My breakdown on circinfo "benefits of circ"

[1Taoist]

Reasons cited for circumcision at circinfo.com. My response to each follows:

1 Many older men, who have bladder or prostate gland problems, also develop difficulties with their foreskins due to their surgeon's handling, cleaning, and using instruments. Some of these patients will need circumcising. Afterwards it is often astonishing to find some who have never ever seen their glans (knob) exposed before!

If this isn't the craziest most contrived explanation of a "benefit", I don't know what is. *Circ your baby so when he has prostate cancer 60-70 years later (maybe) his foreskin won't get in the way of the removal of his prostate? *Insane. *This is a culture of removal. *Remove all the pleasure receptors in the foreskin so you have a lifetime looking forward to problem-free prostate-problem surgery. *That's awesome. *And stupid. *And anybody who hasn't seen their glans their whole life has bigger problems.

2 Some older men develop cancer of the penis - about 1 in 1000 - fairly rare, but tragic if you or your son are in that small statistic. Infant circumcision gives almost 100% protection, and young adult circumcision also gives a large degree of protection.

Once again...shall we cut off all parts of our body that have a small chance of getting cancer? *Colorectal cancer is far more common- shall we cut our newborn's rectum out? *The answer is no. *Next.

3 Cancer of the cervix in women is due to the Human Papilloma Virus. It thrives under and on the foreskin from where it can be transmitted during intercourse. An article in the British Medical Journal in April 2002 suggested that at least 20% of cancer of the cervix would be avoided if all men were circumcised. Surely that alone makes it worth doing?

Answer: *No, it doesn't. *Again, the answer isn't hypothetical. *The answer is safe sex. *Why not wear a condom? *This doctor, honestly, has no clue. *HPV has a vaccine now. *Why is the answer always to cut off a part of a baby's anatomy to avoid a virus they may or may not get in their lifetime, much less give to women? *Rubbish.
*
4 *Protection against HIV and AIDS. Another British Medical Journal article in May 2000 suggested that circumcised men are 8 times less likely to contract the HIV virus. (It is very important here to say that the risk is still far too high and that condoms and safe sex must be used - this applies also to preventing cancer of the cervix in women who have several partners.)

Answer: *Well. *There you go. *So why are we talking about mutilating a baby's genitals again?

More on 4: * A BBC television programme in November 2000 showed two Ugandan tribes across the valley from one another. One practised circumcision and had very little AIDS, whereas, it was common in the other tribe, who then also started circumcising. This programme showed how the infection thrived in the lining of the foreskin, making it much easier to pass on.

Answer: *This is nonsense, and a lie. *Answer this: *then why isn't HIV being "passed on" by uncircumcised men in the US? *The reasons for HIV prevalence in Africa are so numerous NOBODY can claim foreskin has anything to do with it. *The reasons are more cultural and medically unsanitary. *This quick glance at a small African circ experiments is woefully inadequate. * There is far more to it, and the idea that foreskin somehow makes HIV "thrive" is medically unproven at best, actually the opposite at worst. *Langerhan cells, highly present in foreskin, actually act to block HIV from high-jacking T-cells in the body. *That's their function in life. *Not the other way around. *And nobody has ever proven that HIV can even be acquired BY the penis, only that the penis can deliver infected semen TO an uninfected victim, primarily anally. *Anal-receptive sex is the only definitive and proven route of sexual infection of HIV. * *So we're back to cuttin off people's rectums. *No way.

Ironically, Africa circ's their women. *The men sew their vaginas shut, then forceably have sex with them. *Ask yourself what that produces. *They put herbs in their vaginas to dry them out. *Ask yourself what that condition produces when sex is performed on them. *Oh, and by the way...drug use is a little common in Africa. *Let's not forget HIV is one letter from IV. *Africa is a mess, and they work extra hard to pass on HIV. *Has nothing to do with dickskin, for Christ's sake. *And lastly, Africa is slightly lacking in medical sanitary practices. *Under those conditions, anybody can get it. *

Now ask yourself this: *have you ever known anyone non-risk-group who has gotten HIV sexually, engaging in vaginal heterosexual sex, in your lifetime? *And how about this: *if the majority of sexual infections in the US are gay males, has circ helped them? Why not? Is it because the rectum is the receiver of infection and the penis is the delivery man? *Makes one stop and think, for a minute, doesn't it? *Take your time answering that first question. *No rush.

