It's an issue Limbaugh explored on his Aug. 24 show, saying, "Not that I'm against circumcision, but it's a family's decision. Leave our penises alone, Obama!"
I honestly do not believe Obama want's Rush's penis. He could care less. Does anybody really believe he wants to force all males to do such a thing? No. Get over it, Rush!
We are sure Rush's penis is safe. It is hidden at an undislosed location
8 comments:
Shouldn't it be the decision of the person whose body it is? We don't say that cutting parts off baby girls' genitals is "a family's decision", so why do we let it happen to baby boys?
CDC recommended it for diease control. Obama never said he'd force the issue. Rush implied that Obama wanted to force circumcision. Of course, it's a choice of usually the mother at or near birth. If we waited til the baby was old enough to decide, no one would be. It is a health issue and never meant to be anything other than that. Making recommendations for disease control is what the CDC does. It does not mean you have to follow it. I thought long and hard about mutilating my son and my gyenocologist convinced me it was a good thing and could help prevent various diseases. I certainly did not want my newborn son cut on unnecessarily but no one ever implied I had to do it.
It's not a health issue though. In Europe, almost no-one circumcises unless they're Muslim or Jewish, and they have significantly lower rates of almost all STI's including HIV.
Even in Africa, there are six countries where men are more likely to be HIV+ if they've been circumcised: Cameroon, Ghana, Lesotho, Malawi, Rwanda, and Swaziland. Eg in Malawi, the HIV rate is 13.2% among circumcised men, but only 9.5% among intact men. In Rwanda, the HIV rate is 3.5% among circumcised men, but only 2.1% among intact men. If circumcision really worked against AIDS, this just wouldn't happen. We now have people calling circumcision a "vaccine" or "invisible condom", and viewing circumcision as an alternative to condoms.
The one study into male-to-female transmission showed a 50% higher rate in the group where the men had been circumcised btw.
ABC (Abstinence, Being faithful, Condoms) is the way forward. Promoting genital surgery will cost lives, not save them.
As far as I'm aware, the CDC hasn't recommended it for the USA btw, and babies aren't going to be having sex anyway, so it's no reason to cut babies. If you wait, it's safer, hurts less, and the results are cosmetically better. Some men choose to do it, and that's their choice. I just don't think it's right to take their choice away though.
You and your gynaecologist might also want to check out the following:
Canadian Paediatric Society
"Recommendation: Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed."
http://www.caringforkids.cps.ca/pregnancy&babies/circumcision.htm
"Circumcision is a 'non-therapeutic' procedure, which means it is not medically necessary."
"After reviewing the scientific evidence for and against circumcision, the CPS does not recommend routine circumcision for newborn boys. Many paediatricians no longer perform circumcisions.
RACP Policy Statement on Circumcision
"After extensive review of the literature the Royal Australasian College of Physicians reaffirms that there is no medical indication for routine neonatal circumcision."
(those last nine words are in bold on their website, and almost all the men responsible for this statement will be circumcised themselves, as the male circumcision rate in Australia in 1950 was about 90%. "Routine" circumcision is now *banned* in public hospitals in Australia in all states except one.)
British Medical Association: The law and ethics of male circumcision - guidance for doctors
"to circumcise for therapeutic reasons where medical research has shown other techniques to be at least as effective and less invasive would be unethical and inappropriate."
This point can be argued to and fro forever. There are many who see it as senseless mutilation. AMA has shifted positions a few times. We take what we believe and act upon it, right or wrong. Nobody is forcing anyone to be circumcised. Granted for most men, it is a decision made by their mothers and they had no input, being newborns. This is another one to blame Mom for. She did the best she could with the information she had. She never pretended to be perfect but she had hopes her newborn would be.
"If we waited til the baby was old enough to decide, no one would be."
EXACTLY!
"Nobody is forcing anyone to be circumcised. Granted for most men, it is a decision made by their mothers and they had no input, ...."
Spot the hidden contradiction.
"She never pretended to be perfect but she had hopes her newborn would be."
What's the second thing they tell you when a baby is born? - "He's perfect!"
Anyway, here's the bumpersticker/T-shirt.
But I did like "...hidden at an undisclosed location."
I really enjoyed your comment. No pun was intended with the son "had no input." Looking back, that is pretty funny. Let's start printing those bumper stickers and place them at disclosed locations so we don't run into Rush's privates. It sccares me to think about it. Now, I have to think that all day. Ugh! You think it, too.! Double Ugh!
I find it astonishing that the Republican Party, the party founded on the slogan "Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men," the once noble party of Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt is now so morally and intellectually bankrupt and has slithered so far into the slime and muck that it is now the party of "Obama is a nazi, Obama is a commie, Obama wants to clip your bird." That party is a total disgrace!
You said it better than I could! It's idiotic. What's next? Do we dare think of the next "clever" plan from the Republicans? They are throwing everything they got at Obama but they forget how popular he is. He is a foreigner, he's a socialist, he'll take your guns, now your penis. Republicans, get into the reality zone! I'm more than happy to help.
Post a Comment