Thanks for the unbiased discussion. We still don’t know what baby 2 is (boy or girl), and our first was a girl so we’ve only discussed it hypothetically. It is hard to balance the research with my emotions, while trying to ignore other people’s emotional arguments. But bottom line, I’ve found it incredibly offensive to hear comparisons made to female genital mutilation. FGM is so tragic and horrific and anyone who makes the comparison cannot truly understand the extend of this practice. And one of the things that annoys me in any discussion is ignorant regurgitation of “facts” – which is precisely what that argument is.

@laura; Of course I’m presupposing when I say this, but something tells me laura that your genitals have never been mutilated. Please, allow me to reference Webster’s Dictionary on the word “mutilate:1 to injure or disfigure by removing or irreparably damaging parts. 2 to deprive a living being of a limb or other essential part. to cut – to maim”. I am a young male, with a recently acquired degree and currently enrolled into law school, i guess you could say I’m no dummy and certainly not ignorant. When I was an infant my foreskin was amputated. My proof is in the scars up, down, and around my penis. I have never once experience the protection nor felt the pleasure produced from having the thousands of nerves and other unique skin types found exclusively in my foreskin. If you’re going to brush these facts off as emotional than you are the one who is ignorant, and especially if you think that there are any real benefits that safe sex and antibiotics can’t fix. If you’re curious as to what is typically removed during circumcision google: “what is lost during circumcision” the first three pages should help you at least taste the problem.

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness to all those who object to Genital Mutilation regardless of GENDER

I’m an intactivist, and I try my best not to be overemotional.

I don’t really know what to add here, but I do want to thank you for choosing to write about this subject. It is indeed a subject that few people really take the time to research properly.

Aside from the medical aspects, though, it is worth noting that many men who were circumcised are not happy with it. The foreskin is a normal, healthy, functioning, sensitive body part. One that 80% of the world’s men still possess. The United States is the only country in the world that still circumcises the majority of its infants for non-religious reasons.

Lastly, I like how you listed “considerations about religious identity, cultural pressure, family tradition, social norms, parental instincts, fear of doing the wrong thing”. Tell me if I’m wrong, but from my talking to people, these things you listed are usually the reasons (aside from parental instinct) people decide to circumcise. But we have to ask ourselves, are these GOOD reasons to permanently change a person’s body for life? Just a thought.

I’m sorry Laura, but you are so wrong. The simularities between FGM and MGM are much larger than you like to believe. MGM is also horrific and tragic, but you can not see that because your country outlaw the first thing, and embrace the other. It’s just so weird. Anyway, I am a intact male, and just take my word for it: leave your sons intact. They will thank you for it later when they grow up.

By the way, if there should be a cleaning problem with being a intact male, then you intact females have a much larger problem. Just think about it.

I find this writing deceptive from the begining to wit:

The circumcision rate has fallen from about 57%, not 2/3s. It has fallen to less than 1/3 (32.5%) not “less than half.” While “less than half” is accurate, it is also deceptive.

Circumcisions performed for religious reasons would account for only 1.75% of circumcisions. However, this effect is seen in both the before and after numbers and would not affect the differential. This would also be true of circumcisions paid for by insurance companies and Medicaid. The topic of the study is the decline in circumcisions and religious circumcisions and insurance coverage would have no significant effect on the difference .

There has not been a significant increase in the Hispanic population in the past 4 years and thus little if any influence in the DIFFERENCE.

.

Thanks for that, it’s clear you’re thinking the issues through. Diekema did indeed present the case for circumcision, that’s the problem – they should have got someone well-informed to present the case against. He wasn’t altogether rational, though, to mention only the “significance” of urinary tract infections without also mentioning their rarity, less than 1% in boys (about 4% in girls, and of course no question of surgery for them). So more than 99% of circumcisions to prevent UTI are wasted.

Likewise HIV. The trials (far from faultless) were done in three African countries where HIV is rampant and may be largely heterosexually transmitted – unlike the USA. Circumcising US boys has not prevented the epidemic so far, and will not.

Some Intactivists are as mad as hell about what was done to them and they’re not going to take it any more. I’d be emotional too, in that position. That doesn’t make their arguments wrong, though.

