CIRCUMCISION: "Just a Little Piece of Skin?"

We've all heard it. Whenever male infant circumcision is being talked about, somebody always has to trivialize the issue by saying "It's just a little piece of skin, I don't know what the big deal is." It's quite possibly the most common quip used to try and minimize the issue of male infant circumcision.

Since the foreskin is "just a little piece of skin," it's removal is trivial, of no consequence, and can be likened to the removal of any other dead, unfeeling body part, like the hair, fingernails or dried up umbilical cord.

But how much of this is true?

How do male infant circumcision advocates define "just a little piece of skin?"

Is it like peeling off a dead layer of skin cells?

How much is "little?"

How much would be "too much?"

What is "just the right amount?"

People say "It's just a little piece of skin" like it's really nothing, and the more I read about what the foreskin is, the more I see what circumcision is, what it does, what is actually removed, what is actually done to a child, the more it pisses me off.

Very recently, I've had the sad and depressing opportunity to see pictures of a child's severed foreskin. I'm looking at what is being removed and I think to myself, "How on EARTH is it justifiable to forcibly cut off a normal, healthy piece of flesh of this size off of anybody? 'Little piece of skin' MY ASS."

A nurse posted the following picture on Facebook:

The nurse salvaged a newborn's foreskin from a garbage can after an infant circumcision. On the left, the foreskin is shriveled up. On the right, the same foreskin is unfolded, with the inner mucosal surface exposed.

How on EARTH can anyone get away with saying that this is "just a little bit of skin?" This is no "little bit of skin," this quite a bit of flesh, and nerves and blood vessels.

If this "little bit of skin" belonged to a baby girl, there would be outrage.

It wouldn't matter that the baby girl would be "too small to remember."

It wouldn't matter that she was given proper pain management.

It wouldn't matter that it was done to fulfill a religious conviction.

The words on people's lips would be "genital mutilation," and rightly so.

Let's take a look at a picture of a baby girl's severed clitoris.

The following picture was taken from a blog written by a mother in Malaysia, who documented the "sunat" of her daughter, who was just a few months old, in her blog. She has since removed the post, as there was an outpour of international outrage in her comments section.

Original Text: "It happens so fast, with a bismillah and a snip,

a little bit blood and that's it, Zahra dah sunat!

She didn't cry even a drop, in fact giggling2 lagi.

I guess it wasn't painful for her, alhamdulillahh.."

The slit clitoris if you can find it (on the lower blade)

What looks more like "just a little snip" to you?

Keep in mind that as a child grows into a man, his foreskin grows too; it isn't so little by the time the child is an adult.

I'm just kind of tired that people throw the words "just a little piece of skin" around as if it were matter of fact.

The foreskin is not "just a little bit of skin." The foreskin is a complex, double-layered fold of flesh, laden in thousands of nerves and blood vessels.


The foreskin is not a birth defect.

Neither is it a congenital deformity or genetic anomaly akin to a 6th finger or a cleft.

Neither is it a medical condition like a ruptured appendix or diseased gall bladder.

Neither is it a dead part of the body, like the umbilical cord, hair, or fingernails.

The foreskin is not "extra skin." The foreskin is normal, natural, healthy, functioning tissue, with which all boys are born; it is as intrinsic to male genitalia as labia are to female genitalia.

Unless there is a medical or clinical indication, the circumcision of a healthy, non-consenting individual is a deliberate wound; it is the destruction of normal, healthy tissue, the permanent disfigurement of normal, healthy organs, and by very definition, infant genital mutilation, and a violation of the most basic of human rights.

Genital mutilation, whether it be wrapped in culture, religion or “research” is still genital mutilation, and it needs to stop NOW.

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Yet Another One (I Hate Writing These)

It has all happened before.

And, until the non-therapeautic circumcision of infants is banned, it will all happen again.

But this time, it happened in Sacramento, California.

Within the last hour, Brayden Tyler Frazier died after circumcision put him in critical condition.

He started bleeding uncontrollably after he was circumcised Wednesday at UC Davis Medical Center in Sacramento.

EDIT: The circumcision was actually carried out in Lodi, not at UC Davis Medical Center, as Brayden's grandfather has clarified. He was transferred to UC Davis Medical Center afterward, and the doctors there had absolutely nothing to do with Brayden's circumcision.

They tried to use coagulants, platelets, plasma etc. to try and save his life, but to no avail.

His body started having seizures because of it, which lead to his liver and kidneys starting to shows signs of failure.

He was 9 days old when he was circumcised, and he died at 11 days of age.

He was alive and well for 9 days until the day he was circumcised, and it was found that he had hemophilia.

