Follow Up Facts and Statements

Not surprisingly I received a few comments (which have been rejected of course) from anti-circumcision propagandists regarding the facts. As if facts are refutable. PUHLEASE.

Let me start out saying that I hold in high regard the credentials of:
I CAN READ!

What I provided was a list of data...research results and attributions. It doesn't take a doctor to confirm for me or you what is clear. And I can tell you with 100% certainty that many doctors do not practice evidenced based medicine and instead follow hospitial policy which puts you at risk every day.

It isn't necessary for a Harvard bullshit artist to come and spout his manipulative opinions either or any other such nonsense. And furthermore there are serious HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS happening right now in the world toward women, mostly in MUSLIM countries right at this moment. Girls being "honor killed" and women being flogged or hung because they spoke to a man outside of their family or because they were raped by thugs. So please spare me the human rights cockamame argument about less than an inch of skin that is done to increase the health and well-being of little boys as well as grown men.

Now to go a little further let's take these weak arguments and show the truth as told by Just Mommies forums:
1) The AAP doesn't recommend circumcision: This is actually a convenient interpretation (or rather misinterpretation) of the AAP's actual policy which states: "Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In the case of circumcision, in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision. It is legitimate for parents to take into account cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions, in addition to the medical factors, when making this decision."http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/c...trics;103/3/686So the AAP doesn't recommend routine infant circumcision, which means that all baby boys would be circumcised. However, that's a far cry from not recommending it all. What the AAP actually recommends is that parents make an informed decision based on the pros and cons of the procedure. Simple.

2) No organization in the world recommends circumcision: Technically true (although again, no organization recommended routine circumcision, all positions are basically the same). However, that changed just today. Both the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations (UNAIDS) have recommended circumcision as a preventative measure against AIDS. Here are some links:http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releas...0/en/index.htmlhttp://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=...line-news_rss20http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070328/ap_on_...ds_circumcisionThe American Urological Association (AUA) also came out of a more positive position on circumcision stating that "circumcision should be presented as an option for health benefits".http://www.auanet.org/about/policy/services.cfm#circumcision

3) Circumcision is a human rights violation:Not true. I agree there are some people that think that circumcision should be a human rights violation and they have every right to feel that way. Still, that doesn't make it a reality. We have accepted organizations that deal with these issues and decide- based on many factors- which activities are acceptable and which violate basic human rights. These organizations have agreed that circumcision IS NOT a human rights violations because of it's a very safe procedure and it carries some medical benefits. This myth usually goes hand in hand with a comparison of male circumcision and Female Genital Mutilation (FGM). However, the two practices are completely different in every single aspect: physical, psychological, emotional, social and religious. They're not comparable in the slightest, but since they're both done is the same general area, and because FGM is a degrading practice and an accepted human rights violation, anti-circumcision activists usually use it to try to put circumcision in a more negative light. Sadly, it does the opposite. By comparing something as traumatic, damaging, dangerous and degrading as FGM with a simple, safe and beneficial procedure demeans the impact of FGM. It's a poor way of treating the women that have been victims of FGM and a way to demean their pain.Finally, Amnesty International has directly declined to accept male circumcision as a human rights violation 3 times.Here are some links:An article from the New England Journal of Medicine http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/3...pe2=tf_ipsecsha (WARNING! Link contains explicit pictures!) Here are the responses to this article, including a commentary by the author: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/332/3/188 "I use the term ``female circumcision'' to acknowledge its cultural importance, the positive perception of this procedure on the part of those who practice it. These characteristics constitute the main similarity of female circumcision to male circumcision. The difference is that, unlike male circumcision, the most commonly described types of female circumcision are anatomically and functionally mutilating.""From the perspective of public health, female circumcision is much more damaging than male circumcision. The mildest form, clitoridectomy, is anatomically equivalent to amputation of the penis." "[i]In my extensive clinical experience as a physician in Sudan, and after a careful review of the literature of the past 15 years, I have not found a single case of female circumcision in which only the skin surrounding the clitoris is removed, without damage to the clitoris itself." http://www.euro.who.int/document/e60522.pdf "According to Dr. T Turman of WHO headquarters, there is a technical difference between male and female genital mutilation. The removal of the clitoral prepuce (female circumcision) is equivalent to male circumcision and constitutes less than 1% of all female genital mutilations. In young girls this procedure is extremely difficult to perform. In over 95% of cases, the clitoris, the labia minora and (in some cases) the labia majora are excised and the vulva sewn up. The biological equivalent in the male would be partial to almost two-thirds removal of the male sexual organ, including in some cases removal of tissue from the scrotum followed by stitching the remaining tissue." The WHO in their recent statement (2008) changed the classification of FGM type I and subdivided it in types a and b. Type Ia being the removal of the clitoral hood alone (the only one comparable to male circumcision) and this is what they had to say about it:"The reason for this change is the common tendency to describe Type I as removal of the prepuce, whereas this has not been documented as a traditional form of female genital mutilation. However, in some countries, medicalized female genital mutilation can include removal of the prepuce only (Type Ia) (Thabet & Thabet, 2003), but this form appears to be relatively rare (Satt et al, 2006). Almost all known forms of female genital mutilation that remove tissue from the clitoris also cut all or part of the clitoral glans itself."They also explain the terminology of "female genital mutilation" as opposed to "female circumcision" saying that: "This term, [female circumcision] however, draws a parallel with male circumcision and, as a result, creates confusion between these two distinct practices" "In contrast to female genital mutilation, male circumcision has significant health benefits that outweigh the very low risk of complications when performed by adequately-equipped and well-trained providers in hygienic settings"http://www.who.int/reproductive-health/pub...tement_2008.pdf

4)Babies don't cry during circumcision because they "pass out" from the pain. This is probably just an attempt at creating an emotional response. The idea of a baby that's in so much pain he passes out is repulsive to anyone. But in regards to circumcision, it's a completely false image. It's another common anti-circ tactic when normal conditions fail to create outrage: Exaggerate. And the more exaggerated, the better. The best way to end this disgusting lie is to encourage parents to be with their sons during the procedure. This way they can see for themselves that the baby isn't "passed out". Any mother that has fed her child after his circumcision will tell you that her baby wasn't passed out. Furthermore, here are some studies on newborn pain that show that even simple measures like close contact, rocking, sucking and oral sucrose can significnatly reduce the pain in newborns. Add those to proper pain relief and you really have no "passed out" babies.http://pediatriconcall.org/fordoctor/pharmaupdates/sucrose_ana.asphttp://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FDMC%2FDMC43_01%2FS0012162201000056a.pdf&code=385dd103aefe335e0e528452fc6608c7Finally, pain-induced shock isn't as simple as they like us to believe. It's a serious life-threatening condition. A newborn baby wouldn't simply pass out from shock and be awake and alert 10 minutes later without any measures. And considering that's how most mothers receive their sons after their circumcisions, it's very unlikely that the baby went into any kind of shock during the procedure.

For more myth busting facts please visit Just Mommies Forum.