Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

BREAKING: Democrat Presidential Candidate Andrew Yang Hates Circumcision

BREAKING: Democrat Presidential Candidate Andrew Yang Hates Circumcision

Rising star in Democrat field.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IotorCh7dPM

You may not have heard of Democrat presidential candidate Andrew Yang, a New York entrepreneur, but he catapulted into the limelight by taking an unprovoked and out-of-left-field position: He is against circumcision.

The Daily Beast noticed his tweet on it and decided to interview about it. Yang would push his view into public policy.

Yang told The Daily Beast that the procedure is “sort of pushed on parents in many situations.” From the interview:

“From what I’ve seen, the evidence on it being a positive health choice for the infant is quite shaky,” said Yang, who did not address whether he’s circumcised himself.

If elected, Yang said he wants to “inform parents that it is entirely up to them whether their infant gets circumcised, and that there are costs and benefits either way.”

“The more choice we give parents, and the more we diminish the possible preconceptions or misinformation various parents are receiving, then the better off we’ll be as a society,” Yang said.

According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, the upsides of circumcision—including a reduced chance of sexually transmitted diseases and urinary tract infections—are worth any risks. But the AAP and other medical groups say the decision should still be left up to parents.

The Mayo Clinic has more benefits from circumcision:

  • Easier hygiene. Circumcision makes it simpler to wash the penis. However, boys with uncircumcised penises can be taught to wash regularly beneath the foreskin.
  • Decreased risk of urinary tract infections. The risk of urinary tract infections in males is low, but these infections are more common in uncircumcised males. Severe infections early in life can lead to kidney problems later.
  • Decreased risk of sexually transmitted infections. Circumcised men might have a lower risk of certain sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. Still, safe sexual practices remain essential.
  • Prevention of penile problems. Occasionally, the foreskin on an uncircumcised penis can be difficult or impossible to retract (phimosis). This can lead to inflammation of the foreskin or head of the penis.
  • Decreased risk of penile cancer. Although cancer of the penis is rare, it’s less common in circumcised men. In addition, cervical cancer is less common in the female sexual partners of circumcised men.

I’m all for education on anything before you do something to your child, but we don’t need government involvement in this. Come on.

Then again, if you look at Yang’s positions, this shouldn’t shock you. He wants universal basic income, medicare for all, and something called human-centered capitalism.

At least he lists his positions on his website unlike Robert O’Rourke.

[Featured image via YouTube]

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Can you double check the spelling of his last name please? I could have sworn it was Wang.

I wonder if he has a position on keeping the penny.

This should be nipped in the bud.

Andrew Yang is all for parent(s) “choosing” to murder their unborn child ON DEMAND WITH NO INTERVENTION WHATSOEVER which has been legal in the U.S. only since 1973 – but parents “choosing” to circumcise their male child which has been done for thousands and thousands of years warrants extraneous government involvement so the parent(s) make the ‘right choice’.

What a kook.

OleDirtyBarrister | March 19, 2019 at 3:44 pm

Circumsion is an urgent national issue in the minds of voters nowhere.

Does anyone in either major political party care about spending, deficits, the national debt, and inflation anymore?

    ahad haamoratsim in reply to OleDirtyBarrister. | March 19, 2019 at 4:22 pm

    It has been a hot topic in times in certain parts of Europe & as well as San Francisco. It’s often coupled with an outcry to ban kosher meat. It was banned in the USSR & has been a topic in Denmark & Netherlands among other places.

    Just one more instance of the Democratic party’s respect for Jewish citizens.

inform parents that it is entirely up to them whether their infant gets circumcised

The last time I heard an actual doctor—not a politician, a lawyer, an activist, or some other creepazoid—sound off on this matter, it was pretty clear that this is how it’s done now. It was also clear that “parents” means, in practice, the mother, possibly because she’s the one lying around when someone on the hospital staff comes around to ask. I trust I don’t have to belabor the point that the mother—or any other woman—lacks the qualifications to know anything much about the matter. But that’s a different issue. It doesn’t sound like this intrepid political pioneer is breaking any new ground here. It will, of course, get him publicity, which is probably what he needs most right now.

And I hear he’s an absolute beast on the subject of fluoridation of drinking water! Sounds like he lived under a rock in the same neighborhood that AOC crawled around in.

