Thursday, October 1, 2015

INTACTIVISTS: Planned Parenthood is Not Our Friend

Some controversial videos have been released, and now Planned Parenthood is in the hot seat. The videos depict Deborah Nucatola, Planned Parenthood's medical director, casually discussing the sale of aborted fetal organs to researchers for profit, and how abortion procedures could be performed in a way that the organs remain intact, and now pro-life groups are lobbying to cut their federal funds.

It's hard for me to agree one way or another whether Planned Parenthood should lose federal funding or not. On the one hand, I feel that there are a lot of good health services they provide which benefit both men and women. I don't have a problem with providing couples with contraception and detecting services for life-threatening diseases like breast cancer. On the other, I'm going to declare a conflict of interest right here and say that generally, I am pro-life.

I know that sometimes abortion is inevitable, so I don't think there should be a complete ban on it, but generally, I oppose abortion, as I do view it as taking a life. On the whole, I oppose the killing of a child that may as well survive outside its mother's body, let alone selling its body parts off to research facilities; that just creates demands for more abortions, and creates incentive in organizations like Planned Parenthood to gear parents towards abortion. Instead, I am fully supportive of providing education in sex and contraception.

I wouldn't say that Planned Parenthood should lose federal funding based on my views on abortion and the contents of the released videos alone; as an intactivist, there is another reason why I would agree that Planned Parenthood should be defunded.

Women's Health at the Expense of Boys and Men
My own personal disdain for Planned Parenthood began with the release of a video they made targeting teens, in which they inadvertently, or perhaps quite deliberately, it's hard to tell, try to portray having a circumcised penis as "normal," while portraying having a foreskin as some kind of genetic variation, and as the cause for angst in some teens who might be worried about being viewed "normal," like a big nose or ears that stand out.

The creators of the video take great care to show all the different variations of the female vulva (e.g. large labia, small labia, uneven labia, large clitorises, small clitorises, etc.) and reassure their female viewers that "all are normal." For males, you're either circumcised or not, those are the only two options, and not being circumcised is portrayed as some kind of deformity only some males are born with, when in actuality, a penis with a foreskin is standard equipment when it comes to human male anatomy, and not having one is not even a genetic variation but a deliberately forced phenomenon. Somehow, I don't think Planned Parenthood would ever depict vulvas with missing labia and/or clitorises as "normal variations of female genitals."

Planned Parenthood's tacit advocacy for forced male genital cutting wouldn't end there; in opposition to a proposed bill to defund elective, non-medical infant circumcision in New Hampshire, Planned Parenthood was ready to fire back that "[C]ircumcision carries public health benefits, including lowered risk of urinary tract infections and some sexually transmitted diseases."

Even in their 2012 statement, the AAP stopped short of a recommendation for male infant circumcision because "the benefits are not great enough." Somehow Planned Parenthood is above them?

Of what business is Planned Parenthood's that funding is cut for an elective, non-medical procedure on healthy, non-consenting minors that they don't even provide?

Their business is with adult men and women. Cutting funding for an elective, non-medical procedure that is forced on healthy, non-consenting minors should be of zero consequence to them.

WHY did they stand in the way of this bill?

What are the implications?

"Having a foreskin is normal, except for having one automatically makes you a promiscuous male likely to have STDs and are prone to UTIs?"

"Having a foreskin in normal, but better cut it off?"

Does Planned Parenthood plan on denying their services to intact males and their partners unless the man opts to get circumcised and any male offspring that are born as a result of their services must be circumcised also?

But it doesn't stop there.

Planned Parenthood can be seen jumping onto the circumcision/HIV bandwagon, as, apparently, they're also in Lesotho, Africa, pushing male circumcision there.

My guess is, it has to do with securing funds from HIV organizations who make pushing male circumcision as prevention one of their conditions.

It seems funding is what it all boils down to.

While in this recent case they are fighting to secure their own funding on the grounds that cutting federal funding is "an assault on women's rights," because they should have this "choice" on what to do their bodies, on the other hand they worked to deny this same "choice" for male children, the same "choice" they claim women are entitled to.

