home
RSS
Your thoughts on circumcision
November 19th, 2010
12:22 PM ET

Your thoughts on circumcision

CNN got more than 1,000 responses by noon to today's article about a proposal to ban circumcision in San Francisco, California.

To recap: anti-circumcision activist Lloyd Schofield has drawn up a proposal outlawing all circumcisions, even for religious reasons (circumcision of boys is traditional in Judaism and Islam). The punishment would be up to a year in jail or up to a $1000 fine.

Our reader comments, mostly passionate toward one view or another, have so far been fairly evenly split as a whole on the question of whether or not to circumcise.

Some of you men out there are glad to have been circumcised as infants, citing scientific evidence of its health benefits. Says jake1969:

Big thanks to my parents for circumcising me. Based on scores of studies, I have lower risk of contracting HPV, herpes, HIV, etc. And, the "inactivists" keep saying the studies are flawed, but it's clear they cherry-picked 1 or 2 and then claim they are right... Also, it's a riskier procedure to wait and decide on your own as a young adult.

Others agree with so-called "inactivists" that circumcision violates personal freedoms. Reader rcaferilla writes:

Circumcision is just an unnecessary tradition. Circumcising an infant, takes the choice away from the owner of the body, and not circumcising the infant, doesn't mean he won't be circumcised later – as an adult, but it will just be his choice. So it really just comes down to, do you want to remove his choice in the matter or not.

On the other hand, some of you oppose a ban on circumcision because that ban would violate personal freedoms. Says HooHa78:

This is absurd. Whether a child is circumcised should be a parent's or persons individual decision, not what my government or some dumbhead group decides. For a city that is supposedly so open minded this group sure is setting a poor example.

To this line of thinking, blueparadise responds:

You men are so sensitive about your junk, that I'd think you'd at least protect your innocent sons from any unnecessary pain down there. Who cares if he "won't remember it"! It's still an excruciatingly painful experience for a helpless being who has just entered the world.

Some of you, such as blueparadise, are also concerned about a loss of sexual pleasure that may come with the loss of foreskin. This point is still controversial, and it's hard to test it because there can be no "before and after" comparisons among infants. A 2008 study in the British Journal of Urology International found that circumcision does not reduce sexual satisfaction or performance among men circumcised as adults, although a smaller study in the same journal in 2007 found a decrease in masturbatory pleasure and sexual enjoyment.


soundoff (926 Responses)
  1. Paul

    It is NOT a matter of choice. Does the baby, who comes into the world perfectly formed, choose to be mutilated? Get off your "liberal" high horses, people. This is about basic human rights. Leave our babies alone and stop the medical professionals from stealing the nerve-rich foreskins to SELL at a very high profit. Don't be blind...it's all about MONEY.

    November 19, 2010 at 12:36 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Gary

      Iʻve been circumcised. For all of my 55 years I am glad that my parents had the sense to have it done. Personally, for me, and pay attention here, this is my personal opinion. An uncircumcised cock is ugly! A circumcised cock is a thing of beauty, sensitivity, I love it!

      November 19, 2010 at 13:33 | Report abuse |
    • Ota

      For the uncircumcised, you don't have to go too far to look for germs and obnoxious stench? They are right under your foreskin, dude.

      November 19, 2010 at 14:00 | Report abuse |
    • CTed

      Gary – then you could still have had it done when you were 18. No problem. What about the boy who had it done. WHen he turns 18 can he undo it? It's a simple matter of fairness. Parents have no right to permenantly change your body. They can't cut off your arm, why are they allowed to cut off your forseskin?
      It's rediculous.

      Religions should just move the ceremony to when they are 18 – that's not a huge burden.

      November 19, 2010 at 14:04 | Report abuse |
    • DEADINSIDE

      I couldn't agree with Gary more....and what does "liberal" have to do with it? If want to live with your "turkey neck and gibblets" thats you and your sighificant others choice. Money? Really? Only someone like you could possibly have a corner on the "foreskin black market" 🙂

      November 19, 2010 at 14:08 | Report abuse |
    • Nurse Shepherd

      There is a money component involved. At a previous employers, the physicians insisted the surgery was vital and necessary for the infants well being and most parents went along. When Medicaid quit paying for the elective surgery, these same physicians quit doing them. Quick easy procedure with a tidy return for less than 15 minutes work.

      November 19, 2010 at 14:18 | Report abuse |
    • Simon

      Paul:

      You're a blooming idiot. Somehow, you've turned circumcision into a political issue. So before you get your white, religious right, conservative panties in a wad, join O'Donnell's anti-masturbation crusade and stop thinking about everyone else's peckers..... unless, of course you're inclined to swing that way ......... not that it's a bad thing.

      November 19, 2010 at 15:32 | Report abuse |
    • Patty

      Seems to me the people of San Francisco are letting the governmnet take over everyday decisions that we as parents should be making. The inactivists should mind their own bujsiness. Jail time, come on people , what in the world is going on out there!

      November 19, 2010 at 16:11 | Report abuse |
    • rquinn

      not really sure who profits from the circumcision of a baby...
      but, like with any other medical procedure, until the child it 18, the parents have full rights to whatever they wish to do for their child medically, children have no rights when it comes to their bodies and rightfully so, they should not be in control when they cannot think for themselves.
      when circumcision happens at such a young age, they will never remember what it felt like, however, if thy do it when they are 18, they will remember the pain. it is simply better to do it when they are children, because it is the parents decision

      November 19, 2010 at 16:15 | Report abuse |
    • Tracy

      I don't understand someone trying to take away the rights of parents. It is not as if we are cutting the skin off, it is a medically trained professional. If women are allowed to have a baby sucked out of them and then disposed in the trash like human waste, then who is someone to regulate my beliefs as a parent. This is a classic example of govenment trying to come in and take away our freedom.

      November 19, 2010 at 21:09 | Report abuse |
    • Don

      This discussion is insane. It was obvious millenia ago that it helped hygiene. My father was not circumstised when he was a baby and had it done at 18. He told me it was not fun. As an infant, I'm sure it hurt me, but can anyone say they remember???

      I don't get it. I guess it is just some sexual pervs that like that it that way....

      November 19, 2010 at 21:31 | Report abuse |
    • Craig

      If you've been circumcised you don't know what you've lost. Extra sensitivity and sexual pleasure. That's a fact. As for infections and hygiene – you take a shower. And as for protection from HIV, herpes etc – we all know to use condom. But as for punishing people who practice circumcision ... that's a lot of people to punish.

      November 19, 2010 at 21:39 | Report abuse |
    • hootie

      You people in San Francisco have gone too far. You have no right to ban ANYTHING who do you think you are???
      Glad I don't live there and never will.........you are the Gustapso, enough already.

      November 19, 2010 at 22:01 | Report abuse |
    • Ana

      I agree with Paul, it's all about money. The whole idea is ridiculous! A man will be dirty with foreskin or no foreskin. You can still get herpes or hpv with or without the stupid foreskin. A stupid belief and tradition that is really based on ignorance, lack of hygiene and ongoing stupidity carried out by men and women.

      November 20, 2010 at 00:15 | Report abuse |
    • BMomma

      All this talk just makes me wonder about other things that parents have removed from their children as infants....those kids that are born with an extra digit or 2 on their hands or feet, little growths that can be by their ears or in various other regions... would we have to wait to until the babies are 18 to let them decide about those also? I have a young son that I did not circumsize and for the reason of being like his dad...otherwise it didn't really matter to me one way or the other. Kids at young ages notice differences between themselves and their parents... anyone ever have their child ask why mommy doesn't have a penis or daddy doesn't have boobs?..or such questions?... It ultimately is the parents choice and what they want and belive.

      November 20, 2010 at 07:19 | Report abuse |
    • Mother

      I am was not born in the USA , I married my college love , I did not know what circumcition was, till our son was born, his father is Jewish and he explain it to me, I had a very shelter upbringing; but we agreed before marriage our children would be Catholic like me, I said no way, my son is 30 years and complete.
      Cricumcition was made "popular "in the USA because of the experience of jews in Europe with the Nazis, that when they were persecuted , this was a way to find out who was and who wan not, it is not a medical need for everybody, for some yes.
      I think also females should be banned in the USA with so many Muslims imigrating.

      November 20, 2010 at 07:43 | Report abuse |
    • molly cruz

      My mother died of cervical cancer after her uncircumcised lover came on board; I myself had the same ailment with a lover also uncircumcised; he himself died of the same mutated papilloma virus which had lodged in his sinus. He died a horrible death, I had surgery and survived. If Jews do it, you can conclude it's wise, or was at the time. Pork foraged in sewers and got everyone sick, same with shellfish, and foreskins cause disease, which is why they did it and why it should continue. Circumcised penises are far more attractive actually as many women will attest, they smell better too. Foreskins are traps for microbes and fluids and should be removed. Sad but true.

      November 20, 2010 at 12:22 | Report abuse |
    • Rich

      You have got to be kidding me. Most of the people making the anti circumcisian argument are the same ones making the pro-choice argument about abortion. It's ok to rip a baby out of a womens womb but God forbid we snip off a babies forskin. People out in SF are so out of touch with reallity. California deserves everything that is coming their way. You guys have more regulations than the rest of the country combined. You are ruining a beatiful state by letting every nutty idea become a political issue. How dare you tell me can't circumcise my kid.

      November 20, 2010 at 12:42 | Report abuse |
    • Max

      I had my circumcision done at age 20 for religious reason of my girlfriend. After the surgery I was nicely surprised to see my stomach pains gone. What I know now – i would make circumcision mandatory for boys.

      November 20, 2010 at 13:19 | Report abuse |
    • birdseye

      It is mutilation..pure and simple. Whatever "benefits" are there are more than overshadowed by the pain and suffering of the new born and the loss of a God given intact body. There are some benefits from cutting off your arm or eye-lid. Your under-arms would be clean and not smelly. and your you may not get eye disease. But if these things have a higher purpose, there is no reason to get rid of it. Folks who are already circumcised don't know what they are missing and have no weight in this debate.

      November 20, 2010 at 14:04 | Report abuse |
    • PerfidiousAlbion

      It's nice to know that God's creation needs to be "...sawn a bit..." to alter his divine plan. Whomever came up with this idea to mutiliate our son's genitalia is a MORON. Then again if it says so in the Holy Book (The Greatest Novel ever told!) it must be true. Also in re: Gary's statement, I am a little disconcerted about how much he fantasizes about "...An uncircumcised cock is ugly! A circumcised cock is a thing of beauty, sensitivity, I love it! Probably penis envy.

      November 20, 2010 at 14:58 | Report abuse |
    • Eddy

      "Mutilated?" My mohel and I have received nothing but compliments.