In other circumcision news, Israel is training Africans how to do it. Circumcision is a male right of passage in many tribal cultures. The problem is, it’s often done under unhygienic conditions (this is also one of them many problems with FGM, let alone the fact that female “circumcision has absolutely no health benefits). When that’s the case it leads to infection and (Shudder) if the infection gets bad enough, amputation.

https://www.africanews.com/2017/05/23/world-s-third-penis-transplant-successfully-done-in-south-africa/

There’s a reason why South Africa is the world’s leader in this procedure.

I am just a font of useful information, aren’t I?

Comanche Voter | March 19, 2019 at 4:20 pm

A Democrat Presidential candidate named Yang is worried about protecting newborn infants ying yangs? You can’t make this stuff up. But at least he lets the little boys live if they manage to get born alive. That’s a step up from Governor Northam.

“However, boys with uncircumcised penises can be taught to wash regularly beneath the foreskin.”

I was an instructor in the Navy. I taught the Basic Shipboard Intelligence Course and managed the largest ammunition account in the Pacific Fleet; we needed it and it was my job to get my Sailors trained in small arms.

But this is one teaching position I think I’ll pass on. Given the communal showering arrangements on naval vessels and considering I had the unfortunate duty of supervising “operation golden flow” at one of my commands (the hardest part of that duty was finding a female assistant because, yes, you actually have to look and unless you have a lesbian in your command most women don’t want to) I’ve seen more wedding tackle than any man should in a single lifetime.

Enough.

I’m done.

Somebody else can have this teaching job.

    Arminius in reply to Arminius. | March 19, 2019 at 4:50 pm

    In case anyone is wondering, no, I’m not. But I didn’t have a choice; I was saddled with that duty. But I didn’t have the authority to rope any woman into the job. I needed volunteers. They were in short supply.

    Why the command didn’t designate an assistant “operation golden flow” supervisor I’ll never know.

I hate to say it. There might be some health benefits to circumcision. They benefits are minor at best.

But, the ethical issues surrounding circumcision are unavoidable.

Lets call it what it is. Surgical removal of part of somemone’s penis without their consent. I don’t see how that can be framed as ethical.

    Milwaukee in reply to jl. | March 19, 2019 at 10:42 pm

    “jl | March 19, 2019 at 5:19 pm
    I hate to say it. There might be some health benefits to circumcision. They benefits are minor at best.”

    Did you miss this stuff? Perhaps it depends on your definition of “minor”.

    The Mayo Clinic has more benefits from circumcision:

    Easier hygiene. Circumcision makes it simpler to wash the penis. However, boys with uncircumcised penises can be taught to wash regularly beneath the foreskin.
    Decreased risk of urinary tract infections. The risk of urinary tract infections in males is low, but these infections are more common in uncircumcised males. Severe infections early in life can lead to kidney problems later.
    Decreased risk of sexually transmitted infections. Circumcised men might have a lower risk of certain sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. Still, safe sexual practices remain essential.
    Prevention of penile problems. Occasionally, the foreskin on an uncircumcised penis can be difficult or impossible to retract (phimosis). This can lead to inflammation of the foreskin or head of the penis.
    Decreased risk of penile cancer. Although cancer of the penis is rare, it’s less common in circumcised men. In addition, cervical cancer is less common in the female sexual partners of circumcised men.

    My ex-wife was more of a liberal-feminist than I realized, and she insisted on our son not being circumcised. Seems later on he had himself circumcised, when it was more difficult, and painful. Seems young women would prefer to give oral sex to circumcised men over uncircumcised men. Somehow the Mayo Clinic left that off their list of benefits.

    Valerie in reply to jl. | March 19, 2019 at 10:44 pm

    I am the mother of an uncircumcised man, and two that were circumcised.

    With the first one, they asked me at the hospital, and told me that it was up to the parents, and so I said no. My mother asked me why I didn’t have the kid circumcised, and I told her what the doctor said. She said to me “Do you have any idea how many little old men wind up getting infections, and being circumcised when they are old and don’t heal so well?

    Fast forward about 5 years, and the pediatrician tells me, the foreskin is closing up, and either I will stretch it, or he will cut it. So I stretched it, and my little boy screamed and screamed and screamed.

    Nobody told me that the foreskin had to be stretched, or that this was one of the things to be considered.

    The other two were circumcised.

    “benefits are minor at best.”

    Nope. The benefits are real, and they are lifelong. Circumision of babies avoids great pain and gets rid of a lifelong vulnerability to infection.

DieJustAsHappy | March 19, 2019 at 5:54 pm

To snip or not to snip. That is the question!

