-
Common lies about Circumcision- part 3
- Dec 8, 2008 at 4:47 PM
- By
- Comments (12) Total Views (312) Everyone can see this journal post.
18) Circumcision violates the Nuremberg Code of Ethics
Actually, this borders on laughable.
Let's see what the "Nuremberg Code" is, shall we?
http://ohsr.od.nih.gov/guidelines/nuremberg.html
The Nuremberg Code is a set of research principles, the accepted ethical code for human experimentation. It was created after WWII as a response to the experiments performed by Dr. Mengele.
This should give you an idea of why this argument is stupid to say the least. Male infant circumcision isn't "human research"! The Nuremberg Code doesn't apply to therapeutic/prophylactic procedures. That would be like saying vaccinations violate this code, simply because no consent is obtained from the patient (more on proxy consent later on). It's a pathetic lie. Parents have the legal and ethical responsibility to make choices on behalf of their children when they feel these choices will result in an overall improved quality of life.
19) Considering male circumcision acceptable and FGM (Female Genital Mutilation) wrong is a "double standard".
First of all, what IS "double standard"? Here are some definitions.
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
|
double standard WordNet - Cite This Source - Share This
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This double standard
–noun
| ||||||||
Now, if we STRICTLY adhere to what a "double standard" is by these definitions, then we can consider underage prohibition to drink, smoke or vote, the Olympics, non-smoking rules, etc, "double standards" and therefore unacceptable.
This means, obviously, that there are certain acceptable double standards. Furthermore, it means that in order to consider something an actual double standard, there are other considerations besides the treatment received by the two groups. So basically, to speak of an actual double standard, all things being equal, one group is being treated differently.
Men and women ARE different. I don't see anyone claiming that we should remove the gender categories from the Olympics because it's a "double standard". Why not let men and women compete against each other if we're SO "equal"? The answer is because we're not absolutely equal. It's a physical fact that men are generally stronger and faster than women. It would actually be unfair to have women compete against men as the former have a physical advantage.
And if we're saying that men and women are physically different, nowhere is this difference more pronounced than in the genitals. Male and female genitals are different. Therefore, the consequences of removing the foreskin cannot be compared with those of removing/altering female genitalia. And because of this, differentiating between the two IS NOT a double standard.
20) Adhesions happen in 70% of circumcised boys
This is a very common word twisting argument. The number was taken from this study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&uid=10893633&cmd=showdetailview&indexed=google
Intactivists throw the 70% number without bothering to look at the details of the study. First, the classification of adhesions: "A standard form was used to classify adhesions as grade 0-no adhesions, 1-fine adhesions to the corona, 2-adhesions covering less than 50% of the glans and 3-adhesions covering greater than 50% of the glans."
Sure enough, the researchers say that in the group of children younger than 12 months, the rate of adhesions was 70%. But this includes grade 1 adhesions, which are so mild, most parents wouldn't even realize it's there and it releases on its own. In this group, the rate of adhesions higher than grade 1 was 30%. Finally, this study concludes that adhesions usually resolve on their own and don't require treatment. Hardly a "complication" of circumcision.
Finally, adhesions happen in uncircumcised boys as well, and even with the same frequency.
"Problems with adhesions were uncommon (1.5%) and equal in both groups."
21) Adult circumcision is easier and safer than neonatal circumcision
Nothing could be farther from reality.
The rate of complications for adults is higher than in children. These include complications from the general anesthesia and the sutures, both not done when circumcision is performed in the newborn period.
AAP reports the rate of complications for infant circumcision as being between 0.1 and 0.6%, these include the two most common ones, bleeding and infection, which are easily corrected.
A study reported the rate of complications from adult circumcision as being 3.8%
http://www.i-base.info/htb/v6/htb6-9/Adult.html
Another one was more specific: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1464-410x.2005.05810.x
"Overall, 17 (3.5%) of the 479 circumcisions were associated with adverse events judged definitely, probably or possibly related to the procedure. The most common adverse events were wound infections (1.3%), bleeding (0.8%), and delayed wound healing or suture line disruption (0.8%)."
