Features

The latest anti-Semitic cry: ban circumcision

Foreskin-envying hippies and Eurocrats are waging war against an age-old tradition, under the guise of 'human rights'

19 October 2013

9:00 AM

19 October 2013

9:00 AM

There are lots of weird campaign groups around today, but none so weird as a band of unmerry men called ‘the intactivists’. If you’ve never heard of the intactivists and you’re a bit squeamish, or you are reading this while lunching on a sausage roll, then you might want to turn the page now. Intactivists are men who were circumcised at birth and who, as their name suggests, long to become ‘intact’ again. In a nutshell, they want to recover their foreskins. And they’ll do almost anything to achieve this, including undergoing skin grafts and even attaching weights to the little bits of foreskin that their possibly careless circumciser might have left behind. Hey, look, I told you to turn the page.

Originating, like most mad campaign groups, on the west coast of America, intactivism is fuelled by some of the most regressive political trends of our era. Its adherents have that annoying Oprah-ite habit of blaming a long-gone childhood incident — in this case the simple, harmless, millennia-old snipping of the foreskin — for every trouble that befalls them in adulthood. They seriously claim that their inability to have good sex or to hold down a relationship is down to the fact that their foreskin was removed when they were a few days old. Which raises the question of how generation after generation of Jewish men, alongside all the non-Jewish blokes who got the chop, managed to please the ladies and procreate.

Orthodox Jews Hold Circumcision CeremonyJewish circumcision must take place when a boy is eight days old, as stipulated in Genesis Photo: Getty

Intactivists also do that grating thing of turning every issue into a question of human rights. ‘Intact genitals are a human right!’ their T-shirts declare. The bonkers transformation of even foreskin possession into a human right captures very well how the lingo of human rights is often used to undermine real rights that people have enjoyed for aeons — in this case the age-old religious right to remove newborn babies’ foreskins, which is cleaved to by Jewish communities in particular, and also by Muslims. So-called children’s rights are often just a battering ram against adults’ rights, against the right of communities to instil in their young certain ways of thinking and believing, as summed up in the dangerous notion that the rights of an eight-day-old baby boy should take precedence over the rights of his parents and their community to express their faith as they see fit.

[Alt-Text]


Stop Infant Circumcision SocietyProtesters  outside the Capitol Building, Washington Photo: Roll Call/Getty 

And intactivism also has more than a smattering of anti-Semitism. There’s an intactivist publication called Foreskin Man, in which the eponymous hero, who has blond hair and blue eyes and is immaculately Aryan, battles against Monster Mohel, a swivel-eyed Jew who is always armed with scissors because ‘nothing excites him more than cutting into the flesh of an eight-day-old infant boy’. Foreskin Man is extreme, and it has been complained about angrily by the American-Jewish advocacy group the Anti-Defamation League; yet its simplistic, fairytale-like narrative about innocent babes being ‘mutilated’ and having their future happiness ruined by a rabbi with a knife speaks to the fatalistic, self-pitying heart of the intactivist movement more broadly.

Now the intactivists, or certainly their ideas, are gaining ground in Europe. Across Europe, officials, judges, commentators and shrill secularists have declared open war on circumcision. Last week, the Council of Europe said circumcision is ‘a violation of the physical integrity of the child’. It urged all European nations to ‘adopt specific legal provisions’ that will make circumcision illegal ‘before a child is old enough to be consulted’. That would mean no more Jewish circumcision, which must take place when a boy is eight days old, as stipulated in Genesis, where God says: ‘And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you… and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt Me and you.’

Also last week, children’s ombudsmen from five Nordic countries — Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark and Iceland — decreed that circumcision is ‘in conflict with the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child’. It looks like these Nordic countries will soon ban non-medical circumcision. Last year, a court in Germany likewise suggested that circumcision should be banned, on the basis that it is ‘bodily harm’. That suggestion hasn’t been acted on yet. Surely Germany, of all nations, will know better than to ban one of Judaism’s oldest and most important customs? As Germany’s Central Council of Jews rightly said, any legal stricture against religious circumcision would represent ‘an unprecedented and dramatic intervention in religious communities’ right of determination’.

            Foreskin Man            Foreskin Man takes on circumcising doctors and Orthodox Jew Monster Mohel in issue two Photo: PA/AP/MGMbill

Like the strange, weights-wearing intactivists across the pond, the European warriors against circumcision are driven by some very backward thinking. They, too, elevate the so-called rights of the child above adults’ freedom of religion, in the process denting age-old liberties and giving further succour to that most poisonous and fatalistic idea of our therapeutic era: that what happens to us in childhood determines our future character, personality and fortunes. And they also promote some pretty anti-Semitic thinking. New atheist types have rebranded circumcision ‘genital mutilation’ and even ‘sexual assault’, mirroring Foreskin Man’s belief that warped rabbis get some weird kick from cutting boys’ penises. Earlier this year the Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet published a cartoon that was nakedly anti-Semitic: it showed a rabbi driving a pitchfork into a baby’s head while someone else hacked at his penis with a pair of pliers, while the baby’s mother says: ‘Abuse? No, it’s tradition.’

GERMANY-ISRAEL-JEWS-ISLAM-HEALTH-LAW‘Merciless foreskinne-clippers’ Photo: AFP/Getty

All this demonisation of circumcision, whether it’s by foreskin-envying American hippies or European bureaucrats, has ugly echoes of medieval writers’ anti-Semitic assaults on the practice of circumcision. Back then, the fact that Jews removed their baby boys’ foreskins was held up as evidence that they were a ‘cruel and barbaric’ people. They were referred to as ‘merciless foreskinne-clippers’. The language has changed, with talk of children’s rights elbowing aside the more virulent anti-Semitism, but today’s war on circumcision is not that different to earlier generations’ disgust with this ancient custom — it is fuelled by a view of certain communities as cruel and unthinking and by a shockingly cavalier attitude towards freedom of religion. It is intolerance, plain and simple, though dolled up in the cynical language of human rights.

More Spectator for less. Stay informed leading up to the EU referendum and in the aftermath. Subscribe and receive 15 issues delivered for just £15, with full web and app access. Join us.


Show comments
  • http://www.facebook.com/barefootintactivist Barefoot Intactivist

    Author has a complete lack of respect for children’s rights. Yes, taking a knife to somebody’s genitals and amputating the most sensitive parts of their bodies is in fact a violation of that person’s rights. Embarrassing, shameful article.

    • JoeDM

      All genital mutilation is wrong !!!

    • Molly Adams

      If preventing baby-cutting is wrong, I don’t want to be right.

    • GeeBee36_6

      I was so angry when I read this article by Brendan O’Neill in my copy of The Spectator today that I considered cancelling my subscription (I have subscribed to it for decades). I am a lifelong Conservative, detest left-wing ideology and ‘progressive’ political standpoints. Yet a quote from the website ‘left foot forward’ sprang up when I googled O’Neil to see what kind of a freak my favourite magazine was now commissioning pieces from. It said: ‘The Brendan O’Neill formula is a simple but effective one: work out what any reasonably decent human being would think about an issue and write the opposite.’

      Accurate, from what I can see.When O’Neil writes that ‘the European warriors against circumcision are driven by some very backward thinking. They, too, elevate the so-called rights of the child above adults’ freedom of religion’ he appears to be guilty as charged. That an adult might visit genital mutilation upon its child, without the child’s consent, is surely a definition of barbarism. Let adults follow bizarre and ancient cults and the belief systems that continue to give them credence if they must. But to mutilate a child’s genitals on such an account is monstrous. Yet the odious O’Neill seeks even to deny that the practice constitutes genital mutilation, accusing those who are against it of ‘rebranding’ circumcision as such, when in fact it could not be more plain that circumcision per se mutilates a child’s genitals.

      For goodness’ sake, let us hope the noble pages of The Spectator are in future unsullied by the smug, nasty little efforts of Mr O’Neil.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Craig-King/100003741083027 Craig King

        I see there is now a less, extreme way to remove the Jews from Europe. I wonder if the same constraints will be placed upon the Muslims, in which case they too will be removed from Europe.

      • http://www.facebook.com/barefootintactivist Barefoot Intactivist

        So O’Neill was basically trolling us all and doesn’t even believe what he wrote? Hmpfh

      • JesseKaellis

        Go ahead, cancel your subscription. Do it.

  • Jackthesmilingblack

    Don`t mess with za Jews. No one is going to call attention to a Rabbi taking a baby`s penis in their mouth, except Jack. Because that`s the reality of the business.

    • RoxanneRoxanadana

      Banning that practice is quite reasonable. But that’s not what people are after & you know this.

      • aj

        No, we are after complete rights to bodily integrity for every human, no matter what religion or race or sex.

      • Jackthesmilingblack

        Do I? Genital mutilation on religious grounds strongly indicates that the religious community believe they can improve on God`s handiwork. And they call me arrogant.
        Jack, Japan Alps

  • http://www.circumstitions.com/ Hugh7

    Nowhere in this article is there a word to show why intact genitals are NOT a human right for boys, as they are for girls, and as intact every-other-normal-healthy-functional-non-renewing-human-body-parts are for both sexes. In fact I didn’t even need to specify “human”. It would be illegal to circumcise a household pet.

    By failing to address that, the accusation that this human rights campaign (which is mainly directed at US “medical” circumcision of gentile boys) is antisemitic is basically ad hominem.

    And what’s with the “so-called” rights of the child? It’s not called the International Convention on the So-called Rights of the Child. (The Convention includes a right to identity (which would rule out imposing an identity on his body), and freedom of expression (which is restricted in the field of sexual expression when a sexual part of his body is cut off).

    • RoxanneRoxanadana

      Children, especially infants, do not have rights. The state acts on behalf of the welfare of children, not to defend rights. What is the basis for your contrary assertion?

      • Destiny

        So, by your logic, if the state decides that from now on a certain part of the child’s brain makes the child more docile and easier to mold, and that this would greatly benefit the child by alleviating all of that unnecessary teen rebelliousness, then that’s okay?

        • Peter Brown

          She has to ask someone her opinion on that, she’ll be right back.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Patients take time. This is done during breaks. Just did a pair of legs.

        • RoxanneRoxanadana

          Brain surgery performed in that fashion on consenting adult patients for mental disease, although it won a Nobel prize, was one of the greatest scandals in medical history. Your analogy is crudely flawed.

        • RoxanneRoxanadana

          No. That surgery was banned for CONSENTING adult patients. You are wrong.

          • cosmopolite

            I am not sure that every person on whom a lobotomy was performed had agreed to it. And if they had, they were pressured. 50-80 years ago, doctors had a god like status, and people felt they had no grounds for saying no to a doctor’s recommendation. This led to some seriously abusive practices, including RIC without the parents’ consent. I have read many reports in social media of the staff in USA maternity wards hectoring and badgering mothers who declined to have their sons cut. This was utterly unprofessional.

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Craig-King/100003741083027 Craig King

          Hyperbole really isn’t an argument. It isn’t even a logical debating stance. Many women think that a man’s dick does his thinking for him but we all know that the thinking isn’t done by his foreskin.

        • FrederickRhodes

          Fortunately religious, ritual and routine lobotomy didn’t catch on.

      • Dreamer

        What is the basis for his assertion? How about the United Nations lady?

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child

        • RoxanneRoxanadana

          Very true. Rights in that sense do exist & I do acknowledge it.

          I was using the word “rights” in the sense of the “right” to a trial by jury, to be free of search without a warrant, to have an attorney present at trial, to vote, to avoid excessive bail, etc., etc., etc. These rights few, if any, suggest are granted automatically to children.

          What is meant by rights in that document corresponds mostly to fulfillment of responsibilities for child welfare. Protecting the health of the child is, for example, a fundamental “right” of the child, one that often supercedes the wishes of the child. I really & truly objected to getting vaccinated, in fact to every single visit to a doctor or nurse, not to mention the dentist. Nonetheless, my right to avoid the dentist simply was not acceptable. By contrast, no competent adult can be forced to have therapy against his or her wishes, at least in the US.

          • cosmopolite

            A child has the right not to have medical procedures done to it that might adversely affect his.her adult sexual pleasure and function. And the burden of proof rests on those advocating such procedures.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Craig-King/100003741083027 Craig King

            Adult circumcisions are being done across Africa courtesy of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Why?

            Because it seriously reduces the infection from AIDS. Oh, and it doesn’t impact on sexual pleasure.

          • cosmopolite

            Because Bill and Melinda Gates naively believe that any claim written by someone with a public health PhD, and published in a peer reviewed journal, is ipso fact true. So many people in the American upper middle class elite believe that. Biomedical research is far more fragile, intellectually speaking, than they realise.

            The African clinical trials were badly designed, badly executed, and badly interpreted. They are a scientific scandal waiting to explode. If those studies are taken at face value, all they say is that circumcised men are less likely to contract HIV from a single unprotected sex act with an infected women. What if circumcised men, knowing that, go out and have more irresponsible sex without condoms? The upshot could be 10-20 years from now, a rate of HIV positivity even higher than at present.

            The biomedical technology required to measure sexual pleasure does not exist. Hence the assertion that circumcision does not impact sexual pleasure is unverifiable.

          • JesseKaellis

            Nor is it verifiable, Einstein.

          • cosmopolite

            If it is neither verifiable nor unverifiable, then the conclusion is quite clear: do not circumcise, and wait for biomedical technology to give us the ability to answer some basic questions. In a state of ignorance, do nothing.

          • JesseKaellis

            One last final time, because you can have the last word. If gentiles don’t want to adhere to the practice of circumcision then don’t do it. Leave us Jews alone. I have to laugh. See that tiny little picture there of me when I was 28/29. Do you think it’s a big issue with me that I might have less sensation in my penis than a man who is uncut. Not really. If anything it means that I can go longer without an orgasm. I’ve had a lot of women and I was never thinking about whether I could have had a stronger orgasm. You must be a homosexual to having a fixation on Jewish men’s penises. Why are you thinking about infant penis? Are you a pedophile?

          • cosmopolite

            Not every Jew thinks about sex as you do.
            Where do you get the idea that I do not leave Jews alone?
            How is your having had a lot of women consistent with traditional Jewish morals?
            It is highly immoral to accuse another person of homosexual inclinations and pedophilia, when you nothing about them. Such accusations are a form of bigotry.

          • JesseKaellis

            You think I’m a bigot? SO WHAT? I’m not a traditional Jew. SO WHAT? At least I’m not a latent homosexual.
            Better sex? Isn’t that entirely subjective?

          • cosmopolite

            You say I am a homosexual, latent or not. SO WHAT?
            Better or worse sex. SO WHAT?
            I happen to prefer democracy, due process, and human rights. I also happen to love my spouse. But these preferences of mine are “entirely subjective”. Hence they can be disregarded, even scorned. SO WHAT?

      • MyChildMyChoice

        So you are pro-abortion as well?

        • RoxanneRoxanadana

          There exist questions to which “I do not know” is the answer, including the death penalty, Macedonia, & Catalonia. Convenient for you & me would be a “yes” or “no” answer to the question of abortion. Honesty dictates saying the answer is beyond my ken.

          • JesseKaellis

            You have guts Roxanne. F*ck these people.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            They are the same as the anti-fluoride fiends we have in the US. Did you know that there are many regions in the US where the water is NATURALLY flouridated? That’s right, naturally fluoridated with more than the recommended dose. No damage whatsoever to people from this. Same thing here. These people willfully ignore the generation of health risks as respects circumcision on the basis of an invented “right”. A right is what you have against government action. What these people want is increased government interference in the family. What for? Well, King Manuel removed the children from Jewish control of their parents in 1497, “saving” them for Almighty God, of course. What happened? He shipped the 2,000 kids to some barely viable islands near Africa, where all but 600 died shortly thereafter. This is their real version of child protection.

          • JesseKaellis

            My father is a dentist with PhD (in biology). When our mother was pregnant he gave her fluoride drops and he gave us fluoride drops as children, My sister and myself. My sister never had a cavity and I have had two. I’m 58. We were living in Brooklyn and later moved to a fluoridated town in central NJ. The John Birch Society had a platform against fluoridation, for Christ’s sake. That should tell you something.
            I was at a bris once, as a child. This was in New York. Yes, the baby cries. It is disturbing. Just the same, I think that it is beneficial and it is part of our culture. Eight days old is the appropriate age. We are not stupid people. These people that are so up in arms about circumcision, my sense of it is that they are deeply duplicitous All of a sudden so sensitive about the welfare of children? Poor Jewish babies?
            I’m going to tell you this: it is sneaky way to remove Jews from their ancient heritage. Just another assault on Judaism. As well, when Jews come on here moaning about circumcision and ritual slaughter; you can bet that they are also Jews that are against the “occupation” of “Palestine.”
            Static, and lots of it, that’s all this is. All these “concerned” people.

      • Heidi

        I have a suggestion for you….don’t reproduce….spare any beautiful being the wrath that would be having you as a parent.

        • RoxanneRoxanadana

          I do not have children.

        • JesseKaellis

          You’re ugly inside and out lady.

      • cosmopolite

        All human beings, including minors, most definitely have rights. I don’t claim to know just what those rights are, and when I argue for intact, I don’t use the language of human rights. But I will not live in a society where children including infants, have no rights.

        • JesseKaellis

          Move to Gaza then.

          • cosmopolite

            After you, sir. You are most welcome to lead by example.

          • JesseKaellis

            What example? I’m not up in arms about some ersatz issue regarding human rights that you are bandying about and is merely a covert cover for Jew hatred. My point being that children in Gaza are being indoctrinated and trained to be human bombs against Israelis. So–are you consistent in your crusade for children’s rights? Tell me about it.Explain, because I expect you to lie or sidestep the issue. So–you don’t claim to know what human rights are, nor the language of human rights, but you have no problem appointing yourself to interfere with an ancient custom of an ancient people, that apparently you know little about.
            I wonder if you have taken a poll of Jewish men and discerned how many feel they have been mutilated or their rights denied.
            Ask me. I’m a circumcised Jew.
            If circumcision hurts, and I know it does, having been at a bris once, well–I don’t remember and I have experienced my share of physical pain in life, not least having been a competitive amateur fighter. Some things are worth the pain. You can’t take the pain out of living, you don’t want to, because you will take the living out of living.
            Social engineering? You are welcome to it my foolish “friend.”

          • cosmopolite

            Do not urge others to do X unless you yourself are willing to lead by example and do X yourself. Go home and think about that.

            To accuse me of anti-semitism is a hostile act and a form of crass bigotry. You do not know who I am or my ancestry. You do not know my religion or ancestry. You do not know my politics, so do not speak of social engineering. By writing “… because I expect you to lie or sidestep the issue.” you are guilty of crass prejudice.

            Your being a circumcised Jew does not give you any privileged access to medical or sexual or moral understanding. You are an imperfect human being, like all of us.

            “You can’t take the pain out of living, you don’t want to, because you will take the living out of living.”

            Feel free to live by those words if you prefer. But I will resist unto death any attempt by you or others to force humans to live by those words. Because those words are moral words only if they are freely embraced by thoughtful adults.
            Some things are indeed worth the pain. But every person should be allowed to decide what goals are worth the pain of attaining them.

            “I wonder if you have taken a poll of Jewish men and discerned how many feel they have been mutilated or their rights denied.” Have you taken such a poll? I have not, and have never claimed to. But I have talked to, and met, a number of men in a number of English speaking countries, who detest the fact that they were circumcised in infancy. I have talked to women who deplore the fact that the man they married is circumcised. I have noticed for 3 decades that the defenders of circumcision never think to ask the views of women who have been intimate with both kinds of men.

          • JesseKaellis

            Not worth picking apart your lame, self serving arguments, but I’ll address a few of them.Every one of them spurious and facile. Man, you don’t know what a hostile act is, you fake Pollyanna.
            I’m not forcing you or any others to endure pain or circumcision. Who appointed you in the first place? Resist to the death…? This is your heroic cause? There is no risk in what you are doing.
            I’ve fought in the ring buddy boy and I know false bravado when I hear it. You should be a speech writer for corrupt politicians. You have a gift for spin.
            You met a NUMBER of men who detest the fact that they were circumcised in infancy. How many is a NUMBER?
            You talked to ONE woman that wishes her husband had foreskin. You’re a pretty weird guy, cosmo. What do you do? Collar woman at random and ask them what kind of penis they prefer? Is that some kind of pickup line?
            Now you are talking to ONE man at least who doesn’t feel that my rights were abrogated or that I am deformed. I talked to my father about this, in the context of this “movement” for ending circumcision being just another facet of virulent antisemitism, just more of the same old same old, and he agreed that it was nonsense. So that’s TWO men that don’t agree with you.
            Ask women which they prefer? Why would I do that? What’s the point? I can’t get my foreskin back and it is totally irrelevant to me. If they prefer uncircumcised men they should ask before we get down to it. I’m well endowed so maybe they give me a “bye” on the issue.
            Go home? I am home, MFer, just like you are.
            Are you telling me that you are secretly a Jew? That I don’t know you or who you are? You are going to make me cry here any minute.
            If you are not a Jew, then you present as a covert Jew hater. If you are a Jew, you have bigger problems than I could ever address on an internet thread.
            If I accuse you of being a bigot, then I’M a bigot? Nice! Very nice! Nice mind f*ck, but only if I care. I don’t care.
            Refuting pompous clowns like you is just a reflex for me.

          • cosmopolite

            “Not worth picking apart your lame, self serving arguments…”
            You then proceed to do just that, and the irony is wasted.

            “you don’t know what a hostile act is”
            “I know false bravado when I hear it”
            More irony.
            If you really believed that I am a Pollyanna, fake or real, you would not write as you do.

            Disqus is neither a boxing ring nor a Boys Club.

          • JesseKaellis

            You nailed me to the wall there, partner. You also didn’t address any of my points; in other words your vague statement that you met a NUMBER OF MEN…
            You talked to ONE woman…
            Why wouldn’t I write as I do if I really believed you are a Pollyanna?
            You can extrapolate from your experiences but i can’t do the same? Why not? What do you know about boxing rings? How can I respect you when your language is covertly, pompously, prissy and bitchy?

        • JesseKaellis

          So die.

          • cosmopolite

            My death or silence will not stop the evolution of our sexual and child rearing cultures in the direction I advocate. I am but a grain of sand on the beach of life.

      • FrederickRhodes

        The welfare of the child is a right. The state acts to defend the rights of the welfare of the child all the time.

        • RoxanneRoxanadana

          The welfare of the child is a responsibility, partly of the State & partly of the parents or caretakers. Where that line is drawn depends on the jurisdiction.

          Even rights, as traditionally defined, have lines almost never universally drawn identically. In Britain recently a person was arrested for incitement for arguing the murder of Mr. Rigby was a terrible thing Islam had done. In the US, that would not even raise an eyebrow; we have a gentleman who regularly says “No Jews. Right number”, fully protected by our first amendment. I favor the British approach on this particular issue, but live in America & abide by its law.

        • RoxanneRoxanadana

          The State & the Parents are responsible for the welfare of the child. The line demarcating State & Parental responsibility varies by jurisdiction.

        • RoxanneRoxanadana

          The welfare of the child is the RESPONSIBILITY of parents & state. The line demarcating parent from state depends on jurisdiction. Moreover, what constitutes the welfare of the child depends on jurisdiction.

          Here’s a question for you. As just shown, New Zealand likely banned Kosher, but not Halal, meat (unlike Sweden it can at least be imported from Australia) partly to financially benefit the chief of state. Now what happens for Jew baiters in such circumstances is they punish the obnoxious Jews. So, you see, for daring to ask for the ability to have Kosher meat, two things were done. First, they got Kosher chicken, something no one in Denmark gets (it’s all Halal there, every squawking one of them). Second, the need to balance things implied the necessity to further punish Jewish rites. So now they are going after circumcision.

          What other thing might a Jew baiter do under this circumstance? I’ll let you know my thoughts, but would like to hear yours.

          • FrederickRhodes

            Only thing I know about animal slaughter for food is if it is quick and humane then the meat tastes better, and if it is an agonizing death for the animal, the meat is tough and tastes gamy. I would say let’s have a taste test. Once I had Kosher pastrami which was thinly sliced half meat and half fat and I didn’t care for it, and it was $20.00 a pound in a Jewish deli in Tucson..

      • http://www.circumstitions.com/ Hugh7

        What part of “[International Convention on the] Rights of the Child” do you not understand?

  • Molly Adams

    There is nothing wrong with circumcision….IF you choose to do it to yourself. Choosing to do it for someone else (who cannot consent) is indeed a human rights issue. The way this author talks so casually about “that little snip” makes me wonder what his views on female circumcision are.
    The only difference between male and female circumcision on children is geography. They both cut off chunks of the sex organ, they are both barbaric, and they are both defended with “religion” and “culture”.

    • blindsticks

      There is nothing wrong with circumcision….IF you choose to do it to yourself.
      So if I give you my number think you can talk me though it?

      • Molly Adams

        Only if you donate to foregen.org

    • RoxanneRoxanadana

      One assumes you think the same about vaccines. Imagine that. Spreading polio & measles across the land to slake the thirst for “bodily autonomy” a right invented without a shred of a base. It is the welfare of babies, not their rights, that always counts. For this reason, the State irrupts parental rights under certain circumstances to ensure that babies receive appropriate treatment. The State undertakes what is needed to prevent abuse of children, such as female genital mutilation or poisoning. But there are limits to this State action; although it would be of fabulous benefit to punish parents who feed their children meat, the State has not seen fit to make that a law. Similarly, although ear piercing of baby girls is an irruption of “bodily integrity”, no one thinks seriously about banning a basically safe practice that is important to Hispanic culture.

      By heavens, assume you were unfortunate enough to have a baby with an incurable brain cancer for which there is no cure. Signing up for a research protocol is not doing something for you; it is doing something for other persons in the future so that they might not suffer so horrifically.

      This being the case, there is absolutely no basis to perform any research studies involving surgery on babies with brain cancer. Why? Because there exists not a shred of medical indication for the patient to do this. For the best studies, half the patients receive sham surgery to test the placebo effect. As a result the baby’s right to “bodily integrity” is infinitely more violated under those circumstances. Yet who would not want such a study done, with the consent of the parents, if possible? What monster could oppose testing treatments on babies with incurable disease in the hope that some day other babies would not have to die?

      YOU! THAT”S WHO!

      • aj

        One problem. The foreskin is not an incurable disease.

        • RoxanneRoxanadana

          Penis cancer assuredly is.

          • AntiMisandry

            You’re a dumb fuckwitted fuckwitt of a fuckwitt, aren’t you!

          • Molly Adams

            People just really need to be educated. Most don’t even know that there is anything wrong with circumcision. Just ten minutes of research and your entire life can change.

            I honestly think that this is the single most important issue in America today. This is the non-consensual mutilation of over 50% of our country’s male population. What is more pressing than that?

          • AntiMisandry

            Part of the issue here in terms of modern society is that feminism has done it’s usual trick of informing society of the evils of FGM (the least one being less invasive than MGM) while refusing to discuss MGM. This is the same tactic as with DV, they tell us how wrong it is when a man angrily hits out at a woman but ignores all male victims or even trivializes male victims. Same again with rape, in their world it’s a terrible act except when it happens to a man, even resorting to mocking male victims of rape & other serious sexual assaults.

            Oprah, an iconic feminist if ever there was one spent much of time condemning the barbaric act of FGM – but then went on to promote women’s vanity creams (anti aging, etc.) which had ingredients made from mutilated baby boys. (google oprah foreskin facecream and my username).

          • Jackthesmilingblack

            You`re angry. You must be wrong.
            I take it you disagree, but lack the communication skills to explain why.

          • Jackthesmilingblack

            Thanks for confirming my recently made assertion, namely that a significant proportion of British men are really vile creatures. And I say this with all due respect.

          • MyChildMyChoice

            Even the American Cancer Association says that circumcision doesn’t cut rates of penile cancer enough to make it worth circumcising all male infants. If the ACA doesn’t recommend it, then the cancer debate is moot.
            Here is the ACA statement:
            http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/letters/1996-02_ACS/

            More men get breast cancer than penile cancer. So, it makes more sense to remove the breasts of all male infants to prevent cancer – if preventing cancer is REALLY the reason for forced circumcision.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Craig-King/100003741083027 Craig King

            It is not about cancer at all. It is about the safety of the baby’s immortal soul in two religions. The parents are expressly responsible for that baby’s immortal soul. Nothing anybody says can change that.

          • JesseKaellis

            Who is forcing you to give your child a circumcision?

          • aj

            If we removed body parts that MIGHT give us trouble, I imagine we would have very few left. The idea is to keep the body whole and healthy through any means possible. Amputation of healthy body parts is irrational.

          • Heidi

            newsflash princess! Breast cancer in MEN is MORE prevalent than penis cancer by a considerable amount. quit pushing the penis cancer thing….women get cervical cancer and ovarian cancer more often than men get breast cancer….should we go ahead and remove those too…..just in case?
            Please…..grow a brain….and learn how to use it wisely.

          • Hutch

            Cervical cancer has been linked to being far more prevelant in women whose partner has a foreskin

          • James3D

            Stop repeating the same nonsense.

            Penile cancer is rarer than breast cancer in men.
            The American Cancer Society has made a very strong and clear statement NOT recommending circumcision as a preventative.

            Perhaps you should worry about your own body where cancer is concerned.

          • Molly Adams

            Penile cancer is incredibly rare. Men get breast cancer more than they get penile cancer. Compare:

            Penile cancer rate in men in the US: 1 in 100,000

            Breast cancer rate in men in the US: 1.3 in 100,000

            Penile cancer rate in Denmark, a mostly uncircumcised country: 0.82 in 100,000 (funny how that works…)

            Additionally, since when is the fact that a body part can get cancer a good excuse to mutilate it shortly after birth? That’s like the worst idea ever. Can you name any other organ/body part that we amputate as a preventative measure on newborns?

          • Christina Bharara

            I want to add to this
            death from circumcision: about 1 in 11,000
            intact men needing to circumcise later in life for medical reasons: 1 in 16,000
            need to redo/correct circumcision because of complications and bad initial cosmetic outcome: 1 in 5

          • aj

            Are there any other healthy body parts you would like to cut off of children before they show any signs of illness?

      • Tim Reed

        Congratulations!

        You win the Sophistry Award™ for the most desperate attempt to defend the indefensible.

        • RoxanneRoxanadana

          Glad you think so. Unfortunately, no one has presented credible contrary data.

          • MyChildMyChoice

            Even the American Cancer
            Association says that circumcision doesn’t cut rates of penile cancer enough to make it worth circumcising all male infants. If the ACA doesn’t recommend it, then the cancer debate is moot.
            Here is the ACA statement:
            http://www.cirp.org/library/st

            More men get breast cancer than penile cancer. For men, the lifetime risk of getting breast cancer is about 1 in
            1,000. Whereas the risk of getting penile cancer (for intact men) is 1 in 100,000. So, it makes more sense to remove the breasts of all male infants to prevent cancer – if preventing cancer is REALLY the reason for forced circumcision.

          • aj

            I’m not sure why you’re resisting the wealth of research available, which is here at your fingertips. Visit Savingsons.org or thewholenetwork.org or beyondthebris.org. I think for some reason it is more satisfying for you to argue, and I have a feeling it wouldn’t matter the subject; you would still be irrational in your responses and closed to dialogue.

          • Heidi

            harm? here it is….not to mention the excruciating pain….and disruption of the formation of normal neural pathways…..read this….fyi Cancer is the least stated benefit even by proponents of the practice….so get with the program, and get a clue.
            http://www.circumcisionharm.org/Alexithymia-ED%20(VanHowe).pdf

          • cosmopolite

            There never has been a study of the adult consequences of infant circumcision, using a large random sample. So we have no credible data either way.
            Data collected from Third World villages, or from STD clinics in First World slums, are not relevant to the males you and I know.
            There is no evidence that Europe and Japan are STD or urology hells. That’s good enough for me.

      • Dreamer

        Piercings are also covered in the resolution.

        • RoxanneRoxanadana

          They are covered; unfortunately, there is little if any chance that any country will actually enforce a ban on ear piercings in infants.

    • Ilana Leonard

      There is actually a huge difference between male and female circumcision. Male circumcision has studies on it showing that there is a much lower rate in the transmission of STD’s and there is no decrease in the sexual enjoyment of the guy without his foreskin. On the other hand, female circumcision is done solely to “protect the chastity of girls” and is meant to lessen the sex drive of the girl and to decrease her sexual pleasure. Also, in female circumcision the cervix is sewed mostly shut, which leads to many problems throughout the girls life, including difficulty with menstruation, and many problems during labor and birth including obstructed labor and the ripping of the vagina when the baby is born. Female circumcision can lead to death or serious injury due to complication from delivery, whereas male circumcision has no impact on the overall health of the man and actually helps prevent the spread of STD’s in the population. Don’t say that the only difference between them is geographic.

      • aj

        Illana, a few facts for you: 1. There have been many studies proving that sexual enjoyment is diminished for both the circumcised man and his partner. Studies have also confirmed that erectile dysfunction is more prominent in circumcised men. 2. STD rates are the highest in America, where circumcision is practiced the most. 3. Circ in boys was touted as a cure for masterbation in boys, especially during the 1800s when it gained popularity in the United States.

        And when we get right down to it, does it really make a difference how MUCH we cut a child’s genitals, or if it is a boy or girl? Any cut to any child is the same violation of their rights to have the genitals they were born with.

        • Ilana Leonard

          Correlation does not prove causation, meaning that just because STD rates may be the highest in the U.S, it does not mean it is because of the circumcision rate. There have been many studies showing that circumcision can lower the rate of STD infection due to the fact that the foreskin can be hard to keep clean.

          • aj

            These studies have been small and very questionable. Even with the push to circumcise supposedly for HIV, the only thing that will stop HIV infection is either not having sexual contact with an infected person, or using a condom. So what you are saying is that a person who is being careless and not using a condom may not get infected if he is circumcised? Sounds to me like there is a simple solution to the STD problem. Be careful, wear a condom. Amputation of a healthy body part is not the protocol for sexual safety, no matter the studies. And certainly, when a man comes to the age of sexual maturity, HE can decide to get circumcised if he thinks taking a bath or choosing the right partner or wearing a condom is just too much trouble.

            It may interest you to know that the foreskin has within it lymph nodes that remove bodily toxins away from the area. The glans is meant to be covered and protected by the foreskin.

            As far as keeping the foreskin clean, to a certain extent it is a self cleaning organ. Perhaps what you are calling dirty is the natural smegma that keeps the penis moist and the skin sensitive and pliant, as it should be. When a man urinates, urine flushes the area and cleans it. That along with bathing will keep the foreskin clean with ease.

            This idea of “clean” gets so extreme that children are constantly forcibly retracted by even their doctors – at least in America where the foreskin seems to be the ultimate mystery. The foreskin is a natural protector FROM contaminants, and should not be retracted away from the glans until it does so naturally – sometimes as late as the age of 10.

            There is an excellent book called “What your doctor may not tell you about circumcision” that you should take a look at.

          • aj

            These studies have been small, limited, and highly questionable. There is no organization – even the ones who are profiting from circumcision in foreign countries now – who would suggest that removing this body part would be a complete protection against HIV. The only protection against HIV is either not having sex with an infected person, or wearing a condom.

            And, as far as “the foreskin can be hard to keep clean”, bathing is all that is required. The foreskin is there to protect the glans from contaminates, and actually has lymph nodes within it to process toxins. It also has a natural flushing action during urination which removes much of the smegma, which is probably what you worry about in getting “clean”. This smegma is supposed to be there, and keeps the glans moist, sensitive and the skin pliant, as it should be. The foreskin can be pulled back to be cleaned if a man is concerned. The foreskin in a child must never be pulled back, as it is meant to be fused until it naturally retracts with maturation.

            This is about the 4th time I have posted this reply. I would really appreciate it if the editor would leave it this time.

          • aj

            These studies have been small, limited, and highly questionable. There is no organization – even the ones who are profiting from circumcision in foreign countries now – who would suggest that removing this body part would be a complete protection against HIV. The only protection against HIV is either not having sex with an infected person, or wearing a condom.

            And, as far as “the foreskin can be hard to keep
            clean”, bathing is all that is required. The foreskin is there to protect the glans from contaminates, and actually has lymph nodes within it to process toxins. It also has a natural flushing action during urination which removes much of the smegma, which is probably what you worry about in getting “clean”. This smegma is supposed to be there, and keeps the glans moist, sensitive and the skin pliant, as it should be. The foreskin can be pulled back to be cleaned if a man is concerned. The foreskin in a child must never be pulled back, as it is meant to be fused until it naturally retracts with maturation.

          • aj

            What’s hard about bathing, Ilana? Do you really think that the practice of amputation should come before a bath?

      • cosmopolite

        “There is a huge difference between male and female
        circumcision.”
        Mainly when one compares RIC done in western hospitals, with FGM done in African villages under septic conditions.

        “Male circumcision has studies on it showing that there is a
        much lower rate in the transmission of STDs…”
        There is no STD epidemic in Europe and Japan.

        “…and there is no decrease
        in the sexual enjoyment of the guy without his foreskin.”
        The technology does not exist to verify this claim.

        “On the other
        hand, female circumcision is done solely to “protect the chastity of
        girls” and is meant to lessen the sex drive of the girl and to decrease
        her sexual pleasure.”
        I am not sure that cultures that practice FGM would all warmly agree. African women who have undergone FGM swear that they orgams regularly with their husbands.

        “Also, in female circumcision the cervix is sewed
        mostly shut…”
        The most extreme forms of FGM sow the labia majora together. Sewing the cervic is beyond the capabilities of village women working with razor blades.

        “…which leads to many problems throughout the girls life,
        including difficulty with menstruation, and many problems during labor
        and birth including obstructed labor and the ripping of the vagina when
        the baby is born.”
        Only the most severe forms of FGM. All cultures that cut girls also cut boys, and some of these boys die of infections, just like the girls. We do not know the extent to which African men have sexual and urological problems because of the Islamic or rite of passage circumcisions they undersent as boys.

        “…whereas male circumcision has
        no impact on the overall health of the man…”
        This has never been properly studied anywhere.

        “…and actually helps prevent
        the spread of STD’s in the population.”
        The claim is not “prevention” but “make less likely”. Circumcised men are still urged to use condoms. Again, there is no STD epidemic in intact Europe and Japan.

      • Molly Adams

        Actually, proponents of female circumcision (the strongest of which are mostly women, by the way) in their home countries give almost the exact same reasons for the procedure that proponents of male circumcision do. Stockholm syndrome, I suppose. The cervix is sewn shut in only the most extreme cases of female circumcision- most cases are analogous to the male version in terms of nerve endings lost.

        Yes, much of female circumcision is performed in unsanitary conditions with crude tools…but male circumcision is almost always practiced in these regions as well, with similar devices and sanitary conditions. Female circumcision is “safely” done in sterile hospitals in Indonesia, Malaysia, and Egypt, just like male circumcision is “safely” done in American hospitals.

        It’s a myth that circumcised women have zero sensation left. In fact, a lot of women who have undergone female circumcision are still able to enjoy sex (see Boyle’s “Female Genital Cutting: Cultural Conflict in the Global Community”). However, it’s still MUTILATION and it’s still WRONG, just like male circumcision.

        There is a massive decrease in sexual pleasure with the removal of the male foreskin, for both the man and his partner. The foreskin has a huge number of functions, many of which are only partially understood, including: a highly erogenous zone, gliding mechanism for easier penetration, self-lubricating device, protection of the penile glans (which is an internal organ, embryonically homologous to the female clitoris), etc. The claimthat removing it prevents STDs is bunk- safe sex and good hygiene are much more effective. Scandinavia, for example, is mostly uncircumcised and has a very low HIV rate (like Finland, where only 0.006% of the population is circumcised), as is the rest of Western Europe.

        There is no justification for either male or female circumcision, outside of religion and culture. And both are pretty flimsy justifications.

