# How is this a good idea exactly?



## Jax94 (Feb 10, 2016)

​Who could possibly think that having a brand new baby, that is passing gross sticky meconium that gets everywhere circumcised is a good idea?

​I'm in my final semester of nursing school and am working on a maternity ward for my preceptorship. Well I changed a lot of diapers the past few days, and circumcised boys are by far the worst! Intact boys were super easy, everything stays towards the back and they get a quick wipe down. The girls had poo in every crevice imaginable, but at least I didn't have to worry about hurting them when wiping...

​The circed boys...I have to work around an open wound that is undoubtably going to get covered in poo, can't wipe them off without risk of hurting them, and have to get a goopy piece of gauze "wrapped" over their penis as they're screaming and crying and squirming all over the table. I was actually happy to hear the one woman say they were getting their son circed outside of the hospital just because it meant he got to adjust to life for a few days before undergoing surgery...

​Another mother was having trouble getting baby to latch and he was taken for a circ right as I was leaving. All I could think was that there was no way that was going to help with his nursing troubles...

​Then the one boy's gauze was...green. The circumcision scar looked discolored and everything looked so...gross and painful :guilty

The hardest part for me was that I saw many of these babies shortly after birth and they didn't have that kind of reaction when I changed them then...they were like totally different babies


----------



## philomom (Sep 12, 2004)

It really is a terrible idea to cut the genitals of anyone without their permission.

And you are right on the nursing thing, I ran a new mom's support group for many years and if a mom was having a terrible time breastfeeding a boy, he was cut. Making a good latch requires the baby's cooperation and it is hard for them to do that when they feel in pain and betrayed by their parents.


----------



## TheBugsMomma (Mar 24, 2015)

I have no idea how they think it's a good idea. All I know is I could barely stand them doing foot sticks when my dd was born. It physically hurt me to watch her jump from that little stick. I could never hand my newborn over to get cut.


----------



## hakunangovi (Feb 15, 2002)

Jax94 said:


> ​Who could possibly think that having a brand new baby, that is passing gross sticky meconium that gets everywhere circumcised is a good idea?
> 
> ​I'm in my final semester of nursing school and am working on a maternity ward for my preceptorship. Well I changed a lot of diapers the past few days, and circumcised boys are by far the worst! Intact boys were super easy, everything stays towards the back and they get a quick wipe down. The girls had poo in every crevice imaginable, but at least I didn't have to worry about hurting them when wiping...
> 
> ...


I see you are a new member - WELCOME !!

All your observations are right on. There is no way that circumcision is a good idea for anybody - child or adult - male or female.

I don't know if you ever have the opportunity to speak to parents before they opt to have genital reduction surgery performed on their baby boys - or even if you could do so without incurring the wrath of your management. BUT, if you can offer a suggestion, encourage them to go on Youtube and view the video "The Elephant in the Hospital" by Dr Ryan McAllister. The logic and ethics of leaving boys intact is inescapable.


----------



## Jax94 (Feb 10, 2016)

We did a lot of heel pricks and an IV too. Things probably took twice as long for my nurse we me there, but I was insistent on keeping the little ones as comfy as I could during all that.

I haven't spoken with any of the parents before they had their babies circumcised, and I'm not sure how well that would go for me as a student...

I was actually really happy to hear my nurse say that one of the doctors had refused to do one since it's "really just an elective procedure".

One of my classmates almost passed out seeing a circ done. The one baby in the room was screaming bloody murder and I couldn't even walk by the door without feeling sick...:serious:
Meanwhile she still said she would have her future sons circumcised because "have you ever seen an uncircumcised penis?!". I wanted to say "yeah, and they look a lot better".


----------



## hakunangovi (Feb 15, 2002)

Jax94 said:


> One of my classmates almost passed out seeing a circ done. The one baby in the room was screaming bloody murder and I couldn't even walk by the door without feeling sick...:serious:
> Meanwhile she still said she would have her future sons circumcised because "have you ever seen an uncircumcised penis?!". I wanted to say "yeah, and they look a lot better".


My wife was a nurse in her earlier life and said that she almost passed out the first time she witnessed a baby being circumcised. We did not circ DS, but she does not seem opposed either - that was my insistence that he stay intact.

I don't understand the cosmetic issue either.


----------



## PitBullMom (Sep 22, 2014)

Jax94 said:


> Meanwhile she still said she would have her future sons circumcised because "have you ever seen an uncircumcised penis?!". I wanted to say "yeah, and they look a lot better".


I've heard that argument many times. Evidently the mother's opinion on how attractive or unattractive a baby's penis is should dictate if he has the right to his body whole and intact. That mentality baffles me.

And don't even try to discuss it with most (_not all_) men if they were cut, because any _hint_ that their penis might have been better off intact is a direct slight to them and their manhood. How dare anyone suggest that they might have been "better", they are amazing right now. *eyeroll*


----------



## hakunangovi (Feb 15, 2002)

PitBullMom said:


> And don't even try to discuss it with most (_not all_) men if they were cut, because any _hint_ that their penis might have been better off intact is a direct slight to them and their manhood. How dare anyone suggest that they might have been "better", they are amazing right now. *eyeroll*


As a circumcised man who has always hated what was done to me, I am equally baffled. Common sense dictates that less (penis) can't be more. I really do not understand how the minds of such men work in a way that ego (and denial) overcome logic.


----------



## joandsarah77 (Jul 5, 2005)

Have you ever read 'The Vulnerability of men'? That explains why. Physiologically speaking it's safer to think you are fine or even better how you are. Denial means your mind does not have to face any painful realities. A man who looks it face on, who realizes he may actually be worse of, who decides not to pass on the legacy of cutting, that takes a far stronger man. http://www.mothering.com/forum/members/2173-hakunangovi.html


----------



## PitBullMom (Sep 22, 2014)

> Denial means your mind does not have to face any painful realities.


Denial... it's not just a river in Egypt. 

I personally find that level of denial to be, for lack of a better word, pathetic. "It was done to me, and I'm awesome, so of course I'll do it to my son." No thought at all to the _fact_ that you have no idea (obviously) what that child's wishes are.

That's the same "logic" that causes women who had their genitals butchered to hold their daughters down while they get the same horrific mutilation. "I did it and survived, so you will too" Except some don't.


