Thanks for pretending to know my family history. Now take your ignorance and shove it down your blowhole. Extreme pain and the loss of living tissue count as "negative consequences", and occur in 100% of all successful circumcisions. Changing laws to help people is a good thing, not a bad one. And since when have males been an "extreme minority"? Last time I checked, they made up roughly half of all humans. That's hilarious from the guy who pretends to know my family history and thinks that males are an extreme minority. Caring about the well-being of other people is an alien concept to you? Seek help. "That's a question you should ask yourself, Megatron." - Optimus Prime Why the hell would I? I'm standing up FOR the freedom to choose. YOU are the one arguing against. You seem very confused today :\ No no no. YOU and the other pro-abuse advocates are the ones who want to take decisions away from kids. I SUPPORT freedom. For the most part, although parents are certainly not obligated to provide specific food/clothing/etc. that they don't want their kids to have.
And trying to imply that the question of circumcison is as clear cut as slavery is extra special absurd, or studid, depending on how charitable one wishes to be towards you. I debated the question of suffering through your foolishness just to smash your arguments or simply ignoring the babble and already I think I've made the right choice. So enjoy your beating...while it lasts. Generally speaking, if most of the globe accepts something, like circumcision as a practical matter, it says something for the practice. Please. Be my guest. Apparently you don't. A benefit, by definition, is a good thing. Go ask the American Academy of Pediatirics why they find circumcision "beneficial" to one's well being. So it wasn't...as I already explained. You are the master of the obvious, it seems. My post never pretended it was. I only mentioned the view of the World Health Organization to show how other organizations (like the Amercian Academy of Pediatirics) held the same view. Thanks for playing along. What? Is this a serious comment? You stated the removal of testicles is not fatal, therefore advocating removal of testicles is not absurd. And then I said, quite reasonably, is that your measuring stick? As long as something doesn't kill you it's "reasonable"? You are a laugh, aren't you. I suppose if you don't mind being a eunuch you might consider those things to be a "benefit" considering what you've just given away. This is like saying my house burned down but actually I enjoy the unobstructed views of the sky so it's a benefit. Quite naturally I thoroughly reject your characterization of this matter. So does the WHO.
And yet most of the globe does not approve of circumcision save for third world countries that still cling to archaic tradition. The US is very strange in that we still view mutilation of an infant boy's penis acceptable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Academy_of_Pediatrics Clearly there are other ways to deal with illness that the child contracts without taking a knife to their penis and causing them serious physical harm. I mean really, if a child contracts an infection in their arm do you just cut the whole thing off and say, "Well that's that"? Antibiotics can be used for UTIs and other infections. If there is a serious concern with contracting STDs in their adulthood when they are becoming sexually active then they should be free to choose circumcision for themselves at that point, although I think it's been proven that condoms are far more effective at preventing the contraction of STDs than slicing off a 15 inch piece of flesh from your genitals. I doubt anyone would recommend any man, circumcised or not, to have unprotected sex willy nilly. Being circumcised is certainly no guarantee that you will not contract some sort of STD. As for the AAP's opinions/policies it seems they are no stranger to striking up controversy when it comes to circumcision though. Here is what they said and later retracted on female circumcision.
1) Yes. It says that the vast majority of humans are effing stupid f*cks. 2) You STILL have not made the case that circumcision is "accepted" by "the globe". You've found one endorsement from one organization in one of the few countries backward enough for this practice to be considered acceptable. Ask and ye shall receive! Game, set, match. ...but is not the only thing, as has already been illustrated by the example of getting your nuts removed. You made a claim and provided a source that did not back up your claim. You have failed. Good day, sir.
It is legal to circumcize throughout the world. It is far more accepted than not. Please be bright enough not to lie in a place where words can be looked at over and over again. Please see post #85. You took my sentences out of continuity to say something, I can't say quite what, to change my meaning. You lose and you lie. Not a good combination. The benefit I refer to is a health benefit and the incidence of penile cancer is much higher among the uncircumsized than not. I don't care to know how removing one's testicles is beneficial in your opinion. Actually just the opposite is true and you are lying yet again. Once I have schooled you again I'll have nothing more to do with you as blatant dishonesty is not an admirable quality to have. Please provide your exact quotation. Neither was my comment. I merely used an idiomatic expression which you've taken and made the point itself, which again, is dishonest or stupid, take your pick. It's certainly bizarre. I don't consider cancer a triviality, thank you all the same. I consider the foreskin so dispensable, however, that if circumcision had no health benefits at all (though it clearly does) I would gladly do without the "skin turtle neck" look for it's own sake. My tonsils were removed without my will, and my appendix too. Should I start a ridiculous campaign to get those back? I am well rid of my foreskin and everytime I see some rural documentary about ridding farm animals of their smegma I am so happy to be rid of some excess skin. To the zealot fetishist, no reasoning will ever do. Here....http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/84/7/news10706/en/ Perhaps you will stop dishonestly wailing now. Don't bother replying to any of this. There's no point.
http://www.cancer.org/cancer/penilecancer/detailedguide/penile-cancer-prevention Penile cancer does not normally occur in young or infant children. Once they reach adulthood though, if penile cancer is a serious concern and it has been proven that removing the foreskin will absolutely for sure reduce this risk then they will easily be able to make that medical choice for themselves.