      • http://www.circumstitions.com/ Hugh7

        The irrationality and variety of the reasons for cutting girls (http://www.circumstitions.com/FGC-stitions.html) are just as great as for cutting boys (http://www.circumstitions.com/Stitions&refs.html)

        I don’t think anybody says “the only difference between them is geographic”. We say that as human rights violations, cutting girls has many similarities with cutting boys.

        • Ilana Leonard

          Molly Adams did which was who I was responding to. Also in terms of human rights violations, when girls are circumcised they are also left with their legs tied together in a shack for a week with no food while they heal from the circumcision whereas boys are circumcised in a home or hospital in hygenic environments.

    • ritritrit

      It is major surgery in an adult man, and very prone to complications. Insisting it only be done in adulthood is tantamount to banning it altogether. 8 days old is the ideal time, far before the sexual organs have begun development and before the child is truly aware.

      • aj

        “before the child is truly aware” is very old and outdated false science. Brain structure is permanently altered and creates more sensitivity to pain 6 months later and on into life. Cutting the most sensitive part without anesthesia is not only unethical, but excruciating to a child. There are many forms of similar painful abuse we can do to a child who is perhaps not “aware” enough to remember. Does that make it all okay? It is now scientific fact that the body remembers and stores these memories.

        I would suggest you take time to research the function of the foreskin before you support removing it.

      • http://www.circumstitions.com/ Hugh7

        On the contrary, cutting a baby’s genitals is like writing on a balloon. Any tiny mistake will be magnified by several times. You get a much better result if you blow it up first.

        It only seems to have more complications (if it even does that) because adults can and will report the complications. Babies can not, and many, many men have circumcision damage that they think is normal.

        • ritritrit

          The foreskin is not the same as the genitals. It is only the cover, and in Jewish circumcision on the tip is cut off.

    • JesseKaellis

      Do you support a woman’s right to have an abortion; ever had one? Molly.

  • CircEsAdreim

    It’s not anti-semitic to be against the forced genital mutilation of human beings. What’s wrong with people? There’s no excuse valid enough for amputation of healthy, functional, normal body parts without that person’s consent. It’s medically unethical and it’s a blatant human rights violation. Religion simply isn’t a valid excuse for something like and it has taken the world way too long to wake up to the wrongness of this. Thank goodness more people are speaking out.

    • zanzamander

      It’s not anti-semitic to be against the forced genital mutilation of human beings.

      It certainly borders on one when only Jews are picked on while followers of other so called religion (note singular) who also practice Sunat are spared the same admonishment dished out to the Jews.

      Btw, that doesn’t mean I’m for this barbaric practice, far from it.

      • CircEsAdreim

        That’s just the thing – Jews aren’t the only ones ‘picked on’. Anti-cutters are against ALL forms of forced genital mutilation, for whatever reason – whether it’s for the false notion of ‘health benefit’ or ‘personal preference’ or ‘religion/culture’. If you’ll notice, Jews just often tend to be the loudest, quickest, complainers when people speak out against the barbaric practice of forced cutting. As if the world itself will end should they not be permitted to cut their baby boys anymore.

        • RoxanneRoxanadana

          History shows the opposite. Besides, there are very well known health benefits to MC.

          Cancer Causes Control. 2013 Oct 8. [Epub ahead of print]
          Long-term trends in incidence, survival and mortality of primary penile cancer in England.
          Arya M, Li R, Pegler K, Sangar V, Kelly JD, Minhas S, Muneer A, Coleman MP.
          Department of Urology, University College Hospital, London, UK, manit_arya@hotmail.com.
          PURPOSE: Few population-based studies exist of long-term trends in penile cancer. We report incidence and mortality trends in England over the 31 years 1979-2009 and survival trends over the 40 years 1971-2010.
          METHODS: We calculated annual incidence and mortality rates per 100,000 by age and calendar period. We estimated incidence and mortality rate ratios for cohorts born since 1890, and one- and five-year relative survival (%) by age and deprivation category.
          RESULTS: A total of 9,690 men were diagnosed with penile cancer during 1979-2009. Age-standardized incidence rates increased by 21 %, from 1.10 to 1.33 per 100,000. Mortality rates fell by 20 % after 1994, from 0.39 to 0.31 per 100,000. Survival analyses included 11,478 men diagnosed during 1971-2010. Five-year relative survival increased from 61.4 to 70.2 %. Five-year survival for men diagnosed 2006-2010 was 77 % for men aged under 60 years and 53 % for men aged 80-99 years. The 8 % difference in five-year survival (66-74 %) between men in the most affluent and most deprived groups was not statistically significant.
          CONCLUSIONS: The 21 % increase in penile cancer incidence in England since the 1970s may be explained by changes in sexual practice, greater exposure to sexually transmitted oncogenic human papilloma viruses, and decreasing rates of childhood circumcision. Improvement in survival is likely due to advances in diagnostic, staging and surgical techniques. There is a need for public health education and potential preventative strategies to address the increasing incidence.

          What the heck? It’s those men’s fault for failing to wipe their you-know-whats properly. Is that not true?

          • aj

            Not really sure what all those stats have to do with the subject at hand. There are millions of reasons for increase of cancers of any kind. Cutting off the lymph nodes, which are in the foreskin and process toxins, certainly can’t help with preventing cancer. If you are concerned with penile cancer, you should also be concerned with breast cancer. If you want to cut the foreskin off to prevent cancer, how about cutting the breasts off to prevent breast cancer?!

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Because the breast has vital emotive connotations that the foreskin does not. For woman, breasts have similar connotations as testes do to men.

            Moreover, healthy breasts are in fact removed to prevent breast cancer; for those with BRCA mutations, it’s a very, very good idea.

          • Jennifer Moose

            You’re failing to acknowledge that these women are giving consent for removal of their own breasts. Baby boys are not giving consent for removal of their own foreskin.

          • Tim Reed

            “Because the breast has vital emotive connotations that the foreskin does not.”

            Who are you, a woman, to declare what is vital to a man’s sense of self?

            Not. Your. Business.

          • Molly Adams

            I can safely say that I, as a woman, vastly prefer intact men.

          • James Lovelace

            As a gay man with scores of encounters, I can say that circumcised men have greatly reduced sensation in their penis. Whether that’s a good thing depends on the circumstances.

          • Jackthesmilingblack

            Now if only you`d been born “Bruce Strong” as example, you might have taken an entirely different life path.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            One tends not to believe prostitutes.

          • Treebrain

            RoxanneR, in response to James Lovelace you wrote:

            “One tends not to believe prostitutes.”

            There is a difference between being a gay man and being a prostitute.

            Are you homophobic?

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            No. But having sex with scores of people makes one a prostitute, gay or straight.

          • Treebrain

            RoxanneR,

            A prostitute sleeps with people for money, the number of their partners is irrelevant.

            A person who sleeps with scores of people is promiscuous.

            Prostitution is not the same thing as promiscuity!

          • independent_voice1

            Still drifting from the subject matter of the original article, but first to criticise others who do the same.

          • Treebrain

            ind_voice1,

            Still cyberstalking and making personal comments about me, I see!

            Did you actually know that the purpose of discussion threads is not so that you can follow me from site to site and make personal comments and be insulting?

            Why not address the article or the comments made instead?

          • JesseKaellis

            Quite moaning. Jesus. You baby. You tell me why unsafe sexual practices (multiple partners, even if you are wearing a condom) is subsumed to the horrors of circumcision, and that circumcision is somehow is more of a determent to the larger society.

          • JesseKaellis

            I see. We can’t point out blatant hypocrisies in these posts?

          • independent_voice1

            What is your point? That bloggers should be free to post on any subject irrespective of relevance to the subject matter?Your profile, 253 comments and 89 votes says it all.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Promiscuity does not predispose to honesty.

          • psysaac

            What I meant was that I look at men. Locker room, my friends (who might be straight, whatever) I tend to look. And when I see the scar and the permanently bare head of the penis I think that person’s rights were clearly violated. Don’t you think it would be painful to have the head rub against fabric? that is until sexual enjoyment is dissolved enough to keep it from being uncomfortable. no wonder America and Israel have are responsible for the largest numbers of Viagara sales amongst first world nations. Circumcision isn’t really a hallmark of Judaism, Judaism is far more than sexual assault on infants.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            If you spend so much time looking at them, one wonders what you do in public bathrooms. Your last sentence implies Judaism is a threat to human existence or some other horrific thing. Already, your words suggest Judaism is cruelty to animals beyond hunting (not forbidden), even hunting of whales.

          • JesseKaellis

            The real contributor to the epidemic of ED is pornography. Read about it. Enlighten yourself. Moreover, if I saw some guy staring at my dick in a locker room, I would assume he is a homosexual or latent. Maybe you need another hobby? You got dick on your mind?

          • independent_voice1

            What has this posting got to do with the subject matter of the article?

          • Treebrain

            Ind_voice1,

            Still cyberstalking, I see! Nice that you have a hobby, I suppose!

            Do your own homework and read the thread above.

            I cannot keep explaining things to you!

          • independent_voice1

            “read the thread above”

            I have d*ckhead, but you haven’t. “explaining things to you”
            Who do you think you are, a retired teacher?

          • Treebrain

            independent_voice1,

            “I have d*ckhead, but you haven’t. “explaining things to you”Who do you think you are, a retired teacher?”

            Only yesterday I had to explain the difference to you between dependent and dependable, did I not?

            Now you resort to your usual role, personal abuse and insults!

            Of course, now back to the personal comments about when I post, how many times I post which, of course, you would only know if you followed me from site to site1

            Your cyberstalking is slowly morphing from a hobby to something of an obsession!

          • independent_voice1

            In the same way you follow three posters, 8 posters follow you. Everything you post is sent to me by Disqus in their daily digest.

          • Treebrain

            independent_voice1,

            There is a difference between following and cyberstalking, what a shame you cannot tell the difference!

          • JesseKaellis

            How important do you figure you are, anyway?

          • JesseKaellis

            Igualmente motherf*cker

          • JesseKaellis

            I am. Is that not PC? I mean it’s okay to vilify Jews for a essentially harmless practice (and yes it is, regardless of how much foaming at the mouth goes on here) but we must not be homophobic. Gimme a break. Don’t you folks have anything better to do? There is no bigger public health concern? How many billions does aids cost due to unsafe sexual practices, largely by homosexuals? Decreased (apocryphal evidence only) sexual pleasure is a health concern? It Trumps HIV?

          • psysaac

            I know what you mean, but the foreskin can be used to make an uncut man feel the same things as a cut man before you roll the skin back (actually more). I sense you would agree that it is wrong to take away one’s choice in such a matter as losing any type of dick sensation; but i am glad you brought up the “i’ve seen/touched a lot of ’em” point of view. lol!

          • JesseKaellis

            Maybe Molly can help you go straight?

          • thepathtotruth

            great, then don’t bed/marry any Jewish men.

          • Treebrain

            Presumably Jewish women do NOT want to marry Jewish men, that is ‘marrying in”?

            As a result, intermarriage and assimilation have caused great concern to the likes of former Chief Rabbi Sachs in the UK and have decimated the Jewish population in the UK?

          • independent_voice1

            “decimated the Jewish population in the UK”
            Exactly when were there 3 million Jews living in the UK?
            The prime reason for a drop in the Jewish population in the UK is emigration to Israel. Most, like me, made aliyah because of the growth of Islam in the UK and feel safer living with our own people. The last census in England shows what is happening to the indigenous Christian whites in some areas where they are now a minority.

          • Treebrain

            independent_voice1,

            “The prime reason for a drop in the Jewish population in the UK is emigration to Israel.”

            Are you sure, do you have any statistics to validate that assertion?

            Jonathan Sachs seems to think that assimilation and ‘marrying out’ are the problem, not emigration to Israel.

            Read his book for details;

            “Will We Have Jewish Grandchildren?: Jewish Continuity and How to Achieve it”

            “It is clear that, without Jewish education, our battle to eradicate the cancer in our midst — assimilation — will be lost.”

            (Jewish Chronicle, April 16, 2009)

            You may well have given up on the idea of a viable Jewish community in the UK for the future but it seems that others have not?

          • independent_voice1

            Extraordinary. It would seem that you are a regular reader of Ha’aretz, Jerusalem Post, Ynet, Jewish Chronicle and the books of Jonathan Sachs, quoting from as far back as 2009. You are either Jewish or obsessed with us.

          • Treebrain

            independent_voice1,

            You are certainly dependent if nothing else!

            Once again, why discuss the article or the thread below when you can switch the topic to something off a purely personal nature about me and work the word ‘obsession’ into it?

          • independent_voice1

            The word is dependable, not dependent. And as for me switching the topic of the article or thread, you are the master of this. You are totally obsessed with Jews and Israel and changed the topic from circumcision to “marrying out” some thirteen hours ago.

          • Treebrain

            No, the word is really ‘dependent’ because you are dependent on me for so many or your comments!

            As pointed out you do not want to address the issues raised in the article or the thread, you want to switch the discussion to things of a personal nature about me and work the word obsession wherever you can!

            Like anti-Semite some think that if they just repeat it enough that mud will stick and some people will actually start to believe it!

            To have a passing knowledge of Jewish history or the press in Israel does not presage or indicate in any way an ‘obsession’, just the ability to use the search function on the internet!

            As for changing the topic, you raised ‘aliyah’ and a false reason for the decline in the number of Jews in the UK as emigration is not the issue, it is marrying out and assimilation and I quoted two different sources to support my point.

            Ad hominem attacks, personal comments and the like, false labels and now refusing to acknowledge that you were the first to switch topic do not serve you well indie!

            Nowadays with your multiple posts exposing you, each time the mask slips!

          • independent_voice1

            Whereas your multiple posts expose you as a boring old f*rt with too much time on your hands.

          • JesseKaellis

            That would be of not or; first paragraph.
            You are implying something by pointing out that Jews are assimilating. Are not the gentiles they marry also assimilating? Moreover the lineage is matriarchal. Figure that one out if you can. What’s your deal? You need to vilify Jews because of your shame at being a homosexual?

          • independent_voice1

            “decimated the Jewish population in the UK”
            When was the Jewish population of the UK 3 million?

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Could well be. On the other hand, it might be that some here want them all killed. Especially those who have names sort of like Little Hugh of Lincoln.

            Here’s what happened after the Jewes were said to have killed poor little Saint Hugh, acc to Wiki:

            Some six months earlier, King Henry III had sold his rights to tax the Jews to his brother, Richard, Earl of Cornwall. Having lost this source of income, he decided that he was eligible for the Jews’ money if they were convicted of crimes. As a result, some ninety Jews were arrested and held in the Tower of London, while they were charged with involvement in the ritual murder. Such accusations had become increasingly common following the circulation of the Life of Saint William of Norwich by Thomas of Monmouth, the hagiography of William of Norwich, a child-saint said to have been crucified by Jews in 1144. This narrative clearly influenced the myth that developed around Hugh. Eighteen of the Jews were hanged for refusing to participate in the proceedings and throw themselves on the verdict of a Christian jury.

            Well, well, well. & here’s Chaucer’s nice description of those Jewes:

            Ther was in Asye, in a greet citee
            Amonges Cristene folk, a Jewerye,
            Sustened by a lord of that contree
            And thurgh this strete men myghte ride or wende,
            For it was free and open at eyther ende.

            ________

            Why it’s set in . . . Asia! & you really, really don’t think the motive is . . . kill the Jewes?

          • Treebrain

            RoxanneR,

            “On the other hand, it might be that some here want them all killed.”

            “Why it’s set in . . . Asia! & you really, really don’t think the motive is . . . kill the Jewes?”

            Quite simply, NO!

            I do not think that anyone here is advocating killing Jews.

            I think that your comments are an outrageous slur upon people here who commented on circumcision!

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            To the contrary. Anyone named himself “Hugh” is referencing Little Saint Hugh, the blood libel victim, whose “murder” resulted in untimely deaths. Anyone here who also claims Stalin was worse than Hitler & slave labor camp deaths were equal to gas chamber deaths wants the Jews dead. Anyone who in combination with anti-circumcision is also 1) anti-Kosher food, 2) anti-Israel, 3) a believer that Malmo simply represents class difficulties, etc., etc., etc. wants the Jews dead. It may be possible to change their opinions, but generally it is not.

            It is their desire to kill me & other Jews that is the slur.

          • http://www.circumstitions.com/ Hugh7

            I did not name myself (of course).

            “their desire to kill me” The word for that is paranoid.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Oh, only Little Hugh of Lincoln comes to mind with you. Who but a total ignoramus would fail to recognize that famed reference of Chaucer. Besides, the poetry, however morally vile, is quite nice actually. Here you see the real villain, anyways, Mr. Satan, inspiring the Jewes to slit the neck of the little Hugh of Lincoln, quite similarly to, if one thinks of it, a Mohel slitting all those 200,000,000,000 nerve endings on every foreskin:

            Oure firste foo, the serpent Sathanas,
            That hath in Jewes herte his waspes nest,
            Up swal, and seyde, “O Hebrayk peple, allas,
            Is this to yow a thyng that is honest
            That swich a boy shal walken as hym lest
            In youre despit, and synge of swich sentence,
            Which is agayn oure lawes reverence?”

            Fro thennes forth the Jewes han conspired
            This innocent out of this world to chace.
            An homycide therto han they hyred
            That in an aleye hadde a privee place;
            And as the child gan forby for to pace,
            This cursed Jew hym hente and heeld hym faste,
            And kitte his throte, and in a pit hym caste.

            I seye that in a wardrobe they hym threwe,
            Where as this Jewes purgen hire entraille.
            O cursed folk of Herodes al newe,
            What may youre yvel entente yow availle?
            Mordre wol out, certeyn, it wol nat faille,
            And namely ther thonour of God shal sprede,
            The blood out crieth on youre cursed dede.

            O martir, sowded to virginitee,
            Now maystow syngen, folwynge evere in oon
            The white lamb celestial -quod she-
            Of which the grete evaungelist Seint John
            In Pathmos wroot, which seith that they that goon
            Biforn this lamb and synge a song al newe,
            That never, fleshly, wommen they ne knewe.

            ___________

            You can see the foreskin being martyred right then & there. What is the sound of one foreskin clapping, anyways?

            Also, note the similarity of Hugh of Lincoln to the foreskin at the end, there. Hugh died a martyr, but more importantly, a virgin. So it is true of all those neonatal foreskins. Not one of them expands a female orifice of any sort. They are sinless foreskins.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Sometimes, you make me wonder how you can think yourself excusable. Of course you are referencing the blood libel with your name. That’s the whole point. To get everyone up & about, out & about, & roust the crowd to pounce on the Jewes. Let’s consider some more Chaucer, with Little Hugh of Lincoln:

            O grete God, that parfournest thy laude
            By mouth of innocentz, lo, heer thy myght!
            This gemme of chastite, this emeraude,
            And eek of martirdom the ruby bright,
            Ther he with throte ykorven lay upright,
            He Alma redemptoris gan to synge
            So loude, that al the place gan to rynge.

            The cristene folk that thurgh the strete wente
            In coomen, for to wondre upon this thyng,
            And hastily they for the provost sente.
            He cam anon withouten tariyng,
            And herieth Crist that is of hevene kyng,
            And eek his mooder, honour of mankynde;
            And after that, the Jewes leet he bynde.

            __________

            The Jewes, you see, did fail in their efforts. Almighty God, in granting the miracle of providing a cause to slaughter all the Jewes, did start the poor mother crying at the cesspool where the foreskin had been disgracefully tossed by the Mohel. But a miracle happened, said deceased foreskin became attached to that which was ten times the imagination of Justice Clarence Thomas. The flapping made by this now intact object on the surface of the cesspool gave great joy to the poor widow, who heard it’s brilliant whacking of the waters.

          • http://www.circumstitions.com/ Hugh7

            Do Hugh Grant, Hugh Jackman and Hugh Laurie also reference the blood libel with their names? RR really does make some daft allegations.

          • Guest

            You could change your name to a$$hole.

          • Treebrain

            RoxanneR,

            “It is their desire to kill me & other Jews that is the slur.”

            If you REALLY think that others who post here want to kill you and other Jews then report it to the moderator and they will assess the relevant posts.

            What you CANNOT do is make slurs and allegations that are unsubstantiated!

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            All who read can make what inferences they please. There’s no doubt about that. No lawsuits here treebrain (if that is your real name). As for reporting them, there’s a legal definition of incitement that these fiends have not met. Not even Britain would say they have met it.

            That they desire it is obvious except to the willfully blind.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            You’d actually have to produce numbers for that assessment. In truth, this may well be a good experiment as respects the anti-Jewish nature of Kosher food bans & circumcision bans.. Just checked the numbers on the countries most likely to propose circumcision bans, Denmark, Sweden, New Zealand, Norway, Belgium, Finland. All these countries have hardly any Jews. All those in those countries will be able to leave without the slightest problem, so far anyways. No one has suggested, yet, that emigrants have to give up all their property.

            So what you will be able to see is if banning Kosher food & circumcision is anti-Jewish without much damage to Jews.

            The experiment will thus simply be evaluation of numbers of Jews in these countries after, say five years. The world & its peoples may have radically altered its notions by now. If there is a huge increase in Jews in those lands, yes, circumcision & Kosher food bans are pro-Jew to the max. if there is no change in numbers, then it follows that the bans are of no real significance. Indeed, the ban on Kosher meat may be a real boon if Jews become vegetarian, letting us live significantly longer. On the other hand, if Jews leave, all will know the result is a repeat of the anti-Jewish legislation of the past. When people leave en masse, there’s always a reason.

          • Treebrain

            “as respects the anti-Jewish nature of Kosher food bans & circumcision bans…”

            Simply not correct as there is no talk of any anti-jewish element in either proposal as animal rights activists want to see the absence of pre-stunning ended and this applies just as much as to the Muslim ‘halal’ religious ritual slaughter.

            Any proposed ban on circumcision as a form of child genital mutilation also applies to Muslim practices so, once again there is no question of the proposals being anti-Jewish.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Oh it’s obvious. Why no ban on hunting in any of these concerned countries? Norway, why it hunts whales & seals. No, animal cruelty is not the issue. Making things uncomfortable for Jews is the issue.

          • Treebrain

            RoxanneR,

            The death of any animal by exsanguination without pre-stunnig is a slow and agonising one, quite different from the death caused by hunting.

            The EU is not proposing to ban halal and kosher slaughter, just make sure the meat and meat products are labeled properly so consumers can make an informed choice.

            Being Jewish is irrelevant, the vast majority of animals killed in Europe by ritual slaughter are killed by Muslims.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            You cannot shoot accurately enough to ensure a quick death with a moving animal, especially at the distances hunters aim. Moreover, having gone bird hunting, you can rest assured the animal can live for a while after having been shot. Murderers often fail to get the quick kill they desire. Why look you here:

            An East Boston woman was shot in the head at a Chelsea apartment early Friday morning, and police are looking for a man they say was with her shortly before the shooting, police said. Chelsea police responded to 190 Washington Ave. at about 3:19 a.m. to find the 20-year-old woman wounded, but conscious and alert. She was taken to Massachusetts General Hospital where she underwent surgery, said Police Captain Keith Houghton. Her condition was not available Friday.

            http://www.boston.com/metrodesk/2013/10/18/east-boston-woman-survives-gunshot-the-head-chelsea-police-searching-for-suspect/Bd89yCoAtGWFlCNSBERvjL/story.html

            Proclaiming hunting less painful than slaughter on a farm without stunning defies fact & logic.

          • Treebrain

            RoxanneR,

            Hunting IS less painful and impacts a much smaller number of animals.

            Animal rights ARE a genuine concern for many millions of people in Europe, not just a veneer for attacks on Muslim and Jewish customs.

            The EU HAS passed legislation for the labelling of halal and kosher meat but it is not being implemented yet.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Were they such a concern, hunting & sports fishing would have been banned long ago. The continued presence of Jews on the planet is what concerns you most.

          • Treebrain

            RoxanneR,

            “The continued presence of Jews on the planet is what concerns you most.”

            RoxanneR, believe it or not, the presence of Jews, or Arsenal fans, is not what concerns me the most.

            In the Uk, for example, there are now so few Jews, perhaps 235,000 out of a population of more than sixty million, i.e. less than a half of one per cent, that it is actually hard to notice their presence.

            As only one person in two hundred is Jewish the chances of encountering a Jew is very low indeed. Given the current levels of marrying out, assimilation and those making aliyah, the community looks set to decline even further in the future.

            This is neither a good thing or a bad thing, just the effect of demographics!

            Hard for you to comprehend is that the vast majority of the population of the world is neither for or against Jews, they are actually indifferent!

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            No one makes comments like hunting & Kosher slaughter like that who does not want the Jews killed.

            Only about 2 in a 1000 are Jewish, actually. The low birthrate in general, reflecting the hatred of us at large, also contributes. Our population has increased, but is not even back where it was before the Nazis really whacked Jews.

            Yet the concentration of the planet on us is intense & negative. In Europe, Halal slaughter proceeds in nearly every country, while Kosher slaughter is banned in multiple countries.

          • Treebrain

            RoxanneR,

            Your comments have become increasingly bizarre and no longer connect with reality,

            Good bye!

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Oh, I would say anyone claiming hunting is less cruel than Kosher slaughter is bizarre, unless he or she is desirous of killing the Jews.

            Anyways, all should watch this video to see Treebrain’s idea of kindness & decency.

          • Treebrain

            RoxanneR

            Good bye!

          • JesseKaellis

            Yeah, me too! My comments are also bizarre. Adios mother****er!

          • JesseKaellis

            If only! If only the world WOULD leave us alone. Antisemitism is a mental disease, it has nothing to do with the number of Jews extant or what we really are. Everyone needs someone or something to hate. I see hate in you buddy boy. Self hate that you project onto Jews, and masked as humanitarian concern.
            Do I hate homo’s? I’m neither for not against. I’m indifferent, actually.

          • JesseKaellis

            If only that were really true. You of course can verity this? The fact that the world is indifferent to Jews? Yes! Leave us alone, we will do just fine.

          • JesseKaellis

            Such hypocrisy! You have to be kidding me. How do you think meat is raised by the big meat packing companies.You are not fooling anybody.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Ritual slaughter by Muslims is completely legal in Europe & New Zealand. Ritual slaughter by Jews is banned in many European countries & New Zealand. One might use circumlocutions all one wants, but the chief Rabbi in Poland is resigning because Poland is about to ban Kosher, but not Halal, slaughter.

            Hunting is more painful & vicious than farm based slaughter. Otherwise, it would be legal to simply shoot the beasts with a gun or an arrow in slaughterhouses.

            Consider these wise words:

            Jewish law does permit the slaughter of animals for food, clothing or any other purposeful need (read Judaism and Vegetarianism). But this too should not be done with an attitude of cruelty, as is illustrated in the following Talmudic story:

            A calf was being taken to the slaughter, when it broke away, hidits head under the robes of Rabbi Judah the Prince (Yehudah Hanassi, referred to throughout the Talmud simply as “Rabbi”), and cried. “Go,” said Rabbi, “for this you were created.” Thereupon they said [in Heaven], “Since he has no pity, let us bring suffering upon him.” [He subsequently suffered from physical pain for thirteen years.]

            And [the suffering] departed likewise. How so? One day, Rabbi’s maidservant was sweeping the house; [seeing] some young weasels lying there, she began to sweep them away. “Let them be,” said Rabbi to her; “It is written (Psalms 145:9), ‘His mercies extend to all His creatures.’” Said they [in Heaven], “Since he is compassionate, let us be compassionate to him.”[At which point his physical pain dissipated.]

            Beyond that, Jewish law prohibits causing any unnecessary pain to animals. This is derived from the injunction in Deuteronomy (22:4),9 “You shall not see your brother’s donkey or his ox fallen [under its load] on the road, and ignore them.”10 Here, the Torah requires a Jew to help unload an overburdened pack animal as quickly as possible, even if the animal belongs to a wicked person. Similarly, kosher slaughter is done in a way that causes the animal the least amount of pain.

            http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1589324/jewish/The-Jewish-View-on-Hunting-for-Sport.htm

            You are such a Nimrod that you transmute Jewish kindness into cruelty. Thus it has always been with those who would kill the Jews.

          • Treebrain

            RoxanneR,

            Are you suggesting that I am to be compared with those who kill Jews simply because I disagree with circumcision and believe that animals should not die a slow, agonising death after religious, ritual slaughter?

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            The combination raised that possibility, but the expression of the notion that hunting is less cruel than farm slaughter of any sort fully confirms it for me. Yes, it does.

          • Treebrain

            RoxannneR,

            If you think that I merit being compared with those who kill Jews because I do not agree with circumcision and the religious ritual of killing animals without pre-stunning, then there is nothing to be achieved by engaging in discussion with you, is there?

            I take comfort that I am hardly alone in my two choices!

            As comfort for you, you are no different from Muslims who advocate circumcision and also cause animals to die a slow, agonising death!

          • JesseKaellis

            The killing of Jews is generally a gradual process that starts with an abrogation of their customs and rights. Everything you are saying about Jews could be applied to homosexuals, particularly sodomy. THINK–just a little bit. You want to be left alone to live your life? Jews do also. I’m a circumscribed Jew and I don’t feel that I was mutilated. I don’t worry about decreased sexual pleasure. I got real problems in my life, and I always have, just like anybody who is living. Living for real. I don’t have too much regard for who you are presenting on these boards. I’d tell you to get laid more but you probably have a manhole already.

          • JesseKaellis

            Hey, Sally! You said goodbye!

          • JesseKaellis

            You may not be a Jew killer (although I think you have it in you in the right circumstances–like you can get away with it) but I see you rather as a “man” who would look the other way at genocide. Yes I do. A lot of Hitler’s followers, a lot of Brown Shirts were notorious homosexuals.

          • Treebrain

            RoxanneR,

            “One might use circumlocutions all one wants, but the chief Rabbi in Poland is resigning because Poland is about to ban Kosher, but not Halal, slaughter.”

            Simply not true, halal is also not permitted.

            Why not check for yourself and withdraw this statement?

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            SYM FOODS Sp. z.o.o. (Ltd)

            Polish First 100% HALAL Poultry Slaughterhouse. We are located in South-west Poland, with perfect motorway links to Central and Western Europe. We can deliver our products within 4 to 48Hr drive to most of European Capital Cities. Our plant, which we are opening soon will be dedicated HALAL plant.
            We can provide high quality air chilled and frozen products with long use by date.

            We are currently looking for agents in the following countries:

            Germany, Austria, France, Belgium, United Kingdom and Spain.

            http://symfoods.pl/

            Sounds like you can get Halal chicken quite nicely.

          • Treebrain

            Good bye!

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Good enough. This is from New Zealand’s history immediately after WWII.

            1945 Paddy Costello, a New Zealander stationed in Moscow, is the first Western reporter allowed in to the camps. He tours Auschwitz and Majdanek and published his report in March. Returning New Zealand war veterans publicly launch a campaign demanding the expulsion of all enemy aliens, including Jewish refugees, who arrived in this country after 1939. The campaign causes alarm in the Jewish
            community.

            http://www.holocaustcentre.org.nz/index.php/education/teaching-resources/126-new-zealand-and-the-holocaust-timeline

          • Treebrain

            Good bye!

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            This is too much fun. Check out this little resolution from New Zealand Veterans in 1945!

            The
            Returned Servicemen’s Association (RSA) passed a similar resolution at its annual
            conference in July 1945:

            Any person or persons who arrived in New Zealand from Germany, Austria, Hungary or Italy since 1939 must return to their own countries within two years after hostilities with Germany have ceased and they should be allowed to take out of New Zealand the same amount of money or property or both that they declared to the Customs Department on entering New Zealand; any further money or property that they possess to be realised and the proceeds handed to the New Zealand Government for distribution among needy wives and dependents of those who fought while the enemy aliens enjoyed peace and plenty in New Zealand.[1]

            [1] Ann Beaglehole, A Small Price to Pay: Refugees from Hitler in New Zealand 1936-1946, Allen & Unwin, Wellington, 1988, page 95.

            In sum, New Zealanders of a military stripe wanted all the Jews who had managed to escape from Hitler to be removed & their property confiscated after the Nazis were defeated. The lousy dirtbags.

          • Treebrain

            Good bye!

          • JesseKaellis

            If you were against the way animals are raised in North America, raised and slaughtered, then you would be a vegetarian like me. Maybe you are, or are willing to lie about it. I’m a vegetarian for sentimental reasons. I do miss eating meat, miss the taste of meat, but I just can’t deal with how they are raised and slaughtered. If you eat factory raised meat you are eating unhealthy products.

          • JesseKaellis

            There are verifiable health risks to being a homosexual so shouldn’t homosexuality be banned? And not just HIV either. All kinds of STD’s. Do heterosexuals also get and transmit STD’s. Yes, but overwhelmingly homosexuals are more promiscuous. Not that I’m anti-homosexual. Or anything.

          • Treebrain

            RoxanneR,

            “Just checked the numbers on the countries most likely to propose circumcision bans, Denmark, Sweden, New Zealand, Norway, Belgium, Finland.”

            You forgot to mention Germany, which already had a judicial ruling that stopped circumcision, although this has been suspended.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Ms. Merkel was re-elected; she’ll stomp on it, For one thing, she is a tad upset, justifiably, about something that recently came to attention:

            The German government announced in a written statement last week that at least 82 attacks took place on synagogues within a five year period.

            In response to a parliamentary questionnaire by the German Left Party, the federal government wrote that most of the attacks (24) occurred in Germany’s most populous state of North Rhine-Westphalia. The state of Rhineland-Palatinate registered 13 attacks, the second largest number of anti-Jewish assaults on synagogues.

            In 2010, The Jerusalem Post reported that a synagogue in the city of Worms, in Rhineland- Palatinate state, was attacked by arsonists.

            http://www.jpost.com/Jewish-World/Jewish-News/Synagogues-in-Germany-hit-by-over-80-attacks-between-2008-and-2012-328633

            What say you?

          • Treebrain

            I say get a sense of perspective?

            Did you know that people of colour have been attacked and killed by neo-Nazi gangs in Germany.

            Jews are NOT being killed by such gangs, so Merkel should focus her efforts on the more important issue, don’t you think so too?

          • JesseKaellis

            Goodbye?

          • JesseKaellis

            What part of goodbye don’t you understand?

          • JesseKaellis

            Your’e quite the hater, no?

          • JesseKaellis

            The rate of Jewish intermarriage is slightly below Jewish men.
            As well children born to Jewish women and a gentile man are Jewish. The lineage is matriarchal; for obvious reasons. (Obvious if you have half a brain, which I’m not sure about you).
            The reasons for intermarriage are complex. When you are a dedicated hater, when you are angry (I would surmise that a lot of homosexuals are angry because they are forced to be counter to the larger culture; freaks as it were) then every supposition you arrive at has to do with a covert hatred of Judaism.
            http://www.jewishfederations.org/page.aspx?id=46255

          • JesseKaellis

            Oh, well, Molly.

          • JesseKaellis

            Oh, no!

          • JesseKaellis

            Oh, well–Molly.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Being a doctor, I have the right to speak as I please about health matters, you sexist dimwit.

          • cosmopolite

            And we, as commenters on social media and citizens of free nations, have a right to take exception to what you write. You are not here in your professional capacity.

            “Who are you, a woman, to declare what is vital to a man’s sense of self?”
            Being a doctor does not make your answer to that question any more valid than that of any thoughtful layperson.

          • JesseKaellis

            Who are you to tell Jewish men that they have been mutilated against their consent? I’m a circumcised Jew. Do I have less sexual pleasure than you? Is that not subjective? I no doubt have had a lot more opportunities to find out. My circumcision: Not. Your. Business. If you are such a humanitarian I would imagine that you are against the indoctrination of young children into a Holy cause as human bombs to kill Jews. Am I right? What other social causes do you espouse? Just your fixation on penises?

          • cosmopolite

            There are men for whom the foreskin has “vital emotive connotations”. Who are we to say that such feelings are silly? I have foreskin and can assure you of one thing: in middle age it became the Ground Zero of my ability to enjoy sex. I am over 60 and have noticed some decline of sensation in my glans, similar to what some cut men complain of. I can still enjoy sexual activity thanks to bits I would lack had I, like nearly all gentile boys of my place and time and social class, been cut at birth.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Sex is quite subjective. Adolf Hitler found great pleasure watching people defacate.

          • Jackthesmilingblack

            Everybody needs a hobby.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            His was quite nice. Matched those brown shirts he loved so.

          • cosmopolite

            “Sex is quite subjective.”
            Yet another reason why every man should decide the fate of his own foreskin.

            “Adolf Hitler found great pleasure watching people defacate.”
            How do you know that? And if that is true, what does it contribute to this discussion in 2013?

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Because it shows the big sex organ is the brain.

          • Reborn

            Great idea.
            When middle aged men lose the ability to enjoy sexual congress via the penis, they can be given comfy seats in front of peepholes in lavatories.
            Presumably their partners can then find younger men or men
            of any age who remain unmutilated by their owners/parents

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            If they are Adolf Hitler they sure can. Of course, there is this drug called Cialis.

          • JesseKaellis

            You need a hobby.

          • ArchiePonsonby

            If you ain’t got one, how do you know?

          • Kennybhoy

            aj wrote:

            “…how about cutting the breasts off to prevent breast cancer?!”

            Actually some women do…

          • aj

            And as a consenting adult, she had the right….sadly.

          • http://www.circumstitions.com/ Hugh7

            Yes, they do. Their own, not their baby daughters’.

          • CircEsAdreim

            The comment was made with regard to cutting off the breasts of babies to ‘prevent’ cancer (which most rational people can see is insane). What an adult woman does about such things is her own choice to make. Just like it should be the man’s choice to make about his own penis.

          • AntiMisandry

            100% of men with their penises removed did not suffer penile cancer. 100% of women with breasts removed did not suffer breast cancer after removal… Let’s just go mutilating all kinds of people for all kinds of Quack-related claims.

          • Molly Adams

            100% of people with their brains removed supported circumcision.

          • Pip

            100% of people with their brains removed would still vote LibLabCon.

          • Nick

            Hello Pip.How are you?….;-)

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            No one lives after removal of the brain.

          • JesseKaellis

            Hello?

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Considering the foreskin the same as the penis demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of anatomy. Often this results from having a foreskin that is four times the size of the penis.

          • cosmopolite

            The misunderstanding of anatomy arises when one considers the foreskin a part of the penis that can be disposed of without consequences. This results from a sense of empathy that is 4x smaller than the intellect.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Well, I’ll have to tell the surgeon to remind the patient with penis cancer that he is the one to blame.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            You explain away the Swedish neutrality yet?

          • cosmopolite

            Neutrality about what subject, prevailing at what historical period?

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Why World War II. You know, the one where the Jews got gassed.

          • AntiMisandry

            Putting words in people’s mouths demonstrates a gross misundstanding or inability to accept other opinions.

          • AntiMisandry

            Putting words in people’s mouths demonstrates a gross misrepresentation on your part or a basic lack of comprehension.

          • Reborn

            Such persons are popularly known as Dickheads.
            They invariably support circumcision.

          • Rilman

            What??

          • cosmopolite

            The Results section does not mention circ status. The mention of circumcision in the Conclusion section is unwarranted.

            Men who do not have untreated phimosis, who take a daily shower, and who refrain from irresponsible sex, have low rates of penile cancer regardless of circ status.

          • http://www.circumstitions.com/ Hugh7

            In fact men with healthy (non-phimotic) foreskins have LESS risk of penile cancer than circumcised men. It’s the phimosis, not the foreskin, that makes the risk.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            But circumcision prevents the phimosis.

            Good heavens. Let’s assume we were talking about a medicine for depression. You found an increased risk of death after this depression medicine was taken.

            What if I said to you: “By heavens, it’s all due to suicide. It’s not the medicine itself that causes the death, but the suicide. All people need to do is stop killing themselves.”

            What would you say?

