtedly believe that men serve little purpose unless they are there to treaten doctors. So to complete this lesson for you because you obviously are not familiar with the term...Family unit...neither my husband nor I raise our children alone...we wouldn't stand a chance against their inventive minds rather we post a united front.

Have a lovely day and don't forget the Thorazine.

Agree 100% ....

Exactly, if you'd had a choice. Now you whiny *ss soccer mom's want to take that choice away.

Stay the f*ck out of my family's life. Just worry about your own.

Robert Husted,

I believe it is an option, but it is a choice made by the parents rather than the baby, since babies are in no position for making rational choices of any sort whatsoever. Parents do not have to have their sons circumcised. Apparently, most choose to do so. The thing I don't understand is why this has suddenly become an issue. Circumcision has been widely practiced in this country for well over a hundred years, since the late 1800's, and only recently has it become a subject of public debate. It seems we are not happy unless we have something to argue about!

Robert,

Make it an option -- I was circumcized as an infant and had no say .... I would not have had it had I the choice and many men feel the same way ... religious values aside.

How many is many? Do you go around asking guys this?

Mickey,

Young girls in this country are protected by law from having their genitals mutilated on account of the ignorance of their parents. Intactivists merely want to extend that same protection to all children.

"Circumcision funds cut." Does no one see the pun here? Ahhh, the unkindest cut of all.....

nosferatu,

that's just the point. All the moralists circumcisers have been "in our families lives" for about 40 years now, and now that there is an issue to which they are sensitive(guilty), they can't seem to understand what all the big fuss is about!

That's child mutilation, mickey! It has always been child mutilation, mickey! We are just waking up to the fact that our american religious rituals are as macabre as the taliban religious rituals because we've been forced to draw some contrasts around the idea that allah says it's o.k. to kill all those who don't believe as you do, and how much do our own religious fanatics look like these people who raise children to sell as suicide teenage bombers. I for one have been wanting to tell you for a long time: "You're sick!" And I don't hold your moral principles, and don't want them forced on me here in the land of the free from bible-thumpery!

Nosferatu-

Of course, while on the subject of "if I had a choice...", you know someone is going to bring up something like, "Yeah, what about the children in the womb who don't even have a "choice" in whether they get to live, because their mother or parents decided to have them mutilated to death for her/their convenience sake? Let alone the "choice" of whether or not to be "mutilated" by circumcision."

JamieNorwood, Are you pro life or pro choice ? Just wondering.

Are you people kidding me ,all this talk of mutilation look around piercings everywhere buttons put in your ears,and your whining about being circumcised .

What is the purpose of circumcision anyway? It's been going on for thousands of years.

JamieNorwood,

That's child mutilation, mickey! It has always been child mutilation, mickey! We are just waking up to the fact that our american religious rituals are as macabre as the taliban religious rituals

Really Jamie? My parents had it done on me for hygiene reasons. FYI, up until they figured out the health benefits to being circumcised usually only Jews and Muslims circumcised their male children. I'm Christian and religion had nothing to do with it. By the way what Taliban religious rituals are you referring to or are you just being an ass and using Taliban for its shock value? Yeah, that's probably it.

G.O.I.,

Female circumcision has never been practiced in this country. It serves no purpose other than to remove the woman's ability to feel sexual pleasure. The same is not true of male circumcision. It does not remove the male's ability to feel sexual pleasure, and there are legitimate medical reasons for it. At any rate, I believe it should be the parents' decision as to whether or not they want to have their sons circumcised. The more laws you create, the less freedom people have to control their own lives.

One more time for the uneducated individuals out there like JamieNorwood and G.O.I.,

Circumcision is NOT genital mutilation. What part of that sentence seems to elude people like you?

You do understand that circumcision is simply the removal of a flap of skin that SERVES NO PURPOSE right? That there is NO DAMAGE to nerves, NO loss of sensitivity or capability in regards to the functions of the penis right?

In short, that it DOES NO DAMAGE of any kind to the male?

