Israeli woman fined for not circumsizing her son.

[Chas]

And if a human rights violation is 'nothing', then you are a moron.

Thank you for your ignorant opinion.

It's actually a well researched, informed position. Your sample size of one is unimportant.

[Psykhronic]

Can anyone link to studies about male circumcision, particularly the WHO study? And I mean, full on journal-published study with an abstract, methods, etc, and not some summary on CNN or some shit (unless it's INSANELY detailed).

In any case - soap and condoms appear just as or more effective than slicing off the skin of an infant, regardless of the details of those studies. But I would like to see how these conclusions were drawn about the benefits of circumcision.

[pocaracas]

There you go psy
http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/668905...J9HNoir.58

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx...eid=279008

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art...3607603134


Of course, these are only statistical studies...
Circumcised men allegedly feel less pleasure from intercourse and could, thus, have less of it, than uncircumcised men... or maybe this is irrelevant.

It seems a condom is still required, regardless of the amount of foreskin, so it's the same thing. Wear a condom. Don't go through the trouble of circumcision... it is an operation, after all and subject to many of the risks involved in operations.

[Jacob(smooth)]

Funny how it varies based on locality. In the UK it's pretty rare. Much more prevalent in the USA. Wonder why.

So far as I'm concerned the health benefits are pretty negligible in the first world. Very little that isn't covered by a freely available condom. The benefits of reduced incidence of fungal type infections and such are balanced by the risks involved in the proceedure. Both are fairly minor.

Personally I'd prefer my son to put up with the occasional bout of knob cheese, or the greater burning yeast pigeon (like thrush but worse) than have him snipped. Possibly cos I do minor surgery, I'm somewhat risk averse.

Strange tweak of God's design to give us an extra bit of skin then mandating that it be chopped off.

[Brian37]

There is nothing wrong with circumcision.

Really? So without a medical reason to do such, you think it is ok to put a baby in pain because of an ancient myth? If a myth told you to tattoo a religious symbol on a baby would you do it?

If a religion told them to cut off a finger or toe you'd be fine with that too?

Please explain to me where the baby's consent is? And please tell me why the government has a right to punish her for wanting to prevent pain to her child?

In Islam and Christianity as well, in Africa, it is common for men to sew girl's vaginas up to keep them pure, and as pre teens the communities make them publicly strip so they can stick their fingers in the girl's vaginas to check their "purity".

I'd suggest you read Ayaan Hersi Ali's book before you go talking about mutilating kids being ok.

Medical reasons NOT religious superstitions should be the only reason you cause a baby pain. Circumcision is a barbaric act done in the name of superstition.

Genital mutilation of kids of either sex is sick, PERIOD.

[Psykhronic]

There you go psy
http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/668905...J9HNoir.58

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx...eid=279008

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art...3607603134


Of course, these are only statistical studies...
Circumcised men allegedly feel less pleasure from intercourse and could, thus, have less of it, than uncircumcised men... or maybe this is irrelevant.

It seems a condom is still required, regardless of the amount of foreskin, so it's the same thing. Wear a condom. Don't go through the trouble of circumcision... it is an operation, after all and subject to many of the risks involved in operations.

Studies along these lines are what I am looking for, thank you. I wish full texts were available for free though - those little details of studies are really what I want but academia says 'no' a lot.

In any case, you're right - wearing a condom is the best thing anyway, even in the face of a reduced risk of HIV via straight sex due to circumcision. Men who have sex with men appear to have little benefit. That's the other thing, if circumcision is going to be used to prevent HIV, yet has little to no effect regarding two males having sex, circumcising at birth would still be rather inane, as there would be an assumption of a straight child (since that's where all the 'benefits' would lie with, aside from cleanliness). Ignoring the fact that the infant has no say regarding a part of their body being chopped off, of course.

[Brian37]

ONCE AGAIN, medical reasons I am fine with. Superstitious reasons are always fucking bullshit.

[Minimalist]

Yep, it's certainly not "multilation".

Hey, Danny....if your fucking god didn't like foreskins why did he "create" them?

Exactly how much of a dick is your god?

[Psykhronic]

ONCE AGAIN, medical reasons I am fine with. Superstitious reasons are always fucking bullshit.

If there is a medical reason that cannot be resolved in any other manner than removing the foreskin - go for it, is what I say. That's essentially the only time.

[Jacob(smooth)]

It's not representative, but if you really want to lose your lunch, Google "metzitzah". Still practiced by some hasidic Jews and a kid died from this after contracting herpes from an infected rabbi sucking the blood out of his penis after the circumcision. Moderately horrifying.

Not common, but one is one too many.