If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Circumcision should not be performed on minors under 18
"Tai" wrote in message ... Stephanie wrote: "WindingHighway" wrote in message ... On Nov 25, 7:09?pm, wrote: Given that circumcision is nonreversible body modification, it should not be performed on minors under the age of 18, except for true medical reasons just as any other operation. Reducing deaths from HIV and cervical cancer is a pretty good medical reason. The sexual, social, esthetic, and hygienic benefits are prefectly valid too. Im sure the millions that have died from foreskin- propagated diseases like these would agree with me. Non-medically necessary circumcision on minors under age 18 should maybe be prosecuted as mayhem. You want to prosecute a third of the parents on earth??? Now, THERE is recipe for mayhem! Get a grip. And since circumcision is nonreversible, perhaps there should be a waiting period for anyone to get circumcised even as an adult, just as there is a waiting period for a sex change. LOL! Its just a useless, smelly, ugly bit of skin for gods sake! Save your energy for something that really matters, like abortion. Steph, I couldn't believe my eyes for a minute until I worked out that your quoting wasn't working properly again and only the two lines immediately below these were your words! OMG. I did not even notice that quoting was not working. What casuses that? Might it just be that the foreskin heightens sexual plasure that give you the twitches? And, incidentally, if yours smells, you can wash it. Circumcision is genital mutilation, Says who? Actually, its penile enhancement. and impairs the abilities of the male sexual organ. Nonsense. There isnt a shred of scientific evidence for that statement. If circumcision impaired the male sexual organ you can bet your ass that men wouldnt do it or choose it for their sons. Apart from anything else, being cut greatly improves your chances of getting a blow job. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Circumcision should not be performed on minors under 18
Stephanie wrote:
"Tai" wrote in message [...] Steph, I couldn't believe my eyes for a minute until I worked out that your quoting wasn't working properly again and only the two lines immediately below these were your words! OMG. I did not even notice that quoting was not working. What casuses that? I have no idea! I use Outlook Express too, although I also have QuoteFix installed, and have never managed to have it happen to me. All I can think of is that you have some odd combination of settings switched on but it only happens to you occasionally so there must be something else you're doing to trigger it for a specific post. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Circumcision should not be performed on minors under 18
What say you on the *fact* that some men that have undergone adult
circumcision say that their pleasure has increased since the procedure then? That's a plain lie. �It definitely impairs the male sex organ. �The foreskin has nerves, protects the penis, and makes sex easier as it slides back and forth over the head of the penis. �It also makes masturbation easier. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Circumcision should not be performed on minors under 18
It's too bad this group (alt.parenting.solutions, alt.circumcision) is
utterly irrelevant due to the high volume of fetish posters and spam. No medical association on earth (not even Israel's) recommends routine infant circumcision. Many roundly condemn it. Even the policy of the AAP - for which circumcision is over a $100 million per year industry - is neutral only after weighing cultural factors which have nothing to do with the child's well-being. The evidence is there today for parents. (http://Circumstitions.com) Cut your kid, and he will have every reason to resent you for taking his choice away. The rate of cutting for newborns in California is down to 21% as of 2005. For the US as a whole it's close to 50/50. By the time your kid grows up, it will probably as rare in the US as it is elsewhere. 80% of the world is intact and suffers no lack of sex partners or unusual health problems. Most of the cut men in the world are Muslims (outnumbering cut Jews 50 to 1). In non-circumcising cultures (that is, excluding Muslims, Jews, US, South Korea, and Philippines) the rate of intact adults choosing to get cut is 0.3%. Whatever "medical" reasons you might have heard about, none of them justify taking away an infant's choice. The only factor remotely associated with infancy is urinary tract infections, but girls get more of those than any group of boys. The AAP's policy even mentions that the UTI evidence is dubious due to the way the studies were mishandled. The intact penis needs to be left alone, but nurses and parents used to be instructed to forcibly retract and clean under the foreskin, causing the infections. Other supposed threats are dissolving before the pro-circs' eyes. HPV now has a vaccine, HIV may have one soon. Regardless, infants are not at risk for sexually transmitted infections. But circumcision does not prevent AIDS, anyway. Most of the US men who have died of AIDS were cut at birth. AIDS is more rare in non-cutting Japan than it is in 95%-cut Israel. There are lots of places in Africa (like Cameroon, Ghana, Lesotho, Malawi, Rwanda, and Tanzania) where AIDS is more prevalent among the circumcised. Cutting in infancy is the worst time. Pain management is a challenge and the long-term effects of early pain experiences are just beginning to be understood. Healing must happen in the foul diaper environment. The infant can't communicate if something doesn't feel just right. Skin bridges, skin tags, adhesions, jagged scars, assymetry, bulgy truncated vein, tightness, and curveature are all worse for procedures done to infants. Gouges and pits in the glans from the necessary tearing of the still-fused infant skin from the glans are very rare in procedures done later. http://www.noharmm.org/IDcirc.htm It's just so easy. Every mammal on earth evolved his foreskin before there was surgery or even soap. Leave him perfect, leave him intact. -Ron Low HIS body HIS decision. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Circumcision should not be performed on minors under 18
