@tankwarrior77 The human foreskin does not grow back. The dartos muscle and severed nerves do not grow back. Also please document the medical studies and articles on the ability to regrow human appendages
America is fucking backwards. Circumcision has been banned in other first world countries since the early 70s. Maybe it's because there's so many Jewish people in America pushing their primitive beliefs?
Hmm. Top post is "Americans and the religious needing to stop imposing things on others". 1 - Americans are not the problem, but many either don't condemn, or support it, because of religion. 2 - We are talking about people that argue that telling them they can't teach creation in a class room is "imposing" and "persecution", but that requiring "religious" requirements isn't. One joker actually suggested is was "society choosing moral codes to follow", while somehow missing the "choosing" part.
You forgot to mention the possibility of complications during the procedure(unnecessary risk), and the fact that one of the very strong arguments that were made for the adoption of the practice was that it's a way to prevent masturbation. Circumcision was wildly adopted in English speaking countries at the end of the 19th century, but not in the rest of Europe, or other parts of the world.
Your caveat at the end about respecting everyone's beliefs and opinions was a good highlight. Unfortunately the nature of man kind is that of trying to persuade an individual to belief a certain opinion, if not they want to force that thing down their throat and make them believe it. Bottom line up front- circumcision doesn't greatly affect anything. I mean men don't sit around at contemplate suicide because there foreskin is gone. If they don't like it they CAN grow it back. Simple as that.
@tankwarrior77, idiot, you can't "grow back" foreskin once it is cut off! The sensory nerves are gone for good, You can't grow back an amputated limb either!
Some men MAY be able to laboriously stretch their foreskin to provide some glans cover IF they have enough prepuce left. But it will never have the nerves or gain the dynamic function of the original.
@dandydosbest First before you call anybody and "idiot" maybe you should educate yourself. You can grow back foreskin, it is called a "PUD" and its able to regrow foreskin. Second you might want to do some medical research about the ability to grow back human appendages. Now IDIOT go and read some shit and stop trolling on the internet!
Circumcision DOES greatly affect its victims--it cause the loss of up to 3/4 of the penile sensation and sensitivity. PLUS many suffer grievous consequences and even death from it.
A Preliminary Poll of Men Circumcised in Infancy or Childhood
T. Hammond, BJU International (83, Suppl. 1), p. 85-92, January, 1999 circumcised intact
@tankwarrior77 seldom have I had the misfortune to read such crap. Grow the foreskin back? Are you out of you mind? We're not starfish, we're human. Lob something off and it's gone forever.
First, it needs to be understood WHAT the foreskin is. It is the skin on the penis directly behind the head and about 3 or 4 inches down the shaft. When the penis is soft, this skin folds over the head. So really, in fact all that is done is to make the skin on the penis around 3 or 4 inches shorter with circumcision. If tension is applied to the remaining skin, it will grow and restore the missing area which restores the normal function to it.
@lochinvar00465 hmm, well since I still have mine the detailed description isn't really necessary, thx all the same. Would you however care to go a stage further and describe how you/one intends to grow back the 1000s of Meisner corpuscles back? From your description I deduce a crude recovery of stretched regular skin less all the sexually sensitive nerves that were discarded in the initial amputation of the victim.
Im Circumcised & I know for a FACT that the Foreskin causes no pleasure. The remaining foreskin on mine hurts when touch. The Sensitive pleasurable glands are all in the Head. My Grandma worked as a Nurse at a Seniors home for 30 Years & convinced my Parents to cut me like she did to my Dad as well.
@HBKanedge, your claimed "FACT" is hilarious, and typical of an American (Canadian).Your nation's fixation on infant circumcision rivals the USA's.
Since your Grandma abhors the normal penis, she should set an example, and get her OWN foreskin (inner labia) cut! If male foreskin is unhygienic, the same applies to the female foreskin. Removing her "inner folds" would simplify her own hygiene (nurses know that UTIs are far commoner in women!).
@HBKanedge818 you clearly know nothing for a fact. I have mine & CAN feel ecstatic pleasures as can billions of others. If you couldn't feel anthing then you are one exception out of perhaps 3 to 4 billion. I'm going to take an educated guess & claim you're lying your ass off "big time" putting you firmly in denial. The moment the fs is decapitated the penis is no longer a fully functional organ as it was when intact & ∴ you dear boy have been turned into a sexual spastic. "Enjoy".
Yeah, I wish I hadn't had it done to me and my wife and I agreed not to have it done to our son, despite being really really pressured by the hospital, both my wife and I together and the both of us when we were separated. Which was weird,
It comes down to parental consent, choice, and privacy. From the American Association of Pediatricians:- "parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision. It is legitimate for parents to take into account cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions,in addition to the medical factors, when making this decision."
America needs to learn to stop interfering in just about everything that is not theirs. On a personal front they need to learn that a child's body belongs to that child only & that no one has the right to modify by serious permanent disfiguration by decapitation another person, especially if that person is 100% defenceless & it will affect their lives permanently. American people & the religious need to learn that they don't have this right & that this practice must stop, instantly. It is vile.
@mgibbs88 so do you stare at other mens genitals all day long, or your own? Do you wear clothing & cover yourself up all day? What do you think the female genitals look like? Labia minora, clitoris etc. They by your rational look MASSIVELY messed up by comparison. What a ludicrous argument for genital mutilation. Forced removal of someone elses genitals forcing them to lose 1000s of sexual nerve endings?You're sick.But glad to know you're devoid of it.With your remarks you deserved it.
They look normal to 80% of the people in the world, only gross to the 20% who mutilate--mainly Jews, Muslims, and stupid Americans..the rest find circumcised ones sad and pathetic looking.
@AutoTerminator ah, so you have tried it on yourself you mean? Way to go! Or do you mean putting a knife in the same vincinity of s o m e o n e e l s e's penis... is "RLY sexy"?
@AutoTerminator ok, a woman. If I understand you correctly, then that makes matters worse. Can't tell if you're joking or being sarcastic or really mean 'it's sexy' to put a knife to someone else's penis, chiefly that of an infant.So as a woman who doesn't have that sort of organ you're for having it mutilated at a time when the child cannot defend itself & has no say in that matter over its own body(with all the negative consequences in later life for that child)?Are you cut up?
@trident3b - I couldn't hear you over your idiocy- and you have yet to refute a single thing I've stated.
Oh- and I have a life, and don't spend every day on this like you- which part of these two facts makes you more upset- you're worthlessness, or your inconsequential life and affect on any of this?
@Alaska47Boy apart from today, I was last here 6 days ago. You call that every day? Sounds like the regular logic we have seen. The only reason I am here now is because you appeared with your remark in my inbox. The onus is upon you to refute the many things that various people have put to you. Confronting you with logical arguments is simply greeted with a barrage of insults & circumventing gobbledygook. Genital mutilation is & remains an irresponsible permanently damaging atrocity
@trident3b - Your idiotic statement that "the silence is deafening" on my part, and your spurious belief that it should have anything to do with me not refuting a position someone has made is beyond retarded, I've shot down every stupid, thing your group has stated, no one calls it "genital mutilation" except for zealots like you, and circumcision ever remains a viable, realistic choice for parents, along with any other medical decision for their minor child- none of that is going to change.
"The only reason I am here now is because you appeared with your remark in my inbox."
Yes, that seems to be his latest childish trick--can't defend his position HERE, so he sends insults to people's inbox. Desperate means by the desperate?
Thank you very much for this well formulated and well researched response. I have Tumbled it on my Intactivism Tumblr. Thanks for taking the time to cover this topic.
@Alaska47Boy Contraindications to Routine Circumcision
For practioners who are asked to perform circumcisions, it it critical to know when to say "no". Although uncommon individually, there are several conditions that are considered contraindications to circumcision, so it is not unusual for a physician with a busy practice to have several patients who would not be candidates for routine neonatal cirucumcision"
Stanford School of Medicine Newborn Nursery at LCPH 2009
It comes down to parental consent, choice, and privacy. From the American Association of Pediatricians:- "parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision. It is legitimate for parents to take into account cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions, in addition to the medical factors, when making this decision."
You have yet to address the equal protection clause aspect of forced non-theraputic(not medically justified) infant circumcision, so the true legality of infant circumcision is far from set in stone and is open to challenge. The CA law has not been challenged for being Constitutional. So the legality of infant circumcision is not absolute nor are parental rights
Explain why/how infant circumcision is right on moral, ethical and individual human rights grounds-absent of your fallacies
@neechee5150, that is an excellent point ("equal protection clause"), which Alaskabum has circumvented repeatedly by using smoke and mirrors. His only recourse is distraction.
You know what motivates him to keep coming back here (without ever influencing anyone): the guy likes to have his ass owned!
@Alaska47Boy Accross the world, we see examples of while collar criminals who exploit people for billions of dollars each year. However they are not charged or prosectuted as tecnically what they do is not illegal. However, are their actions morally & ethically right?
I could list more examples of people doing things that negatively impact & exploit others while what they are doing is technically not illegal. However, not illegal does not equal being morally & ethically right.
@neechee5150 - Your non-sequitur post is in no way a rebuttal to what I've just stated. Name a white collar crime that is committed which is not a crime- and after you do so, answer how this in any way is the same as wanting to take away privacy rights and parental consent laws, as you're wanting to do. Your morals and ethics are your own, and in NO way trumps others.
