Mom, Dad in Court Over Son's Circumcision

[ThaGrandCow]

Originally posted by: moshquerade
he already said he is through bashing his head against the wall. anti-circs will spin or refuse to believe anything said in favor of circumcision. it's pointless to rehash it.

here, read. deny it and make me proud. :roll: :

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editor...as_means_of_prevention/?p1=MEWell_Pos5

No problem: The medical journal that he's talking about that proves HPV is prevented by circumcision had a retraction printed a few months later.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/347/18/1452

(April 11 issue)1 did not correct for several of the major known risk factors for cervical cancer: race or ethnic group, smoking, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection, poor diet, long-term use of oral contraceptives, and low socioeconomic status.2 Samples for testing for human papillomavirus (HPV) were obtained by intraurethral swabbing and swabbing of the external surface of the glans and coronal sulcus. This surface is dry on circumcised penises but moist on intact penises, increasing the likelihood of detection of HPV regardless of the actual rate of infection.

So once again I ask, give me a single reason as to why you would do this to your child.

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: ThaGrandCow

Originally posted by: Doboji
Well this is the point where I say... look I've made my points... and frankly I don't feel they've been even close to refuted... and now I will bow out... because from here out I'm just bashing my head against a wall...

Wait, what? You still have yet to give any kind of reason why you should circumcize your child. And the only points you've even stated so far are half-assed responses to other people, where your answers have ended up being "shut up I do what I want."

PLEASE TELL ME YOUR REASONS. Seriously, I'm listening! Tell me why you will choose to do it. Don't tell me why you should have the right to, but tell me WHY you will do it. I think this is the fourth time in this thread where I've almost begged a pro-circumcision person to tell me any reason other than being jewish as to why they would cut their child.

he already said he is through bashing his head against the wall. anti-circs will spin or refuse to believe anything said in favor of circumcision. it's pointless to rehash it.

here, read. deny it and make me proud. :roll: :

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editor...as_means_of_prevention/?p1=MEWell_Pos5

I guessed in your selective reading, you missed my post huh? Where i quoted the American Medical Association, as well as Canadian Pediatric Society, Royal Australian College of Physicians, and the British Medical Association stance on circumcision.

Instead, you gave us a letter sent into the Boston Globe Opinion section. Good job Mosh, good job. :thumbsup:

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: ThaGrandCow

Originally posted by: moshquerade
he already said he is through bashing his head against the wall. anti-circs will spin or refuse to believe anything said in favor of circumcision. it's pointless to rehash it.

here, read. deny it and make me proud. :roll: :

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editor...as_means_of_prevention/?p1=MEWell_Pos5

No problem: The medical journal that he's talking about that proves HPV is prevented by circumcision had a retraction printed a few months later.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/347/18/1452

(April 11 issue)1 did not correct for several of the major known risk factors for cervical cancer: race or ethnic group, smoking, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection, poor diet, long-term use of oral contraceptives, and low socioeconomic status.2 Samples for testing for human papillomavirus (HPV) were obtained by intraurethral swabbing and swabbing of the external surface of the glans and coronal sulcus. This surface is dry on circumcised penises but moist on intact penises, increasing the likelihood of detection of HPV regardless of the actual rate of infection.

So once again I ask, give me a single reason as to why you would do this to your child.

it's doesn't take an Einstein to realize that moist areas harbor bacteria/viruses more readily than dry areas.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: Looney

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: ThaGrandCow

Originally posted by: Doboji
Well this is the point where I say... look I've made my points... and frankly I don't feel they've been even close to refuted... and now I will bow out... because from here out I'm just bashing my head against a wall...

Wait, what? You still have yet to give any kind of reason why you should circumcize your child. And the only points you've even stated so far are half-assed responses to other people, where your answers have ended up being "shut up I do what I want."

PLEASE TELL ME YOUR REASONS. Seriously, I'm listening! Tell me why you will choose to do it. Don't tell me why you should have the right to, but tell me WHY you will do it. I think this is the fourth time in this thread where I've almost begged a pro-circumcision person to tell me any reason other than being jewish as to why they would cut their child.

he already said he is through bashing his head against the wall. anti-circs will spin or refuse to believe anything said in favor of circumcision. it's pointless to rehash it.

here, read. deny it and make me proud. :roll: :

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editor...as_means_of_prevention/?p1=MEWell_Pos5

I guessed in your selective reading, you missed my post huh? Where i quoted the American Medical Association, as well as Canadian Pediatric Society, Royal Australian College of Physicians, and the British Medical Association stance on circumcision.

