I think it's important to know that the "facts" and "information" you can find online regarding circumcision can be anything but. parents making this decision suddenly find themselves in agenda-filled sites that distort the truth or downright lie to get parents to view circumcision in a certain way. Although this is more common of the against side of the debate, one should also be careful about sites that are dramatically pro-circ. This is a controversial, debatable issue, which means that both sides have valid points and there cannot be a clear-cut "winner".
However, and probably to the recent HIV studies that proved that circumcision lowers the probability of contracting age in up to 60%, these myths and lies are being promoted more aggressively in an attempt to discredit a simple procedure. These are some (but not all) of the myths you may probably encounter:

1) The AAP doesn't recommend circumcision:
This is actually a convenient interpretation (or rather misinterpretation) of the AAP's actual policy which states: "Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In the case of circumcision, in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision. It is legitimate for parents to take into account cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions, in addition to the medical factors, when making this decision."
http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/c...trics;103/3/686
So the AAP doesn't recommend routine infant circumcision, which means that all baby boys would be circumcised. However, that's a far cry from not recommending it all. What the AAP actually recommends is that parents make an informed decision based on the pros and cons of the procedure. Simple.

2) No organization in the world recommends circumcision:
Technically true (although again, no organization recommended routine circumcision, all positions are basically the same). However, that changed just today. Both the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations (UNAIDS) have recommended circumcision as a preventative measure against AIDS. Here are some links:
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releas...0/en/index.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=...line-news_rss20
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070328/ap_on_...ds_circumcision

The American Urological Association (AUA) also came out of a more positive position on circumcision stating that "circumcision should be presented as an option for health benefits".

http://www.auanet.org/about/policy/services.cfm#circumcision

3) Circumcision is already illegal in South Africa and Finland
No, not true in the slightest.
In South Africa, President Thabo Mbeki signed a law making it illegal to circumcise anyone under 16 unless performed for religious or medical reasons by a trained practitioner. However, that law never took effect. Furthermore, this president was more famous for his controversial views on AIDS which including denying that HIV is the cause of AIDS. Infant male circumcision is perfectly legal in South Africa.
In Finland, the whole myth that circumcision was illegal began after a court case http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Court+rul...20958830However, this case wasn't about circumcision at all! The issue was proper consent. Circumcision in Finland, although rare, is perfectly legal.
http://www.circumstitions.com/Finland.html(although this is an anti-circ site, it's accurate information. Just be careful with the "comments" in red)
"The Task Force convened by the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health has concluded that parents should be permitted to consent to circumcision of boys for religious or cultural reasons."

Now, from the original court link:
"Legislation is somewhat vague on the matter, and practice varies in Finland. For instance, a report drafted by the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health in 2004 notes that male circumcision is permitted in all countries."

http://www2.hs.fi/english/archive/news.asp?id=20030324IE5
"Finland currently has no legislation on circumcisions."

"All religious-based circumcisions performed in hospitals are for Muslims. Finland's Jewish community has its own specialists who perform the procedure under hygienic conditions."

Which brings me to a letter from Finland's Chief Rabbi:

http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthrea...6678&page=2

"No, circumcission (sic) is not illegal in Finland and almost 100% of the boys born to a jewish family are circumcised. The circumcissions (sic) are performed in Finland by a Mohel."

The fact is that circumcision is perfectly legal and acceptable everywhere in the world.

4) Circumcision is a human rights violation:
Not true. I agree there are some people that think that circumcision should be a human rights violation and they have every right to feel that way. Still, that doesn't make it a reality. We have accepted organizations that deal with these issues and decide- based on many factors- which activities are acceptable and which violate basic human rights. These organizations have agreed that circumcision IS NOT a human rights violations because of it's a very safe procedure and it carries some medical benefits. This myth usually goes hand in hand with a comparison of male circumcision and Female Genital Mutilation (FGM). However, the two practices are completely different in every single aspect: physical, psychological, emotional, social and religious. They're not comparable in the slightest, but since they're both done is the same general area, and because FGM is a degrading practice and an accepted human rights violation, anti-circumcision activists usually use it to try to put circumcision in a more negative light. Sadly, it does the opposite. By comparing something as traumatic, damaging, dangerous and degrading as FGM with a simple, safe and beneficial procedure demeans the impact of FGM. It's a poor way of treating the women that have been victims of FGM and a way to demean their pain.
Finally, Amnesty International has directly declined to accept male circumcision as a human rights violation 3 times.