EDIT: Brayden's grandfather says that he had been ill and taken to the Dr. for 2 days prior to the circumcision, as Brayden was sleeping constantly and not eating. Initial sticks and pricks were not healing quickly, and most bandages were kept on him for 2 days before the wounds sealed. It appeared his body was not producing "clotting" materials prior to the circumcision. But, according to Brayden's grandfather, "...it wasn't so much that anyone was alarmed."

His parents are now grieving at the Lodi Memorial Hospital.

As a Californian who was born and raised in this area, this is very, very close to home for me.

What will happen now?

Here's what will happen.

Just like all circumcision deaths, this one will be swept neatly underneath the rug.

The cause of death will be recorded as "hemorrhaging to death."

Hemophilia will be blamed.

EDIT: "He had "generalized bleeding"...sepsis, among other things," according to Brayden's grandfather.

The baby will have died of "organ failure."

No mention is going to be made of his circumcision.

Ever.

Nobody is going to ask why doctors didn't test the child for hemophilia (or any potentially hazardous conditions) prior.

Everyone will demand nobody bother the parents because they are grieving.

They will not press charges.

They will be complicit in covering up this circumcision, and protecting the doctor that did it.

They may have yet another child, and go on to circumcise him too.

People will keep quiet, and demand others do too.

And so it will continue.

One conservative estimate says that 117 deaths a year happen in the US as a result of circumcision.

Although, a recent study in Brasil suggests that rate is closer to 156 deaths a year.

Because circumcision is performed in healthy, non-consenting children without any medical or clinical indication whatsoever, how is anything above 0 conscionable?

Death is a risk of circumcision.

Were these parents not made aware of this risk?

Do the benefits truly "outweigh" it, as the AAP repeats over and over?

Or was this child's death not important "because he was going to die anyway?"

I hate having to write these.

When will it end?

Note: Pictures and links to Facebook accounts were not used for this post in respect of the grieving parents.

Update (3/9/2013):

Already, Brayden's family is taking down pictures and status updates on Facebook. They're already trying to change their story to make it sound like Brayden's circumcision had absolutely nothing to do with his death, and accusing activists such as myself, of "misconstruing and exploiting Brayden's story for our own selfish purposes."

This seems to be an exact replay of Joshua Haskin's death.

It's rather sad that the health and well being of children is considered a "selfish cause" by some.

A child has died because of a needless operation.

More deaths like these can be prevented.

But more important is to preserve the fantasy that he didn't, for the parents' (and the doctors') sake.

So what is more selfish?

You be the judge.

We are being called liars who are "misconstruing," but sadly, this is the internet, and the whole thing, pictures and status updates, was caught on screen shot.

A friend on Facebook made the following observation:

"If someone had stabbed him, and he bled to death, no one would blame the child's condition. It would have been crystal clear that the injury killed him."

To which I say, EXACTLY.

They seem to be a family of faith.

Let it remain in their conscience who the real "liars" are.

Meanwhile, may Brayden rest in peace.

And may one day baby boys be spared from needless deaths like this one.

"Every time a baby dies from circumcision, there's something else involved. Bleeding. Infection. Anesthesia. Shock. Stroke. Heart attack. There's always something that can take the blame. Vulnerable parents are going to choose those things to blame, and so are the guilty medical professionals, because those things were beyond their control, and circumcision was elective and unnecessary. They are in a place where they CAN NOT admit the truth, and it is counterproductive to try." ~Aubrey Terrón

Related Posts:

CIRCUMCISION: The Silent Killer

Circumcision KILLS

CIRCUMCISION: Another Baby Dies

AAP TRADE SHOW 2012: Silencing Dissent - First the Booth, Now the Protest

In my last post, I wrote about how the AAP decided to kick out the intactivist organization Intact America from within their 2012 trade show. I speculated that the AAP made this decision because they saw Intact America as a threat.

Kicking out Intact America from their 2012 trade show wouldn't have been their only attempt at silencing dissent; the AAP has taken the liberty of taking down, and refusing to publish moderate, referenced, well-researched letters in opposition on their website.

Now, it appears, the AAP is trying to silence dissent outside of their trade show. Intactivists have managed to launch a small, but very vocal protest outside of the facilities where the AAP is hosting their trade exhibition, and the AAP is trying to get them shut down.

Intactivist Protesters Outside of the 2012 AAP Trade Show

It is now ever clear that the AAP has made a huge mistake, they know it, and they are feeling the burn. It is now clear that self-serving forces with an agenda are working from within the AAP to silence dissent. They are intimidated by intactivists and terrified of the truth; their actions of fear and apprehension prove it.

“Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth.”

~Buddha

 "Truth suppress'd, whether by courts or crooks, will find an avenue to be told."
~Sheila Steele

"You can fool some people, some of the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time."
~Unknown

The AAP is mistaken if it thinks they can hide the truth from everyone. They may withhold letters of opposition, and kick out groups they do not like from their trade shows, but they WILL NOT SILENCE US.

SHAME ON YOU, AAP.