shorter dicks....

[cancel2 2022]

I can't believe England has come to this. This is probably the worst thing you lot have done since giving Hitler the Sudetenland...

The percentage of males being circumcised in the US has gone down from being the overwhelming majority in the 70s to around 40% now. It seems that your own countrymen are voting with their feet??

The vast majority of men in the world are uncircumcised. In most of the world circumcision is extremely rarely practiced. For example in most of Europe, South America, Central America, Africa, and Asia, probably 98 out of 100 men would be uncircumcised. In some countries a small minority of the population is circumcised. For example in places like Canada and Australia, around 10% of newborn babies are circumcised.

Circumcision is very common in Israel, where there is a large Jewish population. Circumcision is also practiced among some, but not all, Muslims.

In the United States 25 years ago, the vast majority of men were circumcised, but today a minority of infants are circumcised. Circumcision rates have been falling in the United States since the 1970s. In the 1980s, over 80% of newborn male infants were circumcised. By 2007, when the most recent data from the American Academy of Pediatrics was released, less than 40% of newborn male infants were circumcised. This means, that of boys born today in the United States, more are uncircumcised than circumcised.

Circumcision rates vary widely by region in the United States. In the Midwest and southeast, circumcision rates remain as high as 65%, while in the western United States, circumcision rates are generally well below 25%.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_percentage_of_circumcised_men

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

You also tried to give the impression that all of the outbreaks happened at least twenty years ago.

that was from YOUR link...i didn't give any impression...i simply gave stats over a period of time....i never claimed there has been no outbreaks (which is total horseshit, they aren't outbreaks, they are ISOLATED events) in recently.

good lord you're getting desperate

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Tom's Argument:

I'm going to ignore sources that propound good reasons to do something as biased and then put forward equally biased sources as the reason. I then will insist that everybody's dingus must look as ugly as those in the UK because I want to desperately believe the UK is the bestest.

My argument:

Tom, people can reasonably choose to do this to their kid without the fear of doom you propound and for very good reasons that are given in a link I posted. While there are negatives to it, I think the positives outweigh the negatives. I read your links, and the "grave danger" you propound is simply exaggerated beyond all recognition of sanity. I agree that there are some negatives, but I believe in prevention and would do this if I had a boy child...

Tom's solution to people who disagree with him:

There ought to be a law that force people to do what I think is right!

My solution:

There ought to be no law on this and people should be allowed to choose based on information available.

this

 

[DamnYankee]

Don't so frigging stupid, teenagers are not kids. You can't make a sixteen year old do anything they don't want to do. You are really grasping at straws if that's your best argument.

Sixteen? The braces are usually off by then. But being from the UK, land of bad teeth and fugly dicks (apparently) I can see why you wouldn't know that.

 

[DamnYankee]

this

... is a good example of a libtard NEVER ADMITTING WHEN HE LOST AN ARGUMENT!

 

[cancel2 2022]

Tom's Argument:

I'm going to ignore sources that propound good reasons to do something as biased and then put forward equally biased sources as the reason. I then will insist that everybody's dingus must look as ugly as those in the UK because I want to desperately believe the UK is the bestest.

My argument:

Tom, people can reasonably choose to do this to their kid without the fear of doom you propound and for very good reasons that are given in a link I posted. While there are negatives to it, I think the positives outweigh the negatives. I read your links, and the "grave danger" you propound is simply exaggerated beyond all recognition of sanity. I agree that there are some negatives, but I believe in prevention and would do this if I had a boy child...

Tom's solution to people who disagree with him:

There ought to be a law that force people to do what I think is right!

My solution:

There ought to be no law on this and people should be allowed to choose based on information available.

MRSA has been a major problem in Europe in the last few years, to dismiss it out of hand is to display ignorance of the dangers. At one stage it was reputed that ten of housands were dying each year from it. As I've already stated there is only one antibiotic namely Vancomycin that is still effective against it. Did you know that MRSA killed 48,000 Americans in 2006?

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/180065.php

 

[Damocles]

MRSA has been a major problem in Europe in the last few years, to dismiss it out of hand is to display ignorance of the dangers. At one stage it was reputed that ten of housands were dying each year from it. As I've already stated there is only one antibiotic namely Vancomycin that is still effective against it. Did you know that MRSA killed 48,000 Americans in 2006?