Instead, you gave us a letter sent into the Boston Globe Opinion section. Good job Mosh, good job. :thumbsup:

see my post above this one.

look, the point here is this and always has been. stop trying to shove your bias down other people's throats. freedom of choice is available in this country. one person's choice is not yours. you should only worry about your choice.

yet another for the naysayers:
i am just googling these. there are tons of articles:

African nations to back male circumcision over HIV

UNITED NATIONS ? Five southern African countries that have been hit hard by the AIDS pandemic want to encourage men to be circumcised after a study indicated that the procedure dramatically reduced the risk of HIV infection, the Times of London reported June 3. Botswana, Lesotho, Swaziland, Tanzania and Zambia were holding talks with the U.N. AIDS agency on making circumcision more accessible to men as part of HIV prevention efforts, a U.N. AIDS adviser said. A three-year study involving 3,274 men age 18 to 24 in a South African township suggested that circumcision reduced the risk of contracting HIV by 60 percent. ?What we showed was a dramatic effect. Those who were circumcised were protected against acquiring HIV,? said Adrian Purven, of the Institute for Communicable Diseases in South Africa, who led the study. So conclusive were the results that researchers stopped the study in July and offered circumcision to all the men.

http://www.newyorkblade.com/2006/6-12/news/healthnews/hibs.cfm

 

[ThaGrandCow]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: ThaGrandCow

Originally posted by: moshquerade
he already said he is through bashing his head against the wall. anti-circs will spin or refuse to believe anything said in favor of circumcision. it's pointless to rehash it.

here, read. deny it and make me proud. :roll: :

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editor...as_means_of_prevention/?p1=MEWell_Pos5

No problem: The medical journal that he's talking about that proves HPV is prevented by circumcision had a retraction printed a few months later.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/347/18/1452

(April 11 issue)1 did not correct for several of the major known risk factors for cervical cancer: race or ethnic group, smoking, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection, poor diet, long-term use of oral contraceptives, and low socioeconomic status.2 Samples for testing for human papillomavirus (HPV) were obtained by intraurethral swabbing and swabbing of the external surface of the glans and coronal sulcus. This surface is dry on circumcised penises but moist on intact penises, increasing the likelihood of detection of HPV regardless of the actual rate of infection.

So once again I ask, give me a single reason as to why you would do this to your child.

it's doesn't take an Einstein to realize that moist areas harbor bacteria/viruses more readily than dry areas.

Um... yes? They made an error in their original study, which wrongly proved that HPV was more of a risk for uncut males than cut males. That original study was quoted by about 15 other medical journals before they realized the mistake. So what are you trying to say by your response? Hell, the article you quoted "proving" that HPV is more prevalent in uncut men was the *opinion* section of the site, and gave a grand total of zero sources to back that claim up.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: ThaGrandCow

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: ThaGrandCow

Originally posted by: moshquerade
he already said he is through bashing his head against the wall. anti-circs will spin or refuse to believe anything said in favor of circumcision. it's pointless to rehash it.

here, read. deny it and make me proud. :roll: :

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editor...as_means_of_prevention/?p1=MEWell_Pos5

No problem: The medical journal that he's talking about that proves HPV is prevented by circumcision had a retraction printed a few months later.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/347/18/1452

(April 11 issue)1 did not correct for several of the major known risk factors for cervical cancer: race or ethnic group, smoking, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection, poor diet, long-term use of oral contraceptives, and low socioeconomic status.2 Samples for testing for human papillomavirus (HPV) were obtained by intraurethral swabbing and swabbing of the external surface of the glans and coronal sulcus. This surface is dry on circumcised penises but moist on intact penises, increasing the likelihood of detection of HPV regardless of the actual rate of infection.

So once again I ask, give me a single reason as to why you would do this to your child.

it's doesn't take an Einstein to realize that moist areas harbor bacteria/viruses more readily than dry areas.

Um... yes? They made an error in their original study, which wrongly proved that HPV was more of a risk for uncut males than cut males. That original study was quoted by about 15 other medical journals before they realized the mistake. So what are you trying to say by your response? Hell, the article you quoted "proving" that HPV is more prevalent in uncut men was the *opinion* section of the site, and gave a grand total of zero sources to back that claim up.

disputing the HIV claims too? a virus is a virus. for every article you find i can find one also.
the fact is maybe one isn't better than the other. i am not saying one is better. i am saying stop with the holier than thou attitudes and don't insist others do as you do.

 

[ThaGrandCow]

Originally posted by: moshquerade
yet another for the naysayers:
i am just googling these. there are tons of articles:

African nations to back male circumcision over HIV

UNITED NATIONS ? Five southern African countries that have been hit hard by the AIDS pandemic want to encourage men to be circumcised after a study indicated that the procedure dramatically reduced the risk of HIV infection, the Times of London reported June 3. Botswana, Lesotho, Swaziland, Tanzania and Zambia were holding talks with the U.N. AIDS agency on making circumcision more accessible to men as part of HIV prevention efforts, a U.N. AIDS adviser said. A three-year study involving 3,274 men age 18 to 24 in a South African township suggested that circumcision reduced the risk of contracting HIV by 60 percent. ?What we showed was a dramatic effect. Those who were circumcised were protected against acquiring HIV,? said Adrian Purven, of the Institute for Communicable Diseases in South Africa, who led the study. So conclusive were the results that researchers stopped the study in July and offered circumcision to all the men.

http://www.newyorkblade.com/2006/6-12/news/healthnews/hibs.cfm

Ok, now you're just getting desperate.
1. Circumcision = 60% less chance of getting HIV? Do you know anything at all about HIV and how it's transmitted?
2. Actually, I'll wait until your next lame reason, this one is so completely out there that I don't even feel the need to disprove it.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: ThaGrandCow

