German court bans circumcision for non-medical reasons

[Anonymous]

I am not Jewish, but I had my son circumcised. I think that this is so contentious, because both the costs and benefits are quite low, in risk management terms.

While the reduced disease transmission, cancer, and UTI incidence are well-documented, as other posters have pointed out, men in developed countries have other resources to reduce the incidence of effect or these health issues. Circumcision is also a commandment in Jewish and Islamic traditions, but leading a rich life in these faiths has little to do with being circumcised.

The costs, however, don't seem to be that high. Most men born between 1950 and 1980 in the US are circumcised, and I have never once had an American Gen-X man say to me "Oh, sex, I can take or leave it. you know I can barely feel it."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:ohhh really, i guess as another poster pointed out the cdc is a bunch of lying fools?

Well, there were of absolutely no help to Rick or the world at large in fighting the zombie apocalypse...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am not Jewish, but I had my son circumcised. I think that this is so contentious, because both the costs and benefits are quite low, in risk management terms.

While the reduced disease transmission, cancer, and UTI incidence are well-documented, as other posters have pointed out, men in developed countries have other resources to reduce the incidence of effect or these health issues. Circumcision is also a commandment in Jewish and Islamic traditions, but leading a rich life in these faiths has little to do with being circumcised.

The costs, however, don't seem to be that high. Most men born between 1950 and 1980 in the US are circumcised, and I have never once had an American Gen-X man say to me "Oh, sex, I can take or leave it. you know I can barely feel it."

But do you know anyone on viagra?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you are counting on circumcision (rather than abstinence, condoms, etc) to avoid STDs, you are in trouble.

OMG no one is counting on circumcision as the sole method of avoiding STD's. That does not mean that we should ignore the benefits of partial protection.

Are you "counting on" false dichotomies to prove your case on circumcision?

But if you still need to use a condom to avoid STDs and HIV, then what exactly is the point of circumcizing? Circumcision contributes nothing additional. There is no difference between circed under a condom, and un-circed under a condom. Even if you have the circ, the condom is doing 100% of the work.

Are you "counting on" logical fallacies to prove your own case?

People still get stds with condoms on.

I'm going to assume that you're reasonably smart, and that you're deliberately trying to miss the point.

The point is that condoms are much more effective than circumcision, even if neither is perfect. And once you put the condom on, circumcision doesn't matter.

Where did you come up with the data on that one? Sure it matters because condoms break, slip off, and people sometimes forget. Then there is the phase where you are in a committed relationship using oral contraceptives, and one of the parties doesn't know they are carrying an STD. It happens.