Stephanie wrote:
"WindingHighway" wrote in message ... On Nov 25, 7:09?pm, wrote: Given that circumcision is nonreversible body modification, it should not be performed on minors under the age of 18, except for true medical reasons just as any other operation. Reducing deaths from HIV and cervical cancer is a pretty good medical reason. -------------- Except what they don't tell you is that the HIV effect is quite tiny and marginal here because we don't use anal intercourse for birth- control, as they are forced to do in Africa. Here it would save FAR LESS lives than ANY kind of condom program!! The sexual, social, esthetic, and hygienic benefits are prefectly valid too. Im sure the millions that have died from foreskin- propagated diseases like these would agree with me. ------------------ Nonsense. The same germs are available there as on the mouth. In fact, MORE germs are present on the mouth than on the anus or genitals!! The foreskin is MORE likely to get an infection from your mouth than the reverse!! And as for aesthetics, it sounds like you don't really like real penises very well. Anyone who really enjoys giving fellation will love the interesting and slippery foreskin with its fascinating behaviors. And they will love the responsiveness to touch that it gives the penis by protecting its glans. Non-medically necessary circumcision on minors under age 18 should maybe be prosecuted as mayhem. / You want to prosecute a third of the parents on earth??? Now, THERE is recipe for mayhem! Get a grip. ------------------------------ We need to do it. Used to be a third of people smoked in bars and in restaurants, and now very few do, and yet few have to be arrested for it. And since circumcision is nonreversible, perhaps there should be a waiting period for anyone to get circumcised even as an adult, just as there is a waiting period for a sex change. LOL! Its just a useless, smelly, ugly bit of skin for gods sake! -------------------- Your antisexual sickness is showing. You don't like real genuine genitals and their shape and texture and responsiveness. and impairs the abilities of the male sexual organ. Nonsense. There isnt a shred of scientific evidence for that statement. ----------------------- Now that's where you're patently wrong. The ONLY ones who "disagree" with that research are the anti-foreskin crazies. If circumcision impaired the male sexual organ you can bet your ass that men wouldnt do it or choose it for their sons. ------------------------- Wrong. Poeple do all sorts of stupid things when they are brainwashed by church and society. Look at Nazi Germany, and at American sexuality. Apart from anything else, being cut greatly improves your chances of getting a blow job. -------------------------- By someone who doesn't really LIKE to give blowjobs, maybe. Pass! Steve |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Circumcision should not be performed on minors under 18
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 05:49:47 -0800, R. Steve Walz wrote:
Stephanie wrote: "WindingHighway" wrote in message ... On Nov 25, 7:09?pm, wrote: Given that circumcision is nonreversible body modification, it should not be performed on minors under the age of 18, except for true medical reasons just as any other operation. Reducing deaths from HIV and cervical cancer is a pretty good medical reason. -------------- Except what they don't tell you is that the HIV effect is quite tiny and marginal here because we don't use anal intercourse for birth- control, as they are forced to do in Africa. Here it would save FAR LESS lives than ANY kind of condom program!! Happily, of course, condoms and circumcision are not mutually exclusive, and there is no need to choose between the two. The sexual, social, esthetic, and hygienic benefits are prefectly valid too. Im sure the millions that have died from foreskin- propagated diseases like these would agree with me. ------------------ Nonsense. The same germs are available there as on the mouth. In fact, MORE germs are present on the mouth than on the anus or genitals!! The foreskin is MORE likely to get an infection from your mouth than the reverse!! And as for aesthetics, it sounds like you don't really like real penises very well. Anyone who really enjoys giving fellation will love the interesting and slippery foreskin with its fascinating behaviors. And they will love the responsiveness to touch that it gives the penis by protecting its glans. Interesting hypothesis. Do you have any evidence to support it? You may find the following study of interest, in which 83% preferred circumcised partners for fellatio, compared with 2% who preferred uncircumcised partners. http://www.circs.org/library/williamson/index.html and impairs the abilities of the male sexual organ. Nonsense. There isnt a shred of scientific evidence for that statement. ----------------------- Now that's where you're patently wrong. The ONLY ones who "disagree" with that research are the anti-foreskin crazies. What specific research are you talking about? |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Circumcision should not be performed on minors under 18
