Friday, February 5, 2016

FACEBOOK: A Long-Time Friend Questions Male Infant Circumcision

So I was scrolling down my Facebook news feed, when I notice that someone had shared an interesting post about a hypothetical scenario comparing male infant circumcision and rhinoplasty.

This shouldn't be too surprising; I have a lot of intactivist friends that post and/share intactivist posts, news articles and memes all the time.

The peculiar thing about this one particular share was that it was done by a friend who I least suspected would ever share such a thing.

We had discussed male infant circumcision on other occasions, and although she wasn't a militant pro-circumcision advocate, she lead on that she believed that circumcision was a parent's choice, and wasn't too keen on the idea of challenging what is known to be a fairly common procedure and taking away that "choice."

We hadn't touched on the subject for a while. We sometimes make contact on Facebook, but never more than a the occasional "like" or comment on a picture or post.

Well, when I saw that this friend shared the story you are about to read, I was grinning from ear to ear.

I'm glad to know that at least one more person I know has come to not only question male infant circumcision, but also to share posts like these and spread awareness among her circle of friends.

Could it be that our previous conversation made a difference?

In the interest of privacy, I'm not going to name any names, but I just wanted to share the story my friend re-posted on my blog.

So, I took my newborn in for a nose-job…

and his pediatrician flipped out on me. Can you freaking believe it?!?!

I told her that his nose looked different than my husband’s, and I’d like them to look the same. This should avoid any awkward questions when he’s older. The doc looked at me like I was insane and told me that was no reason to perform elective surgery on a neonate.

I told her that the girls would probably like him better when he started dating if he had a nose-job. Again, baffled, the doctor told me that she could not, and would not, perform cosmetic surgery on a newborn for such a ridiculous reason.

I told the doc that I had heard a rumor that my son would be less likely to get rhinitis later in life if we removed a little of his schnozola. Starting to show a little concern for my parenting, she told me that there was no conclusive evidence to support elective surgery as a means of effectively preventing complications or infection in adulthood.

Starting to get impatient, I told her that I just wanted to get this over with. After all, my son would probably decide later in life that he’d like a designer nose, so it was better to just have it done now while he was too little to remember, and probably couldn't feel it anyway. Looking at me like I was bonkers, she asked me what made me think that this perfectly formed little person wasn’t capable of feeling pain. Hadn’t he shrieked when he had a tiny pin-prick to draw blood from his heel? Of course he could feel pain!

I told her that I thought it would be easier for him to keep his nose clean if we just took a tiny bit off. I could see the doc making a mental note to call child protective services on my crazy ass, but she humored me and explained that it’s very easy to teach a child how to properly clean his nose.

I told her that I was afraid that years later, all of his friends at school might have a certain kind of nose, and that he would be ridiculed. The doctor told me that everyone’s nose is different, and that she would not be performing elective surgery on a newborn for such an asinine reason.

I told her that I heard that lots of people were having their newborns’ noses done. She didn’t even have an answer for this one… she was just so shocked that her jaw hung open!

I told her that this was my baby, and I wanted this nose-job done today! After all, how risky could it be?!?! The doc told me that performing surgery on a newborn is always risky, and should only be done when absolutely necessary for the well-being of the baby.


No nose-job would be happening for my baby today.

Disappointed, I began to leave.

But then I remembered the other reason I had brought my baby in to the pediatrician’s office that day.

“When can we have him circumcised?” I asked.

“We can fit him in today if you’d like!” replied the doc. “Although your insurance doesn't cover it any longer, because it's considered cosmetic, so you’ll have to pay the full $500 up front. Is that okay?”

-Author Unknown

As long as you have the ability to process information, this should make you THINK.

Related Post:

Wednesday, February 3, 2016

FACEBOOK: Another Reported Circumcision Botch

This was in my Facebook news feed today.

These happen all the time on Facebook but rarely make the news.

How many *aren't* being reported?

What's the real rate of risks and complications?