Ultimately, it seems like planned parenthood is willing to throw the rights of boys and men under the bus in the so-called name of "women's health."

Until I see them change this stance, I'm afraid I can only agree that federal funds should be cut.

As a taxpayer, I don't want to be paying into an organization that tacitly approves of, advocates for, even facilitates male genital cutting, and promotes "women's health" at the expense of men's health and choices.

Would Planned Parenthood Ever Promote Female Circumcision?
Some may argue that Planned Parenthood is only going by what "studies say," but is there a number of "studies" that would ever cause Planned Parenthood to push female circumcision in any way, shape or form? Offer it to mothers of daughters? Push it in Africa?

What if it were made "safe?"

What if new gadgets were made that would make it "quick and easy?"

What if doctors were trained to do it with sterile utensils in pristine clinics?

Or is all they care about funding at the expense of males?

What if female genital cutting provided some "benefit" to males?

Would they ever promote female circumcision if it "prevented prostate cancer" in males?

Here's a question about "gender inequality" for you, how come there are millions of dollars going into circumcision "studies" to see what "benefits" it has? Why isn't there the same amount being allocated for female circumcision, if  we're so concerned with "finding benefits?" So much "vigorous research" to see just what diseases male circumcision can prevent. Why is "research" on male circumcision given the go-ahead, while on female circumcision is automatically considered to be "unethical?"

Self-serving sexist double-standards.

Planned Parenthood defends male genital mutilation. Why should I support an organization which opposes the right to autonomy over the bodies of healthy, non-consenting male children?

Defending "women's health" and "women's choices" while defending forced male genital cutting in healthy, non-consenting minors is pure hypocrisy.

As long as Planned Parenthood approves of, defends and facilitates male genital cutting, I can't approve of them getting federal funds.

Related Posts:
PLANNED PARENTHOOD: Mutilated is the New "Normal"

NEW HAMPSHIRE: Bill to Defund Circumcision Heard - Dissenters Included Planned Parenthood and a Rabbi

RED HERRING: The Abortion Debate

Monday, September 28, 2015

FLORIDA CIRCUMCISION SAGA: Mother May Get Monitored Visits With Her Son

It has been a while since I last commented on this story from Florida, where a court has ordered a child to be taken away from his mother to be circumcised as his father wished, and his mother was forced to sign the documents of consent under duress. In part, I don't want to write about this story any further, as it breaks my heart every time I think about it.

It looks like at long last, the mother in this case is going to be reunited with her baby after being forcibly torn apart by the state to appease her ex-husbands wishes to have her son circumcised, albeit under tough conditions and extreme surveillance. The father fears the child will be "abducted." (That's a laugh, considering what he put the child through, ripping him away from his mother in the first place. No, the father is afraid the mother will try to do what he has done.)

No one knows what will happen exactly, as the father has fought tooth and nail to keep this under wraps, and the courts are taking his side and cooperating with him, but the possibility of meeting at a neutral place, once a week for an hour, while being watched by a cop was discussed in recent proceedings. No photos can be taken, and the mother is not to say a single word to the child about circumcision. For the fuller story, the Sun Sentinel article can be read here.

My Comment
That this is happening seems so surreal.

Is this really happening in the United States of America?

It fills me with rage every time I think about it.

Imagine you were at odds with an ex-husband who was looking for any which way to get at you. Imagine you knew he was planning to inflict abuse on your son just to spite you. Imagine you knew that his plans were to inflict permanent physical harm on your child for your detriment and for his own personal enjoyment. Imagine you knew his intentions were to get back at you in the most horrific, most indelible way possible; by leaving a physical, irremovable mark on your son's most sensitive, most intimate organs that you would see every time you bathed him.

Now imagine that the state was actually on his side. Imagine that no matter how hard you tried, the state would not listen to you, ignored you every time you tried to ask for their help, and dismissed everything you tried to say to let you protect your own son from needless surgical intervention. Imagine the state actually commanded you to hand your child over to your husband so that he could do as he pleases with your son, while you stand idly by.

Now imagine you doing the only thing you could think of as a last resort; taking your child and running to a place of asylum for one last attempt to protect your son. Imagine police forces storming in, ripping him from your arms and whisking him to his designated fate. Imagine being thrown in jail, being treated as a criminal for wanting to protect your son from needless surgery, and a judge forcing you to sign the permission papers for your son's abuse in exchange for your freedom.

There are no ifs or buts about it, your ex-husband is going to have his way with your son and the state is actually protecting him helping him realize his sick ambitions.

Imagine the court has decreed that you will not get to see your son for 90 days. Imagine that the court has decreed that your ex gets to spend 90 whole days alone with your son to do with him as he pleases, and that you will not see or talk to him during that time, all the mean while lawyers helping him to try and make it so that you never see him again.

Now imagine that after time has passed, the court has finally decided it's time for you to see your son, but you will be monitored, and you are gagged from asking the one burning question whose answer you've been dying to know; is he OK? Has he been mutilated or has he been, at least for the time being, spared?

Well that's basically what is happening here.

How is it the father can take the child and do as he wishes, telling him the boy whatever he wants, but the mother is gagged from doing so?

How is it that what the boy actually wants for himself hasn't been considered? And that the courts have actively refused that option?

How is it the boy's own mother is being denied the right to know what has transpired in the time her son was taken away?

How absolutely infuriating.

A father who is hell-bent on having his son's genitals mutilated for his own self-satisfaction is rewarded sole custody, while the child's mother whose only wish is to protect her son from needless surgery is being treated as a criminal.

All meanwhile, no one has bothered to ask the child whose body is in question what it is he wants for himself.

Poor child.

His story is a catastrophe and a shame on this country.

It is a shame in this country when the selfish whims of a father are more important than the fundamental human rights of a child.

To end this post...
There is nothing more to say.

We live in a backwards country where you're thrown in jail and treated like a criminal for wanting to protect your children from forced needless surgery, but sick perpetrators who want to take them to have plastic surgery on their genitals to fit their liking get awarded sole custody.

Only if the child is male.

Were this a Sudanese, Malaysian, Indonesian man, or a man from a culture where female genital cutting is the norm, the scene would be different.

In this scenario, such a father would be jailed.

Girls and women are protected from unwanted, non-medical genital surgery by law, but the state will actually help you out if you want to inflict the same to a boy.

How fucked up this country...

A country whose laws will not protect the most basic human rights of a child, a country who was complicit in actually carrying the violation of these rights has failed.

It sounds as though intactivist efforts may be paying off however; according to the report referenced here, the father appears to be having a hard time finding somebody that will circumcise the child without a medical diagnosis. This may be due in part to intactivist demonstrations being held across the country, but also in great part to doctors and other organizations threatening to file a complaint against the doctor and hospital who would perform or facilitate this child's non-medical genital surgery.

What will happen to this child?

His mother?

Will a father actually get away with having a doctor perform non-medical surgery on his 4yo son's genitals for his own satisfaction? At the expense of the child's rights and express wishes?

Will a doctor actually go through with carrying out the whims of this mentally depraved father?

I hope that this is the last blog post I EVER write on this story.

To be honest I don't want to know anymore than this; I'd be too afraid to know this child was mutilated, to imagine the horror and pain he must have gone through.

My deepest prayers are that this child is safe, that this mother is finally reunited with her child, and that he doesn't have to spend any more time with that sick, disgusting monster of a father of his.

May this child be back in his mother's arms where he belongs.

Previous Posts:
FLORIDA: What Happened Today As Per Intact America
FLORIDA BULLETIN: Circumcision Scheduled for 4-yo - Anonymous User Discloses Details
FLORIDA: Joe DiMaggio Children's Hospital Complicit in Medical Fraud, Child Abuse?
Related Links:
Parents in circumcision fight appear to settlevisitation dispute after judge, attorneys meet privately

Sunday, September 20, 2015

AFRICA: Boys Circumcised at School Without Parents' Knowledge

As if it weren't enough that male circumcision is being promoted in Africa under the dubious pretext of HIV prevention using questionable "research", and as if it weren't enough that parents are being brainwashed to have their children circumcised, organizations in Africa are taking the liberty of going to schools and circumcising children without their parent's knowledge.

Since "mass circumcision" campaigns began to be rolled out across Africa, promoters of male circumcision were careful to really push that the circumcision of males would be "voluntary," where it can mean that, at least theoretically, men would not be circumcised without their fully informed consent. 'Voluntary" can also mean that parents could "volunteer" their children to be circumcised. (Intactivists, such as myself, contest that a child forcibly circumcised without his own consent is no "volunteer.") "Voluntary Male Medical Circumcision", or "VMMC", it was called, for short.

But now, it seems that "voluntary" doesn't even matter anymore, and organizations are taking it upon themselves to visit schools and circumcising male students without even consulting parents on the matter.

In a recent case, at least 25 boys were circumcised at Oderai Primary School in Soroti sub-county, Soroti District, prompting furious protest by parents, some who were extremely distraught that their children were circumcised without their permission. The boys were circumcised at Soroti Health Centre III in an exercise that was facilitated by NGO Baylor Uganda.

District medical workers came, and a woman filling in for the head teacher (she was away on sick leave) simply authorized them.

When queried, the official in charge of the facility where the boys were circumcised, Harriet Amuat, insisted they were carrying out a government programe and Soroti District administration had signed a partnership with Baylor Uganda to fund the circumcision exercise in Teso sub-region.

The question is, who gave the go-ahead with a "circumcision exercise" that would forcibly circumcise healthy, non-consenting children, completely sidelining their parents?

Who held these talks?

Who made the preposition that children were to be circumcised without informing their parents?

Who accepted?

That's what I'd like to know.

Incidentally, Baylor Uganda is funded by none other than PEPFAR and the CDC. The CDC, a strong partner and supporter of BIPAI’s efforts in Uguanda, provides a majority of the Baylor-Uganda $24 million annual budget, through the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief.

American organizations are essentially bankrolling the forced circumcision of healthy, non-consenting children. Some may argue that "parents can give consent," but in this case even parents were disregarded.

Not the first time
This might be dismissed as a "one-time accident," but unfortunately, this is not the first time this has happened; a similar case happened recently in Eldoret, Uasin Gishu, just this April.

In this case, 30 children were forcibly circumcised by NGO Impact Research Development Organisation (IRDO) based in Kisumu, which has a clinic in Eldoret. Apparently the children were lured by strangers into cars with sweets.

Here too, parents protested the fact that their children had been forcibly circumcised without their knowledge.

It appears here too, the NGO has ties with PEPFAR, as evidenced by the "about" tab on their Facebook Page.

In yet an even earlier incident, high school students were being targeted at Embakwe High School.

Here too parents were furious to find that their children came home circumcised.

I cannot find any reference as to who gave the go-ahead, and who financed it in the linked article.

Wrong on so many levels
First off, the "mass circumcision" roll-outs are based on questionable material.

Even if the so-called "research" could be lent any credibility, circumcision would still be considered so ineffective at preventing HIV, that circumcised males and their partners must be urged to wear condoms. There is not a single doctor or "researcher" that can deny this fact.

If adult men wish to be circumcised, even being fully informed, that's one thing, but it is despicable that the procedure is being presented to parents as a "decision."

But lastly, it is simply horrific that children are being forcibly circumcised, completely disregarding their parents, and something needs to be done about it.

Was this an accident?

Or was it deliberate?

Those who authorized programs that go to schools and circumcise children without their parents' knowledge ought to be investigated and held responsible.

Relevant Links:

Tuesday, September 8, 2015

CANADA: CPS Diverges from AAP on Infant Circumcision

In 2012, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) released a controversial policy statement on circumcision.

While the statement did not culminate in a recommendation as circumcision advocates were hoping for, it was littered with the baseless mantra that "the benefits [of circumcision] outweighed the risks," and with calls for public medical programs to cover it.

The claim that "the benefits outweigh the risks" conflicts with statements that "the benefits [of male infant circumcision] aren't great enough to recommend" it, and that "the true incidence of complications after newborn circumcision are unknown," found within the same Policy Statement.

So out-of-line was the 2012 AAP report, that 38 pediatricians, urologists, epidemiologists, and professors, representing 20 medical organizations and 15 universities and hospitals in 17 countries formally rejected it.

