Female Genital Mutilation: American Muslim Physician Says Stop Defending the Abuse of Girls and Women

• Any cutting or prick upon a female's genitalia that is not actually, absolutely medically necessary, but rather demanded by twisted interpretation of religion and misogynistic manifestations of culture, is abuse.
  
  
• Even if, one were to submit that the medical part of the procedure could possibly be done with no physical trauma (and that is a big fictitious 'if'), the whole intent of the procedure is ceremonially to desexualize women and place their bodies under patriarchal control. No physician or modern culture that respects the equality of men and women should agree to participate in a procedure based in hate or supremacy. There is no compromise for the free world with the misogyny, abuse, and torture of the familial, community and individual oppressive forces involved in the draconian Islamist behaviors around FGM. It was a false compromise and a false moral equivalency with male circumcision.
  
  
• The AMA Board of Trustees six months later returned an opinion in our favor in June 2017, which basically stood by existing AMA policy that any and all forms of FGM including nicking were prohibited by the AMA and thus deemed to be entirely inappropriate and unethical. Some courtroom reports in the government's case against Dr. Nagarwala in Detroit are that in fact some of the 7–year-old girls suffered significant physical harm and scarring despite the defendant's claim of only a pin-prick.
  

Original Quill wrote:Another piece from your beloved Prager University?

As well, you've missed the point once again.  The issue is, why do feminists take on the cause of genital mutilation (GM) when it is not specifically a female issue.  It's a male and female issue.  Feminists lay themselves open with such stands.

If anything, there should be a general movement against GM.  It's an ideal opportunity for feminist groups to team up with, say, the National Organization on Male Sexual Victimization, to stop all genital mutilation.

Thorin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Another piece from your beloved Prager University?

As well, you've missed the point once again.  The issue is, why do feminists take on the cause of genital mutilation (GM) when it is not specifically a female issue.  It's a male and female issue.  Feminists lay themselves open with such stands.

If anything, there should be a general movement against GM.  It's an ideal opportunity for feminist groups to team up with, say, the National Organization on Male Sexual Victimization, to stop all genital mutilation.

No it is a video by Ayaan hirsi, a victim of FGM in cooperation with Prager University.
So I think she has a fair right to make views on this
I agree there should be a move against GM.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:


No it is a video by Ayaan hirsi, a victim of FGM in cooperation with Prager University.
So I think she has a fair right to make views on this
I agree there should be a move against GM.

I think she has such a right, too.  It's not her right as a feminist, but as a human being.  Genital mutilation is a male as well as a female issue.

Original Quill wrote:Everything is an issue to someone.  The point is, there's no reason to associate it with a certain movement unless it is pivotal to that movement.

Genital mutilation is not a peculiarly female issue.  Victims include both men and women.  There's a much wider audience out there, if people wouldn't shut them out.

magica wrote:FGM is abuse. It's performed on little girls, its painful, done without anaesthetic and when the girls grow up and have babies they have to be cut to get the baby out.

They say its clean for the girls. Sex is so painful, it should be banned around the world. So should circumcision for boys unless there is a health problem.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:I've still yet to meet a circumcised man who thinks his parents mutilated his penis.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:What next? Let's ban penis piercings too.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:I've still yet to meet a circumcised man who thinks his parents mutilated his penis.

What next? Let's ban penis piercings too.

As for FGM, of course it should be banned. This is not a religious requirement.

On the flip side, let's not conflate FGM with forms of vaginoplasty.


UK law:

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/female_genital_mutilation/

Fuzzy Zack wrote:I've still yet to meet a circumcised man who thinks his parents mutilated his penis.

What next? Let's ban penis piercings too.

As for FGM, of course it should be banned. This is not a religious requirement.

On the flip side, let's not conflate FGM with forms of vaginoplasty.


UK law:

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/female_genital_mutilation/

Original Quill wrote:One of the problems with combating genital mutilation in this country, is the effort is associated with the feminist movement.  America is a bit of a conservative nation, with southern Baptists and sniffy northern Methodists milling about.  Eyes gloss over when they hear someone say, the feminists are marching again...this time for something called FGM!  Immediately, images of women in military boots with hairy armpits (that remind them of their ex-wives) come to mind.