      November 20, 2010 at 18:05 | Report abuse |
    • Joseph G.

      I was circumcised as an infant. I'm 23 now, and wish I was intact. I can't imagine the pleasure from the lost nerve endings, the fluid gliding motion of the skin, and the improved protection from the environment. It should have been my choice as to what to do with MY body. I never consented to having this operation. Currently I am attempting stretching tools to force some of it to grow back, but the nerves are lost forever.

      This is a matter of consent. Parents do not own their child's body. They can consent to have them have surgery for required medical tasks... circumcision does not qualify. We've already banned female genital mutilation, and male genital mutilation needs to follow as well. Once a person is 18, they can decide for themselves.

      We aren't talking about hair or fingernails that grow back. We are not talking about giving kids the right to have sex. Those arguments are slippery slope fallacies, as well as being stupid. People are born with it for a reason, and the medical industry has done its dance well to convince us otherwise.

      November 20, 2010 at 21:56 | Report abuse |
    • bran

      @rquinn The keyword you said: medically. There is nothing medical about cutting on the genitals of a male baby when he is first born if there is nothing wrong with it. Parents do not own their children like they are objects, they cannot do anything they want to their baby otherwise they would be allowed to cut other parts of their body when they are first born but they are not.

      November 21, 2010 at 17:41 | Report abuse |
    • Dave L

      Ota et al...

      You clearly don't understand showering on a regular basis would eliminate germs and stench. Oh, and by the way, there are more germs in your >mouth< than under foreskin. Don't you know.

      November 21, 2010 at 18:25 | Report abuse |
    • Paul

      If you don't cut the foreskin you end up with one smelly penis.

      November 22, 2010 at 02:00 | Report abuse |
    • bran

      @Paul Hmm... Someone can't afford water... lulz. I bet you don't wash other parts of your body either.

      November 24, 2010 at 15:07 | Report abuse |
    • Mark

      Just leave it alone– dang

      November 25, 2010 at 23:14 | Report abuse |
  2. Mike

    As usual, a miniscule percent of individuals is attempting to create policy for the majority. Enough already. What happens to a child's foreskin is up to the parents of the child, and the child's doctor.

    Having been adopted at eighteen months, uncircumsized, at age 9 my parents thought it was time to make it happen, thus I was admitted to a hospital, and circumsized. It was an unjoyable experience at age nine, and it should have either been a decision to be made later, OR, and much preferably, done at birth so that there is no memory of it at all.

    The pain of changing bandages each day, the seepage sticking to the guaze, and stitches that were SUPPOSED to be self dissolving, was a healing process that literally took months. Is there some part of "mind your own business," that people do not understand? Is there some part of your rights end where mine (my family's) begin that people do not understand?

    It is past time for busybodies to butt out and allow others to make their own decisions themselves. I find the suggestion of a ban more invasive than the circumcision itself, and those that suggest and support such a thing should, at their earliest possible convenience, perform an anatomical improbability~

    November 19, 2010 at 12:39 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Rebekah C

      So...you'd rather subject a helpless, newborn baby to that terrible trauma that your parents subjected you to at 9? Do you think that because the baby can't say "this sucks, how could you do this to me?" that it isn't every bit as traumatic as what you remember? Do you realize what you are saying? You're saying it's OK to do that to a BABY.

      I support it being illegal to abuse children. Mutilating their genitals definitely qualifies as abuse in my book, even if it's in ignorance. I'd much prefer it to be a non-issue, though, and I think education is key.

      November 19, 2010 at 12:56 | Report abuse |
    • Drewblue

      I agree with you Mike. People need to quit trying to micro-manage others. You worry about you and I will worry about me.

      I was circumcised as a baby. And I am happy that I was. Would I do it to myself today if I wasn't? No. I think very few adult men would ever go in the their doctor and tell him to take a little off the top. But out of those same men, if it had been done as a baby, how many would be happy with what they have. I think most of them would be.

      But no matter which side you are on for bening circumcised. The real problem here is government getting their nose where it doesn't belong again. Before to long I'm not going to be able to go to the bathroom with out asking Uncle Sam

      November 19, 2010 at 16:11 | Report abuse |
    • Hiam

      Please, enough already with the "trauma" and "multilation" responses. I watched my own sons circumsisions, it is a quick and relatively painless proceedure, they didn't even cry. The doctor gave me some sugar-water solution that I put on my finger and allowed my sons to suck on while it was happening and they had much less of a reaction then when they started getting their immunization shots. All you anti-parents/personal rights people need to stop exaggerating and start worrying about your own issues and not other peoples.

      November 19, 2010 at 17:19 | Report abuse |
    • George

      You obviously don't give a damn about the choice of the boy when he's grown. He is a person, not an object owned by parents. Whether they like it or not, they have an obligation to protect that child from the profiteers of this barbaric unnecessary procedure. Your's is the argument of a man with a scar on his penis. Come out of your patriarchal stupor and support the rights of males to make their own choices as adults. Eighty five percent of men internationally are intact and living proof that "circumcision", a euphemism for genital mutilation, is a lie.

      November 19, 2010 at 17:32 | Report abuse |
    • Shawn Sanders

      Absolutely not, it its NOT the paretns or the doctors body, it is the childs and they are the ONLY one who should be making that decision

      November 20, 2010 at 13:15 | Report abuse |
    • Edwald

      Right!
      And the mutilation of female children (common in some African countries and elsewhere) should also be up to the parents and their "doctor"! Mutilate away, the child has no rights. Let every child become a showpiece for the parents' ill-infomed political and religious hysteria.

      Good thing no religion demands the removal of the head (only the critical thought processes that come along with a healthy brain). Of course, if you remove a body part, chances of it becoming e.g. cancerous later in life are pretty slim. Removal of healthy tissue for disease prevention is not a sane argument, however.

      Sometime in the future, people will look back at these barbaric mutilations with disgust. I had not expected to see this come
      close in my lifetime. My sincere admiration for the officials in San Francisco. Bravo!

      November 21, 2010 at 07:21 | Report abuse |
    • Mark

      Its not a choice – and if it was its not theirs to make

      November 25, 2010 at 23:16 | Report abuse |
  3. Ani

    I hope they have success.
    I asw once a video how it was done and this brought tears to my eyes.
    http://www.youtube.com/verify_age?next_url=http%3A//www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DAwBCElbVkuY%26feature%3Drelated

    November 19, 2010 at 12:40 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Michele

      In 1989 – the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended against circumcison for a time. As a result the hospital in which the birth was to take place required us to attend a class where they showed a similar video. I choose to leave my son as God created him – intact. I had a 2nd son and made the same decision. Prior to the birth of my children, I helped a friend who had had complications in her delivery with her baby. I was the one changing the gauze, applying the ointment and hearing the baby scream when he urinated and it burned his rare skin. It was not even my child and I cried for his pain. I find it amazing that we are the only industrialized country that routinely circumcises our sons and yet we scream it is a crime to do the same to girls??

      November 19, 2010 at 13:21 | Report abuse |
    • John

      A friend doctor told me that there are new techiques that cause no pain.

      November 19, 2010 at 13:46 | Report abuse |
  4. Cieje Valentine

    I tend to look at it from the little guy's perspective.. "Wait a minute, I just GOT this thing and you want to do WHAT TO IT?"

    November 19, 2010 at 12:45 | Report abuse | Reply
  5. Kelly

    Today's article is an excellent example of narrow-minded, biased reporting in the USA and the use of fear to promote a profit-driven agenda.

    Approximately 800 men are diagnosed with penile cancer per year. 3500 women are diagnosed with vulvar cancer. To suggest removal of the foreskin of male infants as a means to prevent penile cancer, we should also suggest removing the vulva of female infants to prevent vulvar cancer, as the cancer risk is almost 4.5 times higher.

    "It's *unclear* how circumcision lowers infection rates, but researchers *speculate* that the foreskin could foster a more favorable environment for viruses."

    This is not science, it's speculation! Circumcising babies to prevent STDs is ridiculous because babies aren't having sex! Condoms prevent STDs. If a sexually active man chooses to engage in risky sexual behavior, he can do the research himself and make an informed decision on circumcision.

    If the foreskin caused as many problems as American medicine leads us to believe, 75% of men worldwide wouldn't be intact. 99% of British men are intact – are their STD rates sky high?

    "It's also possible to develop swelling and tenderness if the foreskin is not properly cared for."

    Care of an intact infant's genitals is very simple. Wash it like a finger, do NOT retract. The foreskin is fused to the glans at birth, much like the fingernail is fused to the tip of the finger.

    Let's talk about the money – each year approximately 1 million baby boys are subjected to non-therapeutic circumcision at an average cost of $675 each. That is a multi-million dollar industry. But wait, there's more – amputated foreskins sell on average for about $250 each to research and cosmetic companies. Yes, cosmetic companies.

    It's no wonder doctors continue to offer circumcision to parents with biased information. If only they were willing to take the paycut in exchange for the moral high ground.

    Americans – you've been duped into thinking the circumcised penis is normal. It is not. It is altered and scarred. Normal is how babies are born, wake up. Medicine is wrong and non-therapeutic circumcision is painful, harmful, and unnecessary – which clearly makes it unethical.

    Amy Jo Jones reason for circumcising her son is extremely selfish and totally ridiculous. Baby and child genitals look nothing like adult genitals. If a child wonders why his penis looks different from daddy's, simply explain to him what circumcision is. No one has the right to cut off healthy, functioning tissue from a baby without a clear medical need.

    Thankfully, due to the internet, accurate and unbiased information is available to parents who are willing to do a little more research on this decision than the amount of time they spend researching a new car or the i-pad.

    Since 1999, the American Academy of Pediatricians does NOT recommend routine infant circumcision nor does ANY major medical organization in the world. Doctors that continue to promote and cut baby's genitals are either extremely ignorant of the value and functions of the prepuce or simply in it for the money. What other explanation could there be?

    Parents ARE choosing to leave their baby's genitals alone. Infant circumcision reached it's peak in the 80s at over 80%. Now those circumcised babies are having babies of their own and leaving 60% of them intact. Circ rates are falling fast and this is a good thing for the basic rights of baby boys.

    November 19, 2010 at 12:56 | Report abuse | Reply
    • marie

      THANK YOU KELLY !!!!! THE ONLY COMMON SENSE PERSON IN THIS DEBATE
      I am from EUrope where the majority of men IS NOT circumcised. A circumcised penis looks ridiculous and even painful to me! We don't have higher rates of STDs (actually American teenagers are pretty good) or more diseases/infections. My husband and baby boy are not circumcised because it is the way it has to be.
      As Kelly mentioned, this is an industry and brainswashing. Dont forget that one of the reasons why circumcisions became so practiced in the medical field is that the rate of Jewish physicians was high at one point and then it became 'normal' to do it. There is no medical reason, STDs get get avoided ONLY with condoms or NO SEX. And for those who are trully Christians, why would you destroy why God intended for us to have? If Nature selected this piece of skin to be here for men, this is for a good reason.

