A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » misc.kids » Pregnancy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Two 'kinds' of penises: 'The' penis and...



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 10th 04, 09:56 PM
Todd Gastaldo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Two 'kinds' of penises: 'The' penis and...

AAP/CMA CIRCUMCISION ANTI-SCIENCE

See below.

First this...

THE TWO "KINDS" OF PENISES

"Jake Waskett" wrote:

snip
It is categorically *not* fraudulent to state that circumcision enhances

the
hygiene of the penis.


Jake,

You and I are talking about two very different "kinds" of penises - there is
"the penis" (intact; the one male babies are born with) and there is the
mutilated penis.

My own mutilated penis seems quite normal to me - seems to work fine (!) -
but it *was* mutilated.

Some readers might ask what I mean by mutilated penis...

Like most American males my age a LARGE PART of my penis was literally
ripped then sliced off my penis.

Mutilated penises seem quite normal - indeed they ARE quite normal to those
who sport them. But men with mutilated penises reportedly have on average
about 12 sq. in. less of sexually sensitive skin than men with intact
penises. By slicing off this sexually sensitive skin, MDs reportedly deny
immune function. See the postscript.

Finally regarding my use of the term mutilation, encyclopedias use the term
mutilation to describe circumcision. See
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/2398

....

Bottomline Jake,

Mutilation (circumcision) cannot possibly enhance hygiene of "the penis"
because following circumcision one does not HAVE "the penis." One has
something less...

At best, mutilation (circumcision) enhances hygiene of THE MUTILATED penis.

Todd

Dr. Gastaldo


PS Penis function: Intact vs. Mutilated

As indicated above mutilated penis does not work like the intact penis.

SEXUAL FUNCTION

Fleiss, Hodges and Van Howe [1998] write:

"One function of the prepuce is to facilitate smooth, gentle movement
between the mucosal surface of the two partners during intercourse. The
prepuce enables the penis to slip in and out of the vagina non-abrasively
inside its own sheath of self-lubricating, movable skin. The female is thus
stimulated by moving pressure rather than by friction only, as when the
male's prepuce is missing."

IMMUNOLOGICAL FUNCTION

Fliess, Hodges and Van Howe [1998] also write:

"...A review of the scientific literature...reveals that the actual effect
of circumcision is the destruction of...clinically-demonstated hygienic and
immunological properties of the prepuce and intact penis.

"The sphincter action of the preputial orifice functions like a one way
valve, blocking the entry of contaminants while allowing the passage of
urine.7,8

"...The inner prepuce contains apocrine glands,15 which secrete cathepsin
B...chymotrypsin, neutrophil elastase,16 cytokine (a non-antibody protein
that generates an immune response on contact with specific
antigens)17...pheromones such as androsterone18...[and lysozyme16]...

"...Lysozyme...also found in tears, human milk, and other body fluids
destroys bacterial cell walls..."

From Fleiss P, Hodges F, Van Howe RS. Immunological functions of the human
prepuce. Sex Trans Inf 1998;74(5):364-7...
http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/STD/fleiss3

(How odd that Jake questions this or that statement by Fleiss, Hodges and
Van Howe - but does not question the AAP/CMA circumcision anti-science
discussed below.)

Anyway, the mutilated penis might be said to be a CRIPPLED penis,
immunologically speaking...

It is perhaps a crippled penis sexually as well...

An ancient Jewish fellow, Maimonides, reportedly wrote:

"The fact that [mutilation] weakens the faculty of sexual excitement and
sometimes perhaps diminishes the pleasure is indubitable. For if at birth
this member has been made to bleed and [is mutilated -] has had its covering
taken away from it, it must indubitably be weakened. The Sages, may their
memory be blessed, have explicitly stated: It is hard for a woman with whom
an un[mutilated] man has had sexual intercourse to separate from him. In my
opinion this is the strongest of the reasons for [mutilation].
http://www.cirp.org/library/cultural/maimonides/ [I've substituted
"mutilation/mutilated" in appropriate places]

REGARDLESS though whether the mutilated penis is crippled....
FACT: Nearly 100% of babies join me in calling for an end to American
medicine's grisly most frequent surgical behavior toward males. (Most babies
SCREAM their support - but some are rendered unconscious by the intensity of
the pain of having their penises ripped and sliced.)

KEY POINT...

ROUTINE INFANT CIRCUMCISION is *not* Jewish ritual circumcision - most
certainly it is not the ORIGINAL Jewish ritual circumcision that left most
of the foreskin on the penis. More on this below.

AAP/CMA CIRCUMCISION ANTI-SCIENCE

In late 1987, when I discovered American MDs using phony "babies can't feel
pain" neurology to obtain consent to perform "no medical indication" routine
infant circumcisions, I demanded an end to the obvious child abuse and
called for a religious exemption for Jewish circumcision.

Pediatricians (the AAP, Jan/Feb 1988 issues of Pediatrics) immediately
called for opposition to ALL religious exemptions, saying in effect that if
MDs were to be forced to stop circumcising - so would Jewish ritual
circumcisers!

Immediately thereafter (March 1988), the California Medical Association/CMA
House of Delegates ignored its own Scientific Board and by voice vote
instantly changed routine circumcision from "no medical indications" to "an
effective public health measure." ("Unjustifiable physical pain" is the
exact definition of child abuse in California. Child abusers can go to
prison for up to six years per count. Calif. Penal Code Sec. 273a.)

In 1995, the American Academy of Pediatrics/AAP officially
stated in
effect that MDs can no longer make infants scream and writhe and bleed and
sometimes die...and hide behind PARENTS REQUEST IT cowardice...

According to AAP,

"[T]he pediatrician's responsibilities to his or her patient exist
independent of parental desires...

"...A[n infant's screaming writhing and bleeding obviously constitutes
the - TDG] patient's reluctance or refusal to assent [and - TDG]
should...carry considerable weight when the proposed intervention is not
essential to his or her welfare
and/or can be deferred without substantial risk...

"[T]hose who care for children need to provide for measures to solicit
assent and to attend to possible abuses of 'raw' power over children when
ethical conflicts occur."
AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS
Informed Consent, Parental Permission, and Assent in Pediatric
Practice(RE9510)
Pediatrics Volume 95, Number 2 February, 1995, p. 314-317
http://www.aap.org/policy/00662.html

In 1980, one pediatrician wrote:

"[Routine infant circumcision] constitutes child abuse...an acknowledged
hazard to health." [Michael Katz, MD: Letter. AJDC, 1980]

In 1986, another wrote:

"What a terrible indictment...guilty of failing those for whom we have
chosen to be advocates." [Finkel KC: The failure to report child abuse.
AJDC, 1986;140:329-330]

JEWISH RITUAL CIRCUMCISION

I still would like to see a religious exemption for Jews...

