[Banana]

The only foreskin 8ter has had removed was from his butthole.

FLUMPER!!

I read this before but only really thought about it now.

[Flumper Barflusterbutt]

FLUMPER!!

I read this before but only really thought about it now.

[BIRD33]

You've refered to my sister and I as "freaks" because we prefer foreskin. You once commented (and I looked for it, but not for long) that it was weird to keep foreskin when it had no use. And you DON'T think it's childish to consider the foreskin of an infant weird? Or that women who might prefer it are freaky?

I will get into this fully but I have a basketball game in 20 minutes.In the mean time can I get an explanation on the above.When you said I called you a freak I was like... what?So I searched my name and the word freak and I found what you are referring to.We some how got onto the topic of what you as woman prefer as far as cut or uncut men to have sex with.Your sister posted the below.

I prefer uncut.

I responded

Yea you two are freaks or from the middle east.

How do you figure thats the same thing as telling some one that they are a freak for choosing to circumcise their baby?If someone said they prefer to sleep with women who don't shave down there I'd deem their preference a little freaky.I wouldnt dare label someone seriously over a medical decision for their child unless it was like breast implants on a 10 year old.


http://www.insanetrain.com/forums/showth...post472396


You couldnt find that quote of me saying its weird or childish because I never said that.In fact this is my first ever post on the foreskin topic which is directly the opposite of what you accuse me off.It still remains my position today.

I am but I've always thought it was a stupid tradition based on some promise a guy made to "god" a 1000 years ago and wasnt going to do it to my kids.Now I've read that if you are cut you're less prone to get certian diseases so I'll probably get it done to my kids.

http://www.insanetrain.com/forums/showth...t=Foreskin


Can you at least limit your criticisms of my thoughts to things I've actually said?


As I said I will get into the rest in the AM after I finish dropping dimes on mother fuckers.

[BIRD33]

I hate that Bird's allowed to call other people weird, freaky, shallow, childish, and narrow-minded based on their views, but I'm "snarg" if I do it or call him on it.

I called you childish for telling me to "grow up" because I don't agree with you despite my position which you cannot call merit less.


everything else I never said.I change my mind, you are more blondie then snarg.

[snarg]

I hate that Bird's allowed to call other people weird, freaky, shallow, childish, and narrow-minded based on their views, but I'm "snarg" if I do it or call him on it.

wait a minute
being called snarg by tweetie is a compliment

take a deep breath, you slaughtered the little fool
why would you care what the pontificating narcissist thinks??
hasn't he made it obvious that facts never get in the way with the way he feels??

he doesn't have foreskin, therefore, foreskin is bad
end of story
why waste your time, eh?

and all this talk of this reprobate having a son?
pepsi's parenting skills would be better
do the gene pool a favor, tweetie and get a vasectomy

[cLaY]

Circumcision is wrong. If my son acquires AIDS, we have bigger issues than what his penis looks like. There are a multitude of reasons to chop off female genitalia, but we don't, because it's unnecessary. Boys who are circumcised these days are the odd ones out, most doctors are unwilling to do circumcision, for a reason.

Circumcised boys are the odd ones out? Really? What doctors are unwilling to do circumcision? Our pediatrician (Sp?) encourages the practice.

Banana, are you a mother who feels that an infant son being circumcised shouldn't not have to deal with the trauma? I'm curious.

I don't really see how there could be any advantages or disadvantages really. I do know in some European countries uncircumcised males practice unprotected sex both anally and vaginally lead to disease because of cleanliness issues.

Everyone I've ever known has been cut because we're bible thumpers.

I really don't see the issue really. Kind think Banana looks a little uppity and Bird is just fightin' to fight.

[BIRD33]

wait a minute
being called snarg by tweetie is a compliment

take a deep breath, you slaughtered the little fool
why would you care what the pontificating narcissist thinks??
hasn't he made it obvious that facts never get in the way with the way he feels??

he doesn't have foreskin, therefore, foreskin is bad
end of story
why waste your time, eh?

and all this talk of this reprobate having a son?
pepsi's parenting skills would be better
do the gene pool a favor, tweetie and get a vasectomy

Thanks guy who is going to be dead in less than 15 years.Hope whatever mexican sweatshop you are working in during your "retirement" takes it easy on you today.

[BIRD33]

birds not feeling it today. ass whooped in 2 threads and i havent even read them all. nor will i.

I'm shocked to see you take the womans side on this.Its so unlike you.

[BIRD33]

You've made it abundantly clear you have no interest in anyone's stats or research but your own. I highly doubt you looked at any single link I posted, and you clearly missed the entire point of why I don't agree with it. I fail to see how continuing this diatribe when you are steadfastly going to cling to your own views is going to change anything, but I'll try one last time.