Always about the genitals with these idiots.

pretty sure he’s against circumcision because he’s convinced he’d be twice as long if he had a foreskin…

😎

Always thought Asians were culturally along the studious, conservative track. It’s sad to see so many of them becoming malignant loons.

I got my circumcision late in life.I was 22 and living in California and just when the Doctor started to cut an earthquake hit .It was a big one too ,9.5 ,whoops 3.5
.

Subotai Bahadur | March 19, 2019 at 9:48 pm

Let’s be honest. Yang is running for the presidential nomination of the Democrat-Socialist [as they are increasingly referring to themselves as] Party.

A specific form of anti-Semitism is mandatory in the Democrat-Socialists. They are strongly anti-Jewish, while they love Muslims.

Circumcision is a religious rite of passage and mandatory for Jewish males if they are to be Jewish. Of course Yang is for the government preventing circumcision, as a way to reduce the number of Jews. The Leftists will do what they will do.

Subotai Bahadur

    Milwaukee in reply to Subotai Bahadur. | March 19, 2019 at 10:46 pm

    Circumcision is also a religious rite of passage and mandatory for Muslim males if they are to be Muslim. However, the Muslims do it when the boys are older, I forget, maybe beginning of puberty. In Malaysia it was a public operation and the boys involved were feted for the days of recovery as local heros.

More American parents are following the advice of the European medical community, which has condemned American doctors for circumcising baby boys. The Royal Dutch Medical Association reports: “International physicians protest against American Academy of Pediatrics’ policy on infant male circumcision. Circumcision conflicts with children’s rights and doctors’ oath and can have serious long-term consequences, state an international group of 38 physicians from 16 European countries in Pediatrics today.” http://knmg.artsennet.nl/Nieuws/Overzicht-nieuws/Nieuwsbericht/129608/International-physicians-protest-against-American-Academy-of-Pediatrics-policy-on-infant-male-circumcision.htm

Circumcision has no place on Legal Insurrection. It is a matter of debate, but I do not feel this is the place.

The main practitioners of it are Muslims (by far the greatest number), Jews and Americans, although in the latter case it is in decline. While some put forward ‘health benefits’ for it, there are many many arguments against it. While some say an uncircumcised penis can cause problems, there are equal, if not more problems which arise due to circumcision. Quotes from the Mayo Clinic seek to outline problems associated with not being circumcised, but do not address problems which arise due to circumcision, nor do they state any statistics. In many, if not all, cases of non-circumcision, these problems can be cured by some degree of circumcision.

I certainly appreciate that is is a sore point in the US, since it was well practiced in the south. At one time it was well practiced in the UK, in the Victorian era as a treatment to curb masturbation and to reduce sexual libido … look it up.

It is my personal opinion that circumcision should be the choice of the individual and should therefore not be conducted until the age of maturity … which might be 16 according to democrats (bwahahahaha … the new vote), 18 by current norms, or 21 by my estimation.

What is wrong with leaving this matter to choice?

    Milhouse in reply to azide999. | March 22, 2019 at 12:20 pm

    It is my personal opinion that circumcision should be the choice of the individual and should therefore not be conducted until the age of maturity … which might be 16 according to democrats (bwahahahaha … the new vote), 18 by current norms, or 21 by my estimation.

    What is wrong with leaving this matter to choice?

    Because adult circumcision is painful. By not circumcising a baby when it can be done painlessly, you are condemning the future adult to a very difficult choice; he may want to be circumcised but will be deterred from doing it out of fear. If that happens he will not thank you for having forced him into this dilemma.

      denizen in reply to Milhouse. | March 23, 2019 at 8:16 pm

      There is no physiological reason why circumcision should be more painful in adults. In infants, the foreskin is adhered to the penis and must be forcefully separated. In adults, you don’t have to do that. It’s just that the pain is more perceptible to others because the adult can complain about the pain incident to the procedure when an infant cannot.

      Also, there’s no reason why an adult should ever remove their prepuce. I can’t fathom why we would irreparably alter the genitals of infants because they might later decide to get cosmetic surgery and we want to reduce the pain of unnecessary and pointless cosmetic surgery that impairs the function of the body.

I don’t normally comment, but this one needs it, I think. And for what it’s worth, Yang can sit and spin based on the rest of his policies. But it sounds like he’s got the right idea on circumcision. He’s not advocating to ban it, he’s saying people need to be told the consequences and risks of it and the ethical quandaries brought up by electing to give your child a cosmetic procedure without their consent. And due to the complications of anesthesia on infants, often without it. Mayo Clinic is widely respected, but let’s look at the list of benefits they provided.