The risks of circumcision include infection complications, including MRSA, herpes and gangrene, a botched operation that may need correction later on, an aesthetically displeasing result for which there can be no correction (e.g. such as too much skin removed, pulling up hairy skin onto the shaft, uneven scars etc...), partial or full ablation of the glans (head of the penis) if not the entire shaft itself, hemorrhage and even death.

Considering that circumcision is not medically necessary in a healthy infant, how is putting a healthy child at these risks conscionable?

These are circumcision cases that parents have decided to post on Facebook.

Consider that there are other cases which, for reasons of shame or protection, remain secret.

The cases presented here and otherwise were perfectly preventable.

Otherwise healthy children don't need to be put at any of these risks.

Given that male infant circumcision is elective, non-medical surgery, how is it that any number of botches, complications and death is deemed "acceptable?"

When is American Medicine going to come clean about non-medically indicated infant circumcision?

Saving Our Sons is an intactivist non-profit organization engaged in an effort to provide parents and practitioners with research-based information on intact care and circumcision. Visit their homepage or like them on Facebook.

Sunday, January 31, 2016

A&E Airs Child Torture as Entertainment

This past week, on Wednesday, January 27th, an episode of Duck Dynasty was aired on A&E, where Jep and Jessica have their adopted son, Jules, circumcised, and Jep decides to throw a "circumbration" party with his male friends.

The entire trip to the hospital was filmed and aired. The entire procedure was recorded, and the child could be heard screaming in the background.

Apparently Jep quickly got grossed out to the point of leaving.

Even so, he decides to throw a "circumbration party" with his male friends, "celebrating" the needless genital mutilation of their adopted son.

I don't even know where to begin, regarding all the different levels of how wrong this is.

For one, it's horrific enough that anyone would want to do this to a child that's your own flesh and blood, let alone a child that's not even your own.

You adopt a child, supposedly to try and give him a better life than what he's already been given, and this is how you welcome him? Mutilating his most private and intimate organs?

Throwing a party to "celebrate" the fact that you let a doctor abuse him?

You mutilate a child that isn't even yours, and throw a party at his expense?

And then film the whole thing and air it on cable TV?

The betrayal.

The abuse.

The suffering.

The "celebration" of it all.

On TV.

The episode was labeled "The Circumbration."

Absolutely sick and disgusting.

Only in a cutting culture would the forced genital cutting of a healthy, non-consenting male child be celebrated with a party, and then featured on television as entertainment.

Dissent Deleted, Blocked
People have tried to vent their disgust with this episode of Duck Dynasty on Facebook and other mediums but are being met with their comments being deleted and their accounts blocked.

In some instances, the option to comment and/or leave reviews and feedback have been removed altogether.

Claims of Christian Values
Jeb and Jessica claim to adhere to Christian values, but it seems they are oblivious to the major conflict of interest in calling themselves Christian and celebrating the genital mutilation of a helpless infant.

The book of Galatians says that circumcision profits the Christian nothing.

"Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.
For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith."
Galatians 5:2-5 KJV

The bible is clear on this matter, and had Jep and Jessica actually read it as much as they say they do, then they would have acted differently. To read more on what the bible says on circumcision and gentiles, click here.

At one point, Jessica remarks "I wish God would make them how they are suppose to be," which is stupid, idiotic and ironic; God already makes children how they are supposed to be.

That is, unless they are to accept that the Christian god, even being omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, somehow had this oversight.

Contacting Jep and Jessica on Facebook or otherwise appears to be of no use, as their minds are made up and have decided to silence all dissent.

The best course of action appears to be to hit them where it hurts: through direct communication with A&E and their advertisers.

We need to deliver the message that genital mutilation being treated as comedy and entertainment is unacceptable.

Jep and Jessica may be able to block us on Facebook, but they can't stop us using other means of communication.

Furthermore, they have an international following, so they will hear international views.

This may be a blessing in disguise for intactivists, as this will bring the issue of the genital mutilation of healthy, non-consenting minors much needed attention.

