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.
Showing posts with label child abuse. Show all posts
Showing posts with label child abuse. Show all posts
Friday, May 29, 2009
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
