Penn and Teller: circumcision episode

penn and teller: circumcision episode
I’m not sure if the link with work as I’m on my phone. If it doesn’t simply google the episode

Advertisements

Birth without fear: circumcision decision

circumcision decision article: written by Lauren from “thewholenetwork.org” and posted on birth without fear blog.

“As I dug further into the topic, I found out that the majority of the males in the world are not circumcised. In fact, the United States is the only country to perform this procedure routinely for non-religious purposes. Another interesting fact is there is not a single medical organization in the world who recommends circumcision- not even the American Academy of Pediatrics!”

Peaceful parenting: even when you lose, you are winning

drmomma.org: encouragement for you

“Right now, some babies and children will lose. And it may be your unfortunate, heartbreaking, perspective as a freedom fighter to know about their pain, but this does not mean you are losing. As long as we are out there, as long as we are being productive, we are winning. Humanity wants to change – even when it doesn’t seem like it in our little circle of the world. We want to be kind, loving and respectful to our children and we all want a society that respects human rights equally. We just need the support, and freedom, to do it. This is a long term goal, so don’t worry about the ups and downs. Cruelness and lack of compassion are just symptoms of cruelness and lack of compassion, not innate traits among humans. Let this help you put up your case with a calm and righteous heart, with confidence and compassion, and without insults or belligerence, even when that is what is handed to you.”

Occupy

article about the occupy movement.

I admit I don’t watch much tv or read much news. I read novels and watch movies so I was grossly unaware of what was going on. I knew something was up but until images started popping up all over Facebook I had no clue.
The images and descriptions are things we see happening in other countries… How can this be happening in our own????
——-

Excerpt from article:
“Why this massive mobilisation against these not-yet-fully-articulated, unarmed, inchoate people? After all, protesters against the war in Iraq, Tea Party rallies and others have all proceeded without this coordinated crackdown. Is it really the camping? As I write, two hundred young people, with sleeping bags, suitcases and even folding chairs, are still camping out all night and day outside of NBC on public sidewalks – under the benevolent eye of an NYPD cop – awaiting Saturday Night Live tickets, so surely the camping is not the issue. I was still deeply puzzled as to why OWS, this hapless, hopeful band, would call out a violent federal response.

That is, until I found out what it was that OWS actually wanted.

The mainstream media was declaring continually “OWS has no message”. Frustrated, I simply asked them. I began soliciting online “What is it you want?” answers from Occupy. In the first 15 minutes, I received 100 answers. These were truly eye-opening.

The No 1 agenda item: get the money out of politics. Most often cited was legislation to blunt the effect of the Citizens United ruling, which lets boundless sums enter the campaign process. No 2: reform the banking system to prevent fraud and manipulation, with the most frequent item being to restore the Glass-Steagall Act – the Depression-era law, done away with by President Clinton, that separates investment banks from commercial banks. This law would correct the conditions for the recent crisis, as investment banks could not take risks for profit that create kale derivatives out of thin air, and wipe out the commercial and savings banks.

No 3 was the most clarifying: draft laws against the little-known loophole that currently allows members of Congress to pass legislation affecting Delaware-based corporations in which they themselves are investors.

When I saw this list – and especially the last agenda item – the scales fell from my eyes. Of course, these unarmed people would be having the shit kicked out of them.

For the terrible insight to take away from news that the Department of Homeland Security coordinated a violent crackdown is that the DHS does not freelance. The DHS cannot say, on its own initiative, “we are going after these scruffy hippies”. Rather, DHS is answerable up a chain of command: first, to New York Representative Peter King, head of the House homeland security subcommittee, who naturally is influenced by his fellow congressmen and women’s wishes and interests. And the DHS answers directly, above King, to the president (who was conveniently in Australia at the time).

In other words, for the DHS to be on a call with mayors, the logic of its chain of command and accountability implies that congressional overseers, with the blessing of the White House, told the DHS to authorise mayors to order their police forces – pumped up with millions of dollars of hardware and training from the DHS – to make war on peaceful citizens.

