Happy New Year!
This new year -- 2010 -- promises to be one of the best ever for advocates of a foreskin-free world. The medical evidence continues to grow on the health benefits conferred by circumcision, and 2010 will bring even more studies by reputable scientists and world health organizations to validate the life-long advantages of early circumcision.
Led by strong government policies in many countries, some nations especially in Africa will move closer to the goal of 100% circumcision, thereby reducing the threat of HIV, STDs, HPV, cancer, and all sorts of other deadly ailments. In the USA, we expect the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) to resist the hyperbolic pressure of the anti-circumcision fanatics by embracing a clear health-based call for the circumcision of all male newborns. Of course, they will insist that it's "voluntary" but the message will be clear: circumcision confers clear health benefits for the male, his sexual partners, and society as a whole.
The year 2010 will also see an uptick in the number of American males who are circumcised. The message has gotten through to parents via a generally positive US media that most anti-circs are shrill, beligerant, penis obsessed nuts who want to deny parents the right to care for their children in the most medically responsible way. Moreover, the average American knows that it's better to be circumcised than not.
Finally, for centuries the Christian church celebrated January 1st as the Feast of the Circumcision, the day Jesus was circumcised in accordance with the traditions of the time. The "good news" today is that, all over the world, circumcision has become the tradition of the 21st century. Whether a church embraces the date or not, we should bring back the Feast of the Circumcision on New Years Day, a way to honor the scientists, the doctors, and the parents who have made circumcision as popular as it is. May 2010 be the year that circumcision is embraced by all. Happy New Year!
Showing posts with label anti-circs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label anti-circs. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Friday, October 16, 2009
Anti Circumcision Radicals to Protest AAP Docs
You want to know why so many people dismiss the ravings of the anti circumcision fanatics? Just read their latest press release, announcing their intent to demonstrate at this weekend's conference of the American Academy of Pediatrics.
"Intactivists will be protesting what they believe to be an unethical and sexist practice—infant circumcision—at the American Academy of Pediatrics National Conference and Exhibition (AAP NCE, 2009), Washington Convention Center, Washington, DC, October 17-20. . . . Intactivist Dan Strandjord, Chicago, says, “Cutting off the end of a boy’s penis is not what a medical “hero” should do. It is a "villainous" practice, there is no medical reason for it. . . . Demonstrators will be carrying placards satirizing the conference’s cartoon characters of pediatricians as flying super-heroes. It depicts a super-hero protecting a baby boy with the comment: “Real heroes don’t cut babies.” Girls are protected from genital cutting, even a pinprick, by federal law, but boys have no protection. Circumcision is a multi-million dollar income stream for doctors, a source of revenue that is almost doubled in order to repair poorly performed circumcisions."
Well, it will be interesting to see what kind of national news coverage these antics get. The media generally ignores the couple dozen nutcases who show up for their annual penis walk on the U.S. Capitol.
It's pretty much a waste of time to rebut all the lies in this typical anti-circ press release. Circumcision is hardly "villainous" because there are so many medical reasons to do it. And the typical foreskin lover tactic of equating female genital mutilation with male circumcision is getting rather boring. As for docs making money off circs, at $50 or $100 a clip, it's not exactly a money winner.
So let the fanatics march on. It only makes their "cause" seem sillier and sillier.
"Intactivists will be protesting what they believe to be an unethical and sexist practice—infant circumcision—at the American Academy of Pediatrics National Conference and Exhibition (AAP NCE, 2009), Washington Convention Center, Washington, DC, October 17-20. . . . Intactivist Dan Strandjord, Chicago, says, “Cutting off the end of a boy’s penis is not what a medical “hero” should do. It is a "villainous" practice, there is no medical reason for it. . . . Demonstrators will be carrying placards satirizing the conference’s cartoon characters of pediatricians as flying super-heroes. It depicts a super-hero protecting a baby boy with the comment: “Real heroes don’t cut babies.” Girls are protected from genital cutting, even a pinprick, by federal law, but boys have no protection. Circumcision is a multi-million dollar income stream for doctors, a source of revenue that is almost doubled in order to repair poorly performed circumcisions."