      November 19, 2010 at 17:15 | Report abuse |
    • AM

      my guess is that circ rate is going down because of growing Latino population... hope it will help to eliminate this practice alltogether...

      November 20, 2010 at 21:01 | Report abuse |
    • bran

      Finally someone with sense.

      November 21, 2010 at 17:50 | Report abuse |
  6. Eli

    For 5000 years it helped and saved a lot of men, hurt none and gave pleasure to all – what's the gripe?

    November 19, 2010 at 12:56 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Rebekah C

      A) you're suggesting that having the tip of your penis cut off doesn't hurt?

      B) pleasure to who? I don't find it attractive or pleasurable, I think circumcised penises look mutilated and I always inwardly wince when I think what that poor man is missing.

      C) Current research reports that the most concentrated amount of pleasure-sensing nerves in the male body is in the foreskin. So you think cutting it of BRINGS pleasure? I don't think so.

      November 19, 2010 at 13:00 | Report abuse |
    • Michele

      Not quite sure what you are talking about – saving men for 5000 years. The egyptians circumcised their slaves.

      November 19, 2010 at 13:23 | Report abuse |
    • Kelly

      Helped and saved a lot of men from what exactly?

      For 65 MILLION years the prepuce has been present in primates. It has never NOT been part of the male anatomy until folks decided their god told them to slice it off helpless babies.

      November 19, 2010 at 13:40 | Report abuse |
    • Gary

      Rebekah C – a female, how could you know? "Cutting off the tip of ones penis" this is stupid! circumcision DOES NOT affect the head of the penis.

      My circumcised penis is a thing of high art, the head exposed not hidden, not bashful, the skin just below the head has a soft feel and hangs like lace around the bottom of the head; beautiful.

      I am amazed at how many of you are violently against sculpturing a wonderful part of a mans body into a masterpiece!

      November 19, 2010 at 13:43 | Report abuse |
    • DEADINSIDE

      @ Rebekah C....What are you talking about? It's not really THE END OF YOUR PENIS that is cut off, surely you know that right? My parents had me done before I had even left the hospital and I am so glad they did, it saved me alot of harrasment and ridicule in school by being "normal" and it is something that I would have never done on my own as an adult. It's cleaner, not as ugly (think turkey neck and gibblets), and I have never ever had the problem of lack of enjoyment or pleasure from it!

      November 19, 2010 at 13:51 | Report abuse |
    • DEADINSIDE

      @ Gary....WOW....proud are we? LOL You go man!!!

      November 19, 2010 at 13:55 | Report abuse |
    • Jack

      DEADINSIDE,
      You realize that the foreskin parts are parts of the pneis (at the end) NO? If you are cut, you probably don't know the sensory input you are missing. Your sensory system was damaged at ayoung age and you have missedout on a huge source of pleasure.

      Thousands of coiled fine-touch mechanoreceptors called Meissner's corpuscles, a unique and very iimportant sensory component of the bodyn, encapsulated Vater-Pacinian cells, Merkel's cells, nociceptors, and branches of the dorsal nerve and perineal nerve. Altogether, between 10,000 and 20,000 specialized erotogenic nerve endings of several types, which can feel slight motion and stretch, subtle changes in temperature, and fine gradations in texture are lost FOREVER.

      The about 20,000 specialised nerve-endings concentrated inside the tip of the foreskin do not only make it more sensitive, they make it "better sensitive", conferring what's been called "a symphony of sensation". They're like the nerve-endings of the fingertips or the lips. The idea of cutting off a baby's lips is too outlandish to even contemplate. Hwy is doing an equivalent thing to a baby boys genitals accepted? Isn't it time to break the cycle?

      November 19, 2010 at 15:51 | Report abuse |
    • Mark

      who has it helped – exactly?

      November 25, 2010 at 23:18 | Report abuse |
  7. Rebekah C

    I support legislation that protects children from obvious abuse. I'd me MORE supportive of mass education, though.

    By the way, did you know that if you just go ahead and amputate your toes that you will have successfully prevented stubbing and breaking them? Food for thought.

    November 19, 2010 at 12:58 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Mark S

      I agree, Rebekah. Where do we draw the line on mutilation? Do we really need our ears to hear? What about our eyelids? And yes, eyelids are a good example because they protect and lubricate our eyes; they are a necessary anatomy. The foreskin is designed protect the glans (which is an organ–and the surface of the glans is NOT skin). One of the worst parts of circumcision is ripping the foreskin from the not-yet-fully-developed glans. This causes permanent scarring and sometimes can result in permanent damage to the penis. Those of us who have been mutilated as infants will never know what a foreskin feels like as there is nothing to compare.

      Point is: Wait until the individual makes his own informed choice as to what to do with his gonads. Circumcision is necessary in many instances, but to have it done just to fit in or for whatever other reason is depriving this human being of his ability to choose what to do with his body.

      Would any caring parent allow their neighbor to play around with slicing and dicing of their child's privates? I would be sent to jail for taking out a sharp knife and cutting my kid's penis for any reason whatsoever. Just because it's may be done by a medical professional doesn't make it "the right thing to do."

      November 19, 2010 at 16:16 | Report abuse |
    • Rhonda

      My youngest was born at home, therefore he was not circumcized. I don't regret that, however the origin of circumcision is a Jewish religious custom. It is a part of their religion, and is written about in the Old Testament. There should not be laws against, and jail sentences as punishment for it. SF you are going to far!

      November 19, 2010 at 16:19 | Report abuse |
    • Aaron

      Those without a penis have no say in this issue. It's not like abortion where it effects both parties. Of course why not let the government decide what we can and cannot do with our penises. They already use a penis-grab to determine if we're fit to fly or not.

      November 19, 2010 at 18:28 | Report abuse |
    • Rhonda

      Mothers definitely have a say in this matter, and they do not have penises.

      November 19, 2010 at 18:40 | Report abuse |
    • Rich

      Does your anti child abuse apply to abortion as well. I bet that really hurts the little guy to get ripped out of his mothers womb.

      November 20, 2010 at 12:52 | Report abuse |
    • Seth

      Moot point alert!!! Toes are required for balance. Foreskin is not required for any reason.

      November 22, 2010 at 14:42 | Report abuse |
  8. Nathan

    Brush your finger down the back of your hand. Now, brush it down the palm. Notice the different sensation? The circumcised penis is missing those specialized nerve endings that appear in the palm, because the foreskin contains at least 20,000 of them. – Audrey Bryk!

    November 19, 2010 at 13:00 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Gary

      I just did what you suggested and guess what? The back of my hand and the palm of my hand when brushed down with the finger tips of my other hand fingers... Wait... I had to do it again to see if what happened was true: The palm of my hand is more sensitive than the back of my hand!

      I wonder why you and I are different?

      November 19, 2010 at 13:51 | Report abuse |
    • Gary

      Nathan! Oops! My bad.... yes my palm is more sensitive as you noted!

      November 19, 2010 at 13:54 | Report abuse |
  9. Jennifer

    My son is 10 weeks old and NOT circumcised. I am SO happy I made that decision. At 6 months pregnant I knew without a doubt I would do it – I thought you were supposed to... Every guy I'd ever seen or been with was "cut". It looked and seemed natural – BUT – at 7 months I decided to look into it... and what I found was that people were doing it for the exact reasons I were. Because they thought they were supposed to. Circs were mostly a religious thing started to keep boys from masturbating. Didn't work – people in turn said it's a cleanliness issue... YA – SURE IT IS! As a woman, I have to clean my vagina – so what's the problem with a man cleaning his penis? The foreskin is there for a reason.

    I spent 9 months taking care of myself for this baby. I took vitamins, ate better, quit smoking and drinking, exercised.
    So to think the first thing I would do after loving this baby inside me is mutilating his penis once he's outside of me?
    People need to educate themselves. Some countries circ women by cutting off their clitoris. Would you do that to your daughter? Then why is it ok to cut off essentially the same piece of skin with all the sensitivity and nerve endings meant for sexual pleasure to your son?

    I've never been with an uncircumcised man. But I have SEVERAL friends who have who say it's much better.
    All I know is I love my son. When he is older if he decides he wants to chop off part of his penis, then, he can make that choice. As his mother, my job is to love and PROTECT him... not mutilate/torture/abuse him.

    So a baby can't remember it... He probably also won't remember if pinch or beat him a couple times... doesn't make it right or ok.

    November 19, 2010 at 13:02 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Josh Baker

      "I spent 9 months taking care of myself for this baby. I took vitamins, ate better, quit smoking and drinking, exercised.
      So to think the first thing I would do after loving this baby inside me is mutilating his penis once he's outside of me?
      People need to educate themselves."

      You are the definition of an excellent mother. Thank you.

      November 19, 2010 at 14:15 | Report abuse |
    • Mario

      coming from a part of the world where we consider this to be a terrible thing to do to a child (girl or boy) you made the right choice and thank god most mothers in this world make the same exact choice.

      November 20, 2010 at 00:54 | Report abuse |
    • birdseye

      @Jennifer, you are someone who can think of her own, rather than doing what is traditional, religious or common. I'm sure you will be an excellent mother!

      November 20, 2010 at 14:22 | Report abuse |
    • AM

      great points !!!

      November 20, 2010 at 21:08 | Report abuse |
    • AM

      the biggest shock that I experienced after moving to US was when I learned that 80 percent of male Americans are circ-ized.... I am from Eastern europe, and for us it was an anti-christian middle-eastern practice, something that both catholic,, orthodox and protestant churches ban.

      The second shock was when i learned that this practice was introduced to America by couple of "'doctors" in the beginning of 20th century, and they managed to spread it all over the country that claims to be christian...

      November 20, 2010 at 21:20 | Report abuse |
  10. Jake

    Let me guess...these are the same "Inactivists" are the ones that are "PRO-ABORTION' do not want to harm babies!?! A bit contradictory, don't you think? By the way; how's that Happy Meal toy ban coming?

    http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/11/12/california.fast.food.ban/index.html?npt=NP1
    Headline: "Mayor vetoes San Francisco ban on Happy Meals with toys"

    FAIL x2...

    Cieje – Ask ANY guy if they remember it...the answer will be no. Most approve of this practice, as well.

    Ani – Something else that brought tears was m ynewborn getting shots and them sqeezing blood onto a piece of paper for a test. Not something that I'd want, but it was necissary; just like circumcising. It shouldn't be banned, it should be mandatory.

    Mike – you're DEAD on. Bravo for standing up to the few trying to bully the majority.