But wait: why on earth would Congress advise violent militarised reactions against its own peaceful constituents? The answer is straightforward: in recent years, members of Congress have started entering the system as members of the middle class (or upper middle class) – but they are leaving DC privy to vast personal wealth, as we see from the “scandal” of presidential contender Newt Gingrich’s having been paid $1.8m for a few hours’ “consulting” to special interests. The inflated fees to lawmakers who turn lobbyists are common knowledge, but the notion that congressmen and women are legislating their own companies’ profitsis less widely known – and if the books were to be opened, they would surely reveal corruption on a Wall Street spectrum. Indeed, we do already know that congresspeople are massively profiting from trading on non-public information they have on companies about which they are legislating – a form of insider trading that sent Martha Stewart to jail…..”

Homemade butter! Awesome!

homemade butter- directions

Follow the link above for step by step directions and pictures!

“Start with high-quality heavy cream. If you can get it from a farm, that’s a big bonus. Basically, the better your cream tastes, the higher quality your butter will be.”
——-
Pour it in mixer…. Beat it until it separates, strain it… Add salt….

I sooo want to try this!
——–

I did it I made butter!

—————
Update: dec 9, 2011
Oh I’m just realizing I never posted my pictures of my butter.
Well my phone crashed so I lost my pictures. Sigh!!! Oh well! I didn’t need a lot of butter for the experiment do I only poured about a cup of less of the heavy cream and then put it in my kitchen aid mixer…
Now if only I could get a hold of unpastuerized heavy cream… I’ve heard that is even more incredible!
I was bummed when I read the “Ingredients” in my heavy whipping cream box… Wth I thought it would just be cream!!!

Here is another webpage make butter from raw milk

Thanksgiving

Ohhh so full! This yr I cooked the entire thanksgiving feast… From turkey to the whipped cream for the pumpkin pie! It was awesome… I’m exhausted!

My parents and Inlaws came to celebrate thanksgiving with us. First we went to a potluck that was for the seminarians and then had a couple and their daughter over for dinner with us and our family.
I’m a damn good cook!!!!!!!

TWN: 50 reasons to leave it alone.

I did not write this.

50 reasons to leave it alone

50.) It’s his. I know, I said it already. but it’s really the first and last reason – and perhaps the only one you really need. It’s his body, and unless medically necessary, it should be his choice. You wouldn’t give him a nose job without his permission, you wouldn’t tattoo your infant. This is the same thing. If you really look at your motives, why would you want to take the risks? Leave the decision where it belongs – in your son’s hands.

The whole network took the article from this blog. click here to read it by the original writer

Awesome post

I did NOT write this:

this post concerns doctors and circumcision

Excerpts from the post.:

“It was very interesting to be able to be able to speak to the people right on the front lines of circumcision in America. There was one comment that was repeated over and over by the doctors:

“The parents demand it.”

That was so interesting to me because in my interactions with parents, they typically seemed to point to medical reasons for doing it. In speaking with doctors, a large portion of them freely admitted that there was no medical benefit to the surgery and they were simply performing a cultural service at the request of parents. They also tried to shrug off their own responsibility as if their hands were tied when they were faced with a parental request that they circumcise the baby. A vicious cycle with each player pointing to the other to justify what they do.”…..

“There were two doctors in particular who made such a lasting impression on me with what they said. One, a fit, petite woman with short curly grey hair and fashionable prescription glasses was crossing the street during the lunch hour. I offered her my flyer and without glancing at it- she took it and threw it on the ground. She snapped at me with a pride and arrogance that I have never encountered before and said,

“I have circumcised over 5000 babies and the ONLY ones I felt bad about were the Jews… because I was taking the money away from the mohel!”

I was stunned. I reached in my purse for a pen and with a shaking hand I wrote it down word for word.

For today’s blog entry I though it would be interesting to illustrate what 5000 people looks like. I did a google image search and had to laugh that I had forgotten about the artist Spencer Tunick who poses crowds of nudes in urban environments. I found a picture (I have blurred it out some) which contains 75 people, men and women. I used photoshop to patch that picture over and over till I had 5000 represented. Several years have passed, so I assume that her number has grown considerably since then.

click the picture to view larger

Now, I would like you to imagine that grey haired 130 pound woman, with a megaphone, standing in front of a group of 5000 men, whose genitals she had altered with her knife, and to hear her say it one more time:

“I circumcised every single one of you and the ONLY ones I felt bad about were the Jews… because I took the money away from a mohel!”

The other doctor was a man, at the peak of middle aged attractiveness, and I’ll confess as a 6 foot tall woman, he was even more attractive to me because he was about 6’4”. Protesters with banners and signs had been told to stay on one side of the street, but because I only had my flyer- I was able to stand close to the entrance, and slip my paper to people rushing by, many not even suspecting that I was part of the protest across the street. I saw this tall man coming, and I think he saw me too- I gave him my flyer and he paused to read the title. He became enraged and got even taller- leaned forward and backed me up against the wall. He took a tone with me like I was a belligerent little girl and he was a school principal, he snapped:

“You don’t even know what you are talking about! Have you ever seen one!!??”

I tried to imagine what sort of objective rational counseling a pregnant woman could expect to get from that arrogant (obviously) circumcised man. As an artist, a world traveler, a sexually experienced woman, a student of anatomy and a mother of a son, of course I had “seen one”… but I know that many American women have not.

In this world of activism, the fact that many- if not most of this generation of our male doctors in America is circumcised is a major consideration. Many of these doctors have no idea how to care for an intact child, and many children are harmed by bad advice coming from them. Many other children who have minor easily treatable problems are circumcised because their doctors see their foreskin, not the pathology, as what ails them. This interaction was my proof that even medical professionals are not immune to the loss of not only their foreskin, but the loss of objectivity that infant circumcision inflicts.

There is a movement to end routine infant circumcision from within the medical community you can read more about them here:
Doctors Opposing Circumcision Website

Here is the text of my flyer if your are curious:

Ten great reasons for Obstetricians to quit circumcising babies

1.To comply with ACOG guidelines of informed consent.
Being born with a normal male sex organ is not an emergency. A male can make this decision for himself if he chooses. ACOG makes a great effort to protect the physical integrity of female patients and to secure consent for all procedures, the willingness to ignore these guidelines in order to circumcise infant males highlights a sexist double standard. Males should also be respected as whole and embodied persons.

2. Circumcision violates the Hippocratic Oath. Participation in an invasive non-medical procedure is an indicator of a physician’s professionalism.

3. American circumcision is a global embarrassment.
Callis Osaghae bled to death after a home circumcision in Ireland. Many Irish doctors were incensed when it was suggested that they should preform circumcisions for the immigrants who requested them. They felt this was an abuse of their medical training and a clear ethical broach. American doctors are protected by law, from pressure to circumcise females, yet no such legislation protects doctors from the pressure to circumcise males. Their inability to stand up to that pressure, in the absence of state mandated legislation, reflects poorly on their ability to comply with internationally accepted medical standards.

4. Obstetricians are specialists.
Despite this, obstetricians have cornered a market outside their specialty by popularizing the circumcision of male neonates. High pressure tactics in the hospital and a service industry conveyor belt give indifferent or reluctant parents the opportunity to secure a circumcision without having to do anything. A circumcising OB will rarely do any followup and will also not encounter any of the common long term pediatric or adult issues of circumcision damage. This confusion of the role of an obstetrician as child circumciser reflects poorly on the obstetric profession and abusively forces maternity nurses to cooperate.

5. Soliciting elective surgery from women in labor is abusive and unethical.
There is an implied medical endorsement when hospital staff solicits in the course of admitting patients. The AMA circumcision policy states that a lack of information and deferral of the decision until after the birth contribute to the high rate of circumcision in America. This means that if parents were given more time and more information, fewer would circumcise their son.

