Anonymous wrote:What is ironic is the untied states spends billions in africa to circumcise their population to avoid aids and other diseases and here we have people who are against it.

Nothing ironic about that, if it is even true.

What is ironic is the untied states spends billions in africa to circumcise their population to avoid aids and other diseases and here we have people who are against it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it is hilarious the lengths the moms will go to non circ. All the studies are false, all the benefits are misleading, all the facts are made up, all the men throughout history who did it are sorry (that they got all that sex!) --just keep your knife away from my bbaaybiees' pee-pee.

As the mother of an uncircumcised boy, I think it's funny to think that I'm the one who went to "lengths". I didn't do anything. I didn't make an appointment, I didn't pay for it, I didn't sign any papers. I did nothing.

Me neither. It's strange that the PP seems to think that "men throughout history" did this. Some people in the US live in a bizarre bubble where they believe that what they do is right and therefore everyone everywhere throughout time must do or have done the same thing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I love how the anti circs totally disregard the positive health benefits, even when they are posted. Over and over again. And try to equate Johns Hopkins with The Onion.

I actually have no problem with those who decide against the procedure for their kid. But anyone who tries to call me a mutilator better be ready for the reaction. (OF course, as we see from this thread, they know how unpopular they'll be so they keep their mouths shut, except on anonymous message boards.)

We are completely aware of the health benefits, but - like all medical organizations in the Western world outside of the US - regard them as not significant enough to support routine infant circumcision. The Johns Hopkins study is culturally biased, and has failed to convince the rest of the world. The available evidence has been reviewed by a large group of international researchers (not just European) who did not find it compelling (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2013/03/12/peds.2012-2896.abstract). There is nothing for you to "love" there. Our stance is well-founded and supported by the majority of secular medical professionals in the world. And yes, posting news articles reporting about the same, biased study "over and over again" is not going to change that.

It's also funny that you think this thread shows how "unpopular" people opposed to circumcision would be. That was not my impression. My impression is that there are a good number of well-articulated, intelligent people with rational arguments against circumcision, and a bunch of defensive morons flinging the same insults over and over again.

And if you really think that the fact that we don't call anyone a mutilator in face-to-face conversation is a matter of cowardice or duplicity rather than normal social behavior and good manners, you really have a problem. But I will assume you actually know that this is just another vain attempt to discredit our position.

So, you admit there are health benefits to circumcision. You and members of the foreign medical community are entitled to your opinion that are not significant but that is a far cry for there are no health benefits. If my experiences and research lead me to the conclusion that they are significant enough to justify the procedure, my opinions should be respected.

There is hardly a unanimous worldwide opinion on this topic. The american medical community is clear that there are benefits and it remains a decision to be made by the family.

Nobody on this thread every said there are no health benefits. You haven't been reading very closely if you think what I said is a new concession. The point is that the health benefits are minimal, and they only have any relevance in the context of developing countries, where the willingness to use proper STI protection is low, clean water for personal hygiene is scarce, and treatment options for UTIs aren't available like they are here. That is the consensus among medical professionals in developed countries other than the US. And not even AAP recommends it as a routine procedure.

+1 on this. The health benefits are minimal and limited. The Johns Hopkins study was farcical and that's why people are saying it seems onion-like. Seriously, billions in increased health costs? None of this has panned out in countries where circumcision is not the norm.

Additionally, you could make the argument that lopping off other body parts would carry prophylactic health benefits. For instance, if we removed EVERY woman's breasts, then we might save money on breast cancer research. LIkewise, take the adenoids and gallbladders and appendices of every human, so we don't have as many instances of those becoming infected. But we dont do that. WE wait until and if there is a problem and then act, right? Because the benefits haven't been proven to make sense for most human beings. And that is the problem with the medical evidence. It's flimsy at best, limited in scope, and 3/4 or more of the benefits would be more fully realized if men were to use condoms 100 percent of the time.