Originally posted by: moshquerade
yet another for the naysayers:
i am just googling these. there are tons of articles:

African nations to back male circumcision over HIV

UNITED NATIONS ? Five southern African countries that have been hit hard by the AIDS pandemic want to encourage men to be circumcised after a study indicated that the procedure dramatically reduced the risk of HIV infection, the Times of London reported June 3. Botswana, Lesotho, Swaziland, Tanzania and Zambia were holding talks with the U.N. AIDS agency on making circumcision more accessible to men as part of HIV prevention efforts, a U.N. AIDS adviser said. A three-year study involving 3,274 men age 18 to 24 in a South African township suggested that circumcision reduced the risk of contracting HIV by 60 percent. ?What we showed was a dramatic effect. Those who were circumcised were protected against acquiring HIV,? said Adrian Purven, of the Institute for Communicable Diseases in South Africa, who led the study. So conclusive were the results that researchers stopped the study in July and offered circumcision to all the men.

http://www.newyorkblade.com/2006/6-12/news/healthnews/hibs.cfm

Ok, now you're just getting desperate.
1. Circumcision = 60% less chance of getting HIV? Do you know anything at all about HIV and how it's transmitted?
2. Actually, I'll wait until your next lame reason, this one is so completely out there that I don't even feel the need to disprove it.

now you just want to argue.

i am a medical professional. yes i know how HIV is transmitted. apparently you don't.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4719409.stm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/01/050124004711.htm

http://sti.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/79/3/214

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9806505/site/newsweek/

 

[ThaGrandCow]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: ThaGrandCow

Originally posted by: moshquerade
yet another for the naysayers:
i am just googling these. there are tons of articles:

African nations to back male circumcision over HIV

UNITED NATIONS ? Five southern African countries that have been hit hard by the AIDS pandemic want to encourage men to be circumcised after a study indicated that the procedure dramatically reduced the risk of HIV infection, the Times of London reported June 3. Botswana, Lesotho, Swaziland, Tanzania and Zambia were holding talks with the U.N. AIDS agency on making circumcision more accessible to men as part of HIV prevention efforts, a U.N. AIDS adviser said. A three-year study involving 3,274 men age 18 to 24 in a South African township suggested that circumcision reduced the risk of contracting HIV by 60 percent. ?What we showed was a dramatic effect. Those who were circumcised were protected against acquiring HIV,? said Adrian Purven, of the Institute for Communicable Diseases in South Africa, who led the study. So conclusive were the results that researchers stopped the study in July and offered circumcision to all the men.

http://www.newyorkblade.com/2006/6-12/news/healthnews/hibs.cfm

Ok, now you're just getting desperate.
1. Circumcision = 60% less chance of getting HIV? Do you know anything at all about HIV and how it's transmitted?
2. Actually, I'll wait until your next lame reason, this one is so completely out there that I don't even feel the need to disprove it.

now you just want to argue.

i am a medical professional. yes i know how HIV is transmitted. apparently you don't.

If you are a medical professional, then show me some medical proof of your claims. You've shown a letter to the editor so far, and a small blurb in another article. Neither of which had and backing whatsoever.

Hell, if we knew a way to give people a 60% less chance to contract HIV you know we'd be screaming it all over every tv station, radio station, newspaper, and carrier pigeon we could find. You don't honestly believe that's a factual article do you?

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: ThaGrandCow

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: ThaGrandCow

Originally posted by: moshquerade
yet another for the naysayers:
i am just googling these. there are tons of articles:

African nations to back male circumcision over HIV

UNITED NATIONS ? Five southern African countries that have been hit hard by the AIDS pandemic want to encourage men to be circumcised after a study indicated that the procedure dramatically reduced the risk of HIV infection, the Times of London reported June 3. Botswana, Lesotho, Swaziland, Tanzania and Zambia were holding talks with the U.N. AIDS agency on making circumcision more accessible to men as part of HIV prevention efforts, a U.N. AIDS adviser said. A three-year study involving 3,274 men age 18 to 24 in a South African township suggested that circumcision reduced the risk of contracting HIV by 60 percent. ?What we showed was a dramatic effect. Those who were circumcised were protected against acquiring HIV,? said Adrian Purven, of the Institute for Communicable Diseases in South Africa, who led the study. So conclusive were the results that researchers stopped the study in July and offered circumcision to all the men.

http://www.newyorkblade.com/2006/6-12/news/healthnews/hibs.cfm

Ok, now you're just getting desperate.
1. Circumcision = 60% less chance of getting HIV? Do you know anything at all about HIV and how it's transmitted?
2. Actually, I'll wait until your next lame reason, this one is so completely out there that I don't even feel the need to disprove it.

now you just want to argue.

i am a medical professional. yes i know how HIV is transmitted. apparently you don't.

If you are a medical professional, then show me some medical proof of your claims. You've shown a letter to the editor so far, and a small blurb in another article. Neither of which had and backing whatsoever.

Hell, if we knew a way to give people a 60% less chance to contract HIV you know we'd be screaming it all over every tv station, radio station, newspaper, and carrier pigeon we could find. You don't honestly believe that's a factual article do you?

you can google proof easily. see above for how easily i did it.

