By Ryan Yousefi
By Chuck Strouse
By Terrence McCoy
By Terrence McCoy
By Terrence McCoy
By Michael E. Miller
By Kyle Munzenrieder
By Michael E. Miller
Andron dismisses the anti-circumcision crowd as a "noisy minority." Jewish boys, he says, might be mocked for not being circumcised, and Jews need to be circumcised before being buried in Jewish cemeteries. At times, Andron has even been called to perform the grim task of circumcising a stillborn baby.
If God is omnipotent and omniscient, why would he make baby boys born imperfect and in need of a surgery at birth? Andron takes a moment to answer. "God wants us to be part of the creation... Creation is incomplete. God doesn't give it to us finished."
Back at the bris, the baby unleashes a piercing cry, breathes rapidly, and squawks like a parrot. But only for a moment. True to his word, Andron completes the procedure in seconds. The foreskin is set aside for the family. It is typically buried.
In a short speech, Andron announces the baby's Hebrew name: Jacob. This is his "user ID to get into Heaven. Today he begins his spiritual journey — who he is, why he's here, and what he came to accomplish."
Andron lights a candle, passes a glass of wine, and holds the baby in the air like a trophy. The little one has stopped crying and fallen asleep.
Great-grandma blows out the candle, everyone claps, and Andron shouts, "Mazel tov!"
John D. Geisheker keeps a database of "foreskin-friendly" doctors. In some states, such as Iowa, there are none. As the executive director and general counsel for Doctors Opposing Circumcision, he spends a lot of time fielding calls from parents of intact babies. He also files complaints against doctors who forcibly retract infants' foreskins in a misguided effort to "clean" them. That creates a "wound," equivalent to breaking a girl's hymen, Geisheker says.
A native of New Zealand, where the circumcision rate is almost nil, he says he's stunned at how few doctors here know how to care for an intact penis and scoffs at the American notion "that boys have a birth defect."
Geisheker says his all-volunteer group is constantly waging intellectual war against circumcision proponents. The Doctors Opposing Circumcision website lays out medical arguments against circumcision: It removes 50 percent of the foreskin, including the most sensitive areas of the penis. The foreskin protects the penis from infections and keeps the tip of the penis soft and moist.
But the biggest hurdle to the anti-circumcision movement is research indicating that circumcision has a protective effect against sexually transmitted diseases, particularly HIV. And in that battle, it's a smattering of intactivists such as Geisheker going up against the World Health Organization, the Harvard School of Public Health, presidents Bush and Obama, Bill Gates, and Bono. Their weapons are studies and research; their battlefields are websites and medical journals.
Studies have indicated that circumcised men have lower rates of penile cancer and urinary tract infections. However, infections are easily treated with antibiotics, and penile cancer incidences are so low that Geisheker's group argues it's unethical to perform 100,000 circumcisions to possibly prevent one case of cancer. "A number of infants will die in the process, and many (200) will sustain significant, serious complications," the Doctors Opposing Circumcision website claims. "Nowhere else in medicine is this type of prevention practiced."
Proponents of circumcision often cite three clinical studies done in the past decade on adult males in Kenya, Uganda, and South Africa. The studies made headlines around the world with claims that men who were circumcised could reduce the risk of HIV infection from heterosexual sex by 53 to 60 percent.
Critics found many reasons to attack the studies: African men felt invincible after circumcision and mistakenly believed it made them immune to AIDS. Circumcised men in the studies still contracted AIDS. And it's far more cost-effective to use money on condoms instead of circumcision. One analysis said that "preventing one HIV infection via circumcision would cost an estimated $5,845 — more than 100 times the cost of preventing a single infection with condoms."
But the critics were drowned out. The three African studies have led to tens of millions of dollars being invested in a massive scale-up of circumcision throughout the African continent. Much of the funding comes from the Gates Foundation and U.S. taxpayers, via the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. Circumcision camps have popped up from Zimbabwe to South Africa to Botswana.