+1,000,000. I wish some of the crazies here would read and think about this post, if nothing else.

Anonymous wrote:Oh, and don't forget "mutilator'!

The majority of Americans still circumcise. The rates in my neck of the woods are about 85 percent.

Mutilator is not an insult. It is an adjective describing to mutilate. If you don't have a dictionary, I'm sure you can find an online definition.

Anonymous wrote:I think it is hilarious the lengths the moms will go to non circ. All the studies are false, all the benefits are misleading, all the facts are made up, all the men throughout history who did it are sorry (that they got all that sex!) --just keep your knife away from my bbaaybiees' pee-pee.

As the mother of an uncircumcised boy, I think it's funny to think that I'm the one who went to "lengths". I didn't do anything. I didn't make an appointment, I didn't pay for it, I didn't sign any papers. I did nothing.

Ah this is the thread I was accused of starting? Pu-lease. I own my topics and am one of like 5 people who ever sign in, I just don't come on here often anymore. I genuinely don't care about this topic, but now I'm all over the European anti-Islamic issue! This is fascinating!
But please, this car wreck isn't my fault! Sheesh.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who doubts that there is an anti-Semitic undercurrent in some (not all!) anti-circ sentiment might take a look at following (appalling) links. I am not Jewish myself, nor am I saying that being anti-circ makes you anti-Semitic. I *am* saying that those who detect a strain of anti-semitism in some of this debate are not making things up:
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/foreskin-man-comic-latest-anti-circumcision-groups-push/storynew?id=14045258#.Udb-_jnRmfQ

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/01/anti-semitism-and-germanys-movement-against-circumcision/266794/

This must be one of the worst articles I have read in the Atlantic. There is no convincing case for the German stance against circumcision being motivated by anti-Semitism, and the author (who isn't even religious but actually says he wants his son to look like him) is only voicing his paranoid feelings. If anything, there may be an element of anti-Muslim sentiment in the German efforts to outlaw circumcision. Aside from a few fringe groups (which also exist in most other countries), Germany today is the least anti-Semitic country in the world.

Oh hooray! they're just anti-muslim. awesome. What did you think of the first link -- which is from *this* country? Did that strike you as slightly antisemitic? Genuinely curious.

Read my comment above regarding possible anti-Muslim sentiment. There is no more of that in Germany than in the US and other countries. I wasn't condoning it at all.

I did not read the other article, I will when I have time.

Ok, I looked at the other article. Shocking. Completely unthinkable in Germany. This comic would be illegal to publish, and would be classified as Volksverhetzung.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who doubts that there is an anti-Semitic undercurrent in some (not all!) anti-circ sentiment might take a look at following (appalling) links. I am not Jewish myself, nor am I saying that being anti-circ makes you anti-Semitic. I *am* saying that those who detect a strain of anti-semitism in some of this debate are not making things up:
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/foreskin-man-comic-latest-anti-circumcision-groups-push/storynew?id=14045258#.Udb-_jnRmfQ

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/01/anti-semitism-and-germanys-movement-against-circumcision/266794/

This must be one of the worst articles I have read in the Atlantic. There is no convincing case for the German stance against circumcision being motivated by anti-Semitism, and the author (who isn't even religious but actually says he wants his son to look like him) is only voicing his paranoid feelings. If anything, there may be an element of anti-Muslim sentiment in the German efforts to outlaw circumcision. Aside from a few fringe groups (which also exist in most other countries), Germany today is the least anti-Semitic country in the world.

Oh hooray! they're just anti-muslim. awesome. What did you think of the first link -- which is from *this* country? Did that strike you as slightly antisemitic? Genuinely curious.

