German court outlaws circumcision for boys - Page 3

Steved1998 · 07-30-2012, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Irvine511

Millions of baby boys have thought the same thing as their penises were being mutilated.

You guys are worse than atheists.

LuckyNumber7 · 07-30-2012, 05:05 PM

The notion of banning something like that bothers me in the sense that you're telling someone what they can and cannot do.

At the same time, the parents are telling a future adult what they can and cannot have.

It's almost contradictory, but since I don't believe that parents choose a religion for their kids, neither should they choose a religious practice for them.

Honestly, make it a double Bar Mitzvah at 18 and go have circumcision surgery. The practice of circumcision should not be illegal, that's ridiculous. However, one should have the right to choose for themselves, and not have that decision be made for them.

Irvine511 · 07-30-2012, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steved1998

You guys are worse than atheists.

i want my son to enjoy having gay sex as much as he can. how can you do that without foreskin?

Jive Turkey · 07-30-2012, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steved1998

I hope your son enjoys the smegma that's going to ooze out of that ugly little wormy looking thing

You'd better stay away from vaginas then. They produce more smegma than any penis ever has

Steved1998 · 07-30-2012, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

You'd better stay away from vaginas then. They produce more smegma than any penis ever has

Not in my experience. You should choose you women more carefully.

LuckyNumber7 · 07-30-2012, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steved1998

Not in my experience. You should choose you women more carefully.

Psst... it's called personal hygiene. It's disgusting if you don't have it, whether or not there is foreskin involved.

Jive Turkey · 07-30-2012, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steved1998

Not in my experience. You should choose you women more carefully.

You should help yourself to a science book

Steved1998 · 07-30-2012, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

You should help yourself to a science book

The only science book I need is the good book

LuckyNumber7 · 07-30-2012, 08:55 PM

You can't be serious.

LemonMelon · 07-30-2012, 09:14 PM

deep

has a disciple

!

Steved1998 · 07-30-2012, 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

You can't be serious.

Why not?

digitize · 07-30-2012, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

You can't be serious.

He's not.

maycocksean · 07-30-2012, 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LemonMelon

deep

has a disciple

!

seems he's gaining quite a following 'round here these days.

LuckyNumber7 · 07-31-2012, 01:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by digitize

He's not.

Thank... God.

Vincent Vega · 07-31-2012, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by digitize

Arabs (though not Persians) are Semitic too, actually.

I wouldn't know of anyone who uses the term anti-semitism in regards to Arabs/Muslims, though.

I guess the comment was also more of an ironic statement.
This notwithstanding, I don't think the modern German legal system should give special consideration to one religion when weighing two fundamental freedoms, as it did here.

MrsSpringsteen · 08-27-2012, 10:31 AM

Yes the doctor's name is Wang. Coincidence? I think not.

Huffington Post

For the first time in more than a decade, the American Academy of Pediatrics has revised its policy on male circumcision showing more support for the procedure, yet stopping short of recommending routine circumcision.

The academy, the leading U.S. pediatric group, now says the health benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks and that families who choose to circumcise their baby boys should be able to.

"The tone of the policy certainly shifts somewhat in favor of circumcision in that it recognizes that there are clear medical benefits that outweigh the risks of the procedure, and that those benefits are sufficient to justify coverage by insurance," said Dr. Douglas Diekema, a member of the academy's circumcision task force.

"What remains unchanged is that the AAP still holds that the health benefits are not great enough to recommend routine circumcision for all newborn males," he said.

The academy's previous policy statement on circumcision was released in 1999. It concluded that there were "potential" medical benefits to newborn male circumcision, but not enough to recommend it routinely.

The new policy says that the health benefits of circumcision are not great enough to endorse it for all newborn boys, but "are sufficient to justify access to this procedure for families choosing it."

However, opponents to circumcision remain unswayed by such health claims.

Georganne Chapin, founding executive director of the anti-circumcision advocacy group Intact America, said last week that she looked forward to calling out academy leadership for "scientific blindness."

