Man sentenced to three years for attempting to circumcise son

VANCOUVER, Wash. — A Ridgefield man has been sentenced to three years in prison for attempting to circumcise his 8-year-old son at home with a hunting knife

I pray God will have mercy on me," Baxter said.

He was arrested on Sept. 3. Baxter said he tried the procedure on his son after reading about it in the Bible. He called 911 when he felt his son was losing too much blood.








http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002121358_websentencing16.html

Circumcision is not necessary in an age in which people take baths.

It's outdated and came about by religious reasons.
All a guy has to do is keep himself clean. Nobody is still taking baths once a week anymore (I hope)

I had to have one done when I was 18, for medical reasons. And you want to outlaw it? It shouldn't be forced on people, but I had my sons done because they probably would have inherited my condition, and I didn't want them to have to deal with it at an age they could remember it.

what was your condition that required a circumcision?

Replied to the wrong person

I don't know anybody who isn't and would probably have it done as an adult if it wasn't done before. It's not like I remember it.

With that said, this instance is just plain sick.

Wanna look? :)

(joking, sarcasm) :7

the instance of an intact adult male choosing to be circumcised is EXTREMELY rare and that should tell you something.

You should have been given a choice and you weren't. There was nothing in the world wrong with leaving you alone at birth in that area, but the choice was taken from you.

Of course you're fine with it, you have to be. What choice do you have?

There's no justification for routine Infant Circumcision (RIC.)

Performing detrimental cosmetic surgery without consent is immoral and unethical.

It is a JEWISH Rite. Based on the Torah. Hello? Are they going to start prosecuting RABBIS now?

period. Kids die when it goes wrong, they get diseases when it goes wrong, they lose thier genitals and get reassigned female gender when it goes wrong. When it goes "right" they loose erogenous tissue, the likelihood of future erectile disfunction goes up, they loose sensitivity, they gain uncomfortable, tight erections.

Sometimes we have to put our foot down and stop evils done in the name of religion. This is one of those times.

the "pro-life" morons use...."abortion is child abuse". Fuck that noise. Keep your laws off of my dick, thank you very much.

/circumcized, and everything works just fine, thanks...

An infant can't.

The legal and medical personhood of a fetus is questionable. A newborn is clearly a living being with rights.

If you're saying that no medical procedures should be done without informed consent.

No pediatric organization in the world recommends RIC. Most (if not all) of them recomend some shots (although which ones are suggested varies a lot.)

I'm saying that a damaging surgery with no proven benefits should not be performed on unconsenting infants.

other cosmetic surgery that the parents think is appropriate? Mole removal? Braces?

Parents are the child's guardians. They make the decisions for the child until the child is able to.

If I ever have a son, he will be circumcized. And frankly, I don't give a flying fuck WHAT you think about it. It's not your or the legislature's choice to make, any more than it's your or the legislature's choice to make about abortion. Don't like it? DON'T FUCKING HAVE ONE.

:grr:

and a foreskin is!

If you don't like it, get circumcised! But if you want me to shut up and allow people like you to harm thier children, you're out of luck. It's fucking wrong and it should be fucking illegal. If you want your kid cut you'd better get to breeding fast, because we're not stopping until the barbarism ends!!!

:mad: :argh:

and that's not a good thing.

Don't like circumcision or abortion? Fine. Don't have one.

"Don't like child abuse? Don't beat your kid." It's a start, but it doesn't mean that other people should be allowed to beat thier kids.

Some things are wrong enough to be outlawed. RIC is one of them.

about abortion.

you're hanging out with REALLY scummy company with this argument....

the fetus is being in progress whose rights (even assuming there are any) compete with those of a mother. As there is no recognized penis mutilating right to compete with and the infant is a inarguably a person fully endowed with rights there's a different issue there.

shows that an uncircumcized male has between two and EIGHT times the chances of being infected with HIV as a circumcised male does.

Why do you want to see more people die of HIV?

Do you agree that all men, regardless of whether they are intact or circed, should be wearing condoms when not in a monogomous relationship?

If so, then your point is moot. The idea of cutting a healthy fully functioning part of someone's genitals off them at birth when you are going to teach them to use condoms ANYWAY is crazy. Just crazy.

You are really going to have to find another justification for this, it isn't working. We don't perform routine infant appendectomies. We don't remove infant fingernails. We don't cut anything off of a girl's genitals at birth.

If a child had a growth that was possibly pre-cancerous, would it be removed? Of course it would, even though it hadn't metasticized yet. Why? because there's an increased chance of danger there, and once the danger has materialized, it's too late. Same deal with circumcision and HIV. Once you've got HIV, it's too late.

Wow. You compare the foreskin to a growth that is "possibly pre-cancerous." Tells me a lot about your attitude.

I don't know where you got this idea that the foreskin is this evil thing just waiting to HARM the owner of it and so must be lopped off as soon as possible, but it is all wrong. Completely wrong.

You still haven't acknowledged the fact that saying circumcision lowers the risk of HIV transmission ALSO lowers the chance the person will use condoms thus INCREASING (ironically) their risk of HIV.