@Alaska47Boy parents often justify infant circumcision due to cosmetic prefrences. However, in doing so they deprive the penis owner to choose his own penis cosmetic prefrences.
Parents justify infant circmcision based upon their fears & paranoia concerning hygiene. However, the CPS & AMA have admitted that the hygiene reason is unproven. If Hygiene was a sufficent reason to cut infant genitals, female circ would be legal in the US and other countries as well.
@Alaska47Boy Comparing infant circumcision to abortion is a false analogy. A baby who is born alive is a person by all legal standards and has inaileble rights that are Constitutionally protected. A fetus is currently viewed as a non-person with no rights whether you or I like it or not. Your use of the abortion comparision is a fallacy.
Once again you circumvent and obfuscate the key questions of morality and ethics of forced non-theraputic circumcision and the Equal protection clause.
@Alaska47Boy Again you indict yourself of blantant fallaciousness. The legal system has deemed that a fetus does not have inalieable rights as specified in the Constitution a living breathing infant does. Whether you or I agree with that ruling is irrelevant at this time.
Parental consent is not cart blanche. Parental consent to medical treatment has to be proven to be medically expedient, deemed to be best medical practice, and not without substantial unjustified risk.
@Alaska47Boy As politics, blind tradition, bigotry, parental deprivation of religious freedoms, and profit motives continue to loose their power to justify infant circumcision, infant circumcision is going to continue to decrease. Also the minds of the voting public will continue to change, and like the laws regarding spouse abuse and child abuse, the tradtions, lies and abuses of power
@Alaska47Boy that once made circmcision not illegal will be rendered invalid, and parental forced genital aesthetics will no longer be allowed with out strict medical justification.
Routine/non-theraputic circmcision is not medically indicated or justified. As non-theraputic circumcision is not medically expedient and does in fact present substanital risk of permanent bodily injury, the grounds that circumcision is legal due to parental rights are going to continue to weaken
@Alaska47Boy As you are not a known accepted authority in human rights nor are you the ultimate determiner of human rights violations, you need to make your case forced, non-theraptutic infant circmcision is not a violation of human rights. Your saying so&insulting those who want to make a case that it is is irrelevant & without merrit in this discussion. You fallaciously base your case that infant circumcision is not a human rights issue based upon your exalting yourself to be an authoirty.
@AlaskaBum, you use smoke and mirrors again! Whether you describe a fetus as a "baby UNborn" has no legal relevance here, since a fetus is not defined as a "person". An infant or baby IS a "person"!
Now shall I keep pounding your bruised and battered butt with my dildo?
Note that the sooner you can QUOTE from the Amendments or the "Incorporation" any section that grants parents consent rights over children, the sooner I will hand back your plumped-up bottom to your boyfriend.
@AlaskaBum, I know you want me to pump your plump bottom harder, but I reckon I'm doing pretty good for a woman in her early 50's! Now listen through all those groaning sounds you emit, as I pummel your Alaskan bum: in the context of legalized abortion, a fetus is NOT in any sense a "person". Remember, the Roe vs. Wade case that you referred to? That is only relevant for legal abortion! Now I'm going to rub your nose in my butt, just as your boyfriend prefers to do with you.
@Alaska47Boy As clearly agreed upon by AAP, AMA, CPS, BMA et al that infant circumcision is rarely done for theraputic purposes, the vast majority of boys are circumcised for OTHER reasons/motives that are important to the parents. Religion and quasi religious reasons are often used to justify circumcision, but religious freedom mandates that each individual is entitled to choose for themselves whether to particpate in a religious ritual especially one that permanently alters the body.
@Alaska47Boy Wrong-I suggest you read my post again along with the statements by the CPS, AMA, AAP, BMA and RACP. These and other medical assocations use the terms "routine" and "non-theraputic" circumcision synonymously. They also make it clear that routine or non-theraputic infant circumcision is NOT medically indicated. If a procedure like non-theraputic/routine infant circumcision is deemded to be not medically indicated, teh medical justification for infant circmcision non existant
@Alaska47Boy Again you commit the fallacy of false analogy. With regards to Vaccinations, the standard vaccinations such as measles, mumps, reubella & tuberculosis along with a few others have proven themselves by all but eliminating childhood diseases that have killed millions. Vaccinations can be justified in the interest of public health. On the other hand, advocates for forced male genital aesthetics, can not justify their compulsion to cut male genitals in the interest of publich health
@AlaskaBum, more smoke and mirrors from you! I'll give your battered bum a reprieve, while I clarify:
Comparing routine vaccinations with routine circumcision is gratuitous. With regard to vaccinations, there is MEDICAL CONSENSUS of net health benefit, whereas with routine circumcision there is not. Medical societies accept that routine infant circumcision is NOT medically indicated. Only therapeutic circumcision is medically indicated.
@AlaskaBum, still more smoke from you, and mirrors that can serve nothng but to admire your obese butt in. Prematurity, low birth weight and certain conditions could be contra-indications to circumcision. Non-therapeutic circumcision of healthy babies is not recommended by any medical society. It also differs from other medical procedures in that all other non-therapeutic surgeries or amputations on minors are illegal.
Is your bum sore enough for you, or do you want harder pumping?
Medical assocations world wide make it clear that infant circumcision is contraindicated in the circumstnaces that you describe plus a few others. For nearly every medical proceedure or medication there is a population of cases in which that med or proceedure is contraindicated, and those potential patients/cases are NOT ROUTINE. A case in which circumcision is contraindicated, can not be included in the population of cases that could be subject to routine circumcsion.
@Alaska47Boy "They[medical assocations in the modern world] also do NOT "make it clear" that routine[non-theraputic] infant circumcision is NOT medically indicated"
Here according to the Royal College of Surgeons of England are the medical indications for circumcision: "The one absolute indication for circumcision is scarring of the opening of the foreskin making it nonretractable (pathological phimosis). This is unusual before five years of age. continued
@Alaska47Boy Medical indications for circumcision RCSE cont:
...."Recurrent, troublesome episodes of infection beneath the foreskin (balanoposthitis) are an occasional indication for circumcision. Occasionally, specialist paediatric surgeons or urologists may need to perform a circumcision for some rare conditions"
The Royal College of Surgeons of England, Male Circumcision-Guidance for Healthcare Practitioners May 2000
@Alaska47Boy sayeth "They[medical assocations] also do NOT "make it clear" that routine[non-theraputic] infant circumcision is NOT medically indicated"
"Medicaid covers MEDICALLY NECESSARY circumcision for newborns. The conditions justifying medical necessity are EXTREMELY RARE (i.e., certain congenital obstructive urinary tract anomalies, neurogenic bladder, spina bifida, or urinary tract infections) and are subject to individual review" North Carolina Division of Medical Assistance 2007
@Alaska47Boy "The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan is asking family doctors to consider the physical risk to the patient and the legal risk to the physician before becoming involved in the ROUTINE circumcision of infants. It warns that circumcision poses a greater risk of harm than benefit and could form the basis of lawsuits by circumcised adults. The college says physicians should perform circumcisions only when medically indicated cont
cont:.....or, in the case of religious and cultural reasons, after thorough discussion with parents... About 27% of infant males in Saskatchewan are circumcised, one of the highest rates in the country. Kendel said most parents request the procedure because "daddy had it," but many would not choose it if fully informed of the medical risks"
@Alaska47Boy Unless a given circumcision case meets the requirements of being truly medically indicated, it is an elective cosmetic proceedure that is performed for parents aesthetic prefrences. Your position that routine infant circumcision is not medically indicated due to the possiblity of doctors and parents wanting to circumcise an unhealthy or premature baby is based upon parsing of words, twisting logic and ingoring the facts and commonly accepted medical definitions. cont
"called-for," - ALL of these terms are not yours to make- it's the medical
team and parent's. It's never been my position that "routine infant circumcision is not medically indicated;" it's that it can't be considered routine, because not every child is a good candidate for the procedure- and NO different than any other procedure. "Parsing of words?" I think you need to reinvestigate your operational usage of "routine."
@Alaska47Boy Saskatchewan?!-Province of Candada roughly equivalent to a state in the US. Legal risk-I suggest you read up on lawsuits in Canada & the US where adult men are suing the doctors/hospital for circumcising them. Physical risk-Circumcision has been responsible for the deaths of 100 to 200+ infant deaths in the US depending upon which study you read. The physical risks range from death, penis amputation, partial penis amputation, infections, all the way to excessive bleeding.
@Alaska47Boy As for religous reasons, female circumcision in all of its forms and degrees one of which is equivalent to male circumcision was made illegal all religous and quasi religoius reasons aside.
You have yet to explian how you justify parental forced genital asethetics or non-theraputic/non-medically inedicated circumcision as being morally and ethically correct.
You continue to avoid the Equal Protection justification for protecting the genitals of girls but not those of boys
@Alaska47Boy Wrong. According to the UN/WHO classifications of the types and degrees of female circumcision or FGM, FGM type 1a which is sometimes referred to as sunnah circumcision entails removing the female prepuce or clitoral hood. The female and male prepuces or clitoral hood and foreskin respectively are homologous tissues and serve the same function.
If removal of the female prepuce is illegal inspite of religious and parents reasons, the Equal protection clause is relevant.
@Alaska47Boy, you are misquoting UNAIDS. Try to resist the temptation to lie. If you want to quote, make sure you do so correctly and in context! If you claim you are not misleading by deceit, give me a precise reference for you claimed UNAIDS quote.