"[T]he LORD met Moses and was about to kill him. But Zipporah took a flint
knife, cut off her son's foreskin and touched Moses' feet with it...So the
LORD let him alone...(Genesis 4:24-26)"
http://www.holyspiritinteractive.net...y/zipporah.asp

KEY POINT: As indicated above, the original Jewish ritual left most of the
foreskin on the
penis.

The late Edward Wallerstein won an American Medical Writers Award for
gathering much of the historical evidence in "Circumcision: An American
Health Fallacy" [NY: Springer 1980]

Later, Wallerstein wrote of the minimal ancient practice in a 1983 article:

"Originally, the surgery involved only cutting the tip of the foreskin.
This was changed in the Hellenic Period to prevent [Jews from]
elongat[ing] the foreskin stump in order to appear uncircumcised."
[Wallerstein E. Humanistic Judaism 1983;11(4):46]

Wallerstein's research is supported by The Jewish Encyclopedia which
indicates that a Jewish "rage for athletics" occurred around 175 BCE
when the Seleucid king Antiochus IV offered citizenship to those who
adopted the athletic Greek way of life.

ANCIENT NUDE WRESTLING AND CIRCUMCISION

Jason, high priest of Jerusalem, offered to increase his tribute to
Antiochus IV if he would
build a Greek-style gymnasium in Jerusalem. The gymnasium was built.

As Jews began participating in the nude games, "devout Jews" (a minority
of Jews) found to their horror that a partially exposed glans (i.e., a
"mini"-circumcised penis) was considered vulgar. Compounding the horror
(of this minority of "devout Jews") was the fact that many Jews -
including perhaps Jewish priests - were stretching their "mini"
circumcisized foreskins so as not to appear circumcised.

According to the Jewish Encyclopedia:

"[D]evout Jews began to look upon the exercises with horror, especially
because most of them were practised "in puris naturilibus" and the
Covenant of Abraham had become an object of derision. Nevertheless, for
a time at least, the rage for Athletics spread even to the priests...
[See Athletics in Singer I (and 400 others, eds.) The Jewish
Encyclopedia. New York: Ktav 1901.]

"...[T]he consequence was [the] attempt to appear like the Greeks by
epispasm ('making themselves foreskins')... [See Circumcision in Singer
I (and 400 others, eds.), 1901]

Forty years later (134 BCE), the high priest of Jerusalem, John
Hyrcanus, forcibly circumcised the Idumeans, "leading them to think they
were Jews." [Gribetz J, Greenstein EL, Stein RS. The Timetables of
Jewish History. New York: Simon and Schuster 1993. Judah Gribetz is
president of the Jewish Community Relations Council of New York.]

It was during this period that Jewish priests apparently decided that
stretching the foreskin was wrong and threatened the extermination of
those Jews who stretched their foreskins:

"The Book of Jubilee (xv. 26-27), written in the time of John Hyrcanus,
has the following: '...God's anger will be kindled against the children
of the covenant if they make the members of their body appear like those
of the Gentiles, and they will be expelled and exterminated from the
earth.'" [Charles, The Book of Jubilees iv.-ix. iii. 190-192, under
Circumcision in Singer I (and 400 others, eds.) The Jewish Encyclopedia.
New York: Ktav 1901.]

But Jews of this period apparently construed the "no stretching" decree
to mean that it was all right not to circumcise; for when the son of
John Hyrcanus took power in 104 BCE (by imprisoning his mother and
killing his brother), he forced circumcision on the residents of Galilee
- "many of them Jews." [Gribetz 1993]

The shift to total foreskin amputation is believed to have occurred one
hundred years later, after the unsuccessful Bar Kokba uprising against
the Roman Emperor Hadrian (who had completely outlawed circumcision):

"In order to prevent the obliteration of the "seal of the
covenant"...the Rabbis, probably after the war of Bar Kokba (see Yeb.
l.c.; Gen. R. xivi.), instituted the 'peri'ah' (the laying bare of the
glans), without which circumcision was declared to be of no value (Shab.
xxx. 6)." [See Circumcision in Singer I (and 400 others, eds.), 1901]

"Thenceforward [total foreskin amputation - the laying bare of the
glans] was the mark of Jewish loyalty." [See Circumcision in Singer I
(and 400 others, eds.), 1901]

God originally/allegedly told
Jews to leave most of the foreskin on the penis - and rabbis are
ignoring Him...

But even God's original (minimal) ritual infant mutilation is illegal in the
U.S...

See Wild circumcision rhetoric of MDs/Israel's history
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/2398

Fortunately, some modern rabbis (hotly contested by other rabbis)
offer American Jews an ideological basis
not to circumcise...

According to Rabbi MN Kertner:

"[Circumcision] is not a sacrament which inducts the infant into
Judaism: his birth does that" [Rabbi MN Kertner. What is a Jew? New
York: Macmillan, 1973,1993] Adult Jews who wish to remain uncircumcised
are accepted under Israel's Law of Return, which indicates that even
"religious" circumcision is a CHOICE which may legitimately be postponed
until adulthood and beyond...

And according to Rabbi Michael Lerner:

"The infliction of unnecessary pain is precisely what Judaism is
designed to fight against, so it makes little sense for us to be the
perpetrators on our children." [Rabbi Michael Lerner. Jewish Renewal NY:
G.P. Putnam's Sons 1994:387])

RABBIS CHANGE THE BIBLICAL RULES

Hershel Shanks, editor of Moment, recently noted that "the rabbis of the
Talmud OFTEN changed the Biblical rules" (emphasis added):

"A friend...[argued]...with regard to the Orthodox rabbis' pronouncement
declaring Reform and Conservative not Judaism...[that]...[i]t's all
traceable to the [U.S.] Reform decision nearly 15 years ago to adopt
patrilineality - a child born of a Jewish father, if raised as a Jew, is
Jewish....

"....[i]n Biblical times, Jewish descent was determined by the
Jewishness of the father...The rabbis changed that 2,000 year-old
tradition...Indeed the rabbis of the Talmud OFTEN changed the Biblical
rules (emphasis added)..."
[Shanks H. Tolerance v. Halachah. Moment. (Jun)1997;22(3):6, 8-9]

Modern rabbis could switch back to "tip" circumcisions
- or even to NO circumcisions - if they really wanted to.

