User: Hugh7

Non-religious neonatal circumcision is now confined almost entirely to the US. The rest of the English-speaking world tried it and gave it up, because they found it didn't do any good. In Australia the rate is about 15%, down to about 1% in some states. In New Zealand, it's below 1%. There has been no outbreak of foreskin-related complaints as a result. In the rest of the world, it's either confined to Muslims and Jews, or a tribal rite of passage. Even if your dad and his brothers were born in hospitals (the rest of the world does have them), circumcision probably wasn't even considered.

Circumcision was not a Native American custom, and that's the reason many Native Americans are intact.

"Out os all the jibberish you rwrote,..."

I write gibberish...?

"you did not make one valid statement."

You provide no evidence for that claim.

" ...all the outright lies and distortions that you spew out."

As above.

"IF male circumcison was deemed harmful to the male, it would have been banned long ago."

The same could have been said for slavery or cannibalism or footbinding or castration or anything else that is now banned, before it was banned.

"All attempts made by the anti circ people to have laws passed to ban male circucmsion have never gotten out of committee or in some cases never even made it that far."

See http://www.circumstitions.com/News22.html#finland

"You attempt to make male circumcision the same as FGM ..."

Yes, illegal.

"... which you very well know is not the case. There is no comparison between the two."

Here is a comparison between the two: http://www.circumstitions.com/FGMvs MGM.html . I don't deny that the female operation is often (but not always) more severe than the male, but as human rights abuses, there is no difference.

"Why is it that the only pictures and videos you show are the ones approved to be shown for "shock" value?"

Nonsense. The common one of a baby shrieking was published in "Life" magazine. The sequence of stills at http://www.circumstitions.com/Circ.html was published in an Australian women's magazine.

"Most people that are familiar with the procedure know that the supposedly "bloody" photos of a circumcision being done is in fact not blood but the antiseptic cleanser that was used to prep the area."

I don't know who is supposed to have said what is or is not blood. It's hardly the most important thing about the pictures.

"The video was produced by your own people and bears no resemblence to the ones provided by medscape and other valid medical people."

The video at http://www.metacafe.com/watch/161143/routine_infant_circumcision/ is of a run-of-the-mill Gomco circumcision. Watch it with the sound turned up.

"circumstitions.com is the anti circ equivalent of circlist. You are no better than they are in your fetishes. The big differences that I noted after viewing both sites is that circlist does not attempt to degrade those that do not agree with them,"

I'm not familiar with circlist, but www.circumstitions.com does not attempt to "degrade" anyone that I know of. Provide examples and they'll be verified or rectified.

"they do not publish only portions of medical reports that favor their side like you do,"

It says on the home page, The Intactivist Pages do not pretend to be "balanced", when circumcision is so widely promoted in the mass media.

"and they do not have to have an army of radicals to get their points across."

An army! Oh I wish! But since infant circumcision is still the status quo in the US, the circumcisors do not need one.

"I have no problem being circumcised and you have no right to even suggest that I would be happier to still have a foreskin."

Of course I have, and I'll suggest it again.

"You have no way of knowing what I would feel."

No, but I can extrapolate what other intact men feel.

"You are so sold on your foreskin envy that you actually believe that you have the power to read other people's minds and judge them."

It's not rocket science (or mind-reading)): a whole $%!@ works better and makes its owner happier than one with part missing.

"There is only one real judge and He was the one that advocated circumcision. Could it be that He actually made a mistake and was attempting to correct it when He said to circumcise? He in all His wisdom always knew what He was doing,"

Well, make up your (God's) mind. I only claim to guess what you would probably feel if you were intact. I don't claim to know the mind of God. If you're Jewish, see http://www.circumstitions.com/Jewish.html If you're Christian, see http://www.circumstitions.com/Xy.html

" and that is more than I can say for the anti circ people." Now who's reading minds?

"I have received several emails from people who have read your post here, and other places on teh internet, and they told me there is no way to get you to listen to the opposing view"

I listen to the opposing view. I see its faults. I answer them. So far you haven't even begun to make a coherent case for cutting part of a (male) baby's genitals off with no medical indication.

