University Of Michigan Online Consent Form Parents: Fill & Download for Free

Joseph Smith practiced polygamy and polyandry (marrying other men’s wives while they were alive and married to other men). Joseph Smith publicly denied his polygamy practice for most of 10 years, while he was practicing polygamy.The Mormon Church published a statement on marriage in 1835 as D&C Section 101 and also in 1844 in D&C Section 109, which reads:“Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: “we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again” (Joseph Smith Papers: D&C. p. 251).1835 D&C 13:7 reads:“Thou shalt love thy wife with all thy heart, and shall cleave unto her and none else” (Joseph Smith Papers).1835 D&C 65:3 reads:“Wherefore, it is lawful that he should have one wife, and they twain shall be one flesh, and all this that the earth might answer the end of its creation” (Joseph Smith Papers).The 1835 edition of the 101st Section of the Doctrine and Covenants was written before the doctrine of plural marriage began to be largely practiced. The Church publicly condemned polygamy at this time. However, Joseph Smith was married to 16-year-old Fanny Alger in early 1833, two years prior to this publication. Thus, Joseph and the Church were not honest with this publication (Marriage to Alger). The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints now confirms this marriage in its essay on Plural Marriage (LDS.org: Plural Marriage).This claimed revelation on monogamy remained in the D&C in every edition for 31 years until 1876, when it was replaced with Section 132 (the new section justifying plural marriage). Joseph was actively practicing polygamy with some 27 to 33 wives up until his death (Joseph Smith Papers, D&C 1835, p. 251). D&C 101 and (later) D&C 109 were dishonest and misleading, contrary to the actual polygamy practice of Joseph Smith and other Mormon apostles. Joseph and many of the Church’s highest ranking leaders practiced polygamy during this time period. This has been confirmed by virtually all credible LDS polygamy scholars and recently was confirmed by the Church itself in its essay on this topic (LDS.org: Plural Marriage).The apostles of the Mormon Church also repeatedly lied about their practice of polygamy. For example, in a public debate with Protestant ministers at Boulogne-sur-Mer, France, in 1850, John Taylor (then an apostle, later to become the third president of the Church), said, “We are accused here of polygamy, and actions the most indelicate, obscene, and disgusting, such that none but a corrupt and depraved heart could have contrived. These things are too outrageous to admit of belief; therefore... I shall content myself to reading our views of chastity and marriage, from a work published by us, containing some of the articles of our Faith. "Doctrine and Covenants" page 330 (Section 101) ... "We declare that we believe that one man should have one wife, and one woman but one husband" (Three Nights' Public Discussion, published by John Taylor, Liverpool 1850, photocopy in Sharon Banister, For Any Latter-day Saint, Fort Worth, 1988, p. 289). At the time of this discussion, John Taylor was married to at least seven wives (listed in D. Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power, Vol. 1, Salt Lake City 1994, p. 597). This can be verified through the LDS Church's online genealogy records for John Taylor at Free Family History and Genealogy Records.The current heading of D&C 132 states: "Although the revelation was recorded in 1843, it is evident from the historical records that the doctrines and principles involved in this revelation had been known by the Prophet since 1831." This statement in the D&C effectively admits that the Declaration on Marriage (in the D&C from 1835 to 1876) was dishonest and was misleading, yet it remained as scripture in the D&C for 40 years.How could Joseph and the church publish this monogamy claim in the D&C while he was actively practicing polygamy? Why did the church publish this, then practice polygamy prior to this publication and from this time until the end of his life?In a January 21, 1838, letter, Oliver Cowdery, Joseph Smith's right hand man from the early beginnings of the Church, accuses Joseph of having an illicit affair with Fanny Alger: “When he [Joseph Smith] was there we had some conversation in which in every instance I did not fail to affirm that what I had said was strictly true. A DIRTY, NASTY, FILTHY SCRAP (AFFAIR written in after) OF HIS AND FANNY ALGER'S was talked over in which I strictly declared that I had never deviated from the truth in the matter, and as I supposed was admitted by himself” (emphasis added) (Letter written by Oliver Cowdery; The Mormon Kingdom, Vol. 1, p. 27) (Wikipedia.org: Fanny Alger). Joseph married Alger in 1833, three years before the claim in 1836 that the prophet Elijah delivered those keys back to earth (D&C 110) and ten years before the revelation in D&C 132. At this time, there was no claim by the Church of any revelation on polygamy. Church leaders withheld information about this marriage for many decades. Recently, the Church admitted to this marriage. (Wikipedia: Fanny Alger).The revelation on polygamy (D&C 132) occurred in approximately 1843, after Joseph had been practicing polygamy for 10 years (since early in 1833) (Wikipedia: Joseph Smith Wives). The Church has recently confirmed in its essay on polygamy that Joseph Smith was married to many teens, with many of those not being merely “spiritual wifes” (LDS.org: Plural Marriage). Joseph did not tell Emma before marrying most of his wives, which runs contrary to the revelation in D&C 132 that requires the husband to ask for the first wife’s permission before taking another wife (D&C 132). Joseph also married Mary Elizabeth Lightner, another man’s wife, while she was pregnant (Wikipedia: Joseph Smith Wives).Joseph Smith’s polygamy included not just eternity sealings, but also having sexual relationships with multiple wives, including 14-, 16-, and 17-year-old girls. Through Joseph’s public lying about practicing polygamy during the ten years that he was practicing it, a Church culture of dishonesty on this topic developed.Joseph Smith had some 27 to 33 (or more) wives and married seven other men’s wives (polyandry) while they were still married. Out of these, 10 were teens at the time of Joseph’s marriage to them (http://wivesofjosephsmith.org) (Wikipedia.org: Wives of Joseph Smith). Brigham Young had 56 wives, nine of which were teens. For example, Young married Clarissa Caroline Decker when she was 15 years old. Brigham was 42 at the time. They had five children together. Brigham, like Joseph, also engaged in polyandry. Brigham had 57 children (Wikipedia.org: Brigham Young).Brian Staley explains:"The only form of polygamy permitted in D&C 132 is a union with a virgin after first giving the opportunity to the first wife to consent to the marriage. If the first wife doesn't consent, the husband is exempt and may still take an additional wife, but the first wife must at least have the opportunity to consent. In the case that the first wife doesn't consent, she will be "destroyed." Also, the new wife must be a virgin before the marriage and be completely monogamous after the marriage or she will be destroyed” (verses 41 and 63). It is interesting that the only prerequisite that is mentioned for the man is that he must desire another wife: "If any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another…" (v. 61) It doesn't say that the man must get a specific revelation from the living prophet. D&C 132 is unequivocal on the point that polygamy is permitted only "to multiply and replenish the earth" and "bear the souls of men" (LDS: D&C 132) (Brian Staley).Joseph Smith was accused of illicit sexual conduct with a number of women from 1827 on, until his death in 1844. He told multiple girls/women that if they did not marry him, an angel with a drawn sword would kill him. Prophet Joseph F. Smith stated, "When that principle (polygamy) was revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith ... he did not falter, although it was not until an angel of God, with a drawn sword, stood before him; and commanded that he should enter into the practice of that principle, or he should be utterly destroyed, or rejected, that he moved forward to reveal and establish that doctrine" (Plural Marriage for the Righteous Only–Obedience Imperative-Blessings Resulting, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 20, pp. 28-29). See this link for accounts of Joseph’s persuasion statements to women whom he proposed to marry: (Mormonthink: Joseph Smith Polygamy: Drawn Sword).Joseph's personal secretary records that on May 22, 1843, his first wife, Emma, found Joseph and Eliza Partridge secluded in an upstairs bedroom at the Smith home. Emma was devastated (William Clayton's journal entry for May 23; see Smith, pp. 105-106) (William Clayton Statement, 1874, CHL, MS 3423, folder 1) (William Clayton's journal entry for May 23, 1843). Joseph married Eliza on March 8, 1843.Another claim that Joseph used when approaching future plural wives, and to persuade their families to go along with it, was that doing so would ensure the exaltation or full salvation of the women and their families. Joseph did not present this idea as his own, but as divine revelation. He did this, for example, in a revelation he issued on July 27, 1842, giving instructions to Newel K. Whitney concerning the ceremony to seal his daughter Sarah Ann to Joseph, 14-year-old girl into becoming his “wife” (MIT: Joseph Smith’s Polygamy).How Polygamy Actually Was PracticedJoseph married women who were already married (multiple husbands = polyandry). About one third (including nine of the first 12) plural wives of Joseph Smith were married to other men at the time he married them, and they continued to live as husband and wife with these husbands after marrying Joseph Smith (Brian Staley). Joseph's polygamy also included:Unions with teens as young as 14 (Helen Mar Kimball)Unions without the knowledge of EmmaUnions without the knowledge of the husbands, in cases of polyandryA union with an apostle's wife while he was on a mission (Marinda Hyde)A union with a newlywed and pregnant woman (Zina Huntington)Promises of salvation for the woman's (or girl's) entire familyStatements by Joseph to future wives that he would be slain by an angel with a drawn sword if they didn't enter into the union (Huntington, Almera Woodard Johnson, Mary Lightner)Threats of loss of salvation if the woman didn't agree to the unionDishonesty in public sermons and written statementsMarriages to young women living in Joseph's home as foster daughters (Lawrence sisters, Partridge sisters, Fanny Alger, Lucy Walker)D&C 132:63 clearly states that the only purpose of polygamy is to "multiply and replenish the earth" and "bear the souls of men." Why did Joseph marry women who were already married? These women obviously were not virgins, which violated D&C 