Replies

Circumcision is perverse. A mutilation of a boys genitals, many times at the command of his mother, often before he can even speak his first word.

It's a true sickness in a country where "reproductive" and "privacy" rights trump even a parental notification for surgery as with abortion.

The so-called "hygiene benefits" have been debunked. A properly washed uncircumcised penis is plenty hygienic.

The recent claims about AIDS being harder to spread due to circumcision is a non-sequitur. If neither partner has AIDS, if condoms are used, if abstinence is practiced... It's harder to beat your wife if you have no arms, that doesn't mean we remove them at birth. The circumcision permanently alters the sensations because of the removal of tissue and nerve endings, it can cause serious damage if not done with great skill.

These days it's a cosmetic thing for vain men, for their sexually revolutionized women. But it's also a means of control. The Jewish practice comes from the ancient notion that a circumcised penis will help keep a man inside his marriage. That a boy will grow up easier to control the vestiges of his wayward genetic inclinations. In this case, children contracted herpes, one even died because of Jewish practice where drawing of blood is required. Often a straw is sucked on to produce the blood but there is also a practice where the mouth is used directly.

It's heinous perversion masked as religious tradition.

We must fight to end this barbaric practice done to our male offspring. It is entirely unnecessary, deemed as such by modern medicine with a $400-500 price tag, for the overwhelming majority. Only those who find their foreskin is not developing sufficiently for it to be safely and comfortably retracted during adolescence need to have it addressed, perhaps by surgical means to restore proper function.

Exactly!

And even with the presence of HIV, the risk of transmission is increased with circumcision. From HIV and circumcision: new factors to consider (SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED INFECTIONS, Volume 79: Pages 495-496, December 2003.) (Please see original for source citations):

Circumcision has some little known effects that may promote rather than deter HIV infection. The human foreskin has physiological functions designed to protect the human body from infection. The sub-preputial moisture contains lysozyme10—an enzyme that attacks HIV.¹¹ Circumcision destroys this natural protection.

Circumcision removes erogenous tissue,¹² desensitises the penis,¹³ changes sexual behaviour, and makes males more likely to engage in unsafe sex practices.¹⁴ Circumcised males, therefore, are less willing to use additionally desensitising condoms.⁵

Male circumcision produces hardened scar tissue that encircles the shaft of the penis. The scar scrapes the inside of the partner’s vagina during coitus and, therefore, may enhance the transmission/reception of HIV. A programme of mass circumcision would expose African males to unsafe genital cutting,⁴ would destroy the natural protection of the foreskin,¹⁰ would not be effective against iatrogenic unsafe health care,⁴ would divert scarce medical and social resources from measures of proved effectiveness,⁵ and, therefore, is likely to increase the transmission of HIV.⁵

The proportion of HIV infection attributable to heterosexual intercourse has been placed at 90%.⁹ Gissellquist and Potterat now estimate the proportion attributable to heterosexual intercourse at only about 30%⁸ —only a one third of the previous estimate. [my emphases]

The groups trying to blame intact foreskins for the AIDS problems of Africa are ignoring science to advance their own leftist agenda. Those who piggyback on them to further their goal of continuing infant mutilation are just as bad--the same category as those who make millions from abortions (mercenary "medical" practicioners).

A mutilation of a boys genitals, many times at the command of his mother, often before he can even speak his first word.

I watched my first son's circumcision and was so appalled by this barbaric practice that I became an vocal anti circumcision advocate. When my first Grandson was born my daughter was against him being circumcised but her husband overruled her. I insisted that he be in the room while his son was circumcised. My second Grandson is intact as made by God. Parents should watch to see the horrible pain they inflict upon hours old babies. This is a barbaric practice that should be relegated to medical history books for future generations to shake their heads over.

Circumcision is perverse. A mutilation of a boys genitals, many times at the command of his mother, often before he can even speak his first word.

I am not going to argue with either of you. Circumcision is a ceremony performed on the 8th day. Few children can speak a work by this date. If it seems perverse of unnecessary for you, don't do it, and insist that it not be done to your children. As for me and my religion, we will practice it. (Our Mohel was a surgeon from a local hospital. He brought his equipment to our home for the ceremony. He was paid $100 as a charity, he would not have accepted a fee for this as he considered it a Mitzvah, (a gift). No mouth contact, it is considered barbaric to modern Jews, hospital antiseptic procedures please.

It's heinous perversion masked as religious tradition.

It is not a tradition, it is a biblical command. I'll take the commands of G-d against human ignorance and such wicked babblings any day. It isn't about hygiene - it is about obedience to the Creator, and your comments only reveal your ignorance of Scripture.

Genesis 17:9-11: And God said to Abraham: 'As for you, you shall keep My covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations. This is My covenant which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: Every male child among you shall be circumcised; and you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between Me and you.'

Luke 2:20-21: Then the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things that they had heard and seen, as it was told them. And when eight days were completed for the circumcision of the Child, His name was called Y'shua [Jesus], the name given by the angel before He was conceived in the womb.