Well, it will be interesting to see what kind of national news coverage these antics get. The media generally ignores the couple dozen nutcases who show up for their annual penis walk on the U.S. Capitol.
It's pretty much a waste of time to rebut all the lies in this typical anti-circ press release. Circumcision is hardly "villainous" because there are so many medical reasons to do it. And the typical foreskin lover tactic of equating female genital mutilation with male circumcision is getting rather boring. As for docs making money off circs, at $50 or $100 a clip, it's not exactly a money winner.
So let the fanatics march on. It only makes their "cause" seem sillier and sillier.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Why Are Anti-Circumcision People so Fanatic?
I admit there's a whole lot more to my life than circumcision -- which explains why I don't post something on my blog every day. But I have been increasingly struck by how -- for the anti-circumcision crowd -- the only thing in life that's important to them is "Saving the Foreskin."
Why is that so? What drives the foreskin lovers into such rage that they surf the internet to post mind-numbing repetitive comments on every reference to circumcision? Have you noticed that, too? What is their deep-set psychological problem that life for them begins and ends with the foreskin?
I was reminded about that when I noticed that almost all the "blogs" called up by Google when you type in "circumcision" are authored by anti-circs. This blog is one of the few mainstream blogs out there that espouse normal American behavior, the circumcision of male newborns. It got me wondering if I was really all alone out there -- or whether the anti-circs are just so angry that everyone of them needs to hyperventilate on the internet.
For most Americans at least, circumcision is hardly ever thought of. When our sons are born, we circumcise them for all the right reasons, then move on. It's a topic that never really comes up again. At some point -- for me it was health class in school -- we learn that we were circumcised, told it was the healthy thing to do (that's what my health teacher said), and then again move on. The next time it comes up is when we have a son and, once again, we do the right thing and have the kid circumcised just like us. That pretty much ends the circumcision discussion in the average American household!
But for the anti-circ fanatics, every day begins and ends with the foreskin. I don't know how they carry on a normal life being so obsessed with this useless piece of skin. But guess is that the whackiness of it all comes through to the vast majority of Americans -- which is why we so easily dismiss them when they march on the Capitol, demand "genital integrity," and deride our medical institutions when they seek to follow the medical evidence towards universal circumcision.
I'll leave it to commenters to deduce the psychological hang-ups of the anti-circumcision crowd. Those of us who favor a clean foreskin-free society don't need to get rabid about it. We'll just go about our daily business, knowing that sound science is our side.
Why is that so? What drives the foreskin lovers into such rage that they surf the internet to post mind-numbing repetitive comments on every reference to circumcision? Have you noticed that, too? What is their deep-set psychological problem that life for them begins and ends with the foreskin?
I was reminded about that when I noticed that almost all the "blogs" called up by Google when you type in "circumcision" are authored by anti-circs. This blog is one of the few mainstream blogs out there that espouse normal American behavior, the circumcision of male newborns. It got me wondering if I was really all alone out there -- or whether the anti-circs are just so angry that everyone of them needs to hyperventilate on the internet.
For most Americans at least, circumcision is hardly ever thought of. When our sons are born, we circumcise them for all the right reasons, then move on. It's a topic that never really comes up again. At some point -- for me it was health class in school -- we learn that we were circumcised, told it was the healthy thing to do (that's what my health teacher said), and then again move on. The next time it comes up is when we have a son and, once again, we do the right thing and have the kid circumcised just like us. That pretty much ends the circumcision discussion in the average American household!
But for the anti-circ fanatics, every day begins and ends with the foreskin. I don't know how they carry on a normal life being so obsessed with this useless piece of skin. But guess is that the whackiness of it all comes through to the vast majority of Americans -- which is why we so easily dismiss them when they march on the Capitol, demand "genital integrity," and deride our medical institutions when they seek to follow the medical evidence towards universal circumcision.