I still though favor a religious exemption for Jews. Jews do NOT
circumcise for medical reasons - they circumcise because their God wants
them
to - at least this is what they sincerely believe - and I believe them.

Which brings me back to ROUTINE (medical) infant circumcision, American
medicine's $400 million dollar per year GRISLY most frequent surgical
behavior toward males...

In the medical literature, "freeing adhesions," the first step in routine
infant circumcision, has been called "tantamount to cruel and unusual
punishment":

"Freeing adhesions, is tantamount to cruel and unusual punishment and is
unfounded physiologically and medically." [Kaplan GW: Circumcision: An
overview. Current Problems in Pediatrics, 1977;7(5):8.]

Routine infant circumcision should have ended BILLIONS of dollars' worth of
infant screams ago - back in 1987 when I exposed AAP's perpetuation of phony
"babies can't feel pain" neurology...

Ending this barbaric MD behavior toward babies (see "brutal" "barbaric"
quotes below) would not only save $400 million dollars per year^^^ ...

Ending it would stop the infant screams and (paradoxically) PRESERVE the
surgery as a CHOICE American males could make for themselves in adulthood.
(It is likely that - like most males on the planet - American males would
NOT chooose circumcision in adulthood.)

^^^$400 million dollar per year figure is from
http://www.infocirc.org/MensHlth.htm

INFANT CIRCUMCISION: A BRUTAL, BARBARIC PRACTICE...

"After years of strapping babies down for this brutal procedure and
listening to their screams, we couldn't take it any longer." [Sperlich
BK, Conant M. Am J Nurs (Jun)1994:16. http://www.cirp.org/nrc/]

"Nursing alert...[N]urses must consider their participation in a
surgical procedure that involves no anesthesia to be a barbaric
practice." (p. 205) Donna L. Wong's Essentials of
Pediatric Nursing [1997]

"[S]till all too often barbaric...[M.D.s]...would never allow older children
or
adults to be subjected to such practices, nor would they submit to it
themselves..." [Veteran circumcision cheerleader Colonel Thomas E. Wiswell,
MD in article in the April 24, 1997 New England Journal of
Medicine]


THINK ABOUT IT

AS INFANTS SCREAM AND WRITHE AND BLEED...

"One-half to one-third of the skin on the...penile shaft is sliced
off." http://www.infocirc.org/MensHlth.htm (paraphrasing Ronald Goldman,
PhD,
author of Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma)

"The average circumcision cuts off what would grow into
about 12 square inches of sexually sensitive skin."
http://www.infocirc.org/MensHlth.htm (quoting Ronald Goldman, PhD, author of
Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma)

Sometimes (fortunately rarely) babies die or lose their penises because of
circumcision.

I say again, Jake...

Mutilation (circumcision) cannot possibly enhance hygiene of "the penis"
because following circumcision one does not HAVE "the penis." One has
something less - one-half to one-third less skin on the infant penile
shaft - and 12 square inches less sexually sensitive skin in the adult - not
to mention (according to Fleiss, Hodges and Van Howe) less sexual and
immunological function.

At best, mutilation (circumcision) enhances hygiene of THE MUTILATED penis.

Thanks for reading, everyone.
Sincerely,

Todd

Dr. Gastaldo




  #2  
Old April 10th 04, 10:26 PM
Jake Waskett
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Two 'kinds' of penises: 'The' penis and...

Todd Gastaldo wrote:

AAP/CMA CIRCUMCISION ANTI-SCIENCE

See below.

First this...

THE TWO "KINDS" OF PENISES

"Jake Waskett" wrote:

snip
It is categorically *not* fraudulent to state that circumcision enhances

the
hygiene of the penis.


Jake,

You and I are talking about two very different "kinds" of penises - there
is "the penis" (intact; the one male babies are born with) and there is
the mutilated penis.

My own mutilated penis seems quite normal to me - seems to work fine (!) -
but it *was* mutilated.


Ok, Todd. I accept that you feel it was mutilated.


Some readers might ask what I mean by mutilated penis...

Like most American males my age a LARGE PART of my penis was literally
ripped then sliced off my penis.


You mean that the synechiae connecting your foreskin to the glans were
separated, and then the foreskin excised?


Mutilated penises seem quite normal - indeed they ARE quite normal to
those
who sport them. But men with mutilated penises reportedly have on average
about 12 sq. in. less of sexually sensitive skin than men with intact
penises. By slicing off this sexually sensitive skin, MDs reportedly deny
immune function. See the postscript.


Be careful to be accurate, Todd. As the skin is double-layered, one half of
it will be ordinary shaft-skin. The other half, some claim, is especially
sensitive.


Finally regarding my use of the term mutilation, encyclopedias use the
term
mutilation to describe circumcision. See
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chiro-list/message/2398


I'm sure, Todd.


...

Bottomline Jake,

Mutilation (circumcision) cannot possibly enhance hygiene of "the penis"
because following circumcision one does not HAVE "the penis." One has
something less...


Ok, Todd, you feel free to split hairs.


At best, mutilation (circumcision) enhances hygiene of THE MUTILATED
penis.

Todd

Dr. Gastaldo


[repeat of earlier posts snipped]
  #3  
Old April 15th 04, 10:13 AM
SKYY Vodka
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Two 'kinds' of penises: 'The' penis and...

I got it. Foreskin good. Circumcision bad. Can we all go home now?
I'll turn out the lights. :-)

"Todd Gastaldo" wrote in message link.net...[i]
AAP/CMA CIRCUMCISION ANTI-SCIENCE

See below.

First this...

THE TWO "KINDS" OF PENISES

"Jake Waskett" wrote:

snip
It is categorically *not* fraudulent to state that circumcision enhances

the
hygiene of the penis.


Jake,

You and I are talking about two very different "kinds" of penises - there is
"the penis" (intact; the one male babies are born with) and there is the
mutilated penis.

My own mutilated penis seems quite normal to me - seems to work fine (!) -
but it *was* mutilated.

Some readers might ask what I mean by mutilated penis...

Like most American males my age a LARGE PART of my penis was literally
ripped then sliced off my penis.

Mutilated penises seem quite normal - indeed they ARE quite normal to those
who sport them. But men with mutilated penises reportedly have on average
about 12 sq. in. less of sexually sensitive skin than men with intact
penises. By slicing off this sexually sensitive skin, MDs reportedly deny
immune function. See the postscript.

Finally regarding my use of the term mutilation, encyclopedias use the term
mutilation to describe circumcision. See
http://groups.dogyob.com/group/chiro-list/message/2398

...