6. Unnecessary surgery exposes a circumciser to avoidable liability.

7. The refusal to treat infant pain is well documented. The obstetrician circumciser is the worst offender of any medical specialty; with the most appalling record right here in the northeastern US. Despite the AAP admonition that children not be exposed to the pain of circumcision, many medical schools still teach circumcision without pain relief. (using living human children)
Circumcision Practice Patterns in the United States
Stang HJ, Snellman LW Pediatrics. 1998 Jun;101(6):E5
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/101/6/e5

8. Circumcision in America did not spring from our culture, it came from our doctors.
Circumcision is now known to have no medical value, yet doctors inexplicably offer it as a cultural service, maneuvering consent from fathers circumcised in an era predating modern respect for patient autonomy.

9. Circumcision gains public acceptance at the expense of a physician’s professional integrity.
As long as physicians are willing to involve themselves in non-medical surgery, parents will be confused about the intended purpose of such surgery.

10. The best reason to say, “NO!” is your own.

This message to obstetricians comes respectfully to you from a survivor of Placenta Previa”

My blog, my only activism

(wow, I just read what I wrote below…. Um, I really should proof read and edit…oh well maybe another day)

http://www.thewholenetwork.org/intact-care-cards.html
Warning i did not proof read!!!!

My advocacy is for the child.
I want to avoid unnecessary infant pain. I advocate conscious personal decisions for one’s own body when there cosmetic wants. Medical decisions should be made by the person who they are effecting except when the person is not able to speak for themselves. If a person is not able to speak for themselves then their current health needs should be taken care of by their guardian. Illness, necessary surgery to fix defects or injuries, vaccinations for illnesses that could currently affect the child…. Circumcision of infants is NOT a medical need. All boys are not born deformed. No, I do not have a “penis fetish.” No, I do not care about your “parenting choices.” as long as you live your children and do your best for them and don’t abuse them then I’m cool with your parenting choices.
I don’t want to say circumcision is sexual abuse or physical abuse because I know people truly love their sons are aren’t intending to harm them for life, aren’t wanting to hurt their children….
But I will say it is an abuse of power. As a parent we do have authority and power over our children. We make their medical, social, religious, educational decisions until they come of age to speak and do for themselves.
However, circumcision is the only elective cosmetic surgery allowed on infants without medical deformity. The foreskin is not a deformity, it is a healthy functioning body part that protects parts of the infant’s genitalia… More specifically it protects the urethral opening and keeps the mucosa tissue of the penis moist and healthy.
When a baby gets a diaper rash on the tip of the foreskin, the foreskin gets irritated but the glans stays protected. When the circumcised penis gets a diaper rash there is no foreskin to protect it, the glans gets irritated and the urethral opening can get irritated and that can cause problems…..
———-
The point is my blog is for the purpose of protecting the child from unnecessary elective surgery and pain…. We can’t protect our children from every pain but we can stop the unnecessary ones. We can allow our children to explore their full body. Our child’s adult sexual experiences and sensations are not ours to control. Leave you children the choice. Cosmetic surgery is a choice, the choice of the Individual not the choice of another. However, I don’t necessarily blame the parent. The parent has been cultural conditioned, it’s the trained medical practitioner I blame for not putting the patient first. The patient is the child although the parent pays the bills. The medical practitioner should not be do elective cosmetic procedures on an infant without medical need. The medical practitioner also needs to also become aware and knowledgable on correct penile development and care the the intact child genitalia. Only clean what is seen. If intact don’t retract!

Ps: I am not tackling religious reasons. People within those religions that circumcise need to be the catalyst for change and reform. But I will say circumcision is not a Christian mandate or covenant.
——
Well kids are calling I must run…. Sorry to end so abruptly….

