Is tattooing a child worse than piercing ears, circumcision?
A Floyd County man has been charged with child cruelty after authorities say he tattooed his 3-year-old son.
Floyd County Police Sgt. Teri Davis said Eugene Ashley, 24, tattooed the back of his son’s right shoulder with “DB,” which stands for “Daddy’s Boy,” sometime this spring. The man told police he was intoxicated at the time, Davis said.
The children remain with their mother; Eugene Ashley was arrested May 21 and faces charges of child cruelty and tattooing a person younger than 18 years old, the latter being a misdemeanor, Davis said.
Now granted nobody wants an allegedly drunk, non-professional tattoo artist working on them, but I wonder … is tattooing a child worse than piercing a baby’s ears or circumcising a newborn boy?
I get that there’s a law about not tattooing someone under 18, but why is that more worthy of a law than the other two? Is it simply because the other two are done more frequently so they have become socially acceptable?
Does it have to do with the possible transmission of diseases? All involve blood and cutting into the skin – although circumcisions are done by surgeons as opposed to ladies at the mall.
Does it have to do with the permanence of the procedures? Piercings (at least in ears) can close back up, but circumcision can hardly be reversed. I have heard of a method of stretching the foreskin back over the head of the penis using weights but that doesn’t sound easy. Laser surgery to remove tattoos seems preferable to trying to “re-grow” your foreskin.
Are tattoos more painful than piercing or circumcision? Not sure that’s true.
I’m not promoting tattoos for toddler and babies, I’m just wondering if there is a double standard of what is acceptable to do to a child?
What do you think? Are tattoos worse than piercing or circumcising a child? If so, why? Also, where does waxing your kids’ eyebrow land on this scale?
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
137 comments Add your comment
Jesse's Girl
May 29th, 2009
7:33 am
Southerners do everything better MJG!!!! There’s a tat for ya:)
JATL
May 29th, 2009
7:48 am
Seriously MJG -you need to learn to read things you’re commenting on completely. I SAID I’VE LIVED OUTSIDE THE PERIMETER -grew up there even (waaaayyyy outside the Perimeter) -FOR CHRISSAKES! As an adult I spent 4 years too many in Kennesaw and Marietta. I would also compare my travel experience to yours any day -and that’s with all of your speaking arrangements. I know quite a bit about life outside the perimeter and I’m quite adventurous. It’s good that your job involves speaking because you certainly don’t listen very well.
As I said before -I enjoy differences and being different, and for the record I LOVE Texas! My point about the teenagers in malls is that tattoos are extremely commonplace everywhere now.
motherjanegoose
May 29th, 2009
7:54 am
JATL…perhaps I don’t read well…I cannot hear anything from the blogs and I am listening right now. What is wrong with Kennesaw and Marietta…
HB
May 29th, 2009
8:28 am
Did you mean me? If so, you are mistaken. I’m from rural Georgia and have the accent to prove it :).
Becky
May 29th, 2009
8:54 am
Karma, did you havea charisma bypass at birth?
Jesse’s Girl, you never fail to make me laugh..
Robert
May 29th, 2009
9:02 am
Cmon, people, let’s have a little bit of logic here.. NONE of these have ANY proven benefit–just a lot of risks. But circumcision is the only one that removes the majority of the nerves of the body part involved–and carries the risk of penile amputation and even death. death.
Culture and superstitious beliefs justify none of these on any infant or child.
motherjanegoose
May 29th, 2009
9:08 am
HB good because I love a southern accent!
David J. Llewellyn
May 29th, 2009
1:23 pm
Tattooing seems to me to be worse than ear piercing, although, of course, it is a matter of degree. A small tattoo on a hidden part of the body is not nearly as harmful as a large one that is always in view. However, a small tattoo certainly is no worse than the permanent damage and deformity caused by circumcision. I think all three are impermissible when performed on an infant or a child. No parent has a right to consent to the cosmetic modification of a child’s normal, non-deformed body. All of these procedures can be consented to by the child when the child reaches the age of majority.
