forced circumcision is barbaric

it comes from credible sources. research it yourself. you can see that it is true.

 

i like my circumcised weenie. i'm glad it happened when i was an infant instead of more recently when i would actually remember it.

 

The Mein Kampfs of circumcision-

 

you already did the research apparently, so why can't you just share where you did so instead of forcing everyone else to sift through god-knows-how-many useless resources looking it?

 

I'm not circumcised.

We are who we are-

 

i have looked it up.

i have found some VERY contradictory statements about HIV and circumcision, and have found NO evidence to support your claim that uncircumcised men are "8 times more likely to contract the HIV virus"

so i would like to know your sources, rather than having you make unverifiable claims that this is a "fact"

 

It's disputed within the medical profession.

Yep-

 

k. this is where i got some of the benefits ..

http://www.circinfo.com/benefits/bmc.html

 

I don't get why some guys get so worked up over this.

I guess I don't like it in theory, but I'm cut and it doesn't bother me at all.

 

Banning it is ridiculous, IMO.

 

exactly. there is no strong evidence that there is anything inherently wrong with the human body as it naturally develops.

circumcision may not be detrimental to ones health (barring infection of the wound) but neither is their substantial evidence that it has any real benefit to any but a tiny minority of individuals. circumcision is a legitimate medical procedure used to treat certain conditions in which the foreskin may become problematic. however, the possibility of a tiny fraction of individuals running into medical problems is no justification for removal of body parts.

the foreskin protects the glans and maintains sensitivity, and removal is unnecessary and painful. to do so to children is simply cruel.

 

thanks. now was that so hard?


anyway...

so basically it's probably a tested theory, but not yet proven conclusively one way or the other.

 

I was under the impression women who were married to someone who was circumcised have a lower risk of some sort of cancer. I think its cervical.

Or maybe I got it wrong.

 

i don't know about anyone else, but my circumcised glans is still plenty sensitive...

 

they do a poor job of hiding their religious motivations for circumcision. that site is run by the gilgal society. look up the term "gilgal"

it is a special interest group promoting universal circumcision, not an association of unbiased doctors.

further, THEIR claims appear to be unsubstantiated, and they offer no sources for studies to back up their claims.

 

i had closed out the link, lol. im a bit lazy today. but i found it ok

 

http://www.mothersagainstcirc.org/
http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV.html

some resources for arguements against the necessity of circumcision. they are not necessarily better sources than yours was, and i do not claim anything on there to be a set-in-stone fact.

simply different viewpoints.

{edit: i take that back. the second link i posted is definitely a far superior source of information as virtually all of their points are backed up with studies, and they make the specific studies known. also the studies used or debunked are plentiful}

 

I'm 100000% aganist circumcision.


I'm leaving my statement at that.

 

same here

 

what an overblown and stupid issue

I get annoyed everytime someone brings it up

and its always someone being overly dramatic and inflammatory about it

its also a minor procedure

mine was not even done by a doctor