----------



## joandsarah77 (Jul 5, 2005)

Yes, it's exactly the same thing when woman do it to their daughters. Victims of violence often perpetrate violence. The US however upholds and encourages the practice and since any man who dares speak out about not liking that he was circ;d is open to ridicule I fully understand why they have a hard time facing it. The buck has to stop with the doctors, doctors who cause problems, doctors who encourage and trivialize it. If all Dr's tomorrow told their patients the real risks and said it was a bad idea you would see the rate in the US drop quickly. Circumcision was brought over here from the US and became very popular for awhile but the tide quickly turned and now it's mostly Muslims, Jews and a small minority doing it for looks. I think our rate is about 12% boosted by the sickening Brian Morris. It was the medical community first saying it's not needed and secondly hospitals not asking or mentioning it that changed things very quickly. Simply having it not covered by insurance and parents having to go find a DR (and there are not many) made the numbers drop like a stone. In the US you have hospital staff asking so many times and trivializing it, its no wonder ftm's wavering on the edge simply get it done especially with a husbands urging. I had hoped watching the US on this for close on 30 years now that things would be further along, but its very ingrained.


----------



## PitBullMom (Sep 22, 2014)

It's funny to me that people who are vehemently anti-declaw, anti-docking (tail cutting), and anti-cropping (ear cutting) happily hand their newborn son over to a nurse to have most of the skin of his penis removed. We have more respect for the body integrity of our pets than we do our children.


----------



## hakunangovi (Feb 15, 2002)

Jo, you are absolutely correct in saying that it is the medical establishment who must cease promoting and encouraging RIC. If only the same could happen in the U.S. as took place in the U.K. after Dr Douglas Gairdner's paper "Fate of the foreskin" was published in 1949. With a cash strapped social medical system, the practice pretty much died out very quickly. Not completely though, as there are always a few parents who just insist, and there were plenty of doctors who still believed circumcision to be the cure for any and all foreskin issues, whether real or perceived. There were a couple of papers written about too many circumcisions being performed in England that are accessible at www.cirp.org .


----------



## joandsarah77 (Jul 5, 2005)

It's interesting that happened in the UK after 1949 since I would say from post WW2 up to about 1970 the rate skyrocketed here in Australia. My husband was unlucky to be born in 1965 while his family was over here from Germany and I don't even know if his mother was even asked before they took him away to do it. I don't like to think on it too much since he was probably done without pain medication. I believe at that time it wasn't even being questioned. Turn that around to about 1984-88 when I was a nanny and you never saw a circumcised child or I didn't. It might have depended on the area. Of course there always has to be some circumfetishest pushing their barrow to keep it going. Here on the coast I know it's more popular, and our state has the highest rate in Australia due to Brian Morris and his pal Dr Terry Russell.


----------



## hakunangovi (Feb 15, 2002)

I find it amazing how much influence some doctors seem to have on the circumcision rates in their areas. The RIC rates here in Canada are highly variable. Basically zero in the Maritimes, except for Prince Edward Island. The prairies seem to be the highest, and my doctor tells me that here, in Alberta, it is between 10% and 15% in her juvenile patients.


----------



## PitBullMom (Sep 22, 2014)

hakunangovi said:


> I find it amazing how much influence some doctors seem to have on the circumcision rates in their areas. The RIC rates here in Canada are highly variable. Basically zero in the Maritimes, except for Prince Edward Island. The prairies seem to be the highest, and my doctor tells me that here, in Alberta, it is between 10% and 15% in her juvenile patients.


Because it's the doctors who spin it. They tell horror stories about the horrible things that happen with intact penises... often caused by the doctors themselves, forced retraction, etc. They create a culture of fear, and use the best line ever "don't you want what's best for your baby?" because that really means "if you disagree with me, you are _hurting _your child."

If the "dangers" of being intact were real, then entire European countries would be ravaged by those dangers. It is illegal to cut the genitals of boys AND girls without actual medical reason in many countries, and if you have a reason, it has to be independently verified.


----------



## hakunangovi (Feb 15, 2002)

Michelle - all so true. 

There seems to be an air of extreme arrogance among many medical professionals in the U.S., where they, somehow, feel that nature made an error and that they know better.

My doctor even made a similar statement: "Do they think God made a mistake?".

The fact that a country like Finland, with impeccable health records, and which does not practice circumcision, can state that fewer than one man in 16,600 will die without his foreskin, should prove that nature's design is perfect.

The truth is that this is a scam that has been going on for over 100 years, that uses fear to rob Americans of over $ 1 1/2 billion per year. How they get away with it is beond me, especially when girls are protected from so much as a nick, and yet the constitution states that everyone is equal.


----------



## joandsarah77 (Jul 5, 2005)

The bottom line is it's all to do with money. Money to do it, money to fix issues, money later for lube and Viagra and lets not forget money selling infant foreskins to pharmaceutical companies. Lucrative business from birth well into adulthood they have going on there. For anyone that doesn't know there is a name change when they sell them, they are then called a neonatal fibroblast and can be sold for around $400. I highly doubt the parents even know.


----------



## EmilyVail42 (Mar 28, 2016)

Im not convinced by any ones opinion here. Its has if facts of pros and cons along with traditions or religious affiliation for circumcision is in no way discussed or acknowledged. Just a bunch of disaproving opinions has no real bearings on the subject. Infact it doesnt even seem an issue because of the lack in reasoning.


----------



## PitBullMom (Sep 22, 2014)

EmilyVail42 said:


> Im not convinced by any ones opinion here. Its has if facts of pros and cons along with traditions or religious affiliation for circumcision is in no way discussed or acknowledged. Just a bunch of disaproving opinions has no real bearings on the subject. Infact it doesnt even seem an issue because of the lack in reasoning.


It's not an opinion that my son has a basic human right to have a complete body. No one will ever convince you if you refuse to listen to logic, and that logic is that nature doesn't create body parts that need to be removed as a matter of course. We also don't remove the appendix, tonsils, adnoids and breasts just to make sure that they can't cause a problem later in life, and if you requested to have this done to your newborn you'd quickly find yourself in an interview with CPS.

_*IF*_ there were any _real _health dangers to being intact (not just trumped up scare tactics) then those dangers would be rampant in Europe, where body integrity for baby boys is protected just as it is for baby girls.

But, statistically, the health "risks" of being intact are almost non-existent. Our medical culture is a culture of fear, it's a culture of pressure, and a culture of lies... and a culture of complete disrespect for the body integrity of our male children.


----------



## joandsarah77 (Jul 5, 2005)

EmilyVail42 said:


> Im not convinced by any ones opinion here. Its has if facts of pros and cons along with traditions or religious affiliation for circumcision is in no way discussed or acknowledged. Just a bunch of disaproving opinions has no real bearings on the subject. Infact it doesnt even seem an issue because of the lack in reasoning.


Show us the pros then. I know of none.


----------



## EmilyVail42 (Mar 28, 2016)

"We also don't remove the appendix, tonsils, adnoids and breasts just to make sure that they can't cause a problem later in life"
Angelina Jolie had removed her breast on purpose for prevention. So your statement is flawed. Along with your reaction towards logic. Again logic is not the same has your opinion or your idea of common sense. Its simply fact based methods only used to prove points. If you think scientist would go back on fourth in an argument of circumsion with such words has rights and individual infancies concerns you are dead wrong! Logic is used to find fallacy or truth without atracking anyone. Taking out rediculous emotional involvment or opnions brings on actual real questions that can be provened and answered. Has for your remark for CPS how unintimidating of you. I work closely with Child protective services i am a very big supporter and i dont scare easy. So please use another example that might work better.