          • cosmopolite

            Using mass circumcision to eliminate the occasional adult phimosis is like using a machine gun to break up a school yard brawl. Most cases of phimosis can be resolved using a course of steroid ointment applied twice a day. In France, there is a resection technique that eliminates phimosis while preserving the foreskin.

            Using Prozac and the like to treat psychiatric problems, and ignoring the occasional suicides that result from it, is like mandating routine circumcision and overlooking the damage it can do to sexual function.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            It ain’t that occasional. See it all the time actually. Right on the gross table. Of course, you folks want that kept on so it can really develope into a killer cancer.

          • cosmopolite

            Do you examine living nude men, despite being a pathologist and not a urologist, and hence not being in a position to know what you claim to know?

            True phimosis, which cannot be diagnosed until around age 18, usually responds to a course of steroid ointment. The remaining cases can be cured via a surgical technique that preserves the foreskin. Or a very simple dorsal slit.

          • psysaac

            RoxanneRoxanadana I think you give a good argument. However it makes the assumption that foreskin isn’t part of orgasmic sensation. It is wrong to remove orgasmic sensation from an infant’s body. There is a book by a Jewish Doctor “Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma” in which a man who was circumcised as an adult says he lost about fifty percent of sensation without the “hood” to protect the head from rubbing against his clothes. He also says it was the biggest mistake of his life.
            I am Jewish, and it angers me that people A) wanted to do this to me because of that when I was an infant (my gentile father thought “all Jews should be circumcised” but my Jewish mother put her foot down. and B) People assume that I must be missing part of my dick, that is “circumcised” (no body has a “circumcision,” they are just missing their clitoral hood or their foreskin) by default because “Jews do it.”
            So I’m trying to raise awareness as an intactivist. Since i would never willingly have that done to me I know it is wrong to do to an infant. But I am not judging others, i just think that the general consensus currently violates human rights, especially those of Jews and Muslims because the anti-semitism comes from within the culture and is therefore a form of self hatred. Self-hatred is an adaptation to external cultures’ trying to hurt is. we don’t need nose jobs and circumcisions. can you see it from my point of view?

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            It is one thing to argue that a religion should abandon a tradition. It is quite another to argue that the law must force a religion to abandon a tradition. It is yet a third thing to argue that the law must force a religion to abandon a tradition when 1) a previous law, supposedly against two religions, only actually affects one, 2) the only country on earth where the members of that religion predominate is routinely damned.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            You know something. Sex is really, really subjective. Take Adolf Hitler, for example. He enjoyed seeing people defecate. That’s really, really true. His loss of a testicle did not in the slightest inhibit that pleasure he took in watching the brown stuff. He may well have smeared it on himself to increase his pleasure.

            Let’s assume there is 10% less pleasure from loss of the foreskin. Who the heck cares? What difference does that make in the grand scheme of things? Why do they have to kill Jewes just to prevent that 10% loss in Jewes’ babies?

          • psysaac

            Whatever that weird stuff about Hitler and poop is I don’t know.
            Now how is anyone killing Jews by not cutting their foreskins off?
            Apparently I have made a mistake in engaging you in conversation. When you talk like that it makes people think that maybe your parents did weird things to you or something. Please have some dignity.
            First step: Don’t be impulsively outraged all the time. It is foolish.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            The surroundings make the comments murderous. All but benighted English speakers know Little Hugh of Lincoln, the blood libel. Unless Hugh7 was too stupid to breathe properly, he knew danged well this. If he did not intend that he would have called himself something else like “psysaac” or “cosmopolite.” Hard to believe is that you can read Frederick Rhodes without concluding the same degree of enmity is present.

            My words are freely ignored by you. But those reading them will see what they will see.

          • JesseKaellis

            Stop being a covert b!tch.

          • JesseKaellis

            Hey, man, I’m a Jew and I don’t miss my foreskin. I don’t care. I don’t feel mutilated. I never did. I have had a lot of sex with a lot of women (probably more than you–I started young) and I never really thought about a decrease in pleasure. I enjoy sex. I suppose your justification is to save these poor infants from this horrible procedure–and yet, it doesn’t ring true for me. There are far bigger issues, the survival of the Jews on this planet, for instance. Maybe you just like being angry? And this is a convenient issue? A safe issue? Self hatred? Look in the mirror?

          • FrederickRhodes

            All boys are born with their foreskins attached to their glans. Phimosis is a phony diagnosis for promoting circumcision. Phimosis is natural before puberty’s growth. Phimosis can also be caused by uneducated doctors and nurses who forcefully rip back the prepuce before it has had a chance to go through puberty’s growth spurt causing scar tissue. Foreskin restoration therapy can be used to repare the dammage that caused the phimosis by expanding the skin- no medical doctor is needed to correct the problem they caused.
            Suicide can be caused by mean mouth bullies, and forced excessive infant circumcisions.. All people need to do is stop causing other people to commit suicide.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            If that is so, if it is true that phimosis is a phony argument, then it follows that the protection from penis cancer cannot be said to be due to its correction of a “preventable” condition called phimosis. Most suggest phimosis is real; as shown above, this is not a valid argument against circumcision as respect penile carcinoma.

            Now penile cancer, while rare, has interesting aspects. First, it is an old man’s disease. Hence, arguments with respect to incidence must permit adequate time for assessment.

            Consider the argument of Frisch against male circumcision back in 1995.

            http://www.bmj.com/content/311/7018/1471

            If you look at the man’s graph, you will find a very questionable change in the incidence of penis cancer. Why? Because the rate includes the war years. All manner of persons of all manner of ages came to Denmark, especially to Copenhagen, which is a very good port. Quite reasonable would be the notion that a country with a lot of foreign soldiers & generals in it might have a different disease pattern than would ordinarily be seen. Thus, that huge blip in Copenhagen might well have accounted for a large part of the increase. Moreover, one cannot say for certain what was in situ or invasive before about 1975, say. Pathologic concepts were not quite yet established. & people might have used different criteria that long ago.

            http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10552-011-9876-7/fulltext.html

            You will see either a stable rate or an increased rate, depending on your perspective in figure 1. What you cannot see is a declining rate. Next, look at figure 2, which shows the dramatic age relationship between invasive squamous cancer & age & a vital relationship between the age & pre-invasive penile lesions. On cannot really say anything about neonatal circumcision before about fifty years! What this means is that you would only begin to see an increase from, say, about 1960, in the year 2010!

            The key then is to look at figure 3, which documents the incidence of the preinvasive lesions. It is stupid to argue in a country as small as Denmark that pathologists did not learn about the pre-cancerous stuff until after 1998 or that the diagnosis only took hold on them after 1998; there might be some effect on that, but it would have to be very small That’s been know for many decades, before being called “Bowen’s disease”. It is that rate that really counts. As you can see, that rate has been increasing by 7% per year, on average. Frisch’s statements about only counting new cases would likely prove not to be important. Why? Because rising incidence in association with recurrence parallels rising incidence in association with the first occurrence unless proven otherwise.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            What the results show is an increase in penis cancer rates after non-circumcision became policy. Yes, there are other explanations. For example, there might have been increased HPV infections.

            The notion, however, that the data prove circumcision has no effect on penile cancer rates is absurd. In over 25 years of practice, every single squamous carcinoma of the penis has been in an uncircumcized man.

          • cosmopolite

            Did you finish your residency around age 30, and have since been in practice 25 years?

            How many of those squamous carcinomas presented in men without phimosis, who never smoked, and who had access to daily showers? Penile cancer is sufficiently rare that the American Cancer Society has declined to endorse routine circumcision to prevent it.

            HPV is implicated as the probably causal agent in many/most penile cancers. One more reason to stay faithful or use condoms.

            What happened in the UK is that the NHS ceased covering routine circ in 1950.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Every squamous cancer of the penis was in an uncircumcised man. As for the rest, that’s called blaming the patient for his or her disease. The same arguments were used against treatments for syphilis.

          • cosmopolite

            You did not answer my clinically relevant questions.
            You know full well that a great many medical conditions are regrettable consequences of poor lifestyle choices. This is especially true of STDs. That remains true despite the fact that decent people don’t speak it within earshot of the suffering.
            I used to know socially the woman who ran the cancer registry in a big city hospital. She told me in the 1970s that cancer of the cervix was, for all intents and purposes, an STD. 10 years later the causal role of certain strains of HPV was implicated.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            I sure the heck did answer your question. You are blaming the patient for sexually transmitted disease & you know it. It’s just Mein Kampf rehashed for current reading. Here’s Adolf’s similar words on syphilis.

            In the case of syphilis especially the attitude of the State and public bodies was one of absolute capitulation. To combat this state of affairs something of far wider sweep should have been undertaken than was really done. The discovery of a remedy which is of a questionable nature and the excellent way in which it was placed on the market were only of little assistance in fighting such a scourge. Here again the only course to adopt is to attack the disease in its causes rather than in its symptoms. But in this case the primary cause is to be found in the manner in which love has been prostituted. Even though this did not directly bring about the fearful disease itself, the nation must still suffer serious damage thereby, for the moral havoc resulting from this prostitution would be sufficient to bring about the destruction of the nation, slowly but surely. This Judaizing of our spiritual life and mammonizing of our natural instinct for procreation will sooner or later work havoc with our whole posterity. For instead of strong, healthy children, blessed with natural feelings, we shall see miserable specimens of humanity resulting from economic calculation. For economic considerations are becoming more and more the foundations of marriage and the sole preliminary condition of it. And love looks for an outlet elsewhere.

            _____

            Now, of course, the mere fact that you & Adolf agree on this garbage is not a reason to argue both of you are wrong. No. No. No. That’s argumentum ad Hilterum.

            Rather, both of you are wrong because morality is a poor excuse for a lack of decency.

          • CircEsAdreim

            There aren’t ‘health benefits’ to cutting off normal, functional body parts from non consenting human beings.

            It makes as much sense to cut off part of a child’s normal penis to try to ‘prevent’ a problem that most likely won’t happen as it does to cut off part of a baby girl’s boobs to prevent future breast cancer.

            The human rights violation aspect of this barbaric practice also can’t be ignored, as it has for far too long by many people. Thankfully, that is changing.

          • FrederickRhodes

            Skin cancer on the penis is not a logical reason to cut off the prepuce/foreSkin in infancy, just another paranoia induces excuse to commt MGM. We can get skin cancer anywhere on our epidermis.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Actually, just recently saw a case of cancer of the foreskin, like extending to the penis. Glad to know you think this sacrifice to “human rights” justified. Were it possible to remove the appendix without danger, you can bet it would be done for every child. The problem is that it is located inside the abdominal cavity. That’s also why no one screens ovaries for ovarian cancer by smearing their surface.

            & none of you can rebut the numerical arguments.

            It’s amazing what people will do to irrupt cultures they hate.

          • cosmopolite

            Are you a doctor?
            What was the ethnicity and social class of this person with cancer of the foreskin?

            It is a grave evil to make false accusations of hatred.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Yes, I am a doctor. Cannot reveal ethnicity.

          • cosmopolite

            You rightly cannot disclose this patient’s sexual history, STD history, social class, ethnicity, smoking history. But all these may be highly relevant to his cancer.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Yes. Let’s eliminate the word “Hate”, as one did “anti-Semitism”. No, let’s just say that is amazing what people who want the Jews gone will do.

          • cosmopolite

            Very very few Swedes of Nordic ancestry wish Jews gone from Sweden. Do not infer the contrary from the dismay many Swedes feel about Zionism and/or ritual circumcision.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Oh really? Of course they do. Tell us this. When was the Kosher ban imposed. If it was done during Hitler’s ascendancy, that says so much, i.e., that it was motivated by hatred of Jews. So tell us when it was imposed.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            There was one Jew hater of Nordic ancestry who really wanted the Jews dead. Kirsten Målfrid Flagstad. A real, Nazi with a wondrous love of Wagner.

            Has Sweden done right in this fashion? If a non-circumcised man of Jewish ancestry comes to the country are they permitted to urinate on her grave?

          • http://www.circumstitions.com/ Hugh7

            “Were it possible to remove the appendix without danger,”
            It is not possible to remove the foreskin without danger.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            If the appendix could be removed with as little danger as circumcision presents, you may rest assured every single baby would have it done at once.

          • aj

            Removal of the appendix used to be done quite often until science caught up and realized the value of the appendix.

            Kind of comical that you said “every baby would have it done at once”…..oh really? Do we have consenting babies now?

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            What? There is no value to the appendix. I would have absolutely heard about this.

          • aj

            For heavens sake, where do you practice?!!!!

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            My business. But you may rest assured you now write to a doctor. Who else, for example, could explain to you that chromogranin proves carcinoid in the stomach only if the size is sufficient? Who else, one might ask, could tell you that the new EIN stuff is garbage in actual practice?

          • aj

            And yet you know nothing of the value of an appendix or a foreskin. Knowledge is a funny thing, as is wisdom.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            I think I know a lot about the appendix, actually. A heck of a lot more than about the foreskin.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            We have consenting parents, who would assuredly demand it & get those demands fulfilled. There is absolutely no doubt about it.

          • aj

            Parents are the caretakers of a child who will be an adult. Why is that so hard for circumcisers to comprehend? Would you take an 18 year old man into a hospital, strap him down and have the mobile part of his penis cut off without his consent?

            You can’t use vaccinations or any other operation on a child as an example here. There is only one operation like this done to a human being, and there is absolutely no justification for it.

          • cosmopolite

            I would not consent to that, I insist that parental consent be required, and I would highly resent any doctor using the fact that MD appears on his business card to pressure me into giving consent.

            And you know nothing about the dangers of circumcision. For starters, you are not a pediatric urologist, the medical specialists who are the ambulance drivers at the bottom of the circumcision cliff.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Every wise pair of parents would want this for their babes; parental consent is implied in the statement “every single baby would have it done”.

            Two jokes:

            The internist knows everything & does nothing. The surgeon does everything & knows nothing. The pathologist knows everything & does everything, one day too late.

            A family practitioner, an internist, a surgeon, & a pathologist went duck hunting. The family practitioner looked up, saw what she thought was a duck, aimed & shot it. The internist looked up, said “I think its a duck. No maybe it’s a hawk. No maybe its an albatross. . . . ” by which time the duck had flown out of range. The surgeon looked up, shot the first bird she saw, & then picked up the duck & handed it to the pathologist, saying “it’s probably a duck. Tell me what it really is.”

            Actually, pathologists don’t know how to perform surgery, how to put together three dozen vague symptoms into five different diseases, or which drugs to give, but do know about complications of surgery. Why? Because that’s what helps surgeons know what happened in order to better treat the patient.

          • cosmopolite

            1st paragraph: what is “this”? Don’t imply parental consent, obtain it black on white.
            Your first joke I heard in my student days.
            There is one set of postop complications pathologists know nothing about: the effects of infant circumcision on adult sexual function. No other specialty does either, because American doctors and sex researchers refuse to go there. This refusal has been going on for about 100 years, and has become an utterly unconscionable situation.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Pediatric urologists know about the sexual complications of infant circumcision?

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Um. Are you sure? I get organs all the time & dissect them for a living. No one has ever said a specimen received at my laboratory for pathologic study is immune from my dissecting it.

          • cosmopolite

            The tissues you analyse have already been extracted from a human being or corpse. Your analysing such tissue samples does not pose ethical issues. Extracting those sample from human being or cadavers does. Same as circumcision does.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            It’s so much fun to see you Jew baiters I could not resist coming back. A pick of Little Hugh:

            http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-tI4j-qkXzNk/UkCdYfrfeZI/AAAAAAAAJLg/wkEnTtNTySo/s1600/Little+Hugh.jpg

            Hugh might not realize this, but people can recognize names of things. Chaucer’s famed ending of the Christian (& rich too) piece of mule dung speaking with such Christian charity.

            O yonge Hugh of Lyncoln, slayn also
            With cursed Jewes, as it is notable,
            For it nis but a litel while ago,
            Preye eek for us, we synful folk unstable,
            That of his mercy God so merciable
            On us his grete mercy multiplie,
            For reverence of his mooder Marie. Amen

            Gosh, Hugh, is it true, what they say? Hugh know, Hugh, that the Jewes, Hugh, were killed in response to this, Hugh?

          • aj

            Once again, we are not talking of diseased foreskins here that need medical care. We are talking healthy, functioning tissue that is removed before any sign of illness.

            As a doctor, I find it extremely frightening that you allow your prejudice regarding your religion to have precedence over your medical judgement. Is this a vested interest, where you are making money on this procedure? Are you offended and defensive about the possibility that what you have been doing is wrong? Or is this a protective response to your parents and/or friends and their decision to circumcise?

          • aj

            (That is, finding that YOU are a doctor, not me…..pretty obvious I’m not)

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            By heavens, you now argue Jews should not be doctors. Let’s see, that was also the argument made in Nazi Germany & in the Inquisition as well!

          • aj

            LOL, you ARE funny. Be whatever you want to be, just put down the knife and step away from the child.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Being a pathologist, I can & do cut whatever i choose. So happy am I with your discussion that if you call me to let me know you yourself need an autopsy, I’ll do one on you for free (of course, as you would be dead when you called, i would seek psychiatric attention at once).

          • cosmopolite

            Being a pathologist emphatically does not give you any such right! There is this pesky problem called “informed consent”… Your whole comment calls into question your decency and professionalism.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Yet another reason displayed to prevent Jews from practicing medicine, one sees. Whenever an organ is sent to me, I dissect it as I think will best serve the patient. You may wish to require all Jewish doctors be monitored, but that is not to my liking.

          • aj

            LOL. Kinda missed that comment. Glad to know I’ve got somebody in my corner if something dasterdly happens.

          • aj

            Odd that my comment did not come up again. Is there an editor on this site?

            No, I’m fine with you being a doctor. Just not keen on you cutting out healthy organs.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Are you opposed to bans on Jews being doctors?

          • CircEsAdreim

            That isn’t what the poster said. What he is saying is that doctors shouldn’t let their personal/religious preferences interfere with their ethics. Forced circumcision of healthy, functional, genitalia is medically unethical.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Oh, let’s just say that he actually did say that. Anyways, it’s charming to see these expressions about Judaism made again & again concerning circumcision.

          • CircEsAdreim

            Well, he didn’t say that. So your claim is invalid.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            He surely did say that Jews should be banned from being physicians. That’s what happens when you say “vested interests”, as if a pathologist has vested interests in neonatal circumcision when in fact penis cancer is what give us the dollars.

          • CircEsAdreim

            [quote]He surely did say that Jews should be banned from being physicians.[/quote]

            No, he didn’t say that.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            As a doctor, I find it extremely frightening that you allow your prejudice regarding your religion to have precedence over your medical judgement. Is this a vested interest, where you are making money on this procedure? Are you offended and defensive about the possibility that what you have been doing is wrong? Or is this a protective response to your parents and/or friends and their decision to circumcise?

            ___________

            That is an assertion that I have some “vested interest”, which is impossible, for reasons previously stated. The solution is to ban from the practice of medicine to “protect the patient” from those with “vested interests, namely Jews.
            You might not understand this, but your statement:

            “If you’ll notice, Jews just often tend to be the loudest, quickest, complainers when people speak out against the barbaric practice of forced cutting. As if the world itself will end should they not be permitted to cut their baby boys anymore.”

            is something someone who wants all the Jews dead would definitely say.

          • Guest

            Sorry I missed this part of the thread. I thought you were joking when you accused me of thinking that because you are a Jew you shouldn’t be a doctor.

            When I said vested interest, I was talking about the possibility that you are a doctor actually performing the proceedure and would therefore be highly defensive about your practice. Since you have now told me that you work on dead patients, there must be some other reason that you have denied all these amazing posts full of information and truth.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            One would hope you would formally agree suggestions to ban the practice of medicine to Jews indicate that the speaker is, morally speaking, a bucket of pig manure. My work involves parts of living patients removed, but never neonatal foreskins. By contrast, cash passes hands when penile cancer is present. It is AGAINST my vested interests that I speak. Now it must be said that some find in all Jewish speech vested interest, to which I might respond that a desire not to be killed is indeed an interest of mine. .

            Papers presented to me supporting bans on circumcision were examined & shown to be flawed. By contrast, refutations of papers presented by me comprised 1) an assertion of lack of reproduction of a result with HIV (meta-analyses exist: Weiss HA, Quigley MA, Hayes RJ. Male circumcision and risk of HIV infection in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis. AIDS. 2000 Oct 20;14(15):2361-70. Siegfried N, Muller M, Volmink J, et al. Male circumcision for prevention of heterosexual acquisition of HIV in men. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;(3):CD003362. ), 2) a bizarre assertion that data from 2002 are inadequate (2002 is not that long ago), 3) ad hominem attacks on authors personally unknown to me, which are simply admissions that the person stating these things lacks any argument against the assertions made in the papers themselves.

            Thus, apart from rhetoric, whatever its nature, it is comforting for me to realize that the evidence dooms those in favor of bans, unless, of course, they view disease as some sort of moral punishment justly placed upon people by an angry God.

          • CircEsAdreim

            No, it’s something someone who wants the human rights violation of genital mutilation put to an end would say. What you assert is something someone who doesn’t care about the inherent right to bodily integrity for little boys would say.

          • aj
          • cosmopolite

            I would not agree to preventive removal of the appendix, because the nature and purpose of the appendix are not fully understood yet. I still have mine. If there is an organ that is not essential for human existence and that has a distressing rate of carcinoma, it is the female breast. I support giving young adult women the option to have their breasts removed prophylactically.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            If it were my baby, I would assuredly want the appendix removed if there were no operative risks.

          • http://www.circumstitions.com/ Hugh7

            And there are operative risks for circumcision.

          • LA

            Penile cancer is extremely rare. In any case, the rate is about the same (1 per 100,000; American Cancer Society) than uncircumcised Denmark (0.85 per 100,000; Frisch 1995). This is no justification for non-therapeutic circumcision.

            Also, vulvar cancer is more common than penile cancer. Why don’t we see what we can cut off the vulva to reduce risk?

            Even American physicians are calling this sort of rubbish out. “As representatives of the American Cancer Society, we would like to discourage the American Academy of Pediatrics from promoting routine circumcision as preventative measure for penile or cervical cancer.” http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/letters/1996-02_ACS/

            Real world, Roxanne. Real world.

        • Igor Shapiro

          And who give you right to open mouth ? We do have huge reason why do we do it from religious; medical and esthetical point of view. You have no reason and no right touch our children just because you are full of barbaric nazi superstitions. and empty cliche,

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            The reason is for many to kill the Jews. That’s what it was in the past too. Good Lord. If they want to ban circumcision for non-Jews & non-Muslims, that’s fine, I guess. It’s stupid, but within the rights of government.

            What should not be within the rights of government is to enact a law that has repeatedly accompany persecution.

          • Igor Shapiro

            By your sword you shall live, And your brother you shall serve; But it shall come about when you become restless, That you will break his yoke from your neck.”So Esau bore a grudge against Jacob because of the blessing with which his father had blessed him; and Esau said to himself, “The days of mourning for my father are near; then I will kill my brother Jacob.”…

          • CircEsAdreim

            Your reason for mutilating the genitals of a human being without THEIR consent are not valid justifications because they to not support a person’s inherent right to self ownership. Do it to your own penis if you wish, but leave others alone.

      • Dreamer

        The resolution of the Council of Europe speaks against circumcision of minors (which is practiced by the two religions you are referring to, in addition to some cultures such as the American, the Phillippines and South Korea), against female circumcision which is practiced in some forms of Islam (sunat), against forced tattoos on children (as practiced among Coptics), against forced piercing (this would include ear piercing of baby girls), against early genital surgery to intersex children (which is extremely mutilating, i.e. clitoral reduction of girls with enlarge clitoris – losing a lot of tissue-, feminization of boys with ambiguous genitalia (forced sexual reassignment)…

        So you see, the media has managed to present this resolution as something against Judaism, but this is the result of biased reporting, not the resolution itself. The resolution looks at the issue of physical integrity and tries to define the best way to protect that right, regardless of the gender of the child or the faith of the parents.

        • RoxanneRoxanadana

          So it was said of bans on ritual slaughter. Remember? It was supposed to afflict both Judaism & Islam equally. In actual practice, it turns out, according to Cosmopolite, only to ban Jewish Kosher food, not Muslim Halal food. The problem, Cosmopolite asserts, is not that the law specifically discriminates against the Jews, but that the Jews specifically discriminate against the law.

          Who knows who is right, ultimately? The main effect is that the Jews will disappear from Europe, much to everyone’s liking. There are ten times as many Muslims as Jews in Cosmopolite’s country. Soon that will be 40 to 1, soon 100 to 1. Ultimately, after the last Jew is gone, they will go after relatives of Jews.

      • cosmopolite

        The vast majority of circumcisions performed in Europe are done at the request of Moslem parents. And yes, the growing Scandinavian ire with circumcision targets Moslems, who are now the largest exotic minority in each Scandinavian countries. Scandinavian Jews are little more than collateral damage. Many Scandinavian Jewish families are liberal or secular, and stopped circumcising 1-3 generations ago.

        • RoxanneRoxanadana

          No it does not. All that one sees anywhere are attacks on Judaism with this & you know it. Please show me cartoons suggesting “evil” Muslims are doing things. Were it so that Muslims were the real target, then Israel would not be so routinely demonized.

          Ah well, when a continent decides it wants to expel their Jews, what can be done?

          • cosmopolite

            In no way has “Europe decided” to expel European Jews. All that has been decided is that Germany has explicitly legalised ritual circumcision if certain conditions are met. The Council of Europe is little more than a debating society.

            There most definitely have been cartoons poking fun at Muslims. Muslims are the real target of the growing dismay against ritual circumcision, and European opinions about Zionism are a red herring.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Not when it comes to anti-circumcision. It’s anti-Jew every time.
            Again, time will tell. But don’t wear a Yarmulka in Malmo. Bad idea.

          • cosmopolite

            The equation “anti-circumcision” = anti-Jew is simply and flatly wrong. I do agree that if the movement to rehabilitate the American foreskin triumphs, that will make it somewhat more awkward to be a circumcised nonorthodox Jew.
            I know about Malmo thanks to YouTube.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            When you put it together with everything else, it’s “bye bye Jews”.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Not from what i have seen. Europe has done nothing about Malmo, for example. Meanwhile all one hears from Europe is how terrible Israel is.

            Well, that will be the new home soon for all Europe’s Jews.

          • cosmopolite

            What you see is not all that is.
            What would YOU do about Malmo??

            Nearly everything I read about and from Europe is silent about Israel. Israel has nothing to do with the fact that Europe is dying economically.

            Scandinavia may enact an age restriction, but I very much doubt the rest of Europe will follow suit. That will not matter to secular and liberal Jews. Some frum Jewish parents will purchase round trip airfares to Hamburg or Berlin when they have a boy. Some may emigrate to an English speaking country. Not many will emigrate to Israel, if only because there aren’t many Jews in Scandinavia.

            Many people do not like Zionism. Some of those people are proud Jews.Equating antiZionism with antisemitism is simply wrong. You will have to make your peace with the raw fact that not everybody agrees with Zionism and Likud.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Ah. It’s always the same. Bans on Kosher slaughter, but not hunting, are not anti-Semitic. Bans on circumcision, but not feeding babies & children meat, are not anti-Semitic. Declarations that Israel is a Nazi state, without complaints about Turkey & Cyprus, are also not anti-Semitic. One must indeed make peace with such things.

            A good example of making peace is Archbishop Tutu, who expresses such horror at Israel, while professing great love of Jews. In fact, the man never complains about eating Pygmies, a huge threat to the existence of those people, far worse than anything Jews or Roma or anyone else faces at this time. He also was Archbishop when the following verses, abandoned about 1600 by the Anglican Church, were put into “An Anglican Prayerbook 1989”, for use in South Africa:

            My people, what have I done to you? How have I offended you? Answer me! For forty years I led you safely through the desert. I fed you with manna from heaven, and brought you to a land of plenty; but you led your Saviour to the cross.

            My people, what have I done to you? How have I offended you? Answer me! I led you on your way in a pillar of cloud, but you led me to Pilate’s court. ~ excerpt from the Easter Reproaches, 1989 Anglican Prayer Book, Anglican Church of Southern Africa

            http://petersprogress.com/tag/jews/

            Ah! The good old Christ killer. Back in vogue for the twenty-first century.

          • cosmopolite

            What is banned is not kosher slaughtering, but slaughtering that does not meet certain pain reducing standards. Kosher slaughtering could adapt to satisfy those standards. Kosher meat is not available in my country, but halal is. That does not make us anti-semitic. It simply means that Moslems outnumber Jews 10:1. Rest assured that hunting is controversial. How is feeding ground beef to a child analogous to circumcising a child? Turkey’s inhumanity is why it will not be allowed to join the EU any time soon. Nobody says that Israel is a Nazi state. Some say that it practices a form of apartheid.

            You can attack Desmond Tutu all you want, and that will neither add nor detract from the intactivist position. Christ was a lay teacher of a populist bent, whose writings emphasise right conduct over deference to the law. These teachings, and the fact that he worked outside the rabbinic career ladder, antagonised the rabbinic establishment of his day. The Roman colonial administration ordered Christ executed to make an example of him “don’t you even think of revolting”.

            One can agree with much that you say, yet also deplore Zionism and Likud.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            The ban on ritual slaughter in your country affects Jews, not Muslims, bans on “ritual slaughter” notwithstanding! Fascinating.

            Show me all the proposed bans on hunting.

            The feeding of beef to children endangers their health by predisposing them to cancer & heart disease.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            For Malmo, it’s easy. You increase police presence in Jewish areas, put up 24 hour a day cameras to monitor synagogues & arrest perpetrators. What you should not do is have your mayor say things like this:

            In an intervew in NEOwhich was published on Thursday, Ilmar Reepalu (Social Democrat) once again took aim at the Jewish community. This time Reepalu (who has blamed Malmö’s Jews for anti-Semitic attacks directed against them) falsely claimed that the Jewish community has been “infiltrated” by the Sweden Democrats Party, alleging that Sweden Democrat MP Kent Ekeroth has been active in the Jewish community. Reepalu then accused SD elements as being responsible for inciting “anti-Muslim hatred” in the Jewish community.

            Understandably, a brouhaha broke out in the media and Reepalu then backtracked inDagens Nyheter, claiming that he misinterpreted Ekeroth’s presence at a community meeting. After accusing the Jews of hate-mongering, that kind of “oops!” remark was a pathetic excuse.

            Even the generally optimistic Jewish community leader Lena Posner Körösi lashed outat Reepalu in the Christian daily Världen idag. Pulling no punches, she called him an anti-Semite. The Jewish community also berated Reepalu in a letter to the Social Democrat Party, which all key members of the community signed. The community consensus is that Reepalu has lost all remaining shreds of credibility.

            In the NEO interview, journalist Paulina Neuding, asked Reepalu about ongoing issues of criminality prevalent in the immigrant community in Malmö. One victim of criminal brutality was her own 84-year-old grandmother who was knocked to the ground by a gang of thugs. In short, Reepalu’s response was to claim credit for a supposed vast improvement in community relations, and then to accuse the Jewish community of propagating hatred. By sticking a Sweden Democrat label on the Jewish community, Reepalu attempted to paint the Jews as all a pile of far-right hate-mongerers.

            http://swedenisrael.blogspot.com/2012/03/malmo-mayor-reepalu-slurs-jews-again.html

            One response: “why do you Jews not try to ask what you are doing that makes people act like that?”
            Sort of like blaming women for rape, Europe really wants what Hans Frank (no relationship to Anne) wanted:

            “I ask nothing of the Jews except that they should disappear.”

            And so they will.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            It’s a raw fact that Malmo did NOTHING. All you have to do is put up 24 hour videos, plain clothes cops, & arrest the little piggies. So how many little piggies are in jail? Tell me that?

            NONE or HARDLY ANY for harming Jewes. No, Mayor Reepalu assures the world its the Jewes own fault. & you can bet your little behind you want Israel bombed & destroyed like most of Sweden.

          • cosmopolite

            Malmo did nothing for reasons similar to why Detroit does nothing. When half or more of a city consists of an easily identify subgroup living on welfare and drug dealing, law enforcement goes to hell, and looking the other way goes through the roof. Reepaly in Malmo reminds me of Coleman Young and Kwame Kilpatrick in Detroit. If Reepalu got tough on crime, he and his family would be targeted for assassination.

            I agree that Reepalu is an elected whore, and I wish Stockholm would shove him out of his office. But doing so would not solve the problems of Malmo or its Jewish community. Video cameras can be vandalised. Plain clothes cops cost money and are easily bored. You arrest natives and the natives grow more surly. Angry young unemployed men have twice in the past 10 years made all of urban France ungovernable. I have seen videos of French race riots, and have read about the British variety. All of Europe lives in haunting fear of massive rioting by unemployable young men who see themselves as having nothing to loose. Such riots could include the murdering of Jews who live too close to Moslem slums.

            Allowing millions of Third World Moslems to settle in Europe post WWII was a catastrophic error. There is no easy to undo that error. I am told that the French government quietly advises Jewish families not to send their children to public schools where 30% or more of the pupils are from Moslem slum families. There is simply no way of assuring the safety of Jewish kids in such schools.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Detroit was & is Black on Black crime. It has nothing at all to do with race. How could you say that?

          • cosmopolite

            Crime in Detroit is indeed mostly black on black. But that fact does not sweep race off the table when thinking about crime in Detroit. Crime results when young males believe that they have no prospect of employment or of advancing themselves. (The main harm of a conviction is the loss of one’s job and marriage. If one cannot get a job and has no prospect of getting married, then crime has much less of a downside for oneself.) Detroit males are the products of a society and economy that is very much shaped by race and history. Reflection of this nature sheds a lot of light on the European Muslim underclass. You need to do some reading on race, politics and economics and the American urban underclass.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Read this:

            http://web.archive.org/web/20070224132302/http://www.tedconline.com/uploads/Downtown_Detroit_Crime_Study_2006.pdf

            Now Detroit has its problems, but like the rest of the US, the rate of crime is declining. The real problem with Detroit is that everyone except the criminal element appears to be leaving!

            The notion that the absence of a job & the prospect of marriage yields crime is fascinating. Where did you arrive at the notion that marital prospects change propensities as respects crime?

            In Malmo people who dislike Jews commit crimes against Jews; in Detroit Black people commit crimes against Black people. How can you claim the crimes are similar apart from being acts of violence?

          • cosmopolite

            The report in the link dates from 2006, is based on even older data, and is primarily concerned with safety in and around Detroit’s downtown convention center. Forget rise or decline; Detroit’s crime rate is much too high for Detroit to be economically viable.

            “The real problem with Detroit is that everyone except the criminal element appears to be leaving!” Agreed, but that fact strengthens my argument.

            Married men are less likely to commit crimes for two reasons. The more a man is prone to violence and dishonesty, the less likely that he will find a woman agreeing to marry him. Second, a felony conviction is excellent grounds for a divorce in nearly every American’s opinion. A conviction means that you will lose your wife and the right to spent time with your kids. That gives potential criminals something to think about.

            Malmo and Detroit are similar in the sense that catering to their respective underclasses has become the easy way out for the local politicians.

            “Malmo did nothing for reasons similar to why Detroit does nothing. When half or more of a city consists of an easily identify subgroup living on welfare and drug dealing, law enforcement goes to hell, and looking the
            other way goes through the roof.”

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Nope. If it was not hatred of them thar Jewes, you can bet Halal meat would not be so dominant. Why look you at what happens in Sweden:

            Parents in Svedala in southern Sweden have reported a school to the Schools Inspectorate (Skolinspektionen) for serving halal chicken arguing that the practice breaches the non-denominational praxis of the Swedish education system.

            http://www.thelocal.se/50732/20131011/

            & there ain’t no Kosher stuff in Sweden. No. No. No. No. No.

            Kosher Info: Stockholm’s only kosher store is a market called Kosherian located at Nybrogatan 19. You have to go through a gate to find this address. It isn’t directly on Nybrogatan street and you may go through security to get into the building. While Kosherian’s website (www.kosherian.se) says you can get sandwiches made there, there was no such service being offered on my last visit. The store is small an offers over priced Kosher products, mainly Israeli, majority of which was useless without a kitchen.

            There is a kosher list of products found in Stockholm that the chief rabbi has available online.

            Many kosher Stockholmers will eat at a local vegetarian restaurant as kosher eateries are non-existent.

            http://yeahthatskosher.com/2008/06/stockholm-sweden/

            Sort of like, um, banning circumcision. You see, the Muslim variety will do just fine.

          • cosmopolite

            There is no evidence that Scandinavia will ban circ before the 18th birthday, and then enforce the ban only against Jews.

            Just how many Swedes keep kosher? How many residents of Sweden welcome halal? My point is that the potential market for halal is far bigger than for kosher. It is my understanding that about 1M residents of Sweden are of Moslem ancestry.

            I am sure there are kosher ingredients in Berlin, hence no need to fly in stuff from Israel.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            The Kosher stuff says quite differently. Just watch. Muslim circumcision will be A OK. Jewish. No way. Oh, found some more on the great ability to emigrate to the US. From the Jewish Yearbook:

            At the conclusion of the war it was regarded almost axiomatic that the only country in the world that was in the position to absorb more than a token number of DPs was the United States. However, because of strong anti-DP sentiment on the part of influential and articulate elements, nothing was done until June 20, 1948, when the United Stat=s Congress adopted a compromise measure which administered a serious blow to the aspirations of many Jewish DPs who wished to migrate to the United States. This law, providing for the admission of 205,000 DPs during a period of two years, gave preference to farmers and to Baltic DPs and provided that only those who entered Germany, Austria, or Italy, between September 1, 1939 and December 22, 1945 and who were in the western zones of occupation, in the western sectors of Berlin or Vienna, or in Italy on January 1, 1948 were eligible for immigration. A survey made by PCIRO showed that, of the 113,000 Jewish DPs in the U. S. zone in Germany, on May 31, 1948, only 34,654 either had entered or were born to those who entered Germany prior to December 22, 1945.

            http://www.ajcarchives.org/AJC_DATA/Files/1948_1949_15_YRForeign.pdf

            Were it not for that, the Jews would be in America. The sad part is that when the Jewish DP’s went back to their countries of origin, they were not even allowed to go back, in general, to the property they owned. Pogroms were never opposed. To the contrary, anti-Jewish sentiment kept rising AFTER the war. That’s one reason it makes little difference what one’s parents did during the time. One of the foulest Nazi Archbishops, Marcel Lefbvre, whose SSPX minions just buried Eric Priebke with honors, had a father who died in the camps. The notion was, you see, that the Jews were responsible even for the misery the Germans inflicted on them! The worst were the Poles, who under communist rule did the nasty to Jews quite often. The result, for better or worse, was ultimately the State of Israel. Thank heavens that exists today, for Europe seems intent on depopulating itself of Jews again.

          • http://www.circumstitions.com/ Hugh7
          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            The first one I have ever seen. Can you actually show me a Muslim young boy (not a baby) being threatened with injury in that comic?

          • cosmopolite

            Attacks of Judaism are one thing.
            Attack on Jews are another.
            Disagreements with Zionism are yet another.

            Remember the notorious Danish cartoon that led to Muslim mobs surrounding Danish embassies in Moslem countries?

            It is entirely possible that your typical Scandinavian opposes circumcision because Moslems badger Scandinavian doctors to do it and expect the Scandinavian taxpayer to cover the cost. Here religious Jews are collateral damage. The same Scandinavian disagrees with the Zionist treatment of the Palestinians. This is neither an attack on Judaism or Jews, but a disagreement with the geopolitics of Zionism.

            The worst that will happen is that a few thousand frum Jews will leave Scandinavia. Some European and North American Jews will feel torn between religious obligations and respect for secular sexual culture. There will be no pogroms, no mass expulsion.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Jews in Denmark are in fact leaving the country.

            The Danish Jewish community documented 40 anti-Semitic incidents in 2012, almost double the number in 2009. An exodus of Danish Jews has already begun. They are moving to countries where Jews can live in comparative safety, such as Israel and the United States.

            http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/12987#.UmMwzPmkpds

            Not even the Museum of Danish Resistance is safe.