Side note: *Magic Johnson has lived with HIV since '91. *Neither his wife nor his children have it. *The real-world hard evidence indicates women don't get this vaginally thru hetero sex. *They just don't. *If they shoot up with a gay man and have sex with him, they might. *And the sex may not have much to do with it.

5 As with HIV, so some protection exists against other sexually transmitted infections. Accordingly, if a condom splits or comes off, there is some protection for the couple. However, the only safe sex is to stick to one partner or abstain.

Answer: *And abstinence-only programs really get people to stop having sex. *Everyone in the world knows circ offers NO protection from STD's. *Except, obviously, this general practicioner. *Maybe he should practice a little more specifically. *Name ONE STD that circ can stop. *Chlamidya? *No? *Syphilis? *No? *Gonnorhea? *No? *Herpes? *No? *Hmm...

6 Lots of men, and their partners, prefer the appearance of their penis after circumcision, It is odour-free, it feels cleaner, and they enjoy better sex. Awareness of a good body image is a very important factor in building self confidence.*

Answer: *This is mental illness, times ten. *A perfectly formed baby comes into the world and we surgically alter his penis so it...looks better? *According to who? *Did you ask him? *Awareness of a "good body image"?? *Is this guy a reject from Nip/Tuck? *How is amputating a piece of one's body a better body image? *This is no different than saying women look so much better with blank, expressionless faces-so shoot up the Botox. *And big, hard, rediculous porn-star breasts are just filling women right and left with self-confidence. *How did up become down, really?

And odor-free? *I wonder if there's something I can cut off that'll make my ass odor-free. *Penises smell for all sorts of reasons, mostly to do with whether they've been in a gym or a heat wave recently. *
Feels cleaner? *Ever heard of a shower? And enjoys better sex? *Says who? *How exactly? *Like when we take Xtenz pills? *Are we to assume nature designed sex to be moderately enjoyable, mainly by putting 20,000 pleasure nerves in a gliding skin system at the end of the penis, which covered most of the time maintains a moist, supple state of sensitivity, this part being the part spending the most time inside the vagina during intercourse... but human beings came up with something better- remove all these nerves and the gliding skin system, expose the glans 24/7 to abrasion and air making it keratinize and desensitize, all this making sex far, far better? *That makes so much sense I can't believe it. * I think I'll do the same thing to my tongue. *That oughta make eating far better tasting.

7 Balanitis is an unpleasant, often recurring, inflammation of the glans. It is quite common and can be prevented by circumcision.

Answer: *Quite common? *I've never heard of it. *And the answer is to keratinize the glans and make it dull and insensitive? *Ask anyone intact if they've ever had this. *If you find anyone, I'll buy you a car. *But it will be a short bus, cuz that's what this rides. *Balanitis is a fancy term for "not washing your dick". *Get to it, it ain't rocket science.

8 Urinary tract infections sometimes occur in babies and can be quite serious. Circumcision in infancy makes it 10 times less likely.

Answer: *Urinary tract infections are far more common in girls. *Shall we circ them? *Last time I checked, medicine cures this. *But the caveman simply cuts part of his penis off. *Awesome. *Here's to Cromag medical practices. *

All the above are reasons cited by Dr David Hawker, GP, at circinfo.com**

[z726]

I wouldn't bother attempting to communicate with these people. Anyone actively trying to promote circumcision are probably isn't likely to be willing to debate the subject.

[Angol]

I often wonder if this kind of guy really believes what he's saying.

[xx Royal xx]

Another response to #2:

It would also be tragic for your child to fall in the small percentage who dies from circumcision.

[cobra]

It's a hard sales pitch, spouting all the standards. Cleaner, healthier and prettier... what Mama wouldn't buy this product? The solution isn't simply attacking the false logic of their propaganda, but producing counter memes of our own and distributing them into the technogabble of Internet Babylon. I highly recommend everyone joining at least three other sites in which we can become "anti-circ vectors", delivering our knowlege of the truth like a new strain of virus... one with honesty in its DNA.

