Circumcision is a crime now in Germany

[quadraphonics]

Other than that, quite well, since I've sucked a few Australian (and Mexican . . . Cuban, Spanish . . . Argentinian . . . okay, okay, I have a thing for Hispanics) dicks in my day, none of which were cut and none of which demonstrated any increased sexual arousal or potency.

Oh man, epic fail! Asguard walked right into that one...

 

[Orleander]

Oh man, epic fail! Asguard walked right into that one...

LOL, yeah he won't be back for a rebuttal.

 

[Syzygys]

Other than that, quite well, since I've sucked a few Australian (and Mexican . . . Cuban, Spanish . . . Argentinian . . . okay, okay, I have a thing for Hispanics) dicks in my day, none of which were cut and none of which demonstrated any increased sexual arousal or potency.

Unfortunately, we can only count these as hearsay, after all you weren't the one feeling the pleasure...

 

[Asguard]

Interesting string, I didn't realise that your mouth suffered from female vaginal dryness, how curious

Oh and just out of intrest string, your saying that these women are asking to be sown back up because they are being forced to by there husbands? Firstly that's a load of drivil, has nothing to DO with there husbands, it's there OWN views about there sexuality according to the psychologist who ends up treating them when the hospitals refuse in line with Australian law and who was giving us the lecture (apparently you are unable to read, do I need to highlight that for you string?)

Secondly how EXACTLY would that be any different from Orleanders comments that she would demand her partner be mutilated or refuse to have sex with him and that she intern became a child abuser by sexually mutilating her own son (sorry but I'm not going to sugar coat it, this is child abuse and because it relates to sexuality it's SEXUAL abuse, just the same as FGM is)

 

[Orleander]

...Secondly how EXACTLY would that be any different from Orleanders comments that she would demand her partner be mutilated or refuse to have sex with him...

LMFAO! :roflmao: Where on earth did I say that? I said I wouldn't have sex with an uncircumcised man because I find it unattractive. Why would he be my partner if I found him sexually unattractive. :shrug:

And every man in my family and my husband's family is circumcised. I have no problem with YOU thinking we are all mutilating sexual deviant abusers. If you haven't noticed, your opinion doesn't matter a whole lot on this board because lots of times, its backed up with hysteria and "I read/heard it somewhere and I can't prove it"

 

[spidergoat]

Suck it Orleander.

 

[Orleander]

Suck it Orleander.

You know I do

 

[Orleander]

well, how about his?

Circumcision May Lower Urinary Infection Risk

Uncircumcised boys are at a higher risk for urinary tract infections compared with circumcised boys, a new study finds.

The study involved close to 400 boys ages 3 years or younger who went to the hospital with symptoms of a urinary tract infection. Results showed that about 25 percent of uncircumcised boys had urinary tract infections, compared with 5 percent of circumcised boys....

 

[spidergoat]

You know I do

Good girl.

 

[Syzygys]

well, how about his?

Let me cut off my foreskin, I will be right back...

 

[Kittamaru]

Wow.. That's what you're going with?

Does this mean you don't think children have any rights because they cannot understand right from wrong?

If we were to use your argument, FGM would be acceptable if done on girls too young to know right from wrong.

Not at all Bells - my point is that, until the child is capable of making rational and informed decisions, they are reliant on their parents to make such choices for them... it's infuriating to me that governments are trying to regulate this stuff (things like video games, "bad" tv, etc... what ever happened to parental responsibility ffs?)

Bullshit. The foreskin protects the glans. Boobs only have actual utility while nursing, and there is this stuff called baby formula, which means women have no need to breast feed.

Uhm... baby formula is NOTHING like actual breast milk... did you fail basic health and science? A mothers breast milk, especially in the first few feedings, gives the child it's first portion of an immune system, helping protect them from disease... not to mention all the health benefits of real breast milk over formula... and the non-health ones (like less-smelly diapers...)

 

[iceaura]

The study actually wasn't flawed. It is one of the first that looked directly at this subject matter.

It was garbage. And you normally spot garbage.

A new study published yesterday in Thymos: Journal of Boyhood Studies estimates that more than 100 baby boys die from circumcision complications each year, including from anesthesia reaction, stroke, hemorrhage, and infection. Because infant circumcision is elective, all of these deaths are avoidable.