I think in addition to contacting A&E etc., we also need to bring this to the attention of international adoption agencies; they should be warned of American male genital mutilation practices before allowing male children to be adopted by American families.

Contact information for A&E and their advertisers is detailed below.

A&E Contacts
Twitter: @AETV They like to use the hashtag #beoriginal

Mel Berning
President, Chief Revenue Officer
(212) 210-1321

Peter Olsen
EVP, National Ad Sales
(212) 210-1431

Brian Joyce
VP, National Ad Sales
(212) 210-1430

Teryl Brown
VP, National Ad Sales
(212) 210-9768

Jahid Mirza
VP, National Ad Sales
(212) 210-1415

Amy Baker
EVP, National Ad Sales
Lifetime, LMN, LRW, FYI
(212) 210-9096

Nicole Durette
VP, National Ad Sales
A+E Networks
(212) 424-7057

Christine Olson
VP, National Ad Sales
Lifetime, LMN,

David DeSocio
SVP, Ad Sales Partnerships and Marketing
(212) 424-7385

Rick Basso
SVP, Direct Response
(212) 424-7004

Sarah Shriver
VP, Digital Ad Sales
(212) 424-7111
Digital Ad Specifications
Video On Demand 4+ Quick Reference

Marcela Tabares
VP, Sales Research
(212) 210-1444

Shawn Walker
VP, National Ad Sales
(312) 819-3322

Erica Driscoll
VP, National Ad Sales
(248) 680-7156

Stephen Rhee
VP, National Ad Sales
(310) 201-6020

A&E Television Networks
235 East 45th Street
New York, NY 10017
(212) 210-1400

A&E Television Networks
111 East Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60601
(312) 819-0191

A&E Television Networks
201 West Big Beaver Road
Suite 1010
Troy, MI 48084
(248) 740-1300

A&E Television Networks

1925 Century Park East
Suite 900
Los Angeles, CA 90067
(310) 201-6060

A&E Advertisers

Toll Free: 1-866-844-2797

Twitter: @TMobile
Toll Free: 1-877-453-1304

Samsung (PR department)
Twitter: @samsungtweets
Toll Free: 1-800-726-7864

Twitter: @motorola
Toll Free: 1-800-734-5870
Alternative: 1-847-523-5000

Twitter: @walgreens
Toll Free: 1-800-925-4733

Twitter: @IHOP
Toll Free: 1-866-444-5144
Alternative: 1-818-240-6055

Macy’s (PR Department)
Twitter: @Macys
Tel: 1-212-705-2434
Alternative: 1-212-494-3000

Twitter: @Nokia
Tel: 1-888-665-4228 FREE

Twitter: @microsoft
Toll Free: 1-800-642-7676

Twitter: @verizonwireless
Toll Free: 1-800- 837-4966

Bass Pro Shops
Twitter: @Bass_Pro-Shops
Toll Free: 1-800-494-1300 or 1-800-227-7776

Progressive Insurance
Tel: 1-440-461-5000

Related Links:

Monday, January 25, 2016

WASHINGTON POST: Ritual Circumcision After Blizzard Painted as "Triumph"

A recent Washington Post article tries very hard to put airs on what would be nothing more than a Jewish child circumcision rite.

The only factor that would mark this one ritual different than any other one that happens is the fact that it happened after a major snow storm.

The storm would have made life difficult for thousands of other people, but somehow this story stood above the rest, making the ordeal worthy of an article on the Washington Post.

The author attempts to frame the whole situation, flights being cancelled, snow being an obstacle for the arrival of the ritual circumciser etc. as some sort of "powerful story" of "struggle" and "the triumph of the human spirit."

To some, this may be the case, but to those of us not conditioned to accept forced male infant genital mutilation as "normal," it's quite the opposite.

Perhaps it is a "triumph" in the eyes of those with a need to fulfill what they see as divine commandment to mutilate the genitals of an otherwise healthy, non-consenting child, but from the point of view of the child, who is weak, innocent and vulnerable, it can be nothing more than abandonment and loss.