No medical association on earth (not even Israel's) recommends routine infant circumcision. Many roundly condemn it. Even the policy of the AAP - for which circumcision is over a $100 million per year industry - is neutral only after weighing cultural factors which have nothing to do with the child's well-being. That's funny. I don't see it as *only* weighing cultural factors at all. Why do noncircer's assume that parents chosing circ for their boys equates to an uneducated/uninformed decision? The stats are pretty clear in the AAP policy statement, as they are in policy statements/studies of other professional organizations, such as urology. The AAP statement clearly states, and after providing much information pertaining to stats, that...Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In the case of circumcision, in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision. It is legitimate for parents to take into account cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions, in addition to the medical factors, when making this decision. Analgesia is safe and effective in reducing the procedural pain associated with circumcision; therefore, if a decision for circumcision is made, procedural analgesia should be provided. If circumcision is performed in the newborn period, it should only be done on infants who are stable and healthy. It instead merely points out that there are potential medical benefits, albeit not for the newborn's current well being. Therefore, potential doesn't mean that there are benefits that are unknown, but instead it means there *are* medical benefits in the future, but because they cannot clearly identify for which adults that would be, the word potential is used, as in for some people. The evidence is there today for parents. (http://Circumstitions.com) Cut your kid, and he will have every reason to resent you for taking his choice away. The rate of cutting for newborns in California is down to 21% as of 2005. For the US as a whole it's close to 50/50. By the time your kid grows up, it will probably as rare in the US as it is elsewhere. 80% of the world is intact and suffers no lack of sex partners or unusual health problems. Most of the cut men in the world are Muslims (outnumbering cut Jews 50 to 1). Nah, no cut male I know resents their parents today at all and rather is really thankful it was done when they were infants. Most people didn't make the decision based strictly on how it looks or because they wanted their child to *fit in*. The intact penis needs to be left alone, but nurses and parents used to be instructed to forcibly retract and clean under the foreskin, causing the infections. You cannot possibly be saying that no intact penis suffers from various conditions that require treatment, period. Other supposed threats are dissolving before the pro-circs' eyes. HPV now has a vaccine, HIV may have one soon. Regardless, infants are not at risk for sexually transmitted infections. But circumcision does not prevent AIDS, anyway. Most of the US men who have died of AIDS were cut at birth. AIDS is more rare in non-cutting Japan than it is in 95%-cut Israel. There are lots of places in Africa (like Cameroon, Ghana, Lesotho, Malawi, Rwanda, and Tanzania) where AIDS is more prevalent among the circumcised. The HPV vaccine is still a threat in and of itself. Even the AAP acknowledges that syncope is a common occurrence after injection and states that patients needs to stay put for up to 10-15 minutes, and the syncope isn't merely brought on by a fear of needles. And yet the commercials still fail to cite this as a side effect. Some people are actually passing out days later after vaccination. Vaccination is another incidence in which parents make informed decisions for their children and where the children have no input, and there have been links made connecting vaccination with the development of autoimmune conditions, thereby also irrevocably changing one's body. People curious about this issue of STD reduction need to run some searches on their own to find objective information, rather than biased. Cutting in infancy is the worst time. Pain management is a challenge and the long-term effects of early pain experiences are just beginning to be understood. Healing must happen in the foul diaper environment. The infant can't communicate if something doesn't feel just right. Skin bridges, skin tags, adhesions, jagged scars, assymetry, bulgy truncated vein, tightness, and curveature are all worse for procedures done to infants. Gouges and pits in the glans from the necessary tearing of the still-fused infant skin from the glans are very rare in procedures done later. http://www.noharmm.org/IDcirc.htm This is rather something that anti-circ'ers tell themselves. Sure, in the past, anesthesia was not even used and it was unknown that a child may be in a state of shock that caused a child to not cry through a circumcision as a result, but that isn't the case today. With proper anesthesia, there is no pain, and the pain of an injection of anesthesia into the penis is no different than restraining your child against its will to receive painful vaccinations up to the age of 6. Actually, the needles used for anesthesia these days are so fine that a lot of children don't even flinch upon injection and they do not cry at all throughout the procedure. Some kids cry from the second they are unswaddled, period. People are also capable of searching for information on foreskin conditions/problems, just as they are for searching for circumcision complications. Just curious, are you able to provide statistics on the difference between the two, as in how many circumcisions face complications (taking into consideration that some people chose highly trained medical professionals in a hospital) compared to how many incidences there are of foreskin-related problems? It's just so easy. Every mammal on earth evolved his foreskin before there was surgery or even soap. Leave him perfect, leave him intact. Some people believe their sons are *perfect* circ'd. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Circumcision should not be performed on minors under 18