Genital mutilation need not be associated with feminism.  As much as I totally support feminism at all levels, it is excess, unneeded baggage on this front.  Genital mutilation is a universal problem, and it happens even more with males.

I think the reason genital mutilation hitched a ride on the feminist train is that, that way it recruits the anti-Muslim elements in our society.  We associate FGM with those bad Muslims, and thereby boost the movement by making it seem our modern way.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Again, I think I can speak for most circumcised men and say, I'm glad it was done when I was a baby.

I'm not sure I'd have the guts to have my pee-pee snipped as an adult.

But again you dumb c-nuts all miss my point, so read carefully before answering:

I yet to meet a circumcised man who thinks his parents mutilated his penis.

Thorin wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Again, I think I can speak for most circumcised men and say, I'm glad it was done when I was a baby.

I'm not sure I'd have the guts to have my pee-pee snipped as an adult.

But again you dumb c-nuts all miss my point, so read carefully before answering:

I yet to meet a circumcised man who thinks his parents mutilated his penis.

How can you speak for most?

You never watched the video did you that Quill presented

http://www.circumstitions.com/Resent.html

You clearly have not met many circumcised men then, which is not unusual, being as there are millions of them. Hence the dumbness of your point

Now watch

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Thorin wrote:

How can you speak for most?

You never watched the video did you that Quill presented

http://www.circumstitions.com/Resent.html

You clearly have not met many circumcised men then, which is not unusual, being as there are millions of them. Hence the dumbness of your point

Now watch

You still having problems with simple comprehension, smelly?

The Jewish and Christian view on female genital mutilation

El-Damanhoury

Open Access funded by Pan African Urological Surgeons' Association
Under a Creative Commons license

Abstract

Female genital mutilation (FGM) is a practice involving the removal of all or parts of the female external genitalia. It has been documented in 28 African countries and in some countries in Asia and the Middle East, but due to increasing immigration from these countries to the western world, FGM has become a worldwide human rights and health issue. Contrary to the belief that it is a practice carried out by Muslims only, it is also practiced by Christians and a minority group of Ethiopian Jews. However, FGM is neither mentioned in the Torah, nor in the Gospels, and – like in Islam – bodily mutilation is condemned by both religions. In fact, FGM is a mix of mainly cultural and social factors which may put tremendous pressure on the members of the society in question.


According to the World Health Organization (WHO), female genital mutilation (FGM), also referred to as “female circumcision” or “female cutting”, “comprises all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons” [1]. The WHO estimates that about 140 million girls and women worldwide are living with the consequences of FGM and that every year in Africa alone, about 3 million girls are at risk for genital mutilation [1]. FGM has been documented in 28 African countries and in some countries in Asia and the Middle East [2]. However, it has also become a human rights and health issue in western countries where the practice is continued by immigrants from countries where FGM is commonly performed [3]. For instance, the German organization “Terre des Femmes” estimates that about 30.000 girls and women living in Germany have undergone or are at risk of being subjected to FGM [4].

Given the fact that some Sunni Muslims legitimate FGM by quoting a controversial hadith (a saying attributed to the Prophet Mohammed) in which the Prophet allegedly did not object to FGM provided cutting was not too severe [5,6] and that the least invasive type of FGM (partial or total removal of the clitoris and/or the prepuce) is also called “Sunna Circumcision” [7], FGM is widely considered to be associated with Islam. However, during a conference held in Cairo/Egypt in 2006, Muslim scholars from various nations declared FGM to be un-islamic [8,9] and, in fact, the traditional cultural practice of FGM predates both Islam and Christianity. Herodotus wrote about FGM being practiced in Egypt as early as 500 BC [3], while the Greek geographer Strabo who visited Egypt in about 25 BC reported that one of the Egyptian customs was “to circumcise the males and excise the females” [10]. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, FGM is actually practiced by Muslim, Christian and Jewish groups. There are countries, such as Nigeria, Tanzania and Niger, where the prevalence of FGM is even greater among Christian groups [11]. In Egypt, FGM is also practiced on Coptic girls [12], while in Ethiopia, the Beta Israel or Falashas, a Jewish minority, subject their girls to genital mutilation [5].

In this context, it will be interesting to have a look at the attitude of Christianity and Judaism toward FGM.