We've had sexually transmitted diseases for a long time. You use condoms. You don't pre-emptively remove healthy tissue!

Check this out:

http://www.norm-uk.org/news.html?action=showitem&item=577

By the way, it didn't occur to you that your site has a bias, too, did it? It fit what you already thought, so you run with it. When I first started researching this, I didn't have a "side" so I read everything with a totally open mind. Have you ever heard of circumfetishists?

"You still haven't acknowledged the fact that saying circumcision lowers the risk of HIV transmission ALSO lowers the chance the person will use condoms thus INCREASING (ironically) their risk of HIV."

Please link to a study that actually shows that circumcized men are LESS likely to use condoms than uncircumcized men are.

ROTFLMAO!!!!

According to your "source", CIRCUMCISION CAUSES HOMOSEXUALITY!!!!! ROTFLMAO!!!!! :)

"Another finding was that circumcised males were more likely to report homosexual partners by (7.5% as compared to 5.3%). "

homosexual partners.

ROFLMAO yourself, you need to read a bit more carefully.

Ok I've suggested it before but I think maybe I need to re-word this: I perceive that you have a SERIOUS emotional investment in this and you are acting HIGHLY defensive about it. In that case, it is difficult, if not impossible to have true discourse. I don't know what your reasons are for being so emotionally invested and defensive but there it is. There is no point in going on with you since you have already insulted me by saying you pity any children I have, etc. Obviously there's some deep-seated stuff there that this topic has stirred up for you.

It only makes sense that if you tell a person their circumcision makes them LESS likely to contract HIV, a fifteen year old could easily think "Well hey! I've already got that protection!" and that's irresponsible to encourage that attitude.

If they have to wear the condoms anyway, regardless of status, there is no need for the surgery. The intact man with a condom on has the SAME level of protection as the circumcised man with a condom on.

what do you base THAT conclusion on???

"The intact man with a condom on has the SAME level of protection as the circumcised man with a condom on."

WRONG. If the condom breaks or is otherwise ineffective, the uncircumcized man is two to eight times more likely to contract HIV as the circumcized man is.

You DO realize that the woman CAN get pregnant even if a condom is used, right? By your argument, women shouldn't need to have birth control pills, since all of their partners will be wearing condoms anyway, right?

you have to stretch out your argument to all kinds of absurd places, isn't it?

I do not agree that the intact man is at more risk of contracting HIV. THere have been numerous studies that have directly contradicted the one you cited.

The removal of healthy tissue at birth is WRONG. You are advocating SURGERY for the possible breakage of a condom and then the even tinier possibility of contracting HIV during that possible breakage.

My gosh, if you have kids, I hope you had ALL their teeth pulled as soon as they erupted.

"My gosh, if you have kids, I hope you had ALL their teeth pulled as soon as they erupted."

Thanks for the suggestion, I'll make sure to talk to the pediatrician about that as soon as they start coming in. Are you sure they shouldn't be filed down to points instead of pulled, though?

:evilgrin:

it will make her chances of getting cavities ZERO.

Make sure to yank both the baby teeth AND the adult teeth.

Fingernails and toenails can become horribly infected, you should probably get to doing that right away.

Did you know girls have a much much higher risk of urinary tract infections than men? Yeah. We have a much shorter distance between bladder and exit than men do, that's why. Maybe there's a surgery that could fix that up for your daughter.

And while they're at it, they can take out her appendix pre-emptively too.

And her tonsils and adenoids, might as well have out with them. They could get infected.

You'd better call child protective services on us...

That's why it's important to *know who you're fucking.* Know thier medical history. Have an established realtionship. Go get tested together if there's any possibility that one of you night be carrying something.

Rubbers won't save us from disease and neither will foreskin amputation. Thinking with one's brain and not with one's glands is the key. Condoms are a good backup option.

And circumcision is a good last-ditch backup option.

Which is safer? An intact man wearing a condom, or a circumcized man wearing a condom? The SCIENTIFIC evidence suggests that the circumcized man has a little bit better protection.

of the risks of circumcision vs. the TINY risk of the condom breaking and getting HIV.

I can tell you right now the risks of complication from the surgery itself is higher.

Now how crazy is that?

No crazier than me continuing to debate this with you, someone who obviously has been scared to freaking death by a study. Whew!

I sure have...It's not a matter of "if", it's a matter of "when".

your Crusade to Rid the World of Evil Foreskins on your own.

The fact remains that performing surgery at BIRTH to remove HEALTHY TISSUE (which by the way, violates the Hippocratic Oath), surgery which is NOT MEDICALLY INDICATED, in order to avoid some slim chance of something that might or might not happen and could be prevented by engaging in safe behavior is INSANE.

The way you talk, you'd think an intact man who used a condom and had it break just had a death sentence handed to him.

You are being histrionic and melodramatic and again, I suspect something is going on here with you that involves more than just what you are saying.

So carry on, be sure to make sure everyone knows that foreskins are HORRIBLE AND MUST BE DESTROYED! ROFL!

(You still haven't explained all the perfectly happy and healthy intact men in the world--80% of the world's men are intact.....)

