Exactly WHAT public health "issues" are of concern? Most of the world is intact and has NO ISSUES as a result. And most important, WHERE IN THIS DISCUSSION IS ANY CONCERN FOR THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF THE BOY HIMSELF? His body belongs to HIM, not his parents and certainly not the church of his parents, nor even the state. He, and he alone should have the choice. To the boy, this is NO DIFFERENT than it is to a girl.
Even if the health benefits of circumcision are not overstated ( which I believe they are) it is basically stating the ends justify the means. You are taking away an individuals choice of whether or not to modify an extremely valued part of the body. You are taking away their ability to choose because of the possibility that they might grow up to be irresponsible. I see it as just another case of authority trying to take away your freedom and ability to choose under the guise of protection.
Never mind thatthe studies showing "public health benefits" are misleading. Even if the studies were done correctly, circumcision has "benefits" only if men use their sexuality in sinful ways. There is no benefit if men wait until marriage and remain faithful in marriage. There is no benefit if men always use condoms when playing the field. Why should I alter my infant's son body so as to lower the wages of his sinning? If you make sin cheaper, you will get more sinning.
They think public health will be worse when men are uncircumcised? How lazy do they think american men are? So lazy that they cant retract their foreskin to clean it for 5 seconds a day? Seriously?
What is so hard to grasp about the concept "My body, my choice"?
Let them decide when they are 18 years old.
I can't believe any medical practitioner would advocate circumcising a baby to prevent HIV? They won't be sexually active until 18+, when they can decide for themselves, so WTF?
Fuck it, I smell bullshit, these wee wee choppers make no sense.
The growing anti-circumcision movement is a group of thinking men that don't think their manhood should be sculpted for no reason. The peak of the circumcision trend was the 1960's, and now those men have largely made the decision to spare their sons this indignity.
The parents of 4 million new baby boys born each year do not have to choose. They simply can leave the baby along by ignoring the maternity ward nurse/genital-cutting saleswoman.
According to studies done by scientists in Africa about prostitutes in Tanzania, female circumcision also prevents HIV/AIDS. Go on cleansexy's channel and legalizefemalecirc's channel. So why isn't the American government and people advocating for it? It was legal beore here and it was often done at the University Of Chicago until the mid 1970's. I forgot, women bitch and cry all the time in order to make society do whatever they want for them. Hypocritical sexist bigots.
More lies from these uneducated people. Circumcision was first promoted in America to cure tuberculosis, insanity, mental problems and masturbation. They all lied about it back then, so what do you call people who tell lies? If circumcision did prevent aids, why is it that America has such a high HIV?AIDS rate? I wish I wasn't circumcised. It is male genital mutilation. The idiots that promote this trash deserve to be gunned down by Seals with automatic M16s.
LIES, LIES, LIES,Circumcision is cruel, one of the healthiest nations like Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Norway DO NOT circ, they have one of the lowest HIV, STD stats worldwide
There are no studies or data from any developed nation indicating a medical benefit associated with circumcision. If there is any significant benefit, why can't U.S. circumcision advocates find evidence of benefit from their OWN HOME TURF (USA), rather than having to run to studies from Sub-Saharan Africa to find it
And why is HIV and other STDs LESS common in European men (who are over 90% uncircumcised) than in U.S. men, who are about 80% circumcised?
Christian boys who follow their religion will not have to worry about HIV, penile cancer, cervical cancer, etc. Abstinence prevents absolutely most of the diseases circumcision only reduces in incidence. And if abstinence is impossible, then condoms are almost as effective in preventing disease. Why would any Christian parent want to damage a son's penis in hopes of preventing a disease contracted by immorality? BTW, Dr. Halperin's grandfather was a Jewish mohel.
It is regrettable that the reporter clearly does not understand the entire Bible and the elimination of the old law by the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. The first real dispute in the church was over circumcision. Read Acts. St. Paul went up to Jerusalem and convinced Peter and the other apostles that circumcision was unnecessary to salvation. Thereafter he constantly preached against it. Circumcision has no religious significance for the Christian. CBN is clearly biblically wrong.
Someday all of the sheeple will start thinking for themselves... Until then, my beautiful son, and his fellow 67% will be whole people... AS INTENDED!
Male circumcision is something that should be promoted by the Christian Church and I'm glad to see the Christian Broadcasting Network doing a story on the Christian basis for circumcision. I think many Christians forget that it is not just Jews and Muslims who are supposed to circumcise their boys, but Christians as well. The early Christians were circumcised, and of course Jesus was circumcised. Therefore, Christian boys should be circumcised. We circumcised our boys for those reasons.
@TheLensSolution QUOTE "I think many Christians forget that it is not just Jews and Muslims who are supposed to circumcise their boys, but Christians as well." Show the biblical "evidence" for your claim. Don't even THINK of referring to Genesis17.
@TheLensSolution Your post reveals a gross ignorance of the New Testament, the covenants of Abraham, the purpose and fullfillment of the Law of Moses and Christs mission to fullfill the law of Moses and to replace the law of Moses and circumcision with a higher law.
Don't you love how CBN News put words in the mouths of these medical organizations?
Not content to just say they're looking at the data -- they instead word it: "may soon issue policy recommendations."
Nice BIAS CBN.
Also, interview the Christian who apparently never read the New Testament's decrying of the practice? Nice one.
It's NOT good journalism to say it leads to better health -- most of the developed world is NOT circumcised and has LOWER health problems than the States.
@kleenex3000 - it's a result of Christians that heard the "stories" growing up, and never read the substance later on. The stories in the Old Testament are full of blood and guts.. they stick with you. The story of Paul writing letters about the ending of the blood-right of circumcision.. that's not the story people remember.
Combine in the cultural norm of non-religious circumcision, and it's easy for people to grasp hold of the Old Testament explanation without looking at the N.T. at all.
@kleenex3000 Only a very small proportion do it with that much consciousness. Non-religious circumcision became customary when doctors were little tin gods who could do what they liked with patients' bodies. Informed consent was law only from 1972. But by then it was "customary" and "he should look like his father". Doubtlesss some do give your reason - they'll grab hold of any reason at all, no matter how fatuous.
The men who do it to their own children generally do so because they had it done to them. It's the mentality that goes like this: 'my Dad used to hit me, so why shouldn't I hit my kids?'
Apparently, they haven't read much of the new testament, or they would know that Christ became the new covenant with God, and circumcision was not to be done by followers of Jesus.
It's in Galatians, mostly, but a few other passages as well.
Oh, and all the studies they keep referring to are FLAWED! Circ was brought to the USA by DR. John H. Kellogg, to stop masturbation.
200 babies die from circumcision every year in the United States alone. Another couple hundred suffer severe complications, including partial or total loss of the glans, loss of shaft skin, skin bridges, etc. Millions suffer loss of sensitivity (feeling), dry and keratinized glans, disfigurement, and ugly scars.
The hysterical responses from the anti circumcision people are extraordinary in there intensity but somewhat less so in substance. There seems to be little or no attempt to give any sound reasons for their opposition although some suggest that there must be a "reason" for having a foreskin. Perhaps in the past, when out ancestors were gadding about on all fours through jungle, there may have been a purpose for that piece of skin, but not now surely.
Did you both go to US physicians? In the rest of the developed world, where circumcision is not customary, they know more about the the foreskin than how to cut it off, and the lifetime risk of needing to be circumcised is one in thousands.
@stenbjerking I require a certain part on the inner fold of the PrePuce, the RAPHE, in order to reach Orgasm. IF somebody had taken my PrePuce off from me, then I would find that person, and if he told me the same nonsense that you do, then I would torture him to death. The proponents of the Rabbinic "P"riestly Blood Sacrifice are deceivers of mankind. I shudder by the mere thought, that I could have been born into a country/ a culture where this assault on the male Genitalia persists.
@kleenex3000 You must have an unusual appendage. Mine works very well without the foreskin. I think it is much better in all respects. Torturing someone to death seems a bit severe, are we talking about the same thing here?
@stenbjerking Taking for granted, just for the sake-of-argument, that my "appendage" IS "unusual", then, if it had come to infant circumcision, nobody would have known/given a shit, and would not only have denied my basic human rights, but also done actual damage to my private parts.
And, as to shit, I don't give any, on the alleged, actually PSEUDOmedical benefits. My PrePuce did never cause me any problems quite the contrary. If YOUR Prepuce had been defective this was sad. Mine is not.
@kleenex3000 My prepuce was perfectly functional (although I am not aware of what the function is) until a few months before its removal, so I have the advantage of knowing what it is like to be both ways. I am not comparing a defective uncircumcised penis with a circumcised one.
