VIA GLENN: YAHOO:
Just a few generations ago, pretty much every baby boy in the U.S. was circumcised—aka, had the foreskin of his penis removed.Now, new statistics presented at the International AIDS Conference in Vienna last month suggest a steep drop in the number of males getting this, uh, unkind cut. Last year, 33 percent of infant males were circumcised, a big drop compared to 2006, when 56 percent underwent this surgical procedure, according to stats reported in the New York Times.
ONLY 33%!?!?!? SHEESH!
WHY IS IT DECLINING?
I THINK DUE TO POSTMODERN LEFTISM:
- CIRCUMCISION IS REGARDED BY "PROGRESSIVES" AS JEWISH MUTILATION, MERELY AN ARCHAIC TRIBAL RITE WHICH DISFIGURES THE PENIS.
- (YES: POSTMODERNISTS LOOK AT ALL THE JUDEO-CHRISTIAN FOUNDATIONS OF OUR CIVILIZATION AS MERELY AN ARCHAIC AND VESTIGIAL COLLECTION OF TRIBAL SUPERSTITIONS NO DIFFERENT THAN THE CULTURAL INSTITUTIONS OF ANY OTHER AND ALL OTHER CULTURES.
- THIS IS CULTURAL RELATIVISM AND IT'S A CENTRAL TENET OF POSTMODERNISM.)
THE TRUTH IS THAT:
(1) CIRCUMCISION IS EXTREMELY BENEFICIAL MEDICALLY AND FOR PUBLIC HEALTH:
Male circumcision significantly reduces the spread of the HIV virus to men, according to research.In terms of infectious disease, Aids is the biggest killer in Africa, with HIV frequent in the sexually-active populations of many countries.
But the study, carried out by European and African researchers, found that uncircumcised men were at least three times more likely than circumcised men to contract the virus.
Circumcision may provide even more protection against AIDS than was realized when two clinical trials in Africa were stopped two months ago because the results were so clear, according to studies being published today.
The trials, in Kenya and Uganda, were stopped early by the National Institutes of Health, which was paying for them, because it was apparent that circumcision reduced a man’s risk of contracting AIDS from heterosexual sex by about half. It would have been unethical to continue without offering circumcision to all 8,000 men in the trials, federal health officials said.
That decision, announced on Dec. 13, made headlines around the world and led the two largest funds for fighting AIDS to say they would consider paying for circumcisions in high-risk countries. But the final data from the trials, to be published today in the British medical journal The Lancet, suggest that circumcision reduces a man’s risk by as much as 65 percent.
AND (2) FOR JEWS IT EXEMPLIFIES HOW WE MUST PARTICIPATE IN OUR OWN PERFECTION, AND IN THE PERFECTION OF THE WORLD.
- GOD COULD HAVE MADE US WITHOUT FORESKIN BUT CHOSE NOT TO IN ORDER THAT WE MIGHT TAKE RESPONSIBILITY AND REMOVE IT OURSELVES.
- JUST AS WE MUST CLEAN OURSELVES AND FEED OURSELVES AND CLOTHE OURSELVES AND CARE FOR OUR BABIES AND CARE FOR OUR AGED & INFIRM.
JEWS DON'T BELIEVE GENTILES HAVE TO BE CIRCUMCISED ANY MORE THAN THEY HAVE TO KEEP KOSHER.
BUT NOT ONLY DOES IT "NOT HURT", SCIENCE HAS PROVEN - BEYOND ANY DOUBT - THAT IT HELPS.
SCIENCE PROVES THAT GENTILES SHOULD EMULATE JEWS ON THIS MATTER.
13 comments:
People who floss and brush their teeth have fewer dental problems that people who don't. That is part of our "common knowledge." People who ignore it may regret it.
"Postmodernism" may be reason some people don't circumcise themselves or their children, but I haven't come across any credible evidence that it is a primary reason.
Should all our actions be governed by the worse possible outcome, e.g., HIV/AIDS? Try not having sex outside of marriage, or use a condom.
The foreskin has a biological purpose. Try googling "benefits of a foreskin." There's a lot there.
The best preventative measure against HIV/AIDS is abstinence. After that, the next best preventative measure against HIV/AIDS is condoms. And so on... Circumcision is somewhere way down the list, and it only pertains to female-to-male transmission for high-risk populations in high-risk communities. That is not the HIV problem in the Western world. Studies have shown that circumcision will have little, if any, protective benefit against HIV in the United States.