".. and there is no sense in even trying. I guess they are right. It is not worth the effort. You go your way and I will go mine. Just keep in mind that I am another one that you could not sway or bully"

The only bullies around here are th e people who take knives to (boy) babies' genitals - and those who advocate it.

"with your tactics. You can waste your time all you want, and that is what you are doing; but I have better things to do with my life so now you can say that I will not post again,..."

No, I wouldn't be so silly.

" ...and you will be right for once."

We'll see.

"Hugh. I would not use the word defensive. I would use the word protective."

That's rich. It's Intactivists who are protecting babies from having an irrevocable decision made to cut off part of their genitals before they have a chance to even know what they want.

"It is the anti circ people, such as you, that will go to almost any length..."

News to me what lengths I will go.

"...to portray a valid minor surgical procedure..."

The ONLY surgical procedure that is done in the absence of any medical symptoms to a non-consenting minor male* at parental whim. If he were older, the other sex, or any other part of his body, it would be illegal. How "valid" is that?

(*intersexed babies are another story. Intactivists believe in the genital-owners' choice there, too.)

"... as something that is awful..."

See http://www.metacafe.com/watch/161143/routine_infant_circumcision/ and say that's not awful.

"... and detrimental to a male's sex life..." There is plenty of evidence that it often is. In the other cases, how do you know that their sex lives would not have been much better without it?

"... and mental health."

I forebear to comment.

"You are the ones who become defensive and decide to go offensive in hopes that you can make people believe that you are the only ones that are right,"

It's called disagreeing with you. Get used to it.

"... and that anyone who disagrees with you is a bad parent ..."

No, just uninformed.

"... or in denial when they tell you that they are happy with their circumcised state...."

When they become loud and abusive about it, I'd call it denial. Otherwise it's just a case of not knowing what they're missing.

"You people just do not want to believe that anyone could be happy and satisfied that their parents made the right choice for them when they had the doctor circumcise them."

I can't speak for all Intactivists, but I can believe all of that, AND that you are mistaken. I believe you would be just as happy, or happier, if your parents had made the reverse choice, or - like the majority of parents the world over - made no choice at all and left your genitals alone because, well, who ever heard of doing anything else?

"I would not mind it so much if you were truthful and forthright, but I know that is impossible for you people."

Um, you seem to have some preconceptions about us that aren't bourne out by anything I've written so far. (Tending to underline my calling you "defensive")

"That is evident by the sudden appearance of three or four of you on this poll and then the sudden and dramatic increase in the poll numbers favoring uncircumcised males in the past 24 hours or so. The poll stacking is just another one of your tools used to deceive the general population. Instead of contaminating this poll, why not make a poll of your own?"

The whole problem of self-selecting polls is that anyone can take part, for any reason. That is why their results never have any statistical validity, i.e. can never be extrapolated to a wider population. For that reason it is just nonsense to say that when people of a particular opinion take part they "contaminate" a poll. It had no purity to start with. What you're asking ("Only take part in this poll if you agree with me") is just absurd.

"Oh, the link you posted was evidence that you are a true anti circ believer and supporter."

Is this some new slur, like being "unAmerican" or "liberal"? Actually, the link I posted, http://www.circumstitions.com, is packed full of evidence that infant circumcision is damaging, risky, a human rights violation, and perpetuated for hundreds of silly, crazy and self-contradictory "reasons" (circumstitions).

"Nuff said. I made my point." Yeah, right. How much do you bet he doesn't come back for more?

My word we are defensive, aren't we? So if the poll favours circumcision, that's because circumcision is good, but if it doesn't, it's been stacked? Perfect.

Fact is, asking people what they prefer in this is like asking 19th century Chinese men whether they prefer women with bound or unbound feet - and most would prefer bound. Or asking 18th century opera lovers if they prefered castrati or women's voices. Or 20th century sub-Saharan African men if they prefer infibulated women. We now agree that all those are damaging and human rights violations. It is only a matter of time before we look back on male circumcision the same way.

See http://www.circumstitions.com for more on all this.