132. Zina Huntington had been married for seven months and was pregnant at the time she married Joseph.Also, verse 63 states that if the new wives are with another man after the polygamous marriage, they will be destroyed. Eleven of Joseph's wives lived with their prior husbands after marrying Joseph Smith, but there is no record of any of them being destroyed.How about the consent of the first wife, which receives so much attention in D&C 132? Emma was unaware of most of Joseph's plural marriages, at least until after the fact, which violates Section 132 (Brian Staley).In the past, many church leaders and apologists have tried to rationalize and justify Joseph’s polygamy by suggesting that these were “spiritual” wives and that he did not have sexual relationships with them. If this were the case, then Joseph Smith was violating the express claimed revelation as to the purpose of polygamy, which was “to bear the souls of men.” Did Joseph have sexual relationships with these women? There is a lack of evidence of children from these marriages (other than from Emma).The social customs of the time (of Joseph Smith) prevented most women from discussing sexuality, but even the most conservative LDS authors agree that Joseph Smith had sexual relations with at least some of his plural wives. The Mormon Church’s essay on Polygamy now admits this as well (LDS.org: Plural Marriage). Thirteen faithful Latter-day Saint women who were married to Joseph Smith swore in court affidavits that they had sexual relations with him” (CES Letter: Debunking FairMormon Polygamy). The following are brief accounts of a few of Joseph's polygamous marriages:The Partridge sisters (ages 19 and 22) were living in the Smith home. Joseph married both of them without Emma's knowledge. After much persuasion by Joseph, Emma finally consented to Joseph taking two additional wives on the condition that she could choose them. Interestingly, she chose the Partridge sisters. She may have considered them particularly virtuous women, or she may have known more than she let on. Rather than confessing the situation to Emma (that Joseph had already married them), a second mock wedding was performed in the presence of Emma. Emma soon learned that the marriages were more than just ceremony. After she discovered Joseph's visits to their rooms, she was devastated and evicted the Partridge sisters from her home.The Lawrence sisters (ages 17 and 19) were orphans who also lived with the Smiths. Their parents left them with an inheritance of about $5,000, and the Smiths were legally put in charge of the sisters and their estate. William Law filed a formal complaint with the Hancock County [Illinois] circuit court charging Smith was living “in an open state of adultery” with Maria Lawrence, Smith's foster daughter and polygamous wife. Maria Lawrence was a teen orphan who was living in the Smith household. In fact, Smith secretly married both Maria, age 19, and her sister Sarah, age 17, on May 11, 1843. Emma soon found out, and the girls were required to leave the Smith home. The $5,000 estate was not returned to the Lawrence sisters. Joseph actually was charged with a crime for mishandling the estate.Sarah Ann Whitney: When Emma was president of the Relief Society, Joseph was married to all her counselors and her secretary, except for Elizabeth Whitney. Instead, he was married to Elizabeth's daughter, Sarah Ann Whitney. An independent historian at the University of Utah Marriott Library, Michael Marquardt, discovered in his research that Joseph had a pretend marriage performed to cover up his own marriage to Sarah Ann Whitney. In the booklet, The Strange Marriages of Sarah Ann Whitney, Marquardt reveals how he uncovered that Joseph Smith performed a "pretended" marriage ceremony between Sarah Ann Whitney and Joseph C. Kingsbury so that his own relationship with her would not be noticed: "…on 29th of April 1843 I according to President Joseph Smith Couscil & others agreed to Stand by Sarah Ann Whitny as supposed to be her husband & had a prete[n]ded marriage for the purpose of Bringing about the purposes of God…" (From the written history of Joseph C. Kingsbury).Helen Mar Kimball: Joseph Smith taught that marrying one daughter in a family would save the entire family, but that if they rejected the doctrine, then the whole family would be damned. Joseph explained the "law of Celestial Marriage" to Helen. In her memoir, Helen wrote: “if you take this step, it will ensure your eternal salvation and exaltation and that of your father's household and all of your kindred.' This promise was so great that I willingly gave myself to purchase so glorious a reward” (Mormon Polygamy by church member Richard S. Van Wagoner, p. 53.) (Brian Staley).Official Denials of PolygamyJoseph publicly denied polygamy for most of ten years, while he was practicing it. He asked others to deny it for themselves and on his behalf. Some of these denials were published in official Church publications. For example, on May 26, 1844, Joseph made the following denial regarding polygamy:“I had not been married scarcely five minutes, and made one proclamation of the Gospel, before it was reported that I had seven wives. I mean to live and proclaim the truth as long as I can. This new holy prophet [William Law] has gone to Carthage and swore that I had told him that I was guilty of adultery. This spiritual wifeism! Why, a man does not speak or wink, for fear of being accused of this…I wish the grand jury would tell me who they