Circumcision ruling condemned by Germany's Muslim and Jewish leaders

[Vidi]

I caught my foreskin in my zipper once, that told me all I need to know about how many nerve endings are in the foreskin

Sorry but I had to laugh at that...and grimace.

Not sure, but if he'd had been circumsized, he proably could have gotten his junk free quicker, and with way less pain involved, but can you imagine what a mangled up mess that might have been, by getting an uncircumsized junk caught in a zipper?? Infact that is proably the very reason it got caught in the zipper in the first place (if were uncircumsized).....OUCH!.... LOL

I once caught my circumsized junk on my zipper ( drunk and in a hurry lol )...I guarantee you, his foreskin wasnt the issue.

 

[konradv]

I wish I had my youngest circumcised. He's had problems, he's low functioning autism and doesn't understand a lot, it's difficult to get him to clean it properly. I sometimes think if he'd been circumcised he wouldn't now be having problems with dribbling and such. Religion is not the only reason for circumcision. Some men have had to have it later in life due to problems and they wished it'd been done when they were babies.

Some people get appendicitis. If we just had them all removed at birth, it wouldn't be an issue.

Liberal reasoning at it's best right here folks, now step right up folks and watch the free show, because these kind of people cannot be reasoned with at all, especially once they purchase land with an ocean view in Arizona, in which has been sold to them by whom they thought were their friends or allies in life.. B )

Conservative reasoning, actually. There's no "one size fits all". Just because some may have problems later, doesn't mean all should be affected.

 

[Unkotare]

Some people get appendicitis. If we just had them all removed at birth, it wouldn't be an issue.

Liberal reasoning at it's best right here folks, now step right up folks and watch the free show, because these kind of people cannot be reasoned with at all, especially once they purchase land with an ocean view in Arizona, in which has been sold to them by whom they thought were their friends or allies in life.. B )

Conservative reasoning, actually. There's no "one size fits all". Just because some may have problems later, doesn't mean all should be affected.

The only people here advocating a one size fits all approach are those who insist circumcision be outlawed. I don't see anyone suggesting that all male babies be circumcised by law. The parents decide. That's it.

 

[beagle9]

Liberal reasoning at it's best right here folks, now step right up folks and watch the free show, because these kind of people cannot be reasoned with at all, especially once they purchase land with an ocean view in Arizona, in which has been sold to them by whom they thought were their friends or allies in life.. B )

Conservative reasoning, actually. There's no "one size fits all". Just because some may have problems later, doesn't mean all should be affected.

The only people here advocating a one size fits all approach are those who insist circumcision be outlawed. I don't see anyone suggesting that all male babies be circumcised by law. The parents decide. That's it.

Exactly right....

 

[Vidi]

Liberal reasoning at it's best right here folks, now step right up folks and watch the free show, because these kind of people cannot be reasoned with at all, especially once they purchase land with an ocean view in Arizona, in which has been sold to them by whom they thought were their friends or allies in life.. B )

Conservative reasoning, actually. There's no "one size fits all". Just because some may have problems later, doesn't mean all should be affected.

The only people here advocating a one size fits all approach are those who insist circumcision be outlawed. I don't see anyone suggesting that all male babies be circumcised by law. The parents decide. That's it.

So much for individual choice huh? You really are a liberal, arent you?

hey look if youre an adult and you want to chop off part of your penis, go right ahead. This isnt an ear piercing. Its removing part of their body for NO MEDICAL REASON.

But hey you go ahead and support it, liberal.

 

[Unkotare]

Conservative reasoning, actually. There's no "one size fits all". Just because some may have problems later, doesn't mean all should be affected.

The only people here advocating a one size fits all approach are those who insist circumcision be outlawed. I don't see anyone suggesting that all male babies be circumcised by law. The parents decide. That's it.

So much for individual choice huh? You really are a liberal, arent you?

No, I'm really not (to say the least). The parents make that decision based on their values, beliefs, and medical/hygiene concerns (I have provided many links on this thread so don't bother shrieking "No medical reason!" over and over).

Your feeble attempt at ad hominem has failed.

 

[Vidi]

The only people here advocating a one size fits all approach are those who insist circumcision be outlawed. I don't see anyone suggesting that all male babies be circumcised by law. The parents decide. That's it.

So much for individual choice huh? You really are a liberal, arent you?

No, I'm really not (to say the least). The parents make that decision based on their values, beliefs, and medical/hygiene concerns (I have provided many links on this thread so don't bother shrieking "No medical reason!" over and over).

Your feeble attempt at ad hominem has failed.

and I debunked those links. So dont bother acting like there are medical reasons. each and every study cited to provide a so called medical reason says it reduces risks by less than 1%.