            The Museum of Danish Resistance 1940-1945

            The museum is closed

            The exhibitions of The Museum of Danish Resistance remain closed due to a fire on April 28, 2013, that destroyed parts of the building.

            All museum objects and archives were saved. The damage was to the building only.

            The reconstruction of the building and the exhibition is expected to take several years.

            – the archives however are open

            The archives have been moved to a temporary location in Brede North of Copenhagen, where they may be consulted upon previous appointment.

            http://natmus.dk/en/the-museum-of-danish-resistance

            Does not look good. & Denmark was one of the few countries to not kill off its Jews in WWII. The other one was Bulgaria.

            August 20, 2013—New York—AJC is concerned about the emergence of anti-Semitism on the Bulgarian political scene.

            As pro- and anti-government rallies have escalated, Bulgarian rap singer Misho Shamara, popularly known as Big Sha, has emerged as a leader of pro-government demonstrations.

            In an interview on the Bulgarian station TV7, Shamara called Simeon Dyankov, the finance minister in the previous government, “the most incapable Jewish vermin.” Neither the interviewer at the time, nor the station afterwards, had anything to say about the outrageous slur.

            AJC Executive Director David Harris commented, “We are saddened and shocked that Bulgaria, a country widely known for its spirit of tolerance and mutual respect, would allow an incident like this to pass without any repudiation by the television station or public officials, though, to their credit, other civic leaders immediately condemned the incident.

            – See more at: http://www.ajc.org/site/apps/nlnet/content3.aspx?c=7oJILSPwFfJSG&b=8452171&ct=13248769#sthash.km6pLcAI.dpuf

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Oh I remember them. But I also know that ALL chicken in Denmark is Halal slaughtered. ALL of it! & Jewes are leaving. They really are.

        • RoxanneRoxanadana

          The worst part is you expect me to believe your saying it ain’t addressed to Jewes when you remember that ritual slaughter was banned, supposedly against Jewes & Saracens. So what happened? Only the Jewes suffered!

          No kidding. Here you can see that all Danes in a single hospital got Halal beef, even if they were not Muslim. Ain’t it grand to get rid of Jewes like that?

          ‘In the name of God. Allah is the greatest ‘

          This Muslim blessing sounds all over the beef patients at one of the country’s largest hospitals sinks his teeth in.

          Hvidovre Hospital namely by religious considerations chosen that when serving beef to the more than 40,000 patients each year are hospitalized, so it must be halal slaughtered.

          Increased faces stiff criticism from integration expert Mehmet Ümit Necef, associate professor at the University of Southern Denmark.

          – It is a failed policy. We have freedom of religion in Denmark, and it implies that one religion provisions not being påduttes other, he says.

          At the same time feels Mehmet Ümit Necef that it is a misguided into the hospital favors one minority group.

          – I can understand the logic: The hospital will achieve that satisfies Muslims. But the problem is that it will irritate those who are against halal slaughter, for example, atheists or Christians, he says.

          Vice President at Hvidovre Hospital Torben Mogensen can not see any problem and stresses the hospital has not received complaints about halal meat.

          – We have many patients from different ethnic backgrounds, which we must take into account – and then it will be impossible to have both the one and the other kind of beef, he says.

          Torben Mogensen do not think that the hospital is helping to pull the Islamic faith down the throats of the non-Muslim patients.

          – First, I do not think that a slaughter method as such has something to do with faith to do. The second is, of course, that all chickens in Denmark is halal slaughtered, and it has to my knowledge not got anyone to stop eating chicken, he says.

          Welcome to Denmark
          Read more at http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1be_1374480839#XOggttpaiaEId1Eb.99

          Why. All chicken in Denmark is . . . Halal slaughtered! & you say there is no religious preference. Tsk. Tsk. Tsk.

          Get your Jewes buds while ye may.
          Then you will mostly likely slay
          Those not gassed or shot to death.

      • Keith D

        But don’t you know that Muslim mutilations are just so fluffy?
        After all were it not so, surely the long time illegal practice of FGM would have seen at least one prosecution.

        The reason for focus on this practice from those outside the bubble is quite simply, we are genuinely taken aback that Jewish people still do this.
        With the Muslims, we all know they’re unreconstructed evil barbarians and any mutilations by them are seen as business as usual.

        • RoxanneRoxanadana

          The reason you are taken aback is you did not succeed in killing all the Jews during WWII. In fact, immediately after WWII there was such intense persecution of Jews that Jews in France often committed suicide.

          • cosmopolite

            Source please.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            It was in a paper on post-WWII Jew hatred in France I had read a few years back. Would have to look for it.

          • cosmopolite

            I have read a great deal about French history and Jewish history, and have never heard of an outburst of anti-semitism in France during the latter 1940s. And if there had been anti-semitism, the option to emigrate to Israel or the USA was wide open. In those days, the French immigration quota to the USA was far from filled. Why kill yourself when you can easily leave??

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Are you sure the option of emigrating to the US or Palestine immediately after WWII was wide open?

          • cosmopolite

            The immigration law in effect in the USA from 1924 to 1965 created a system of national quotas. The French quota was always undersubscribed. Many former SS emigrated into the USA at that time. Why couldn’t French Jews do likewise?

            Hundreds of thousands of European Jews emigrated to Palestine in the late 1940s. They came as fast as they could sneak around the beleaguered British trying to keep them out.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            They banned Jews from coming to the US. How could you not know that? Why do you think Truman vetoed that bill? Or are you going to claim there was never such a bill now.

            Swedes really were so unhappy they could not see all the Jews dead. They had this Count Bernadotte, their “hero”. So you know what he did? He arranged with Himmler to have those white buses scour the concentration camps in search of pure Aryans to save. Alack & alas, he was not completely successful in excluding the Jews from the buses. 10% of the persons transported were said to be Jews. For this, Sweden claims it “protected” the Jews. Like Hell it did. Sweden helped Hitler against Norway, it has just come out. Ultimately, you always hate the one you harm. In this case, Sweden loves the Jews so that it is content to do what Jew haters throughout history have done, argue against circumcision.

          • cosmopolite

            All sorts of dubious and shaddy Europeans managed to emigrate to the USA, 1946-52. including former SS and concentration camp guards. My parents knew some people like that socially. The label “displaced person” covered many sins, of that you can be sure.

            French Jews were solidly middle class. I cannot believe that there was not a way for them to emigrate to the USA or Canada if they wanted to. I am surprised that very few did. My mother was granted permission to live with my father in the USA, starting in 1949.

            The whole business of resettling Europeans in the USA after WWII was governed more by State Department executive discretion than by statute.

            The leading Jew haters of the past 60 years have been a circumcised community.
            Because some Jew haters have deplored circumcision does not mean that circumcision deplorers are ipso facto antisemitic.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            That’s the same with all issues. On the other hand, given someone who 1) hates circumcision, 2) defends no Kosher food plenty Halal food, 3) damns Zionism, 4) refuses to talk about Swedish neutrality, & 5) is wide-eyed, confused & unable to know what to do about Malmo, it’s 99% certain that person wants the Jews dead.

            So when Bernadotte & Himmler talked about saving Aryans from the gas chambers, what was the reaction in Sweden afterwards? Obviously, they made room for 200,000 Jews, did they not?

            As for entry to the US, if you really want to believe there was no opposition to Jews coming there you can. But there was. In fact, even though the US & the UK KNEW the Jews were being gassed, nothing was done for them during the war. Nothing at all. Although Poles were granted asylum in Africa, Jews were never given even that privilege. After the war, it was said that the Germans suffered equally with the Jews by so many. To see that, look up “One World in Charity.” by Archbishop Muench, the Chief Representative of both the US & the Vatican in post-war Germany.

          • JesseKaellis

            It doesn’t mean that they are not either.

          • cosmopolite

            To equate deploring circumcision with antisemitism is simply false and illogical. And the burden of proof rests on those making that accusation, for common sense reasons.

          • JesseKaellis

            Nice. “They came as fast as they could SNEAK around the BELEAGUERED British trying to keep them out.”
            Your disdain for Jews is peeking out from your bland assurances that you are in no way antisemitic. Are Jews paranoid about antisemitism? We can’t be. That’s not possible.

          • cosmopolite

            Your calling me antisemitic does not a truth make. You do not know me. my family, my upbringing, or my ancestry.

            “They came as fast as they could SNEAK around the BELEAGUERED British trying to keep them out.” is me making fun of the British authorities in the mandate.

          • JesseKaellis

            Listen–this is your lucky day! I’m checking out. I’m out of here. I won’t look at updates so I won’t get pulled back into this thread.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Because they were never allowed to come to the US. You know this. So what happened with your mother? Was she Jewish? Or simply one of those little inconveniences to Hitler? What made him want her dead?

          • cosmopolite

            Never say never. Had French Jews wanted to emigrate to the USA after WWII, that would have been accommodated to a fair extent. They most definitely had the option to emigrate to Palestine.

            My mother’s name was on a typed list of young people to be called up to do slave labour in Third Reich munitions plants. That list was not actioned only because George Patton and his tanks arrived in the nick of time.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            No they would not have. In fact, Truman had to work around the will of the Congress to get more Jews accepted. Good heavens, your knowledge of history is abysmal. Your mother would be ashamed.

          • cosmopolite

            How are you an authority on history? Are you an authority on the contents of cosmopolite’s mind?

            Is my alleged ignorance of 20th century history more marked than your ignorance of how the male foreskin is normal, healthy, and sexually advantageous?

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            I may not be an authority, but I don’t go around saying more Jews could have become US citizens when it is known they could not because of crude Jew hatred in the US.

            The foreskin is so much more valuable to Swedes than living Jews were in WWII it is incredible.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            How long did your mother have to hide out? Was she Polish or Russian? What you would be surprised at is how few know about the 42,500 slave labor camps in Germany. 42,500 slave labor camps, & Germans claimed at the time to know NOTHING! Now, no German born after 1935 bears the slightest bit of blame, but for God’s sake, they knew. They had to have known.

          • JesseKaellis

            It’s just that easy to pack up and leave? As a person who has moved places only in North American, moved by myself to get work, I know that it is not so easy to start a new life all over again. And this in an English speaking environment. I was traveling for work since I was 15 up until I was 46. East Coast, West Coast. Nevada, Canada. Plus I was on my own since I was 13, at a non curricular boarding school on one of the Gulf Islands.
            The remarkable thing here is you do not apprehend your own self righteous arrogance. Old and stupid.
            It would be a better world if people like you looked out for them and theirs and left other people alone. I’m a child of the sixties. What happened to the brave new world that leftists were supposed to gift the world with? This what your crusade reminds me of.

          • cosmopolite

            Pack up and leave is always preferable to the nagging fear of death. The city I now live in is the 16th city I have lived in my life. In the past. millions have preferred leaving Europe for Australia, Canada and the USA. French Jews had this option.

            “The remarkable thing here is you do not apprehend your own self righteous arrogance. Old and stupid.”
            Look at yourself in the mirror.
            I too am a child of the 60s, but rest assured that I am no friend of the Left.

          • http://www.circumstitions.com/ Hugh7

            Godwin’s Law. Pffft!

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Who cares?

          • cosmopolite

            I care, because my mother barely made it alive through WWII in Nazi occupied Europe.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Good for her. Unfortunately, no one is doing anything about Malmo. No one did anything with “Shoot the Jew.”

          • cosmopolite

            “Good for her.” That smart aleck tone is inappropriate when speaking of my 91 year old mother.
            What would you do about Malmo?
            What is “Shoot the Jew”?
            Has it ever crossed your mind that the most virulent anti-semites in Europe is made up of men who are proudly circumcised?

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            I have said what I would do about Malmo upthread. That’s simple, but the Swedish government will do nothing, as it has in the past.

            “Shoot the Jew” is a song recently sung in South Africa. Just as is always the case, the singing was deemed by non-Jews not to be anti-Semitic. An article defending it:

            http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/2013-09-26-dubul-ijudashoot-the-jew-a-response-to-rebecca-hodes-and-the-local-architecture-of-anti-semitism/#.UmM13Pmkpds

            Now “shoot the Boer”, on the other hand, was banned.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            I’m glad your 91 y mother survived. Relatives of mine who died are not even known.

          • JesseKaellis

            What does that have to do with the question? The crux of the matter here is that Jews should be left alone. What else concerns you about Jews other than their foreskins? Do you support the State of Israel? What else? Can Jews live in peace in Europe? Are you concerned with the dramatic increase in antisemitic acts in Europe during the last decade?

          • cosmopolite

            Before expecting others to answer such hostile questions, I invite you to answer them yourself. Lead by example.

          • JesseKaellis

            What does that have to do with the question? The crux of the matter here is that Jews should be left alone. What else concerns you about Jews other than their foreskins? Do you support the State of Israel? What else? Can Jews live in peace in Europe? Are you concerned with the dramatic increase in antisemitic acts in Europe during the last decade?

          • JesseKaellis

            I have dozens of relatives that ate gas in the camps. Why don’t you say that my best Jews are friends Cosomosneaky.

          • cosmopolite

            I mourn your relatives. But their deaths do not make you a smarter or more decent person. Just as the fact that my mother barely survived the Third Reich does not make me a better person.

          • cosmopolite

            Please do not accuse Keith D of being a Holocaust sympathiser. That said, the stone he cast in the garden of Islam was inappropriate.

          • Keith D

            thankfully my Dad,who i’m immensely proud of,took up arms against the Nazis.F..k off.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            He did nothing for Jews. You can bet your life on it. No one did. After the war, Jews were blocked from entering the US. Blocked. & Cosmopolite KNOWS this or she would not have penned what she did. But let’s remember a good song.

            Sweden’s Jew free.
            We are so happy to be free. We’re so glad.
            How could a people like us care for them?
            Why should we bother
            When they should not be alive.
            Oooo, is enough, enough.
            We stood aside & watched Hitler gas the blasted Jews.
            Please no reprimanding without understanding.
            We stood aside & watched Hitler gas the blasted Jews.
            Now we’re gonna ban their rites & claim their morals are impure.
            When they’re dead they’ll be quite pure.

      • Chris Morriss

        You’ll find that the majority adherents of ‘the other religion’ as you so delicately put it are also Semitic by race.
        Anyway, that ‘other religion’ is in essence, little more than a heretical variant of Judaism.

        • RoxanneRoxanadana

          I never used the word “anti-Semite” or “anti-Semitic” intentionally. Please substitute “Jew hater”, “Jew baiter”, “one who wants all the Jews killed”, etc., etc., for any mistaken use of that term.

      • cosmopolite

        We intactivists deplore Islamic kitan just as much as brit milah. And American routine infant circumcision even more.

        • RoxanneRoxanadana

          Horse feathers. Were that so, no Halal meat would be around where Kosher meat is not.

    • Molly Adams

      One person’s religious rights end where another person’s body begins.

      • Igor Shapiro

        That would be from new European religion catechist?
        Of course forbid Judaism and circumcision and allow euthanasia , homosexual advertisements for children and bestiality.
        This is new European religion.

        • Reborn

          A very silly post.
          How do you feel about Female Genital Mutilation ?

          • Igor Shapiro

            A very silly remark, Female Circumcision- has absolutely nothing to do with discussing issue,
            Naming it here shows complete misunderstanding of the issue.

          • Rog

            Clearly you don’t know much about genital homology.

          • Igor Shapiro

            RU completely unable concentrate on the issue.

            Female circumcision is completely different issue, banned by any religion etc there is no point to discuss it here. Your attempts to draw parallels proves only the fact that you have no knowledge about it.

          • Rog

            The clitoral hood is foreskin. It and the male foreskin are embryologically homologous and develop from the same embryological tissue. They’re both extensions of the shaft and cover the glans and procure smegma. Statistically, females are 5-10 times more likely to get a UTI and 250 times more likely to get genital cancer. So why then is one bad while the other is not?

          • Igor Shapiro

            I would say this is logic’s for imbeciles. The whole human body developed from one single cell, so don’t cut you fingernails. As i explained to you female circumcision would be discussed in proper context.
            Now today (nazi)ideas to ban Judaism most important mitzva where are no proven medical harm is purely antisemitic act which were repeatedly used by Romans and Stalin etc to exterminate Jews.
            As you probably know normally circumcised jews leave longer than uncircumcised gentiles as well as genital cancer is extremely rare among jewish women who live with circumcised partner,

          • Rog

            I don’t think I’m the one with imbecilic logic. “Don’t cut your finger nails”? Seriously? Do you understand what homology means? Obviously everything on our bodies started with a single cell, but the prepuces in both sexes develop from the same part of the embryo. Hearts and lungs are not homologous; legs and eyes are not homologous; finger nails and clitoral hoods are not homologous; but the clitoral hood and male foreskins are homologous.

          • Igor Shapiro

            Exactly, Your brain and behind developed from the very same part of embryo one single cell where all started.
            SO according to primitive imbecilic logics both should fulfil same function and be important in the save way.

          • LZT1

            Haha, yeah you are right, I think Rog’s brain is in his behind already….

          • Rog

            You haven’t been able to show how it’s imbecilic logic. Also, if you could, please improve your English.

          • LZT1

            You are talking crap.

          • LZT1

            LOL, no, they are not even nearly the same thing.

          • Reborn

            “banned by any religion etc there is no point to discuss it here.’

            Well the rest of us know of one religion that practices it in the UK, quite illegally.
            Thousands of girls are at risk in the school summer holidays, known in the UK as “the cutting season”.
            So far, not one prosecution.
            I have great respect for Jewish culture & all but the ultra Orthodox are good citizens in the UK.
            However, Jews have abandoned several horrible practices over the centuries, most notably stoning.
            Circumcision must go the same way.
            Whatever your religion, you have no right, human or other to force it on anyone else.
            In the old fable God told Abraham much the same.

          • Igor Shapiro

            SO what does it has to do with discussed matter. You can also discuss beheading and other practises. Which has 0 relation to the issue.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            I have read the Qu’ran, the Hadith’s, & several books about Islamic history. There is nothing there that would imply female genital mutilation is specific to Islam. That region of the planet does have odd behaviors, such as cutting off arms in Sierra Leone, but female genital mutilation simply is neither Islam specific or justified.

            Some attempt a similar unsupportable stance with respect to slavery, both with Islam &, at the present time, with Judaism. Good heavens, all three religions, Islam Judaism, & Christianity, enjoyed the ownership of persons with dark skin. It was the way it was. To pretend relative innocence on that one is be unable to realize that society has morally advanced over the centuries. Even in the worst modern case, The Sudan, the chattel slavery, while just as horrific as it always was when it is present for the slave, was (& probably still is) TEMPORARY.

          • http://www.circumstitions.com/ Hugh7

            Female genital cutting is certainly not “banned” by Islam – on the contrary, many Muslims think it is encouraged – and in fact may be about as similar (cutting only the clitoral prepuce) to male genital cutting as operations on the different genitals can get.

          • Igor Shapiro

            Of course it is banned by Islam. Search yourself nothing even to talk about.

          • http://www.circumstitions.com/ Hugh7

            “Those who advocate for FGM from an Islamic perspective commonly quote the following hadith to argue that it is required as part of the Sunnah or Tradition of the Prophet:

            ‘Um Atiyyat al-Ansariyyah said:
            A woman used to perform circumcision in Medina.
            The Prophet (pbuh) said to her:
            Do not cut too severely
            as that is better for a woman
            and more desirable for a husband’.” 1,8

            http://www.religioustolerance.org

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            What you are saying is offensive to anyone with knowledge of Islam.. Have you no decency?

            Good heavens, there was a Ukrainian who, it has been alleged, decided to go out & kill Muslims in London. Not that Ukrainians have a particular hatred of Muslims, mind you. No, no, no, the real issues with the Ukrainians who are bigots tends to be 1) Jews, 2) Roma, 3) Russian speakers in the Ukraine. Why you can even find a statue dedicated to that fabulous killer of Poles & Jews aliike, Bognan Khmieltsky. There is also a great celebration of Symon Vasylyovych Petliura, responsible for much of the killings of Jews in the Ukraine after WWI. Most bizarre is the celebration of Stepan Bandera, who killed not only all the Jews he could find, but all the Russians, Poles, Czechs, &, yes, Germans too. The war ended four years before his murderous gang stopped their work on behalf of the Ukraine. Never were Muslims hated by these nutjobs.

            So there really was no reason at all for Pavlo Lapshyn, to do what he allegedly did. Thanks to the sharp eyes of the cops & cooperation from the Muslim community, all he got away with was killing an innocent old man walking home from a Mosque. That’s quite horrific, but he obviously wanted to hit the big time, you know, kill at least 100 people. In the end, all such people want to do, whether it is to kill Muslims, Jews, or, in the US, Sikhs, is simply to murder. The joy of ending human lives for such persons surpasses anything a foreskin might add to one’s life.

          • LZT1

            You don’t have a clue what you are talking about.

            Female genital mutilation is exactly that, it is not “circumcision” – it is unfortunately simply named “circumcision”.

          • Rog

            There is more that one type of FGM. Some forms are worse, the same or not as bad as MC.

          • http://www.circumstitions.com/ Hugh7

            Female genital cutting and male genital cutting both vary in severity, conditions, consequences, etc. and when you compare like with like, surgical with surgical or tribal with tribal, they’re very similar.

            Scores of boys die every year from tribal male genital cutting in one province of South Africa alone.

            Surgical infant female genital cutting (to treat “irritation” – i.e. stimulation) was covered by Blue Cross Blue Shield until 1977 and legal until 1996.

            It is as human rights violations that they are most comparable. Both are evil, both should end.

          • Igor Shapiro

            SOuth Africa again you talkng about barbarians that circumcise at the age of 15. Yes this is dangerous practice that Europe will now legalize. INstead of letting us to do on 8th day what we have did in 2000 years before any Europe existed. now people want us to do it like barbarian tribes in south africa or European barbarian tribes of inactivists .I have no ideas and advice for strange tribes i m talking about Jewish circumcision on 8th day,

          • http://www.circumstitions.com/ Hugh7

            My religion, Noearsism, demands that I always carry a sharp knife and practise my religion on anyone within range. Who dares deny me my freedom of religion?

          • Reborn

            Tell old Igor S about it.
            He seems to approve of cutting bits off people !

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            More from Little Hugh via Chaucer:

            A litel scole of cristen folk ther stood
            Doun at the ferther ende, in which ther were
            Children an heep, ycomen of Cristen blood
            That lerned in that scole yeer by yeer
            Swich manere doctrine as men used there,
            This is to seyn, to syngen and to rede,
            As smale children doon in hir childhede.

            ______

            Goodness me Hughie! The foreskin, like these poor children, is simply learning to sing well & to read. Unbeknownst to it, the Jewe awaits. He he he

          • http://www.circumstitions.com/ Hugh7

            Going after somenone’s name is surely at the bottom of the barrel of personal attacks.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Oh, horsefeathers there Hughie. There’s no way to know if Hugh are actually named Hugh in any case. So guess what happens after those Jewes kill the poor boy & toss him into a cesspool (sort of like discarding a foreskin into the garbage, the soul of 200,000,000,000,000,000 nerve endings disappearing like smoke)?

            This poure wydwe awaiteth al that nyght
            After hir litel child, but he cam noght;
            For which, as soone as it was dayes light,
            With face pale of drede and bisy thoght,
            She hath at scole and elleswhere hym soght,
            Til finally she gan so fer espie,
            That he last seyn was in the Jewerie.

            With moodres pitee in hir brest enclosed,
            She gooth, as she were half out of hir mynde,
            To every place where she hath supposed
            By liklihede hir litel child to finde;
            And evere on Cristes mooder, meeke and kynde
            She cride, and atte laste thus she wroghte,
            Among the cursed Jewes she hym soghte.

            She frayneth, and she preyeth pitously
            To every Jew that dwelte in thilke place,
            To telle hir if hir child wente oght forby.
            They seyde “nay”; but Jhesu, of his grace,
            Yaf in hir thoght, inwith a litel space,
            That in that place after hir sone she cryde,
            Where he was casten in a pit bisyde.

            _______

            By heavens, a widow too. Not only has she lost that foreskin to the Jewes, this came atop the loss of her husband, who likely died with his foreskin on (expanded or not it is not clear from the text).

            Now note the mercy & goodness of God here displayed. You see, Jesus did not miraculously bring the boy back to life, the way he had done with respect to miracles mentioned in the New Testament.

            No, no, no. The real miracle was that Jesus happened to make this widow, with a dead husband bearing a foreskin, possibly expanded, & now mourning the loss of her son’s foreskin, cry near the cesspool where the foreskin had been tossed.

            Imagine the pleasant scent of God’s mercy here descending. & think what real mercy is–the finding of reasons to kill those Jewes. For that’s what really counts, finding the justification.

          • http://www.circumstitions.com/ Hugh7

            “There’s no way to know if Hugh…”
            If I had a cent for every time someone made that “joke” I’d buy out Bill Gates.

            “…are actually named Hugh in any case.”
            Well I thought I knew, because it’s on my birth certificate, passport, etc. But maybe my parents lied to me…?

          • JesseKaellis

            You mean like pretending that you are “bad”? A bad dude with a knife?

          • JesseKaellis

            You don’t want to run into me. Go ahead, take your shot.

          • LZT1

            A very silly post indeed.

            They are not even nearly the same thing. Anyone who claims they are is utterly clueless.

          • http://www.circumstitions.com/ Hugh7

            http://aandes.blogspot.co.nz/2010/04/circumcision.html Without a close reading of the text, can you even tell the sex of the child?

        • Karen Ercolani

          First of all, one’s religion ends where their knife touches another human’s body. The idea that another human’s ritual (rite) trumps one’s right to bodily integrity is insane and creepy….. The removal of healthy, sensate, possibly
          erogenous tissue without consent or medical exigency is mutilation and sexual assault. Period. The minimal, SPECIOUS health benefits can certainly await the age of consent. Not one medical association on earth endorses routine circumcision. No serious doctor or honest person could claim that there is a medical need for circumcision, nor that any of the slim benefits a few might theoretically enjoy warrants cutting healthy tissue from a non-consenting baby. We don’t remove tonsils from newborns because they ‘might’ become infected one day, and the chances of penile cancer are much more remote than that.

          Free exercise of religion does not extend to causing bodily harm on another individual. Freedom of religion also does not supersede established Federal law. Polygamy is a religious belief, but it is illegal in the United States because
          we have Federal laws specifically against it. Stoning, animal sacrifice, murdering adulterers, etc… are all religious beliefs and practices as well, but are also all illegal for obvious reasons. By the same token, breaking the law in the name of God or religion is not an acceptable defense in court.

          A ban on circumcision does in no way shape or form bar anyone from practicing their own religion. If it is one’s religious belief to be circumcised, one is still free to do it to oneself as an adult. A ban offers protection to children from being the victims of sexual assault and mutilation in a barbaric religious ritual. Religious circumcision on a non-consenting infant is not an expressions of the child’s religious freedom or choice, it is religious persecution by way of force on a helpless individual. It is the religious will and branding by one person forced upon another person.

          • Igor Shapiro

            Yes lots of European superstitions and void cliché together.

            Are your children circucmsied at 8th day what gives you right to demand here bans?
            I and all my children are circumcised I have seen about 40 circumcision practises by all my relatives and friends , this operation is done daily in 3500 years on hundreds of jewish boys . I have never ever heard complaints on it from any real person. Onlly from once who never seen it. Baby crye more than he asks to eat.

            This is most documented procedure in the world.

            Theare are lots of barbaric dangerouse unneccesary procedures made by supersticiouse europeans with their childrens starting from vitamine K injection of newborn to Infant ear correction.
            Chinese Eat Baby Soup from embrios but you dont care just the only one most important is to ban Judaisms most importnat mitzva dispite of proven medical benefits.

            Medical benefits of jewish crcumsision are proven in numerouse researches
            but that’s not the issue, see AAP s statements below for example

            We do it for another reason, anyway medical contrarguments are laughable in the light 3500 daily practising and having healthy population and solid reasearches which prove positive effect of crcumsision.

            Baby rights
            Europeans with barely 900 old of existence full of atrocities can not teach jews about human rights after making soap from jewish babies , gloves from jewish skin and having race biology institutions in 50s.
            So don’t teach Jews circumcision

            I remember USSR wherejewish people under the risk of prison circumsized their children on the kitchens. the difference is that at least Stalin forbid all religions not only Judaism, at least that had some logics.

            Nobody makes you circumcise your son; up to you to let him have all infections and unestetic look and possible future complications, this is completely up to you. This is parents responsibility to take care of their children. But nobody asks you advises about what jews should do with their childrens.

            American academy of paediatrics etc …
            “Evaluation of current evidence indicates that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks and that the procedure’s benefits justify access to this procedure for families who choose it. Specific benefits identified included prevention of urinary tract infections, penile cancer, and transmission of some sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has endorsed this statement. “

          • http://www.circumstitions.com/ Hugh7
          • Igor Shapiro

            Out of context and proportion,
            I tell you about normal jews circumcized on 8 th day according to tora. My friends and relatives people who i know, i know hundreds of normally circumcised jews.
            But you are showing me couple of evidence on very suspicious resource dealing with gentiles which had some unnecessary operation or unsatisfactory medical procedure. at the age of 30.
            Of course at the later stage this is a real operation so this is very important also from medical point to do it when it should be done on 8th day and notexpose children for risks for doing it later.

          • http://www.circumstitions.com/ Hugh7

            Many of those two hundred men who resent it were circumcised in infancy. Several of them are Jews. On healthy boys it is always an unnecessary operation. It is always a real operation. The risks of doing it later are less, when the parts involved are full-sized, and any mistake is not magnified.

          • Igor Shapiro

            No it is not, i have seen many. Baby cries more that he cries for food. Blood stops immediately.
            I am talking about many that i have seen myself.

          • Igor Shapiro

            he first Christian Church Council in Jerusalem, held in approximately 50 AD[17] decreed that circumcision was not a requirement for Gentile converts. This became known as the “Apostolic Decree”[18] and is one of the first acts differentiating Early Christianity from Rabbinic Judaism[19] At roughly the same time Rabbinic Judaism made their circumcision requirement even stricter.[20]
            According to the Columbia Encyclopedia,[21] “the decision that Christians need not practice circumcision is recorded in Acts 15;[22] there was never, however, a prohibition of circumcision, and it is practiced by Coptic Christians.”
            The main focus of Christian proselytizing in the early Christian Church were the God-Fearers, gentile inhabitants of the Roman Empire who were allowed to attend Jewish synagogues as quasi-Jews without the necessity of undergoing the hated rite of circumcision. All they had to do was swear that there was “One God”. Converts from this group was the primary kernel from which the early Christian Church grew. (About 10% of the inhabitants of the Roman Empire were full Jews and God-Fearers.) [23]

          • http://www.circumstitions.com/ Hugh7

            “Chinese Eat Baby Soup from embrios”

            WHAAA…? Talk about a Blood Libel!

          • Igor Shapiro
          • http://www.circumstitions.com/ Hugh7
          • Igor Shapiro

            Probably i did not spent enough time on it

            there are many publications like this
            http://thewondrous.com/ever-shocking-chinese-boiled-baby-soup/
            I dont insist, instead i am pretty sure that europeans kill daily thousands of healthy babies officially.

          • LZT1

            Wrong, circumcision is not merely done as a “ritual” – it is done for it’s numerous health benefits.

            More than 50% of North American men are circumcised, and good for them.

          • http://www.circumstitions.com/ Hugh7

            The “health benefits” are exaggerated – slight reductions in rare diseases of late onset that can be better prevented by other means or treated as they occur – when they are not completlely bogus.

            Notice how circumcision has so many goalposts it can always shift them. As soon as the case for the ritual gets rocky, it’s off to the “health benefits” and vice versa.

            Hardly any Mexicans and relatively few Canadians are circumcised. The rate (incidence) in the USA is now below 60%, though the proportion of circumcised men (prevalence) is higher. It was not “good for” those who hate it, whose sex lives it severely damaged, or who were otherwise harmed by it.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Given that circumcision is now being advocated for HIV prevention in sub-Saharan Africa, your statement that circumcision eo ipso is bodily harm is invalid. There is surely no problem with regulating circumcision; one might say anesthetic is required or that that odd practice of oral contact is verbotten. To argue specific forms of religious sacrifice of animals are wrong is proper, prohibiting religious sacrifice of animals in general would violate first amendment concerns; Eid Mohammed is fully protected under the first amendment.

            Religious belief does not excuse violation of neutral, generally applicable law: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0494_0872_ZO.html
            The question is whether or not the circumcision ban being planned would wind up being neutral. Consider a hypothetical law – “no one is allowed to light candles on Friday nights”. No mention is made of the Jewish religion in that case & almost certainly one might find other religions who light candles on Friday nights.

          • http://www.circumstitions.com/ Hugh7

            Circumcision of ADULT VOLUNTEERS is advocated…

        • RoxanneRoxanadana

          Homosexuality is a normal variant. As for bestiality, the cowboy’s best friend was usually a sheep of some sort. Also, judging from Cosmopolites comments, Swedes tend to view sex with Jews as a form of bestiality anyways.

          • Jackthesmilingblack

            And they call me anti-Semitic.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Amazing, is it not? Now it is not per se anti-Jewish to be against Israel, but it is if the one expressing negative opinions refuses to answer or answers in the affirmative the following question (especially if the person is the citizen of a country like America with abundant land):

            Assume Israel were gone tomorrow; would you mind if all the world’s Jews then became citizens of your country?

            ___________

            Those who answer “No” evidence a lack of Jew hatred to me. There may exist a lack of perspective still (no one complains of Turkey & Cyprus), but that may simply be a result of all the concentration on that tiny region.

      • Reborn

        Wish I’d said that

        • Jackthesmilingblack

          Don`t worry, you will.

          • Reborn

            What happened to Oscar ?

          • Jackthesmilingblack

            He never really recovered from his little stretch in Oxford prison. “If this is how Queen Victoria treats her prisoners she doesn`t deserve to have any.”

    • ritritrit

      Of course it is anti-Semitic. It is the very definition of the Hebrew people for thousands of years. And it has to be done in infancy as it is grotesquely painful and much more dangerous post puberty. Newborn is the ideal time.

      • aj

        It is also grotesquely painful for a child, and creates permanent changes in brain structure, as evidenced by MRI studies. It has been found that circed boys have higher responses to pain later in life. Adults are treated differently; we now give pain medications after an operation and even before pain sets in. This is to stop what is essentially a creek of pain from turning into a raging river of pain. Children who are circumcised are not only denied anesthesia (too dangerous) but are not given pain meds afterwards. Since the most sensitive part of the body (even compared to the clitoris of the girl) has been cut off, there is extreme post op pain.

        • James Lovelace

          Thank you for that contribution. It makes the procedure far worse than I had imagined.

        • RoxanneRoxanadana

          Brain structure? What proof is there of that?

          • aj

            MRI studies done on infants before and after, with pain studies done 6 months later. I refer you to the website thewholenetwork.org for links.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            The gallbladder is infinitely more complex than the foreskin; dysfunction of the gallbladder can be life threatening. No one has ever shown brain alterations from the removal of the gallbladder. There are hormonal changes associated with altering the stomach & intestines for bariatric surgery, but not structural changes recognizable on MRI. It would be beyond belief that removing any piece of skin other than the eyelid would have a permanent effect visualizable on MRI.

            It is remotely possible that a transient effect would be observed after circumcision. Were anything permanent to be present, it would have already been noticed. Rest assured Jew haters on the planet have carefully scoured MRI’s of Jews & Gentiles to find differences.

          • aj

            This is all I have right now:

            Analysis of the MRI data indicated that the surgery subjected the infant to significant trauma. The greatest
            changes occurred in the limbic system concentrating in the amygdala and in the frontal and temporal lobes.
            A neurologist who saw the results to postulated that the data indicated that circumcision affected most intensely the portions of the victim’s brain associated with reasoning, perception and emotions. Follow up tests on the
            infant one day, one week and one month after the surgery indicated that the child’s brain never returned to its baseline configuration.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            What you are saying strikes me as bizarre. I am not a radiologist, but look at MRI’s quite frequently in conferences called tumor boards. No one has ever asked, with respect to CT’s/MRI’s of the brain, whether the patient experienced trauma anywhere except the brain itself.

            You know. All sorts of accidents to adults, children, & babies occur. Serious, serious ones. Long term MRI appreciable brain effects simply are not deemed important, so far as i know. You may be right. Perhaps neurologists take prior abdominal surgery into account when looking at MRI’s. But I just have not seen it.

          • aj

            I imagine it’s along the same lines of observation of the brain responses with regard to drug abuse, alzheimers, dementia, etc. I’ll try to find more data.

          • JesseKaellis

            CITE?!

        • RoxanneRoxanadana

          In sum, the male Jewish brain throughout history was different from the male Gentile uncircumcised brain, That’s why the Jews were persecuted. Their men were damaged & had to be killed.

        • ritritrit

          Nope, actually the baby gets completely better in a day or two. Yes, it would be painful like that in adulthood, but not as a baby because the organ is not mature. That’s why it needs to happen then and not later.

          • aj

            There is no reason for it to happen at all, it being a perfectly healthy and functioning organ.

            It’s not painful because “the organ is not mature”?!!! The 20,000 to 70,000 erogenous nerve endings are already there and functioning. It is the most sensitive part of a man’s – and a child’s – body. It is full of meissner’s corpuscles, which are in other parts of the male and female body, but not nearly as much.

            To understand the feeling (if you are already circumcised) of these corpuscles, here’s a little experiment: Touch the top of your hand, and register the sensitivity there. Now touch the inside palm of your hand, and register the sensitivity there. Feel the difference? There are more of these corpuscles in the palm of your hand. Well, the foreskin has more of those than anywhere else on the male or female body.

            Finally, watch this, volume UP, and tell me that there is no pain there. Children have been known to throw up, and often go into shock.

            http://www.savingsons.org/2011/01/neonatal-circumcision-video-for.html

          • ritritrit

            So what? Either way they aren’t your kids and it’s not your religion. Stay out of it.

          • aj

            “Stay out of it” is exactly the point. Well said. The parents need to recognize that although it is their child, they cannot literally cut their religion into his genitals. The choice of religion and belief will be his when he is of the age to decide. The same should be said of his body. It may be their child, but it is not their body or their choice.

          • ritritrit

            Parents have the right and responsibility to take decisions on their children’s behalf.

          • aj

            True, to a certain extent. Cutting away 1/3 of a healthy and functioning organ is just not one of those decisions. It is completely cosmetic. Putting the religious stamp on it does not change the fact that it is a violation of a child’s right to bodily integrity.

          • aj

            But not to remove healthy tissue that is meant to be there. If the man wants to do cosmetic surgery on himself after the age of consent, so be it. Until then, he has the right to keep the body parts he was born with. If they become defective, they can be treated. Amputation is a last resort.

          • JesseKaellis

            The epitome of arrogance.

          • aj

            Arrogance is cutting a child because it’s YOUR way of fitting in to your particular social set.

          • aj

            Stay out of it? Well said, and exactly the point. It’s up to parents to care for their child, not carve their religious preference into his genitals.

          • ritritrit

            It’s their child, not yours. And if I were Jewish or Muslim, I’d want it done when I was a little baby and not much later.

          • aj

            I wonder why you’d want it done “not much later”? Because you would understand the use of the foreskin and actually want to keep your body part? Because there is nothing natural about cutting away a necessary organ? You act as if this child will remain a child forever, and is owned by the parents. The parents are the caregivers and protectors of the child. And what a failure of this test of protection, allowing social convention to rule over common decency! Just because a child does not have a clear memory of the assault does not make it correct. Imagine this: Parents take their 20 year old son into a hospital and, without asking him what he would prefer, sign away his body part. Would this be acceptable? What would the man’s reaction be, to have no say in the matter? So how is it different with a child who grows to be that man?

          • aj

            “Stay out of it” is a great motto. As the intactivists say, “It’s not the family penis”, so they need to STAY OUT OF IT.