I've looked at everything you've posted.We just don't agree 100%.

My sister quoted the rates 10 -35%. I've already quoted the rates of HIV and HPV. The rate of contracting HIV? This stat doesn't exist. The incidence rate in the States is 0.33%. The incidence rate of HPV - 7.35%. Let's not compare apples to orange - HPV is a very treatable STD. And yes, men without foreskin DO contact both diseases.

Can you show me where you get the 10 to 35% number?Every where I looked came back with this result.

Journal of [URL="http://www.fathermag.com/health/circ/horror/horror.shtml#"][COLOR=blue ! important][COLOR=blue ! important]Urology[/color][/color]
[/URL] (Baltimore), vol 153, no 3 part I (March 1995: pp 778-779) states that the rate of accidents is from 1.5% to 15%.

Thats a lot less than the 35% you claimed.4,315,000 babies were born in America in 2007 where a majority of them were circumcised.Admittedly thats at the very least 65,000 botched circumcisions which sounds like a lot.I never said your claims about the risks werent valid but considering that with all surgerys there is a risk of complications or even death I wouldnt let 1 to 15% be the reason to not do it.

So, the chances of contracting those things isn't negated 100% by circumcision. Let's not pretend that circumcision PREVENTS all cases of HIV and HPV, k? The studies have clearly said behavioural factors play more important roles. Like, for example, wearing a condom - something I find entirely more reasonable than chopping off a part of a baby that he is born with. You think it's fine, I do not. Also, did you read the links where it was pointed out that other studies have found results converse to that? (i.e., that being circumsized actually INCREASES the STD risk?) What does this do to your opinion? Any change?

I live in the real world where a bunch of unplanned babies are running around because their parents didnt wear a condom.Is wearing a condom reasonable,yes.Do people do it a majority of the time?Probably not.I did read the links showing that the cells on the tip of the foreskins will "act as a bouncer to viruses"(I don't know how I remembered that if I didnt read it) and all I can say is its an interesting study thats contrary to others out there.Are you saying that is the conclusive proof that circumcisions are unnecessary?I've never stated your position is incorrect just that with all the information out there on both sides of the issue I'm keeping an open mind about the subject.

No, it's not a FACT. This is pure science. For something to be considered a fact, it needs to have repoducable findings. That study clearly indicated the results were not clear. How do those findings, in AA and Hispanic populations, translate to real life? This is the only way they do: In AA and Hispanics, circumcision MAY reduce the chances of acquiring HIV or HPV. That's the only fact. This fact doesn't take into consideration the following: sex practices, sexual orientation, methods of prevention or other races. Don't ask me how an AA dick is different than any other, I don't know. But I do know this is a scientific question. You can't just hypothesize that all dicks are the same (which you did seem to assume).

Could I have countered your question about if I read the study showing foreskin helps protect from diseases by saying "No, it's not a FACT. This is pure science. For something to be considered a fact, it needs to have repoducable findings. That study clearly indicated the results were not clear".I could do that but I would be fooling myself that my data is the only correct data.Of course sex practices, drug use and other factors play into this study but even you have to admit this was done by a reputable organization and it shows there may be a benefit to circumcision.I am hypothesizing that all races dicks are the same because I can't find one shred of evidendce to show that might not be true.Care to enlighten me on that?

Is now when you confess that you didn't bother reading any of the links I posted? Because if you did, this wouldn't be in question. And I don't understand your sentence about "data from the 70's" Explain.


And yet, you boiled my stance down to the few men I have heard from who hate being circumcized?

If anyone has been dogmatic about this issue its been you.You made it seem that because no Doctors in Calgary will give circumcisions that was proof of it being dangerous.Only 9% of canadians get circumcised so wouldnt small demand be the reason so few doctors do it?You have made it seem like there is a huge amount of people complaining about their circumcisions when the % of problems is pretty low.

You've refered to my sister and I as "freaks" because we prefer foreskin. You once commented (and I looked for it, but not for long) that it was weird to keep foreskin when it had no use. And you DON'T think it's childish to consider the foreskin of an infant weird? Or that women who might prefer it are freaky?

I've already covered how you grossly mischracterized my position and slandered me personally.I await your apology on this.

Conclusion: I've told you that I respect that you at least have a reason for not preferring it, but that I don't agree with it and wonder if you ever bothered to consider what might go wrong. Hey, if you are more comfortable acting in opposition of what medical science says (that being that despite the HIV studies, the medical risks STILL outweigh the benefits) go for it. But, don't read my post saying I won't do it because my infant has no chance of getting HIV or HPV as a "superficial" argument "based on very very weird men who are so upset by their circumcision they post on forums about it." Judgemental and totally off base.

