Forget Death Panels...It's About Circumcision Panels

Tue, 09/01/2009 - 17:03
Submitted by Betty Dodson

More information on circumcision from David Harsanyi. I have never really liked or trusted the CDC but now I'm convinced they are in league with the devil with their campaign for universal circumcision.  Back to goddess worship if you must pray to some one or thing. I have always felt more secure asking the divine female energy for support. The divine male energy is so busy going off to the next war and what better preparation than the attack on a helpless baby just to get the pain going at a young age:

Forget death panels. If you're really interested in putting a stop to the public option (and some truly entertaining town hall meetings), let's talk circumcision panels.

Growing up in the Jewish faith, I witnessed my fair share of 7-day-olds taken from their parents to face scalpel, prayer and barbaric snip. Why seven days? Undoubtedly, the number of Jewish boys converting to Methodism grows exponentially each day the foreskin remains attached.

According to Genesis, God commanded 99-year-old Abraham to circumcise himself, everyone in his household, and even his slaves -- as they, apparently, didn't have enough on their plates -- to close the covenant. Those who were not circumcised were removed, as it were, from this holy deal with God.

Now people at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (those folks who often carry themselves as if they, too, had the ear of the Lord) are mulling a national campaign to promote "universal circumcision" for all boys in the United States in an effort to reduce the spread of HIV. Additionally, as The New York Times reported this week, the CDC is thinking about expanding the campaign to target promiscuous adult heterosexual men. (Abstinence or circumcision? How quickly do you think sex becomes overrated?)

Newborn circumcision rates are at 65 percent but have dropped for decades since just after World War II, when they were at more than 80 percent. This might be partially attributable to immigration of non-circumcising populations. There are also various movements afoot that question both the health benefits and the morality of slicing a newborn.

I do not possess any ironclad opinion on the topic of circumcision -- and perhaps not so coincidentally, I also do not have a son. Many of you, I assume, are foreskin-neutral.

Studies suggest that circumcision can help prevent HIV, though it has not shown to help those with the greatest risk, men having sex with men. One also suspects -- or perhaps hopes -- that ancient cultures simultaneously concocted the circumcision ritual because, through some instinctual trigger, they sensed it was hygienically beneficial.

Here's the problem: Why is the CDC launching campaigns to "universally" promote a medical procedure? If you're an adult (and nuts) or a parent, no one stands in your way of having a bris. Today 79 percent of men are circumcised already, and even if 100 percent were, the effect on the collective health of the nation would be negligible. If this is the standard, where does it stop?

And what would a proactive CDC mean if government operated health insurance? No, I don't believe Washington would deploy a phalanx of grinning, twisted doctors to perform coerced circumcisions. But when the CDC dispenses medical advice of the "universal" brand, it's difficult to accept that a government-run public insurance outfit wouldn't heed advice and act accordingly.

What if the CDC, through meticulous study, were to realize that circumcision is an entirely worthless procedure? Why would "we" waste $400 a pop? Would the CDC campaign to "universally remove" the operation from hospitals? Today, incidentally, government-run Medicaid doesn't pay for the procedure in 16 states. Most private insurers, on the other hand, do.

Though dismissed by public-option proponents, this is an example of how government persuasion can influence our decisions -- first by nudging and then, inevitably, by rationing.

The larger, more pertinent point for today is that government has zero business running campaigns -- and these things inevitably turn into scaremongering efforts -- that try to influence our choices regarding our children and our bodies. Especially when the procedure has so little to do with society's collective health. Circumcision is a personal choice.

Well, a personal choice for everyone except that poor little sucker lying on the chopping block.

Liberating women one orgasm at a time

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Foreskin is HEALTHY tissue.

Joelface's picture
Fri, 09/04/2009 - 20:58

Circumcision should NEVER be the choice for ANYONE other than the person who owns the foreskin. IT is healthy, sensitive, functional, erogenous genital tissue. It protects, it provides pleasure, it reduces abrasion during sexual activity.

It doesn't belong to parents, and it SURE as hell does not belong to the CDC.

You may know, Betty, that proponents of female genital cutting will also tout its 'hygienic' function, even if reality does not support that assertion. So too with male circumcision. The cleaning ritual for an infant is actual far more complex when dealing with a healing wound, than with a foreskin that is still attached to the head of the penis - cleaned like a finger. By the time someone is retractable, they can easily pull the skin back in the shower, its a simple and pleasurable act that anyone with a functioning brain could figure out. If the difficulty level for pulling back a foreskin is too high, I shudder to think of how people are expected to brush their teeth, or wipe their own ass. Smegma actually has hygienic properties, protecting AGAINST infections, and keeping mucous membranes from drying out - which is probably why the female genitals produce even MORE smegma then do males.

Regarding the HIV discussion - let us NOT forget that people don't "catch" HIV like they do the flu or the measels. HIV is transferred by UNSAFE sexual practices. To circumcise (amputate genital tissue) under the premise that that individual is incapable of learning and practicing safe sex, is frankly OFFENSIVE. I know that I am living proof of the flaw of this ideology - I am at ZERO risk of acquiring HIV... unless it were from a haphazardly placed infected needle that I step on at the beach - in which case, the status of my foreskin is hardly a variable.

Let us not forget that EUROPE has an incredibly low circumcision rate and their HIV rates are actually much lower than the rates in America.

Let us also not forget about the study designed in Africa to prove that circumcised men with HIV would infect women less than intact men who had HIV - what it did was the opposite. In the study, it was the circumcised men who infected their female partners at higher rates. You may find the media covering this story by saying "circumcision showing no protective effect for women" rather than "circumcision putting women at HIGHER risk" as it really should.

Let's abandon this practice before any more babies get hurt by the MISCONCEPTIONS and MYTHS and OUTRIGHT LIES that are designed to propagate and justify this unjustifiable practice that serves only one purpose - to harm.

-------------------------------------

23 - M - Critical Relativist and Feminist (Equalist) - Canada

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.