Easier hygiene – the foreskin covers and protects the glans, keeping it lubricated and moisturized. Because of this, it does require a little additional cleaning. And if you think teenage boys aren’t taking care of that instinctively in the shower, I’ve got some oceanfront property in Arizona to sell you. Prior to puberty, the foreskin is attached to the glans by a membrane and should not be forcibly retracted to clean as it can tear the flesh. When it starts to free up and slide, clean under it, otherwise just leave it alone.

Decreased risk of UTIs – makes have about a 1% chance of getting a UTI. Circumcision can reduce this risk. However, the risk of hemorrhages, infection, or other complications from the circumcision procedure is about 2%. So the cost/benefit is not that cut and dry.

Decreased risk of STI transmission – this has been debunked multiple times. All studies advocating for circumcision to reduce the risk of STIs inevitably make the same mistakes. The two big ones that the original study made are obvious to any layman bystander. The original study compared the rates of infection over a six month period between two groups of men, some intact, the others circumcised for the study. The first critical flaw was that the window of observation started immediately after the procedures. It’s obvious that the circumcised men would be having less sex and therefore at less risk to spread STIs during this period, as they are recovering from having part of their wedding tackle shaved off. Additionally, the study did not account for the corrupting factor of follow up visits. The circumcised men saw medical professionals in multiple visits after the procedure, thereby exposing them to more education on STI prevention measures than the uncircumcised group. When these factors are taken into account, the study suffers severe reproduction issues.

Prevention of penile problems – there are some conditions that need circumcision to remediate, like phimosis. However, when diagnosed later, the procedure is then done with local anesthetic. Additionally, as these are usually erectile issues that first present themselves during/after puberty, a more accurate and less invasive removal can be done at that point in contrast to preventative estimation at birth. Additionally, in no other example do we preemptively remove tissues from people to prevent possible future problems. The appendix doesn’t do anything but occasionally try to kill you, but if it isn’t trying to do that, we leave it alone.

Decreased risk of cancer – again, as per the appendix example above, in no other area do we use amputation as a preventative measure. A double mastectomy would significantly reduce the risk of breast cancer, but we rightly call that idea being default as barbaric.

Lastly, regarding the alleged anti-semitism of this viewpoint, note that Jews make up a small minority of the US population, but most men in the US were circumcised until very recently. In the US, it’s far and away a cosmetic procedure, not a medical or religious one. And if it’s a cosmetic procedure done for little if any medical benefit with the risk of severe complications and extreme pain, we need to consider if it’s something that should be done in first place.

The Pork Rind Industry hardest hit.

Saying that circumcision is a good idea because the Mayo Clinic supports it is just as absurd as saying that anthropogenic global warming is a serious threat to mankind because “climate scientists” say it is.

Our institutions are corrupted. They espouse a false Narrative and demand obedience to it. Here, as rhvette explains,* the supposed basis for the Mayo Clinic’s position is nonsense. If you take what it says on face value, then it’s awfully hard to complain when somebody else calls you crazy for not accepting the Narrative about something else.

*I do disagree in part with what rhvette says. Circumcision is not an appropriate treatment for phimosis. Stretching is the appropriate treatment.

I am, however, appalled that Valerie got the advice to stretch her 5-year-old son’s foreskin. The foreskin is supposed to be adhered to the “head” of the penis for many years after birth. If someone is in their teens and it still hasn’t released, stretching is an appropriate and effective solution. Stretching at five causes severe pain and damage to the penis, and treats a problem that doesn’t actually exist. The level of ignorance among doctors about the function of the male prepuce is astounding.

I would plead with anyone reading this not to circumcise your child. It causes severe suffering to the infant. It has caused me and many others a lifetime of psychological pain that hurt my relationship with my parents. It deprives people of sexual pleasure. And, for some, it necessitates thousands of hours of time to complete a “foreskin restoraton” through stretching the tissue to expand it — which can only grow new skin, not restore the full function of the prepuce. If the child wants a circumcision later, he can choose for himself later.

    Milhouse in reply to denizen. | March 22, 2019 at 12:29 pm

    Circumcision causes very little suffering to the infant. The cut itself, if done properly, is painless; I’ve been to probably more than 100 of them, and the baby cries when his diaper is opened and he feels cold, but he doesn’t react to the cut at all.

The problem with many circumcisions is the the doctor throws away the wrong part. That’s how we end up with men like Chuck Schemer.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend