EUROPE: Israeli MK Lectures PACE on the Medical Virtues of Ritual Circumcision

In the latest plea for the Council of Europe to reject their resolution, MK Meir Sheetrit tries argue that resolution is "medically unjustified." This is certainly a different tune than what Shimon Peres sent to Council of Europe Secretary General Thorbjorn Jagland, arguing that infant circumcision is of "great importance" in Jewish and Muslim religious tradition, that it is a "fundamental element and obligation of Jewish tradition" that has been practiced by Jewish communities "for thousands of years."

The fact that Meir Sheetrit is choosing to argue "medical benefits" in lieu of "religious freedom" is interesting to say the least.


Is the argument for "religious freedom" so weak that it has to be propped up by a sudden interest in public health?

I will analyze excerpts of the Jerusalem Post article conveying this news:

"The committee said that circumcision is dangerous because 1.5 percent of children get infected," Sheetrit told The Jerualem Post Wednesday evening, "but infections can be taken care of."

...and completely unconscionable considering that they are caused by a needless operation on healthy, non-consenting children.

"Circumcised males are 60% less susceptible to HIV and it lowers the risk of penile and prostate cancer. Those are fatal diseases, as opposed to a passing infection."

Preventing HIV is not the reason Jews circumcise their children, is it?

Newborns are already at zero risk for sexually transmitted disease. Additionally, circumcision FAILS to prevent HIV, which is why even the most enthusiastic circumcision purporter in Africa cannot overstate the use of condoms enough.

Here is what the American Cancer Society has to say regarding penile cancer:

In the past, circumcision has been suggested as a way to prevent penile cancer. This was based on studies that reported much lower penile cancer rates among circumcised men than among uncircumcised men. But in many of those studies, the protective effect of circumcision was no longer seen after factors like smegma and phimosis were taken into account.

Most public health researchers believe that the risk of penile cancer is low among uncircumcised men without known risk factors living in the United States. Men who wish to lower their risk of penile cancer can do so by avoiding HPV infection and not smoking. Those who aren't circumcised can also lower their risk of penile cancer by practicing good hygiene. Most experts agree that circumcision should not be recommended solely as a way to prevent penile cancer.

80% of American males are circumcised from birth. Yet, according to the ACS, 1 in 6 US men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer. If circumcision is supposed to prevent prostate cancer, I'm afraid it is not very effective.

"Opponents of circumcision raised the claim that the child should have autonomy.

However, there are two other ethical arguments for circumcision.

The first is that of "community and divinity," which fits with freedom of religion arguments, Sheetrit told the committee, citing University of Chicago cultural anthropologist Richard Shweder."

Does this include communities who believe it a religious rite to circumcise their daughters?

"The second is the "best interests standard," cited by Dr. Caroline McGee Jones of the University of Texas Health Science Center, explaining that it is ethical for parents to circumcise their son if they believe it will benefit him and his well-being."

What if parents believe female circumcision will benefit their daughter and her well-being?

It must be asked, what other non-medical procedure are doctors obliged to perform on children at their parents request, because they, the parents, believe it is "beneficial?"

"According to Sheetrit, PACE members from several countries approached him after the meeting to say he changed their mind, but Rupperecht remained unconvinced."

HAH!

Sure they did.

The fact is that the trend of opinion on routine male circumcision is overwhelmingly negative in industrialized nations. No respected medical board in the world recommends circumcision for infants. All of them, including the AAP in their latest statement, state that the "benefits" are not great enough.

Does MK Meir Sheetrit intend to take an unfounded position against the most respected medical organizations in the west?

Is he seriously suggesting he knows more than the ombudsmen who signed the resolution?

Related Posts: 

COUNCIL OF EUROPE: Non-Medical Circumcision a Human Rights Violation

COUNCIL OF EUROPE: When Israel Says "Jump," Secretary General Says "How High?"

ISRAEL: The Emperor's New Foreskin

Politically Correct Research: When Science, Morals and Political Agendas Collide

"I Did My Research" - The Quest for Scientific Vindication

The battle for genital integrity and basic human rights for boys has come a long way. Advocates of circumcision have come to realize that appeals to antiquity, tradition and religion simply aren't enough to justify the forced genital mutilation of healthy, non-consenting minors. They now call and plead with the gods of science and research to vindicate male infant circumcision, and to placate human rights activists, such as myself, as if science and research could be used to make an ethically repugnant practice morally acceptable.

While in the past, most parents confronted about the issue made appeals to their religion, or the fact that "this is what's been done in our family for generations," today, no circumcision apology is complete without appeals to knowledge and scientific research.

"Don't you insult us by posting links to studies and papers," retorts many a parent defensively; "We've done our research."

There are a few things wrong with this type of reasoning, beginning with the notion that an ethically repugnant practice can be made justifiable with "the right amount of research."

The second thing I find wrong with this kind of reasoning is the delusion that parents can demand procedures for their children as long as they can dig up the "research" that suits them, and that doctors are obliged to comply, like servants at their beck and call. For any other medical treatment and procedure, it is usually the doctor's professional responsibility to "do the research," and determine the medical validity of a procedure. Only after a doctor has issued a diagnosis and prescribed treatment can a parent be asked to consent to treatment. Circumcision seems to be the only instance in American medicine where it is lay parents, not doctors, who are expected to determine the medical validity of a surgical procedure, and then doctors are expected to act on this judgement, whether it be consistent or inconsistent with the medical trends of the time.

But thirdly, what I find particularly disconcerting about about "we've done our research" is the fact that, if current position statements from the most respected medical authorities in the world are correct, this is simply not possible.

The fact is that the trend of opinion on routine male circumcision is overwhelmingly negative in industrialized nations. No respected medical board in the world, not even the AAP, recommends circumcision for infants. All of them, including the AAP in their latest statement, state that there isn't sufficient evidence to warrant this endorsement, much to the chagrin of circumcision advocates.

It is simply not possible, then, that parents who defend their decision to have their male children circumcised "did their research."

Parents who claim having "done their research" and choose in favor of circumcision take an unfounded position against the best medical authorities of the West.

"We've done our research" is, then, a poor attempt at sounding intelligent, that human rights activists in the know will see through rather quickly.

Let it be clear...
No respected medical organization endorses male infant circumcision, not even the AAP. The most respected medical organizations in the West have weighed the current body of evidence, and have found it to be insufficient to recommend the circumcision of infants.

It is simply not possible, then, that parents who choose in favor of circumcision "did their research."

It is fallacious to expect lay parents to examine the same body of evidence, and come up with a more reasonable conclusion than that of entire organizations of medical professionals.


