What's new

Circumcision ?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."
 
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.
 
which continues to remains unrefuted despite what you, AKMVP, and other psueduscholars and nonscientists may think.

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.
 
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.

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?
 
How about multiple medical organizations from Europe, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, S.America and Asia - are they biased too?

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

^things I've learned from discussions with TBS/TBE
 
https://www.cancer.org/cancer/penilecancer/detailedguide/penile-cancer-prevention



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



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.

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.

So are these biased too, the AAP and the American Cancer Society?
 
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?

The really funny thing is AAP is the one who said that societal norms are enough for a parent to disregard circumcision. If a doctor says that if your friends won't like it, then it is ok not to do it, then it can't be very important to begin with.
 
heard this on the radio earlier this morning

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/israeli-mom-fined-149-a-day-for-refusing-son-s-circumcision-1.2440644

An Israeli woman has been ordered by a religious court to have her baby son circumcised or else pay a fine of $149 Cdn for every day he stays uncircumcised.

The order from an Israeli rabbinical court was handed down Oct. 29, Israeli newspapers reported today.

The court forms part of the country's justice system, with jurisdiction over matters of religion, Haaretz reports on its website.

The procedure, which for boys involves removing part of the penis foreskin, is part of Jewish culture and is sometimes performed in other cultures for medical reasons.

"The baby was born with a medical problem, so we couldn't circumcise him on the eighth day as is customary," the mother, whose name is given only as Elinor, told Haaretz.

"As time went on, I started reading about what actually happens in circumcision, and I realized that I couldn't do that to my son. He's perfect just as he is."

The problem came when she and her husband began to contemplate divorce. The husband insisted on circumcision, and the matter went to a panel of three rabbis.

Circumcision is "a standard surgical procedure that is performed on every Jewish baby boy, so when one of the parents demands it, the other cannot delay it except where it is proven to be medically dangerous," the rabbis said.

When Elinor lost in that forum, she appealed to a higher rabbinical court and lost there as well, London's Daily Telegraph reported from Jerusalem.

The mother now plans an appeal to Israel's High Court of Justice, Haaretz said.

The rulings come amid growing concern in Israel over attempts elsewhere in the world to prohibit ritual circumcision on humanitarian grounds, the Telegraph said. It is seen by some as a form of anti-Semitism.
 
Back
Top