are — whether it will be a curse or blessing to me. I am quite tired of the fools asking me…What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one” (Joseph Smith, History of the Church, Vol. 6, pp. 410–411) (emphasis added).Notice the carefully worded language intended to mislead that Joseph Smith only had one wife. He had more than 30 wives at the time. This can be confirmed through church records.Joseph Smith claimed: “I mean to live and proclaim the truth.” What is the real truth? The truth is that Joseph Smith was unequivocally practicing polygamy at this time. He did not just have seven wives as alleged above (Joseph claimed “ONE” wife at the time). He had more than 30 wives at the time. The prophet of the restoration lied here and numerous other times about his polygamy practice. Current LDS prophets have admitted that Joseph did practice polygamy and have sexual relationships with some of these wives (LDS.org: Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo). Polygamy led to widespread dishonesty among the leaders of the Church and from many of the rank-and-file members.Polygamy Conflicts with the Book of MormonThe Book of Mormon clearly states God’s view and direction about polygamy:“But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.” “Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord. Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old. Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none; For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts” (Jacob 2:23–28) (emphasis added).There are multiple other verses in the Book of Mormon condemning polygamy.These BoM verses also conflict with Mormon prophets’ proclamations that to enter the Celestial Kingdom, one must practice polygamy. Brigham Young stated, "The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy" (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 11, p. 269). This conflicts with the Mormon Church’s essay on plural marriage, which states, “Latter-day Saints believe that monogamy—the marriage of one man and one woman—is the Lord’s standing law of marriage” (LDS.org: Plural Marriage Essay).The D&C 121 reads:“That they [the rights of the priesthood] may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man” (D&C 121:37).Many apologists and Church leaders rationalize polygamy as being justified and authorized by God because of the clause in the Book of Mormon that says, “For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things" (Jacob 2:30). Although "raising up seed" is a common reason given for Mormon polygamy, such did not occur with Joseph Smith’s polygamy. This also doesn't make any sense because a group of women can have far more children if each woman had her own husband instead of sharing one man. Having more children from polygamy only makes sense if there was a shortage of men, but census records show that there were always more men than women in Utah during that time period. See this table depicting the Utah census records (Mormonthink.com: Essays Plural Marriage) (Census) (Table 5, Population of Utah by Race and Sex 1850 – 1970). Moreover, where are Joseph Smith’s children from his other roughly 40 wives? In the past, Church leadership and apologists often used lack of children from these wives to demonstrate that Joseph Smith was not having sexual relationships with these wives. Recently, Church leadership admitted the fact that Joseph had sexual relationships with at least some of his wives (LDS.org: Plural Marriage Essay).“Raising up seed” also makes little sense with Joseph Smith, as there is little evidence that he had children with any wife other than Emma. Polygamy in Mormonism actually resulted in many men not getting married because the prophets and other church leaders were taking so many wives for themselves.This verse in Jacob also states that the Lord will command. Joseph practiced polygamy for approximately ten years before any recorded command/revelation from the Lord.Apostle Erastus Snow stated, “I bear my testimony that it is a necessity [polygamy], and that the Church of Christ in its fullness never existed without it. Where you have the eternity of marriage you are bound to have plural marriage; bound to; and it is one of the marks of the Church of Jesus Christ in its sealing ordinances” (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 24, p. 162). There are numerous other prophetic claims about polygamy being required in the Celestial Kingdom (Mormonthink: Polygamy).In D&C Section 132 recorded in 1843, states the following (emphasis added):“54 And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and cleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law [polygamy]. And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things [polygamy], then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who receive and abide in my law [polygamy]” (emphasis added) (D&C 132:54). “61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else. 62 And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified. 63 But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfill the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified.“64 And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power [seems to refer specifically to Joseph], and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who receive and abide in my law. 65 Therefore, it shall be lawful in me, if she receive not this law, for him to receive all things whatsoever I, the Lord his God, will give unto him, because she did not believe and administer unto him according to my word; and she then becomes the transgressor; and he is exempt from the law of Sarah, who administered unto Abraham according to the law when I commanded Abraham to take Hagar to wife” (emphasis added).Emma did not support polygamy, which Joseph was teaching and practicing. In this verse, God is threatening Emma that if she does not support polygamy (the law of the priesthood here) and administer to Joseph, that she shall be destroyed. This is not the nature of God (as defined by the Church today), to threaten a woman that she will be destroyed if she does not support her husband having multiple wives (or anything for that matter). Joseph had been lying to his wife about marrying most of the 19 other women he was involved with by the time of this 1843 polygamy-revelation publication (Joseph married 33 to 40 or more women in total, depending on which sources are referenced).Joseph Smith and his brother, Hyrum, publicly called polygamy a false and corrupt doctrine: "As we have lately been credibly informed, that an Elder of the Church of Jesus Christ, of Latter-day Saints, by the name of Hiram Brown, has been preaching polygamy, and other false and corrupt doctrines, in the county of Lapeer, state of Michigan” (Times and Seasons, February 1, 1844. Vol. 5, page 72). At the time, Joseph was actively practicing polygamy and had some 27 or more wives.William Law was a member of the First Presidency of the Church. Joseph asked William’s wife, Jane, to marry him. William did not support Joseph’s polygamy, and Joseph later excommunicated him (Wikipedia: William Law) (Mormonthink: Grant Palmer).Summary: Joseph practiced polygamy for ten years prior to his revelation from God commanding polygamy. Joseph lied about his practice of polygamy and polyandry for most of 10 years, while he was practicing it with 27 or more wives (10 of whom were teenagers). The Church and its leaders lied publicly about the practice of polygamy for decades. The Church published scripture in the D&C stating monogamy was the correct marriage practice, while Joseph Smith and other apostles were practicing polygamy. The Church asserted this monogamy practice in the D&C for 40 years, until 1876, while many of the prophets and apostles were still practicing polygamy. These facts and many others were hidden and suppressed by Church leaders for decades.

This answer may contain sensitive images. Click on an image to unblur it.To ask that question you are probably American. Why do I say that? In the UK & most of Europe, It is not a common practice .Quora required link:The industrialized world is turning against circumcision. It’s time for the US to consider doing the same .“””” In America, even irreligious Jews still embrace this initiation rite. Some blame peer pressure:“I didn’t want him to look weird,” my brother-in-law explained about his newborn son.Others take comfort in the fact that this tradition has also been blessed by the American medical establishment.Neonatal circumcision has been the most common surgery in America for over a century. Nearly six out of ten newborns are released from hospitals foreskin-free.The practice is so widespread, in fact, that one study of 90 active American medical textbooks and models found that less than a third featured a penis with foreskin intact.Because male circumcision is so common in the states, few Americans realize how rare it is most everywhere else.The practice has fallen by the wayside in Australia, Canada, Britain and New Zealand, and fewer than one-fifth of all male Europeans are circumcised.In December, the Danish Medical Association recommended ending the practice for boys, arguing that because it permanently alters the body it should be “an informed, personal choice” that young men make for themselves.In Germany, a district judge ruled in 2012 that ritual circumcision of juveniles is a crime that violates “the fundamental right of the child to bodily integrity.” South Korea is the only Asian country to embrace the procedure, as a kind of physiological souvenir of America’s occupation following World War II. But there, too, circumcision rates are declining fast, as the adolescent boys who would otherwise go under the knife (as per local custom) gain access to research about its purported benefits online.Most Americans assume the practice is medically useful, like a vaccination. The medical community agrees: both the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) claim the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks, citing evidence that circumcision lowers a man’s risk for HIV, urinary-tract infections and penile cancer. But a closer look reveals that, at least in the industrialized world, the health benefits of circumcision may be negligible.Circumcision, for example, does slightly lower the risk of a urinary-tract infection in male newborns.But UTIs affect fewer than 1% of uncircumcised infants and are easily treatable with antibiotics. For every six urinary-tract infections prevented through circumcision, at least one infant is likely to suffer a complication from surgery, such as hemorrhage.Men without a foreskin do appear less likely to get penile cancer. But the disease is uncommon—affecting roughly one in 100,000 men in the US each year—and fairly treatable. (For a bit of perspective, women are 100 times more likely to get breast cancer.)And while it is true that three randomized trials in Africa found that circumcision more than halved the risk of men getting HIV, it is harder to justify a prophylactic procedure in a place with considerably less HIV risk.In South Africa, for example, almost a quarter of the adult population is already infected, whereas in America, a little over one third of 1% (.37%) have HIV. In addition, the trials found that circumcision helped men who have sex with infected women.In America, however, HIV is transmitted primarily via nonsterile syringes or sex between men, and there is no evidence that a foreskin affects either mode.