Jewish view on FGM

While, according to the Hebrew bible, circumcision is required for all male Jewish children in observance of God's commandment to Abraham (Genesis 12-17), female circumcision was never allowed in Judaism, according to the Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion [13]. Buff, in his letter to the editor, states that “any form of female circumcision would be considered bodily mutilation and forbidden under Jewish law” [14]. Yet, a Jewish minority group living in Ethiopia, the so-called Falashas or Beta Israel, practice ritual female genital surgery [15]. Buff believes that “as a persecuted and isolated Jewish enclave for thousands of years, the Falashas did not have access to either definitive Jewish texts or informed rabbinical sources” [14]. In fact, the Falashas practice an archaic form of Judaism, strictly adhering to the Pentateuch, the five books of Moses. They do not speak or read Hebrew. Their bible is written in Ge’ez, which is the clerical language of the Ethiopian and Eritrean orthodox church, and they do not know the other important religious scriptures of Judaism, the Talmud and the Mishnah [16,17]. The Falashas consider themselves descendants of the tribe of “Dan”, one of the 10 “lost tribes of Israel”, and were acknowledged as such, and therefore as being officially Jewish, by the Israeli government in 1975 [17]. This entitled them to the right of settling in Israel. While until 1984 only few of them immigrated to Israel, the majority of Ethiopian Jews were taken to Israel in the course of two air bridge operations, one between November 1984 and January 1985, rescuing about 8200 Ethiopian Jews who had fled to Sudan from a famine in Ethiopia, and the second one in May 1991, rescuing 14,087 Ethiopian Jews from political constraints in the Ethiopian capital of Addis Abeba. After their immigration to Israel, the Ethiopian Jews were converted to orthodox rabbinic Judaism. Nowadays, only a minority is still living in Ethiopia [17].

In a study conducted by Grisaru et al. on 113 Ethiopian Jewish immigrant women in Israel, the authors found a variety of lesions in one third of the women, with 27% showing partial or total clitoridectomy. Although not all the women interviewed had undergone FGM, all of them stated that FGM was normative among Jews in Ethiopia, but they did not consider it related to religion. The reasons for FGM varied according to the province the women originated from, ranging from the intention to create adhesions that prevent premarital intercourse to esthetic reasons. The authors also found that the customs of FGM is readily given up by Ethiopian Jews right after their immigration to Israel, as “they see themselves a part of a Jewish society without FGM” [15].

Christian view on FGM

Literature dealing with the Christian view on FGM is very scarce, however, Christian authorities unanimously agree that FGM has no foundation in the religious texts of Christianity [18–22]. During the 2006 conference of The East Africa Program, the attending Christian (Coptic) leaders emphasized that “Christian doctrine is clear on the sanctity of the human body” [22]. Yet, as has already been mentioned before, FGM is practiced among Christian groups, e.g. in Egypt, Nigeria, Tanzania and Kenya. Although FGM is not prescribed by religious law, many of those practicing it may consider it a religious obligation, as female sexual purity plays an important role, not only in Christianity, but in all monotheistic religions.

As described above, FGM cannot be justified by any of the three monotheistic religions. The reasons for FGM are various and are clearly a mixture of cultural, social and religious factors [1]. In societies, where FGM is practiced, the social pressure on the families is very high and the necessity to conform to what is considered right may be reason enough to continue the practice. But whatever reason there may be, the fact is that FGM represents a violation of human rights which has to be fought until it has been totally eliminated.
Conflict of interest