The comments by most folks here about circumcision reveal a lack of knowledge of the history of that unnecessary operation, its risks, and the protective and sexual functions of the foreskin. It is regrettable that this ignorance is shared by much of the medical profession. Indeed, since most presently practicing male American physicians are circumcised, they have little personal knowledge of normal male anatomy.
Non-religious circumcision began in the U.S. in the late 19th century in a failed attempt to prevent masturbation, which was believed to be harmful to boys and adolescents. It eventually was posited to cure or prevent a wide variety of diseases from hip displasia to tuberculosis to insanity!! By 1971 all of the “reasons” for circumcision had been debunked and a committee of the American Academy of Pediatrics stated that there was no medical reason for neonatal circumcision. Since then there has been something of a pro-circ reaction by certain doctors and the AAP has modified its stance to recognize “potential” benefits. But none of these “potential” benefits outweigh the very real risks of the operation.
The fact is that many, many babies are negligently damaged by circumcision each year, not only elsewhere, but also here in Atlanta. I am a trial lawyer. I just concluded a trial in Fulton State Court for a child who lost a large portion of his glans penis in a botched circumcision at birth. The jury awarded 2.3 million. In 1985 two boys lost their penises in botched circumcisions at Northside Hospital (I was not involved in those cases). However, I have been involved in numerous other botched circumcision cases here in Georgia as well as throughout the country. Circumcision carries real risks, which are rarely conveyed to the parents beforehand.
The cleanliness myth is easily dispelled by the realization that women have to rinse their vulvas just like adult men need to rinse their penises – circumcised or not. A woman’s clitoral prepuce or foreskin is the anatomical analog of the male foreskin. We don’t circumcise women for “cleanliness” and we don’t need to circumcise boys for it either. Virtually any disease that circumcision supposedly reduces in incidence (it doesn’t “prevent” anything, including STD’s and AIDS) can be avoided by monogamy or safe sexual practices and basic cleanliness. It is a fact that the U.S. currently has the highest percentage of circumcised sexually active males in the industrialized world outside of Israel (in fact we are the only country to circumcise a majority of its newborn boys for non-religious reasons) and the highest rates of HIV/AIDS and STD’s in the industrialized world. The circumcision rates in the last two generations of U.S. men (1945-1980) have been between 80% and 95% yet the HIV/AIDS and STD rates have increased exponentially during those generations’ lives. So much for the “protective” function of circumcision that those in favor of it erroneously allege. Most of the rest of the world outside the Muslim countries, Israel, and the Philippines, does not circumcise neonates and their men get along just fine. Moreover, any foreskin “problems” can be medically treated without surgery in most cases, although surgery is often mistakenly recommended. In short, there is no legitimate medical reason for circumcision of newborn boys and there are very few legitimate medical reasons for it in youth and adulthood.
There is a wealth of accurate information on the internet in regard to the foreskin, the normal development of the male penis, the sexual function of the foreskin, and the damage caused by circumcision, whether botched or not. It is often hard for circumcised Americans to view with equanimity. I suggest that those interested go to http://www.cirp.org, http://www.intactamerica.org, http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org, http://www.nocirc.org, http://www.mothersagainstcirc.org, http://www.circumcisionandhiv.com, http://www.circumstitions.com, http://www.sexasnatureintendedit.com (very sexually graphic), http://www.foreskin.org, http://www.intact.ca, and like sites if they want the hard, cold truth. A good discussion for prospective and new parents can be found at http://www.mothering.com/discussions/forumdisplay.php?f=44. The video of an actual GOMCO circumcision at http://www.intact.ca usually convinces parents that circumcision is a bad idea.