 

[meltdown75]

ah yes, the OT circumcision thread.

what, has it already been 6 months since the last one?

 

[ThaGrandCow]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: ThaGrandCow

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: ThaGrandCow

Originally posted by: moshquerade
yet another for the naysayers:
i am just googling these. there are tons of articles:

African nations to back male circumcision over HIV

UNITED NATIONS ? Five southern African countries that have been hit hard by the AIDS pandemic want to encourage men to be circumcised after a study indicated that the procedure dramatically reduced the risk of HIV infection, the Times of London reported June 3. Botswana, Lesotho, Swaziland, Tanzania and Zambia were holding talks with the U.N. AIDS agency on making circumcision more accessible to men as part of HIV prevention efforts, a U.N. AIDS adviser said. A three-year study involving 3,274 men age 18 to 24 in a South African township suggested that circumcision reduced the risk of contracting HIV by 60 percent. ?What we showed was a dramatic effect. Those who were circumcised were protected against acquiring HIV,? said Adrian Purven, of the Institute for Communicable Diseases in South Africa, who led the study. So conclusive were the results that researchers stopped the study in July and offered circumcision to all the men.

http://www.newyorkblade.com/2006/6-12/news/healthnews/hibs.cfm

Ok, now you're just getting desperate.
1. Circumcision = 60% less chance of getting HIV? Do you know anything at all about HIV and how it's transmitted?
2. Actually, I'll wait until your next lame reason, this one is so completely out there that I don't even feel the need to disprove it.

now you just want to argue.

i am a medical professional. yes i know how HIV is transmitted. apparently you don't.

If you are a medical professional, then show me some medical proof of your claims. You've shown a letter to the editor so far, and a small blurb in another article. Neither of which had and backing whatsoever.

Hell, if we knew a way to give people a 60% less chance to contract HIV you know we'd be screaming it all over every tv station, radio station, newspaper, and carrier pigeon we could find. You don't honestly believe that's a factual article do you?

you can google proof easily. see above for how easily i did it.

Ok then, it shouldn't take you more than a few seconds to google up a 60% resistance to HIV article that isn't from the opinion section of a newspaper. Something that has a documented study of some kind to prove it.

I'll be here waiting.

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Looney

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: ThaGrandCow

Originally posted by: Doboji
Well this is the point where I say... look I've made my points... and frankly I don't feel they've been even close to refuted... and now I will bow out... because from here out I'm just bashing my head against a wall...

Wait, what? You still have yet to give any kind of reason why you should circumcize your child. And the only points you've even stated so far are half-assed responses to other people, where your answers have ended up being "shut up I do what I want."

PLEASE TELL ME YOUR REASONS. Seriously, I'm listening! Tell me why you will choose to do it. Don't tell me why you should have the right to, but tell me WHY you will do it. I think this is the fourth time in this thread where I've almost begged a pro-circumcision person to tell me any reason other than being jewish as to why they would cut their child.

he already said he is through bashing his head against the wall. anti-circs will spin or refuse to believe anything said in favor of circumcision. it's pointless to rehash it.

here, read. deny it and make me proud. :roll: :

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editor...as_means_of_prevention/?p1=MEWell_Pos5

I guessed in your selective reading, you missed my post huh? Where i quoted the American Medical Association, as well as Canadian Pediatric Society, Royal Australian College of Physicians, and the British Medical Association stance on circumcision.

Instead, you gave us a letter sent into the Boston Globe Opinion section. Good job Mosh, good job. :thumbsup:

see my post above this one.

look, the point here is this and always has been. stop trying to shove your bias down other people's throats. freedom of choice is available in this country. one person's choice is not yours. you should only worry about your choice.

What the heck do you think threads are for? Are we really making the decision for that boy? If so, somebody has to shoot that kid's parents.

You're shoving your bias as much as anybody. How many people in this thread think that it's so much more hygenic to be circumsized? But read the links i've put, and every medical association discourages circumcision, saying the benefits do not outweight the risk. And what risks are those? I don't know to be honest, i don't want to imagine it... but i'm sure the medical communities have a good idea of what they are, and they don't think it's worth it.

And as for tradition or because it looks nicer. Well, that's not a good enough reason. Just like you would be outrage if some freaks gave their babies a nose piercing because they think it's cute, mutilating the penis is even worst.

Just because it's common in the US, doesn't mean it's right. It was common in Canada, Australia, and Britain (it was Britain that caused the popularity in it... and the US adopted it from the British) at one time too, but the rest of civilized world has evolved.