20111120-133555.jpg

20111120-133633.jpg

Photos of circumcision complications

Complications maybe rare but rare isn’t rare enough when it’s your child suffering…..

http://www.circumcisionquotes.com/

Click on this link, to the right click issues, then click Complications.
The pics are horrific exaggerated by the fact that most circumcisions are unnecessary and most as totally elective cosmetic procedures and these cosmetic procedures are done because of “parental preference” not medical need.
This should not happen to babies or young children without pressing medical need.

20111112-081302.jpg

20111112-081316.jpg

Circumcision: A Complete Rip-Off

I did not write this.
This is a research paper written by the student, Christianna Streeter, and then posted on thewholenetwork.org. Facebook page.

——
Circumcision: A Complete Rip-Off

Americans are one of the few cultural groups that will make the decision on whether they will electively circumcise their newborn sons. Elective circumcision, also known as non-therapeutic circumcision, is circumcision in which there is no medical necessity. Non-therapeutic infant circumcision is an understandably controversial topic. While proponents of infant circumcision argue that it is acceptable because of cultural acceptance and potential benefits such as a possible decrease in urinary tract infections, opponents argue that these are not warranted reasons for infant circumcision. However, non-therapeutic circumcision of infants, in fact, should not be performed.

Non-therapeutic infant circumcision should not be performed because it is not medically warranted. No major pediatric organization in the world recommends elective infant circumcision and the foreskin has a purpose. The American Association of Pediatrics state in their policy that “while there is scientific evidence to demonstrate the potential medical benefits of circumcision, the data are not sufficient to recommend routine use of the procedure in newborn males” (“Routine” 1). The Royal Australian College of Pediatrics also says, “The frequency of diseases modifiable by circumcision, the level of protection offered by circumcision and the complication rates of circumcision do not warrant routine infant circumcision” (“Circumcision” 5). Other pediatric medical organizations that do not recommend non-therapeutic circumcision include the Australasian Association of Paediatric Surgeons, Canadian Paediatric Society, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan, the British Association of Paediatric Surgeons, and the Paediatric Society of New Zealand. The pediatric medical organizations listed represent a small number of those who do not recommend non-therapeutic infant circumcision. Since no pediatric organization recommends non-therapeutic infant circumcision, it should not be performed.

Not only should non-therapeutic circumcision not be performed because it is not medically recommended, it should not be performed because the foreskin has a purpose. When a child is born without a foreskin, it is considered a birth defect. The foreskin was not a mistake and is a part of the human anatomy for a reason. The foreskin, or prepuce, is a part of both the male and female genitalia and it covers both the glans penis and clitoris (Cold 34). The foreskin has many functions including, but not limited to, protecting the glans against “urine, feces, and other types of irritation… it [foreskin] protects against infection and scarring of the urinary opening” (Schmitt, B.D [1]). The foreskin has many protective functions and one of them is the protection against bacterial and viral infections. The glands of the foreskin produce and secrete an enzyme known as lysozyme. Lysozyme is a part of the body’s immune system in that it protects against bacteria and viruses (Fleiss [5]). This role of protection is shattered with circumcision. Non-therapeutic circumcision should not be performed because it destroys the purpose and function of the foreskin.

Infant circumcision may also have undesirable physical and psychological effects. According to MD Christakis, circumcision complication rates are 1:476 circumcisions (248). It is estimated that 1 in 500,000 boys die from circumcision (Benatar in Fox 164).There are many other complications including, but not limited to, adhesions, hemorrhage, penile amputation and even death. Two out of every 100 circumcised infants will experience serious complications such as “seizure, heart attack, stroke, loss of penis, [or] death” (“Cut” [1]). Along with the aforementioned complications, circumcision has been found to alter the way the brain reacts to painful stimuli. The American Academy of Pediatrics confirms and acknowledges that circumcision affects a child’s response to pain. As a surgery, circumcision is described as “among the most painful performed in neonatal medicine” (Goldman 93). The AAP also states that it is “noted that circumcised infants exhibit a stronger pain response to subsequent routine immunization than do uncircumcised infants” (American 688). The researchers of the study concerning

immunization pain and circumcision concluded that “circumcision may induce long lasting changes in infant pain behavior” (Goldman 94). Circumcision is clearly an excruciatingly painful procedure and infants should not be forced to endure the procedure unnecessarily. Non-therapeutic circumcision should not be performed on infants because of the complications that ensue and the fact that it affects the infant’s response to pain.

