Here is the source.

You know what, I left the decision to circumcise our son up to my husband. He's "cut," and he made the decision to go ahead and have it done to our son too.

I don't think it's an abuse of children's rights--it's not like you're cutting off a limb. My husband thinks it makes for better hygiene. I don't know...I didn't grow up with my step- or half-brothers, just a half-sister. I simply trusted my husband's judgment.

Yes, it is.
Circumcision is bad. Read: http://iblognews.wordpress.com/2007/...hts-violation/

It's difficult to argue this one because if it is an abuse of rights then it might seem like we are calling those who have consented to the operation abusers.

This is definitely not the case, since they are victims of misleading information. However, having lots of contacts who are knowledgeable about this on Myspace I know that one of the reasons why it is in the best interests of some to put out this misinformation is that the selling of babies foreskins to cosmetic companies, and all sorts of laboritories is a billion dollar industry apparantly. (Frostyboy put a post on his blog about this a while back).

Those who have not had this operation know that arguments like hygiene reasons are incorrect, we can manage to keep clean just as easily.

But I know people who have either had this operation, or consented to it being done to another, and they are good people. So maybe we need to be careful not to sound accusatory in our opposition of this.

It is a required religious ritual among Jews so forget about ever getting it completely banned...the Jews will do it in secret if they have to.

The simple fact of why it is done is that women prefer to see the glans penis exposed, and in this day and age of commonplace tatooing and body piercing it is not deemed to be a big deal...it is also one of the most easy fund raisers for hospitals.

The whole notion of health or hygene benefit is non-sense.

The Jewish tradition stems from the fact that it was a ritual mutilation inflicted on exiles of the Chaldean and Babylonian civilizations...indicating that you were "cut off from your people".

Then, much like the mutilations inflicted on Ubanghi women to spoil them as targets for slave hunters....the mutilation became a mark of pride and independant defiance.

My position is, if you want it done, fine. If not, fine.

I didn't care if my son had it done or not. It was my husband that made the decision.

I'm not mutilated, thankfully - I enjoy the additional thousands of nerve-endings that add higher levels of sensitivity... If people would learn to clean their equipment properly - there would be no need to get the cheese-grater out.

MAUS:What about the studies which indicate that women do not desire mutilation? Although some women do. Some women may do it to their sons because they hate males. I've heard of women admitting to it.
In either case,the rate of mutilates (possibly counting modifiers,which refers to those who wished it on themselves) is 10-34% or so around the world,so how many women really care. They just need to be educated about it,the ones who live in mutilation cultures. I think women,arguably,have been just as effective if not more effective in eradicating MGM than men (there are all female anti-MGM organizations and Ayaan Hirsi Ali managed to cease the dutch government from covering MGM),although women are also active in doing MGM because of their prevalence in the ob/gyn department and they sign most of the MGM consent forms.

I read that the American Association of Pediatrics had confirmed,by 1994 at least,that cleaning an intact organ does not require extra work,and that retracting the skin is useless like retracting the eyelids to wash your eyeballs,ouch. It is supposed to be self-cleansing. And so I don't do that myself either,in case someone cares to know.

Captain MRA:
Nobody argues against people's right to mess with their own bodies. Where did you get that idea?

MGM compares to removing the labia minora of a girl. People who do that,or worse,get no sympathy. The deck is stacked against us because we defend 'mere' males.

I remember when my youngest son was circumcized. After the fact, the doctor (a woman doctor for that matter) bluntly informed me that the practice was completely unnecessary and barbaric. This was over 8 years ago, at which time I'd never heard of or thought of about it like that. So, I spent the next half hour bawling in my hospital bed over the thought that I'd intentionally done something cruel to my infant son. My husband was really mad that she'd said it; ofcourse, I'm sure much his anger stemmed from overprotectiveness of his wife who was sitting there traumatized. I think what she did was good, although it would have been better if she'd been a bit more tactful and said something BEFORE the procedure. However, I honestly can't say whether or not my son would have ended up circumcized if she had. My husband feels pretty strongly on the issue. I actually think it's less the mothers and more the fathers that need to be convinced on the matter of circumcision. While I was wishing I could go back in time and undo what had happened, my husband was significantly less convinced on the issue than I.

If even smart adults can't decide if it's right or not then why do you want to make that kind of decision for a baby? Why not just let the baby grow up? Then when he gets old enough, he can decide for himself if he wants one or not.


I would bet that most men, if it came to their own dicks, wouldn't want to have it done.