So please explain how this is even remotely in the realm of REAL genital mutilation. Oh wait, that's right. You can't.

You know, if the average person had a brain, they'd take it out and play with it. Fools all.

Idaho Dragon,

I agree 100%. I was circumcised as a baby as were most other American men. I have never regretted having been circumcised nor have I ever looked upon myself as being "mutilated". I suspect the majority of American men who are circumcised feel pretty much the same way. The use of the term "mutilated" has become a "politically correct" word among those who are opposed to the practice of circumcision, designed to give the impression that it is something horrible. It's all just so much silliness as far as I am concerned.

Robert Usted:

You had no say when your parents decided to have baby Robert.

What about that?

I was circumcized as an infant and had no say

Gee, I had no say over ANYTHING that happened to me as a baby. It's totally unfair! Waaah....

OomYaaqub,

Good point. Babies have no say about anything at all. They don't even have a say over whether they're fed or what they're fed. That's just the life of a baby: they have no say in anything and couldn't say anything even if they had anything to say, since they don't know how to talk.

"Circumcision funds cut." Does no one see the pun here? Ahhh, the unkindest cut of all.....

Once they start cutting services who knows where it will stop. I'm sure this is just the tip of the iceberg.

If you believe we should be cutting off healthy, functioning body parts in the name of disease prevention, why don't we start lopping off the breasts of young girls to prevent breast cancer?

And what studies have been done on female circumcision and HIV transmission? Would you support female genital mutilation if it were found to be preventative?

A better way to curb Aids would be to cut off the entire penis.

AIDS is rampant where people practice no sanitation and disease prevention. As all these posts have made clear. Men, and women, will practice cleanliness when educated to do so. Educated in the personal hygiene and educated in safe-sexuality practices. If an individual is not educated in personal hygiene, it stands to reason they would not be aware of aids prevention techniques, and being circumcised, in those instances, would not alter the outcome.

A better way to curb Aids would be to cut off the entire penis.

And rape! And overpopulation!

On the other hand, is the potential risk of mass sex-starved women worth it? ;)

"Education" alone doesn't seem to work too well - at least in the case of "safe-sex". I recall reading about a study of a large segment of the population in a European country a few years ago that ran for something like 10 years during the 80's-90's during one of the big pushes for "safe sex education". The people were asked series of questions about their sexual behavior during different stages of the test. They were also talked to "informally" at times as well. The study showed that the only group to show significant changes in habits, as well as number of things like std's, pregnancies, etc. was the middle age females. The other groups (especially the younger people (teens and twenties) just learned to "give the correct answers" ("Yes, I'm practicing safe sex, using condoms, etc."), but when candidly questioned, many admitted they weren't actually doing it, and the numbers of std's, pregnancies, etc. seemed to back up the findings that they just "told the adults what they wanted to hear". The adult males only showed slight improvement. My point is, don't just assume that "education" alone will solve the problem. After all, there's a reason for the old proverb, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink".

If you believe we should be cutting off healthy, functioning body parts in the name of disease prevention, why don't we start lopping off the breasts of young girls to prevent breast cancer?

Breasts serve an actual purpose, aside from the fact that the majority of males seem to like to look at them. Foreskins serve no purpose and I think you would have to look very hard to find even one woman among the 3+ billion on the planet who likes to look at them.

I totally agree with matt here!!

Teaching safe sex will also reduce the chances of HIV....provide they listen. If there is oral sex involved with an HIV infected person, circumsicion won't matter. I still think it's up to the individual male to decide if they want the procedure done to them. It's their body, it should be their choice.

Yeah, it's really cut down on teen pregnancies.

I have to agree, the whole purpose is cleanliness if you are not of the Muslim or Jewish religious beliefs. However, is it the responsibility of the State to pay for this operation? Is this going to affect my rights as a father and a man?

I had a response, but your FIRST sentence, cracked me up.... LOL yet so true

Crazy loves company.