Here are some links:
An article from the New England Journal of Medicine

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/3...pe2=tf_ipsecsha

(WARNING! Link contains explicit pictures!)

Here are the responses to this article, including a commentary by the author:

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/332/3/188

"I use the term ``female circumcision'' to acknowledge its cultural importance, the positive perception of this procedure on the part of those who practice it. These characteristics constitute the main similarity of female circumcision to male circumcision. The difference is that, unlike male circumcision, the most commonly described types of female circumcision are anatomically and functionally mutilating."

"From the perspective of public health, female circumcision is much more damaging than male circumcision. The mildest form, clitoridectomy, is anatomically equivalent to amputation of the penis."

"[i]In my extensive clinical experience as a physician in Sudan, and after a careful review of the literature of the past 15 years, I have not found a single case of female circumcision in which only the skin surrounding the clitoris is removed, without damage to the clitoris itself."

http://www.euro.who.int/document/e60522.pdf

"According to Dr. T Turman of WHO headquarters, there is a technical difference between male and female genital mutilation. The removal of the clitoral prepuce (female circumcision) is equivalent to male circumcision and constitutes less than 1% of all female genital mutilations. In young girls this procedure is extremely difficult to perform. In over 95% of cases, the clitoris, the labia minora and (in some cases) the labia majora are excised and the vulva sewn up. The biological equivalent in the male would be partial to almost two-thirds removal of the male sexual organ, including in some cases removal of tissue from the scrotum followed by stitching the remaining tissue."

The WHO in their recent statement (2008) changed the classification of FGM type I and subdivided it in types a and b. Type Ia being the removal of the clitoral hood alone (the only one comparable to male circumcision) and this is what they had to say about it:

"The reason for this change is the common tendency to describe Type I as removal of the prepuce, whereas this has not been documented as a traditional form of female genital mutilation. However, in some countries, medicalized female genital mutilation can include removal of the prepuce only (Type Ia) (Thabet & Thabet, 2003), but this form appears to be relatively rare (Satt et al, 2006). Almost all known forms of female genital mutilation that remove tissue from the clitoris also cut all or part of the clitoral glans itself."

They also explain the terminology of "female genital mutilation" as opposed to "female circumcision" saying that: "This term, [female circumcision] however, draws a parallel with male circumcision and, as a result, creates confusion between these two distinct practices"

"In contrast to female genital mutilation, male circumcision has significant health benefits that outweigh the very low risk of complications when performed by adequately-equipped and well-trained providers in hygienic settings"

http://www.who.int/reproductive-health/pub...tement_2008.pdf


5) Only circumcised men get adhesions and meatal stenosis.
Not true. Adhesions are also common in uncircumcised boys and although meatal stenosis is more common in circumcised boys, it's easily preventable and, more importantly, it definitely isn't exclusive to circumcised boys.
Furthermore, you'll probably encounter an argument that says the incidence of meatal stenosis in circumcised males is 10%. Exaggeration. Some studies have shown it can be as low as 0.9% http://www.springerlink.com/content/l62453...cbb58&pi=14

6) 80-90% of the world's population is uncircumcised
A little exaggeration, probably because it sounds like a dramatic number. Although no exact data is available on this, the recent information package by the WHO, UNAIDS and UNICEF roughly estimates that 30% of the world's population is circumcised, which accounts for about 662 million men.
Here's the link: http://www.who.int/entity/hiv/mediacentre/infopack_en_2.pdf

7) Circumcision causes emotional problems
After reading that 662 million men are circumcised... do you honestly believe this myth?

8) Circumcision affects sexuality
No reliable study has proven that circumcision has any effect on sensitivity and overall sexual function. Several have actually shown the contrary:

First, the sensation thing:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=A...758ea3de16e68c0

"we demonstrated that circumcision status does not significantly alter the quantitative somatosensory testing results at the glans penis."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16037710?dopt=Abstract

"Penile sensation improved after circumcision in 38% (p = 0.01) but got worse in 18%, with the remainder having no change.... Penile sensitivity had variable outcomes after circumcision."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1741981...Pubmed_RVDocSum

"These results do not support the hypothesized penile sensory differences associated with circumcision."

