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

[QUOTE=Marbalo;53134637]I didn't think I needed to make that clear, but here you go. I think it's in poor taste and devalues the issue, making it appear simpler and abstract when it's a deeply ingrained and nuanced religious practice.[/QUOTE] I'm sorry, what nuance is there to requiring genital mutilation on infants again? If getting part of your dick chopped off is [I]absolutely pivotal[/I] to being a Jew then perhaps you should start calling your religion into question, don't you think?

[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCSWbTv3hng[/media] - "Cause religion"; It was a crazy guy who invented corn flakes who wanted to prevent men masturbating that started the thing in US. - "Its cleaner"; So does chopping your arm off. No need to wash your arm. Besides the foreskin produce antibacterial and antiviral proteins. - "It prevents STD's"; By 1% or so. Condoms protect 99% and they don't require you to chop your dick off. - "Its useless"; Foreskin plays an important role in sex; - Natural lubricant (That's why movies from USA got so much lubricant in them). - Millions of nerve endings. - Protects the glans. - Glands in the foreskin produce antibacterial and antiviral proteins (Like lysozyme, specialized cells, antibodies .. ect) - "Urinary tract infections (UTI)"; The colleagues of the author who advocates circumcision to prevent UTI, taught the mothers in the study to retract the foreskin, this will in 96% of the case, cause tearing the skin off the glans. They didn't even know how a dick works at that age. And worst of all. It violates human rights when done to children. Stop with your bad excuses for circumcisions. Start to look at [url=http://www.noharmm.org/mothering.htm]the facts[/url] instead of cherry-picking debunked research.

[QUOTE=Svinnik;53134336]Not relevant because Jewish religious courts today cannot carry out capital or corporal punishments due to the religious high court not being in session. Even if it was, the stringent conditions of the death penalty would make it practically impossible for him to be convicted. Any attacks on gay people is completely forbidden, only the courts have the power to punish. Besides, it's only a prohibition on homosexual sex, not the desire to have sex with men. It's only punishment if you act on it. They weren't lesser Jews because they were circumcised at an adult age, there's no such thing as a lesser Jew.[/QUOTE] This is the most half-baked answer in a thread full of half-baked answers. You didn't get at the actual ethical meat of his post at all. If your only available response to the question of whether or not the attitudes towards homosexuality in Judaism are acceptable is essentially what amounts to mulling over the technicalities of not being able to put gay people to death then I'd be seriously concerned about the moral foundations of your religion. The whole "it's only punishment if you act on it" malarkey is also pretty gross. Insinuating that punishing sexual acts of homosexuality is any less morally bankrupt than punishing the desire is awful.

[QUOTE=Nak;53136401]Stop with your bad excuses for circumcisions. Start to look at [URL="http://www.noharmm.org/mothering.htm"]the facts[/URL] instead of cherry-picking debunked research.[/QUOTE] What kind of irony is this? So we are supposed to ignore the over 100 studies provided by the American Academy of Pediatrics, ignore the Academy of Family Physicians, ignore the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and ignore the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as "bad excuses," but are supposed to take "noharmm.org," a clearly SUPER biased website, and Adam Ruins Everything, a TV show that cherry picks studies ALL THE TIME, at face value? What kind of nonsense is this? The approach to circumcision on much of FP almost seems comparable to something like 9/11 trutherism.

[QUOTE=sgman91;53136573]What kind of irony is this? So we are supposed to ignore the over 100 studies provided by the American Academy of Pediatrics, ignore the Academy of Family Physicians, ignore the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and ignore the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as "bad excuses," but are supposed to take "noharmm.org," a clearly SUPER biased website, at face value?[/QUOTE] You know what else we call something like this? appeal to authority. Most of those studies that you linked and cited also tended, if not in all cases, to say that the risks outweigh the benefits by enough that they didn't recommend it. And in that event, most of those "benefits" can just be gained if you keep yourself clean, and even UTIs can be treated in like a handful of days in the rare instances you get those.