Geisheker says the Africa research shouldn't be used to justify circumcision of infants. This spring, however, a big announcement is expected that will likely thrust the matter into the national news again. The American Association of Pediatrics is widely considered the leading authority on medical matters related to children. In 1999, the organization announced there was insufficient data to recommend routine neonatal circumcision, a stance that was reaffirmed in 2005. In the ensuing years, 18 states' Medicaid programs have stopped funding it.
In 2007, the American Association of Pediatrics convened a task force of experts to revisit its stance yet again. Dr. Doug Diekema, a pediatrician who practices emergency medicine at Seattle Children's Hospital, is one of a dozen people on the task force. He says the panel's "work is 95 percent done." Their new official stance has been drafted, and he expects it to be released this spring.
The photo you include with your article is obviously an attempt at being clever. It isn't because it is an erroneous perception of male genitalia, which often attracts skewed humour. If you were writing about female genital cutting would you depict it a steak of salmon and a knife? Also, scissors aren't used in the very backward procedure. You have also skewed this to infer age old tradition. Theft, rape, murder, and assault have been around longer, does that make them okay? In fact these are exactly the descriptions that can be applied to "circumcision," the euphemism for genital mutilation. Anyone who performs them is not a doctor or mohel, but a quack, and they deserve every bad thing they have coming their way. Helen Salsbury is especially a quack because she is also a woman who is under the impression that boys are objects to be manipulated for profit. Jews who perform it aren't following the Torah which asks that we do no harm to any living thing, which is exactly what genital mutilation does. Eighty five percent of men internationally are intact and living proof that "circumcision" is a lie. Any reference to disease prevention is also dissipated as the human race would have died out long ago if the HIV/cancer scares were true. "Circumcision" is the cycle of male sexual abuse, and those who want to repeat the cycle for profit are in denial, otherwise they wouldn't get so angry or defensive every time they are questioned.
what kind of a normal person has gone out of his way to "see a lot of circumcisions"? hidden agenda much? wow. scary.
No one that is at all credible claims there are no functions to the parts cut off. However, the sexual function and pleasure are ignored or downplayed by the penis parts removal pushers. The long term harm to the man the baby becomes is huge, with nerve damage and harm to the sensory system. A whole range of sensation and sexual and protective function are lost. The lips, nipples and fingertips have similar touch sense. To take this away from another person without their consent is heinous. To remove these parts from a baby is way creepy.
The best type of circumcision to perform on a boy is the one using the Mogen which can snip the foreskin in only 30 seconds. I have seen a lot of circumcisions, and I think the best ones are those done in the Jewish style with the Mogen or similar instrument. Mohels circumcise thousands of boys and if I have my boys circumcised, although I am not Jewish, I would have them done by a mohel.
You speak about boys as though they are objects. Could it be that someone objectified your existence and ignored your rights as a child by placing a scar on you and subjecting you to a minority group of men from which you can never be removed? By enabling this, it would be the repetition of abuse that was perpetrated on you, and any boys you have are counting on you to be smarter than that.
Mogen clamp went bankrupt due to the large number of horrific botch jobs, including severing the head, caused by the (torture) device. They lost an $11 million judgement in 2010.
Why would you allow anybody to amputate major parts of your son's penis. Seriously?!?!
I'm relatively certain that the 'intactivists' are asking that the common place/automatic circumcision route taken be revisited: No one is arguing religious rite
Oh yes we are my dear. Religion is no excuse to abuse children as it is the cycle of sexual abuse. The only ones who are desiring to keep male genital mutilation legal are the ones with the scars, which can include quacks, mohels, and misguided muslims who think it is a part of their religions. In fact, the koran mentions nothing about it, and it isn't exclusively jewish, therefore it doesn't make a muslim also a jew and visa versa. Moses, leader of the jews, didn't practice this ritual. If the mythical Abraham had done to himself what is done to boys today, he'd have bled to death before he could show anyone what he had supposedly done. Genital mutilation is rooted in superstitious myth and is only a viscous, abusive cycle.