It is a shame that you feel comfortable dismissing all the research that has been done, showing all the real medical benefits, as pseudo. Why not just look at the evidence and leave the hysteria out of it.
@stenbjerking You are a dangerours deceiver of mankind. You have an Agenda with the whole, complete anatomy. You do not appreciate what the [unknown] Creator had provided you with, namely healthy, erogenous tissue, that is but as prone to disease as are other tissues/organs of the body. YOUR Prepuce was meaningless to you, and you repeat your SCIENTFICALLY unfounded claims of medical benefits. I declare that I do not need these pseudo-"benefits" NO-where line the men up to get "snipped".
@kleenex3000 Anybody with a rudimentary knowledge of biology knows that there are many things that could use some improvement. We are still "work in progress" evolutionary wise.
Even today some boys are born without foreskins. Perhaps in the future we will all evolve that way and the subject of circumcision will no longer be an issue.
@stenbjerking Sorry to burst your Bubble. I am a German Biologist, and I worked 20 y in scientific research, and I know, how to discriminate Scientific Truth from mere pseudoscientific propaganda.
NOBODY talks about disapproving of Circumcision for/on consenting adults. You declare your personal preference, that you are actually entitled to, to be endorsed by medical benefits iow. "remove the unhealthy atavism" but you cannot provide scientific medical PROOF and EVIDENCE.
@stenbjerking But the fact that we have not, and show no sign of doing so (even though we could - unlike the appendix; absence of the appendix is genetically linked to severe intestinal deformity) indicates that the foreskin does more good than harm.
@Hugh7777 Thank you for your feedback. I was actually referring to that part of the RAPHE, that continues from the Frenulum throughout the inner Fold of the PrePuce, not the Frenulum itself. For me it trigggers sacred ORGASM.
@stenbjerking the reason is that the foreskin is erogenous tissue. it is removed from those who were circumcised without their consent. "i want to be okay" and "it still works" isn't the point when people are being treated this way.
@psyunicorn You would benefit from a little reading. There are many testimonials from men such as myself who have had the experience of having a unmodified penis and then the modified version. We speak with one voice - "give us the modified version".
The mountain of medical benefits must count for something too doesn't it?
@stenbjerking go ahead and give benefits specifically. And i'm sorry but you do not speak with one voice. most men who restore report improved sexual function, viagra sales are much higher in countries with circumcison, and Ben Affleck said he hated it on a show hosted by a well-known jewish entertainer (Jon Stewart).
I would indeed be hysterical if my glans was suddenly exposed forever and the foreskin was gone. i'm angry they do it to people without asking. glad you like it for yourself though
@psyunicorn Please google circinfo and start by looking at the list of references given by the professor. The benefits are clearly the result of serious scientific study. Saying that Ben Affleck hated it is hardly a convincing argument.
@stenbjerking Ben is a public figure who disagrees with you, you said men circumcised as adults had "one voice." i am aware google exists. do the research for your argument. actually i am done with this.
@stenbjerking Brian Morris never saw a reason for circumcising he didn't like, including "to prevent bathroom splatter" and "to prevent zipper injury".He spins statisitics faster than a dentist's drill. He turned FIVE intact boys with recurrent UTIS out of 75,000 children into "19% percent of boys" (the 5 were in a sub-sub-sample of 26 boys). He co-authored a paper with the editor of a circum-fetish website. He said publicly infant circumcision should be MANDATORY. So much for parents' choice!
@stenbjerking Actually, only men who CHOSE to be circcumcised (and those who had suboptimal functioning before they were) speak with one voice, and that's hardly surprising is it? Some who were talked into it and many who were circumcised as adults for bad "medical" reasons bitterly regret it.
@stenbjerking Your "gadding about on all fours through jungle" is almost cut and pasted from a 19th century lung surgeon called Peter Remondino who just made stuff up to justify his hate of the foreskin. He also thought black men should be circumcised to stop them raping white women. Don't put words in your mouth if you don't know where they've been.
@stenbjerking We don't need a reason not to cut a normal, healthy, functional, non-renewing part off a baby. We need much better reasons, overcoming the serious ethical objections, to do it.
Additional benefits of circumcision are prevention of phimosis and paraphimosis , reduced balanitis, thrush, taring of frenulum during intercourse or masturbation. Small cuts and abrasions are also more common in uncircumcised males allowing for more easier access of viruses such as HIV, HPV, Herpes..
Paul tells us in the New Testiment that circumcision of the body is wrong. The Roman Catholic Church has even banned circumcision in the past making it A capital punishment for anyone to perform the surgery. We are Christians not Jews. We lay our faith in our spirit not our flesh. Child mutilation is wrong and violates the new Testiment causing harm to one of gods greatest gifts.
So this fundamentalist christian news channel that probably doesn't agree with scientists who write about evolution, scientists who write about global warming, suddenly believes scientists and researchers who write about the benefits of circumcisions? How convenient.
Men who are sexually mutilated (circumcised) have to justify in their minds that they are better off because to admit otherwise is to accept that you are mutilated. So if you cut 60% of the penis, you lower your risk of disease of the penis! Men in Europe have foreskins and have significantly less HIV and STI's. The foreskin has a purpose, just like the whole genitals of a woman, increased sexual pleasure. I can teach my son to use a condom, that is much more effective at reducing HIV and STI's
The woman at 3:50 is a text book example of why men should wear condoms when having sex. Her retarded comment 'if it really is a form of mutilation, why would God ask his chosen people to be circumcised' flies in the face of all logic.
Nature is perfect. We are perfect. Don't interfere with perfection.
Circumcision is an insult to God, and to his children.
@key2kingdom Very good question. Maybe that's why circumcision is not in the earliest version of the book of Genesis, the Book of J, but the covenant of animal sacrifice (Gen 15) is. Looks like it was a later addition. And now we know the Universe is 13.7 billion years old and 92 lightyears across, can anyone seriously believe that its Creator told the leader of one small desert tribe to circumcise himself and his descendents forever as a mark of his special favour to them?
Wow, this makes me feel like we are back in the stone age...seriously, in this day and age we still believe that chopping off a body part is healthy?? LISTEN, we have unbelievable technologies that are advancing rapidly by the day. And yet THIS is what's going out to the public? Doesn't surprise me because the media tells lie after lie anyway, anyone with common sense will see this is no exception. The vast majority of British, European, and Asian men are intact and healthy.
What an appalling piece! Was it just too inconvienient to mention human right, the right to bodily / genital autonomy? Was it just to embarassing to mention the important sexual functions of the fooreskin?
Apart from Israel, America is the only country which circumcises a large number of babies. Compared to Europe, does America suffer less UTIs, penile cancers, cervical cancers and HIV/AIDS? Of course not! You make healthier by amputating healthy body parts. See circleaks org
This video features blatant data inaccuracies in addition to some very misleading claims. I am not shocked by CBN's lackluster journalism. I am, however, insulted by the notion that I, the viewer, am so out of touch with reality that I would sponge up this drivel. Very disappointing CBN. Your contribution to the medical zeitgeist is not only biased but dangerous. At no point should religion come into play when discussing medical safety. Shame on you.
WOW! Remind me NEVER to trust CBN for actual news...... If they can't even spend 20 minutes researching the damage that circumcision causes, they can't be trusted to report anything accurately.
This video couldn't be more erroneous if it tried. It's a bunch of lies. circumcision is harmful, and ridiculous! It's done all in the name of making money. If the male foreskin was not supposed to be there, it wouldn't be!!!
Please, people, do some actual research and verify your facts before perpetuating the view of Christians as foolish and anti-reality. There is no medical fact to this video. ANY website detailing the actual medical effects of circumcision contradicts these lies. We are not talking about negotiable fairytale concepts here; the fact is that routine circumcision has no medical benefit whatsoever aside from lining the hospitals' coffers from foreskin sales to cosmetics companies.
Hey! Message to Christian parents--cut part of your son's penis off so he can be more promiscuous and won't get HIV! What a great message! Seriously?
This video starts out with a lie by stating that the AAP is "neutral" on circumcision. The AAP states that: "Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision."
I don't have enough space here to write EVERYTHING I want to write. Too bad. Christians who want to cut solely based on Old Testament practices - you're an insult to your religion, and the birth, life, and death of Christ. Listening to crap about African research? Come on - how about unbiased research based on placed that are fully developed and have running water, and good hygiene habits. I don't know - say, Europe? That has a reasonably high intact rate?
Where is the discussion about the damage caused by circumcision? How about talking about the functions of the intact penis? Why is discussion of the ethical implications of removing healthy, normal body parts from those who cannot consent missing from this biased story? This isn't reporting. This is pandering to the child abusers.
