German court bans circumcision for non-medical reasons

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Considering it prevents stds, hiv, utis, cancer then you should be able to get one by stating the above rather than religious reasoning.

People will go to any extent to justify an irreversible decision they made and maintain status quo.

Those studies are inconclusive, and not applicable to young children.

The American Academy of Pediatrics said "There are no valid medical indications for circumcision in the neonatal period."

This guy sums it up better than I could: "If you read enough of the history, you will see that the proponents of circumcision have employed what I often refer to as a Pony Express strategy. They will ride one horse until it becomes tired (for example, prevents masturbation) then they’ll mount another horse (prevents epilepsy). When that horse wears out, they’ll find another (intact penis causes cervical cancer in women). This horse soon becomes tired and so they mount another horse (prevents penile cancer). This one gets tired and they then decide to jump on the UTI pony. Finding even that not to be the thoroughbred that it appeared, they choose yet another horse (prevents HIV infection and other STD’s). Do not expect it to end there. There are an infinite number of ponies yet to be ridden and you can be sure they are being saddled up as we speak."

[Anonymous]

I find the references to nazi Germany distasteful.

Yes, Germany has had a terrible nazi regime in the 1930's and many Germans were complicit in horrible crimes and the Holocaust.

That does not mean that whatever Germany courts decide now has to be influenced by antisemitism or whatever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Considering it prevents stds, hiv, utis, cancer then you should be able to get one by stating the above rather than religious reasoning.

People will go to any extent to justify an irreversible decision they made and maintain status quo.

Those studies are inconclusive, and not applicable to young children.

The American Academy of Pediatrics said "There are no valid medical indications for circumcision in the neonatal period."

This guy sums it up better than I could: "If you read enough of the history, you will see that the proponents of circumcision have employed what I often refer to as a Pony Express strategy. They will ride one horse until it becomes tired (for example, prevents masturbation) then they’ll mount another horse (prevents epilepsy). When that horse wears out, they’ll find another (intact penis causes cervical cancer in women). This horse soon becomes tired and so they mount another horse (prevents penile cancer). This one gets tired and they then decide to jump on the UTI pony. Finding even that not to be the thoroughbred that it appeared, they choose yet another horse (prevents HIV infection and other STD’s). Do not expect it to end there. There are an infinite number of ponies yet to be ridden and you can be sure they are being saddled up as we speak."

Hhahahhhahahhaaaaahahhhha, you stupid

Cdc recommends it for medical reasons , aap will be releasing information removing their outdated stance. good luck with stds

[Anonymous]

Uncircumcised always either smell like pee or smegma (unsanitary read skin cells , dirty and sweat, aka cheese), because stuff gets trapped. Stinky, good luck sucking that thing

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Uncircumcised always either smell like pee or smegma (unsanitary read skin cells , dirty and sweat, aka cheese), because stuff gets trapped. Stinky, good luck sucking that thing

Ever heard of soap?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Considering it prevents stds, hiv, utis, cancer then you should be able to get one by stating the above rather than religious reasoning.

Removing all breast tissue from newborn girls at birth will prevent breast cancer. Why aren't we doing more to prevent breast cancer by having this done at birth!?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WOW, I'm surprised Germany would enforce anything remotely anti Semitic



I'm not at all surprised. This just proves they have not come nearly as far as they may think they have. I find this ruling highly anti-semitic. I've been taught to always remember and never forget and THIS is why. Germany doesn't seem to be headed in the right direction.



REALLY PP? You think denying parents right to remove a body part from unconsenting children is akin to the holocaust?

Holy shit.



You are not jewish are you. It's obvious. The ruling infringes on the religious freedoms of ANY group who practices circumcision.



Are you okay with female circumcision for religious reasons?

Oliver Wendell Holmes said: your rights end where mine begin.

Some fringe evangelicals believe that it is justifiable to kill an abortion doctor. They do this because their religion requires that they do all they can to save the innocent fetus. Likewise, the Jihad, is a religious mandate for some followers of Islam. Are you okay with that?

And no, I am not Jewish, though my best friend is Jewish and we've discussed this at length. As someone with a survivor grandparent, she'd slap your face for your appalling comparison.

http://www.beyondthebris.com/ http://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.com/

Oh my, I hope you are not this stupid in three dimensional life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Considering it prevents stds, hiv, utis, cancer then you should be able to get one by stating the above rather than religious reasoning.

What a dangerous thing to say! So no condoms necessary, as long as our sons are circumcised they won't contract HIV or other STDs??? Uh, NO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Considering it prevents stds, hiv, utis, cancer then you should be able to get one by stating the above rather than religious reasoning.

What a dangerous thing to say! So no condoms necessary, as long as our sons are circumcised they won't contract HIV or other STDs??? Uh, NO.

That was my thought. It "prevents" all these things? No, it doesn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Considering it prevents stds, hiv, utis, cancer then you should be able to get one by stating the above rather than religious reasoning.

What a dangerous thing to say! So no condoms necessary, as long as our sons are circumcised they won't contract HIV or other STDs??? Uh, NO.

That was my thought. It "prevents" all these things? No, it doesn't.

