Sunday May 6, 2007, 4:51 am
Lauren thank you so much for bringing this blatant aggressive physcial act on male babies and little boys who can not stop it or say no. I wish all mothers to be would read this and then sit a minute and decide how would they like this done to their skin covering the clitoris??? I can tell you as a male my parents and g parents were totally agains it and told the doctors immediately do not clip the foreskin. I don't think how womens bodies are they can imagine the feeling later on of a desinsitized penile head due to the foreskin missing as this protects and keeps it covered and the nerves not exposed 24/7.It is big hospital business and the docs make more $$$$ to cut it . Also families are sold a fake bill of goods by saying it help a young boy or man stay cleaner .BULL!!!! Men are taught by fathers and mothers as children how to wash this area properly its not roket science. Chris Ryan

Sunday May 6, 2007, 8:22 am
One of the incredulous arguments for circumcision is the one that states it is better to circumcise a newborn. The idea behind such a statement being that it is less traumatic and painful then when they are grown. If one reads the below information, it's hard to support an argument like that...not to mention, a grown man has the vocabulary & knowledge to be able to communicate his pain, a newborn baby does not.

http://www.mothersagainstcirc.org/worse.htm ~follow the link to read the whole article~

"Just as the fingernail is fused to the finger, an infant's foreskin is fused to the glans. It must first be separated from the glans -- then removed. This tearing can "further damage this sensitive structure. When an adult is circumcised, the foreskin has already separated from the glans. (This difference alone suggests to me that the process would be more painful for the infant.) "The loss of sensitivity to an adult may therefore be less." [Ryan]

We also know that babies actually feel pain more intensely than adults. [See Anand below] Many infants are circumcised without any anesthetic. Some get a shot of lidocaine. The shot itself can be very painful. Not only that, but it's not always effective and it can cause permanent nerve and vascular damage. The adult male is anesthetised. The method used is probably an epidural or he is put under. Although the healing process may (or may not) take longer for an adult, the chances are extremely slim that he would require a circumcision later in life for any medical reason."

Sunday May 6, 2007, 12:29 pm
The whole point here is that WE as parent do not "own" our children. They are gifts for us to care for, nurture, protect, teach, guide.
As an ADULT, any one of us can CHOOSE what to do with our bodies...get tattoos, piercings, scarification, brands, circumcisions, even some women choose to have the genitals altered. But that is A CHOICE, made by (hopefully) an informed, consenting adult.
A child has no choice. No voice, but to scream and struggle. No boy or girl should have such a horrible, degrading and harmful experience forced upon them.
The cultural acceptance of this act must be changed. The perceptions that this is "normal" or somehow beneficial must be changed.
Much of the truth of the problem that keeps this going in America, is that many women have never even seen an intact penis in real life! Therefore, the pictures of normal male anatomy looks 'odd' to them. We must teach our daughters, who will someday perhaps be Mothers, what a normal penis really looks like, what the function of the foreskin is and that not only is it better, safer, healthier, more pleasurable for the man, but also for their partners.

Monday May 7, 2007, 11:25 pm
erm, in my country male circumcision is done after the boys are relatively grown, say early to mid-teens. not on babies. doesn't seem to have affected sexual function or quality of sex life either. nor does it seem especially painful either, nor even seen as a big deal. some boys get it done at a clinic or hospital for extra cleanliness. i dunno if the amount of skin removed varies from place to place, though. i have once read that some people remove the whole thing, whereas in other places only a small part is circumcised - though i am not an expert. besides wouldn't it be harder to circumcise a baby, seeing as it's not grown yet and therefore smaller and more delicate?

also while it is true that the sheer number of muslims means that most circumcised men are muslims, it is disingenous of the article to associate the practice itself with muslims, when it is a *jewish* custom, or more accurately, a custom of the abrahamaic peoples. muslims circumcise only because prophet Muhammad, who as an arab and descendent of ishmael, was himself circumcised - to imitate him, and not because it is commanded in the Quran.