The author has no conflict of interest.
References

1
WHO fact sheet No. 241, February 2012. www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en.
2
WHO. Sexual and reproductive health. Female genital mutilation and other harmful practices. www.who.int/reproductivehealth/topics/fgm/prevalence/en/index/html.
3
Moukhyer M. Female genital mutilation (FGM): against women's health and the human rights. Women and health learning package developed by: The Network: TUFH Women and Health Taskforce, second edition, September 2006. http://www.the-networktufh.org/sites/default/files/attachments/basic_pages/WHLP Female Genital Mutilation.pdf.
4
www.strassenkinderreport.de/index.php?goto=388&user_name=#vor
5
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_on_female_mutilation
6
www.sheikyermami.com/2007/05/31/female-genital-mutilation-is-part-of-the-sunna-of-the-prophet
7
Sunna circumcision. In: Segen's medical dictionary, Farlex Inc., 2012. www.medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Sunna+Circumcision.
8
www.theage.com.au/news/world/Muslim-scholars-rule-female-circumcision-unislamic/2006/11/24/1163871589618.html
9
Female genital mutilation (FGM). Debates about FGM in Africa, the Middle East & Far East. www.religioustolerance.org/fem_cirm.html.
10
M. Knight
Curing cut or ritual mutilation? Some remarks on the practice of female and male circumcision in Graeco-Roman Egypt
Isis, 92 (2001), pp. 317-338
11
www.womenshealth.gov/publications/our-publications/fact-sheet/female-genital-cutting.cfm#e
12
Refugee Review Tribunal Australia, RRT Research Response, Research Response Number: EGY32910, Egypt, 15 February 2008.
13
Circumcision
R.J. Zwi Werblowsky, Wigoder G. (Eds.), Oxford dictionary of the Jewish religion, New York & Oxford, Oxford University Press (1997)
14
D.D. Buff
Letter to the editor. Female circumcision
New England Journal of Medicine, 332 (1995), pp. 188-190
15
N. Grisaru, S. Lezer, R.H. Belmaker
Ritual female genital surgery among Ethiopian Jews
Archives of Sexual Behaviour, 26 (1997), p. 2
16
www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/5987-falashas
17
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_Israel
18
Terre des Femmes: frauenrechte. http://de/online/index.php/themen/weibliche-genitalverstummelung/begriffsdefinition.htm.
19
www.gew-bildungsmacher.de/fileadmin/freie_files/Das_bewegt_Material/Gesellschaft/Auszug-U-Mappe-FGM.pdf
20
www.library.fes.de/fulltext/iez/00726003.htm
21
www.desertflowerfoundation.org/de/2009/10/29/die-katholische-kirche-spricht-sich-gegen-fgm-aus/
22
www.womankind.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/2006-FGM-Religious-and-Legal-Perspectives-small.pdf

Peer review under responsibility of Pan African Urological Surgeons’ Association.


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1110570413000258

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Again, I think I can speak for most circumcised men and say, I'm glad it was done when I was a baby.

I'm not sure I'd have the guts to have my pee-pee snipped as an adult.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:But again you dumb c-nuts all miss my point, so read carefully before answering:

I yet to meet a circumcised man who thinks his parents mutilated his penis.

Thorin wrote:Just because something is a religious requirement, does not mean that allows people to carry out an act. Especially when its to a child who has no say in the matter. Are you telling me its a religious requirement to execute people who leave Islam?

Thorin wrote:Who claimed it was only a Muslim problem?

SEXY MAMA wrote:

Thorin wrote:Who claimed it was only a Muslim problem?

The fucking title that's what!

Thorin wrote:

SEXY MAMA wrote:

The fucking title that's what!

Does the title say its only a Muslim problem

Do you need to go to specsavers?

SEXY MAMA wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Does the title say its only a Muslim problem

Do you need to go to specsavers?

No I can clearly see your obsession with my religion and what you have turned into.

Smelly has done a great job with you. He should be proud.

Thorin wrote:

SEXY MAMA wrote:

No I can clearly see your obsession with my religion and what you have turned into.

Smelly has done a great job with you. He should be proud.

The Title says an American Muslim physician, one who is a progressive and you claim this is only about Muslims?

You just lied, as nowhere in the title did it say about this being a Muslim problem

You then misdirect with the most immature points and claim because I question bad belief, which GM is a problem. You then equate me to smelly, now imagine if equated you to Bin laden?
How would you feel, being that would be a lie, just as yours was equating me to smelly?

Does your religion teach you to lie and be hateful as your are being now?

SEXY MAMA wrote:

Thorin wrote:


The Title says an American Muslim physician, one who is a progressive and you claim this is only about Muslims?

You just lied, as nowhere in the title did it say about this being a Muslim problem

You then misdirect with the most immature points and claim because I question bad belief, which GM is a problem. You then equate me to smelly, now imagine if equated you to Bin laden?
How would you feel, being that would be a lie, just as yours was equating me to smelly?

Does your religion teach you to lie and be hateful as your are being now?