    Paul – It is NOT about vanity or money, as you may suspect. It's about hygene and spread /cause of disease and cancers. This has been proven numerous times. Also, it is about religious tradition. Although I'm an advocate for my faith (Catholism) and try to reach out; I do NOT try to be pushy about my beliefs; please do NOT break my 1st Ammendmant right and I will not break yours. This is what makes America great.

    November 19, 2010 at 13:04 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Hugh7

      @Jake: "Let me guess...these are the same "Inactivists" are the ones that are "PRO-ABORTION' do not want to harm babies!?!" You guess wrong. Intactivists are as divided about abortion (because it is a different issue) as everyone else, but in any case, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act 2002, signed by George W Bush and supported by the pro-life movement, grants all born babies full human rights.

      "Ask ANY guy if they remember it...the answer will be no." But how long did they take to forget? (Taddio et al. found circumcised babies reacted differently to the pain of vaccination months later.) If forgetting makes it all right, may I drug you and do anything I want to you?

      "Most approve of this practice, as well." You've asked them all? No scientific studies have been done, but informal polls suggest that guys left alone are much more likely to be happy about that than guys with part of their genitals cut off.

      "It shouldn't be banned, it should be mandatory." I'll quote you next time someone says "Nobody says it should be mandatory" and complains about people imposing their views on parents.

      "I'm an advocate for my faith (Catholism)" – then you should take some notice of these:
      "...the amputation of any part of the human body is never legal, except when the entire body cannot be saved from destruction by any other method." – Pope Benedict XIV (1740-58)

      "From a moral point of view, circumcision is permissible if, in accordance with therapeutic principles, it prevents a disease that cannot be countered in any other way." – Pope Pius XII

      " Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law." – Catechism of the Catholic Church (Item 2297: Respect for bodily integrity)

      "please do NOT break my 1st Ammendmant right and I will not break yours."
      How about the Fourth Amendment “right of the people to be secure in their persons … against unreasonable … seizures”

      November 20, 2010 at 18:04 | Report abuse |
  11. Mike

    I believe it is time for regime change in San Francisco. Excuse me while I eat my happy meal from a plastic bag that I just tossed in the unsorted trash. Progressive by the way is rooted in the word progress. I see the village idiot.

    November 19, 2010 at 13:06 | Report abuse | Reply
  12. mark

    It's true people, sexual enjoyment is greatly increased with foreskin intact! I was circumsised, and too much skin was removed. which is a very common problem that occurs from the procedure, imagine trying to cut off just the "right" amount of skin from a poor little infant boy's penis, terrible. The problem comes as you age and there's not enough skin left to stretch with growth, the scrotal skin gets pulled up the shaft, hair and all, and the extemely tight skin can actually tear during intercourse, This is a barbaric practice people. I heard about restoring the foreskin by stretching techniques, but one can never regain what was, and should be there. After 5 years I was able to get the skin looser and wear a device to keep the glans covered most of the time. The difference is amazing! sex is 100% better for myself and my wife. Besides, how is it ok to give another person the right to decide if any part of another persons body gets hacked off! especially such a personal and pleasurable part, this is disgraceful! Let the man decide when he's old enough and I guarentee you circumsision's will become a thing of the past as men start to really think about and hear from others what they're missing, Right now it's taboo to even talk about, because the decision has been taken away from most of us at birth. We need a discussion about all the issues and problems involved with this wasteful surgery. I know of many men who are angry about what was forced upon them as infants, and as the word gets out this is going to become more of an issue. please don't do this to your baby boy's people, they may rightfully be resentful later in life. thanks for listening.

    November 19, 2010 at 13:11 | Report abuse | Reply
  13. Dirk

    In the case of infant circumcision, this is a parent issue that should not be subject to a city ordinance.

    November 19, 2010 at 13:12 | Report abuse | Reply
    • CTed

      yeah like cutting off their hand is a parent issue and shouldn't be subject to a sity ordinance... what's the difference. You can't say the foresking doesn't serve a purpose. how much of a purpose does it ahve to serve?
      Can we cut offf babies earlobes? what about their little toe can we cut taht off? Is that the parent's decision?
      Can we take out their appendix at birth just in case? Appedicitis is WAY more common than penile cancer.

      November 19, 2010 at 14:14 | Report abuse |
  14. Liz kelsey

    I'm a nurse who has worked with infants and adults. Infants haven't got a very well deveoped nervous system and pain can be relieved thru a procedure by letting them suck on a sweetened pacifier. The circumcision is over in minutes-it is much harder on parents than the infant. A few days of changing a dressing is hard on the parents and then everything is over.
    I think it is a clealiness issue and there are complications in elderly men who haven't been circumscised.
    A parent of a baby will need to retract the foreskin and keep the area clean and free of yuky bulidup. Who's going to make sure little Joey is clean after the diaper stage or when Grandpa can't take care of himself? Puhleeeez!

    November 19, 2010 at 13:17 | Report abuse | Reply
    • LOL

      Who made sure little Lizzy cleaned her va-jayjay after her diaper stage and what about when she's a little old lady? You don't have children – it's obvious by your post. Cleanliness? Take a shower lady! BTW have you ever pulled up your clit-hood? It gets build up in there ya know!! But I assume you clean it right? My sisters a nurse and she has to clean the elderly's private parts regardless of if they are cicumsized or not! PUHLEEEEEEEEEEZ!

      November 19, 2010 at 13:26 | Report abuse |
    • Nurse Shepherd

      Infants haven't got a very well deveoped nervous system and pain can be relieved thru a procedure by letting them suck on a sweetened pacifier. The circumcision is over in minutes-it is much harder on parents than the infant. A few days of changing a dressing is hard on the parents and then everything is over.

      Really Liz? Please explain your methodology and cite your sources because all the research I've ready doesn't support your claim, in fact, all the recent studies are showing early trauma causes long-term problems. Oh, and harder on the parents? The parents wait in their hospital room while the baby is carted off to a treatment room well out of hearing range of the parents. How many parents are allowed to watch the procedure? Cleanliness is required for all our body parts to prevent funk from settling in and causing problems, regardless of age, sex, whether we've trimmed off all excess parts or not.

      November 19, 2010 at 14:32 | Report abuse |
    • Liz

      LOL – I've never blogged before- didn't realize people would be so nasty

      November 19, 2010 at 15:00 | Report abuse |
    • Jack

      Liz, It is not that people are nasty, it is that you say you are a nurse and act like you know what you are talking about.

      Q:So which has more nerves, the foreskin parts (the clitoral hood is the female analog) or the entire clitoris?
      A The foreskin parts.

      Now NURSE why would you ever recomend disconnecting thousands of nerves from a baby boys brain!!!
      MALE Circumcision is nerve damage and sensory system damage - a cutting off of about 20000 fine touch and stretch sensing nerve endings and removing a source of pleasure from the male FOR LIFE. This is 2/3 of the total pleasure source amputated! This is nerves, blood vessels, protective covering and pleasure zones taken away from a human before the human can experience this. The dynamics and function and pleasure from sex and masturbation of the penis is harmed for good.

      Liz, your bit about nervous systems and babies feeling pain has been shown to be old school hookum - that is it is not correct. Baby boys feel all the pain and the sugar does little. In fact, baby boys have their membrane ripped from the galns and that is more pain than ripping out fingernails. They get no anesthesia.

      Your Hyiene thing is a bit much. Baby boys are easier to clean. You should know that infant boys are EASIER to care for when they are natural (intact). The foreskin does not retract until late childhood or even puberty, so you do nothing special, just wipe the outside of his penis clean and leave it alone. Furthermore, to prevent painful and bleeding erections later in life, doctors are now commonly leaving more skin behind- in a cut boy this means you may have to push the left over skin back at every diaper change and clean beneath it to prevent it from adhering or infecting. The very thing that mother's think they avoid by circumcising! BTW, old school medical people told partents in the 50s – 80s to pull back the foreskin of boys and clean with soap and this is actually what caused most infections in boys.

      And a cut penis is no cleaner than a NATURAL one. Besides the good pioints above that women have more to clean (and manage fine), the cut is cleaner myth is based on a misunderstanding of bacteria. Cut men are more exposed to foreign bacteria and that is not good.

      November 19, 2010 at 16:05 | Report abuse |
    • Gotahellnurse

      A NURSE cleaning old men is the last person in the universe I want deciding that I'll having an insensitive penis for a lifetime. Because a physician wants to make $675, and sell a flap for $200 and because some peon nurse's convenience, i get gypped out of a foreskin for life. Trying to masquerade "medical" reasons for this 3000 year old practice always used to supress sex is just dispicable. I can't believe physicians don't give up the their dishonest stance on this. It brings down the entire profession.

      November 19, 2010 at 16:59 | Report abuse |
    • Stan B

      Liz kelsey wrote, "A parent of a baby will need to retract the foreskin and keep the area clean and free of yuky bulidup."

      This is a good example of the outdated and harmful information that many American health care provides give to parents of intact boys.

      No one should ever retract a baby boy's foreskin. At birth a boy's foreskin is attached to the head of his penis. Forcibly retracting a boy's foreskin is similar to forcibly opening a kitten's eyes. It causes harm.

      Only clean what is seen. Just wash his penis the same way you would wash his fingers and toes.

      November 19, 2010 at 21:29 | Report abuse |
    • Frank OHara

      Liz, it terrifies me that I might have to rely on people like you to take care of my healthcare needs

      "I'm a nurse who has worked with infants and adults. Infants haven't got a very well deveoped nervous system and pain can be relieved thru a procedure by letting them suck on a sweetened pacifier."

      This is patently false. From 8 weeks before birth to 8 weeks after birth, humans are more sensitive to pain than at any other time in their lives. This is medical fact! What you are asserting is old time myth.

      "The circumcision is over in minutes-it is much harder on parents than the infant."

      This is also myth, the wound is painful for weeks just as with any other wound.

      "I think it is a clealiness issue"

      You think wrong. The female genitalia is far more "rich" biologically than the male genitalia. If it were truly a hygiene issue, we should be circumcising females rather than males.

      "and there are complications in elderly men who haven't been circumscised."

      This is nothing more than an urban myth that holds no resemblence to truth. I've seen it many times and it just doesn't hold up to the harsh light of truth.

      "A parent of a baby will need to retract the foreskin and keep the area clean and free of yuky bulidup.

      This is absolutely false information. If you were actually a nurse as you claim, you would know this. Doing as you suggest can cause permanent damage.

      "Who's going to make sure little Joey is clean after the diaper stage or when Grandpa can't take care of himself? Puhleeeez!"

      Who's going to make sure little Suzy is clean after the diaper stage or grandma Myrtle who can't take care of her self? Puleeeeze!