[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;53136583]You know what else we call something like this? appeal to authority. Most of those studies that you linked and cited also tended, if not in all cases, [B]to say that the risks outweigh the benefits by enough that they didn't recommend it.[/B] And in that event, most of those "benefits" can just be gained if you keep yourself clean, and even UTIs can be treated in like a handful of days in the rare instances you get those.[/QUOTE] No, none of them said that or anything close to it. Did you read them? They said that the benefits outweigh the risks, but that it wasn't SO MUCH of a benefit that they recommend everyone do it to every single newborn, routinely, but that parents should still be allowed to choose. In effect, it's a positive thing to do, but it isn't on the level of something like getting vaccinations.

[QUOTE=sgman91;53136573]What kind of irony is this? So we are supposed to ignore the over 100 studies provided by the American Academy of Pediatrics, ignore the Academy of Family Physicians, ignore the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and ignore the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as "bad excuses," but are supposed to take "noharmm.org," a clearly SUPER biased website, and Adam Ruins Everything, a TV show that cherry picks studies ALL THE TIME, at face value? What kind of nonsense is this? The approach to circumcision on much of FP almost seems comparable to something like 9/11 trutherism.[/QUOTE] i mean, even if circumcision was undeniably beneficial (i've just read the thread now, i've yet to go through every link), it's still an irreversible, unnecessary process, done to children who can't consent, with utterly awful consequences in the case of failure. i'd oppose it anyway. let people choose when they're 18

[QUOTE=sgman91;53136573]What kind of irony is this? So we are supposed to ignore the over 100 studies provided by the American Academy of Pediatrics, ignore the Academy of Family Physicians, ignore the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists .. blablabla[/QUOTE] - <1% less chance of STD - the ability to cover your dick in a plastic-bag when showering cause "its cleaner". 'benefits outweigh the risks' - +100 kids die every year in US doe to circumcision. That's [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_States]just as many or more[/url] people than the police have shot 2017. - lowered sensitivity - chance of ambition if done wrong - 96% of all kids in that age got their skin fused to their penis. You're ripping the skin off I find it really hard to trust a study that tells you to chop parts of your dick, for a stupid reason like this. [b]A study that don't even know how a newborns dick work.[/b]

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;53136599]i mean, even if circumcision was undeniably beneficial (i've just read the thread now, i've yet to go through every link), it's still an irreversible, unnecessary process, done to children who can't consent, with utterly awful consequences in the case of failure. i'd oppose it anyway. let people choose when they're 18[/QUOTE] That's fine. It's a justifiable position to have. I still disagree, but it at least makes sense. My problem right now is in the fact that a whole lot of people seem to be fine with denying and ignoring what has been cited from very reputable sources. [editline]16th February 2018[/editline] I honestly couldn't care less about ratings, but they are informative in this case. Notice that my post on page 3 that consistent of ONLY a verbatim quote from the American Association of Pediatrics website got dumbed like crazy. Since when is posting an extremely legitimate source treated like that unless we're dealing with semi-conspiratorial thinking?

[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;53136583]Most of those studies that you linked and cited also tended, if not in all cases, to say that the risks outweigh the benefits by enough that they didn't recommend it.[/QUOTE] Please do show exactly where you've seen this, because the main article contradicts this in the second paragraph of the abstract: [QUOTE="http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/130/3/e756"]Evaluation of current evidence indicates that [B]the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks[/B][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;53136647]Please do show exactly where you've seen this, because the main article contradicts this in the second paragraph of the abstract:[/QUOTE] [quote]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.[/quote] [URL]http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/130/3/e756[/URL]

My penis is the normalest and healthiest and your penis is ugly and sickly and here are some reactions of random dick experts who agree with me.