I'll leave it to commenters to deduce the psychological hang-ups of the anti-circumcision crowd. Those of us who favor a clean foreskin-free society don't need to get rabid about it. We'll just go about our daily business, knowing that sound science is our side.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Happy 4th of July: Circumcision as American as Apple Pie
Happy Fourth of July, blog readers! As we celebrate America's independence for over 200 years, it's also a good time to celebrate our freedom of choice to circumcise our sons in the traditional American way.
Circumcision is as American as apple pie. "We are a circumcised country," one pediatrician was quoted as saying. The roots of the practice are very old and very deep in this country, perhaps not back to the Founding Fathers but at least 150 years old.
Today, to be uncircumcised is to be un-American, not in the political context, but in the social context. That's why so many second generation Americans from all over the world circumcise their sons -- "to be American" -- is the common refrain. This accepted belief, that you're not really a true American if you're uncircumcised, drives the anti-circ fanatics ballistic. But it's deeply engrained in the fabric of our country.
I would argue that circumcision unites us. We may come from different religious, ethnic, and national backgrounds -- but one thing almost all American boys share is a circumcised penis. It may strike uncircumcised foreigners as whacky, but it's the one thing (hopefully along with our common language) that American males can share together.
Admittedly, circumcision is not as universal here as it is in the Phillipines or Korea. The Filipino government offers free circumcisions to encourage a foreskin-free nation, while some of our states have withdrawn free Medicaid coverage of circumcision. This will likely change when the Centers for Disease Control and the American Academy of Pediatrics update their policies to encourage circumcision as an effective HIV, STD, HPV prophylactic.
In the meantime, on this Fourth of July, let's celebrate our circumcised nation and our freedom to circumcise our sons, something the anti-circs are working hard to deny us. They won't succeed because America is and will always be a circumcised country.
Happy Fourth of July!
Circumcision is as American as apple pie. "We are a circumcised country," one pediatrician was quoted as saying. The roots of the practice are very old and very deep in this country, perhaps not back to the Founding Fathers but at least 150 years old.
Today, to be uncircumcised is to be un-American, not in the political context, but in the social context. That's why so many second generation Americans from all over the world circumcise their sons -- "to be American" -- is the common refrain. This accepted belief, that you're not really a true American if you're uncircumcised, drives the anti-circ fanatics ballistic. But it's deeply engrained in the fabric of our country.
I would argue that circumcision unites us. We may come from different religious, ethnic, and national backgrounds -- but one thing almost all American boys share is a circumcised penis. It may strike uncircumcised foreigners as whacky, but it's the one thing (hopefully along with our common language) that American males can share together.
Admittedly, circumcision is not as universal here as it is in the Phillipines or Korea. The Filipino government offers free circumcisions to encourage a foreskin-free nation, while some of our states have withdrawn free Medicaid coverage of circumcision. This will likely change when the Centers for Disease Control and the American Academy of Pediatrics update their policies to encourage circumcision as an effective HIV, STD, HPV prophylactic.
In the meantime, on this Fourth of July, let's celebrate our circumcised nation and our freedom to circumcise our sons, something the anti-circs are working hard to deny us. They won't succeed because America is and will always be a circumcised country.
Happy Fourth of July!
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Microsoft's Bill Gates Pushes Circumcision
The anti-circs will go ballistic. Every time you buy a Microsoft product and help Bill Gates pump money into his foundation, you are circumcising a male somewhere in the world! That's because, according to the New Scientist (see below), Gates is pumping $50 million into a program to circumcise 650,000 Africans. Bravo, Bill!
Gates knows what most rational, thinking people know -- circumcision is good for public health -- and a foreskin-free country, whether in America or Africa, is good for every male and his partners. Of course, I just love the idea that every time we use a PC, we are helping to make the world a clean-cut, safer place. Any bets on how long it will be before the anti-circ fanatics organize a boycott of Microsoft?
"Bill Gates helps fund mass circumcision programme"
"Microsoft founder Bill Gates last week injected $50 million into a programme to circumcise up to 650,000 men in Swaziland and Zambia."
"The goal of the project is to curb the transmission of HIV in two of the AIDS hotspots of the world, as circumcision has been shown to more than halve the risk of men becoming infected.