I don't live in fear that my son will get HIV. I expect him to choose his partners wisely and to use a condom until he's in a long term relationship and both partners have been checked out by a doctor.

BTW, intact men are more likely to use condoms (possibly because circed men already lose sensitivity to keratinization and don't wish to what feeling remains to latex) and less likely to engage in risky bahvior. Scroll down to "Sexual Behavior" for links.

Living in fear and having things cut off "just in case" is not something I would ever advocate.

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

I don't want people to get HIV. I'm offended you said I do. I lost a family member to AIDS. I don't want anyone to go through what my family's gone though in the decade since my uncle died, let alone the hell he went though in his much too short life.

I want people to choose thier partners wisely, use protection and have a good time when they do get down to business.

over and over and over again. It's not peer-reviewed, is it? The articles it refers to ARE peer reviewed, aren't they?

The SCIENTIFIC peer reviewed studies that are available show that circumcision results in a lower susceptibility to HIV than people who are non-circumcized have.

Just out of curiosity, was your uncle circumcized or uncircumcized? Statistically, it's more likely that he was uncircumcized.

I got it now! You have some kind of strange prejudice, for reasons of your own, towards intact men!

That's it, isn't it?

I was fairly young when he died. I'm a girl. I certainly never saw my uncle naked. Statisticly, he probably was cut, just because he was born in an era where most hospitals in the US didn't ask. I'm not about to call up my ninetyone year old Grandmother to ask her about her late son's penis, though.

PS It's circumciSed.

I'm scummy because I think a surgery that people don't even think about carried out on perfectly healthy infants is unnecessary?

I'm scummy because I think baby boys aren't born defective?

Why would every male of the species be born with such a serious physical flaw, such a huge potential disaster, that it would need to be surgically removed at BIRTH?

Think about that. That doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

When you realize there is no reason to circumcise at birth (and only 1% of all men have any medical reason to be circed in their entire lifetime), then everything else falls away and all you have left is an unnecessary surgery on an infant.

Why would anyone have surgery performed on their infant when they didn't need to?

Scientific studies have shown that uncircumcized men are much more likely to contract HIV than circumcized men are.

Gee....circumcized, and HIV-free, or uncircumcized, and two to eight times more likely to be HIV positive....what a HARD decision!!!

surgery on an infant's healthy body now or teach him how to use condoms later, which I would have to do ANYWAY, since ALL men should use them when not in monogomous relationships?

What a hard decision!

You going to wack off the clitoral hood ?

and no, we didn't circumcize her. Circumcizing a woman makes it MORE likely that she'll catch a STD. Circumcizing a man makes it LESS likely.

And I have a really simple solution for the STD thing--they're called condoms.

Why in the world would someone have healthy fully functioning tissue cut off a baby in an elective surgery that isn't even medically indicated when they could simply teach them to use condoms?

http://www.circumcisioninfo.com/circ_stdhiv.html

"A new study conducted by Chicago researchers shows that internal mucosal layers of foreskin are more susceptible to HIV infection than cervical tissue or the external layers of foreskin, which explains why uncircumcised men seem to be at much higher risk for HIV acquisition than men who are circumcised.

Previously, numerous studies reported that uncircumcised men have higher rates of HIV infection and are at a twofold to eightfold increased risk of becoming infected with HIV compared to circumcised men. However, why circumcision plays a protective role against acquisition of HIV has been unknown.

A study published in the September issue of the American Journal of Pathology by researchers at Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke’s Medical Center, Children’s Memorial Hospital and the University of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health points to the biological mechanisms underlying this protective effect."

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

And my question remains: why would you have a healthy part of someone's genitals removed at birth when they could simply use condoms later?

The foreskin is not just a piece of skin, it is the difference between a complex machine and a simple machine (circumcised penis). It is very sophisticated and has 12 known functions.

The idea of sacrificing that when condoms could be used is crazy.

http://www.circumstitions.com/

they don't even CLAIM to be balanced.

I've seen your site before. I "did" this debate literally for years.

You might want to read what I gave to you. I read your stuff a few years back. The link I gave you directly addresses the studies you refer to.

This site does not pretend to be "balanced". The case for circumcision has been made daily for decades in public media such as TV sitcoms, magazine articles, by medical "authorities" and by word of mouth. Now, thanks to the Internet, the opposition has a chance to be heard uninterrupted. This site does attempt to tell the truth about circumcision, and not overstate the case against it.


I think it's important to put it in context.

by offering self-admittedly biased information, ignoring contrary findings, and by offering amusing rantings on how to deal with the trauma the parents caused the child by NOT having him circumcized. It's too bad that they didn't put up a nifty cartoon page of the uncircumcized boy confronting his parents because he contracted HIV since he wasn't circumcized, so his parents could tell him "It's natural for you to have HIV, so shut up and die now."

I am going to suggest that you, for whatever reason, are a bit too emotionally charged about this and getting overdramatic. Maybe you are feeling defensive because of your own status, I don't know. If you are, that's natural.