[QUOTE=sgman91;53136614]My problem right now is in the fact that a whole lot of people seem to be fine with denying and ignoring what has been cited from very reputable sources.[/QUOTE] Cause you cherry-pick to push your argument .. while ignoring: - [url]https://www.circinfo.org/Warren.html[/url] - [url]https://forskning.no/menneskekroppen/2016/12/omskjaering-kan-skade-gutters-urinveier[/url] [QUOTE=Last or First;53134419][url=https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201501/circumcision-s-psychological-damage]This link[/url] is admittedly pretty biased, but [url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10657682]it[/url] [url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24094874]sources[/url] [url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9057731]studies[/url] [url=http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/boyle6/]that[/url] [url=http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/goldman1/]aren't.[/url][/QUOTE] + a few others Despite you holding onto [url]www.pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/130/3/e756[/url] like a religion .. you lied about it. It said 'risks do [b]not[/b] outweigh the benefits' .. I also don't believe their [b]claim in an increase in sensitivity[/b], when you; in-fact, [b]cut millions of nerves[/b] off your dick. I also find it hard to believe research coming from a country, that actively does those practices. When I find more research that says the opposite coming from other countries. North Korea: "New research; Hunger is not unhealthy. Food = fat = unhealthy".

[QUOTE=Nak;53136664]Despite you holding onto [url]www.pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/130/3/e756[/url] like a religion .. you lied about it. It said 'risks do [b]not[/b] outweigh the benefits' .. [/QUOTE] Look, I'm on your side, but this is false. Please, [URL=http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/130/3/e756]click this link to the article[/URL], press Ctrl+F and type in [I]"risks do not"[/I]. It literally does not say that anywhere. It straight up, verbatim, says [B]"Evaluation of current evidence indicates that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks"[/B] on the 13th line of the article, and it is repeated several times throughout. Maybe you're thinking of: [quote]Parents should weigh the health benefits and risks in light of their own religious, cultural, and personal preferences, as [B]the medical benefits alone may not outweigh these other considerations for individual families.[/B][/quote]

Surely it's more devout to take a knife to your junk at 18 anyway. You really gotta have strong faith and zeal to do that to a part of you that you're really attached too.

"Outweighs the risks" is a very specific and ultimately meaningless statement however, because things like loss in sensitivity, not being able to jack off properly without lube, etc aren't "risks", they're downsides which do not pose a direct hazard to your health but still make your life a slightly bit more tough. The question is, even if circumcision does have all of these benefits (which I find hard to believe), is it worth it to take the procedure when it results in a loss of sensitivity and fucks up some aspects of sex such as masturbation ? As so many other people pointed out, you can achieve all of these health benefits via means that don't involve permanent body modifications (performed on a child who cannot consent no less), such as having good hygiene and wearing a condom.

[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;53136724]Look, I'm on your side, but this is false. Please, [URL=http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/130/3/e756]click this link to the article[/URL], press Ctrl+F and type in [I]"risks do not"[/I]. It literally does not say that anywhere. It straight up, verbatim, says [B]"Evaluation of current evidence indicates that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks"[/B] on the 13th line of the article, and it is repeated several times throughout. Maybe you're thinking of:[/QUOTE] Tbh I only took the messages he didn't reply to. Didn't read the full paper as I found it highly unbelievable. (I know you agree .. but need to say why) I stand my ground that is some bongos' pseudo-science, when they didn't even acknowledge the fact that 96% of all newborn males, have their forehead fused to their dick. [url=https://www.yourwholebaby.org/forced-retraction/]Where removal will damage/rip the skin off the head of the penis[/url]. (Some males will first have full retractable forehead when they turn 17.) Its also blatantly wrong as they try to claim circumcision doesn't affect sexual function/sensitivity or sexual satisfaction when you cut millions of nerves off your dick.

[QUOTE=sgman91;53136573]What kind of nonsense is this? The approach to circumcision on much of FP almost seems comparable to something like 9/11 trutherism.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=sgman91;53136614]My problem right now is in the fact that a whole lot of people seem to be fine with denying and ignoring what has been cited from very reputable sources. [/QUOTE] Same here, I'm put off by the amount of people here completely dismissing the data. Whether or not circumcision should be pushed is a very good question, very well worth having a discussion about. But what the hell is wrong with some of these responses? It's like people coming in to a vaccine debate and saying "no I'm pretty sure they cause autism. Just gonna go ahead and deny all your clinical evidence". I don't think the people saying "just wear a condom and wash your dick" understand a urologist's role in medicine. But fuck it, you guys totally know more than medical professionals who spend years studying the field and analyzing data. Totally. Seriously people, replace the context here with mom bloggers trying to debunk vaccines being safe - It sounds like the exact same conversation.