Oh Puleze

Chill out mate you seem to be getting worse and worse

I wouldn't give a flying fuck who you compared me to as I don't value your pathetic opinion.

You are the one that bought 'Muslim' into this with your OP not me. I just exposed your lies.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Quill:

Not missing the point. Women who have suffered FGM know they're being abused.

How many circumsised men feel they were abused?

They're not the same.

As to why? Why do you care? The child is not being hurt. Again equating this to eyelids is not the same.

Thorin wrote:

SEXY MAMA wrote:

Oh Puleze

Chill out mate you seem to be getting worse and worse

I wouldn't give a flying fuck who you compared me to as I don't value your pathetic opinion.

You are the one that bought 'Muslim' into this with your OP not me. I just exposed your lies.

So more immature replies

You lied Sexy and now put this onto me, when there was nothing in the title blaming this on solely Muslims.

So as seen this is the problem with Islam

This debate was about FGM argued by a Muslim physician, then expanded to GM, which I also backed was wrong and this is what over sensitive Muslims do, play the victim card that this is about Muslims when its not.

You see you are the problem here creating something which never existed in this debate

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Quill:

Not missing the point. Women who have suffered FGM know they're being abused.

How many circumsised men feel they were abused?

They're not the same.

Dr, John Taylor wrote:...when the male’s foreskin is missing, as the shaft of the circumcised penis functions as a leaky piston, drawing vaginal lubricants out into the drying air and often making artificial lubricants essential for comfortable intercourse. The sexual experience [in a normal male] is enhanced when the foreskin slips back on the in-stroke to allow the male’s internal organ, the glans, to meet the female’s internal organ, the cervix. http://acroposthion.com/sexual-intercourse/

Fuzzy Zack wrote:As to why? Why do you care? The child is not being hurt. Again equating this to eyelids is not the same.

Psychology Today wrote:
Circumcision’s Psychological Damage

As psychologists, we are deeply concerned by the recently announced CDC guidelines promoting circumcision for all males, and in particular children. The CDC guidelines are based on a sharply criticized 2012 policy statement by the American Academy of Pediatrics. The 2012 statement was condemned by a large group of physicians, medical organizations, and ethicists from European, Scandinavian, and Commonwealth countries as “culturally biased” and “different from [the conclusions] reached by physicians in other parts of the Western world, including Europe, Canada and Australia” (Frisch et al., 2013).

The new CDC guidelines highlight methodologically flawed studies from Africa that have no relevance to the United States. They chose to ignore studies that were conducted in the United States and show no link between circumcision and the risk of sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV (Thomas et al., 2004).

Worse, the CDC has completely ignored the psychological effects of genital cutting on male children.

This article outlines the psychological research that demonstrates the relationship between circumcision and psychological harm. The authors, along with other psychologists, have appealed to the CDC and Congress to reevaluate this policy in light of the psychological harm it will cause infants, children, and teens.

PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECTS ON INFANTS

1. Circumcision Causes Immediate Harm

Circumcision is often performed on infants without anesthetic or with a local anesthetic that is ineffective at substantially reducing pain (Lander et al., 1997). In a study by Lander and colleagues (1997), a control group of infants who received no anesthesia was used as a baseline to measure the effectiveness of different types of anesthesia during circumcision. The control group babies were in so much pain—some began choking and one even had a seizure—they decided it was unethical to continue. It is important to also consider the effects of post-operative pain in circumcised infants (regardless of whether anesthesia is used), which is described as “severe” and “persistent” (Howard et al., 1994). In addition to pain, there are other negative physical outcomes including possible infection and death (Van Howe, 1997, 2004).

2. Pain from Circumcision in Infancy Alters the Brain

Research has demonstrated the hormone cortisol, which is associated with stress and pain, spikes during circumcision (Talbert et al., 1976; Gunnar et al., 1981). Although some believe that babies “won’t remember” the pain, we now know that the body “remembers” as evidenced by studies which demonstrate that circumcised infants are more sensitive to pain later in life (Taddio et al., 1997). Research carried out using neonatal animals as a proxy to study the effects of pain on infants’ psychological development have found distinct behavioral patterns characterized by increased anxiety, altered pain sensitivity, hyperactivity, and attention problems (Anand & Scalzo, 2000). In another similar study, it was found that painful procedures in the neonatal period were associated with site-specific changes in the brain that have been found to be associated with mood disorders (Victoria et al., 2013).

