Question:
Perhaps we should call it "partial castration". Which it is, too.
LOL More skin freak idiocy.
Response:
"Intact" is not a euphemism, "Intact" is a euphemism in terms of meaning "uncircumcised." The proof of what I say is that dictionaries include "circumcised" and "uncircumcised," but not "intact" as meaning uncircumcised. When you and your anticircumcision friends have gotten the people who compile the dictionaries to see it as you do, then you will have made your point. In the meantime, it is just so much anticirc bullshit.
And don’t we all know about the amount of anticirc bullshit. Funny how much time they spend on this aspect though. Very 4skincentric. Very genitally specific. Very skin freak. (It would be nice if Hugh Young could learn to deal in realities rather than in his self-indulgent imaginations of what he erroneously thinks others think. As it is, one has to constantly defend himself against Hugh’s straw man arguments based.) Aaaw, poor victimised "one"! ("…based."?) Your alleged omniscience is failing you again, Hugh. Victim of your feeble "arguments" I am not. But I am losing interest in responding to your erroneous conclusions and straw man "arguments."
That’s what he is banking on. He and the other skin freaks will continue to relentlessly regurgitate the same old bullshit whether you or anyone else responds or not. It seems that they are attempting to convince themselves more than anyone else. What a pathetic spectacle.
Response:
Those terms are not prejudicial, they are all technically acurate. We could call being circed "altered"
We could, but "altered" is already a euphemism for "castrated" which might create confusion. Perhaps we should call it "partial castration". Which it is, too. — Hugh Young, Pukerua Bay, Nuclear-free Aotearoa / New Zealand Overnight editing! http://www.wn.planet.gen.nz/~hugh/
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – [snip] My personal opinion is that preventative medicine is often times good medicine. Just as at least some routine immunizations may be a good idea, circumcision may be a good idea. The keyword of course being "may." Until circ "is" a good idea, in that its benefits have been concretely defined and verified as far outweighing potential risks which would be minimized by caring and fully trained staff, I think it’s not only foolhardy but moronic and hypocritical for doctors to continue to practice it as if it’s already been all of the above. The key words here of course being "concretely defined and verified" and "far outweighing." I could just as well express this opinion: until circ "is" a bad idea in that its harms, risks, and disadvantages have been concretely identified and verified as far outweighing potential benefits, I think it is foolhardy, moronic, and hypocritical to talk about circ the way most anticircumcision activists do.
Ah, but harms, risks and disadvantages HAVE been concretely identified. Disfigurements, sensory deprivation, functionality difficulties, etc. etc. etc. It is now time to figure out what benefits circ DEFINITLY has to see whether they outweigh said risks. (BTW, I do believe that if circumcision is going to be done, anesthetics should be used and it should be done by well-qualifed and skillful physicians, only.) … which gets us back to the fact that we have different opinions.
Not about that BTW statement. In closing: our opinions differ on a number of points. And that’s the way that I see the whole circ issue. And while opinions are always interesting, I am not willing to argue them indefinitely.
Much of the argument IS opinion. However, it is when some try to pass off opinions as fact (circumcision is preferable to being intact) or fact as opinion (when the foreskin is removed you have less sensation than before) that I get a little steamed.
Response:
[crop] Or put differently, at what age would you allow a child of yours to decide to become circumcised should he want to do so? At whatever age he could prove to me that he A) knew exactly what he was planning to do entailed; B) was not rushing into something he might change his mind about later, when it was too late; C) wanted to do it for his own reasons, not because he was being preassured/tricked/misinformed into it. And how would he prove these things to you?
I’d just like to point out that those conditions only apply if the boy is under 18 and/or still living under my roof. Anyway, he’d prove them to me by both of us sitting down and discussing it to the point where I felt satisfied that this was truly what he wanted. How rude. The truth hurts. If so, then it wasn’t the truth inasmuch as it didn’t hurt. And it doesn’t change the fact that I have always considered it rude to tell a person that they missed the point (and I normally make it a point to refrain from doing so even when it seems obvious to me that someone has missed the point) inasmuch as it one can never be sure that such is the case.
Ok, then let me rephrase. "By what you have demonstrated in your posts, you seem to either have not understood what I was trying to say, or you are ignoring it." Better? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – If RIC was no longer "the norm" then we’d be in an uncircumcised culture. Hence, nobody whose body wasn’t invaded would feel the outcast. Should I say to you that you seem to be missing the point inasmuch as it is a fact that circumcision is the norm here in the U.S.? Like I said, you were missing the point. Like I said, "how rude." (And you are also wrong.) IF RIC wasn’t the norm, THEN the US wouldn’t be a circing community. And if we stick to the reality, the reality is that it is a circing society.
Which is an unfortunate (in my opinion) fact that I and others are trying to change, even if only one newborn at a time. Am I the only one that knows what "if" and "then" means around here? No, you are not. If we had two penises and only one of them got circed, we could compare circed and uncirced. So what? An "if" that "isn’t" is not of any point so far as the discussion that I am interested in is concerned.
In my opinion, it’s very relevant. A rather surprisingly common reason for RIC is so that the child would "fit in." Well, if that were the only reason that anyone had RIC done, then they could all "safely" not have it done because now EVERY kid (baring the obscenely rare medical case) would be intact. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It is of only very little concern to me what anyone else who lives in a circumcising culture does. However, it is of concern to me that you and some of your anticircumcision activist friends put out an incredible amount of bullshit. So do the procircumcision activists. Except that procircumcision activists don’t exist these days to anywhere near the extent that anticircumcision activists do That might tell you something. Slave traders don’t exist these days to anywhere near the extent abolitionists (or more accurately, those who don’t believe in forced slavery) do either. What it might tell me–and you–is that talking about procircumcision activists and the incredible amount of bullshit they allegedly put out is, these days, not particularly applicable and doesn’t serve as a very useful response when someone talks about the incredible amount of bullshit that is allegedly put out by the current crop of anticircumcision activists.
