Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Costumed protestors in all-white getups with red-stained crotches took to the streets outside Atlantic Terminal on Monday, where they preached to passersby what they claimed are the dangers of circumcising baby boys, slamming the medical procedure as unnecessary, painful, and a form of child abuse.

“It’s a basic human-rights issue that everyone has a right to their own body,” said Harry Guiremand, an anti-circumcision advocate with the Bloodstained Men, a group that stages demonstrations against the practice nationwide. “It’s a crime against humanity when you think about it, a mass genital mutilation.”

Guiremand joined roughly 10 other men and one woman at the corner of Atlantic and Flatbush avenues to decry the surgical procedure that removes skin from the tip of a male child’s genitals — a custom referenced in the Bible’s Old Testament that is required in the Jewish faith, and commonly practiced by Muslims and other parents in the United States, whether to follow tradition or for what some professionals say are health benefits including a decreased risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases.

But Americans are in the minority when it comes performing the procedure on newborns, according to the group, which pointed out how several foreign nations moved away from the practice despite a 2012 statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics that claimed its benefits outweighed its risks, which can include prolonged infection.

“The Australians stopped doing it, the New Zealanders stopped doing it, the British stopped doing it,” Guiremand said. “It’s way past due that Americans stop doing this.”

CAA Flagship wrote:I'm not understanding the "protest". Is there any benefit to not do it? FWIW, there IS an argument to do it.
While I agree that once it is done, it can't be undone, but I don't think there should be legislation to prevent circumcisions.
Is this about limiting parental choices for children? Might as well let 2 year olds choose their own name then. That would be hysterical.

Circumcision surgery involves the removal of the skin that covers the tip of the penis, called the foreskin. Infant male circumcision is the most common medical procedure in the United States, with an estimated 60 percent of male newborns undergoing the surgery.

Morris Sorrells of National Organization of Circumcision Information Resources Center and colleagues created a “penile sensitivity map” by measuring the sensitivity of 19 locations on the penises of 159 male volunteers. Of the participants, 91 were circumcised as infants and none had histories of penile or sexual dysfunction.

For circumcised penises, the most sensitive region was the circumcision scar on the underside of the penis, the researchers found. For uncircumcised penises, the areas most receptive to pressure were five regions normally removed during circumcision—all of which were more sensitive than the most sensitive part of the circumcised penis.

CAA Flagship wrote:I'm not understanding the "protest". Is there any benefit to not do it? FWIW, there IS an argument to do it.
While I agree that once it is done, it can't be undone, but I don't think there should be legislation to prevent circumcisions.
Is this about limiting parental choices for children? Might as well let 2 year olds choose their own name then. That would be hysterical.

Vidav wrote:

CAA Flagship wrote:I'm not understanding the "protest". Is there any benefit to not do it? FWIW, there IS an argument to do it.
While I agree that once it is done, it can't be undone, but I don't think there should be legislation to prevent circumcisions.
Is this about limiting parental choices for children? Might as well let 2 year olds choose their own name then. That would be hysterical.

People consider it mutilation because you are removing a part of your child's body for really no reason.

CAA Flagship wrote:

Vidav wrote:
People consider it mutilation because you are removing a part of your child's body for really no reason.

I understand the mutilation part but you don't have to be a doctor to see that there may be health benefits to the procedure. And who is that bent out of shape that they would spend time on the street protesting.

Spoiler: show

(covered)

kalm wrote:

CAA Flagship wrote: I understand the mutilation part but you don't have to be a doctor to see that there may be health benefits to the procedure. And who is that bent out of shape that they would spend time on the street protesting.

This is a good point that I could strap my

Spoiler: show

(covered)

wagon to.

CAA Flagship wrote:

kalm wrote:
This is a good point that I could strap my

Spoiler: show

(covered)

wagon to.

Clearly, you are thick-skinned.

Vidav wrote:

CAA Flagship wrote:I'm not understanding the "protest". Is there any benefit to not do it? FWIW, there IS an argument to do it.
While I agree that once it is done, it can't be undone, but I don't think there should be legislation to prevent circumcisions.
Is this about limiting parental choices for children? Might as well let 2 year olds choose their own name then. That would be hysterical.

People consider it mutilation because you are removing a part of your child's body for really no reason.

Ibanez wrote:

Vidav wrote:
People consider it mutilation because you are removing a part of your child's body for really no reason.

I saw these guys in Charlotte- with tattoos and piercings. So they’re fine with mutilation as long as they choose it.


Honestly, who laments the loss of their foreskin??


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ibanez wrote:

CAA Flagship wrote:I'm not understanding the "protest". Is there any benefit to not do it? FWIW, there IS an argument to do it.
While I agree that once it is done, it can't be undone, but I don't think there should be legislation to prevent circumcisions.
Is this about limiting parental choices for children? Might as well let 2 year olds choose their own name then. That would be hysterical.

I don't understand the problem. If you think it's mutilation, then don't do it to your son. But what are you really missing out on? A MORE sensitive penis?

93henfan wrote:Protesting is stupid, I agree.

We didn't have our sons circumcised, as there's no reason for it. It's a stupid Jew and Raghead tradition that is archaic.

Anyone who doesn't eat bacon has questionable judgement, and you probably shouldn't try to emulate them.

Pwns wrote:

Ibanez wrote: I don't understand the problem. If you think it's mutilation, then don't do it to your son. But what are you really missing out on? A MORE sensitive penis?

Yeah, a more sensitive member with folds for smelly and pathogenic bacteria and a look many women find gross. what's the downside?