It is medically fraudulent that parents are being allowed to make a "choice" that is inconsistent with the conclusions of entire organizations of medical professionals, that doctors pretend that they can comply with such a "choice," and that public coffers are expected to reimburse them.

Without medical or clinical indication doctors have no business performing surgery on healthy, non-consenting minors, let alone be giving parents any kind of a “choice.”

Genital mutilation, whether it be wrapped in culture, religion or “research” is still genital mutilation.

It is mistaken, the belief that the right amount of “science” can be used to legitimize the deliberate violation of basic human rights.

Related Posts:
Politically Correct Research: When Science, Morals and Political Agendas Collide

AAP: Around the Bush and Closer to Nowhere
 

OUT OF LINE: AAP Circumcision Policy Statement Formally Rejected

TU QUOQUE: The AAP Fends Off Accusations of Bias

The Circumcision Blame Game

Who's the "Douchebag?"

Every once in a while, you'll get someone writing about the "right" way to talk about circumcision.

The latest I've seen is in a blog post titled "How to Talk About Circumcision Without Being a Douchebag."

On the one hand, I could see what the author was getting at, but on the other, I feel that one side is being ignored.

A good point she makes is that intactivists could do a better job of delivering their message, and I agree.

But there are some points that I simply can't see eye to eye with.

To each their own, but I'm not sure I could continue being "best friends" with someone I knew agreed to have their children mutilated after having given them information.

Would you want to continue to be friends with someone you knew was OK with doing other abusive things to their children?

Beating them black and blue?

Sexually molesting them?

Yes, I see circumcision on par with sexual molestation.

Worse; sexual mutilation.

A child could heal from the wounds of sexual molestation through therapy, but a circumcision scar is permanent and can never be erased.

The author also seems to believe that circumcision is "just another choice," like bottle feeding or using disposable diapers vs. cloth diapers.

"We had a conversation about a subject that can be controversial without making it controversial because that is how adults interact.

And both of our children are thriving.  Both of our children our loved, breastfed, well taken care of."

I've seen this "celebrate our parental choices" attitude before:

And I couldn't agree any less.

It is a mistake to attack and humiliate parents over something they honestly didn't know any better about, and who would take it all back if they knew what they were doing to their children.

I'm not advocating that.

But I also do not advocate corroberating with parents, rewarding willful ignorance, making them feel justified and entitled by calling circumcision a "choice" to be "celebrated."

This author seems willing to pander to her "best friend" at the expense of the basic human rights of that friend's children, because she is more interested in "staying friends" than the principle of basic human rights for all.

I can't agree with sacrificing principle for the sake of friendship.

I couldn't pretend like "nothing happened," just to stay friends with someone whom I gave information to, but decided to mutilate his/her child anyway.

Who is a douchebag?
Now, let's talk about just who the "douchebag" is.

Who is a douchebag?

Someone whom you don't like, or has done something you don't like.

I am ready to acknowledge that there are some intactivists out there who cross the line. There is much reason an intactivist does it though; we feel as passionate about male infant circumcision as people feel about say, female circumcision. It is a gross violation of basic human rights and not to be taken lightly.

People keep saying "you shouldn't judge."

But let's ask, how do you feel about female circumcision?

How do you feel about parents that circumcised their daughters?

And be honest.

Would you hold back and "not judge?"

Would you respect that "parental choice?"

Or would you say the first thing on your mind?

That said, there are also intactivists who have lots of time and patience, and who try to deliver their message in as a non-judgemental way as possible. They try to post facts, links to information, and just leave it a that; only to have it be called "bashing" and "harassment" by parents who simply want to hear nothing other than validation and encouragement, and have it promptly deleted, user blocked.

So who's the douchebag?

The answer is, someone whom you don't like, or has done something you don't like.

Intactivists could tone it down. I will admit.

But why is the first reaction from parents who are adamant about having their child circumcised defensiveness and hostility?

Why does it make someone who wants to post factual information automatically a "douchebag?"

Not all intactivists are extreme. Not all parents are close-minded and pawn off whomever they don't want to hear as "douchebags."

This is probably asking for the sun and the moon, but there needs to be acknowledgement on both sides.

Yes, intactivists can be extreme douchebags.

But if you're a parent who things you've got it all right, but then you openly post about your son's circumcision online, and then complain that you're being "harrassed" and "bullied" by people whom all they want to do is give you information to make a better choice for your children, and that they're "getting into your business," and then delete what they have to say and block them, because you care more about mutilating your son and being "right" than you actually do about his health and well-being, then you're a douchebag too.

The fact is, circumcision is a sensitive subject, and you're not going to get away with posting about it on the internet, and getting people like us roused up.

If you don't want people "getting in your business," then don't post it on the internet for the whole world to see. 


Related Posts:

The "Mommy Page" Wars

REPOST: If You Can't Stand the Heat...

GRANOLA BABIES: BIG MISTAKE

GRANOLA BABIES: Responses to "Celebratory" Ad

The "Mommy Page" Wars

Lately, it seems a lot of "mommy pages" have sought to increase their viewership by bringing on the circumcision debate.

The most reliable way to start a thread that attracts 100+ comments on any parenting page, is to make infant circumcision the topic.

What are "mommy pages?"

Ostensibly they're parenting forums where moms, and sometimes dads, can come and glean, share or otherwise exchange parenting experiences and advice for the betterment of parenting, and hopefully, the betterment of the children being raised.

Or at least one would hope.

A lot of these, however, tend to be gathering places for like-minded parents who want nothing more than validation from others for what they've already decided to do with their children. Basically, they're mutual ego masturbation sessions where parents go to pat each other on the back and give each other high-fives.

"No one wants advice - only corroboration."
~John Steinbeck

They range from major mainstream online parenting forums, like CafeMom, BabyCenter, Baby Gaga, TheBump, etc., to "mommy pages" on Facebook, where they tend to have cute, but feisty little names like "kickass mommies," "uncensored mommas," or "I'm a mom, I got this."

The names try to give the impressions that they're places for parents to sound off and anything goes.

In reality, though, depending on the nature of the managers of the pages, they're places where the opinions and the nature of pages are already pretty much set, and where you've really got to walk around eggshells, so as to not upset other parents, namely the creators of said pages.

If you've got a dissenting view, you've got to be real careful to couch it, sugar coat it, and coddle others that disagree with you in attempts to get it heard. Dissenting views (or, actually, advice and experiences that upset other parents) tend to be silenced, deleted or blocked as "bashing" or "harassment."

In fact, when a lot of these "mommy pages" dare to bring on the circumcision debate, they always have to preclude, in all capital letters, with expressions such as "NO BASHING!" Or "HARRASSING COMMENTS WILL BE DELETED, AND USERS BANNED IMMEDIATELY!"