I myself just find it stunning that some of the pro-circers put out a variety and quality of bullshit at the very least on-par with that bullshit put out by some of the anti-circers. The reason that the anti-circers put out more BS is that it’s the same stuff, just coming from more mouths/keyboards. nor are they responsible for spreading the kinds of misinformation and hyperbole that so many anticircumcision activists currently spread. No, they only claim that circ cures everything and its mother, Show me some procircumcision activists who make the claim that circ cures everything and its mother and you might have a point.
Just wait for Reuven Singer to make a few more posts. As it is, however, my opinion is that you are dealing in the bullshit that is typical of so many anticircumcision activists, the very bullshit that I am talking about.
I only go by my own experiences. I know that not all pro-circers fling around mass quantities of fertilizer, there are some that honestly believe it’s the best thing. It’s the rest of the fucknuts that I really hate. that women all but invariably prefer it, that it’s "just better," that it’s "more natural," etc. etc. etc… you know, just go see Hugh’s site, www.circumstitions.com for a more complete list. A good portion of Hugh Young’s circumstitions represent thinking from yesteryear.
*snickers* You know, there’s another ploy used by both sides of the war, "that’s just the old way of thinking." Kinda reminds me of that scene from Saving Private Ryan where the little US squad started throwing grenades at the Germans, and they were throwing them back like a deadly game of Hot Potato. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – There are, for example, numerous anticircumcision web sites all spreading the anticircumcision litany put out by organizations such as NOHARMM and NOCIRC. And you’ll notice that I’m neither a memeber of NOHARMM nor NOCIRC. The problem with organizations is that 99% of the time they’re either founded and run by a bunch of militant wackos, or they’re founded and run by a bunch of charlatans who just want to make a few bucks off the latest cause. I don’t have enough experience with such organizations to make a generalization about "99% of the time," but I think that in the case of NOHARMM and NOCIRC, there has likely been no monetary motivation but that both those groups are largely populated with fanatics. (The leadership of and monetary contributions to both NOCIRC and NOHARMM are shared.)
Hence, they qualify for my first choice. Side-story. My mother has for almost 30 years been a part of some charity, it’s got a name something like the Rainbow Foundation. That’s not actually it, but it’s similar. Anyway, the whole time they were talking about giving all donations to cancer/AIDS research. Within the past year, the head of the thing was arrested for embezzling somewhere above 95% of the proceeds and using them for personal reasons. Sometimes I really hate humanity. In closing: our opinions differ on a number of points. And that’s the way that I see the whole circ issue. Much of the issue is mostly a matter of opinion. That’s probably one of the reasons that the circ wars go on and on without much resolution. And while opinions are always interesting, I am not willing to argue them indefinitely (although I have enjoyed our exchange more than the usual).
Didn’t think I’d actually say this, but I must say I’m far and away less pissed off than I normally am when replying to some on a "different" side than me.
Response:
He cannot fix it if he is a child and his parents won’t let him (or if he is loathe to even bring it up with his parents).
So parents should cut part off a baby in case he should grow up to be a child who wishes a part had been cut off him but won’t even MENTION it to them? Good grief! And D accuse ME of omniscience! What about all the guys who wish they are cut while they are kids in a cutting society, but later grow up to appreciate being intact and are glad they never mentioned it to their parents? Aren’t THEY glad their parents didn’t try to read their minds! — Hugh Young, Pukerua Bay, Nuclear-free Aotearoa / New Zealand Overnight editing! http://www.wn.planet.gen.nz/~hugh/
Response:
* The fact is that he may be either happy or unhappy with your decision to either not circumcise or with your decision to circumcise.
* DM(P) now has a full-blown case of the Paul Hagen Syndrome, of imagining circumcision and intactness are equal opposites. HY(G)
Not being omniscient, I can only guess, but I think DM(P) means "H(G)Y)". If he thinks I’m God, that’s no skin off my … nose. has a full-blown case of "the I am omniscient" syndrome, erroneously thinking that he knows what I imagine. Fact: I do not imagine circumcision and "intactness" (an anticircumcision activist euphemism for "uncircumcised")
"Intact" is not a euphemism, it is calling a spade a spade. Intactness is what it is. "Uncircumcised" defines the normal, healthy, natural condition of a whole penis it terms of what it is not. Are women with breasts "unmastectomised"? as equal opposites.
The statement between the * * implies the contrary. His unhappiness at being intact is a different kind of thing from his unhappiness at being cut. For one thing, it will depend on whether he is in a cutting or an intact society. One unhappiness is about non-conformity (caused by the circumcision of the others), the other is about deliberate loss. (It would be nice if Hugh Young could learn to deal in realities rather than in his self-indulgent imaginations of what he erroneously thinks others think. As it is, one has to constantly defend himself against Hugh’s straw man arguments based.)
Aaaw, poor victimised "one"! ("…based."?) How the "man-to-be" might view circumcision is something for parents to take into consideration. Unfortunately, there is no way that parents can predict with certainty what that view might eventually be. But they can predict with certainty that if he doesn’t like being intact he can be fully circumcised, but if he doesn’t like being circumcised he can NEVER fully regain what he lost. If he wishes that he had been circumcised at birth and he wasn’t, there is no way that he can ever attain that.
