Germany - no religious circumcision

[Ninjahedge]

Yeah it hurts more later on, so what?

Um, yeah.



Riiiiiight.

 

[Texashiker]

I remember a story about one couple charged with criminal neglect when their baby died on a strictly vegan diet.

I remember that story,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/29/vegans-trial-death-baby-breast-milk

The parents were charged with "neglect or food deprivation".

 

[mafia]

The advantages to having extra "fore-play skin" is just staggering.

http://www.noharmm.org/advantage.htm

<---- Uncircumcised here 🙂

And I totally agree with the Germans on their ruling. It should be the child's decision not the parents.

 

[StinkyPinky]

Well done Germany. Mutilating a childs penis in the name of god is ridiculous.

And the people here that are crying about religious freedom are equally so.

 

[busydude]

You know the transmission rates of STDs significantly, right? I mean more than half in the case of HIV.

There is no consensus among scientific/medical community.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

There is no consensus among scientific/medical community.

Find a study which refutes this.

From the Lancet, hardly a loopy third rate pub.

 

[nehalem256]

You know the transmission rates of STDs significantly, right? I mean more than half in the case of HIV.

So would banning male homosexual sex.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Find a study which refutes this.

I think it's well-established that it helps in places like sub-Saharan Africa.

Most of us don't live there.

So would banning male homosexual sex.

So would banning heterosexual sex. Duh.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

So would banning male homosexual sex.

So would banning sex entirely.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I think it's well-established that it helps in places like sub-Saharan Africa.

Most of us don't live there.

What is the physiological weakness that sub-Sarahan Africans have that the rest of us do not?

 

[busydude]

Find a study which refutes this.

From the Lancet, hardly a loopy third rate pub.

http://www.cirp.org/library/general/laumann/

Several instructive features of the data presented in Table 2 deserve attention. First, circumcision status does not appear to lower the likelihood of contracting an STD. Rather, the opposite pattern holds. Circumcised men were slightly more likely to have had both a bacterial and a viral STD in their lifetime. While these differences are not statistically significant, they do not lend support to the thesis that circumcision helps prevent the contraction of STDs. Indeed, for chlamydia, the difference between circumcised men and uncircumcised men is quite large. While 26 of 1033 circumcised men had contracted chlamydia in their lifetime, non of the 353 uncircumcised men reported having had it.

Table 2 shows a marked decrease in the experience of STDs as the number of partners increases. The small, nonsignificant tendency for circumcised men to contract STDs at greater rates appeared for each category of sexual experience. In addition, contraction of bacterial STDs occurred at a significantly greater rate for men who have had more than 20 sex partners in their lifetimes. Among circumcised men with such a sexual background, the odds of contracting a bacterial STD are estimated at 2.88 that for uncircumcised men. While significant, the exact size of the difference is difficult to establish as indicated by the wide confidence interval (95% CI, 1.03-9.03). Note as well that this difference is driven largely by differential contraction of gonorrhea.

I think AAP put is extremely well:

Evidence regarding the relationship of circumcision to STD in general is complex and conflicting.13,107–110 Studies suggest that circumcised males may be less at risk for syphilis than are uncircumcised males.107,,111 In addition, there is a substantial body of evidence that links noncircumcision in men with risk for HIV infection.19,112–114 Genital ulcers related to STD may increase susceptibility to HIV in both circumcised and uncircumcised men, but uncircumcised status is independently associated with the risk for HIV infection in several studies.115–117 There does appear to be a plausible biologic explanation for this association in that the mucous surface of the uncircumcised penis allows for viral attachment to lymphoid cells at or near the surface of the mucous membrane, as well as an increased likelihood of minor abrasions resulting in increased HIV access to target tissues. However, behavioral factors appear to be far more important risk factors in the acquisition of HIV infection than circumcision status.

 

[mafia]

I think AAP put is extremely well:

Thats just a small price to pay for better sex.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

http://www.cirp.org/library/general/laumann/



I think AAP put is extremely well:

I suggest you look at the dates of the articles. Yours is from 15 years ago, ten years before the Kenya study.

While you are at it I suggest you read this
from the CDC which came after the study. Then there's HPV from what I cited immediately prior to this among heterosexuals.

In short the preponderance of medical science and opinion is against you.

 

[Texashiker]

While you are at it I suggest you read this
from the CDC which came after the study.

There are also studies that say its difficult to contract HIV through vaginal sex.

Anal sex has a transmission rate 18 times higher then vaginal sex. That helps explain why the gay community has been hit so hard with HIV, circumcised or not.

http://www.eatg.org/eatg/Global-HIV...l-sex-18-times-higher-than-during-vaginal-sex

I see circumcision as no replacement for a condom.