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/180065.php

LOL. Your link is about pneumonia and sepsis, not about circumcision and that is STILL rare among those cases.

There is quite literally zero instance of MRSA linked to circumcision by this story, and even less in any reasonable study.

This is just another attempt at fear oppression. "If I say this it will scare people into agreeing with me!"

MRSA is far more attributable to pneumonia care than it will ever be to this tiny snip and the reality is if such a link were found and people given the information (as they would be) circumcision would be rare in the US rather than have its prevalence.

Your attempt to "scare" me into believing that circumcisions are the danger you wish to attribute to them is laughable. 48,000 deaths due to pneumonia or sepsis notwithstanding.

 

[Damocles]

MRSA has been a major problem in Europe in the last few years, to dismiss it out of hand is to display ignorance of the dangers. At one stage it was reputed that ten of housands were dying each year from it. As I've already stated there is only one antibiotic namely Vancomycin that is still effective against it. Did you know that MRSA killed 48,000 Americans in 2006?

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/180065.php

LOL. Your link is about pneumonia and sepsis, not about circumcision and that is STILL rare among those cases.

There is quite literally zero instance of MRSA linked to circumcision by this story, and even less in any reasonable study.

This is just another attempt at fear oppression. "If I say this it will scare people into agreeing with me!"

MRSA is far more attributable to pneumonia care than it will ever be to this tiny snip and the reality is if such a link were found and people given the information (as they would be) circumcision would be rare in the US rather than have its prevalence.

Your attempt to "scare" me into believing that circumcisions are the danger you wish to attribute to them is laughable. 48,000 deaths due to pneumonia or sepsis notwithstanding.

 

[cancel2 2022]

LOL. Your link is about pneumonia and sepsis, not about circumcision and that is STILL rare among those cases.

There is quite literally zero instance of MRSA linked to circumcision by this story, and even less in any reasonable study.

This is just another attempt at fear oppression. "If I say this it will scare people into agreeing with me!"

MRSA is far more attributable to pneumonia care than it will ever be to this tiny snip and the reality is if such a link were found and people given the information (as they would be) circumcision would be rare in the US rather than have its prevalence.

Your attempt to "scare" me into believing that circumcisions are the danger you wish to attribute to them is laughable. 48,000 deaths due to pneumonia or sepsis notwithstanding.

You call it scare tactics, I call it education.

 

[Damocles]

You call it scare tactics, I call it education.

Riiiight. I call it fearmongering idiocy used to make you believe that you are better off with ugly whangs that way you don't feel gypped that you are all short in that department.

Your stats are lame, there are more instances of deaths due to inoculations than there are linked to circumcision (both are done as preventive), yet I'll bet you'll argue that we should get those. Preventive medicine is a good thing, the benefits outweigh the negatives by a long shot.

 

[Canceled1]

Don't so frigging stupid, teenagers are not kids. You can't make a sixteen year old do anything they don't want to do. You are really grasping at straws if that's your best argument.

Don't so frigging stupid what, stupid?

 

[Canceled1]

MRSA has been a major problem in Europe in the last few years, to dismiss it out of hand is to display ignorance of the dangers. At one stage it was reputed that ten of housands were dying each year from it. As I've already stated there is only one antibiotic namely Vancomycin that is still effective against it. Did you know that MRSA killed 48,000 Americans in 2006?

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/180065.php

I will agree. Tens of housands is a troubling number...

 

[Damocles]

I will agree. Tens of housands is a troubling number...

If the story wasn't about pneumonia and sepsis deaths caused by treatment instead of circumcision he might even have a point. The reality is that more deaths are attributable to the inoculations we force on parents than there are attributable to circumcisions. The studies done on circumcision deaths are invariably paid for by those against them and they count almost any death at all to circumcision if the child happened to be circumcised. Deaths due to SIDS, if they were circumcised, are suddenly accountable to circumcision...

 

[Canceled1]

MRSA has been a major problem in Europe in the last few years, to dismiss it out of hand is to display ignorance of the dangers. At one stage it was reputed that ten of housands were dying each year from it. As I've already stated there is only one antibiotic namely Vancomycin that is still effective against it. Did you know that MRSA killed 48,000 Americans in 2006?