Nor is it "postmodern leftism" that challenges non-therapeutic infant circumcision. Too many leftists excuse religious circumcision in a bid to be non-offensive. That's no less ridiculous. A human rights violation is a human rights violation, regardless of the noble intent of the violator. It's a mindset of indifference to individual rights, which is not exclusive to those on the left. Obviously.
It's also fascinating that you happily co-opt leftist language to defend forced circumcision. "Public health"? The "public" consists of individuals, each of whom should be free to make choices like circumcision for himself, or to reject circumcision if he so chooses. Except you don't believe in that. If the tagline "promoting universal human rights" at the top of your site meant anything to you, you'd understand that individuals are affected by forced circumcision as healthy children. You wouldn't ramble about the "public" to have your preference imposed on others. You're advocating nothing different than the collective good nonsense you likely despise in every instance it's forced on citizens by leftists.
Science proves that most males are healthy when born, proving that they do not need surgical intervention on their genitals. If you wish to advocate for men (i.e. adult males, not infant males) to have themselves circumcised, whether for a god or for fear of a disease, do so. Let those men decide for themselves. But don't wield that scalpel carelessly, as you're doing here, with disregard for facts and universal human rights.
your foreskin is your mystery meat.
facts are facts.
fact: foreskins promote the transmission of aids.
fact.
an erect penis with a foreskin gets and transmits aids more than a erect penis without a foreskin.
fact: condom use is not as effective as circumcision.
yes: we should all be virgins until marriage and monogamous after,
but that's not the real world.
lemm pout it to you this way: would you want your daughter hammered by an uncircumcised fella or a circumcised one?
if you choose the former then you are saying you'd want your daughter to be MORE LIELKLY to get aids.
nice.
as for WHY this is happening...
you give me a better explanation.
please.
mine fits entirely within a cultural shift evident in the USA and the west which effected all of our values: the prevalence of abortion, of crude music, TV etc.
postmodernism is the force which has spawned multiculturalism and moral relativism and the decay of the west.
and this includes the USA going from 80% circumcised to 30%.
i would OPPOSE any civil law demanding circumcision.
this is a higher law - and only applies to JEWS.
but gentiles would be wise to emulate us on this matter.
tony:
abstinence and condoms do not wolk as well as circumcision IN THE REAL WORLD.
people do not abstain from fornication and they do not use condoms all the time every time EVEN WHEN THEY ARE FREE AND DISTRIBUTED TO TEENS!
teaching abstinence is fine.
it is less effective than circumcision.
fact.
gentiles donl;t have to be circumcised.
but they can be.
why would gentile parents want their male children - who are morally HUMAN an d prone to sin and fornicate and not use a condom- why would you want them to be MORE likely to get HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases!?!?
it makes no sense.
you cut their hair.
you change their diapers.
you bathe them.
you brush their teeth and repair them when broken or when they get a cavity.
you give them vaccinations.
why not circumcise them?
Circumcision of males represents a "surgical vaccine" against a wide variety of infections, adverse medical conditions and potentially fatal diseases over their lifetime, and also protects their sexual partners. In experienced hands, this common, inexpensive procedure is very safe, and can be pain-free. Although it can be performed at any age, the ideal time is infancy. The benefits vastly outweigh risks.
The public health benefits are enormous, and include protection from urinary tract infections, that are common over the lifetime, inferior genital hygiene, smegma, sexually transmitted HIV, oncogenic types of human papillomavirus, genital herpes, syphilis and chancroid, penile cancer, and possibly prostate cancer, phimosis, paraphimosis, thrush, and inflammatory skin conditions such as balanitis and balanoposthitis. In women circumcision of the male partner provides substantial protection from cervical cancer, genital herpes, bacterial vaginosis (formerly termed "gardnerella"), possibly Chlamydia (that can cause pelvic inflammatory disease, infertility, and ectopic pregnancy), and other infections.
Circumcision has socio-sexual benefits and reduces sexual problems with age and diabetes. It has no adverse effect on penile sensitivity, erectile function, or sensation during sexual arousal and is reported to enhance the sexual experience for men. Most women prefer the circumcised penis for appearance, hygiene, lower infection risk and sexual activity. At least half of all uncircumcised males will develop one or more problems over their lifetime caused by their foreskin, and many will suffer and die as a result. The benefits exceed the risks by over 100 to 1, and if fatalities are taken into account in men and their sexual partners the benefit is orders of magnitude higher than this. Given the convincing epidemiological evidence and biological support, routine circumcision should be highly recommended by all health professionals.
Condoms are effective close to 100% at preventing HIV transmission. That some men do not use them does not mean that parents may force circumcision on their sons. It's about individuals, not individuals as statistics within the collective. It's about the individual facing the circumcision, not the individual circumcising.
