Pete Re: outlawing circumcision

March 10, 2001

rita66@... wrote:

>

> >

> > ' It has actually been suggested that circumcision be

> > outlawed and Mohelim (professional ritual circumcisers) be prosecuted.

> > This, I am afraid, would and should never be allowed in America, as it

> > would be an egregious violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the

> > First Amendment. '

> >

> > After Nick's kind comments I decided I would continue exercising my

> > own Right of Free Speech.

> >

> > Maybe not 'would', but 'should' is another matter. Ppl have been

> > prosecuted for denying their children medical treatment on religious

> > grounds; if that, why not giving unnecessary surgery? Basically with

> > this kind of issue what matters is whether you are numerous and

> > powerful enough to have a custom that cannot be stopped - and that's

> > all.

>

> ---------------

>

> Well, Pete, such rhetoric can be the stuff of anti-Semites, you know.

Rita,

And anti-Americans, too. Do you think someone who has read a bit on the

subject that knows how painful the procedure is and how _much_ is cut away in

sexual function for a lifetime to say, " This is an awful, terrible thing to do

to an infant, unless the infant is Jewish, then it is okay to torture him? "

>

> " Unnecessary surgery " ? Perhaps. But so is ear-piercing. Most black and

Latino parents have their infants pierced at very young ages. Would you have

that outlawed too?

This is a bogus comparison. You obviously don't know what the foreskin is.

A better comparison would be removing the nipples (the sensory apparatus) of

newborn girls. How can you compare removing what will ultimately be the most

sensitive _half_ of the skin covering the penis with ear piercing? This whole

discounting of cutting away most of the sexual pleasure receptors of an

unanesthetized infant boy sounds quite anti-male to me.

> Because it is (usually) medically unnecessary -- and publically stated so

by the American Society of Pediatrics for the last 30 years -- hospital

circumcision is no longer covered by health insurance, and therefore is no

longer " routine " .

When did insurance quit covering it? That is news to me. Was it yesterday?

> I have no objection to this. (Actually hospital circumcisions are

significantly different from Brit Milah ceremonies, and more upsetting to the

infant.)

If this is so, then no one should need anesthetic for, say, an appendectomy.

They could merely have people who care about them lovingly restrain them and

when the patient goes into shock from the pain, the surrounding family members

can go, " See, it's not so painful. He's resting comfortably. "

> The procedure is so minor that medical school is completely unnecessary to

safely perform it -- and it is well-established that Mohelim do circumcisions

faster, better, and with a far less incidence of infection and other

complications than doctors.

No, the procedure is perhaps _seen_ as so minor. However, the one person that

keeps getting left out of this, all medical complications aside, is the child's.

Can you tell me, from the child's perspective, how having his genitals torn and

cut away is minor?

> So putting an end to hospital circumcision (except where required due to

urological problems) is a good idea, and close at hand. And, with no public

money used to pay for circumcision, and those who have religious beliefs

requiring this minor body alteration paying for the procedure themselves, those

who do not believe in the procedure no longer are forced to provide any support

for it.

>

And with slavery, as long as no one had to pay for it and who didn't believe in

it had to help finance it, it was okay?

>

> It would be unconstitutional for a law to be passed REQUIRING

circimcision per Genesis 17, Pete -- and just as wrong to prohibit the procedure

based on rejection or dismissal of religious beliefs.

>

> The belief is strong. Nobody would object to improvements in anesthetic

for the procedure -- but the stated interest in pain relief by the anti-circ

crowd would seem to be feigned. They want circumcision outlawed no matter what.

And I shudder to think of an America where Jews have to make secret arrangements

in concealed hiding-places with Mohelim to continue to practice Judaism.

Maybe they can get together with the Moslems who smuggle their daughters out of

the country to have them cut up under God's orders or evade the laws against

female genital mutilation in other ways. Perhaps that would be common ground,

could be the beginning of a bridge to build peace in the Middle East. <G>

Ken Ragge

>

> ~Rita

March 10, 2001

ahicks@... wrote:

>

> Ken,

>

> I know I should just stay out of this and keep my mouth shut. But I

> can't seem to.

I don't see any reason why you should stay out.