Bottomline Jake,

Mutilation (circumcision) cannot possibly enhance hygiene of "the penis"
because following circumcision one does not HAVE "the penis." One has
something less...

At best, mutilation (circumcision) enhances hygiene of THE MUTILATED penis.

Todd

Dr. Gastaldo


PS Penis function: Intact vs. Mutilated

As indicated above mutilated penis does not work like the intact penis.

SEXUAL FUNCTION

Fleiss, Hodges and Van Howe [1998] write:

"One function of the prepuce is to facilitate smooth, gentle movement
between the mucosal surface of the two partners during intercourse. The
prepuce enables the penis to slip in and out of the vagina non-abrasively
inside its own sheath of self-lubricating, movable skin. The female is thus
stimulated by moving pressure rather than by friction only, as when the
male's prepuce is missing."

IMMUNOLOGICAL FUNCTION

Fliess, Hodges and Van Howe [1998] also write:

"...A review of the scientific literature...reveals that the actual effect
of circumcision is the destruction of...clinically-demonstated hygienic and
immunological properties of the prepuce and intact penis.

"The sphincter action of the preputial orifice functions like a one way
valve, blocking the entry of contaminants while allowing the passage of
urine.7,8

"...The inner prepuce contains apocrine glands,15 which secrete cathepsin
B...chymotrypsin, neutrophil elastase,16 cytokine (a non-antibody protein
that generates an immune response on contact with specific
antigens)17...pheromones such as androsterone18...[and lysozyme16]...

"...Lysozyme...also found in tears, human milk, and other body fluids
destroys bacterial cell walls..."

From Fleiss P, Hodges F, Van Howe RS. Immunological functions of the human
prepuce. Sex Trans Inf 1998;74(5):364-7...
http://www.dogyob.org/library/disease/STD/fleiss3

(How odd that Jake questions this or that statement by Fleiss, Hodges and
Van Howe - but does not question the AAP/CMA circumcision anti-science
discussed below.)

Anyway, the mutilated penis might be said to be a CRIPPLED penis,
immunologically speaking...

It is perhaps a crippled penis sexually as well...

An ancient Jewish fellow, Maimonides, reportedly wrote:

"The fact that [mutilation] weakens the faculty of sexual excitement and
sometimes perhaps diminishes the pleasure is indubitable. For if at birth
this member has been made to bleed and [is mutilated -] has had its covering
taken away from it, it must indubitably be weakened. The Sages, may their
memory be blessed, have explicitly stated: It is hard for a woman with whom
an un[mutilated] man has had sexual intercourse to separate from him. In my
opinion this is the strongest of the reasons for [mutilation].
http://www.dogyob.org/library/cultural/maimonides/ [I've substituted
"mutilation/mutilated" in appropriate places]

REGARDLESS though whether the mutilated penis is crippled....
FACT: Nearly 100% of babies join me in calling for an end to American
medicine's grisly most frequent surgical behavior toward males. (Most babies
SCREAM their support - but some are rendered unconscious by the intensity of
the pain of having their penises ripped and sliced.)

KEY POINT...

ROUTINE INFANT CIRCUMCISION is *not* Jewish ritual circumcision - most
certainly it is not the ORIGINAL Jewish ritual circumcision that left most
of the foreskin on the penis. More on this below.

AAP/CMA CIRCUMCISION ANTI-SCIENCE

In late 1987, when I discovered American MDs using phony "babies can't feel
pain" neurology to obtain consent to perform "no medical indication" routine
infant circumcisions, I demanded an end to the obvious child abuse and
called for a religious exemption for Jewish circumcision.

Pediatricians (the AAP, Jan/Feb 1988 issues of Pediatrics) immediately
called for opposition to ALL religious exemptions, saying in effect that if
MDs were to be forced to stop circumcising - so would Jewish ritual
circumcisers!

Immediately thereafter (March 1988), the California Medical Association/CMA
House of Delegates ignored its own Scientific Board and by voice vote
instantly changed routine circumcision from "no medical indications" to "an
effective public health measure." ("Unjustifiable physical pain" is the
exact definition of child abuse in California. Child abusers can go to
prison for up to six years per count. Calif. Penal Code Sec. 273a.)

In 1995, the American Academy of Pediatrics/AAP officially
stated in
effect that MDs can no longer make infants scream and writhe and bleed and
sometimes die...and hide behind PARENTS REQUEST IT cowardice...

According to AAP,

"[T]he pediatrician's responsibilities to his or her patient exist
independent of parental desires...

"...A[n infant's screaming writhing and bleeding obviously constitutes
the - TDG] patient's reluctance or refusal to assent [and - TDG]
should...carry considerable weight when the proposed intervention is not
essential to his or her welfare
and/or can be deferred without substantial risk...

"[T]hose who care for children need to provide for measures to solicit
assent and to attend to possible abuses of 'raw' power over children when
ethical conflicts occur."
AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS
Informed Consent, Parental Permission, and Assent in Pediatric
Practice(RE9510)
Pediatrics Volume 95, Number 2 February, 1995, p. 314-317
http://www.dogyob.org/policy/00662.html

In 1980, one pediatrician wrote:

"[Routine infant circumcision] constitutes child abuse...an acknowledged
hazard to health." [Michael Katz, MD: Letter. AJDC, 1980]

In 1986, another wrote:

"What a terrible indictment...guilty of failing those for whom we have
chosen to be advocates." [Finkel KC: The failure to report child abuse.
AJDC, 1986;140:329-330]

JEWISH RITUAL CIRCUMCISION

I still would like to see a religious exemption for Jews...

"[T]he LORD met Moses and was about to kill him. But Zipporah took a flint
knife, cut off her son's foreskin and touched Moses' feet with it...So the
LORD let him alone...(Genesis 4:24-26)"
http://www.dogyob.net/biblediscovery/zipporah.asp

KEY POINT: As indicated above, the original Jewish ritual left most of the
foreskin on the
penis.

The late Edward Wallerstein won an American Medical Writers Award for
gathering much of the historical evidence in "Circumcision: An American
Health Fallacy" [NY: Springer 1980]

Later, Wallerstein wrote of the minimal ancient practice in a 1983 article:

"Originally, the surgery involved only cutting the tip of the foreskin.
This was changed in the Hellenic Period to prevent [Jews from]
elongat[ing] the foreskin stump in order to appear uncircumcised."
[Wallerstein E. Humanistic Judaism 1983;11(4):46]

Wallerstein's research is supported by The Jewish Encyclopedia which
indicates that a Jewish "rage for athletics" occurred around 175 BCE
when the Seleucid king Antiochus IV offered citizenship to those who
adopted the athletic Greek way of life.