Circumcision may also have a psychological, as well as physical, impact. The American Academy of Pediatrics notes that there are behavioral changes such as increased irritability, varying sleep patterns, and changes in infant-maternal interactions after circumcision (Task 398). In the long run, circumcision may cause psychological issues, such as depression, in a teenager or adult. An example of the negative psychological impact of circumcision is the story of a twin boy that was published in Time magazine. After a circumcision complication that left his penis damaged beyond repair, doctors urged the parents to have the boy undergo reconstructive surgery to make him anatomically correct to a woman, and his parents raised him female. When the boy was older he was given hormone treatments and the procedure was considered a success by the medical community. This case led to doctors urging parents to opt for the same procedure when similar incidences occurred. As the boy grew older, he knew he was not really a female. He became depressed and wanted to commit suicide. Only after he became suicidal was his story told to him. The boy had a reconstructive surgery to again become a male (Gorman [1-3]). This boy’s story is one of many and it could have been avoided. Because of the potential psychological trauma, non-therapeutic circumcision should not be performed.

Routine circumcision violates a child’s right to his body in the fact that female circumcision is already illegal and it is a cosmetic procedure. Female circumcision was outlawed in 1997, yet male circumcision is still a cultural norm. The Female Genital Mutilation Act of 1995 states, “Except as provided in subsection (b), whoever knowingly circumcises, excises, or infibulates the whole or any part of the labia mojora or labia minora or clitoris of another person who has not attained the age of 18 years shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both” (United [2]). Both males and females deserve the rights to their bodies. It is hypocritical to protect one gender from unnecessary genital surgery and not the other. According to Schultheiss, circumcision should not be allowed simply because of a cultural tradition and should be addressed ethically (24). The United States of America protects the rights of female children but not the rights of male children. Attorney for the Rights of the Child, Steven Svobaoda stated that “American society evidently finds it very difficult to accept the profound importance of protecting the genital integrity of, at minimum, all individuals below the age of consent” (Svoboda in Denniston 189). Males should be given the same protection as females, and infant circumcision should not be performed unnecessarily.

Perhaps the most important reason that non-therapeutic circumcision should not be performed is because of the ethical aspect of non-therapeutic circumcision. Non-therapeutic circumcision is classified as a cosmetic procedure. Infants have the right to not have a cosmetic procedure performed on his body without his consent. A cosmetic procedure is defined as, “Serving to modify or improve the appearance of a physical feature, defect, or irregularity” (American [1]). When there is no medical indication for circumcision, and it is simply a body modification, it is considered a cosmetic procedure. No doctor would perform a cosmetic rhinoplasty or liposuction on an infant. Christine Schultheiss states in Penn Bioethics Journal; “There does not appear to be any way to justify cosmetic penile surgery if one rejects the ethicality of other types of cosmetic surgery for infants” (22-23). If every other cosmetic surgery is deemed unethical, so should non-therapeutic infant circumcision. Dr. G.J. Boyle states that “Among other requirements, they [doctors] are expected to respect the human rights of their child patients” (Boyle [2]).

In conclusion, circumcision should not be performed on infants unless there is a medical need. The end of non-therapeutic circumcision is near as fewer parents are opting for this procedure. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the circumcision rate has dropped to 32.5%. (Rabin [1]) The drop in statistics is largely due to parents becoming more informed about the potential adverse outcomes of circumcision and the fact that it is not medically necessary. The imbedding of circumcision in American culture should be pushed aside because circumcision is not just a decision that is being made for the child, but for the man he will become.

Bibliography Page

American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on Circumcision. “Circumcision Policy Statement.”

Pediatrics 103.3 (1999): 686- . Academic Search Complete. Web. 3 Nov. 2011.

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language.4th ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin

Company, 2003. Free Online Dictionary. Web. 17 Oct. 2011.

Boyle, GJ. “Issues Associated with the Introduction of Circumcision Into a Non-Circumcising

Society.” Sexually Transmitted Infections 79.5 (2003): 427. Academic OneFile. Web. 17

Oct. 2011.

Christakis, Dimitri., et al. “A Trade-Off Analysis of Routine Newborn Circumcision.” Pediatrics

105.1 (2000): 246- . Academic Search Complete. Web. 17 Oct. 2011.

“Circumcision of Infant Males.” The Royal Australasian College of Physicians. Pediatrics &

Child Health Division, Sept. 2010. Web. 12 Oct. 2011.

Cold, C.J., J.R. Taylor. “The Prepuce.” British Journal of Urology 83.Suppl.1 (1999): 34-44.

Academic Search Complete. Web. 18 Oct. 2011.

“Cut vs. Intact Outcome Statistics.” Peaceful Parenting. N.p., 20 Jan. 2010. Web 18 Oct. 2011.

Denniston, G.C., et al. Bodily Integrity and the Politics of Circumcision. New York: Springer,

2006. Springer Link. Web. 17 Oct. 2011.

Fleiss, Paul. “The Case Against Circumcision.” Mothering: The Magazine of Natural Family

Living 1997: 36-45. Web. 4 Nov. 2011.

Fox, Marie, Michael Thomson. “Short Changed? The Law and Ethics of Male Circumcision.”

The International Journal of Children’s Rights 13 (2005): 161-81. Academic Search

Complete. Web. 17 Oct. 2011.

Goldman, R. “The Psychological Impact of Circumcision.” British Journal of Urology

International 83:suppl.1 (1999): 93-10. Academic Search Complete. Web. 17 Oct. 2011.

Gorman, Christine. “A Boy Without a Penis.”Time Mar. 1997:83. Academic Search Complete.

Web. 17 Oct. 2011.

Jefferson, Thomas. “Circumcision.” Children’s Health. 1999 ed. Print.

Rabin, Roni. “ Steep Drop Seen in Circumcision in U.S..”New York Times. New York Times, 16 Aug. 2010. Web. 17 Oct. 2011.

“Routine Circumcision Not Warranted.” Urology Times Apr. 1999: n.pag. Academic Search

Complete. Web. 17 Oct. 2011.

Schmitt, B.D. “Circumcision: Pros and Cons.” RelayClinical Education 2011.2 (2011): n.pag.

Health & Wellness Resource Center. Web. 17 Oct. 2011.

Schulthiess, Christine. “The Ethics of Non-Therapeutic Neonatal Male Circumcision.” Penn

Bioethics Journal 6.2 (2010):21-24. Academic Search Complete. Web. 17 Oct. 2011.
.
Task Force on Circumcision. “Report of the Task Force on Circumcision.” Pediatrics 83.2

(1989): 388. Academic Search Complete. Web. 23 Oct. 2011.

United States. Cong. House of Representatives. Federal Prohibition of Female Genital

Mutilation Act of 1995. 104th Cong., 1st sess. Washington GPO, 1995. Web. 18 Oct. 2011.

The pictures below have nothing to do with the research paper and have nothing to do with the post above it.

20111111-072834.jpg

20111111-072855.jpg

Halloween was fun

My oldest was a blue power ranger samurai with a replacement Jason mask painted blue because he broke his other mask. My youngest was spider man, he was supposed to be iron man but decided to wear the old ratty spiderman costume instead of the new and muscle padded iron man costume that cost too much!!

20111101-071833.jpg

20111101-071850.jpg

20111101-071923.jpg