“I have no qualms if it binds people to their God, but I think the data is pretty slim to support medical indications for circumcision,” says Timothy R.B. Johnson, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Michigan who has authored several reports on the subject.So what explains America’s fuss over foreskins? A closer look at how this religious rite became a national practice reveals some uncomfortable truths about health care in the US. Apparently, all it takes to popularize an elective preventative surgery with questionable health benefits is a mix of perverse incentives, personal bias, and ignorance.First, it helps to know a bit of history. Although religious practitioners have been snipping foreskins for thousands of years, the medical practice dates from the late 19th century—a time when the causes of most diseases were poorly understood.Mystified by everything from epilepsy to madness, some physicians in both America and England began to suspect that the real trouble was phimosis, a condition when an overly tight foreskin hinders normal function. By removing the foreskin, surgeons believed they could heal all sorts of maladies, from hernias to lunacy.Around the turn of the 20th century, American epidemiologists were also trying to explain why Jews lived longer than other groups of people. Jews tended to have lower rates of infectious diseases, such as syphilis and tuberculosis, in part because they had little sexual contact with non-Jews.But some scientists began to suspect their rude health was a product of circumcision.At the time, surgical interventions of all kinds were becoming more popular, owing to better anesthesia and greater concern over cleanliness, which reduced hospital contagion. Doctors began recommending the operation as part of the neonatal routine.Not only did the procedure prevent phimosis, but it was also believed to make the penis more hygienic and less tempting for wayward masturbating boys (a notion that might have been quashed by something known as the scientific method).As David Gollaher explains in his book Circumcision: A History of the World’s Most Controversial Surgery, a circumcised penis swiftly became a mark of distinction, a sign of good breeding, sound hygiene and the best medicine money could buy.In Britain, too, circumcision became a habit of the upper classes, including the royal family. Anyone who could afford to have a child delivered by a doctor rather than a midwife was keen to heed the latest scientific advice.But this changed in the UK with the launch of the publicly funded National Health Service in 1948. Because British doctors could not agree that circumcision was necessary, the practice was not covered.At a time when most Brits were financially strapped, few cared to pay for something that suddenly seemed frivolous. Circumcision rates swiftly dropped.In America, however, the postwar boom years created a glut of jobs, and employers often wooed workers with plush health benefits, which typically covered circumcision. A growing number of Americans could suddenly afford to give birth in hospitals, and routine infant circumcisions spiked.This helped entrench an elective medical practice, creating generations of foreskinless fathers and doctors who were inclined to believe it was best for their sons, too.It is a trend that America’s unwieldy fee-for-service health-care handily reinforces, as doctors and hospitals have incentives for offering interventions deemed unnecessary most everywhere else.Johnson, the University of Michigan professor of obstetrics and gynecology, observes that the procedure is “highly remunerative” for the pediatricians at his hospital.“I think the professional charge in our state is somewhere between $150-200,” he says. “That’s real money if you can do four or five circumcisions in an hour.” In states where Medicaid does not cover the practice, rates have fallen fast.This is not to say that official bodies such as the CDC and AAP are issuing health guidelines with an eye on the bottom line. But it is important to recognize some of the cultural biases informing America’s embrace of circumcision.“When surgeries become the norm, the intuitive valuation of what’s at stake just shifts,” says Brian Earp, associate director of the Yale-Hastings Program in Ethics and Health Policy.He notes that because most American physicians are circumcised and work in places where the surgery is common, they are more likely to look for reasons to support the practice than question it.As the procedure is both deeply personal and a bit taboo (no one really likes talking about genitals), few people even discuss it at all. Grown men who have never known life with a foreskin are disinclined to mourn it.Elsewhere, however, uncircumcised physicians are better placed to appreciate this elastic, functional sleeve of tissue, which is not only tremendously sexually sensitive but also handy for protecting the head of the penis from abrasion.Government-financed health care