I'm amazed at the ignorance here. There's not such thing as 100% prevention (even with condoms won't do this) but circumcision does significantly reduce the transmission of a number of diseases and viruses that cause other diseases. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm . Pain isn't a sufficient reason to avoid circumcision. There are many numbing medicines available to ease the pain and, of course, vaccines cause pain as well. Also, with anything, there are risks and potential negative reactions. That is, again, insufficient reason to avoid it. You need to make an informed decision.

I'm horrified that some are equating male circumcision with female genital mutilation. There is absolutely no comparison. The practices are conducted for opposite reasons and continuing to compare them diminishes the horrific consequences of gential mutiliation. Shame on you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Considering it prevents stds, hiv, utis, cancer then you should be able to get one by stating the above rather than religious reasoning.

What a dangerous thing to say! So no condoms necessary, as long as our sons are circumcised they won't contract HIV or other STDs??? Uh, NO.

That was my thought. It "prevents" all these things? No, it doesn't.

I'm amazed at the ignorance here. There's not such thing as 100% prevention (even with condoms won't do this) but circumcision does significantly reduce the transmission of a number of diseases and viruses that cause other diseases. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm . Pain isn't a sufficient reason to avoid circumcision. There are many numbing medicines available to ease the pain and, of course, vaccines cause pain as well. Also, with anything, there are risks and potential negative reactions. That is, again, insufficient reason to avoid it. You need to make an informed decision.

I'm horrified that some are equating male circumcision with female genital mutilation. There is absolutely no comparison. The practices are conducted for opposite reasons and continuing to compare them diminishes the horrific consequences of gential mutiliation. Shame on you.

If there is no 100% prevention, then stop saying that circumcision prevents STDs and HIV. It does no such thing. Shame on you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Considering it prevents stds, hiv, utis, cancer then you should be able to get one by stating the above rather than religious reasoning.

What a dangerous thing to say! So no condoms necessary, as long as our sons are circumcised they won't contract HIV or other STDs??? Uh, NO.

That was my thought. It "prevents" all these things? No, it doesn't.

I'm amazed at the ignorance here. There's not such thing as 100% prevention (even with condoms won't do this) but circumcision does significantly reduce the transmission of a number of diseases and viruses that cause other diseases. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm . Pain isn't a sufficient reason to avoid circumcision. There are many numbing medicines available to ease the pain and, of course, vaccines cause pain as well. Also, with anything, there are risks and potential negative reactions. That is, again, insufficient reason to avoid it. You need to make an informed decision.

I'm horrified that some are equating male circumcision with female genital mutilation. There is absolutely no comparison. The practices are conducted for opposite reasons and continuing to compare them diminishes the horrific consequences of gential mutiliation. Shame on you.

If there is no 100% prevention, then stop saying that circumcision prevents STDs and HIV. It does no such thing. Shame on you.

Thanks, you got there first. I was one of the posters above who questioned her use of the word "prevents."

And there she goes again, equating circumcision with vaccination, and anti-circ with anti-vaccines in an earlier post. That too is shameful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Uncircumcised always either smell like pee or smegma (unsanitary read skin cells , dirty and sweat, aka cheese), because stuff gets trapped. Stinky, good luck sucking that thing

Ever heard of soap?

Actually, circumcision does NOT prevent any of the above. Soap is necessary for the circumcized, too. Geez the first PP is ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Considering it prevents stds, hiv, utis, cancer then you should be able to get one by stating the above rather than religious reasoning.

What a dangerous thing to say! So no condoms necessary, as long as our sons are circumcised they won't contract HIV or other STDs??? Uh, NO.

That was my thought. It "prevents" all these things? No, it doesn't.

I'm amazed at the ignorance here. There's not such thing as 100% prevention (even with condoms won't do this) but circumcision does significantly reduce the transmission of a number of diseases and viruses that cause other diseases. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm . Pain isn't a sufficient reason to avoid circumcision. There are many numbing medicines available to ease the pain and, of course, vaccines cause pain as well. Also, with anything, there are risks and potential negative reactions. That is, again, insufficient reason to avoid it. You need to make an informed decision.

I'm horrified that some are equating male circumcision with female genital mutilation. There is absolutely no comparison. The practices are conducted for opposite reasons and continuing to compare them diminishes the horrific consequences of gential mutiliation. Shame on you.

If there is no 100% prevention, then stop saying that circumcision prevents STDs and HIV. It does no such thing. Shame on you.

You need to re-read the bolded part of my post Circumcision does significantly reduce the incidence of a number of horrible diseases/viruses.

Let me ask – do you vaccinate your children even though vaccines don’t 100% prevent the diseases they were developed against? You likely do because they reduce the likelihood of transmission of disease/viruses – just like circumcision does.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You need to re-read the bolded part of my post Circumcision does significantly reduce the incidence of a number of horrible diseases/viruses.

Let me ask – do you vaccinate your children even though vaccines don’t 100% prevent the diseases they were developed against? You likely do because they reduce the likelihood of transmission of disease/viruses – just like circumcision does.

Do you have any numbers on that? How much does it reduce the chance for which disease?