Harrassment? Or Inconvenient Truths?
It's interesting what passes for "harassment" nowadays. Yes, I'm sure internet trolls exist in the intactivism movement; they exist in every walk of life.

But, it seems, on "mommy sites," on and off Facebook, any suggestion that circumcision might be a bad idea is considered "bashing" or "harassment," and is often deleted, and the poster blocked, no matter how diplomatic and respectful the comment may actually have been. Sometimes the entire thread is removed altogether, because it's just too much for the admins to handle. Nobody wants to consider the possibility that they may have actually made a mistake.

Parents go on these forums which are obviously for the purpose of dispensing and exchanging parental advice, they post their story, asking for every one's opinions, and then cry "bashing" and "harassment" when they don't get the validation they were looking for.

What I find almost comical is the way parents get on their high horse about the matter, and retort with snappy one-liners such as "whether or not I decide to circumcise my kids is none of your business." Or "don't you tell me how to raise my kids."

Another common one is "how dare you assume I don't have the good sense to research the subject for myself!"

Even though, they ARE, for all intents and purposes, seeking advice on a parenting advice forum. Many moms and dads who utter statements as the above also had the audacity to START their own "mommy" page to dispense advice to others.

Exchange on most other aspects of parenting (breast feeding, co-sleeping, car seats, slings, etc) is allowed. But anything other than "it's your choice" and "it's harmless and beneficial" regarding circumcision is considered "bashing," "harassment," "disrespectful," and "insulting."

Quite frankly, if parents didn't want to be "harassed" regarding their son's circumcision, why even bring it up? If they're "so confident" and "so informed" on their "decisions," why seek validation on the Internet?

On a parenting forum?

On Facebook?

Where millions of viewers can see?

It's rather immature, almost mentally unstable, to be making a post asking for other people's opinions, on an open parenting forum, where millions of other moms and dads can see, and opine, and then call it "bashing" and "harassment" when you don't get the validation you were expecting. It's rather self-contradictory to be posting part of your life on the internet, seeking out others' opinions, and then turn around and say "it's none of your business; don't tell me how to raise my child."

I see a lot more "bashing" and name-calling from defensive moms and dads who circumcised their sons than from those who decided against it. Right after comments against circumcision get deleted, and people are banned, those who remain proceed to speak ill of those who disagreed with them in their absence.

On a side note, I'd like to touch on defensive remarks to the effect of "how dare you think I'm not smart enough to do my own research!" It is impolite to insinuate that a parent is not so bright as to inform themselves on an issue that affects their children. The fact of the matter is, though, that one is not automatically smart and enlightened in child-rearing by mere virtue of being a parent. No parent knows it all. If this were true, then there wouldn't be a need for parenting forums and mommy pages. 

The fact of the matter is, however, that no respected medical organization endorses male infant circumcision. The AAP tried to in their last statement, but stopped short. All medical organizations in the West state that the current body of evidence is insufficient to recommend the circumcision of infants. It is fallacious to expect lay parents to examine the same body of evidence, and come up with a more reasonable conclusion than that of entire organizations of medical professionals. It is not possible, then, that parents who chose to allow their children to be circumcised "did their research."
 
It is medically fraudulent that parents are being allowed to make a "choice" that is inconsistent with the conclusions of entire organizations of medical professionals, that doctors pretend that they can comply with such a "choice," and that public coffers are expected to reimburse them.

A Disservice to Parents and Their Children
Why do page admins delete "bashing" and "harassment" on their pages and forums? (In other words, factual information that may make other parents uncomfortable?) My theory is that, a lot of them are more interested in being the center of an online parenting forum than they are about dispensing factually accurate information. They aim to people please and earn and keep "likes" on their pages.

Deleting posts that upset parents who have made the irreversible decision to circumcise their sons makes you look like a hero.

What good is a parenting or "mommy" forum, where basically, instead of advice or exchange of accurate information, its people giving each other validation and reassurance?

The problem with only allowing "supportive," feel-good posts that pander to circumcising parents, and deleting factual information as "bashing," "harassment" and whatnot, is that a lot of misinformation is circulated.

Myths are spread, and children suffer as a result.

Stifling the circumcision debate may keep parents from getting upset and boost online egos, but it doesn't help anybody.

For example, it is accepted medical knowledge that you don't forcibly retract a child's foreskin "for cleaning." Research shows that the foreskin often remains non-retractable until, and even after the onset of puberty. These actions actually hurt your child and put him at risk for infection.

And yet "mommy sites" will often delete this very important information as "bashing" and "harassment," however respectfully presented, and will allow misinformative posts that "warn" parents who do not circumcise their children that they will have to forcibly retract their children to "clean."

As more and more parents are choosing to keep their children's genitals intact, the proper care of normal genitals is important information that parents need to be made aware of, if they don't want to inadvertently hurt their child.

Deleting factual information as "bashing" and "harassment," and blocking the users which disseminate it might spare parents who circumcised their children anxiety, but it doesn't help parents who are seeking to make an informed choice, or their children, totally defeating the purpose of a parenting website.

A Sign of Progress
It's rather self-serving the way "mommy site" admins want to take advantage of the circumcision debate to boost their viewership and "likes" on Facebook, but don't want to actually allow true debate, accusing users that make good points of "bashing" and "harassment," however polite they were, for the sake of popularity.

This seems to be working in favor of intactivism, though.

It used to be the case (and in many cases still is the case) that the circumcision conversation was strictly off limits, and people wanted the conversation to end full stop.

That "mommy sites" now want to host the circumcision debate as an attention booster, even with heavy editing and accusations of "bashing" and "harassment" is truly a sign of the times.

Moms and dads are being forced to come to the table talk about, and consider an issue they once hoped would be a bygone parenting "decision," like deciding what brand of diapers or wet tissues to use.

People are talking, which means circumcision is no longer this taboo "non-issue" you can slide underneath the carpet and pretend never existed.

Some mommy sites actually aren't that bad, and allow links and posts that polite and informative. On the whole though, there's a lot of sugar-coating and coddling of circumcising parents going on.

You can ban people and delete comments you don't agree with, but the circumcision debate is here and it's not going to go away.

"Do nothing secretly; for Time sees and hears all things, and discloses all."
~Sophocles

Moral of the story:

"When you ask for advice on the Internet, don't call it "bashing" because it's not what you want to hear."

"If you didn't want it, then you shouldn't have brought it."

Related Posts:

REPOST: If You Can't Stand the Heat...