This is from the British Medical Association: The BMA does not believe that parental preference alone constitutes sufficient grounds for performing a surgical procedure on a child unable to express his own view.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: ThaGrandCow

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: ThaGrandCow

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: ThaGrandCow

Originally posted by: moshquerade
yet another for the naysayers:
i am just googling these. there are tons of articles:

African nations to back male circumcision over HIV

UNITED NATIONS ? Five southern African countries that have been hit hard by the AIDS pandemic want to encourage men to be circumcised after a study indicated that the procedure dramatically reduced the risk of HIV infection, the Times of London reported June 3. Botswana, Lesotho, Swaziland, Tanzania and Zambia were holding talks with the U.N. AIDS agency on making circumcision more accessible to men as part of HIV prevention efforts, a U.N. AIDS adviser said. A three-year study involving 3,274 men age 18 to 24 in a South African township suggested that circumcision reduced the risk of contracting HIV by 60 percent. ?What we showed was a dramatic effect. Those who were circumcised were protected against acquiring HIV,? said Adrian Purven, of the Institute for Communicable Diseases in South Africa, who led the study. So conclusive were the results that researchers stopped the study in July and offered circumcision to all the men.

http://www.newyorkblade.com/2006/6-12/news/healthnews/hibs.cfm

Ok, now you're just getting desperate.
1. Circumcision = 60% less chance of getting HIV? Do you know anything at all about HIV and how it's transmitted?
2. Actually, I'll wait until your next lame reason, this one is so completely out there that I don't even feel the need to disprove it.

now you just want to argue.

i am a medical professional. yes i know how HIV is transmitted. apparently you don't.

If you are a medical professional, then show me some medical proof of your claims. You've shown a letter to the editor so far, and a small blurb in another article. Neither of which had and backing whatsoever.

Hell, if we knew a way to give people a 60% less chance to contract HIV you know we'd be screaming it all over every tv station, radio station, newspaper, and carrier pigeon we could find. You don't honestly believe that's a factual article do you?

you can google proof easily. see above for how easily i did it.

Ok then, it shouldn't take you more than a few seconds to google up a 60% resistance to HIV article that isn't from the opinion section of a newspaper. Something that has a documented study of some kind to prove it.

I'll be here waiting.

i already posted the articles. read.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: ThaGrandCow

Originally posted by: Doboji
Well this is the point where I say... look I've made my points... and frankly I don't feel they've been even close to refuted... and now I will bow out... because from here out I'm just bashing my head against a wall...

Wait, what? You still have yet to give any kind of reason why you should circumcize your child. And the only points you've even stated so far are half-assed responses to other people, where your answers have ended up being "shut up I do what I want."

PLEASE TELL ME YOUR REASONS. Seriously, I'm listening! Tell me why you will choose to do it. Don't tell me why you should have the right to, but tell me WHY you will do it. I think this is the fourth time in this thread where I've almost begged a pro-circumcision person to tell me any reason other than being jewish as to why they would cut their child.

he already said he is through bashing his head against the wall. anti-circs will spin or refuse to believe anything said in favor of circumcision. it's pointless to rehash it.

here, read. deny it and make me proud. :roll: :

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editor...as_means_of_prevention/?p1=MEWell_Pos5

I'm discussing infant circ when I condemn circ. I don't care what consenting adults do.

Regarding cervical cancer, this guy has been living in a cave. Merck's vaccine, Gardasil, protects against HPV. It was just approved by the FDA. Other competing vaccines are in the pipeline as well. If these HPV vaccines work as advertised, cervical cancer will be a thing of the past. OTOH, we have thousands of women dying of cervical cancer in America, land of the skinned baby dick. Circumcision is working REALLY REALLY well as a preventative, doncha think?

Regarding penile cancer, this guy must play the lottery as male breast cancer is more common than penile cancer. When do we get routine radical mastecomies for newborn males? Don't believe me? Check the American cancer society webpage. Not to mention that penile cancer is a disease of old men - men older than 67. If an old man thinks penile cancer will get him, he can get cut at a later date. Not a good reason to cut a baby.

Gotta hate that soap and water though, such meticulous hygiene!!! :roll: The intact guys around here can back me up on that one...

And this Dr. Milton D. Heifetz... Google makes him appear to be a neurosurgeon ... which makes him a women's health expert and urologist how exactly?

Moshquerade, I await your amusing criticism and accusations of propaganda. :thumbsup:

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: Looney

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Looney

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: ThaGrandCow

Originally posted by: Doboji
Well this is the point where I say... look I've made my points... and frankly I don't feel they've been even close to refuted... and now I will bow out... because from here out I'm just bashing my head against a wall...

Wait, what? You still have yet to give any kind of reason why you should circumcize your child. And the only points you've even stated so far are half-assed responses to other people, where your answers have ended up being "shut up I do what I want."

PLEASE TELL ME YOUR REASONS. Seriously, I'm listening! Tell me why you will choose to do it. Don't tell me why you should have the right to, but tell me WHY you will do it. I think this is the fourth time in this thread where I've almost begged a pro-circumcision person to tell me any reason other than being jewish as to why they would cut their child.

he already said he is through bashing his head against the wall. anti-circs will spin or refuse to believe anything said in favor of circumcision. it's pointless to rehash it.

here, read. deny it and make me proud. :roll: :

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editor...as_means_of_prevention/?p1=MEWell_Pos5

I guessed in your selective reading, you missed my post huh? Where i quoted the American Medical Association, as well as Canadian Pediatric Society, Royal Australian College of Physicians, and the British Medical Association stance on circumcision.

Instead, you gave us a letter sent into the Boston Globe Opinion section. Good job Mosh, good job. :thumbsup:

see my post above this one.

look, the point here is this and always has been. stop trying to shove your bias down other people's throats. freedom of choice is available in this country. one person's choice is not yours. you should only worry about your choice.