The author appears to want to elicit a standing ovation and applause, and many will comply without thinking twice.

But how would readers react if, instead of male infant circumcision, the tale were bout female infant circumcision?

What if this story were, instead, about a couple, who, after a long trial of "strength and endurance," a sandstorm that posed as an obstacle for instance, were "finally" able to have their daughter circumcised?

Would it matter to readers that their family saw circumcising a baby daughter as this "long-standing tradition?"

Would it matter that they saw this as a matter of religious sacrament?

Would it matter that it was a "struggle" for relatives and the ritual circumciser to arrive "in the nick of time?"

Surely arguments that male infant circumcision dwarfs in comparison would quell disgust.

A freshly severed child's foreskin.

An infant's clitoris, barely visible, on a pair of scissors.

Surely it would be of comfort that the procedure was performed by a trained professional using sterile utensils under pristine conditions.

Surely adult women saying they are circumcised and they are "just fine" ought to justify it.

Somehow, I doubt that arguments of "tradition," "religion" and "parental prerogative" would be enough to silence the ensuing shitstorm.

The snowstorm in the Washington Post story is a diversion; merely the tip of the iceberg.

The child endured unnecessary pain, and a needless risk for herpes, infection, partial or full ablation, hemorrhage and even death.

Forget all these other challenges the child was put through, everyone let's pay attention to that nasty snowstorm.

The efforts the author goes through to beautify what is happening, the fact that there has to be an article trying to paint this story as a "success" after "a long struggle" speaks to how the author really feels about the situation.

This could have been a story about someone finally getting a much needed heart.

A doctor making it in time to perform an emergency c-section that saved both mother and child.

You know?

An actual emergency in which there were real stakes.

But this?

Where a child's life was put at stake?

Part of the most intimate part of his body permanently destroyed?

His sexual experience changed forever?

Sorry, but it's a terrible attempt at beautifying a sick, disgusting tradition.

The author in the Washington Post article strives to make this a beautiful story about parents who "struggle" but "finally made it," but strip away the "tradition," "endurance" and religious mumbo-jumbo, take away the blizzard and you're left with nothing more than ritual child abuse and genital mutilation.

It is nothing but sick, disgusting, self-serving opportunism on the part of this Washington Post author, and it's deplorable.

Some may yet defend ritual genital mutilation as "tradition," and I find this ironic.

For one, the fact that "religious tradition" cannot justify female infant circumcision demonstrates that it fails as an argument.

And secondly, the fact that the child's mother is a rabbi, and she doesn't have to undergo some sort of genital cutting ritual, not to mention the fact that the ritual mutilation was performed by a female mohel, exposes the hypocrisy in invoking "tradition" as an alibi; this goes to show you that traditions can and do change.

Ritual male infant circumcision is one of those traditions whose time has come.

The time has come to condemn this tradition in male children, as in female children, for what it is; ritualized child abuse and forced genital mutilation.

Relevant Websites:
Beyond the Bris: News and Views on Jewish Circumcision

Related Posts:
Intactivism: It's Not Just for Gentiles Anymore

Related Articles:

Stories That Didn't End So Triumphantly:
TEL AVIV: Botched baby dies - circumcision exonerated again

NEW YORK: Metzitzah: Two mohelim stopped after babies get herpes

ISRAEL: Baby's Penis Reattached after Mohel Botches Circumcision

PITTSBURGH: Penis cut off, reattached, rabbi sued

ISRAEL: Baby loses 1/3 of penis in worse-than-usual circumcision

NEW YORK: Hypospadias - rabbi botches circumcision

Friday, January 8, 2016

FACEBOOK: Two Botches and a Death

I have been on hiatus from the intactivist movement for the holidays. Now I'm back, and I'm going to make a quick post to report some of the male infant circumcision mayhem that has caught my eye on Facebook.



Folks, prayers and thoughts can only do so much.

