Circumcision ?

[Gameface]

Lol at lopping of child's dick, you have to resort to such level of defense since the science is very clear in the opposite direction of your opinion. When you go get stitches you put new holes in your body around your old holes. When you remove your wisdom teeth you remove teeth... When you get a vaccine you put a virus in your body. Many medical procedures may sound scary but I am sure you avoid those too since you obviously don't find science to be factor in your decision.

The AAP even says that newborn infants are better off circumcised. Doctors can never universally recommend anything. Take exercise for example, it is healthy for almost everybody but there are certain people with a variety of different conditions that exercise would have a very detrimental effect on.

I hope your child enjoy's his smegma, his higher risk of multiple forms of cancer, infection, and disease while having no added benefit whatsoever.

Don't worry no Jew made money of his valuable dick foreskin.

Good times right here.

 

[addictionary]

Thread needs pics....


How it's done...

They weren't badass enough to hold still back then too...

How it's done in Turkey...

"OK Boys! Are we ready?.."

 

[One Brow]

Science cannot convince everyone I guess.

Science has not convinced you. You support circumcision for religious reasons, and then cherry-pick evidence to make your religious motivations seem rational. Why should that persuade any reasonable person?

 

[One Brow]

I circumcised my sons, but I would not do it again, given what I know today. I don't think it's mutilation, but there's no good reason for it, either. I see it as only slightly more serious than piercing the ears of a baby to put in earrings, and I think both choices are unnecessary impositions on the babies involved.

 

[The Blue Elephant]

Science has not convinced you. You support circumcision for religious reasons, and then cherry-pick evidence to make your religious motivations seem rational. Why should that persuade any reasonable person?

You cherry pick evidence against it because you are atheist and religious people do circumcision and religion is bad therefore circumcision is bad. Atheist logic 101.

Stop. Think. Atheism.

 

[One Brow]

You cherry pick evidence against it because you are atheist and religious people do circumcision and religion is bad therefore circumcision is bad. Atheist logic 101.

I just said that circumcision isn't much different from piercing a girl's ears. Is that because religious people pierce girls ears and religion is bad therefore piercing girls ears is bad?

Really, that was a very sad tu quoque.

 

[The Blue Elephant]

I just said that circumcision isn't much different from piercing a girl's ears. Is that because religious people pierce girls ears and religion is bad therefore piercing girls ears is bad?

Really, that was a very sad tu quoque.

Except the AAP didn't recently revise their statement stating that newborns who pierce their ears are better off.

 

[One Brow]

Except the AAP didn't recently revise their statement stating that newborns who pierce their ears are better off.

Since you believed in circumcision long before the AAP released their statement, it is pretense to say their position has swayed you in any fashion.

Further, since the AAP has not endorsed circumcision as a general medical practice, instead giving it a mild recommendation based solely on certain types of health benefits and saying it should be available. In particular, it did not say those who are circumcised are better off. So, it really is a fair comparison to baby girls with pierced ears.

 

[LogGrad98]

Imo the evidence for and against circumcision is potentially specious and still in development. I feel it is questionable enough that is it really a matter of personal preference. The thing that would sway me to not circumcise my boys if I had it to do over again is the fact that there is no major game-changers between being cut and un-cut and therefore I think it is better to leave well enough alone. The best evidence suggests you might avoid some issues if they are cut, but it is nothing definitive. If there is ever hard fast science that being cut is miles and miles better than not, then it is worth revisiting, but until such time I am of the opinion it is better not to undergo a largely unnecessary procedure, and it should be handled as TBE said about exercise, on a case by case basis. If they determine the infant is at some much increased risk of some life-altering condition, on an individual basis, due to having an intact foreskin then consider removing it, otherwise leave it alone.

 

[♪alt13]

Lol at lopping of child's dick, you have to resort to such level of defense since the science is very clear in the opposite direction of your opinion. When you go get stitches you put new holes in your body around your old holes. When you remove your wisdom teeth you remove teeth... When you get a vaccine you put a virus in your body. Many medical procedures may sound scary but I am sure you avoid those too since you obviously don't find science to be factor in your decision.

The difference is you can point to real substantial reasons to do all of the above. All of the pros for doing circumcision are within(or close to) the margin of error. Furthermore most can be treated easily. I think it is much more like saying that you may one day get a cavity so we are going to pull your teeth in order to prevent it.

The AAP even says that newborn infants are better off circumcised.

Other medical organizations say just the opposite.

Doctors can never universally recommend anything. Take exercise for example, it is healthy for almost everybody but there are certain people with a variety of different conditions that exercise would have a very detrimental effect on.

I hope your child enjoy's his smegma, his higher risk of multiple forms of cancer, infection, and disease while having no added benefit whatsoever.

Don't worry no Jew made money off his valuable dick foreskin.


So what I'm an anti-semetic conspiracy theorist now? I heard your argument for it and visited the links you provided. I found every bit of the evidence to be unconvincing.

.

 

[MVP]

The AAP even says that newborn infants are better off circumcised. .

Even money driven AAP say only that potential benefits are not significant enough to recommend it as routine procedure. All other major pediatric or medical associations all over the world ( EU, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand, All South American, most Asian) are against it. Does it mean anything to your ignorant mind? Or there is no medicine outside of AAP?
There is no reasons besides religious to do it. Period.

 

[Gameface]

There is no reasons besides religious to do it. Period.