No, nor if he wishes that he had been drowned at birth. (Some do.) So should all babies be drowned at birth in case that is what they would have grown up to have wished? Generally speaking, those who are circumcised and raised in a circumcising culture seem to accept it But those who don’t have a legitimate grievance. just as those who are uncircumcised and raised in a noncircumcising culture seem to accept that. The PH syndrome again. The Hugh Young omniscience syndrome again.
D calls it omniscience, I call it reading for content. Why on earth should they object to not having part cut off them? Quite a few males object to not "having a part cut off them"
No, not "quite a few". Very, very few. And it IS having a part cut off them, so no quotes are needed. when they are the oddballs in a circumcised culture,
It is the culture’s fault, not theirs. when they believe that there is a health advantage to being circumcised,
Or they might believe (like the Dogon) that it cuts out the feminine aspect, or (like the Yoruba) that it is "the cut that saves", but it would hardly be reasonable to cut them at birth in case they grew up to believe that. when they believe that females (or males, if they are gay like you) prefer circumcised men, etc, etc.
Why does Don mention my gayness (when I believe – and find – no such thing) except to mobilise homophobia? (Something else PH does: have they ever been seen together?) If they believe (or find) that, they can always get circumcised if they want. There is no gain, from the point of view of *that* motivation, to being circumcised throughout childhood. –and I think you know that since you have gone over this same ground many times before.
I probably gave him the same answers then. It is up to the whackers to justify circumcision, not us to "unjustify" it. In a non-circumcising culture, the number of those who ever consider getting electively circumcised is miniscule (and they would have to be a bit peculiar). It is of no concern to me what you or anyone else who lives in a noncircumcising culture does or does not do.
Generally speaking,… those who are uncircumcised and raised in a noncircumcising culture seem to accept that.
More than "generally speaking". Virtually ALL do. But more and more cut men in cutting cultures DON’T accept it, now that the Internet gives them a voice and lets them hear each other. It is of only very little concern to me what anyone else who lives in a circumcising culture does. However, it is of concern to me that you and some of your anticircumcision activist friends put out an incredible amount of bullshit.
Given the first statement, why? If DM(P) is really not particularly concerned what anyone else who lives in a circumcising culture does, why is it such a pressing concern to him that they should (not) do it for the wrong reason? (Don seems only concerned about Intactivist "bullshit" and not at all concerned at the incredible amount of bullshit put out by the likes of Schoen, Wiswell, Morris and Weiss [not to mention his whacker friends here].) A circumcising culture can become a non-circumcising culture in a very short space of time. Once the rate falls below 50%, coformity pushes the population away from it, instead of towards it. It happened here in NZ in the course of about 20 years. Speed the day! — Hugh Young, Pukerua Bay, Nuclear-free Aotearoa / New Zealand Overnight editing! http://www.wn.planet.gen.nz/~hugh/
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – HY(G) has a full-blown case of "the I am omniscient" syndrome, erroneously thinking that he knows what I imagine. Fact: I do not imagine circumcision and "intactness" (an anticircumcision activist euphemism for "uncircumcised") as equal opposites. Actually, I believe the proper term would be noncircumcised. You and I agree that "circumcised" and "not-circumcised" (or "noncircumcised") would be better terminology. There are at least two problems with that terminology, however: 1.) the anticircumcision True Believer fanatics insist on using terminology that is prejudicial to circumcision (e.g., "circumcised" vs. "intact," or "mutilated" vs. "natural," etc.)
Those terms are not prejudicial, they are all technically acurate. We could call being circed "altered" and being intact "overhanging," but could you imagine the shitstorm we’d hear for being non-anti-circ then? 2.) "circumcised" and "uncircumcised" are in the dictionary whereas "circumcised" and "noncircumcised" are not [snip] You cannot change the past. However, an intact male who wishes otherwise CAN change his future. It is not as simple as that. A child cannot necessarily change his future regarding circumcision, at least not until he is an adult.
This is true, as well it should be. I never said that a child should be able to choose circ because, frankly, very few children have the mental capacity to know fully about circ, nor fully appreciate the physical aspects of it. That’s why I don’t think ANY unnecessary circ should be done until the boy is at least into his mid-to-late teens so that he doesn’t get a quick fix before knowing the full possibilities and thus never knowing them. There have been several procedures I heard about when I was a child or teenager that I was adamant about getting, but my parents (obviously) never acquiesed. As I look back now, I find it to have been for the best since they were immature and/or adolescent flights of fantasy; I believe many males that were not RIC’d and at one time thought that their parents SHOULD have done it, later on looked back and came to the same conclusion I just stated. See, it’s a little thing called "choice." We all make them, so long as others don’t take the oppurtunity away from us. As a responsible parent, wouldn’t you interfere with the exercise of choice in the case of a child below some specific age of level of maturity? Or put differently, at what age would you allow a child of yours to decide to become circumcised should he want to do so?
At whatever age he could prove to me that he A) knew exactly what he was planning to do entailed; B) was not rushing into something he might change his mind about later, when it was too late; C) wanted to do it for his own reasons, not because he was being preassured/tricked/misinformed into it. It is of no concern to me what you or anyone else who lives in a noncircumcising culture does or does not do. You seem to be missing the point. How rude.
The truth hurts. If RIC was no longer "the norm" then we’d be in an uncircumcised culture. Hence, nobody whose body wasn’t invaded would feel the outcast. Should I say to you that you seem to be missing the point inasmuch as it is a fact that circumcision is the norm here in the U.S.?