          • aj

            (I have posted an answer to this several times and this one just came up after several days, so if my answer appears again, have a good time deciding which one is edited best)

          • aj

            This operation does not need to happen at ANY time, as it is removing a healthy, functioning organ that has a purpose in protection of the glans and sexual function.

            The “organ is not mature”?! This is an old and completely outdated belief. I assure you, the 20,000 to 70,000 nerve endings in the foreskin are there and completely operational.

            The foreskin is THE most sensitive part on a man’s (and child’s) body. In fact, it is the most sensitive part on the male or female body. It has Meissner’s corpuscles, which are also present in the lips, labia, etc….but not nearly in such quantity. To experience (if you are already circumcised) what these corpuscles feel like, do a little experiment: Touch the back of your hand and note the sensitivity level. Now touch the inside of your palm, and note the sensitivity level. The palm has more of those specialized corpuscles.

            Unlike a full grown man, a child is circumcised without anesthesia. Only topical is used. It is a fused organ. Try the idea of taking a sharp knife to your fingernail, and cutting away the fingernail from your finger. You will not experience HALF the pain a child does when his foreskin is ripped and cut away from the glans.

            Nevermind that “the baby gets completely better in a day or two”….which is also actually false. The point is, what is RIGHT about this assault on the baby’s body?

            Absolutely NOTHING.

        • JesseKaellis

          It has been found…
          Cite? Could you be anymore vague? Is it possible?
          Hyperbole, all of it.

          • aj

            Let’s take it the other direction. How about you prove to me that cutting a child with no general anesthesia on the most sensitive part of his body does NOT have a permanent effect on his brain. We already know about pain pathways in the adult brain, which is why pain meds are given after an operation but before the pain gets established. Recovery is much quicker and pain is less that way. Why would it be any different with a child? Imagine the pain pathways that are blazed with the scalpel, and then the continued pain post op, which is also not treated. It’s a truly insane way to treat any human.

      • Airey Belvoir

        Anybody, of any belief system, who believes that the mutilation of babies is required by their God, is uttterly deranged. They are committing a serious assault and ideally would be dealt with accordingly.

        • RoxanneRoxanadana

          You already gassed most of us in Europe. Are you saying the job is not yet finished?

          • cosmopolite

            Opposing infant circumcision does NOT equate to Holocaust sympathiser!

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            When people say “Stalin is worse than Hitler.” & no one objects, yes, it becomes a call for a return of the gas chamber.

          • cosmopolite

            How do you know no one objects?
            To equate that value judgement with a “call for a return of the gas chamber” is not even wrong. It is a pathetic waving of the bloody shirt.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            When someone calls himself Hugh with respect to circumcision, he ain’t being Jew friendly if he is an English speaker.

          • JesseKaellis

            Thou protesteth too much. Cosmo.

          • cosmopolite

            Speak for yourself.

          • JesseKaellis

            You in the neighborhood.

          • JesseKaellis

            Airey said they should be dealt with accordingly. What does that sound like to you? Sounds like a threat to me.

          • cosmopolite

            I know nothing about the fellow who posts are Airey.

      • cosmopolite

        There is much much much more to being a Jew than having a bald penis! To say that having a bald penis defines the Hebrew people is deeply slighting to Jewish women.

        Circumcision after age 1 is done under general anesthesia. That is much less painful. After age 6 or so, the foreskin and glans do not have to be ripped apart. Less painful. After the procedure, a teen or young adult can take strong pain killers. Less painful. Adult circumcision is less dangerous than infant, because mistakes happen less often when the penis is larger and fully grown.

        Early 20s is the ideal time, because when done at that age, circumcision is an eloquent statement of faith, of submission to God’s will, and of loyalty to one’s people and ancestors. An act done to a screaming baby has no such denotations.

        • ritritrit

          It’s a requirement of the Jewish faith that it be done at eight days old.

        • JesseKaellis

          So now you’re vacillating? Now circumcision is okay if it is done in the early twenties? As well, quit hiding. Why are you being coy? You are a Jew or you are not. You keep talking about women in relation to circumcision. Are you a female? Notice that I use my real name here. You can find me all over the net. I have a published book called Early Out. I’m on Facebook. There are pictures of me. I have a Star of David tattooed on my chest. That’s right, I’m a Jew with ink. There are half a dozen tattoo parlors in Tel Aviv, and I plan to get one when I’m there sometime next year.
          I mention this because being the sneaky shit that you are you made mention of the fact that I have had a lot of women in my life as being counter to Judaic tradition. I guess that’s between me and my maker.

          • cosmopolite

            Circumcision is indeed OK if done of one’s own free will after the 18th or 21st birthday.
            You are free to use your real name. I am free to not follow your example. Your preference does not make you morally or intellectually superior to anyone.
            Jewish tradition expects that a man will marry in his 20s, have children, be faithful to his spouse, and remain loyal to her when the nest empties. The afterlife consequences of deviating from that life path are known only by God.

      • CircEsAdreim

        Sure … mutilating a baby while he can’t fight back makes it so much better.

        Just because something has occurred for ‘thousands of years’ doesn’t make it OK. Slavery has existed in one form or another for eons too. It’s still wrong.

        • ritritrit

          Yes, but lots of things that have existed for thousands of years are actually ok and harmless. Which is my whole point.

          • CircEsAdreim

            Those ‘lots of things that have existed for thousands of years’ that are ‘ok and harmless’ are irrelevant to this discussion. THIS is not ok and it IS harmless, which makes your whole point moot.

          • JesseKaellis

            You made a typo there, stupid. THIS is not ok and it IS harmless.
            This doesn’t make sense, Einstein.

    • Pip

      Well said. I don’t know who the author thinks they are trying to fool with such bigoted nonsense. Shameful Journalism, the Spectator is morphing into the Daily Mail it seems.

      • RoxanneRoxanadana

        Any Jew who does not think all Jews should be gassed is really what is terrible in your imagination.

        You already banned Kosher slaughter. We objected, but do comply with the law.

        You already constantly damn Israel.

        Now you want to stop another practice of Judaism on “moral” grounds. This time it’s a central practice to many Jews.

        Heaven knows what will happen.

        • aj

          Keep Kosher, support the country of your choice, and believe what you believe. The issue here is not what you believe or want for your body, but what the child and soon to be man wants for his body. It’s simply not your place to do cosmetic rituals on a child.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Oh. That’s what they said about Kosher slaughter. It was not anti-Jewish, simply a concern for the “cruelty” to animals. Well, you know hunting is far more cruel to animals than any form of farm slaughter. Being chased about with guns, often shot in the gut & allowed to die after days of misery, etc., etc., etc., is horribly cruel.

            It also goes without saying that this nice little video about whaling among Norwegians, who ban Kosher slaughter, shows they really & truly do not have a care for suffering of intelligent animals (whales are, in some ways, more intelligent than we are).

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NJ0LZbO1FE

            Here you can see them do the nasty to seals:

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qydPENGBFs

            Ah, but what is that to the cruelty of Kosher slaughter, huh?

            In any case, for me it is not an issue. You see, I do not eat mammal flesh of any sort. It has done wonders for my digestive tract. I strongly recommend all do this, both to improve their digestion, decrease their risks of heart attacks & cancer, & perhaps make themselves more moral. In the end, one who cannot bring himself or herself to kill a fellow mammal for food is less likely to want to kill the planet’s Jews.

          • aj

            Sure, I support veganism. I’m for being nice to animals, children, and sometimes even strange religious doctors.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            One item that really bothers is the lack of acknowledgement of the nature of anti-circumcision movements & Jew baiting in the past. Were the anti-ritual slaughter (now restricted, Cosmopoite says to Jews alone) laws & the anti-circumcision movement accompanied by some off-setting demonstration of pro-Jewish sentiment at all, it might not be discomforting. Unfortunately, there are very worrisome signs in general:

            The status of Jews in Europe remains a delicate one. At least that is what a new survey by the EU’s Agency for Fundamental Rights suggests. The survey, to be released in full in November, found that nearly one quarter of European Jews avoid doing things or wearing symbols that could allow others to identify them as Jewish. And the numbers are worse in some places: Forty-nine percent of the Swedish utopia’s Jews avoid recognizably Jewish clothing and symbols in public. Eighty-eight percent of French Jews said antisemitism has become worse in the last five years. Thirty percent of Hungarian Jews have experienced an antisemitic incident in the past twelve months. And around Europe, two-thirds said reporting assaults and other antisemitic incidents to the police wasn’t worth it, or wouldn’t make a difference.

            http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/antisemitism-back-europe-9256

            Martin Luther’s great work, ON THE JEWS & THEIR LIES, mentions “circumcision” 97 times, according to my spell checker. These three paragraphs bear repetition:

            Therefore, dear Christian, be advised and do not doubt that next to the devil, you have no more bitter, venomous, and vehement foe than a real Jew who earnestly seeks to be a Jew. There may perhaps be some among them who believe what a cow or goose believes, but their lineage and circumcision infect them all. Therefore the history books often accuse them of contaminating wells, of kidnaping and piercing children, as for example at Trent, Weissensee, etc. They, of course, deny this. Whether it is true or not, I do know that they do not lack the complete, full, and ready will to do such things either secretly or openly where possible. This you can assuredly expect from them, and you must govern yourself accordingly.

            If they do perform some good deed, you may rest assured that they are not prompted by love, nor is it done with your benefit in mind. Since they are compelled to live among us, they do this for reasons of expediency; but their heart remains and is as I have described it. If you do not want to believe me, read Lyra, Burgensis, and other truthful and honest men. And even if they had not recorded it, you would find that Scripture tells of the two seeds, the serpent’s and the woman’s. It says that these are enemies, and that God and the devil are at variance with each other. Their own writings and prayer books also state this plainly enough.

            A person who is unacquainted with the devil might wonder why they are so particularly hostile toward Christians. They have no reason to act this way, since we show them every kindness. They live among us, enjoy our shield and protection, they use our country and our highways, our markets and streets. Meanwhile our princes and rulers sit there and snore with mouths hanging open and permit the Jews to take, steal, and rob from their open money bags and treasures whatever they want. That is, they let the Jews, by means of their usury, skin and fleece them and their subjects and make them beggars with their own money. For the Jews, who are exiles, should really have nothing, and whatever they have must surely be our property. They do not work, and they do not earn anything from us, nor do we give or present it to them, and yet they are in possession of our money and goods and are our masters in our own country and in their exile. A thief is condemned to hang for the theft of ten florins, and if he robs anyone on the highway, he forfeits his head. But when a Jew steals and robs ten tons of gold through his usury, he is more highly esteemed than God himself.

            __________

            This summarizes matters in general for those who dislike Jews. No matter what persecutions the Jews may have undergone, they are viewed as having received great beneficence from those they wronged. It is this danger that those who would ban circumcision must take into account, for, like it or not, Jews are human beings.

          • aj

            I do not see people as groups, unless a person identifies as part of a group. Even still I understand that there are individuals within a religion or political group. I don’t really get the impression that you care about the issue at hand one way or another. You seem more concerned with preserving your religion than preserving the innocence of the children WITHIN the religion.

            It’s obvious to me that you are not here to learn from others. You are simply another person who has found a way to funnel hatred and anger. Who knows where it came from; no matter. You have become blind to the wisdom and knowledge that has been presented to you. Since you are only looking for a place to deposit your rage, that is all you will find.

            We have all been victims of one kind or another. The strange thing about staying in the mindset of the victim and refusing the community around you is that it is, once again, self perpetuating.

            My goal here is to make LESS victims, starting with the next generation.

        • psysaac

          Roxanne, I am Jewish and do not support circumcision. An uncircumcised Jewish male is still Jewish, and cutting off part of the penis of an infant is amoral.

          However as a Jew I constantly have to tell my fellow intactivists not to see Jews as a group that is against intactivists somehow. all kinds of Jews have all kinds of opinions, and yet here people say “jews act like this or that.” very frustrating.

          regardless I urge you to look into what circumcision really is, if you would have your own foreskin (clitoral hood) removed if “all Jews were supposed to do it” and try to understand why it is genital mutilation. Not just a flap of skin, women have one to.

          • Igor Shapiro

            psysaac, “uncircumcised Jewish male is still Jewish”
            jaaaa,not for a long, Caret is promised in bible and actually i would be surprised if your children are jewsh, anyway very soon yur descendands will join happy family of gentiles.

          • Reborn

            The sooner all religons are dumped in favour of human kindness, the better.

          • Igor Shapiro

            Sure, and until it happen you will ban and forbid depress and kill once who don’t get you point?
            “The road to hell is lined with good intentions”.

          • LZT1

            I know!

            Human kindness is meaningless without faith.

          • JesseKaellis

            What a facile statement. Too stupid, and vague to even address or dissect.

          • JesseKaellis

            How about a new religion of left wing ideology? Communism was also a new religion. You ain’t too bright there, winner.

          • Reborn

            Communism was anti religious & atheistic.
            Ignoramous.

          • JesseKaellis

            In function it was the same as a religion. Have you ever heard the expression, “He trained religiously?” In other words adherence to an inflexible ideology, with little room for growth or insight. A superimposed construct upon the human condition; social engineering. In practice–a new religion. Not that all religions are so moribund. Christianity is shallower and more puerile than Judaism by far. It would be hard to come up with a more vacuous and spurious statement than, “The sooner all religions are dumped in favor of human kindness, the better.” You are saying absolutely nothing here. That’s an aphorism, a meaningless one.
            Besides, you’re not kind. Who are you kidding? I’ve read some of your posts on other threads. I didn’t go to the threads, I didn’t have to. All I did was click on your “name.” It’s always people that post under an assumed name or identity that are the most bitter and angry and the most abrasive and combative. Of course you are just a keyboard warrior. That’s obvious. Ignoramus. .

          • Reborn

            “Christianity is shallower and more puerile than Judaism by far”

            Statements like this show you to be a nasty bit of work.
            The civilised world both Judeo Christian & secular, has a common enemy & we should be united against it in its various forms.
            As an enthusiastic supporter of Israel & a hater of racism, supporter of gay rights, & hater of sex discrimination, above all, a supporter of increased social mobility in the UK, I can’t imagine which postings any decent person would strongly object to.
            I’m not flattered that such a nasty bigot should follow me in any way. Please go back to your ultra orthodox inbreed moronic version of Judaism & don’t pester people who are more enlightened & better educated.

          • JesseKaellis

            I was proselyted and baptized in Las Vegas in 1993 by a born again Christian from Texas. I am an open minded person and willing to try almost anything. I went to his church for a while but I had problems with Christianity as a concept.I will post a story I wrote that is in my published book. You wrote this, didn’t you?

            I don’t know if you are just some far left sicko inadequate or a computer generated personality (highly inadequate)
            But either way, your puerile abuse of mature posters is really quite embarrassing to read.
            Why not go back to selling the Socialist Worker & leave the intelligent geezers to get on with a lively debate ?
            Or, if you’re a computer program operated by Mike Giggler, let’s hope you self destruct. Soon.

            This was not addressed to me. It’s your style is it not? My discourse is lucid, I am articulate, I have points to make and I make them. All I can say about the above post is–nice.I mean, who’s nasty? Your education seems to have been a waste of money and time.

            The 800 pound gorilla
            Whenever somebody tries to force feed me scripture as a palliative to the human condition, I want to ask them the question, the question that is the 800 lb Gorilla sitting in the theological tearoom of monotheistic religion; the big ape that everyone is politely doing their best to ignore.
            When they were marching my people; men, women, and children…woman and children, off to the ravines
            to be murdered, WHERE WAS GOD THEN?
            Keep in mind that any answer you or anybody else provides is a lie; has to be a lie. And there is nothing left but to live the question.
            If, as my witness said, you tell me it’s because the Jews killed Jesus, I will move backwards very, very quickly, as I did with him. I was not mad at him, no; I was disappointed, because that is a cowardly answer. He
            diminished his God with that answer and he clearly did not think.
            I am not interested in stopping thinking via a prescription such as the Bible.
            I am not interested in that kind of Christianity or in being that kind of Christian. I am not looking for the answer, the one final answer to life. The living is in the question. I’m leery of those that say they have the answer. I don’t believe them.

            Okay bro, start flinging your feces.

          • Reborn

            I don’t fling faeces (UK spelling) at serious posters.
            I enjoy a debate.
            Everyone here is a “keyboard warrior” as you choose to describe such people.
            Presumably you’re serving in the armed forces.
            As for
            “Why not go back to selling the Socialist Worker & leave the intelligent geezers to get on with a lively debate ?Or, if you’re a computer program operated by Mike Giggler, let’s hope you self destruct. Soon.”

            If you saw the obscene drivel posted by the crapwit that was addressed to, you’d think my response mild.
            You are reminding me just how intolerant & blasphemous all religions are that claim to know all about the creator of everything.

          • JesseKaellis

            I don’t serve in the armed forces. I never served, but I did fight in the ring and if you think that’s easy why don’t you try it? Yeah, yeah, yeah–another atheist moaning about religion. Nobody knows, atheists included. How could religion be perfect when it was created by imperfect human beings? I’m not going to defend any or all religions because I don’t care. Being a Jew is more than a religion. I’m not allowed to forget I’m a Jew. People like you won’t let me.

          • Reborn

            I respect & admire Jews.
            I support Israel against its savage neighbours.
            As a people, including its religion in its milder forms, Jews are second only to the English in my book.
            All religions are mistaken, but ” by their fruits shall ye judge them” & the fruits of Judaisism speak for themselves – though you treated Spinoza very shabbily.
            So let’s agree to disagree, & please acknowledge that I only use verbal attacks on verbal thugs, not on people who do not share my opinions.

          • JesseKaellis

            Alright Sir, I will desist.

          • JesseKaellis

            How about a new religion of left wing ideology? Communism was also a new religion. You ain’t too bright there, winner.

          • Reborn

            Well said.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            You can also find Jews who 1) hate Kosher slaughter & 2) hate the State of Israel.

            It is highly unlikely that the combination of 1) bans on circumcision, 2) bans on Kosher slaughter, & 3) demonization of Israel portend a good future for Jews in Europe.

            No Jewish Persecution but Liberation from Jewish Dominance and Jewish Capital: Nazi Policy Broalcast

            June 16, 1932

            Berlin (Jun. 14)

            We do not want to persecute Jews, but we want to liberate Germany from Jewish dominance. We want Germans to conduct Germany’s affairs; we want to get rid of the Jewish spirit in Germany; we want no Jewish wire-pulling and we want no Jewish capital to dictate to us.

            This is our policy in respect of the Jews, Deputy Gregor Strasser, one of the Nazi leaders said when he delivered to-night the first address in the Nazi interest broadcast over the State radio, taking the place of Adolf Hitler himself who was at first announced to speak, giving an outline of the policy which would be pursued by the Nazis if they should obtain a majority of the seats in the Reichstag in the elections which take place next month.

            This is more or less the attitude outlined about a for tnight ago by Captain Goering, who has been described as Hitler’s right-hand man, and who was received together with him by President Hindenburg after Dr. Bruening’s dismissal.

            The Jewish question, Captain Goering said, is not fundamentally for us a theoretical question. Nazism defends itself against the Jews. It does not persecute them. We defend ourselves against Jewry, not against the Jewish religion. In the Third Regime religious liberty will be complete for all confessions which do not conflict with the customs and the moral feelings of the Germanic race.

            It would be ridiculous to allege that we seek to persecute the Mosaic religion, which leaves us quite indifferent. We are defending ourselves against an element that is alien to our race, against a disruptive and poisonous element which has brought harm to the German people.

            Those Jews who have immigrated into Germany since August 2nd., 1914 will be expelled. All Jews who have in any way insulted the German nation will be taken to the frontier, or they will be punished here according to the law for the crimes of which they are convicted.

            _____________

            Nothing to fear.

          • Igor Shapiro

            Are you children jewish?
            “urge you to look into what circumcision really is”

            For jews ? The most important mitzva which is equal to all rest of mitzvas. Are you really jewish, when did you last time had tfilin on?

            “and cutting off part of the penis of an infant is amoral.”
            forbid dantist treatment and cosmetic operations on child first
            ear reshaping, pearcing, vitamin shots etc

            “However as a Jew I constantly have to tell my fellow intactivists”
            You don’t have to , inactivists is just normal group of ignorant burgers trying to impose their primitive views on others.

          • psysaac

            You say what Circumcision is for Jews. Yet you are wrong because I am Jewish and disagree with you, it is as simple as that.
            Also, you have a lot of nerve telling people to prove to you that they are Jewish. Where I live people don’t always like Jews and being open about it says enough.

            I’m sorry Igor Shapiro, but what you say about what “circumcision means for Jews” is wrong, because I am Jewish and I know it is an evil action. It is not a “good deed,” and therefore not a mitzvah at all, unless mitzvah can take on the meaning of an evil action. The most Jewish thing you one do is think for oneself and for the good of others, even when it is hard.

          • Igor Shapiro

            Yes sure selfhating example. Exclusion that exists only to proove the common rule.
            Besides you did not answer my question: are your children jewish?

          • psysaac

            If I had children they would be both uncircumcised and jewish, Just like me and my brother, who teaches Hebrew by the way and just returned from Kibbutz. I do not hate myself, I am proud to be Jewish and since circumcision removes much of a person’s ability to feel pleasure, as well as alters the appearance of the penis to make it have a scar, I think Jews deserve better.
            Anyway, Igor Shapiro I urge you to consider whether or not Jews deserve their entire penises or if they deserve to be less than other people via circumcision. it is a harmful and antisemitic practice. bye now!

          • Igor Shapiro

            OK you know better than God what jewsih people has to do.
            Use this app it will help you a lot
            https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.kefsco.pooplog2&hl=sv

          • Igor Shapiro

            I would very doubt it, to visit some communist kibbutz or to teach Hebrew does not mean to be jewish.
            Scar? RU joking? Jews deserve entire penis. I Think you should make it your motto. And yes you deserve a big one.

          • JesseKaellis

            How do you know it removes much of a person’s ability to feel pleasure? Isn’t that entirely subjective? Scar? I have a nice, clean looking penis. This is all projection on your part. You are making a straw dog here and superimposing your mental pathology onto other Jewish men. In closing–f*ck off, man.

          • Igor Shapiro

            Lets listen to the jewish giants Ramban (if you know who whe is)

            My brethren, you all know that in the time of Nebuchadnezzar the Wicked, the Jews were compelled to worship idols and none was spared save Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah. Ultimately God destroyed Nebuchadnezzar, and put an end to his laws, and the religion of Truth came back to its own.

            Similarly during the Second Commonwealth when the wicked Greek rulers gained control of Palestine, they instituted severe persecutions against Israel in order to abolish the Torah. The Jews were compelled to profane the Sabbath, and were forbidden to observe the rite of circumcision. Every Jew was forced to write on his garment the words “we have no portion in the Lord God of Israel, and also to engrave this sentence on the horns of his ox and then plough with it.”3 This state of affairs lasted about fifty-two years. Finally, God brought to an end simultaneously their empire and their laws.

            The sages, of blessed memory, frequently allude to persecutions in the following manner: “once the wicked government passed the following decree of persecution,” or, “they decreed so and so.” After a while God would make the decree null and void by destroying the power which issued it. It was this observation that led the rabbis of blessed memory to affirm that persecutions are of short duration. (Ketubot 3b).

          • Igor Shapiro

            I say? Ramban says

            My brethren, you all know that in the time of Nebuchadnezzar the Wicked, the Jews were compelled to worship idols and none was spared save Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah. Ultimately God destroyed Nebuchadnezzar, and put an end to his laws, and the religion of Truth came back to its own.

            Similarly during the Second Commonwealth when the wicked Greek rulers gained control of Palestine, they instituted severe persecutions against Israel in order to abolish the Torah. The Jews were compelled to profane the Sabbath, and were forbidden to observe the rite of circumcision. Every Jew was forced to write on his garment the words “we have no portion in the Lord God of Israel, and also to engrave this sentence on the horns of his ox and then plough with it.”3 This state of affairs lasted about fifty-two years. Finally, God brought to an end simultaneously their empire and their laws.

            The sages, of blessed memory, frequently allude to persecutions in the following manner: “once the wicked government passed the following decree of persecution,” or, “they decreed so and so.” After a while God would make the decree null and void by destroying the power which issued it. It was this observation that led the rabbis of blessed memory to affirm that persecutions are of short duration. (Ketubot 3b).

          • Igor Shapiro

            good deeds if from christian vocabulary
            Curcumcicion protects our children from most terrible incurable desiases like hiv and cancer, along with huge number of other benefits. This is the most important mitzvah read Ramban about mitzvas.

            Baning it means hurting jewish children in medical, menthal, esthetical and religious way.
            Thats is why it was so popular method of nazis like Romans and Stalin.

          • JesseKaellis

            Okay, brother. If you are a Jew and you are against the “evil” of circumcision don’t do it to your son, and maybe you can tell your other relatives, and your friends, you can piss and moan on here, but you probably should mind your own business when it comes to Jews like me.

          • Jackthesmilingblack

            So you`re Jewish. We let by bygones hasbeens, huh?

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Some women put earrings in their hoods. So why not? What’s the difference between a glans in the hood and boys in the hood anyways?

            The difference between this matter & the ban solely on Kosher slaughter to me is that the latter improves the health of Jews above non-Jews. By avoiding mammal flesh, one might keep one’s chickens at one’s home, along with a nice vegetable garden. In today’s world you can even bake bread at home with very little funds. When all reasonable employment is denied Jews, one would then not starve.

            By contrast, years in jail would be administered to anyone violating this ban. Bans on doing business with those who circumcised would follow. Travel to Israel would be banned as provisioning support to the equivalent of female genital mutilation. Not improbable would be a foreskin crusade to save the babies of Israel by killing the parents.

            In any case. we’ll see how things work out. One hopes the first country to try this for a few years is New Zealand. Did you know, by the by, that since their ban on Kosher slaughter a few years back, they have become a major league exporter of Halal meat. No kidding.

            The nice thing about New Zealand is that it is both remote & small. Should it explode in Christian-Muslim violence after all the Jews scurry away, no one would really notice.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Not all intactivists want all the Jews dead, but a great many do. Now many Jews tend to ignore such things. Gertrude Stein was, in fact, Jewish:

            Avisit to Miss Gertrude Stein in her studio in the Rue de Fleurus is like consulting a Grecian sibyl. But, as Miss Stein says of Avila and Barcelona in her opera, there is a difference. Many of Miss Stein’s statements have an irrefutable terseness, though that terseness may conceal mystifying ambiguity such as characterized the utterances. Here, culled from an hour’s conversation with Miss Stein, are some sample dicts to guide the young Aeneas who would descend today into the realms of politics, art, science or literature.

            “Building a Chinese wall is always bad.”

            “Hitler should have received the Nobel Peace Prize.”

            “Intellectuals are not suited to directing of government. They are deterred by a mental obliquity.”

            “Government does not matter. It is competition, interest, struggle and activity that counts.”

            “The best rulers are those who govern by instinct, not by theory.”

            “The French are just tired — worn out by this process of making and spending money.”

            “Don’t think you can’t be senile at the age of 22.”

            But, again like the sibyl, Miss Stein is ready to elucidate. “I say these things,” said she, “not from any secret knowledge of what is going on. I speak only from my knowledge of people and what I know about my friends and neighbors.”

            http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/05/03/specials/stein-views.html

          • JesseKaellis

            I feel about circumcision the same way I feel about abortion; let the ladies decide. Let the Jews decide if they want to perform circumcision on their children or not. My whole contention here is that these people that so vociferously oppose circumcision really care about Jewish infants. I don’t believe them, at all. And if some Jews want to forego circumcision then that’s okay with me. It may one day be an anachronism that is no longer performed. At this point Jews have a negative birthrate, so if you are patient someday there won’t be any Jews. Then you can find another minority to persecute. The Nazis weren’t going to stop at the Jews, you know that right?

          • JesseKaellis

            I feel about circumcision the same way I feel about abortion; let the ladies decide. Let the Jews decide if they want to perform circumcision on their children or not. My whole contention here is that these people that so vociferously oppose circumcision really care about Jewish infants. I don’t believe them, at all. And if some Jews want to forego circumcision then that’s okay with me. It may one day be an anachronism that is no longer performed. At this point Jews have a negative birthrate, so if you are patient someday there won’t be any Jews. Then you can find another minority to persecute. The Nazis weren’t going to stop at the Jews, you know that right?

        • Reborn

          I respect Judaism & support Israel 100%.
          I wish there were more Jews in the UK.
          I hate animal cruelty & believe that Kosher/Halal slaughter is very cruel.
          I do not think Kosher has been banned in the UK (unfortunately) & the even more barbarous Halal slaughter is so predominant, that I believe most meat in the UK is Halal, which is shaming to us & shows exactly who our masters are.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Then you agree with me that Cosmopolite is a repulsive Jew baiter. She still has not explained why Sweden was neutral during WWII. Moreover, any statement about Sweden protecting “its” Jews winds up sounding awful when one remember this famed Himmler paragraph:

            I am talking about the “Jewish evacuation”: the extermination of the Jewish people. It is one of those things that is easily said. “The Jewish people is being exterminated,” every Party member will tell you, “perfectly clear, it’s part of our plans, we’re eliminating the Jews, exterminating them, ha!, a small matter.” And then along they all come, all the 80 million upright Germans, and each one has his decent Jew. They say: all the others are swines, but here is a first-class Jew. And none of them has seen it, has endured it. Most of you will know what it means when 100 bodies lie together, when there are 500, or when there are 1000. And to have seen this through, and – with the exception of human weaknesses – to have remained decent, has made us hard and is a page of glory never mentioned and never to be mentioned. Because we know how difficult things would be, if today in every city during the bomb attacks, the burdens of war and the privations, we still had Jews as secret saboteurs, agitators and instigators. We would probably be at the same stage as 1916-17, if the Jews still resided in the body of the German people.

            ______

            The Swedes, you see, simply lacked sufficient courage. When she speaks, ask her about the relationship of Herr Himmler & Count Folke Bernadotte.

          • JesseKaellis

            All animal slaughter is cruel. The way most animal are raised for slaughter in North America is cruel as well as producing an unhealthful product. I love the taste of meat but I gave it up about nine months ago because I felt bad about the animals. I eat eggs and dairy. I have leather shoes. I’m not on a crusade. I can’t change the livestock industries practices. It’s not a perfect world but it doesn’t have to be. Social engineering leads to evil beyond imagination. We already know this.

      • JesseKaellis

        WE’RE ARROGANT?!!

    • Igor Shapiro

      You can judge yourself, Forbid of circumcision on 8th day= forbid of Judaism. Altogether with the fact that there are more medical benefits than risks and historical facts that Romans and Stalin used the same method in order to exterminate Jews.
      But brain mutilated ignorant people which would like to impose their stile of life on another culture just never give up.

      • CircEsAdreim

        There are no ‘medical benefits’ to cutting off a healthy body part by force. It’s a human right violation. Religion isn’t an acceptable excuse for such violations. Animal sacrifice isn’t allowed any longer. This should be no different. Circumcision does not make one a Jew; the Jewish child is no less Jewish if he’s intact.

        • Igor Shapiro

          Just drop superstitious postulates of new European religion.
          Religion is not an excuse , jews gave up millions of lives and did not changed religion.
          Of course person who was under nazi rule like Stalins where circumcision was banned recognized as jews they should do it first chance they have.

          • CircEsAdreim

            None of what you said validates the continues practice of genital mutilation. How pathetic that people still try to defend such barbarity.

          • Igor Shapiro

            I mean that You are in barabaric antisemit attack(Amok) on Judasim like in god old times despite of clear medical benefits stated by the most respectable medical institutions like AAP and the fact that You are pathetically trying revive old Stalin traditions,

          • CircEsAdreim

            You are the one supporting a barbaric, violating, unethical tradition – the mutilation of infant genitalia.

            You’re also incorrect about the ‘clear medical benefits’ part. That’s patently untrue. And even if it WAS true, that still doesn’t justify cutting healthy, functional body parts off a non-consenting person.

            BTW – no medical organization in the world recommends infant circumcision. Not even the AAP.

          • Igor Shapiro

            Ignorant barbarians trying to impose their primitive logics and lack of knowledge on other cultures were always part of antisemit attacks.
            As i told you there lots of harmfull practises that europeans impose on their poor infants. You have no single objection against it, this is ok from your side.
            But when it comes to choosen people you are for some paranormal reason trying to impose ban on the most important connection with G-d.

          • CircEsAdreim

            We are not the ones imposing a permanently damaging physical mark on the genitals of non-consenting people (which is ultimately nothing less than rape). That makes you the ‘ignorant barbarians’ here, not those who speak out against it.

          • Igor Shapiro

            Don’t try occupying high moral standards and hide your antisemitism behind my children rights. This is you who are attacking my children trying to impose on them 2000 old barbarian Roman/Stalin traditions, as well as coursing them damage in both cultural, medical and religious way.
            So keep your hands of my children rights.

          • CircEsAdreim

            *Your* children’s rights? You don’t even really believe your children have rights. You believe that your supposed ‘right’ to carve your beliefs into their body is greater than *their* inherent right to bodily integrity and freedom of religion. We aren’t the anti-semites here. People like you are, fundamentally. Because you don’t respect the human rights of your own babies.

            And of course, when the barbarity of what people like you support is pointed out, the lame ‘anti-semite’ attack is launched. It’s not working so much anymore though. Because you can’t silence us or other Jewish people who are speaking out against this practice.

          • Igor Shapiro

            Who allowed you to speak about it, Of course my children has rights to be part of their culture , religion , get best educations, medical care, get all benefits that our religion and sience has to offer us. They have rights to be saved from attack of new european nazi fundamentalists like you which just out of stupid superstitions an ignorance have to impose on our children infections, diseases, ugly view , deprive them from spiritual part of our nations.

          • CircEsAdreim

            Amputating part of someone’s penis does NOT make them Jewish. And there is no ‘benefit’ to cutting off healthy body parts – there is only violation and lack of ethics. People have the right to cut off part of their genitalia if they wish. They do not have a moral justification for inflicting that on a person who has not consented. You can’t hide behind the shield of religion as an excuse to harm other people forever; people just aren’t as easily convinced by that argument these days, thank goodness. Animal sacrifice isn’t even condoned anymore, but all hell breaks loose if someone can’t carve off part of their child’s penis. Good grief. Such blind, unquestioning devotion to harmful, violating rituals is disturbing beyond words.

          • CircEsAdreim

            Being a human being allowed me to speak about it. You don’t believe your children have the inherent human right to self ownership and bodily integrity. You don’t believe they have the right to be protected from ritualistic attacks on their genitalia. You are on the wrong side of this issue. And thankfully more people are realizing it. Even your fellow Jews. Cutting off part of a baby’s penis doesn’t make them a Jew. If a man wants to make that decision for himself for whatever reason, it’s his decision to make – and his alone. No one else’s.

          • Igor Shapiro

            First you are here attacking part, For some paranormal reason Your Highesty decided that you can decide for us how to educate and raise our children?
            Basing on what on number of void cliche from Nazi times?
            We are not interested in this ignorant approach.
            We are 100% sure that this absolutely healthy and needed for our children and medical researches from the most respectful medical institutions prove it.

          • CircEsAdreim

            Educating and raising children does not extend to mutilating their genitals. And you are 100% wrong about the ‘healthy’ part. It isn’t. But it IS violating. Of course, pro-cutters don’t seem to care about violating the human rights of their children.

          • CircEsAdreim

            Educating and raising children does not extend to mutilating their genitals. And you are 100% wrong about the ‘healthy’ part. It isn’t. But it IS violating. Of course, pro-cutters don’t seem to care about violating the human rights of their children.

          • Igor Shapiro

            Read:
            APP
            Evaluation of current evidence indicates that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks and that the procedure’s benefits justify access to this procedure for families who choose it. Specific benefits identified included prevention of urinary tract infections, penile cancer, and transmission of some sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has endorsed this statement.

            Your medical counterarguments laughable.

          • CircEsAdreim

            Actually, not even the biased AAP recommends infant circumcision. In fact, no medical organization in the world recommends. Your claims of medical benefit are laughable.

            Read:

            Cultural Bias in the AAP’s 2012 Technical Report and Policy Statement on Male Circumcision

            The AAP’s extensive report was based on the scrutiny of a large number of complex scientific articles. Therefore, while striving for objectivity, the conclusions drawn by the 8 task force members reflect what these individual physicians perceived as trustworthy evidence. Cultural bias reflecting the normality of nontherapeutic male circumcision in the United States seems obvious. The conclusions of the AAP
            Technical Report and Policy Statement are far from those reached by physicians in most other Western countries.

            As mentioned, only 1 of the aforementioned arguments has some theoretical relevance in relation to infant male circumcision; namely, the questionable argument of UTI prevention in infant boys. The other claimed health benefits
            are also questionable, weak, and likely to have little public health relevance in a Western context, and they do not represent compelling reasons for surgery before boys are old enough to decide for themselves. Circumcision fails to meet the commonly accepted criteria for the justification of preventive medical procedures in children.

            The cardinal medical question should not be whether circumcision can prevent disease, but how disease can best be prevented.

            The AAP report lacks a serious discussion of the central ethical dilemma with, on 1 side, parents’right to act in the best interest of the child on the basis of cultural, religious, and healthrelated beliefs and wishes and, on the other side, infant boys’ basic right to physical integrity in the absence of compelling reasons for surgery. Physical integrity is 1 of the most fundamental and inalienable rights a child has. Physicians and their professional organizations have a professional duty to protect this right, irrespective of the gender of the child.

            There is growing consensus among physicians, including those in the United States, that physicians should discourage parents from circumcising their healthy infant boys because nontherapeutic circumcision of underage boys in Western societies has no compelling health benefits, causes postoperative pain, can have serious
            long-term consequences, constitutes a violation of the United Nations’ Declaration of the Rights of the Child, and
            conflicts with the Hippocratic oath: primum non nocere: First, do no harm.

            http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2013/03/12/peds.2012-2896.full.pdf+html

          • Igor Shapiro

            Once again those are void empty theoretical inventions of perverted mind. MY family has been practicing it in 3500 years. We are very satisfied with the result. This is also immanent part of our tradition, religion and culture.
            I have shown you bunch of modern researches that highly recommend it.

            Now come you and start blabbering same 2000 year old superstitions that Romans used when they tried to exterminate our folk; that also used by many others nazis, that tried to exterminate jews, exactly same nazi boolshit that you try to resell as arguments without been able to show any respectable medical proof.

            Actually when you are using “human rights”- it sounds more like rights for concentration labor camps

          • CircEsAdreim

            And blah, blah, blah.

            Those wild claims and accusations aren’t so effective these days.

            People can see through your attempts to use the past to justify the continued mutilation of baby boys.

            It’s not working so well anymore.

            Amazing to see the effect it has on baby cutters when they think they might not be able to slice off part of their children’s penis anymore. They go ape nuts.

          • Igor Shapiro

            Read .’

            You are attacking our children.
            You are trying to hurt their health by exposing them to most terrible uncurable deseases like HIV and cancer, hurt their cultural traditions and ruin their religion.
            Since you are talking about banning baby circumsision which belongs only to Judaism this is purely antisemit act aiming solely against Judaism.

            What are motive here ignorance, antisemitism or something else does not play that much role as much as how do your cover with human rights or another superstitions of new europe.

            The fact is you are deliberetly
            trying to hurt them moraly, menthaly,medically and esthetically.

          • CircEsAdreim

            You are the ones attacking your children. Mutilating their genitals is a blatant form of physical assault. And brainwashing them into thinking it’s acceptable to perpetuate the act onto their offspring is another form of mental assault.

          • Igor Shapiro

            “Scientific research shows clearer health benefits to the procedure than had previously been demonstrated. According to a systematic and critical review of the scientific literature, the health benefits of circumcision include lower risks of acquiring HIV, genital herpes, human papilloma virus and syphilis. Circumcision also lowers the risk of penile cancer over a lifetime; reduces the risk of cervical cancer in sexual partners, and lowers the risk of urinary tract infections in the first year of life”

            Male circumcision to cut HIV risk in the general population in half.