----------



## EmilyVail42 (Mar 28, 2016)

Circumcision falls under categories. Usually 3, prevention of disease, religion and medical emergencies.
The medical emergencies are such things has phimosis, acute balanoposthitis or paraphimosis.
Prevention of disease the real main one is penile cancer at this age we have basicaly conquered this to a extordaniary rare number to get it. But when it had a high flare those who was circumcised had a,much less chance then those who werent. Also less UTIs for men.
Religion in 1947 i read an article that displayed jewish,islam,judaism was the major role playing cultures for circumcision. Christanity also aproved with free will of the method. It wasnt just for fear mongering countries but religious cleanse, mens rights and a religious pass for these cultures. Its a big deal to them. In so much that the child is not a baby but a child or teenager witnessing and building to get ready for their own circumcision. That cant be easy for them to do however the amount of boys who do it will surpass the western amount anyday.
I find these all has pros towards the cause. I had witnessed an 11 year old needing an emergency circumcision due to a circulation cut off problem, it saved his penise circulation. Now this is different then the cons. But looking at both views is a good way to start education on the subject then just increased shut off valve of opinions on basic human rights. This category after all discuss circumcision very diffetent and more specific then human rights.


----------



## joandsarah77 (Jul 5, 2005)

The difference with Angelina Jolie is she is an adult. We don't care about adults. An adult man can do whatever he likes to his own penis; circumcise it, hang rings from it, tattoo it whatever. An adult with enough cash can get whatever they want done. This thread isn't about adults and it also isn't about a male rushed in with a severe case of paraphimosis; it's about healthy newborn boys. A day or so old with normal healthy functioning foreskins. So the question was, what pros does a healthy newborn gain by undergoing an operation to remove his foreskin?


----------



## katelove (Apr 28, 2009)

joandsarah77 said:


> The difference with Angelina Jolie is she is an adult. We don't care about adults. An adult man can do whatever he likes to his own penis; circumcise it, hang rings from it, tattoo it whatever. An adult with enough cash can get whatever they want done. This thread isn't about adults and it also isn't about a male rushed in with a severe case of paraphimosis; it's about healthy newborn boys. A day or so old with normal healthy functioning foreskins. So the question was, what pros does a healthy newborn gain by undergoing an operation to remove his foreskin?


And Angelina Jolie had a known risk factor for developing breast cancer (BRCA gene). RIC does not take individual risk factors into account. I would have many of same objections to routine mastectomy as I do to RIC.


----------



## hakunangovi (Feb 15, 2002)

EmilyVail42 said:


> Circumcision falls under categories. Usually 3, prevention of disease, religion and medical emergencies.
> The medical emergencies are such things has phimosis, acute balanoposthitis or paraphimosis.
> Prevention of disease the real main one is penile cancer at this age we have basicaly conquered this to a extordaniary rare number to get it. But when it had a high flare those who was circumcised had a,much less chance then those who werent. Also less UTIs for men.
> Religion in 1947 i read an article that displayed jewish,islam,judaism was the major role playing cultures for circumcision. Christanity also aproved with free will of the method. It wasnt just for fear mongering countries but religious cleanse, mens rights and a religious pass for these cultures. Its a big deal to them. In so much that the child is not a baby but a child or teenager witnessing and building to get ready for their own circumcision. That cant be easy for them to do however the amount of boys who do it will surpass the western amount anyday.
> I find these all has pros towards the cause. I had witnessed an 11 year old needing an emergency circumcision due to a circulation cut off problem, it saved his penise circulation. Now this is different then the cons. But looking at both views is a good way to start education on the subject then just increased shut off valve of opinions on basic human rights. This category after all discuss circumcision very diffetent and more specific then human rights.


1. Medical emergencies : These are extremely rare. A paraphimosis that can't be reduced might be it, however, even that can be rectified by a dorsal slit. Consider that in Finland - a country that does not practice circumcision - only one man in more than 16,600 will die without his foreskin. North American doctors are, for the most part, clueless about how to treat normal intact male genitalia.

2. Religion. Where does one person's religion end and another's personal human rights begin? I personally do not see where a parent has the right to permanently physically alter their child in an irreversible way. What if said child decides that they would like to follow a different religion when they grow up?

3. Disease. This is a red herring propagated by a greedy and money hungry U.S. medical system. No other first world country routinely practices circumcision under the guise of disease prevention. There is no epidemic of penile disease anywhere. See the statistic from Finland above.

Finally, I note that you discount personal human rights. I grew up in an area in Africa where the local tribe practiced both MGM and FGM on teenagers as a "coming of age" ceremony. I have to ask : How would you feel about it had your parents performed FGM on you? How about a little labiaplasty to make things a bit more visually appealing - the very excuse that many parents use in North America for circumcising their sons.

You seem to have fallen into the same trap that many parents in North America fall into. They ASSUME that their child will be happy to loose his foreskin - not necessarily so !!


----------



## EmilyVail42 (Mar 28, 2016)

We also don't remove the appendix, tonsils, adnoids and breasts just to make sure that they can't cause a problem later in life, this was the original comment that brought on the Anglie Jolie coment. In no reference does it say just children it clearly said We. Has for religion. Its hilarious of an argument to assume that religion isnt about human rights. Specialy judaism. How can any one say that it takes out in any kind of human basic rights? The function of human rights was built of the multitide religious teachings bringing in founded ideas. Literaly was a basic part of creating what you guys call human rights. The terms might be substituded but theyre the same thing. Lastly MEDICAL TERMS theyre rare but not unknow. Specialy the fact of STD prevention circumcision has scientificaly shown benefits on STDs.


----------



## EmilyVail42 (Mar 28, 2016)

To hakunagovi: you seem to be emotionaly involved inso much to ask if i support MGM or want it. I dont think you should comment any further. Not if you cant separate your emotions. Im sure it was difficult for you. I hope you can recover from whatever it was that has effected you. But this is a discussion only base. Talking of cons and pros. Bringing out newer formed facts ,or real circumstances. I have no placed intentions on directing this topic to any one person. But if it gets emotions to rilled up then the discussion itself is over.


----------



## EmilyVail42 (Mar 28, 2016)

joandsarah77 said:


> The difference with Angelina Jolie is she is an adult. We don't care about adults. An adult man can do whatever he likes to his own penis; circumcise it, hang rings from it, tattoo it whatever. An adult with enough cash can get whatever they want done. This thread isn't about adults and it also isn't about a male rushed in with a severe case of paraphimosis; it's about healthy newborn boys. A day or so old with normal healthy functioning foreskins. So the question was, what pros does a healthy newborn gain by undergoing an operation to remove his foreskin?