As you can see, the 'practice' is not heinous, it is a mark of a follower of the G-d of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Christians as well can see that Y'shua [Jesus] was circumcised.

It is typically pagan to renounce the biblically-mandated things of Scripture, all the while parading idolatrous and wicked perversions as 'right and normal'. Like the ancient Greeks who had similar 'issues' that you have - and all the while practiced all manner of perversions. I'll take the faithful practice against your Greek-style paganism.

The source for this article is a jewish rabbi who is justifying his religious practice.

Good to keep it in mind. The issue should be debated on pure science and not mix religion with this issue.

Other than for religion, I think it should be left to adult males if they want their nerve endings chopped off.

"Circumcision is perverse. A mutilation of a boys genitals, many times at the command of his mother, often before he can even speak his first word."

It probably hurts the baby more than abortion.

"The so-called "hygiene benefits" have been debunked. A properly washed uncircumcised penis is plenty hygienic."

I am sure pulling out your teeth will help prevent gum disease too, and you won't have to brush them either.

" The circumcision permanently alters the sensations because of the removal of tissue and nerve endings, it can cause serious damage if not done with great skill."

I posted a link about this. Studies have also shown an increase in the need for "rougher" stimulation amongst those
without the foreskin. Also, the foreskin retains lubricant during intercourse, and women with intact partners don't experience discomfort during intercourse. Don't mean to get graphic, but intact men...well, just read the links in my other posts.

"These days it's a cosmetic thing for vain men, for their sexually revolutionized women."

The "locker room" argument. Foreskins are not in fashion.

"But it's also a means of control. The Jewish practice comes from the ancient notion that a circumcised penis will help keep a man inside his marriage."

I thought it was a covenant with God with regards to Jews. Does the practice pre-date Moses?

"It's heinous perversion masked as religious tradition."

I agree, but will not comment on Jews doing it because of their covenant. On second thought, maybe the child should decide when he becomes an adult. As for a religious tradition amongst Christians, it never was. They started doing it to prevent masturbation.

"We must fight to end this barbaric practice done to our male offspring."

And we should be vigilant against female circumcision infesting the west from immigrants that practice it.

"It is entirely unnecessary, deemed as such by modern medicine with a $400-500 price tag, for the overwhelming majority."

But now the medical establishment has come around and does NOT recommend it anymore.

Your statement that the hygeine benefits of circumcism is not accurate. There has been add debate between the pediatricians and surgeons for 50 years as to the the necessity of circumsim. I have been practicing surgery for 30 years and there are many indications for surgical circumcism. Phimosis, paraphimosis, balanitis, and posthitis unresponsive to conservative therapy are all unimpeachable indications for surgical circumcism. The buildup of smegma is another concern which some feel put a female at risk for cervical carcinoma. I have seen many, many outlet urinary obstructions in men due to synechia and stenosis of the prepuce. There are also cases of infertility due to phimosis, outlet obstruction to ejaculation. Additionally trauma and chemical spill can be a surgical indication for circumcism. As for outlet urinary obstruction, it can lead to uropathy including cytic diverticuli making a patient prone to bladder stones. It can also cause ureteral reflux and primary renal disease in severe cases.

Your reference to the "heinous perversion masked as religion" statement simply indicated to me that you have a strong antijewish world view. You should keep that editorial opinion deep inside you.

"Privacy rights and abortion rights" trump parental notification you say. Please point to me anywhere in the constitution where it says we have privacy rights or abortion rights. It isn't there. (Rather than argue with me why don't you get Mark Levines' "Men in Black" He will clarify it for you.

I don't mean to be too hard on you, but the fact is you don't know what you are talking about.

Your statement that the hygeine benefits of circumcism is not accurate. There has been add debate between the pediatricians and surgeons for 50 years as to the the necessity of circumsim. I have been practicing surgery for 30 years and there are many indications for surgical circumcism. Phimosis, paraphimosis, balanitis, and posthitis unresponsive to conservative therapy are all unimpeachable indications for surgical circumcism. The buildup of smegma is another concern which some feel put a female at risk for cervical carcinoma. I have seen many, many outlet urinary obstructions in men due to synechia and stenosis of the prepuce. There are also cases of infertility due to phimosis, outlet obstruction to ejaculation. Additionally trauma and chemical spill can be a surgical indication for circumcism. As for outlet urinary obstruction, it can lead to uropathy including cytic diverticuli making a patient prone to bladder stones. It can also cause ureteral reflux and primary renal disease in severe cases.

Your reference to the "heinous perversion masked as religion" statement simply indicated to me that you have a strong antijewish world view. You should keep that editorial opinion deep inside you.

"Privacy rights and abortion rights" trump parental notification you say. Please point to me anywhere in the constitution where it says we have privacy rights or abortion rights. It isn't there. (Rather than argue with me why don't you get Mark Levines' "Men in Black" He will clarify it for you.

I don't mean to be too hard on you, but the fact is you don't know what you are talking about.

Well put and amen.

Have you ever tried to have sex with a tight foreskin???