"They have done nothing to address the real risks and harms of circumcision," Chapin told The Huffington Post. "They also appear to be totally ignoring the fact that their European colleagues are not only unimpressed by the supposed 'benefits' of cutting up baby boys' penises, but are actually considering whether child circumcision should be banned on the basis that it violates children's rights. Talk about being out of step."

A 23-page technical report, which accompanied the policy, summarized studies between 1995 and 2010 used to draft the guidelines. According to that report, potential health benefits include the prevention of urinary tract infections, HIV and penile cancer. Some studies found that circumcision can prevent the transmission of certain sexually transmitted infections, including the human papillomavirus and genital herpes.

Major complications from circumcision, including death, were "so infrequent" that the academy excluded them from the review. However, the technical report described possible risks of infant circumcision, relying heavily on two hospital-based studies in the U.S. Those studies found that the most common risks from circumcision were bleeding, infection and penile injury. Procedures performed on infants had lower complication rates than those performed later in life, the report stated, concluding that the procedure is generally "well tolerated" when performed by trained professions in a sterile environment.

The academy's new policy comes as circumcision is a topic of increasing debate in the U.S., both at the research and policy levels: Medicaid programs in 18 states have stopped covering circumcision, and local governments in California have attempted to ban the procedure.

But Dr. Marvin Wang, director of newborn nurseries at MassGeneral Hospital for Children and an assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, said that the contents of the new statement and the academy's shift toward circumcision are not surprising.

"This new policy still puts the decision-making in parents' hands," Wang said. "But what the AAP says now is, 'We have enough to say that you can make the decision based on religion, cultural and family issues. But guess what? You can now throw health in as a reason for doing it if you want to.'"

It's unclear the impact the statement will have on circumcision rates in the U.S., which have declined from a peak of around 80 percent of baby boys in the 1970s and 1980s, to 55 percent in 2010. In 2010, Wang published a study that found parents' attitudes about circumcision remained largely unchanged after they read the earlier AAP statement.

"Nothing was going to change their mind," Wang said. "What they come into it with is what they go out of it with."

Jive Turkey · 08-27-2012, 11:21 AM

Cutting off your left pinky finger reduces the likelihood of hangnails on the left pinky finger, left pinky finger cancer, and certain cooty transmitted infections

anitram · 08-27-2012, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

Cutting off your left pinky finger reduces the likelihood of hangnails on the left pinky finger, left pinky finger cancer, and certain cooty transmitted infections

I was just going to say that their logic made no sense to me - what next, advocating mastectomies for girls to reduce breast cancer risks? Preventative appendectomies?

deep · 08-27-2012, 01:01 PM

some women at high risk, actually do that.
but, no not a good plan in general.

and as for the circumcision discussion, rational argument falls down (not heavily ) but enough so that doing it is better for an individual than not. It is like vaccinations, better to do it.

Jive Turkey · 08-27-2012, 01:07 PM

It's nothing like vaccinations, deep

07-30-2012, 05:05 PM	#42
LuckyNumber7 Blue Crack Addict Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 19,505 Local Time: 09:34 AM	The notion of banning something like that bothers me in the sense that you're telling someone what they can and cannot do. At the same time, the parents are telling a future adult what they can and cannot have. It's almost contradictory, but since I don't believe that parents choose a religion for their kids, neither should they choose a religious practice for them. Honestly, make it a double Bar Mitzvah at 18 and go have circumcision surgery. The practice of circumcision should not be illegal, that's ridiculous. However, one should have the right to choose for themselves, and not have that decision be made for them. __________________

08-27-2012, 01:07 PM	#60
Jive Turkey ONE love, blood, life Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 13,646 Local Time: 10:34 AM	It's nothing like vaccinations, deep __________________

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

07-30-2012, 08:55 PM	#49
LuckyNumber7 Blue Crack Addict Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 19,505 Local Time: 09:34 AM	You can't be serious.

07-30-2012, 09:14 PM	#50
LemonMelon More 5G Than Man Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Hollywoo Posts: 68,784 Local Time: 07:34 AM	deep has a disciple !

