Jewish leaders hit out over Iceland’s plans to ban boys’ circumcision - Sensationalist Headlines

[QUOTE=Quark:;53134972]These are highly debatable. It's not really known how removing your foreskin would prevent urinary tract infections (despite your post implying it [I]causes[/I] UTI's) and it's unlikely that being circumcised would prevent STIs. These are just opinions that have been conflated to facts by generations of families following their parents and circumcising their kids without knowing why. The only legit reason on that list really is phimosis, which circumcision is still an over-the-top solution to.[/QUOTE] "These are just opinions" Really? I mean, [I]really dude?[/I] Decades of clinical evidence analyzed by medical doctors and researchers to come to a conclusion on the benefits of male circumcision - and you have this shit to say for it? [I]It's a fucking opinion? That turned into a fact but we don't know why?[/I] What exactly are you trying to say here mate?

[QUOTE=Last or First;53134986]Urinary tract infection (UTI) - fixed by self hygeine Phimosis - Pretty much the one time most people against infant circumcision say it's okay, because there's a [I]legitimate medical need[/I]. But that's [I]only if you already have phimosis.[/I] Inflammation - fixed by self hygeine Hygiene - fixed by self hygeine STIs in men - fixed by condoms STIs in women (as sexual partners to circumcised men) - fixed by condoms Genital cancers - having less dick = less dick to get cancer, you can apply that to anything. Better remove toes / ears to reduce toe / ear cancer! Can't get nose cancer if you don't have a nose![/QUOTE] Circumcision is still often massively over the top for phimosis as well as frenulum breve and should be a last resort. Frenuloplasty and Preputioplasty are two alternatives that don't remove a bunch of sensitive tissue like circumcision does.

[QUOTE=JustExtreme;53135039]Circumcision is still often massively over the top for phimosis as well as frenulum breve and should be a last resort. Frenuloplasty and Preputioplasty are two alternatives that don't remove a bunch of sensitive tissue like circumcision does.[/QUOTE] The American Academy of Pediatrics, with support from the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention say that "the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks" and that "Male circumcision does not appear to adversely affect penile sexual function/sensitivity or sexual satisfaction." ([URL]http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...ent/130/3/e756[/URL]) You are welcome to disagree with all of these groups, but you'll need a whole lot of evidence to do so.

[QUOTE=Svinnik;53134777]Same thing happened with the Romans, same thing happened with Greeks, same with the Soviets, same with the Nazis Historically, the first precursor to massive anti semitism is banning circumcision and kosher slaughter[/QUOTE] So you're saying that prohibiting the genital mutilation of infants is a sign of another Shoah in the making?

It is true that the evidence points to very soft benefits, but I do say soft. At the worst increase iirc is the 10x increased risk of urinary tract infections, but that only amounts to a 1% increase. I'm pretty much opposed to doing it for newborns on ethical grounds, even with a lot of those health risks (e.g. recurrant UTI) you can circumcise later as necessary, and you'd need some pretty convincing benefits to change my mind.

[QUOTE=Svinnik;53134777]Same thing happened with the Romans, same thing happened with Greeks, same with the Soviets, same with the Nazis Historically, the first precursor to massive anti semitism is banning circumcision and kosher slaughter[/QUOTE] You should probably open up your eyes to the kind of massive hypocrisy you're entertaining in these types of threads.

Also why do people think that circumcision adversely affects shit like sensitivity so much? [url]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26724395[/url] [url]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18761593[/url] That hasn't really been established, even if it was the original reason Americans started doing it.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;53135141]Also why do people think that circumcision adversely affects shit like sensitivity so much? [url]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26724395[/url] [url]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18761593[/url] That hasn't really been established, even if it was the original reason Americans started doing it.[/QUOTE] picked a bad thread to uncover it but yeah i've always thought it was a misconception - at least in those who were circumcised at birth

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;53135141]Also why do people think that circumcision adversely affects shit like sensitivity so much? [url]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26724395[/url] [url]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18761593[/url] That hasn't really been established, even if it was the original reason Americans started doing it.[/QUOTE] Given just the raw volume of nerves being cut off, I find that extremely doubtful, but the fact of the matter is that even if the average person doesn't realize a large difference, there are still a fairly large volume of people that have botched circumcisions. Whether they be visibly botched or result in nerve damage, circumcisions are just simply not a zero risk procedure. There is absolutely zero reason to mutilate children at birth. None. Circumcision is the exact same as cutting off your kid's earlobes. It won't seriously harm them in any way but it's totally fucked.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;53135111]You should probably open up your eyes to the kind of massive hypocrisy you're entertaining in these types of threads.[/QUOTE] elaborate and call me out on the hypocrisy please