also squeezes out costly discretionary practices, making it easier for doctors in other developed countries to see that a prophylactic surgery on healthy, non-consenting infants is not quite the most conservative, least harmful way of achieving certain results.Some uncircumcised boys will still run the risk of phimosis, but the risk is rare. A new population-based study from Denmark, where most boys are uncircumcised, found that medical necessity forced a foreskin intervention in a mere .5% of Danish boys.Because there are less invasive ways to enjoy the negligible benefits of circumcision, some argue that the practice in America is unethical.They have a point—particularly as the surgery permanently alters those who have no say in the matter.Parents may still wish to go through with it, for religious or cultural reasons. But it would be better if more Americans questioned a medical establishment that encourages a surgery that every other country in the industrialized world recognizes as unnecessary”””, The industrialized world is turning against circumcision. It’s time for the US to consider doing the same .

Hard to Cancel Online SubscriptionsWhy can you join or buy almost anything online in a heartbeat but when it comes to canceling, it takes a DNA sample, a tooth extraction, a notarized form, a snail mail letter, or a call during normal business hours when YOU are working. The answer is obvious; if you can’t cancel, they can keep billing you.Shouldn’t there be a law stating that if you joined online, you can cancel online? If you joined in person, you need to cancel in person.Public College TuitionIf you thought the cost of a private college education was outrageous, public education is not all that far behind, with many colleges increasing their fees by as much as 3 percent. While this doesn’t sound like much, this means that a public college like New Jersey City University will set you back $12,000 for a one year, in state, tuition fee.This is simply outrageous when you consider that our tax dollars go to pay for these schools. There should be limits on what a state can charge state residents for public colleges and it shouldn’t be tens of thousands of dollars!Pyramid Scams (AKA MLM)Hopefully, by now, most people are aware that pyramid schemes are illegal. The problem here is that there are many Multi-Level Marketing products out there that are nothing more than pyramid scams with a product. How can you tell the difference?First, the reason MLM hasn’t been made illegal is that there actually ARE legitimate MLM companies. These legit companies get a bad name when scammers use MLM as their own personal pyramid scheme. In short, if you are promised to make money based on sales of the product, it’s a legit business. However, if you are promised money based on the number of people you recruit to become salespersons and the sales you make to these people, it’s a pyramid scheme.GerrymanderingChances are that you have heard the word but don’t really know what it means. In a nutshell, Gerrymandering is the drawing of political boundaries (districts) which gives your political party a distinct advantage. If you have 50 people in a state, with 30 of them being blue and 20 being red, your districts should be divided evenly. However, districts can be divided in such as way that one party is favored.Why isn’t gerrymandering illegal? Because that would be asking the government to police itself, which we all know it won’t do. Hopefully, court cases will be decided soon and demand that computerized software be used to determine districts without party lines.Puppy MillsPuppy mills. Everyone claims to hate them and yet, they are still around. No one wants to think that those cute little furballs with noses just begging to be kissed came from someone who doesn’t give a damn about their health and well-being, but puppy mills operate exactly in that manner.While congress did pass the Animal Welfare Act in 1966, it only applies to “large scale breeders.” This means that you can have 20 breeding dogs and never worry about an inspection. Perhaps part of the problem lies in the definition of what a puppy mill is. Your neighbor with his two breeding pairs of Pug dogs, is he a puppy mill? Rather than wait for congress to get their act together, you can effectively eliminate this industry by refusing to buy dogs in pet stores. Use a rescue center or find a private breeder whose home and conditions you can see for yourself. Oh yes, and NEVER buy dogs out of state off the internet.Letting Children Go Un-vaccinatedThis is going to be very controversial, but it needs to be said. Parents who don’t vaccinate their children should be charged with child abuse, child endangerment, or child neglect. There is a long, long history and scientific evidence showing that vaccinations work. Not only do vaccinations work, but they protect everyone in society.No, we haven’t been brainwashed by mainstream media. We don’t own stock in pharmaceutical companies, we look at facts and scientific data for our answers, not social media, not doctors with questionable backgrounds, and certainly not celebrities.Sketchy SupplementsEverywhere you look online, dietary supplements are being sold as “the real cure that doctors don’t want you to know.” These supplements are NOT regulated by the FDAThe problem here is that companies can list ingredients as “natural” to avoid FDA inspection. This means that companies can make products that contain almost anything deemed “natural” and sell it to