Nip to Tuck: If They Can Make You Wear a Helmet and a Seat Belt, They Can Make You Circumsize Your Child @ AMERICAN DIGEST

August 24, 2009

Nip to Tuck: If They Can Make You Wear a Helmet and a Seat Belt, They Can Make You Circumsize Your Child

What do government officials think they can make you do? Anything at all, as long as it is "for the greater good."

Here's the latest bit of your government's wishing on a star "for the greater good." It involves a little nip, just a little snip, from the little tip.

Officials Weigh Circumcision to Fight H.I.V. Risk
Public health officials are considering promoting routine circumcision for all baby boys born in the United States to reduce the spread of H.I.V., the virus that causes AIDS.

The topic is a delicate one that has already generated controversy, even though a formal draft of the proposed recommendations, due out from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention by the end of the year, has yet to be released.

Experts are also considering whether the surgery should be offered to adult heterosexual men whose sexual practices put them at high risk of infection. But they acknowledge that a circumcision drive in the United States would be unlikely to have a drastic impact: the procedure does not seem to protect those at greatest risk here, men who have sex with men. [I note in passing that "homosexual" as a word is out and the more casual "men who have sex with men" is in. I'll leave that little bit of bureaucrat drool for another time. ]

Again we see the sick compulsion of the permanent government to meddle in the lives of free citizens. A moment's reflection tells you that no program of infant circumcision, "recommended" or mandatory, will reduce the risk of HIV infection or transmission to zero. Not even conscientious condom wearing does that. At best it would be another tip in the wall.

The argument for the "recommendation" comes from the aptly named Dr. Peter Kilmarx. Killmarx, "chief of epidemiology for the division of H.I.V./AIDS prevention at the C.D.C., said that any step that could thwart the spread of H.I.V. must be given serious consideration.

“We have a significant H.I.V. epidemic in this country, and we really need to look carefully at any potential intervention that could be another tool in the toolbox we use to address the epidemic,” Dr. Kilmarx said. “What we’ve heard from our consultants is that there would be a benefit for infants from infant circumcision, and that the benefits outweigh the risks.”

"Our consultants" turn out to be depending on certain trials that took place in three African countries,

Clinical trials in Kenya, South Africa and Uganda found that heterosexual men who were circumcised were up to 60 percent less likely to become infected with H.I.V. over the course of the trials than those who were not circumcised.

The Times neglects to mention that the preferred method of birth control in Africa is heterosexual anal-intercourse, a practice that, in conjunction with standards of hygiene that most first-world countries would consider filthy, and customs that promote the benign practices of "men who have sex with men" on the side, might have something to do with the plague of AIDS that is decimating that continent.

Instead the Times parrots Kilmarx's conclusion that what is good for Africans is good for Americans, whether they want it or not.

This "recommendation" is just another example of the habit of mind that has infected officialdom on the local, state, and national level. The CDC, as well as all other agencies, has come to believe that nothing, even the decisions once left to the parents of a newborn child, are beyond their reach. Should Obamacare pass into law and the power to pay or not to pay for procedures fall completely into the hands of these faceless and nameless clones, it will be yet another step in replacing the family with Big Brother.

For the present what continues to infuriate is the constant drip, drip, drip of doing things:
1) "For the common good."
2) "For the children."

What all sensible people know: If any person or element of the government comes out with an idea whose justification is "It's for the common good and for the children," that is a person or organization whose goals are strictly malevolent. In this instance the robot face behind the mask is a bit clearer. This time, "for the common good," it is being done "to the children."

First a nip on your newborn son. Can a tuck be far behind? For the common good.