08-27-2012, 10:31 AM	#56
MrsSpringsteen Blue Crack Addict Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 28,620 Local Time: 10:34 AM	Yes the doctor's name is Wang. Coincidence? I think not. Huffington Post For the first time in more than a decade, the American Academy of Pediatrics has revised its policy on male circumcision showing more support for the procedure, yet stopping short of recommending routine circumcision. The academy, the leading U.S. pediatric group, now says the health benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks and that families who choose to circumcise their baby boys should be able to. "The tone of the policy certainly shifts somewhat in favor of circumcision in that it recognizes that there are clear medical benefits that outweigh the risks of the procedure, and that those benefits are sufficient to justify coverage by insurance," said Dr. Douglas Diekema, a member of the academy's circumcision task force. "What remains unchanged is that the AAP still holds that the health benefits are not great enough to recommend routine circumcision for all newborn males," he said. The academy's previous policy statement on circumcision was released in 1999. It concluded that there were "potential" medical benefits to newborn male circumcision, but not enough to recommend it routinely. The new policy says that the health benefits of circumcision are not great enough to endorse it for all newborn boys, but "are sufficient to justify access to this procedure for families choosing it." However, opponents to circumcision remain unswayed by such health claims. Georganne Chapin, founding executive director of the anti-circumcision advocacy group Intact America, said last week that she looked forward to calling out academy leadership for "scientific blindness." "They have done nothing to address the real risks and harms of circumcision," Chapin told The Huffington Post. "They also appear to be totally ignoring the fact that their European colleagues are not only unimpressed by the supposed 'benefits' of cutting up baby boys' penises, but are actually considering whether child circumcision should be banned on the basis that it violates children's rights. Talk about being out of step." A 23-page technical report, which accompanied the policy, summarized studies between 1995 and 2010 used to draft the guidelines. According to that report, potential health benefits include the prevention of urinary tract infections, HIV and penile cancer. Some studies found that circumcision can prevent the transmission of certain sexually transmitted infections, including the human papillomavirus and genital herpes. Major complications from circumcision, including death, were "so infrequent" that the academy excluded them from the review. However, the technical report described possible risks of infant circumcision, relying heavily on two hospital-based studies in the U.S. Those studies found that the most common risks from circumcision were bleeding, infection and penile injury. Procedures performed on infants had lower complication rates than those performed later in life, the report stated, concluding that the procedure is generally "well tolerated" when performed by trained professions in a sterile environment. The academy's new policy comes as circumcision is a topic of increasing debate in the U.S., both at the research and policy levels: Medicaid programs in 18 states have stopped covering circumcision, and local governments in California have attempted to ban the procedure. But Dr. Marvin Wang, director of newborn nurseries at MassGeneral Hospital for Children and an assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, said that the contents of the new statement and the academy's shift toward circumcision are not surprising. "This new policy still puts the decision-making in parents' hands," Wang said. "But what the AAP says now is, 'We have enough to say that you can make the decision based on religion, cultural and family issues. But guess what? You can now throw health in as a reason for doing it if you want to.'" It's unclear the impact the statement will have on circumcision rates in the U.S., which have declined from a peak of around 80 percent of baby boys in the 1970s and 1980s, to 55 percent in 2010. In 2010, Wang published a study that found parents' attitudes about circumcision remained largely unchanged after they read the earlier AAP statement. "Nothing was going to change their mind," Wang said. "What they come into it with is what they go out of it with."

08-27-2012, 11:21 AM	#57
Jive Turkey ONE love, blood, life Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 13,646 Local Time: 10:34 AM	Cutting off your left pinky finger reduces the likelihood of hangnails on the left pinky finger, left pinky finger cancer, and certain cooty transmitted infections

08-27-2012, 01:01 PM	#59
deep Blue Crack Addict Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: A far distance down. Posts: 28,602 Local Time: 07:34 AM	some women at high risk, actually do that. but, no not a good plan in general. and as for the circumcision discussion, rational argument falls down (not heavily ) but enough so that doing it is better for an individual than not. It is like vaccinations, better to do it.