"We also don't remove the appendix, tonsils, adnoids and breasts just to make sure that they can't cause a problem later in life," (by pitbullmom)this was the original comment that brought on the Anglie Jolie coment. In no reference does it say just children it clearly said We. So my comment back was directed towards this statement.


----------



## EmilyVail42 (Mar 28, 2016)

katelove said:


> And Angelina Jolie had a known risk factor for developing breast cancer (BRCA gene). RIC does not take individual risk factors into account. I would have many of same objections to routine mastectomy as I do to RIC.


Anglie Jolie was taking a preventative measure. She was at risk but didn't have it. Its the exact same idea of preventative measures that Doctors or parents use for there children.An argument that most in this dialoge have been against. With using basic human rights or a corrupt medical system to say the least. Trying to prove that its all non-sense. If it is then why (going beyond corrupt medical system and going beyond human rights)does it exist? Why did America take on this procedure when foriegn countries have so many others to take on? (Going on beyond money, i dont think foreskin has alot of value too it) why is it okay to prevent other harmful effects that could be rare to even have but this one be the worst?(is it the worst preventative?)


----------



## katelove (Apr 28, 2009)

EmilyVail42 said:


> Anglie Jolie was taking a preventative measure. She was at risk but didn't have it. Its the exact same idea of preventative measures that Doctors or parents use for there children.An argument that most in this dialoge have been against. With using basic human rights or a corrupt medical system to say the least. Trying to prove that its all non-sense. If it is then why (going beyond corrupt medical system and going beyond human rights)does it exist? Why did America take on this procedure when foriegn countries have so many others to take on? (Going on beyond money, i dont think foreskin has alot of value too it) why is it okay to prevent other harmful effects that could be rare to even have but this one be the worst?(is it the worst preventative?)


She had a specific gene plus family history which increased her risk significantly. Most infant boys do not have anymore risk of complications than anyone else. A more accurate analogy would be removing the breast tissue of a woman unable to consent who had no family history of breast cancer and who did not carry the BRCA gene.


----------



## joandsarah77 (Jul 5, 2005)

It's not the same at all. She is an adult making a decision for herself. This is how any preventative surgery should be handled, by the adult whose body part is to be removed. They need to know their risk factors, have held proper discussions probably with more than one Doctor, understand all the risks of the surgery and post surgery and sign consent. Our issue is with non consenting children. Doesn't matter if it's the foreskin or breast buds. A non consenting child should not have body parts removed except for medical need. The majority of infant circumcisions done in the US have nothing to do with prevention of illness or religion, it's done because daddy is and they think it's normal and looks better. Do you also support parents with a family history of breast cancer removing infant girls breast buds for prevention? if not, why not?

hakunagovi can post anywhere he likes. This topic needs more men involved.


----------



## EmilyVail42 (Mar 28, 2016)

katelove said:


> She had a specific gene plus family history which increased her risk significantly. Most infant boys do not have anymore risk of complications than anyone else. A more accurate analogy would be removing the breast tissue of a woman unable to consent who had no family history of breast cancer and who did not carry the BRCA gene.


I agree with you, however the same argument does run for men in the only fact that they all share penises who can contract various problems at any moment.


----------



## EmilyVail42 (Mar 28, 2016)

joandsarah77 said:


> It's not the same at all. She is an adult making a decision for herself. This is how any preventative surgery should be handled, by the adult whose body part is to be removed. They need to know their risk factors, have held proper discussions probably with more than one Doctor, understand all the risks of the surgery and post surgery and sign consent. Our issue is with non consenting children. Doesn't matter if it's the foreskin or breast buds. A non consenting child should not have body parts removed except for medical need. The majority of infant circumcisions done in the US have nothing to do with prevention of illness or religion, it's done because daddy is and they think it's normal and looks better. Do you also support parents with a family history of breast cancer removing infant girls breast buds for prevention? if not, why not?
> 
> hakunagovi can post anywhere he likes. This topic needs more men involved.


If you think directing this with agression is a good idea then you dont have a discussion. You have attacks, that was my point to him for his comments to me. Im sure you can understand that men should be involved but those who can hold a place of non agression or attack.


----------



## EmilyVail42 (Mar 28, 2016)

Lastly adults taking medical prevention in a doctors eye can be 100% argued that its the same thinking in medical prevention for children. The medical need could or could not happen hence the discription has prevention. Even if it was a 12 year old needing an emergency circumscion it would still be up to the parents to decide. So lets just say the parents said no to the Doctor. The doctor lets the child and parents go home, a few days later his penise is the color dark purple. (Using the circulation problem from two weeks ago.) The parents are adimit that its cruel and yet theyre son needs help. They go back to the dr say nevermind but find its too to late. And the penise has to be removed. Valuable tiisues already decade. The delema is not only in timing but also prevention. Who knew it could had gotten that way? The doctor knew but was out of his hands. Bot the parents nor the child. They are not medicaly trained to know. The point is, prevention whether Adult or child is to prevent whether you have a medical need or could get a medical need.


----------



## philomom (Sep 12, 2004)

Wow, the several typos in Emily's posts make me wonder about her mission here. Clearly she can see she is on a "keep boys intact parenting site" . Odd that she claims to be from California where the circ rate is pretty darn low compared to other states of the U.S.


----------



## japonica (May 26, 2005)

philomom said:


> Wow, the several typos in Emily's posts make me wonder about her mission here. Clearly she can see she is on a "keep boys intact parenting site" . Odd that she claims to be from California where the circ rate is pretty darn low compared to other states of the U.S.


I think that someone who comes onto a forum called _the Case Against Circumcision_ and argues that all males require RIC because "they all share penises who can contract various problems at any moment" would appear to have arrived here by mistake or does not comprehend the purpose of the forum.


----------



## katelove (Apr 28, 2009)

EmilyVail42 said:


> I agree with you, however the same argument does run for men in the only fact that they all share penises who can contract various problems at any moment.


Well then one could make an argument for removing everyone's tonsils, adenoids, appendixes, spleens, and uteri in infancy. We can all survive without them and they all have the potential to cause health problems.


----------



## joandsarah77 (Jul 5, 2005)

Most likely a troll since her only answer to real questions is to cry that we are emotional or aggressive towards her. Typical troll move is to accuse others of attacks against themselves. 


> penises who can contract various problems at any moment.