Anti-circumcision idiots need to get a life and stop interferring with everyone else's. I was circumcized as a baby, am not jewish and dont remember it or any pain...it left no scar on my penis or my ego. Circumcisions serve a purpose especially cleanliness...my wife is a urologist and you dont want to hear the stories she has regarding uncircumcized patients.
ANYTHING that has a religious significance is automatically condemned by the socialist politically correct idiots. What is it that scares them to death? Could it be their lifestyle?
So cool you wrote this article!! Thank you Deirdra Funcheon, I appreciate you taking the time to bring this to your audience. I am not for male or female circumcision and look forward to the day that it is common place to have intact boys and men.
Lewis is another genius! A mohel is the best at what he does and many do more than doctors. They do not prey on baby boys but called upon to do the ritual that is a necessity for a Jewish boy. You don't like it, tough! To a believing Jew or Muslim, it must be done and complications are extremely rare if done by an experienced mohel. My neighbor, a non-Jewish pediatrician had his son done because he claims that is in fact healthier. Go argue with him.
I was circumcised when I was 10 because my foreskin had closed and I count not put it back and clean the gland.It would have been a place for infection.If my parents were against the procedure I would have died from and infection in the penis that would probably have moved to the lower abdomen.I am the most happy person and my libido is fine,thank you.
Oscar you seem to have a mental disconnect to the issue here. Your situation is akin to presenting evidence for ALL children having their tonsils removed at birth as a profilactic measure.....because YOU had inflamed tonsils and had to have them removed. Although it may not have affected your libido (bear in mind that no-one is arguing a libido effect)....you have no way of knowing it's affect on yours or your lovers sexual pleasure----you've never had a foreskin to compare. I'm thinking it MAY have affected your mentality though as your response is so far out in left field that either you're a poser.....or terribly mentally deficient.
Oscar, I'm afraid you were circumcised for no good reason. WERE you suffering an infection?
What if there were a better solution to your (iffy) problem? Wouldn't you have wanted that instead?
Read up; unfortunately, doctors don't understand the foreskin, when it retracts etc. You most likely would have been fine. Check it.
Uhm....you also seemed to have missed the whole point of the issue. It SHOULDN'T be the parents decision.....except in cases of medical necessity. It shouldn't be the parents decision to do an unnecessary surgical procedure on a males penis any more than it should be a parents decision to have their little girls circumsized. Its a shame that people who believe as you do are permitted to have children in this country. I hear Afghanistan and many countries in that region are filled with people of your mentality and you may just fit right in there.
Without medical or clinical indication, how can any doctor be performing surgery on a healthy child? Much less be giving parents any kind of a "choice?"
What other operation can a parent simply command a doctor to do without clinical indication?
Why is it the parent's decision? Why must a child be scarred for the rest of his life for an archaic, barbaric practice that the parents forced onto their child?
One could argue that you have no say in this as well so you should go back to work or study ;)
Haven't found in the heart of NO. 1?Let you in here,stdster.,.c0mfind the one with you for life to love each other.
If Dr. Salsbury is only doing five circumcisions a month, that is not enough to be a proficient practitioner of circumcision. If you are going to circumcise boys, you cannot simply do it as a part-time job - you need to be doing it every day. This is why the best practitioners to circumcise boys are mohels (or doctors) who do them daily. Mohels circumcise thousands of boys over the course of a career and they are chosen not just by Jews but by non-Jews, British Royalty and celebrities because they have the most expertise. This is why Sandra Bullock, had her boy circumcised by a mohel. I would not choose someone who does so few circumcisions a month as the best person to have my boys circumcised. I would choose someone who does them daily.
And mohels screw up too. Are you aware of the recent million dollar lawsuits against mohels that cut off the glans?
More to the point, shouldn't there actually be a medical necessity for a surgery before it's performed?