Now, as for function:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1692590...pt=AbstractPlus

"Neonatal circumcision... appears not to be associated with significant protective or harmful sexual health outcomes"

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9091693...tractPlusDrugs1

"uncircumcised men appear slightly more likely to experience sexual dysfunctions, especially later in life."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1808610...tractPlusDrugs1

"Adult male circumcision does not adversely affect sexual satisfaction or clinically significant function in men."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1195645...tractPlusDrugs1

"Circumcision does not appear to have adverse, clinically important effects on male sexual function"

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1731498...tractPlusDrugs1

"We found no relationship between childhood circumcision age and overall sexual function"

Finally, a recent study showed that adult circumcision actually increased penile sensitivity:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18761593

"Adult male circumcision was not associated with sexual dysfunction. Circumcised men reported increased penile sensitivity and enhanced ease of reaching orgasm."

9) Any pro-circ is a fetishist:

Clever move, but again a lie. It's a common tactic: when you cannot discredit the message, try to discredit the messenger. However, most people that are in favor of circumcision are in favor of it as a parental choice. They certainly don't think "foreskins for none. Circumcision for all!!" Surely there are people who think this way, but it's the minority. Mostly view circumcision as a valid, positive parental choice, but they view choosing not to circumcise the same way. It's not a matter of circumcision being better/worse than no circumcision. It's a matter of believing it's a choice parents can make or not.
And fetishists come in all shapes and sizes and can have a fixation on pretty much everything under the sun: including foreskins. Oh yes, there is such a thing as a foreskin fetish- or rather a foreskin paraphilia. I'm sure the anti-circumcision activists don't want to be all grouped with these people and the majority of them certainly aren't fetishists. Those of us who advocate responsible parental choice also don't enjoy being compared to a fetishist. Fair is fair.

10) Informed parents will choose not to circumcise
Actually, since information exists to support arguments from both sides, informed parents can make either choice. Choosing to circumcise isn't a result of ignorance, being a "sheep" or stupidity or proof that some parents feel less attached or bonded to their children. Is simply taking the facts, using one's personal experience, values and social surrounding to make a choice that's best for the child.

Furthermore, intactivist can show just as much willingness to "follow the crowd" than those who choose to circumcise. They just follow a different shepherd. Most intactivists will do and believe what their fellow intactivists say, without ever questioning the validity of those opinions.

11) Circumcision interferes with bonding and breastfeeding and/or moms who choose to circumcise don't feel that bonding with their child
These depend on so many factors that implying that circumcision actually has a significant impact is ridiculous and frankly, rather pathetic. It's a scare tactic. No mother wants to be portrayed as not bonded with her child, however, even mothers that for various reasons don't feel that initial bond, can become the most wonderful, loving, caring mothers. That's another myth that needs to be brought down.
Choosing something that we feel is right for our children has nothing to do with how bonded we are with them. Even if it's a painful, difficult choice to make, our thought are on what's best for our children. That's all that matters.
As for breastfeeding, well a new study came out!

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/1...54.2007.01202.x

"Results: Circumcision status was not significantly associated (P > 0.05) with breastfeeding outcomes in infancy, even following adjustment for covariate factors, including maternal age, family socio-economic status, ethnicity and birthweight. Also, circumcision status was not significantly associated (P > 0.05) with health in infancy and cognitive ability outcomes in later childhood, even after adjustment for covariate factors."

12) Most babies are circumcised without pain relief-
Lies, lies. Unless you're stuck living in the 70s.
But for the rest of us who accept and embrace the new millenium, the vast majority of circumcisions are now performed with pain relief.
http://news10now.com/Default.aspx?ArID=20899
According to this article, "ninety-seven percent of all new doctors who deal with babies are now learning pain relief techniques for circumcision. That's up from 71 percent ten years ago". Unless your definition of "most" is a bit distorted, 3% is certainly not "most".

13) Moms who choose not to circumcise are protecting their sons

Nice emotional outburst, completely in character of intactivism who love to use guilt and fear to spread their message, but completely false.
Protection is highly subjective and according to what we believe, our definition of "protecting" will be different. Sure they're "protecting" their children from initial pain and from the tiny risks of circumcision. But parents who choose to circumcise will tell you they're protecting their children from penile cancer, phimosis, balanitis and all that list we now know by heart.
It's a common anti-circ tactic- language twisting. They always do this. Instead of simply saying something like: "good for you for not circumcising your child", they say instead "good for you for protecting your child". You see the trick there? The first one simply states that you agree this is a good choice. The second one implies that mothers who choose to circumcise aren't doing their job as "protectors".
Another great example of twisting words to create an emotional impression. It's good to know they haven't found facts to support their cause yet.