Gov't already does pay for the construction of various churches. They are tax exempt.

nosferatu-499026

Gov't already does pay for the construction of various churches. They are tax exempt

Your logic makes no sense at all, and you know it.

I find it hilarious that people that scream "Separation of church and state" (which btw, those words are found nowhere in the U.S. Constitution) the loudest, are often times the quickest to say churches should be taxed.

I also find it hilarious that, regarding circumcision, the people that scream "let the baby choose" the loudest, are often the same ones that would deny that same baby the right to choose just moments earlier when it was still in the womb, on whether or not he wanted to live.

Tax exempt does not mean that the government pays for it, it just means that the church is a non profit organization (which non profit organizations are tax exempt).

I do agree that the government should not pay to construct churches, but I'm okay with them being tax exempt.

annoyaliberal,

yup, I'll take the advisement of Justice Blackmum, to whom I defer, to take the life in the first trimester before it is medically viable, before the fetus passes from that legal standing as an extension of the mother's body, to it's own legal legitamacy unto which is rendered a protectee of the State placed in the parents custody. And it is because this born child is alive and under the protection of the state until sufficiently capable of legal responsibilty for itself that it needs the extended protection of the law from those behavioral tendencies to circumcise as have been previously demonstrated by custodial parents. Your child is not your possession. Leave his penis alone!

JamieNorwood

Your child is not your possession

But point of view is.

I guess you are saying that the child is the governments possession then? Then I guess that means we are all the governments possessions.

AnnoyALiberal, I think you succeeded in doing so. lol

Your logic makes no sense at all, and you know it.

AnnoyALiberal - you have serious issues with either your reading comprehension, or your intellectual honesty.

I didn't say government was paying for the construction of places of worship. Nor did say churches should be taxed.

I said claiming the government is required to pay for anybody's faith-based, medical procedures is about as sensible as saying it required to pay for their places of worship.

If your religion directs you to be circumcised, or to get your wisdom teeth removed, then you need to pay for the operation.

Got it?

Dman,

Annoy was replying to nosferatu as was I.

My mistake. Sorry.

JamieNorwood

annoyaliberal,

yup, I'll take the advisement of Justice Blackmum, to whom I defer, to take the life in the first trimester before it is medically viable, before the fetus passes from that legal standing as an extension of the mother's body, to it's own legal legitamacy unto which is rendered a protectee of the State placed in the parents custody. And it is because this born child is alive and under the protection of the state until sufficiently capable of legal responsibilty for itself that it needs the extended protection of the law from those behavioral tendencies to circumcise as have been previously demonstrated by custodial parents. Your child is not your possession. Leave his penis alone!

Wow!!!!! You do know that we do not live in Communist Russia in the 1960's right? I could have swore that we live in the United States. You know, that place where those people came over to form a nation that wasn't controlled by a big government/king/queen/monarch/dictator.

Land of the free, home of the brave. I'd like to think that neither I, nor my child, belongs to the government. And I really really hope (besides progressives' best efforts) that we never get to that point.

My child is MY child. I will do for my child what I think is right, just as every other parent will. If I want to have my child circumcised, then that is my right as a parent. If I want to do it for religious reasons, then thank God I have the right to do that in this country. If I want to do it for medical reasons/benefits, then it is my right to do that.

It's funny, liberals are so big about "stay out of my life/bedroom/medical decisions", but now all of the sudden they are making this an issue???

dman-353357

I said claiming the government is required to pay for anybody's faith-based, medical procedures is about as sensible as saying it required to pay for their places of worship.

Dman, I actually agree with you. I think no medical procedure should be paid for by the government (tax-payers), abortions included. I don't think ANYTHING should be paid for by the government. How about we all just take care of ourselves.

I give much of my time and money to charity and to help others less fortunate. I'd rather do that on my own accord, that have the government take MY money away, and some bureaucrat, 2000 miles away, decide you should get.

And not only an increase in STD's, but also in cancer rates (in both men and women). Who's going to pay for that?

