Please Stop Mutilation of Boys - Circumcision!

Should Boys be Circumcised?

  • Yes

    Votes: 15 57.7%

  • No

    Votes: 11 42.3%
  • Total voters
    26
Quote from Ghost of Cutten:

It's pretty obviously non-consensual genital mutilation. Since there's no compelling health reason to do it, it's a mass crime. I'm surprised in lawsuit-happy USA, that no one has brought a lawsuit or class action based on it.
More...

There is a reason for it, it reduces Std spread, generally. Or gynecologic ally.
The fact it's based on religious tradition, is something else entirely.
 
Quote from Ghost of Cutten:
It's permanently altering someone's body without their consent. What would happen if I came up to you, pinned you to a table, and cut off some of your skin in a way that would never grow back
More...
Circumcision and cutting off skin in another part of the body are two different things, you moron!
stupide.gif


Regarding your legal jargon bullshit consent, Freedom of Religion takes precedence, as demonstrated by an Oklahoma judge giving the OK to a Muslim man to beat his wife.

Furthermore, the general health of the body is not compromised, psychological damages are not present, sexual performance, libido, and procreatability are not altered when circumcision is done in infancy.
heh.gif
 
Quote from number22:
I read everything, but believe nothing without further studying. There is no scientific reason that foreskin causes papillomavirus.
More...
You missed the Conclusions in the New England Journal of Medicine, you idiot!
bigbrick777.gif


"Male circumcision is associated with a reduced risk of penile HPV infection and, in the case of men with a history of multiple sexual partners, a reduced risk of cervical cancer in their current female partners."

No wonder traders lose, shortie and number22 don't see the term reduced risk.
 
Quote from Petsamo:

You missed the Conclusions in the New England Journal of Medicine, you idiot!
bigbrick777.gif


"Male circumcision is associated with a reduced risk of penile HPV infection and, in the case of men with a history of multiple sexual partners, a reduced risk of cervical cancer in their current female partners."

No wonder traders lose, shortie and number22 don't see the term reduced risk.
More...

Where is your logic on this reducing risk of HPV infection with cause. All these study didn't provide reason that foreskin causes HPV, however it all indicates multiple times that behavior of studying subject, personal hygiene, etc that cause HPV infection. If you have multiple sexual partners at a time, such as working male or female prostitution, there is no guarantee you wouldn't get infected even your foreskin is circumcised. Reducing risk doesn't mean immunity.

Clearly, you don't have basic mental capacity to comprehend this simple logic between cause and effect. No need to further these fruitless debate.
 
Quote from number22:
Where is your logic on this reducing risk of HPV infection with cause. Reducing risk doesn't mean immunity.
More...
Bacteria exist in increased amounts between the foreskin and the head, and can be transmitted. If you know microbiology, you'd know what I'm talking about.
Quote from number22:
Reducing risk doesn't mean immunity.
More...
Reduced risk means you're less likely to contract STDs, which has value, you moron!
stupide.gif
 
if God created foreskin, why should we remove it? God did not create it to catch STDs last time i checked. Even if he did create it for that purpose, he must have had good reason to do so.
 
GEORGE

But Kramer, isn't it a question of hygiene?

KRAMER

Oh, that's a myth. Besides, you know, it makes sex more

pleasurable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top