Like I said, you were missing the point. IF RIC wasn’t the norm, THEN the US wouldn’t be a circing community. Am I the only one that knows what "if" and "then" means around here? It is of only very little concern to me what anyone else who lives in a circumcising culture does. However, it is of concern to me that you and some of your anticircumcision activist friends put out an incredible amount of bullshit. So do the procircumcision activists. Except that procircumcision activists don’t exist these days to anywhere near the extent that anticircumcision activists do
That might tell you something. Slave traders don’t exist these days to anywhere near the extent abolitionists (or more accurately, those who don’t believe in forced slavery) do either. nor are they responsible for spreading the kinds of misinformation and hyperbole that so many anticircumcision activists currently spread.
No, they only claim that circ cures everything and its mother, that women all but invariably prefer it, that it’s "just better," that it’s "more natural," etc. etc. etc… you know, just go see Hugh’s site, www.circumstitions.com for a more complete list. There are, for example, numerous anticircumcision web sites all spreading the anticircumcision litany put out by organizations such as NOHARMM and NOCIRC.
And you’ll notice that I’m neither a memeber of NOHARMM nor NOCIRC. The problem with organizations is that 99% of the time they’re either founded and run by a bunch of militant wackos, or they’re founded and run by a bunch of charlatans who just want to make a few bucks off the latest cause. Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones. The anticircumcision crowd should heed the wisdom, if any, of that cliche.
Indeed, there are some members of "this side" that should. I, on the other hand, was aiming this comment at the pro-circers.
Response:
Well, in my personal opinion, if a surgery is unnecessary then if you’re not fully informed then you shouldn’t have it done to YOURSELF, let alone another person. You are entitled to your opinion. (At least you state it as a personal opinion rather than as a carved-in-stone fact the way so many anticircumcision activists do.) My personal opinion is that preventative medicine is often times good medicine. Just as at least some routine immunizations may be a good idea, circumcision may be a good idea.
The keyword of course being "may." Until circ "is" a good idea, in that its benefits have been concretely defined and verified as far outweighing potential risks which would be minimized by caring and fully trained staff, I think it’s not only foolhardy but moronic and hypocritical for doctors to continue to practice it as if it’s already been all of the above.
Response:
HY(G) has a full-blown case of "the I am omniscient" syndrome, erroneously thinking that he knows what I imagine. Fact: I do not imagine circumcision and "intactness" (an anticircumcision activist euphemism for "uncircumcised") as equal opposites.
Actually, I believe the proper term would be noncircumcised. But they can predict with certainty that if he doesn’t like being intact he can be fully circumcised, but if he doesn’t like being circumcised he can NEVER fully regain what he lost. If he wishes that he had been circumcised at birth and he wasn’t, there is no way that he can ever attain that.
You cannot change the past. However, an intact male who wishes otherwise CAN change his future. See, it’s a little thing called "choice." We all make them, so long as others don’t take the oppurtunity away from us. [crop] In a non-circumcising culture, the number of those who ever consider getting electively circumcised is miniscule (and they would have to be a bit peculiar). It is of no concern to me what you or anyone else who lives in a noncircumcising culture does or does not do.
You seem to be missing the point. If RIC was no longer "the norm" then we’d be in an uncircumcised culture. Hence, nobody whose body wasn’t invaded would feel the outcast. It is of only very little concern to me what anyone else who lives in a circumcising culture does. However, it is of concern to me that you and some of your anticircumcision activist friends put out an incredible amount of bullshit.
So do the procircumcision activists. Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
Response:
Well, for one reason, responsible parenting involves making a decision of some sort with regard to the circ issue. If an informed parent believes that circumcision is worth it for the minimal health and social-cultural benefits and that those benefits outweigh the risks and disadvantages, then it is appropriate to decide to circumcise. If an informed parent decides that the child’s rights issue, the issue of individual choice, outweighs possible health benefits, then it is appropriate to not circumcise.
How could a wise man to say nothing about a parent, who already holds prejudice concerning circumcision make such a decision. As Dr. Edel said, the doctor has taken what he/she cannot deal with and thurst the burden on the parent. The truth is circumcision should NOT be avaialble at birth. To my knowledge no other country on Earth forces, confornts or makes a parent choose or decline a circumcision. The whole premise the AAP is proposing is way way out. Obviously their position had to be reworked because of political pressures from doctors who make money from circumcisions and those that feel a law suite could be drawn up if today circumcision were seen in any other than the phoney patheticly biased light that it has had cast on it! — Circumcision is not a debate, it is a battle for a boy to remain genitally whole. http://homestead.deja.com/user.coontail/nocir1.html Before you buy.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – said: Todd: Thanks to your prodding, I looked up the references myself. The library here had newer versions of some of the encyclopedias, so there were slight differences from what you posted. I thought that you might be interested in what I found. In any case, I certainly agree with you now that we have every right to refer to circumcision as "mutilation"–especially ritual circumcision. Don (Why *especially* ritual circumcision? From the baby’s point of view, it’s all the same.)
Hugh, if TG were ever able to make points as succinctly and as impartially as you have done here, those issues could have a hope of being seriously considered. There’s more there than meets the eye, however. Take care, and good luck to you. karuna — – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hugh Young, Pukerua Bay, Nuclear-free Aotearoa / New Zealand Overnight editing! http://www.wn.planet.gen.nz/~hugh/
Response:
A baby does not have a "point of view" with regard to circumcision; a baby has no concept whatsoever of circumcision. A baby reacts to being strapped down (if a circumstraint is used) and to the pain of the procedure (which, if circumcision is going to be performed, can and certainly should be minimized with the use of anesthetics/analgesics). Don
It may not occur to new parents (it certainly didn’t to me when I became one) that the little bundle of joy they’re holding will one day become a man (or woman) with opinions (e.g. "points of view") of his or her own, but barring tragedies, that _will_ come to pass. How the "man-to-be" might view circumcision is something for parents to take into consideration.
