(March 10, 2015 at 3:30 pm)Sionnach Wrote:

(March 10, 2015 at 3:27 pm)Irrational Wrote: Then explain why it doesn't work. Just saying it doesn't work doesn't explain anything.

Circumcision has its benefits, backed by the medical community,

Does it?

Circumcision might have benefits, but it's not like people who haven't been circumcised are dropping dead by the masses. Personal hygeine is also more important, I'm sure there are still some rank unwashed circumcised penii.

It should be a matter of choice to me.

(March 10, 2015 at 3:31 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Does it?

http://www.webmd.com/sexual-conditions/g...rcumcision

Quote:There is some evidence that circumcision has health benefits, including:

A decreased risk of urinary tract infections.
A reduced risk of some sexually transmitted diseases in men.
Protection against penile cancer and a reduced risk of cervical cancer in female sex partners.
Prevention of balanitis (inflammation of the glans) and balanoposthitis (inflammation of the glans and foreskin).
Prevention of phimosis (the inability to retract the foreskin) and paraphimosis (the inability to return the foreskin to its original location).

(March 10, 2015 at 3:33 pm)Sionnach Wrote:

(March 10, 2015 at 3:31 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Does it?

http://www.webmd.com/sexual-conditions/g...rcumcision

Quote:There is some evidence that circumcision has health benefits, including:

A decreased risk of urinary tract infections.
A reduced risk of some sexually transmitted diseases in men.
Protection against penile cancer and a reduced risk of cervical cancer in female sex partners.
Prevention of balanitis (inflammation of the glans) and balanoposthitis (inflammation of the glans and foreskin).
Prevention of phimosis (the inability to retract the foreskin) and paraphimosis (the inability to return the foreskin to its original location).

Far enough, if there's evidence that it's a positive medical procedure so be it (though the 'prevention of foreskins problems' part seems silly, since they're removing the foreskin). I'm still on the fence about letting parents make that choice though.

(March 10, 2015 at 3:30 pm)Sionnach Wrote:

(March 10, 2015 at 3:27 pm)Irrational Wrote: Then explain why it doesn't work. Just saying it doesn't work doesn't explain anything.

Circumcision has its benefits, backed by the medical community, whether you want to accept it or not. If you cannot look past the oh, they're just hurting and marring poor infants mentality, then that is your personal problem.

There are no benefits of cutting off an infants earlobes, unless you want to provide those benefits as the medical community has them listed?

From WebMD:

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) found that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks, but the benefits are not great enough to recommend universal newborn circumcision.

Also, not to mention that removing the foreskin can reduce sexual pleasure. And that itself is just one disadvantage of being circumcised.

(March 10, 2015 at 3:37 pm)Irrational Wrote: The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) found that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks

That part works for me.

(March 10, 2015 at 3:40 pm)Sionnach Wrote:

(March 10, 2015 at 3:37 pm)Irrational Wrote: The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) found that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks

That part works for me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_exposure_theory

(March 10, 2015 at 3:41 pm)Irrational Wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_exposure_theory

The irony is that is precisely what you did with your bolded part. xD

(March 10, 2015 at 3:43 pm)Sionnach Wrote:

(March 10, 2015 at 3:41 pm)Irrational Wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_exposure_theory

The irony is that is precisely what you did with your bolded part. xD

I'm not the one who ignored part of the whole sentence.

(March 10, 2015 at 3:44 pm)Irrational Wrote: I'm not the one who ignored part of the whole sentence.

I didn't either. I simply cut it off for convenience. See:

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) found that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks, but the benefits are not great enough to recommend universal newborn circumcision.

If I had unbolded your part, that would have been infringing on your post. I suppose you would have complained had I done it this way, too:

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) found that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks, but the benefits are not great enough to recommend universal newborn circumcision.