By the way, circumcision rates have been dropping for decades. Currently only about 56% of newborn U.S. boys are being circumcised. The rates vary by region. In the West a circumcised newborn is now in the minority. Anecdotal evidence suggests that here in the Atlanta area about 25% of newborn boys are being left intact. Parents need not fear that their son will be ridiculed for having the body with which he was born.
In short, in regard to all these decisions the motto should be: His/Her Body! His/Her Decision!
BME: Tattoo, Piercing and Body Modification News » ModBlog » Full Coverage: Links From All Over (May 29, 2009)
May 29th, 2009
6:39 pm
[...] [Atlanta Journal-Constitution] Well, no laughs here. A few days ago, some idiot drunken goblin named Eugene Ashley decided it’d be a grand idea to tattoo his three-year-old son’s shoulder with the initials “DB,” allegedly standing for “Daddy’s Boy.” Hey, that’s fun bonding experience, right? No? Yeah, not so much. The tattoo was discovered after an unidentified person complained to the Department of Family and Children Services about the conditions at the Ashley home. The Ashleys have three or four children, Davis said. [...]
Spencer Collins
May 30th, 2009
1:05 am
Hey there “Obama hates Cheney’s bald head the most”, (comment 4 and 5), are you saying that my uncircumcised penis looks odd? Since when did natural become odd?
Tom Tobin
May 30th, 2009
7:37 am
Since when did natural become ugly? Since when did a scar become beautiful?
Would you circumcise the statue of The David, because you think foreskins look gross?
If they look gross on a man, do they look gross on a woman? Because it’s all the same stuff, just slightly rearranged.
The cleanliness stuff is laughable. Any uncut guy knows that if you don’t keep it clean, you don’t get any. How much work is splashing with water? Would you have your ears removed, because you have to clean the wax out of them once in a while? Foreskins feel *really* good, for both partners. Why aren’t there epidemics in Europe or South America, if circumcision makes it so much cleaner? Why did all those circumcised Americans died of AIDS?
Some people need to get out more.
Fenella
May 30th, 2009
10:14 pm
I agree! Circumcision, tattooing and ear piercing on males or females are all unnecessary body modifications that shouldn’t be done on infants! They are done for the gratification of the parents…it is disgusting how some parents treat their children like objects to have stuff done to just so they look cute.
ATW
May 31st, 2009
9:49 am
Circumcision helps males of all ages keep clean and healthy. As women, we have to deal with male hygiene all the time, and unfortunately in many cases it is not good. Circumcised males are definitely cleaner and emit almost no odour compared to uncircumcised males. I’ve had one too many bad experiences with poor hygiene in uncircumcised men and it’s now come to the point where I insist on circumcision before I get intimate with him. Plus there’s something very cute about seeing that bare, permanently exposed knob. It looks so vulnerable, which is very attractive compared to a covered turtleneck. My vote is for all men to be circumcised within the first few days of birth.
Nybili
May 31st, 2009
9:54 am
How can you compare the oldest surgical procedure known to civilized man and tattooing? You are clearly either anti-circumcision or one of the anti-circumcision groups paid you off to do this ridiculous analogy, I dont know what benefits tattooing has but circumcision has a lot of benefits, including no cancer of the penis, less transmission of stds, hpv and hiv. less urinary tract infections, no phimosis, paraphimosis or balanits, and fyi most american women prefer their men circumcised. The circumcision rate in the US is around 75-90 percent depending on the area of the country and rightfully so. jewish women have the lowest cervical cancer rate in the world because jewish men are 99 percent circumcised. Why dont you compare Vikings and Beekeepers to see who is worse.
Here are some great sites to find out more beneficial information about circumcision:
http://www.aboutcirc.com/
http://www.medicirc.org/
http://www.circumcisioninfo.com/index_home_new.html
http://www.circinfo.net/
http://www.circinfo.com/
http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/2754/wiswell.html
http://men.webmd.com/guide/circumcision-decision-weighing-risks-benefits?page=1
Tom Tobin
May 31st, 2009
10:13 am
Yup. Every guy in Europe, Asia, and South America needs surgery to stay clean.