But NOT having a boy circumcised is NOT traumatic! (Think about that for a second.....)

MEN HAVE TO WEAR CONDOMS ANYWAY. I don't know how many times you are going to ignore that point. YOUR attitude helps spread HIV by making parents and men think they have some great protection by not having a foreskin. They DON'T. They STILL have to use a condom just like intact men.

Again, why perform surgery on a baby when they could use a condom when they are older? And WILL anyway, if they are practicing safe sex!

This is the weakest argument I have heard for routine infant circumcision. Geez, my husband should have a raging case of AIDS right now. For that matter, so should a hell of a lot of intact men. Oh wait, they USED CONDOMS.

Did you know that intact men and circed men have the exact same chance of contracing HIV when they use condoms consistently?

So where is your justification for surgery on an infant's genitals now?

no matter how many times they're told.

Even if all men DID wear condoms all the time, condoms DO break.

I pity your children if you ever have them.

Excuse me but I am married to an intact man who has never had a single problem in his ENTIRE life. Imagine that, the evil foreskin with him since birth and not a problem in sight. Same thing for his dad, same thing for every man in his family.

No need to pity my children. That's a rather offensive thing to say, good thing I have thick skin. I could say I pity any sons you have or might have, but I didn't did I?

Try calming down a bit, maybe this topic is too sensitive for you.

I posted a link further up from a different site about STDs etc and intact status. Check it out, though I have a feeling it won't matter.

on a British study on HIV and circumcision done in 2001:

http://www.norm-uk.org/circumcision_hiv.html

make sure you bitch at him for failing to use a condom, instead of taking your fair share of the responsibility for refusing to have him circumcized. Maybe you can put something about that on his gravestone. I'm sure that'll help...

Ok you have gone beyond the beyonds here. You are being flat-out ridiculous.

Refusing to have a boy circumcised can also be described as LEAVING HIS PENIS THE HELL ALONE.

I have an intact husband who never contracted HIV. He's never had a single problem because of his foreskin. It's the way he was meant to be. It's how nature MADE him and every other male on earth.

Obviously either you are circumcised and/or you had a son or sons circed and you feel really strongly that you have to defend that. Your emotions are getting in the way of you being able to have any kind of discourse on this.

That was completely insulting and horribly untrue. But hey, keep telling yourself that stuff if it makes you feel better.

and people get sick and die from being innoculated. I guess you're not going to have your kids innoculated either, since it wouldn't be "natural"...

Vaccinations do NOT remove healthy fully functioning tissue from a child's body, now do they?

Vaccinations are not surgery, are they?

End of story. That one's lame. For once I'd like to see a pro infant circumcision person come up with something new.

inject harmful organisms into the otherwise healthy child. This is done for the benefit of the child.

Is it considered surgery?

No?

Then it is not parallel.

Ask any doctor if they consider surgery to remove bodily tissue and vaccinations to be in the same category and see what they tell you.

removes healthy "tissue"....is that therefore evil too? But wait! the State mandates that all newborns have blood drawn and certain screenings performed on the cells removed!!! Those evil doctors, removing healthy tissue!!! Damn them!!! Damn them all!!!

removal of healthy tissue from all baby boys upon birth.

And you are really stretching with the blood thing and I think you know it. Blood is regenerated by the body. Foreskins are not.

I'm not for MANDATORY circumcision, I just think that parents should be able to choose that route without idiots advocating the banning of male circumcision, or parents being charged with child abuse for having their male children circumcized in a hospital.

It's just like abortion. If people want it, it needs to be safe and legal. If people oppose it, they're free NOT to have it.

:thumbsup:

Find me ONE article - just one - that says that an infant lost their genitals, or got a disease, or (even more bizarrely) got reassigned female gender after a circumcision by an M.D. or a mohel.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/reimer/
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/114/2/e259
http://www.cirp.org/news/1993.06.21_death/

I could find more if you like.

1) The first one is a very unusual case. It sounds like the doctors weren't very competent:

"But within six months, both boys develop difficulty urinating. The doctors suggest they be circumcised...The doctors had chosen an unconventional method of circumcision, one in which the skin would be burned. The procedure goes horribly wrong and Bruce's penis is burned so badly it can't be repaired surgically...At the age of 21 months, Bruce's testicles were removed. What remained of his penis was left, not to interfere with his urinary tract.

That's not circumcision, that's malpractice and mutilation. Not the same thing.

2) The second story was occurred only after a highly unusual form of circumcision. I don't think the metzitzah thing is very common at all.
3) This one is also highly unusual. Sounds like an incompetent doctor.