We need to ask ourselves, is it conscionable that parents are asking for prayers and thoughts over something that could have been completely prevented?

Circumcision carries risks.

Risks that pro-circ American medical organizations either minimize or refuse to talk about completely.

American medical organizations have incentive to minimize risks, or tacitly advocate not talking about them at all with parents.

A good 80% of American men are circumcised from birth.

A good number of American physicians are either circumcised, or parents of circumcised children themselves.

For some parents and physicians alike, circumcision is a cherished religious tradition that they defend tooth and nail.

Furthermore, at 1.3 million male babies are being circumcised at birth in the US annually, a good number of American physicians benefit from a freebie procedure for which they need no medical diagnosis, only a signed consent form.

Hospitals charge thousands in fees for facilitating circumcision to parents.

In speaking the truth about the risks and complications of male infant circumcision, there is much at stake.

There is money to be lost.

Malpractice lawsuits to face.

Religious traditions to protect.

Mental sanity to preserve.

Circumcision has risks.

The risks of circumcision include infection complications, including MRSA, herpes and gangrene, a botched operation that may need correction later on, an aesthetically displeasing result for which there can be no correction (e.g. such as too much skin removed, pulling up hairy skin onto the shaft, uneven scars etc...), partial or full ablation of the glans (head of the penis) if not the entire shaft itself, hemorrhage and even death.

Considering that circumcision is not medically necessary in a healthy infant, how is putting a healthy child at these risks conscionable?

These are circumcision cases that parents have decided to post on Facebook.

Consider that there are other cases which, for reasons of shame or protection, remain secret.

The cases presented here and otherwise were perfectly preventable.

Otherwise healthy children don't need to be put at any of these risks.

Given that male infant circumcision is elective, non-medical surgery, how is it that any number of botches, complications and death is deemed "acceptable?"

When is American Medicine going to come clean about non-medically indicated infant circumcision?

Wednesday, December 2, 2015

Nurse Would Not Schedule Appointment for Intact Child

I had just finished posting the story of a doctor who insisted on forcibly retracting the foreskin of a baby boy.

I just browsed my Facebook news feed again, and it looks like a nurse has refused to schedule an appointment for a child unless it's his circumcision.

According to SavingOurSons on Facebook, his occured at the Contra Costa Regional Medical Center in Martinez, CA.

My presumptions seem to be true; the modus operandi in American medicine seems to be to make sure a  male child is circumcised above all else.

What is the order of operation when a female infant has UTI?


What happens in European, Australian, Asian countries when a case of UTI presents itself?

I ask again; what are they teaching at American medical schools?

Recently, I've seen this meme showing up on the internet everywhere:

I'm sorry, but it seems that these days, you're better off doing a Google search than consulting the guy with the M.D.

At least in the U.S.A.

This cup is right; don't confuse them.

What an embarrassment.

SavingOurSons has a good resource page on UTI here.

Related Post:
What Your Dr. Doesn't Know Could Hurt Your Child

Monday, November 30, 2015

What Your Dr. Doesn't Know Could Hurt Your Child

American doctors seem to have this obsession with baby penises.

Almost as soon as a male child is born, the first question on most American doctors' minds for his parents is, "Are you going to have him circumcised?"

Some doctors take it a step further and ask "When, are you having him circumcised," as if the elective, non-medical surgery were already a given.

Whether they have some obsession with baby penis, or they want to make sure they can cash in on a freebie, or maybe they just don't know any better, I can't tell.

What can be certain is that American doctors seem to have this compulsion to see and touch a baby's penis.

What in the world are they teaching American doctors in medical school?

