San Fran ban

Well it looks as if the San francisco ban on non-medical circumcision for minors proposition has been thrown out by a judge saying that cities can’t change medical laws only states can…. Or something like that….
I can understand why that is law and I guess I agree with her ruling that cities can’t tell states what to do…..
However, this ban proposition did get people talking and investigating routine infant genital amputation surgeries so maybe sometime in the future states will start passing laws restricting the use of circumcision on minors…….



Spiritual direction

So I went to my first spouses of the seminarians group spiritual direction meeting. Had a good time. Opened up a bit about myself and learned a bit about some of the others. Living in – city all my life I never really got to know my neighbors. Now living in a small town is a revelation to me. So many nice people right next door.


USA today:Attitudes-toward-circumcision-shifting/49630690/1

“Attitudes toward circumcision shifting
By Shari Rudavsky, The Indianapolis Star Updated 21h 33m ago
It was one of the easiest decisions that Greg and Megan Floyd made during her recent pregnancy. Both agreed that they wanted to have their newborn son circumcised.

Greg, a first-time father, knew that studies have shown circumcision reduces the risk of cancer and some sexually transmitted diseases. And he didn’t want his son to look different from him.
A few days after Cole Enzo Floyd was born on July 9, the doctor removed the skin covering the tip of the penis, known as the foreskin.
“It would be tough to explain to your son why you’re different,” Greg said.”

First, give me a break!!! Well son, my parents cut me so we cut you so we’d be the same although we will probably never have a penis comparing contest….

Also the foreskin is not the skin covering the tip of the penis. The foreskin is a part of the penis. It is the tip of the penis. The glans of the penis is supposed to be an internal organ. The foreskin is the external covering of the internal part. It is not extra. It belongs there.

“I think we’re seeing a recent change just because people are thinking twice about medical procedures that they may not have in the past,” Hill said. “There is more discussion in the lay press about the positives, negatives, so I think that discussion invites a little more thoughtful decision-making.”
Thank God, people are starting to think and question!!!

“In 1999, the American Academy of Pediatrics published a statement laying out the pros and cons of the procedure.
Pros: A slightly lower risk of penile cancer, a rare disease; a slightly lower risk of urinary tract infections in the first year of life; easier genital hygiene; and a decreased risk of sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV.
Cons: Risks, which are rare and minor but include bleeding and infection; belief that the foreskin protects the penis; and belief that removing the foreskin decreases sexual pleasure.
Most telling, though, for many was the academy’s lack of a stance either way.
“When a family asks me, I say it’s purely up to you. If there was stronger evidence to recommend it, I would,” said Hill, whose own sons are circumcised. “When someone asks me, I say it is a decision that you should make as a family.”
Dr. Richard Gates agrees: “It’s probably safe to say that the science is relatively thin on any true medical benefit.””

So really then there are no pros, only cons…..
“Not every parent endorses the procedure. When Christie Kild’s first son was born seven years ago, she thought about not doing it, but her husband persuaded her. The boy took about a week to recover, screaming at every diaper change.
“Huge mommy guilt,” Kild wrote in an email.
Still, when her second son was born 20 months later, she consented to another circumcision, figuring the two boys should look alike. He wound up having complications that lasted until he was 5. Online, she started seeing reports of boys having to repeat the procedure.
So Kild and her husband agreed not to circumcise their younger two sons, ages 3 and 2 and one-half months.
“Circumcising the first two is, thus far, the only parenting decision that I regret,” she said. “I believe that circumcision is a human-rights issue. … If they want it done as adults, that is their decision.”

So for those who say this is a short and harmless procedure… What do you say now?….
Complications are only “rare” when they happen to someone else…. What if it’s your son?
“Gates said he and his colleagues have a multipronged pain-management procedure. Before the procedure, the child is given a sucrose pacifier and then a local anesthetic to numb the area around the foreskin, and Tylenol afterward.”

And last but not least:
Oh yes, sugar water before a painful injection in penis… Actually several painful injections….
Um and Tylenol for aftercare? Tylenol? Tylenol??!!! Really??!!
Tylenol is the crappiest pain relief ever when it comes to wounds and inflammation of a surgical site……
Heck at least my hubby when he had a surgery got Tylenol with codeine.
Um, and wasn’t there a recent article that Tylenol may not in fact be safe for infants???

People, please listen! It is not your body. It is your son’s body. Yes you are his care taker and decision maker. Yes, you are in charge. In charge of protecting your sons from harm.
Circumcision is one of the most socially and culturally endorsed purposefully inflicted Injuries we allow to be done to our infant sons here in America.
Stop the madness. Protect your sons.