Yeah, as if it wasn't in the US where communities are fighting legal battles against mosques, and people harbored all sorts of prejudice against Muslims post-9/11.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who doubts that there is an anti-Semitic undercurrent in some (not all!) anti-circ sentiment might take a look at following (appalling) links. I am not Jewish myself, nor am I saying that being anti-circ makes you anti-Semitic. I *am* saying that those who detect a strain of anti-semitism in some of this debate are not making things up:
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/foreskin-man-comic-latest-anti-circumcision-groups-push/storynew?id=14045258#.Udb-_jnRmfQ

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/01/anti-semitism-and-germanys-movement-against-circumcision/266794/

This must be one of the worst articles I have read in the Atlantic. There is no convincing case for the German stance against circumcision being motivated by anti-Semitism, and the author (who isn't even religious but actually says he wants his son to look like him) is only voicing his paranoid feelings. If anything, there may be an element of anti-Muslim sentiment in the German efforts to outlaw circumcision. Aside from a few fringe groups (which also exist in most other countries), Germany today is the least anti-Semitic country in the world.

Oh hooray! they're just anti-muslim. awesome. What did you think of the first link -- which is from *this* country? Did that strike you as slightly antisemitic? Genuinely curious.

Read my comment above regarding possible anti-Muslim sentiment. There is no more of that in Germany than in the US and other countries. I wasn't condoning it at all.

I did not read the other article, I will when I have time.

Anonymous wrote:How your sons will thank you when they find out how popular their uncircumcised junk is to the ladies/girls. Very painful for an adult to fix this. Thanks, mom !!

Please don't generalize all women/ladies/girls as unfavorable of uncircumcised penis'. You have no idea what the majority of female's in the world prefer. I for one had never been with a man who was uncircumcised until my husband and I have tell you, I had no idea what I was missing but it's so much better in many ways to me. His son is also not and I agree with him that it helped him weed out the shallow women and he's glad it will for his son to. Before him I was one of the women who would have said, "chop away! that's what's normal right?" I'm so glad he showed me the other side.

We are having a son and I'm sure you can guess what we're choosing not to do. I'll be glad that his penis doesn't determine his popularity with the ladies.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who doubts that there is an anti-Semitic undercurrent in some (not all!) anti-circ sentiment might take a look at following (appalling) links. I am not Jewish myself, nor am I saying that being anti-circ makes you anti-Semitic. I *am* saying that those who detect a strain of anti-semitism in some of this debate are not making things up:
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/foreskin-man-comic-latest-anti-circumcision-groups-push/storynew?id=14045258#.Udb-_jnRmfQ

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/01/anti-semitism-and-germanys-movement-against-circumcision/266794/

This must be one of the worst articles I have read in the Atlantic. There is no convincing case for the German stance against circumcision being motivated by anti-Semitism, and the author (who isn't even religious but actually says he wants his son to look like him) is only voicing his paranoid feelings. If anything, there may be an element of anti-Muslim sentiment in the German efforts to outlaw circumcision. Aside from a few fringe groups (which also exist in most other countries), Germany today is the least anti-Semitic country in the world.

WTF? there are no/very few Jews in Germany because of the Holocaust. That brings anti-Semite to a new level.

I don't think you understood what I said. No one denied that the Shoah wiped out the great Jewish culture Germany had. What I was saying is that today, in the post-war generation, every child is taught early on that anti-Semitism is evil. Every child grows up knowing about the Shoah, that Germany carries great guilt, and that anti-Semitism cannot be tolerated. I have encountered shocking (to me, because I'm pretty sensitive) instances of anti-Semitism (in the form of jokes or prejudice) in this country and in other European countries, but never in Germany (obviously, I never hung out with neo-nazis). The reason may partly be that Germans don't encounter a lot of Jews anymore, but it is also evident that the way post-war generations were raised, with much more awareness than people in countries who don't have such a horrific history, has really made anti-Semitism taboo. Therefore, I don't believe anti-Semitism is at the root of court decisions to outlaw circumcision, and the author of the article does not offer a single piece of evidence to support his suspicion.

Now anti-Muslim sentiment is another story. I believe there is a lot of that going on among conservatives, just like in this country. They will justify it with the threat of terrorism, and the self-segregation of Muslim communities, and the oppression of women. But this suspicion against Islam is an international, not a specifically German problem.