      November 19, 2010 at 22:26 | Report abuse |
    • Hugh7

      Others have repled well to most of your points, but you need to know about this study: Slater et al, The Lancet, 1 September 2010, Oral sucrose as an analgesic drug for procedural pain in newborn infants: a randomised controlled trial

      "Our data suggest that oral sucrose does not significantly affect activity in neonatal brain or spinal cord nociceptive [pain-receptive] circuits, and therefore might not be an effective analgesic drug. The ability of sucrose to reduce clinical observational scores after noxious events in newborn infants should not be interpreted as pain relief."

      November 20, 2010 at 18:18 | Report abuse |
    • Nurse Shepherd

      JACK, I was quoting LIZ (should have put it in italics or something), I know that infant feel pain and that is an old belief that allowed newborns to undergo surgery without anesthesia, that and the fact that they wouldn't remember. The Harvard study on early untreated pain in infancy showed there are consequences later in life and that neonates, infants, and children should be afforded the same pain management that adults enjoy.

      November 21, 2010 at 13:04 | Report abuse |
    • Mark

      Hoorah to the comments – hooray

      November 25, 2010 at 23:22 | Report abuse |
  15. Anne

    What is the difference between this and female genitalia mutilation in Africa that we freak out over?
    My sons are still intact despite pressure from family. Cultural pressure can be very hard to resist.
    STD's and unwanted pregnancies in women could be prevented if we sewed vaginas shut, but does that really make sense? Perhaps we should try it!

    November 19, 2010 at 13:19 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Gary

      Anne, if you donʻt see the difference... "What is the difference between this and female genitalia mutilation in Africa that we freak out over?"

      You need to educated yourself, now!

      November 19, 2010 at 13:58 | Report abuse |
    • Jack

      Anne,

      Good point. FGM can be a horrific removal of all outer gentile parts including the outer clitoris. HORRIBLE. However, the most common (about 80%) of FGM is clitoral hood and labia cutting. That is less nerves and less pleasure giving tissue removed than what they do to boys here in the US. Women say the sex is fine, say it is cleaner and they want it done to their daughters (does that sound familiar?)! The rare form of FGM is certainly worse than MGM. However, male circumcision done here in the US takes away more sexual function and pleasure capacity than female circumcision as it is typically done (e.g., in Malaysia). So they are comparable, if you remove the culture/sex bias.

      Also, just as for MGM, people claim that FGM lowers the risk of HIV. Two large studiesthe claimed that FGM (labia and clitoral hood cutting) lowered HIV risk to the cut women. I think this is BS. Note that in the US and the rest of the industrialized world there is no lower HIV risk or ANY STD risk by having part of you r penis removed. WATER!

      A fact that is certain is that all of these genital cutting practices remove capicity for pleasure of the circumcised. For men the loss is drastic with thousands of fine touch nerve endings cut off. For females the loss is a bit less severe for the most common FGM (labia and clitoral hood removal) and is sexually devastating for the extreme form.

      I am against all cutting of the genitals, certainly against all cutting of the genitals without the consent of the person being cut. I ask that those against FGM also voice their disapproval of MGM. The rest of the world sees the selective treatment as hypocrisy, which it is.

      November 19, 2010 at 16:17 | Report abuse |
    • Mark

      i agree – lets keep things naturale

      November 25, 2010 at 23:23 | Report abuse |
  16. Chris

    I am SO GLAD someone is doing this. I strongly resent having been cut. Circumcision is medically unjustifiable genital mutilation of uninformed, non-consenting minors.

    Religious reasons for doing it are not acceptable, for you can create a religion to sanctify anything (e.g. Mormons with polygamy, Rastafarians with marijuana). Mutilating babies' genitals is nothing short of barbaric.

    November 19, 2010 at 13:25 | Report abuse | Reply
    • corruptmedicalprofession

      Thank you San Fran is right to stand up to ignorance, and to a juggernaut medical profession stealing all it can get away with.

      November 19, 2010 at 17:01 | Report abuse |
  17. Lazaro Amaral

    I am not circumcised , thanks to my parents & born in a latin country where it is costumed not to circumcised baby boys . I have been taught from a young age about hygiene & taken care of cleaning my manhood after I urinate . I thank my parents for not having me circumcised . I have a greater sensibility during sex & it is allot easer to self stimulate ( masturbation ) than men that are circumcised.

    November 19, 2010 at 13:27 | Report abuse | Reply
  18. Diana27

    Male genital mutilation is barbaric and cruel! Who are you to determine if anoter human being should be put through this torture or not? Parents are there to protect and nurture their children not put them through unnecessary cosmetic surgery with no anistesia at only a few days old. The claim that circumcision reduces a mans risk of contracting HIV was proven unfounded years ago. Teach your children abstinence, safe sex, and good hygiene if you want to help them! More US baby boys die from "routine" circumcision each year than from SIDS!

    November 19, 2010 at 13:32 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Frank OHara

      "More US baby boys die from "routine" circumcision each year than from SIDS!"

      Yep, this is something few people in The US know. Three separate studies over 20 years found that well over 200 babies die each year from their circumcisions. There are also malpractice lawsuits over those that survive amounting in the $$$millions. In my state alone in the last year, there were more than $13 million in botched circumcision judgments against doctors.

      November 19, 2010 at 22:38 | Report abuse |
  19. Pete

    My wife is Jewish so I didn't have much choice in the matter for my firstborn, and the same goes for my second, due in April. I don't agree with circumcision (or at least not without the adult consent of the person getting hacked – unless for health reasons). I am confident that in our lifetime this religious practice will go away, outside of the most conservative religious people. You can still have a ceremonial brit milah and achieve what I believe to be the important aspects of it (the gathering of friends and family to celebrate a new life) without the snip snip. I was circumsized just because almost everyone was in the seventies. I hate that I didn't have any choice in the matter and my dad says his decision to do so is one of his biggest regrets. As a father, I think it'll be one of mine too.

    November 19, 2010 at 13:33 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Kelly

      I am confident it will go away too, but only if fathers like you stop the cycle. There is a growing number of Jews that are choosing to leave their sons intact. I have one son circumcised and two intact myself. Babies' rights trump religious and parental choice, in my opinion.

      November 19, 2010 at 13:51 | Report abuse |
    • Hugh7

      Here are contact details for celebrants of Brit Shalom (Brit B'li Milah – Covenant without cutting): http://shalom.notlong.com – many of them rabbis.

      November 20, 2010 at 18:54 | Report abuse |
  20. Chad

    I wish my parents hadn't cut me.
    I was cut wrong and it's disfigured. It's been embarrassing my entire life.
    Botched circumcisions happen all the time... and for what?

    Insurances no longer pay for them because they are "NOT MEDICALLY NECESSARY"!
    I challenge those who think it's perfectly fine to do to watch a video of how it's done.
    They rip the foreskin off the head (because at birth it's still sealed to head) they then cut the babies flesh off. They strap the baby down and the baby screams and cries until he goes into shock. It's horrific. A friend who worked in a pediatrician office said it's the most horrible thing she'd ever witnessed. Parents don't get to watch because it's so tragic.
    The baby goes into shock.

    I wish someone had spoken up for me...

    November 19, 2010 at 13:33 | Report abuse | Reply
  21. PhillyKen

    What next, a ban on cutting umbilical cords? This is a stupid proposal. Health benefits of circumcision are clinically proven, whether for religious reasons or not. I was circumcised as an infant, and I'm glad. I was so young, I never had any recollection. Are these the same people who decide not to vaccinate their children based upon some urban legend?

    November 19, 2010 at 13:34 | Report abuse | Reply
    • corruptmedicalprofession

      What you don't know you're never going to think about. that doesn't make it right, or you very smart. start here: it's incredible but true: You were gypped. But you're not alone.

      November 19, 2010 at 17:03 | Report abuse |
    • Frank OHara

      "Health benefits of circumcision are clinically proven"

      PhillyKen, this is patently false. Any claimed benefit of male circumcision can be achieved via simple antibiotics and antifungals. Something you and most people do not know is that bacterials, fungals and virals can not discern or discriminate between male and female cells. This means that the very same and exact infectious agents males contract are the same exact infections females contract. It also means that the exact same medications used to treat females will be equally effective in males. When was the last time you heard of female genital parts being ablated (amputated) for treatment of an infection? Doesn't happen because these can all be treated by less invasive methods. The same is true of males. Circumcision is unnecessarily invasive when less invasive means are available.

      .

      November 19, 2010 at 22:46 | Report abuse |
  22. Jim

    There is a differance between ignorance and stupidity.
    Ignorance can be fixed –
    Sounds like they got the permanent deal.
    Maybe that is why California is broke.

    November 19, 2010 at 13:39 | Report abuse | Reply
  23. Rob

    Personally, I would never circumcise a child of mine. Let him decide for himself when he is of age.

    November 19, 2010 at 13:43 | Report abuse | Reply
  24. Don

    Whatever your point of view the government should not be involved.

    November 19, 2010 at 13:44 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Sebastian

      "...the government should not be involved..."

      But the government is already deeply involved in the protection of children! There are laws against hitting children. There are laws against molesting them. There are laws that say children must go to school, others that say children cannot be forced into labor. Other laws say you cannot give alcohol to a child. These are not things that are left to the decision of the parents. We make these laws because we feel that children are helpless and must be protected, even from their own parents sometimes. The government ("us" by extension) should definitely be involved in those matters. What children should be protected against should be decided democratically. If a majority feels that circumcision should not be performed on minors, then it should be prohibited and left for men to decide for themselves as adults.

      November 19, 2010 at 14:29 | Report abuse |
  25. Jane

    I don't see this is much different from female circumcision. Why mutilate a baby's body? If boys were meant to not have foreskins, they wouldn't be born with them. NOTHING in the body exists without reason. Even the appendix, that "useless organ" has a purpose, now scientists are finding.

    As a woman, I prefer men who are natural – unmutilated. I always felt a little sorry for my husband, that he was missing a very natural part of his body, simply because his parents didn't question tradition.

    November 19, 2010 at 13:45 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Frank OHara

      "Why mutilate a baby's body? If boys were meant to not have foreskins, they wouldn't be born with them. NOTHING in the body exists without reason"

      I agree with this! Every mammal is born with a foreskin. That indicates it is useful and purposeful. For those who believe there is a health benefit, would you have your dog or cat circumcised? Don't you think these animals should benefit from better health? Why would you circumcise your child and not your pet?

      .