If circumcision prevented HIV, Africa wouldn't have an epidemic. Africa is the most circumcised continent in the world (60%). And if you think it's only the uncircumcised men who get HIV in that country, you're wrong. It is roughly equal! Circumcision is a cure in search of a disease.
How frustrating to see such a widely followed programme spreading misinformation about this issue. Horrificly biased report that completely ignores the detrimental effects of circumcision on sexual function, mother-baby bonding and breastfeeding. Any anyway, besides all that - IT IS HIS BODY! LEAVE IT ALONE!
There is no "debate" on circumcision. CBN is blatantly misrepresenting reality. Major health organizations around the world agree; there is not enough evidence to endorse infant circumcision. "Experts" would like you to believe that the AAP and CDC are about to change their stance, but this hasn't happened since this load of hogwash came out 5 years ago. The AAP and CDC will NEVER change their stance because they know better. What a shame that CBN has chosen to focus on these sick quacks.
This Propaganda is so wrong and so dishonest and so cleverly designed that my jaws drop. If you have "compassion" for the most basic human rights then let the Genitalia of your child alone! And please do not come with "biblical". Everyone who has done some research knows that the Scripture EVOLVED.
This is a desperate propaganda piece. One can tell that circ advocates are growing so shrill so as to publish blatant and deliberate misinformation. What does that 60% figure actually mean? Does it mean that if 100 circumcised men have sex with HIV positive women, 40% of the men will get HIV, and the remaining 60% won't? No, that's not what it means. Upon closer inspection one finds that that number applies to a very small subgroup of men. The difference is insignificant. Absolute hogwash.
One needs to ask, what exactly does religion have to do with science or medicine? Why did the reporters feel the need to talk about this subject? As if the presence or absence of "medical benefits" were of any relevance to people for whom circumcision is an obligation. Is there a theologist among the reporters? Circumcision is expressly forbidden to gentiles. It was actually one of the biggest points of contention in the earlier times of the church. Whatever happened to actual reporting?
80% of US men are circumcised. And yet, STD rates, including HIV, are much higher in the US, than in Europe, where circumcision is rare. In fact, HIV hotspots in the US rival HIV hotspots in Africa, sometimes exceeding them. One needs to ask why the results of these so-called "studies" do not correlate with the US and other countries in the world where the majority of men are circumcised? People should check out HIV rates for the Philippines, Bangladesh and Malaysia. They are in fact, rising.
You can tell that news outlets no longer research what they publish. If they had, they would have found, for example, that the UTI argument had been laid to rest by the AAP since 1999. All of the "experts" in this infomercial are quoting old data that has been shown to be flawed. Cancer is vanishingly rare, and there are already 2 vaccines against it for men and women. The AIDS argument is particularly horrendous; is anybody going to ask what the HIV rates are here in the US?
The trend of opinion on child circumcision is so overwhelmingly negative in Western nations that it would be quite surprising if it were recommended in the US. No respected US medical board recommends child circumcision, not even in the name of HIV prevention. They must all point to the risks, and they must all state that there is no convincing evidence that the benefits outweigh these risks. To do otherwise would be to take an unfounded position against the best medical authorities of the West.
That the CDC and AAP approve circumcision as "HIV prevention" using their shoddy studies, is the wish of none other than pro-circumcision "researchers" who want to shore up the numbers of this waning practice. This practice is dying out, and more and more, child circumcisers are appearing to be the mutilators they really are. The fact of the matter is though, that the attitude for circumcision is so overwhelmingly NEGATIVE in the United States.
Who are Gray, Wawer and Tobian? Who is Daniel Halperin? Look, and you'll find their names on every so-called circumcision "study." They'll tell you that "studies are accumulating in favor of circumcision," but they won't tell you that these so-called "studies" are written by none other than themselves. They want medical boards around the world to endorse circumcision so badly, even in the United States. They keep insinuating that this is "about to happen," but it hasn't happened for 5 years.
This video is obviously a paid advertizement which is full of nothing but misinformation. Who are the so-called "experts" that paid for this pro-circ ad? Who are the people behind the so-called "research?" Look, and you'll see it's the same ol' gang trying to shore up the rates of this waning practice. The so-called "experts" who are advocating circumcision in journals, are none other than the same "researchers" conducting the "studies" showing these so-called "benefits."
the trials in africa. concluded that circumcision reduced the hiv infection rates from intact 3.38% to circumcised 1.58%. that only a 1.8% difference! 1.8% is well within the margin of error for a medical study. so the people that did the study. compared the 2 numbers 3.38% and 1.58%. resulting in a larger number 53% and they rounded that number up to 60%. this is data manipulation pure and simple. circumcision is rape and it must stop. condoms stop HIV not circumcision
"If you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. Every man who lets himself be circumcised is obligated to obey the whole law. You who are trying to be justified by the law, you have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace." (Galatians 5)
I am appalled at a "christian" organization seemingly forgetting that the whole message Jesus brought is forgotten. His blood, his flesh, was sacrificed so that we would no longer be subject to this. And then the Jews killed him because of that. His sacrifice was NOT his death, but his circumcision. He did not lose the battle with death, he overcame THAT.
If you can't provide an authoritative reference providing grounds for the unique and singular exclusion of the foreskins of male children from the default standard of protection of all normal, healthy, functional body parts, then it simply does not matter what else you have to say or what you believe.
And that includes religious beliefs in particular, since religious beliefs in general are insufficient to justify the routine and ritual genital amputation of female children.
The whole discussion about benefits is premature if done prior to considering the rights of the child to his whole body as a grown man. Period. QED. End of argument.
You don't believe me? What about routine mastectomy for baby girls? THAT would prevent over 40,000 female deaths in the US alone EVERY YEAR. The benefit would be HUGE. And yet, it is not done because we believe females have the right to their whole body. The rights of the individual are paramount.
I really wish the media would stop throwing around that "60% AIDS reduction" number around. The studies that show that have a number of problems with it that would take far to long for me to describe here. Even if it is true, that just means that if you have enough unprotected sex you will still get AIDS. Think about it, 40% of the time that you have unprotected sex it would not work.
Circumcision is disgusting and barbaric. And Jesus never said you have to be a JEW before you can be a good Christian. BAPTISM replaced circumcision. Learn about your own religion!
We circumcise newborns to prevent HIV? I didn't realize newborns were sexually active. That really makes a lot of sense. NOT. Also, doesn't your religion demand you chastity until marriage? And then fidelity? Why would a Christian even worry about HIV when we know you guys are morally perfect and virtuous?? Are you saying you are all promiscuous? Hhhhhmmmm Not one single Christian nation on the planet other than the US practices routine infant circumcision . Not a Christian mandate.
Everytime you hear something in favor of circumcision, they omit the functions of the foreskin. This is no exception. If they mentioned the fact that the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis, their pro-circ argument would fall apart. They need to stop the bullshit!
Circumcision removes the most sensitive part of a man's penis. The five most sensitive areas of the penis are on the foreskin. The transitional region from the external to the internal foreskin is the most sensitive region of the fully intact penis, and more sensitive than the most sensitive region of the circumcised penis.
Non-religious circumcision is a peculiarly American custom. The rest of the developed world finds it virtually unthinkable - and not because they haven't caught up with the USA. The rest of the English-speaking world tried it, found it did no good and have virtually given it up. Australia and New Zealand circumcised as furiously as the US in the 1950s; now it's hard to find a doctor willing to do it, and there have been no outbreaks of any of the diseases it was supposed to be good for.
This report makes me feel ashamed to be a Christian. Religion aside, it's a very, very simple concept. Don't cut off parts of someone else's body. Let the owner (parents - your're not the owner of your child's body, and you've no right to cut off healthy parts of it) of the body decide when they become an adult. Why do people get that it's not okay to mutilate or alter the genitals of females, but think to do the same to boys is fine? Male genital mutilation is NOT okay. Stop cutting up babies!
At 1:20 the figure of "at least 60%" is wrong and misleading. "At least" is a fabrication. The actual lower limit (if the studies are accurate) is 30%. This figure is expressed in a way to make a small absolute difference look large. Heterosexually acquited HIV infection in men is a very small part of the problem in the USA. Women are more at risk, and circumcising men may even increase it.
Beware of this propaganda campaign for cutting boys' genitals.
Do they ever pay attention to the studies that show it DOES NOT have benefits? God created the foreskin with all those erogenous skin as a gift to be enjoyed. And God did not make a mistake we are born perfect. Penile cancer is one of the most rarest form of cancers. Circumcision is a violation of human rights. The NEW testament reveals circumcision has no value and was the act of faith in itself is what counted, and Jesus work at the cross broke the curse.