Long list here
http://www.fathermag.com/health/circ/horror/horror.shtml

Q. I am 24 years old and lost my entire glans penis, the head of my dick, in a botched circumcision. Basically I have a shaft but there's no head at the end. Unfortunately, I was left with my balls so I still have a sex drive, but it's nearly impossible for me to climax. When I was much younger, around 14 to 16, I could sometimes masturbate to a climax, but after a couple of years I stopped being able to do this. Some of the women I've been with never saw the condition of my penis, and failed to notice when I didn't come. Others have seen my condition before intercourse and refused to have sex with me, while still others found out afterward, after I wasn't able to come, and then never wanted to have sex with me again. Of course I never dare to ask anyone to suck me, although this might provide the necessary extra stimulation and actually help me climax. So my problem, Dan, is twofold: I can't come and I can't get anyone to stick around and help me try to come. Can you suggest any special techniques for someone in my condition? Any help would be appreciated. I'm very miserable, frustrated, and lonely. —MUTILATED AND COMELESS

http://villagevoice.com/issues/0443/savage.php

Mr Savage couldn't come up with a reply, so he asked the readers to help out. In case you are interested, that column is here: http://villagevoice.com/issues/0448/savage.php

And none other than the great Jewish mind, Freud, wrote all about it in his last book "Moses and Monotheism" which is a great read by the way. :)

who had it loosened - a partial circumcision (?)

:shrug:

:evilgrin:

It's not a matter of the legality of circumcision, it's the matter of "do it yourself" medical procedures. It doesn't matter in this case whether circumcision is needed, cosmetic or any thing else. The point is the average individual, even if they are on the bright side should know better than to take matters into their own hands.

It's barbaric, there is no reason for it, and no major world health organization (not even the AAP) recommends it.

"You can pry my foreskin from my cold, limp cock."

...than a safe infant circumcision. Obviously.

it is different in many ways.

But an infant circumcision still removes the foreskin permanently and it seems that's what this guy was trying to do, too.

Damn librul activist judges!! Have they no values?!?!

How dare the judge keep a godly man from cutting his kid up according to biblical law....

I guess Jesus called him to do this.

"When our forefather Abraham reached the ripe old age of 99 years (Genesis 17) the Almighty promised him that his descendants would have a special relationship with their Creator. This would forever be symbolized by the Bris Milah (Covenant of Circumcision). "This will be a sign of the covenant between Me and you".

Abraham circumcised himself as well as all the men of his household. When his son Isaac was born, he too, underwent Bris Milah on the eighth day, as Divinely specified."

If I recall, the moron had just finished reading this portion of the old testatment and felt compelled to circumcise his own son w/ a kitchen knife. Wacko!

He decided to call 911 since his son was in the bathtub and he couldn't get the bleeding to stop!! He even stated in court that he did it because that is what the bible said was supposed to be done. But, I would think that the bible didn't mean in a bathtub with a butcher knife when your son is 8.

yesterday that they still believe that he has done nothing wrong and that it is sacrilege that he has been sentenced jail time for doing this. Oregon used to be so liberally minded. Now it's mainly just here in the Portland metro area..

is because the child had to be brought across the river from Vancouver into Portland for medical care(briefly).

The only issues they have with this are the location, the publicity and the size of the knife.


MDN

It just sounds too painful, given this situation. :)

Every time I think I have heard, read, or seen it all some brain dead idiot with a bible in his (or her)hand proves me wrong. He better start praying for Gods mercy because if it were up to me jail time would be the least of his problems. Remember the Old Testament "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth and a, well, you get the message.
Personally, I don't believe in circumcision. My 14 year old son wasn't circumcised. Some day he'll probably blame me for it. Oh well, what can you do?

I think there is a growing number of people who are not having their sons circumcised.

My toddler son is uncircumcised. Evolution put the foreskin there, who am I to remove it? I think the circumcision rates have fallen to like 20-30%, from a high of ~80-90% in the 70's when I was born (and circ'd).

isn't circumcised either. I've read that more than 50% of parents today are choosing not to circumcise their boys so I don't think he will feel different when he grows older. I personally don't see a reason for circumcision, and wouldn't have it done for my own kids but I wouldn't go so far as to tell people they can't do it. It's a free country....or at least it pretends to be.

who were my parents to have it corrected???

all my daughter's fingernails removed at birth so that I could remove the possibility of her having a hangnail altogether?

Your analogy is completely wrong. If you had a hangnail so bad it needed surgery, then obviously something was WRONG and there was a medical indication to operate.

In the case of routine infant circumcision, nothing is wrong thus there is NO medical indication to operate.

that uncircumcised males have is NOT a medical benefit of circumcision?

Are you TRYING to make the HIV rate go up????

I would argue that 2-8 times figure is not accurate, but you seem like you would never believe there is no reason to circumcise infants.

You still haven't answered me as to why you wouldn't simply teach a person to use condoms?

Many guys who think being circed profers them some protection from HIV actually forgo the condoms, thus increasing THEIR risk for HIV. They have this false sense of security and it is highly irresponsible to do that.

Are you trying to make the HIV rate go up?

and what has the HIV rate done in the meantime?

It's not an "either/or" scenario. They can do both...be circumcized, and use condoms in an effort to have the lowest possible chance of contracting HIV.

It's none of your or the government's business if a male child is circumcized.

As a Democrat surely you agree.

Back up from this topic for a second and imagine this:

There is a culturally accepted practice that people do in your society almost without thinking and after years of research you have come to the conclusion that it is harmful and unnecessary and to make matters worse, it is carried out on infants who are incapable of saying yes or no to it. You find out parents are not given all the information they need to make a well-informed decision.