And FGC? OK it’s very horrible. MGC is not as horrible, but that’s no reason for doing it or defending it. It is as ethical issues that they are comparable. Boys and girls (and intersexed babies) have the same right to grow up to be men and women (and intersexed people, if that is their choice) free to choose for themselves what parts of their own genitals they may keep and enjoy. They almost always choose to keep them all.

“religious identity, cultural pressure, family tradition, social norms, parental instincts, fear of doing the wrong thing”? What Caroline said. Remember, this is a decision that is pushed on US parents. In the rest of the developed world it’s simply not offered, and outside the English-speaking world, never has been. Taking the whole baby home is simply taken for granted. That’s how it should be.

I thought Dr Diekema’s comments were outrageous. Does he think these organizations are “largely emotional”?

Canadian Paediatric Society
http://www.cps.ca/english/statements/fn/fn96-01.htm
“Recommendation: Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed.”

http://www.caringforkids.cps.ca/pregnancy&babies/circumcision.htm
“Circumcision is a ‘non-therapeutic’ procedure, which means it is not medically necessary.”
“After reviewing the scientific evidence for and against circumcision, the CPS does not recommend routine circumcision for newborn boys. Many paediatricians no longer perform circumcisions.”

Royal Australasian College of Physicians
http://www.racp.edu.au/index.cfm?objectid=B5610716-9E3E-6C97-A8D87880FD002E3B
“After extensive review of the literature, the Paediatrics & Child Health Division of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians has concluded that there is no medical reason for routine newborn male circumcision.”
(almost all the men responsible for this statement will be circumcised themselves, as the male circumcision rate in Australia in 1950 was about 90%. “Routine” circumcision is now *banned* in public hospitals in Australia in all states except one.)

British Medical Association
http://www.bma.org.uk/ethics/consent_and_capacity/malecircumcision2006.jsp#Circumcisionformedicalpurposes
“to circumcise for therapeutic reasons where medical research has shown other techniques to be at least as effective and less invasive would be unethical and inappropriate.”

The Royal Dutch Medical Association
http://knmg.artsennet.nl/Diensten/knmgpublicaties/KNMGpublicatie/Nontherapeutic-circumcision-of-male-minors-2010.htm
“The official viewpoint of KNMG and other related medical/scientific organisations is that non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors is a violation of children’s rights to autonomy and physical integrity. Contrary to popular belief, circumcision can cause complications – bleeding, infection, urethral stricture and panic attacks are particularly common. KNMG is therefore urging a strong policy of deterrence. KNMG is calling upon doctors to actively and insistently inform parents who are considering the procedure of the absence of medical benefits and the danger of complications.”

Genital mutilation is yet another LIE along with history, science, religion, government, and culture perpetrated by a dominate class over their subjects.

Victor Hugo coined the term “Comprachicos” for people who mutilate infants for profit and I can’t think of a better term than Dr. Comprachico for any MD who advocates genital mutilation.

Although the practice is waning, taxpayers still pay for the mutilation of infants born under medicaid. Hospitals charge for the “procedure” then profit further from selling stolen foreskins to pharmaceutical and cosmetic companies (directly or through middlemen)! Oprah Winfrey even pushed a $200 per oz. face cream made from the unique foreskin tissues!

Culture/religion/ideology is not your friend!

“Medical Science,” (the same as the rest of the so called “experts”) is replete with unethical, sycophantic sociopaths who lie, cheat, and mutilate in order to profit and gain positions of authority. Sociopaths populate most of the centers of “authority” in the US.
“Medical Science” grew out of a cadre of “experts” who found they could get rich by naming symptoms and calling them diseases–just to sell their “treatment.” The medical industry is what it is today because of the rise of the cattle industry at the end of the 19th century; high protein diets were most common among the wealthy east coast elites who could afford medical treatment for their growing heart diseases.

Medical doctors were never even involved with childbirth until they realized the potential profit in “family practice.” Just look up the mother mortality rates once doctors got involved in delivery despite midwifery’s 5000 year history.

Medical “experts” own words from the late 19th century portray the real intent behind genital mutilation….”A remedy for masturbation which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision. The operation should be performed without administering anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutory effect upon the mind, especially, if it is connected with the idea of punishment, as it may well be in some cases.”

What happened to “Do no harm?” Dr. Comprachico?