I just saw this story on Facebook and couldn't help posting it:

THIS HAPPENED LAST NIGHT AT North Oaks Health System Hospital in Hammond, Louisiana ... [A parent whose name was omitted for privacy] writes, "I just went with a friend to the hospital because her son is 4 months old and running a 103.8 °f fever. Immediately when Dr. Krieg walked in, he went for the diaper, saying a UTI was the most likely cause. He undid the diaper and we figured to check for a rash or swelling, and when he reached for the child penis, the mother grabbed his hands and stopped him, telling him not to touch him there.
"We told him that based on the baby's breathing we thought it was RSV. He kept telling us that he HAD to retract the baby's penis to look and see if anything was infected. My friend and I both lost it on him, telling him it was completely unnecessary for him to ever touch his penis, much less attempt retraction. My friend grabbed the doctor's hands and removed him. He looked shocked, moved on and left the room. 

"He came back and tried to assure us that it was okay and that the internet is full of lies (do tell, Dr.), and I proceeded to tell him that she and I both have older boys and know for a fact it is never necessary. He then tried to tell us if it was not RSV, the flu, or some other infection in his blood work, that he would need to do a catheter. I politely stepped in and told him that this was not true, they have baggies for small children to avoid catheters. His response was that once again there is misinformation on the internet (some rebuttal...). So I proceeded to inform him that my child's doctor was the one who told me of the baggies. And he said "but they get contaminated very easily". We both stated that we chose that route, and if he could not do so that we would go to another hospital. He said he would send someone in to do the swab if we were adamant about testing for RSV, then he left the room.

"The nurse came in after we refused to do the catheter, and she did a nasal swab and they also did x-rays to check for pneumonia. The baby's breaths were very shallow and very quick. The test took 30 mins to run. Dr. Krieg was gone about 45 mins. He came in and apologized for not believing us. He said he didn't think it could be RSV because the baby was not wheezing. He had a totally different attitude. I am 21 with 5 college credits in basic subjects, she is 23 with a high school education and we knew more about it all than he did. Never ever let doctors bully you. Push for what you believe. Instincts go really far.

"The baby has RSV but the fever finally went down so they sent us home. This morning the baby has no fever and is acting more playful after breathing treatments. My friend follows up with the pediatrician tomorrow."

And the thing is, this wouldn't be the first time I've heard of this happening.

Time and time again, I read these stories on Facebook and other mediums, of parents taking their children to the doctor, and the first thing doctors want to do is check their penises, and furthermore, if the children aren't circumcised, to forcibly retract the foreskin for this or that nonsense reason.

These stories are so well known that intactivist organizations have had to issue warnings to parents. (DOC for example.)

Sadly, some doctors do succeed in hornswoggling parents into letting them forcibly retract their child's penis which inevitably results in injury and often circumcision itself.

And then, like clockwork, almost as if it were a canned response, the doctors tell parents "You see, this is why you should have circumcised him earlier."

What is wrong with American doctors?

What are they learning in American medical school?

It's almost as if they've been geared toward destroying natural male anatomy wherever possible.

The first order of operation seems to be to make sure that a male child is circumcised. Not being circumcised is being viewed as a medical condition outright.

Next is to make sure that, if the child is not circumcised, ensure he is by causing the problems a foreskin is said to have, by forcibly retracting the child's foreskin, saying it's a "problem" if he can't be, or outright injuring the child so as to necessitate surgical intervention.

Above all other symptoms and problems, not being circumcised is to be addressed first.

Is this what American doctors learn in med school?

There is something wrong with American medical curricula if this is what doctors are being taught.

The doctor indicts the internet for "lies and misinformation," but it is quite common knowledge that a child's foreskin should not be forcibly retracted, that the age of retraction varies from child to child, that the median age for foreskin retraction is approximately 10 years of age, and that not retracting is not a problem in a child before or even after the age of puberty.

Just what are American doctors being taught in American medical schools?

Why do stories like these keep happening?

Long-term visitors to the United States ought to be warned that doctors in America are often inadvertently, or quite deliberately misinformed about anatomically correct male genital anatomy, and that taking their child to an American-trained doctor could be hazardous to their child's health.

American doctors and American medical curriculum ought to be exposed for the misinformation they dispense.

Relevant Links:

Relevant Post:

Phony Phimosis: How American Doctors Get Away With Medical Fraud