2011-01-24 National Post (Canada) - A painless, lifesaving surgery

[admin]

A painless, lifesaving surgery

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/...041/story.html

I think intactivists and "civilians" must have reacted so strongly to this that they pulled the commenting feature within hours. You can email the author and the paper's letters editor though.

Bad numbers, made-up facts, faulty logic, dishonest premise. The author refers to "Mr. Doughart" whose intactivist opnion piece appears in the same issue of the paper.

-Ron
- - - - -

Barbara Kay, National Post · Monday, Jan. 24, 2011

In 1970, some 97%of American males, and about 70% of Canadian males were circumcised. Those numbers have fallen dramatically, thanks in large part to ardent activism by anti-circumcision "rights" groups.

Jackson Doughart believes that the Canadian government should pass legislation that would prevent religious leaders and health-care legislators from performing or authorizing the ritual circumcisions of newborn children. He bases his argument on two often-adduced moral grounds: that the circumcision of infants violates their human rights, because they cannot give informed consent to the procedure, and that male circumcision is a "mutilation," comparable to female genital mutilation (FGM), already outlawed.

Before addressing Mr. Doughart's moral concerns, I stipulate to set aside any religious argument for our debate. I can assure Mr. Doughart that Jews, myself included, would unequivocally renounce the ritual of male circumcision if scientists provide a causal link between circumcision and increased risk for morbidity. But after 5,000 years of what is essentially a massive controlled study of Jewish and Muslim men, from which no negative effects can be ascribed to male circumcision, that is unlikely to happen.

Conversely, Mr. Doughart should stipulate to endorse male circumcision if it can be shown to decrease the risk for morbidity. Which it can.

The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends male circumcision on the basis of irrefutable evidence that it dramatically lowers the rate of HIV, not just in men, but in women and children (according to one British researcher, "The foreskin of the penis is a magnet for HIV.")

The WHO's bullishness regarding circumcision rests on a widely-hailed, uncontested South African study (randomized and controlled) concluding that "male circumcision provides a degree of protection against acquiring HIV infection, equivalent to what a vaccine of high efficacy would have achieved." Extrapolating from the study, it is estimated that in the next 20 years, circumcisions in sub-Saharan Africa can prevent 6 million infections and 3 million deaths. The study "demonstrat[es] that surgery can be used to prevent an infectious disease."

Yet Mr. Doughart shrugs off this miracle, claiming there are "far better ways" to eliminate HIV, like "educating youth about sexual health and condom use." Actually, both have been tried. They don't work in significant numbers (although sexual-fidelity campaigns have been effective: is Mr. Doughart on board for those?).

Passing to the moral realm, the argument of "informed consent" is easily demolished by the fact that we routinely vaccinate our children against disease without their consent for their own good. Even before we knew of the HIV connection, amongst those circumcising their sons, health and hygiene were always the reason. STDs are much more common in uncircumcised men, and circumcision causes a 12-fold reduction in the incidence of urinary tract infections. Complications from circumcisions performed by experienced surgeons and mohels are as rare as those springing from dental procedures or vaccinations: that's to say, statistically negligible.

On to the pernicious myth that male circumcision, a 30-second procedure, is a "mutilation" and the obscene canard that it is the equivalent of sexist FGM. FGM is a horribly protracted and painful cutting of girls under terrifying circumstances, with the specific intention of eliminating the capacity for sexual pleasure, and rightly considered a criminal action. According to UNICEF, at least 100 million women have been genitally mutilated. Compared to their uncut peers, these women are 69% more likely to hemorrhage after childbirth, and up to 55% more likely to deliver a dead or mortally ill baby. For every 100 deliveries, the WHO estimates FGM kills one or two more children.

"Mutilation" is a disgusting word to apply to the excision of a non-essential bacteria trap, nearly painless and instantly forgotten (those who claim otherwise are fantasizing; no credible study demonstrates lasting effects). Unlike ordinary circumcised men, FGM victims know they have been mutilated in the real sense of the word. Feminists constantly remind us that men have all the power. If true, how is it that after so many thousands of years -- coincidentally up to the advent of the sexual revolution and the privileging of erotic freedom over ethical mating -- so many millions of intelligent and even powerful Jewish and Muslim males never spoke up about their alleged victimhood?

Set aside the rights-based rhetoric. It's about sex: Circumcised men have greater pre-orgasmic endurance; non-circumcision permits more frequent ejaculations. What matters most to the anti-circumcision activists is their diminished pleasure with frequently changing sexual partners, as befits an era where the number of conquests is a more common metric of romantic success than long-term relationships. Our legislators have better things to worry about than this.

bkay@videotron.ca

[Aspie]

I wonder if we can complain to the National Post about this being so offensive due to it being filled with so many lies and all?

[alphanorth]

The Post is a rag. This article is their usual fare.

[box_of_cereal]

People like that is why being a misanthrope is so easy.

[Joseph]

The comments section is open now.

Go bonkers!

[admin]

Originally Posted by Aspie

I wonder if we can complain to the National Post about this being so offensive due to it being filled with so many lies and all?

It appears the Letters Editor is this author's husband.

-Ron

[Joseph]

Originally Posted by Aspie

I wonder if we can complain to the National Post about this being so offensive due to it being filled with so many lies and all?

I totally think all concerned need to send these people an angry letter.

You know why they keep posting crap like this? Because nobody says anything.

That's why.

I've already sent them an e-mail.

The more people that complain, the more they'll realize that it's not going to be just "business as usual" anymore.

It has been a while since I last saw this Barbara Kay post on the subject. Maybe she's realizing that there is now substantial opposition?

Hence the technical difficulties with the comments sections etc?

I say contact the National Post and whoever is paying for them.

This shit can't go down anymore the way it does.

[Joseph]

I see what the problem is; there seems to be like three different versions of this same post.

The following is a link to the version where it is possible to comment:

Go apeshit:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/...aving-surgery/

[Mister.Barbecue]

I emailed the cunt herself and sent a letter to the editor, too.

I haven't ever been so infuriated by pro-circ propaganda as when I read this article. And that's saying a lot, given how much pro-circ drivel I've read over the years. This article just hit all the buttons. Just the title of the piece really takes the cake, though.

[Joseph]

I'm afraid to say that the National Post is nothing more than a glorified blog.

All of our news outlets; they're all just glorified blogs.

No actual news anymore, just a bunch of opinion pieces everybody takes seriously because they're slapped with names like "Washington Post" or "New York Times."

When are we going to get the REAL scoop?