"Gentiles don't have to be circumcised."
Right, and I choose not to. Except, there's the problem in what you're advocating. My parents already forced it on me. I don't get to choose not to be circumcised, even though I would. Universal human rights, and all that.
I reject your unprovable notion of sin and fornication. But even in the specific context of circumcision and HIV, I have never engaged in unsafe sex. My risk of transmission is 0%. Circumcision is worthless to me.
Also, if circumcision is so necessary for avoiding HIV and other STDs, why do all other Western nations have similar or lower rates of those diseases as compared to the U.S., yet virtually none of the males in those countries are circumcised? The issue is education, behavior, and not believing that religion is science.
Circumcision is not like cutting hair, changing diapers, bathing, or brushing teeth. It is surgery that permanently removes a functioning part of the child's anatomy.
"The benefits vastly outweigh risks."
That is a subjective conclusion. The only objective fact is that the child is healthy and does not need circumcision, any more than he needs an appendectomy or rhinoplasty. I do not value the potential benefits of circumcision, and I did (and do) not want the risks (or complications). Hence, for me, the risks vastly outweigh the benefits. But, again, I didn't get to choose. My universal human rights were violated. That is the issue, as it applies to all individuals. It is not whether or not someone can make a speculative case for intervention. Any madness can be excused by a determined person, and it's human nature to do so. Removing breasts would reduce breast cancer, for example, but that's obviously stupid. Circumcision is no different when it is forced on another.
Your second comment is obviously regurgitated from somewhere, probably Brian Morris from the way it reads.
I checked. Yep, it's verbatim from "CIRCUMCISION: An Evidence-Based Appraisal". I can refute any of Morris' babble here, if you like, but suffice it for now that he is a propagandist, as shown throughout his biased website. What he cites all falls into subjectivity. That circumcision may do those things does not mean it should be forced on another person. For example, women prefer the circumcised penis for appearance? That's conditioning, not fact, but I do not care either way. It is the male's body, not his partner's. May parents force breast implants on their daughters to make them more appealing to men, because men presumably prefer larger breasts? If your answer is "no", as it should be, you're engaging in moral relativism.
When Morris writes that half of all intact males will develop one or more problems in their lifetime, he omits whether the severity of those problems will warrant circumcision (rarely), whether or not they're preventable with lesser means (usually), and when they might occur (later in life). This is all relevant factual data.
So, to your question: Why not circumcise them? Because they do not need circumcision and might not want to be circumcised. They have individual rights, including the right to be free from mutilation. It can be done later, if he chooses. It can't be undone if he rejects it.
THANKS FOR YOUR THOUGHTFUL RESPONSE, TONY!
a few things:
1 - as you are a gentile, i don't care if you're circumcised or not.
2 - you wrote: "My parents already forced it on me."
CONSISTENT WITH THEM FORCING YOU TO BE CHRISTIAN, GET IMMUNIZED; GO TO CHURCH, SCHOOL, ETC. THAT'S WHAT PARENTS DO. THAT'S WHAT THEY ARE FOR.
3 - YOU WROTE:
if circumcision is so necessary for avoiding HIV and other STDs, why do all other Western nations have similar or lower rates of those diseases as compared to the U.S., yet virtually none of the males in those countries are circumcised?
I DID NOT SAY IT WAS NECESSARY. JUST BENEFICIAL - AND A S A PUBLIC HEALTH MATTER.
OTHER NATIONS HAVE HIGH UNCIRCUMCISED RATES AND LOW HIV RATES BECAUSE THE VIRUS IS NOT RAMPANT. BUT THEY HAVE HIGHER RATES OF OTHER DISEASES WHICH ANOTHER ONE OF MY COMMENTS DETAILS.
4 - YOU WROTE:
Circumcision is not like cutting hair, changing diapers, bathing, or brushing teeth. It is surgery that permanently removes a functioning part of the child's anatomy.
SEE ABOVE: THIS IS WHAT PARENTS DO. WE NED TO MODIFY OUR PHYSICAL SELVES EVERYDAY. THAT'S ALL I WAS SAYING.
THE FORESKIN'S FUNCTION IS VESTIGIAL IN HUMANS. THERE IS AMPLE PUBLIC HEALTH DEMOGRAPHIC PROOF OF THIS.
AGAIN: I DON;T CARE IF YOU ARE CIRCUMCISED OR NOT. I AM DESCRIBING REALITY, NOT PROSCRIBING.
IT IS NOT SUBJECTIVE; MEDICAL ANALYSIS PRVES IT OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN.