Response:
[snip]
DM(P) removed the crux of my message, that DM(P) had admitted that circumcision is mutilation, something the whackers are often at pains to deny. now that he’s taken up his stand against "Rampant Activist Anticircumcision True Believers" or whatever he’s currently calling us. I reserve that kind of label for those anticircumcision activists who, like Hugh, are willing to state erroneous opinion as if it were carved-in-stone fact and/or who, like Hugh, demonstrate a nasty streak
Seems odd to use an expression that conveys nothing about a nasty streak to try to convey that someone has one. A Rampant Anticircumcision Activist True Believer might have nothing but nice streaks. which comes out when someone counteracts the misinformation and hyperbole that they put out. (Why *especially* ritual circumcision? Why? Because ritual circumcision was considered by (some of) the encyclopedias I checked to be a sexual mutilation.
And so it is. What difference does being "ritual" make to whether it’s mutilation? You can’t tell by looking whether it was ritual or not. From the baby’s point of view, it’s all the same.) A baby does not have a "point of view" with regard to circumcision;
This is one of the main – and most obvious – fallacies in regard to infant circumcision. The implication is that he is never going to have one, and therefore it may be disregarded. a baby has no concept whatsoever of circumcision.
I never said he had. You don’t need a concept to perceive two things as the same. More to the point, when he grows up he’s just as circumcised, just as mutilated, whether it was done at Johns Hopkins by the Surgeon General, or in St Peters by the Pope. A baby reacts to being strapped down (if a circumstraint is used) and to the pain of the procedure (which, if circumcision is going to be performed, can and certainly should be minimized with the use of anesthetics/analgesics).
But can not be eliminated, and is in any case unnecessary. — Hugh Young, Pukerua Bay, Nuclear-free Aotearoa / New Zealand Overnight editing! http://www.wn.planet.gen.nz/~hugh/
Response:
It may not occur to new parents (it certainly didn’t to me when I became one) that the little bundle of joy they’re holding will one day become a man (or woman) with opinions (e.g. "points of view") of his or her own, but barring tragedies, that _will_ come to pass. True, it may not occur to parents (although it did to me). And true, that little bundle of joy will one day likely have an opinion of his own. The fact is that he may be either happy or unhappy with your decision to either not circumcise or with your decision to circumcise.
Another fact (there is no "one fact" in this case) is that in only one condition is the man-to-be allowed to choose what type of penis he’ll have for his entire reproductive sex life.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’m not saying any of what you suggest with your questions. I said what I wanted to say. to summarize, the individual may be either happy or unhappy with (or indifferent about) the choice made by his parents with regard to neonatal circumcision. This is true. The major difference between the two being that if he is upset about being left intact, he can "fix" what he considers a mistake. This is true only to a point. He cannot fix that he would like to have been circumcised at birth if he was not circumcised at birth. He cannot fix it if he is a child and his parents won’t let him (or if he is loathe to even bring it up with his parents). One who was circ’d at birth, like myself, cannot. And, to the best of my knowledge and experience, more men seem to be happy being left intact than being circ’d. So why not just leave everyone intact and let those that WISH to be circ’d do it, so the rest of us can live out our lives somewhat happier? Well, for one reason, responsible parenting involves making a decision of some sort with regard to the circ issue. If an informed parent believes that circumcision is worth it for the minimal health and social-cultural benefits and that those benefits outweigh the risks and disadvantages, then it is appropriate to decide to circumcise. If an informed parent decides that the child’s rights issue, the issue of individual choice, outweighs possible health benefits, then it is appropriate to not circumcise. As I see it, however, one of the problems is that there is a lot of misinformation out there on the subject and it is difficult even for a parent who wants to be informed to become truly informed.
Well, in my personal opinion, if a surgery is unnecessary then if you’re not fully informed then you shouldn’t have it done to YOURSELF, let alone another person.
Response:
[crop] Another fact (there is no "one fact" in this case) is that in only one condition is the man-to-be allowed to choose what type of penis he’ll have for his entire reproductive sex life. Another fact that isn’t mentioned in your statement, above, is that such a choice in later life may not right what the person in question considers a wrong decision made by the parents. In other words, there is no way that a person can go back and have it be otherwise. Either way, that person is stuck for a good portion of his life with the decision his parents made, depending, of course, on at what age the parents would let him decide for himself prior to his becoming an adult.
I believe average life expectancy in the US is somewhere around 75 – 80 years. So, are you saying it’s better to have a life-long and non-retractable procedure done to EVERYONE "just in case" that they might regret not having it done for the first 13-18 years of their life? Or are you saying that such a procedure SHOULDN’T be made, in case the recipient doesn’t like it and thus can’t reverse it? Or are you saying that either way is acceptable, thus encouraging circ by saying it’s acceptable?
Response:
The fact is that he may be either happy or unhappy with your decision to either not circumcise or with your decision to circumcise.
DM(P) now has a full-blown case of the Paul Hagen Syndrome, of imagining circumcision and intactness are equal opposites. How the "man-to-be" might view circumcision is something for parents to take into consideration. Unfortunately, there is no way that parents can predict with certainty what that view might eventually be.
