Originally Posted by CrunchyChristianMama
On Gayle: hopefully anyone looking into circ would know better than to take advice from someone who insists on calling the penis a pee-pee.
I really liked that they actually showed cutting it off and that they were all exaggerated about it. I don't think most people want to picture themselves coming at their newborn baby with a pair of scissors.
I thought it was a horrid portrayal that really minimized the procedure. He acted like you can just pull a little piece forward and cut it off- nothing about the foreskin having to be forcibly retracted. The medical teaching vids (as an example of a neutral video- not one produced by intactivists) on Stanford Med's hospital site look pretty horrid and probably would be a realistic picture of what is going on- they are intended as teaching vids for medical students http://newborns.stanford.edu/Circumcision.html
To the majority of people that haven't really seen an intact infant foreskin, and don't understand that the foreskin is adhered, (like me at first) it only gives the wrong impression
It continues to perpetrate the myth that it is just a snip (and I don't mean to imply this is purposeful, I don't think so. If dr oz did receive a circ as part of a muslim culture that circs in adolescence he probably might not really even think about the distinction either- not that I think doing it later is any less horrid- I imagine the foreskin isn't really thought of positively when you have to hack it off when you older )
I'm glad some of his content has improved, but I'm not sure it is going to be make much difference
Edited by jessjgh1 - 2/8/11 at 4:00pm