What's new
By:

Circumcision ?

LogGrad98 said:
You mean like the part where you claim your opinion on the matter is equal to science and fact? Or the part where you claim "overwhelming" scientific evidence, then post links that say it isn't recommended as a routine procedure, then you claim that since routine procedures can have exceptions your opinion is again equal to scientific fact? Gotcha. You win TBS, you win. Your overwhelming religious connection to facts and science, regardless of what the words actually stated, have overwhelmed us all.
Click to expand...

You are really splitting hairs when it says "doesn't recommend done universally" but rather says "newborns are better off circumcised."

Once again I rest my case. I don't have the time or the crayons.
 
The Blue Elephant said:
You are really splitting hairs when it says "doesn't recommend done universally" but rather says "newborns are better off circumcised."

Once again I rest my case. I don't have the time or the crayons.
Click to expand...

I can only imagine what orifice you've shoved all your crayons into.
 
The Blue Elephant said:
If I had them I would shove them into my eyes because I am tired of reading the anti circumcision pseudoscience you and AKMVP keep posting.
Click to expand...

I haven't really used "science" as my argument. My biggest argument in favor of not altering the penis is the functional aspect. You can reduce UTIs and rare cancers all you want, I like sex and making it as enjoyable as possible. Foreskin helps. You'll never understand. That's okay with me.
 
I would really like to put my foreskin in something. OH wait, I can't...
thanks-obama-for-screwing-up-my-future.jpg
 
Gameface said:
I haven't really used "science" as my argument. My biggest argument in favor of not altering the penis is the functional aspect. You can reduce UTIs and rare cancers all you want, I like sex and making it as enjoyable as possible. Foreskin helps. You'll never understand. That's okay with me.
Click to expand...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3734995/

Prostate cancer. Here... Already linked cervical cancer and penile cancer.

I have already linked that there is no evidence that circumcision reduces sexual pleasure, which continues to remains unrefuted despite what you, AKMVP, and other psueduscholars and nonscientists may think.
 
The Blue Elephant said:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3734995/

Prostate cancer. Here... Already linked cervical cancer and penile cancer.

I have already linked that there is no evidence that circumcision reduces sexual pleasure, which continues to remains unrefuted despite what you, AKMVP, and other psueduscholars and nonscientists may think.
Click to expand...

Okay, I know what it does for me. Do you know? Can you know? Nope, daddy made that decision for you so you would look like him. Congratulations.

I'm happy. You say you're happy (even though I doubt you've so much as touched a boobie) so live and let live. Root for the home team and don't look back, bro.
 
Gameface said:
Okay, I know what it does for me. Do you know? Can you know? Nope, daddy made that decision for you so you would look like him. Congratulations.

I'm happy. You say you're happy (even though I doubt you've so much as touched a boobie) so live and let live. Root for the home team and don't look back, bro.
Click to expand...

I've touched all kindz of boobies. Yes woman ones, and no I am not counting my mom.
 
If I felt like there was a problem with my body I could make the decision to change it. I'm in the catbird's seat. It's nice up here.
 
The Blue Elephant said:
Doctors never universally recommend anything. Even exercise cannot be universally recommended because it is bad for people with a variety of different conditions. "Newborns are better of circumcised." Fair enough....
Click to expand...

However, they do recommend exercise routinely, and deviate from that routine only under special circumstances. By contrast, circumcision is not recommended routinely, because its benefits little outweigh its risks.
 
One Brow said:
However, they do recommend exercise routinely, and deviate from that routine only under special circumstances. By contrast, circumcision is not recommended routinely, because its benefits little outweigh its risks.
Click to expand...

https://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/factsheet_adults/en/

Physical activity for all

These recommendations are relevant to all healthy adults aged 18–64 years unless specific medical conditions indicate to the contrary. They are applicable for all adults irrespective of gender, race, ethnicity or income level. They also apply to individuals in this age range with chronic noncommunicable conditions not related to mobility such as hypertension or diabetes.
Click to expand...

https://www.cancer.org/cancer/penilecancer/detailedguide/penile-cancer-prevention