6. "Circumcision was as a symbol of the Old Covenant and as a prelude to the coming of, Jesus Christ. God wanted to make sure people understood very well the purpose of the Old Covenant before the New Covenant took its place. Scripture says that to shed the blood of a baby boy now, after Christ shed His own innocent blood would be blasphemous & mock our Lord's sacrifice. (The New Testament is very stringent in its warning about this!)”
"And in a study of nurses in a U.S. geriatric unit, about 90% were strongly in favor of circumcision because it was difficult to bathe uncircumcised men in their 90s. When we look at a baby and we think about circumcision, we have to think not just about that baby but that he's going to turn into a man and, eventually, an old man." --Daniel Halperin, L.A. Times. I imagine 90 year old women are hard to clean too, but amputating "extra skin" of infant girls is not offered as a hygiene option!!!
@TheDevonO What proportion of baby boys ever reach 90, and of those, what proportion have that kind of problem? Translate that into the number of circumcisions wasted for the convenience of the nurses of one nongenarian, and the figure will be in the hundreds.
Halperin is on record as saying he believes he was "destined" to promote circumcision because of his descent from a ritual circumcisor. This is not someone people should be listening to.
Rare antibiotic treatable UTIs or a 1 in 100,000 chance of penile cancer justifying preventive amputation? One educator has advised scrutiny of ALL motives behind research and recommendations: "A full disclosure of conflicts of interest should include circumcision status, number of circumcisions performed, circumcision status of any male children, and affiliation with religious or ethnic groups that practice circumcision." This should also be demanded of reporters and newswriters.
This is so incorrect that I don't know where to start. Research is growing, yes, but AGAINST supporting circumcision. Every supposed 'benefit' of cutting a child's foreskin off can be gained by more humane means, such as practicing proper hygiene- which is done for EVERY other body part- and using safe sex practices. As far as it being a religious practice that is even more barbaric of a reason. Parents do not have a right to brand their religion on their children by mutilating their bodies.
Forced genial cutting of children has nothing to do with health or medicine. "Doctors" like Daniel Halperin are breaking the Hippocratic Oath by promoting surgical operations on children's genitals without need or consent.
Indeed activists will continue to "turn up the volume" until this form of child abuse is a thing of the past.
People who defend forms of genital cutting on healthy children focus solely on gender or the invasivenesss of the procedure. It's shameful.
They don't consider the fact that discriminating against one gender, especially children violates equal protection principles or law.
Cutting a child (surgically modifying them permanently) regardless of gender in the name of the parents religion violates and infringes that childs religious freedom.
@HeatherMills- Female circumcision involves more than 1 form, in fact there are a total of 4 forms.
One of the forms involves only removing the female foreskin (prepuce) covering the clitoris.
Yes, females also have foreskin. Female foreskin covering the clitoris is homologous to the foreskin covering the male glans penis.
It is considered to be a religious right to some to remove the foreskin from a girl, supporters of it use the same reasoning as seen at 3:53 . Rightly it is illegal.
Reporting circumcision reduces HIV in men in Africa to justify cutting a child? Ask yourself why is it that AIDS and HIV is so common in America when the majority of men are circumcised. If it's so effective, this shouldn't be.
Penile cancer is so rare that in fact anyone with your ideology would have to consider removing breast buds from infant girls in since it would reduce (even eliminate) breast cancer which is much more prevalent. It's unethical.
@TheChallenger2011 Actually, they'd have to consider removing breast buds from infant BOYS, because penile cancer is rarer than MALE breast cancer. And men have less use for their breasts - many old men would thank you to be without them.
Exactly WHAT public health "issues" are of concern? Most of the world is intact and has NO ISSUES as a result. And most important, WHERE IN THIS DISCUSSION IS ANY CONCERN FOR THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF THE BOY HIMSELF? His body belongs to HIM, not his parents and certainly not the church of his parents, nor even the state. He, and he alone should have the choice. To the boy, this is NO DIFFERENT than it is to a girl.
lochinvar00465 3 days ago
Even if the health benefits of circumcision are not overstated ( which I believe they are) it is basically stating the ends justify the means. You are taking away an individuals choice of whether or not to modify an extremely valued part of the body. You are taking away their ability to choose because of the possibility that they might grow up to be irresponsible. I see it as just another case of authority trying to take away your freedom and ability to choose under the guise of protection.
burnmyeyes56 4 days ago
Never mind thatthe studies showing "public health benefits" are misleading. Even if the studies were done correctly, circumcision has "benefits" only if men use their sexuality in sinful ways. There is no benefit if men wait until marriage and remain faithful in marriage. There is no benefit if men always use condoms when playing the field. Why should I alter my infant's son body so as to lower the wages of his sinning? If you make sin cheaper, you will get more sinning.
alnot01 1 week ago
They think public health will be worse when men are uncircumcised? How lazy do they think american men are? So lazy that they cant retract their foreskin to clean it for 5 seconds a day? Seriously?
timpeters91 1 month ago 2
Brcause there is no god and easy for you to say ur a woman
Ryan75357 1 month ago
What is so hard to grasp about the concept "My body, my choice"?
Let them decide when they are 18 years old.
I can't believe any medical practitioner would advocate circumcising a baby to prevent HIV? They won't be sexually active until 18+, when they can decide for themselves, so WTF?
Fuck it, I smell bullshit, these wee wee choppers make no sense.
carter102 2 months ago 2
The growing anti-circumcision movement is a group of thinking men that don't think their manhood should be sculpted for no reason. The peak of the circumcision trend was the 1960's, and now those men have largely made the decision to spare their sons this indignity.
feministsAreCorrupt 2 months ago
The parents of 4 million new baby boys born each year do not have to choose. They simply can leave the baby along by ignoring the maternity ward nurse/genital-cutting saleswoman.
feministsAreCorrupt 2 months ago
Comment removed
NetBoySteve 3 months ago
What ignorant, sexist, hypocritical bigots.
Brilliantatheist 3 months ago 2
According to studies done by scientists in Africa about prostitutes in Tanzania, female circumcision also prevents HIV/AIDS. Go on cleansexy's channel and legalizefemalecirc's channel. So why isn't the American government and people advocating for it? It was legal beore here and it was often done at the University Of Chicago until the mid 1970's. I forgot, women bitch and cry all the time in order to make society do whatever they want for them. Hypocritical sexist bigots.
Brilliantatheist 3 months ago
More lies from these uneducated people. Circumcision was first promoted in America to cure tuberculosis, insanity, mental problems and masturbation. They all lied about it back then, so what do you call people who tell lies? If circumcision did prevent aids, why is it that America has such a high HIV?AIDS rate? I wish I wasn't circumcised. It is male genital mutilation. The idiots that promote this trash deserve to be gunned down by Seals with automatic M16s.
Brilliantatheist 3 months ago
im glad the greeks do not believe in that crap....I love my turtle neck on my slong
hairygreek39 3 months ago
*Puke*!
someguy672 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
LIES, LIES, LIES,Circumcision is cruel, one of the healthiest nations like Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Norway DO NOT circ, they have one of the lowest HIV, STD stats worldwide
LethalDozePL 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
F U C K circumcision
lAMNOTGOOMBA 3 months ago
so american people are wiser than the american government....
ballm0use 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ballm0use We are and 9/11 was an inside job, just like Waco.
Brilliantatheist 3 months ago
There are no studies or data from any developed nation indicating a medical benefit associated with circumcision. If there is any significant benefit, why can't U.S. circumcision advocates find evidence of benefit from their OWN HOME TURF (USA), rather than having to run to studies from Sub-Saharan Africa to find it
And why is HIV and other STDs LESS common in European men (who are over 90% uncircumcised) than in U.S. men, who are about 80% circumcised?
psandbergnz 4 months ago 12
i had one the wednesday that has just gone xD
M4tth2w1 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
68 people aren't circumcised. I love being circumcised! My shit's always clean and ready for ANYTHING and doesn't stink like an uncut one! =D
valefor188 4 months ago
@valefor188 It doesn't stink if you have a shower everyday...
someguy672 4 months ago 7
CBN are pathetic, news stations in America are fucking retarded.
Brainkiller 4 months ago 8
Cirumcision is only for Christian Jews, not for Christian non-jews.
IsraelGudsAugestein 4 months ago
Christian boys who follow their religion will not have to worry about HIV, penile cancer, cervical cancer, etc. Abstinence prevents absolutely most of the diseases circumcision only reduces in incidence. And if abstinence is impossible, then condoms are almost as effective in preventing disease. Why would any Christian parent want to damage a son's penis in hopes of preventing a disease contracted by immorality? BTW, Dr. Halperin's grandfather was a Jewish mohel.