What the heck do you think threads are for? Are we really making the decision for that boy? If so, somebody has to shoot that kid's parents.

You're shoving your bias as much as anybody. How many people in this thread think that it's so much more hygenic to be circumsized? But read the links i've put, and every medical association discourages circumcision, saying the benefits do not outweight the risk. And what risks are those? I don't know to be honest, i don't want to imagine it... but i'm sure the medical communities have a good idea of what they are, and they don't think it's worth it.

And as for tradition or because it looks nicer. Well, that's not a good enough reason. Just like you would be outrage if some freaks gave their babies a nose piercing because they think it's cute, mutilating the penis is even worst.

Just because it's common in the US, doesn't mean it's right. It was common in Canada, Australia, and Britain (it was Britain that caused the popularity in it... and the US adopted it from the British) at one time too, but the rest of civilized world has evolved.

This is from the British Medical Association: The BMA does not believe that parental preference alone constitutes sufficient grounds for performing a surgical procedure on a child unable to express his own view.

ahhh, that is where you are wrong. i have no bias. i am saying people should be able to choose. i am not sitting on either side of the fence.
the only reason i am posting articles is to dispute those who want to deny study results.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: ThaGrandCow

Originally posted by: Doboji
Well this is the point where I say... look I've made my points... and frankly I don't feel they've been even close to refuted... and now I will bow out... because from here out I'm just bashing my head against a wall...

Wait, what? You still have yet to give any kind of reason why you should circumcize your child. And the only points you've even stated so far are half-assed responses to other people, where your answers have ended up being "shut up I do what I want."

PLEASE TELL ME YOUR REASONS. Seriously, I'm listening! Tell me why you will choose to do it. Don't tell me why you should have the right to, but tell me WHY you will do it. I think this is the fourth time in this thread where I've almost begged a pro-circumcision person to tell me any reason other than being jewish as to why they would cut their child.

he already said he is through bashing his head against the wall. anti-circs will spin or refuse to believe anything said in favor of circumcision. it's pointless to rehash it.

here, read. deny it and make me proud. :roll: :

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editor...as_means_of_prevention/?p1=MEWell_Pos5

I'm discussing infant circ when I condemn circ. I don't care what consenting adults do.

Regarding cervical cancer, this guy has been living in a cave. Merck's vaccine, Gardasil, protects against HPV. It was just approved by the FDA. Other competing vaccines are in the pipeline as well. If these HPV vaccines work as advertised, cervical cancer will be a thing of the past. OTOH, we have thousands of women dying of cervical cancer in America, land of the skinned baby dick. Circumcision is working REALLY REALLY well as a preventative, doncha think?

Regarding penile cancer, this guy must play the lottery as male breast cancer is more common than penile cancer. When do we get routine radical mastecomies for newborn males? Don't believe me? Check the American cancer society webpage. Not to mention that penile cancer is a disease of old men - men older than 67. If an old man thinks penile cancer will get him, he can get cut at a later date. Not a good reason to cut a baby.

Gotta hate that soap and water though, such meticulous hygiene!!! :roll: The intact guys around here can back me up on that one...

And this Dr. Milton D. Heifetz... Google makes him appear to be a neurosurgeon ... which makes him a women's health expert and urologist how exactly?

Moshquerade, I await your amusing criticism and accusations of propaganda. :thumbsup:

answer this without being condescending if possible:
do moist areas harbor viruses more readily than dry areas?

 

[Babbles]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

I'm discussing infant circ when I condemn circ. I don't care what consenting adults do.

Regarding cervical cancer, this guy has been living in a cave. Merck's vaccine, Gardasil, protects against HPV. It was just approved by the FDA.

As you stated, it is a new vaccince, and as such to use that as evidence to counter previous and older theories regarding circumcision as a tool is rather foolish.

And this Dr. Milton D. Heifetz... Google makes him appear to be a neurosurgeon ... which makes him a women's health expert and urologist how exactly?

He would still have to make rounds in general medicine as student and intern. Furthermore if I am correct, most also do a round in OBGYN. So just by virtue of being a medical doctor, regardless of his current speciality, he would have significant knowledge and experience in many fields. Much more than you and I.

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: moshquerade
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/01/050124004711.htm

We're talking about risk of 0.0063% to 0.0125% (uncircumsized)

http://sti.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/79/3/214

All that article did is study that the men of Botswana THINK circumcision is a worthwhile strategy to use for HIV prevention. The study didn't actually investigate or say it's a good idea.

 

[ThaGrandCow]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: ThaGrandCow

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: ThaGrandCow

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: ThaGrandCow

Originally posted by: moshquerade
yet another for the naysayers:
i am just googling these. there are tons of articles:

African nations to back male circumcision over HIV

UNITED NATIONS ? Five southern African countries that have been hit hard by the AIDS pandemic want to encourage men to be circumcised after a study indicated that the procedure dramatically reduced the risk of HIV infection, the Times of London reported June 3. Botswana, Lesotho, Swaziland, Tanzania and Zambia were holding talks with the U.N. AIDS agency on making circumcision more accessible to men as part of HIV prevention efforts, a U.N. AIDS adviser said. A three-year study involving 3,274 men age 18 to 24 in a South African township suggested that circumcision reduced the risk of contracting HIV by 60 percent. ?What we showed was a dramatic effect. Those who were circumcised were protected against acquiring HIV,? said Adrian Purven, of the Institute for Communicable Diseases in South Africa, who led the study. So conclusive were the results that researchers stopped the study in July and offered circumcision to all the men.

http://www.newyorkblade.com/2006/6-12/news/healthnews/hibs.cfm

Ok, now you're just getting desperate.
1. Circumcision = 60% less chance of getting HIV? Do you know anything at all about HIV and how it's transmitted?
2. Actually, I'll wait until your next lame reason, this one is so completely out there that I don't even feel the need to disprove it.

now you just want to argue.

i am a medical professional. yes i know how HIV is transmitted. apparently you don't.