So last Friday we moved into our new house near the seminary. We’ve met plenty of new people and have unpacked almost everything.
The boys are in daycare for the next week. Thank God! I’d go crazy if not!!!!


Well yesterday we packed up the moving truck and sent it on it’s way to Our new home….. For the next 3 yrs.
My husband will be a Episcopal seminarian and after getting his Masters in Divinity he should be able to be ordained and then get a job as a priest and who knows where we will be.
I’m totally freaked out because I can’t control any of this.(I’m a control freak) and I’m scared about meeting all these new people.
Soooo nervous

Cut and Paste

Hello, I’m just wanting to state why so many of my blog posts are simply copy/paste blog posts of other authors…particularly concerning circumcision.

well, I’m on a fan page on facebook called The Whole Network and other intactivists regularly post either their blog posts or someone elses and this is my way of sharing that information.

Sometimes, internet searches are strange and pertinent links or articles may not show up under certain word searches so I figure I’ll do my part by having other’s posts somewhat linked to mine.

I’m still not technically minded so just a simple copy/paste is all I know how to do.

To all fellow pro-intact and children bodily integrity rights activists keep up the fight…. some say there are bigger things to worry about than circumcision of non-consenting, and without medical need, healthy  minors and I agree there are…. and those fights are being fought and this is good… but it doesn’t make circumcision without true cause any less harmful or wrong. Keep speaking up!

Another post by Joseph4gi

(well another cut and paste post i did not write but am passing on to anyone who stumbles across my blog. The link to the whole blog post is below the excerpts)

” Ever since “researchers” came out with the “studies” that circumcision “reduced the risk of HIV,” I saw it for what it was. This isn’t about “HIV,” this isn’t about “public health care.” This is all about ultimately legitimizing what “doctors” and “scientists” have been trying to legitimize for years; the genital mutilation of healthy, non-consenting infants. They’ve been trying to do this for over a century, the “disease” that circumcision is supposed to prevent changing every time real science manages to debunk the claims………..
I’ve never been convinced.

Ever since “researchers” came out with the “studies” that circumcision “reduced the risk of HIV,” I saw it for what it was. This isn’t about “HIV,” this isn’t about “public health care.” This is all about ultimately legitimizing what “doctors” and “scientists” have been trying to legitimize for years; the genital mutilation of healthy, non-consenting infants. They’ve been trying to do this for over a century, the “disease” that circumcision is supposed to prevent changing every time real science manages to debunk the claims.

Since the first “studies” came out in 2006, “doctors” and “scientists” were already thinking about how they could use the latest “studies” to legitimize, not the circumcision of sexually active adults who are at risk for sexually transmitted HIV, no; the “doctors” and “researchers” were already thinking about how the “science” could be used to push the circumcision of INFANTS. INFANTS, who do not yet have sex and are at absolute zero risk for sexually transmitted HIV. And not infants in Africa, no; people were eager to get circumcision for HIV transmission endorsed here at home for American children.

Well, that hasn’t happened just yet, but it looks like pro-circumcision advocates have finally achieved in legitimizing the circumcision of healthy, non-consenting infants under the guise of HIV transmission all the way in Africa. How absolutely disgusting.

What trial? What “studies” were conducted in healthy, non-consenting infants? If I remember correctly, all of the “studies” conducted in Africa were conducted on adult men consenting to undergo the procedure of circumcision. What on EARTH are we doing pushing circumcision on healthy, non-consenting infants? WHY are we doing this? What if we conducted “studies” on consenting women who wanted to part with their labia and clitoral hoods? If “studies” showed a “reduction in HIV transmission” for the women, would we proceed to recommend it in CHILDREN? WHY is our government doing this??? Is it because they’ve been unsuccessful in getting our AAP to endorse this here at home? Do they somehow think if they could achieve it in Africa, that this would somehow translate back home? According to the CDC, the neonatal circumcision rate in the US has fallen to approx. 33%. Is it their intention to shore that up here at home at the expense of children in Africa?

According to the Swazi Observer, “HARDLY a month after the neonatal circumcision campaign was launched; there have been over 400 circumcised.” WHY is there even a neonatal circumcision campaign?
Are children having sex? Are they at any risk for sexually transmitted HIV? WHY are they being denied a choice?

“We have held the press conference on the 30th of June because it is the last day of the children’s month. Therefore, we felt it proper to look back and reflect on what we have done this month towards improving the lives and health of Swazi children during a time when societies are greatly affected by the deaths caused by HIV/AIDS,” said Public Services International (PSI) HIV Services Director Jessica Greene.