            Why do you want to expose our children for hiv and cancer?
            What are the real reason for such brutal immoral barbaric attack on our children?
            I am repeating the question is ignorance? antisemitism or what other reason make you try to course such damage to our children?

          • CircEsAdreim

            What primarily ‘exposes’ children to hiv and penile cancer are lifetsyle choices, not foreskin. BTW, cancer of the vulva and male breast cancer are more prevalent than penile cancer. :p

            There are not ‘clearer’ health benefits to genital mutilation and even IF there were, it would still be a violation of human rights to cut off functional body parts from non-consenting people.

            You’re wrong on this, no matter how much you try to grasp at straws to justify the barbarity that you support.

            STD/Hygiene Myths

            In studies of general populations, there is no clear or consistent positive impact of circumcision on the risk of individual sexually transmitted infections. Consequently, the prevention of sexually transmitted infections cannot
            rationally be interpreted as a benefit of circumcision, and any policy of circumcision for the general population to prevent sexually transmitted infections is not supported by the evidence in the medical literature.
            http://www.hindawi.com/isrn/urology/2013/109846/

            Psychology Today Series on Circumcision
            Part 2 – Hygiene and STDs:
            http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201109/more-circumcision-myths-you-may-believe-hygiene-and-stds

            Circumcision and Acquisition of Human Papillomavirus Infection in Young Men:
            http://journals.lww.com/stdjournal/Abstract/2011/11000/Circumcision_and_Acquisition_of_Human.16.aspx

            Clinical presentation of genital warts among circumcised and uncircumcised heterosexual men attending an urban STD clinic.
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1195083/

            Human papillomavirus and circumcision: A meta-analysis
            http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/cancer/vanhowe2006b/

            Genital Warts Among 18- to 59-Year-Olds in the United States, National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1999-2004
            http://journals.lww.com/stdjournal/Fulltext/2008/04000/Seroepidemiology_of_Human_Papillomavirus_Type_11.8.aspx

            Prevalence of male circumcision and its association with HIV
            and sexually transmitted infections in a U.S. navy population:
            http://www.iasociety.org/Default.aspx?pageId=11&abstractId=2176002

            The use of male circumcision to ‘prevent’ HIV infection:.
            http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/info/HIVStatement.html

            When bad science kills, or how to spread AIDS:
            http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2012/05/when-bad-science-kills-or-how-to-spread-aids/

            Circumcision and HIV – Harm Outweighs ‘Benefit’
            http://www.circumcision.org/hiv.htm

            Circumcision and HIV infection – review of the literature
            and meta-analysis:
            http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/vanhowe4/

            Circumcision and HIV infection:
            http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/

            Circumcision and HIV:
            http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV.html

            Sub-Saharan African randomized clinical trials into male
            circumcision and HIV transmission – methodological, ethical, and legal concerns:
            http://www.salem-news.com/fms/pdf/2011-12_JLM-Boyle-Hill.pdf

            Male circumcision and HIV prevention – insufficient evidence and neglected external validity:
            http://www.davidwilton.com/files/ajpmgreenetal2010-pub1.pdf

            How the circumcision ‘solution’ in Africa will increase HIV infections:
            http://www.publichealthinafrica.org/index.php/jphia/article/view/jphia.2011.e4/html_9

            Flawed studies used to claim circumcision reduces HIV
            infection:
            http://www.salem-news.com/articles/december112011/circumcision-hiv-rg.php

            In a 2009 survey, USAID found that in 10 of 18 countries
            with data available, circumcised men were actually more likely to have HIV than intact men. They found that condom use, not circumcision status, was correlated with lower HIV. Here is the original document:
            http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/CR22/CR22.pdf

            This study found that women are more likely to contract HIV/AIDS from a circumcised partner:
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8082965?dopt=Abstract

            A study (published 11/9/12 in the Journal of Sexual
            Medicine) in the Caribbean has shown that circumcised men were actually more likely to have had an STI, HPV, and be infected with HIV.
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22897699

            Intact America – flawed African circumcision trials cannot be used to inform US circumcision debate:
            http://www.intactamerica.org/sites/default/files/Analysis%20of%20Flawed%20African%20Circumcision%20Trials.pdf

            “We assessed the association between circumcision status and self-reported history of STI/HIV infection using logistic regressions to explore whether circumcision conferred
            protective benefit.

            Compared with uncircumcised men, circumcised men have accumulated larger numbers of STI in their lifetime, have higher rates of previous diagnosis of warts, and were more likely to have HIV infection. Results indicate that being
            circumcised predicted the likelihood of HIV infection.”
            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2012.02871.x/abstract

            Cancers, UTIs,

            Penile cancer, cervical cancer, and circumcision:
            http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/cancer/
            http://www.circumstitions.com/Cancer.html

          • Igor Shapiro

            “A systematic review and meta-analysis that focused on male circumcision and heterosexual transmission of HIV in Africa was published in 2000.12 It included 19 cross-sectional studies, 5 case-control studies, 3 cohort studies, and 1 partner study. A substantial protective effect of male circumcision on risk for HIV infection was noted, along with a reduced risk for genital ulcer disease. After adjustment for confounding factors in the population-based studies, the relative risk for HIV infection was 44% lower in circumcised men. The strongest association was seen in men at high risk, such as patients at STD clinics, for whom the adjusted relative risk was 71% lower for circumcised men.”
            I repeat my question why do you try to hurt our children by exposing them to HIV?
            What is the real reason that moves you to expose us to HIV and cancer?

          • CircEsAdreim

            Your ‘children’ – that you claim to love so much yet don’t mind mutilating – won’t be exposed to HIV unless they engage in risky sexual practices. The foreskin has nothing to do with it. You don’t catch HIV just because you possess a whole penis.

            Read the studies linked above, if you dare (but I doubt you will – they disprove your misconceptions and blow holes in the flimsy shield of ‘medical benefits’ that you try to hide behind, so it would be best not to look at them, right?). And again – even IF partial amputation of the penis prevented such things, it still isn’t right to cut off healthy pieces of someone’s body without their consent. But it’s interesting to see cutters keep trying to make a valid argument for their barbaric practice (this isn’t even limited to Jews; even secular cutters cling to ridiculous notions … it’s actually quite disturbing to witness).

            What is the real reason that moves you to mutilate the genitals of your non-consenting children? Do you get some sort of sick thrill out of watching them scream in anguish while someone slices away at their manhood?

          • Igor Shapiro

            You are full of superstitions, You act as typical idolater sacrificing Jews on altar of you superstitions like “human rights idol” “scientific” idel , material idol etc. there is no prove in stupid articles that you or i post here. We are doing it because it is a mitzva and not because some imbecilic apologetic idiot have read an article. The only thing important here, That you understand that you are typical nazi, robot fulfilling HaShems will to expel Jews from Europe.
            Those are only beliefs that you try to sell as pure truth, our practice clearly shows is people who acted like you were nazis trying to destroy jews..

          • CircEsAdreim

            YOU are the one full of superstitions, what with your ranting about Jews being killed if they can’t mutilate the penis of their babies. I mean, really – the level of your brainwashing would almost be laughable if it didn’t involve such an obsession with barbaric practice.

          • Igor Shapiro

            I am not you shrink. If you want to talk about it go to you circumcised shrink.

          • CircEsAdreim

            You are indeed brainwashed. Anyone who thinks it’s acceptable to mutilate the genitals of a non-consenting person has been brainwashed by a barbaric culture of cutting.

          • Igor Shapiro

            Just for you to know you are not original. Stalin and others did it. The real brainwashed is the attackers- namely you and your fellows.
            Jews of course could understand that europeans are on very low level of moral development which is the reason for their blatant attacks on jews.

          • CircEsAdreim

            No, you’re the brainwashed one for thinking it’s OK to mutilate children.

            YOUR people are the ones attacking others – literally. Every time you skin the penis of a baby in the name of religion, that is an attack.

            But like I said, keep yapping. The more you do the more you prove my point. :p

          • Igor Shapiro

            First you have no point, only bunch o superstitions.
            Once again you are attacking us, instead of minding your own business,
            Europe today full of stupid imbecile rituals and brainwashed people trying to impose this insanity on others.

            You are not fighting against legalized bestiality in your country that is ok from your human rights point.

            This one is also ok from your perverse logic
            http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/1482371/If-you-dont-take-a-job-as-a-prostitute-we-can-stop-your-benefits.html,

            But the only not ok thing is Jews, you will spend all you energy on trying to exterminate them.

          • CircEsAdreim

            You’re the one who has no point. You just keep yapping about how Jewish people are going to be exterminated if they can’t keep mutilating the genitals of their babies. Which is, of course, nonsensical beyond comprehension.

          • Igor Shapiro
          • CircEsAdreim

            What you need is to remove your demented ideology from being forced on the body of non-consenting individuals.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Do you find Hugh7 to be a Jew killer type, given his comments on Stalin & the gas chambers?

          • CircEsAdreim

            No, I don’t. Supporters of genital mutilation are closer to Jew killer types, since genital mutilation of Jewish infants has killed – and continues to kill – babies.

          • Igor Shapiro

            As you know jews dont need your opinions on that.
            I actually would suggest to circumcise any activist before they can open mouth, otherwise it is something non trust able, since you have no idea what are you talking about. I would also recommend you to use stone knife like our farfarfarfrather Abraham.

          • CircEsAdreim

            I don’t particularly care whether you think they need my opinions or not. I’ll still give it. If you don’t want to hear it stop reading and responding to my comments.

            Just because someone is Jewish doesn’t give them special exclusion in the human rights department. You’re violating children. The practice should end.

            Also it’s not just non-jews who are making the argument. :p

            http://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org/

            http://www.jewishcircumcision.org/

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            There exists no problem persuading non-circumcision. Legal banning of the act is what is problematic. One takes matters in context. Take Hugh7, for example:

            1 1

            Reply

            Share ›

            RoxanneRoxanadana anna • 11 days ago

            By the by, Anna, you are a historian, so you will really enjoy this little report from me.

            On two separate online anti-circumcision discussions over the past ten days, the following assertions were made to me: 1) dying in a gas chamber was not morally worse than dying in a slave labor camp (one of them even said he’d prefer dying in a slave labor camp as some sort of excuse), 2) Stalin was infinitely worse than Hitler. No one objected to these assertions either.
            Does this surprise you?

            1 Edit Reply Share ›

            Hugh7 RoxanneRoxanadana • 11 days ago

            1) How and why do you draw a moral distinction?
            2) On a simple body-count, “infinitely” is an exaggeration – Stalin was only several times as evil. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J… ) Given the greater time Stalin had, the total suffering he caused may have been much worse.

            One wonders who broke Godwin’s Law first?

            2 Reply Share ›

            RoxanneRoxanadana Hugh7 10 days ago

            One sees anti-circumcision people for exactly what they are with this comment.

            In fact, I’ll post this on an anti-circumcision discussion to generate some interest.

            Edit Reply Share ›

            IsaacStorm Hugh7 • 10 days ago
            It’s called using Holocaust reversal as a means to perpetuate Jewish hatred. Thanks for admitting to it.

            http://www.jpost.com/Experts/New-incarnations-of-an-ancient-hatred-328787

          • CircEsAdreim

            It’s no more problematic than the banning of female circumcision.

          • Igor Shapiro

            And I hope you will be awarded Muammar Gaddafis human rights prize for your activity on extermination jewish population,

            So once again what are real reason for you desire to go in footsteps of Stalin, expose our children to HIV and cancer
            and hurt their culture and religion?

            Josef Stalin,, Muaamar Gaddafi and Assad were also big fan of human rights.

          • CircEsAdreim

            No one’s exterminating the Jewish population. Preventing genital mutilation doesn’t KILL anyone. Genital mutilation, however, does kill. Seems you are the one who wants to kill your ‘children’.

            But keep blathering on like you’ve been doing with your rants about a ‘Jewish extermination’ that isn’t even happening. Show the lurkers how ridiculous you really are.

          • Igor Shapiro

            No circumcision= no jews= no Judaism so you are probably unaware are working on the mission that Stalin and Hitler failed to fulfiil

    • Igor Shapiro
      • CircEsAdreim

        None of your posts validate the continues practice of genital mutilation. How pathetic that people still try to defend such barbarity.

    • thepathtotruth

      Wow, these posts are from the supposedly better educated more conservative more pro – Jewish/Israeli portion of British society? Sorry, but they reek of anti semitism, I’d expect the views would have found great favour in 1930’s Berlin.

      • RoxanneRoxanadana

        Yes. It’s surprising none of them objects to the worst of them.

  • Rebecca Fine

    I support circumcision for boys, for both medical and religious reasons, but it must be performed by a qualified practitioner. It must be done quickly and with as little pain as possible for the boy. Often mohels are the best at performing circumcisions since they have the most expertise – this is why The Queen had Prince Charles circumcised by one back in 1948.

    • Lloyd Schofield

      Ms. Fine, do you support religiously trained individuals to circumcise baby girls? You do not even acknowledge that there is NO pain remediation in religious based genital cutting ceremonies. I’m sure this denial makes you feel better, but it does not make it so.

    • joseph4gi

      Hey Becky, (miss me?)

      Still spewing your idiotic lies?

      What if female circumcision could be done “quickly and with as little pain as possible, by a qualified practitioner?” Would you support it?

      Fact: Mohels use no pain remedy.

      Fact: Even with pain prevention measures, babies experience pain during and after the procedure. A current study being conducted in Cincinnati, Ohio is not testing WHETHER circumcision is painful, but HOW MUCH.

      Fact: Even mohels screw up. This is why millions of dollars have been awarded in damages to parents of children whose penises were ruined for to life by mohels.

      The Queen had Charles circumcised because she thought it would guarantee her a corner in heaven if she “did as the Jews.” She harbored crazy ideas like she actually thought the Brits descended from a tribe of Israel.

      Also, Prince William, nor his child is circumcised. WHY is Prince Charles’ circumcision status relevant to this discussion again?

      • Zach Comer

        Let me give you a high five from across the pond there buddy. It is just appalling how many of these happen for non religious purposes and here in the states it seems to be more of a “fashion trend” then anything. Just for looks and nothing more.

      • Rebecca Fine

        You don’t know whether William & Harry are circumcised, or whether William & Kate had their new son circumcised. Clarence House said it would not confirm either way. So you are engaging in supposition.

        • joseph4gi

          Then, by definition, so are you? Idiot?

        • joseph4gi

          “So you are engaging in supposition.”

          Quoth the person who said:

          “Often mohels are the best at performing circumcisions since they have the most expertise – this is why The Queen had Prince Charles circumcised by one back in 1948.”

          Really, Becky? This is why the queen had Prince Charles circumcised? Go on?

    • TJ Jordan

      You should be strapped down and circumcised.

    • RolandDay

      Hi Rebecca:

      Time has moved on. Princess Di refused to have her boys circumcised by anyone. Physical integrity is back in fashion among the Royals.

      With regard to pain, there is even less pain with non-circumcision.

    • RoxanneRoxanadana

      joseph4gi does not support your right to life.

    • LAguy323

      So, let’s take a sharp pair of scissors to your vagina lips! Just a useless flap of skin it is. It’ll look so much prettier and be easier to keep clean. Sorry, you get no anesthesia, darling.

  • Hawk

    Brendan O’Neill, this is flawed logic. Just because circumcision is
    an age-old tradition doesn’t make it right. Your critical thinking is
    colored by your cultural bias, or something else more perverted. When
    we learn that something hurts and causes damages we should do better,
    plain and simple. Circumcision hurts and causes irreparable damage and
    should be left to adults to choose of their free will. Religious
    practices must stop at the body of a child, period.

    • RoxanneRoxanadana

      Of course, if something prevents disease, it’s worth doing. Vaccines are quite painful. I would never have consented to them & in fact ran away from Mama when she tried to drag me to get them at the doctor’s office. Why oh why did she violate my precious bodily integrity?

      BMC Pediatr. 2013 Sep 8;13(1):136. [Epub ahead of print]

      Recommendation by a law body to ban infant male circumcision has serious worldwide implications for pediatric practice and human rights.

      Bates MJ, Ziegler JB, Kennedy SE, Mindel A, Wodak AD, Zoloth LS, Tobian AA, Morris BJ.

      Abstract

      BACKGROUND:

      Recent attempts in the USA and Europe to ban the circumcision of male children have been unsuccessful. Of current concern is a report by the Tasmanian Law Reform Institute (TLRI) recommending that non-therapeutic circumcision be prohibited, with parents and doctors risking criminal sanctions except where the parents have strong religious and ethnic ties to circumcision. The acceptance of this recommendation would create a precedent for legislation elsewhere in the world, thereby posing a threat to pediatric practice, parental responsibilities and freedoms, and public health.

      DISCUSSION:

      The TLRI report ignores the scientific consensus within medical literature about circumcision. It contains legal and ethical arguments that are seriously flawed. Dispassionate ethical arguments and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child are consistent with parents being permitted to authorize circumcision for their male child. Uncritical acceptance of the TLRI report’s recommendations would strengthen and legitimize efforts to ban childhood male circumcision not just in Australia, but in other countries as well. The medical profession should be concerned about any attempt to criminalize a well-accepted and evidence-based medical procedure. The recommendations are illogical, pose potential dangers and seem unworkable in practice. There is no explanation of how the State could impose criminal charges against doctors and parents, nor of how such a punitive apparatus could be structured, nor how strength of ethnic or religious ties could be determined. The proposal could easily be used inappropriately, and discriminates against parents not tied to the religions specified. With time, religious exemptions could subsequently be overturned. The law, governments and the medical profession should reject the TLRI recommendations, especially since the recent affirmative infantmale circumcision policy statement by the American Academy of Pediatrics attests to the significant individual and public health benefits and low risk of infant male circumcision.

      SUMMARY:

      Doctors should be allowed to perform medical procedures based on sound evidence of effectiveness and safety with guaranteed protection. Parents should be free to act in the best interests of the health of their infant son by having him circumcised should they choose.

      • aj

        There is nothing effective or safe about removing a healthy and functioning body part that is meant to be there and provides health and pleasure. No doctor who follows “First, do no harm” would remove a body part before first following the average medical protocols. In what other case is a body part amputated unless there is absolutely no other alternative? You try very hard to find sorry stats to prove your emotional beliefs. Face it, there is no sense to amputation of body parts in children, unless said part is irrefutably diseased and cannot be saved.

        • RoxanneRoxanadana

          If we could safely remove the appendix, you can bet all would do so.

          In fact, many of us have had healthy wisdom teeth removed before there are problems in the mouth.

          • http://www.circumstitions.com/ Hugh7

            Who says “we can safely remove the foreskin”?

            By definition “wisdom” teeth are an adult problem, and as an adult you would have given informed consent for their removal.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Mine left me when I was a teenager. Was i abused?

          • http://www.circumstitions.com/ Hugh7

            “teenager”? Aged 13, maybe. What was the diagnosis, who gave the consent? Aged 19 with your informed consent, no.

          • aj

            It’s interesting that you mention the appendix, as a fairly short time ago in medical history, it was considered a useless organ and a “left over” from evolution. Now we know it’s function and necessity in the body and there is a concerted effort to preserve it. The foreskin is suffering the same medical indifference, even though there is much information available on the intricacies and necessity of its function.

            I have also wondered about the removal of wisdom teeth and whether it is truly necessary.

            I don’t think you can compare teeth to the foreskin, however, but nice try.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            What effort is there to preserve the appendix eo ipso? I really & truly would have heard about this & have not.

            There is an attempt to reduce appendectomies because one does not want to enter the belly surgically; this is because any entry into the belly can cause something called adhesions. It is the danger of opening the peritoneum that is desired. There is absolutely no evidence that the appendix serves a vital function or that any harm accrues from its loss.

            The teeth serve a far more valuable service than does the appendix, the foreskin, or, come to think of it, the nasal septum. Teeth chew food. As for the wisdom of removing wisdom teeth, well, let’s just say that you need to speak with a few dentists.

          • Guest

            Well, a lazy google search brought up that the appendix can “serve as a vital safehouse where good bacteria can lie in wait until
            they are needed to repopulate the gut after a case of diarrhea. Past
            studies have also found the appendix can help make, direct and train
            white blood cells.”

            And as far as deciding which body part is more useful, it’s pretty much apples and oranges. If you are a man or a heterosexual woman, the foreskin will directly affect your sexual pleasure. Whether that is more important than your teeth chewing or your appendix making bacteria doesn’t matter much, as they all have a purpose and it’s time we got to know it in detail.

            In Western medicine, we like to cut first and observe later. Kind of like we bomb first and negotiate after. Well, it’s been a lot of cutting, and now we’re finally observing. You have to k

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            I swear I have not heard a case being made for not removing the appendix because of potential damage to health of any sort. I see many, many more appendixes than I do foreskins, about fifty times as many, actually.

            Let’s put it this way. The case for not removing the foreskin would be similar to the case for not removing the appendix if the operation to remove the appendix were as safe as the operation to remove the foreskin.

          • cosmopolite

            The safety of routine circumcision is not known, because the long term effects on sexual function have not been studied.

          • Igor Shapiro

            3500 years not enough?

          • http://www.circumstitions.com/ Hugh7

            You have copies of the peer-reviewed studies published 1500 BCE?

            It was known for millennia from Philo of Alexandria until the19th C, that infant male genital cutting deleteriously affected sexuality. That was one of the reasons given for doing it. This knowledge strangely became forgotten when circumcision snuck under the tentflap of medicine and became commonplace.

          • Stephen Moreton

            “It was known for millennia” that the earth lay at the centre of the universe. Read about the appeal to tradition fallacy. I’m losing count of the number of times I’ve seen intactivists deploy logical fallacies on this thread.

          • Igor Shapiro

            Yes I do,

            Maimonides’ ascetic attitude to sexual relations seems to inform his rationale for circumcision, and this type of logic was not adopted by the majority of legal scholars. We circumcise because this is mitzvah.

            Together that uncircumcised gentiles have less than 1,5 children barely 1000 year old and already dying nations, Jews despite that they are 3500 year old still have more than 2,2 children.

            Celibate syndrome seems for Jews laughable but for
            Europeans and Japanese nothing to joke about

          • cosmopolite

            That brit milah goes back 3500 years is a legend. The history of the ritual is not well understood.

            Circumcision practiced in times and places lacking all scientific understanding of human physiology, of sexuality, and of disease, sheds no light whatsoever on whether infant circumcision is safe and has no adverse consequences for adult sexuality. All that we know is that centuries of infant circumcision has not prevented the Jews and Moslems from reproducing and growing in number.

          • Igor Shapiro

            “The Ten Commandments have lost their validity. Conscience is a Jewish invention, it is a blemish like circumcision.”
            – Rauschning, Hitler Speaks, p. 220

          • cosmopolite

            Hitler and his minions almost killed my mother and her family. The Third Reich was blatantly amoral. With that out of the way, what is your point?

          • Igor Shapiro

            OK now you will teach me about history of brit,
            That was one of conditions for Exodus from Egypt that would be around 13 th centure BCE

          • http://www.circumstitions.com/ Hugh7

            What RR has not heard would fill many, many books.

            And when the appendix carries as much emotional baggage as the penis, it will be time to talk about “the case for not removing” both in the same breath.

          • aj

            Well, a lazy google search brought up that the appendix can “serve as a vital safehouse where good bacteria can lie in wait until they are needed to repopulate the gut after a case of diarrhea. Past studies have also found the appendix can help make, direct and train white blood cells.”

            And as far as deciding which body part is more useful, it’s pretty much apples and oranges. If you are a man or a heterosexual woman, the foreskin will directly affect your sexual pleasure. Whether that is more important than your teeth chewing or your appendix making bacteria will be up to you. I’d like to leave the foreskin decision to the man, myself.

            In Western medicine, we like to cut first and observe later. Kind of like we bomb first and negotiate after. Well, it’s been a lot of cutting, and now we’re finally observing. Keep in mind that the female orgasm (up till 1901) was once called a “hysterical paroxysm”….so there’s no wonder that we’re just now getting to know the pleasures of the foreskin.

          • cosmopolite

            You do not appreciate how the foreskin facilitates masturbation, foreplay, and penetrative sex. The foreskin interacts nicely with his and her natural lubrication. By virtue of this facilitation, the foreskin is valuable.

          • FrederickRhodes

            Both men and women are born with prepuces. The main neurological function of the frenulum delta nerves that radiate out from the clitoris and glans around the clitoral hood, and labia, or the foreskin, is to cause and send sexual arousal signals to the reproductive parts of the brain when physically stimulated. The frenulum delta nerves location is commonly known as the feminine G spot or the masculine Gee string. Excising none, some or all of these nerves during ritual male and female circumcisions before puberty causes different degrees of psychological and physical sexual disfunctions to begin to appear after puberty, without the victim or the parents knowledge. The people chosen to cause this sexual dysfunction use it as population control and are known as the chosen people

          • FrederickRhodes

            The chosen people believe they were chosen above all by their god to control world populations through infant circumcision of their own sons with a light circumcision, and most all the infant and childhood circumcisions on gentiles, arabs and schwartzas get the more traumatic, excessive and botched peri’ah circumcisions, in exchange for the promised land and to rule the world. They call this Zionism. The outcome is inevitable, a mass nuclear holocaust between the 3 Abrahamic religions in the middle east where this superstitious witchdoctor kabbalah witchcraft began. This is the consequences of superstitious false god worshipping. Mass extinction.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Something tells me your words are not serious. For if so,

            Why man, they do bestride the narrow world
            Like a Colossus, and we petty Jews
            Walk under their huge legs and peep about
            To find ourselves dishonourable graves.

          • David

            “There is an attempt to reduce appendectomies because one does not want to enter the belly surgically” – This alone is a perfect argument for not exposing a little human being to unnecessary surgery complications which might be the result of genital cutting.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            No it does not. The concern about appendectomies is the adhesions left in the belly; what happens with adhesions is that parts of the bowel get stuck, which can cause death. There is no similar concern with chopping off a sixth finger on a baby, removing wisdom teeth from a pre-teen or teen (that was done to me), or operating on the eyes of babies so they don’t have one eye appearing to look in one direction while another eye looks in another direction. The latter operation is done even though the baby will almost always be able to see just fine. The social problems associated with having one eye look in an apparently different direction suffice for a procedure on the eyeballs that, when done wrong, stands a chance of destroying the eye. Very, very delicate surgery; the skill involved is immense. No one asks the child for permission for that purely cosmetic procedure.

          • Pip

            Roxanne attempting to defend the indefensible due to inane belief in religious doctrine. It baffles me how someone can be intelligent enough to qualify as a Dr yet be dim enough to believe in religion.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Desired is the ability to walk around, eat, drink, work, & sleep without worry about being burnt at the stake. That’s simply too much to ask for intactivists, historically speaking.

          • http://www.circumstitions.com/ Hugh7

            “burnt at the stake”? RR’s flight from reality is becoming florid.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Let’s pursue the adventures of Hugh the Foreskin further. When last seen, Hugh was flapping about intact on the surface of a cesspool, getting his mother all excited. So what happened next?

            This child, with pitous lamentacioun,
            Uptaken was, syngynge his song alway,
            And with honour of greet processioun
            They carien hym unto the nexte abbay;
            His mooder swownynge by his beere lay
            Unnethe myghte the peple that was theere
            This newe Rachel brynge fro his beere.

            With torment and with shameful deeth echonThis provost dooth the Jewes for to sterve,

            That of this mordre wiste, and that anon.
            He nolde no swich cursednesse observe;
            “Yvele shal have that yvele wol deserve”;

            Therfore with wilde hors he dide hem drawe,

            And after that he heng hem, by the lawe.
            __________
            Ahem, so you see the result. Torture garnered all the appropriate statements from the defendants that made it possible to hang them with justice! Of interest, it is the practice of many to implant bells into their foreskins, for a bit of musical entertainment. Here you might just hear Hugh the foreskin & fellow intactivistas in the background, encouraging the melody at the beginning, there:
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WP_miMrvwj0

          • aj

            Tell you what, if you’re willing to remove the hood of your clitoris, then we’ll consider your argument.

      • LA

        Please research who Brian Morris is before posting his stuff. Thanks.

        • RoxanneRoxanadana

          I already have. You must prove him dishonest.

          • cosmopolite

            He is obsessed with circumcision, and is a relentless self-promoter. He frequently cites The Circumcision Foundation of Australia, without revealing that he is its founder and one of its few members. The medical association of Australia and New Zealand does not endorse his conclusions. He is not a medical doctor, much less a pediatrician or urologist. He patronises lay people, especially mothers. He has a very 1950s middle class attitude to sex, and refuses to think seriously about how the bits ablated by circumcision enhance sexual pleasure and function. I will grant that he deplores circumcising infant without anesthesia.

          • James3D

            You say Brian Morris “deplores circumcising a infant without anaesthesia.” Really? Or is that just a ploy to appear reasonable?

            I don’t think he gives a damn about cutting a child without anesthesia, all he cares about is that cutting happen no matter what. But he is canny enough to realize that he needs to appear a certain way to sell his fetish.

          • cosmopolite

            Last decade, Morris told me in a private Email that he deplored the American practice of cutting newborn boys without first injecting lidocaine. Even Morris was shocked by the barbarity of RIC in the typical USA maternity ward east of the Rockies. Very sadly, lidocaine is almost never used in brit mila.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Anesthesia can be required as part of regulating the practice. So can banning of oral contact by rabbis (it should be banned). This does not imply it is reasonable to ban neonatal circumcision in general. The ones I have witnessed always use anesthetic.

          • cosmopolite

            The videos I have seen of American, Latin American and Israeli brisim never use lidocaine.

            I would welcome the rabbinate Judaism mandating that henceforth, a potent anesthetic has to be administered 15 minutes before doing a bris. And if the rabbinate refuses and the law steps in, I would not be averse to such a law.

            The problem is that lidocaine, the potent local anesthetic used in root canals, can be used only by MDs because an overdose can damage or kill. Requiring anesthesia as part of bris means that every mohel who is not an MD has to hang up the scalpel and retire. I believe that a large majority of extant mohelim are NOT MDs. In Europe, mohelim are typically rabbis, although I have seen one YT video interview of a French mohel who was a surgeon.

            I am glad to see that you agree that MBP should be banned if haredi rabbis don’t hurry and ban it themselves.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            The oral contact will likely be banned & in fact is being argued against by an Orthodox Jewish attorney, as well it should be. Your issue, however, is insufficient orgasmic intensity, not sanitation. Sanitary regulation is subject to change; the Talmud describes dung about food containers as a means of keeping the contents warm. The past was quite smelly.

            The miracle play Chaucer put in story form proved the miracle the appearance of justification for killing Jewes. Your study of French history comprised the acquisition of damnations of Jews; else you would not conclude with such detail that French Jews suffered little or no post-war persecution. Sartre published “Réflexions sur la question juive” in 1946.

          • cosmopolite

            Most American doctors east of the continental divide still do not use lidocaine. The typical doctor who does use lidocaine does not allow enough time for it to have full effect. Compare and contrast with what dentists do to prepare a patient for a root canal.

          • roger

            Is lidocaine that stuff in ‘delay creme’, works for some people.

          • cosmopolite

            Lidocaine is a fluid injected by hypodermic. Dentists inject it into your jaw before doing root canals and extractions. It is not legal for anyone who is not an MD to get their hands on lidocaine, because an excessive dose can kill.

            By “delay creme” you probably mean EMLA cream, a topical anesthetic that is ineffective against circumcision pain.

            The protocol around the world is that circumcision after 6-12 months requires general anesthesia. Here in New Zealand, a doctor lost his licence for attempting to perform a circumcision in his office on a 12 year old using lidocaine alone. The boy became hysterical and violent, and had to be taken to an emergency room.

          • Stephen Moreton

            Ad hominem. Besides, one could turn the argument around and fire it back at intactivists. Look at the anti-circ literature. It is the same few names over and over again, some of whom have clocked up impressive tallies of critiques and rebuttals in the medical literature (and not all from Morris). And who often hide behind the pretentious sounding “Doctors opposing circumcision” who have been publically challenged to state how many members they have and how many are medical doctors (only 2 of its 5 officers are). They have, so far, declined the challenge.
            As for Morris having a very “1950s” attitude to sex, that does not fit well with one of his regular co-authors being openly gay.

          • cosmopolite

            That the medical society of Australia and New Zealand decline to endorse Brian Morris’s contentions is NOT an ad hominem. That Morris was friendly for a number of years with a convicted pedophile, Vernon Quaintance, is a matter of public record.
            If you have issues with Doctors Opposing Circumcision, take them up with John Geisheker, the director. DOC is not a major factor in intactivism. Most intactivists are everyday American mothers, many without a college degree.
            That Morris has a 1950s attitude towards marital intercourse and foreplay, and also coauthors with Jake Waskett, who has no training whatsoever in medicine, public health or human sexuality, is not a contradiction but an expediency. Usefulness makes strange bedfellows of us all…

          • Stephen Moreton

            I am reticent to waste more time on an old thread being read by few people. This may be my last post
            here.

            That medical societies do not agree, whether with Morris, or each other, is irrelevant as I am not advocating here for infant circ. In fact the lack of consensus is one reason I
            keep out of advocacy, one way or the other. This is independent of my criticisms of intactivism, which stand on
            their own merits.

            Morris was “friendly” with Quaintance BEFORE the latter’s
            disgrace. Morris then dissociated himself from VQ. That you should bring this up is just barrel-scraping, and a crude attempt at guilt by association. One might as well condemn the many friends of Ted Bundy just because he later turned out to be a serial-killing psychopath. How were they to know? This style of argumentation is endemic among intactivists, and is one of the reasons I have come to regard them with disdain. It is illogical, insulting and contemptible.

            I have already publically challenged DOC (in an eLetter to J Med Ethics) to state how many members they have, and how many are medical doctors. There has been no response. You will draw your conclusions. I mine.
            Judging by their written output, and frequency with which they are cited by intactivists, they are a significant player.

            As I’ve said before, the claim about Morris having a 1950s
            attitude does not sit well with his co-author being openly gay. From what I’ve read of Morris’ works it is clear he genuinely doesn’t care about it. It is not expediency. He simply does not see it as relevant, and nor do I.

            It is rich of you to criticise Waskett for not being
            medically trained when your preceding sentence admits that many intactivists don’t even have a degree! Can you
            really not see the hypocrisy here?

            Your post just confirms to me that intactivists are not
            rational people. For them ad hominems, anecdotes,
            and sloppy logic trump scientific evidence every time. All you have done is harden my attitudes, and my opposition to intactivism, still further. I still don’t advocate for routine infant circ though, and am content to let the medics battle that one out.

          • FrederickRhodes

            Brian Morris is not exactly dishonest. He’s obviously suffering from ritual infant circumcision induce paranoid delusions and actually believes in his paranoia induced mythology. Once you learn about the neurological functions and physiological development of both sexes prepuces, it becomes obvious that ritualized circumcision is a psychosis called apotmnophilia, a superstitious need to excise healthy functioning body parts.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            In sum, you have no actual argument against his studies or the honesty of his studies, so you resort to ad hominem attacks. That means you lose.

          • FrederickRhodes

            In sum, the people chosen to commit infant circumcision will deny anything that would reveal that they are practicing kabballah witchcraft, an ancient pre-judaism feminine religion for controlling men using hypnotism, psychology, poisons and drugs for their powers. Not all witches are evil, and it is important for women to have control over their own bodies. The masculine god/Abrahamic religions take control away from women, forcing them to resort in using their maternal instinctive knowledge of good and evil to control these false god worshipping men. Now, with the newly emmerging science of cosmological evolution, it is clear that our creator, the Singularity, no longer exists and we are all Her orphans, so when witches cast their spells on innocent non false god worshipping men, their curses and lies are doubling back onto them. I didn’t make any of this up, it’s common knowledge amungst witches not to abuse their powers. Infant circumcision is synonomous with the word origin of Apocalypse, apo~to take away + calypse~the masculine cover. Yes, yes, I know it sounds insane, and it is, because sexually traumatising us as infant boys and girls is known to cause psychosis to the adults we become.

          • cosmopolite

            It is not necessary to state your case using so many big words. Some years ago, I read an intactivist say that the greatest evil of circumcision, is that many circumcised boys grow up to be men obsessed with circumcising the next generation. I think that this psychological mechanism helped spread circumcision throughout the USA, Australia, Canada and New Zealand. In the UK, circumcision was very common in the upper class, a 50-60% thing in the middle classes, and a 10% thing in the lower class. It never exceeded 35% overall, because the British lower class is a stiff necked lot. Over the last 40+ years, circumcision has disappeared in New Zealand, and declined to 15% in Australia, despite the fact that during the second half of last century, the typical Australasian family consisted of a cut Dad raising intact sons. This raised no psychosexual difficulties, because Australasians govern their private parts with common sense. RIC in Canada and the UK also has a reverse gear. The USA is unique in the way millions of parents feel a strong aversion to raising an intact son.

          • Stephen Moreton

            No, he’s just following the evidence, unlike intactivists who resort to ad hominems and personal attacks.

          • FrederickRhodes

            No, Brian and other proponents of religious/ritual circumcision make up the evidence they need to justify their religious ritual. None of their evidence/study results can be reproduced in non Creation Science based research.

          • Stephen Moreton

            Morris is not religious. As far as I can tell many, or most, of his co-authors, are not either. Nor does he need to “make up” evidence. The evidence is being generated by researchers from reputable institutions in USA, Europe and Asia and published in the peer-reviewed literature. And is being reproduced by independent researchers the world over as more and more studies confirm circ’s benefits with respect to HIV, HPV, HSV etc., and its lack of significant adverse effects on function. Meanwhile the intactivists worship the foreskin, and would sacrifice African lives on the altar of “genital integrity” as, like HIV deniers with respect to AIDS, they rail against the now enormous body of research that proves the foreskin-HIV connection, behaving exactly like creationists as they cherry-pick, distort and ignore their way through the literature.

          • FrederickRhodes

            When scientists discovered that concentrated Langerhan’s cells in both sexes prepuces make langerin protiens and showed that these protiens kill HIV and other virus as our epidurmal first line of deffence against viral infections, the circumcision scientists took that discovery and twisted and spun it around to make it sound that these cells were possibly allowing entree to HIV, with no proof, just speculation based on their preconcieved notion that circumcision was good. So the procirc witchdoctor scientist then went afte the Mucosal cells in both sexes prepuces and claimed HIV is entering through them, But then when follow-up studies on circumcised men showed them to still be able to get HIV infects, they are now speculating that HIV is entering through the mucoal cells in both sexes urethras. Are you procircs now going to suggest penile excisions to prevent HIV, instead of accepting that a proper education on good hygiene, safe and proper use of both sexes prepuces is the better choice? If you are going to deny that sexually traumatising infants and children has no adverse psychologicla and physical effects, then I can see no future for your kind.

            Morris is part of the Gilgal society an organization for men that gets off on watching circumcision videos. He is mentally deranged as are his believers. So, it’s his own personal religion and is still based on creation science fiction, like Judaism ,Christianity and Islam. The evidence these circumcision benefit researchers generate are only speculations and always accompanied with words like “may have”,”potential”, ” possibly”, and are not accepted by peer review.

          • Pip

            Not at all, one just doesn’t have to agree with him.

          • http://www.circumstitions.com/ Hugh7

            http://www.circumstitions.com/Utis.html#conway
            In brief, a study found FIVE intact boys with recurrent Urinary Tract Infections in a population of about 35,000. By taking a subset of a subset of a subset, Morris spun that up to “19% of boys”. Yes, that is dishonest.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Here is the list of authors on that paper:

            P.H.Conway, A. Cnaan, T. Zaoutis, B.V. Henry, R.W. Grundmeier, R. Keren

            Is Dr. Morris among them?