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/180065.php

I've read the article three times and can see no correlation at all between MRSA and circumcision. Unless you are trying to wild-ass guess that a circumcision procedure MAY indeed fall under one of the procedures that MIGHT be done in an unclean manner, thus leaving open the POSSIBILITY for an infection to occur from said cirCumcision???

Precious, you are a whack job!

 

[Canceled1]

If the story wasn't about pneumonia and sepsis deaths caused by treatment instead of circumcision he might even have a point. The reality is that more deaths are attributable to the inoculations we force on parents than there are attributable to circumcisions. The studies done on circumcision deaths are invariably paid for by those against them and they count almost any death at all to circumcision if the child happened to be circumcised. Deaths due to SIDS, if they were circumcised, are suddenly accountable to circumcision...

Tom is waxing a bit hysterical on this one. Now he's desperately grasping at straws to support his original claim. It's amazing to me still the lengths he goes to preserve the superiority he feels over Americans. Up to and including, the appearance and superiority in his mind of his schlong!

Aye Carumba!

 

[Canceled2]

Sixteen? The braces are usually off by then. But being from the UK, land of bad teeth and fugly dicks (apparently) I can see why you wouldn't know that.

So right on the money!

 

[cancel2 2022]

If the story wasn't about pneumonia and sepsis deaths caused by treatment instead of circumcision he might even have a point. The reality is that more deaths are attributable to the inoculations we force on parents than there are attributable to circumcisions. The studies done on circumcision deaths are invariably paid for by those against them and they count almost any death at all to circumcision if the child happened to be circumcised. Deaths due to SIDS, if they were circumcised, are suddenly accountable to circumcision...

The real point is that many American parents have woken up and are no longer having it done to their male children, It already down to 40% and within a generation, the vast majority of adult males will no longer be circumcised.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

The real point is that many American parents have woken up and are no longer having it done to their male children, It already down to 40% and within a generation, the vast majority of adult males will no longer be circumcised.

thats irrelevant to whether or not it should be allowed or is a human rights issue....logical fallacy ad populum or whatever....thats like saying...well, at one 80% of the americans had slaves, therefore, slavery is not a violation of human rights.

 

[Damocles]

The real point is that many American parents have woken up and are no longer having it done to their male children, It already down to 40% and within a generation, the vast majority of adult males will no longer be circumcised.

Which is irrelevant to the discussion.

The question is "Should people have the option", not "Are people doing it less than before"...

It's stupid to tell a dude who is happy with his good-looking circumcised wanker that it is "mutilation"...

 

[Canceled2]

It has been suggested [Caldwell & Caldwell, 1996] that the increased risk of infection in the uncircumcised may be a consequence of the following:

• The foreskin presents the penis with a larger surface area.

• It has been suggested that the moist inner lining of the foreskin represents a thinner epidermal barrier than the more cornified outer surface of the foreskin and the rest of the penis, including the glans. It should be noted that the glans of a circumcised and an uncircumcised penis have the same amount of keratin (i.e., similar skin thickness and protection from invasion of microorganisms) [Szabo & Short, 2000]. Although the keratin thickness of the inner and outer foreskin was suggested to be similar [[Dinh et al., 2010], the samples used were from men with pathology that could have increased keratin thickness, and could have been from the thicker distal end of the foreskin. The thin, moist inner lining may be a potential entry point into the body for viruses and bacteria, but more information is needed on how this occurs. (A photograph of a histological section that illustrates the much thinner inner than outer foreskin can be found later, in the section on the AIDS virus.)

• The presence of a prepuce is likely to result in greater microtrauma during sexual intercourse, thereby permitting an entry point into the bloodstream for infectious agents.

• The warm, moist mucosal environment under the foreskin favours growth of micro-organisms (discussed in detail later). The preputial sac has even been referred to by Dr Gerald Weiss, an American surgeon, as a 'cesspool for infection' [Weiss, 1997], as its unfortunate anatomy wrapped around the end of the penis results in the accumulation of secretions, excretions (urine), dead cells and growths of bacteria as referred to above. Parents are told not to retract the foreskin of male infants, which makes cleaning difficult. Even if optimal cleansing is performed there is no evidence that it confers protection [Wiswell, 1997a; Wiswell, 1997b]. Rather, the foreskin tends to trap and transmit micro-organisms, both to the man himself, and his sexual partners.

more here.