As for it being, easier, that's also not true. Circumcision in older children and adults is more complicated process. For example, a traditional bris with an experienced mohel will last about 30 seconds. It's just a cut, there's not much else to do. the procedure in adults takes longer and requires more steps, including sutures.
http://www.upmc.com/HealthManagement/ManagingYourHealth/PersonalHealth/Men/?chunkiid=14134
"In newborns, circumcision takes only a few minutes, but the procedure in older children and adults is a more intricate operation."
http://www.circumcisioncenter.com/faq.htm
"The reason adult circumcisions require suturing is that adults get powerful erections during the REM portion of the sleep cycle, which would disrupt a wound held together only by a crushing of the skin edges. The fact that the wound edges must be sutured in adult circumcision creates one of the largest challenges in the operation, specifically, placing sutures without causing scarring."
22) "Every year boys lose their penises altogether from botched "circumcisions" and infections accidents happen. They are then "sexually reassigned" by transgender surgery and must live their lives as females." (http://www.cirp.org/pages/parents/lostlist/)
There's only ONE documented case- David Reimer. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer)
This shows the intactivist tendency to exaggerate the information to further their cause. This statement went from ONE case reported in history(thousands of years of history, billions of circumcised men) to "every year boys loose their penises...." Lack of perspective is common in intactivism.
23) Circumcision is a "cosmetic" procedure
No. Circumcision is a MEDICAL procedure, with proven HEALTH benefits acknowledged and admitted by every single medical organization in the world. Therefore, it's not just "cosmetic", it's prophylactic.
Why the intactivists' insistence that it's just "cosmetic"? Very simple, really. By saying that parents are doing something "cosmetic" to their children it makes the choice seem shallow, selfish and useless. By even admitting that there's one advantage to being circumcised, they would be giving some validity to circumcision and there's no way a self-respecting intactivist will ever agree to any validity. Therefore, they spread the lie that it's just "cosmetic".
24) Doctors encourage circumcision to sell the foreskins
BS.
The origin of this myth is based on an Oprah show where she showed a face cream "made out of foreskins". This is a gross exaggeration and misinterpretations of the truth. Foreskins can be used to create fibroblasts- a type of cell that works as a culture to grow other types of cells. They're usually used to create skin tissue for burn victims. The face cream Oprah has talked about contains the hormonal residue resulting from the growth of these skin cells from the foreskin fibroblast.
So it's a far cry from the little pieces of chopped foreskins anti-circs will want you to believe.
Anti-circ activists Dr. Paul Tinari claimed that one foreskin is worth $100,000. Lies, lies, lies. An obvious display of ignorance in simple business administration. One foreskin can be used for years, even decades to produce miles of skin and generate as much as $100,000. However, that doesn't mean that's what it's worth. A machine may produce millions of dollars of a single product, however, that doesn't mean that the machine itself is worth millions. What it generates, is worth millions, the actual value of that machine is much less.
Finally, as stated above, one foreskin can produce miles of skin for decades, therefore not many are needed. Doctors are certainly not making the big bucks with the couple of bucks they could get from a foreskin. Furthermore, foreskins are usually donated by the parent, meaning that the doctors dont' see a penny from those. Conclusion? Doctors who recommend circumcision either as a therapeutic or prophylactic procedure certainly don't do it get their greedy hands on a buck and a half. It's more likely that many of them have enough experience to realize that there are indeed medical benefits to circumcision.
25) Circumcision goes against AP ("Attachment Parenting")
As every other statement analyzed here, this is a LIE.
According to Attachment Parenting International (API), in their guide for AP leaders, "When issues such as diapering options, homebirth, home schooling, circumcision, vaccinations, specific diets, etc. come up during a discussion, the Leader should state that API takes no stance on these issues, but encourages parents to educate themselves to make informed decisions about them."
http://www.attachmentparenting.org/groups/leaderguidelines.php
The idea that circumcision is incompatible with Attachment Parenting is just a scare tactic. AP is "in" right now, more parents want to feel more involved in their children's lives and love some or all of the ideas associated with AP (baby-wearing, co-sleeping, etc). Attachment parenting is a style (or rather a "tool" as Dr. Sears refers to it) that focuses on spending quality time with out children. It has nothing to do with the medical choices we make. Other association strongly associated with AP, like La Leche League (LLL) also don't have a position regarding circumcision. They simply acknowledge it as a parental choice. Even one of the most stronger supporters of AP, Dr. Sears, says about the decision to circumcise: "Either way, your little boy will be just fine." (http://www.parenting.com/article/Pregnancy/Care/Ask-Dr.-Sears-The-Circumcision-Decision)
Bottom line? Circumcised boys can be raised in a strict AP home. One has nothing to do with the other.