But they can predict with certainty that if he doesn’t like being intact he can be fully circumcised, but if he doesn’t like being circumcised he can NEVER fully regain what he lost. Generally speaking, those who are circumcised and raised in a circumcising culture seem to accept it
But those who don’t have a legitimate grievance. just as those who are uncircumcised and raised in a noncircumcising culture seem to accept that.
The PH syndrome again. Why on earth should they object to not having part cut off them? In a non-circumcising culture, the number of those who ever consider getting electively circumcised is miniscule (and they would have to be a bit peculiar). — Hugh Young, Pukerua Bay, Nuclear-free Aotearoa / New Zealand Overnight editing! http://www.wn.planet.gen.nz/~hugh/
Response:
I’m not saying any of what you suggest with your questions. I said what I wanted to say. to summarize, the individual may be either happy or unhappy with (or indifferent about) the choice made by his parents with regard to neonatal circumcision.
This is true. The major difference between the two being that if he is upset about being left intact, he can "fix" what he considers a mistake. One who was circ’d at birth, like myself, cannot. And, to the best of my knowledge and experience, more men seem to be happy being left intact than being circ’d. So why not just leave everyone intact and let those that WISH to be circ’d do it, so the rest of us can live out our lives somewhat happier?
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’m not saying any of what you suggest with your questions. I said what I wanted to say. to summarize, the individual may be either happy or unhappy with (or indifferent about) the choice made by his parents with regard to neonatal circumcision. This is true. The major difference between the two being that if he is upset about being left intact, he can "fix" what he considers a mistake. One who was circ’d at birth, like myself, cannot. And, to the best of my knowledge and experience, more men seem to be happy being left intact than being circ’d. So why not just leave everyone intact and let those that WISH to be circ’d do it, so the rest of us can live out our lives somewhat happier?
What is it about the foreskin that makes you covet one so much?
Response:
[snip] Doubtless
"Doubtless"? Well that just goes to show you that Hugh–like some of the others who represent the more fanatical element of the anticircumcision activist contingent–is willing to state his erroneous opinions as if they were carved-in-stone fact. Don Morgan Page
Like some of the others who represent the more nasty element of the anticircumcision activist contingent–Hugh likes to use my full name in the newsgroups even though I don’t. (Perhaps he wouldn’t mind if I were to post his full name, address, phone number and many other personal details I know about him.) now that he’s taken up his stand against "Rampant Activist Anticircumcision True Believers" or whatever he’s currently calling us.
I reserve that kind of label for those anticircumcision activists who, like Hugh, are willing to state erroneous opinion as if it were carved-in-stone fact and/or who, like Hugh, demonstrate a nasty streak which comes out when someone counteracts the misinformation and hyperbole that they put out. (Why *especially* ritual circumcision?
Why? Because ritual circumcision was considered by (some of) the encyclopedias I checked to be a sexual mutilation. From the baby’s point of view, it’s all the same.)
A baby does not have a "point of view" with regard to circumcision; a baby has no concept whatsoever of circumcision. A baby reacts to being strapped down (if a circumstraint is used) and to the pain of the procedure (which, if circumcision is going to be performed, can and certainly should be minimized with the use of anesthetics/analgesics). Don
Response:
Don Morgan, I am glad to hear from you again and want to thank you (again) for verifying (and updating) the encyclopedia ritual mutilation quotes I found… For those who missed them, here is the relevant URL… Surgical Covenant/New books for Israeli children/Kingoff http://www.remarq.com/read/14325/q_dfSB4Pnq1UC-_CB#LR Hugh Young wrote regarding ritual v. routine circumcision: <<<<From the baby’s point of view, it’s all the same.<<<<
Don Morgan replied: <<<<A baby does not have a "point of view" with regard to
circumcision…<<<< http://www.remarq.com/read/14325/q_dfSB4Pnq1UC-_CB#LR Todd D. Gastaldo, DC remarks: What a crock! Recently mutilated babies have a very DEFINITE "point of view" with regard to circumcision… Mr. Morgan sounds a BIT like the 50+ American MDs who (on behalf of the American ACADEMY of Pediatrics) recently came up with the ACADEMIC notion that babies can’t VERBALIZE "their" pain as they are being mutilated. See Jonathan R. Fox/Stupid MD Neurology Trick… Mr. Morgan adds… …a baby has no concept whatsoever of circumcision.<<<<
http://www.remarq.com/read/14325/q_dfSB4Pnq1UC-_CB#LR Sigh… Mr. Morgan continues… <<<<A baby reacts to being strapped down (if a circumstraint is
used)…<<<< Babies react to being strapped down PERIOD – whether to a Circumstraint or to some other device. A baby will also react to being PINNED down – say on a pillow during a religious mutilation. Mr. Morgan continues… <<<<[A baby reacts to]…the pain of the procedure…<<<<
FALSE. A baby reacts to the American MD priest/other religious mutilator "performing" THE PROCEDURE. No procedure. No reaction to "the pain of the procedure." No needle punctures for analgesia. No reaction… I am reminded of the (female) MD writing in a Nov. 1987 issue of NEJM who indicated that BABIES incur the pain of "their" circumcisions! And then there’s the AAP’s recent CRAP (just mentioned) about babies not being able to verbalize "their" pain… "Their" pain actually belongs to the American MD priests/other religious mutilators performing THEIR procedure amid bald lies and people like Don Morgan ignoring their bald lies… Mr. Morgan continued… <<<<if circumcision is going to be performed,<<<<