As a circumcised male (gotten take care of when I was a darlin', li'l bundle of joy), I'm happy it was done. Every circumcised male I know feels equally. Not one regrets it. But among those who didn't get the post-natal nip'n'tuck, the majority resent never having it done.

You are happy it was done? So having reduced sexual sensitivity is ok to you? More power to you. You are ok with it because you don't know any better. Trust me, it can be better. And my man is far from being resentful that it hadn't been done, he is grateful. As am I.

I was circumcised as an infant, but I have always regretted it. If circumcision is so effective, why does the U.S., where 80% or more of adult males are circumcised, have much higher rates of HIV-infection and sexually trnsmitted diseases than in Europe, where hardly anyone (other than Jews and Muslims) is circumcised?

Enough,

There is no conclusive medical evidence to support your claim that circumcision results in reduced sensitivity.

You're not even a male so how would you know it can be better? You're speaking from second-hand knowledge so your comments are not even based on personal experience.

If you and your man are happy, fine...but kindly keep your condescending comments to yourself. They serve no purpose but to annoy others.

So having reduced sexual sensitivity is ok to you

How would you know this is the case? How would your husband know, for that matter? For all we know, circumcision might INCREASE sexual sensitivity. Most American men are circumstances, but I've never heard any of them complain that sex isn't fun enough.

Carlo, no one "admitted" any such thing.

In San Francisco, there is an outright BAN being considered. This would not cut funding, but rather, make the procedure illegal, which is the real issue concerning the religious groups. These people don't have their children circumsized at birth in a hospital. They have ritual ceremonies once the child is a little older. These are not funded by taxpayer money, but carried out by a religious official of some kind. Please reread instead of just skimming...

And Carlo, you're wrong on this one. Even if it is PURELY religious for the Jews and Muslims, what about the parents that want it done for their kids for the health/safety? Government cannot make laws forcing a federal religion. Your bitter hatred towards religious appears pretty obvious.

If circumcision had zero positive health impact, I might see your point, but as it stands, it does have a positive health impact (granted there are pros and cons)and therefore could be supported by the taxpayers.

You are free to practice your lack of religion as much as you want, but remember that the religious also have a right to free speech (and can talk to you about religion)

No matter what you call it, if there isn't a medical reason for a circumcision, it's cosmetic surgery. No one is saying it should be outlawed (except for a few nanny counties in California) but if one decides to have it done, it should come out of their own pockets. That's like demanding that taxes should pay for a woman to have a boob job or to have her ears pierced. I think I rather have that money go into my community or social security fund.

Good job Carolyn, It is good to see some people thinking straight

There are plenty of medical reasons for circumcision, Carolyn, plenty, backed up by documentation (uncircumcised males have a higher rate of cancer [and so do their female partners]; STD risk is higher, etc.). That is not to say that every non-circumsized male will get cancer or other diseases, or that every circumsized male won't, but the rates are much higher among the uncircumsized. Also, being uncircumsized has no medical benefit.

The foreskin is an evolutionary left-over, like the appendix, that no longer serves a purpose. At one time it did, when humans existed sans clothing and the sensitive penile head required protection. Now it serves no purpose and like moribund tissue can be a greater cause of problems. Circumcision is not purely cosmetic, like a boob or nose job or botox or whatever.

Jerry,

And once again, if you're going to support cutting off healthy, functioning body parts in the name of disease prevention, why don't we start ripping off young girls' breasts to prevent breast cancer?

Circumcision is healthier...look it up. Less cancer, etc.

No, MAW, being clean is healthier. If a man is a pig, then he is more prone to having health problems if he is not circumcised (big whoop). If he keeps himself clean then it doesn't matter whether he is circumcised or not. The proponents that are using the "it's healthier" argument simply don't trust anyone to be responsible for their own personal hygiene. Nobody should be going bareback with anyone whose hygienic practices or medical history are unknown anyway.