Informed21 4 months ago 3
It is regrettable that the reporter clearly does not understand the entire Bible and the elimination of the old law by the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. The first real dispute in the church was over circumcision. Read Acts. St. Paul went up to Jerusalem and convinced Peter and the other apostles that circumcision was unnecessary to salvation. Thereafter he constantly preached against it. Circumcision has no religious significance for the Christian. CBN is clearly biblically wrong.
Informed21 4 months ago 8
Um, it's called a condom.
TheRantingRedhead 4 months ago 5
Someday all of the sheeple will start thinking for themselves... Until then, my beautiful son, and his fellow 67% will be whole people... AS INTENDED!
shaitown9 4 months ago 6
Male circumcision is something that should be promoted by the Christian Church and I'm glad to see the Christian Broadcasting Network doing a story on the Christian basis for circumcision. I think many Christians forget that it is not just Jews and Muslims who are supposed to circumcise their boys, but Christians as well. The early Christians were circumcised, and of course Jesus was circumcised. Therefore, Christian boys should be circumcised. We circumcised our boys for those reasons.
TheLensSolution 4 months ago
@TheLensSolution QUOTE "I think many Christians forget that it is not just Jews and Muslims who are supposed to circumcise their boys, but Christians as well." Show the biblical "evidence" for your claim. Don't even THINK of referring to Genesis17.
kleenex3000 4 months ago
@TheLensSolution Didn't jesus say not to circumcise? What you neglect to mentions is that Jesus was circumcised as an infant.
Nifrayu 3 months ago
@TheLensSolution Your post reveals a gross ignorance of the New Testament, the covenants of Abraham, the purpose and fullfillment of the Law of Moses and Christs mission to fullfill the law of Moses and to replace the law of Moses and circumcision with a higher law.
neechee5150 4 days ago
I always take my information from right wing zealot nut jobs LOL!
rachelswanson 4 months ago
What a bunch of bullshit. Thanks for not giving any sources ;) Your bias is showing
rachelswanson 4 months ago
Don't you love how CBN News put words in the mouths of these medical organizations?
Not content to just say they're looking at the data -- they instead word it: "may soon issue policy recommendations."
Nice BIAS CBN.
Also, interview the Christian who apparently never read the New Testament's decrying of the practice? Nice one.
It's NOT good journalism to say it leads to better health -- most of the developed world is NOT circumcised and has LOWER health problems than the States.
MEGAFAIL!!
joelface 4 months ago 5
@joelface My theory is, that it has come into custom, among the Christians, to incline to the idea of "becoming closer, to the chosen people".
kleenex3000 4 months ago
@kleenex3000 - it's a result of Christians that heard the "stories" growing up, and never read the substance later on. The stories in the Old Testament are full of blood and guts.. they stick with you. The story of Paul writing letters about the ending of the blood-right of circumcision.. that's not the story people remember.
Combine in the cultural norm of non-religious circumcision, and it's easy for people to grasp hold of the Old Testament explanation without looking at the N.T. at all.
joelface 4 months ago
@kleenex3000 Only a very small proportion do it with that much consciousness. Non-religious circumcision became customary when doctors were little tin gods who could do what they liked with patients' bodies. Informed consent was law only from 1972. But by then it was "customary" and "he should look like his father". Doubtlesss some do give your reason - they'll grab hold of any reason at all, no matter how fatuous.
Hugh7777 4 months ago
@rmtrostli They are sad, sick individuals.
The men who do it to their own children generally do so because they had it done to them. It's the mentality that goes like this: 'my Dad used to hit me, so why shouldn't I hit my kids?'
key2kingdom 4 months ago
From a Christian Broadcasting Network?
Apparently, they haven't read much of the new testament, or they would know that Christ became the new covenant with God, and circumcision was not to be done by followers of Jesus.
It's in Galatians, mostly, but a few other passages as well.
Oh, and all the studies they keep referring to are FLAWED! Circ was brought to the USA by DR. John H. Kellogg, to stop masturbation.
SteveC935 4 months ago
That colorado doctor-administrator is fucking dumb.
alternanick 4 months ago
200 babies die from circumcision every year in the United States alone. Another couple hundred suffer severe complications, including partial or total loss of the glans, loss of shaft skin, skin bridges, etc. Millions suffer loss of sensitivity (feeling), dry and keratinized glans, disfigurement, and ugly scars.
I would never force that upon my child!
I HATE CIRCUMCISION.
Chadolution 4 months ago 39
@Chadolution Would you please quote the source of this fiction.
stenbjerking 4 months ago
New International Version (©1984)
As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!
New Living Translation (©2007)
I just wish that those troublemakers who want to mutilate you by circumcision would mutilate themselves.
English Standard Version (©2001)
I wish those who unsettle you would emasculate themselves!
International Standard Version (©2008)
I wish that those who are upsetting you would castrate themselves!
suseyblue1 4 months ago
The hysterical responses from the anti circumcision people are extraordinary in there intensity but somewhat less so in substance. There seems to be little or no attempt to give any sound reasons for their opposition although some suggest that there must be a "reason" for having a foreskin. Perhaps in the past, when out ancestors were gadding about on all fours through jungle, there may have been a purpose for that piece of skin, but not now surely.
stenbjerking 4 months ago
@stenbjerking I take it you've had your foreskin lopped off, without your permission?
key2kingdom 4 months ago 2
@key2kingdom I had my foreskin lopped off in my mid thirties because of problems. My son had to be done when he was about twelve years also.
stenbjerking 4 months ago
@stenbjerking Sorry to hear you had problems. Did you son have problems too?
key2kingdom 4 months ago
@key2kingdom Yes.
stenbjerking 4 months ago
Did you both go to US physicians? In the rest of the developed world, where circumcision is not customary, they know more about the the foreskin than how to cut it off, and the lifetime risk of needing to be circumcised is one in thousands.
Hugh7777 4 months ago
@stenbjerking I require a certain part on the inner fold of the PrePuce, the RAPHE, in order to reach Orgasm. IF somebody had taken my PrePuce off from me, then I would find that person, and if he told me the same nonsense that you do, then I would torture him to death. The proponents of the Rabbinic "P"riestly Blood Sacrifice are deceivers of mankind. I shudder by the mere thought, that I could have been born into a country/ a culture where this assault on the male Genitalia persists.
kleenex3000 4 months ago
@kleenex3000 You must have an unusual appendage. Mine works very well without the foreskin. I think it is much better in all respects. Torturing someone to death seems a bit severe, are we talking about the same thing here?
stenbjerking 4 months ago
@stenbjerking Taking for granted, just for the sake-of-argument, that my "appendage" IS "unusual", then, if it had come to infant circumcision, nobody would have known/given a shit, and would not only have denied my basic human rights, but also done actual damage to my private parts.
And, as to shit, I don't give any, on the alleged, actually PSEUDOmedical benefits. My PrePuce did never cause me any problems quite the contrary. If YOUR Prepuce had been defective this was sad. Mine is not.
kleenex3000 4 months ago
@kleenex3000 My prepuce was perfectly functional (although I am not aware of what the function is) until a few months before its removal, so I have the advantage of knowing what it is like to be both ways. I am not comparing a defective uncircumcised penis with a circumcised one.
It is a shame that you feel comfortable dismissing all the research that has been done, showing all the real medical benefits, as pseudo. Why not just look at the evidence and leave the hysteria out of it.
stenbjerking 4 months ago
@stenbjerking You are a dangerours deceiver of mankind. You have an Agenda with the whole, complete anatomy. You do not appreciate what the [unknown] Creator had provided you with, namely healthy, erogenous tissue, that is but as prone to disease as are other tissues/organs of the body. YOUR Prepuce was meaningless to you, and you repeat your SCIENTFICALLY unfounded claims of medical benefits. I declare that I do not need these pseudo-"benefits" NO-where line the men up to get "snipped".
kleenex3000 4 months ago
@kleenex3000 Anybody with a rudimentary knowledge of biology knows that there are many things that could use some improvement. We are still "work in progress" evolutionary wise.
Even today some boys are born without foreskins. Perhaps in the future we will all evolve that way and the subject of circumcision will no longer be an issue.
stenbjerking 4 months ago
@stenbjerking Sorry to burst your Bubble. I am a German Biologist, and I worked 20 y in scientific research, and I know, how to discriminate Scientific Truth from mere pseudoscientific propaganda.
