Speaking up against our would be soviet overlords.

I heard on the radio today that the CDC is working on making circumcision mandatory for all newborns in the USA.

A quick search revealed plenty of articles confirming that claim. Have we fell so far as to rob people of their rights to their own body?

Circumcision is tauted as "cleaner" and "less likely to pass disease". You know what is even cleaner and even less likely to pass disease? complete removal of the penis. Also why not rip out everyone's nails so they don't have to clean under them and cannot get nail fungal infections? or circumcise females while we are at it too?

Worse is that those studies look at populations, not at individual incidences. A highly likely possibility is that circumcised males in africa are 60% less likely than their non circumcised counterparts to catch aids, is because african's have no tradition or religion calling for circumcision and the ONLY reason people get circumcised there IS to prevent aids infection. It stands to reason that someone who was circumcised to prevent aids infection will also use comdoms and avoid multiple partners and other precautions to prevent aids infectiontion. But those studies don't take it into accounts.

Other studies do, and have shown no difference in infection rates.

 

Countries like the UK have tried universal circumcision. botched operations lead to 1 in a million losing their penis entirely, and 1/500,000 dying. (yes, more people died then lost their penis). As well as a variety of less severe complications at lower rates. While having absolutely no effect on rate of disease contraction.


Comments
on Sep 15, 2009

the CDC is working on making circumcision mandatory for all newborns in the USA

Girls too?

on Sep 16, 2009

silly nitro. For girls it is called "genital mutiliation", only boys can be "circumcised"

Don't ask me why that is... I am against both forms of genital mutiliation.

on Sep 16, 2009

What is the source for this? Is it Rush?  http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/aug/27/rush-limbaugh/limbaugh-circumcision-obama-cdc/

I looked at the Fox News link and it doesn't say anything about making circumcision mandatory.

on Sep 16, 2009

I am pro circumcision but NOT at the expense of people's rights.  It should NOT be mandatory. 

There was a big article in the paper here last week or so about how circumcision helps to protect heterosexuals against contracting HIV.  It also made it quite clear that while heterosexuals were protected homosexuals were not any better off circumcised or not from contracting HIV and other diseases.

Thought that was very interesting.  I love it when the bible gets proved by modern Science yet once again! 

I have a friend who told me that after she got married her husband had to get circumcized because she was getting all kinds of infections.  After he was circumcised that all went away. 

It's alot easier to circumcise an infant who knows nothing than a grown adult male who does. 

on Sep 16, 2009

the research that says they are better protected against HIV is:

1. Making procedural mistakes.

2. Mostly driven by people trying to prove their religious convictions to be true (aka, biblical scholars)

 

There is an equal amount of research showing how it has no benefit whatsoever.

 

Even if the research is to be believed. This ONLY applies to people having unprotected sex with an HIV infected person. Mutilating everyone's genitals so that they have a lower chance of catching disease when having unprotected sex with a diseased person is beyond stupid.

on Sep 16, 2009

Mutilating everyone's genitals so that they have a lower chance of catching disease when having unprotected sex with a diseased person is beyond stupid.

I'm sure that wasn't the point of the study neither was religion any part of the article.  It was just observational not permissional. 

My dad was NOT circumcised and during his era many were not so it wasn't unusual.  But when I was ready to have my first, he insisted that I circumcised my boy.  He never said why and I didn't ask but I trusted him at the time unsure of what to do.  I'm supposing both my brothers were, but really I have no idea.  Never came up.  Never asked. 

 An old nurse at the hospital who attended me with my firstborn and who had attended to thousands of babies over the years  said if I was having doubts to go ahead and do it.  She recommended it because she had seen more than one adult male or older male child circumcised and it wasn't pretty.  So I did and then had the next two boys that came along circumcised and never regretted it.   My son in turn, who has two male babies did the same. 

It's not that big of a deal and has been proven cleaner and healthier not to mention biblically sound.  Another trusted resource for me. 

But I am aware of the controversy here and therefore it should be a choice. 

on Sep 16, 2009

I wouldn't think it could pass it since it would essentially violate the First Amendment.

I'd bet the Vatican already has attorneys ready to challenge this.

on Sep 16, 2009

I'm for personal choice in this area. I've had some associates have this done during adulthood, and heard it is painful. All have said they were glad they had it done (after recovery). I was done upon birth, and thankfully can't remember. But hey, if you like your wiener in its wrapper then that's the way you should keep it. I personally think want our ladies want/like has a bigger impact than any medical benefit.