Funded for five years through the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the programme is the first to massively scale up provision of circumcision by fully trained medical practitioners."
"Traditional methods of circumcision sometimes harm and even kill boys and young men. The network of 250 teams of providers will be managed by Population Services International, a global health organisation based in Washington, DC."
"It's great news, and this is exactly what's needed," says Catherine Hankins, chief scientific adviser at UNAIDS. "We've been working on development of guidance and technical support, and these development partners are now being funded to take it forward," says Haskins.
"Hankins said that Kenya has the most advanced programme, with 20,000 men newly circumcised, and plans are also well-advanced in Botswana and Namibia. But she stressed that circumcision can't alone protect men or women against HIV, and that circumcised men should still take additional precautions, such as wearing condoms and not engaging in risky or promiscuous sex."
"Ensuring they understand how to maintain safe behaviours is key, and the procedure would be 100-per-cent accompanied by education to that end", says a PSI spokesman.
Gates knows what most rational, thinking people know -- circumcision is good for public health -- and a foreskin-free country, whether in America or Africa, is good for every male and his partners. Of course, I just love the idea that every time we use a PC, we are helping to make the world a clean-cut, safer place. Any bets on how long it will be before the anti-circ fanatics organize a boycott of Microsoft?
"Bill Gates helps fund mass circumcision programme"
"Microsoft founder Bill Gates last week injected $50 million into a programme to circumcise up to 650,000 men in Swaziland and Zambia."
"The goal of the project is to curb the transmission of HIV in two of the AIDS hotspots of the world, as circumcision has been shown to more than halve the risk of men becoming infected.
Funded for five years through the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the programme is the first to massively scale up provision of circumcision by fully trained medical practitioners."
"Traditional methods of circumcision sometimes harm and even kill boys and young men. The network of 250 teams of providers will be managed by Population Services International, a global health organisation based in Washington, DC."
"It's great news, and this is exactly what's needed," says Catherine Hankins, chief scientific adviser at UNAIDS. "We've been working on development of guidance and technical support, and these development partners are now being funded to take it forward," says Haskins.
"Hankins said that Kenya has the most advanced programme, with 20,000 men newly circumcised, and plans are also well-advanced in Botswana and Namibia. But she stressed that circumcision can't alone protect men or women against HIV, and that circumcised men should still take additional precautions, such as wearing condoms and not engaging in risky or promiscuous sex."
"Ensuring they understand how to maintain safe behaviours is key, and the procedure would be 100-per-cent accompanied by education to that end", says a PSI spokesman.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Music Soothes Circumcision of Infants
When I was circumcised at birth in the 1980s, nobody bothered with any kind of pain relief like many docs use today. Personally, I think it's a waste of time and money, but if it helps parents feel better, go for it. My own view is that whatever pain there is, if any, it's momentary, and most of us circumcised males never remember it anyways.
Now there's another study that suggests that playing music during newborn circumcision soothes the child. Great, if it works. There's no real way to measure pain in an infant anyways, as increased heart beats and breathing would be natural with any snip, snip. Most of this "pain" talk comes from the anti-circs who want us to feel like we are murdering our own kids when we give them the life protection of a clean-cut penis. I've heard the foreskin lovers have gone so far as to dub in shrieks and wails to medical videos of newborn circumcisions. Just another form of photo-shopping.
When it comes to music, hey if it makes the parents feel better, again, be my guest. I don't think the kid cares at all about it, any more than they do about pain meds. Boys have been circumcised for thousands of years, and the old-fashioned ways still work for me. Here's a clip from the article. Please comment below.
"Music may reduce pain for babies during certain procedures, research suggests"
Posted May 28, 2009
By LiveScience Staff, LiveScience
"Music may help ease pain and provide therapeutic benefits for babies undergoing common medical procedures, including circumcision, according to new research.
"Neonatal units are increasingly using music as a way to manage pain for babies during routine practices. It is thought that playing music helps calm babies and stabilize some of their vital functions. However, past research has not been strong enough to back up these claims.