ANCIENT NUDE WRESTLING AND CIRCUMCISION

Jason, high priest of Jerusalem, offered to increase his tribute to
Antiochus IV if he would
build a Greek-style gymnasium in Jerusalem. The gymnasium was built.

As Jews began participating in the nude games, "devout Jews" (a minority
of Jews) found to their horror that a partially exposed glans (i.e., a
"mini"-circumcised penis) was considered vulgar. Compounding the horror
(of this minority of "devout Jews") was the fact that many Jews -
including perhaps Jewish priests - were stretching their "mini"
circumcisized foreskins so as not to appear circumcised.

According to the Jewish Encyclopedia:

"[D]evout Jews began to look upon the exercises with horror, especially
because most of them were practised "in puris naturilibus" and the
Covenant of Abraham had become an object of derision. Nevertheless, for
a time at least, the rage for Athletics spread even to the priests...
[See Athletics in Singer I (and 400 others, eds.) The Jewish
Encyclopedia. New York: Ktav 1901.]

"...[T]he consequence was [the] attempt to appear like the Greeks by
epispasm ('making themselves foreskins')... [See Circumcision in Singer
I (and 400 others, eds.), 1901]

Forty years later (134 BCE), the high priest of Jerusalem, John
Hyrcanus, forcibly circumcised the Idumeans, "leading them to think they
were Jews." [Gribetz J, Greenstein EL, Stein RS. The Timetables of
Jewish History. New York: Simon and Schuster 1993. Judah Gribetz is
president of the Jewish Community Relations Council of New York.]

It was during this period that Jewish priests apparently decided that
stretching the foreskin was wrong and threatened the extermination of
those Jews who stretched their foreskins:

"The Book of Jubilee (xv. 26-27), written in the time of John Hyrcanus,
has the following: '...God's anger will be kindled against the children
of the covenant if they make the members of their body appear like those
of the Gentiles, and they will be expelled and exterminated from the
earth.'" [Charles, The Book of Jubilees iv.-ix. iii. 190-192, under
Circumcision in Singer I (and 400 others, eds.) The Jewish Encyclopedia.
New York: Ktav 1901.]

But Jews of this period apparently construed the "no stretching" decree
to mean that it was all right not to circumcise; for when the son of
John Hyrcanus took power in 104 BCE (by imprisoning his mother and
killing his brother), he forced circumcision on the residents of Galilee
- "many of them Jews." [Gribetz 1993]

The shift to total foreskin amputation is believed to have occurred one
hundred years later, after the unsuccessful Bar Kokba uprising against
the Roman Emperor Hadrian (who had completely outlawed circumcision):

"In order to prevent the obliteration of the "seal of the
covenant"...the Rabbis, probably after the war of Bar Kokba (see Yeb.
l.c.; Gen. R. xivi.), instituted the 'peri'ah' (the laying bare of the
glans), without which circumcision was declared to be of no value (Shab.
xxx. 6)." [See Circumcision in Singer I (and 400 others, eds.), 1901]

"Thenceforward [total foreskin amputation - the laying bare of the
glans] was the mark of Jewish loyalty." [See Circumcision in Singer I
(and 400 others, eds.), 1901]

God originally/allegedly told
Jews to leave most of the foreskin on the penis - and rabbis are
ignoring Him...

But even God's original (minimal) ritual infant mutilation is illegal in the
U.S...

See Wild circumcision rhetoric of MDs/Israel's history
http://groups.dogyob.com/group/chiro-list/message/2398

Fortunately, some modern rabbis (hotly contested by other rabbis)
offer American Jews an ideological basis
not to circumcise...

According to Rabbi MN Kertner:

"[Circumcision] is not a sacrament which inducts the infant into
Judaism: his birth does that" [Rabbi MN Kertner. What is a Jew? New
York: Macmillan, 1973,1993] Adult Jews who wish to remain uncircumcised
are accepted under Israel's Law of Return, which indicates that even
"religious" circumcision is a CHOICE which may legitimately be postponed
until adulthood and beyond...

And according to Rabbi Michael Lerner:

"The infliction of unnecessary pain is precisely what Judaism is
designed to fight against, so it makes little sense for us to be the
perpetrators on our children." [Rabbi Michael Lerner. Jewish Renewal NY:
G.P. Putnam's Sons 1994:387])

RABBIS CHANGE THE BIBLICAL RULES

Hershel Shanks, editor of Moment, recently noted that "the rabbis of the
Talmud OFTEN changed the Biblical rules" (emphasis added):

"A friend...[argued]...with regard to the Orthodox rabbis' pronouncement
declaring Reform and Conservative not Judaism...[that]...[i]t's all
traceable to the [U.S.] Reform decision nearly 15 years ago to adopt
patrilineality - a child born of a Jewish father, if raised as a Jew, is
Jewish....

"....n Biblical times, Jewish descent was determined by the
Jewishness of the father...The rabbis changed that 2,000 year-old
tradition...Indeed the rabbis of the Talmud OFTEN changed the Biblical
rules (emphasis added)..."
[Shanks H. Tolerance v. Halachah. Moment. (Jun)1997;22(3):6, 8-9]

Modern rabbis could switch back to "tip" circumcisions
- or even to NO circumcisions - if they really wanted to.

I still though favor a religious exemption for Jews. Jews do NOT
circumcise for medical reasons - they circumcise because their God wants
them
to - at least this is what they sincerely believe - and I believe them.

Which brings me back to ROUTINE (medical) infant circumcision, American
medicine's $400 million dollar per year GRISLY most frequent surgical
behavior toward males...

In the medical literature, "freeing adhesions," the first step in routine
infant circumcision, has been called "tantamount to cruel and unusual
punishment":

"Freeing adhesions, is tantamount to cruel and unusual punishment and is
unfounded physiologically and medically." [Kaplan GW: Circumcision: An
overview. Current Problems in Pediatrics, 1977;7(5):8.]

Routine infant circumcision should have ended BILLIONS of dollars' worth of
infant screams ago - back in 1987 when I exposed AAP's perpetuation of phony
"babies can't feel pain" neurology...

Ending this barbaric MD behavior toward babies (see "brutal" "barbaric"
quotes below) would not only save $400 million dollars per year^^^ ...

Ending it would stop the infant screams and (paradoxically) PRESERVE the
surgery as a CHOICE American males could make for themselves in adulthood.
(It is likely that - like most males on the planet - American males would
NOT chooose circumcision in adulthood.)