Clearly no attempt was made to separate out the medically critical circumcisions. The possibility that these would have a higher death rate - from, say, anesthesia, which is commonly local or even absent (inexcusably) in truly elective circumcisions, or hemorrhage and infection and stroke, which would be presumed more common in more serious and difficult procedures such as medically critical circumcisions are likely to be - seems not to have occurred to these professional researchers. At least, they don't mention it or correct for it. It means we have no real way of evaluating the number in the context of this thread.

The declaration that all circumcisions are elective was probably just carelessness and overstatement, rather than agenda driven dishonesty, right?

But that was not the basis for my aspersion of the study as worse than muddled, apparently actually deceptive. This was:

The study found that approximately 117 neonatal (first 28 days after birth) circumcision-related deaths occur annually in the United States,
- - - -
About 115 neonatal boys die annually from SIDS, nearly the same as from circumcision.

We note first that this itself contradicts Asguard's assertion, which was that the study showed more boys dieing of circ than SIDS.

Second, we note that the listed causes of death by circumcision are all fairly quick - most circ deaths are neo-natal, and the first 28 days after birth is a reasonable time period to use in counting them. But most SIDS deaths are not neo-natal - they happen in the crib, at home, weeks and months after birth.

The unique signature characteristic of SIDS is its log-normal age distribution that spares infants shortly after birth — the time of maximal risk for almost all other causes of non-trauma infant death.
- - - -
Age of infant — SIDS incidence rises from zero at birth, is highest from two to four months of age, and declines toward zero after the infant's first year

I think it's reasonable, on seeing that invalid comparison in the article, to presume active dishonesty in the author and researcher - a deliberate rhetorical attempt to deceive the reader, as Asguard was apparently deceived.

The law in this one region of Germany stated that circumcisions for religious reasons are still available and should still be available. But the caveat on that is that the boy gets to grow up and decide for themselves when they are at the age of understanding.. I think that's a fair call, don't you?

Depends. What about the circumcisions for prophylactic health reasons, on the judgment of the parents? Waiting until adulthood clearly wouldn't be fair or sensible in that case - most benefits lost, much greater costs incurred.

 

[scifes]

Bullshit. The foreskin protects the glans. Boobs only have actual utility while nursing, and there is this stuff called baby formula, which means women have no need to breast feed.

the foreskin protects nothing, if it does then circumcised men would be more prone to whatever it protected, and that would be mentioned in all the research papers cited here, since it isn't, that means you're full of shit.
boobs have an invalubale asthetic value to women, and play a major role in what the human race defines as beauty or sex appeal.
that aside, the difference between your baby formula and natural breast milk when compared to the difference between a dick with or without that small pice of flesh makes the latter zero(difference).

get real.

Bullshit. The state enforces human rights, even on parents.

and who knows "human rights" of kids more than their parents? a government with some political agenda in which newborns are but elements in bigger plans?

Cutting parts off a child at whim is not a right of a parent.

argument from ignorance, just because you are ignorant of the benefits doesn't mean they're not there, that they haven't been researched, buplished, uploaded into databases, shared on the internet, and cited by members on this forum, on this thread.
all what you had to do what read, before you post.
apparently too much to ask from you.
so shovel that "at a whim" where the sun doesn't shine.

Being left physically intact is a right of the child.

what if the baby was born with 6 fingers?
what about the baby's hair? aren't there idiots somewhere in the world trying to push a law to ban parents from cutting their baby's hair?
or fingernails? they should be intact huh?

this thread is about asguard and you throwing crap everywhere and everyone else taking turns cleaning up, at least bells seems sincere, and spidergoat is talking from a personal experience(or loss of it, now he can't jack off with that extra piece of skin and that makes him furious at his parents).

 

[phlogistician]

the foreskin protects nothing, blah blah boobs blah blah

Aesthetic value of boobs you can see, but not the aesthetic value of an unscarred penis?

Parents do not own their child's body parts. It is not the right of the parent to lop parts of a child off. Get that in your head. Your circumcision was abuse, learn to hate the asshole that did that to you.