[QUOTE=phygon;53135162]Given just the raw volume of nerves being cut off, I find that extremely doubtful, but the fact of the matter is that even if the average person doesn't realize a large difference, there are still a fairly large volume of people that have botched circumcisions. Whether they be visibly botched or result in nerve damage, circumcisions are just simply not a zero risk procedure. [B]There is absolutely zero reason to mutilate children at birth. None.[/B] Circumcision is the exact same as cutting off your kid's earlobes. It won't seriously harm them in any way but it's totally fucked.[/QUOTE] You should tell that to all the agencies that I keep citing (The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). They all seem to disagree with you.

[QUOTE=sgman91;53135167]You should tell that to all the agencies that I keep citing (The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). They all seem to disagree with you.[/QUOTE] They aren't exactly giving positive endorsement that it ought to be done, they're arguing that it should be covered by insurance if patients want it. (at least with the AAP and CDC)

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;53135172]They aren't exactly giving positive endorsement that it ought to be done, they're arguing that it should be covered by insurance if patients want it. (at least with the AAP and CDC)[/QUOTE] Their official position is that the benefits outweigh the risks, but not enough to recommend that it become routine for all newborns. They argue that it's a good practice, but that parents ought to make the choice themselves. (This is in the AAP report, but it includes support from all the other agencies) To say that there is "zero reason" to circumcise a newborn is simply false.

[QUOTE=phygon;53135162]Given just the raw volume of nerves being cut off, I find that extremely doubtful, but the fact of the matter is that even if the average person doesn't realize a large difference, there are still a fairly large volume of people that have botched circumcisions. Whether they be visibly botched or result in nerve damage, circumcisions are just simply not a zero risk procedure. There is absolutely zero reason to mutilate children at birth. None. Circumcision is the exact same as cutting off your kid's earlobes. It won't seriously harm them in any way but it's totally fucked.[/QUOTE] That's scientific plausibility, which matters, but if people are having easier times reaching orgasms, and sensitivity measurements report no difference, then the evidence says it doesn't really appear to matter. Not all nerves are the same anyways. Also yeah I do agree. I'm not 100% sure on making it illegal, but I wouldn't do it and I'd question people for doing it as well.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the idea of circumcision in Judaism is that you're making a sacrifice to prove devotion to God. If so, it's a lot harder to just 'remove' the idea of circumcision from Judaism since it's so integral to the process. Suggesting that any of this is an easy process is simplification to the extreme.

What devotion are you showing when you aren't even capable of consenting, much less understanding the concept of devotion?

[QUOTE=FlandersNed;53135220]Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the idea of circumcision in Judaism is that you're making a sacrifice to prove devotion to God. If so, it's a lot harder to just 'remove' the idea of circumcision from Judaism since it's so integral to the process. Suggesting that any of this is an easy process is simplification to the extreme.[/QUOTE] No one IS suggesting it's easy. They're just saying it's a good change to make for the good of the children who can't make their own choices. Also, children can't realistically prove their devotion to god, it's the parent showing [B]their[/B] devotion to god because children can't show devotion.

[QUOTE=sgman91;53135176]Their official position is that the benefits outweigh the risks, but not enough to recommend that it become routine for all newborns. They argue that it's a good practice, but that parents ought to make the choice themselves. (This is in the AAP report, but it includes support from all the other agencies) To say that there is "zero reason" to circumcise a newborn is simply false.[/QUOTE] Which benefits? The most recent one you linked ([url]http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/130/3/e756[/url]) doesn't state what the benefits actually are in the abstract.

