Discussion on:

How the anti-circumcision trend will add billions to U.S. healthcare costs

'Novel economic model' sounds like an exotic term for ********.

Retention of the foreskin requires teaching young boys at a relatively early age the importance of proper cleaning habits.

Seeing how badly American parents do teaching their kids anything about sex, my guess is this trend would lead to an additional mandate that schools teach proper foreskin hygiene in the 1st grade.

Which in turn will lead to outrage from the very parents who are opposed to circumcision and fail to teach their kids about sex.

Actually, care of an intact boy is easier than a circumcised one. No worry about re-adhesion or infection or pain relief every time urine gets in his wound until it heals. Then "only clean what is seen - just the outside - till it retracts in its own good time, usually not for years. More problems are caused by meddling and over-anxious parents than by having all one's genitals.

And since circumcision has its roots in sex-phobia (it was medicalised to prevent, "cure" and punish masturbation - J H Kellogg recommended circumcision for boys, carbolic acid for girls - but it was successful only in the last of those), you have no basis for thinking it is intact boys' parents who would leave them ignorant.

Johns Hopkins has two of the most rabid pro-circumcision doctors of all time on their staff, Dr. Gray and Dr. Tobian. Dr. Gray is one of the authors of one of the three famous African studies. He was strongly biased towards circumcision before the study, and his views have not changed. Twice now, Dr. Gray has co-authored books with well known Australian circumcision promoter Brian Morris. Morris has authored such reputable articles as "Why circumcision is a biomedical imperative for the 21st century. Here are some quotes from Morris, just so you know the company Dr. Gray keeps.
"Because parents have been encouraged not to circumcise their kids, what we're now seeing is a big rise in number of uncircumcised males entering the sexually active community." . Uh, hasn't this been true since the beginning of time?
"Boys and men who are not circumcised can be a source of irritation if they do not retract the foreskin when they urinate, as 'splatter' will occur.". Gee, no splatter with circumcised males, is there?
"Millions of lives will be saved by universal circumcision". Based on what fantasy?
And now, a quote from Dr. Gray of Johns Hopkins:
"We've never used surgery to prevent an infectious disease. It's a completely new concept, a new paradigm. How can we train all the surgeons to do this procedure and equip them.". No kidding. It violates "first, do no harm".
Why do the Europeans not have these problems, and these expenses, one wonders?

What other healthy body part, is it deemed ethical to remove, just in case?
Why is it a felony to nick the clitoral foreskin of a girl, but perfectly OK to remove the penile foreskin of a boy?
Why does a girl, dog, or cat, have a right to genital integrity, but not an American boy?
Is it any wonder, that John Hopkins, the CDC, and others spew this kind of garbage, when they see the circumcision rates dropping yearly, in the US, Canada, UK, Australia, New Zealand, etc. A major source of easy revenue is drying up, and doctors often consider the extra income their God-given right.
Never mind that a baby is at the other end of the knife.

Circumcision has always been an intervention looking for an excuse, more recently a "cure" in search of a disase, and nothing has changed, except that its advocates (almost all circumcised men who, like the fox who lost his tale in Aesop's fable, can't bear other men having something they lack) are now working in concert. Tobian is part of this small coterie. (They are not a conspiracy; their names are well known, since they often publish together.)

Most men in the world, and the vast majority in the developed world, are not circumcised. The rest of the English-speaking world tried mass-circumcision but gave it up a generation ago, with no outbreaks of any of the diseases it was supposed to be good against.

Tobian et al. have created no new information, just put spin on their selection of pro-circ studies. Other US studies have shown circumcision's risk and harm do NOT justify doing it. Why do they not get this level of publicity?

A new study from Puetro Rico found circumcised men there were MORE likely to have STDS and HIV. A study in Uganda by Wawer, Gray, et al. (also in the clique) started to find that circumcising men INcreases the risk to women, but that was cut short for no good reason before that could be confirmed. In 10 out of 18 countries for which USAID has figures, more of the circumcised men have HIV than the non-circumcised.

But your picture is worth 1000 words. Infant circumcision is a human rights issue. HIS body, HIS choice.

Audrey Quinn and Smart Planet should both be ashamed of themselves, for uncritically printing this propaganda piece without the slightest verification of its 'facts'.
Perhaps the name should be changed from SmartPlanet?
If someone wanted to remove half the skin of *your* genitals, you'd be thinking twice about it, wouldn't you?
Perhaps you should offer the same level of consideration and compassion, to those too young and vulnerable to do anything to safeguard themselves against unnecessary, and unhelpful surgery.
For those who don't think that the majority of the people who push circumcision so hard are nutters, here is a video included for your enjoyment.
This is the man who co-authored two books with Dr. Gray of Johns Hopkins, Brian Morris.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdGbXdEo93U
Interesting, that his opinions are the opposite of those stated by the medical organization of every country who has a position on circumcision.