14) How can it be cleaner to have urine and feces directly up against an open wound?

Ok, first of all, the "open wound" lasts for like two days. I know many intactivists don't think much farther ahead than that, but when we say that it's cleaner we mean in a lifetime, not in the next couple of days. So yes, we're willing to go through the initial extra cleaning and care if that means being cleaner for the rest of their lives.
Second, the tip of the penis is covered for the first week with a gauze. And that gauze is changed with every diaper. Furthermore, disposable diapers absorb almost immediately. Not enough time to have the little urine a newborn makes sit on the open wound.
Third, urine is sterile. It cannot lead to infection.
Fourth, I dont' know what these people feed their children the first weeks of life, but my exclusively bf boys pooped very little. I also don't know where they think their sons poop out from (guess they didnt' Google that one?), but mine do it from behind, not to the front. The first time I had to clean poop from the penis, the "open wound" was pretty much healed and that was because I fed David a bean burrito or something (not recommended before potty training, lol). Not even when they started on formula they pooped enough to have it all smeared in front. It started happening with solids and it's probably unbelievable, but by the time they started solids, the "wound" was pretty much closed.

15- Babies don't cry during circumcision because they "pass out" from the pain

This is probably just an attempt at creating an emotional response. The idea of a baby that's in so much pain he passes out is repulsive to anyone. But in regards to circumcision, it's a completely false image. It's another common anti-circ tactic when normal conditions fail to create outrage: Exaggerate. And the more exaggerated, the better. The best way to end this disgusting lie is to encourage parents to be with their sons during the procedure. This way they can see for themselves that the baby isn't "passed out". Any mother that has fed her child after his circumcision will tell you that her baby wasn't passed out.
Furthermore, here are some studies on newborn pain that show that even simple measures like close contact, rocking, sucking and oral sucrose can significnatly reduce the pain in newborns. Add those to proper pain relief and you really have no "passed out" babies.

http://pediatriconcall.org/fordoctor/pharm...sucrose_ana.asp
http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php...e528452fc6608c7


Finally, pain-induced shock isn't as simple as they like us to believe. It's a serious life-threatening condition. A newborn baby wouldn't simply pass out from shock and be awake and alert 10 minutes later without any measures. And considering that's how most mothers receive their sons after their circumcisions, it's very unlikely that the baby went into any kind of shock during the procedure.

16- Circumcision isn't "just a snip"

Actually, that's exactly what it is. You see, a "snip" is "to cut with a small, quick stroke, or a succession of such strokes, with scissors or the like." and "a small cut made by snipping". Both describing circumcision perfectly.
Why the common lie saying that it isn't a snip? Because intactivists love to say that the adult foreskin measures 3 x 5 inches. But we're not talking about adult foreskins, are we? At the moment the foreskin is removed, it's a small piece of skin, therefore, regardless of how big it becomes, at that moment, it's a "snip". So infant circumcision is just a snip. Adult circumcision is a little more complicated.


17) Doctors who perform circumcision violate the AMA's Code of Ethics:

First of all, I'd like to specify that when I read this, the person who said it claimed that circumcision violates all 7 principles of medical ethics. This shows the total ignorance as there a 9 principles, not 7 (thank you, anippy for pointing that out!)

Having said that, let's review them, one by one:

(Source: http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/2512.html)

Principles of medical ethics

A physician shall be dedicated to providing competent medical care, with compassion and respect for human dignity and rights.


A physician shall uphold the standards of professionalism, be honest in all professional interactions, and strive to report physicians deficient in character or competence, or engaging in fraud or deception, to appropriate entities.


A physician shall respect the law and also recognize a responsibility to seek changes in those requirements which are contrary to the best interests of the patient.


A physician shall respect the rights of patients, colleagues, and other health professionals, and shall safeguard patient confidences and privacy within the constraints of the law.


A physician shall continue to study, apply, and advance scientific knowledge, maintain a commitment to medical education, make relevant information available to patients, colleagues, and the public, obtain consultation, and use the talents of other health professionals when indicated.