>

> What does this have to do with being 12 step free? Obviously you

> have

> really strong feelings about it and have done some reading. Do you

> have some sort of personal experience that leads you to make the

> conclusions you are making?

>

It is not personal experience but reading Alice . She went into a bit

of detail on female circumcision, the dynamics of it. More important,

however, is the idea of looking at " things " from the perspective of the

child.

>

> > And anti-Americans, too. Do you think someone who has read a

> bit on the subject that knows how painful the procedure is and how

> _much_ is cut away in sexual function for a lifetime to say, " This is

> an awful, terrible thing to do to an infant, unless the infant is

> Jewish, then it is okay to torture him? "

>

> Painful torture? Please give me a break!

The medical literature (and infant pain literature in particular) amply

documents the severity of the pain.

>

> My son was circumcised, although we are not Jewish. This was an

> issue

> that my husband and I disagreed on, however, a well respected

> parenting book (Brazelton) I was reading advocated that the father

> make this decision for his son. My husband felt strongly that our

> son

> should be circumcised. This was mainly because of the culture he

> grew

> up in. Where he was from, uncircumcised boys had a hard time of it

> in

> the shower rooms and bathrooms of the schoolyard. I feel this has

> changed significantly, but I was unable to convince him. I *very

> reluctantly* agreed.

>

> The procedure was performed in the hospital when our son was 4 days

> old. My husband was with him. He was not anesthetized. We asked

> our

> OB about that and she said that in very rare cases (something like 1

> in 10,000) necrosis of the genitals can occur from the anesthesia and

> even though it was really rare, she didn't want to take the chance at

> all. We agreed.

Actually, necrosis of the genitals also occurs without anesthetic.

>

> I was very nervous and apprensive. They took the baby into the other

> room. I took deep breaths. He was back with me within 5 minutes.

> He

> didn't cry. He nursed right away. His penis healed long before his

> cord fell off.

I'm very curious just _what_ you think an infant would do? Or even _could_

do? Of course, there is research which shows that circumcision can interfere

with nursing.

>

> What made him cry was the blood tests and shots that he had to have.

> For one, (the PKU?), they have to fill up small small tubes of blood.

> They get it from the heel and they have to pinch and squeeze until

> there is enough to run their tests. Here was pain and crying!

>

But you weren't there when he was circumcised, so how can you compare? When

researchers use blood levels of hormones associated with the pain response,

they find something quite different.

>

> Torture is repeatedly harming someone for pleasure. I think you need

> to retract that.

>

Torture is inflicting extreme pain.

>

> Most, no OK, ALL of the men I've " known " in the biblical sense were

> circumcised and not one of them ever had the slightest problem. None

> of them felt the least bit inadequate. Do you think they should?

> After all, they're missing half their dick according to you. I don't

> agree!

>

I said they were missing approximately half of the most sensitive penile

covering. Did you know that Somalian women who have had their clitoris and

labia cut off and the opening sewed closed to only allow room to urinate and

menstruate _also_ claim it doesn't effect them adversely?

>

> Likewise, the comparisons to cutting off a girl's nipples or a

> clitorectomy are patently absurd.

> >

> > If this is so, then no one should need anesthetic for, say, an

> appendectomy. They could merely have people who care about them

> lovingly restrain them and when the patient goes into shock from the

> pain, the surrounding family members can go, " See, it's not so

> painful. He's resting comfortably. "

>

> Absurd.

Yes, it isn't like infants are living, feeling creatures.

>

> >

> > > The procedure is so minor that medical school is completely

> unnecessary to safely perform it -- and it is well-established that

> Mohelim do circumcisions faster, better, and with a far less

> incidence

> of infection and other complications than doctors.

> >

> > No, the procedure is perhaps _seen_ as so minor. However, the one

> person that keeps getting left out of this, all medical complications

> aside, is the child's. Can you tell me, from the child's

> perspective,

> how having his genitals torn and cut away is minor?

>

> No one is cutting off the boy's penis here! Or removing his

> testicles. I really think this is way over the line. From the

> child's perspective a bee sting is a lot bigger deal.

And how do you know that? The evidence is directly contradictory.