GRANOLA BABIES: BIG MISTAKE

The Circumcision Blame Game

In all my years as an intactivist (I've been against circumcision since I was about 16, I'm 31 now), I often come across the dilemma of who is responsible for the circumcision of children in America. Who's fault is it if you are circumcised and not happy with it?

Who should you blame?

Before going on, I'd like to introduce the above image. It was uploaded to Facebook by one Jonathon Conte, who is a pro-active intactivist in the San Francisco area, and belongs to the local group Bay Area Intactivists.

The caption read:

"This is the pattern that I continue to see when doing various intactivist protests and events. Nobody wants to accept responsibility and the blame goes round and round.

"Talk to the parents!" "Talk to the obstetricians!" "We don't do them. Talk to the pediatricians!" "Nobody told me it wasn't necessary!"

On the bright side, they used to all defend the practice, now they pass blame. Blame acknowledges a shameful act. Progress."

And Jonathon is right.

There is something suspicious going on when, instead of owning responsibility, it is being passed around like a hot potato.

Except, I think the above image is wrong. It places undue weight on parents, with them at the top and the doctors at the bottom. It implies parents are entitled to a choice, and physicians are loyal subjects who merely listen and obey.

But since when does medicine work this way?

For what other medical treatment or procedure are parents in a position of entitlement to "decide" at whim, without any kind of clinical indication or medical diagnosis? For what other surgery are surgeons slaves to demanding parents? Do parents actually wield so much power?

Aren't parents usually given the power to choose a method of treatment for their children AFTER a doctor has determined that there is some kind of clinical or medical necessity?

For these reasons and more, I believe Jonathon's image is a false paradigm. This delusion of "parental choice" is a false paradigm invented by doctors, the trade unions they belong to, and it is perpetuated by the media.

The image looks something more like this:

Doctors would like to pretend as if parents had this power over them, and they are nothing but loyal subjects at their beck and call. But let's analyze the balance of power here.

Professional Responsibility
First off, it must be be asked; who holds the professional license?

To earn the title of "doctor," physicians must go to school for a number of years. Additionally, they are also responsible for keeping their information up to date. They hang their certifications proudly on their office wall and constantly remind others that they are not to drop the title of "doctor" when being referred to.

It is a doctor's professional responsibility to know better than his patients. It is his professional responsibility to determine the presence or absence of a pathogen, and to determine whether or not treatment, surgical or non-surgical, is medically or clinically indicated.

It is why he is visited, and it is why he gets a paycheck.

And yet, when it comes to circumcision, they are suddenly clueless.

So clueless, that they must pawn the burden of determining the medical necessity of circumcision on parents, most of whom unfamiliar with medical literature.

The mighty and powerful doctor is suddenly too stupid to do his job, and thus hands it off to naive parents he, in most other circumstances, views as intellectually inferior to himself.

Who Wields the Knife?
Let's analyze the areas of medical expertise. Who performs circumcisions for parents?

Here, we see two types of physicians vying for a piece of the circumcision pie; pediatricians and obstetricians/gynecologists (AKA: OB/GYNs) It makes sense that pediatricians are performing surgery on children; a pediatrician's area of expertise is the health and well-being of children.

But wait, this is weird, OB/GYNs are trained in the health and well-being of WOMEN. Vulvas, vaginas, cervixes and ovaries (and much much more). One wonders why OB/GYNs are even part of the picture in the first place.

And yet, according to national surveys, OB/GYNs perform the bulk of infant circumcisions.

The only relation OB/GYNs seem to have with MALE infant babies is that, as caretakers of pregnant women, they are closest in proximity to intact male newborns, and thus have first dibs at cashing in on the procedure; pediatricians deal with the child once he's already out. As experts in FEMALE healthcare, it would actually make more sense for OB/GYNs to be offering sunat operations to expectant mothers.

Why are physicians, whose primary expertise is the health and well-being of WOMEN, profiting from performing non-medical surgery on healthy MALE children?

"You take care of a woman through her pregnancy, for nearly a year...and you're lucky if you see $1500. But a circumcision is 15 minutes, and it's $300 a pop. It's candy."
~OB writing in 'Parents' Place' on the circumcision turf war between OB/GYNs and pediatricians 

So Who's To Blame?
As medical scholars, as bearers of professional licenses, but most of all, as actual facilitators of the procedure itself, the answer is that it is physicians who bear full responsibility for circumcision.

Before treatment can be administered, it is the responsibility of a physician to perform a diagnosis, to determine the presence or absence of a pathogen or medical condition, and to determine whether or not surgical intervention is necessary to treat said medical condition.

The standard of care for therapeutic surgery in most of the rest of the world requires the medical benefits of the surgery to far outweigh the medical risks and harms, or for the surgery to correct a congenital abnormality. Unnecessarily invasive procedures should not be used where alternative, less invasive techniques, are equally efficient and available. It is unethical and inappropriate to perform surgery for therapeutic reasons where medical research has shown there to be other techniques to be at least as effective and less invasive.

Circumcision seems to be the only instance in medicine where standards of care are overridden in lieu of "parental choice."

How Physicians Absolve Themselves
It is the professional duty of a physician to determine the validity of the treatment they administer, and of the procedures they conduct.

In the special case of circumcision, however, physicians get away with profiting from this non-medical procedure on healthy, non-consenting individuals, by pawning off their responsibility on parents. Doctors push the paradigm of "the great parental decision" forward, and the media helps perpetuate it.

In their latest statement, the American Academy of Pediatrics came very close to, but stopped short of recommending infant circumcision for all infants (contrary to popular belief). Despite touting over and over again that "the benefits out weigh the risks," they must still admit that the "benefits are not enough to recommend the procedure," concluding that "the final decision should be made by parents." (This was their exact position in their last statement in 1999.)

The result is a spineless, non-committal statement that sounds like an endorsement, if not outright recommendation, but is actually nothing more than self-absolution of professional responsibility, and the undue placement of an onus on parents.

Let me run this by readers again; the AAP, a professional medical organization, could not use the latest "benefits" in order to issue a recommendation for circumcision. Yet, parents, most of whom are incapable of discerning medical literature, are expected to take the same information, that medical professionals could not use to recommend circumcision, and somehow come up with a more reasonable conclusion (than medical professionals with professional licenses???).

Parents are being given the duty to make the medical value judgements, that actually belongs to the professionals carrying out the procedure.

The doctor stokes in parents a false sense of entitlement, convinces them to sign a ready-made release form, and thus he is legally (or illegally?) absolved from any responsibility whatsoever.

Thus, doctors profit at the expense of healthy, non-consenting individuals.

Our legal court system seems to be deliberately looking the other way at this practice.

Is This Actually Legal?
Currently having parents sign a consent form for non-therapeutic surgery on healthy, non-consenting individuals seems perfectly legal. But is it?