^^^$400 million dollar per year figure is from
http://www.dogyob.org/MensHlth.htm

INFANT CIRCUMCISION: A BRUTAL, BARBARIC PRACTICE...

"After years of strapping babies down for this brutal procedure and
listening to their screams, we couldn't take it any longer." [Sperlich
BK, Conant M. Am J Nurs (Jun)1994:16. http://www.cirp.org/nrc/]

"Nursing alert...[N]urses must consider their participation in a
surgical procedure that involves no anesthesia to be a barbaric
practice." (p. 205) Donna L. Wong's Essentials of
Pediatric Nursing [1997]

"[S]till all too often barbaric...[M.D.s]...would never allow older children
or
adults to be subjected to such practices, nor would they submit to it
themselves..." [Veteran circumcision cheerleader Colonel Thomas E. Wiswell,
MD in article in the April 24, 1997 New England Journal of
Medicine]


THINK ABOUT IT

AS INFANTS SCREAM AND WRITHE AND BLEED...

"One-half to one-third of the skin on the...penile shaft is sliced
off." http://www.dogyob.org/MensHlth.htm (paraphrasing Ronald Goldman,
PhD,
author of Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma)

"The average circumcision cuts off what would grow into
about 12 square inches of sexually sensitive skin."
http://www.dogyob.org/MensHlth.htm (quoting Ronald Goldman, PhD, author of
Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma)

Sometimes (fortunately rarely) babies die or lose their penises because of
circumcision.

I say again, Jake...

Mutilation (circumcision) cannot possibly enhance hygiene of "the penis"
because following circumcision one does not HAVE "the penis." One has
something less - one-half to one-third less skin on the infant penile
shaft - and 12 square inches less sexually sensitive skin in the adult - not
to mention (according to Fleiss, Hodges and Van Howe) less sexual and
immunological function.

At best, mutilation (circumcision) enhances hygiene of THE MUTILATED penis.

Thanks for reading, everyone.
Sincerely,

Todd

Dr. Gastaldo

  #4  
Old April 16th 04, 06:09 PM
Todd Gastaldo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Two 'kinds' of penises: 'The' penis and...

"SKYY Vodka" humorously trivialized mass infant
suffering...

"I got it. Foreskin good. Circumcision bad. Can we all go home now? I'll
turn out the lights. :-)"

SKYY, most American infant males are being made to scream and writhe and
bleed and sometimes die from genital mutilation.

Most American FEMALES also have their genitals senselessly mutilated - at
about the same time. OBs are slicing vaginas en masse (euphemism "routine
episiotomy") - surgically/FRAUDULENTLY inferring they are doing everything
possible to OPEN birth canals - even as they knowingly CLOSE birth canals up
to 30%.

Of the three crimes mentioned, I'd say the last - OBs knowingly closing
birth canals - is by far the worst.

Go ahead and turn out your lights SKYY...

I'll keep mine on.

Thanks for reading,

Sincerely,

Todd

Dr. Gastaldo


"SKYY Vodka" wrote in message
om...
I got it. Foreskin good. Circumcision bad. Can we all go home now?
I'll turn out the lights. :-)

"Todd Gastaldo" wrote in message

link.net...
AAP/CMA CIRCUMCISION ANTI-SCIENCE

See below.

First this...

THE TWO "KINDS" OF PENISES

"Jake Waskett" wrote:

snip
It is categorically *not* fraudulent to state that circumcision

enhances
the
hygiene of the penis.


Jake,

You and I are talking about two very different "kinds" of penises -

there is
"the penis" (intact; the one male babies are born with) and there is the
mutilated penis.

My own mutilated penis seems quite normal to me - seems to work fine

(!) -
but it *was* mutilated.

Some readers might ask what I mean by mutilated penis...

Like most American males my age a LARGE PART of my penis was literally
ripped then sliced off my penis.

Mutilated penises seem quite normal - indeed they ARE quite normal to

those
who sport them. But men with mutilated penises reportedly have on

average
about 12 sq. in. less of sexually sensitive skin than men with intact
penises. By slicing off this sexually sensitive skin, MDs reportedly

deny
immune function. See the postscript.

Finally regarding my use of the term mutilation, encyclopedias use the

term
mutilation to describe circumcision. See
http://groups.dogyob.com/group/chiro-list/message/2398

...

Bottomline Jake,

Mutilation (circumcision) cannot possibly enhance hygiene of "the penis"
because following circumcision one does not HAVE "the penis." One has
something less...

At best, mutilation (circumcision) enhances hygiene of THE MUTILATED

penis.

Todd

Dr. Gastaldo


PS Penis function: Intact vs. Mutilated

As indicated above mutilated penis does not work like the intact penis.

SEXUAL FUNCTION

Fleiss, Hodges and Van Howe [1998] write:

"One function of the prepuce is to facilitate smooth, gentle movement
between the mucosal surface of the two partners during intercourse. The
prepuce enables the penis to slip in and out of the vagina

non-abrasively
inside its own sheath of self-lubricating, movable skin. The female is

thus
stimulated by moving pressure rather than by friction only, as when the
male's prepuce is missing."

IMMUNOLOGICAL FUNCTION

Fliess, Hodges and Van Howe [1998] also write:

"...A review of the scientific literature...reveals that the actual

effect
of circumcision is the destruction of...clinically-demonstated hygienic

and
immunological properties of the prepuce and intact penis.

"The sphincter action of the preputial orifice functions like a one way
valve, blocking the entry of contaminants while allowing the passage of
urine.7,8

"...The inner prepuce contains apocrine glands,15 which secrete

cathepsin
B...chymotrypsin, neutrophil elastase,16 cytokine (a non-antibody

protein
that generates an immune response on contact with specific
antigens)17...pheromones such as androsterone18...[and lysozyme16]...

"...Lysozyme...also found in tears, human milk, and other body fluids
destroys bacterial cell walls..."

From Fleiss P, Hodges F, Van Howe RS. Immunological functions of the

human
prepuce. Sex Trans Inf 1998;74(5):364-7...
http://www.dogyob.org/library/disease/STD/fleiss3

(How odd that Jake questions this or that statement by Fleiss, Hodges

and
Van Howe - but does not question the AAP/CMA circumcision anti-science
discussed below.)

Anyway, the mutilated penis might be said to be a CRIPPLED penis,
immunologically speaking...

It is perhaps a crippled penis sexually as well...