"To evaluate music's effects on infants, scientists from the University of Alberta in Canada reviewed nine previous studies published between 1989 and 2006, which included both premature and full-term babies.
"It was hard to draw an absolute conclusion from these trials because they included different study populations that were tested in different ways, and some of the trials were not set up optimally. However, the Alberta researchers found very preliminary evidence that music has a beneficial effect during certain procedures, such as blood sampling and circumcision.
"One study, which the researchers rated as high quality, looked at the effect of lullabies and nursery rhymes during circumcision. The results showed that playing music did help lower pain and prevent the babies' heart rates from increasing."
Now there's another study that suggests that playing music during newborn circumcision soothes the child. Great, if it works. There's no real way to measure pain in an infant anyways, as increased heart beats and breathing would be natural with any snip, snip. Most of this "pain" talk comes from the anti-circs who want us to feel like we are murdering our own kids when we give them the life protection of a clean-cut penis. I've heard the foreskin lovers have gone so far as to dub in shrieks and wails to medical videos of newborn circumcisions. Just another form of photo-shopping.
When it comes to music, hey if it makes the parents feel better, again, be my guest. I don't think the kid cares at all about it, any more than they do about pain meds. Boys have been circumcised for thousands of years, and the old-fashioned ways still work for me. Here's a clip from the article. Please comment below.
"Music Soothes Circumcision Pain"
"Music may reduce pain for babies during certain procedures, research suggests"
Posted May 28, 2009
By LiveScience Staff, LiveScience
"Music may help ease pain and provide therapeutic benefits for babies undergoing common medical procedures, including circumcision, according to new research.
"Neonatal units are increasingly using music as a way to manage pain for babies during routine practices. It is thought that playing music helps calm babies and stabilize some of their vital functions. However, past research has not been strong enough to back up these claims.
"To evaluate music's effects on infants, scientists from the University of Alberta in Canada reviewed nine previous studies published between 1989 and 2006, which included both premature and full-term babies.
"It was hard to draw an absolute conclusion from these trials because they included different study populations that were tested in different ways, and some of the trials were not set up optimally. However, the Alberta researchers found very preliminary evidence that music has a beneficial effect during certain procedures, such as blood sampling and circumcision.
"One study, which the researchers rated as high quality, looked at the effect of lullabies and nursery rhymes during circumcision. The results showed that playing music did help lower pain and prevent the babies' heart rates from increasing."
Friday, May 29, 2009
Is Tattooing a Child Worse than Circumcision?
The Atlanta Journal Constitution is getting dozens of comments on this posted question: "Is tattoing a child worse than piercing ears, circumcision?" It's a question that comes about because a father has been charged with child abuse for tattoing his 3-year old son. http://blogs.ajc.com/momania/2009/05/28/is-tattooing-a-child-worse-than-piercing-ears-circumcision/
Of course, there's no parallel at all between inflicting a tattoo on a child and giving him the life protection of circumcision. One has no value except to satisfy the father's weird tatt desires, while the other -- the removal of the disease-inflicting foreskin -- is recommended by the World Health Organization to protect the male and his parents. Most of the posters see the immediate difference, but it's still amusing to see the anti-circ foreskin lovers carry on.
Of course, there's no parallel at all between inflicting a tattoo on a child and giving him the life protection of circumcision. One has no value except to satisfy the father's weird tatt desires, while the other -- the removal of the disease-inflicting foreskin -- is recommended by the World Health Organization to protect the male and his parents. Most of the posters see the immediate difference, but it's still amusing to see the anti-circ foreskin lovers carry on.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
WTF -- Docs Who Retract Foreskins Are Child Abusers?
I try to monitor some of the many health-related blogs on the internet, and it's amazing how much free time the anti-circumcision FLs ("foreskin lovers") seem to have. Every health blog gets attacked by the FLs who twist and turn a non-related health subject into one on their favorite subject: circumcision as a child abuse issue.