Men of Europe watch out! You penis could contract a problem at any moment! Obviously you were brought up with the very false notion that the foreskin is a problem prone area, and because of that best removed. That is false, as countries who do not circumcise prove. It's no more problem prone then your big toe. Can you get infected toe nails? Sure, but you don't deal with it by having your toe amputated at birth, you go to the Dr and get treated for an ingrown toe nail. A man has a higher chance of getting breast cancer then of needing surgery to his penis. My son is 11 and never had a single issue with his foreskin and that's normal, I don't know any boys here who have. They are all intact and all have no problems. The only place to give him issues are his ears. You know how common ear infections are in children? Very, but no one thinks to do something surgical at birth to prevent them.

I'm still waiting to see what benefits a newborn gains on having surgery to his healthy penis.


----------



## PitBullMom (Sep 22, 2014)

EmilyVail42 said:


> "We also don't remove the appendix, tonsils, adnoids and breasts just to make sure that they can't cause a problem later in life"
> Angelina Jolie had removed her breast on purpose for prevention. So your statement is flawed. Along with your reaction towards logic. Again logic is not the same has your opinion or your idea of common sense. Its simply fact based methods only used to prove points. If you think scientist would go back on fourth in an argument of circumsion with such words has rights and individual infancies concerns you are dead wrong! Logic is used to find fallacy or truth without atracking anyone. Taking out rediculous emotional involvment or opnions brings on actual real questions that can be provened and answered. Has for your remark for CPS how unintimidating of you. I work closely with Child protective services i am a very big supporter and i dont scare easy. So please use another example that might work better.


Yes, prevention due to results from genetic testing and her specific family history. She's an adult capable of making the decision for herself, for her body.

And yes, CPS absolutely would be called if you asked to have parts of your daughter's labia removed. They would also be called if you insisted on unnecessary surgery, such as seeking out an appendectomy on an healthy child with no signs or indications of infection. There's no "emotional involvement" there. Outside of the removal of a large portion of skin on a baby's penis, requests for unnecessary surgery is a HUGE red flag for medical personnel.


----------



## PitBullMom (Sep 22, 2014)

EmilyVail42 said:


> "We also don't remove the appendix, tonsils, adnoids and breasts just to make sure that they can't cause a problem later in life," (by pitbullmom)this was the original comment that brought on the Anglie Jolie coment. In no reference does it say just children it clearly said We. So my comment back was directed towards this statement.


This entire thread is about routine INFANT circumcision, I'm sorry I didn't detail that I was talking about surgery on _children_ without their consent. However, since that's the actual topic of the discussion I guess I didn't realize I needed to spell it out for you. However, since everyone else on the thread was able to make that connection, I'm thinking you're being intentionally obtuse.


----------



## buttercupmama (Nov 29, 2008)

If we're just going to cut out body parts for getting sick, I have seen more colds, flus, sinus infections, ear infections etc. in the general population than anything else. Seems to me the sinuses, throat and lungs are the most delicate body parts. My son's foreskin hasn't been the cause of a doctor visit in his almost 4 years of life, but he's had the cold and flu, especially since his sister started school. And boys aren't known for their cleanliness. Personally, I think his foreskin has been added protection.

I have 3 brother and a father who have never had problems with their foreskins. My older brother hardly ever even had to go to the doctor. I only once remember my mother making me leave the room when he wanted to show her something, but obviously it wasn't a big deal since it didn't require a doctor visit (and my mother would go to the doctor for anything you can imagine).

When I talked to my mother about circumcision, she was shocked that it was done here on infants. She was worried about it being done to her grandson secretly. I told her we would both be there and awake to make sure he was unharmed. She still worried. That should give you an idea of the culture I came from. We don't fear body parts. We fear the people who fear the body parts. Meaning well is just not a good enough excuse when it results in removing a body part from an infant, and one which in other parts of the world isn't known to cause a lot of problems.

My son has only ever said it burned to pee once whereas my daughter says it at least once a year, sometimes more. All it took was some cranberry juice to make it better. There's nothing I would rather cut off of them to deal with that. Furthermore, I never, not once, got a UTI until I moved to America. I have wondered many times about that and what it means. And I'm from a third world country. I had a friend who only ever got a UTI while visiting her sister in Florida. Neither of us had ever even heard of UTIs until then and I was in my early 20s. My health in general has deteriorated since I moved here. My mother has begged me to come home. I know many people think of sick people when they hear "third world country", but I can assure you I've come to see the exact opposite. Chronic illness is here, not back at home. Plus the education received is far better at home. I'm constantly amazed by how little my child learns in school here.

I'm digressing, but my point is don't believe everything you hear about America vs the rest of the world and don't think that just because there are x numbers of a particular illness here that the same can be said of the rest of the world. All countries are not the same. And what makes a country first world has nothing to do with illnesses or medical care. America is actually not leaps and bounds ahead of other countries in that respect. The figures here are pretty poor as a matter of fact. Look for the countries that do have the best medical care and compare their circumcision rates. That's where you may see a meaningful pattern.

If I got too far off on a tangent, I'm sorry. I just thought my perspective (not being American) would be different and perhaps helpful.


----------



## blessedwithboys (Dec 8, 2004)

EmilyVail42 said:


> Going on beyond money, i dont think foreskin has alot of value too it)


http://www.foreskin.org/f4sale.htm

http://knowledgenuts.com/2013/09/23/the-bizarrely-profitable-business-of-baby-foreskins/

http://www.timeslive.co.za/ilive/2011/08/10/interest-in-circumcision-more-than-foreskin-deep

https://sites.google.com/site/completebaby/cosmetics


----------



## PitBullMom (Sep 22, 2014)

buttercupmama said:


> My son has only ever said it burned to pee once whereas my daughter says it at least once a year, sometimes more. All it took was some cranberry juice to make it better. There's nothing I would rather cut off of them to deal with that. Furthermore, I never, not once, got a UTI until I moved to America. I have wondered many times about that and what it means. And I'm from a third world country. I had a friend who only ever got a UTI while visiting her sister in Florida. Neither of us had ever even heard of UTIs until then and I was in my early 20s. My health in general has deteriorated since I moved here. My mother has begged me to come home. I know many people think of sick people when they hear "third world country", but I can assure you I've come to see the exact opposite. *Chronic illness is here, not back at home.*


It's our food and our water. Seriously.

Yes, our water is mostly free of bacteria and parasites, but it's contaminated with fluoride and plenty of other things (and if you live in Flint or anywhere near fracking, it's probably flat out poisonous.) The food here isn't food. Even "whole food" is GMO and covered with God-only-knows-what. Processed / prepared food is full of artificial colors, flavors, preservatives, fillers and other junk.

Kids are pumped full of vaccines, and then parents wonder why they have endless ear infections, fevers and other problems. Destroy the immune system, then wonder why chronic illness is now "normal."

America - where raw milk is illegal and twinkies are food.