A physician shall, in the provision of appropriate patient care, except in emergencies, be free to choose whom to serve, with whom to associate, and the environment in which to provide medical care.


A physician shall recognize a responsibility to participate in activities contributing to the improvement of the community and the betterment of public health.


A physician shall, while caring for a patient, regard responsibility to the patient as paramount.


A physician shall support access to medical care for all people.
I. Circumcision DOES NOT violate any human rights (see "Common lies about circumcision" for details). Therefore, a doctor performing a circumcision doesn't violate this principle.

II. Obviously, circumcision doesn't violate this principle, which refers to interaction between physicians.

III. Circumcision is legal. Seeing as there isn't enough evidence to consider circumcision harmful, there's no need for a doctor to fight to make the procedure illegal.

IV. Circumcision doesn't violate doctor-patient confidentiality

V. Seeing as recently many studies have come out proving the medical benefits of circumcision (especially in relationship to HIV transmission), a doctor performing one doesn't violate this principle.

VI. How exactly does circumcision violate this particular principle? Three words: In any way.

VII. Circumcision doesn't violate this principle. A doctor performing acircumcision is simply abiding by the patient's/parent's wishes and that's not an issue of community/public health.

VIII. And seeing as all medical organization agree that the "best interests" of the patient in the cases of infant circumcision are to be determined by the parents, a doctor abiding by the wish to circumcise doesn't violate this principle.

IX. Again, circumcision cannot relate to this principle, unless a physician refuses to circumcise.

18) Circumcision violates the Nuremberg Code of Ethics

Actually, this borders on laughable.

Let's see what the "Nuremberg Code" is, shall we?

http://ohsr.od.nih.gov/guidelines/nuremberg.html

The Nuremberg Code is a set of research principles, the accepted ethical code for human experimentation. It was created after WWII as a response to the experiments performed by Dr. Mengele.

This should give you an idea of why this argument is stupid to say the least. Male infant circumcision isn't "human research"! The Nuremberg Code doesn't apply to therapeutic/prophylactic procedures. That would be like saying vaccinations violate this code, simply because no consent is obtained from the patient (more on proxy consent later on). It's a pathetic lie. Parents have the legal and ethical responsibility to make choices on behalf of their children when they feel these choices will result in an overall improved quality of life.

19) Considering male circumcision acceptable and FGM (Female Genital Mutilation) wrong is a "double standard".

First of all, what IS "double standard"? Here are some definitions.

American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This

double standard
n. A set of principles permitting greater opportunity or liberty to one than to another, especially the granting of greater sexual freedom to men than to women.

WordNet - Cite This Source - Share This

double standard

noun
an ethical or moral code that applies more strictly to one group than to another

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This

double standard
–noun 1. any code or set of principles containing different provisions for one group of people than for another, esp. an unwritten code of sexual behavior permitting men more freedom than women. Compare single standard (def. 1).

Now, if we STRICTLY adhere to what a "double standard" is by these definitions, then we can consider underage prohibition to drink, smoke or vote, the Olympics, non-smoking rules, etc, "double standards" and therefore unacceptable.

This means, obviously, that there are certain acceptable double standards. Furthermore, it means that in order to consider something an actual double standard, there are other considerations besides the treatment received by the two groups. So basically, to speak of an actual double standard, all things being equal, one group is being treated differently.

Men and women ARE different. I don't see anyone claiming that we should remove the gender categories from the Olympics because it's a "double standard". Why not let men and women compete against each other if we're SO "equal"? The answer is because we're not absolutely equal. It's a physical fact that men are generally stronger and faster than women. It would actually be unfair to have women compete against men as the former have a physical advantage.


And if we're saying that men and women are physically different, nowhere is this difference more pronounced than in the genitals. Male and female genitals are different. Therefore, the consequences of removing the foreskin cannot be compared with those of removing/altering female genitalia. And because of this, differentiating between the two IS NOT a double standard.

20) Adhesions happen in 70% of circumcised boys

This is a very common word twisting argument. The number was taken from this study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?d...;indexed=google

Intactivists throw the 70% number without bothering to look at the details of the study. First, the classification of adhesions: "A standard form was used to classify adhesions as grade 0-no adhesions, 1-fine adhesions to the corona, 2-adhesions covering less than 50% of the glans and 3-adhesions covering greater than 50% of the glans."