That's not completely true. It can slightly reduce the incidence of certain issues. It can be done for cosmetic reasons.

Is that enough to justify making that decision for an infant? I don't really think so, especially since there are benefits the other way, too.

 

[MVP]

I hope your child enjoy's his smegma, his higher risk of multiple forms of cancer, infection, and disease while having no added benefit whatsoever.
.

This is so wrong on numerous reasons it just makes me want to vomit. If you are really medical student you should be kicked out of the medical school just for posting this.
So lets cut ears, since ear wax you know is gross and washing and cleaning ears is so difficult - it will eliminate risk of ear infections as well! Lets castrate you for example as it will eliminate risk of testicular cancer in 100%.. How about mastectomies for young baby girls? That would surely reduce risk of mammary gland cancer to 100%! Maybe we should pull all permanent teeth as soon as they erupt - who needs decay and all the problems later in life?

 

[BabyPeterzz]

There is no medical reason to do it - prevention of urinary tract infections was claimed as one but numbers where so low that it makes no significant difference. And it is not only Europe. 70% of men in the world are uncut. Of 30% world's men who are circumcised 25% are Muslim, rest is Jews, Americans, S.Koreans ( where Americans introduced it and made it somewhat popular) and odd person from other countries. Circumcision rate even in USA is rapidly declining FYI.
I understand why it happened thousands of years ago where people lived in hot climate conditions with no proper access to water and abilities to take care of your foreskin. Somehow it made its way into religion - can somebody of truly religious folks here explain to me why would God create a man as image of himself yet men find it wrong and cut part of that image off?
So at the end of the day the only non religious reason left -" it looks better". ( people used that excuse to cut off ears and tails of the dogs for years until we finally stopped that in EU and made it illegal). Eventually it will happen to circumcision as well - some European countries are already very close to banning it. Cosmetic circumcision for newborn males is currently banned in all Australian public hospitals ( still can be done in private hospitals). In September 2013, the Children's ombudsmen in all the Nordic countries issued a common statement where they called for a ban on circumcision on minors, stating that such circumsions violate the right of children after the Convention on the Rights of the Child to co-determination and protection from harmful traditions.
I think the only reason where circumcision can be justified is if dude has premature ejaculation issues. Since circumcision removes thousands of nerve endings and makes penis less sensitive to sexual stimulation it can help such a poor person to last longer.

Prepare your kids pee pee for the apocalypse. Get that **** trimmed, son.

 

[JGolds]

the jazz season must be going slow if we are (still) talking about the inch of skin souronding a mans mommy daddy button....

 

[The Blue Elephant]

This is so wrong on numerous reasons it just makes me want to vomit. If you are really medical student you should be kicked out of the medical school just for posting this.
So lets cut ears, since ear wax you know is gross and washing and cleaning ears is so difficult - it will eliminate risk of ear infections as well! Lets castrate you for example as it will eliminate risk of testicular cancer in 100%.. How about mastectomies for young baby girls? That would surely reduce risk of mammary gland cancer to 100%! Maybe we should pull all permanent teeth as soon as they erupt - who needs decay and all the problems later in life?

Cutting your ear reduces your hearing, cutting your ********* causes hormonal imbalance and infertility, cutting vestigial foreskin that we needed when we walked on all fours and when we didn't wear pants does none of those things. There is no strong evidence that it reduces sexual pleasure (sorry I don't consider Jewish philosophers [i.e. non scientists] speculating 2000 years ago as science like you do), there is evidence it reduces multiple forms of cancer, infection, and disease.

I would agree with you I really would AKMVP but then both of us would be wrong. I just value credible scientific sources too much to agree with you.

 

[MVP]

there is evidence it reduces multiple forms of cancer, infection, and disease.
I just value credible scientific sources too much to agree with you.

You are unfair. You value whatever money driven AAP pulled out of their biased research and ignore whatever 99% of rest of the worlds medical societies and authorities say. The evidence you are talking is weak, not conclusive and not supported by any other major medical organization.

 

[MVP]

, cutting vestigial foreskin that we needed when we walked on all fours and when we didn't wear pants does none of those things.

Why would anybody consider foreskin vestigial? That's biggest nonsense I have ever read. Research more about its functions before talking nonsense.
And since when cutting off thousands of nerve endings does nothing to reduce sexual pleasure? You just said cutting of ears reduces hearing right? How? Our hearing is not happening because of cartilage and skin on the outside of the head - it may as well be considered vestigial and not needed based on your logic....So you apply same principal to ears but ignore it when it comes to foreskin.

 

[The Blue Elephant]

Why would anybody consider foreskin vestigial? That's biggest nonsense I have ever read. Research more about its functions before talking nonsense.
And since when cutting off thousands of nerve endings does nothing to reduce sexual pleasure? You just said cutting of ears reduces hearing right? How? Our hearing is not happening because of cartilage and skin on the outside of the head - it may as well be considered vestigial and not needed based on your logic....So you apply same principal to ears but ignore it when it comes to foreskin.

It appears you do't know what vestigial means. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestigal. If you know what it means and still think the foreskin is not vestigial than I can no longer help you. There is a certain IQ I refuse to speak beneath and unfortunately you fit below that threshold. It would take too much effort for me to educate you as you are unwilling to accept science and choose to believe in nonsense and are deep in confirmation bias. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformation_bias

 

[Siro]

I haven't read any of the posts in this thread, but I thought I'd add my vote to the "circumcision is a violation of human rights" camp.