----------



## joandsarah77 (Jul 5, 2005)

Can you get a rain water tank? I'm from country Australia and most people here have rain water tanks. of course that would be a bad idea if you are near any kind of crop spraying. We know someone who got sick that way, it was nasty. But if you live in an area not heavy with traffic and you have a filter there is nothing to beat the taste and its free of additives. I can't stand the taste of 'town water' I'll drink bottled water in a pinch but it is no where near as nice. On a chilly night the rain water has an almost sweat taste. 

So house cows/goats are not allowed? We had a house cow and drank raw milk for years.


----------



## EmilyVail42 (Mar 28, 2016)

joandsarah77 said:


> Most likely a troll since her only answer to real questions is to cry that we are emotional or aggressive towards her. Typical troll move is to accuse others of attacks against themselves.
> Men of Europe watch out! You penis could contract a problem at any moment! Obviously you were brought up with the very false notion that the foreskin is a problem prone area, and because of that best removed. That is false, as countries who do not circumcise prove. It's no more problem prone then your big toe. Can you get infected toe nails? Sure, but you don't deal with it by having your toe amputated at birth, you go to the Dr and get treated for an ingrown toe nail. A man has a higher chance of getting breast cancer then of needing surgery to his penis. My son is 11 and never had a single issue with his foreskin and that's normal, I don't know any boys here who have. They are all intact and all have no problems. The only place to give him issues are his ears. You know how common ear infections are in children? Very, but no one thinks to do something surgical at birth to prevent them.
> 
> I'm still waiting to see what benefits a newborn gains on having surgery to his healthy penis.


Im not a troll. I was commenting to some ones specific comment to me.and it was perfectly fair to tell that person to seriously chill.it had nothing to do with you. And you guys dont ask real questions, you guys at least in the beginning asked opinionaited questions. Now it got more about facts. I do think my point of asking for facts and more evidence then just opinion was made clear when i came on this forum. Spelling errors are because of a tiny phone that i have. I dont catch all errors. Lastly that has nothing todo with the topic or pervious posts. Just because your son hasnt had issues doesnt mean others have.


----------



## EmilyVail42 (Mar 28, 2016)

blessedwithboys said:


> http://www.foreskin.org/f4sale.htm
> 
> http://knowledgenuts.com/2013/09/23/the-bizarrely-profitable-business-of-baby-foreskins/
> 
> ...


Those are good sites. I do know it can be sold, everything can be sold. But the amount needs to be a alot. Some of these articles was written in 90s when saying a million dollars meant something. But a million now isnt that much money. At least not in America. But im sure it can be sold and used.


----------



## EmilyVail42 (Mar 28, 2016)

PitBullMom said:


> Yes, prevention due to results from genetic testing and her specific family history. She's an adult capable of making the decision for herself, for her body.
> 
> And yes, CPS absolutely would be called if you asked to have parts of your daughter's labia removed. They would also be called if you insisted on unnecessary surgery, such as seeking out an appendectomy on an healthy child with no signs or indications of infection. There's no "emotional involvement" there. Outside of the removal of a large portion of skin on a baby's penis, requests for unnecessary surgery is a HUGE red flag for medical personnel.


I think you got my point wrong. Has for CPS goes we know what they do i wasnt saying no to that. And for emotional involvement i was talking to someone comment specificaly. Its not a hug red flag. They usualky say No in America and walk away. There is no tracking system that is kept on how many drs you speak too. Inly if by chance you get a dr who is personally concerned for asking does it even get noticed.


----------



## EmilyVail42 (Mar 28, 2016)

PitBullMom said:


> This entire thread is about routine INFANT circumcision, I'm sorry I didn't detail that I was talking about surgery on _children_ without their consent. However, since that's the actual topic of the discussion I guess I didn't realize I needed to spell it out for you. However, since everyone else on the thread was able to make that connection, I'm thinking you're being intentionally obtuse.


I dont usually look at everyone else. I look at what im reading and go from there.


----------



## EmilyVail42 (Mar 28, 2016)

buttercupmama said:


> If we're just going to cut out body parts for getting sick, I have seen more colds, flus, sinus infections, ear infections etc. in the general population than anything else. Seems to me the sinuses, throat and lungs are the most delicate body parts. My son's foreskin hasn't been the cause of a doctor visit in his almost 4 years of life, but he's had the cold and flu, especially since his sister started school. And boys aren't known for their cleanliness. Personally, I think his foreskin has been added protection.
> 
> I have 3 brother and a father who have never had problems with their foreskins. My older brother hardly ever even had to go to the doctor. I only once remember my mother making me leave the room when he wanted to show her something, but obviously it wasn't a big deal since it didn't require a doctor visit (and my mother would go to the doctor for anything you can imagine).
> 
> ...


I agree that other countries do have better medical care. Because of that I believe that they do less preventative matters. It wouldnt be a necessary procedure unless it becomes necessary.


----------



## EmilyVail42 (Mar 28, 2016)

philomom said:


> Wow, the several typos in Emily's posts make me wonder about her mission here. Clearly she can see she is on a "keep boys intact parenting site" . Odd that she claims to be from California where the circ rate is pretty darn low compared to other states of the U.S.


Its really non of your buisness where I am from. And typos are because of my phone.


----------



## EmilyVail42 (Mar 28, 2016)

joandsarah77 said:


> Most likely a troll since her only answer to real questions is to cry that we are emotional or aggressive towards her. Typical troll move is to accuse others of attacks against themselves.
> Men of Europe watch out! You penis could contract a problem at any moment! Obviously you were brought up with the very false notion that the foreskin is a problem prone area, and because of that best removed. That is false, as countries who do not circumcise prove. It's no more problem prone then your big toe. Can you get infected toe nails? Sure, but you don't deal with it by having your toe amputated at birth, you go to the Dr and get treated for an ingrown toe nail. A man has a higher chance of getting breast cancer then of needing surgery to his penis. My son is 11 and never had a single issue with his foreskin and that's normal, I don't know any boys here who have. They are all intact and all have no problems. The only place to give him issues are his ears. You know how common ear infections are in children? Very, but no one thinks to do something surgical at birth to prevent them.
> 
> I'm still waiting to see what benefits a newborn gains on having surgery to his healthy penis.


Ive already put out the benefits. Ive already discussed everything that has scientifacly been proven to even make circumcision a preventative measure. Theres nothing else. So at this point is usually when the cons are brought on and we just discuss the cons. But actual scientific cons. Meaning medical problems it causes and how it hurts men.


----------



## EmilyVail42 (Mar 28, 2016)

japonica said:


> I think that someone who comes onto a forum called _the Case Against Circumcision_ and argues that all males require RIC because "they all share penises who can contract various problems at any moment" would appear to have arrived here by mistake or does not comprehend the purpose of the forum.


I have never said all men require RIC. Nor would I have said that. I did say that a comment someone else made can follow the argument that because all men have in common penises they could all contract various problems at any time.