Sure enough, the researchers say that in the group of children younger than 12 months, the rate of adhesions was 70%. But this includes grade 1 adhesions, which are so mild, most parents wouldn't even realize it's there and it releases on its own. In this group, the rate of adhesions higher than grade 1 was 30%. Finally, this study concludes that adhesions usually resolve on their own and don't require treatment. Hardly a "complication" of circumcision.

Finally, adhesions happen in uncircumcised boys as well, and even with the same frequency.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3946358...ed_Discovery_RA

"Problems with adhesions were uncommon (1.5%) and equal in both groups."

21) Adult circumcision is easier and safer than neonatal circumcision

Nothing could be farther from reality.

The rate of complications for adults is higher than in children. These include complications from the general anesthesia and the sutures, both not done when circumcision is performed in the newborn period.
AAP reports the rate of complications for infant circumcision as being between 0.1 and 0.6%, these include the two most common ones, bleeding and infection, which are easily corrected.
A study reported the rate of complications from adult circumcision as being 3.8%
http://www.i-base.info/htb/v6/htb6-9/Adult.html

Another one was more specific: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/1...0x.2005.05810.x

"Overall, 17 (3.5%) of the 479 circumcisions were associated with adverse events judged definitely, probably or possibly related to the procedure. The most common adverse events were wound infections (1.3%), bleeding (0.8%), and delayed wound healing or suture line disruption (0.8%)."

As for it being, easier, that's also not true. Circumcision in older children and adults is more complicated process. For example, a traditional bris with an experienced mohel will last about 30 seconds. It's just a cut, there's not much else to do. the procedure in adults takes longer and requires more steps, including sutures.
http://www.upmc.com/HealthManagement/Manag...?chunkiid=14134
"In newborns, circumcision takes only a few minutes, but the procedure in older children and adults is a more intricate operation."

http://www.circumcisioncenter.com/faq.htm

"The reason adult circumcisions require suturing is that adults get powerful erections during the REM portion of the sleep cycle, which would disrupt a wound held together only by a crushing of the skin edges. The fact that the wound edges must be sutured in adult circumcision creates one of the largest challenges in the operation, specifically, placing sutures without causing scarring."

22) "Every year boys lose their penises altogether from botched "circumcisions" and infections accidents happen. They are then "sexually reassigned" by transgender surgery and must live their lives as females." (http://www.cirp.org/pages/parents/lostlist/)

There's only ONE documented case- David Reimer. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer)

This shows the intactivist tendency to exaggerate the information to further their cause. This statement went from ONE case reported in history(thousands of years of history, billions of circumcised men) to "every year boys loose their penises...." Lack of perspective is common in intactivism.

23) Circumcision is a "cosmetic" procedure

No. Circumcision is a MEDICAL procedure, with proven HEALTH benefits acknowledged and admitted by every single medical organization in the world. Therefore, it's not just "cosmetic", it's prophylactic.

Why the intactivists' insistence that it's just "cosmetic"? Very simple, really. By saying that parents are doing something "cosmetic" to their children it makes the choice seem shallow, selfish and useless. By even admitting that there's one advantage to being circumcised, they would be giving some validity to circumcision and there's no way a self-respecting intactivist will ever agree to any validity. Therefore, they spread the lie that it's just "cosmetic".

24) Doctors encourage circumcision to sell the foreskins

BS.

The origin of this myth is based on an Oprah show where she showed a face cream "made out of foreskins". This is a gross exaggeration and misinterpretations of the truth. Foreskins can be used to create firbroblasts- a type of cell that works as a culture to grow other types of cells. The face cream contains the hormonal residue resulting from the growth of skin cells from the foreskin fibroblast. The skin cells can be used for burn victims and wound healing. So it's a far cry from the little pieces of chopped foreskins anti-circs will want you to believe.

Anti-circ activists Dr. Paul Tinari claimed that one foreskin is worth $100,000. Lies, lies, lies. An obvious display of ignorance in simple business administration. One foreskin can be used for years, even decades to produce miles of skin and generate as much as $100,000. However, that doesn't mean that's what it's worth. A machine may produce millions of dollars of a single product, however, that doesn't mean that the machine itself is worth millions. What it generates, is worth millions, the actual value of that machine is much less.