Posted by Vanderleun at August 24, 2009 8:52 PM

Gen.17
[1] When Abram was ninety-nine years old the LORD appeared to Abram, and said to him, "I am God Almighty; walk before me, and be blameless.
[2] And I will make my covenant between me and you, and will multiply you exceedingly."
[3] Then Abram fell on his face; and God said to him,
[4] "Behold, my covenant is with you, and you shall be the father of a multitude of nations.
[5] No longer shall your name be Abram, but your name shall be Abraham; for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations.
[6] I will make you exceedingly fruitful; and I will make nations of you, and kings shall come forth from you.
[7] And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your descendants after you.
[8] And I will give to you, and to your descendants after you, the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God."
[9] And God said to Abraham, "As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations.
[10] This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your descendants after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised.
[11] You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you.
[12] He that is eight days old among you shall be circumcised; every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house, or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring,
[13] both he that is born in your house and he that is bought with your money, shall be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant.
[14] Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant."
[15] And God said to Abraham, "As for Sar'ai your wife, you shall not call her name Sar'ai, but Sarah shall be her name.
[16] I will bless her, and moreover I will give you a son by her; I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of peoples shall come from her."
[17] Then Abraham fell on his face and laughed, and said to himself, "Shall a child be born to a man who is a hundred years old? Shall Sarah, who is ninety years old, bear a child?"
[18] And Abraham said to God, "O that Ishmael might live in thy sight!"
[19] God said, "No, but Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him.
[20] As for Ishmael, I have heard you; behold, I will bless him and make him fruitful and multiply him exceedingly; he shall be the father of twelve princes, and I will make him a great nation.
[21] But I will establish my covenant with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear to you at this season next year."
[22] When he had finished talking with him, God went up from Abraham.
[23] Then Abraham took Ishmael his son and all the slaves born in his house or bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham's house, and he circumcised the flesh of their foreskins that very day, as God had said to him.
[24] Abraham was ninety-nine years old when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin.
[25] And Ishmael his son was thirteen years old when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin.
[26] That very day Abraham and his son Ishmael were circumcised;
[27] And all the men of his house, those born in the house and those bought with money from a foreigner, were circumcised with him.

Posted by: Fat Man at August 24, 2009 9:26 PM

I think that any woman who has sex with a man who hasn't got the decency to exercise the basic etiquette of washing his dick before intercourse is pushing her luck and should be more inquisitive. Know your man's habits, before you surrender your 'carnal knowledge' to him, gal.

Moreover, any man who uses the exhaust system of another human being (or come to that any creature's ass, living or dead), to get off, deserves anything he gets. As for women who knowingly are prepared to have sex with bi (or tri)-sexuals, they should be sectioned.

I can however feel great sympathy for women who have sex with husbands when they are unaware of his perverted extra-marital practices. I would reserve a special place in hell for those dirty bastards.

Foreskins have a purpose, cleanliness is the issue, surely, easier now than in the days when these barbaric practices originated. As for the religious aspects: oy vey! I'm a great defender of the Jews, but on that issue (or perhaps I should say tissue) I demur. Cut it out! (the practise) And refrain from cutting it off (the 'tip'). That's my tip for the day!

Should the government wield the knife (pro bono publico)? I hereby give notice that any government bureaucrat who approaches what's left of my manhood, or that of my son, or any of my grandsons, with intent to schnickel, had better approach the task accompanied by HM Household Cavalry, backed up by the US Marines, if he values his own testicles and their likelihood of withstanding the full force of a size ten boot applied by the overwhelming force of someone who has kicked a lot of footballs (and ass) in his day!

Posted by: Frank P at August 25, 2009 4:53 AM

Comments:

HOME
"It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood." -- Karl Popper N.B.: Comments are moderated and may not appear immediately. Comments that exceed the obscenity or stupidity limits will be either edited or expunged.

To anyone who thinks circumcision is an innocuous procedure, I recommend attending the circumcision of your newborn son in person. Halfway through you will wish you were not there, and you will feel like a cruel sadist for having so thoughtlessly subjected him to it. I've never understood why this procedure is so widespread in the U.S. anyway. In Europe it's hardly ever done except among the Jews, of course. And for the federal government to even consider promoting this is idiotic. But then, they've already done so many idiotic things.