“The USAID Director and PEPFAR officer Jennifer Albertini said she was very grateful for the accelerated approach to circumcision in the country and said she was confident that in the long run the benefits of the mass circumcision campaign would be massive in terms of reducing the spread of HIV in the country.”

Yes, Albertini. Because children are contributing the most to the HIV transmission rate. It’s not the circumcised men, where HIV tranmission was found to be MORE PREVALENT.

“The target is to circumcise 152 000 males after a year and bearing in mind we have already, one is optimistic that we will be able to meet the target,” said Albertini.

That’s what it’s all about isn’t it, Albertini, meeting a target…

“Neonatal male circumcision is the removal of the foreskin that covers the tip of the newborn’s penis.”

The foreskin IS the tip of the newborn’s penis. What a gross representation of basic human anatomy.

“NEONATAL circumcision is advantageous because it reduces the risk of negative complications.”

NO, ANY surgery where it is not needed is an INCREASE in the risk of negative complications.

“Early circumcision maximises the benefits of circumcision and becomes very easy to perform. Therefore, providing the most apparent reason why we recommend all parents should take their children for circumcision when while they are still young,” said Reid.

What “benefits” is a healthy child in need of? The most apparent reason that Reid recommends parents take their children in for circumcision “while they are still young” is because they would not be so willing to undergo the operation as adults. In other words, Reid is legitimizing deliberate child abuse. Absolutely despicable.

Meanwhile, Mohammed Mahdi from the Elizabeth Glazer Pediatric AIDS Foundation said it was very important that circumcision was included on both prior and post counseling of the mothers. “We are currently panning to introduce circumcision in the counseling offered to mothers before birth so that they are taught about the benefits before they even before they give birth,” said Mahdi.

Hrm… what if the children are born with HIV? Shouldn’t they be talking to them about preventing mother-to-child transmission FIRST??? Why is THIS priority? Are male children simply already sick in utero? Mohammed Mahdi… sounds like this person may have a personal bias… he would “advise mothers” about the “benefits” of circumcision anyway…

“FOLLOWING some cases on the effects of circumcision, the World Heath Organisation has issued guidelines on how the process should be conducted by all doctors.

This was announced by Dr Dennis Buwembo from JHPIEGO who said some fatal cases and after effects of some fatal cases and operations that had gown wrong had become a cause for concern.
Hence, the main reason the WHO issued the guidelines which stipulate clearly that the process can only be conducted by professionals through local anesthesia.”

Are they **** serious. First off, HAS the WHO actually gone ahead and endorsed circumcision as HIV transmission prevention in CHILDREN? And if children are dying, shouldn’t they be RECONSIDERING??? This is absolutely infuriating.

The article continues with dispensing of the same old misinformation.

“Advantages of Neonatal Male Circumcision”
Question one; WHY should it be performed in the first place? Aren’t we going to hear about the advantages of NOT circumcising? Or is there only one option?

“Faster healing”
WHY is there need for a deliberate wound, PERIOD???

“Less complications if performed by trained health care workers”
This is not always guaranteed. Why should a healthy, non-consenting child be put at risk for ANY complications???

“Lower costs”
There are NO costs in leaving the child alone.

“Neonatal MC maximizes the benefits of circumcision by providing the procedure before the male becomes sexually active”
“Benefits” which are dubious at best. Even if these “benefits” were 100% concrete, how does a child, who is not sexually active benefit? Shouldn’t it be up to the child to decide whether he wants this “benefit?” WHY are they circumcising healthy, non-consenting, sexually inactive INFANTS???

“Easy to perform”
“Sunat” is easy to perform too.
“Risks of Neonatal Male Circumcision
Pain after the procedure
Reaction to the anaesthesia
Swelling of the wound”

Partial or full ablation??? DEATH??? It is mentioned in this very article. Yet, it’s not part of this **** list.


It is a complete outrage that our country is taking advantage of 3rd world countries this way to push infant genital mutilation. It’s enough that doctors take advantage of parental naivete and the defenselessness of children to reap profit from completely unnecessary surgery. Now we’re going as far as Africa to push it there as well? This is absolutely despicable. It’s morally repugnant. I am outraged that this. THIS is what my tax dollars are being used for. Forget about quackery that doesn’t work; we’re outright endorsing deliberate child abuse and genital mutilation. Sooner or later this nation is going to pay for raping Africa in the name of “humanitarian aid.” Something has got to be done about this.”

Joseph4GI: What it’s always been about….