Do you just sit there with your hands clamped over your mouth? Or do you say something?

that's your constitutional RIGHT, and I'll defend your right to spout such obnoxious, offensive gibberish. That doesn't MAKE it right, though, and doesn't make it so that I can't tell you that you're full of shit. That's MY constitutional right, which I am exercizing.

My daughter has been innoculated against a whole bunch of diseases. Some of the innoculations produced scar tissue at the site of administration. Does that make the innoculations wrong? Of course not. It was done for the benefit of the child.

I did the vaccination straw man above.

Check it out.

My son is intact, and any future boys I have will also be intact. There's no medical reason for it, and it's a brutal procedure...after reading about it, my husband and I said NFW. Especially as they've only recently been performing RIC with anesthesia.

And in this modern day, Christian/Jewish, cultural, or whatever, the procedure is performed by *trained professionals.* Not idiots at home with butcher knives.

That poor, poor child. I hope and pray that somehow, he receives the counseling and care he needs to heal. It is a terrible, terrible thing to mutilate a child like that. Most, if not all, of the circumcisions performed on males over infancy are done by professionals, with anesthesia, and for medical reasons (unless there is a cultural reason, like converting to one of the stricter Abrahamic religions).

They can't. A newborn can't take anesthesia. They use a topical ointment that's about pure useless and sometimes a local that's just a shade more than useless.

Firm rule: no sharp objects around genitals unless medically indicated.

and it's not that effective. Also, it requitres time to take effect and few doctors wait that long.

http://www.aafp.org/afp/20040215/fpin.html

My husband knew nothing about circumcsion so I ordered him a few books and showed him some articles online. After reading the books he called his Jewish mother up and chewed her out! The U.S. is the only country in the world that routinely circumcises most of its male infants for non-religious reasons. Over 80% of the world's males are intact. I think 3 years is letting this idiot off too easily.

65% of baby boys being born now are being left with all their factory issued parts. Depends on the part of the country, but it goes as high as 70%.

That's a good thing.

in 1999-2000, I think. It was around the time I was pg with my 2nd child.

So, I'll bet there are a lot of boys in OK who are not circ'ed since their parents would have had to pay to have the procedure.

I wish my parents hadn't had me circumcised. I can hardly feel anything during intercourse. From what I have read, intercourse is more pleasurable for the man and the woman when the man is not circumcised.

but google "foreskin restoration." It's not ACTUAL restoration but it is of a type and it is said to help.

Anyway.

There have been studies done on the rare number of men who were intact as adults and chose to be circed after being sexually active for a number of years (in most cases a wife or a girlfriend talked them into it) and they have not found one yet that didn't regret getting circumcised. They all said sex went from being like seeing in technicolor to being blind. That alone should tell the medical community something.

It's awesome having a liberal progressive mother.

The doctor was practically screaming at my mom to have me circumcised, but she didn't budge.

Most people in this world are actually NOT circumcised. And we do live in a world community. Even most European Christians aren't circumcised. Don't let the fundies dictate what is "normal".

Intact men are in good company.

He'll most likely thank you, if he says anything at all.

My husband was spared the knife to his genitals at birth and is eternally grateful that he had the good fortune to have been born to a European man who said, when asked about it in the American hospital "Why would we do THAT?"

You left him the way he was made. Nothing wrong with that. Every single male of one species is not born so defective that they require immediate corrective surgery.

Theologically and morally bankrupt.

I'm not given to using caps or abundant punctuation marks, but here's a situation that virtually demands it. This guy is not your every day garden variety fundie. He's fucking insane. I hope to hell they address his mental status while he's in the care of the state.

The whole whether to circumsize or not- as a baby argument is irrelevant.

This guy took off after his 8 year old son's dick with a hunting knife!

Talk about trauma....

Three years is geting off easy- I'd say he needs to be put away a lot longer than that, though my choice of hotels would be a mental institution rather than prison.

for it. My six year old won't sit still for dinner - put a knife between his legs and who knows what would happen.

I just wonder if the guy drugged him or gave him alcohol before he began the cutting.

Not exactly a precision instrument.

It's this podunk bumpkin mistaking the bible as a medical text and his hunting knife for a scalpel!!

Stop putting your own agendas in between the story and the problem.

There is no medical reason to circumsize all male infants.

Ear piercings have no medical purpose but infant girls are fitted with earings all of the time. Just because a custom is not medically necessary does not invalidate any cultural significance it may have and forcing this notion on others is ethnocentric. We have to respect cultural differences no matter how odd, barbaric, or strange we may find them. We ought not to be impressing our own notions of modernism unless we are ready to focus our attention on those practices of our own that may need rethinking.

reach "barbaric" status, I do think we have to pay a bit more attention.

Honor and dowry killings, female genital mutilation, ritual infanticide, etc. come quickly to mind.

But when done by a professional it is much less drastic of an act than the others you mention.

how is the end result any different?

Heck a doctor takes an oath that starts:

"First, do no harm.."

