1 of 10

Write now Article Tools

Page 3 of 9

have stopped altogether!

Conversely, in modern America, the operation is performed on the first or second day of life, when there is a much greater danger of severe bleeding, in fact, a number of infants have bled to death as a result of this foolishness; the procedure may be performed by a doctor, a nurse, an intern, or a medical student (any of whom may or may not have done it before) and is rarely, if ever, supervised; the infant is strapped naked to a small, cold table and given absolutely no anesthetic, therefore it feels all the excruciating pain of having a huge section of skin ripped from its penis. Yes, it definitely does hurt the baby, despite what you may have heard from those who have never witnessed the procedure. (To approximate this feeling, imagine how it would feel to have someone violently rip or pinch off all 4 of your eyelids without any anesthetic or even a sharp knife, then having to go through life blind from dry, shriveled, hardened eyeballs. This is what modern circumcision does to the glans.) The foreskin is sometimes cut with a scalpel, but more often is put in a device that literally crushes it off, or cauterization (burning) is used, in which case, it is not uncommon to slip and do damage elsewhere, a few poor babies have had their entire penis burned off with this method; and most people who do it now do it, not for spiritual reasons, but entirely as a (cosmetic) medical procedure. This is NEVER necessary, there are ALWAYS better ways to deal with such extremely rare problems like phimosis and infection (why is it that medicine's answer to everything is simply "cut it off" instead of trying to help it heal?), and it conveys no realistic health benefits whatsoever. It is purely a cruel medical farce.

If you tell the doctor or nurse that it has no proven medical benefits, chances are they will say, "I know, but you don't want him to look different from the other boys in the locker room, do you?" Many parents have been told this in the hospital, but now they can't use that argument anymore because the majority of baby boys born in the last few years have not been circumcised, so it is the ones who have been that will be embarrassed in the locker room; and besides, if a boy had several friends who were crippled from birth or from injuries, would his parents deliberately break both his legs just to make him feel more comfortable around them? Of course not! So why deliberately injure an infant in a dubious attempt to make him comfortable

• << previous page
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• ...
• 9
• next page >>

Add your voice

Know something about The case against circumcision?
We want to hear your view. Write now!