Most public health researchers believe that the risk of penile cancer is low among uncircumcised men without known risk factors living in the United States. Men who wish to lower their risk of penile cancer can do so by avoiding HPV infection and not smoking. Those who aren't circumcised can also lower their risk of penile cancer by practicing good hygiene. Most experts agree that circumcision should not be recommended solely as a way to prevent penile cancer.
Click to expand...

https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/130/3/e756.full

Parents should weigh the health benefits and risks in light of their own religious, cultural, and personal preferences, as the medical benefits alone may not outweigh these other considerations for individual families.
Click to expand...

So exercise for everyone except in specific circumstances, but cutural norms and personal preference may outweigh the benefits for circumcision. If the reigning authority can safely claim that personal preference is a valid reason to not circumcise a child then it sounds like the science is stating that it is probably a good idea, but not really that important.
 
https://web.archive.org/web/2007111...ion2006?OpenDocument&Highlight=2,circumcision

Best interests
In the past, circumcision of boys has been considered to be either medically or socially beneficial or, at least, neutral. The general perception has been that no significant harm was caused to the child and therefore with appropriate consent it could be carried out. The medical benefits previously claimed, however, have not been convincingly proven, and it is now widely accepted, including by the BMA, that this surgical procedure has medical and psychological risks - read more here. It is essential that doctors perform male circumcision only where this is demonstrably in the best interests of the child. The responsibility to demonstrate that non-therapeutic circumcision is in a particular child’s best interests falls to his parents.
Click to expand...

https://www.secularism.org.uk/news/...ake-historic-step-to-protect-childrens-rights

Dr Lempert argued that, "with an increasing awareness of serious irreversible harm caused to boys and girls from forced genital cutting it is time for the genitals of all children to be protected from people with knives and strong religious or cultural beliefs. There can be no justification for healthy children to be forcibly cut. All children deserve society's protection from serious harm."
Click to expand...
 
https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/103/3/686.full.pdf

Parents and physicians each have an ethical duty
to the child to attempt to secure the child’s best
interest and well-being.119 However, it is often uncertain
as to what is in the best interest of any
individual patient. In cases such as the decision to
perform a circumcision in the neonatal period
when there are potential benefits and risks and the
procedure is not essential to the child’s current
well-being, it should be the parents who determine
what is in the best interest of the child.
Click to expand...
 
The Blue Elephant said:
which continues to remains unrefuted despite what you, AKMVP, and other psueduscholars and nonscientists may think.
Click to expand...

Why you continue to be such an ignorant douche? So all other medical organizations in the world and their science and research means squat to you and it is "pseudoscience" and pseudoschooling"? And you think we can have intelligent discussion or arguments when you have such bias before discussion even started?
Keep being arrogant and ignorant douche my friend, if you ever graduate ( If I where your anatomy professor I would kick you out of the exam for even considering foreskin vestigial) you will find out that clients hate dealing with people like you and you will soon be out of business.
 
Sorry secularism.com and doctorsagainstcircumcision are biased sources. Thats like going to godhatesfags.com for opinion of gays and jews.com for opinion of circumcision. I have humiliated many psueduoscholars but this has been the easiest as the facts are simply on my side as well as the intelligence. Of course you will disagree due to your irrationality.
 
The Blue Elephant said:
Sorry secularism.com and doctorsagainstcircumcision are biased sources. Thats like going to godhatesfags.com for opinion of gays and jews.com for opinion of circumcision. . Of course you will disagree due to your irrationality.
Click to expand...

And yet you try to sell opinion of AAP which made their statement based on recommendations of "research group" which included a jewish woman and 4 circumcised doctors who circumcised their own kids too, plus one had huge financial interest in creating "recommendations for universal circumcision". How is that not biased? See how hypocritic you sound and look?
 
AKMVP said:
How about multiple medical organizations from Europe, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, S.America and Asia - are they biased too?
Click to expand...

Everyone who doesn't agree with TBS is a biased idiot.

^things I've learned from discussions with TBS/TBE
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top