Here's a rebuttal, of this article, and Morris's opinions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15nXQoQdJOY

I had a T.U.R.P. procedure, a reaming out of the channel going through my prostate. The surgeon doing the work really did a sloppy job. I ended up having an extra orifice to pee through. He had made a tiny opening above the normal exit of the urethra. As if that wasn't bad enough he also damaged my foreskin. That and the inside of the urethra was somewhat more chewed up by the procedure than needs be. Anyway, for those who were circumcised at birth, not me, you really have missed something. I miss my bit of skin even though it adds to personal care of those soft bits. There is additional sensitivity in that which is pleasant to have, more nerve endings I suppose. The whole problem for some is in not taking adequate safety precautions when having sex. The foreskin can be a nice warm, moist, breeding ground for all sorts of bacteria, etc. Do the world and your sexual partner/s and yourself a huge favor and keep yourself clean and use prophylactic devices as required. That's much better than living without a foreskin because some misinformed doctor and or parent decided that is the right thing to do.

There is no basis for debate until one examines the clinical disease comparisons between circumcised and uncircumcised men and their partners. If the differences are truly significant, or not - you have the answer and there is still no basis for debate. Typical of the usual not-so-smart SP articles, no disease data comparisons or refs./links are given and we don't know the basis of author's health predictions and or either side of the "discussion." Another example of the loss of intelligent and responsible journalism.

Maybe you have heard of crazy Germans who want to ban circumcision for Muslims and jews.
Famous chancelor Merkel said "we will be called Nation of comedians(komiker Nation)"
When you don't think it is comical to be against the mutilations of little boys, please help by
signing a electronic official petition directly at the Bundestag Petitionsausschuss.
Would you test the Bundetag Petition Forum and Forward the adresses if it works, even if you dont like it maybe
you know others who would.
For more information in english look for http://www.liberale.de/Unfreie-Europaeer-und-die-Beschneidung-der-Religionsfreiheit/10956c16945i1p7/index.html Michael Roloff who is firm in german language.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/27/circumcision-ruling-germany-muslim-jewish
There is even a petition for circumcision.
If you accidentally sign the wrong one you can erase it anytime, by clicking the white on orange arrow at the right side of the
black box "Mitzeichnung entfernen"(at the right column of the page) then "Petition mitzeichnen(sign Petition)" will show up.



For Circumcision: 80 Votes htttttpsttt://epetitionen.bundestag.de/petitionen/_2012/_07/_03/Petition_25641.$$$.a.u.html


Against Circumcision: 1400 Votes https://epetitionen.bundestag.de/petitionen/_2012/_06/_27/Petition_25502.$$$.a.u.html


Please vote even if the Petition is not very good because petitions have been rejected for 2 years. This may be the last chance of official petition besides the AVAAZ petition.
Even if your vote is only noted but not counted it would show the appreciation of some forreigners.
In the last weeks I have learned we have also a lot of religious nutjobs here(I was kind of ashamed), and an easypeasy multicultural hidden religious parliament. An ethik board of so called experts where an Professor constitution attorney uses the minor cut excuse to give the parents education rights way over over human dignity of the child.



Here is a translation for Log in

maybe you better go first to home https://epetitionen.bundestag.de/epet/startseite.html (There is no home button)
May be if you are already at the Antibeschneidungspage you will get thrown out. Even if it sounds conspiratoral,
there is a big difference in the voting numbering between this and Musik schule petition (50% to 100%) (this should be fixed since 28. August)
Then go to the uppermost right corner click -->anmelden(login) {-->abmelden(logout)]

Then you are at the registration page
If you dont get an account at the end try with another user(i tried it with FF14.0.1 Ubuntu 12.04 64bit and IpodTouch 4G IOS4
and both worked (this should be fixed since 28. August)

First click here
You have an account You need an account
ich bin bereits registriert Ich bin neu hier
F

they are not banning circumcision they are banning circumcising infants against their will. once the jew/muslim turns 18 they can be circumcised then.

with this ********. But What can you expect.. **** off.

The billions number is just mere fear mongering. Uncut Europe is not spending billions more than we are on STD's and other ills associated with foreskins. However, let's say it is true, which it is not. What you said Ms. Quinn is extremely sexist. Women cost billions and billions more in health care than men do. They suffer urinary tract infections several times more than men. The same goes for genital cancer, yeast infections, etc etc. Female hygiene is also more complex as there are far more folds in a vagina than there is to a penis, circumcised or not. Masturbation, insanity, breast cancer in partners, gout, paralysis, urinary tract infections, penis cancer, alcoholism all were listed as curable or preventable by circumcision. (Look it up) Circumcision has a dubious history as a cure in search of a disease. Circumcision is a social, religious, and aesthetic issue disguised as a health issue. The biggest fallacy is that we discuss circumcision in health and science. Circumcision should be discussed in sociology and psychology. Look up cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance is the attempt to make sense out of nonsense.