“The foreskin is cut off the penis. That’s a form of mutilation. You should leave the child as he is, as he comes out of the womb. Hes finished, hes complete. You shouldn’t take things off, especially when there’s no medical reason. I think male circumcision is worse than an incision of a girl. With boys, a lot of skin is removed. The consequences can be worse for boys than for girls.”
“I also survived circumcision, a barbaric practice designed to remind you as early as possible that your genitals are not your own.”
“Creator of the Universe went to great trouble to create the foreskin. Then insisted that you cut it off. Makes sense.”
“If circumcision has any justification AT ALL, it should be medical only. Parents’ religion is the worst of all reasons –– pure child abuse.”
“Handed a small baby for the first time, is it your first reaction to think, beautiful, almost perfect, now please hand me the sharp stone for its genitalia.”
“I can’t find the compulsory mutilation of the genitals of children a subject for humor… It’s designed to repress sexual pleasure… The full excision, not just the snip but the full mandatory covenant is fantastically painful, leads to trauma, leads to the dulling of the sexual relationship. And can be, in itself life-threatening at that moment. We have records, I can show them to you, of hundreds and hundreds and hundreds in the United States of boy babies who died or had life-threatening infections as a result of this disgusting practice.”
“The vast majority of the world knows there’s no reason to circumcise. Someone should tell the doctors.”
Penn & Teller…
“Shouldn’t our son have the choice whether he wants to wear a condom or cut off part of his dick? Put down the knife. Step away from the baby.”
“People mutilate their kids dicks because of visuals. That’s what circumcision is about. Look, Im circumcised, I didn’t ask to be. I’m sure a lot of you are circumcised. I’m sure a lot of you circumcised your kids. When you really stop and think about it, its kinda fuckin’ crazy… I would never circumcise my kid.”
“I think its stupid. If I had a boy I wouldn’t circumcise him… I got robbed. I got robbed. Sliced. I think its a fuckin’ gross tradition man… I just think its a weird fuckin’ tradition that we need to end. People get like, really bad infections. Its not completely innocuous – kids have lost their penises because of circumcision… It’s a dick it’s not a Jack-O-Lantern alright? You don’t have to chop parts off of it to make it look better.”
“I am circumcised, and I tell you something, I despise it. I despise it. I despise it… I am completely pissed off that Im circumcised.”
It is a sign of the increasingly controversial status of routine circumcision that the American Academy of Pediatrics policy released in August 2012 attracted strong dissent, not merely from long-standing critics of circumcision, but from previously uncommitted child health experts in Europe as well. The scale of the dissent is all the more striking given that the policy differs little from the quietly received 1989 statement (which found that circumcision had potential benefits, but not enough to justify it as a routine) or even the 1999 statement, which reached a neutral stance and left it up to the parents. The only major difference in the new policy is that while it continues not to recommend circumcision, it states that the benefits outweigh the risks and are great enough to authorize parental decision-making and payments by health insurance providers. Although this is largely a continuation of the status quo, it is precisely on these points that objections have fallen most heavily.
According to the critics, the AAP policy is flawed because it does not establish that the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risk and does not justify its secondary (but unrelated) contention that the decision about whether a boy should be circumcised should be made by his parents. While the brief (widely quoted) statement asserts that “the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks” the lengthy (but less readily available) report acknowledges that
The true incidence of complications after newborn circumcision is unknown, in part due to differing definitions of “complication” and differing standards for determining the timing of when a complication has occurred (ie, early or late). Adding to the confusion is the comingling of “early” complications, such as bleeding or infection, with “late” complications such as adhesions and meatal stenosis.
In its reply to their critics, the AAP admitted that it had not surveyed the literature of complications case reports, but added that the benefits of circumcision “were felt to outweigh the risks of the procedure” (AAP Task Force on Circumcision 2013).
“…had not surveyed the literature… benefits… were felt to outweigh the risks…? Surely real scientists would actually study the subject before expressing their feelings! Oh, ethics! Oh, evidence-based medicine, wherefore art thou? How revealing and how embarrassing for them that they did not bother to study the complications case reports. “Don’t confuse us with the facts,” head-buried-in-sand ostrich behavior here – and so, children continue to be tortured and traumatized by people masquerading as “healing professionals”.
(CNN) — On Thursday, December 2, as Aneka sat at home nine months pregnant, the phone rang.
It was her obstetrician wanting to know where the heck she was. Did Aneka forget that today was the day for her cesarean section? How could she have forgotten?
No, Aneka hadn’t forgotten. She hadn’t shown up intentionally.
“She told me, ‘You’re being irresponsible. Your baby could die. You could die,'” Aneka recalls. Then the doctor hung up.
Aneka (she doesn’t want her last name used) had already resolved to not have a C-section, even though the doctor told her it was absolutely necessary. She wasn’t going to be opened up surgically, no matter what her doctor said, no matter what any doctor said.
In some online communities, Aneka is a hero who defied the obstetrical establishment and gave birth her way. To many doctors, however, she’s a risk-taker who put her and her baby in peril by giving birth at home. Read more at http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/12/16/ep.vbac.birth.at.home/index.html?hpt=C2
I am going to assume you are one of the MDs who is very sincere and truly wants to be part of the miracle of birth and healing.
SUGGESTION: Make a place that is safe for women and babies to birth. Start a birthing clinic staffed with lots of midwives who know how to assist mothers without interfering. Make a place where every stage of birth is considered natural — not measured, monitored, timed, managed and frowned upon. Make a place where there are only a few MDs who enter the picture only if there is a legitimate emergency, not an emergency of iatrogenic origins. … Read more…