Without medical or clinical indication, can doctors actually be performing surgery in healthy, non-consenting individuals, much less be eliciting any kind of "decision" from parents?

How is approaching parents of a healthy, non-consenting child, and soliciting a non-therapeutic, permanently altering procedure and eliciting some kind of "decision" NOT charlatanism or medical fraud?

How is it not a criminal act to physicians to place the duty of making a medical value judgement on naive parents, who are trusting them for non-interested medical advice?

What parents WOULDN'T choose circumcision for their children, being told that they would succumb to cancer and AIDS otherwise?

Doesn't it strike people as odd that doctors are asking parents to weigh "benefits and risks" that could not bring medical organizations in or outside the US to endorse infant circumcision?

Why don't doctors inform parents of this fact, instead of stoking in them a false sense if entitlement?

Shouldn't doctors know better than to realize a procedure they know has no therapeutic value in healthy, non-consenting children?

Even if the parents demand circumcision for their children, isn't it the duty of a physician with integrity to refuse to do this? (As he would with any other non-medical procedure a parent would demand?)

Why are physicians able to absolve themselves by pointing to parents and saying "They made me do it?"

Cut Parents Some Slack
On various mediums where the circumcision debate is happening, it seems the prevailing attitude amongst people against circumcision, and even amongst angry circumcised men themselves, is to blame parents. On foreskin restoration forums, on Facebook, on news commentaries, I often read about angry circumcised men who resent their parents, who have had nasty fights with them to the point of breaking off relationships.

It doesn't help that there is also this attitude amongst parents who have circumcised their children, or plan on circumcising their future children, to have a sense of entitlement to having their children circumcised. "I'm the parent, I decide," seems to be the prevailing attitude amongst parents who advocate for infant circumcision. Of course this attitude draws the ire of angry men and angry intactivists, aggravating the situation.

Adding to the situation is that, as already mentioned, medical professionals place the onus of "the great decision" on parents. Angry intactivists, angry sons, and the very medical profession fleeing from professional responsibility. So much weight on parents' shoulders!

But what do parents say when asked as to why they had their sons circumcised?

Most parents have their sons circumcised out of tradition, because it is a religious conviction, or because the father and his father were circumcised. But, almost as if parents knew this weren't enough, these alibis are reinforced with "My doctor told me it was best." Or "My doctor told me it's cleaner and it prevents many diseases."

I say, parents should be cut some slack.

It would be one thing if parents actually ponied up, bought an exacto knife and attempted to perform the procedure themselves. Most just agree to it because they are told not doing so will result in penile cancer or AIDS. I believe that most parents actually have the well-being of their children in mind. I believe that most parents, being given the facts not being disclosed to them by their physicians, would refuse to have this done to their children. I believe that most parents, once they understood what circumcision is, would take it all back if they could.

Parents shouldn't be blamed.

(They also shouldn't be congratulated and/or encouraged to "celebrate" their ignorance, but I already address this on another blog post.)

Maybe some can, but most simply don't know.

Remember who holds the professional license.

Remember whose professional duty it is to know better.

Remember who ultimately holds the knife.

The following pie chart demonstrates how many circumcisions are carried out by parents in this country.

It's physicians in which parents place their trust.

And it's physicians who betray this trust.

This Is Not About Judging Parents
I think it needs to be made clear to both intactivists and parents of circumcised children alike; the point of intactivism is not to be making parents feel guilty.

One of the greatest obstacles for intactivism is that parents who circumcised their chidlren will often get on the defense, accusing those who oppose circumcision of "judging" and trying to make parents feel guilty, when that's not the point at all.

The point of intactivism is to bring attention to the fact that the forced circumcision of healthy, non-consenting minors is a violation of the most basic of human rights, and to educate and enlighten both doctors and parents alike, so that this madness ends.

Parents who honestly wanted the best for their children need not feel judged. If I didn't know what I know now, and a doctor told me that my son would surely develop penile cancer and die of AIDS, I think I would probably choose circumcision too.

Can parents be blamed because they were asked to make choices based on skewed or limited information? If they were even given information at all?

No.

As I express in this blog post, the burden of responsibility rests in physicians who disseminate misinformation, and who profit at the expense of parental naivete, and the fact that children cannot speak for themselves. While parents, at least for the time being, are given the final say, it is doctors who choose what information to give to, and not give to parents. Doctors are either guilty of dispensing misinformation, or failing to update their information databases. (Actually, they're guilty of even bringing the subject up in the absence of medical necessity.)

In avenues where I have expressed this, I have often been berated by angry intactivists and men. They tell me:

"The information is out there. Maybe one day parents could claim ignorance, but now we have the Internet. You've got to be real dumb, or willfully ignorant if you say you don't know better."

This is true to a certain extent. Yes, the information is out there, and people can look if they wanted. Parents, if they took the time, could sift through all the medical gobbledygook, and come to their own conclusions.

But whose job is that?

Isn't it doctors who are paid big bucks to determine the medical validity of a surgical procedure?

Doctors are supposed to have gone to school for many years to learn their trade.

Why would parents, most of whom never went to medical school, be more qualified than a learned doctor to determine the medical necessity of a surgical procedure?

That's what I don't understand, and I've asked this above.

The AAP has concluded, as it did in its last statement, that the "benefits are not enough to recommend circumcision." They still place the onus on parents to weigh the "pros and cons," and make a "decision." "Pros and cons" that could not convince an entire body of qualified medical professionals to endorse circumcision. But suddenly, parents will have better knowledge and the power to discern the medical literature an entire professional medical organization could not?

The bottom line is that parents, and most people, would still rather believe a man in a white lab coat than they would some website on the Internet, or some angry activist who can be easily dismissed as a conspiracy theorist. That people place too much trust in doctors, putting them up on a pedestal and deifying them is a sad state of affairs, but its reality.

It's also why doctors, of all people, are responsible. They are given trust by well meaning parents. And they, taking advantage of their position of power, betray this trust.

So intactivists, go easy parents.

Angry men, don't judge your parents so harshly.

They are not to blame.

Instead, blame physicians who continue to profit at the expense of the basic human rights of healthy, non-consenting individuals and their parents.

Blame the complacent system that allows this kind of charlatanism and medical fraud to continue unchecked.

Challenge institutions of higher education and professional medical organizations that continuously shirk their professional responsibilities and pawning them off on naive parents.

I close with my Mission Statement, which can always be viewed in my About page:

Mission Statement
The foreskin is not a birth defect. Neither is it a congenital deformity or genetic anomaly akin to a 6th finger or a cleft. Neither is it a medical condition like a ruptured appendix or diseased gall bladder. Neither is it a dead part of the body, like the umbilical cord, hair, or fingernails.