If you are a medical professional, then show me some medical proof of your claims. You've shown a letter to the editor so far, and a small blurb in another article. Neither of which had and backing whatsoever.

Hell, if we knew a way to give people a 60% less chance to contract HIV you know we'd be screaming it all over every tv station, radio station, newspaper, and carrier pigeon we could find. You don't honestly believe that's a factual article do you?

you can google proof easily. see above for how easily i did it.

Ok then, it shouldn't take you more than a few seconds to google up a 60% resistance to HIV article that isn't from the opinion section of a newspaper. Something that has a documented study of some kind to prove it.

I'll be here waiting.

i already posted the articles. read.

I did read, and just as I said 3 posts ago... your two sources are bullsh1t.

Source #1 that *proved* HPV is more of a risk to uncut guys was in the OPINION section of the website you quoted. And had not a single source to prove his 2 sentence blurb.

Source #2 that *proved* HIV is lessened by 60% in cut males is a small blurb at the bottom of another article in a news page. Once again, it gives zero medical proof at all, no links to any studies or any backing that could support the claim.

You say you are a medical professional... what do you do in the medical profession exactly? A true doctor and hopefully nurse also would know automatically to back up their arguments with real sources, not hits #1 and 2 from Google. Especially if they didn't actually prove anything in the first place.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: ThaGrandCow

Originally posted by: moshquerade
yet another for the naysayers:
i am just googling these. there are tons of articles:

African nations to back male circumcision over HIV

UNITED NATIONS ? Five southern African countries that have been hit hard by the AIDS pandemic want to encourage men to be circumcised after a study indicated that the procedure dramatically reduced the risk of HIV infection, the Times of London reported June 3. Botswana, Lesotho, Swaziland, Tanzania and Zambia were holding talks with the U.N. AIDS agency on making circumcision more accessible to men as part of HIV prevention efforts, a U.N. AIDS adviser said. A three-year study involving 3,274 men age 18 to 24 in a South African township suggested that circumcision reduced the risk of contracting HIV by 60 percent. ?What we showed was a dramatic effect. Those who were circumcised were protected against acquiring HIV,? said Adrian Purven, of the Institute for Communicable Diseases in South Africa, who led the study. So conclusive were the results that researchers stopped the study in July and offered circumcision to all the men.

http://www.newyorkblade.com/2006/6-12/news/healthnews/hibs.cfm

Ok, now you're just getting desperate.
1. Circumcision = 60% less chance of getting HIV? Do you know anything at all about HIV and how it's transmitted?
2. Actually, I'll wait until your next lame reason, this one is so completely out there that I don't even feel the need to disprove it.

now you just want to argue.

i am a medical professional. yes i know how HIV is transmitted. apparently you don't.

If you are a medical professional, then show me some medical proof of your claims. You've shown a letter to the editor so far, and a small blurb in another article. Neither of which had and backing whatsoever.

Hell, if we knew a way to give people a 60% less chance to contract HIV you know we'd be screaming it all over every tv station, radio station, newspaper, and carrier pigeon we could find. You don't honestly believe that's a factual article do you?[/quote]
you can google proof easily. see above for how easily i did it.

[/quote]

Ok then, it shouldn't take you more than a few seconds to google up a 60% resistance to HIV article that isn't from the opinion section of a newspaper. Something that has a documented study of some kind to prove it.

I'll be here waiting.[/quote]
i already posted the articles. read.

[/quote]

I did read, and just as I said 3 posts ago... your two sources are bullsh1t.

Source #1 that *proved* HPV is more of a risk to uncut guys was in the OPINION section of the website you quoted. And had not a single source to prove his 2 sentence blurb.

Source #2 that *proved* HIV is lessened by 60% in cut males is a small blurb at the bottom of another article in a news page. Once again, it gives zero medical proof at all, no links to any studies or any backing that could support the claim.

You say you are a medical professional... what do you do in the medical profession exactly? A true doctor and hopefully nurse also would know automatically to back up their arguments with real sources, not hits #1 and 2 from Google. Especially if they didn't actually prove anything in the first place.[/quote]
what part of this article don't you understand?

The study of more than 3,000 men in South Africa was done by the French agency for Aids and Viral Hepatitis.

The data, outlined at a conference in Brazil, shows male circumcision prevented about seven of 10 infections.

Foreskin cells are thought to be more susceptible to HIV

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4719409.stm

 

[Bryophyte]

Originally posted by: Buck Armstrong
I've yet to meet a SINGLE girl who prefers the "natural" look...