I think it is hilarious the lengths the moms will go to non circ. All the studies are false, all the benefits are misleading, all the facts are made up, all the men throughout history who did it are sorry (that they got all that sex!) --just keep your knife away from my bbaaybiees' pee-pee.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I love how the anti circs totally disregard the positive health benefits, even when they are posted. Over and over again. And try to equate Johns Hopkins with The Onion.

I actually have no problem with those who decide against the procedure for their kid. But anyone who tries to call me a mutilator better be ready for the reaction. (OF course, as we see from this thread, they know how unpopular they'll be so they keep their mouths shut, except on anonymous message boards.)

We are completely aware of the health benefits, but - like all medical organizations in the Western world outside of the US - regard them as not significant enough to support routine infant circumcision. The Johns Hopkins study is culturally biased, and has failed to convince the rest of the world. The available evidence has been reviewed by a large group of international researchers (not just European) who did not find it compelling (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2013/03/12/peds.2012-2896.abstract). There is nothing for you to "love" there. Our stance is well-founded and supported by the majority of secular medical professionals in the world. And yes, posting news articles reporting about the same, biased study "over and over again" is not going to change that.

It's also funny that you think this thread shows how "unpopular" people opposed to circumcision would be. That was not my impression. My impression is that there are a good number of well-articulated, intelligent people with rational arguments against circumcision, and a bunch of defensive morons flinging the same insults over and over again.

And if you really think that the fact that we don't call anyone a mutilator in face-to-face conversation is a matter of cowardice or duplicity rather than normal social behavior and good manners, you really have a problem. But I will assume you actually know that this is just another vain attempt to discredit our position.

So, you admit there are health benefits to circumcision. You and members of the foreign medical community are entitled to your opinion that are not significant but that is a far cry for there are no health benefits. If my experiences and research lead me to the conclusion that they are significant enough to justify the procedure, my opinions should be respected.

There is hardly a unanimous worldwide opinion on this topic. The american medical community is clear that there are benefits and it remains a decision to be made by the family.

Nobody on this thread every said there are no health benefits. You haven't been reading very closely if you think what I said is a new concession. The point is that the health benefits are minimal, and they only have any relevance in the context of developing countries, where the willingness to use proper STI protection is low, clean water for personal hygiene is scarce, and treatment options for UTIs aren't available like they are here. That is the consensus among medical professionals in developed countries other than the US. And not even AAP recommends it as a routine procedure.

+1 on this. The health benefits are minimal and limited. The Johns Hopkins study was farcical and that's why people are saying it seems onion-like. Seriously, billions in increased health costs? None of this has panned out in countries where circumcision is not the norm.

Additionally, you could make the argument that lopping off other body parts would carry prophylactic health benefits. For instance, if we removed EVERY woman's breasts, then we might save money on breast cancer research. LIkewise, take the adenoids and gallbladders and appendices of every human, so we don't have as many instances of those becoming infected. But we dont do that. WE wait until and if there is a problem and then act, right? Because the benefits haven't been proven to make sense for most human beings. And that is the problem with the medical evidence. It's flimsy at best, limited in scope, and 3/4 or more of the benefits would be more fully realized if men were to use condoms 100 percent of the time.

Anonymous wrote:
Local religious leaders in Africa are actually working with humanitarian leaders to spread the word that female circumcision in NOT a part of the Islamic religion. Please educate yourself before you try to educate others. You are spreading incorrect information.

ACTUALLY, "what a few Muslims in Africa believe" does not equal "what Islam prescribes", otherwise these religious leaders would be working to spread the word everywhere, not just in Africa. If Islam prescribed female circumcision, what is your theory on why Muslims elsewhere don't do it?

If you have scriptural proof that Islam prescribes female circumcision, please post quotation. Learn to read an argument thoroughly before you critique it.

Let's break it down again.