@Alaska47Boy This is a cherry picked quote and you have taken it out of context to suit your agenda. You continue this manipulative and deceptive practice at the peril of your own crediblity.
@Alaska47Boy. Multiple medical assocations from the modern nations all clearly state that non-theraputic circumcision of infant boys is NOT recommended and here is the real key-not medically indicated. As actual theraputic circumcisions in infants are rare occurances, the overwhelming majority of baby boys are circumcised for absolutely NO theraputic purpose or need. Sadly too many times doctors misinform, lie, distort and ignore the repeated policy statements from the AMA, AAP, CPS et al
@Alaska47Boy sayeth: "See? That's the BEST Part of this- and ALL medical procedures Chee-chee: You don't determine what "Sufficient" means or constitutes- the parents and doctors do. It HAS been shown and the risks HAVE been measured- you aren't apart of that dialogue- tell me, is it that you don't get it, or that you're hot and bothered by this fact and can't do anything about it? Or both? Please- do what you can to get over it"
You repeatedly dodge & obfuscate instead of answer & document
AlaskaBum, we're all requesting you to QUOTE the section(s) of the Amendments or the Incorporation clause that you claim give parents rights over children's bodies!
The Roe vs. Wade case is not applicable to infant circumcision, as others have demonstrated to your ample butt (where most of your attention is focused), since a fetus is not legally a "person", whereas an infant is.
Shall I keep pounding your blushing, bleeding and battered butt with my dildo? Your boyfriend doesn't seem to mind.
It comes down to parental consent, choice, and privacy. From the American Association of Pediatricians:- "parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision. It is legitimate for parents to take into account cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions, in addition to the medical factors, when making this decision."
Hey Alaskabum, where do the Amendments of our Constitution distinguish between the protective rights accorded to parents and those accorded to minors? Provide evidence BY QUOTATION from the Amendments that they permit parents to cut sons' penises?
You keep returning to be massacred, so don't miss this opportunity. I wanna see your plump Alaskan bum pumped once more.
Oh, you must be a lovely bottom! Come to Amsterdam some time.
@supermomsa - Section I and Incorporation Doctrine- and I'll keep returning to say it over to you, Bobbi Culp- any time you want. I've been to Amsterdam- numerous times, because I can afford to, and I'm half your age. You're there because a business paid your way, and you can't even get per diem for your family to come over there- how utterly pathetic. It works, though- they don't want you back in the states, anyway :)
Still can't comprehend, Bobbi?- Look at CA's COURT DECISON in Oct.
@Tandykane - Well, since that's what was upheld in Roe- guess you'd better take that up with SCOTUS, huh? Or all the states' Courts which uphold both- guess you'd better figure out if you really agree medical privacy and parental consent rights are real rights, huh? Guess we're all just in a magic land like you and your butt buddy Bobbi :)
@Alaska47Boy The CA Superior Court that ruled on the San Francisco circumcision ban ballot initiative did so on the grounds that circumcision is a "medical" proceedure and that CA city and county governments do not have the authority to regulate the practice of medicine and that the CA state goverment is the only entity that has that authority. This ruling did not take place in October 2011, and the ruling was not based upon religious freedoms or parental rights points of law.
@neechee5150 - Question- why don't they have that right, and why did the Governor create a Bill barring the CA state government to do the same? It goes back to the same things, here, Chee :)
@AlaskaBum, that's an easy question you posed to neechee, oh peech bottom.
States aren't permitted to make changes to law independent of federal law. The same process would apply to any change to state law. The barring of the state of California to ban non-therapeutic infant circumcision was not based on the ethics of circumcision, but on federal law!
Do you ask stupid questions for the thrill of being demeaned? Isn't it enough that we're already riding your butt for you?
"It's BECAUSE Federal law cannot prohibit the medical procedure or abridge parental consent rights and privacy for patients that bars states from passing such laws-"
@Tandykane - Ahem- nope I didn't- because it doesn't apply- kind of like cutting off eyelids that I know you anti-choice whack-jobs love to compare :) and, Jessica-? Let's be real here, you've been taking it from all sides since the first day you started trolling the internet for little boy circumcision videos- how's that pathetic life coming? You and Bobbi should really meet up :) You guys would just love Amsterdam- but then, you can't afford to go, can you? You guys have so much in common!
@Alaska47Boy The Santa Monical circumcision ban ballot initiative was not ruled upon in October. The CA legislative bill prohibiting the banning of circumcmision was signed into law in Oct 2011 which was effective immediately. So I question your claim of a CA court ruling on a circumcision matter in OCT.
@neechee5150 - It was the Court(s) ruling in July which led to the passage of those laws. And that was just CA. It changes neither the fact that these rights are protected, nor the choice of the parents to make this call.
@Alaska47Boy Lets go back a step. The "incorporation clause" of the 14th ammendment had nothing to do with the CA Superior Court ruling on the San francisco ballot initiative. Second, there are supreme court precidents that establish that parental rights are not absolute & can be limited. Third, the CA circ law has not been tested in the Courts for Constitutionality. 4th, there is a good case to be made that either the FGM laws are unconstitutional or leaving boys genitals unprotected is.
@neechee5150 - Let's go to any step you want- CA courts never even got to the part about deciding the very act of taking away this right would be Constitutional- because even attempting to put it on a BALLOT is unconstitutional- we're not even AT that step, yet. Now why's that? Go find a legal group or academic who thought that measure had a chance in hell of passing judicial muster. There is NO case to be made on FGM- it's been tried and denied, and NO medical or legal group agrees with you.
"It was the Court(s) ruling in July which led to the passage of those laws. And that was just CA" Good, now can you quote that law attesting to your assertions?
@Tandykane - Yeah the sections cited in Roe on privacy and patient consent rights. You've read that case, right? Please tell me you've actually read the opinion and citations, and you're not just asking because you're lazy and stupid- go figure it out. I am so supportive of you, Jessica- I KNOW you can do it!
@Alaska47Boy You were wrong-there was no CA court ruling in Oct 11 relative to circumcision bans. Now document from the actual ruling where the Court made their decision on parental rights questions?
As so called medical justifications are not sufficeint reason to circumcise a child, why do you insist on doing so? If you can not prove that circumcision is medically expedient and does not present real and substantial risk of harm to the child, parental rights are not cart blance
since I cannot find this from Alaskaboy to me here (∴reposted):
"@trident3b - Then it's a good thing you're neither part of any medical group or
legal group- because both disagree with you, and comparing an eyelid to a foreskin
remains ever the idiotic comparison."
My comparison with the eye is intended to highlight the practice of wrongly removing any healthy & functional part of someone elses body. You'll agree that the infant has a right to both eyes, & the same right applies to the fs
@trident3b@alaskaboy47Boy, No, I don't belong to a "legal group" but I am 'still' married to a lawyer, but separated. However at one point (months ago) I did ask her. Being German she referred me to §226 of the StGB (which endorses international law) & it in turn partially refers to the Human rights act of 1948 to bodily integrity. §226 states that "genital mutilation constitutes a severe bodily injury". "Severe bodily injury can attract prison sentences from 1 to 5 years". Sadly not with circ.
@Alaska47Boy sayeth "Ah, yes, the Dutch Association- used by ALL anti-circ zealots for their more hard-lined approach. Why is that? Is it because they're the only ones who use a policy stance without citing any evidence, (e.g., "psychological complications?" Name and cite ONE); or because almost every person in the Netherlands is uncircumcised, and they simply want it the same? End of the day- they do not oppose the procedure, and do not rebut the parental choice and right aspect of the it"
No, I mean like, if a female penis doctor takes your pants of and examins it, wouldn't that be pretty akward? This is pretty much the same case, cause she's explaining to you on your own penis (Assuming you're a guy that is, too lazy to check).
@1finallygotunleashed, most U.S. men know LESS about the natural penis than many women do. How can you explain how a normal penis works when you yourself don't have one?
Leave your children with their natural genitals. As the motto runs: "don't fix what ain't broke." Otherwise, you're likley to cause problems, and risk alienating your children later in life.
It comes down to parental consent, choice, and privacy. From the American Association of Pediatricians:- "parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision. It is legitimate for parents to take into account cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions, in addition to the medical factors, when making this decision."
@Alaska47Boy You left out the sentences earlier in the AAP position on infant circumcision which clearly state that routine infant circumcision is not recommended nor is it medically indicated. This position is almost the same as that of the AMA, CPS, RACP, and other medical associations.
All of these medical assoctions also state that the risks and side effects are equal to any alleged medical benefits from circumcision.
You chery picked the parts out of the AAP policy statement.
@Alaska47Boy "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......." AAP Circumcision Policy Statement 1999. Reaffirmed 9/1/05.
Your quote was blatantly taken out of context & distorts AAP policy
@neechee5150 - Yup- "ROUTINE circumcision"- again: the AAP places choice and consideration with the parent, and may consider a myriad of aspects in determining what THEY feel is best.
@Alaska47Boy You failed to quote the whole summary of the AAP's policy statement on circumcision, and you cherry picked the portion that you wanted and in the process distorted the AAP's position on infant circumcision. You have not even contested this point. As such this is a prima facie case of you taking information out of context to suit your agenda.
@Alaska47Boy You cherry picked a portion of the AAP policy statement on circumcision & in the process distorted their position & the facts to suit yoru agenda. Second, routine infant circumcision by definiation would not involve pre-mature babies, infants with health conditions, & infants with urogenital deformities. This is standard medical practice, and not adhering to these standards will end up in malpractice law suits and disciplinary action by the given States medical board.