your religious rights should end where baby dicks begin

[QUOTE=polarbear.;53136787]Same here, I'm put off by the amount of people here completely dismissing the data. Whether or not circumcision should be pushed is a very good question, very well worth having a discussion about. But what the hell is wrong with some of these responses? It's like people coming in to a vaccine debate and saying "no I'm pretty sure they cause autism. Just gonna go ahead and deny all your clinical evidence". I don't think the people saying "just wear a condom and wash your dick" understand a urologist's role in medicine. But fuck it, you guys totally know more than medical professionals who spend years studying the field and analyzing data. Totally. Seriously people, replace the context here with mom bloggers trying to debunk vaccines being safe - It sounds like the exact same conversation.[/QUOTE] Hey buddy, one of the people I worked with for 3 years was a urologist, and let me tell you, what I learned from him, and through practice, was that most mild UTIs can be managed with a single syrup, which you take 2 spoons of thrice daily for 3 days. Anything more you can usually get treated within a week, or less by adding one or two extra medicines. There are very few instances of resistant infection unless you get it from a hospital environment to boot. Also risk factor != danger. Cutting your dick versus not cutting it is also still a controversial subject, which in some cases boils basically down to weighing the pros and cons based off of a doctor's knowledge versus the patient's own needs.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;53136765]"Outweighs the risks" is a very specific and ultimately meaningless statement however, because things like loss in sensitivity, not being able to jack off properly without lube, etc aren't "risks", they're downsides which do not pose a direct hazard to your health but still make your life a slightly bit more tough. The question is, even if circumcision does have all of these benefits (which I find hard to believe), is it worth it to take the procedure when it results in a loss of sensitivity and fucks up some aspects of sex such as masturbation ? As so many other people pointed out, you can achieve all of these health benefits via means that don't involve permanent body modifications (performed on a child who cannot consent no less), such as having good hygiene and wearing a condom.[/QUOTE] It's relevant when people are making claims that circumcision is medically bad for the child. Once we've moved past that claim, then we can talk about the things you've brought up. I agree that it isn't conclusive when discussing whether to allow it or not, but I haven't presented it as such.

Baffles me that there's still people in the modern world with access to the internet and whatnot that are still deluded enough to think that non-consensual genital mutilation of babies for religious reasons is fine and perfectly A-ok. I guess it shows the power of religious grooming and indoctrination lol edit for clarity I for one will definitely be cutting the end of my future sons cock off so that I can appease the gods in hopes of a good crop harvest

[QUOTE=WJS;53136871]Baffles me that there's still people in the modern world with access to the internet and whatnot that are still deluded enough to think that non-consensual genital mutilation of babies is fine and perfectly A-ok. I guess it shows the power of religious grooming and indoctrination lol[/QUOTE] Yeah, those secular medical professionals have really been groomed and indoctrinated by religion, lol.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;53136765]things like loss in sensitivity, not being able to jack off properly without lube ... results in a loss of sensitivity and fucks up some aspects of sex such as masturbation[/QUOTE] I really don't know what you're doing wrong with your penis, but I have 0 trouble without lube in both having sex and jerking it. These two points are grossly over represented, I believe. To the point that I subconsciously disregard them immediately without really even realizing it. I'm old enough to have had the more invasive circumcision done, as well, so I can't see how this one would translate over at all to the more modern technique which doesn't remove nearly as much skin.

[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;53136831] Also risk factor != danger. Cutting your dick versus not cutting it is also still a controversial subject, which in some cases boils basically down to weighing the pros and cons based off of a doctor's knowledge versus the patient's own needs.[/QUOTE] Yeah, that's my point. People here are throwing the doctor's knowledge out the window or even outright denying it. Look, I wouldn't circumcise my kids either, but I think it's pretty ignorant to be making statements along the lines of: "These records of clinical evidence are just opinions" "There is zero reason to circumcise at birth" "5% less STDs in the population is a laughable amount" You've attended medical school, right? I'm sure you have to agree that there's some misconception here.

Is it really that hard not to mutilate children's dicks?