Men can’t be trusted to wash.
Who cares what your particular sexual preference is? It has nothing to do with a newborn, being made to bleed, for cosmetic surgery which is more likely to adversely affect his life, than to help it.
Foreskins have been evolving on mammals for 120 million years. How much trouble does your foreskin cause you? That’s how much the typical foreskin bothers the typical man, or their sexual partner.
Does female circumcision help a woman stay clean and healthy? I bet it does. I bet removing the tongue from the mouth would keep the mouth cleaner. No nasty pockets to trap food, and cause bad smells.
Robert
May 31st, 2009
10:40 am
“Plus there’s something very cute about seeing that bare, permanently exposed knob. It looks so vulnerable, which is very attractive compared to a covered turtleneck. My vote is for all men to be circumcised within the first few days of birth.”
Gee, can we find a more pathetic excuse to chop off the most sensitive part of a male’s genitals…scars are so cute and attractive?
African men find circumcised female genitals more attractive.. seems like a great similarity here.. stupid, ignorant American women and stupid, ignorant African men.
SoSweet
May 31st, 2009
3:05 pm
There’s nothing wrong with piercing a childs ears!! Its definitly not “Ghetto Trash”. He was wrong for tattooing he 3 year old son!
People have nothing better to do these dayss! Leaving long ass messagess!
interesting questions … « Aniareads Weblog
May 31st, 2009
3:24 pm
[...] pretty interesting questions raised in ‘is tattooing a child worse than piercing ears, circumcision?’ (make sure to check the comments posted by readers!) and ‘should tattooing animals be [...]
Klem
June 1st, 2009
7:42 am
Whether you talk about piercing, cicumcising or tattoing a child, the bottom line is that the kids body DOES NOT belong to his parents. And reading MOTHERS talking about the benefits of having part of a penis removed just makes me laugh..as i I was encouraging excision as a man….
I agree with theresa, there is a double standard..research about circumsion…and the healthbenefit are non-existent…it is just religiously/culturally rooted…nothing more
Jack
June 1st, 2009
10:00 am
I was going to post a mean version of that “Circumcision helps males of all ages keep clean and healthy.” –changing male to female. It shows how outrageous the statement ATW is making. ATW and probably Nybili have never had the main male pleasure zones. What do they know? The pleasure zones taken by male circumcision are real. The male pleasure zones taken are really quite nice for the owner. They involve touch and stretch nerve endings — more than the clitoris. ATW, how about you get to kleep your clitoris but they cut off your labia and clitorial hood? It will be cleaner.
An interesting non-repoted issue was pointed out by an anti circ DR I know. Male circumcison so hurts male pleasure that circed guys often prefer oral sex to natual vaginal sex. The DR opined that this has led to massive herpes problems in the USA as oral passes herpes and the male circ scar is especially prone to herpes infection. YIKES the mutilated US is a herpes spreading machine!
Not-Denying-The-Truth
June 2nd, 2009
12:24 am
Back in the 1850’s and 1860’s Americans were assured in published papers written by the most respected medical doctors of the time, that amputating half of the skin from a boy’s penis (serious surgery euphemistically called “circumcision”) would cure masturbation, which doctors said caused paralysis, hip trouble, urinary incontinence, sloth, and spermatorrhea (ejaculation for any reason other than procreation).
In the 1870’s American medical doctors insisted that circumcision would not only cure masturbation but also idiocy, moral laxity, headache, clubfoot, bladder inflammation, spinal curvature, lameness, clumsiness, hysteria, malnutrition, and epilepsy.
In the 1880’s medical doctors declared that circumcision would still cure masturbation and also blindness, nervous tension, restlessness,irritability, facial tics, rectal prolapse, indigestion, heart disease, diabetes, deafness, and even crossed eyes.
Then, in the 1890’s American medical doctors announced that circumcision would cure masturbation, impotence, elephantiasis, gangrene, tuberculosis, eczema, excessive saliva, hypertrophied tonsils, and swollen feet.
In 1900 American medical doctors proclaimed that circumcision was still the best cure for masturbation and also for premature ejaculation, dyspepsia, hernia, nervous exhaustion, and diarrhea.
In the decade after 1910 American medical doctors soberly affirmed that circumcision cured masturbation, dropsy, hydrocephalus, nocturnal pollutions (wet dreams), excessive sexual passions, and the compulsion to rape.
In the 1920’s American medical doctors writing in JAMA confidently pronounced that circumcision cured syphilis as well as masturbation. (In that same journal in 1927 America was assured that castrating all Negro men would protect the “virtue of White women.”)
In the 1930’s American medical doctors certified that circumcision cured masturbation and promiscuity.
In the 1940’s American medical doctors authoritatively swore that circumcision cured masturbation and prevented venereal diseases and cancer of the tongue.
In the 1950’s American medical doctors still maintained that circumcision cured masturbation and priapism and asserted that it prevented cervical cancer.
In the 1960’s American medical doctors were positive that circumcision cured masturbation and painful intercourse and prevented smegma (that white guck you saw in the corners of your eyes in this morning), penile malignancy, and prostate malignancy.
Even in the 1970’s American medical doctors still warranted in several prestigious medical journals that although masturbation didn’t cause diseases, circumcision would prevent masturbation and sexual abnormalities as well as penile cancer, infections of the glans, urinary tract infections, and of course nightmares.
By the early 1980’s American medical doctors had grudgingly accepted that circumcision didn’t prevent masturbation so they suspended their 130-year campaign against the “evils” of masturbation but still promised that circumcision prevented penile cancer, cervical cancer, urinary tract infections, and kidney failure.
In the 1990’s the American medical community was showing signs it had nearly come to it’s senses when the American Academy of Pediatrics decided that circumcision was not necessary for good health or hygiene and only prevented a few very rare cases of penile cancer in elderly men and maybe a few urinary tract infections in infants that could easily be treated with a shot of antibiotic. But of course doctors should still offer the service to the parents of little boys.
The shameful history of the list of pretexts for penis mutilation would be comical if the consequences weren’t so tragic. The only thing circumcision doesn’t seem to ever cure is the profitable compulsion to cut male babies. Now it’s the year 2000 and doctors writing in the NEJM are excitedly hinting that they may be able to protect our boys from getting the terrible HIV virus that causes AIDS by circumcising. Doctors are back at it again selling genital mutilation of boys, and again claiming it’s a miracle prophylactic against a disease. Just how stupid do they think American’s are?
The only people who have ever really benefited from circumcision are the American doctors who have treated the homegrown American foreskin as an annuity. It’s always open season on little boy’s pelts as American doctors perform more than 1.2 million unnecessary foreskin amputations annually -making neonatal circumcision the most frequently performed surgery in history. Does the word “quackery” apply here?
Kitty
June 2nd, 2009
2:24 pm
People piece the ears of their ugly girls without much hair so people will stop saying “what a cute boy”. Is it ‘trashy-looking’? Well of course it is. If you see a child with their ears pierced, askif their parents make more than $30k a year combined, the answer will be “no”.
electricbluebird.etsy.com
June 5th, 2009
7:30 pm
Altering a child’s body without their informed consent is wrong no matter what. Ear piercing and tattoo, well those are superficial. Circ alters forever a man’s sexuality. I have two girls but I would never, never, never have circ’d a son. And my girls? Well, ear piercing will be done when they show an understanding of the permanence and they can take care of the piercings. Tattoos? Well, the legal age is 18. I can only hope they wait until then.
electricbluebird.etsy.com
June 5th, 2009
7:35 pm
To clarify, I was referring to non-medical alteration. And for the record, I grew up in Atlanta, inside and outside the perimeter.
ontheboat
June 6th, 2009
9:37 pm
Circumcision is mutilation, extremly painful for newborns, needless and completly crazy. Why people don’t realize that ? Seriously how can cutting off the most sensitive part of male body be good ?