@Alaska47Boy Parents have the right to make expedient medical decisions for their minor children, and infant circumcision is not medically expedient. The major medical assocations all state that the risks and potential known adverse side effects are real and must be honestly and acurately explained to parents. Sadly this has not been done,& doctors who do not honestly & completely educate the parents regarding the risks & adverse side effects both long & short term must be sanctioned.
@tankwarrior77 The human foreskin does not grow back. The dartos muscle and severed nerves do not grow back. Also please document the medical studies and articles on the ability to regrow human appendages
neechee5150 48 minutes ago
@ComicPenius Which specific countries "banned" infant circumcision durring or before the early 70's?
neechee5150 55 minutes ago
i didnt get a choice in the matter so im fucked :( i got snipped and i wish i hadnt but i was a baby when it happened so yeah
cutenukkah 13 hours ago
I'm a Jew and I was circumcised when I was a baby. I have never questioned it until now; it was always just there. AND I FIND THAT MESSED UP!
TheElihs 1 day ago
You're the only person that I feel would love me no matter what, and I've never even met/talked to you.
NeverShoutNever331 1 day ago
America is fucking backwards. Circumcision has been banned in other first world countries since the early 70s. Maybe it's because there's so many Jewish people in America pushing their primitive beliefs?
ComicPenius 2 days ago
Hmm. Top post is "Americans and the religious needing to stop imposing things on others". 1 - Americans are not the problem, but many either don't condemn, or support it, because of religion. 2 - We are talking about people that argue that telling them they can't teach creation in a class room is "imposing" and "persecution", but that requiring "religious" requirements isn't. One joker actually suggested is was "society choosing moral codes to follow", while somehow missing the "choosing" part.
KagehiK 1 week ago
You forgot to mention the possibility of complications during the procedure(unnecessary risk), and the fact that one of the very strong arguments that were made for the adoption of the practice was that it's a way to prevent masturbation. Circumcision was wildly adopted in English speaking countries at the end of the 19th century, but not in the rest of Europe, or other parts of the world.
sorin7486 1 week ago
Your caveat at the end about respecting everyone's beliefs and opinions was a good highlight. Unfortunately the nature of man kind is that of trying to persuade an individual to belief a certain opinion, if not they want to force that thing down their throat and make them believe it. Bottom line up front- circumcision doesn't greatly affect anything. I mean men don't sit around at contemplate suicide because there foreskin is gone. If they don't like it they CAN grow it back. Simple as that.
tankwarrior77 1 week ago
@tankwarrior77, idiot, you can't "grow back" foreskin once it is cut off! The sensory nerves are gone for good, You can't grow back an amputated limb either!
Some men MAY be able to laboriously stretch their foreskin to provide some glans cover IF they have enough prepuce left. But it will never have the nerves or gain the dynamic function of the original.
dandydosbest 1 week ago
@dandydosbest First before you call anybody and "idiot" maybe you should educate yourself. You can grow back foreskin, it is called a "PUD" and its able to regrow foreskin. Second you might want to do some medical research about the ability to grow back human appendages. Now IDIOT go and read some shit and stop trolling on the internet!
tankwarrior77 11 hours ago
@tankwarrior77
Circumcision DOES greatly affect its victims--it cause the loss of up to 3/4 of the penile sensation and sensitivity. PLUS many suffer grievous consequences and even death from it.
A Preliminary Poll of Men Circumcised in Infancy or Childhood
T. Hammond, BJU International (83, Suppl. 1), p. 85-92, January, 1999 circumcised intact
Satisfied 38% 78%
Dissatisfied 20% 3%
Ambivalent 41% 17%
Tandykane 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Tandykane - YOU. ARE. A. FUCKING. MORON- Still at it with the LIES
and Bullshit, huh Jessica? :) "Hammond" IS NOT A STUDY, and IS
BOGUS- you idiot- You only get this from NOHARMM- it's published AS
A SUPPLEMENTAL- not an article. It uses polls taken by NOHARMM,
The CITATIONS use books advertised to buy at the NOHARMM website;
There isn't even a methods section- and the introduction is a pledge of action
by NOHARMM. How can you be so fucking STUPID as to think this
credible? Wow- idiot.
Alaska47Boy 1 week ago
@tankwarrior77 seldom have I had the misfortune to read such crap. Grow the foreskin back? Are you out of you mind? We're not starfish, we're human. Lob something off and it's gone forever.
trident3b 5 days ago 4
@trident3b "Grow the foreskin back?"
First, it needs to be understood WHAT the foreskin is. It is the skin on the penis directly behind the head and about 3 or 4 inches down the shaft. When the penis is soft, this skin folds over the head. So really, in fact all that is done is to make the skin on the penis around 3 or 4 inches shorter with circumcision. If tension is applied to the remaining skin, it will grow and restore the missing area which restores the normal function to it.
lochinvar00465 1 day ago in playlist Genital Integrity
@lochinvar00465
Yes, you need to know what the foreskin is--it is not just skin, it is a VERY complex structure--and those other components cannot be grown back.
BRITISH JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, Volume 77, Pages 291-295,February 1996.
The prepuce: Specialized mucosa of the penis and its loss to circumcision
by J.R. Taylor, A.P. Lockwood and A.J. Taylor
Tandykane 1 day ago 4
@lochinvar00465 hmm, well since I still have mine the detailed description isn't really necessary, thx all the same. Would you however care to go a stage further and describe how you/one intends to grow back the 1000s of Meisner corpuscles back? From your description I deduce a crude recovery of stretched regular skin less all the sexually sensitive nerves that were discarded in the initial amputation of the victim.
trident3b 1 day ago
Im Circumcised & I know for a FACT that the Foreskin causes no pleasure. The remaining foreskin on mine hurts when touch. The Sensitive pleasurable glands are all in the Head. My Grandma worked as a Nurse at a Seniors home for 30 Years & convinced my Parents to cut me like she did to my Dad as well.
HBKanedge818 2 weeks ago
@HBKanedge818
You are so full of it..and your Grandma is an idiot...educate yourself before opening your lips..
BRITISH JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, Volume 77, Pages 291-295,February 1996.
The prepuce: Specialized mucosa of the penis and its loss to circumcision
by J.R. Taylor, A.P. Lockwood and A.J. Taylor
Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis Morris L. Sorrells, James L. Snyder, Mark D. Reiss 2 0 07 BJU INTERNATIONAL 2007
Tandykane 1 week ago
@HBKanedge, your claimed "FACT" is hilarious, and typical of an American (Canadian).Your nation's fixation on infant circumcision rivals the USA's.
Since your Grandma abhors the normal penis, she should set an example, and get her OWN foreskin (inner labia) cut! If male foreskin is unhygienic, the same applies to the female foreskin. Removing her "inner folds" would simplify her own hygiene (nurses know that UTIs are far commoner in women!).
Now, why didn't her parents do that?
psandbergnz 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HBKanedge818 - It doesn't- these anti-choice whack-jobs want you to think
there is a difference in pleasure, function, or performance between circumcised
and uncircumcised penises, which there are not.
Alaska47Boy 1 week ago
@HBKanedge818 you clearly know nothing for a fact. I have mine & CAN feel ecstatic pleasures as can billions of others. If you couldn't feel anthing then you are one exception out of perhaps 3 to 4 billion. I'm going to take an educated guess & claim you're lying your ass off "big time" putting you firmly in denial. The moment the fs is decapitated the penis is no longer a fully functional organ as it was when intact & ∴ you dear boy have been turned into a sexual spastic. "Enjoy".
trident3b 5 days ago 5
This has been flagged as spam show
Yeah, I wish I hadn't had it done to me and my wife and I agreed not to have it done to our son, despite being really really pressured by the hospital, both my wife and I together and the both of us when we were separated. Which was weird,
DaiReborn 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It comes down to parental consent, choice, and privacy. From the American Association of Pediatricians:- "parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision. It is legitimate for parents to take into account cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions,in addition to the medical factors, when making this decision."
Alaska47Boy 3 weeks ago
America needs to learn to stop interfering in just about everything that is not theirs. On a personal front they need to learn that a child's body belongs to that child only & that no one has the right to modify by serious permanent disfiguration by decapitation another person, especially if that person is 100% defenceless & it will affect their lives permanently. American people & the religious need to learn that they don't have this right & that this practice must stop, instantly. It is vile.
trident3b 3 weeks ago 7
@trident3b uncut looks sooo gross and messed up.
mgibbs88 3 weeks ago
@mgibbs88 so do you stare at other mens genitals all day long, or your own? Do you wear clothing & cover yourself up all day? What do you think the female genitals look like? Labia minora, clitoris etc. They by your rational look MASSIVELY messed up by comparison. What a ludicrous argument for genital mutilation. Forced removal of someone elses genitals forcing them to lose 1000s of sexual nerve endings?You're sick.But glad to know you're devoid of it.With your remarks you deserved it.
trident3b 3 weeks ago
@mgibbs88
They look normal to 80% of the people in the world, only gross to the 20% who mutilate--mainly Jews, Muslims, and stupid Americans..the rest find circumcised ones sad and pathetic looking.
Tandykane 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Tandykane - "They look normal to 80% of the people in the world, only gross to the 20% who mutilate."
- Care to substantiate your claim of how and what penises look like to 80 percent of the world?