NOBODY talks about disapproving of Circumcision for/on consenting adults. You declare your personal preference, that you are actually entitled to, to be endorsed by medical benefits iow. "remove the unhealthy atavism" but you cannot provide scientific medical PROOF and EVIDENCE.
kleenex3000 4 months ago
@kleenex3000 Sorry Mr Kleenex but your writings do not sound like those I would expect from an academic.
stenbjerking 4 months ago
@stenbjerking QUOTE"Even today some boys are born without foreskins"
And every day some infants are born w/ Ambiguous Genitalia. There goes, your strawman.
kleenex3000 4 months ago
@stenbjerking But the fact that we have not, and show no sign of doing so (even though we could - unlike the appendix; absence of the appendix is genetically linked to severe intestinal deformity) indicates that the foreskin does more good than harm.
Hugh7777 4 months ago
@stenbjerking The doctor probably left you your frenulum. Many don't. Many don't even know whether they are leaving it or not.
Hugh7777 4 months ago
@kleenex3000 that part is the frenulum. The raphe is the "seam" under the whole length of the penis, where it closed before you were born.
Hugh7777 4 months ago
@Hugh7777 Thank you for your feedback. I was actually referring to that part of the RAPHE, that continues from the Frenulum throughout the inner Fold of the PrePuce, not the Frenulum itself. For me it trigggers sacred ORGASM.
kleenex3000 4 months ago
@stenbjerking the reason is that the foreskin is erogenous tissue. it is removed from those who were circumcised without their consent. "i want to be okay" and "it still works" isn't the point when people are being treated this way.
psyunicorn 4 months ago 3
@psyunicorn You would benefit from a little reading. There are many testimonials from men such as myself who have had the experience of having a unmodified penis and then the modified version. We speak with one voice - "give us the modified version".
The mountain of medical benefits must count for something too doesn't it?
stenbjerking 4 months ago
@stenbjerking go ahead and give benefits specifically. And i'm sorry but you do not speak with one voice. most men who restore report improved sexual function, viagra sales are much higher in countries with circumcison, and Ben Affleck said he hated it on a show hosted by a well-known jewish entertainer (Jon Stewart).
I would indeed be hysterical if my glans was suddenly exposed forever and the foreskin was gone. i'm angry they do it to people without asking. glad you like it for yourself though
psyunicorn 4 months ago
@psyunicorn Please google circinfo and start by looking at the list of references given by the professor. The benefits are clearly the result of serious scientific study. Saying that Ben Affleck hated it is hardly a convincing argument.
stenbjerking 4 months ago
@stenbjerking Ben is a public figure who disagrees with you, you said men circumcised as adults had "one voice." i am aware google exists. do the research for your argument. actually i am done with this.
psyunicorn 4 months ago
@stenbjerking Brian Morris never saw a reason for circumcising he didn't like, including "to prevent bathroom splatter" and "to prevent zipper injury".He spins statisitics faster than a dentist's drill. He turned FIVE intact boys with recurrent UTIS out of 75,000 children into "19% percent of boys" (the 5 were in a sub-sub-sample of 26 boys). He co-authored a paper with the editor of a circum-fetish website. He said publicly infant circumcision should be MANDATORY. So much for parents' choice!
Hugh7777 4 months ago
@stenbjerking er . . . no . . . because there ARE NO MEDICAL BENEFITS.
key2kingdom 4 months ago
@key2kingdom The depth of your medical knowledge astounds me.
stenbjerking 4 months ago
@stenbjerking Actually, only men who CHOSE to be circcumcised (and those who had suboptimal functioning before they were) speak with one voice, and that's hardly surprising is it? Some who were talked into it and many who were circumcised as adults for bad "medical" reasons bitterly regret it.
Hugh7777 4 months ago
@stenbjerking Your "gadding about on all fours through jungle" is almost cut and pasted from a 19th century lung surgeon called Peter Remondino who just made stuff up to justify his hate of the foreskin. He also thought black men should be circumcised to stop them raping white women. Don't put words in your mouth if you don't know where they've been.
Hugh7777 4 months ago
@stenbjerking We don't need a reason not to cut a normal, healthy, functional, non-renewing part off a baby. We need much better reasons, overcoming the serious ethical objections, to do it.
Hugh7777 4 months ago
I CANT FREAKIN BELIEVE PEOPLE STILL CIRCUMSIZE THEIR KIDS!! HOW CRUEL! -MOTHER TO AN INTACT 1 YEAR OLD!!
babydrake583 4 months ago 3
Additional benefits of circumcision are prevention of phimosis and paraphimosis , reduced balanitis, thrush, taring of frenulum during intercourse or masturbation. Small cuts and abrasions are also more common in uncircumcised males allowing for more easier access of viruses such as HIV, HPV, Herpes..
circol 4 months ago
@circol Yes and cutting your toes off absolutely prevents ingrowing toenails and athletes' foot.
Hugh7777 4 months ago
I reported this video for promoting child abuse. I suggest everyone else do the same.
AHolt6561 4 months ago
These so-called doctors are just scared that their cash cow won't be giving milk for much longer. This report disgusts me.
TheWorstWarlock 4 months ago 3
Paul tells us in the New Testiment that circumcision of the body is wrong. The Roman Catholic Church has even banned circumcision in the past making it A capital punishment for anyone to perform the surgery. We are Christians not Jews. We lay our faith in our spirit not our flesh. Child mutilation is wrong and violates the new Testiment causing harm to one of gods greatest gifts.
DrakeCovens 4 months ago 4
I am so disgusted by this 'reporting' I don't know what to say.
machida58 4 months ago 4
So this fundamentalist christian news channel that probably doesn't agree with scientists who write about evolution, scientists who write about global warming, suddenly believes scientists and researchers who write about the benefits of circumcisions? How convenient.
fot80 4 months ago 2
Men who are sexually mutilated (circumcised) have to justify in their minds that they are better off because to admit otherwise is to accept that you are mutilated. So if you cut 60% of the penis, you lower your risk of disease of the penis! Men in Europe have foreskins and have significantly less HIV and STI's. The foreskin has a purpose, just like the whole genitals of a woman, increased sexual pleasure. I can teach my son to use a condom, that is much more effective at reducing HIV and STI's
ChocTigress 4 months ago 4
The women in this vid should have their clits cut off.
Then I'd like to hear what they have to say about the old testament.
The world needs fewer freaks like these people.
key2kingdom 4 months ago 4
The fact that less than 10% of the viewers of this sick video gave it a thumbs up speaks volumes.
Enough said.
key2kingdom 4 months ago 4
The woman at 3:50 is a text book example of why men should wear condoms when having sex. Her retarded comment 'if it really is a form of mutilation, why would God ask his chosen people to be circumcised' flies in the face of all logic.
Nature is perfect. We are perfect. Don't interfere with perfection.
Circumcision is an insult to God, and to his children.
key2kingdom 4 months ago 9
@key2kingdom Very good question. Maybe that's why circumcision is not in the earliest version of the book of Genesis, the Book of J, but the covenant of animal sacrifice (Gen 15) is. Looks like it was a later addition. And now we know the Universe is 13.7 billion years old and 92 lightyears across, can anyone seriously believe that its Creator told the leader of one small desert tribe to circumcise himself and his descendents forever as a mark of his special favour to them?
Hugh7777 4 months ago 3
Wow, this makes me feel like we are back in the stone age...seriously, in this day and age we still believe that chopping off a body part is healthy?? LISTEN, we have unbelievable technologies that are advancing rapidly by the day. And yet THIS is what's going out to the public? Doesn't surprise me because the media tells lie after lie anyway, anyone with common sense will see this is no exception. The vast majority of British, European, and Asian men are intact and healthy.
aquarius1986 4 months ago 4
It's so refreshing to know that so many people (both men and women) know what's actually the truth.
Continue to speak out, and don't be afraid to!
Infant boys (and men) deserve more dignity and respect than this.
TheChallenger2011 4 months ago 6
What an appalling piece! Was it just too inconvienient to mention human right, the right to bodily / genital autonomy? Was it just to embarassing to mention the important sexual functions of the fooreskin?
Apart from Israel, America is the only country which circumcises a large number of babies. Compared to Europe, does America suffer less UTIs, penile cancers, cervical cancers and HIV/AIDS? Of course not! You make healthier by amputating healthy body parts. See circleaks org
Stretchalot1 4 months ago 5
This will give Christianity a bad name.
This will polarize between Believers and Not-Believers and create anger.
We all know WHY PrePuces are actually being amputated.
You keep silent about that although you refer to the Scripture.
Circumcision creates damage and grief.
kleenex3000 4 months ago 4
This video (and title) is clearly promoting:
GENDER DISCRIMINATION
VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATION OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOMS
INFRINGMENT OF EQUAL PROTECTION PRINCIPLES set in national and International law
Shameful.