It's no use. Yosh is trying to rewrite the history of this debate. He's blatantly ignoring everything that everyone has actually said, and accusing US of being the liars. I don't know if this is because he's on drugs or schizophrenic just has an Eric Cartman-sized ego or what, but trying to argue with him at this point is like arguing with someone who insists that the sky is orange.
I noticed he has not responded to any of my posts at all, so he may be reading them and taking in the information still. But who knows~
I made that post nearly two years ago. I discovered the health benefits to circumcision were mostly bull(*)(*)(*)(*) last year. I also learned that the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis and all that (*)(*)(*)(*). Now I'm mad as (*)(*)(*)(*) about it.
Really? Because my source says exactly the opposite....childhood circumcision seems to reduce the incidence of penile cancer. http://www.cancer.org/cancer/penilecancer/detailedguide/penile-cancer-risk-factors I appreciate your fetish, or bias, but every medical source I consult gives good reason to circumcise. So do I listen to medical authorities? Or a collection of internet, ummm....personalities? The choice is quite easy to make.
You just posted the same exact source as I did. Maybe you missed what it said here? Also I question what the chances are of an infant getting penile cancer to begin with. If in adulthood it is a major concern for them then they should be free to choose circumcision for themselves. It is not a fetish or a bias actually but a belief in freedom of choice and being pro-autonomy. Only you own your body, only you should get to make serious medical decisions about it especially concerning surgery and tissue removal from extremely private, intimate and personal reproductive organs. If it was an immediate life or death situation then perhaps the pro-circumcision group would have something here, but as it currently stands putting infant boys under the knife, generally without anesthesia as well, puts them at high risk of infection, shock, hemorrhage, and even death. The choice should be easy to make for the individual not for anyone else. His reproductive organs belong to him, he should get a say in whether or not he wants tissue removed from it. I still do not see how anyone can justify taking that choice away from him. After all circumcision is an elective surgery, not a necessary one. How do you justify taking away the choice to be circumcised from the 100 infant boys who will die from it every year? Not only are you removing tissue from their bodies that does not need to be removed but causing their untimely deaths in the process. What is the point of this? All for an elective procedure to prevent penile cancer that they might never have gotten in their lifetime? http://www.icgi.org/2010/04/infant-circumcision-causes-100-deaths-each-year-in-us/
Maybe you missed what it said here? "Circumcision removes all (or a part) of the foreskin. This procedure is most often done in infants but it can be done later in life. Circumcision seems to protect against penile cancer when it is done during childhood. Men who were circumcised as children have a lower chance of getting penile cancer than those who were not, but studies looking at this issue have not found the same protective effect if the foreskin is removed as an adult." Should we not perform preventiitve medical practices on the off chance that someone, in the onset of adulthood, takes exception to it? That's gambling with the health of your child and chances are, most men will miss their foreskin about as much as they miss acne. No one's organ is being removed! Only a useless flap of skin that disease and filth can exploit. Did you say generally "without" anasthesia? You wouldn't be poisoning the issue by pretending your prejudices are facts, would you? The choice is given to parents, as guardians of their children's well being, knowing that as time goes by and the possible liklihood of disease increases and the natural resistance to change (no matter how beneficial) increases and that the natural inclination to put off things due to money, time and inconvenience issues will possibly stop someone from doing what should be done. By the way, orthodontic work is also elective. Want to wait until adulthood to make the call on that? The International Council of Genital Integrity? Seriously? I'll pass on bizarre kook organizations and their "studies", thanks anyway.
Circumcision should be mandatory, not banned. Circumcision is done mainly for sanitary reasons. Male babies at birth should have the following medical procedures: 1. Be circumcised 2. Remove tonsils 3. Remove appendix 4. Remove prostate gland
And at the bottom of that: I am a bit surprised to see that the AAP does not recommend routine circumcision since that seems to be opposite to what their policy statement says about circumcision to begin with. And from another link with the same information. http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/can...ancer/about/risks-and-causes-of-penile-cancer Considering the fact that circumcision does far more harm than good I would say in this case absolutely not. Should we remove children's appendixes and tonsils right away to prevent them from becoming infected or bursting as well? I mean honestly, if it is so life threatening to them to have certain parts of their body intact why not remove them right away? And circumcising them in infancy is not gambling with their health? It is irrelevant whether or not most men will miss their foreskin, by that same argument those WITH foreskin won't care that they have one and considering there are enough men who have been permanently damaged by the procedure forever it should remain a personal choice for them to make in their adulthood. The foreskin is not a useless flap of skin though, it is an extremely sensitive part of the male body that is full of nerves and it's purpose is to protect and keep the glans moist. http://www.thewholenetwork.org/14/p...-anesthesia-does-it-really-help-the-pain.html The parents do not own their child's body though, they are responsible for their health, but circumcision is an elective procedure and stated as such even by the controversial AAP and it is not recommended to be routinely done by any medical or health organization. Did you want to change the topic of discussion?
The prostate gland? Seriously? Do you not realize it's extreme importance in reproduction!? Good lord, the insanity of it all.
My penis was too small at birth, so I was never cut, and thank God for that. As for the ethics of circumcision, I don't support the practice. It's just as bad as female general mutilation.
