Why does medical-ethical fraud and religious maltreatment get a free pass?
It’s not as though we don’t understand (or don’t claim to hold in esteem) the moral values which forced genital cutting violates…
Just think what the reaction would be were ‘prophylactic’ or ‘religious’ amputation suggested for any other part of a newborn’s healthy but vulnerable body. Those moral values suddenly would become blatantly obvious.
Genital cutting [males only] proponents and apologists say they don’t have ‘penis issues.’ That would be very funny… if their delusion wasn’t harmful to others. ~Devon
Why does medical-ethical fraud and religious maltreatment get a free pass?
"Of course, children ‘get over it’ — they have no choice. Children are not resilient, children are malleable. In the process of getting over it, elements of their true emotional, behavioral, cognitive and social potential are diminished — some percentage of capacity is lost, a piece of the child is lost forever."
An unnecessary trauma is NOT justified because babies heal faster and won’t (consciously) remember the theft.
Say “YES” to ethics and to an “open future” for your son(s).
ANY time there is a hint, a guess, conjecture, speculation, about the ‘benefit’ of cutting off part of a newborn’s penis THAT is in my newsfeed FOR DAYS because American media can’t wait to share ‘good news’ about forced genital cutting of males.
This study? Nothing. Media silence.
It finds that intact men clear oncogenic (cancer-causing) HPV infections FASTER than circumcised men.
"the probability of clearing an HPV infection was significantly lower among circumcised men compared to uncircumcised [intact] men."
"Kaplan-Meier analyses showed that the median time to clearance of any HPV infection was significantly longer among circumcised men than uncircumcised men (P <0.0001, log-rank test) (Figure 2). Similarly, median time to clearance of oncogenic HPV and non-oncogenic HPV types was significantly shorter among uncircumcised men than circumcised men.”
I know men who are circumcised and “okay” with it, but who, understanding that it wasn’t medically necessary, did not inflict it on their sons. Some really don’t want to know more about the issue than that, and I don’t blame them.
They protected their sons. I ask nothing more of them than that. ~Devon
"Circumcision is one of the most horrifying procedures I have ever witnessed in my medical career. The 4 or 5 circumcisions I attended were during my medical school years and none of them were performed with anesthesia. The memory of those infant boys strapped to the molded plastic frame screaming and writhing in pain as the Gomco clamp was tightened down around the foreskin will forever remain with me. Anyone who chooses to have his or her infant circumcised should be forced to attend the procedure. There is no longer any doubt that infants feel pain and there is increasing evidence that the pain of circumcision can leave lasting psychological effects….
Male circumcision is the only medically unnecessary surgery in the USA that is performed without obtaining consent from the patient. In law, parental rights are derived from parental duty and exist only so long as they are needed for the protection of the person and property of the child.
Giving consent to medical treatment of a child is a clear incident of parental responsibility arising from the duty to protect the child. This duty is clearly breached when the procedure in question is non-therapeutic, ablative and irreversible." ~Dr. Joseph Froncioni
The body is not like a suit of clothes, to be hemmed and stitched to the style of the times.
—Dr. Paul McHugh, Johns Hopkins University (via uncutting)
"Rape is unwanted penetration of a body part or an object in the body opening against a person’s will."
People will roll their eyes and get mad when the definition fits circumcision and they don’t want to hear it. They might sputter absurd comparisions:
What if a child objects to a dental check-up? What about taking his or her temperature?
Yeah, totally the same as amputation of part of his sexual organ WITHOUT medical IMPERATIVE.
What is rape? Must there be a sexual motive? Some say it’s so, others say no… that it is rather about power and violence over another. Some balk at calling it ‘rape’ if the powerlessness is self-induced (the victim is intoxicated), while most acknowledge that taking advantage of another’s powerlessness is no excuse.
Children are circumcised because they cannot resist. What child would consent to having his or her most intimate body part manipulated, opened, then partially ablated by surgical steel? Lacking medical imperative for such an act, would not “surgical rape” be a more accurate description than “circumcision?” ~Devon
Here is a law journal article, in which this question is posed:
"And finally, consider the child whose parents exercise such control over his physical body that they decide whether or not he will be circumcised in the first few days of his life. Do we think a rape victim who is a child has not been raped at all, merely because he had no effective legal right to self-possession to begin with? Do we think his parents in particular can’t be guilty of raping him?"
Gowri Ramachandran, Delineating the Heinous: Rape, Sex, and Self-Possession, 123 YALE L.J. ONLINE 371 (2013)
Boys deserve better than circumcision apologists who refuse to play by the rules which protect other body parts from non-therapeutic, non-consensual genital cutting.
"Some potential benefit."
"MISS. Medical ethics."
"HIT… Parental preference."
"MISS… Equal protection."
"HIT… I don’t understand… nothing I’m saying is hitting the target!"
"That’s because you haven’t tried "The individual’s own informed choice," or "The individual’s own religious sacrifice," or "Actual medical need, after all less-invasive therapies have been tried and failed." You know, like Mom and Sis would expect were the ‘game’ about THEIR genitals.”
Some environmental toxins are people. Avoid them, for your son’s sake.
Can you imagine a person opening that door, willingly subjecting his or her son to these consequences and risks, were the danger not something they had come to accept as “no big deal?”
A family member of one boy who died from complications of his circumcision in 2013 said “God must have needed another angel.”
He also removed all references to circumcision causing the boy’s demise.
The child is dead. The family mourns. Because they are now silent publicly, two things are true:
The child’s death was tragically unnecessary.
The child’s death serves no purpose.
He could, in death, be that “angel” who could save others from his fate.
If his family would talk. If they would warn others.
We see it often that families who have lost children speak out, advocate for safer products and practices. They face their pain in order to raise awareness, to save other families from ever having to feel the torment they have felt, especially in the case of preventable deaths. We admire their courage and strength.
But circumcision deaths are different. The parents signed off on the cause of death. Settlements are reached, and those who facilitated the death as well as those who authorized the ‘procedure’ causing it sign confidentiality agreements.
Life moves on… except for that one life, tragically wasted, then nullified. ~Devon
Do they really see children so differently?
"To help put this in perspective, lets compare a pedophile with a circumcising individual. Which is worse, a person who plays with a child’s penis, and harms him psychologically, or a person who tortures (by definition: torture is hurting another, whether intended or not), and permanently mutilates (again, by definition) another human being, and also harms him psychologically?
We know how society reacts to a pedophile. How should it react to a circumciser? When the public fully recognizes what is going on, most will want to put an end to the tragic practice.”
George C Denniston MD, MPH (Harvard)
President, Doctors Opposing Circumcision