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.