26) Moms who choose to circumcise are close minded and sheep-like
This is a downright sad argument. When all facts point to one side, what's left for the other side to do? Appeal to the natural fear of being considered weak minded.
However, this argument is simply based on the fact that in the US, as of today, circumcision is common. Therefore, people who choose not to do it are "going against the mainstream". This is itself is really not good or bad. However, because of the lack of evidence supporting intactivism, these advocates try to imply that going with the flow is bad. That the way to be a good parent, open minded and making the best choices is to go against what "everyone else is doing". If you happen to make a choice that's popular and common, then they claim you're being a sheep, incapable of thinking for yourself and just "following the crowd". How that translates into a choice being wrong in itself only works on an intactivist mind, but the fact is that the validity of a choice isn't dependant on what everyone else is doing but in what each parents feels is best for his/her children.
Now, you can be the most close minded against the mainstream mom around. Being open minded has nothing to do with what position you actually take in the different issues or what choices you make, but rather with how much tolerance and respect you're willing to give to those who believe differently. And intactivists, who think of themselves as oh-so-open minded because they're "thinking outside the box" are usually the most close minded of all. Because usually they're the ones that cannot tolerate anyone making a different choice. Being against vaccines doesn't make you open minded if you're saying that those who vaccinate are poisoning their children. Choosing a "unique" religious belief for yourself doesn't make you open minded if you're constantly bashing Christians. And being against circumcision doesn't make you open minded if you're telling moms who choose to do it that they mutilated their children.
As for being "sheep-like", again, nothing to with the "the norm". Several intactivists are VERY sheep-like... they only follow a different herd. Many of them will blindly follow their "leaders" and fellow intactivists in a blind-like fashion that would be the envy of the most charismatic of cult leaders.
27) The foreskin is a "self-cleaning organ"
Too many wrong things with that statement. First of all, the foreskin is NOT an organ. According to MedicineNet, an organ is "a relatively independent part of the body that carries out one or more special functions". None of this applies to the foreskin. The foreskin isn't an independent part of the body, it's simply and basically the skin that covers the penis. So in this sense, it's part of an organ, the skin. It's also part of another organ, the penis, but it's NOT an organ in itself. Carrying one or more special functions? Well, that's a matter of debate .Sufficient to say that no source outside anti-circumcision "researchers" has been able to prove any specialized function of the foreskin. It seems its function is limited to the prenatal period, when it's responsible for the proper development of the penis.
Second, it isn't self-cleaning whatsoever. This myth was created by anti-circumcision activists to counter the argument that circumcision has the benefit of better hygiene. In mammals, a substance called smegma is formed in the genital area. In uncircumcised males, smegma accumulates between the glans and the foreskin and it has a certain odor and it can be irritating, some studies have even show that it may be carcinogenic. In circumcised males, where there's no foreskin to trap this smegma there's much less accumulation, hence the easier hygiene.
But because this is a strong argument on behalf of circumcision and certainly one important reason for many parents to consider circumcision, a counter argument was desperately and urgently needed from the anti-circumcision crowd. They came up with this "jewel": that the foreskin is "self-cleaning". NOT TRUE. Their reasoning? That since female genitalia is self-cleaning, then the male should be as well. However, in their haste to find something to say when this argument comes up, they failed to distinguish that female genitalia are internal. That's why it's self-cleaning, the cervix and vagina do secrete a substance that has the function of cleaning these areas as it leaves the body. The penis, however, is external, therefore not self-cleaning. Just as our vulva and clitoris aren't self cleaning (and actually the parts where smegma can be accumulated in women).
28) Circumcised men cannot deal with this "rationally"
This myth was started because of the many moms that leave the choice of circumcision to the fathers of their babies. An important number of baby boys have been circumcised because daddy wanted it that way. So it was impertaive for intactivists to undermine the power of the male's choice. How t odo this? By claiming that circumcised men cannot possible be rational about this choice because they themsleves are circumcised (read the laughable article The Vulnerability of Men available online). That's like claiming that women who are raped cannot possibly be rational if they fight against violence or women who have had abortions shouldn't use their experience to help other women in that position. I think we can all agree that some of the best fighters against violence against women are those who have been victims of violence themselves. And some of the most understanding and helpful pro-lifers are women who have been through the traumatic experience of abortion. Not many people are out there claiming that these wome nare too "irrational" to be of any service. But yet somehow circumcised men cannot possibly have a rational opinion when it comes to the circumcision of their own children? Why exactly is that?