So? There are plenty of women who prefer uncut. I'm one of them. They both work, uncut just works better.

What does it matter if a girl doesn't prefer it? If she won't go near you because you are uncut, you are better off without her. That's just pathetic.

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Looney

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Looney

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: ThaGrandCow

Originally posted by: Doboji
Well this is the point where I say... look I've made my points... and frankly I don't feel they've been even close to refuted... and now I will bow out... because from here out I'm just bashing my head against a wall...

Wait, what? You still have yet to give any kind of reason why you should circumcize your child. And the only points you've even stated so far are half-assed responses to other people, where your answers have ended up being "shut up I do what I want."

PLEASE TELL ME YOUR REASONS. Seriously, I'm listening! Tell me why you will choose to do it. Don't tell me why you should have the right to, but tell me WHY you will do it. I think this is the fourth time in this thread where I've almost begged a pro-circumcision person to tell me any reason other than being jewish as to why they would cut their child.

he already said he is through bashing his head against the wall. anti-circs will spin or refuse to believe anything said in favor of circumcision. it's pointless to rehash it.

here, read. deny it and make me proud. :roll: :

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editor...as_means_of_prevention/?p1=MEWell_Pos5

I guessed in your selective reading, you missed my post huh? Where i quoted the American Medical Association, as well as Canadian Pediatric Society, Royal Australian College of Physicians, and the British Medical Association stance on circumcision.

Instead, you gave us a letter sent into the Boston Globe Opinion section. Good job Mosh, good job. :thumbsup:

see my post above this one.

look, the point here is this and always has been. stop trying to shove your bias down other people's throats. freedom of choice is available in this country. one person's choice is not yours. you should only worry about your choice.

What the heck do you think threads are for? Are we really making the decision for that boy? If so, somebody has to shoot that kid's parents.

You're shoving your bias as much as anybody. How many people in this thread think that it's so much more hygenic to be circumsized? But read the links i've put, and every medical association discourages circumcision, saying the benefits do not outweight the risk. And what risks are those? I don't know to be honest, i don't want to imagine it... but i'm sure the medical communities have a good idea of what they are, and they don't think it's worth it.

And as for tradition or because it looks nicer. Well, that's not a good enough reason. Just like you would be outrage if some freaks gave their babies a nose piercing because they think it's cute, mutilating the penis is even worst.

Just because it's common in the US, doesn't mean it's right. It was common in Canada, Australia, and Britain (it was Britain that caused the popularity in it... and the US adopted it from the British) at one time too, but the rest of civilized world has evolved.

This is from the British Medical Association: The BMA does not believe that parental preference alone constitutes sufficient grounds for performing a surgical procedure on a child unable to express his own view.

ahhh, that is where you are wrong. i have no bias. i am saying people should be able to choose. i am not sitting on either side of the fence.
the only reason i am posting articles is to dispute those who want to deny study results.

:roll:

Please, the fact that you give props to people that support what you say, even when their posts are completely devoid of anything intelligent or meaningful, shows how bias you are. The fact that you're arguing for it, yet presenting abysmal support, shows how bias you are. If you didn't selectively read only what agrees with you, you would see how flaw those studies of yours are. I don't know which part of the healthcare profession you're in, but are you part of the AMA? If so, then how about posting things to dispute the AMA position on this.

You're not bias? Seriously, who are you trying to kid here?

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: moshquerade
i am a medical professional. yes i know how HIV is transmitted. apparently you don't.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4719409.stm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/01/050124004711.htm

http://sti.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/79/3/214

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9806505/site/newsweek/

**Yawn**

More HIV aids crap. The circumcisors have found Reason to Cut 2006(tm).

But lets think about this for a second. Which first world country circumcises more babies than anyone else? Oh yeah, the United States. Now, which country has the highest HIV+ rate in the first world? Oh yeah, the United States again. They don't circumcise in Europe, but somehow their rates are a lot lower.

I call bullsh!t on the entire study. Is the actual study available online? I heard there were so many problems with it that Lancet rejected it and they had to use the pay-to-publish house called PLoS or something to publish it. They were issuing press releases like mad for awhile there. Anything to keep them babies cut, eh?

But keep believing what you want, Ms. Medical Professional. I pity your male children.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: moshquerade
i am a medical professional. yes i know how HIV is transmitted. apparently you don't.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4719409.stm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/01/050124004711.htm

http://sti.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/79/3/214

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9806505/site/newsweek/

**Yawn**

More HIV aids crap. The circumcisors have found Reason to Cut 2006(tm).

But lets think about this for a second. Which first world country circumcises more babies than anyone else? Oh yeah, the United States. Now, which country has the highest HIV+ rate in the first world? Oh yeah, the United States again. They don't circumcise in Europe, but somehow their rates are a lot lower.

I call bullsh!t on the entire study. Is the actual study available online? I heard there were so many problems with it that Lancet rejected it and they had to use the pay-to-publish house called PLoS or something to publish it. They were issuing press releases like mad for awhile there. Anything to keep them babies cut, eh?

But keep believing what you want, Ms. Medical Professional. I pity your male children.

figured. you couldn't answer my question.

typical.