>

> Ken, from reading your words I don't think any of mine will convince

> you in the slightest bit. But I do have first hand experience caring

> for an infant when the procedure was done. Do you?

>

Is this like, " Well, you weren't a real alcoholic, so how can you know? " Am

I to believe the " experience " of African mothers re female genital

mutilation?

>

> I do not feel that my son is " mutilated " or was " tortured. " He isn't

> going to think so either. Neither are 99.99 percent of the

> circumcised men walking the planet, though I understand there are a

> few who try mightily to grow it back. Or trace their problems back

> to

> this horrible thing that was done to them.

And neither are 99.99 percent of the women forced to undergo the procedure as

young girls. So what?

> Aha! The tie in! " I

> would never have had a problem with alcohol if only my mother hadn't

> cut my genitals up!!! "

>

I've never heard that from anyone, ever but if it makes _you_ feel better

thinking so, be my guest.

Ken Ragge

P.S. http://www.cirp.org has information on circumcision.

>

March 10, 2001

I think it has more to do with being conformity free... the two kinda go

together, but I guess it is OT.

----- Original Message -----

To: <12-step-free >

>

> What about the first question...What does of thie have to do with

> being 12 step free??

>

March 11, 2001

ahicks@... wrote:

>

> > >

> > > Ken,

> > >

> > > I know I should just stay out of this and keep my mouth shut. But

> I

> > > can't seem to.

> >

> > I don't see any reason why you should stay out.

>

> Because I can see that I'm faced with the " brick wall. " The same one

> I met in other circumstances. I don't think my words can have any

> effect in changing your mind, yet I cannot let your words about this

> subject go unchallenged.

,

Do you think I'm not faced with the same brick wall?

>

> > >

> > > What does this have to do with being 12 step free? Obviously you

> > > have

> > > really strong feelings about it and have done some reading. Do

> you

> > > have some sort of personal experience that leads you to make the

> > > conclusions you are making?

> > >

> >

> > It is not personal experience but reading Alice . She went

> into a bit

> > of detail on female circumcision, the dynamics of it. More

> important,

> > however, is the idea of looking at " things " from the perspective of

> the

> > child.

>

> Female " circumcision " is extremely different. No amount of glossing

> or comparing is going to get you anywhere with this. Female

> circumcision involves removing all the nerve endings involved in the

> sexual union. Male circumcision does not. Can a woman still bear a

> child if she has been " circumcisized " ? Yes. Can she feel

> penetration. Maybe. Can she enjoy sex? No. And that is just the

> aim of that practice. To extrapolate the same for males is really

> misapplied.

>

> Maybe you think that most of the female nerves are inside her. WRONG.

> The clitoris is THE center of sensation. Female " circumcision " is

> nothing short of castration.

And where do you think much of the male sensory apparatus is? See:

" The penis and foreskin: Preputial anatomy and sexual function "

http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/

>

> > > > And anti-Americans, too. Do you think someone who has read

> a

> > > bit on the subject that knows how painful the procedure is and how

> > > _much_ is cut away in sexual function for a lifetime to say, " This

> is

> > > an awful, terrible thing to do to an infant, unless the infant is

> > > Jewish, then it is okay to torture him? "

> > >

> > > Painful torture? Please give me a break!

> >

> > The medical literature (and infant pain literature in particular)

> amply

> > documents the severity of the pain.

>

> Show me.

>

" Pain of circumcision and pain control "

http://www.cirp.org/library/pain/

article with over 80 references, many on line

>

> I'll tell you: I have been dealing with the ramifications of my son

> feeling pain since the day he was born. Shots, bumps, falls, wanting

> things he can't have, more shots, banging his head, bumping into other

> kids, cutting teeth, diaper rash, cutting more teeth, wanting

> something soooooo bad. In comparative terms, the circumcision was

> NOTHING. When you have a kid, and you have to deal with his or her

> pain (on a daily basis), then you come back and tell me more about it.