I'm all for a debate, but this doesn't seem like much of a debate. It's just one man blindly defending what his parents did to him as a baby. There is no reason to force circumcision on anyone. If they want to do it, then they're free to do when they're 18.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53135231]No one IS suggesting it's easy. They're just saying it's a good change to make for the good of the children who can't make their own choices. Also, children can't realistically prove their devotion to god, it's the parent showing [B]their[/B] devotion to god because children can't show devotion.[/QUOTE] Yes to both of the things you said. I think it's for the parent's sake, but I could be wrong

[QUOTE=polarbear.;53134938]The fuck are you talking about [URL="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5296634/"]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5296634/ [/URL][/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Article]Conflict-of-interest statement: Authors are members of the Circumcision Academy of Australia, a medical body formed to provide accurate, evidence-based information on male circumcision to parents, practitioners and others, as well as contact details of doctors who perform the procedure.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Duskin;53134838]sources claiming "benefits" are either extremely inconclusive or heavily biased.[/QUOTE] Not only do they claim MC is "better" but that everyone that is circumcised actually has a more sensitive dick than those that aren't thus feel more pleasure? Sounds like a ton of shite. The wording they use to describe parents against circumcision also seemed quite critical in tone. I'm sure there's some facts in the document I'm not doubting that, but they're definitely blown out of proportion and presented in such a way to support an agenda. They have a massive section detailing the amazing benefits it brings yet skims over the fact that it can potentially cause major complications and even kills a ton of kids in the USA each year, saying all faults are "easily correctable". I actually looked into that paper because it looked abit odd. Checked out their website and it's the definition of a biased source, essentially saying circumcision is a "must". This guy Brian Morris was one of the main authors and he sounds like a right cunt. Here's a video interview he did, you can see he pretty much ignores all potential risks and says there's something wrong with non-circumcised men despite them being the large majority: [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7a7RLMc4Cg[/url]

[QUOTE=Duskin;53135309]Not only do they claim MC is "better" but that everyone that is circumcised actually has a more sensitive dick than those that aren't thus feel more pleasure? Sounds like a ton of shite. The wording they use to describe parents against circumcision also seemed quite critical in tone. I'm sure there's some facts in the document I'm not doubting that, but they're definitely blown out of proportion and presented in such a way to support an agenda. They have a massive section detailing the amazing benefits it brings yet skims over the fact that it can potentially cause major complications and even kills a ton of kids in the USA each year, saying all faults are "easily correctable". I actually looked into that paper because it looked abit odd. Checked out their website and it's the definition of a biased source, essentially saying circumcision is a "must". This guy Brian Morris was one of the main authors and he sounds like a right cunt. Here's a video interview he did, you can see he pretty much ignores all potential risks and says there's something wrong with non-circumcised men despite them being the large majority: [URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7a7RLMc4Cg[/URL][/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Wide-ranging evidence from surveys, physiological measurements, and the anatomical location of penile sensory receptors responsible for sexual sensation strongly and consistently suggested that MC has no detrimental effect on sexual function, sensitivity or pleasure.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Sensitivity of the penis to vibration, which is able to elicit arousal and ejaculation, is not related to MC status[/QUOTE] They said by theory, it should be more pleasurable. By all accounts of evidence, they conclude there's no difference in reported sexual pleasure between those that are circumcised and those that are not. The bias in both parties is definitely there - my point was that it's just wrong to suggest that there aren't any benefits to circumcision at birth, as others in this thread seem to think. To downplay them is one thing, but to completely deny or dismiss scientific evidence? Give me a break.

[QUOTE=Bumbles;53135664]Circumcision is honestly a business venture, anyone spouting health shit is so naive. Whats something every guy is born with? A dick and foreskin. Ignoring religious removal by teeth and mouth which is absolutely barbaric and disgusting, majority do it medically. That costs money. Its all about money at the end of the day, and the medical "benefits" are laughable at best considering few countries have mass circumcision, where the majority dont, and its been that way for an extremely long time, and it REALLY doesnt seem to be an epidemic of issues if uncut. I dont care for medical links as they seem to all be from USA, surprise, a country that is mostly cut. Its money. Its just money(ignoring the FEW times it is a medical issue and needs to happen) This is why they dont allow euthanasia, keep the vegetable alive or 100% terminal ill, regardless of being inhumane and personally wanting to die, and pump up those medical costs. Circumcision is an easy bill when the population is nearly a 50/50 split and guys are born with a foreskin. I dont blame my parents, it was done for "medical" reasons like some stated in this thread, they fell for it, whatever, thankfully my dick turned out just fine with no weird issues or scarring, but whenever I have a son, absolutely not. I hope more Americans follow.[/QUOTE] This is about as crazy as thinking un-circumcised dicks cause genocides. Not as crazy, but you're getting there. I mean I'm not denying it, but you can't go your whole life thinking everything is a conspiracy.