Jake Waskett wrote:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 05:49:47 -0800, R. Steve Walz wrote: Stephanie wrote: "WindingHighway" wrote in message ... On Nov 25, 7:09?pm, wrote: Given that circumcision is nonreversible body modification, it should not be performed on minors under the age of 18, except for true medical reasons just as any other operation. Reducing deaths from HIV and cervical cancer is a pretty good medical reason. -------------- Except what they don't tell you is that the HIV effect is quite tiny and marginal here because we don't use anal intercourse for birth- control, as they are forced to do in Africa. Here it would save FAR LESS lives than ANY kind of condom program!! Happily, of course, condoms and circumcision are not mutually exclusive, and there is no need to choose between the two. ------------------------- Sure there is. If you want to avoid disease and maximize pleasure for both partners, use condoms and don't bother with circumcision. The sexual, social, esthetic, and hygienic benefits are prefectly valid too. Im sure the millions that have died from foreskin- propagated diseases like these would agree with me. ------------------ Nonsense. The same germs are available there as on the mouth. In fact, MORE germs are present on the mouth than on the anus or genitals!! The foreskin is MORE likely to get an infection from your mouth than the reverse!! Interesting hypothesis. Do you have any evidence to support it? ------------------------- Read anything on bacteriology and surgical sterility. And as for aesthetics, it sounds like you don't really like real penises very well. Anyone who really enjoys giving fellation will love the interesting and slippery foreskin with its fascinating behaviors. And they will love the responsiveness to touch that it gives the penis by protecting its glans. Interesting hypothesis. Do you have any evidence to support it? ------------------------- I'm bisexual, stupid. I have personal experience! You may find the following study of interest, in which 83% preferred circumcised partners for fellatio, compared with 2% who preferred uncircumcised partners. http://www.circs.org/library/williamson/index.html --------------------------- When an aesthetic survey is biased by social programming it is flawed. If you did it in Europe your data would be QUITE different. In a fair environment, you'd lose, BIG time! and impairs the abilities of the male sexual organ. Nonsense. There isnt a shred of scientific evidence for that statement. ----------------------- Now that's where you're patently wrong. The ONLY ones who "disagree" with that research are the anti-foreskin crazies. What specific research are you talking about? ------------------------------ I don't do cites. I've read it. You go read it, and then you'll know. I don't do cites because people start cutting and pasting phony cites off partisan websites that are not peer-reviewed, and the truth gets lost. I encourage anyone serious to do their own research online, and not trusting ANYONE blindly. Steve |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Circumcision should not be performed on minors under 18
Since posts like these are making me vomit into the back of my throat,
I'm out. Puhlease, as if circ'd men don't love it and have no feeling. @@ And as for aesthetics, it sounds like you don't really like real penises very well. Anyone who really enjoys giving fellation will love the interesting and slippery foreskin with its fascinating behaviors. And they will love the responsiveness to touch that it gives the penis by protecting its glans. Interesting hypothesis. Do you have any evidence to support it? ------------------------- I'm bisexual, stupid. I have personal experience! |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Circumcision should not be performed on minors under 18
Chris wrote:
That's funny. I don't see it as *only* weighing cultural factors at all. Why do noncircer's assume that parents chosing circ for their boys equates to an uneducated/uninformed decision? ---------------- BECAUSE there's NO reasonable supportable medical reason. The stats are pretty clear in the AAP policy statement, as they are in policy statements/studies of other professional organizations, such as urology. The AAP statement clearly states, and after providing much information pertaining to stats, that...Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; --------------------- Some few disorders are thereby preventable, but that's like saying that early female breast removal is efficacious. It is, but it is morally reprehensible!! Why? Because it deprives someone of their CHOICE!: Their choice of body appearance and of their own RELIGION~ however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. ---------------- Which means they still copped-out if they didn't tell you not to because it was immoral! Quit experimenting on children! Steve |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Vaginal CAM performed by OBs | Todd Gastaldo | Pregnancy | 0 | April 17th 05 01:50 AM |
Is there such a law against pimping minors? | [email protected] | Solutions | 7 | December 3rd 04 01:20 AM |
Circumcision, yes or no ? | melis | Pregnancy | 141 | November 28th 04 09:57 PM |
Episiotomy: 'nice' violence against women performed by 'nice' MDs (I'm speaking of ROUTINE episiotomy, of course.) | Todd Gastaldo | Pregnancy | 7 | April 17th 04 09:40 PM |