The foreskin is not "extra skin." The foreskin is normal, natural, healthy, functioning tissue, with which all boys are born; it is as intrinsic to male genitalia as labia are to female genitalia.

Unless there is a medical or clinical indication, the circumcision of a healthy, non-consenting individual is a deliberate wound; it is the destruction of normal, healthy tissue, the permanent disfigurement of normal, healthy organs, and by very definition, infant genital mutilation, and a violation of the most basic of human rights.

Without medical or clinical indication, doctors have absolutely no business performing surgery in healthy, non-consenting individual, much less be eliciting any kind of "decision" from parents.

Genital integrity, autonomy and self-determination are inalienable human rights. I am against the forced circumcision of healthy, non-consenting minors because it violates these rights.

Genital mutilation, whether it be wrapped in culture, religion or “research” is still genital mutilation.

It is mistaken, the belief that the right amount of “science” can be used to legitimize the deliberate violation of basic human rights.

DISCLAIMER:
The views I express in this blog are my own individual opinion, and they do not necessarily reflect the views of all intactivists. I am but an individual with one opinion, and I do not pretend to speak for the intactivist movement as a whole, thank you.

"Religious Freedom" and "Parental Choice" Not Absolute: Yet Another Example

Perhaps the most classic of arguments invoked in favor of male infant circumcision are those of "religious freedom" and "parental choice." In actuality, "religious freedom" and "parental choice" aren't absolute, and I've given examples of this in past blogs.

Often, those who defend the forced circumcision of male children appeal to people's resentment of government intervention. They would like to pretend like being a parent is a carte blanche for parents to do whatever they want with their children, and the government never intervenes.

The blunt fact of the matter is that, if being a parent justified everything one does with their children, there wouldn't be need for child protective services.

Last year, a mother lost custody of her 8yo daughter for injecting Botox into her face for a child beauty pageant. This prompted New Jersey law makers to make it illegal to inject Botox into children, UNLESS it is for actual medical purposes. (Sound familiar?) The year before, a man was given prison time for tattooing his gang's symbol onto his son's abdomen. In Oregon, a law was passed that prohibits parents from denying their children medical care, much to the chagrin of the "Followers of Christ" church, who believes that god alone should cure disease.

And, the classic case that trumps "religious freedom" and "parental choice," in 1996 a ban was instituted, banning female genital cutting of any kind. All female genital cutting, ranging from infibulation, to a "ritual nick" as proposed by the AAP, is illegal in the United States, and punishable by law. No exempt for "religious" cutting of female children's genitals exist.

To add another example where "religious freedom" and "parental choice" fail, a Texan man has been jailed for carving a pentagram on the back of his son. It could be said that this man was merely practicing his "freedom of religion," and exercising his "parental choice." But these arguments just aren't going to fly, aren't they.

Interestingly enough, in another recent case, a Canadian man recently lost a high court appeal to have charges of aggravated assault against him thrown out; he tried to circumcise his own child with a knife. His arguments? "He was practicing his religious beliefs."

"This is a case about child abuse... This is not a case about the applicant's religious freedom or circumcision generally," it was argued.

How the material circumstances of the case bear on the man's religious freedom or circumcision generally is beyond me. Now, it seems, the government is determining what "proper" religious rituals are, and defining what constitutes "child abuse."

Andrew Freedman of the AAP "task force" on circumcision defense circumcised his own son on his parents' kitchen table. Yet, for the Canadian case, the trial judge found the kitchen was not a sanitary place for a surgical procedure.

So when is it "child abuse?" When is it not?

Why was it "child abuse" for one man to cut his child's genitals on the kitchen table, on the grounds of "religious beliefs" and "parental choice," but not the other?

How far are "religious beliefs" and "parental choices" protected until the government is allowed to intervene?


Other "parental choices" that don't fly under "religious freedom."

A father slashes his child's head for the Holy Day of Ashura

Muslim women perform "sunat" (ritual genital cutting) on a girl

Child marriage in India

Germany "Protects" the Forced Genital Mutilation of Boys

"For the right to circumcise little boys."

Well, it appears that Germany chose to cave to political blackmail and pass a law to "protect" the so-called "religious right" to take a child and mutilate his genitals.

I've already commented on this before, so instead of repeating myself, I'm just going to dissect a Reuters' article reporting this turn of events, since they're not publishing comments.

"The ban - imposed on the grounds that circumcision amounted to "bodily harm" - triggered an emotional debate over the treatment of Jews and other religious minorities, a sensitive subject in a country still haunted by its Nazi past," begins the article.

The Cologne ruling was not mistaken; unless there are medical indications, circumcision DOES amount to bodily harm, and the boy involved in the ruling was one of many cases in point.

What's interesting is that one bodily harm, circumcision, is being defended by alluding to the bodily harm German Nazis imposed on Jews. A bit of an oxymoron. "Shame on Germany for wanting to protect children from bodily harm; remember what they did to Jews sixty years ago." (?)
 
"The outcry prompted Germany's centre-right government and opposition parties to draw up legislation confirming the practice was legal - overruling the decision by a court in the western city of Cologne."



As if the legality of forced genital mutilation on minors was something to confirm. I'm afraid German Common Law is rather clear on this, as are the laws of many other industrialized nations. Germany's government was faced between upholding its Common Law, and divorcing themselves from Nazi labels.

"The new law passed by an overwhelming majority in Bundestag lower house said the operation could be carried out, as long as parents were informed about the risks."

This may actually be a light at the end of the tunnel for human rights activists; ultra-orthodox rabbis in New York are fighting to keep the City from passing a law that demands precisely this.

Still, Germany would never allow female circumcision "as long as parents were informed about the risks."

"Jewish groups welcomed the move."

In New York, Jewish groups are fighting to keep the city from requiring them to inform parents about the risks, as this is seen as an "infringement of  their religious freedoms."

"This vote and the strong commitment shown ... to protect this most integral practice of the Jewish religion is a strong message to our community for the continuation and flourishing of Jewish life in Germany," said Moshe Kantor, President of the European Jewish Congress.

 Jewish life, yes. Muslim life? Only if your child is male; some Muslims see female circumcision as "an integral practice of the Jewish religion." Take a look at what's happening in South East Asia;
 the Malaysian Health Ministry wants to medicalize female genital cutting.

Germany's Catholic Bishops Conference said it hoped the bill would help safeguard religious freedoms. No comment was immediately available from the country's Central Council of Muslims.



SOME religious freedoms. Actually, only this particular "religious freedom" as it applies to healthy, non-consenting boys.