- Again projecting your self-inadequacy and self-loathing to the rest of us- how
wonderfully pathetic :)
Alaska47Boy 3 weeks ago
Wow your a real huge slut
champignons0magiques 1 month ago
I think putting knives and penises in the same vincinity is RLY sexy >:3
AutoTerminator 1 month ago
@AutoTerminator I really hope you haven't tried that...
easterntaco 1 month ago in playlist SEX+ Sexuality
@easterntaco its called knife play, bro, you don't cut anything. and it's actually quite common -_-
AutoTerminator 1 month ago
@AutoTerminator
Perhaps you might enjoy it more over at the sicklist--they are into the sexual excitement of mutilating penises.
Tandykane 1 month ago
@Tandykane hee hehehehehehee no, dude. haven't you ever heard of Knife play? you don't actually cut.
AutoTerminator 1 month ago
@AutoTerminator ah, so you have tried it on yourself you mean? Way to go! Or do you mean putting a knife in the same vincinity of s o m e o n e e l s e's penis... is "RLY sexy"?
trident3b 1 month ago
@trident3b Imma female, bro. and yes, i mean with s o m e o n e e l s e 's penis. believe it or not, but some ppl like that.
AutoTerminator 1 month ago
@AutoTerminator ok, a woman. If I understand you correctly, then that makes matters worse. Can't tell if you're joking or being sarcastic or really mean 'it's sexy' to put a knife to someone else's penis, chiefly that of an infant.So as a woman who doesn't have that sort of organ you're for having it mutilated at a time when the child cannot defend itself & has no say in that matter over its own body(with all the negative consequences in later life for that child)?Are you cut up?
trident3b 1 month ago
@trident3b ok, dude, I wasn't talking about circumsicion. that's stupid. I'm against it. I'm talking about AN ADULT FETISH THINGY, K?
AutoTerminator 1 month ago
Alaska's silence is deafening.
trident3b 1 month ago
@trident3b, I reckon supermomsa has Alaskaboy screwed down for now.
psandbergnz 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@trident3b - I couldn't hear you over your idiocy- and you have yet to refute a single thing I've stated.
Oh- and I have a life, and don't spend every day on this like you- which part of these two facts makes you more upset- you're worthlessness, or your inconsequential life and affect on any of this?
Alaska47Boy 3 weeks ago
@Alaska47Boy apart from today, I was last here 6 days ago. You call that every day? Sounds like the regular logic we have seen. The only reason I am here now is because you appeared with your remark in my inbox. The onus is upon you to refute the many things that various people have put to you. Confronting you with logical arguments is simply greeted with a barrage of insults & circumventing gobbledygook. Genital mutilation is & remains an irresponsible permanently damaging atrocity
trident3b 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@trident3b - Your idiotic statement that "the silence is deafening" on my part, and your spurious belief that it should have anything to do with me not refuting a position someone has made is beyond retarded, I've shot down every stupid, thing your group has stated, no one calls it "genital mutilation" except for zealots like you, and circumcision ever remains a viable, realistic choice for parents, along with any other medical decision for their minor child- none of that is going to change.
Alaska47Boy 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@trident3b
"The only reason I am here now is because you appeared with your remark in my inbox."
Yes, that seems to be his latest childish trick--can't defend his position HERE, so he sends insults to people's inbox. Desperate means by the desperate?
Tandykane 2 weeks ago
stfu and just suck a dick
se7endreams 1 month ago
Thank you very much for this well formulated and well researched response. I have Tumbled it on my Intactivism Tumblr. Thanks for taking the time to cover this topic.
siryessirnosir 1 month ago
How many words did you just fuck my brain with....
MrGDW13 1 month ago
@Alaska47Boy Contraindications to Routine Circumcision
For practioners who are asked to perform circumcisions, it it critical to know when to say "no". Although uncommon individually, there are several conditions that are considered contraindications to circumcision, so it is not unusual for a physician with a busy practice to have several patients who would not be candidates for routine neonatal cirucumcision"
Stanford School of Medicine Newborn Nursery at LCPH 2009
neechee5150 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@neechee5150 - The same is true for ALL medical procedures done both
routinely and not routinely. What's your point?
Alaska47Boy 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It comes down to parental consent, choice, and privacy. From the American Association of Pediatricians:- "parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision. It is legitimate for parents to take into account cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions, in addition to the medical factors, when making this decision."
Alaska47Boy 1 month ago
You have yet to address the equal protection clause aspect of forced non-theraputic(not medically justified) infant circumcision, so the true legality of infant circumcision is far from set in stone and is open to challenge. The CA law has not been challenged for being Constitutional. So the legality of infant circumcision is not absolute nor are parental rights
Explain why/how infant circumcision is right on moral, ethical and individual human rights grounds-absent of your fallacies
neechee5150 1 month ago
@neechee5150, that is an excellent point ("equal protection clause"), which Alaskabum has circumvented repeatedly by using smoke and mirrors. His only recourse is distraction.
You know what motivates him to keep coming back here (without ever influencing anyone): the guy likes to have his ass owned!
supermomsa 1 month ago
@Alaska47Boy Accross the world, we see examples of while collar criminals who exploit people for billions of dollars each year. However they are not charged or prosectuted as tecnically what they do is not illegal. However, are their actions morally & ethically right?
I could list more examples of people doing things that negatively impact & exploit others while what they are doing is technically not illegal. However, not illegal does not equal being morally & ethically right.
neechee5150 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@neechee5150 - Your non-sequitur post is in no way a rebuttal to what I've just stated. Name a white collar crime that is committed which is not a crime- and after you do so, answer how this in any way is the same as wanting to take away privacy rights and parental consent laws, as you're wanting to do. Your morals and ethics are your own, and in NO way trumps others.
Alaska47Boy 1 month ago
@Alaska47Boy parents often justify infant circumcision due to cosmetic prefrences. However, in doing so they deprive the penis owner to choose his own penis cosmetic prefrences.
Parents justify infant circmcision based upon their fears & paranoia concerning hygiene. However, the CPS & AMA have admitted that the hygiene reason is unproven. If Hygiene was a sufficent reason to cut infant genitals, female circ would be legal in the US and other countries as well.
neechee5150 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@neechee5150 - Parents often justify their decision based on a MYRIAD of
reasons- just like a female can justify her abortion through MANY reasons-
again, it comes down to THIER choice, not yours. What is deemed "sufficient"
is likewise up to them.
Alaska47Boy 1 month ago
@Alaska47Boy Comparing infant circumcision to abortion is a false analogy. A baby who is born alive is a person by all legal standards and has inaileble rights that are Constitutionally protected. A fetus is currently viewed as a non-person with no rights whether you or I like it or not. Your use of the abortion comparision is a fallacy.
Once again you circumvent and obfuscate the key questions of morality and ethics of forced non-theraputic circumcision and the Equal protection clause.
neechee5150 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@neechee5150 - And a baby UNborn is still every bit as HUMAN as one
who is- again, you're the one who's laughably framing this as a HUMAN
rights issue- so let's frame it as such. STOP obfuscating the key question
of why you're against privacy rights and parental consent rights.
Alaska47Boy 1 month ago
@Alaska47Boy Again you indict yourself of blantant fallaciousness. The legal system has deemed that a fetus does not have inalieable rights as specified in the Constitution a living breathing infant does. Whether you or I agree with that ruling is irrelevant at this time.
Parental consent is not cart blanche. Parental consent to medical treatment has to be proven to be medically expedient, deemed to be best medical practice, and not without substantial unjustified risk.
neechee5150 1 month ago
@Alaska47Boy As politics, blind tradition, bigotry, parental deprivation of religious freedoms, and profit motives continue to loose their power to justify infant circumcision, infant circumcision is going to continue to decrease. Also the minds of the voting public will continue to change, and like the laws regarding spouse abuse and child abuse, the tradtions, lies and abuses of power
neechee5150 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@neechee5150 - Keep living those lies, Cheechee, someday they'll magically
become more true, I just KNOW it! :) Everyone will be just as against this time
in a century- no one wants your bigotry and parental deprivation, and no one ever
will.
Alaska47Boy 1 month ago
@Alaska47Boy that once made circmcision not illegal will be rendered invalid, and parental forced genital aesthetics will no longer be allowed with out strict medical justification.
Routine/non-theraputic circmcision is not medically indicated or justified. As non-theraputic circumcision is not medically expedient and does in fact present substanital risk of permanent bodily injury, the grounds that circumcision is legal due to parental rights are going to continue to weaken
neechee5150 1 month ago
@Alaska47Boy As you are not a known accepted authority in human rights nor are you the ultimate determiner of human rights violations, you need to make your case forced, non-theraptutic infant circmcision is not a violation of human rights. Your saying so&insulting those who want to make a case that it is is irrelevant & without merrit in this discussion. You fallaciously base your case that infant circumcision is not a human rights issue based upon your exalting yourself to be an authoirty.
neechee5150 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@neechee5150 - What a wonderful non-sequiutr. You aren't an authority
on human rights, and I have medical position statements and jurisprudence
and precedence in my favor. State after state is simply defending what I've
already said- care to deny or refute any of what I've stated? Again- Since the
practice has been justified by the parents- under the law- and under the
privacy and protection they have with thier physician: Why do they need
to "justify" anything to you?
Alaska47Boy 1 month ago
@AlaskaBum, you use smoke and mirrors again! Whether you describe a fetus as a "baby UNborn" has no legal relevance here, since a fetus is not defined as a "person". An infant or baby IS a "person"!