That doctor is removing fully functioning HEALTHY tissue that it is NOT medically indicated to remove. It's ELECTIVE. Even the American Academy of Pediatrics admits that. There's no major world health organization that endorses routine infant circumcision.

The methods were VERY different, but the end result is the same.

face.

Big difference.

A child who is forced by parents to have piercings can remove those piercings once that child is an adult and have vitrually no scar.

A foreskin can never grow back once it is removed. Moreover, removing the foreskin reduces the pleasure felt during sex. Why deny a human being that pleasure?

I'm circumcised and believe me, I get plenty of pleasure from sex.

All I am saying is that those who are circumcised get less pleasure from sex than those who are uncircumcised.

Problem is you have no idea what it would feel like with those 10,000 extra nerve endings you would have had, were you allowed to have kept your foreskin (foreskin has approx. 10,000 nerve endings).

No one is saying circ sex isn't pleasurable. But how can you deny it would be more pleasurable with more nerve endings? Of course it would be.

" Moreover, removing the foreskin reduces the pleasure felt during sex."

:shrug:

sensitive to touch than the eyelids, fingertips or lips. There are up to 10,000 nerve endings in the foreskin (and I'm being conservative for once in my life! I have actually read closer to 20,000 is more accurate).

There is no way you can remove that much nerve rich tissue and have it not reduce pleasure.

But if you are circed at birth, you never know any difference. All you know is what you know!

don't make contracting HIV more likely. Foreskins do make contracting HIV more likely.

They are meant to be there. They protect the glans. They provide pleasure during sex. They have other functions, too, 12 of them all told.

Condoms are the answer to STDs.

they're not evil, they just increase the chances of contracting HIV.

One would think, reading your words, that every single baby boy born should just be lined up on the table for immediate removal of that foreskin, lest he use a condom someday that breaks.

Wow. I re-read that sentence and the pure absurdity of what you are advocating really hit me full-on.

EOM

If you are relying on foreskin as protection from HIV, then you are uninformed.

a part of a girl's body!

That analogy just doesn't float. I've heard it before. It didn't work then, it doesn't work now.

You'd have to find an analogy in which a part of the girl's genitals are removed at birth, routinely and with no medical indication for it.

I took it for granted people would know the guy in the story has major problems!

But routine infant circumcision IS a problem, if you don't think so, do a little reading up on the functions of the foreskin, what is lost when it is lost, and maybe see if you can watch a video of or see a circ in person. It's damn brutal and what's worse is it's unnecessary, medically UNINDICATED.

"First, do no harm..."

practice. i was circumcised when i was born, i can't say i remember anything about it. the more i think about it, i do have a twitch now when i take a leak though?

"Baxter and his wife, Tammy, 30, have nine children and Tammy Baxter was pregnant at the time of the arrest. Tammy Baxter and the children disappeared after Edwin Baxter was arrested and state officials have yet to locate them"

I hope they can find them before the mom does anything rash.

Yeah Baxter, you better keep on praying because you'll need all the mercy that God might have for you once you end up in prison for 3 years.

I seriously hope that the authorities take the children away from these people for they EVIL!

:kick:

they could only keep him from seeing the child he hurt.. The other 8 and 1 on the way are free game!!!

to this behavior. The guy probably can't be put into gen pop- so I'm guessing his time will be pretty long and boring.

"Do not try any of these actions at home"

of his life. WTF is with some people? Really...why would anyone assume they could perform this procedure after reading about it? And why put the kid through this? People scare me sometimes.

No hoodie for my goodie!:D

Some women love convertibles. :evilgrin:

that parents should not choose circumcision for their child, even by a doctor (unless for necessary medical reasons) and it should be left up to the child to decide for himself when he turns 18.

You wouldn't want your kid to come back at you later on with a hunting knife because YOU did this to him, would you? :evilgrin:

The foreskin is healthy, fully functioning tissue. To surgically remove it with no medical indication is wrong, and parents need to know that. (Unfortunately, doctors make about $500 per circ and it only takes about 20 minutes minus the prep work and that's a decent chunk of change for 20 minute's work.) It violates the Hippocratic Oath. Some insurance companies aren't even covering it anymore, calling it "elective cosmetic genital surgery."

11 states have dropped coverage of it from Medicaid for those reasons.

Religious nutball abusing a child...hmmmm. It's this the purview of Texas?

JB

circumcision is mutilation.

"Baxter and his wife, Tammy, 30, have nine children and Tammy Baxter was pregnant at the time of the arrest. Tammy Baxter and the children disappeared after Edwin Baxter was arrested and state officials have yet to locate them."

He's 33, she's 30 and they're on their TENTH CHILD?!?!?!?!

Wow. And he (obviously) is a moron for not taking the plea deal that would have given him credit for time served. I was wondering why he got such a harsh sentence (and it's a VERY harsh sentence, assuming it's a first offense, he has 10 children to care for AND there was apparently no malice). It's a tough call for a judge. On the one hand there is no evidence of malice and the man called 911 when it was apparent that the boy was in trouble. On the other hand, there are so many more children and who knows what nutty idea will pop into this guy's head next.

