[Twendypreency]

Google balanitis, balanoposthitis, and phimosis. I promise you, getting your inflamed and infected foreskin squeezed with full force to prevent your penis head from rotting off due to cut off blood supply is not pleasant, and totally preventable. Guess how...

Listen, comparing male circumcision, with cutting off a woman's clitoris is akin to comparing ear piercing with cutting your ear off.

You are wrong this time genius. All major medical organizations are against being done. Do not try to justify you cannot anymore.

[VistaULTIMATEdownloadaPro]

So, to prevent something that is never going to affect most people we would conduct an unnecessary operation on every male child's private parts.

99% of uncircumcised men have no problems.
It's more common than you think. It's also not uncommon for the foreskin to develop small tears kinda like paper cuts.

There's a lot that can, and does, go wrong with foreskins. Most men heal just fine from it, but some men have to undergo circumcision because it can't be resolved with steroids, etc. Same goes for phimosis.

I still don't support doing it as PREVENTATIVE since that's a bit extreme, but things can and do go wrong where the foreskin is involved.

[Gymnarnemia]

You are wrong this time genius. All major medical organizations are against being done. Do not try to justify you cannot anymore.

A friend of mine is an avid surfer and had to go through a painful adult circumcision after his foreskin became excessively swollen from wearing board shorts. If he was circumcized from the get go this would have never happened.

[Faumpiggueria]

Well ive snapped my banjo string,and after 1 month of no sex it healed just fine and I still have me trusty ole foreskin

[DoctoNilsonDen]

WOW are you guys really arguing over about which kind of dick you prefer ?

/backsaway

Nothing else is left to talk about I suppose? But yeah it seems only the turtle guys are crying about helmet heads, not one helmet head has said they wished it was never done.

[diundasmink]

So nobody thinks this decision is a symptom of post WWII guilt?


"ah, we killed 6 million of them, let them have their c0ck butchering fetish".

[Unakjyfk]

Seeing as we are talking about cocks, might as well drag Sex and the City into it

[Darnisg]

You are wrong this time genius. All major medical organizations are against being done. Do not try to justify you cannot anymore.

Really?

You mean like the AMA:
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article....icleid=1104451
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/news...-policies.page

... of course you will say that AMA is just full of Jews... which it is.

... but I will say this - even forgetting the evidence from the sexual satisfaction trials in the first link, I can tell you I don't have a problem orgasming without foreskin

[Hlennisal]

You are wrong this time genius. All major medical organizations are against being done. Do not try to justify you cannot anymore.

You're like Gordo with no reasonability.

[Twendypreency]

Google balanitis, balanoposthitis, and phimosis. I promise you, getting your inflamed and infected foreskin squeezed with full force to prevent your penis head from rotting off due to cut off blood supply is not pleasant, and totally preventable. Guess how...

With all due respect, you're not seriously suggesting that a practical way of reducing afflictions later in life, is preventative surgery shortly after birth? I am sure we could think up all kinds of crazy examples.

You're like Gordo with no reasonability.

I thought Gordo was like Gordo with no reasonablity... as well as practical experience in everything he ever talks about.

[Scukonaher]

A friend of mine is an avid surfer and had to go through a painful adult circumcision after his foreskin became excessively swollen from wearing board shorts. If he was circumcized from the get go this would have never happened.

Wow so something that happened to ONE guy one time, thus we should routinely cut off a part of everyone's dick on birth.

Don't think so.

Also, we know Zoolook is a fan of collecting cleaved foreskin, so we may have to forgo his expertise in such a thread.

[oyymoss]

I genuinely can't tell who has what position on what anymore.

[pMJWFoAWD]

Also, we know Zoolook is a fan of collecting cleaved foreskin, so we may have to forgo his expertise in such a thread.

You don't know sh1t, as you seem to endlessly demonstrate.

--- Post Update ---

I genuinely can't tell who has what position on what anymore.

Ask your mum - she knows my positions...

[ådrrraj]

You don't know sh1t, as you seem to endlessly demonstrate.

.

I know that you are a grumpy old man and you see your wasted youth in me. *hugs*

--- Post Update ---

Incoming copy and pasta from Wikipedia!




Positions of medical associations

[edit]Australasia

As of 2010, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians state: "After reviewing the currently available evidence, the RACP believes that the frequency of diseases modifiable by circumcision, the level of protection offered by circumcision and the complication rates of circumcision do not warrant routine infant circumcision in Australia and New Zealand. However it is reasonable for parents to weigh the benefits and risks of circumcision and to make the decision whether or not to circumcise their sons."[16]
[edit]Canada

The Fetus and Newborn Committee of the Canadian Paediatric Society posted "Neonatal circumcision revisited" in 1996 and "Circumcision: Information for Parents" in November 2004. The 1996 position statement says that "circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed",[157] and the 2004 information to parents says: 'Circumcision is a "non-therapeutic" procedure, which means it is not medically necessary. Parents who decide to circumcise their newborns often do so for religious, social, or cultural reasons. [. . .] After reviewing the scientific evidence for and against circumcision, the CPS does not recommend routine circumcision for newborn boys. Many paediatricians no longer perform circumcisions.'[49]
[edit]Finland

The Finnish Medical Association opposes circumcision of infants for non-medical reasons, arguing that circumcision does not bring about any medical benefits and it may risk the health of the infant as well as his right to physical integrity, because he is not able to make the decision himself. The association emphasizes that according to Finnish constitution, the parents' freedom of religion and conscience does not produce the right to violate other people's (children's) right to physical integrity.[206]
[edit]Germany

In Germany, in 2008, the German Association for Pediatric Surgery cautioned surgeons against allowing the ordering of the procedure for what could appear to be non-medical reasons.[207]
[edit]International

The World Health Organization and UNAIDS currently recommend circumcision as part of a comprehensive program for prevention of HIV transmission in areas with high endemic rates of HIV.[24]
[edit]Netherlands

In the Netherlands, the Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG) stated in 2010 that non-therapeutic male circumcision "conflicts with the child's right to autonomy and physical integrity." They called on doctors to inform caregivers seeking the intervention of the (in their assessment) medical and psychological risks and lack of convincing medical benefits. They stated that there are as good reasons for legal prohibition of male circumcision as exist for female genital mutilation (FGM).[20]
[edit]United Kingdom

There is a spectrum of views within the British Medical Association's (BMA) membership about whether non-therapeutic male circumcision is a beneficial, neutral or harmful procedure or whether it is superfluous, and whether it should ever be done on a child who is not capable of deciding for himself. Moreover, the Association states that “there is significant disagreement about whether circumcision is overall a beneficial, neutral or harmful procedure. At present, the medical literature on the health, including sexual health, implications of circumcision is contradictory, and often subject to claims of bias in research.”[61] As a general rule, the BMA believe that "parents should be entitled to make choices about how best to promote their children’s interests, and it is for society to decide what limits should be imposed on parental choices." They also state that "both parents [...] must give consent for non-therapeutic circumcision", and that parents and children should be provided with up-to-date written information about the risks involved.[61]
The BMA state that parents should be informed about the lack of consensus within the medical profession with regard to the potential health benefits of non-therapeutic circumcision, adding that they consider the evidence for such benefits to be insufficient as the sole reason for carrying out a circumcision.[61]
[edit]United States

The American Academy of Pediatrics (1999) stated: "Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In the case of circumcision, in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child."[25] The AAP recommends that if parents choose to circumcise, analgesia should be used to reduce pain associated with circumcision. It states that circumcision should only be performed on newborns who are stable and healthy.[25]
The American Medical Association supports the AAP's 1999 circumcision policy statement with regard to non-therapeutic circumcision, which they define as the non-religious, non-ritualistic, not medically necessary, elective circumcision of male newborns. They state that "policy statements issued by professional societies representing Australian, Canadian, and American pediatricians do not recommend routine circumcision of male newborns."[68]
The American Academy of Family Physicians (2007) recognizes the controversy surrounding circumcision and recommends that physicians "discuss the potential harms and benefits of circumcision with all parents or legal guardians considering this procedure for their newborn son."[208]
The American Urological Association (2007) stated that neonatal circumcision has potential medical benefits and advantages as well as disadvantages and risks, stating that "while the results of studies in African nations may not necessarily be extrapolated to men in the United States at risk for HIV infection, the American Urological Association recommends that circumcision should be presented as an option for health benefits. Circumcision should not be offered as the only strategy for HIV risk reduction. Other methods of HIV risk reduction, including safe sexual practices, should be emphasized."[209]

[OnlineViagraCheapestFREE]

Ask your mum - she knows my positions...

She said you have a small **** and don't know how to use it.

[oranowdenda]

She said you have a small **** and don't know how to use it.

It only looks small when gripped in her massive hairy fist.

[seekfrieddy]

It only looks small when gripped in her massive hairy fist.

Don't even get me started on your mothers greasy box.

[UFJon]

Don't even get me started on your mothers greasy box.

It's a pristine kingdom of beauty compared to your mum's foetid crotch rat.

[ViagraFeller]

It only looks small when gripped in her massive hairy fist.

That was pretty funny.

--- Post Update ---

I know that you are a grumpy old man and you see your wasted youth in me. *hugs*

Your cluelessness is only surpassed by your deluded sense of self-importance.

[lymnCymment]

It only looks small when gripped in her massive hairy fist.

Hahahahah. That right there is comedy gold. I think Ralph is clearly outmatched here.


--- Post Update ---

Your cluelessness is only surpassed by your deluded sense of self-importance.

Tell me o great master, if a vast majority of large medical organizations are AGAINST the practice of routine circumcision, why should I be for it?