Now shall I keep pounding your bruised and battered butt with my dildo?
Note that the sooner you can QUOTE from the Amendments or the "Incorporation" any section that grants parents consent rights over children, the sooner I will hand back your plumped-up bottom to your boyfriend.
supermomsa 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Bobbi_Culp: It DOES have legal relvance, you silly old female- the
Unborn Victims of Violence Act protects such individuals, and biologically,
there is NO difference between an unborn and born human- this is a
"human rights" issue, remember?
Still putting "incorporation" in quotations- how hilarious :) Have you
changed or ridden anyone of their privacy laws or parental consent rights,
yet? No? You mean we are still free to do what we've always had the right
to do? How interesting :)
Alaska47Boy 1 month ago
@AlaskaBum, I know you want me to pump your plump bottom harder, but I reckon I'm doing pretty good for a woman in her early 50's! Now listen through all those groaning sounds you emit, as I pummel your Alaskan bum: in the context of legalized abortion, a fetus is NOT in any sense a "person". Remember, the Roe vs. Wade case that you referred to? That is only relevant for legal abortion! Now I'm going to rub your nose in my butt, just as your boyfriend prefers to do with you.
supermomsa 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@supermomsa - Patient privacy was extended under the 14th amendment
under Roe- that precedence applies to all medical procedures- there's nothing
different about Roe in that respect. "My boyfriend?" Wishful thinking, grandma:)
First you have penis envy, and want to pump things with a fake one, and now
projecting your unfulfilled need for a penis of your own- does your unsatisfying
husband and runt kid know your twisted little wish list?
Alaska47Boy 1 month ago
@Alaska47Boy As clearly agreed upon by AAP, AMA, CPS, BMA et al that infant circumcision is rarely done for theraputic purposes, the vast majority of boys are circumcised for OTHER reasons/motives that are important to the parents. Religion and quasi religious reasons are often used to justify circumcision, but religious freedom mandates that each individual is entitled to choose for themselves whether to particpate in a religious ritual especially one that permanently alters the body.
neechee5150 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@neechee5150 - You're spuriously making "non-theraputic" synonymous
with "needed-" they're not. Religion and quasi religious reasons are used as
one of many reasons for the procedure- and that's fine. Again, parental
consent is the common denominator through all the choice. Just like abortion-
don't want one? Don't get one. Take your anti-choice zealotry someplace else.
Alaska47Boy 1 month ago
@Alaska47Boy Wrong-I suggest you read my post again along with the statements by the CPS, AMA, AAP, BMA and RACP. These and other medical assocations use the terms "routine" and "non-theraputic" circumcision synonymously. They also make it clear that routine or non-theraputic infant circumcision is NOT medically indicated. If a procedure like non-theraputic/routine infant circumcision is deemded to be not medically indicated, teh medical justification for infant circmcision non existant
neechee5150 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@neechee5150 Correct- and those groups do NOT use the two terms,
synonymously. Vaccines are routine and NOT therapeutic. They also
do NOT "make it clear" that routine infant circumcision is NOT medically
indicated- and do not oppose either the procedure nor the choice of parents to
have the procedure performed. Again- it's BEEN Medically indicated, and you
do NOT dictate what constitutes "justified," the parents and medical teams do.
Alaska47Boy 1 month ago
@Alaska47Boy Again you commit the fallacy of false analogy. With regards to Vaccinations, the standard vaccinations such as measles, mumps, reubella & tuberculosis along with a few others have proven themselves by all but eliminating childhood diseases that have killed millions. Vaccinations can be justified in the interest of public health. On the other hand, advocates for forced male genital aesthetics, can not justify their compulsion to cut male genitals in the interest of publich health
neechee5150 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@neechee5150 - None of what you just stated is a rebuttal for what I just
stated above- and th medical practice IS put in the context of health and
wellbeing. You do NOT- I repeat, do NOT dictate what constitutes what
"justified" entails- the parents and medical team does. Get over it.
Alaska47Boy 1 month ago
@AlaskaBum, more smoke and mirrors from you! I'll give your battered bum a reprieve, while I clarify:
Comparing routine vaccinations with routine circumcision is gratuitous. With regard to vaccinations, there is MEDICAL CONSENSUS of net health benefit, whereas with routine circumcision there is not. Medical societies accept that routine infant circumcision is NOT medically indicated. Only therapeutic circumcision is medically indicated.
Now I'll bear down on your plump bum again.
supermomsa 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Bobbi_Culp: They can't recommend routine infant circumcision, you silly
old thing- not every newborn is a good candidate for the medical procedure
due to things like prematurity, low birth weight, or a predisposed condition-
this goes back to what every medical group considers informed consent
when explaining the benefits and risks to the parents- again, this is no
different than any other medical procedure. Now, go fluff your pillow again,
you saucy minx, you :)
Alaska47Boy 1 month ago
@AlaskaBum, still more smoke from you, and mirrors that can serve nothng but to admire your obese butt in. Prematurity, low birth weight and certain conditions could be contra-indications to circumcision. Non-therapeutic circumcision of healthy babies is not recommended by any medical society. It also differs from other medical procedures in that all other non-therapeutic surgeries or amputations on minors are illegal.
Is your bum sore enough for you, or do you want harder pumping?
supermomsa 1 month ago 10
This has been flagged as spam show
@supermomsa - "circumcision of healthy babies is not recommended by any medical society."
"Circumcision should be a part of every comprhensive AID prevention program." UNAIDS.
"non-therapeutic surgeries or amputations on minors are illegal." - Oh Bobbi, you
twisted deviant, you- I'd sure like to see the legal statute barring that. A few Dr.'s
would definitely be behind bars if that were true. Is no one pumping your lonely
ass for you, or do you pay for it in Filth Alley? :)
Alaska47Boy 1 month ago
@Alaska47Boy cont
Medical assocations world wide make it clear that infant circumcision is contraindicated in the circumstnaces that you describe plus a few others. For nearly every medical proceedure or medication there is a population of cases in which that med or proceedure is contraindicated, and those potential patients/cases are NOT ROUTINE. A case in which circumcision is contraindicated, can not be included in the population of cases that could be subject to routine circumcsion.
neechee5150 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@neechee5150 - Because a med or proceedure is contraindicated, that as
no impact or bearing on a procedure being considered "routine," no surgery-
therapeutic or non- should be considered "routine," -AGAIN: this applies to
ALL medical procedures- you picking circumcision as being different is
spurious- there aren't many-if any- medical procedures that AREN'T
contraindicated in one or more cases. There's no reason to exclusively
preclude this procedure for that reason.
Alaska47Boy 1 month ago
@Alaska47Boy "They[medical assocations in the modern world] also do NOT "make it clear" that routine[non-theraputic] infant circumcision is NOT medically indicated"
Here according to the Royal College of Surgeons of England are the medical indications for circumcision: "The one absolute indication for circumcision is scarring of the opening of the foreskin making it nonretractable (pathological phimosis). This is unusual before five years of age. continued
neechee5150 1 month ago
@Alaska47Boy Medical indications for circumcision RCSE cont:
...."Recurrent, troublesome episodes of infection beneath the foreskin (balanoposthitis) are an occasional indication for circumcision. Occasionally, specialist paediatric surgeons or urologists may need to perform a circumcision for some rare conditions"
The Royal College of Surgeons of England, Male Circumcision-Guidance for Healthcare Practitioners May 2000
neechee5150 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@neechee5150 .......?
Alaska47Boy 1 month ago
@Alaska47Boy sayeth "They[medical assocations] also do NOT "make it clear" that routine[non-theraputic] infant circumcision is NOT medically indicated"
"Medicaid covers MEDICALLY NECESSARY circumcision for newborns. The conditions justifying medical necessity are EXTREMELY RARE (i.e., certain congenital obstructive urinary tract anomalies, neurogenic bladder, spina bifida, or urinary tract infections) and are subject to individual review" North Carolina Division of Medical Assistance 2007
neechee5150 1 month ago
@Alaska47Boy "The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan is asking family doctors to consider the physical risk to the patient and the legal risk to the physician before becoming involved in the ROUTINE circumcision of infants. It warns that circumcision poses a greater risk of harm than benefit and could form the basis of lawsuits by circumcised adults. The college says physicians should perform circumcisions only when medically indicated cont
neechee5150 1 month ago
cont:.....or, in the case of religious and cultural reasons, after thorough discussion with parents... About 27% of infant males in Saskatchewan are circumcised, one of the highest rates in the country. Kendel said most parents request the procedure because "daddy had it," but many would not choose it if fully informed of the medical risks"
Canadian Medical Journal Sept 2002
neechee5150 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@neechee5150 - Saskatchewan?! What "legal risk?" What "physical risk?"
Again- it does NOT oppose the procedure and places emphasis on informed
consent with the parents before THEY make the call- how is this different
than ANY other medical procedure?
Alaska47Boy 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@neechee5150 - Saskatchewan?! What "legal risk?" What "physical risk?"
Again- it does NOT oppose the procedure and places emphasis on informed
consent with the parents before THEY make the call- how is this different
than ANY other medical procedure?
Alaska47Boy 1 month ago
@Alaska47Boy Unless a given circumcision case meets the requirements of being truly medically indicated, it is an elective cosmetic proceedure that is performed for parents aesthetic prefrences. Your position that routine infant circumcision is not medically indicated due to the possiblity of doctors and parents wanting to circumcise an unhealthy or premature baby is based upon parsing of words, twisting logic and ingoring the facts and commonly accepted medical definitions. cont
neechee5150 1 month ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
@neechee5150 - "medically indicated," "justified," "needed," "warranted,"
"called-for," - ALL of these terms are not yours to make- it's the medical
team and parent's. It's never been my position that "routine infant circumcision is not medically indicated;" it's that it can't be considered routine, because not every child is a good candidate for the procedure- and NO different than any other procedure. "Parsing of words?" I think you need to reinvestigate your operational usage of "routine."
Alaska47Boy 1 month ago
@Alaska47Boy Saskatchewan?!-Province of Candada roughly equivalent to a state in the US. Legal risk-I suggest you read up on lawsuits in Canada & the US where adult men are suing the doctors/hospital for circumcising them. Physical risk-Circumcision has been responsible for the deaths of 100 to 200+ infant deaths in the US depending upon which study you read. The physical risks range from death, penis amputation, partial penis amputation, infections, all the way to excessive bleeding.
neechee5150 1 month ago
@Alaska47Boy As for religous reasons, female circumcision in all of its forms and degrees one of which is equivalent to male circumcision was made illegal all religous and quasi religoius reasons aside.
You have yet to explian how you justify parental forced genital asethetics or non-theraputic/non-medically inedicated circumcision as being morally and ethically correct.
You continue to avoid the Equal Protection justification for protecting the genitals of girls but not those of boys
neechee5150 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@neechee5150 - It's not "equivalent," and no legal group agrees with you.
No one have to "justify" a thing to you, as this, too, is defended by medical
groups and legal communities. Parental consent now and forever.
Alaska47Boy 1 month ago
@Alaska47Boy Wrong. According to the UN/WHO classifications of the types and degrees of female circumcision or FGM, FGM type 1a which is sometimes referred to as sunnah circumcision entails removing the female prepuce or clitoral hood. The female and male prepuces or clitoral hood and foreskin respectively are homologous tissues and serve the same function.
If removal of the female prepuce is illegal inspite of religious and parents reasons, the Equal protection clause is relevant.
neechee5150 1 month ago
@neechee5150, yes, that is a logical argument.
supermomsa 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@neechee5150 - "Circumcision should be apart of any comprehensive
AIDS prevention program." - UNAIDS
Alaska47Boy 1 month ago
@Alaska47Boy, you are misquoting UNAIDS. Try to resist the temptation to lie. If you want to quote, make sure you do so correctly and in context! If you claim you are not misleading by deceit, give me a precise reference for you claimed UNAIDS quote.
psandbergnz 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@psandbergnz - You're asking for the citation, while at the same time blindly
and wildly claiming that it's "out of context?" Shouldn't you see and read the former
before claiming the latter? :) Oh Chips- you never cease to put a smile on my face.
Check the JohnS Hopkins story on WebMD: hiv-aids/news/20070329/circumcision-new-weapon-against-aids
and also the WHO and UNAIDS position statements on the Government's PEPFAR webpage pepfar.gov documents/organization/107820.pdf
Alaska47Boy 1 month ago
@Alaska47Boy This is a cherry picked quote and you have taken it out of context to suit your agenda. You continue this manipulative and deceptive practice at the peril of your own crediblity.
neechee5150 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@neechee5150 -Hmm, not really sure how you're getting that- Look above-
the studies and data by Johns Hopkins, WHO, and UNAIDS is both compelling
and their positions as stated above are straight forward.
Alaska47Boy 1 month ago
@Alaska47Boy. Multiple medical assocations from the modern nations all clearly state that non-theraputic circumcision of infant boys is NOT recommended and here is the real key-not medically indicated. As actual theraputic circumcisions in infants are rare occurances, the overwhelming majority of baby boys are circumcised for absolutely NO theraputic purpose or need. Sadly too many times doctors misinform, lie, distort and ignore the repeated policy statements from the AMA, AAP, CPS et al
neechee5150 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@neechee5150 - Yup- there's that "ROUTINE circumcision"- part again:
Once more: the CPS, just like the AAP places choice and consideration
with the parent, and may consider a myriad of aspects in determining what
THEY feel is best. Because you CAN'T have routine circumcision in a
number of cases- birth weight may be too low, premature babies, babies
born with abnormal conditions, etc. They stop short of recommending that
babies have it performed wholesale- and they SHOULD state as much.
Alaska47Boy 1 month ago
@Alaska47Boy sayeth: "See? That's the BEST Part of this- and ALL medical procedures Chee-chee: You don't determine what "Sufficient" means or constitutes- the parents and doctors do. It HAS been shown and the risks HAVE been measured- you aren't apart of that dialogue- tell me, is it that you don't get it, or that you're hot and bothered by this fact and can't do anything about it? Or both? Please- do what you can to get over it"
You repeatedly dodge & obfuscate instead of answer & document
neechee5150 1 month ago
AlaskaBum, we're all requesting you to QUOTE the section(s) of the Amendments or the Incorporation clause that you claim give parents rights over children's bodies!
The Roe vs. Wade case is not applicable to infant circumcision, as others have demonstrated to your ample butt (where most of your attention is focused), since a fetus is not legally a "person", whereas an infant is.
Shall I keep pounding your blushing, bleeding and battered butt with my dildo? Your boyfriend doesn't seem to mind.
supermomsa 1 month ago 9
This has been flagged as spam show
It comes down to parental consent, choice, and privacy. From the American Association of Pediatricians:- "parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision. It is legitimate for parents to take into account cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions, in addition to the medical factors, when making this decision."
Alaska47Boy 1 month ago
Hey Alaskabum, where do the Amendments of our Constitution distinguish between the protective rights accorded to parents and those accorded to minors? Provide evidence BY QUOTATION from the Amendments that they permit parents to cut sons' penises?
You keep returning to be massacred, so don't miss this opportunity. I wanna see your plump Alaskan bum pumped once more.
Oh, you must be a lovely bottom! Come to Amsterdam some time.
supermomsa 1 month ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@supermomsa - Section I and Incorporation Doctrine- and I'll keep returning to say it over to you, Bobbi Culp- any time you want. I've been to Amsterdam- numerous times, because I can afford to, and I'm half your age. You're there because a business paid your way, and you can't even get per diem for your family to come over there- how utterly pathetic. It works, though- they don't want you back in the states, anyway :)
Still can't comprehend, Bobbi?- Look at CA's COURT DECISON in Oct.
Alaska47Boy 1 month ago
@Alaska47Boy
"Section I and Incorporation Doctrine"
Read it, didn't find it--care to direct us to that clause? THE specific clause, your fanciful interpretations are all too often wrong.
Tandykane 1 month ago 5
This has been flagged as spam show
@Tandykane - Well, since that's what was upheld in Roe- guess you'd better take that up with SCOTUS, huh? Or all the states' Courts which uphold both- guess you'd better figure out if you really agree medical privacy and parental consent rights are real rights, huh? Guess we're all just in a magic land like you and your butt buddy Bobbi :)
Alaska47Boy 1 month ago
@Alaska47Boy The CA Superior Court that ruled on the San Francisco circumcision ban ballot initiative did so on the grounds that circumcision is a "medical" proceedure and that CA city and county governments do not have the authority to regulate the practice of medicine and that the CA state goverment is the only entity that has that authority. This ruling did not take place in October 2011, and the ruling was not based upon religious freedoms or parental rights points of law.
neechee5150 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@neechee5150 - Question- why don't they have that right, and why did the Governor create a Bill barring the CA state government to do the same? It goes back to the same things, here, Chee :)
Alaska47Boy 1 month ago
@AlaskaBum, that's an easy question you posed to neechee, oh peech bottom.
States aren't permitted to make changes to law independent of federal law. The same process would apply to any change to state law. The barring of the state of California to ban non-therapeutic infant circumcision was not based on the ethics of circumcision, but on federal law!
Do you ask stupid questions for the thrill of being demeaned? Isn't it enough that we're already riding your butt for you?
supermomsa 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@supermomsa - Swing and a miss, Bobbi- It's BECAUSE Federal law cannot
prohibit the medical procedure or abridge parental consent rights and privacy for
patients that bars states from passing such laws- and you just admitted as
much. I know your job doesn't require higher education, but C'mon- Bobbi-
your projections of your worthless husband not satisfying your twisted sick
fetishes are no one's fault but your own- and still you haven't changed a thing.
How pathetically wonderful.
Alaska47Boy 1 month ago
@Alaska47Boy
"It's BECAUSE Federal law cannot prohibit the medical procedure or abridge parental consent rights and privacy for patients that bars states from passing such laws-"
Ahem, forget the FGM law?
Bad boy, time to bend over and take it again!
And still with the childish taunts?
Tandykane 1 month ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
@Tandykane - Ahem- nope I didn't- because it doesn't apply- kind of like cutting off eyelids that I know you anti-choice whack-jobs love to compare :) and, Jessica-? Let's be real here, you've been taking it from all sides since the first day you started trolling the internet for little boy circumcision videos- how's that pathetic life coming? You and Bobbi should really meet up :) You guys would just love Amsterdam- but then, you can't afford to go, can you? You guys have so much in common!
Alaska47Boy 1 month ago
@Alaska47Boy The Santa Monical circumcision ban ballot initiative was not ruled upon in October. The CA legislative bill prohibiting the banning of circumcmision was signed into law in Oct 2011 which was effective immediately. So I question your claim of a CA court ruling on a circumcision matter in OCT.
neechee5150 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@neechee5150 - It was the Court(s) ruling in July which led to the passage of those laws. And that was just CA. It changes neither the fact that these rights are protected, nor the choice of the parents to make this call.
Alaska47Boy 1 month ago
@Alaska47Boy Lets go back a step. The "incorporation clause" of the 14th ammendment had nothing to do with the CA Superior Court ruling on the San francisco ballot initiative. Second, there are supreme court precidents that establish that parental rights are not absolute & can be limited. Third, the CA circ law has not been tested in the Courts for Constitutionality. 4th, there is a good case to be made that either the FGM laws are unconstitutional or leaving boys genitals unprotected is.
neechee5150 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@neechee5150 - Let's go to any step you want- CA courts never even got to the part about deciding the very act of taking away this right would be Constitutional- because even attempting to put it on a BALLOT is unconstitutional- we're not even AT that step, yet. Now why's that? Go find a legal group or academic who thought that measure had a chance in hell of passing judicial muster. There is NO case to be made on FGM- it's been tried and denied, and NO medical or legal group agrees with you.
Alaska47Boy 1 month ago
@Alaska47Boy
"It was the Court(s) ruling in July which led to the passage of those laws. And that was just CA" Good, now can you quote that law attesting to your assertions?
Tandykane 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Tandykane - Yeah the sections cited in Roe on privacy and patient consent rights. You've read that case, right? Please tell me you've actually read the opinion and citations, and you're not just asking because you're lazy and stupid- go figure it out. I am so supportive of you, Jessica- I KNOW you can do it!
Alaska47Boy 1 month ago
@Alaska47Boy You were wrong-there was no CA court ruling in Oct 11 relative to circumcision bans. Now document from the actual ruling where the Court made their decision on parental rights questions?
As so called medical justifications are not sufficeint reason to circumcise a child, why do you insist on doing so? If you can not prove that circumcision is medically expedient and does not present real and substantial risk of harm to the child, parental rights are not cart blance
neechee5150 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@neechee5150 - See? That's the BEST Part of this- and ALL medical
procedures Chee-chee: You don't determine what "Sufficient" means or
constitutes- the parents and doctors do. It HAS been shown and the risks
HAVE been measured- you aren't apart of that dialogue- tell me, is it that
you don't get it, or that you're hot and bothered by this fact and can't do
anything about it? Or both? Please- do what you can to get over it.
Alaska47Boy 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
since I cannot find this from Alaskaboy to me here (∴reposted):
"@trident3b - Then it's a good thing you're neither part of any medical group or
legal group- because both disagree with you, and comparing an eyelid to a foreskin
remains ever the idiotic comparison."
My comparison with the eye is intended to highlight the practice of wrongly removing any healthy & functional part of someone elses body. You'll agree that the infant has a right to both eyes, & the same right applies to the fs
trident3b 1 month ago
@trident3b @alaskaboy47Boy, No, I don't belong to a "legal group" but I am 'still' married to a lawyer, but separated. However at one point (months ago) I did ask her. Being German she referred me to §226 of the StGB (which endorses international law) & it in turn partially refers to the Human rights act of 1948 to bodily integrity. §226 states that "genital mutilation constitutes a severe bodily injury". "Severe bodily injury can attract prison sentences from 1 to 5 years". Sadly not with circ.
trident3b 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@trident3b - the StGB is a worthless writ playing No part whatsoever in either
medical bodies or United States jurisprudence. And, you're right- sadly, for
you, this doesn't apply to circumcision.
Alaska47Boy 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@trident3b - Your comparison was drawn from an anti-circ website and in
NO way is a salient, useful, or worthwhile one to make. It's dishonest, and
only convolutes the topic- eyelids are vital to the proper function and health
of the eyes- the same can NOT be said of foreskin. Keep up the lies- it only
makes my job easier :)
Alaska47Boy 1 month ago
Comment removed
trident3b 1 month ago
Uncut obviously and the title should be intact or mutilated!
Areplymeansimgreat 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Areplymeansimgreat - Name a legal or medical body that agrees with
you. Only anti-circ zealots use those titles, and I might be naive, but I
would think you'd want to be considered logical and objective in this discussion.
Alaska47Boy 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Alaska47Boy sayeth "Ah, yes, the Dutch Association- used by ALL anti-circ zealots for their more hard-lined approach. Why is that? Is it because they're the only ones who use a policy stance without citing any evidence, (e.g., "psychological complications?" Name and cite ONE); or because almost every person in the Netherlands is uncircumcised, and they simply want it the same? End of the day- they do not oppose the procedure, and do not rebut the parental choice and right aspect of the it"
neechee5150 1 month ago
Comment removed
neechee5150 1 month ago
It is a bit akward that there's a teen girl explaining to mw about my cut or uncut penis... Anyone agree?
1finallygotunleashed 1 month ago
@1finallygotunleashed
Not really, since women often partake of the penis and have views on which they prefer.
Would you feel better if gay men explained it to you?
Tandykane 1 month ago
@Tandykane
No, I mean like, if a female penis doctor takes your pants of and examins it, wouldn't that be pretty akward? This is pretty much the same case, cause she's explaining to you on your own penis (Assuming you're a guy that is, too lazy to check).
1finallygotunleashed 1 month ago
@1finallygotunleashed
Sorry, but I cannot take this immature speculation seriously. a doctor is a doctor--and should be looked at as a doctor--neither male not female.
Tandykane 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Tandykane - Ah, so when you try to call out the DOCTORS conducting
all these studies showing lower incidents of STIs as being associated with
circumcision- or the ones who practice and recommend circumcision-
those doctors don't count, right? What a silly hypocrite you are, Jessica :)
Alaska47Boy 1 month ago
@1finallygotunleashed, most U.S. men know LESS about the natural penis than many women do. How can you explain how a normal penis works when you yourself don't have one?
psandbergnz 1 month ago
@psandbergnz
Hm, was that meant to be an insult? Not the best I've heard today...
1finallygotunleashed 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@psandbergnz - Care to give an example or cite where this "lack of intellect"
is stated? What's with you anti-circ zealots and just making fantastical shit
up as you go along?
Alaska47Boy 1 month ago
Leave your children with their natural genitals. As the motto runs: "don't fix what ain't broke." Otherwise, you're likley to cause problems, and risk alienating your children later in life.
supermomsa 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It comes down to parental consent, choice, and privacy. From the American Association of Pediatricians:- "parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision. It is legitimate for parents to take into account cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions, in addition to the medical factors, when making this decision."
Alaska47Boy 1 month ago
@Alaska47Boy You left out the sentences earlier in the AAP position on infant circumcision which clearly state that routine infant circumcision is not recommended nor is it medically indicated. This position is almost the same as that of the AMA, CPS, RACP, and other medical associations.
All of these medical assoctions also state that the risks and side effects are equal to any alleged medical benefits from circumcision.
You chery picked the parts out of the AAP policy statement.
neechee5150 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@neechee5150 - Care to quote that section?.... Funny, the AAP certified physicians we worked with DID recommend it, Hmmm....
Alaska47Boy 1 month ago
@Alaska47Boy "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......." AAP Circumcision Policy Statement 1999. Reaffirmed 9/1/05.
Your quote was blatantly taken out of context & distorts AAP policy
neechee5150 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@neechee5150 - Yup- "ROUTINE circumcision"- again: the AAP places choice and consideration with the parent, and may consider a myriad of aspects in determining what THEY feel is best.
Alaska47Boy 1 month ago
Comment removed
neechee5150 1 month ago
@Alaska47Boy You failed to quote the whole summary of the AAP's policy statement on circumcision, and you cherry picked the portion that you wanted and in the process distorted the AAP's position on infant circumcision. You have not even contested this point. As such this is a prima facie case of you taking information out of context to suit your agenda.
neechee5150 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@neechee5150 - Nope, just the crux of the position. Again- it comes down
to the SAME things for EVERY medical body- including those silly Dutch:
Parental choice and involvement in what they feel is best for their child.
That's it! That is all it comes down to- you don't like it, and can't cope
with that- and for that, I wish you all the best in seeking a support group.
I think Jessica Tandy over there conducts them in his mom's basement.
Alaska47Boy 1 month ago
@Alaska47Boy You cherry picked a portion of the AAP policy statement on circumcision & in the process distorted their position & the facts to suit yoru agenda. Second, routine infant circumcision by definiation would not involve pre-mature babies, infants with health conditions, & infants with urogenital deformities. This is standard medical practice, and not adhering to these standards will end up in malpractice law suits and disciplinary action by the given States medical board.
neechee5150 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@neechee5150 - Yeah, I know that some conditions preclude this
medical procedure- I just got done telling you that- look 6 posts down.
I informed YOU of that, first.
Alaska47Boy 1 month ago
@Alaska47Boy Parents have the right to make expedient medical decisions for their minor children, and infant circumcision is not medically expedient. The major medical assocations all state that the risks and potential known adverse side effects are real and must be honestly and acurately explained to parents. Sadly this has not been done,& doctors who do not honestly & completely educate the parents regarding the risks & adverse side effects both long & short term must be sanctioned.
neechee5150 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@neechee5150 - Incorrect- parents have ALL consent rights governing
the medical procedures on their minor child. Disclosure of the type you
just listed happen for ALL medical procedures, and this happens for
ALL medical procedures- circumcisions is no different. You picking
it out as somehow different makes you an ignorant hypocrite.
Alaska47Boy 1 month ago