Without medical or clinical indication, how is it any doctor can be performing surgery on a healthy, non-consenting child? Much less be giving his parents any kind of a "choice?"
And what are mohels doing circumcising goyim? Sounds to me like they're trying to forcibly and permanently evangelize others...
Van Lewis did admit, I am told, that he did like the way it tasted after it was circumcised. People get a life! There are so many other more urgent issues to deal with in our world. People are still sold into slavery! Our water and air are polluted, our meats are loaded with hormones. Little girls are developing breasts and they are having their periods at age 10!We have a president who is destroying our country and you are tackling a 2400 year old practice that is an integral part of two of the world's major religions? Wake up and rid yourself of the hate you have for these religions and do something constructive.
"For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love." Gal. 5:6
I WISH MINE HAD BEEN CARVED WITH A ROADRUNNER'S HEAD AND BEAK---"BEEP-BEEP"!!!!pshhhhhhhuuuuuuuuuuuu!!!!
Parents get to decide what they want to do with their children. Get over it.
Go crusade for a useful cause instead of wasting your time over fucking foreskin.
Bebep You are obviously a MORON!! I suppose if a parent wants to Rape his/ child it's alright by you then, you friggen imbicile!!! This is what the debate is about dipsh-t!!! Whether or not parents should have the right to abuse & perform genital mutilation on their children. If you don't know already, this practice has been outlawed for little girls in most countries, however it is still widely practiced in many countries today. Therefore similar to female circumcision, it is an issue that deserves to be argued on the basis of it's medical benifit or not, rather than archaic superstitious cultures & their ancient beliefs.
Wow you people really reach for an argument here...
I like that you insult with 'MORON' after writing such incredibly stupid shit.
I'm talking about circumcision not raping your child you freaking lunatic.
Female circumcision was outlawed because they removed the whole clitoris not just the hood, and in some cases even the labia. It actually brought health risks and problems AFTER it was performed. It is not similar to male circumcision in one bit.
So back to my point, if a parent wishes to circumcise THEIR child - then they will. So deal with it.
Oh yeah... MORON! <--- This means I win right?
People like you should not be allowed on the internet posting random stupid things.
I clearly state how terrible female circumcision is, yet in your blinded rage from the foreskin in your face you can't make that out.
Keep up the good work.
So sounds to me that "Bebep" is in favor or removing the clitoral HOOD of females at birth. Bebep.....people like you belong in 1.Jail 2. Mental institutions. or 3.Afghanistan. Either way, you're not fit to live among a civilized society.
Really, you sick f*ck?! How about if your parents cut off ALL of your genitals?You don't think the protection of sexually assaulted children is a useful cause. YOU DO NOT DESERVE TO LIVE.
Yes, lets compare removing foreskin to castrating someone. Great argument genius.
Circumcision is not sexual assault, what the hell are you even talking about?
YOU DO NOT DESERVE TO POST ON THE INTERNET.
"Circumcision is a brutal surgery. If you treated an animal the way we treat babies, you would be arrested for animal cruelty."
Doctor Salsbury, you couldn't have described your crimes against children any clearer!
To those who quote the law given to Abraham as an excuse for sexual assault on children, perhaps you should read what the Apostles wrote in the book of Acts - saying that circumcision IS NOT NECESSARY before God; and the Apostle Paul himself warns against those who continue this vulgar and heinous act, calling them "the Concision" - a Greek term meaning "THE MUTILATORS".
Children are sexually abused all the time and the nation goes up in arms against it, branding the perpetrators for life - but the nation falls silent to child sexual assault when it comes to slicing off part of the child's genitals!! THIS NATION IS SICK AND DUPLICIOUS.
I would NEVER knowingly allow someone near my child who supports such sick child abuse.
I highly recommend severe criminal penalties to such evil people as Dr. Salsbury. Culture or religion is not a valid reason to allow ANYONE to be maimed and mutilated. Those who promote child genital mutilation ought to be locked!!! away.