      November 19, 2010 at 22:50 | Report abuse |
  26. Robson Azevedo

    Great. I think that I can contribute to this article a lot. My story is: I wasn't circunsised when I was a child. When I was a teenager I felt pain and swallowing after penetration or masturbation. Also, the foreskin allowed bacteria to grow around it, as my penis head was red all the time. When I was about 20 year old, I went to the doctor and asked to be circunsised and he did it, but he didn't cut ALL the skin. He explained to me that cutting all the skin would take away some of the sensitivity, diminishing the pleasure. He cut it just enough skin, so I wouldn't have any more pain or swallowing and he said: "You can always come back and we can cut more of the skin if you still feel pain or swallowing". It's the best thing the doctor did, not to cut all the foreskin. Now, I'm an adult. The foreskin doesn't bother me anymore and I can pull the skin down and keep it down, so no bacterias grow on the foreskin anymore (my penis head was never red and sensitive again). And I still have the skin and great sexual pleasure. So, I think that boys should make the decision themselves as adults (about 20 years old) and should not cut ALL the skin. You can keep the skin up or down, but leaving the skin down feels so much more clean and no bacterias grow around the skin.

    November 19, 2010 at 13:46 | Report abuse | Reply
  27. Femmetalguy

    I was circumcised when I was a baby, have no recollection of the event, and I'm certainly glad that they did because I don't have to deal with the issue of extra skin on my penis and I have functioned normally now for over 45 years. GET OVER IT!!

    November 19, 2010 at 13:46 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Name

      Did you miskey? Should it be feminineguy.

      November 19, 2010 at 14:20 | Report abuse |
    • Jack

      I don't get it - you are happy that you don't feel the pl;easure that you never knew? What kind of things do you imagine that make these extra parts seem like a buden?

      In case you dis not know, most of the worlds men are natural and have zero problems and almost none of them would even consider gving up the protection and pleasure these parts give. These parts allow people to have natural sex, the way we evolved to have it. Circumcision is a weird thing - a cutting off of the main male pleasure zones. This is tons of pleasure giving nerves, blood vessels and protective covering. The dynamics of the penis is changed for good. This is serious genital modification (mutilation) of the male with more nerves cut than female circumcision. It does lead men to want oral and anal more, because vaginal sex is less satisfying after the cut of these parts. Cut men have more premature ejaculation issues as the scar is now the most sensitive part and they have lost control of orgasm timing. It leads to sexual dysfunction at a MUCH younger age. The cut men in the world use most of the VIAGRA consumed. As you get old, you may well miss these parts. Many many cut men do.

      November 19, 2010 at 16:29 | Report abuse |
    • likesitwhole

      Foreskin is not "extra" skin – it's the default, the way males are born. If the foreskin is removed, you're missing a part of your penis.

      November 19, 2010 at 18:00 | Report abuse |
    • Frank OHara

      " The cut men in the world use most of the VIAGRA consumed."

      Yeppers, The US consumes 54% of the world's production of Viagra. Malaysia (Muslim and circumcised) has the highest per capita consumption of Viagra type products and Isreal, (Jewish and circumcised) is the world's leading counterfieter of Viagra. However, Viagra has yet to find it's market in Europe where 1% or less of the men are circumcised. And American men think they haven't lost anything!

      .

      November 19, 2010 at 22:57 | Report abuse |
  28. What

    I want a cock and not a stupid cigar. Thanks mom and Dad!

    November 19, 2010 at 13:52 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Gary

      @What, Iʻm not sure if you were or were not; I agree with your analogy. I was.

      November 19, 2010 at 14:02 | Report abuse |
  29. Lynn

    My husband and my two sons are not circumcised – all you posters claiming you are glad you were circumcised when you were little clearly do not know what you are missing – literally! The foreskin, the most sensitive part of the male organ was taken away from you before you could even understand. The decision was simple for my husband and I – he was never circumcised, never had any ill health effects from it, was never teased in the high school locker room about it, so our children would not undergo an unnecessary medical procedure at such a vulnerable time in their short life. My sister's son had a botched circumcision and the later consequences of that were far worse and traumatizing in my opinion, and she is not my only friend with a similar story. Protect your parts boys!

    November 19, 2010 at 13:53 | Report abuse | Reply
    • What

      You have no idea ether and women should be ban from commenting as they do not have cocks.

      November 19, 2010 at 13:57 | Report abuse |
    • Name

      I totally agree with WHAT.

      November 19, 2010 at 14:18 | Report abuse |
    • CTed

      I think women will take that deal if men aren't allowed to comment or make laws on abortion. Is that how this country works? Since when can't you have an opinion on something like this. I don't think girls should have the nipples cut off at birth.... can I not hold that opinion because I am a man?

      November 19, 2010 at 14:21 | Report abuse |
    • S.o

      Awe, men get to feel everything, get to come first (and maybe the ONLY ones to come at all!), get to make decisions for themselves AND women, don't have to feel pain of childbirth, don't get saggy boobs from breast feeding and make way more money than women. Awe, poor men...how sorry I feel for them. When we are treated as equals and not just baby machines, maybe then I'll care about an UGLY useless piece of skin that no one even misses! Seriously, has it affected anyone's life? No, just like if you've had your tonsils, wisdom teeth or appendix out. Deal with it.

      November 19, 2010 at 14:35 | Report abuse |
    • Looks like commenter S.o. has a hatred toward men

      I would have to say that most women who feel so strongly for circumcision are in the same boat as S.o. in that they have something against men. Maybe they were abused or raped by a man, and have gained a terrible hatred toward all men.
      That is what her comment makes me think. She has no facts, just hatred.

      November 19, 2010 at 15:07 | Report abuse |
  30. aichco

    Both of my sons are circumcised. I was there for the circumcision of my second son. Circumcision done within 1-2 days of birth are uncomfortable for most newborns, but the pain is not intolerable. Yes he cried. For about a minute. Then it was over. He did not cry when he urinated and it healed in 3 days. Not a huge deal. He cried more for the multiple blood 'milkings' to test him for extremely rare metabolic disorders. If you saw a video of everything a newborn goes through at a hospital, it would make you cry. But these things are done for a variety of reasons.
    Circumcision as an adult is exceptionally painful and the healing takes longer. So it really is a choice that needs to be decided before birth.
    I did it because I wanted my sons to be like their father as well as 'fit in' in the locker room. I knew it was a 'vanity' choice. Parents should have the choice, as well as be informed about their choice.

    November 19, 2010 at 13:55 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Hmm wonder if they gave you this tid bit of info at the hospital

      Have you ever heard of a keratinocyte? When a male is circumcised the glans of their penis go through an extremely slow process called keratinization. That is the skin, as a self persevering organ, will become thick on the glans. The process takes ~10 years on average. So, I hope you get the chance to look it up.

      November 19, 2010 at 15:04 | Report abuse |
  31. John

    Leaving it uncircumsized will hurt even more. Will copy/paste what was said earlier:1)the risk of penile cancer
    2) Men who are circumcised are less likely to get sexually transmitted infections. Some people do remove an inflamed appendix or any other part of their bodies that is causing or might cause them harm. Why not the foreskin? PLUS, it is a matter of personal choice. Whomever thinks that he should not be circumsized can reverse the operation. You can google it.

    November 19, 2010 at 13:56 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Hope you got the memo

      Restoration of the foreskin does not recover all the fine temperature and pressure sensitive nerves that were lost.
      A lot of the time restoration doesn't even work because too much skin was removed during the circumcision.
      And tell the 80% of men in the world that have an uncut penis hurts more.. they will laugh at you...
      My husband is from a ranch where there are NO medical establishments within hundreds of miles. They hardly have any water. My husband has 3 brothers and 20 first cousins who are all male. None circumcised. Not one problem.

      November 19, 2010 at 14:58 | Report abuse |
    • Jack

      John,
      You cannot get back the about 20000 fine touch and stretch nerve endings and the pleasure (FACT) that they provide.

      In the US and in all industrialized countries there is no risk difference for natural penis men as to catching STDs and HIV. Evidence of this comes from the Laumann study (USA, 1997), based on over 30,000 American men, which showed no advantage to the circumcised group. The most recent comparative study from Dunedin, New Zealand (cohort of about 500 men) backs this up, concluding: "Circumcision does not appear to shield men from most types of STDs in developed nations.

      November 19, 2010 at 16:36 | Report abuse |
    • Frank OHara

      ":1)the risk of penile cancer"

      The risk of penile cancer is 1/109,000. The risk of death from circumcision is approximately 1/18,000. That means that approximately 6 infants will die for each case of (non-fatal) cancer averted in 60+ year old men. That's not a very good trade-off.

      "2) Men who are circumcised are less likely to get sexually transmitted infections."

      Not true. There is no discernable difference in infection rates.

      "Some people do remove an inflamed appendix or any other part of their bodies that is causing or might cause them harm. Why not the foreskin?"

      Removing toes or fingers can prevent broken toes and fingers. Let's not forget about removing breast buds to prevent breast cancer. There's also tonsils, appendix and gall bladders. Why not just go ahead and remove all those in the interest of preventing future problems? Why is the foreskin the exception? got a rational answer?

      .

      PLUS, it is a matter of personal choice. Whomever thinks that he should not be circumsized can reverse the operation. You can google it.

      November 19, 2010 at 23:13 | Report abuse |
    • Joseph G.

      No, you can't reverse it. The nerve ending are lost forever, surgery almost always fails to deliver intended results, and tugging skin to force it to grow takes months and costs money for the equipment.

      November 20, 2010 at 22:06 | Report abuse |
  32. cel

    having it done on day old infants is likely substantially less harmful and painful than making them wait until they are older than 17 years. Properly done, it does no harm to the child and the foreskin serves no practical purpose. If an injury occurs to the child, then the law can provide rememdies and physicians can provide repairs. Asking any government to outlaw this medical procedure is wasting taxpayer dollars and I personally am not interested in that, either. And, who you going to get to enforce that law ? You going to employe pekker inspectors ? Good luck with that invasion of privacy.

    November 19, 2010 at 14:02 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Nurse Shepherd

      When they are 17 and want it done they will get an anesthetic and pain medication. Newborns don't get that option.

      November 19, 2010 at 14:39 | Report abuse |
    • Hope you got the memo

      So newborns do not feel pain like "normal" people do? Okay. Thanks for the genius wisdom that newborns don't feel pain as badly as others. Where did you get that info? Possibly out of a box of Kellogg's cereal?

      November 19, 2010 at 14:54 | Report abuse |
    • Jack

      Gee cel, in from my point of view PLEASURE is a practical; and nice thing.

      The nurese has the anestesia thing right. Also the nwbborn has to have the membrane ripped from the glans. Also, cutting a baby is a guess, It is not at all know where the cut should be. Also to prevent painful an bleeding erections less must be cut than for an adult (an adult can get a precise cut).

