Undue Suffering: Circumcision for Non-Medical Reasons Is Wrong

[sysop]

As the debate over the medical ethics of circumcision rages in Germany, some have argued that the practice provides health benefits. But many in the medical community disagree. Circumcision is not in the best interest of boys who undergo the procedure.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...846395,00.html

[michaela6]

Those promoting child/infant circumcision love to state it has medical benefits, but those supposed 'benefits' were never the reason for religious groups to circumcise. Ancient societies knew little or nothing about health or any medical benefits. It actually started as a pagan blood ritual and alternative to child sacrifice, then was used to mark slaves, then incorporated into the Bible. A thorough, objective review of the medical literature shows NO medical benefits: no decrease in STD's (actually increases urethritis, GC, etc.), HPV, HIV higher in many circumcising countries, no decrease in cervical cancer risk in all 16 studies, no prevention of penile cancer (caused by HPV, smoking, BXO), UTI's lower in intact countries, no decrease in phimosis rates. It is perfectly easy to keep clean despite rumors to the contrary. But circumcision does prevent a normal sex life and sexual function is adversely affected for males and females. Circumcision causes many problems including meatal stenosis/meatitis, erectile dysfunction, hidden penis, bleeding, infection, etc. and death. All mammals have foreskins for reasons of protection, immunologic function to prevent infections, sexual function. It serves many purposes and continues to be present on all males born. Nature, or God, intends for the foreskin to be there. We don't remove any other normal healthy tissue from children to prevent some unforeseen problem or disease and we consider it wrong to even discuss removing other healthy body parts.
Circumcision of children is harmful. Respect children; leave them whole.

[geborgen]

It is wonderful that Dr. Stehr has written this clear, thorough explanation of why circumcision of children represents actual damage. The insinuation of the religious groups has been that the foreskin has no value beyond religious (in its removal) and is undesirable and prone to problems and disease. The obvious message of the Merkel administration is that having or not having a foreskin - and a scar on the penis - is neutral to the boy. Both parties are dangerously wrong. The foreskin is functional and valuable, and designed to be an integral part of the penis and the male/female sexual universe.

One thing I would add, however, is that it is high time the medical profession stopped repeating the claim that infant circumcision reduces urinary tract infections tenfold in boys. This discredited statistic can be traced back to a retrospective chart review by Dr. Thomas Wisell 30 years ago. The study failed to take into account that many or most of the intact boys may have been premature births (a common reason in the USA not to circumcise) and thus prone to urinary tract and bladder abnormalities. Also, the bad advice to American parents at the time was to strip back the foreskin daily of intact boys, from birth, to clean the glans. In fact, this introduces far more pathogens. The foreskin should be left alone to develop and separate on its own timetable, which could take 5, 10, or more years. No boy should be cut before the age of 16 except for rare medical emergencies.

Simply put, German boys do not suffer more UTIs per capita than American or Israeli boys. Doctors should emphasize this.

Finally, even if religious groups agree to wait until adolescence to submit sons for circumcision, what sort of pressure will the boys face? Will the German government somehow ensure that the teens are free, and protected, to say "No"?

[rimona]

Isn't it gratifying - millions of Germans and Austrians are worried sick about the integrity my sons foreskin. Only two generations ago the could not care less about my parents and grandparents lives.

[h.navoiseau@gmail.com]

http://sigismond.multiply.com/journa...-masked-racism


Miriam Pollack showed that circumcision is a matter of sexism:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miriam...b_1132896.html

It is not astonnishing that racism also is implied.


A priori, circumcision is intended to make supermen, assumed to me morally superior, elected by God.

Actually, the myths of circumcision are an odious manipulation aiming at making young women believe that the "non-circumcised" are profligate, without hygiene, bad lovers, and, in African and Muslims ethnic groups ("A non-circumcised is not a man."), coward. All this in order to make sure about the possession of women, endogamy, cohesion and perpetuation of the community. Circumcision is an artificial racism masked behind religion, tradition and folklore. That this identity racism, more insidious than ordinary racism, should give rise to a counter racism is not astonishing; Spinoza, Freud and Rozenberg[1] mentionned it. So, the child has to pay for the confrontation of the various far-rights.


[1] Rozenberg J. Biologie de la race et psychopathologie. Archives de Philosophie 64, 2001.

[lwjr]

Homosexual activist Lloyd Schofield tried to get circumcision banned in San Francisco. After Primal Thereapy revealed the memory of his painful circumcision, American Psychiatrist Ronald Goldman has worked to eliminate circumcision. What does Dr. Stehr have in common with these guys? Religious hatred maybe? Antisemitism maybe? Maybe he is a closet goose stepper?

[spon-facebook-1445494362]

"Furthermore, circumcision for this purpose could also be carried out at an age at which the person in question can make their own decisions.

I utterly disagree with this; article 41 of the French code of medical ethics forbides whatever mutilation "without very serious medical motive".

[spon-facebook-671739760]

As an RN and a mother, I chose to leave both my daughter and son intact. They have a right to keep the body parts that nature gave them and to use them when they are adults like nature intended. They are only children for so long but adults for a much longer time. When you alter someone's genitals against their will, they will never experience their body as it was meant to be. I want my children to have a better life than me and their father, that includes their sexual lives. Keeping them intact is the first step and keeping dialogue open about sexuality is the 2nd.

[Hugh7]

lwjr seems to assume that only three people in the world oppose circumcision (and then that personal attacks, including homophobic and ad Hitlerem ones, will discredit them; s/he should look up rosa Winkel / pink triangle).

In fact the Intactivism movement is growing by leaps and bounds. It includes young mothers who were lied to about circumcision, nurses who had to hold the babies down, doctors who have to repair botches, lawyers taking botch cases, women who have discovered the sexual benefits of whole partners, intact men who want future generations to enjoy what we do, circumcised men angry about what they have lost (especially if they were botched) and Jews like Dr Goldman and many others. Search "Brit Shalom" and find contact details for more than 50 rabbis who will name boys without cutting them. Are they also antisemitic?

[TLCTugger]

In the only controlled trial of male to female HIV transmission, Waver and Gray reported in 2009 that the Ugandan men they cut infected their partneers 50% MORE often than the men they left intact did.

Informed adults can decide for themselves about keeping their pleasure parts or falling for scare-mongering.