An ancient Jewish fellow, Maimonides, reportedly wrote:

"The fact that [mutilation] weakens the faculty of sexual excitement and
sometimes perhaps diminishes the pleasure is indubitable. For if at

birth
this member has been made to bleed and [is mutilated -] has had its

covering
taken away from it, it must indubitably be weakened. The Sages, may

their
memory be blessed, have explicitly stated: It is hard for a woman with

whom
an un[mutilated] man has had sexual intercourse to separate from him. In

my
opinion this is the strongest of the reasons for [mutilation].
http://www.dogyob.org/library/cultural/maimonides/ [I've substituted
"mutilation/mutilated" in appropriate places]

REGARDLESS though whether the mutilated penis is crippled....
FACT: Nearly 100% of babies join me in calling for an end to American
medicine's grisly most frequent surgical behavior toward males. (Most

babies
SCREAM their support - but some are rendered unconscious by the

intensity of
the pain of having their penises ripped and sliced.)

KEY POINT...

ROUTINE INFANT CIRCUMCISION is *not* Jewish ritual circumcision - most
certainly it is not the ORIGINAL Jewish ritual circumcision that left

most
of the foreskin on the penis. More on this below.

AAP/CMA CIRCUMCISION ANTI-SCIENCE

In late 1987, when I discovered American MDs using phony "babies can't

feel
pain" neurology to obtain consent to perform "no medical indication"

routine
infant circumcisions, I demanded an end to the obvious child abuse and
called for a religious exemption for Jewish circumcision.

Pediatricians (the AAP, Jan/Feb 1988 issues of Pediatrics) immediately
called for opposition to ALL religious exemptions, saying in effect that

if
MDs were to be forced to stop circumcising - so would Jewish ritual
circumcisers!

Immediately thereafter (March 1988), the California Medical

Association/CMA
House of Delegates ignored its own Scientific Board and by voice vote
instantly changed routine circumcision from "no medical indications" to

"an
effective public health measure." ("Unjustifiable physical pain" is the
exact definition of child abuse in California. Child abusers can go to
prison for up to six years per count. Calif. Penal Code Sec. 273a.)

In 1995, the American Academy of Pediatrics/AAP officially
stated in
effect that MDs can no longer make infants scream and writhe and bleed

and
sometimes die...and hide behind PARENTS REQUEST IT cowardice...

According to AAP,

"[T]he pediatrician's responsibilities to his or her patient exist
independent of parental desires...

"...A[n infant's screaming writhing and bleeding obviously constitutes
the - TDG] patient's reluctance or refusal to assent [and - TDG]
should...carry considerable weight when the proposed intervention is not
essential to his or her welfare
and/or can be deferred without substantial risk...

"[T]hose who care for children need to provide for measures to solicit
assent and to attend to possible abuses of 'raw' power over children

when
ethical conflicts occur."
AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS
Informed Consent, Parental Permission, and Assent in Pediatric
Practice(RE9510)
Pediatrics Volume 95, Number 2 February, 1995, p. 314-317
http://www.dogyob.org/policy/00662.html

In 1980, one pediatrician wrote:

"[Routine infant circumcision] constitutes child abuse...an acknowledged
hazard to health." [Michael Katz, MD: Letter. AJDC, 1980]

In 1986, another wrote:

"What a terrible indictment...guilty of failing those for whom we have
chosen to be advocates." [Finkel KC: The failure to report child abuse.
AJDC, 1986;140:329-330]

JEWISH RITUAL CIRCUMCISION

I still would like to see a religious exemption for Jews...

"[T]he LORD met Moses and was about to kill him. But Zipporah took a

flint
knife, cut off her son's foreskin and touched Moses' feet with it...So

the
LORD let him alone...(Genesis 4:24-26)"
http://www.dogyob.net/biblediscovery/zipporah.asp

KEY POINT: As indicated above, the original Jewish ritual left most of

the
foreskin on the
penis.

The late Edward Wallerstein won an American Medical Writers Award for
gathering much of the historical evidence in "Circumcision: An American
Health Fallacy" [NY: Springer 1980]

Later, Wallerstein wrote of the minimal ancient practice in a 1983

article:

"Originally, the surgery involved only cutting the tip of the foreskin.
This was changed in the Hellenic Period to prevent [Jews from]
elongat[ing] the foreskin stump in order to appear uncircumcised."
[Wallerstein E. Humanistic Judaism 1983;11(4):46]

Wallerstein's research is supported by The Jewish Encyclopedia which
indicates that a Jewish "rage for athletics" occurred around 175 BCE
when the Seleucid king Antiochus IV offered citizenship to those who
adopted the athletic Greek way of life.

ANCIENT NUDE WRESTLING AND CIRCUMCISION

Jason, high priest of Jerusalem, offered to increase his tribute to
Antiochus IV if he would
build a Greek-style gymnasium in Jerusalem. The gymnasium was built.

As Jews began participating in the nude games, "devout Jews" (a minority
of Jews) found to their horror that a partially exposed glans (i.e., a
"mini"-circumcised penis) was considered vulgar. Compounding the horror
(of this minority of "devout Jews") was the fact that many Jews -
including perhaps Jewish priests - were stretching their "mini"
circumcisized foreskins so as not to appear circumcised.

According to the Jewish Encyclopedia:

"[D]evout Jews began to look upon the exercises with horror, especially
because most of them were practised "in puris naturilibus" and the
Covenant of Abraham had become an object of derision. Nevertheless, for
a time at least, the rage for Athletics spread even to the priests...
[See Athletics in Singer I (and 400 others, eds.) The Jewish
Encyclopedia. New York: Ktav 1901.]

"...[T]he consequence was [the] attempt to appear like the Greeks by
epispasm ('making themselves foreskins')... [See Circumcision in Singer
I (and 400 others, eds.), 1901]

Forty years later (134 BCE), the high priest of Jerusalem, John
Hyrcanus, forcibly circumcised the Idumeans, "leading them to think they
were Jews." [Gribetz J, Greenstein EL, Stein RS. The Timetables of
Jewish History. New York: Simon and Schuster 1993. Judah Gribetz is
president of the Jewish Community Relations Council of New York.]

It was during this period that Jewish priests apparently decided that
stretching the foreskin was wrong and threatened the extermination of
those Jews who stretched their foreskins:

"The Book of Jubilee (xv. 26-27), written in the time of John Hyrcanus,
has the following: '...God's anger will be kindled against the children
of the covenant if they make the members of their body appear like those
of the Gentiles, and they will be expelled and exterminated from the
earth.'" [Charles, The Book of Jubilees iv.-ix. iii. 190-192, under
Circumcision in Singer I (and 400 others, eds.) The Jewish Encyclopedia.
New York: Ktav 1901.]