Posted by: Wim de Vriend at August 24, 2009 9:34 PM

Circumcision does reduce STD's, and HIV transmission in particular by up to 75%, which means one can make booty calls for months longer before aquiring the virus. Unless you are going in the front door, where the transmission rate is zero, chopped or not.
"It is a tragedy that more politicians are not hanged"--Chesterton.

Posted by: james wilson at August 24, 2009 10:44 PM

I don't recall being asked when my son was circumcised at 2 days old. I don't know about adult men who aren't circumcised submitting to the procedure, although I'm sure their wives/girlfriends would prefer it, but I thought circumcision of newborn boys was pretty much SOP.

I attended my son's circumcision and I don't recall it being all that traumatic. A quick snip, a brief cry and it was over. I certainly didn't come away feeling guilty or sadistic. Within a couple of minutes he was happily nursing and falling back to sleep.

A good friend of mine begged her husband to get circumcised and he refused. She divorced him over it eventually. After the divorce he went and got a vasectomy, which to me seems a whole lot more drastic than the surgical removal of a little bit of foreskin.

Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) at August 24, 2009 10:52 PM

I'm not making an argument for or against circumcision. I'm agnostic on that issue. What I am noting is the increasing tendency and reality of the government to extend its reach and influence deeper and deeper into our lives.

Think back 20 years ago and measure that against how much interference exists today. Now ramp that trend out about 20 more years.

Posted by: Vanderleun at August 24, 2009 10:55 PM

Well this I agree with. Even though I think circumcision is best, I certainly don't think the government should be in the business of forcing any medical (or religious) procedures on its citizens. I might think twice about sleeping with an uncircumcised man, but I'd defend his right to remain that way, if that is his preference.

Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) at August 24, 2009 11:05 PM

I can't help wondering if the study took into account in any way the religious practices of circumcised vs. uncircumcised men. Isn't it possible that in Africa, men who are circumcised might have some form of faith that makes it less likely that they will sleep around? I don't know the answer to that, but isn't it at least a consideration?

In other words, did anyone ask why they were circumcised, and as a follow-up ask what about their local customs might have an influence on their sexual practices? And what percentage of the population is circumcised, anyway? Is it possible that there are too many variables to be concluding with certainty that circumcision itself is the reason fewer diseases are transmitted? I can't fathom basing sweeping government policy on something so poorly understood. Oh, wait...

Posted by: Julie at August 25, 2009 7:58 AM

I didn't think it was possible to imagine a more frightening English sentence than "Hi, I'm from the government and I'm here to help you." But there soon might be: "Hi, little guy, I'm from the government and I'm here to CIRCUMCIZE you."

Posted by: Rich Fader at August 25, 2009 8:54 AM

1. Whole thing proves that Obamacare means they own you. Deal with it. Don't want them to own you? Don't take the King's Shilling.

2. Frank P. Not your call. When He wants us to stop, He will make His will known. Read above.

Posted by: Fat Man at August 25, 2009 9:08 AM

I think:
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves." William Pitt in the House of Commons November 18, 1783

...sums it up pretty well.

Posted by: Aaron at August 25, 2009 9:45 AM

AIDS/HIV "epidemic?" What epidemic?

I can travel about and go about my life for years without encountering someone with AIDS/HIV, and more importantly, I run virtually no risk whatsoever of catching it except possibly in the nowadays unlikely event of contracting it through a blood transfusion, which would only occur under the most drastic of circumstances. My scenario is also the scenario for the vast majority of Americans. HIV is the disease of the extremely careless, the recklessly depraved, the occasionally very unlucky, and the socially very dysfunctional. For most of us there is no HIV/AIDS "crisis."

Posted by: Roderick Reilly at August 25, 2009 9:48 AM

Foreskins removed during circumcision have a dollar value. They are used for skin grafts, biomedical uses and (this is very important) an anti aging wrinkle cream that sells for $130.00 per oz.

Posted by: Geri at August 25, 2009 10:49 AM