Slashdot Mirror

Geekoid, from the way you argue I'm going to guess you're a circumcision fetishist.
http://www.circleaks.org/

No major health organisation (not even in Israel) recommends infant circumcision and the AAP has been criticised around the world.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/28/circumcision-the-cruellest-cut?newsfeed=true
http://www.circumcision.org/aap.htm
http://chhrp.org/index.php/news/childrens-health-human-rights-partnership-condemns-new-aap-policy-statement/

In the past the AAP has been deeply influenced by circumcision fetishists such as Edgar Schoen. He was chairman of the American Academy of Paediatrics task force on circumcision that published a report in 1989 recommending infant circumcision. He was not involved in 1999 when the policy position was reversed. It would appear the fetishists are back in though.

Most people don't even know what circumcision is so, what is circumcision?
http://www.noharmm.org/separated.htm

Lets have a look at some critical analysis of the African RCT's.
http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV-SA.html
http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22320006
http://www.circinfo.org/africa.html

I suggest everyone pay close attention to the bit in the first page about men who were lost from study and bear in mind that their HIV status is unknown. If the RCT's have any value at all we would see benefits in the real world. Just looking at developed Western nations, Europe has the lowest rate of MGM while the USA has the highest. The USA also has the highest rate of HIV infection.
http://joseph4gi.blogspot.com.au/2011/05/where-circumcision-doesnt-prevent-hiv.html

Where is the benefit in the real world?

The reality is that the RCT's were not about combating HIV in Africa or anywhere, it is all about creating bogus 'scientific' evidence to bolster the practice of infant circumcision in the USA. Doctors can make a tidy extra income from it:
http://www.circumstitions.com/$$$.html

cosmetic and pharmaceutical companies purchase amputated foreskins and use then in the production of various products:
http://www.foreskin.org/f4sale.htm

You claim it's a lie that babies die from it:
http://www.circumstitions.com/death.html

Now let's look at a timeline of the miraculous claims that have been made for circumcision since the puritans introduced it to America to prevent masturbation.
https://sites.google.com/site/completebaby/medicalization

If circumcision is so beneficial, why has it been necessary to make so many false claims about it? The current claims of HIV protection are just a rehash of the claims in 1855 and 1949 that it protects against Syphilis.

You also arrogantly claim there are no complications in later life. I am middle aged, I was mutilated as a baby and I now find that I have so little sensitivity that I can't maintain an erection during intercourse. Most of the time I can't even feel if I am inside a woman. It has nothing to do with health or lifestyle factors. I swim long distance ocean races a

has circumcision ever been shown to be linked to something harmful?

Ask my penis. Specifically, ask my penis about the part that went missing 36 years ago.

Or, consider this:

In the matter of circumcision of newborn males, it must be recognized that the child is normal as born, and that circumcision inflicts loss of a normal body part and leaves a scar. This is contrary to the motto of medicine which is "First, do no harm. "

Or, consider this: http://www.noharmm.org/images/snyder2.gif (graphic)

For more: http://www.noharmm.org/problem.htm

has circumcision ever been shown to be linked to something harmful?

Ask my penis. Specifically, ask my penis about the part that went missing 36 years ago.

Or, consider this:

In the matter of circumcision of newborn males, it must be recognized that the child is normal as born, and that circumcision inflicts loss of a normal body part and leaves a scar. This is contrary to the motto of medicine which is "First, do no harm. "

Or, consider this: http://www.noharmm.org/images/snyder2.gif (graphic)

For more: http://www.noharmm.org/problem.htm

If a child it taught to be freaked out about nudity it teaches them to hate themselves and their sexuality as well as causes a crap load of social and mental problems in them as an adult. It was proven that puritan lifestyle is detrimental yet idiots in this country force it upon everyone they can.

That is what is truly sad.

I am truly grateful to whoever it is that put the MGM bill in their signature. I would not have known about it otherwise, and started asking questions like, why is this still done? What would sex be like if I had those extra ten to twenty thousand nerve endings? Why would doctors go to jail if they mutilated a female infant's genitalia, but boys are fair game?

You hit the nail on the head: this country was founded by a bunch of Puritans, who mostly hated themselves and their sexuality.

I mean, c'mon, "it's tough to clean so we should remove it" -- it's also tough to clean behind the ears, but advance the idea that we should cut off our children's ears to keep them clean and it would be ridiculed like the absurd proposition it is. But instead they fall back on religion to continue their campaign of scarring the helpless for life.

I agree with you. It is truly sad that Congress can raise a shitstorm and pass laws banning the Internet, but can't be bothered to pass laws banning monsters with knives. The latter most definitely affects our children, whereas the former is questionable at best.

Foreskin is vestigial.

Foreskin is vestigial in the same sense that the appendix is vestigial. Humans don't fully understand what biological purposes the foreskin serves and so consider it without biological function. For starters, foreskin is the only external tissue in the human body that has estrogen receptors. What possible biological function could estrogen receptors on the human male body serve? I don't know but I do know I wish my foreskin had not been removed before I even had a say in the matter.

Here's one site that lists many possible benefits of foreskin.

laissez-faire was NEVER a good economic idea and even Adam Smith recognized that - capitalism MUST have rules otherwise it breaks down - smaller actors musth ave protection from antisocial behavior of larger actors

laissez-faire attributed to individual freedom? poor terminology. The west used to believe in the supremacy of the individual and their rights... well supposedly anyway.

We've never actually respected the rights of individuals in the west. In the united states many boys, infact 95%+, had a totally unneccesary medical proceedure performed on them in infancy which permanantly damages their genitalia (hint: circumcision, http://noharmm.org/advantage.htm ), people cannot turn on the TV and watch what they want because if the TV says/shows certain things they get fined - cannot expect people to simply change the channel from things they don't want to see and use the vchip, the non-christian has always had their liberty stomped upon in the united states and still does. People use a drug that is poisonous and directly poisons those around them totally disreguarding those people's right to control what goes into their body: when these Victims stand up for their rights the abusers whine and bitch about "their personal freedoms" being taken away (hint: smokers)

No, we've never actually respected the rights of an individual, and i'm sick and tired of the hypocracy. Especially from the Reichwing and their meddle-in-and-spy-on-everyone's-lives theofascist shit.

Source: NOHARMM, which is citing medical studies http://www.noharmm.org/advantage.htm

I'm not talking about the religiously motivated circumcision common among Semitic peoples, but about the routine medical circumcisions performed on most males in the US at birth. This didn't come about until the late 19th-early 20th century for the reasons I stated. It was to prevent "masturbatory insanity." No, I shit you not.

I suggest you read this:

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