REPEAT:
Circumcision of males represents a "surgical vaccine" against a wide variety of infections, adverse medical conditions and potentially fatal diseases over their lifetime, and also protects their sexual partners. In experienced hands, this common, inexpensive procedure is very safe, and can be pain-free. Although it can be performed at any age, the ideal time is infancy. The benefits vastly outweigh risks.
The public health benefits are enormous, and include protection from urinary tract infections, that are common over the lifetime, inferior genital hygiene, smegma, sexually transmitted HIV, oncogenic types of human papillomavirus, genital herpes, syphilis and chancroid, penile cancer, and possibly prostate cancer, phimosis, paraphimosis, thrush, and inflammatory skin conditions such as balanitis and balanoposthitis. In women circumcision of the male partner provides substantial protection from cervical cancer, genital herpes, bacterial vaginosis (formerly termed "gardnerella"), possibly Chlamydia (that can cause pelvic inflammatory disease, infertility, and ectopic pregnancy), and other infections.
Circumcision has socio-sexual benefits and reduces sexual problems with age and diabetes. It has no adverse effect on penile sensitivity, erectile function, or sensation during sexual arousal and is reported to enhance the sexual experience for men. Most women prefer the circumcised penis for appearance, hygiene, lower infection risk and sexual activity. At least half of all uncircumcised males will develop one or more problems over their lifetime caused by their foreskin, and many will suffer and die as a result. The benefits exceed the risks by over 100 to 1, and if fatalities are taken into account in men and their sexual partners the benefit is orders of magnitude higher than this. Given the convincing epidemiological evidence and biological support, routine circumcision should be highly recommended by all health professionals.
5 - WHEN YOU WRITE THIS YOU ARE PROSCRIBING - AND BEING STATIST AND TYRANNICAL:
My universal human rights were violated. That is the issue, as it applies to all individuals. It is not whether or not someone can make a speculative case for intervention. Any madness can be excused by a determined person, and it's human nature to do so. Removing breasts would reduce breast cancer, for example, but that's obviously stupid. Circumcision is no different when it is forced on another.
YOU ARE SAYING IT SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO BE PERFORMED ON CHILDREN.
THIS IS EVIL: IT WOULD DENY JEWS OUR RIGHTS AS JEWS AND JEWISH PARENTS THEIR RIGHTS AS PARENTS.
COMPARING IT TO BREAST REMOVAL - AS YOU DO, OR TO FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION IS WRONG, AND IRRATIONAL, LAUGHABLE.
THE JEWISH CIRCUMCISED PENIS FUNCTIONS PERFECTLY AND IS HEALTHIER FOR THE MAN CIRCUMCISED AND FOR PUBLIC HEALTH.
THE SAME CANNOT BE SAID ABOUT BREAST REMOVAL OR FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION.
THINKS ABOUT IT.
YOU YOUR UNCIRCUMCISED BRAIN.
THANKS AGAIN!
REMEMBER: I DON'T THINK THERE SHOULD BE A CIVIL LAW REQUIRING CIRCUMCISION.
AND I DON'T CARE IF GENTILES ARE CIRCUMCISED OR NOT.
THOUGH IF ALL MEN WERE. THERE WOULD BE ;LESS DISEASE IN THE WORLD FOR EVERYONE - JEWS AND GENTILES.
ALL THE BEST!
Weather for Champaign, IL
- Add to iGoogle
78°F | °C
Current: Sunny
Wind: S at 11 mph
Humidity: 34%
Sun
Sunny
76°F | 57°F
Mon
Windy
86°F | 64°F
Tue
Isolated Thunderstorms
84°F | 55°F
Wed
Partly Cloudy
76°F | 55°F
Detailed forecast: The Weather Channel - Weather Underground - AccuWeather
and another thing:
circumcision is a commandment for jews.
but even fundamentalist jews do not favor forcing jewish parent to circumcise their boys.
we don't force the Lord's commandments on anyone.
unlike muslims.
fulfilling the Lord's commandments must be without coercion and must be by choice.
we each choose to be better - to be perfected or e do not.
1. I accept that you don't care if I'm circumcised or not. The point is whether or not I want to be. That's what's at stake.
2. Forcing circumcision on me is not the same as forcing me to be a Christian. I've since rejected their attempts to make me religious. I can't reject my circumcision in any meaningful way. The damage is done, and it's permanent.
There is a difference between circumcision and vaccination, too. The former works against the body. The latter works with the body. And what it's meant to prevent are acquirable in different ways. Getting HIV through sex requires action on my part. Getting measles does not. That matters.