Definitely judgmental but no more than you have been.I'm open minded on the subject.You seem set in your position while not even knowing about the latest studies that might contradict your position.I'm not saying those studies are 100% truth but you have to admit my position on the issue has merit and could one day be the prevailing wisdom on the subject.

I rest my case on the preponderance of medical information which says it's not medically indicated. You rest yours on the belief that you think your son is likely to acquire an STD. Very disparate views here. Your views aren't in question. Your reliance on incomplete data is. How is it that you favor those two studies over the hundreds and thousands of studies which have suggested it's not medically indicated (even in the face of the HIV findings)? The fact is - the North American medical community does not support circumcision as a medically necessary intervention. It's a personal one. But, I do think it's very important that people KNOW both sides before they do it. And do you? Did you really look at the data? If so, this argument should be over. It boils down to personal choice. But, because they are our children, it most certainly should be INFORMED personal decision.

How can you look at the data and act like this is an open and shut case?The latest study by possibly the best medical school in the world shows the opposite of what you believe.How arrogant of you to say that if I looked at the data I should be agreeing with you.The data as you will admit is inconclusive on the subject and that Johns Hopkins studys from this year proves that more studies are needed because of the difference of results in each study.

I'm open minded on this topic as my first ever post on this subject shows.If you want to attack my position fine.Healthy debate is always interesting.Please try to stick to what I said though when criticizing me.

[Anhil8tor]

part of being a parent is you get to make decisions that will permanently affect your children. 8.2 is cut and will always be.

[BIRD33]

he's a democrat...the rules don't apply to him.

This really hurts from a guy who's party destroyed the constitution while he sat there quietly.

[Banana]

Circumcised boys are the odd ones out? Really? What doctors are unwilling to do circumcision? Our pediatrician (Sp?) encourages the practice.

Banana, are you a mother who feels that an infant son being circumcised shouldn't not have to deal with the trauma? I'm curious.

I don't really see how there could be any advantages or disadvantages really. I do know in some European countries uncircumcised males practice unprotected sex both anally and vaginally lead to disease because of cleanliness issues.

Everyone I've ever known has been cut because we're bible thumpers.

I really don't see the issue really. Kind think Banana looks a little uppity and Bird is just fightin' to fight.

Yes. I strongly believe that we should leave infants as they are. So, way before I had kids, I started to question why my decision would have been just to circumcise. It came down to, most of the adult men I knew were circumcized and people were just doing it because everyone else was. Once I became a parent, that didn't seem like a good reason anymore, so I started doing research. The research doesn't support it as a routine practice in infancy, and there can be very serious complications. So, I stopped thinking it should be done just because and started looking at it more closely.

I know it's more routinely done in the US, than here. But, your numbers are way down to. 55% of infant males are cut, versus only 9% here. There is a reason for that, and it's because the physician's here stopped supporting it. They won't do it in the hospitals. It has to be arranged privately.

[Paddy]

It was offered to us when 2.0 was born.

[Banana]

How can you look at the data and act like this is an open and shut case?The latest study by possibly the best medical school in the world shows the opposite of what you believe.How arrogant of you to say that if I looked at the data I should be agreeing with you.The data as you will admit is inconclusive on the subject and that Johns Hopkins studys from this year proves that more studies are needed because of the difference of results in each study.

I'm open minded on this topic as my first ever post on this subject shows.If you want to attack my position fine.Healthy debate is always interesting.Please try to stick to what I said though when criticizing me.

Bird, I don't think you lose many arguments and for me, you typically argue so much that you exasperate the other person and they give up. You exasperate them by invalidating their agruments by making personal attacks. When we stood on 2 different sides of the Sean Avery issue, you invalidated my arguments by calling me a "hormonal bitch."Other times, it's been "aging, flat-chested woman" or "jealous of her sister" or -insert-other-childish-attack-here. I simply threw your own tactics back at you and it pissed you off. Turnabout is fair play.

I have never disputed what your studies shows. But, I have consistently and clearly stuck to my own opinion: an infant has no chance of acquiring those things and those 2 studies do not sway the significant amount of data that is to the contrary. If you are cmnfortable relying on two studies to circumcize your infant, great. It's not good enough for me, it's not good enough for the medical community and I really have nothing else to add.

[WoolyGoat]

I thought you rested your case?

[Banana]

Don't get me started on piercing little girls ears

[Banana]

I thought you rested your case?

I didn't feel like listening to the "I win" argument he was bound to pull out next.

[Paddy]

Jimmy's glad you're taking your energy out here.

[Anhil8tor]

Don't get me started on piercing little girls ears

8.3 will get hers pierced when she asks. I told the spouser that it was better to wait.

[WoolyGoat]

I didn't feel like listening to the "I win" argument he was bound to pull out next.

but everyone else knows you won.

even though I like my cut penis and kinda resent your talking badly about it.