----------



## katelove (Apr 28, 2009)

EmilyVail42 said:


> I have never said all men require RIC. Nor would I have said that. I did say that a comment someone else made can follow the argument that because all men have in common penises they could all contract various problems at any time.


So, then I'm not clear what your argument is. RIC implies that more or less all infant males are circumcised unless there is a specific, individual contraindication. This board is not in favour of RIC and IMO, the evidence doesn't support it either. Yes, it is true that any penis can develop a problem but, as has been said previously, so can many other, nonessential body parts so that doesn't seem a very strong argument.

Could you clarify exactly what you're arguing for?


----------



## joandsarah77 (Jul 5, 2005)

As of now I have no idea what your argument is. You say you have listed the benefits a newborn gains on being circumcised, please point me to that post. Then you say "I have never said all men require RIC" This thread isn't about men, RIC (routine infant circumcision) By default a grown man can't have that since he is not a newborn. 

At the end of the day I and I believe the rest of the people here believe in bodily integrity, that every person regardless of age or gender is entitled to their whole body and that any modifications to the body should be consented to by that person. You can't bring adults into the argument since this thread is not about adults and you can't bring in medical needed surgery. This thread is only about RIC, circumcision on healthy newborns.


----------



## EmilyVail42 (Mar 28, 2016)

joandsarah77 said:


> As of now I have no idea what your argument is. You say you have listed the benefits a newborn gains on being circumcised, please point me to that post. Then you say "I have never said all men require RIC" This thread isn't about men, RIC (routine infant circumcision) By default a grown man can't have that since he is not a newborn.
> 
> At the end of the day I and I believe the rest of the people here believe in bodily integrity, that every person regardless of age or gender is entitled to their whole body and that any modifications to the body should be consented to by that person. You can't bring adults into the argument since this thread is not about adults and you can't bring in medical needed surgery. This thread is only about RIC, circumcision on healthy newborns.


First my argument was needing more scientific discussion flaring human rights and opinions. Out of which most of my responses was back and forth of others. So if you are needing to know what those discussions where please look back through. Has for the medical prevention it was the main topic that huknaigovi responded too. Lastly adults, kids and so on. No one has tools to say if a healthy babys penise might one day need to change. Adults or not adults the point of prevention is for the sake of supporting against disease. Its not just bodily modification. It started has a real prevention be ayse real problems existed. Now its not so much that way has medicine changed so did certain problems. They soon bevame rare all except sexual transmittded disease. All i can say here is at the beginning of this discussion more should had been brought out to prove why its not okay. To do this you need to look at why it is okay. What its meant for. Taking out certain easy to hide in remarks like medicine corpution or basic human rights. Then you can argue the fact if its good or not. Look at what we discussed and i think we can all agree on a few things 1 prevention can be a tool used for saftey whether we are aware of it or not on why its prevented it can still help stds, certain cancers and diseases.2 foreskins are sold. Not a high enough value but are sold 3 in foriegn countries they might do it to get the forskin and sell it and hurt the baby unecessarily the other countries purpose.(this is going along buttercups comment)and 4 the prevention reasons except stds are rare.so rare it almost makes it not necessary. (All of these was discussed in summary)so now you get the scientific facts out of why not to do it is a good thing. For example no one here has commented on the fact that America had tried to creat plastic surgery to put the foriegn skin back on.(why would they take the money and do this if it wasnt a high enough number of males asking for it?)ot failed but for 7 years they tried. Put all this together toull get a bigger picture of actual reasons vs just corupt medicine and basic human rights and shortcuts really. You get facts, arguments and a good position to be on in any topic.


----------



## joandsarah77 (Jul 5, 2005)

Is English your first language? I am finding your arguments and your post very hard to read and follow. I can gleam from it that your main argument is prevention of disease. So you would put a healthy newborn through a surgery with risks (blood lose, skin bridges, infection, recurring metal stenosis, uneven badly done job, too much skin taken, adhesion, amputation of the penis shaft and death) to possibly prevent a disease they may never have and you would do it without their consent and without full pain relief. All so the baby wont get what? An infection that can be treated by antibiotics? What are you trying to prevent? 

Have you even researched all the complications that circumcision can give (some complications only show up during puberty) are you aware that urologists do many many circ repairs every year? Have you also researched the functions of the foreskin and understand what it does and why it is there? You do know it has a purpose I take it, it isn't extra skin. 

I have no idea what you mean by plastic surgery to put it back on. As of this moment I only know of restoring devices that men circumcised as a baby against their wishes use to try and regrow skin over their penis. It isn't however the same type of skin, the foreskin is specialized and once removed it is gone for ever.


----------



## hakunangovi (Feb 15, 2002)

EmilyVail42 said:


> Going on beyond money, i dont think foreskin has alot of value too it


I think you are basing your argument purely on "reports" propagated by the AAP and the CDC. As a colleague once said : "Figures always lie and liars always figure". To put it bluntly, those reports have been manipulated to "prove" a pre determined conclusion.

The fact is that a foreskin is a very valuable organ, and it's amputation compromises the sex life of the victim and his partner for their entire lives. Nature does not make mistakes !! I will request that you go to YOUTUBE and watch a video entitled " The Elephant in the Hospital" by Dr Ryan McAllister. It will take maybe half an hour. Let us know what you think of it. If you are interested, I can point you to many articles that illustrate the form, function and value of a foreskin.


----------



## blessedwithboys (Dec 8, 2004)

Yeah I'm wondering about the language question myself. I read the comment before as meaning doctors/hospitals don't sell foreskins because they don't have a monetary value. Now I'm wondering if the intent was to question the intrinsic value of the anatomical feature.


----------



## buttercupmama (Nov 29, 2008)

EmilyVail42 said:


> 1 prevention can be a tool used for saftey whether we are aware of it or not on why its prevented it can still help stds, certain cancers and diseases.2 foreskins are sold. Not a high enough value but are sold 3 in foriegn countries they might do it to get the forskin and sell it and hurt the baby unecessarily the other countries purpose.(this is going along buttercups comment)and 4 the prevention reasons except stds are rare.so rare it almost makes it not necessary. (All of these was discussed in summary)so now you get the scientific facts out of why not to do it is a good thing. For example no one here has commented on the fact that America had tried to creat plastic surgery to put the foriegn skin back on.(why would they take the money and do this if it wasnt a high enough number of males asking for it?)ot failed but for 7 years they tried.


The only study that showed any positive figures regarding STDs was conducted with a bias in place to help give them the numbers they were looking for. You can't honestly compare the rates of STDs between a group of men freely having sex and a group of men who had to abstain while healing (for several weeks) then instructed to practice safe sex thereafter (and given condoms) and call the results unbiased and noteworthy. Not to mention they didn't record data on sexual partners, not even how many there were. Those results cannot be taken seriously. Other studies and research have shown the opposite results. The results of studies are only really considered legitimate if they live up to certain standards and (not or) the results can be reproduced. We don't know what the results would have been if there was no bias involved, and there's no point speculating. It makes more sense to just ignore the study and move on.

I've seen receipts for foreskins up to $5,000 apiece. At the hospital where I will be giving birth, there are over 400 babies born every month (according to my midwife). Considering the population is roughly 50/50 on gender, I can assume roughly half of those are boys. Circ rate here is 50%. If they sell each foreskin for at least $1,000, we're talking about $100,000/month for the hospital, plus the money parents are forking out to have them removed in the first place. You don't think that sounds like a lot of money? If that's pocket change to you, feel free to share the wealth. It would take me years to make that kind of money, not to mention the huge chunk I'd lose paying taxes and bills. By the time I make $100,000, I won't have more than $100 in my pocket. If this hospital sells foreskins for $5,000, that's $500,000 in a month or $6,000,000 in a year. You can't look at the price on one foreskin and say yeah, there's no value there. No hospital is only selling one foreskin. And I've looked into companies trying to research the foreskin and they all claim that foreskins are hard to come by, so the demand for them is obviously high.

You realize I was talking about America when I said my mother was concerned that my baby would be circumcised without our consent, right? I was not talking about where I was born (which has a 0.4% rate of circumcision) or where I grew up (I don't recall the rate there, but it's also rare). It's the American culture that my mother feared, not the one at home. I would have been able to relax if my baby was born at home. I was a nervous wreck here, not in a foreign country.

They were not really unsuccessful in using plastic surgery to create a pseudo-foreskin. Some surgeries have been successful. There's always tugging and I haven't read any stories from guys who weren't successful with it. The only negative I've heard is how long it takes to restore that way.


----------



## joandsarah77 (Jul 5, 2005)

I actually see infant foreskins for sale at about the $400-$500 mark online. But whatever they are sold for it is just one small part of a huge money making machine since the money just keeps on coming for issues as these children grow older. Perhaps the thousand dollar ones are the poor mites who had no pain killers and so they are 'non contaminated'. Sickening.


----------



## PitBullMom (Sep 22, 2014)

It's not just the value of the removed skin, it's also the cost of the procedure, anywhere from $500 - $1,000. That goes to the hospital and the practitioner.


----------



## Mitchell756 (Oct 14, 2012)

EmilyVail42 said:


> Circumcision falls under categories. Usually 3, prevention of disease, religion and medical emergencies.
> The medical emergencies are such things has phimosis, acute balanoposthitis or paraphimosis.
> Prevention of disease the real main one is penile cancer at this age we have basicaly conquered this to a extordaniary rare number to get it. But when it had a high flare those who was circumcised had a,much less chance then those who werent. Also less UTIs for men.
> Religion in 1947 i read an article that displayed jewish,islam,judaism was the major role playing cultures for circumcision. Christanity also aproved with free will of the method. It wasnt just for fear mongering countries but religious cleanse, mens rights and a religious pass for these cultures. Its a big deal to them. In so much that the child is not a baby but a child or teenager witnessing and building to get ready for their own circumcision. That cant be easy for them to do however the amount of boys who do it will surpass the western amount anyday.
> I find these all has pros towards the cause. I had witnessed an 11 year old needing an emergency circumcision due to a circulation cut off problem, it saved his penise circulation. Now this is different then the cons. But looking at both views is a good way to start education on the subject then just increased shut off valve of opinions on basic human rights. This category after all discuss circumcision very diffetent and more specific then human rights.


Where is your evidence that says that there was ever a high flare in penis cancer? I am not aware of any time period in which penis cancer rates increased at any appreciable rate or of any time circumcision was used to prevent or treat it. The American Cancer society has repeatedly stated that routine circumcision is not a valid or effective measure to prevent penile cancer. http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/letters/1996-02_ACS/

Humans evolved with a foreskin and lived with it in every environment. There was never any health problems associated with it in history. Approximately 75% of the world's men still have their foreskin. The poster above is incorrect. This practice originated in Egypt and northern Sudan in the same time period that female genital mutilation originated and for the exact same reasons of repressing human sexuality. Humans lived in deserts, mountains, jungles, plains and the arctic and never had any problems with it. If you think a foreskin is hard to take care of think how hard a vagina is to take care of in those same environments. The only logic i am seeing is in how your arguments are lacking in it.


----------



## SofiaDE (Jun 1, 2016)

I am trying to find a copy of this song for a pregnant friend. (Yes, with a three year old named Katie.) I can find the lyrics but not a recording. Does anyone have any ideas? Was it ever released on any CDs? Or, if I knew which episode/episoldes it was on I might be able to find it on video. Can anyone help me do a good deed?


----------



## joandsarah77 (Jul 5, 2005)

You would probably do better asking on the toddler board.


----------



## joandsarah77 (Jul 5, 2005)

seosecrets4 said:


> He constantly asks my son if I am feeding him healthy, and will call his mom and complain about what I fed our child that day. He's off in this fantasy world, he's not accepting responsibility and does not believe that he is mentally ill.


You also appear to be on the wrong board.


----------



## foreskin_is_normal (Jul 30, 2016)

Jax94 said:


> ​Who could possibly think that having a brand new baby, that is passing gross sticky meconium that gets everywhere circumcised is a good idea?
> 
> The purpose is to eliminate almost all of the pleasure from sex and masturbation. This has to be done as soon as they are born before they "know what they're missing". This was done to me and I've always known that something was wrong with my penis. I can feel that part of my body is missing. I don't know exactly what though and I guess I'll never know. There's nothing I want more in my life than to know what an intact body feels like. Thanks a lot Dr. Kellogg, the quack who promoted circumcision as a "cure" for masturbation (or at least a cure for any real pleasure from it.) This is what they really mean by "cleaner". Sex and masturbation are dirty, so by eliminating the pleasure you are making the victim cleaner.
> 
> ...


----------



## topicmap (Jul 10, 2017)

Jax94 said:


> ​Who could possibly think that having a brand new baby, that is passing gross sticky meconium that gets everywhere circumcised is a good idea?
> 
> ​I'm in my final semester of nursing school and am working on a maternity ward for my preceptorship. Well I changed a lot of diapers the past few days, and circumcised boys are by far the worst! Intact boys were super easy, everything stays towards the back and they get a quick wipe down. The girls had poo in every crevice imaginable, but at least I didn't have to worry about hurting them when wiping...
> 
> ...


https://goo.gl/Y25jZA


----------



## joandsarah77 (Jul 5, 2005)

topicmap Go away with your in grown toe nails links. This board may not be active (people have no issues with their children's foreskins to post about.) but you better believe we are here.

foreskin_is_normal
That was the reason it was started but not the ongoing reason now, now the US is brainwashed into thinking it's better and normal and that intact is dirty and unhealthy. We need to continually educate.


----------