Even so, circumcision advocates took the "benefits outweigh the risks" soundbite and ran with it.

Some go as far as actually saying the AAP has given a recommendation for circumcision, when it is clear to those who have actually read their 2012 statement that they stop short.

After the AAP released their statement, it didn't take very long for the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to mirror them. Almost like clockwork, the CDC released a statement similar to that of the AAP, seemingly giving circumcision advocates yet more ammunition for promoting male infant circumcision. (As the AAP, the CDC shies away from a clear recommendation for male infant circumcision.)

With the Canadian Paediatric Society due for a release of their own policy statement on male infant circumcision, speculation arose as to whether or not they too would mirror the controversial AAP statement.

Circumcision advocates were hoping the CPS would get into lockstep with the AAP, and repeat the same "benefits outweigh the risk" slogan.

Much to their chagrin, however, the CPS not only failed to join the AAP and CDC in chorus, they outright reaffirmed their position against it.

Said Dr. Thierry Lacaze, chair of the CPS Fetus and Newborn Committee:
"While there may be a benefit for some boys in high risk populations and the procedure could be considered as a treatment or to reduce disease, in most cases, the benefits of circumcision do not outweigh the risks."

Thus the AAP and CPS can be witnessed going separate ways on the matter.

Is the CPS stepping out of line?

Or is it the AAP who is deviating?

The fact of the matter is that the trend of opinion on routine male circumcision is overwhelmingly negative in industrialized nations.

The AAP tried very hard to push the slogan that "the benefits [of circumcision] outweigh the risks" in their 2012 statement, but they were formally rejected by 38 pediatricians, urologists, epidemiologists, and professors, representing 20 medical organizations and 15 universities and hospitals in 17 countries.

And now, the Canadian Paediatric Society joins the number of respected medical organizations who diverge with the AAP.

Thus, it continues to be true:

No respected medical board in the world recommends male infant circumcision. All of them, including the AAP in their latest statement, state that there isn't sufficient evidence to warrant this endorsement.

To say otherwise would be to take an unfounded position against the most respected medical organizations in the West.

Good on the CPS for refusing to buy into the AAP's nonsense.

Relevant Posts:
CANADA: Canadian Paediatric Society - Monkey See, Monkey Do?

OUT OF LINE: AAP Circumcision Policy Statement Formally Rejected

USA: Centers for Disease Control to Mirror American Academy of Pediatrics

Relevant Links:

Monday, August 31, 2015

UK Publication: Disgruntled Circumcised Men Suffer "Dysmorphobia"

There is a tendency in Western society to dismiss circumcised men who resent their circumcisions as suffering some kind of "mental issue."

I view this as something of a paradox; while discontent circumcised men are dismissed as being "obsessed," circumcision seems to be an acceptable remedy to a body image problem, real, perceived or even hypothetical.

At least in the United States, the forced circumcision of healthy, non-consenting children is a common practice. About 1.3 million newborn boys are circumcised on a yearly basis, and the most common reasons given are his parents' desires that he "looks like his father," "fit in" with other boys in a hypothetical locker room situation, and/or that his hypothetical girlfriend would not be "freaked out."

Men who want to get circumcised to "fit in" are used as examples of "why boys should be circumcised at birth," while men who complain about being circumcised are dismissed as having "mental issues," because why wouldn't you want to fit in with the rest of society?

There are a few problems with this line of thinking; when circumcision was first introduced into the United States, no child would have looked like his father. We do not deem female circumcision as an "acceptable parental choice" in those countries where female circumcision is a perceived norm.

I really want to say that this is a phenomenon particular to America, where we have this obsession with the surgically altered penis, but I recently saw a disturbing article regarding a tragedy that happened in the UK.

A man of 35, and his mother of 66 were found dead in their home. They apparently killed themselves in a suicide pact. According to the British publication "Your Local Guardian":

"The inquest... heard that Mr Burrows, a single man, had become depressed since the age of 16 when he had a circumcision arranged by his mother. 

He developed depression and dysmorphobia – a condition marked by excessive preoccupation with an imaginary or minor defect in part of the body...

At the inquest Dr Roy Palmer read a letter by Dr Indira Naganathar, who once treated Mr Burrows.
He said: “He had problems with a circumcision his mother arranged for him as a child which he believed had disfigured his penis and prevented him from having sexual relationships

“From the age of 16 he started to have depression and concerns about his appearance."
This doctor really wants to write this man off as someone who "developed mental issues," but let's analyze this line of thinking more closely.

The man may have developed a mental complex, but it's not as if this man had developed these mental issues in a vacuum; the man was circumcised at 16.

Whereas a man circumcised as a newborn may not remember ever being circumcised, and would not ever know what it would be like to have anatomically correct genitals, the man in this case would have lived 16 years with intact organs. He will have grown used to seeing them that way, and he would have grown used to the sensations given by them in that state.

So really, writing off this man as a person who was suffering "body image problems" is an attempt to ignore the even bigger problem; WHY was this man circumcised at 16? Was it medically necessary, or could it have been avoided? Could it be that nobody wants to challenge the ideas of "parental prerogative" and/or "religious freedom?" It certainly is easier to simply dismiss this man as someone who was suffering "mental issues."

Reconstructive Surgery/Prosthetic Replacement Patients "Obsessed?"
There is a growing movement of circumcised men who resent having been circumcised, and who are going as far as tugging and stretching the remnants of their foreskin in order to attempt to replace that which has been lost.

Google "foreskin restoration" and you will see a list of sites dedicated to this practice.

Some would go as far as to say that these men are "obsessed" and suffering similar body image "mental issues" as the man above.

But are they?

We would not call patients who were seeking to replace any other body part "obsessed" with a body part. We would not say that a woman who lost a breast to cancer who was seeking reconstructive surgery was suffering any kind of "dysmorphic disorder." We would not say that wearers of prosthetic equipment have developed "mental issues."

A man learning to use a bionic arm

A man running on prosthetic legs

 A silicone breast implant commonly used in breast replacement surgery

There are efforts to help even those who were born without those parts.


Because we accept these to be normal, healthy body parts.

We consider their presence "normal" and their absence "abnormal."

Sometimes, people are born with birth defects or genetic anomalies, such as 6th fingers, or clefts.

Would we consider people wishing to correct these anomalies as "obsessed?"

No, because we consider these body appearances to be "abnormal," and in some cases, they get in the way of normal, every day life.

What would we think of normal healthy people were intentionally trying to give themselves these anomalies? Who were intentionally trying to cut off their arms? Their legs? Their normal, healthy breasts? Who were intentionally trying to give themselves a cleft? Who wish they had 6th fingers attached to their hands?

This would be true body dysmorphic disorder, because otherwise healthy people would be yearning artificial, distorted images of themselves.

So Who Has a Problem?
Were this man's "mental issues" inherent? Or were they externally induced?

Could foreskin restorers be compared with the people wanting to seek replacement therapy?

Or are they more akin to people wanting to alter their normal bodies?

To the objective observer, the answer is obvious.

Having a foreskin is not a birth defect. Neither is it a congenital deformity or genetic anomaly akin to a 6th finger or a cleft.

The foreskin is not "extra skin." The foreskin is normal, natural, healthy, functioning tissue, present in all males at birth; it is as intrinsic to male genitalia as labia are to female genitalia.

Being born with the foreskin is human standard.

The lack of a foreskin is not an "imaginary" or "minor defect" in the body. It is very real, and in the case of circumcision, it is no "defect," but a forced, artificial phenomenon.

In the absence of a true medical necessity that calls for surgery, yearning to be circumcised is longing for a distorted, imagined idea of what the human penis is supposed to look like.

Therefore, it's not men who resent their circumcisions who have some kind of "mental problem," it's men who view the normal, intact genitals they were born with as "defective" and who would seek surgical amputation to alleviate this perceived "problem" who are suffering "mental issues."

Even with men circumcised as newborns, who have no recollection of ever being circumcised, and who don't know what it's like to have a foreskin, but would have liked to have remained as nature made them, I would argue that they don't have "mental issues" and that their concerns are valid.

Why? Because from a biological standpoint, their "defects" aren't a "false perception"; compared with the human standard, a penis without a foreskin is anatomically incorrect.

From a biological standpoint, the foreskin is standard equipment.

From a biological standpoint, missing a foreskin IS a defect.

Lo, it is a forced, artificial phenomenon; a distorted image of what a human penis is supposed to be.

A person missing a foreskin has every right and reason to believe that there is something wrong, because from a biological standpoint, there is.

To be missing normal, healthy body parts that humans are normally born with, and the majority of the men in the world still have, to be consciously aware that something is wrong with your body, to know exactly why that is, all meanwhile being told "You're fine, and worrying about this is a mental issue." is something of a mindfuck.

Being forced to live a mental and physical lie is sure to drive people INSANE.

The doctor in this case is engaging in victim-shaming.

This poor, poor man.

Related Posts:
PLANNED PARENTHOOD: Mutilated is the New "Normal"

Monday, July 27, 2015


It breaks my heart every time I hear that yet another baby boy has succumbed to this needless surgery.

It had been a while since I've written one of these posts, though I'm sure many baby boys have died in the interim. However this one had been making the rounds on Facebook, and it kept showing up in my news feed, so I felt another circumcision death post was in order.

Four days ago, on the 23rd of this month, a baby who will go by the name of "Little Dave" bled to death through his circumcision wound. He was three days old.

Death is a Risk of Male Infant Circumcision
Circumcision advocacy groups try to downplay the risks of circumcision. The only ones most parents in this country will ever hear about, if physicians even bother mentioning them, are "pain and discomfort." Few will mention that circumcision could result in MRSA infection, a botched circumcision requiring future correction, partial or full ablation, and even death. Very few physicians will ever talk about death being a risk of circumcision.

It's sad, but this is what passes nowadays as "informed consent."

An estimated 117 deaths occur every year in the United States due to circumcision. This is a rough estimate, and more conservative than its predecessors; in the past, estimates have been as high as 200 or more deaths per year.

An accurate estimate on the number of deaths due to infant circumcision is admittedly difficult to pinpoint, because at least in America, hospitals are not required to release this information, and doctors often misattribute a child's death to secondary causes.

At 1.3 million circumcisions annually, circumcision is a money-maker for American medicine, and doctors have reputations and bankbooks to protect. Reporting adverse circumcision effects puts their yearly stipend in jeopardy, not to mention the disrepute it would bring to American medicine. With so much to lose, there is much incentive to hide the evidence and parents complicit in hiding their own guilt and shame will agree to mask the child's cause of death.

Reporting deaths from circumcision would open the floodgates to lawsuits by angry parents and angry men. Reporting deaths from circumcision means loss of revenue. Reporting deaths from circumcision means the "benefits" have to be reconsidered. Reporting deaths from circumcision means that American medical organizations are being irresponsible. Reporting deaths from circumcision means "culture and tradition" is put in danger.

For these reasons, we will never know for sure how many children die as a result of their circumcisions. There are reputations to protect, culture and tradition to safeguard, and malpractice lawsuit floodgates to keep sealed.

Death is a risk of male infant circumcision.

Let me repeat; Death is a risk of male infant circumcision.

Circumcision advocates try to minimize the risks and complications of circumcision. If they even mention death, they will say that the number of male children dying due to circumcision complications is "infinitesimally small."

But it must be asked, how is the death of even ONE healthy child conscionable, given that male infant circumcision is elective, non-medical surgery?

How is the death of even ONE healthy, non-consenting child conscionable, given that the so-called "benefits" of circumcision are already accessible by conventional, non-surgical means?

Little Dave bled to death at three days of age, and had he not been circumcised, he would have still been alive and well.

Let that sink in.

Death is a risk of male infant circumcision.

Are parents being informed of this risk?

Relevant Link:
Circumcision Insanity - Lizeth Sepulveda Zermeño from California

Related Posts: 
Circumcision Death: Another One Bites the Dust

Circumcision KILLS

CIRCUMCISION: The Silent Killer

CIRCUMCISION: Another Baby Dies

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Yet Another One (I Hate Writing These)

Another Circumcision Death Comes to Light

Circumcision Indicted in Yet Another Death: Rabbis and Mohels are "Upset"

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Yes, Another One - This Time in Israel

Thursday, July 2, 2015

Commentary on Times Live Article: Deny This

In a recent article on an African publication that calls itself "Times Live", so-called "scientists" tried to dismiss Ron Goldman as a "fringe fanatic." Rather than address what he had to say directly, they retorted to name-calling, and to quoting the usual canned responses saved for all PR venues.

Rather than do what I usually do with articles such as these, which is basically destroy them bit by bit, I'm just going to post the e-mail I sent to the link on their article.

Dear Sirs,

This is in response to the article "Circumcision denier derided."

In the article, in order to reply to the claims made by Ron Goldman, so-called "scientists" retorted to name-calling, instead of addressing his claims directly.

Ron Goldman was called a "fringe fanatic," "conspiracy theorist." They said he was "without a scientific evidence base," though they made no attempt to substantiate this claim. He is also called an "anti-circumcision fundamentalist" and a "circumcision denier," whatever that means. No one is denying circumcision, only the false claims made in favor of it.

Only after the so-called "scientists'" ad hominem attack did they decide to quote scientific figures, which are really nothing more than repetition of the same tired claims that circumcision "reduced the risk of contracting HIV by up to 60%."

As usual, the HIV claim is rather weak, so it is always typically reinforced by a claim that circumcision "was associated" with the reduction of some other disease, this time a supposed "59% reduction of syphilis in men."

It must be pointed out; the so-called "benefits" of circumcision aren't as clear-cut as circumcision "scientists" would like their audience to believe.

People ought to read the fine print: There is no scientifically demonstrable causal link between circumcision and a reduction in HIV transmission. Without one, "scientists" can't be sure that circumcision reduces HIV transmission AT ALL, let alone by "60%."

Circumcision was "associated with a 59% reduction in syphilis in men?" What in the world is that supposed to mean? We're supposed to circumcise everybody based on a mere "association?"

Without a demonstrable causal link, one could claim that an absence of vampires in the vicinity of garlic is "proof" that garlic "is associated" with keeping them away.

Without a causal link, the African "trials" are meaningless statistics embellished with correlation hypothesis. Circumcision "researchers" merely juxtapose carefully chosen statistics and assume a causal relationship exists as a matter of fact.

The so-called "findings" contradict reality.

According to USAID, HIV was found to be more prevalent among circumcised men in 10 out of 18 African countries. 80% of American men are circumcised from birth. Yet, according to the CIA World Factbook, the United States has more HIV than 53 countries where circumcision is rare or not practiced. If the CIA is to be believed, we have more HIV than Mexico.

And finally, even if the 60% claim were irrefutably true, circumcision would STILL be ineffective at preventing HIV.

So ineffective would circumcision be at preventing HIV, that circumcised men and their partners would still have to be urged to wear condoms.

I would like to see any of the "scientists" who responded to Mr. Goldman deny this very simple fact.

I am a happy man with anatomically correct genitals, and if any of them tried to sell me this crock I would laugh in their faces.

I posit that no man with intact genitals in the right mind would fall for this, unless he were being lied to by self-interested scientists trying to secure funds from the HIV pie.

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his livelihood depends on his not understanding it."
~Upton Sinclair

Thank you for your time,


Related Links:
UGANDA: Myths about circumcision help spread HIV

ZIMBABWE: Circumcised men abandoning condoms

Botswana – There is an upsurge of cases of people who got infected with HIV following circumcision.

Zimbabwe – Circumcised men indulge in risky sexual behaviour

Nyanza – Push for male circumcision in Nyanza fails to reduce infections

Related Posts:
CIRCUMCISION "RESEARCH": Rehashed Findings and Misleading Headlines

Where Circumcision Doesn't Prevent HIV

Where Circumcision Doesn't Prevent HIV II
UNITED STATES: Infant Circumcision Fails as STI Prophylaxis
MASS CIRCUMCISION CAMPAIGNS: The Emasculation and Harassment of Africa