the masses. Seriously, arsenic is completely natural, right?Some of these supplements can even lead to serious medical problems like liver damage so severe that some people may require liver transplants.Child CrimeThis is another controversial area that is in serious need of a legislative makeover. While you can’t buy a beer or enlist in the military or even get a driver’s license without parental consent, many states are charging children as young as 10 years old as adults.More than 100 years ago, states established juvenile courts and laws, which focused more on treatment and rehabilitation than simply locking up criminals. Every year, at least 200,000 children under 16 are being charged and tried as adults. This seems very, very wrong. No child is born a killer. These are taught or learned through bad parenting and society. America should not throw children away but should spend time and money finding out where things went wrong and trying to fix them, rather than spend 60 or 70 years paying to keep people locked up.Conversion TherapyBefore modern medicine discovered things like bacteria and mental illness, people firmly believed that sickness came from evil spirits and “bad” blood. We would never dream of going back to the days when we put feces on open wounds to “cleanse” them or tying stones to people to see if they would float to the surface and prove they were a witch.So why is conversion therapy (the idea that you can change someone’s sexual orientation through torture or spiritual interventions) not outlawed? This backwards and ridiculous notion that one can stop being gay after being subjected to electric shock and other forms of torture is laughable and has its roots in religious dogma. Stop torturing people in the name of some god and try loving them the way most gods say that we should.Cannibalism….seriously?We bet you run to Google for this one, but trust us, it’s true; there is no law in the US forbidding cannibalism. At least no federal law. Some states have laws regarding “desecration of a corpse”, but if you didn’t murder the person, you can probably eat them.Why are there virtually no laws regarding this practice? Probably because we can only imagine that someone who would do such as thing either had no choice (think Donner party) or they were completely insane.Adware/MalwareIt’s probably happened to you. You are innocently surfing the internet and click on a site that looks good. You click on the “I agree” so you can see what it’s all about, but it doesn’t offer much so you keep on surfing, only to find that your web browser starts to malfunction by showing you ONLY ads. This comes to you courtesy of adware or malware and it’s perfectly legal.While there are laws against computer invasion, but when you clicked on that “agree” button, it was like opening the front door to a salesperson. Never hit that “agree” button unless you know what you are agreeing to.Parking Over The LineIf you want a case of road rage in the worst way, find me someone who thinks that they are so special, that their care deserves two parking spaces. Everyone in America should be agreeing with me right now, screaming “WHY ISN’T THIS ILLEGAL?!”If it’s any consolation, it is in some cities, but the fines are so minimal ($10 in Grand Rapids Michigan) that it’s hardly worth the time to write the ticket. In most states and towns, there are no real laws forbidding taking up two or more spaces. Of course, if you are using two metered spaces, you need to pay both meters, but some people are apparently willing to do that. Let’s face it folks. Some people are just jerks and as much as you may want to, you can’t make being a jerk illegal.TenureApologies to all the teachers out there, but the idea that teachers basically can’t be fired once they’ve secured tenure is downright bananas.We’ve all had ineffective teachers in our lifetimes, and those teachers should be removed from their positions, but tenure makes it next to impossible to that. Since public schools are funded by tax payers, we should have the right to remove teachers don’t make the grade.Super-PACSPAC is short for Public Action Committee. These committee’s pool campaign contributions and use them to promote or slam candidates, legislation or even ballot initiatives. While individuals can donate no more than $5,000 to a PAC, Super PACS can raise unlimited amounts of cash from anonymous donors and spend this money however they want. Super Pac’s cannot donate money to a candidate directly, but this doesn’t stop them from endorsing a particular candidate.If you have ever seen a political ad on television promoting one candidate while saying nasty things about another, followed by the words “Paid for by People for Fair Voting” or a similar type of name, you are watching a Super PAC in action. Super PACS can be unions or corporations and you will never know it since they are going by another name. This is a deceptive practice that should be outlawed or at least have laws created that force Super PACS to disclose who they really are.Locking a Minor in Hot VehicleDid you know that leaving a child in an unattended car is illegal in only 3 states? Most other states allow a “grace period” of 5 minutes, but who is watching the timer on that one?Let’s not forget that other states will let you leave children under 6 in a car if they are “supervised” by someone over the age of 12. While it’s true that many children are babysitting by the time they are 13, they aren’t doing so while enclosed in a vehicle.