Why doesn’t Mr. Morgan issue the following prefatory clause: If the MUTILATION is going to be INFLICTED (amid infant screams of protest and in violation of law and medical ethics)…then… <<<<[the excruciating pain]…can and certainly should be minimized with
the use of anesthetics/analgesics).<<<< Mr. Morgan leaves off the very necessary preface. 100% of babies would want him to include the very necessary preface. 100% of babies would want **MDs** to include the very necessary preface. Were the very necessary preface included by MDs – even silently – they would be bound by their own ethics to simply say to parents: Sorry, I can’t do this. My profession LIED to Americans; my profession is STILL lying to parents. We never had any business inflicting excruciating pain onto babies – even killing some of them… I cannot do this. Again, here is the URL which discusses the most recent American MD lie: Jonathan R. Fox/Stupid MD Neurology Trick… And here is a URL with PAST MD circumcision lies (including a dishonest HIV/AIDS scare tactic in the 1989 AAP Statement on Circumcision)… AAP’s grisly sexism Was Mr. Morgan castigating me for being "nasty" and for using his full name? <<<<Like some of the others who represent the more nasty element of the
anticircumcision activist contingent–Hugh likes to use my full name in the newsgroups even though I don’t.<<<< Mr. Morgan, YOU used to use your full name in the newsgroups – which is where I got it. I intend to continue to use it when discussing your posts. If you believe that Hugh Young (or anyone else – me included) is stating "erroneous opinions" – please provide examples. Again… I am glad to hear from you again and want to thank you (again) for verifying (and updating) the encyclopedia ritual mutilation quotes I found… For those who missed them, here again is the relevant URL… Surgical Covenant/New books for Israeli children/Kingoff http://www.remarq.com/read/14325/q_dfSB4Pnq1UC-_CB#LR Todd D. Gastaldo, D.C. 8948 SW Barbur Blvd Box 6 Portland, OR 97219 FAX (815) 366-2814 TEL (503) 640-0456 http://www.egroups.com/group/chiro-list
Response:
Even if there is more to my posts – "more than meets the eye" – what difference does this make? Infants are screaming, writhing and bleeding and American MD priests are lying… For the latest lie of American MD priests, see Jonathan R. Fox/Stupid MD Neurology Trick… Karuna concludes… Take care, and good luck to you.<<<<
On this, Karuna and I agree. I, too, wish you good luck, Hugh. More below… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – said: Todd: Thanks to your prodding, I looked up the references myself. The library here had newer versions of some of the encyclopedias, so there were slight differences from what you posted. I thought that you might be interested in what I found. In any case, I certainly agree with you now that we have every right to refer to circumcision as "mutilation"–especially ritual circumcision. Don Interesting. Doubtless Don Morgan Page doesn’t think circumcision is mutilation any more, now that he’s taken up his stand against "Rampant Activist Anticircumcision True Believers" or whatever he’s currently calling us. (Why *especially* ritual circumcision? From the baby’s point of view, it’s all the same.) Thanks, Todd.
Todd D. Gastaldo, DC remarks: You are welcome, Hugh. I think Don Morgan said it is legitimate to refer "especially" to ritual (religious) circumcision as mutilation because the references came from religious encyclopedias. Since most ritual circumcisions are identical in outcome to most routine circumcisions; and since American medicine qualifies as a religion****, I believe, with you (using Don’s apparent reasoning) that ALL circumcision constitutes mutilation. ****Why American medicine qualifies as a religion I hasten to add: Although my own penis was mutilated at birth by an American MD priest, it seems quite normal to me in function and appearance. I agree with your statement, "From the baby’s point of view, it’s all the same"; but only insofar as circumcision performed by American MD priests is identical in COSMETIC outcome to circumcision as it is performed by other religious mutilators. Certainly from the baby’s point of view – a penile mutilation – whether "tip" or total**** – is substantially less traumatizing (in the moment) if "performed" quickly – and my understanding is that American MD priest-mutilators "perform" the mutilations significantly more slowly than other religious mutilators. ****Regarding "tip" or total, see again Why American medicine qualifies as a religion Also regarding "tip" or total, see… Surgical Covenant/New books for Israeli children/Kingoff Moses saved by "tip" mutilation of his son… Of course, I want to see a TOTAL end to this grisly religious travesty… One POSSIBLE step would be for Jewish priest-mutilators to very publicly state that Jews must now go back to leaving most of the foreskin on the penis as God originally/allegedly commanded. Unlikely, but all possibilities should be discussed. Finally this, Hugh… <<<<Hugh, if TG were ever able to make points as succinctly and as
impartially as you have done here, those issues could have a hope of being seriously considered.<<<< http://www.remarq.com/read/14325/q_dfSB4Pnq1UC-_BX#LR Karuna is right, of course, that my posts are too long. But she dissembles. Her first post to me was in response to one of my long posts – and in that post she thanked me on behalf of mothers and babies everywhere… Karuna changed her tune when Columbia Univ. Prof (and "Quackbuster") Aaron A. Fox, PhD called me a "fucking idiot" for proposing pardons in advance for MD priest-mutilators and others who mutilate. She fraudulently decided, with Fox, that I am an "illegal" "psychotic" "stalker"… She helped Fox orchestrate his first fraudulent censorship – which was successful. When Fox failed in his second fraudulent censorship orchestration – Karuna became totally irrational – manufacturing a bizarre "attack" misinterpretation to account for her dishonest behavior. See… Blaming Mimi/GTE Foxwatch #1 Karuna = Inconsistency/Todd ‘completely lacks sincerity’? Karunalogic II/CSICOP fraud For my account of "Quackbuster" Ethnomusicologist Fox censoring in violation of ethnomusicologist ideals, see Ethnomusicologist "Quackbuster" censors; perpetuates infant screams… Karuna continued… <<<<There’s more there than meets the eye, however.<<<<
Even if there is more to my posts – "more than meets the eye" – what difference does this make? Infants are screaming, writhing and bleeding and American MD priests are lying… For their latest lie, see Jonathan R. Fox/Stupid MD Neurology Trick… Karuna concludes… Take care, and good luck to you.<<<<
On this, Karuna and I agree. I, too, wish you good luck, Hugh. And do take care, Todd Todd D. Gastaldo, D.C. 8948 SW Barbur Blvd Box 6 Portland, OR 97219 FAX (815) 366-2814 TEL (503) 640-0456 http://www.egroups.com/group/chiro-list
Response:
said: Todd: Thanks to your prodding, I looked up the references myself. The library here had newer versions of some of the encyclopedias, so there were slight differences from what you posted. I thought that you might be interested in what I found. In any case, I certainly agree with you now that we have every right to refer to circumcision as "mutilation"–especially ritual circumcision. Don
Interesting. Doubtless Don Morgan Page doesn’t think circumcision is mutilation any more, now that he’s taken up his stand against "Rampant Activist Anticircumcision True Believers" or whatever he’s currently calling us. (Why *especially* ritual circumcision? From the baby’s point of view, it’s all the same.) Thanks, Todd. — Hugh Young, Pukerua Bay, Nuclear-free Aotearoa / New Zealand Overnight editing! http://www.wn.planet.gen.nz/~hugh/
Response:
This post is about ending American medicine’s grisly $200 million dollar per year most frequent surgical behavior… It should have ended two BILLION dollars’ worth of infant mutilations**** ago – back in 1987 when I pointed out American medicine’s phony "babies can’t feel pain for lack of myelin" neurology. It is the year 2000 and American medicine is *STILL* using phony "lack of myelin" neurology to promote the mutilation**** See Jonathan R. Fox/Stupid MD Neurology Trick… KEY POINT: Ending the mutilation***** paradoxically PRESERVES the mutilation**** as a CHOICE American males may make for themselves in adulthood… *****See mutilation quotes at the end of this post… EVIL COLONIALIST CONSPIRACY **NOT** JEWISH… Jewish medical intern Kingoff recently hoped publicly that someone would murder me or that I would commit suicide or die of natural causes: <<<<[I]t would be nice if [Bowditch's 'unhinged lunatic Toddy'] could be
awarded in the "Memory" of [Gastaldo] instead of [in] the "Honour" of [Gastaldo]…. http://www.remarq.com/read/14325/q_OQ2ZVpxRS0AAAAA? <<<<Has [Gastaldo] decided to grace the local obituary column?…Ah,
well, we should only be so lucky…<<<< http://www.remarq.com/read/14325/qAyvL3riB_MQC–Nw#LR (Mr. Kingoff’s In Memory post has disappeared from the Deja.com archive but not from the RemarQ archive – at least I could not find it in the Deja.com archive. Mr. Kingoff, did you delete it from Deja?) I describe Mr. Kingoff as a Jewish medical intern here because he is now playing the anti-Semitism card – falsely inferring publicly that I believe that the AMA is "Jew-Run" – see below… <<<<Whatever Mr. Kingoff’s people did over 3000 years ago… American
MDs came up with the fallacy that Mr. Kingoff’s people mutilated penises for health reasons…JAMA editor Morris Fishbein, MD added to the fallacy and helped saddle American medicine with its grisly most frequent surgical behavior toward males…See Why American medicine qualifies as a religion Jewish medical intern (acupuncture) Andrew Kingoff replied, <<<<Ah, finally, the Jewish conspiracy! So, Todd, is the Jew-Run AMA the
evil force behind infant circumcisions AND the suppression of chiropractic?<<<< How funny! Mr. Kingoff has forgotten that he said I attribute all evil to BAPTISTS – the Rockefellers! (The Rockefellers were Baptists, right?) Mr. Kingoff once indicated that, as a Jew, he greatly resents people who say that Jews run the medical profession. I highly doubt that Jews run the medical profession. Mr. Kingoff trivialized the notion that conspiracies do exist…
"Rockefeller Fortune" – you and I won’t come to a meeting of the minds…" There is NO QUESTION that the "Rockefeller Fortune" helped fund both fossil fuel for the Nazis *AND* the ideological fuel for the Nazi racial hygiene institutions that gave rise to the Holocaust. See Vaccines/Eugenics/Primatologist apes MD/Small Pox hoax (Jenner’s
Categories: Medical Case Studies Of Forteo Fosamax | 
No Comments »
Since I didn’t see the original post and don’t know why the dog is being kept outside, I’m not going to embarrass myself by lecturing. 
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Oh SHAVINGS is a GREAT idea!! <snip You might even persuade them to sell you some… $20 for a large bag that you have brought with you? A garbage bag may not be strong enough – the stuff weighs a lot when you pick it up. Perhaps the supplier of the stable will also carries the shavings in smaller bulk for someone like yourself…. You can get a big (2′x2′x3′ approx.) block of compressed shavings at feed stores and most pet supply stores. They come in a tough poly bag, there are several wood types commonly sold, and they cost somewhere under $10 for a block. The compressed shavings are much easier to store and transport! I’ve heard cedar recommended as a flea deterrent, but if you dog will be sleeping in it a lot you may want to avoid it and stick with less aromatic wood, as cedar is known to cause respiratory problems in small animals who live in it. Ask your vet.