      How is it that so many do not have a clue that the foresin parts are not a flap of skin? The foreskin is not just skin and does not just protect the glans (head). Circumcision is now known to ablate the most sensitive parts of the male genitals. This surgery takes away about 20000 fine touch and stretch nerve endings. The dynamics of sex and the actual mechanism of the penis are drastically changed by circumcision.

      November 19, 2010 at 16:42 | Report abuse |
    • Frank OHara

      "having it done on day old infants is likely substantially less harmful and painful than making them wait until they are older than 17 years."

      The pain is the same or worse for an infant. The problem is that the infant can't slug the doctor and no one listens to him anyway. An adult would not stand for this level of abuse and would sue the doctor.

      "Properly done, it does no harm to the child and the foreskin serves no practical purpose."

      "Properly done" are keywords. In my state in the past year, there were $13 million+ in judgments against physicians who did not do it properly. It is suspected that these boys will never be able to father children.

      "If an injury occurs to the child, then the law can provide rememdies and physicians can provide repairs."

      Well "yes" and "no." As cited above, not being able to have sex and children are a couple of the risks. Would any legal remedy be enough for these handicaps? I think most rational people would say "NO!" In many of these cases, there is no possible repair that would leave the man able to function sexually any more than there is a reasonable repair for a lost finger.

      .

      November 19, 2010 at 23:21 | Report abuse |
  33. FRAN

    My second son (but third child) was not circumcised at birth, because they told me he was a "freebie" meaning the foreskin was not formed. Over the next year or so it grew to be what it should have been. As his Mom it took a little more work for me to keep everything clean than it did for the other two. But as he got a little older and potty trained, to where I wasn't privy to his area during the course of the day, he started having "issues" with sand, lint and other particles getting under the foreskin. Even the tiniest piece of foreign matter would gradually get to where there was discomfort...and being young he wasn't paying attention to this until he really got uncomfortable Jumping in and out of his little wading pool he got a minute piece of grass under the foreskin and was in complete misery with that delicate skin rubbed raw and starting to infect by the end of the day. At 10 years old he had to have minor surgery to bring a testicle back down and when I suggested to him that he be circumcised, he was so happy and relieved that this ongoing "problem" could be fixed. He is 30 now and still happy that he made that decision and he made sure his son was circumcised. All 5 of his nephews are also circumcised, because their parents saw how their Uncle suffered unnecessarily.

    November 19, 2010 at 14:05 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Hope you got the memo

      Seems like your son was born with an short foreskin, that is uncommon. Were you told to retract it and clean under it? If you were retracting it and cleaning under it, you were damaging the tissue. It is self cleaning like the vagina. The foreskin of an infant or child is only to be retracted by the owner of the penis, no one else. This is why we have so many rumors of problems. Most of the men in the entire world are intact and problem free.

      November 19, 2010 at 14:51 | Report abuse |
    • Jack

      It is now known that pulling the foreskin back and cleaning is the cause of most problems.

      You should know that infant boys are EASIER to care for when they are natural (intact). The foreskin does not retract until late childhood or even puberty, so you do nothing special, just wipe the outside of his penis clean and leave it alone. Furthermore, to prevent painful and bleeding erections later in life, doctors are now commonly leaving more skin behind- in a cut boy this means you may have to push the left over skin back at every diaper change and clean beneath it to prevent it from adhering or infecting. The very thing that mother's think they avoid by circumcising!

      No one shoud EVER pull back a boys foreskin EVER. Pulling back and evern worse pulling back and cleaning with SOAP casues infactions!!!!!!!!!!!!

      November 19, 2010 at 16:56 | Report abuse |
    • Darlene

      Fran, you did your son a huge favor by mentioning to him a fix for a serious problem. In his case, having that skin removed was the best thing. Not all boys need it but many times those boys will be much happier if its gone. Plenty of men are fine with not having that extra skin and women need to understand both sides of this subject.

      December 23, 2017 at 17:01 | Report abuse |
  34. BobtellsTruth

    It's very simple. Don't F with how God made you. What arrogance to think we know better. We don't accept female circumcisions do we? Yet other cultures do, and they are having the same argument defending female circumcision. Everyone who disagrees is completely ignorant, FACT. Dumbarses – All of you. I can proudly say that my bits and pieces are fully intact, never came near a blade, and I have ZERO problems. WOW what a concept!!! I'm starting to side with the eugenicists now with all the stupidity out there. sigh....

    November 19, 2010 at 14:06 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Anne

      Bob Rocks!

      November 19, 2010 at 15:19 | Report abuse |
  35. Nurse Shepherd

    The only real differences between male circumcision in the US and female genital mutilation in other countries is cleaner equipment and the ones in the US are typically performed by health care providers. Both are performed for outdated/irrational reasons, againsts the childs will, with the child restrained and screaming their heads off (even with lidocaine – penile blocks are often not given enough time to work), and both remove a protective cover that was put there by the Master Designer who didn't make a mistake. My boys are not circumcised and have had none of the problems cited, but I also taught them to clean themselves when they were young, didn't allow their pediatricians to rip the foreskin loose in infancy (or at all – it comes loose on it's own) which makes a pocket for feces and urine in the child's diaper instead of the closed system is was by design, and condom use was heavily promoted. Learn the facts, it is an unnecessary surgery for appearance sake only. If you don't think it hurts, have your ears trimmed to a point without the benefit of pain medicine or anesthesia and then imagine how much more sensitive the area we are discussing is or better yet, watch a circumcision. A pair of hemostats are typically inserted and used rip the foreskin loose, scissors are then used to cut a slit in the skin if a Gomco clamp is used or the foreskin is pulled forward and loped off if a Mogan clamp is used. Plastibells still require the foreskin to be ripped from the glans (head of the penis) and then the tight suture around the device cuts off circulation and the foreskin dries up and falls off with the plastic. Just because the baby can't recall the event later in life does not mean we should not worry about inflicting this type of trauma on a newborn. It is barbaric.

    November 19, 2010 at 14:12 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Question

      My son is a baby and I left him uncut. People keep telling me to pull the skin back to clean it. I read in a book to simply wash it with soap and warm water and to NOT pull it back until it retracts on it's own which can be up to age 20 in some boys... Can you confirm this for me? One person offered to show me how to force it back. I was like – heck no, leave my son alone!

      November 19, 2010 at 14:47 | Report abuse |
    • Jack

      Q, I posted this above and then read your question.

      No one but the owner shoud EVER pull back a boys foreskin EVER. Pulling back and even worse pulling back and cleaning with SOAP casues infactions!!!!!!!!!!! The foresin is fused to the glans until 4 yrs to puberty. The boy should be told to stretch a bit in the tub. When the boy reaces puberty or earlier, plying with it in the tub or shower is all that is needed.

      Boys are EASIER to care for when they are natural (intact). The foreskin does not retract until late childhood or even puberty, so you do nothing special, just wipe the outside of his penis clean and leave it alone. Furthermore, to prevent painful and bleeding erections later in life, doctors are now commonly leaving more skin behind- in a cut boy this means you may have to push the left over skin back at every diaper change and clean beneath it to prevent it from adhering or infecting. The very thing that mother's think they avoid by circumcising!

      November 19, 2010 at 17:04 | Report abuse |
    • Frank OHara

      "My son is a baby and I left him uncut. People keep telling me to pull the skin back to clean it. I read in a book to simply wash it with soap and warm water and to NOT pull it back until it retracts on it's own which can be up to age 20 in some boys... Can you confirm this for me?"

      You are doing exactly right! The primary cause of phimosis (and later life circumcisions) is the result of this retracting and cleaning. This tears the delicate structures in the preputial sphincter that repair with scar tissue that will never be elastic. The average age of retraction is 10.5 years old but can be later or earlier depending on the child.

      .

      November 19, 2010 at 23:29 | Report abuse |
    • Nathan

      A sweetened pacifier is pain relief for infants?
      on the 2nd of september 2010 a study was published in the Lancet that found that sugar does not relieve pain in infants , just changes facial expressions.

      November 21, 2010 at 00:33 | Report abuse |
    • Nurse Shepherd

      QUESTION – My source to leave the foreskin alone and not retract it was from John Hopkins Children's Hospital. It stated that the natural sponanteous erections that boys have from birth on will slowly and naturally work the foreskin loose from the glans (head of the penis) and that forcefully ripping it loose could cause adhesions that woul have to be surgically detached. Hope this helps.

      November 21, 2010 at 13:16 | Report abuse |
  36. John

    You can't miss what you will never experience. I'm a 'porche' driver, if you've never experienced the thrill – you won't miss it. With a little care driving around, always – hygiene, protection, carefull choices in partners, etc the sensations you've have - you'll feel sorry for those who got clipped ; too lazy to educate and teach their offspring about their bodies. Isn't easier to just cut it off than to spend quality conversion with your childern....

    November 19, 2010 at 14:13 | Report abuse | Reply
  37. Teddy

    Sounds like this nut job in California just wants to get even for having been teased when he was a little boy as the article states.

    What I find most amusing about him is, he feels he should be the deciding factor for everyone else and that it is his right to ban children from being circumcised. No one else can decide for their children, only he can.

    This man suffers from meglomania.

    While you are at it, why don't you outlaw abortion because you don't agree with it. Yeah, and lets deport anyone in this country that does not look like him or think like him. Then, we can go out and burn some books, beat up some minorities and shove them into train cars to be shipped to the gas chambers. Then, we can all goose step and salute him because only he is right.

    November 19, 2010 at 14:16 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Sebastian

      He's not trying to impose his ideas on others, he's only trying to convince anyone who will hear him. This is how democracy works.

      November 19, 2010 at 14:36 | Report abuse |
    • Frank OHara

      "What I find most amusing about him is, he feels he should be the deciding factor for everyone else and that it is his right to ban children from being circumcised. No one else can decide for their children, only he can."

      I guess you also think the people who passed the law banning FGM were also megolomaniacs too? Butting into other people's lives? Do you believe it is a parent's choice to cut off their daughter's genital parts? Was Congress out of their realm to pass the 1996 FGM act?

      .

      November 19, 2010 at 23:33 | Report abuse |
  38. Name

    Circumcision was probably a good thing many years ago when there was a shortage of water and in case of bad sand storms. (that is worse than sand up your butt) But in this day and age, we have water, showers, etc. so it is completely unnecessary. Regular hygiene solves any problem. Besides, sex is far more stimulating uncircumcised than with an exposed glans that has become insensitive from constant wear on "yer" Fruit of the Looms"

    November 19, 2010 at 14:16 | Report abuse | Reply
  39. PGee3

    Politicians do NOT have the authority to make such a decision for parents. Who does this person believe he is, anyway? This is just Nazism revisited! What... is he going to try and throw parents who don't comply into gulag re-education camps! These leftist extremists never stop! This moron who's coming up with this should have a special place in the Top Nazis of the 21 Century museum!