I really would like to know.
Cutting isn’t the way to go. It should be banned.
Tayla
June 9th, 2009
2:37 pm
Speaking as a professional body piercer, I would never pierce a child’s ears unless that child came up to me, and could articulate the desire to have their ears pierced, and they fully understood that it was indeed going to hurt. How would you feel, as a fully grown adult, if someone held you down while someone rammed some jewelry through your ears?
A word to the wise from BMEzine.com:
“A piercing gun, traditionally used by mall stores for piercing ears, is typically inappropriate for piercing of any kind. Almost all medical professionals agree that piercing guns cannot be adequately sterilized (an alcohol wipe is NOT sterilization); this means that they are capable of passing hepatitis and other diseases.
In addition, experience has taught the industry that:
Ear piercing studs are dull and tear through the body, causing unnecessary pain, healing duration, and other possible complications.
Ear piercing guns are inaccurate and not designed for piercing most body parts, resulting in improper piercing placement.
Ear piercing studs are the wrong size and too short for most piercings. The small gauge (generally 20g) and short length are not optimal for healing.
Any “piercer” using a piercing gun should be avoided. ”
I feel the same negative feelings toward circumcision. Now, speaking as a parent, before we knew the sex of our child, my partner and I had made the decision NOT to circumcisem should our baby be a boy. While I understand circumcizing for religious or MEDICALLY NECESSARY reasons, I still don’t agree with performing what most doctors will tell you is a completely unneccessary procedure. Why take away someone’s choice in the matter? When they are old enough, they can CHOOSE to have their foreskin removed so that they, “Look like Daddy and other boys.”
Again, from BMEzine.com:
“To circumcise something literally means “to cut around.” This almost always refers to the removal or cutting of the male foreskin, although less commonly it refers to female circumcision, which is either the removal of the clitoral hood or hood splitting. It is also applied mistakenly to female genital mutilation, which can refer to the removal of the clitoris itself, or the occlusion of the vagina.”
Now, this may be shocking. However, if you’re willing to cut off a piece of your infant son’s genitalia, would you be willing to cut off a piece of your infant daughter’s?
there’s some food for thought…
Nandi
June 10th, 2009
5:31 am
Did you know that in cultures that “circumcise” girls they do it for tradition, to look like mommy, to keep it cleaner, because a husband won’t marry a girl who is not “circumcised.” In the US we call this female genital mutilation and banned it in 1996. However, we feel it is perfectly acceptable to “circumcise” baby boys so they will follow tradition, look like daddy, keep clean, and because girls won’t have sex with a boy that has all the foreskin he was born with. Does anyone see any similarities between this? http://www.circumstitions.com/FGMvsMGM.html
Have you ever thought that the euphemism for circumcision might be “male genital mutilation”? Amputation of a functional body part? Shouldn’t it be the boy’s right to choose what body modifications he wants to happen on his body?
Nandi
June 10th, 2009
5:32 am
Did you know that in cultures that “circumcise” girls they do it for tradition, to look like mommy, to keep it cleaner, because a husband won’t marry a girl who is not “circumcised.” In the US we call this female genital mutilation and banned it in 1996. However, we feel it is perfectly acceptable to “circumcise” baby boys so they will follow tradition, look like daddy, keep clean, and because girls won’t have sex with a boy that has all the foreskin he was born with. Does anyone see any similarities between this? http://www.circumstitions.com/FGMvsMGM.html
Have you ever thought that the euphemism for circumcision might be “male genital mutilation”? Amputation of a functional body part?
Robert
June 13th, 2009
10:07 am
“Have you ever thought that the euphemism for circumcision might be “male genital mutilation”?”