TheChallenger2011 4 months ago 16
Shame on you CBN. You just lost my support. My boys are healthy and WHOLE!
silverspook1221 4 months ago 5
Pure shame for CBN.com on this. WOW. THUMBS DOWN FOR ALL GENITAL MUTILATION!
parkwoodlounge 4 months ago 5
This video features blatant data inaccuracies in addition to some very misleading claims. I am not shocked by CBN's lackluster journalism. I am, however, insulted by the notion that I, the viewer, am so out of touch with reality that I would sponge up this drivel. Very disappointing CBN. Your contribution to the medical zeitgeist is not only biased but dangerous. At no point should religion come into play when discussing medical safety. Shame on you.
joshuabil 4 months ago 9
WOW! Remind me NEVER to trust CBN for actual news...... If they can't even spend 20 minutes researching the damage that circumcision causes, they can't be trusted to report anything accurately.
craig3774 4 months ago 7
This video couldn't be more erroneous if it tried. It's a bunch of lies. circumcision is harmful, and ridiculous! It's done all in the name of making money. If the male foreskin was not supposed to be there, it wouldn't be!!!
Doulalee1 4 months ago 17
Please, people, do some actual research and verify your facts before perpetuating the view of Christians as foolish and anti-reality. There is no medical fact to this video. ANY website detailing the actual medical effects of circumcision contradicts these lies. We are not talking about negotiable fairytale concepts here; the fact is that routine circumcision has no medical benefit whatsoever aside from lining the hospitals' coffers from foreskin sales to cosmetics companies.
Minyassa 4 months ago 6
Hey! Message to Christian parents--cut part of your son's penis off so he can be more promiscuous and won't get HIV! What a great message! Seriously?
This video starts out with a lie by stating that the AAP is "neutral" on circumcision. The AAP states that: "Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision."
knitmama06 4 months ago 7
I don't have enough space here to write EVERYTHING I want to write. Too bad. Christians who want to cut solely based on Old Testament practices - you're an insult to your religion, and the birth, life, and death of Christ. Listening to crap about African research? Come on - how about unbiased research based on placed that are fully developed and have running water, and good hygiene habits. I don't know - say, Europe? That has a reasonably high intact rate?
eadierlam421 4 months ago 5
wtf your spreading propaganda now CBN for shame for shame
roxiegrrl1127 4 months ago 6
Where is the discussion about the damage caused by circumcision? How about talking about the functions of the intact penis? Why is discussion of the ethical implications of removing healthy, normal body parts from those who cannot consent missing from this biased story? This isn't reporting. This is pandering to the child abusers.
MelancholyLogic 4 months ago 8
Comment removed
TheChallenger2011 4 months ago
If circumcision prevented HIV, Africa wouldn't have an epidemic. Africa is the most circumcised continent in the world (60%). And if you think it's only the uncircumcised men who get HIV in that country, you're wrong. It is roughly equal! Circumcision is a cure in search of a disease.
fot80 4 months ago 5
What else do you expect from a christian fundamentalist news organization? They don't even believe in evolution.
fot80 4 months ago 4
How frustrating to see such a widely followed programme spreading misinformation about this issue. Horrificly biased report that completely ignores the detrimental effects of circumcision on sexual function, mother-baby bonding and breastfeeding. Any anyway, besides all that - IT IS HIS BODY! LEAVE IT ALONE!
tibbles209 4 months ago
There is no "debate" on circumcision. CBN is blatantly misrepresenting reality. Major health organizations around the world agree; there is not enough evidence to endorse infant circumcision. "Experts" would like you to believe that the AAP and CDC are about to change their stance, but this hasn't happened since this load of hogwash came out 5 years ago. The AAP and CDC will NEVER change their stance because they know better. What a shame that CBN has chosen to focus on these sick quacks.
JLC981 4 months ago
This Propaganda is so wrong and so dishonest and so cleverly designed that my jaws drop. If you have "compassion" for the most basic human rights then let the Genitalia of your child alone! And please do not come with "biblical". Everyone who has done some research knows that the Scripture EVOLVED.
GOOGLE
book of j circumcision
the case of brith without milah
quranicpath circumcision
kleenex3000 4 months ago
SHAME on CBN for publishing deliberate misinformation.
JLC981 4 months ago
This is a desperate propaganda piece. One can tell that circ advocates are growing so shrill so as to publish blatant and deliberate misinformation. What does that 60% figure actually mean? Does it mean that if 100 circumcised men have sex with HIV positive women, 40% of the men will get HIV, and the remaining 60% won't? No, that's not what it means. Upon closer inspection one finds that that number applies to a very small subgroup of men. The difference is insignificant. Absolute hogwash.
JLC981 4 months ago
One needs to ask, what exactly does religion have to do with science or medicine? Why did the reporters feel the need to talk about this subject? As if the presence or absence of "medical benefits" were of any relevance to people for whom circumcision is an obligation. Is there a theologist among the reporters? Circumcision is expressly forbidden to gentiles. It was actually one of the biggest points of contention in the earlier times of the church. Whatever happened to actual reporting?
JLC981 4 months ago
80% of US men are circumcised. And yet, STD rates, including HIV, are much higher in the US, than in Europe, where circumcision is rare. In fact, HIV hotspots in the US rival HIV hotspots in Africa, sometimes exceeding them. One needs to ask why the results of these so-called "studies" do not correlate with the US and other countries in the world where the majority of men are circumcised? People should check out HIV rates for the Philippines, Bangladesh and Malaysia. They are in fact, rising.
JLC981 4 months ago
You can tell that news outlets no longer research what they publish. If they had, they would have found, for example, that the UTI argument had been laid to rest by the AAP since 1999. All of the "experts" in this infomercial are quoting old data that has been shown to be flawed. Cancer is vanishingly rare, and there are already 2 vaccines against it for men and women. The AIDS argument is particularly horrendous; is anybody going to ask what the HIV rates are here in the US?
JLC981 4 months ago
The trend of opinion on child circumcision is so overwhelmingly negative in Western nations that it would be quite surprising if it were recommended in the US. No respected US medical board recommends child circumcision, not even in the name of HIV prevention. They must all point to the risks, and they must all state that there is no convincing evidence that the benefits outweigh these risks. To do otherwise would be to take an unfounded position against the best medical authorities of the West.
JLC981 4 months ago
That the CDC and AAP approve circumcision as "HIV prevention" using their shoddy studies, is the wish of none other than pro-circumcision "researchers" who want to shore up the numbers of this waning practice. This practice is dying out, and more and more, child circumcisers are appearing to be the mutilators they really are. The fact of the matter is though, that the attitude for circumcision is so overwhelmingly NEGATIVE in the United States.
JLC981 4 months ago
Who are Gray, Wawer and Tobian? Who is Daniel Halperin? Look, and you'll find their names on every so-called circumcision "study." They'll tell you that "studies are accumulating in favor of circumcision," but they won't tell you that these so-called "studies" are written by none other than themselves. They want medical boards around the world to endorse circumcision so badly, even in the United States. They keep insinuating that this is "about to happen," but it hasn't happened for 5 years.
JLC981 4 months ago
This video is obviously a paid advertizement which is full of nothing but misinformation. Who are the so-called "experts" that paid for this pro-circ ad? Who are the people behind the so-called "research?" Look, and you'll see it's the same ol' gang trying to shore up the rates of this waning practice. The so-called "experts" who are advocating circumcision in journals, are none other than the same "researchers" conducting the "studies" showing these so-called "benefits."
JLC981 4 months ago
the trials in africa. concluded that circumcision reduced the hiv infection rates from intact 3.38% to circumcised 1.58%. that only a 1.8% difference! 1.8% is well within the margin of error for a medical study. so the people that did the study. compared the 2 numbers 3.38% and 1.58%. resulting in a larger number 53% and they rounded that number up to 60%. this is data manipulation pure and simple. circumcision is rape and it must stop. condoms stop HIV not circumcision
madbr3991 4 months ago
Comment removed
madbr3991 4 months ago
"If you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. Every man who lets himself be circumcised is obligated to obey the whole law. You who are trying to be justified by the law, you have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace." (Galatians 5)
nightsdreamparadox 4 months ago
I'm lucky to be part of that 20%.
These "Christians" being interviewed are a mock to their Religion.
TrollingYouBe 4 months ago
I am appalled at a "christian" organization seemingly forgetting that the whole message Jesus brought is forgotten. His blood, his flesh, was sacrificed so that we would no longer be subject to this. And then the Jews killed him because of that. His sacrifice was NOT his death, but his circumcision. He did not lose the battle with death, he overcame THAT.
lochinvar00465 4 months ago
If you can't provide an authoritative reference providing grounds for the unique and singular exclusion of the foreskins of male children from the default standard of protection of all normal, healthy, functional body parts, then it simply does not matter what else you have to say or what you believe.