 

[Tiassa]

This and That

Parents do not own their child's body parts.

Then I want my adenoids back.

• • •​

this thread is about asguard and you throwing crap everywhere and everyone else taking turns cleaning up ....

I'm starting to think those two are actually provocateurs trying to discredit critics of newborn male circumcision.

 

[Asguard]

Tiassa you of all people i dont understand. First you accuse me of being a sexist for calling this what it is Genital Mutilation and you back off when bells comes in with the same argument equating it with FMG and now this

Basically it boils down to this, why do you have a problem with "informed consent"? a person has a right to CHOSE what happens to there body, that means that SURE if your tonsils are playing up then they have to be removed, thats a medical NESSECITY or you will die (or at the very least be quite sick). And if there is an URGENT MEDICAL NEED to operate on the genitalia then no one would complain. However if its NOT an urgent medical need then the child can decide when they turn 16 (or younger if the age of medical consent is younger) THEY get to decide pure and simple.

Basically these 2 posts sum up the argument quite well:

I don't know of any man that ever decided to be circumcised if there wasn't a doctor order standing behind it

So why do it to newborn baby boys?

Its just sad watching people call this law "goverment interfearance in self determination" while compleatly ignoring what SELF determination means. Children have rights, those rights include being protected from the idiocy of there parents. JW cant refuse a blood transfusion for a child, parents cant get there children sterilised without authorisation from the Guardianship Board, parents cant get the hood removed from there daughters clit and germany ruled that THIS is another decision the CHILD can make when they are old enough to make that decisions.

The funny thing is for those who call this antisemetic origionally this was the test of manhood, this was what YOU got done when you wanted to be accepted as a man in the tribe and marry. Basically Germany isnt being antisemetic, they are simply saying that it can be practiced the way it origionally was, when YOU can decide

 

[Orleander]

A doctor circumcised my husband, my father, my brother, and my son. Doctors aren't supposed to do unnecessary surgeries or remove healthy body parts right? So why wouldn't I be ok with it? :shrug: Especially since not a single man in my family is throwing a holy whiny hissy fit about it, then demanding that the women of the family have their breasts or labia removed.

And by the way, my youngest brother was circumcised 2x. They didn't remove enough the first time, so his infant weenie got snipped again. He's now the proud father of 5 circumcised boys, and he apparently enjoys sex just fine.

 

[Bells]

A doctor circumcised my husband, my father, my brother, and my son. Doctors aren't supposed to do unnecessary surgeries or remove healthy body parts right? So why wouldn't I be ok with it? :shrug: Especially since not a single man in my family is throwing a holy whiny hissy fit about it, then demanding that the women of the family have their breasts or labia removed.

And by the way, my youngest brother was circumcised 2x. They didn't remove enough the first time, so his infant weenie got snipped again. He's now the proud father of 5 circumcised boys, and he apparently enjoys sex just fine.

Must be an American thing. Doctors here literally discourage it if it is not medically necessary, you cannot do it in any public hospital at all if it is not medically necessary. To put it into some perspective, it is unusual to see a circumcised penis here..

Possibly because parents here are educated and aware that it is not necessary to remove bits of their children's bodies if there is no medical need to actually do so.

Obviously in the US, parents think it is acceptable to remove their kid's body parts, even when the medical profession deems it unnecessary.. :shrug: To each their own.

Then I want my adenoids back.

Were they removed because your parents thought you would be prettier and cleaner without it?

It was garbage. And you normally spot garbage.

Oh I'm spotting lots here, believe me. The best so far is this:

What rights does a child, incapable of even KNOWING right from wrong, truly have, hmm?

I mean what right does a child even have to not be harmed, for example, if they are incapable of even knowing right from wrong? It seems when it comes from removing bits of children's bodies from them as babies, none. In other words, Kitta's argument goes directly against the very premise of wanting to protect children from harm.. Worse still, his argument justifies even FGM or even abuse..

Clearly no attempt was made to separate out the medically critical circumcisions. The possibility that these would have a higher death rate - from, say, anesthesia, which is commonly local or even absent (inexcusably) in truly elective circumcisions, or hemorrhage and infection and stroke, which would be presumed more common in more serious and difficult procedures such as medically critical circumcisions are likely to be - seems not to have occurred to these professional researchers. At least, they don't mention it or correct for it. It means we have no real way of evaluating the number in the context of this thread.