3. Infant Circumcision has Psychological Consequences for Men

Over the last decade there has been a movement of men who were circumcised as infants and have articulated their anger and sadness over having their genitals modified without their consent. Goldman (1999) notes that shame and denial is one major factor that limits the number of men who publicly express this belief. Studies of men who were circumcised in infancy have found that some men experienced symptoms of post traumatic stress disorder, depression, anger, and intimacy problems that were directly associated with feelings about their circumcision (Boyle, 2002; Goldman, 1999; Hammond, 1999).

PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECTS ON CHILDREN AND ADOLESCENTS

1. Medical Procedures in Childhood are Often Experienced as Traumatic

The CDC fails to consider that many medical procedures, even those that are described as routine, are often experienced as traumatic by children and adolescents (Levine & Kline, 2007). Circumcision, for example, clearly meets the clinical definition of trauma because it involves a violation of physical integrity. In fact, research has demonstrated that medical traumas in childhood and adolescence share many of the same psychological elements of childhood abuse, such as physical pain, fear, loss of control, and the perception that the event is a form of punishment (Nir, 1985; Shalev, 1993, Shopper, 1995).

2. Procedures Involving Children’s Genitals Produce Negative Psychological Effects

The psychological consequences of medical procedures are even greater when they involve a child’s genitals. Studies have examined the psychological effects of medical photography of the genitals (Money, 1987), repeated genital examinations (Money, 1987), colposcopy (Shopper, 1995), cystscopy and catheterization (Shopper, 1995), voiding cystourethrogram (Goodman et al., 1990), and hypospadias repair (INSA, 1994). The studies found that these procedures often produce symptoms which are very similar to those of childhood sexual abuse, including dissociation and the development of a negative body image. The effects often persist into adulthood as evidenced by a study that examined the effects of childhood penile surgery for hypospadias. Men who had this surgery in childhood experienced more depressive symptoms, anxiety, and interpersonal difficulties than men who did not have the surgery (Berg & Berg, 1983).

3. Circumcision Causes Significant Psychological Harm in Children and Adolescents

Circumcision in childhood and adolescence has significant negative psychological consequences. Following a traumatic event, many children experience anxiety, depression, and anger; and many others try to avoid and suppress these painful feelings (Gil, 2006). In addition, children often experience a debilitating loss of control that negatively affects their ability to regulate emotions and make sense of the traumatic experience (Van der Kolk, 2005). In a study of adults circumcised in childhood, Hammond (1999) found that many men conceptualized their circumcision experience as an act of violence, mutilation, or sexual assault. Kennedy (1986) detailed the psychological effects of circumcision in a case study describing the psychotherapy of a boy who was circumcised at three years of age. The sense of inadequacy, feelings of victimization, and violent sexual fantasies experienced during this boy’s adolescence were found to be both consciously and unconsciously linked to his experience with losing part of his penis (Kennedy, 1986). In a study examining the psychological effects of circumcision on boys between four and seven years of age, Cansever (1965) used psychological testing to measure boys’ level of distress. The results of the study indicated that circumcision was perceived as an aggressive attack on the body that left children feeling damaged and mutilated (Cansever, 1968). Cansever (1968) also noted that these boys experienced changes in body image (with many feeling smaller and incomplete), feelings of inadequacy and helplessness, as well as a tendency to withdraw psychologically.

4. The Majority of Boys Circumcised as Children and Adolescents Meet Diagnostic Criteria for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)

The most comprehensive study available that assesses the psychological impact of circumcision on children after infancy was conducted by Ramos and Boyle (2000) and involved 1072 pre-adolescent and adolescent boys who were circumcised in a hospital setting. Using an adapted version of a clinically established PTSD interview rating scale, the study’s authors determined that 51 percent of these boys met the full diagnostic criteria for PTSD and noted that other variables such as age at circumcision (pre-adolescence versus adolescence) and time elapsed since the procedure (months versus years) were not predictive of a PTSD diagnosis (Ramos & Boyle, 2000). As a point of comparison, the rate of PTSD among veterans of the Iraq war is approximately 20 percent (NIH, 2009).