So, no, mutilation is not a valid parental option.
3. My point stands. It's not necessary - and in the West, it's not beneficial - for maintaining collective health, as other countries show. Again, HIV is about behavior, not foreskin status. And f-to-m transmission is not our epidemic.
4. I repeat, mutilation is not a valid parental option. Parents "modify" their children through haircuts and nail cutting, but those grow back. There is a physical and, therefore, moral difference.
The foreskin is not vestigial. You've been reading too much Brian Morris and Edgar Schoen. It contains nerve endings which are removed. It serves a functional purpose during sexual activity. It protects the glans and inner foreskin from damage. It is analgous to the clitoral hood because the penis itself concists of mucous membrane, which should stay moist.
As for the potential benefits, I recognize them. I'm saying their value to any particular individual is subjective. All tastes and preferences are unique. You apparently value the decreased risk of female-to-male HIV transmission among high-risk populations. I do not. That doesn't mean I don't recognize that such a risk reduction is possible, but as my circumstances and life choices do not overlap with that narrow condition, I conclude that these potential benefits from circumcision are worthless to me.
Likewise, you seem to value what your partners prefer sexually re: the foreskin. Fine, you have that choice. I do not value it. If it mattered to my wife, she wouldn't be my wife. She prefers the aesthetics of a normal penis rather than a circumcised penis. My parents' decision affected her negatively, as well.
For what it's worth, I have the good fortune that she's not shallow enough to hold my lack of my foreskin against me. The same can't be said for the low opinion propagandists like Morris seem to hold for women and their opinions about their potentially intact male partners.
5. I've declared what should not be forced on others. Non-therapeutic genital cutting on a non-consenting person is wrong, ethically and morally. That is not statist or tyrannical. What's tyrannical is my parents mutilating me because they prefer it. To state it succinctly, what do I care if it's my parents or the state forcing circumcision on me? I still end up circumcised. Tyranny.
On the other side, I stated that males may choose circumcision for themselves. I do not care why they do it. If it's to appease their god or out of fear for a disease, it doesn't matter to me, as long as it's freely chosen. So, yes, I am definitively stating that it should not be performed on healthy children for any reason. That is a principle defending a universal human right.
The circumcised penis, Jewish or not, functions differently than a normal intact penis. Note that I do not place a judgment on it. I think it's worse, but others may think differently, as you apparently do. But I'm the arbiter for my body, not my parents and not you, as you are the arbiter for your body.
Forcing non-therapeutic genital cutting on a son is not a valid parental right, unless there is also an equivalent parental right to force non-therapeutic genital cutting on a daughter. There is not, as every major Western country recognizes in its laws. Therefore, applying the law equally to all children, circumcision is wrong, ethically and morally.
The comparison of female genital mutilation and male genital mutilation is neither irrational or laughable. Again, non-therapeutic genital cutting on a non-consenting individual is a principle. There is often a significant difference in degree, but not always. There are forms of FGM that are less harmful than MGM. Yet, those are still illegal because we rightly protect the girl from harm. The same must be done for boys.
Circumcision is not a parental right because it is objective harm without need (i.e. non-therapeutic). If you wish to argue a First Amendment right, it's important that you understand that the First Amendment is an individual right. The child is an individual with that same right. Circumcising him may violate his religious freedom, since he may reject his parents religion. I have done so, and I know others who have. My spiritual beliefs are that the normal human body is good and worth enjoying. That's been stripped from me when my parents had me mutilated to meet their personal preferences. That is not a valid parental right.
If genital cutting is a parental right under the First Amendment, you must also accept a parental right to cut girls since your argument requires the assumption that the state not be permitted to determine what is and is not valid religious practice for parents to impose on their children. Are you arguing that, or are you just selectively applying "universal" human rights where it's convenient for you?
How is forcing circumcision on a child fulfilling the Lord's commandments "without coercion"? How is it "by choice" for the circumcised? In that view, a child is nothing more than parental property, from birth until death.
tony;
u r obviously and anti-circumcision nutcase who hasn't bothered to think about a word i wrote but instead is regurgitating bs from the folks who love foreskins.
that's your right.
btw:
parents can no more force their boys to get circumcised than get vaccinated or eat.
o. sorry. they have every right to do that cuz they're um, er ... what's the word....
OH YEAH:
PARENTS.
you seem to want to have the government supplant the parents.
that makes you...
um.. er what';s the word: a FASCIST.
if you haven't had foreskin reconstruction yet tony, i suggest you think about it.
and think about what i wrote.
good luck and enjoy your friends dirty foreskins all you want! that's your right, too!
Post a Comment