    November 19, 2010 at 14:17 | Report abuse | Reply
    • CTed

      You do not have the authority to make this decision for another person. The goverment isn't passing a law saying you can't do it to yourself, they are passing a law saying you don't ahve the authority to do it, by force, to someone else... last i checekd we have a plethora of laws that do exactly that – tell you waht you are prehoibted from doing, by force, to someone else's body. Why is this regulation any differnt than saying you can't rape your children. You can't force people to do what you want, even as a partent. Certianly not when it involves the mutilation of said person.

      November 19, 2010 at 14:25 | Report abuse |
    • PGee3

      @CTed–Are we to accept YOUR definition of circumcision as "mutilation" because Nazis like you SAY SO!? No, we don't. Your cult advocates for the same NAMBLA boy rapists and child molesters who believe it's a child's right to decide if it wants to be raped by the freaks who run the governments and prey on children. What people like you and your gulag cohorts have the right to do is keep your liberal BS OFF of parents' rights. And whether you like it or not, that's the way it is.

      November 19, 2010 at 14:40 | Report abuse |
    • corruptmedicalprofession

      you are so wrong. this is not a political decision. I agree with S.F. trying to reverse the medical system that is trying to SELL an unnecessary "medical service," which is really a holdover ancient religious initiation rituals and more modern anti-sex campaigns. And BTW, deceiving parents by ignoring the pleasure function of the skin. Deceiving and harming patients for profit is not what medicine is supposed to be. in the 1920s, Governments supported circ bc they thought it combatted masturbation, VD and other social ills, like prostitution. If you hate government so much you should oppose circ too. But remember Not every thing falls into liberal government trying to control personal affairs. By opposing circumcision, i'm fighting for freedom. Freedom from the circumcisers' power over children. Oh, and freedom to have sex that feels 2 to 4 times better. I know. my cousins are uncut.

      November 19, 2010 at 17:21 | Report abuse |
  40. Name

    I forgot one thing, masturbation is so much more fun with a foreskin.

    November 19, 2010 at 14:23 | Report abuse | Reply
  41. Robert

    What next, a ban on "honor killings" ? Oh we have that already.

    November 19, 2010 at 14:24 | Report abuse | Reply
  42. S.o

    It is not mutilation. Is it mutilation to get your tonsils, appendix, or wisdom teeth taken out? Do you feel it years later? The answer to both is no. Men get to insult women every day and tell them they need lipo, botox, and/or implants (which implants ARE mutilation!) just to they have something pleasing to look at. You won't feel it even a week later and it looks a million times better than that wrinkle at the end of it...yuck!

    November 19, 2010 at 14:25 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Name

      I bet you really would not care if one was circumcised or not.

      November 19, 2010 at 14:27 | Report abuse |
    • For the record

      Those things are only removed if they are causing problems. The foreskin of a healthy newborn has not caused a problem.
      If you want an analogy, remove the tonsils, and appendix from a NEWBORN as a preventative measure!

      November 19, 2010 at 14:45 | Report abuse |
    • PGee3

      @FortheRecord–do you even KNOW why they remove the tonsils!? You see, this is what IGNORANCE breeds. Some liberal bureaucrat simply tells you to get your tonsils and adenoids out, but you don't do any research to find out WHY. Just like they are now trying to tell parents they no-longer have the right to circumcise their sons–because they say so. For the record, the tonsils and adenoids are the only organs in the body that produce antibodies AGAINST polio! Now WHY would they want to remove your body's only natural defense against a deadly disease? And now the same criminals are attempting to ban circumcision. Now do the research and learn the BENEFITS of circumcision. To get you started: Balanitis is a common infection of the glans but can be PREVENTED by circumcision.....

      November 19, 2010 at 15:08 | Report abuse |
    • Yes, I get it... It's a big conspiracy

      Yeah.. the criminals that are trying to ban circumcision are trying to do so because they want to see all these people get diseased penis'. Oh yah..
      Just like all the people who recommend tonsil removal are doing it in order to make people suseptible to polio.. OH..! Thank goodness someone had the INTELLIGENCE to let me in on the conspiracy..
      I mean.. here the whole time I am thinking that the criminals who remove the tonsils because they make money off of it were the ones behind the circumcisions because they make money off of it too.
      So the motive isn't money like I thought..
      The motive is to really spread disease and KILL OFF ALL THE PEOPLE IN THE WORLD.. like you say.. muahahaha..
      Sure, Okaaay.
      How about this little chunk of logic. Most of the men on the ENTIRE PLANET walk this Earth WITH their foreskins... WITHOUT suffering from ANY PROBLEMS...
      One would wonder with the logic that you have laid down for us how people have survived for 10's of thousands of years with all these infections in their foreskins? Human beings evolved with foreskins, like every other mammal on the face of the planet. People didn't even have antibiotics until fairly recently in time. So it's so wonder that the whole human species didn't die off due to all these infected glans and foreskins that went untreated.

      November 19, 2010 at 15:48 | Report abuse |
  43. M Derosa

    I'm not circumcised. I'm 51 and have never had any problem of any kind. I have wondered for a long time; who was the first person ever to suggest this....and why did people think it was a good idea. Did they think God made a mistake? Why isn't female circumcision an everyday occurrence?
    I think to cut off a part of a male baby's penis is crazy. It's an easy way for Doctors to make money.

    November 19, 2010 at 14:26 | Report abuse | Reply
    • For the record

      Most of the men alive on the entire planet Earth are intact and problem free.
      That speaks volumes.

      November 19, 2010 at 14:43 | Report abuse |
  44. Wonderfool

    The Jews and the muslims adopted this practice thousands of years ago, probably for hygienic reasons, where daily bath was not possible. In India, where I grew up as a Hindu, daily bath is proscribed and the boys are taught to clean there penis, circumcision was not proscribed. I know so me European Cristians (males of course) who were not circumcised. We need to stop this as a routine practice.

    The same Westerners decried circumcision of females in some parts of African countries as "inhumane" turned their blind eye and deaf ears towards Jews and Muslims requiring that male babies be circumcised on religious basis. These religious practices born in a different time period are anachronistic. But so are most religious practices – including. Will we ever become civilized and stop these barbaric practices performed under the pious cloak of religion?

    If we can ban child marriages and abortion, why not ban circumcision?

    November 19, 2010 at 14:26 | Report abuse | Reply
  45. Kelly

    To the millions of American circumcised men that have been culturally conditioned by American medicine and social media to believe that the circumcised penis is "normal" – you've been duped. 75% of men worldwide have a normal penis. Normal is the way 100% of baby boys are born into this world. The circumcised penis is not normal. It is altered and scarred, sorry to break it to you.

    November 19, 2010 at 14:28 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Name

      AND what he silly people don't realize is when it is ready for business, it LOOKS just like it was circumcised. We have the best of both worlds.

      November 19, 2010 at 14:33 | Report abuse |
    • Tom

      Kelly, news flash, women like the circumcized unit much more than un.....hpe we don't to answer the why on this one do we?

      November 19, 2010 at 14:34 | Report abuse |
    • At least..

      Tom, you are mistaken about women want. I wouldn't want anything LESS *wink, wink*

      November 19, 2010 at 15:39 | Report abuse |
    • Jack

      Tom, women that know want the natural real thing. A natural penis is required for natural sex, what we evolved to have.

      Value to female partners. The foreskin has long been known to be valuable to the female partner. The presence of the foreskin is reported to be stimulating to some. Women are more likely to experience vaginal dryness during sex with a circumcised partner. The unnatural dryness may make coitus painful and result in abrasions. The vaginal dryness may be mistakenly attributed to female arousal disorder. O'Hara & O'Hara report that the female partner is less likely to experience orgasm when the foreskin is not present and more likely to experience orgasm or even multiple orgasms when the foreskin is present. Solinis & Yiannaki found that 46 percent of men in their study reported a worsened sex life for their partner while 33 percent reported that that their partner's sex life had improved.

      November 19, 2010 at 17:14 | Report abuse |
    • Steve

      I keep seeing different percentages in these posts of men on the planet who are intact. And what's the distribution? Europe? Asia? Africa? America? I've known very few guys in my life – and I'm 59 – who are NOT curcumcised. You find these things out in locker rooms and such. Personally I don't see how I can miss something I don't remember having. Should it be legislated? No, it should not. Do I feel mutilated? No.
      I think it would be nice if everyone, all at once, stopped trying to be or appear to be superior to everyone who doesn't agree with them. It's just so damned childish.
      Besides, I'M superior to ALL of you. Nyah-nyah-nyah-NYAh-nyah!

      November 19, 2010 at 23:03 | Report abuse |
  46. Ian L.

    Hey, is this the place where we all go totally nuts and "scream" at one another on the internet? I want to throw around words like "mutilation" and "anteater" too!

    November 19, 2010 at 14:31 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Steve

      @Ian L.
      Yep, this is the place! Lessee....I gues I need to insult you now. Your mother drives a tank...and...and...stuff!!

      November 19, 2010 at 23:11 | Report abuse |
  47. Tom

    it's too bad the SF guys do not understand their own units, but males do not need them making laws for the rest of us....stay out our pants and to quote recent headlines sort of...."don' t touch other peoples junk"

    November 19, 2010 at 14:33 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Name

      Is that "junk' circumcised or not?

      November 19, 2010 at 14:34 | Report abuse |
  48. Catherine

    Circumcision is an unnecessary medical procedure, and it is illegal to perform procedures on children that could cause them potential harm. When you remove an infants foreskin you are taking away his right to genital integrity and to make his own decision. Foreskin is a healthy part of the male genitalia as much as my clitoral hood is to mine. Parents should not be allowed this so called 'right' to choose if their child keeps their foreskin, as it is a basic human right and is essential to their sexual health. If people would read about the intact penis then maybe they wouldn't be so afraid of foreskin and we could just make the whole procedure a thing of the past. My wish is to see it banned, made illegal, and that is that.

    November 19, 2010 at 14:34 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Name

      Another intelligent woman. You seem to have more sense than some in this discussion.

      November 19, 2010 at 14:36 | Report abuse |
  49. Tom

    wow, just like abortion is to women, this decision is a man's right to choose........BOTTOM LINE

    November 19, 2010 at 14:36 | Report abuse | Reply
  50. Tom

    NAME.....touche' LMAO

    November 19, 2010 at 14:37 | Report abuse | Reply
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Leave a Reply to zendexwo


 

CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.

Advertisement
About this blog

Get a behind-the-scenes look at the latest stories from CNN Chief Medical Correspondent, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, Senior Medical Correspondent Elizabeth Cohen and the CNN Medical Unit producers. They'll share news and views on health and medical trends - info that will help you take better care of yourself and the people you love.