So again, no medical reason to mutliate our children.

So youre left with defending cutting off a piece of an infants body strictly for religious reasons and not the religion of the child but of its parents.

So again, so much for individual choice. You are defending the collective, like a good little drone should.

 

[Unkotare]

So much for individual choice huh? You really are a liberal, arent you?

No, I'm really not (to say the least). The parents make that decision based on their values, beliefs, and medical/hygiene concerns (I have provided many links on this thread so don't bother shrieking "No medical reason!" over and over).

Your feeble attempt at ad hominem has failed.

and I debunked those links.

Only in your own little, teeny-tiny mind.

 

[Unkotare]

So youre left with defending cutting off a piece of an infants body strictly for religious reasons and not the religion of the child but of its parents.

Is that what this is really about with you? Is this just another angry atheist, anti-religion thing? Why not just say so from the outset?

 

[Unkotare]

You are defending the collective, like a good little drone should.

That makes no sense at all. You're really bad at this ad hominem stuff. You need to find another approach.

 

[Ariux]

and I debunked those links. So dont bother acting like there are medical reasons. each and every study cited to provide a so called medical reason says it reduces risks by less than 1%.

So again, no medical reason to mutliate our children.

According to Wikipedia, "Trials took place in South Africa, Kenya and Uganda.[22] All three trials were stopped early by their monitoring boards on ethical grounds, because those in the circumcised group had a lower rate of HIV contraction than the control group.[22] The results showed that circumcision reduced vaginal-to-penile transmission of HIV by 60%, 53%, and 51%, respectively."

Reduces the chance of getting AIDS by over 50%. That's huge. And, that carries over to other STDs, to some degree.

Also, the girls like circumcised equipment over untrimmed junk.

You're a shithead so you might not consider freedom to be the default position for government. But, as I see it, because it's not harmful to a child, the government has no business banning it. Even if it only offered a 1% health benefit. Call me when it's linked to people getting AIDS and cancer.

 

[Vidi]

and I debunked those links. So dont bother acting like there are medical reasons. each and every study cited to provide a so called medical reason says it reduces risks by less than 1%.

So again, no medical reason to mutliate our children.

According to Wikipedia, "Trials took place in South Africa, Kenya and Uganda.[22] All three trials were stopped early by their monitoring boards on ethical grounds, because those in the circumcised group had a lower rate of HIV contraction than the control group.[22] The results showed that circumcision reduced vaginal-to-penile transmission of HIV by 60%, 53%, and 51%, respectively."

Reduces the chance of getting AIDS by over 50%. That's huge. And, that carries over to other STDs, to some degree.

Also, the girls like circumcised equipment over untrimmed junk.

You're a shithead so you might not consider freedom to be the default position for government. But, as I see it, because it's not harmful to a child, the government has no business banning it. Even if it only offered a 1% health benefit. Call me when it's linked to people getting AIDS and cancer.

Coming from the biggest piece of shit coward on the internet I take every insult you throw as a confirmation that I am on the side of right. I also like how you forgot to post the very next line:

There is little or no evidence that it protects against male-to-female HIV transmission[77][78], and whether it is of benefit in developed countries and among men who have sex with men is undetermined.[79][80][81]

Heres what OTHERS have to say on the subject...ALSO from that wikipedia page :

As of 2010[update], the Royal Australasian College of Physicians state: "After reviewing the currently available evidence, the RACP believes that the frequency of diseases modifiable by circumcision, the level of protection offered by circumcision and the complication rates of circumcision do not warrant routine infant circumcision in Australia and New Zealand. However it is reasonable for parents to weigh the benefits and risks of circumcision and to make the decision whether or not to circumcise their sons.

The 1996 position statement says that "circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed",[157] and the 2004 information to parents says: 'Circumcision is a "non-therapeutic" procedure, which means it is not medically necessary. Parents who decide to circumcise their newborns often do so for religious, social, or cultural reasons. [. . .] After reviewing the scientific evidence for and against circumcision, the CPS does not recommend routine circumcision for newborn boys. Many paediatricians no longer perform circumcisions.'[49]

Finnish Medical Association opposes circumcision of infants for non-medical reasons, arguing that circumcision does not bring about any medical benefits and it may risk the health of the infant as well as his right to physical integrity

The American Medical Association supports the AAP's 1999 circumcision policy statement with regard to non-therapeutic circumcision, which they define as the non-religious, non-ritualistic, not medically necessary, elective circumcision of male newborns. They state that "policy statements issued by professional societies representing Australian, Canadian, and American pediatricians do not recommend routine circumcision of male newborns."[

 

[Ariux]

There is little or no evidence that it protects against male-to-female HIV transmission[77][78], and whether it is of benefit in developed countries and among men who have sex with men is undetermined.[79][80][81]

Shithead, if I have a baby boy, and I'm trying to decide if he should be circumcised, I'm not considering if it'll prevent a woman from being infected. But, because you bring it up, it does does help protect females by reducing the chance of the male having an STD, in the first place, to give to the female. Also, I don't give a shit about whether or not it helps protect fags. But, again, you've not shown it harms fags.