 

[busydude]

From a study done in the US from your own link..

HIV Infection and Male Circumcision in the United States

In 2005, men who have sex with men (MSM) (48%), MSM who also inject drugs (4%), and men (11%) and women (21%) exposed through high-risk heterosexual contact accounted for an estimated 84% of all HIV/AIDS cases diagnosed in U.S. areas with confidential name-based HIV infection reporting. Blacks accounted for 49% of cases and Hispanics for 18%. Infection rates for both groups were several-fold higher than the rate for whites. An overall prevalence of 0.5% was estimated for the general population [23]. Although data on HIV infection rates since the beginning of the epidemic are available, data on circumcision and risk for HIV infection in the United States are limited. In one crosssectional survey of MSM, lack of circumcision was associated with a 2-fold increase in the odds of prevalent HIV infection [24]. In another, prospective study of MSM, lack of circumcision was also associated with a 2-fold increase in risk for HIV seroconversion [25]. In both studies, the results were statistically significant, and the data had been controlled statistically for other possible risk factors. However, in another prospective cohort study of MSM, there was no association between circumcision status and incident HIV infection, even among men who reported no unprotected anal receptive intercourse [26]. And in a recent cross-sectional study of African American and Latino MSM, male circumcision was not associated with previously known or newly diagnosed HIV infection [27]. In one prospective study of heterosexual men attending an urban STD clinic, when other risk factors were controlled, uncircumcised men had a 3.5-fold higher risk for HIV infection than men who were circumcised. However, this association was not statistically significant [28]. And in an analysis of clinic records for African American men attending an STD clinic, circumcision was not associated with HIV status overall, but among men with known HIV exposure, circumcision was associated with a statistically significant 58% reduction in risk for HIV infection [29].

Also, it is pretty clear that behavior is the most significant risk factor, and you just seem to ignore that. Go ahead, stick your dick in crazy without any protection because circumcised dick is just plain awesome.

Anyway, just look at prevalence of STDs in Indian subcontinent... compare India to Pakistan(Both have similar average household income).. why does Pakistan has higher prevalence of STDs when 90% of Pakistani males are cut and 85% of Inidan males are left in tact?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

What is the physiological weakness that sub-Sarahan Africans have that the rest of us do not?

Not physiological -- societal. Are you really going to make me explain this?

 

[cybrsage]

I am disregarding your silly arguments, which are in no way related to the topic of this thread.

Why are certain religions obsessed with cutting the genitals of children?

I am disregarding your silly questions, which are in no way related to the topic of this thread.

 

[cybrsage]

Cleaning under foreskin does not take much work, if you have sex frequently.. you don't need to clean it any way.

I was talking about the parents cleaning the young children.

 

[epidemis]

Yeah it hurts more later on.

Does it really?

 

[Texashiker]

I am disregarding your silly questions, which are in no way related to the topic of this thread.

I started this thread, so therefor I set the topic.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I started this thread, so therefor I set the topic.

It's a good thread -- don't allow him to turn it into a three-ring circus with him in the middle. That's his only objective on the forum. Put him on ignore and move on.

 

[cybrsage]

Out of curiosity, do those who say circumcision should be the choice of the child also say that abortion should be the choice of the one it is forced upon too? You know, the unborn child?

We should pass laws that require all abortions to wait until the child is 18 and can decide for him/herself if he/she wants to be aborted. Death is far more serious than a foreskin, you know.

What do you say, should we do this? Or is it only a religious edict which must be prevented?

 

[cybrsage]

Well done Germany. Mutilating a childs penis in the name of god is ridiculous.

And the people here that are crying about religious freedom are equally so.

It is not mutilation when it is the removal of the foreskin. Saying so is a well understood lie, but you say it anyway. Why do you do that?

 

[busydude]

I was talking about the parents cleaning the young children.

You are an ignorant fool.

According to Wright, little smegma is produced during childhood, although the foreskin may contain sebaceous glands. She also says that production of smegma increases from adolescence until sexual maturity when the function of smegma for lubrication assumes its full value, and from middle-age production starts to decline and in old age virtually no smegma is produced.[4] Oster reported that the incidence of smegma increased from 1% among 6-7 year olds to 8% among 16-17 year olds (an overall incidence of 5%).[10]

Only 1% of kids below 6 years has smegma build up. If one had excess build up, it does not take more than 5 mins to do it.. even for little kids.

I started having smegma buildups when I was in HS, learned how to clean it myself soon after.

 

[Texashiker]

Out of curiosity, do those who say circumcision should be the choice of the child also say that abortion should be the choice of the one it is forced upon too?

Topic of the thread is about people cutting the genitals of children in the name of religion.

Killing a child in the name of religion would be considered a sacrifice.