          • http://www.circumstitions.com/ Hugh7

            I didn’t say he was. Follow my link.

          • The Laughing Cavalier

            You should check out the Gilgal Society too.

        • The Laughing Cavalier

          Suggest research also into the Gilgal Society and the links to it.

        • Stephen Moreton

          Ad hominem.

      • Dreamer

        Prevention needs to be proportional to what is being prevented and the less invasive possible. Cutting part of the genitals implies harms and risks that are hardly proportional to the risks of the diseases that it is supposed to prevent. Those same benefits can be achieved by less invasive methods and with higher chances of success.

        • RoxanneRoxanadana

          The harm is simply not there.

          • Jennifer Moose

            Not true.

            Circumcision ablates the most sensitive parts of the penis.

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17378847

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            That study did two multiple regression analyses. This implies that anything with P > 0.025 is deemed explainable by chance. For both multiple regression analyses, the difference associated with circumcision were > 0.025.

            When one looks at their table 2, things become even more foul. They do 8 comparisons, with the potential of over 15. At a minimum, they should have set P < 0.01 as the standard. So what happened? NONE of the comparisons were inexplicable by chance.

            In sum, the study proved nothing.

          • http://www.circumstitions.com/ Hugh7

            You are quoting Morris and Waskett, who cut the heart out of the Sorrells study, ignoring the foreskin itself (just as Masters & Johnston did). Of course circumcision seems to have no effect in that case.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            I have quoted a large number of articles. Which one are you referencing?

          • cosmopolite

            You are entirely correct that Sorrels et al remains the only study that understands that a study comparing the sexual sensitivity of cut and uncut has examine the sensitivity of the ridged band, foreskin, frenulum and frenular delta, i.e., the parts ablated by circumcision. Studies that confine themselves to tickling the glans grossly miss this point, and reveal a very pedestrian understanding of male sexuality.

          • Heidi

            if that’s how you feel, why don’t you sign up for an unanesthetised circumcision today!!
            me thinks your opinion about that will change pretty damn quick.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            As shown above, the procedure occurs with anesthesia. What you might wish to do is to anesthetize Jews before you shoot them.

          • http://www.circumstitions.com/ Hugh7

            Is this person completely out of her tree?

          • bsr

            Yes Hugh7, she is completely out of order. As soon as she gets challenged and maneuvered into a corner by someone smarter than her, she starts talking about the killing of Jews. For all her scientific waffle she always manages to reveal her true colours when she tries to defend the indefensible. She lost any kind of respect that I might have had for some of her interesting arguments when she defended the most odious pro-circ fanatic, Brian Morris.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Oh what horse feathers. Of course these people want to kill Jews. Treebrain claims hunting is less cruel than Kosher slaughter.

            This is his/her idea of kindness:

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jb5UczhEkFE

            As for Cosmpolite, what in the name of Sam Hill got a New Zealander with a professed interest in French history to learn about American immigration quotas from France after WWII? Do you have any idea how unimportant that is in French history? &, more important, how he uses it to lie about the Jewish post-war experience in France, to say, quite falsely, that anti-Semitism was not there. Why would he make a bizarre statement like that? His mother also fascinates. She hid out,not from the death chambers, but simply from a slave labor camp, a very much less nasty thing. So why won’t he tell us what ethnicity his mother was? Bet it was Polish. Why? Because New Zealand barred Jewish entry at Evian like everyone else, but also during the war itself.

            Look here:

            http://www.holocaustcentre.org.nz/index.php/research/research-articles/85-jewish-refugees-interned-during-world-war-ii

          • cosmopolite

            That is a self-pitying cheap shot, unworthy of a middle aged physician.

          • cosmopolite

            No American or Canadian researcher has done an honest effort to look for the harm. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
            Europeans value the foreskin just as modern women all value the clitoris (which includes the female foreskin). The moving foreskin is very much involved with vaginal intercourse. Hence the bits ablated by circumcision deserve the benefit of the doubt. American sexual culture has been blind to what nature intended. Talk to women who’ve been with both kinds of men. Quite a few say that the moving foreskin enhances sex.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            I have shown you studies that say the opposite. Specifically, that there is a reduction of sexually transmitted diseases.

            The moving foreskin can only differently be involved with vaginal intercourse when a condom is not used. Thus, all such arguments are in fact arguments against safe sex. That may be why anti-circumcisionists are so vocal. They really want to practice unsafe sex & to convince otherwise health conscious women of its value.

          • cosmopolite

            Those studies are badly designed and badly interpreted. STDs are more common in the USA than in Europe.

            Your second paragraph is complete nonsense. I have been intimate with only one woman in my entire life, namely the one I am married to.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Castiglione in 1528 posited a miracle that would inspire dread in all:

            ‘ My Lords, even in the days of Catullus doors began to
            speak without a tongue and to listen without ears, and thus to reveal adulteries. Now, although men are not of such worth as they were in those times, it may be that the doors (many of which are made of antique marbles, at least here in Rome) have the same powers that they then had; and for my part I believe that these two here could clear away all our doubts if we cared to learn from them.’

            __________

            Ahem, which is to say that honor is more in word than matter. In any case, your apparent belief that life’s foremost goal is the search for the most exquisite climax is commendable. What it lacks, however, is originality. Being a middle aged physician with some experience, permit me to provide you advice for a truly satisfying sex life, one that I myself lack the courage to try. The urethra is especially sensitive & produces ecstasy beyond even that which you describe is associated with the foreskin. Urologic friends send me items removed from the urinary bladder; the reports’ diagnostic lines invariably accompany the name of the object by the word “(Gross)”. One is readily available to you; pairs of glasses bear two arms that pass over the ears. The curves therein are sinous & delicate to the touch & eye. Imagine that end inside the bladder. So long as you avoid getting the thing stuck ( only insert it a little bit) joy may well await you.

          • James3D

            “The harm is simply not there” is an outright LIE. You are LYING. You seem to think that reepeating this LIE over and over will make it true? No it won’t

            You’ve made a lot of comments for this article and many others in support of mutilating the genitals of boys. To say that “the harm is simply not there” is an outright LIE, because every time I see you make this boldfaced LIE I post the same response directing you and anyone who wisheds to see the harm of circumcision to visit
            the Global Survey of Circumcision Harm website.
            There you will see and hear about the harm.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            That is not a peer reviewed site. Prove harm exists from real studies.

          • James3D

            The Global Survey of Circumcision Harm contains scores of photographs of mangles penises, plenty of PROOF OF CIRCUMCISION HARM, LIFELONG CIRCUMCISION HARM.

            What sort of stubborn ignoramus demands “peer reviewed research” when it comes to obvious evidence of severe physical and psychological harm to children and the adults they become.

            Not only are you a TROLL RoxaneRoxanadana but I think you are a man in drag and your real name is Brian Morris.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Actually, a doctor usually demands peer reviewed research. When you claim adults who have undergone circumcision are severely psychologically damaged, you are saying the vast majority of Jews are severely psychologically damaged. Prove that.

          • James3D

            WRONG. I did not say “the vast majority of Jews are severely psychologically damaged” you did.

            For more information about the HARM of forced genital cutting of children read Ronald Goldman’s, “Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma” and “Questioning Circumcision: A Jewish Perspective.”

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Saying male circumcision produces lifelong damage psychologically says that during the period between roughly 400 AD – 1900 AD, Jews, who were severely persecuted were severely psychologically damaged by circumcision, at least their men were. Quite naturally, the reasoning exculpates the Jew killers.

          • bsr

            Quoting Cosmopolite: “No American or Canadian researcher has done an honest effort to look for the harm. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”
            The Circumcision Harm site has real evidence in the form of personal testimonies and photographs of real, damaged , scarred penises. I read it, looked at the comments and the photos taken by those wretched people and wept for them.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Oh, they have checked. Besides, as Cosmopolite likely discovered, no study of the perfect orgasm is complete without analysis of the effect of urethral stimulation. You should definitely give this a shot yourself. To avoid any Jewish implication in this, use a Cross pen of the old fashioned sort, the one with the lines in it that will really, really do the trick for you.

            I have not done this, but orgasm enthusiasts all will, at least those who think it so important a right as to ban a religious rite deemed important by Jews after having banned Kosher, but not Halal, meat in many places.

          • aj

            I can only assume by your need to deny basic science that you are indeed a doctor who does this deed and must find a reason for it to save face….and money.

          • Dreamer

            Yes, the harm is there, when the frenulum (one of the most sensitive areas) is almost always damaged, if not completely removed, and when the mobility of the skin is limited thus changing the way the penis works. Also exposing the glans permanently causes it to become hardened and dry through time, affecting sensitivity. These points are the harm that always occurs.

            And then there is that small percentage of complications, especially those that are not immediately detected. Meatal stenosis caused by ischemia of the urethra (loss of blood supply), which is one of the most common complications and often requires surgical correction. The too common skin tags and skin bridges that cause embarrassment. The less common buried genital, that causes kids to have to urinate sitting and look like they have just a hole. The guys that are left with too little skin and suffer pain, bruising and chaffing with every erection and every moment of intimacy, and often don’t say anything because they assume it’s just part of the normal sensation… I could go on and on.

          • Harry Schwartz

            I don’t know where the notion that circumcision is done without anaesthetic comes from.
            In every Jewish circumcision ceremony that I have attended, the child has had a topical anaesthetic applied some time in advance of the procedure to ensure that the area is properly anaesthetized.
            This minor procedure cuts a minimal length of skin, and is generally accomplished in a single stroke.
            Full healing generally takes about three days, and it is hard to imagine that it inflicts any serious pain on the child, or has any lasting effects.
            Harry Schwartz

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            According to these people, it alters the brain structure permanently! Somehow that leads to the notion that Jews are psychologically damaged persons, perhaps given to evil plots against non-circumcizing Gentiles.

          • http://www.circumstitions.com/ Hugh7

            “Dr. X … did not believe there was anything he/she could have done differently. …

            * he/she had tried using local anaesthetic over the
            years but found that the infant appeard to be in just as much pain, if not more

            * the needle to inject the anaesthetic is very painful, as is the local anaesthetic itself

            * there is a concern about the increased chance of infection with the injecting of local anaesthetic, as the puncture holes from the needle would be in the diaper area surrounded by urine and faeces, below the area of the circumcision […which raises questions about the risk of infection at the much bigger circumcision wound itself…]

            *there is a concern regarding potential allergic reaction to the anaesthetic

            * local anaesthetic tends to distort the site of the circumcision and make it more difficult to perform

            * the period of restraint for the infant in the cirucmsion board is prolonged when using local anaesthetic, and the restraint causes the infant distress

            * in the community, local anaesthetic is not used, and not the standard of care ”

            (Dr X’s name and sex are redacted because s/he was giving evidence at the inquest of a boy s/he had circumcised.)

            http://circumstitions.com/death.html#blocked

          • James3D

            EMLA cream used as a topical anesthetic is contraindicated for use on children under 6 months old and not recommended for use on the genitals. See the manufacturer’s monograph.

      • Sci0n1

        Brian Morris. He is a staunch pro-cutting man with a deep belief in the need to circumcise all baby boys. He and his close companions routinely publish false claims via news articles, in various internet forums, and on their websites.Please beware of Morris’ outlandish fabrications on his websites and in internet posts. Myths are commonly couched in ways that at first seem to be research-based. The CDC, AAP, RACP and other medical groups are frequently misquoted. The majority of those who have circumcised their son(s) after “researching” circumcision quote Morris’ sites and claims as their “research material.” Any fascination with cutting baby boys’ penises is something we need to be aware of in this day and age when information is readily shared via the internet – information that often includes myths and misconceptions pushed by those involved in circumfetish circles.It should be noted that Brian Morris’ website links to 8 circumfetish websites, and 7 websites that sell devices to perform circumcision surgery on your own. He is a member of the Gilgal Society,a group that publishes circumcision pornography, including circumcision fan-fiction stories of children being given wine and asked to masturbate while being circumcised.If there is one site you should not be referencing in your attempt to thoroughly research the prepuce, intact care, and circumcision, it is Morris’.

        • RoxanneRoxanadana

          Prove the false claims. Or be proven a liar.

          • Sci0n1

            Morris was a founding member of ‘The Gilgal Society’, a UK based pro-circumcision organisation. Until recently, that group was led by Vernon Quaintance, who was found guilty of possessing child pornography (including images of males under the age of 16) earlier this year. As of today, Morris’s personal pro-circumcision website still contains a link to ‘a list of possible circumcisers’ which features the Gilgal Society name and logo. Morris also has a poem written by Quaintance in the ‘circumcision humour’ section of his site. The same page also features a photo of a young boy with his penis trapped inside a mobile phone.

            In December 2011, Morris was directed by his employer, the University of Sydney, to remove his site from their servers. Morris subsequently moved that site to another server but, curiously, a ‘whois’ search reveals that the CFA website is being hosted by University of Sydney servers.

            Morris is clearly very sensitive about any criticism of his long-standing advocacy in favour of circumcision. When the international whistleblower organisation ‘Circleaks’ published details of his activities, Morris attempted to suppress it by creating a user account, which he subsequently used to delete the entire contents of the page. That attempt failed and the information revealed by Circleaks remains publicly available. You can find more information on Morris there, thank you for playing circ freak.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            That does not say the studies that bear his name are fraudulent.

          • cosmopolite

            Brian Morris has frequently been involved in conduct that unbecoming of a professor of medicine in a major university.

            Brian Morris has accused of racism those who argue that the African clinical trials are not relevant to the decision whether to circumcise routinely an Australian baby boy. This was a dishonest low blow unworthy of an intellectual.

          • Sci0n1

            You know, I know and like a lot of Jewish folk, actually most of the intactavists I know are Jewish, and I love them all, with all of your miss-information and lies, I can actually say I’m starting to dislike my first jew! You are doing your people a great disservice.

          • Stephen Moreton

            Ad hominem, personal attack, guilt by association, and smear campaigns. Stick to the evidence please. Besides I could point to the paedophile scandals that intactivists have suffered, the dishonest conduct of certain prominent intactivists, the links to anti-vaccination and HIV denial groups, that the infamous paedophile group NAMBLA is anti-circ, the cyber-attack by intactivists on the highly respected Catalan Institute of Oncology after they linked lack of circ to HPV and cervical cancer, etc., etc. Note that circleaks is defunct, as it deserves to be.

          • Sci0n1

            I don’t care that they are personal attacks, the fact still remains that the leaders of your circumfetish movement Vernon, Brian and Jacob are all pedophiles, and make fake accounts all around the internet pushing their sick agenda, as for HIV denial, when you have doctors from around the world come together and denounce the findings of those studies as not only partially made up but culturally biased things like that tend to stick out, and I believe Oxfords HPV study over the Catalan Institute any day of the week, you keep doing what you are doing, you are making our jobs easy, between you and Roxanne going all crazy! Thank you!

          • Stephen Moreton

            More libel.

          • Sci0n1

            Still does not change that fact that the 3 top men in your pro-cutting groups Vernon, Brian, and Jake are all paedos!

          • Stephen Moreton

            Libel.

          • Sci0n1

            And you want to talk about dishonest conduct, let’s talk about Jake W and what he does on the circ Wikipedia page?

          • Stephen Moreton

            You mean the magnificent job he did, devoting hours of his time, to keeping misleading and bogus claims off the section on circ? I guess creationists would similarly whine about dedicated evolutionists defending Wikipedia from creationist nonsense. I’ve never met Jake, but the more I read about him the more I’d like to. It is a great regret that he bowed out of the debate. I’ve seen some of his works and admire him greatly. The guy is a hero!

          • Sci0n1

            You mean the writing where he speaks about his Apotemnophilia / or xenomelia (or whatever would be closely related), you can find his early writings on the net, same with Brian , these people are pretty crazy, I’m super happy that there are logs of such things, so people know to never take these crazies seriously! and if you think they are hero’s then we know what circles you come from, and know not to take you seriously either.

          • cosmopolite

            Your use of “false” prejudges the matter at issue.

      • Jennifer Moose

        Fail. Vaccines do not remove an OEM body part.

      • Heidi

        having your brain removed would also prevent the sickened comments and thought processes spewing forth from it…..obviously that wasn’t an option.
        I have said it over 1000 times to the ignorant….
        NATURE DOES NOT MAKE MISTAKES WHEN IT COMES TO EONS OF REPRODUCTIVE DESIGN!!!!

        • RoxanneRoxanadana

          You might discuss that statement with respect to intervertebral discs.

        • http://www.circumstitions.com/ Hugh7

          Sorry Heidi, but there are several clear flaws in human reproductive “design” (e.g. the urethra going through the prostate)

          – but you are right that the foreskin is not one of them, and if it had caused any harm it could and would have been naturally selected away long before history began.

      • cosmopolite

        People, this article is not science, but an editorial led by Brian Morris of Australia, the Lord Voldemort of circumcision advocacy.

        “Of course, if something prevents disease, it’s worth doing.”
        It is worth doing only if the benefit exceeds the cost. Cost includes any impairment to adult sexual pleasure and function. Other than UTIs in infancy, all of the health problems that are alleged to be correlated with the foreskin, require irresponsible sexual behaviour. Circumcision is pointless, if circumcised men are more likely to engage in irresponsible sexual acts.

        “Vaccines are quite painful.”
        I have been vaccinated many many times, and can assure you that that is simply wrong.

      • FrederickRhodes

        It’s so easy to mix science with creation science fiction, or to mix medicine with witchdoctor medicine.

      • cosmopolite

        “The acceptance of this recommendation would create a precedent for
        legislation elsewhere in the world…”
        Slippery slope argument.

        “…thereby posing a threat to pediatric
        practice…”
        Translation: Doctors do not like it when anyone who is not a doctor tells them what they can and cannot do.

        “…parental responsibilities and freedoms…”
        Translation: Public policy should never interfere with family life

        “… and public health”.
        Translation: RIC has valid prophylactic justifications. An ample body of peer reviewed literature published this century claims it does. The lead authors of this literature are a dozen Americans, mostly public health profs, and Brian Morris. These papers have numerous methodological flaws. Most of all, what they conclude is inconsistent with the fact that STDs are more common in circumcised USA than in intact Japan and Europe.
        Aaron Tobian, a coauthor of the study quoted above, is guilty of extrapolating to the entire USA findings from the African clinical trials. This extrapolation is completely invalid. Social and economic factors are very important in epidemiology, and the USA is a very different society from the AIDS belt of Africa.

    • Chris Morriss

      This practice is ritual sexual mutilation of a child. By all means let these third-world religions perform the act, but not until the child is 18, or whatever the age of majority is in the country concerned.

      • Igor Shapiro

        1 third-world religion DO you mean USA ,Canada or SOuth Korea?
        Who exactly?
        2 this is very important part Judaism that it is done on 8th day.
        SO ban on circumsision on 8th day is ban on Judaism. Those two are equivalent.
        3 there are no clear medical evidences that it is harmfull, people try to chase and prosecute jews in 3500 years if any possible harm would exist it would be known.

        • Reborn

          There’s a great deal more to Judaism than genital mutilation.
          The Jews abandoned stoning long ago, & an article in the pro Jewish journal Standpoint, suggest Jews used to practice crucifixion.
          A religion which sticks to the values of a bygone age ends up like Islam today.

          • Igor Shapiro

            Now You became specialist on Judaism?
            Jews and cruxificion? (NO comments on it)
            So now you will teach jews halacha?
            Are you also used to teach fish to swim?
            If we just forget all the stupid superstitious antisemit cliche that you have used here and look at formal logics
            Without circumcision there i no Judaism; you tell me that there many other things. Both are true. Yes there are many other things and yes without circumsision on 8th day there is no Judaism. Both are correct.
            Word genital mutilation is used normally by brain mutilated nazi when it goes om jewish circumcision.

            Stupid parallel with stoning 100 out of context and belongs to completely different discussions.

            Crucifixion – even not worth to answer: like if you use 1000 years old antisemit myths not much to discuss.

          • Reborn

            I can only repeat that I have great respect for Jews & Jewish culture & I wish there were more Jews both in Europe & Israel, a country I admire.
            You are obviously ultra orthodox in outlook, & post the Enlightenment & the great philosophers & scientists from Spinoza to Einstein & beyond people of your Fundamentalistic outlook make your religion seem reactionary & sometimes downright stupid..
            There is much more to Judaism than genital mutilation & it would be better without it.
            Re crucifixion. I wish I hadn’t raised the distasteful subject as it could give some comfort to Christian Jew haters.
            Read the article by Geza Vermes published in the very
            pro Jewish Standpoint magazine last April.
            Sorry I have offended you, but then Jews are noted as awkward SOBs, & when named Spinoza or Einstein, they are very useful.
            I see no point in responding to any more of your splenetic postings, since I believe no religion should be above the law & parents do not own their children.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            So many here evince destructive views that would produce vast fields of Hebrew corpses. Upon such they would ply violins & trumpets to proclaim the triumph of their nations. Such threnodies do sometimes lead to profit. Polish businessmen for decades dug for golden nuggets in Treblinka, sharing the wealth with Soviet guards.

          • CircEsAdreim

            Whatever your ranting, you’re still on the wrong side of this issue. It’s not OK to mutilate a child’s genitalia.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            The issue is the Jew killing nature of circumcision bans. For you, of course, the foreskin is more valuable than ten Jews.

          • CircEsAdreim

            Banning the ritual genital mutilation of baby boys doesn’t kill anyone. The intact child will still be a Jew. And still alive, unlike some victims of this practice.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            When combined with bans that result in the absence of Kosher meat (defended as being crueler than hunting), the lack of assurance that a circumcision ban will be enforced to age 18 & include fully enforced bans on earrings (this permits 1) Latino ear piercing of babies & Muslim circumcision if it is not enforced), & 3) damnation of Israel beyond any other country it all becomes a means of ending Jews. It does not matter if the rite does not apply to all Jews because the only rite being banned is a Jewish rite.

            The matter is very serious because that’s exactly what happens over & over again in history. Persecution occurs with such bans in place. You have seen on this thread crudely Jew killing speech. If you cannot recognize this, you are willfully blind.

          • CircEsAdreim

            Such claims and accusations aren’t so effective these days.

            People can see through your attempts to use the past to justify the continued mutilation of baby boys.

            It’s not working so well anymore. 😀

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Your attempt to deny the Jew killing aspects of your movement are not working any more.

          • CircEsAdreim

            What’s not working is your laughable attempt to assert that preventing the mutilation (and possible death) of Jewish babies is killing anyone (when of course the opposite is true). Anyone with a rational mind can see through your gibberish.

          • Igor Shapiro

            Rational mind is actually primitive imbecil logics that does not work in nay a bit more complicated situations, as a result of ratinal mind Europe is dying.Since europeans legalized murdering healthy babies whose only little problem is that they are not born yet. Check the table athttps://www.cia.gov/…/rankorder/2127rank.html and consider the fact that every country that is below 2.1 is DYING.

          • CircEsAdreim

            What’s primitive logic is trying to justify amputating healthy body parts from non-consenting human beings.

          • Igor Shapiro

            You are justifying killing of your own healthy babies and destroying another nation, that is the result of perverse rational logic. You are justifying sex with animals and killing grown humans, So you can leave your “human rights” disguise.

          • CircEsAdreim

            You keep using that word, ‘killing’. It does not mean what you think it means. As far as the reset of your babble, it’s clear you’re not all there in the head. :p

          • Igor Shapiro

            I am using word killing in absolutely 100% natural meaning.
            Nothing to joke about. Abortion-is killing of healthy baby.
            Euthanasia-is killing. This is legal in Europe, You do not care.
            Sex with animals-legal in UK, i am not joking,
            This is ll result of perverted “rational” imbecile logic that you trying to imply on us here.
            I am telling you “rational” logic means extermination of jews, you do not care.

          • CircEsAdreim

            No, you aren’t. You’re ranting like a lunatic and you need a dictionary. Stopping the practice doesn’t kill anyone. But continuing it will. We’re not talking about sex with animals or abortion or euthanasia. We’re talking about the genital mutilation of human beings without their consent and without immediate medical need.

          • Igor Shapiro

            Exactly that is my point you are not talking about abortion though it is killing of healthy baby possibly of your own kind, that is ok from you. But Jewish circumcision is tabu. Is called “mutilation.”

            Of course for jews, so since you are not worrying enough if healthy baby will be killed , you should not worry if the baby is circumcised. But you do. So what is the reason behind?
            I will bet that we are talking about some kind of mental inadequacy like antisemitism.

          • CircEsAdreim

            I’m not talking about it because you’re using it as a red herring to take focus off the fact that you are against the human right to genital integrity and that you support the genital mutilation of infant males.

            That is what this topic is about – no matter how many times you try to change the subject.

            Banning forced genital cutting is NOT killing anyone, but allowing it to continue certainly will.

          • Igor Shapiro

            once again this is boolshit if i even believe you what you for some strange reason believe that circumcision is harmful then you would be fighting abortions which is pure killing of the babys , since you dont care about abortions , eftanasia, or use of embryo cells nobody will believe you “health” concerns and baby rights story’s.

          • http://www.circumstitions.com/ Hugh7

            “If you really believe A, you’ll be fighting against B.”
            It just does not follow. Abortion is a different issue, with different participants, but whenever they may begin, human rights do not END at birth.

          • Igor Shapiro

            As simple as it is, Europeans kill thousands of healthy embryos daily ; and after that open mouth to teach other people about circumcision, even it is a beneficial from health point view plus has extremely deep culture and religious meaning.
            Why? The only answer- nazi=primitive rational mind,

          • Robin-Frans Winkel

            That is a very dangerous way of reasoning.

            First, to consider abortion to be murder minimizes the Holocaust. Second, many people blame the spread of abortion in Europe and its relative absence in Israel on a dual morality of (supposedly) powerful Jews.

            Circumcision does help to keep the birthrates high, and can therefore only be abolished if euthanasia is allowed to prevent the demography from skewing towards old.

            A case could be made that the Jewish religion requires promoting circumcision to Gentiles.

            http://myspeechbuilder.wordpress.com/2013/11/25/25/

          • Igor Shapiro

            Hello Robin, have not seen you comment.
            I am not arguing for or against it is not proper place.
            What i am showing here that de facto if inactivist claim that they are fighting for baby rights than inevitable would be fighting for the most basic right /right to live.
            Which they absolutely not.

          • CircEsAdreim

            Nice try on the red herring diversion, but it won’t work. You support the genital mutilation of infant males. You are an enemy to human rights.

          • Igor Shapiro

            Its very funny to hear from an nazi lecture about human rights
            i told you You deserve Mammar Gaddafi prize for human rights.

          • CircEsAdreim

            You’re the Nazi here – disguised as a Jew, under the mistaken assumption that the label of “Jewish” will protect you and your barbaric practice of genital mutilation from criticism. It won’t.

          • Igor Shapiro

            Brain mutilated nazis in desperate effort to exterminate jews,
            nothing new under the sun,

          • CircEsAdreim

            Awww, look at the Nazi in disguise try to pretend he’s got the moral high ground while supporting and promoting the genital mutilation of infant males (which is about as anti-human rights as you can get).

          • Igor Shapiro

            “Human rights” nowadays became a joke IN the human rights council were sitting Assad and Qaddafi.

          • Ilana Leonard

            He’s not a Nazi, he’s simply trying to point out the fact that late-term abortions are in fact killing viable babies and circumcision kills very few. Also, you keep using the word “Nazi” I do not think it means what you think it means because last I checked no one on here wanted to create a super race by carrying the mass execution of everyone else. So please, do us all a favor and shut up already about Nazi’s, it’s very rude and offensive.

          • CircEsAdreim

            It’s rude and offensive to support the genital mutilation of non-consenting human beings. Nazis also supported various atrocities on non-consenting human beings.

          • Ilana Leonard

            Circumcision kills very few babies, and those deaths usually occur not from the actual circumcision but from infections that happen afterwards. As long as the circumcision takes place in a clean environment and is well cared for afterwards, there is no reason for anyone to be dying.

          • CircEsAdreim

            Those deaths also occur from things like blood loss and heart attack. None of which (including the infections you speak of) would be happening if it weren’t for the mutilation that was inflicted on them. There is no reason for anyone to have their genitalia forcibly skinned. It’s just as wrong in a ”clean environment” as it would be in a mud hut.

          • Stephen Moreton

            What if said amputation confers potentially life-saving benefits at little risk to the recipient, and with no adverse effects? In short, what if it wins a cost-benefit analysis? Then it is not “primitive logic” it is just pragmatism.

          • CrosbyTee

            This doesn’t apply to genital mutilation.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Your lack of a willingness to confront attacks on your position based upon evaluation of the articles you posit as supporting your position evinces a lack of intellectual vigor on your part & a lack of validity to the intactivist position. Again, why permit parents the right to make far more dangerous cosmetic surgery decisions, namely operations on the babies’ eyes, if consent is so important. Perhaps for you, the status of your genitalia surpasses the importance of sight, but for almost everyone else, blindness is the worst of all handicaps, apart perhaps from quadriplegia. To wit:

            O dark, dark, dark, amid the blaze of noon, [ 80 ]
            Irrecoverably dark, total Eclipse
            Without all hope of day!
            O first created Beam, and thou great Word,
            Let there be light, and light was over all;
            Why am I thus bereav’d thy prime decree? [ 85 ]
            The Sun to me is dark
            And silent as the Moon,
            When she deserts the night
            Hid in her vacant interlunar cave.

          • CircEsAdreim

            Again – medically necessary eye surgery does not compare to unnecessary genital mutilation.

            Your lack of willingness to acknowledge and respect a person’s inherent human right to genital integrity demonstrates a lack of moral vigor on your part and reveals the sinister nature within.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Repeating yourself gets you no where. It is not “medically necessary” in most cases except that we deem it important to have eyes see the same way. It’s important for a person’s self image in most cases. There is minor loss of depth perception, but the decision as to whether or not to undertake surgery that could blind the baby obviously is not in the hands of the baby, is it not? Remember this, if the parents say “no” to strabismus surgery, in most cases the answer is “no.” Read the consent form here. Before any strabismus surgery is performed, the PARENTS agree to it.

            http://www.kidseyecare.com/consent.pdf

            So there is no definite justification for that surgery (otherwise the parents would be jailed for child abuse for refusing it, would they not?), whose malfunction has infinitely greater implications than circumcision if you can’t even permit parents to make a decision to snip off a small piece of skin.

          • Johann Fourie

            That small piece of skin makes an enormous difference to how that person experiences sex and how his partner experiences sex with him.

            In most of the world, circumcised penises are seen as unattractive, with a huge lack of sensitivity and impractical to operate. No child should ever be mutilated in the name of something as unscientific as religion.

            Parents are quick to cry that circumcision is part of their religious freedom, but what about the child’s religious freedom??? It is ultimately his choice and one day, he may choose not to practice Judaism, but the mutilation inflicted by his superstitious parents would forever have changed his genital integrity. It’s completely unacceptable in this modern age.

          • B. Maurene White

            That’s because it is not a small piece of skin, it is an organ – see Drs John Taylor (Brit Jnl Urology Feb ’96 and Jan ’99) and Sorrells (Brit Jnl UrologyApril ’07). Strange that some groups think they have the right to cut off parts of other people’s bodies, and yes, infants are people!

          • beth

            Parent’s are responsibel for children and make a lot of decisions for those children. It’s a poor excuse to claim a child should decide things for themselves, including things about their body, that their parents feed, care for, and love.

          • Johann Fourie

            Beth, here in the UK, circumcision is loathed by the vast majority of people. It is true that parents make decisions for their children, but it is morally unacceptable that they should make a choice that affects how their child will experience sex for the rest of their lives.

            The foreskin contains over 20,000 nerve endings along with a ridged band of highly specialised nerve endings called Meissners Corpuscles. These nerve endings are the same as those found in the finger tips and pads of the hands and are responsible for extremely sensitive light touch.

            They are concentrated within the hands but are found in two other sites on the body – the foreskin and lips.

            Furthermore, the foreskin has a biological function. It isn’t just like like another appendix.

            Apart from providing the ability to experience light touch sensation, such as the hands and the lips, it is also designed to keep the glans covered and moist.

            In the uncircumcised male, the inside of the foreskin is a mucous membrane. This does not only preserve sensation, but also facilitates sex, contributing to the pleasure for the female partner too, if of course you can get over your hangups about the uncut penis.

            When the foreskin is removed, not only are all those highly specialised nerve cells lost, resulting in a markedly desensitised penis, the once moist mucous membranes undergo a process called keratinisation – where the skin thickens and becomes leather like. This process prevents the severe sensitivity a man would feel if his unprotected glans rubbed against his underwear.

            Why you, or any other person would think it’s ok to do this to your son is shocking and terribly sad.

            Why would you remove, through ignorance (the belief that it’s cleaner) or superstition (the mistaken belief that some god ordered it) so much sensation from ur son’s penis, changing forever how he experiences sex?

            It’s morally indefensible.

            Your son may grow up rejecting the faith that was imposed on him but he will forever live with the mutilation of his genitals.

            Male circumcision must be banned for exactly the same reasons as FGM. Removing healthy tissue from an unconseting person’s sex organs is barbaric, primitive and unjustified.

          • beth

            Johann – you start out with “loathing” and expect me to take your info as neutral.

            You’ve got one version of things — and there is medical evidence to contradict a lot of what you write.

            It is morally reprehensible for you to decide what’s best for someone else’s child, when in fact it isn’t harming the child.

            You go through a bunch of commentary that I’ve not even going to read thoroughly about shocking and gd ordering — that is YOU ASSUMING what I might be thinking. You are WAY off. And I’m not getting into discussion with someone who starts out with “loathing”.

          • Johann Fourie

            Beth, my view was never meant to be neutral. I am 100% anti circumcision.

            I am sorry that the beginning of my reply put you off, but I would urge you to read it. In the UK only 3.8% of babies are circumcised.

            Reference here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/10201882/Circumcision-is-one-of-the-oddities-of-the-Royal-Family.html

            I am a huge anti circumcision campaigner and have had this conversation with thousands of people in my life. I have done years and years of research and I am not blinded by religious superstition or cultural ignorance. I have urologists in my family and come from a scientific perspective.

            The overwhelming majority of British and European people abhor circumcision and see it as an unnecessary mutilation performed on an unconsenting person.

            There is no sound medical evidence whatsoever that circumcision has any health benefits, hence why it is not performed in Europe (or in Russia, most of Asia, Latin America or most of Canada, Australia, New Zealand or anywhere except the US, Middle East or a handful of Asian countries).

            We do know that being uncircumcised makes it somewhat easier to contract HIV, but being circumcised doesn’t prevent HIV transmission. The ONLY protection is to use a condom.

            In fact the African studies that ‘proved’ circumcision offered some protection to HIV, have been debunked as they did not take into account the increase in risk taking which negated the benefits.

            If you told a circumcised person that their circumcision would help protect against HIV and they have unprotected sex under the false sense of security that you have placed them under and they do contract HIV, what do you say to them then? You should have used a condom? That is what you should have said all along.

            You seem to be a believer in circumcision not just because of your ignorance, but also because of your superstitious beliefs.

            I urge you to reconsider and to leave your child unharmed.

            Of course circumcision harms the child. It robs them of sexual sensation that is never to be recovered.

            If you truly have the best welfare of your child at heart you will be open to all sides of the argument, even if you already have a feeling how you would proceed.

            I urge you to watch this explanation of what is lost during circumcision :

            The Penis – Sex Education 101: https://youtu.be/BgoTRMKrJo4

          • beth

            There’s a difference between “being against” and being “loathing.” Good instinct is to stay away from people who loath, and avoid discussion with them.

            “blinded by religious superstition or cultural ignorance.”
            nasty and rude. You have NO IDEA what I think, or where I’m coming from.

            Of course you’ve had conversation many times. Doesn’t make YOUR ability to research ACCURATE, since you start off with far too much emotion and intolerance at others, to be trusted.

            BTW, I’ve done my own research, and it came to different conclusions.

            Good bye.

          • Johann Fourie

            My intolerance developed over the years as I realised that nearly all babies are mutilated out of either ignorance or superstition.

            In my teens I was ready to join Judaism and undergo a circumcision, but I will forever be grateful that I came to my SENSES.

            I am now vehemently opposed, but this was not always the case.

          • beth

            And there is it — the emotion is a reaction to wanting to be a part of something, then realizing it’s conditions were too much (not appropriate for you) — and now you are adamant and emotionally charged.

            See the same thing when someone dates someone Jewish who turns out to be a jerk or rejects them.

            You are posting the hard left nonsense that got me started on my research. I quickly realized that it’s not as scientifically based as it sounds, and when you dig in, the science is much less black and white.

            Sorry it wasn’t the right move for you — but be careful — because you’ve turned an emotional relationship with judaism into a negative relationship at Judaism. And you have no respect for the THOUGHT that many, many Jewish folks put into things like this. Your “superstition or ignorance” reads very intolerantly of Jews, and Muslims, and anyone who’s decided this for themselves.

          • beth

            If someone gave me a way to surgically at birth move a woman’s urethra further from her vagina in order to reduce chances of infections — I would in a heartbeat.

            It’s an ironic contradiction that people who don’t believe in religion, use “nature made it so it must be right” as their focus. Nature makes mistakes.

          • Johann Fourie

            As circumcision on average only provides in the region of 30% protection against HIV, a life threatening condition, relying solely on circumcision or creating a false sense of security on that basis is not all a wise decision.

            Therefor, the only protection is to use a condom and in that case the circumcision is unnecessary.

            Of course nature makes mistakes, it makes mistakes all the time, but the foreskin is not a birth defect, it has a physiological anatomical function.

            I respectfully urge you to watch the video link I posted earlier. I would be keen to hear your thoughts on that.

          • beth

            Who relies only on circ. The point is, less is transmitted. If with HIV, then very likely with other things.

            Plus you are again running into all sorts of places, and not limiting to my comment.

          • Johann Fourie

            It creates a false sense of security that perpetuates unsafe sex practices and this in reality negates the benefits of being circumcised.

            None of the studies took this factor into account and it meant that in reality more hiv was transmitted in circumcised communities because the men indulged in more unsafe practices.

            Do some reading on this please.

          • beth

            “creates a false sense” — only if you are an uninformed idiot. My position isn’t based on “what majority should do.” It’s based on scientific research I did on what I found valuable info.

            My position remains and that parents get to raise their children.

            And that your loathing and intense emotionally make you intolerant to others, and give you confirmation bias.

          • Johann Fourie

            You make it sound as if the foreskin is some sort of liability and that uncircumcised men are plagued with infections.

            I’m 36 and I have never, ever had an infection. Here in the UK upwards of 90% of men are uncut and the vast, vast majority ne er have problems.

            You need to weigh this against the enormous loss of sensitivity that occurs during circumcision.

            Unlike you, I have a Penis, I really, really know what I’m talking g about. Im also gay, so have plenty of experience of both and there is no doubt that the circumcised penis is way less sensitive.

            In Europe, all the circumcised men I come across wish they had had a choice.

            I’m which country do you live?

          • beth

            I don’t make it sound like anything. You took MY comment, and ran with it into a claim, then commented at something that I never said.

          • beth

            There are studies showing circ men have more pleasure at sex. This is not nearly as black and white as you like to make it out to be.

            Subjection opinions aren’t relevant to science observations by a person with an agenda, leads to confirmation bias.

          • Johann Fourie

            Could you please quote these studies? This is a physical impossibility, as thousands of specialised nerve endings are lost and the characteristics of the tissue changes with circumcision.

            It is of course true and rather obvious that men who had problems with their foreskins, such as phimosis, who had a circumcision, would enjoy sex more after, as phimosis is a medical problem that often requires circumcision, but there is no studies whatsoever that even remotely suggest that a healthy penis is better off as far as sensation is concerned after circumcision.

            As I said, I have studied this in depth for years and I have never come across any such suggestion in the past but would love to peruse any credible references and sources that you can post.

            Remember, no circumcised male who was cut at birth has ever been uncut, but there are plenty of men who were uncut and then became cut. The evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of the uncut penis. So many, many men regret the procedure. People who could experience both.