G.O.I.,

And once again you show that you know nothing about medicine, medical terminology, the human anatomy or how to use logic in a discussion.

Fact: The foreskin is NOT a "functioning body part". The foreskin is nothing but a flap of skin that serves NO physiological purpose. Therefore, it is non-functioning.

Fact: The removal of the foreskin has no physiological impact on the human body. None, zip, zilch, nada.

Sorry, but you can't say the same about "cutting off young girls' breasts". Save the melodrama for the theatre will you? It serves no purpose but to make you look ridiculous.

Cassandra-854239If male circumcision did the same thing, there would be NOOO problems in the Middle East, because there would not be any people there.

lol, nice one...

The WHO classifies female genital mutilation into four different types, and whether certain types of female genital cutting result in a greater loss of sensation and function than male genital cutting is completely irrelevant, and doesn't change what a violation of human rights all forms of genital mutilation are.

And whose to say that male circumcision DOESN'T result in loss of sensation? I've had men who are and men who aren't, the aren't seem to have a much higher sexual response.

Naw, they're just more excited to have gotten you in bed with their uncircumcised penis. Women don't prefer uncircumcised as a rule - you might be the exception and will have a lot a traffic if you are:)

He's had me in bed for 12 years, one would think the novelty would have worn off by now. And his norm is multiple orgasms (at 70 years old, no Viagra, no Cialis, no nothing) ~3 times a week. I've never been with a clipped man that wasn't one and done.

Enough

Nice to know you have many to compare this to. Not that we really care.

Just trying to provide some anecdotal information to counter the contention that there isn't any difference sexually. In my experience, there is a difference. If it's too much information, sorry.

Uh, this was in Denver...

when you refer to it as "my junk", no one will take you seriously.

"Junk"? The stuff piled up to go to the dump?

We ain't seen nothing yet! Bababababy we ain't seen nononothing yet!

I've never said this before, but I think we should take the advise of a lunatic!

And for they'll pay more down the road for treating infections in men and women and the potential for increased risk of AIDS/HIV. Seems like a poor choice to make just to save some money...

@Lynn, hey, that's OK don't you think? But if a parent wants circumcision, then they should pay for it. How much does it cost anyway? About a hundred dollars. Taxpayers should not be responsible for a personal decision.

Actually, I don't disagree with the parents paying for it, but what about people on welfare or low income? $100? try almost $500....

But don't you think the costs of what they will have to pay in the future to treat infections and AIDS would be a lot higher than $500 because they won't pay for a circ now? There are a lot of people who think hygiene is a foreigh language...

@ Lynn, what about the people on welfare or low income??? If they cannot AFFORD to have children WHY ARE THEY HAVING THEM???

I think it's sick to have children you cannot protect by your own means. It's called intelligent planning. I waited to have children until I could provide a secure home and enough financial means to raise them. That's what all Americans used to do before the 60's.

In a perfect world where people waited to have children until they could afford them and everyone had a well paying job with insurance benefits that would be a great ..... but its not that world or a great argument. We're talking about people on public assistance. They conceived and birthed this child not being able to pay for it. Do you really think that they are going to spend the time learning proper hygiene or teaching it to their little boys? Some will, I'll bet most won't. Therefore when these boys have UTI's because of poor hygiene or grow up and get STD's or cancer or give them to their partners, its going to be the taxpayers paying for it. I think that it is our job to protect our future $$ by doing these procedures. It goes right along with free birth control to people on public assistance; saves money in the long run.

People on welfare.... Just think they should be supported by taxpayers... They should have to pay for having all those babies that the hard working taxpayers get stuck with as well as all the medical bills, food, rent, etc. I think quite a few of "them" think it is great to put the burden on others, don't nurture their children, teach them proper manners, respect, etc. and they grow up lazy with the mindset and continue to be a leach to the rest of us. If they want to have kids they should have to work to pay and support them. It is a shame that gov't. has the audacity to take money from my check for unnecessayy cosmetic procedures as braces for teeth, circumcision, etc. If they want they need to pay!

