Posted: July 27th, 2015 | Author: admin | Filed under: Babies, Circumcision, Foreskin, Speaking out | No Comments »
What do atheists say about circumcision?
Ayaan Hirsi Ali…
“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.”
via Famous Atheist Quotes on Circumcision – The WHOLE Network: Accurate Circumcision & Foreskin Information.
Posted: July 26th, 2015 | Author: admin | Filed under: Children, Circumcision, Foreskin | No Comments »
What do Winnie the Pooh and John the Baptist have in common? (See Footnote 1, below.)
What do the tonsils, appendix and foreskin have in common?
Cutting the tonsils, appendix and foreskin from infants and children was high fashion in the 1950’s and 1960’s (as were hysterectomies for women). If a child had a history of too many sore throats, tonsils and adenoids were removed; if a child had a sore abdomen, the appendix was removed. If the child was born with male genitals, the foreskin was removed – and other parts were also cut from the genitalia of girls. “If in doubt, cut it out.”
Tonsils and appendixes usually were removed because they were considered to be diseased. Sometimes, however, they were removed to “prevent” them from becoming diseased. People figured nature had made careless errors when designing an otherwise amazingly brilliant machine.
One young boy I knew came home with an appendectomy. I asked why. He said his mom had taken him to the emergency room for a tummy ache. “What did you have for lunch?” I asked him. When he began to recount the food he had eaten before his surgery, it was obvious to me that he had suffered from severe gas in his intestines. His lunch with a friend had consisted of several bologna sandwiches, peanut butter and jelly sandwiches – all on white bread – that he had washed down with several glasses of lemonade. Jeez! I’d’ve had a tummy ache too – Wouldn’t you? But the doctor had neglected to ask. He just cut.
Then someone determined that the tonsils and appendix have important immune system functions. So a huge number of children who are now adults lost valuable parts of their bodies due to lack of that important understanding. Deficient in insight and wisdom, many members of the medical profession just cut and cut and cut. Tonsils and appendixes are now removed only in severe medical conditions.
Nature was vindicated. Fashion changed and American doctors no longer routinely performed tonsillectomies and appendectomies. Good riddance! Foreskins are still cut because they are still considered to be nature’s little mistake.
In the Victorian age, when puritanical values ruled, people thought it was risqué to show an ankle and pornography was hard to come by. No good American dared to speak of the penis or its foreskin except in hushed tones to a medical doctor. Doctors claimed they had found the solution to masturbation. They then declared that masturbation was the cause of a plethora of diseases. They began a war on male and female genitalia – healthy genitalia.
In 1888, John Harvey Kellogg, M.D., inventor of Kellogg’s Corn Flakes, wrote in his Treatment for Self-Abuse and its Effects:
A remedy [for masturbation] which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision… the operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment, as it may well be in some cases. The soreness which continues for several weeks interrupts the practice [masturbation], and if it had not previously become so firmly fixed, it may be forgotten and not resumed. If any attempt is made to watch the child, he should be so carefully surrounded by vigilance that he cannot possibly transgress without detection. If he is only partially watched, he soon learns to elude observation, and thus the effect is only to make him more cunning in his vice. (See footnote 2.)
In short, “Let’s discourage masturbation/pleasure with pain.” Circumcision has been a cruel and unsuccessful experiment. We now know full well that it didn’t work. One survey shows that men without foreskins masturbate more frequently and participate in more dangerous sexual activities (oral and anal) than those with foreskins. And yet both the good Doctor Kellogg’s cruel circumcision recommendation – and breakfast cereal – “stuck” in the public’s mind.
After the fear of masturbation became a less compelling reason to cut children’s private parts, the medical industry would still not let go of the practice, as it was so profitable. Since Kellogg’s time, claim after claim, excuse after excuse has contributed to holding the circumcision door open, In the 1970’s nearly every boy in America lost his foreskin. Unfortunately, most trusting American parents are glued to the “circumcision is good for you” sales pitch. They think of circumcision as a surgical panacea for what ails you. In truth, each and every attempt to justify the routine circumcision of infants has been disproved and discarded. Still, they test the waters, blaming every possible physical, mental and emotional aberration on genitals as nature made them.
Doctors continue to circumcise little babies for a few main reasons:
- They are business people who have bills to pay and circumcision is a quick snip, an easy buck – that unfortunately causes a lifetime of sexual dissatisfaction for the adult and his partner.
- They have not yet been educated in the important functions of the foreskin.
- They haven’t yet realized their legal liability. The American Medical Association (AMA) has warned its members to “take the high road of ethics,” but it has not yet warned them of the legal ticking time bomb inherent in this deceptively simple, profitable, profoundly abusive, non-medical procedure.
- They have not listened to their patients (the babies) as they scream, “No!” at the top of their lungs.
- They have not listened to their own hearts as their tiny patients scream, “No!”
Tonsils and appendices were finally determined to have important immune system functions, so they are now usually spared the knife. But foreskins are still routinely removed, even though they are healthy human tissue. Studies by Taylor and Cold reveal that the foreskin provides important immune system functions, as well as the tonsils and appendices. If you can teach an old doctor new tricks, perhaps there’s hope for the survival of future foreskins.
In the meanwhile, parents might want to practice saying, “Thank you, but no thank you,” to all their friends, family members and medical personnel who press for circumcision. And once the foreskin has been saved from the human tissue sales industry, you may also need to explain to doctors and nurses that it’s not ok to retract the foreskin – Let Junior do that for himself, in his own time. Foreskin retraction is dangerous, malpractice and should be pursued as such if the M.D. or nurse manages to do the deed. What is it about these people and babies’ genitals?
1. What do Winnie the Pooh and John the Baptist have in common? They have the same middle name.
2. Kellogg, John Harvey. Plain Facts for old and young: Embracing the natural history and hygiene of organic life. I.F. Senger & Co., Burlington, Iowa, 1891, p.111.
Posted: April 15th, 2015 | Author: admin | Filed under: Babies, Children, Circumcision, Foreskin | No Comments »
Excerpt from an article by Robert Darby, published by Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal Vol. 25, No. 1, 1–34 © 2015 by The Johns Hopkins University Press. Emphasis added by this website.
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”.
Read the full article and save it to your computer if you wish: Risks, Benefits, Complications and Harms: Neglected Factors in the Current Debate on Non- Therapeutic Circumcision
Posted: May 6th, 2014 | Author: admin | Filed under: Children, Circumcision, Foreskin, Men, Speaking out | No Comments »
This is deeply personal and important to me, as I am myself a victim of this vile practice – due to my misfortune of being born in the United States. Although my young mother was not keen on the idea, a doctor insisted on doing it, and she relented.
What were this man’s motivations? Why was it so important to him what my penis looked like? Why did he think that the most intimate part of my body, my ‘private parts’, my penis, was his prerogative? I’ll never know what he wanted from me. But what ever it was, he took it. He had his way with me. He carved his pay-check into my penis. He carved his religion into my penis. He carved his tribal marking into my penis. He carved his custom into my penis. He carved his grotesque aesthetic preferences into my penis. He carved his obscene signature into my penis.
Read more at Why Denmark must carry the courage of its convictions on circumcision – News – The Copenhagen Post.