[QUOTE=polarbear.;53135619]They said by theory, it should be more pleasurable. By all accounts of evidence, they conclude there's no difference in reported sexual pleasure between those that are circumcised and those that are not.[/QUOTE] Except for those who get circumcised as adults ([url]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17155977[/url]), the only case in which they would actually be able to remember what it was like before. This is a study that was cited in the AAP article arguing the benefits of circumcision. [editline]16th February 2018[/editline] Also, what theory is that?

[QUOTE=Bumbles;53135919]not a conspiracy when people get money from a never ending source, especially when its pushed so hard in few countries vs rest of the world. Also big assumption thinking id go through live thinking everything is a conspiracy. Listen, in the USA we have fucking horrible drug and medication commercials, I think one of the few on the planet where its legal, and yeah, I do think something like circumcision is a business choice and pushed. Medical shit is really a business, especially here. Once again, do you really think keeping the terminal ill/vegetables is done out of the good of heart? Or fucking insane medical bills? Especially if wanting to die was known beforehand? The whole things a racket, especially if you gone through it yourself personally like I have, its hard to trust the overall medical bullshit here anymore.[/QUOTE] Start substantiating your claims or keep your conspiracies to yourself.

[QUOTE=Bumbles;53135919]not a conspiracy when people get money from a never ending source, especially when its pushed so hard in few countries vs rest of the world. Also big assumption thinking id go through live thinking everything is a conspiracy. Listen, in the USA we have fucking horrible drug and medication commercials, I think one of the few on the planet where its legal, and yeah, I do think something like circumcision is a business choice and pushed. Medical shit is really a business, especially here. Once again, do you really think keeping the terminal ill/vegetables is done out of the good of heart? Or fucking insane medical bills? Especially if wanting to die was known beforehand? The whole things a racket, especially if you gone through it yourself personally like I have, its hard to trust the overall medical bullshit here anymore.[/QUOTE] Terminally ill people I can understand, but circumcision is just a wild fucking idea that the medical companies would go to lengths to advocate for. I hope for humanities sake this ride is just a massive stroke on my end.

[QUOTE=Bumbles;53135936]I just look at it the same way Funerals are. Its 100% gonna happen, its insanely costly, and honestly, legally required in one form or another. Circumcision, while not legally required, is extremely pushed in the USA for "medical" reasons that dont add up because 90% of the rest of the world dont bother and do just fine with no epidemics, so all it ends up being is a routine piece of medical work for some quick cash. Its something has pretty much a 100% chance of being "needed" from males being born which happens non-stop, everyday, all days, at all times. You say its a wild idea, yet agree with me with terminal ill, so medical companies go far enough to keep someone alive and suffer with 0 chance of survival, EVEN IF THEY PERSONALLY WANT TO DIE, just for insane drug costs and ICU care until the end, but a little snip of skin from a baby that generally has successful results is somehow stepping out of line?[/QUOTE] I'm not disagreeing with you on circumcision either, I'm just saying it is fucking bizarre that we are even discussing this. Greed is fucking bizarre.

[URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision_and_HIV[/URL] The WHO claims circumcision reduces HIV transmission rate from woman to man by 60%. Men to Men...no evidence. (I honestly wonder why this is. Is there really a benefit or is it just coincidental?) I'm not for outright banning it but I do think something like that should be a decision the patient themself must make. Having it be part of religion is stupid. I had it done at birth because everyone in my family had it done supposedly for hygienic reasons. Not losing sleep over it but I do wish I at least had a say in the matter. I don't think the higher powers honestly would give a damn if you were circumcised or not. If I were some deity I wouldn't judge, because what matters is what kind of person you are.

[QUOTE=Toybasher;53136020][URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision_and_HIV[/URL] The WHO claims circumcision reduces HIV transmission rate from woman to man by 60%. [/QUOTE] So do condoms, and without having to chop off part of your dick.

A lot of religions have laws or practices that have to be defunct in order to comply with modern sensibility's. Notice Christians can no longer kill pagans with stones, and I think society may be better off for it. :eng101: