....
It really bothers me that most of the people who are anti-circ, are anti-vaccination, too. The two are not in the same boat. Pro-circumcision and anti-vax use the same type of idiocy to support their claims. They lack scientific evidence, and are mostly supported by ignorance and the desire to support one's own will and biases. Vaccinations and have saved millions of lives, and were developed for that purpose. Circumcision was started as a blood-letting ritual/human sacrifice amongst the ancient Egyptians, and absorbed/copied by various religions and cultures since then (it has also never saved a life, and killed thousands; if not more). In the U.S. it was not developed for any sort of legitimate medical purpose (and still isn't), although it was claimed as such. However, these days we are aware that, indeed, circumcision does not cure boys and girls (yes, circumcision began in the US without a gender bias) of masturbation; nor bedwetting, paralysis, blindness, and a whole absolutely insane list of other "ailments" that began the scramble to circumcise in the late 1800s.
Since then, such things as social status, male insecurity, and the American obsession with "hygiene" and the new American state of denial, have caused it to continue; but, fortunately, since the 1970's, have not let it grow. Circumcision is dwindling, and hovers around 50% quite fortunately (in the U.S. only--virtually all other countries without religious rule think it's absolutely nuts), but the number of people refusing to vaccinate their children is rising. And it is for the same reasons that people continue to circ, yet the majority of these people don't! They see the actual, rational evidence against circumcision, and see the baseless conjecture by nutty fanatics against vaccinations as just as justified when it's about as 'scientific' as the pro-circ claims. There is no link between autism and vaccinations. Mercury hasn't been in vaccinations for the past decade. Evidence and genuine, falsifiable research proves this. The foreskin is beneficial, protective, sensitive, and aids in sexual function. Evidence and research prove this, too.
I just so want to think that the anti-circ folks are smart enough to realize why it's so bad based on evidence and reasoning, but they abandon it when it comes to vaccinations. They hurt their own case. Well, my case. It's, to say the least, dismaying.
However, with vaccinations so popular, unquestioned, and routine, like circumcision, I can understand the skepticism. And skepticism and questioning are great (people should know about vaccinations, and what's going into their child's body--but not when the info they're getting is crap). But coming to the conclusion that simply because something is so unquestioned, it must be wrong, is just as wrong. People need to open their eyes just as much to the proponents against vax as they do to the ones supporting circ. Vaccinations protect against diseases that are still around, and actually kill, with side-effects that are usually minor, with the major being extremely rare. Circumcision's only claim is to 'protect' against ailments that are extremely unlikely to ever actually occur, and rarely ever kill; while the side-effects are very significant (including the risk of death to 'save' infants from things that won't kill them) and affect the person, and their sexual partner[s]), for the rest of their life. I also understand that with people claiming that circ' is as harmless and 'essential' as a vaccination (which, again, it is so *not*), that it's easy to put the two in the same boat when dismissing one, they are really far from the same. Perhaps most concerning, though, is how it tends to work the other way around--people see vaccines as justified and rational (and those against vaccines as unjustified and irrational) and think circumcision must be, too.
Since then, such things as social status, male insecurity, and the American obsession with "hygiene" and the new American state of denial, have caused it to continue; but, fortunately, since the 1970's, have not let it grow. Circumcision is dwindling, and hovers around 50% quite fortunately (in the U.S. only--virtually all other countries without religious rule think it's absolutely nuts), but the number of people refusing to vaccinate their children is rising. And it is for the same reasons that people continue to circ, yet the majority of these people don't! They see the actual, rational evidence against circumcision, and see the baseless conjecture by nutty fanatics against vaccinations as just as justified when it's about as 'scientific' as the pro-circ claims. There is no link between autism and vaccinations. Mercury hasn't been in vaccinations for the past decade. Evidence and genuine, falsifiable research proves this. The foreskin is beneficial, protective, sensitive, and aids in sexual function. Evidence and research prove this, too.
I just so want to think that the anti-circ folks are smart enough to realize why it's so bad based on evidence and reasoning, but they abandon it when it comes to vaccinations. They hurt their own case. Well, my case. It's, to say the least, dismaying.
However, with vaccinations so popular, unquestioned, and routine, like circumcision, I can understand the skepticism. And skepticism and questioning are great (people should know about vaccinations, and what's going into their child's body--but not when the info they're getting is crap). But coming to the conclusion that simply because something is so unquestioned, it must be wrong, is just as wrong. People need to open their eyes just as much to the proponents against vax as they do to the ones supporting circ. Vaccinations protect against diseases that are still around, and actually kill, with side-effects that are usually minor, with the major being extremely rare. Circumcision's only claim is to 'protect' against ailments that are extremely unlikely to ever actually occur, and rarely ever kill; while the side-effects are very significant (including the risk of death to 'save' infants from things that won't kill them) and affect the person, and their sexual partner[s]), for the rest of their life. I also understand that with people claiming that circ' is as harmless and 'essential' as a vaccination (which, again, it is so *not*), that it's easy to put the two in the same boat when dismissing one, they are really far from the same. Perhaps most concerning, though, is how it tends to work the other way around--people see vaccines as justified and rational (and those against vaccines as unjustified and irrational) and think circumcision must be, too.