The declaration that all circumcisions are elective was probably just carelessness and overstatement, rather than agenda driven dishonesty, right?

And you know no attempt was made to separate out medically necessary circumcisions because of how? The guy went through hospital records, I would imagine they would be detailing if it was medically necessary or not.

We note first that this itself contradicts Asguard's assertion, which was that the study showed more boys dieing of circ than SIDS.

Second, we note that the listed causes of death by circumcision are all fairly quick - most circ deaths are neo-natal, and the first 28 days after birth is a reasonable time period to use in counting them. But most SIDS deaths are not neo-natal - they happen in the crib, at home, weeks and months after birth.

More boys also die of SIDS than girls.

I would be interested to know the time frame of the SIDS deaths.. However, regardless, the numbers should give some pause for concern. If the circumcision related deaths are from solely elective circumcisions, then I would find that an appalling figure, wouldn't you?

In fact, I would find even 1 death from any complication that arose out of an elective circumcision to be an appalling figure. Maybe I am strange in the sense that I don't think deliberately placing babies at risk of death for religious reasons or for cosmetic reasons is a practice that should be supported or encouraged.

I think it's reasonable, on seeing that invalid comparison in the article, to presume active dishonesty in the author and researcher - a deliberate rhetorical attempt to deceive the reader, as Asguard was apparently deceived.

And yet you say nothing of the African studies which were deliberately flawed and misleading which give rise to supporting circumcision?

Funny that, eh Ice?

Depends. What about the circumcisions for prophylactic health reasons, on the judgment of the parents? Waiting until adulthood clearly wouldn't be fair or sensible in that case - most benefits lost, much greater costs incurred.

More girls contract or come down with UTI's than boys and UTI's is rare in baby boys anyway if the parents practice some level of hygiene. The HIV studies regarding circumcisions were deliberately flawed. Penile cancer is very very rare in the West, because we have clean running water and the facilities to maintain good hygiene and it can also occur in circumcised men. The best way to prevent the spread of any STD is to use a condom or not have sex with multiple partners or to abstain from sex.

Maybe parents should be given the correct information detailing the risks and benefits of both circumcisions and non-circumcisions and allow them to make an informed decision without outside pressure and without people going "ewww I wouldn't put that in my mouth.. ick"? I am a firm believer in allowing children to make such decision for themselves, same with religion to be honest. It is something children should decide for themselves instead of being forced into it because that is what their parents want them to believe in. I also think that maintaining a child's bodily integrity should be paramount for all parents and that deciding to remove the foreskin should be something the actual owner of said foreskin should decide for themselves.

At the very least, parents should be held firmly responsible if they decide to circumcise their son's and something goes wrong, because it was their choice to do that to their children.

 

[Orleander]

...Possibly because parents here are educated and aware that it is not necessary to remove bits of their children's bodies if there is no medical need to actually do so.

Obviously in the US, parents think it is acceptable to remove their kid's body parts, even when the medical profession deems it unnecessary.. :shrug: To each their own......

That was a personal attack wasn't it? And this uneducated parent deemed it ok, because the doctor DIDN'T deem it unnecessary.

 

[Bells]

Not at all Bells - my point is that, until the child is capable of making rational and informed decisions, they are reliant on their parents to make such choices for them... it's infuriating to me that governments are trying to regulate this stuff (things like video games, "bad" tv, etc... what ever happened to parental responsibility ffs?)

So you would have no issue if parents of baby girls made the decision and the choice to circumcise their baby girls? How about give them a beating? After all, 'until the child is capable of making rational and informed decisions, they are reliant on their parents to make such choices and decisions for them', correct? What you are saying is that children have zero rights and are to remain at the whim of the parents until said child is able to make rational and informed decisions. Which, believe it or not, opens the door to some things you probably do not even want to imagine because there are people out there who do horrendous things to their children because they believe exactly as what you just stated, that children do not really have any rights until they get older.. So well done..

Thankfully we have laws to protect children from parents who believe that their children have no rights or shouldn't have rights.