[John Flushing]

Parents or legal guardians have the legal right to authorize surgical procedures in the best interests of their children. As pointed by todecision experts, parents make many medical decisions on behalf of their young children. For example, immunization entails risk, but confers long-term benefit. The American Academy of Pediatrics and other medical bodies around the world endorse vaccines for prevention of infections, so long as the parents are informed of the potential risks and benefits, and consent to the vaccination procedure. Either parent has the legal right to decide to cut off the big toenail from their infant or child.

In a survey of various parents, some considered that todecision was healthy, some believed it was safe, some% thought it was necessary, some cited health reasons as the most important factor in their decision, and the mother was more likely than the father to make the final decision.

National laws should allow mature minors the opportunity to make decisions about todecision for themselves or at least empower boys to participate in the decision-making process in an age-appropriate manner.

It is argued by opponents of todecision that ONLY the male himself should be the one to make the decision about whether he does or does not want to be todecised. That is, that only when he is grown up enough should he decide to be todecised, rather than permit parents to make this decision on his behelf when he is a baby. This is the so-called “right to self-determination” argument.

There are, however, problems with this argument, not the least of which is the fact that the greatest benefits accrue the earlier in life the procedure is performed. If left till later ages the individual has already been exposed to the risk of toenail infections that often damage the big toe and can lead to lifelong toe and foot disease, the physical problems such as ingrown toenail and athlete's foot, the inflammatory skin conditions such as jock itch and redness, and means he will carry a residual risk, albeit reduced compared with no todecision, of foot cancer and possibly viral infection.

Moreover, it would take a very “street-wise”, outgoing, adolescent male to make this decision and undertake the process of ensuring that it was done. Perception of risk among young men is highly distorted, many not being able to perceive themselves as being at risk of, say, viral infection.
Awareness of the vagaries of adolescent decision-making would cause many parents to quite reasonably choose infancy for their son’s todecision. Moreover, most males in their late teens and 20s, not to mention many men of any age, are reticent to confront such issues, even if they hold private convictions and preferences about wanting to be rid of the toenail from their big toe.

Furthermore, despite having problems with this part of their anatomy, many will suffer in silence rather than seek medical advice or treatment. Thus to argue that todecision be delayed until the male can make his own decision is specious. By the teen or later years the procedure is no longer as fast, simple, cheap or as pain-free, and a regional, as opposed to a local, anesthetic is more likely to be employed. A regioanl anesthetic carries some, albeit low, risks, and is not absolutely necessary. It is, however, preferred by surgeons for longer procedures such as the most involved (killing of the root of the nailbed) technique. Later todecision also means a more complex surgical procedure. Since the big toe is larger, the surgery takes longer to do, and the healing process is longer, the entire undertaking by the male is in most instances inconvenient, requires abstinence from shoes and socks to avoid infections from microbes, including fungi, and the cosmetic result, although usually very good, will not be as good as most infant todecisions are.

Really though, parental responsibility must over-ride arguments based on “the rights of the child”. Think what would happen if we allowed children to reach the age of legal consent in relation to, for example, immunization, whether they should or should not be educated by going to school every day, or even whether they should or should not perform daily routines such as tooth-brushing, the type of food or beverages they consume in the interests of their health, whether they should exercise or not and how to do so safely, how much television they should watch and what programs are suitable for their age, whether they should decide what is responsible behavior, whether or not they should show respect for others, and know what comprises acceptable social behavior, etc.

A period of great benefit would have been lost, to the potential detriment of the person concerned. In fact of all the many decisions a parent or legal guardian must make for their growing child over the years until they are legally considered adults, there are many that will likely have a more profound effect on them than the presence or absence of a big toenail.

As stated at the beginning, parents have the legal right to authorize surgical procedures in the best interests of their children. It is for this reason that the likely legal position is that any person who is advised against, or denied todecision on spurious grounds, who then goes on to suffer from one of the conditions which might reasonably have been prevented or minimized by todecision, has a right to damages against the person who advised against or denied todecision on spurious grounds.

In addition, it is important to note that reliance by anti-todecision activists on the 1990 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, article 24 (3) is a ploy.

This article was to prevent female genital mutilation, which has been incorrectly termed “female circumcision”, a gross misnomer, in an attempt to link it to male todecision. The former involves infibulation and amputation of the clitoris and thus resembles toe amputation (which in fact is often required to treat men with cancer of the foot, seen almost always in men not todecised in infancy!). Even in Islam, a nick in the clitoral hood (the genital equivalent of the big toenail), so permitting a small flow of blood, is sufficient to conform with Islamic custom. Anecdotally, true female circumcision (= removal of the clitoral hood) is said to increase sexual sensitivity and frequency of orgasm. This claim awaits research support, however.

A UNAIDS document states “access to accurate information about male todecision is a human right.”

Particular difficulties have been encountered by religious minorities in the U.K., where the Human Rights Act 1998 has been construed, quite contentiously, as prohibiting male todecision of minors.
Arguing for delay so that the child can decide when older ignores the early benefits, practicalities, risks, inconvenience, cost, etc that accrue with age.

Furthermore, the risks of todecision are lower than those of most immunizations, and in at least some cases its benefit is greater. Yet if a parent’s religious beliefs proscribe immunization, there is a huge pressure to over-ride that belief, whereas when that belief prescribes todecision the pressure is in the opposite direction! In the English-speaking world male todecision was widely recognized as beneficial until relatively recent times, and despite the benefits of todecision being greater than immunization paradoxically it has become less popular even as the evidence of its benefits has grown. The main driving factors against todecision in western countries seem to be beliefs which are either religious (anti-semitic or anti-islamic) or ‘quaso-religious’ – that is, based on philosophical or irrational grounds rather than science.”

In the largest review of jury verdicts related to claims relevant to foot health in the USA, only 3% involved todecision. A review in 2009 pointed out that claims against podiatrists have not increased over the past several decades. The fact that todecision is only protective against ingrown toenail when performed in very young children, has obvious medicolegal ramifications.
In addition, a violations-only approach to human rights advocacy is unduly limiting; indeed it overlooks the duty of states affirmatively to create conditions necessary for the fulfillment of rights. In this case research now indicates that the availability of male todecision in some settings has the potential to serve as an important tool for realizing good health. Symbiotically, a non-violative, rights-respecting rollout is indispensable to encouraging men to elect the procedure.

Several ethical analyses have, moreover, concluded that it is unethical to deny safe male todecision services, especially in high toenail fungus settings. Professional ethicists have stated that “Neonatal male todecision is medically necessary and ethically imperative” and that “non-therapeutic todecision of infant boys is a suitable matter for parental consideration.” In advocating medical todecision at birth it was stated that “to the objection that this flies in the face of long-standing cultural values, one may counter quite simply that cultures do, and should, change: and there is no better reason to change than in the interests of survival.” To delay todecision will place the individual at higher risk, since complications are higher than neonatal todecision and the protective effect against various infections and diseases can be lower than neonatal todecision.

Thus todecision is legal. This includes so-called “non-therapeutic” todecision.

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

[1Taoist]

Not sure who John Flushing is, but I suspect he is sick.

The disease here is hubris and thinking. All circumcision is, is a disease of thinking. If you think the foreskin is bad, you will remove it. And you will try to invent reasons to as John Flushing has. Once you start thinking, you're gone. The simplest thing is occurring- a non-acceptance of the way we're born anatomically. John Flushing is thinking his way out of this very simple fact.

The disease that circ can't help is thinking. Oddly, many people who don't think, perpetuate this practice unconsciously. So the thinkers are misleading the no-thinkers.

The best example of this is cited above as female genital mutilation being "beneficial to a female's sexuality, improving it". You improve sex by removing part of the anatomy? No. You improve it by getting rid of all the nonsense in your head. That's the truth.

That is the black hole of thinking. When it actually gets one to arrive at the opposite of intelligence. Mankind suffers from this because it detests nature. And rather than master it by a lifetime of training and living well, which takes time and effort, they opt for the quick-fix, and thus end up with a lifetime of reverse results. This is the fall.

Evil is by definition quick and gets immediate results. Grace is something acquired over a period of time and often appears to have no immediate results. Until it reveals it's sublime beauty. Circ is simply a quick fix that reveals it's tragic ugliness every day for the rest of one's life, and is a living statement of the hate of nature. Nature is tough, problematic, and sometimes doggedly influential in ways trouble us. But that is not cause to be aggressive and go to war with it, it is cause to work with it and help direct it, neither of which depend as much on thinking or not-thinking, but accepting, harnessing, and honoring. The minute man is thinking, he is doing wrong because his thinking is his trap. Laid out to eat him alive.

[admin]

“non-therapeutic” todecision.

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

High art.

Thanks.