Does the new law protect these "religious freedoms?"

A father slashes his child's head for the Holy Day of Ashura

Muslim women perform "sunat" (ritual genital cutting) on a girl

Child marriage in India

"PAIN MINIMISED
The May ruling centered on the case of a Muslim boy who bled after the procedure and the ban only applied to the area around Cologne."

But this forced lawmakers to consider a change in the law, as, actually, the Cologne ruling reinforces German Common Law.

"But some doctors in other parts of Germany started refusing to carry out circumcisions, saying it was unclear whether they would face prosecution."

Actually, they stopped because it was rather clear to THEM that they would.

"Under the new law, a doctor or trained expert must conduct the operation and children must endure as little pain as possible, which means an anesthetic should be used. The procedure cannot take place if there is any doubt about the child's health."

No such provisions and exceptions exist for female genital cutting.

Female genital cutting is always wrong, and it doesn't matter if a doctor or a "trained expert" conducts the ceremony, and that the children "endure as little pain as possible."

For most other surgery as performed by doctors and physicians, surgery is performed AS A RESULT of a doubt in the child's health. i.e., there is medical necessity that prompts it. This seems to be the only case where a child must be HEALTHY to undergo surgery.


"Justice Minister Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger said no other country in the world country had made the religious circumcision of boys an offence."

Plenty of laws to make religious circumcision of girls an offence though...

"In our modern and secular state, it is not the job of the state to interfere in children's' upbringing," she said.

Except if the child is a girl, I'm sure.

Child welfare group Deutsche Kinderhilfe disagreed, saying the government had "(pushed) through the legalization of the ritual of genital circumcision ... against the advice of child right campaigners and the medical profession."


And they are right.

This is purely a political move, and everybody knows it.

German Common Law is rather clear on this matter, and the Cologne Ruling serves to make it even clearer. German lawmakers are choosing to look the other way because they fear Nazi labels.

All double-standards, self-contradiction and beating around the bush. Let's see how this move plays out, as it flies in the face of Germany's Common Law. Special pleading. What's next? "Protecting" female circumcision? Sharia Law to appease the Muslims?

I've asked before; how far are "parental rights" and "religious freedoms" protected?

As long as doing so doesn't label you Nazi, it seems.

Closing Remarks
Most of what I have to say on this matter I've already done so on past post, but I wanted to copy and paste the closing remarks here.

Intactivists, do not despair; to those of you who do, you should have this coming. We shouldn't despair when politicians with agendas change the laws to appease voters and preserve popularity. Laws don't change anything. They never do. In a social movement, laws are the very last thing to change. What we need to work on is changing people's attitudes. Female circumcision was swimmingly outlawed because our country already viewed the practice with disdain. History shows us that laws reflect social change, not bring it about. And, it looks like, judging by news articles and reports, the fact that more and more people are openly talking about the practice, the very fact that it's being questioned in courts, change is already happening.

Do not despair, and keep educating. More and more people listen every day.

 "Truth suppress'd, whether by courts or crooks, will find an avenue to be told"

~Sheila Steele

 "Do nothing secretly; for Time sees and hears all things, and discloses all"

~Sophocles

DISCLAIMER:
The views I express in this blog are my own individual opinion, and they do not necessarily reflect the views of all intactivists. I am but an individual with one opinion, and I do not pretend to speak for the intactivist movement as a whole, thank you.
~Joseph4GI




Related Post:
The Cologne Ruling and the Limitations of Religious Freedom

GRANOLA BABIES: Responses to "Celebratory" Ad

Since Granola Babies posted an inflammatory ad on Facebook, people have tried responding in different ways. While defenders of Granola Babies and their ad claim that their message was not meant to be inflammatory, and that all they've seen since posting the ad were "judgment" and "personal attacks," even gentle responses questioning the ad have been deleted, and some people have been outright banned for kindly and non-judgmentally suggesting the ad could send the wrong message. Granola Babies is not letting the other side be heard, silencing any dissenting views, which was the whole reason for my previous post.

Granola Babies has made it clear that they are not going to allow anyone to contradict them, and play the victim card to try and gain sympathy and corroboration from others, so intactivists have taken it upon themselves to publish the fact on their own blogs, and/or creating parodies of the Granola Babies ad themselves. (You've already seen mine.) Within the past twenty-four hours there have been a few recreations of the ad. A compilation of them can be seen on the Facebook group Saving Our Sons.

In this post I will share some of my favorites.

Given the fact that the name "Granola Babies" gives the impression that it's a crunchy group, the ad should have looked like this:

Originally posted on the Facebook group End Routine Infant Circumcision (4ERIC).

Among co-sleeping and breastfeeding, circumcision is a non-sequitur, beginning with the fact that co-sleeping and breastfeeding do not involve bodily mutilation. Furthermore, it is usually parents who co-sleep and breastfeed who are constantly having to justify themselves and find refuge among the crunchy crowd. Parents who circumcise don't have to work very hard to find support from their family members, their doctors, the news media etc. Just check out major parenting forums like CafeMom. To be more accurate, Granola Babies should have included "He is circumcised." with "My baby will never sleep with us.", "I let him cry it out."and "I exclusively bottle feed her."

It's interesting that advocates of Granola Babies and their ad say that intactivists have been nothing but "judgmental" and "attacking." It seems while any criticism of circumcision is misconstrued and exaggerated as a "judgmental attack," crunchy moms who choose leave their boys intact have to endure comments like "You didn't circumcise him? Ew, gross!" Or "He'll never get laid." The same people that utter these comments will turn around and say "MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS! WE'RE THE PARENTS, WE DECIDE! DON'T YOU DARE JUDGE ME!" if you suggest there's anything wrong with circumcision.

It's parents who choose to leave their children intact who have to take the heat, and who find refuge in crunchy groups. Parents who circumcise their children do not have to work hard to find the support for their "decisions" that they need. Most parenting forums will go as far as deleting any comment that has anything bad to say about circumcision, as thoughtful and constructive as it may be, in order to pander to moms and dads that circumcise. But for whatever reason, Granola Babies thought it is parents who circumcise their children who deserve a break.

It was easy to spot the non-sequitur here, wasn't it.

Somehow, I don't think female circumcision is a "parental choice" Granola Babies is willing to "celebrate."

I ask, do parents who "choose" to circumcise their daughters love their children more, or less than parents who "choose" to circumcise their boys?

This is probably Granola Babies' ad at the most basic level. They are a business after all. Pandering to mothers who chose to circumcise their boys and making them feel entitled for the sake of gaining their business will probably have been the worst business decision they ever made.