Shithead, you're a fascist, an ass-sucking fascist. If you can't show it harms boys, you have no excuse for sticking your shithead into other people's business. You're such a shithead you don't even feel an obligation to make the case that it's harmful. You just object that it's only "1% healthy".

 

[Unkotare]

The American Medical Association supports the AAP's 1999 circumcision policy statement with regard to non-therapeutic circumcision, which they define as the non-religious, non-ritualistic, not medically necessary, elective circumcision of male newborns. They state that "policy statements issued by professional societies representing Australian, Canadian, and American pediatricians do not recommend routine circumcision of male newborns."[

AMA opposes legal restrictions on infant circumcision - Health & wellness - The Boston Globe

“There is strong evidence documenting the health benefits of male circumcision, and it is a low-risk procedure, Dr. Peter W. Carmel, AMA president, said in a statement released at yesterday’s meeting in New Orleans. “Today the AMA again made it clear that it will oppose any attempts to intrude into legitimate medical practice and the informed choices of patients.”

 

[Vidi]

There is little or no evidence that it protects against male-to-female HIV transmission[77][78], and whether it is of benefit in developed countries and among men who have sex with men is undetermined.[79][80][81]

Shithead, if I have a baby boy, and I'm trying to decide if he should be circumcised, I'm not considering if it'll prevent a woman from being infected. But, because you bring it up, it does does help protect females by reducing the chance of the male having an STD, in the first place, to give to the female. Also, I don't give a shit about whether or not it helps protect fags. But, again, you've not shown it harms fags.

Shithead, you're a fascist, an ass-sucking fascist. If you can't show it harms boys, you have no excuse for sticking your shithead into other people's business. You're such a shithead you don't even feel an obligation to make the case that it's harmful. You just object that it's only "1% healthy".

Coward, it harms boys by removing their five most sensetive areas for sexual arousal. If you had a boy, would remove one of his hands because he can do fine with just one? One of his eyes? He can still see, after all.

Would YOU decide to take away ANY part of his body just because you felt like it?

f you stopped being a fucking racist for two minutes and actually realized that the reason HIV is rampant in Africa and not here is because of the Plague.

Plague Immunity Gene Stops HIV Aids - THE STEEL DEAL
Darwin Awards

then you might realize that circumsicion, chopping off a large part of your childs junk, is unneccessary.


Imagine if you were told to chop off your daughters clitoris because she would be less suseptible to some disease she is already less suseptible to.

Wake up, dickbreath. Youre advocating mutilating babies.

And the only fascist act in this whole thing is the opression of YOUR religion on children that have not had a chance to choose for themselves.

 

[Unkotare]

then you might realize that circumsicion, chopping off a large part of your childs junk, is unneccessary.

"A large part"? Well, now we know something else about you...

 

[Unkotare]

Imagine if you were told to chop off your daughters clitoris because she would be less suseptible to some disease she is already less suseptible to.

AGAIN, trying to equate male and female circumcision is beyond absurd. But I guess you've got so little to go one besides logical fallacies and emoting...

 

[Vidi]

then you might realize that circumsicion, chopping off a large part of your childs junk, is unneccessary.

"A large part"? Well, now we know something else about you...

LOL...good one

as the majority of the penile pleasure nerve centers are actually located in the foreskin, yeah, a LARGE part.

 

[Political Junky]

The only people here advocating a one size fits all approach are those who insist circumcision be outlawed. I don't see anyone suggesting that all male babies be circumcised by law. The parents decide. That's it.

So much for individual choice huh? You really are a liberal, arent you?

No, I'm really not (to say the least). The parents make that decision based on their values, beliefs, and medical/hygiene concerns (I have provided many links on this thread so don't bother shrieking "No medical reason!" over and over).

Your feeble attempt at ad hominem has failed.

It would be far better if parents taught their sons to clean themselves, wouldn't it?

 

[Moonglow]

there are more circumsized Muslims than Jew and Gentile together.
The tenet between Abraham and God was to be the circumsion of his great nation God would give to Abraham and his decendants. They are the children of Abraham.
The medical side is that it makes no diff if it is circumsized or not.