"Circumcision is a brutal surgery. If you treated an animal the way we treat babies, you would be arrested for animal cruelty."
Doctor Salsbury, you couldn't have described your crimes against children any clearer!To those who quote the law given to Abraham as an excuse for sexual assault on children, perhaps you should read what the Apostles wrote in the book of Acts - saying that circumcision IS NOT NECESSARY before God; and the Apostle Paul himself warns against those who continue this vulgar and heinous act, calling them "the Concision" - a Grek term meaning "THE MUTILATORS".
Child are sexually abused all the time and the nation goes up in arms against them, branding the perpetrators for life - but the nation falls silent to child sexual assault when it comes to slicing off part of the child's genitals!! THIS NATION IS SICK AND DUPLICIOUS.
I would NEVER knowing allow someone near my child who supports such sick child abuse. I highly recommend severe criminal penalties to such evil people as Dr. Salsbury. Culture is not a valid reason to allow ANYONE to be maimed and mutilated. Those who promote child genital mutilation ought to be lock away.
JOKES AND SCRIPTURE. DEEP
IF YOU BELIEVE IN ANY KIND OF HUMAN RIGHTS.YOU WOULD LET THE CHILD MAKE THEIR OWN DECISIONWHEN THEY ARE OLD ENOUGH TO GRASP THE TOPIC FULLY.
In Genesis 12: 1-2 God tells Abram "I will make of thee a great nation." In Genesis 12: 6-7 Abram goes into Sichem, at the plain of Moreh. God comes and tells him "Unto thy seed I will give this land." Abram built him an altar. No mention of circumcision.
In Genesis 13: 14-17 God tells Abram to look as far as he can in every direction and that all that land that he sees belongs to him and his descendants forever. Again there is no mention of circumcision.
In Genesis 15: 18 God makes a covenant with Abram that his descendants shall own the land from the river in Egypt to the river Euphrates. Once again there was no mention of circumcision.
Finally, Genesis 17: 4-11 is the part that everyone is familiar with. This is where God tells Abram to change his name to Abraham, and that he will be a father of many nations, he gives Abraham the land of Canaan and tells Abraham that males are expected to have their foreskins amputated as a token of the covenant.
To summarize, three out of the four times God came to Abram and promised him vast land for his numerous descendants he didn't mention circumcision. Yet, the circumcision covenant is the only one anyone cares to mention. My guess is because it's typical human nature for the most gruesome example to be the most memorable. God saying "You can just have all this land" doesn't quite strike the same chord with people as God saying, "You can have all this land in exchange for some penis tissue."
leave your imaginary friend out of it. it's just barbaric, and by the way, when the Canaanite's land was "given" away, where were the Canaanites expected to go?
Actually, are you familiar with the earlier versions of the Torah? There are the books of J, E, D, and P.
The circumcision "covenant" as it appears in Genesis (the first book of the Torah) today, does not appear in the books of J, E, or D.
Finally, as if it were suddenly grafted there, as if it had always been there, it appears in the book of P.
It is very strange that Jews insist they "never change," when here you can clearly see that rabbis of the time changed the book to fit their needs.
Additionally, the "milah" was different then. Stages were added LATER. For example, the original "milah" was cutting off JUST the tip of the foreskin (AKA, the acroposthion). Later, when Jewish men wanted to restore to resemble their Helenistic counterparts, rabbis started getting pissed off that anyone would want to "erase the mark of the covenant," so they implemented a new stage called "peri ah," which removes all of the foreskin up to the corona glandis.
They finally added a third stage called "metzitzah b'peh," wherein the rabbi sucks on the bloody child's penis. This got a New York rabbi in trouble when he infected three boys with herpes. What happened to him? Only a slap on the wrist, and an order that he must rinse with Listerine before he sucks on another boy. What would have been his sentence if he were sucking baby girls?
The point being, it's not the same. It was added.
Finally, the New Testament compels Christians to not circumcise. Galatians 5 couldn't be any clearer:
Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.