Finally, as stated above, one foreskin can produce miles of skin for decades, therefore not many are needed. Doctors are certainly not making the big bucks with the couple of bucks they could get from a foreskin. Furthermore, foreskins are usually donated by the parent, meaning that the doctors dont' see a penny from those. Conclusion? Doctors who recommend circumcision either as a therapeutic or prophylactic procedure certainly don't do it get their greedy hands on a buck and a half. It's more likely that many of them have enough experience to realize that there are indeed medical benefits to circumcision.

25) Circumcision goes against AP ("Attachment Parenting")

As every other statement analyzed here, this is a LIE.

According to Attachment Parenting International (API), in their guide for AP leaders, "When issues such as diapering options, homebirth, home schooling, circumcision, vaccinations, specific diets, etc. come up during a discussion, the Leader should state that API takes no stance on these issues, but encourages parents to educate themselves to make informed decisions about them."

http://www.attachmentparenting.org/groups/...rguidelines.php

The idea that circumcision is incompatible with Attachment Parenting is just a scare tactic. AP is "in" right now, more parents want to feel more involved in their children's lives and love some or all of the ideas associated with AP (baby-wearing, co-sleeping, etc). Attachment parenting is a style (or rather a "tool" as Dr. Sears refers to it) that focuses on spending quality time with out children. It has nothing to do with the medical choices we make. Other association strongly associated with AP, like La Leche League (LLL) also don't have a position regarding circumcision. They simply acknowledge it as a parental choice. Even one of the most stronger supporters of AP, Dr. Sears, says about the decision to circumcise: "Either way, your little boy will be just fine." (http://www.parenting.com/article/Pregnancy/Care/Ask-Dr.-Sears-The-Circumcision-Decision)

Bottom line? Circumcised boys can be raised in a strict AP home. One has nothing to do with the other.

26) Moms who choose to circumcise are close minded and sheep-like

This is a downright sad argument. When all facts point to one side, what's left for the other side to do? Appeal to the natural fear of being considered weak minded.

However, this argument is simply based on the fact that in the US, as of today, circumcision is common. Therefore, people who choose not to do it are "going against the mainstream". This is itself is really not good or bad. However, because of the lack of evidence supporting intactivism, these advocates try to imply that going with the flow is bad. That the way to be a good parent, open minded and making the best choices is to go against what "everyone else is doing". If you happen to make a choice that's popular and common, then they claim you're being a sheep, incapable of thinking for yourself and just "following the crowd". How that translates into a choice being wrong in itself only works on an intactivist mind, but the fact is that the validity of a choice isn't dependant on what everyone else is doing but in what each parents feels is best for his/her children.

Now, you can be the most close minded against the mainstream mom around. Being open minded has nothing to do with what position you actually take in the different issues or what choices you make, but rather with how much tolerance and respect you're willing to give to those who believe differently. And intactivists, who think of themselves as oh-so-open minded because they're "thinking outside the box" are usually the most close minded of all. Because usually they're the ones that cannot tolerate anyone making a different choice. Being against vaccines doesn't make you open minded if you're saying that those who vaccinate are poisoning their children. Choosing a "unique" religious belief for yourself doesn't make you open minded if you're constantly bashing Christians. And being against circumcision doesn't make you open minded if you're telling moms who choose to do it that they mutilated their children.

As for being "sheep-like", again, nothing to with the "the norm". Several intactivists are VERY sheep-like... they only follow a different herd. Many of them will blindly follow their "leaders" and fellow intactivists in a blind-like fashion that would be the envy of the most charismatic of cult leaders.

Sharon

P.S. Please help me maintain the accurate information by reporting broken links. Thanks! Also, if you ran across some far fetched argument you think should be part of this list, let me know!

Great bit of information you got their Sharon..

I see lots of people are reading.. just nobody responded yet..

Becky

Well, it took me a couple of days to write that one. I certainly hope there's not much left to say

Sharon

Wow, fantastic compilation of information!! We researched and decided to circumcise, but sometimes when someone asks "why" I have a hard time defending the decision (not that I should have to defend it) because the various pieces of information we used to make the decision aren't nicely organized in my brain ... but now they are! Thank you!

very informative! Thanks for sharing!

Added the info previously posted here to the OP fore easier reading

Sharon

Wow, this information is amazing! Thank you for this!

All that is awesome!

Very great job, that crap about breastfeeding and lack of bonding is the biggest load of crap ever .. what did my son want to do immediately after he was circ'd? oh .. yeah that's right NURSE