Ironically speaking, intactivism has become a very misandrist (hatred of men) movement. Suddenly circumcised fathers-because they're a danger to that foreskin-become the "enemy" and someone to fight against. The opinion of men regarding parental issues suddenly becomes invalid and not worthy of consideration and these men are called "irrational".
Sharon
P.S. Please help me maintain the accurate information by reporting broken links. Thanks! Also, if you ran across some far fetched argument you think should be part of this list, let me know!
Comments:
Great posts!!! Really enjoyed reading them and it looks like you covered all the crap we circ. moms run into!!
23) Circumcision is a "cosmetic" procedure
This is completely true . . . which is why many insurances and medicare no longer covers this. Many hospitals will not even ask a parent about circumcision any more after a baby boy is born.
If circumcision is a medical procedure with proven medical benefits, why to so many insurance companies NOT cover them and DEFINE THEM as COSMETIC???! In a lot of states, it's considered cosmetic. That's based on a lot of studies. And a lot of studies you're siting are out-dated. Then again, on the internet, you can find any study to argue any position on any point.
This is all bull shit based on opinions, I see no facts here what so ever. Isn't dispelling myths supposed to be based on facts?
Sorry, dear... but I posted studies and facts to support my claims. Just because YOU don't like them it doesn't make them any less factual. You're welcome to provide us with all th efacts YOU have to prove that I'm not telling the truth, but seeing as how you always ignore those requests, I dont' think I'll bother again.
As to why insurance companies call it "cosmetic"...? Well, duh!! To get out of paying! If an insurance company can say crap to avoid paying, they will do so. Every single medical organization in the world talks about "medical" benefits and not a single one calls circumcision "cosmetic". But if you want to believe everything your insurance company tells you regarding medical procedures... welll, good luck to you.
Finally, I had to delete one message already. I can understand people disagreeing with this and as you can see, I have no problem with that. However, there's no need to insult me because you disagree with me. That I don't have to tolerate. I'm not going into anyone else's journal to tell them how "dumb" they are because I don't agree with me, I simply deserve the same consideration. If anyone disagrees with what I said, feel free to comment, and post your information to prove me wrong. Cheap insults is really so junior high and it really says more about you than about me. How sad is it that some people cannot disagree with someone else without insults, though?
Sharon
"If circumcision is a medical procedure with proven medical benefits, why to so many insurance companies NOT cover them and DEFINE THEM as COSMETIC???! In a lot of states, it's considered cosmetic. That's based on a lot of studies. And a lot of studies you're siting are out-dated. Then again, on the internet, you can find any study to argue any position on any point."
If it's "purely cosmetic" then why is it that study after study finds BENEFIT in male circumcision? I suppose, though, that things like the "New England Journal of Medicine" or the World Health Organization or the Kaiser Family Foundation just aren't good enough. And Sharon's studies aren't outdated; check the sources again.
Furthermore, the reason that Medicaid doesn't cover male circumcision is because the American Academy of Pediatrics does not recommend routine infant circumcision...yet the AAP DOES note that male circumcision DOES in fact carry medical benefits.
And once again, soon2bemommy, if it's all bullsh*t and we're dispelling myths here--why don't you post a little info to back yourself up? I mean, if Sharon's post is just a bunch of crap, I'm sure you've got PLENTY of things to post for us.
I'm sure you'll be back to link us to your journal page, though, so that we can all read in detail what exactly it is about these posts that's just "bullsh*t."
Well, obviously there's no facts to support the idea that this is BS. Most anti-circs have nothing more than their strong opinion and misguided ideas to support their position. And that's why when they become challenged with actual facts, they suddenly become vewy, vewy quiet (they're hunting rabbits....). They even claim they're "boycotting" the debate by not participating, when in reality it's because they really have nothing logical and realistic to say.
Sharon
Already a member? Click here to log in
- dhhaj
Message Friend Invite