5. By Encouraging Circumcision, Medical Professionals are Shaming Boys’ Bodies

If the CDC guidance is followed, medical providers will be communicating a psychologically damaging message to boys with intact genitals—that their penises are somehow “bad” or inferior. The negative effects of such communications have been studied with regard to intersex children and have been found to be frightening, shaming, and embarrassing to the child (Rusch et al., 2000). This is a particularly cruel message to send to adolescents, many of whom are already experiencing concerns regarding body image.

CONCLUSION

The circumcision of children has myriad negative psychological consequences that the CDC has failed to consider. Removing healthy tissue in the absence of any medical need harms the patient and is a breach of medical providers’ ethical duty to the child. We believe that all people have a right to bodily autonomy and self-determination and deeply respect this fundamental tenet of international human rights law (UNESCO 2005). As children cannot advocate for themselves, they need adults to understand the complexities of their emotional experiences and provide them special protection. We oppose the CDC’s circumcision recommendation and encourage all parents to do the same in order to protect their children from physical and psychological harm.

PARENTS: For clear, easy and plain-language help making the circumcision decision, try the CIRCUMCISION DECISION MAKER at http://circumcisiondecisionmaker.com/.

Lord Foul wrote:ahh..you are back sassy.....

was it a beastie on your puter?

ot what?

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Quill:

Not missing the point. Women who have suffered FGM know they're being abused.

How many circumsised men feel they were abused?

They're not the same.

As to why? Why do you care? The child is not being hurt. Again equating this to eyelids is not the same.

sassy wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:ahh..you are back sassy.....

was it a beastie on your puter?

ot what?

It was really quite simple.   I sometimes log on from my phone and I found that if I had done that, I then couldn't log on from my computer and then couldn't log on from my phone.   So.   Switch off phone for a few hours, left logging on here for a few days and BINGO!!    So in future, I won't be logging on from my phone.

eddie wrote:It's not right to mess with any baby in any way shape or form unless it's a procedure to save its life.
It really is that simple.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/Circumcision-in-children/Pages/Introduction.aspx

None of your views have been balanced. Which is why you're getting no traction from me.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/Circumcision-in-children/Pages/Introduction.aspx

None of your views have been balanced. Which is why you're getting no traction from me.

Original Quill wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/Circumcision-in-children/Pages/Introduction.aspx

None of your views have been balanced. Which is why you're getting no traction from me.

Meh...you just don't want to admit it.  Phimosis and paraphimosis are treated in ways other than disfigurement.  Balanitis is topically treated, and in any case, rare.  UTI's are more frequent with circumcision than without.

All of these excuses have been used to justify what is just a cultural fuck-up...either religion or a whacko quack have caused a population-wide blunder, and then shame perpetuates it.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Meh...you just don't want to admit it.  Phimosis and paraphimosis are treated in ways other than disfigurement.  Balanitis is topically treated, and in any case, rare.  UTI's are more frequent with circumcision than without.

All of these excuses have been used to justify what is just a cultural fuck-up...either religion or a whacko quack have caused a population-wide blunder, and then shame perpetuates it.

Like I said, there is no balance to your argument.

You seem to be an "extremist" against circumcision. Which discredits you.

Thorin wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Like I said, there is no balance to your argument.

You seem to be an "extremist" against circumcision. Which discredits you.

Behave, as how is he being extremist?
You are ignoring the fact the choice is taken away as its made by parents.
Which sadly happens with things like arranged marriages.
All are wrong, as it should by the choice of the child when they are adults.
You have not shown why parents can decide to mutilate their children, when that child has not given consent and that it can lead to complications, even death.
Its unnecessary and its pandering to religious beliefs.
Its like I said, what next, will people be allowed to carry out other religious beliefs?
Like stoning their children for disobeying them?

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Thorin wrote:

Behave, as how is he being extremist?
You are ignoring the fact the choice is taken away as its made by parents.
Which sadly happens with things like arranged marriages.
All are wrong, as it should by the choice of the child when they are adults.
You have not shown why parents can decide to mutilate their children, when that child has not given consent and that it can lead to complications, even death.
Its unnecessary and its pandering to religious beliefs.
Its like I said, what next, will people be allowed to carry out other religious beliefs?
Like stoning their children for disobeying them?

Do you like sucking Quill's uncircumcised cock?