Up until now, the responses have been sarcastic and vengeful. But let's take a look at a different response. This one, on the Saving Our Sons Facebook page seems to be the most liked:

 

Perhaps this is what advocates of Granola Babies claim their ad was going for?

It's been pointed out to me on this very blog and in other mediums that there are mothers who have come to regret having had their sons circumcised. These mothers will have circumcised their sons because they actually thought was best for them. The fact that they come to regret a decision they made, and admit that they were wrong shows how much they love their sons, and how open minded they are to new information .

But this isn't about that.

I've said it in my last blog post, but I can't blame parents that "chose" to circumcise their sons. I think most parents have the best intentions for their children at heart, even parents that chose to circumcise their children. I asked in my last post, what parent would NOT choose to circumcise their child, having heard from doctors the horrors that would befall him were he not?

Some blame parents still; in my minds eye, parents are given information by the doctors they trust, and doctors take advantage of this trust to profit at their children's expense. "This is the age of information," some say. "Any parent could look up this information and come to the conclusion that circumcision is something they do not want to do to their kids." But why should they trust what they find on the internet over the authoritative "advice" from the doctors they trust?

Whose responsibility is it to know better? Who wields the knife? Who waives their credentials about insisting everybody call them "doctor?" Who went to school for 10 years or so to earn their degree? Whose professional responsibility is it to KNOW better? But somehow when it comes to circumcision they're suddenly "too stupid to know," and parents must weigh the "evidence" ("evidence" which no medical organization in the world can use to recommend circumcision by the way...) and come up with their own conclusion as to whether a surgical procedure their DOCTOR is offering them for their child is medically necessary or not?

In my opinion, it's not parents who are to blame; it is the doctors who take advantage of parental naivete and the bloated sense of entitlement they help stoke. A parent can look up all the information, but most do not know how to discern it, not to mention it is a doctor's professional responsibility to know better; it's why he gets paid the big bucks. It is medical fraud that a doctor can get away with placing the onus of "the big decision," one that cannot actually exist without medical or clinical indication, on parents, in order to absolve himself from the responsibility of a surgical procedure HE PERFORMS and should thus KNOWS BETTER than parents as to whether it is medically necessary or not.

It is a mistake to attack and humiliate parents over something they honestly didn't know any better about, and who would take it all back if they knew what they were doing to their children.

I'm not advocating that.

But I also do not advocate corroberating with parents, rewarding willful ignorance, making them feel justified and entitled by calling circumcision a "choice" to be "celebrated."

This ad comes off as pandering to parents who circumcised their children in order to gain their confidence and business, all at the expense of children's basic human rights, and it's why it is so infuriating to me.

EDIT:

Saw this in my Facebook news feed today and I thought I'd add it:

 

One of the comments (in response to other Facebook users who expressed disgust) read:

"I am stunned that people are missing the irony in this photo; no one advocates circumcising girls, but people seem to think of circumcising boys as an acceptable ”option” in parental decision making. By switching the sexes around this picture shows our cultural blindness to the brutality of male circumcision, the same cultural blindness that parents in countries that circumcise females also have."

I couldn't agree more.

DISCLAIMER:

The views I express in this blog are my own individual opinion, and they do not necessarily reflect the views of all intactivists. I am but an individual with one opinion, and I do not pretend to speak for the intactivist movement as a whole, thank you.

REPOST: If You Can't Stand the Heat...

Even after posting an inflammatory graphic, Granola Babies has the nerve to insist that their Facebook page is "not a platform for the circumcision debate." Another page, "Bitchin Parents," has reposted the same graphic and is currently dealing with deleting comments made by people who disagree, dismissing them as "hate," and outright blocking them.

Apparently, Granola Babies is a business and their graphic was supposed to be some sort of business move. Well, they should have thought things through before shooting themselves in the foot.

Crunchy moms, now you know where NOT to shop, and where to steer other crunchy moms AWAY from.

Once again, they're gravely mistaken if they think they can just post controversial material, and just expect nobody to say anything. May this be a lesson to them; if you don't want the "circumcision debate" on your page, then don't incite it. YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR FROM INTACTIVISTS.

In case people haven't noticed, it's no longer socially acceptable to mutilate your child's organs. If you're going to post material endorsing it, you better be ready to deal with the blowback.

This reminds me of a post I made a long time ago. One good turn deserves another, and I think it warrants reposting:

If You Can't Stand the Heat, STAY OFF THE NET

Originally posted Tuesday, March 6, 2012

You know what absolutely gets on my nerves? When some idiot parents find it gracious to post their child's circumcision on the web for the whole world to see. Some parents actually think it's "cute" or "funny" to post their son's circumcision "story" on a blog, or they actually have the nerve to record it and put it on YouTube of all places. It's the one time on the net where it's perfectly kosher to be pimping your child's dick online and not have it be called kiddy porn.

But you know what pisses me off even more? When said parents actually have the NERVE to tell people leaving comments to "MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS! WE'RE THE PARENTS, WE DECIDE. DON'T YOU DARE JUDGE ME."

Really?

You actually post your son's naked body, figuratively or literally online for the whole world to see, and then you're surprised to read that some people actually find your cute little "story" offensive and/or disgusting?

Seriously?

I've got news for you.

Once you post shit online, it's fair game.

People are going to give you a piece of their mind, whether you want it or not.

If you don't want to hear it from others, or be "judged" for the so-called "decisions" that you take, then at least have the decency to make posts about your PERSONAL, "PRIVATE" LIFE visible ONLY TO THOSE IN YOUR PERSONAL, PRIVATE CIRCLE.

Or better yet, keep your sick, disgusting "life" OFFLINE. NOBODY WANTS TO SEE YOUR SON'S GENITALS BEING MUTILATED, much less KNOW about them. They're not even YOUR privates, how in the HELL do you feel entitled to have them mutilated to suit YOUR tastes and preferences, much less POST THEM ON THE FUCKING INTERNET FOR THE WHOLE WORLD TO SEE???

UGH!!!

Such parents should get thrown in JAIL for pimping their children's PERSONAL PRIVATE PARTS ONLINE. This is tantamount to S&M KIDDY PORN.

I DO NOT WANT TO SEE, NOR KNOW ABOUT YOUR CHILD'S GENITAL MUTILATION.

WAKE UP PEOPLE.

The world is waking up to the fact that yes, like female infant circumcision, male infant circumcision IS TOO GENITAL MUTILATION.

If you don't want to hear it from others, if you do not want to hear other people's "opinions," then do the world a favor and DON'T POST ON THE INTERNET.

This fucking PISSES ME OFF.

If you don't want people talking about your unmentionables,

DON'T AIR THEM OUT IN PUBLIC.