> >

> > >

> > > My son was circumcised, although we are not Jewish. This was an

> > > issue

> > > that my husband and I disagreed on, however, a well respected

> > > parenting book (Brazelton) I was reading advocated that the father

> > > make this decision for his son. My husband felt strongly that our

> > > son

> > > should be circumcised. This was mainly because of the culture he

> > > grew

> > > up in. Where he was from, uncircumcised boys had a hard time of

> it

> > > in

> > > the shower rooms and bathrooms of the schoolyard. I feel this has

> > > changed significantly, but I was unable to convince him. I *very

> > > reluctantly* agreed.

> > >

> > > The procedure was performed in the hospital when our son was 4

> days

> > > old. My husband was with him. He was not anesthetized. We asked

> > > our

> > > OB about that and she said that in very rare cases (something like

> 1

> > > in 10,000) necrosis of the genitals can occur from the anesthesia

> and

> > > even though it was really rare, she didn't want to take the chance

> at

> > > all. We agreed.

> >

> > Actually, necrosis of the genitals also occurs without anesthetic.

>

> Show me.

" Complications of circumcision "

http://www.cirp.org/library/complications/

article with over 200 references (and many, the original article) from

international medical journals.

>

> >

> > > I was very nervous and apprensive. They took the baby into the

> other

> > > room. I took deep breaths. He was back with me within 5 minutes.

> > > He

> > > didn't cry. He nursed right away. His penis healed long before

> his

> > > cord fell off.

> >

> > I'm very curious just _what_ you think an infant would do? Or even

> _could_

> > do? Of course, there is research which shows that circumcision can

> interfere

> > with nursing.

>

> He would CRY!!!!! He would show distress or he would sleep an extra

> long time. He would FUSS. He would fail to nurse properly. None of

> these things transpired.

>

Then consider yourself, and your son, _very_ lucky.

>

> This makes me so mad. I'm having a hard time being civil here. Do

> you honestly believe that circumcisions would continue to occur if

> males believed that they functioned sexually at a lower level?

I believe that circumcised males are, in general, unaware of the loss of

sexual function and perception. How would they know any different? I did

hear an adult man who underwent circumcision describe the loss of sensation

as becoming colorblind. How does one who grows up colorblind know he is

colorblind unless he is specifically tested for it? How many children go how

many years and don't know they are colorblind until testing catches it? How

can he _know_ what he is missing, other than that he can't make out the

number " 7 " in a pattern of circles?

And again, I'll refer to women who have undergone female genital mutilation

-- they fervently insist that it didn't take anything away from them and will

insist on the intensity of their sexual feelings.

> This

> really floors me. If there is a problem with male sexuality, it gets

> TOP billing. Witness VIAGRA. What about female sexual problems? Oh,

> well, as long as it doesn't interfere with reproduction...

I tend to side with you on the above. Medicine, overall, seems to be much

more focused on male problems than on female problems with a few notable and

historically recent exceptions like breast cancer (but what about prostate

cancer which is more prevelant than breast cancer?). But it is the same

" male dominated " medical field that pushes infant circumcision. In cultures

where female genital mutilation exists it is the _women_ who push it, who are

the first to take to the streets should the outlawing of it be suggested.

As an aside, do you not think women benefit from Viagra too?

>

> >

> > >

> > > What made him cry was the blood tests and shots that he had to

> have.

> > > For one, (the PKU?), they have to fill up small small tubes of

> blood.

> > > They get it from the heel and they have to pinch and squeeze

> until

> > > there is enough to run their tests. Here was pain and crying!

> > >

> >

> > But you weren't there when he was circumcised, so how can you

> compare? When

> > researchers use blood levels of hormones associated with the pain

> response,

> > they find something quite different.

>

> Yes, I was there. And am here. And am dealing with him each and

> every day. You seriously are going to say that because I was in my

> hospital bed and he was in another room that I wasn't there? Am I not

> to take my husband's word on his reactions? Am I to disbelieve myself

> on what I saw afterwards? 5 MINUTES LATER????!!!!

>

As I noted before, you and your son might well have been extremely lucky.

But I'll also add that one leading doctor in the anti-circ movement had

performed circumcisions for many years when, during one, he describes himself

as actually seeing the distress, the pain, hearing the desperate cries for

help.

A while back, I saw a video of people being shown a video of a circumcision.