All that being said, if it's his first offense, I think that three years is way too much and puts his pregnant wife in a terrible position (then again, maybe she'll actually have a few months in her adult life when she's not pregnant).

taking into consideration that he and his family feel that he has done nothing wrong. The state cannot protect the other children. They can only protect the 1 child he harmed. The wife and all the other children cannot be found. The rest of the family has already "hidden" her, so that the state can't get involved with the other children (even if the could). These other 9 children (yes I'm counting the upcoming 9th) are possibly just future victims for this whacko family.

there is nothing more to say about brutality :mad: except .... "How would Daddy Dearest like to try the feeling!"

I hope his son is well.

this guy needs to have a little surgery performed on HIS tallywhacker with a Bowie knife. That poor kid is going to need serious counseling - talk about having fears of being emasculated!

Ten kids? at 33 and 30? WHY?

Religion can make some people do some crazy things.

I have an 8 year old who isn't circumcised and I can't imagine an 8 y/o just standing there while his dad whacks at his penis! I'm sure his father held him down. Jesus Fucking Christ!

I despise these fundie fucks! :grr: :nuke:

:shrug:

Not your typical surgery.. Father unable to stop the bleeding, the only reason he called 911.

And in a place that will frequently be covered in fecal matter, to boot (Infants wear diapers for a reason, after all). I find it hard to imagine a more bizarre, yet common, practice in our culture.

Circumcision is essentially the same as mild clitordectomy, and yet there are many who think it's just fine to strap a child down and cut the most sensitive part of his anatomy off shortly after he is born.

The first thing that came into my mind when I saw my son after his birth was not to rush and have the tip of his penis removed without an anesthetic. I don't understand why people either do it, or defend it. It's insane.

RTP

uncircumcised men were at risk for disease and cancer. Am I wrong?

Just keep it clean and the problems most people cite will never occur. Should other parts of a person's body be removed because they might, some day, become diseased? There's more of a case for infant appendectomy than for circumcision, and I think most would agree that infant appendectomy is a bad idea.

RTP

If that were true, we'd see high rates of disease and cancer in men in all parts of the world, since 80% of the men in the world are intact.

Your chances of getting penile cancer if intact are under 1%. Your chances of getting penile cancer if circumcised is a tiny bit lower. (I believe intact has a .08% chance of penile cancer in their lifetime and circed has a .06% chance of the same if I am remembering correctly.)

But the chances of adverse complications during or after the circumcision are higher than 1%. The cost-benefit analysis comes down, by a long shot, on the side of not circumcising.

If you believe the "Circumcision is evil incarnate and we don't even PRETEND to be balanced" websites that some link to in this thread, there's no difference.

If, on the other hand, you believe the medical research published in peer-reviewed medical journals, there's between 2 and 8 times the chance for an uncircumcized male to contract HIV as compared to a circumcized male. So, if you took a thousand HIV negative men, circumcized half of them, and they all had the same general sexual habits, for every one circumcized man that contracted HIV in the sample group, between TWO and EIGHT men in the uncircumcized group would countract HIV.

and quite frankly, I THANK my parents for doing it. Not only are uncircumcised penises ugly (IMO), the foreskin can become so tight, that one can not retract it to clean the penis properly.

I have had NO problems using my penis because of my circumcision.

And yes, I think this falls underneath the "choice" aspect of parenting. Just like abortion, if you don't like it, don't do it to your child. Mind your own business when it comes to others.

Circumcision does not harm the child, so this isn't grounds for public policy.

----------------------------------
Buy anti-Bush, liberal, and other outspoken political stuff at www.cafepress.com/liberalissues

parents, doctors or nurses forcibly retracting the foreskin before it is ready to.

When a boy is born the foreskin is attached to the glans. That is to protect the glans. As he gets older, it slowly becomes retractable. Sadly even some in the medical profession have huge misconceptions about the intact penis and advise mothers to push the foreskin back forcibly in order to "clean in there" when that is completely unnecessary and harmful.

What happens is this creates scar tissue and if done repeatedly, causes a tightening of the foreskin.

In cases where the owner of the penis is the only one allowed to retract it (because he won't do it until it's ready, otherwise it's painful) the instance of phimosis is almost NONE.

There is no medical indication for routine infant circumcision. It is the surgical act of removing healthy fully functioning tissue. And it is gone forever, no choice left up to the boy when he is an adult. That choice is taken from him.

You can think intact penises are ugly all you want, it doesn't mean we have to continue NOT giving parents the information they deserve about this surgery, namely that it is NOT necessary. Originally it was done in the US (and the UK) to prevent masturbation!

It's a cultural thing that has been accepted simply "because" and that's too bad, because there is nothing defective about baby boys that requires surgery upon birth.

There may be Religious reason to do it and while male circumcision is not as detrimental as female circumcision I feel it is a cruel procedure and shouldn't be performed. I agree that boys have foreskin for a reason i.e. evolution. We shouldn't circumcise our children male or female.

How could any male recover from having that part of himself hacked off? It's one thing when the kid can't remember it, but at eight years old? What a bastard.