If you really want to save money in the long run, stop supporting people with public assistance. That is one of the largest burdens on our nation, and it is the exact reason so many socialist nations are falling apart right now.

While I would like to agree with the compassion I am hearing, it does nothing but multiply our problems. When Capt. John Smith was faced with starvation in a harsh winter and anihilation from the native population, he built Jamestown. The rich men would have no part in the manual labor. He knew time was against him, and those not helping threatened to destroy all. He passed a law; you don't work, you get no food. The result? Everyone worked. Jamestown was built. It was only one of three out of nearly thirty settlements to survive the Indian Massacre of 1622.

A lesson history will teach those that listen. Those that do not help society burden it.

Amen to inconvenient truth. If they would stop supporting every illegal that can get past the border, they wouldn't come so much. They're closing 15 schools in Austin because we can't support them anymore. Now the anchor boys are circumcised - and in the system. The kick is, the other illegal boys are supported equally. We'll be paying for their UTIs, STDs and what ever else - oh yes, all their babies they father starting at 14.

I chose voluntary circumcision at age 33.

Healing time was two weeks, the sleeker look is aesthetically pleasing, and I haven't noticed any decrease in sensitivity. I am especially pleased to no longer have to fight the odour problem. Twice a day showering is more than adequate.

I am very happy with the results and wish my parents had done it when I was a baby. I looked silly for two weeks with a bandage wrapped around ma verge.

The physician cost €22($31) for the initial office visit and €75($106) for the procedure.

La Centre de Chirurgie Ambulatoire m'ont facturé €125. (Out patient surgery center $177).

Total cost to me €222. ($315). (US costs are probably a little higher).

I agree for the most part....although I did notice some changes in sensitivity. Im glad my Parents left this decision up TO ME. I plan on doing the same with my Son (if the opportunity arrives) The only person who should make a decision on one's penis is the OWNER of that penis.

its only nasty if its not kept clean. A vagina is also nasty if its not kept clean. That doesn't mean part of it should be removed.

Why are so many people opposed to hygeine??

No elective procedure is medically necessary. Where we stepped onto this slippery slope was in mandating vaccinations, which are also elective procedures. It's akin to the "free flu shots" which are a roll of the dice in several ways. There's no guarantee that you'll even be exposed to what you're being vaccinated against.

I don't think the government should be paying for gambles. Every dime of every taxpayer dollar needs to be a rock-solid guarantee. There's not enough taxpayer cash to waste on saying that maybe, just maybe, this money will make things better. I want it carved in stone, guaranteed, and no odds involved.

I'm all for freedom of religion. That's a gamble too, though. Jews think Christians aren't going to Heaven, Christians think Muslims aren't going to Heaven, and Buddhists think Heaven is just a state of mind. Religion is a gamble, and if you bet wrong it costs you your soul, so they say.

I just don't want taxpayer money being used to play dice. No elective procedures should be covered by a single penny, especially not ones which involve any beliefs of any sort.

Why can't they be? People say that circumcision mutilates the body. What do you think abortion does?

I'm not saying I'm agree or disagreeing with the circumcision debate. But it just seems that people want to have it both ways. If the state doesn't pay for ONE non medically necessary procedure, they shouldn't pay for any. What makes one right and other wrong?

I understand that we have to pay for the uninsureds' illnesses. I have no argument with that. What I'm saying is that Abortion is NOT an Illness, and neither is circumcision. They are both non medically necessary procedures. My question is WHY should we pay for one and not for the other?

The saviour, please share why you think Janine's argument isn't as relevant I'd really like to know.

You're worried about a couple hundred of dollars?? What about the female that has 5 kids from 5 different fathers and collects all that money to go out and get knocked up again? Or what about the people who make false statements on their welfare job search records?

Did you block out the part about having to wear diapers so you wouldn't soil your pants?

And lie by saying I'm not almost needing them again approaching the other end of life?