[QUOTE=KingofBeast;53136910]I really don't know what you're doing wrong with your penis, but I have 0 trouble without lube in both having sex and jerking it. These two points are grossly over represented, I believe. To the point that I subconsciously disregard them immediately without really even realizing it. I'm old enough to have had the more invasive circumcision done, as well, so I can't see how this one would translate over at all to the more modern technique which doesn't remove nearly as much skin.[/QUOTE] anecdotes don't really count I wouldn't complain either, but my friend requires additional lubricant, not his fault. So, what's your point? Your experiences are all you need on this topic?

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53136925]anecdotes don't really count I wouldn't complain either, but my friend requires additional lubricant, not his fault. So, what's your point? Your experiences are all you need on this topic?[/QUOTE] Note that I said I [B]believe[/B] they are [B]over represented[/B], not invalid.

[QUOTE=Nak;53136774]Tbh I only took the messages he didn't reply to. Didn't read the full paper as I found it highly unbelievable. (I know you agree .. but need to say why) I stand my ground that is some bongos' pseudo-science, when they didn't even acknowledge the fact that 96% of all newborn males, have their forehead fused to their dick. [url=https://www.yourwholebaby.org/forced-retraction/]Where removal will damage/rip the skin off the head of the penis[/url]. (Some males will first have full retractable forehead when they turn 17.) Its also blatantly wrong as they try to claim circumcision doesn't affect sexual function/sensitivity or sexual satisfaction when you cut millions of nerves off your dick.[/QUOTE] I agree that it smells of pseudo-science, but I just honestly feel many of the counter arguments made against sgman91's claims have been a bit shite. YouTube videos and simple unsourced claims that simply contradict his source doesn't feel particularly convincing. Of course, I'm not saying there haven't been good arguments either, such as the sources you have provided. But sources and actually [I]showing[/I] where the bias is are necessary. Personally I found a couple of things I found suspicious about the AAP article: I find it suspicious that the specific mechanism of the foreskin is being ignored, along with the blatant reality that some circumcised individuals need lubricant just to masturbate, in favor of studies of specific sensitivity to heat and touch as though being able to detect touch directly translates into potential for sexual function. It's suspicious that one of the articles in cited in the AAP article itself admits that a significant number of people who have experienced both states report masturbatory difficulty and worsened sex life. It's suspicious that one of the articles used to argue that [I]"There is both good and fair evidence that no statistically significant differences exist between circumcised and uncircumcised men in terms of sexual sensation and satisfaction"[/I] actually reports [I]"Mean difference between pre- and postoperative PEP values was 2.76 ms which was statistically significant (p < 0.001). Mean ejaculatory latency time was significantly longer after circumcision (p < 0.001)."[/I] but goes on to justify it by saying that that [I][B]contributes[/B][/I] to sexual satisfaction. I find it suspicious that the AAP article off-handedly mentions 'other articles' that 'failed to present evidence' when talking about contradicting evidence, yet happily presents [URL=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3042320/]this study[/URL] that AAP itself claims fails to reach statistical significance, but reports findings such as 64% of circumcised men feeling [I]much more[/I] sensitive and 54% finding it [I]much easier[/I] to reach orgasm after circumcision. However, even the control groups largely reported all of the positive things over the 2 year period [I](all reports of sexual dysfunction practically went to 0 in both the control and the circumcised group, and the control group were apparently not asked the questions about increased sensitivity and orgasm)[/I]. And also, 67.9% felt "much more" protected against HIV, which was the underlying reason they wanted to test if there were adverse effects, and the participants were given extensive counseling on STD prevention and even psychological counseling. I'm inclined to think there might have been other factors that might have influenced these people to report improvements. [QUOTE=Zonesylvania;53136662][quote]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.[/quote][URL]http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/130/3/e756[/URL][/QUOTE] That's still not what you're saying it says, though. They're saying that although they think the benefits outweigh the risks, the benefits might not outweigh the risks + religious, cultural, and personal preferences of every family.

[QUOTE=sgman91;53136878]Yeah, those secular medical professionals have really been groomed and indoctrinated by religion, lol.[/QUOTE] I don't normally doubt medical professionals, but it is kinda funny how medical professionals from countries where circumcision is normal defend it, while others want the practice banned.