The women, overall, were horrified by it all. The mens' attitude (presumably

themselves circumcised) was characterized by, " It hurts, the baby cries. So

what? "

>

> How many times have you seen studies that were patently falsified when

> it came to alcohol? The results were skewed to show what the

> researchers wanted to show? Can you admit the possibility that some

> of the studies you are reading might be biased as well?

>

That might well be, but since the studies, at least the ones I was most

familiar with would be biased in the other direction. For example, one study

financed by an anesthetic manufacturer had three groups of infants

circumcised. One group was circumcised in the normal fashion, no anesthetic

whatsoever. The second group was first given the manufacturer's anesthetic.

The third group was uncircumcised.

Results showed that with the anesthetic, there was a lesser response to pain

at six months than the circumcised (certainly good for the manufacturer but

not as good as no long term effect) but more than the uncircumcised.

Where is the bias if not in the direction of the benefit of the anesthetic?

Still shows long-term heightened response to pain. Vaccinations hurt the

circumcised more.

>

> Torture is repeatedly harming someone for pleasure. I think you

> need

> > > to retract that.

> > >

> >

> > Torture is inflicting extreme pain.

>

> No. Torture is for the pleasure of the torturer and is used to

> coerce, punish or afford sadistic pleasure. I think you need to

> retract that.

From Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary

Main Entry: 1tor·ture

Pronunciation: 'tor-ch & r

Function: noun

Etymology: French, from Late Latin tortura, from Latin

tortus, past

participle of torquEre to twist; probably akin to Old

High German

drAhsil turner, Greek atraktos spindle

Date: 1540

1 a : anguish of body or mind : AGONY b : something that

causes

agony or pain

2 : the infliction of intense pain (as from burning,

crushing, or

wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure

3 : distortion or overrefinement of a meaning or an

argument :

>

> > >

> > > Most, no OK, ALL of the men I've " known " in the biblical sense

> were

> > > circumcised and not one of them ever had the slightest problem.

> None

> > > of them felt the least bit inadequate. Do you think they should?

> > > After all, they're missing half their dick according to you. I

> don't

> > > agree!

> > >

> >

> > I said they were missing approximately half of the most sensitive

> penile

> > covering. Did you know that Somalian women who have had their

> clitoris and

> > labia cut off and the opening sewed closed to only allow room to

> urinate and

> > menstruate _also_ claim it doesn't effect them adversely?

>

> In their culture maybe it was a helpmeet. Would you expect them to

> say differently? However, I don't think American Males would have any

> trouble expressing dissatisfaction if that's what they felt. Yet, so

> far the " outcry " seems pretty quiet. Hell, in porno an uncircumcized

> man is a bit of an oddity.

And it is also an oddity in _American_ medical texts.

>

> > > Likewise, the comparisons to cutting off a girl's nipples or a

> > > clitorectomy are patently absurd.

> > > >

> > > > If this is so, then no one should need anesthetic for, say, an

> > > appendectomy. They could merely have people who care about them

> > > lovingly restrain them and when the patient goes into shock from

> the

> > > pain, the surrounding family members can go, " See, it's not so

> > > painful. He's resting comfortably. "

> > >

> > > Absurd.

> >

> > Yes, it isn't like infants are living, feeling creatures.

>

> Oh, and so by this you are implying that I don't think my kids are

> living, breathing humans? Think again. You don't know me or what

> hell I went through to get these kids or the sacrifices I make on a

> daily basis to keep them healthy and happy.

>

> Again, you come back and talk to me from the perspective of a parent

> and I'll be able to take you more seriously on this issue.

>

If you want to know what is going on with a child, you must be able to see

things from the child's perspective. I'll try to find the excerpt from " The

Continuum Connection. " It _doesn't_ mention circumcision. <G>

>

> > > The procedure is so minor that medical school is completely

> > > unnecessary to safely perform it -- and it is well-established

> that

> > > Mohelim do circumcisions faster, better, and with a far less

> > > incidence

> > > of infection and other complications than doctors.

> > > >

> > > > No, the procedure is perhaps _seen_ as so minor. However, the

> one

> > > person that keeps getting left out of this, all medical

> complications

> > > aside, is the child's. Can you tell me, from the child's

> > > perspective,

> > > how having his genitals torn and cut away is minor?

> > >

> > > No one is cutting off the boy's penis here! Or removing his

> > > testicles. I really think this is way over the line. From the

> > > child's perspective a bee sting is a lot bigger deal.

> >

> > And how do you know that? The evidence is directly contradictory.

>

> Again, what " evidence " do you have to show. I have the evidence of my

> senses. What do you have? What someone told you?

>

My senses tell me most of the time that the earth is flat? Who am I to

believe -- my own senses or " What someone told me " ?

>

> If you were talking about castration, then I could go along with you.

> That is really what female " circumcision " is all about. It is

> nothing short of CASTRATION. So you can rant on about this. You are

> wrong.

>

Check out the medical literature and tell me that again.

>

> > >

> > > Ken, from reading your words I don't think any of mine will

> convince

> > > you in the slightest bit. But I do have first hand experience

> caring

> > > for an infant when the procedure was done. Do you?

> > >

> >

> > Is this like, " Well, you weren't a real alcoholic, so how can you

> know? " Am

> > I to believe the " experience " of African mothers re female genital

> > mutilation?

>

> No, it's not. This is like, do you know what it takes to be a parent?

> And yet, you are going to judge me, without being one? Shame on you.

>

I'm sorry, but this is not about you. It is about one-and-a-half infants who

are tied down and have part of their gentials cut off, mostly without the

benefit of any anesthetic. Whether or not you made a wrong decision based on

inaccurate information and cultural (and familial) pressure is quite a

different matter.

>

> > >

> > > I do not feel that my son is " mutilated " or was " tortured. " He

> isn't

> > > going to think so either. Neither are 99.99 percent of the

> > > circumcised men walking the planet, though I understand there are

> a

> > > few who try mightily to grow it back. Or trace their problems

> back

> > > to

> > > this horrible thing that was done to them.

> >

> > And neither are 99.99 percent of the women forced to undergo the

> procedure as

> > young girls. So what?

>

> Ick. You've worn me down. Your continued insistence that female

> " circumcision " and male circumcision have anything in common is a

> barrier that you can't or won't see. And, I've already answered this.

> American Males do not let problems of the magnitude you describe to

> continue. Not when it comes to their sex life.

Perhaps not when they _perceive_ it as adversely effecting their sex life.

However, for them to see that, they would have to see a lot that they'd

rather not.

OK. So tell me, how is the cutting away of parts of the female genitalia for

God and/or cleanliness/morality/health without the benefit of anesthetic so

different from cutting away parts of the male genitalia for God and/or

cleanliness/morality/health without the benefit of anesthetic?

>

> > > Aha! The tie in! " I

> > > would never have had a problem with alcohol if only my mother

> hadn't

> > > cut my genitals up!!! "

> > >

> >

> > I've never heard that from anyone, ever but if it makes _you_ feel

> better

> > thinking so, be my guest.

> >

> > Ken Ragge

>

> Hey, I'm just trying to figure it out, man. I really like this list.

> I know that you started it and/or are the moderator.

Rest assured. This subject will probably be shortly dropped by everyone and

won't be mentioned again for a couple of years.

> But, I'm

> feeling attacked here. And maybe, so are other people who have made

> the same decision as parents or are circumcized.

>

> Yes, my son is circumcized. So what? Yet you are coming on really

> strong that I've tortured my kid. I'm telling you that is wrong. It

> really presses my buttons, because I know what I went through and

> continue to go through with my kid. You've got theories and ideas

> about it. I really didn't come here to hear them. I came here to get

> away from 12 step ideology, but I don't feel right letting you say

> this stuff unchallenged.

>

That is fine. Challenge away. I firmly believe that if mothers-to-be could

actually witness a medical circumcision and _knew_ what the foreskin was,

that they simply would not allow it to be done. What I am arguing is not

" You tortured your kid " but that because of disinformation, cultural

insensitivity and complicity, and the deep denial that the male-dominated

field of medicine and the writing of a very small number of pro-circ American

doctors, that millions of baby boys are harmed.

It is not about you.

Ken Ragge

>

> Hicks

March 11, 2001