A recent posting from a pediatrician discussed the importance of doctors who examine children keeping a close eye open for child abuse. We all agree with that. But, no surprise, some whacky FL commented on the abuse of circumcision. His first line was to attack pediatricians who retract the foreskins of uncircumcised boys. WTF. The foreskin is a filthy, diseased cover that collects smegma and harmful germs in close proximity to an otherwise healthy penis. The notion that a pediatrician who gently retracts the foreskin to make sure the child's penis is okay has somehow engaged in child abuse is preposterous.
No surprise, that comment elicited even more stupid responses from anti-circ FLs. You know the argument: circumcising boys is child abuse, blah, blah, blah. Of course, they never mention that it is the healthy smart thing for parents to do to protect their children. But the image they want to conjure is that baby docs, the pediatricians, will report all circumcised boys to the authorities for "child abuse." What nonsense.
If there are any child abusers in this story, clearly it is the parents who harm their sons by failing to circumcise them at birth. Those are the real child abusers, but you won't hear stories about that.
A recent posting from a pediatrician discussed the importance of doctors who examine children keeping a close eye open for child abuse. We all agree with that. But, no surprise, some whacky FL commented on the abuse of circumcision. His first line was to attack pediatricians who retract the foreskins of uncircumcised boys. WTF. The foreskin is a filthy, diseased cover that collects smegma and harmful germs in close proximity to an otherwise healthy penis. The notion that a pediatrician who gently retracts the foreskin to make sure the child's penis is okay has somehow engaged in child abuse is preposterous.
No surprise, that comment elicited even more stupid responses from anti-circ FLs. You know the argument: circumcising boys is child abuse, blah, blah, blah. Of course, they never mention that it is the healthy smart thing for parents to do to protect their children. But the image they want to conjure is that baby docs, the pediatricians, will report all circumcised boys to the authorities for "child abuse." What nonsense.
If there are any child abusers in this story, clearly it is the parents who harm their sons by failing to circumcise them at birth. Those are the real child abusers, but you won't hear stories about that.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Mandatory Circumcision: Is There Anything as Worthless as a Foreskin?
Most Americans have never seen a foreskin in person, and that's obviously a good thing.
Is there anything quite as worthless -- or dangerous to public health -- as a foreskin? Anti-circ zealots go on and on about the sensitive sexual nerves in a foreskin, trying to make clean-cut males feel like they're missing something. Even though studies have demonstrated that circumcised males have lost nothing, sexually, by discarding this ugly piece of skin, the anti-circs try mighty hard to convince otherwise.
What is really lost in circumcision is a disease-attracting piece of tissue that harbors HIV, HPV, STDs, and all sorts of other diseases. The foreskin is a breeding ground in its moist, warm, smegma-producing skin that hides the penis. Once upon a time, when men ran naked through the jungles, perhaps the foreskin helped protect the penis. But that day is long gone. Today it serves no useful function that isn't outweighed by the danger that lurks within. I can think of no other body part that has outlived its value -- and has now become a contributing factor to so many ailments -- as the foreskin.
Take a good look at this foreskin. Don't you agree it's time to promote universal circumcision to protect every male, his partners, and society as a whole?
Is there anything quite as worthless -- or dangerous to public health -- as a foreskin? Anti-circ zealots go on and on about the sensitive sexual nerves in a foreskin, trying to make clean-cut males feel like they're missing something. Even though studies have demonstrated that circumcised males have lost nothing, sexually, by discarding this ugly piece of skin, the anti-circs try mighty hard to convince otherwise.
What is really lost in circumcision is a disease-attracting piece of tissue that harbors HIV, HPV, STDs, and all sorts of other diseases. The foreskin is a breeding ground in its moist, warm, smegma-producing skin that hides the penis. Once upon a time, when men ran naked through the jungles, perhaps the foreskin helped protect the penis. But that day is long gone. Today it serves no useful function that isn't outweighed by the danger that lurks within. I can think of no other body part that has outlived its value -- and has now become a contributing factor to so many ailments -- as the foreskin.
Take a good look at this foreskin. Don't you agree it's time to promote universal circumcision to protect every male, his partners, and society as a whole?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