Actually circumcision is a euphemism for male genital mutilation the same as it is for female genital mutilation..
Thaddeus B.
June 23rd, 2009
6:42 pm
Okay…all of you people are wack!! No one should be tattooing their babies-that is just wrong. Pierced ears, c’mon what is wrong with that? They close up and they’re gonna get them done anyway, and to who said it was white trash…you are white trash my dear-pure ignorance with a bufont and aquanet okay. As for circumcision, it should not even be in this field…it is a medical procedure not a cosmetic addition. There are a slew of men who will tell you they are uncircumsized and that you should have your babies cirumsized.
ontheboat
June 26th, 2009
12:11 pm
Circumcision isn’t medical procedure at all, it’s cosmetic surgery. No medical organizations in the world recommends circ.
Cutting off the most erogenous part of your body to prevent a few problems that circumcision may solve is insane.
Sirius
July 15th, 2009
4:25 pm
Circumcision prevents vulvar cancer. Removing the useless clitoral hood and redundant labia improves hygiene. An uncircumcised vulva looks weird and smells atrocious with its foul smegma. It’s a parental right to circumcise your son or daughter. There’s no medical study proving that uncircumcised women have better sexual sensation, and if it were really harmful it would have died out centuries ago: it’s *women* who do the cutting, so they would know.
Labiaplasty – read circumcision – is now the third most common cosmetic surgery chosen by women in the U.S. Why not do it in the neonatal period when the pain won’t be remembered? Sex is better, men like it, and it’s the healthy thing to do.
HOwever, if you tattoo your child, well, you should be thrown in prison. There’s no right to tattoo a non-consenting minor.
ontheboat
July 16th, 2009
2:29 pm
Sirius,
you forgot to mention piercing ear which is as worse as tattooing or cutting hair. I do agree circumcision is different because it cures you from AIDS, syphillis, penile cancer, infections, STDs, deafness, masturbation, dyspepsia, hernia, nervous exhaustion, and diarrhea.
Kevin
July 20th, 2009
1:07 am
hi im 11 and want to get a piercing in my left ear. but my mom and dad wont let me. there are guys in my school that are 8 and 9 and have ears pierced. so its ok for them but not me. its not fair.
Robert
July 24th, 2009
10:38 am
What does it take to get the moderators to pass a post thru? I have submitted the same post twice and it has not been passed thru. Is there some magical incantation I need to use?
anarchist
August 26th, 2009
5:40 pm
for all the well trained & hearded sheep who responded to this article in serverely uneducated and presumptuous ways…there is ABSOLUTELY NOOOO health benefit to circumsission…it merely allows mothers 2 b lazier about cleaning their sons & men 2 b lazier about cleaning their penis. & if someones ears are pierced @ a young age the holes do not close…they are permenant!!!! its about choice. boys should be allowed to choose if they want their foreskin…& everyone should be able to decide on their own if they want earrings or tattos…their parents should not decide for them!!!
John
September 17th, 2009
1:28 pm
I challenge ANYONE to do a google video search on “circumcision procedure”, watch the whole video, and then tell me it’s not cruel and barbaric. LISTEN to the infant choking on his own screams and tell me it’s not cruel and barbaric. Witness the calloused doctor, scraping foreskin from the glans while it is still connected by living tissue, crimping and scissoring living skin, feeding the skin up through a bell clamp and slicing it off with a scalpel WITHOUT anesthesia and tell me it’s not cruel and barbaric. The penis is meant to be an internal organ. It requires no special cleaning during infancy because the foreskin is connected to the glans (head) until 5-14 years of age. By then I’m sure the boy can learn to pull back his skin and clean himself. The claims of cleanliness and disease prevention are totally exaggerated or fabricated. Do the research. Save our children from any form of body modification they have no choice in. They trust their parents to do right by them. Don’t betray that trust.