And that includes religious beliefs in particular, since religious beliefs in general are insufficient to justify the routine and ritual genital amputation of female children.
lochinvar00465 4 months ago
The whole discussion about benefits is premature if done prior to considering the rights of the child to his whole body as a grown man. Period. QED. End of argument.
You don't believe me? What about routine mastectomy for baby girls? THAT would prevent over 40,000 female deaths in the US alone EVERY YEAR. The benefit would be HUGE. And yet, it is not done because we believe females have the right to their whole body. The rights of the individual are paramount.
lochinvar00465 4 months ago
I really wish the media would stop throwing around that "60% AIDS reduction" number around. The studies that show that have a number of problems with it that would take far to long for me to describe here. Even if it is true, that just means that if you have enough unprotected sex you will still get AIDS. Think about it, 40% of the time that you have unprotected sex it would not work.
someguy672 4 months ago
@someguy672 Oops I said "around" twice in that first sentence lol.
someguy672 4 months ago
Circumcision is disgusting and barbaric. And Jesus never said you have to be a JEW before you can be a good Christian. BAPTISM replaced circumcision. Learn about your own religion!
valkyrieh 4 months ago
We circumcise newborns to prevent HIV? I didn't realize newborns were sexually active. That really makes a lot of sense. NOT. Also, doesn't your religion demand you chastity until marriage? And then fidelity? Why would a Christian even worry about HIV when we know you guys are morally perfect and virtuous?? Are you saying you are all promiscuous? Hhhhhmmmm Not one single Christian nation on the planet other than the US practices routine infant circumcision . Not a Christian mandate.
valkyrieh 4 months ago
Everytime you hear something in favor of circumcision, they omit the functions of the foreskin. This is no exception. If they mentioned the fact that the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis, their pro-circ argument would fall apart. They need to stop the bullshit!
freedom0speech 4 months ago
Circumcision removes the most sensitive part of a man's penis. The five most sensitive areas of the penis are on the foreskin. The transitional region from the external to the internal foreskin is the most sensitive region of the fully intact penis, and more sensitive than the most sensitive region of the circumcised penis.
----------------------------
Fine-Touch Pressure Thresholds In The Adult Penis
British Journal of Urology International,
2007, Vol. 99, No. 4, 864-869
Sorrells et al.
freedom0speech 4 months ago
Search google for "Daniel T. Halperin - CircLeaks"
freedom0speech 4 months ago
Non-religious circumcision is a peculiarly American custom. The rest of the developed world finds it virtually unthinkable - and not because they haven't caught up with the USA. The rest of the English-speaking world tried it, found it did no good and have virtually given it up. Australia and New Zealand circumcised as furiously as the US in the 1950s; now it's hard to find a doctor willing to do it, and there have been no outbreaks of any of the diseases it was supposed to be good for.
7777Hugh 4 months ago 2
This report makes me feel ashamed to be a Christian. Religion aside, it's a very, very simple concept. Don't cut off parts of someone else's body. Let the owner (parents - your're not the owner of your child's body, and you've no right to cut off healthy parts of it) of the body decide when they become an adult. Why do people get that it's not okay to mutilate or alter the genitals of females, but think to do the same to boys is fine? Male genital mutilation is NOT okay. Stop cutting up babies!
MKSIRobles 4 months ago 4
At 1:20 the figure of "at least 60%" is wrong and misleading. "At least" is a fabrication. The actual lower limit (if the studies are accurate) is 30%. This figure is expressed in a way to make a small absolute difference look large. Heterosexually acquited HIV infection in men is a very small part of the problem in the USA. Women are more at risk, and circumcising men may even increase it.
Beware of this propaganda campaign for cutting boys' genitals.
7777Hugh 4 months ago 2
Do they ever pay attention to the studies that show it DOES NOT have benefits? God created the foreskin with all those erogenous skin as a gift to be enjoyed. And God did not make a mistake we are born perfect. Penile cancer is one of the most rarest form of cancers. Circumcision is a violation of human rights. The NEW testament reveals circumcision has no value and was the act of faith in itself is what counted, and Jesus work at the cross broke the curse.
mattld12 4 months ago 2
In 1996... "As representatives of the American Cancer Society, we would like to
discourage the American Academy of Pediatrics from promoting routine
circumcision as preventative measure for penile or cervical cancer.
Portraying routine circumcision as an effective means of prevention
distracts the public from the task of avoiding the behaviors proven to
contribute to penile and cervical cancer. Perpetuating the mistaken belief that circumcision prevents cancer is inappropriate"
jenniferlindsayreed 4 months ago 3
6. "Circumcision was as a symbol of the Old Covenant and as a prelude to the coming of, Jesus Christ. God wanted to make sure people understood very well the purpose of the Old Covenant before the New Covenant took its place. Scripture says that to shed the blood of a baby boy now, after Christ shed His own innocent blood would be blasphemous & mock our Lord's sacrifice. (The New Testament is very stringent in its warning about this!)”
jenniferlindsayreed 4 months ago
"And in a study of nurses in a U.S. geriatric unit, about 90% were strongly in favor of circumcision because it was difficult to bathe uncircumcised men in their 90s. When we look at a baby and we think about circumcision, we have to think not just about that baby but that he's going to turn into a man and, eventually, an old man." --Daniel Halperin, L.A. Times. I imagine 90 year old women are hard to clean too, but amputating "extra skin" of infant girls is not offered as a hygiene option!!!
TheDevonO 4 months ago 5
@TheDevonO What proportion of baby boys ever reach 90, and of those, what proportion have that kind of problem? Translate that into the number of circumcisions wasted for the convenience of the nurses of one nongenarian, and the figure will be in the hundreds.
7777Hugh 4 months ago
Halperin is on record as saying he believes he was "destined" to promote circumcision because of his descent from a ritual circumcisor. This is not someone people should be listening to.
7777Hugh 4 months ago 3
Rare antibiotic treatable UTIs or a 1 in 100,000 chance of penile cancer justifying preventive amputation? One educator has advised scrutiny of ALL motives behind research and recommendations: "A full disclosure of conflicts of interest should include circumcision status, number of circumcisions performed, circumcision status of any male children, and affiliation with religious or ethnic groups that practice circumcision." This should also be demanded of reporters and newswriters.
TheDevonO 4 months ago 4
This is so incorrect that I don't know where to start. Research is growing, yes, but AGAINST supporting circumcision. Every supposed 'benefit' of cutting a child's foreskin off can be gained by more humane means, such as practicing proper hygiene- which is done for EVERY other body part- and using safe sex practices. As far as it being a religious practice that is even more barbaric of a reason. Parents do not have a right to brand their religion on their children by mutilating their bodies.
murphysmurfmom 4 months ago 28
Forced genial cutting of children has nothing to do with health or medicine. "Doctors" like Daniel Halperin are breaking the Hippocratic Oath by promoting surgical operations on children's genitals without need or consent.
Indeed activists will continue to "turn up the volume" until this form of child abuse is a thing of the past.
Bonobo3D 4 months ago 7
People who defend forms of genital cutting on healthy children focus solely on gender or the invasivenesss of the procedure. It's shameful.
They don't consider the fact that discriminating against one gender, especially children violates equal protection principles or law.
Cutting a child (surgically modifying them permanently) regardless of gender in the name of the parents religion violates and infringes that childs religious freedom.
Child Circumcision - Elephant in the Hospital.
TheChallenger2011 4 months ago 30
@HeatherMills- Female circumcision involves more than 1 form, in fact there are a total of 4 forms.
One of the forms involves only removing the female foreskin (prepuce) covering the clitoris.
Yes, females also have foreskin. Female foreskin covering the clitoris is homologous to the foreskin covering the male glans penis.
It is considered to be a religious right to some to remove the foreskin from a girl, supporters of it use the same reasoning as seen at 3:53 . Rightly it is illegal.
TheChallenger2011 4 months ago 6
UTIs are much more common in females than in males. In fact UTIs are commonly treated with antibiotics not surgery.
TheChallenger2011 4 months ago 3
Irresponsible, biased reporting.
Reporting circumcision reduces HIV in men in Africa to justify cutting a child? Ask yourself why is it that AIDS and HIV is so common in America when the majority of men are circumcised. If it's so effective, this shouldn't be.
Penile cancer is so rare that in fact anyone with your ideology would have to consider removing breast buds from infant girls in since it would reduce (even eliminate) breast cancer which is much more prevalent. It's unethical.
TheChallenger2011 4 months ago 7
@TheChallenger2011 Actually, they'd have to consider removing breast buds from infant BOYS, because penile cancer is rarer than MALE breast cancer. And men have less use for their breasts - many old men would thank you to be without them.
7777Hugh 4 months ago 2