But Jews of this period apparently construed the "no stretching" decree
to mean that it was all right not to circumcise; for when the son of
John Hyrcanus took power in 104 BCE (by imprisoning his mother and
killing his brother), he forced circumcision on the residents of Galilee
- "many of them Jews." [Gribetz 1993]

The shift to total foreskin amputation is believed to have occurred one
hundred years later, after the unsuccessful Bar Kokba uprising against
the Roman Emperor Hadrian (who had completely outlawed circumcision):

"In order to prevent the obliteration of the "seal of the
covenant"...the Rabbis, probably after the war of Bar Kokba (see Yeb.
l.c.; Gen. R. xivi.), instituted the 'peri'ah' (the laying bare of the
glans), without which circumcision was declared to be of no value (Shab.
xxx. 6)." [See Circumcision in Singer I (and 400 others, eds.), 1901]

"Thenceforward [total foreskin amputation - the laying bare of the
glans] was the mark of Jewish loyalty." [See Circumcision in Singer I
(and 400 others, eds.), 1901]

God originally/allegedly told
Jews to leave most of the foreskin on the penis - and rabbis are
ignoring Him...

But even God's original (minimal) ritual infant mutilation is illegal in

the[i][i]
U.S...

See Wild circumcision rhetoric of MDs/Israel's history
http://groups.dogyob.com/group/chiro-list/message/2398

Fortunately, some modern rabbis (hotly contested by other rabbis)
offer American Jews an ideological basis
not to circumcise...

According to Rabbi MN Kertner:

"[Circumcision] is not a sacrament which inducts the infant into
Judaism: his birth does that" [Rabbi MN Kertner. What is a Jew? New
York: Macmillan, 1973,1993] Adult Jews who wish to remain uncircumcised
are accepted under Israel's Law of Return, which indicates that even
"religious" circumcision is a CHOICE which may legitimately be postponed
until adulthood and beyond...

And according to Rabbi Michael Lerner:

"The infliction of unnecessary pain is precisely what Judaism is
designed to fight against, so it makes little sense for us to be the
perpetrators on our children." [Rabbi Michael Lerner. Jewish Renewal NY:
G.P. Putnam's Sons 1994:387])

RABBIS CHANGE THE BIBLICAL RULES

Hershel Shanks, editor of Moment, recently noted that "the rabbis of the
Talmud OFTEN changed the Biblical rules" (emphasis added):

"A friend...[argued]...with regard to the Orthodox rabbis' pronouncement
declaring Reform and Conservative not Judaism...[that]...t's all
traceable to the [U.S.] Reform decision nearly 15 years ago to adopt
patrilineality - a child born of a Jewish father, if raised as a Jew, is
Jewish....

"....n Biblical times, Jewish descent was determined by the
Jewishness of the father...The rabbis changed that 2,000 year-old
tradition...Indeed the rabbis of the Talmud OFTEN changed the Biblical
rules (emphasis added)..."
[Shanks H. Tolerance v. Halachah. Moment. (Jun)1997;22(3):6, 8-9]

Modern rabbis could switch back to "tip" circumcisions
- or even to NO circumcisions - if they really wanted to.

I still though favor a religious exemption for Jews. Jews do NOT
circumcise for medical reasons - they circumcise because their God wants
them
to - at least this is what they sincerely believe - and I believe them.

Which brings me back to ROUTINE (medical) infant circumcision, American
medicine's $400 million dollar per year GRISLY most frequent surgical
behavior toward males...

In the medical literature, "freeing adhesions," the first step in

routine
infant circumcision, has been called "tantamount to cruel and unusual
punishment":

"Freeing adhesions, is tantamount to cruel and unusual punishment and is
unfounded physiologically and medically." [Kaplan GW: Circumcision: An
overview. Current Problems in Pediatrics, 1977;7(5):8.]

Routine infant circumcision should have ended BILLIONS of dollars' worth

of
infant screams ago - back in 1987 when I exposed AAP's perpetuation of

phony
"babies can't feel pain" neurology...

Ending this barbaric MD behavior toward babies (see "brutal" "barbaric"
quotes below) would not only save $400 million dollars per year^^^ ...

Ending it would stop the infant screams and (paradoxically) PRESERVE the
surgery as a CHOICE American males could make for themselves in

adulthood.
(It is likely that - like most males on the planet - American males

would
NOT chooose circumcision in adulthood.)

^^^$400 million dollar per year figure is from
http://www.dogyob.org/MensHlth.htm

INFANT CIRCUMCISION: A BRUTAL, BARBARIC PRACTICE...

"After years of strapping babies down for this brutal procedure and
listening to their screams, we couldn't take it any longer." [Sperlich
BK, Conant M. Am J Nurs (Jun)1994:16. http://www.cirp.org/nrc/]

"Nursing alert...[N]urses must consider their participation in a
surgical procedure that involves no anesthesia to be a barbaric
practice." (p. 205) Donna L. Wong's Essentials of
Pediatric Nursing [1997]

"[S]till all too often barbaric...[M.D.s]...would never allow older

children
or
adults to be subjected to such practices, nor would they submit to it
themselves..." [Veteran circumcision cheerleader Colonel Thomas E.

Wiswell,
MD in article in the April 24, 1997 New England Journal of
Medicine]


THINK ABOUT IT

AS INFANTS SCREAM AND WRITHE AND BLEED...

"One-half to one-third of the skin on the...penile shaft is sliced
off." http://www.dogyob.org/MensHlth.htm (paraphrasing Ronald Goldman,
PhD,
author of Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma)

"The average circumcision cuts off what would grow into
about 12 square inches of sexually sensitive skin."
http://www.dogyob.org/MensHlth.htm (quoting Ronald Goldman, PhD, author

of
Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma)

Sometimes (fortunately rarely) babies die or lose their penises because

of
circumcision.

I say again, Jake...

Mutilation (circumcision) cannot possibly enhance hygiene of "the penis"
because following circumcision one does not HAVE "the penis." One has
something less - one-half to one-third less skin on the infant penile
shaft - and 12 square inches less sexually sensitive skin in the adult -

not
to mention (according to Fleiss, Hodges and Van Howe) less sexual and
immunological function.

At best, mutilation (circumcision) enhances hygiene of THE MUTILATED

penis.

Thanks for reading, everyone.
Sincerely,

Todd

Dr. Gastaldo



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Chiro care of baby penises (also: Dr. Poland never sued Dr. Gastaldo) Todd Gastaldo Pregnancy 6 April 7th 04 04:58 PM
At 3:22 am mom & son nancy Pregnancy 1 December 20th 03 06:57 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.