            Judging by which posts get bumped up here, as expected, the vast majority of British readers agree with my stance.

            I dont want to get into a tit for tat argument with you, but it’s clear that you have no clue what you are talking about.

            For a start you do not have a penis nor a foreskin, I have both, and I’m telling you that it is one of the most sensitive parts of the body and that it is inconceivable that people want to remove this if it’s healthy.

          • beth

            Unlike you circ. isn’t an obsession of mine. I researched it, and those studies were easy to come by once I got off the hard left sites. But I didn’t keep the stuff around — to worry about “convincing people of my view.” I formed it, and moved on. A lot of that nerve stuff isn’t as scientific as the anti-circ make it out to be. There’s some, but not nearly what’s usually quoted. And reality is that what’s reality in study results and what’s expected aren’t always the same thing. That’s why scientific method is used. Often results are different.

            FYI, I’m moderate right.

            I don’t want people telling me what to beleive about abortion. I personally don’t thnk the soul moves in until 2nd trimester. And on children, parents have a right to decide for their child on upbringing.

            It’s a human right, for parents to decide what’s healthiest and most practical for the child.

          • beth

            Though I must say if you haven’t come across those studies — that says you didn’t do research. You simply emotionally picked your viewpont (and you describe why you would in another post) then looked for evidence to support your emotional goal. It’d be hard to miss that study stuff if you were looking around much.

            I’ve read the “thousands of nerves” stuff but then discovered it was presumed, and other articles pointed out the weakness and manipulation of data used in those articles.

            Took me a while to sort it out enough to be satisfied.

          • Johann Fourie

            Rather than get your sources from propaganda put out by the ignorant or superstitious lobbies, find your reading in scholary articles.

            The foreskin is human tissue and of course it contains nerve endings. 20,000 of them. This is not made up but science fact.

            How could you even tell me that there aren’t [many] nerve endings there? You are a woman. You do not own a penis. I have a foreskin and I can tell you, studies aside, that it has extremely sensitive touch receptors. Just ask me, it has been attached to my body for 36 years, surely I or any uncut male can just tell you how it feels??

            Furthermore my glans is an incredibly sensitive mucous membrane, not keratinised, leathered piece of skin that has been exposed and therefore obviously become desensitised.

            Just ask me or any uncircumcised man. You are beyond ridiculous. It’s like me telling you that you have no feeling in your clitoral hood, which by the way is your foreskin. How would I know?? I don’t own one.

            And of course I have alot of emotion attached to this topic and it’s because ignorant, superstitious women like you mutilate your perfectly healthy sons! It’s unacceptable in 2015 and it’s horrendously sad and should be outlawed summarily.

            Where do you intend or have you raised your sons? Why would you wilfully make them one of the 4% of odd one outs (If you live here in the UK) just so that they are different than all their peers?

            I don’t expect you to answer that question, after all you are the parent who would happily mutilate you child out of either ignorance or superstition, so what do you care about its welfare.

            Shame on you!

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22604629

          • beth

            I get my data from credible sources. It’s you who focuses on lobbies.

            I haven’t quoted any sources because as I’ve already explained — I’m not obsessed on this topic. I don’t keep them handy to look for articles on this to push them on other people.

            I hope any passers by will consider the point I have made — that parents can decide for themselves — and I already mentioned a good starting point, the World Health Organization, and as well, several concepts that can be looked up.

          • Johann Fourie

            The WHO only recommends circumcision in Africa as a way of trying to further hiv prevention where people do not have a) the education or b) resources to prevent hiv through prophylaxis.

            It is a distortion of the truth to make it sound like the WHO is in favour of circumcision in the developed world.

            In the developed world people have access to condoms that offer far better protection, so we regard it as unnecessary to mutilate a person’s genitals and affect severely their sensitivity in return for low grade protection against a life threatening disease.

            You can try and pull the wool over your own eyes, but in the UK circumcision is rare and the vast majority of people abhor it. When 96% of men are uncut here, who are you fooling? It is my opinion that these primitive rituals of Jews and Muslims are some of the reasons there is so much hatred for these religions. The rest of us look upon it with horror.

            At the moment it may be your legal right to mutilate your child, but it’s absolutely morally despicable.

            I truly hope your son or sons grow up to resent you for ruining their bodies and sue you as is the emerging trend in the States.

            The foreskin has several biological functions. It protects the glans, aids in sensation and facilitates easier, less painful sex for both partners.

            The fact that you disregard this most basic, most obvious, most clearly defined role of this body part, demonstrates beautifully just how fundamentally warped your understanding is of it. No wonder you want to cut it off, because you are do dreadfully uneducated on what it’s for.

            If you were my mother and you had my healthy body mutilated, I would sue you for every last penny to your name.

          • beth

            The WHO was in favor of circumision in the developed world as well. Their site is quite extensive.

            In my view, if it prevents HIV and cancers from transmitting, more studies will ultimately likely show more.

            “fundamentally warped”
            You had an emotional experience where you were disappointed not to convert to a religion because as an adult you didn’t care for altering yourself. Fine. You show that emotionally in all your comments. Your judgements and even your reading of sites, is warped by it — apparently.

          • Johann Fourie

            Your spelling of favour just revealed your location. And yes like most people in your country you are absolutely ignorant and brain washed with regards to circumcision.

            America is the only country in the Western world where boys are still routinely mutilated and the rest of the world looks upon this in horror.

            The WHO is influenced heavily by a bunch of American Jews so it’s not remotely surprising that it may appear pro circumcision.

            Let me tell you something: the WHO is recommending that all hiv negative gay men go on PrEP, which is antiretroviral drugs used for hiv to try and stem the rate of infections.

            There is only one problem: this is leading to the mass abandoning of condoms causing a massive surge in other sti’s including gonorrhoea which has now developed so much resistance it’s untreatable in some instances as well as a huge increase in cancer causing HPV.

            So we are swapping HIV for other infections and cancer.

            Nice one!! The WHO is not at all the Oracle that you believe it to be. It often offers controversial and politically biased advice and as the African studies about hiv and circumcision have been debunked (because of the fact that the increase of risk taking had arisen due to a false sense of safety) the only reason I can think of that they still offer this advice is due to good old Jewish corruption.

            I wanted to join the religion when I was 15. Im 36 now and have been a proud atheist the last 20 years of my life. The religion did not disappoint me, so your assessment of me is wrong. I just realised that religion was nothing but superstition.

            When the entire Europe is virtually uncircumcised and all these men here agree with me and see circumcision as barbaric, unnecessary and incredibly ignorant, how can you say that I’m warped? This is what we all believe here.

            This is the standard thinking in the country that I live in. And your view on mutilation is a great example of typically why Jewish people are hated by so many people in Europe.

          • beth

            And now you get to it. You claimed to want to convert to Judaism….
            but turns out your a garden variety antisemite. A person who talks
            about hating “Jewish people” as acceptable

            Actually my spelling doesn’t tell you anything. You have no idea where I grew up or who raised me.

            “absolutely ignorant and brain washed”
            Creepy how intensely disgustingly hateful you are with every posting. That’s just one of the comments of that nature.

            I got fooled into thinking you were telling a truthful story about your background. I’ve seen it before, claims they dated a Jew who dumps them and becomes an antisemite. (Probably dumped for being a closet one.) Now it looks very much like you simply start from intolerance, and dug in from there.

            As i’ve said — anyone can research it. Your data is limited. Anyone who knows Jews, knows that if medicine was telling a difference story there is ALREADY an alternative that’s acceptable in Judaism (circumcision isn’t described, so symbolic can substitute in Jewish law)… and all those Jewish doctors have enough wherewithall to come to their own medical conclusions. Sorry they, and other countries in the world (it’s not just the US), used circumsicion. Oh, and your hate at the US is showing too with how you worded that. Same concept could have been written wtihout it dripping with hate.

          • Johann Fourie

            Right a few facts for you. I detest all religion. I was brought up Christian, briefly wanted to convert to Judaism in my teens, but finally came to my senses in my early twenties.

            I do not hate Judaism more than Christianity or more than Islam. I hate them all the same. But the Christians do not mutilate their children in Europe or Latin America and so in my eyes, their superstitions are less harmful.

            I also do not hate America. I love America. Im in love with New York City, but I resent the fact that religion is rammed down your throat Stateside.

            The UK is a secular country and it’s not tolerated to discuss religion in public. This is how it should be everywhere in the world, because the freedom of religion also includes the freedom not to believe and therefore to have a life free of religious bigotry.

            Do I hate Jewish people? No. I have amazing Israeli friends. Do I hate the barbaric mutilations that ignorant and superstitious Jews perform? Of course. I hate these rites within Islam just as much.

            And just for the record, I do think that the enormous amount of power held by the Jewish elite in the US is extremely based and unfair. This balance of power unfortunately skews the advice put out by big organisations such as the WHO.

            Does this make me hate Jews? No. Does it make me hate the US? No. But it does make me hate what some Jews do in the US.

          • Johann Fourie

            And I reiterate, so read carefully: the US is the only Western country in the world where non therapeutic, non religious, ritual circumcision still is performed on a majority of their boys. This does not happen in a single other country.

            What is this telling you?

          • beth

            You come through as terribly HATEFUL. To the point of disgusting.

            Really. I’ve had enough. Good bye.

          • Johann Fourie

            You and your primitive and ignorant mutilation rituals make people like me hate you. I don’t hate people for no reason.

          • beth

            Hating is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY. It’s YOUR FAULT.

            I don’t hate anyone. And your maturity is showing as very low.

            You ignored a lot of what I’d already said when you posted.

            I’ll add to that:
            Reduced sensation isn’t nearly as extreme as your sources make it out to be — once one is reading regular material instead. Orgasms come from inside, and are the same level, no matter how long it takes to get there.

            Good bye. Good luck in life.

          • beth

            YOU are RESPONSIBLE when YOU HATE.

            I don’t hate anyone. You’re showing a low level of maturity.

          • Johann Fourie

            I despise your primitive actions of mutilating the bodies of your children when they are too young to consent. I despise your primitive religion that perpetuates this cruelty. I loathe your barbaric customs and the fact that I am telling you hand on heart, from a first persons perspective, that there is an enormous amount of feeling in a man’s foreskin, I have one just like 96% of my fellow country men, why do you need to ingest tonnes of ill informed propaganda to reassure yourself of your ignorant view? Why not simply ask any uncut man what it feels like when it’s touched? It seems like such a simple, basic step and you are totally disregarding it. It shows how worryingly uneducated and tragically uneducate-able you are. You have probably never even been with an uncircumcised man in your life. So much for your neutrality.

          • Johann Fourie

            I would like to leave you with just one final thought. See, if you would just consider this for 5 minutes you may just see my point.

            You say as the parent of the child it is your right to make decisions on behalf of the child. This may be true, but let me show you where your logic is so extremely flawed in this instance:

            The changes that are made to your son’s genitals last way past the length of your legal guardianship of your child.

            You have every right to make decisions on behalf of your child for the first 18 years, but after that you have no jurisdiction over your child’s life.

            The changes you want to make to his body will last for his entire life. If he reaches 80 years of age one day, you only had legal guardianship of him for 25% of his life, yet your ignorant decisions affected the remainder 75% of his life too.

            This is a the fatal flaw in your argument. Its your son’s body, your son’s penis and your son’s life – it’s not up to you to decide. That is the be all and the end all.

          • beth

            Huh. Your logic is flawed. Everything a parent does effects the child for the rest of their lives. That includes decisions about all surgeries, vaccines, punishment style, loving style, thoughts discussed.

            It is up to the parent to decide for 18 years — including for everything that will effect them for the rest of their lives.

            Meanwhile, you completely ignore how hateful you have come through as. Just ignored my comments and went right back to YOUR preferred angle. That doesn’t bode well for you being the one to trust for deciding things for someone else, nor you respecting someone else… when you don’t respect me here enough to interact with what I’ve said.

            I really did get my answer. I was a little surprised. I thought you weren’t harboring outright hate, and only had resentment. Instead you went straight to a real bigotry.

            I’ll store that in my databank. I’ve seen it before on other topics. I really am surprised every time — that every time I see real animosity at something that connects to Judaism — there’s real bigotry involved too.

            So useful discussion for me. But not in the way you were expecting. Sorry.

            On that topic, I took the hard left stuff years ago, researched it and realized there are a lot of flaws in it’s conclusions. A lot is wishful logic of what “must be true” rather than actual facts. I along with WHO and many other sources, came to the concluson that this isn’t black or white and circumicison has definte value that outways the actual (real) arguements against it.

          • Johann Fourie

            I find it somewhat hilarious that you call the 70% of men in the world whose bodies are intact, the left.

            How can people who prefer their bodies the natural way be left in politics?

            Vaccines or no other decision that parents make alters your child’s bodily integrity for ever.

            Circumcision changes how they experience sex forever. Irreversibly so.

            I still can’t believe that you can’t listen to an uncircumcised person telling you first hand how sensitive the area is. It seems to be like the starting point of this debate. Just to ask another person that has a foreskin.

            In Europe 90% of men are uncut. We do not have more HIV or more cancers than the US or Israel, which interestingly is a cervical cancer hotspot. This proves that all the benefits you presume are simply perceived. They do not translate into real life in the western world. But one thing that is for certain is that Europeans have alot more sensitively in their penises. This much is undisputed as you remove living tissue that contains sensory nerves from a penis during circumcision. Argue with me about anything, but do not argue about biology and science fact.

            As I explained before, I hate all religion. I’m not anti semitic. I’m anti religion. Proudly so. I absolutely loathe all religion, but Judaism and Islam is more harmful than Christianity or Hinduism as the latter don’t mutilate their children.

            Take care.

          • beth

            70% aren’t left. 70% aren’t posting here. YOUR views and statements here represent a HARD FAR LEFT viewpoint.

            Don ‘t twist me words.

            I’m made my points.

            Good bye.

          • Johann Fourie

            I’m not twisting your words. If by your definition I’m the far left because I am an anti circumcision activist, then any uncircumcised person who prefers uncircumcised has to be left. This is YOUR scale that YOU devised.

            Do you understand my point? We all have to be left according to you because we all believe in the same thing, just I am militant about my beliefs so I’m far left. If im far left then any other people lmore moderately in favour of uncircumcised can’t be anything but left too.

            Now answer me again. How can 70% of the world who are uncut be left simply because they are natural?

          • beth

            What a load of twisting of meanings.

            You are hateful. Established already by your words. You listed a antisemitic diatribe, which puts you into a whole new category of intolerance.

            Hateful and abusive people use a technique to try to keep you engaged… of….

            Ignoring anything substantive in your comments. Then twisting things so that you have to unravel and explain the obvious.

            It’s to keep you engaged until they can find something soft underbelly to attack and trigger you.

            You know you’ve entered that stage with someone when they twist around basic definitions that anyone can know or look up. Such as HARD LEFT isn’t “political” but a social construct that covers a wide range of opinions and topics. Whether or not anyone ever votes on them.

            On circumcision, someone not circ who’s fine with it — has nothing whatsoever to do with YOUR comments and YOUR views… the content of which you post here about nerves and so on — that is HARD LEFT material.

            So you’ve supported my prior observations about you and hatefulness and bigotry with your recent comments that follow the pattern to a tee.

          • Johann Fourie

            I’m done with this tit for tat argument. The vast majority of people are not mutilated on this planet and agree that circumcision is unnecessary and that it’s wrong to make changes to how your child will experience sex forever without their consent.

            You say that I’m ignoring everything substantive but most people agree with me and circumcision is on the decline the world over.

            I am gay. I told you this before. I have alot of experience of both versions and I’m yet to meet a man in the UK that is happy to be circumcised. Every single one I have encountered resents the fact that they are cut and envies uncut guys.

            This little bit of information may strike you as anecdotal, which it is, but regardless of what you may think of gay men, they are experts of penises.

            I know how my penis feels when you touch it and I know how a circumcised guy feels when he is touched.

            I have not only had plenty of time to compare notes and gain first hand experience, I have also met a few men who became circumcised later in life and have been deeply depressed because of how their sexual experience changed.

            How much experience do you actually have of uncircumcised guys? Ah! Zero! Just as I thought.

            In other words: you don’t have a clue what your talking about.

          • beth

            Your believe that Jew deserve to be hated (i.e. your a bigot with an agenda to misrepresent)… plus your complete disrespect for me in how you communicate — makes you —-

            unable to judge what’s mutilation. You are manipulating that word hatefully, and falsely. All to support your hate goals.

            Also you’re call for “majority must be right” is another classic of what haters use — everyone knows that majority isn’t always right.

            Your effort to “speak for others” and to claim their views is a also a manipulative FALSE argument. A tit for tat that you say you won’t
            do.

            However this is why one doesn’t discuss with a self-proclamed hater… because they twist info. …:

            You’ve grossly misrepresented the Whole Health Organization data by claiming men have to be trusted on whether they’re drug users who got infected by needles. It was three major studies — stopped because the results were so dramatically in favor of circumsicion as 60% reducing HIV. They examined men, then circumsicised them so no need to “take their word they didnt’ use drugs” they could just look during exam for the needle track marks of a drug user.

            You also misrepresented my points — by merely ignoring them and focusing only on the WHO.

            You have shown me what I already pointed out about you. So keep ranting. All you do is convince folks to go to the WHO site — where they’ll see how manipulating your words.

          • Johann Fourie

            Beth, I loathe all religion. As an atheist that is my right.

            I told you that the WHO did not recommended circumcision in Europe, only in the developing world as an intervention to reduce HIV. YOU DENIED THIS :

            So I shall quote from your much respected WHO website.

            “…circumcision should be considered an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention in countries and regions with heterosexual epidemics, high HIV and low male circumcision prevalence.”

            SO NOT RECOMMENDED IN EUROPE. AS I SAID.

            However, as I said, these studies are widely disputed and as much of the Who’s influence comes from powerful American Jews, us in Europe who are upwards of 90% UNCUT, take it with a sack of salt.

            I’m not speaking for other people. In my country 96% of the men are uncut. Does it really strike you as odd that we would look upon circumcision as a mutilation? That we would all disagree with it?

            I cannot urge you enough to leave the decision to your child. Circumcision is permanent and it’s unnecessary and there is no dispute that it changes how that person experiences sex forever. Whether that change is good or bad is something we could argue about until the cows come home, but the change is undisputed and at the very least deeply personal and subjective.

            And as it is your son’s penis, regardless of the state of the law, morally it should be his choice because it’s his penis.

            I do not say that the majority is always right. I absolutely agree with you that the majority voice doesn’t default to right, but in this instance it is so.

            All the Western countries that once fiercely circumcised such as Australia, NZ, Canada, South Africa and even Britain have stopped.

            Except for what you see in Africa circumcision is on the DECLINE. That is because more and more and more people are realising that it has no health benefits which are worth the loss of sensation and that morally it the owner of the penis that should decide what happens to it. It’s a global trend of realisation.

            And in this case the majority Is right…

          • beth

            You aren’t reading very well. Recommending in one place for one reason — is NOT being against otherwise.

            But here we go again, around and around. Switch-a-roo and keep covering the same topics at naseum when one doesn’t work, switch back.

            Lol, “the majority isn’t always right” you agree — but you’re still using “majority” as evidence in your arguing in the same sentence. (I stopped reading your comments quite a few ago, by that caught my attention… really, lol.)

          • Johann Fourie

            Just to clarify: the type of indiscriminate routine circ you see in the US is unheard of here.

            This country tolerates religious circumcision from a legal point of view, but the vast majority of the public is against it.

            Circumcisions are generally only performed as a last resort when medically indicated here… So It’s not at all recommended by the NHS. You must make the destinction that the UK does not have a cultural, religious or medical mandate for circumcision.

            That is your country and your religion and your culture… And Even there it is on a steep decline.

            Just over half of American boys are cut now. 40% reduction from 20 years ago.

          • beth

            Too nice outside, I’ll leave you to play with yourself.

            And post your errors in logical (false logic), and misrepresentations.

            For fun, you can take every point in your current posts — and track down where I’ve already pointed out what’s false logic in them.

            Have fun!

          • beth

            I wonder what kind of repetitive answer you’re going to come up with now.

            Oh and I didn’t answer your baloney about how you as a man can get more feedback from men than I can as a woman. We’re already gone over this.

            But you don’t want to be respectful and leave my points be and move on. You want to keep going over and over and over the same things.

          • Johann Fourie

            It’s simply not recommended in the UK by either the National Health Service or the British Association of Paediatrics Surgeons so I’m completely lost as to why you are surprised that we are against it.

            http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Circumcision/Pages/Introduction.aspx

            http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/aug/28/circumcision-the-cruellest-cut

          • beth

            Switch-a-roo and around we go. Ignore when prior points have been show false. Already covered this (new-old) territory. BTW, Your links here contradict much of your comments.

            Not going around again.

          • Johann Fourie

            You have not proven anything false. In fact, I proved to you that the WHO only recommends circumcision as an intervention against hiv in developing countries.

            Lets leave it. In my country circumcision is frowned upon. Do your own research. In fact, it’s frowned upon in the whole of Europe….

            Do what you want to tour child. I will forever be grateful that I was born in a culture where my choice as the owner of the penis is celebrated and respected and where my full bodily integrity is expected.

            None of my links contradict me. The NHS does not recommended non religious circumcision unless it’s a last resort. And religious circumcision accounts for about 4% of British boys. So the other 96% is left un mutilated.

            As far as religious circumcision is concerned it is my opinion that it should be banned.

            Goodbye.

          • beth

            PS — bet you aren’t logical enough to. Here I’ll get you started with an example…

            “. In fact, I proved to you that the WHO only recommends…”

            There are about three remedial logic errors in there. I’ve already commented them previously. You skipped right over them repeatedly.

          • Johann Fourie

            You are not very clever are you? Here is the statement from the official page on the WHO site, again, but I will deconstruct it for you as you are unable to:

            “WHO/UNAIDS recommendations emphasize that male circumcision should be considered an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention in countries and regions with heterosexual epidemics, high HIV and low male circumcision prevalence.”

            Europe as a region does not have a heterosexual HIV epidemic in the sense that they refer to, they are referring to regions such as Africa. So the WHO does not actively encourage or even recommended circumcision in Europe.

            You said it does. You lied.

          • beth

            If A
            does not mean
            Not B.

            Take a logic class. I’ve already answered this 3 times. It’s very boring by now.

          • Johann Fourie

            You have not once answered it satisfactorily. You have not once reasoned to the standard of a medical paper. You have not once offered a credible reference, instead saying that ‘you have read all these things numerous places and that they are everywhere to fibd’.

            You are tragically brainwashed and your poor son has to pay the price of your ridiculous superstition. And you say I lack logic lol, there is nothing logical about religion. It’s a superstition.

          • beth

            You lied about what WHO recommends in the first place, lol. Your current post contradicts your earlier posts about them.

            It also misrepresents what I said — so even calling me lying, is you lying about me.

          • Johann Fourie

            The most annoying fact about my argument with you is that you have proven nothing, yet you boast that you have.

            I asked you several times for references and every time you declined, the only reference you produced was the WHO one, and I showed u that the WHO does not recommended circumcision in Europe although you said it did.

            If you truly dud homework you would know that Europe is overwhelmingly uncut and that it shouldn’t be a surprise that we are are also overwhelming anti.

            Just look at which posts get bumped up here. They are all the anti circumcision posts.

            Why on earth does this strike you as odd in a country where 90%+ of men are intact??

          • beth

            Done.

            So you ignored my points to begin with — and now continue to ignore — while claiming you can’t see them.

            Including all comments relevant to your twisting style, and self-expressed bigotry and hatred.

            One last kicker observation though — so all these men in Africa are getting circumcised enthusiastically. They know before and after… so they are in a place to judge. They tell their friends, and word of mouth spreads… and circumcisions happen.

          • beth

            You dropped the whole “flawed study” when I pointed out counter points.

            … and switched back to another them. Switch-a-roo. Problem is i’ve already answered why your entire points in this post are hokcum. Not my job to repeat them again.

          • beth

            You are a self-professed hater & bigot.

            You use endless manipulative techniques and misrepresentations commonly used by haters and abusers.

            I haven’t been reading through your comments for many sets ago, as I said.

            So if I’m not motivated to bother replying to you again… just know this is what I’ve been thinking.

            And now go for it — see what kind of hateful false bash you can post now to try to keep me engaged — to try to get your jollies.

            I wish you the life you deserve, whatever that might be. No judgement needed by me.

          • Johann Fourie
          • Johann Fourie

            Sorry can’t get the link to post.

            Here is another:

            http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/info/HIVStatement.html

            Rather than just ignore the link, use your amazing reasoning skills and just read through it. See what the problem is. There is a reference for e er single statement.

          • Johann Fourie

            I can’t get the link to post. Search African Studies Flawed Intact America and read the PDF.

            It references every single statement.

          • Johann Fourie

            If you are as open minded as you say and if you truly researched both sides then you will have no problem reading the two narratives I posted on why the African studies were flawed.

            Unlike you I reference all my statements. There is a reference for every point in both those.

            Tell me what you think or why you disregard it, which you will likely do, because of your religious and cultural bias.

            And by the way there is nothing wrong with hating religion, that is what atheists do!

          • Johann Fourie

            And quote these studies that you are talking about. You have not bothered to quote even one reference. Just one credible reference!!!

          • beth

            I get my data from credible sources. It’s you who focuses on lobbies.

            I haven’t quoted any sources because as I’ve already explained — I’m not obsessed on this topic. I don’t keep them handy to look for articles on this to push them on other people.

            I hope any passers by will consider the point I have made — that parents can decide for
            themselves — and I already mentioned a possible starting point, the World Health Organization which has data on their site, and also mentioned several concepts that can be looked up.

          • beth

            BTW, if you wanted to convert to Judaism, you may want to check out some reconstructionist groups in the US that accept a symbolic cut rather than circumcision.

            You ran into something traditional about Judaism that got in your way. The same thing has probably helped J survive in the past, and helped it keep from too much conversions in at times when that would have been a way to wipe it out by overloading with others. (I”m not saying this well, but you get the gist.) It’s something to be mad about, and feel is arcane. And it’s a separate issue from the black and whites and greys of circumcision.

            In fact, if it was deemed medically a bad idea, by now there’d be a version that’s just a symbolic cut. (I think there are a couple small reconstructist or humanist groups that do that – though it’s not then universally accepted). It’s remained an active action, because the medical info isn’t nearly as black and white as the hard left makes it out to be. The WHO is one place to start, though I went from there in my research, and focused on studies rather than articles.

          • Graeme Tucker

            What you’re proposing isn’t surgery, it’s BUTCHERY! And of course you know that. Parents should not be allowed to give consent to butchery!

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Then you are saying one in three men on earth is a victim of butchery. Fancy that.

          • Graeme Tucker

            Deluding yourself is one thing, trying to delude the world another. 80% of the worlds males are intact. Those who butcher are a sick minority.

          • CircEsAdreim

            [quote] a decision to snip off a small piece of skin[/quote]

            It’s not a ‘snip’ and it’s not ‘a small piece of skin’. And nothing you said justifies the practice of genital mutilation.

          • Stephen Moreton

            “mutilation” you say. Aside from the subjective nature of this assessment (many people actually prefer the look of the circ’d member) this is just an appeal to emotion. Great for scoring debating points, a bit like called abortion “murder”, and great when the evidence is not on your side.

          • CircEsAdreim

            ‘Mutilation’ is the correct word. It fits the definition:

            Mutilate: to cut up, destroy, or alter radically – in the case of circumcision, the foreskin is cut up/destroyed, and the man’s penis is radically altered from its natural state;

            Mutilation: an injury that causes disfigurement or that deprives you of a limb or other important body part – in the case of circumcision, the penis is disfigured from its natural state, it has been partially amputated, and it will never have its full functionality, as nature intended.

            As far as people who supposedly ‘prefer’ the look of their mutilated member – many of those are uninformed victims who have no clue what was stolen from them and have no comprehension of the function and importance of the male prepuce.

            http://www.circumcision.org/satisfied.htm

            Barring immediate medical need (which is almost never the case in infant circ) it’s never acceptable to take someone’s genitalia and remove part of it without that person’s consent.

            Now, if an adult wishes to amputate part of his penis because he likes the look (kind of like a woman who gets a boob job because she likes that look), have at it.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Perhaps some evidence of syphilis in Germany, a non-circumcising country might cast some light on matters:

            Syphilis has re-emerged in western Europe in recent years, mainly in men who have sex with men (MSM), but outbreaks in heterosexuals have also been observed [1,2] After a period of low syphilis incidence during the 1990s, the first of several outbreaks of syphilis in MSM was observed in Hamburg in 1996/1997, and syphilis incidence began to increase nationwide in Germany in 2001.

            The number of newly diagnosed syphilis cases increased from 2934 in 2003 to 3345 in 2004 [3]. With this increase, the incidence rate for syphilis reached a level of 4.1 per 100 000 population in 2004, with levels in men nearly ten times higher than in women (7.5 cases per 100 000 compared with 0.8/100 000). Incidence was highest in men aged 30-39 years (18.2/100 000), and in women aged 20-24 years (2.4/100 000). The highest incidences were observed in the cities of Frankfurt (22.5/100 000), Cologne (20/100 000), and Berlin (19.5/100 000). Altogether 7 larger cities in Germany had syphilis incidence rates above 10/100 000 in 2004.

            http://www.eurosurveillance.org/ViewArticle.aspx?ArticleId=2759

            It is the change in incidence that counts, not the rate itself. This is because the bacteria might be less or more common itself in other parts of the world.

          • CircEsAdreim

            The only thing that casts a light on is the desperation with which pro-cutters cling to their ideology of forced genital mutilation. Safe sex practices are more effective for preventing STDs than partial amputation of the penis.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Once again you fail to deal with the substance of my argument. Anyone reading this can see that.

            Safe sex practices are not good enough for public health policy. All you are doing is blaming the sick person for his or her disease. That’s repulsive beyond belief.

          • CircEsAdreim

            Of course they’re good enough. These aren’t diseases that are spread by breathing. All you’re doing is forcibly projecting your flawed thinking onto the bodies of all men. That’s the repulsive thing here.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Blaming the patient again. Here’s what you look like.

            There is considerable scientific evidence that HIV causes AIDS. Nonetheless, just as with syphilis, others think the cause is sin. Absurd. Yet the social construct Parascandola describes remains so pervasive that it continues to affect us all.

            http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/15/6/pdfs/09-0293.pdf

            Your attitude is the enemy of public health. All should read the full review to see what intactivists really represent, a step backwards to the dark ages.

          • CircEsAdreim

            Your attitude is the enemy of human rights. Condoms are more effective at preventing STDs than genital mutilation.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            The title of that WHO manual is: Manual for early infant
            male circumcision under local anaesthesia.

            The consent issues relate to getting permission from the parents. The book specifically states that infant circumcision has benefits above that provisioned teenagers & adults, as was quoted above. If you wish to continue to assert otherwise, that is your right, but everyone reading this will see that you are not telling the truth & are misleading people with respect to public health matters.

          • CircEsAdreim

            The title doesn’t represent a recommendation for infant circ, no matter how much you want it to. In fact, circumcising the healthy genitals of a non-consenting human being is blatantly unethical, as informed consent has not been met. The patient is the child, not the parent.

            http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/DOC/statement11.html

          • Stephen Moreton

            The AAP has changed its position to state that infant circ has benefits that outweigh the risks and that it should be available for families who choose it for their sons. Not quite recommending infant circ, but clearly supportive. Their Canadian equivalents looks set to follow suit. In high-HIV African countries, local authorities are now promoting infant circ. The Swazi government is aiming for 80% uptake. The evidence for the benefits of neonatal, over adult, circ is mounting, but intactivists remain stuck in denial.

          • CircEsAdreim

            They still don’t recommend it, just like no other medical association in the world recommends it. In fact, some are fighting to ban the practice for cases in which is it not immediately necessary.

            As far as the AAP and their ‘findings’ in particular:

            “Cultural Bias in the AAP’s 2012 Technical Report and Policy Statement on Male Circumcision”

            The American Academy of Pediatrics recently released its new Technical Report and Policy Statement on male circumcision, concluding that current evidence indicates that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks. The technical report is based on the scrutiny of a large number of complex scientific articles. Therefore, while striving for objectivity, the conclusions drawn by the 8 task force members reflect what these individual physicians perceived as trustworthy evidence. Seen from the outside, cultural bias reflecting the normality of nontherapeutic male circumcision in the United States seems obvious, and the report’s conclusions are different from those reached by physicians in other parts of the Western world, including Europe, Canada, and Australia. In this commentary, a different view is presented by non–US-based physicians and representatives of general medical associations and societies for pediatrics, pediatric surgery, and pediatric urology in Northern Europe. To these authors, only 1 of the arguments put forward by the American Academy of Pediatrics has some theoretical relevance in relation to infant male circumcision; namely, the possible protection against urinary tract infections in infant boys, which can easily be treated with antibiotics without tissue loss. The other claimed health benefits, including protection against HIV/AIDS, genital herpes, genital warts, and penile cancer, are questionable, weak, and likely to have little public health relevance in a Western context, and they do not represent compelling reasons for surgery before boys are old enough to decide for themselves.
            http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2013/03/12/peds.2012-2896

            Full text:

            http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2013/03/12/peds.2012-2896.full.pdf+html

          • Stephen Moreton

            Like a typical intactivist you ignore the counter-criticisms. The arguments against the AAP’s position have been examined and found wanting. The cultural bias argument is particularly laughable. 37 of the 38 signatories of that document were from non-circumcising cultures themselves, so the argument could easily be turned around and fired right back at them.
            In high-HIC countries infant circ is now being promoted by local health authorities. And Roxanne has referred you to the WHO on this matter. The AAP position, as I said, does not explicitly “recommend” it, but does state that circ has net benefits, and should be available. That is pretty close.

          • CircEsAdreim

            Like a typical pro-cutter you ignore the medical ethics and human rights angle of this subject as well as the cultural bias that has fed into the positions of the AAP and the WHO. Again, neither of which recommend infant circumcision.

          • Sci0n1

            And like most circfetish people you ignore that the AAP is a trade organization and has no direct effect on policy any more in the US, and AMA still does not recommend circumcision and that’s all that matters, also the Canadian equivalent was supposed to make that recommendation back in June and did not, and would still not effect a change in practice, it would still be just a recommendation. Also anyone else out there that sees this, please make sure you are getting the word out to parents that were lied too about the effectiveness of this procedure that gave birth to males after 1997, now in the US you are able to sue the Doctor and hospital that did the circumcision on your child, and win, it’s a law that pertains to girls, but thanks to the 14th amendment that grants equal protection cases are being won! Keep the info going!

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Remember this. A friend of mine performs surgery on eyeballs of babies. Very delicate stuff. The dangers are far, far greater than anything circumcision could possibly cause, the loss of sight in an eye. In most cases, this is COSMETIC surgery. That is to say that without the surgery, the two eyes would still see, but one eye would be pointed in a different direction than the other. The child would still see perfectly fine. So why is this much more dangerous COSMETIC surgery performed every day all across the civilized world? Because the parents are given the responsibility for making decisions about their baby’s health care, that’s why. No eyeball surgery occurs without parental consent. If that’s so for much more grave surgery than circumcision, then, given that you folks have no more argument for banning circumcision than anti-flouride people do for causing cavities. & they are fervent in their public health ignorance, just as you are.

          • CircEsAdreim

            [quote]In most cases, this is COSMETIC surgery. That is to say that without the surgery, the two eyes would still see, but one eye would be pointed in a different direction than the other.[/quote]

            That’s not a cosmetic issue. If one eye is pointed in a different direction, normal, natural eyesight is affected and it is therefore a medical issue.

            There’s no comparison between that and cutting off part of a child’s healthy, normal, natural penis – which is NOT a medical issue.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            No. Usually the person can see perfectly adequately. I know several pathologists with just this problem. You are wrong.

          • CircEsAdreim

            One cannot see perfectly if an eyeball is turned in the wrong direction. This is a medical issue, not one of molesting a normal, fully functional body part. Your comparison doesn’t work here. None would, actually.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Nope. It is elective, optional surgery. I just put the consent up there for you to see. If it were not optional, the State would enforce the performance of the surgery if the parents refused it. You are quite wrong. Again, I know several pathologists who do just fine with this problem. It’s called adult strabismus.

          • CircEsAdreim

            It is still a medical issue – a DEFECT in the body part. Foreskin is not a defect. You are wrong to be comparing the two.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            A defect is in the mind of the beholder actually.

          • CircEsAdreim

            All mammals are born with a foreskin. It is a normal, natural body part. Not a defect. In fact, it is considered a defect to be born without one.

          • Stephen Moreton

            “It is a normal, natural body part”. Thank you for providing an example of the “appeal to nature” logical fallacy.

          • CircEsAdreim

            Hardly a fallacy. And it should be a given that it’s not OK to cut off natural, normal, functional body parts off a person who has not consented. How pathetic that this culture of cutting is so ingrained in the minds of some people that it even needs to be said.

          • Stephen Moreton

            Yes a fallacy. Whether something is natural or not is irrelevant. And why is it not OK “to cut off” body parts etc. etc? You are just making a dogmatic assertion without attempting to justify it. Generally I would agree, but what if cutting off such a body part in infancy is actually in the individual’s best interest? Then it may well be OK to do so. I approach the issue from a pragmatic/utilitarian direction. If circ wins a cost/benefit analysis, then it is justified. The child’s health and best interest come before a dogmatic stance that his body is totally inviolate. In high HIV countries circ certainly wins a cost/benefit analysis, but elsewhere the debate continues. The AAP obviously thinks it justified. Other bodies disagree. So, in the absence of consensus it may be considered reasonable to err on the conservative side, so I don’t advocate for routinely trimming babies. But my criticisms of intactivism are independent of that, and are valid.

          • CircEsAdreim

            No, it isn’t a fallacy.

            And you seriously don’t know what’s wrong with cutting normal, natural, functional body parts off a person without their consider? Why should the inherent human right to self ownership and bodily integrity have to be ‘proven’?

            To suppose that cutting off a body part in infancy might be in the best interest of the non-consenting person is nonsensical. This is a standard that could be applied to any body part. Breast buds so a girl or boy won’t get breast cancer, the vulva so a girl won’t get cancer, the appendix so a person won’t possibly have appendicitis, and any number of things.

            Not only would this violate human rights, but it also violates medical ethics to perform such removals without that person’s consent.

            As far as the AAP, they are flawed in their assertions and their bias is clear.

          • Stephen Moreton

            Yes it is a fallacy. It is called the “appeal to nature”. Look it up. You regale me with false analogies (another type of logical fallacy). Cutting off breast buds etc. would confer more harm than good. Removing the appendix carries too high a risk because it is internal. etc. You just don’t “get it” do you? Circ is one thing (perhaps the only one) where removal might actually win a cost/benefit analysis. A point you avoid. If it does win, then there is nothing nonsensical about doing it. It may even save the boy’s life. What is nonsensical about carrying out a minor procedure, at the optimal time for maximum benefit and minimal risk, that may save him from future misery, even death, without causing him any adverse effects? As an infant is unable to consent to all manner of things that permanently affect him, including his body (like vaccination & breast vs bottle feeding which affect the immune system), the parents have to consent on his behalf. Responsible parents would put his best interest first. That includes protecting his health, which comes before lofty ideals about bodily integrity. Those bacteria working their way up his urethra, or viruses penetrating the inner foreskin, are not going to care about such ideals.

          • CircEsAdreim

            No it is not a fallacy. And being a parent does not grant one automatic ‘rights’ to cut off healthy parts from their child’s body.

          • Stephen Moreton

            Yes it is a fallacy. It is called the “appeal to nature”. Google it and snap out of denial.

          • CircEsAdreim

            No it’s not a fallacy. And as someone who used to think MGM was an acceptable practice but has since had their eyes opened, I am not the one in denial.

          • Stephen Moreton

            Google “Appeal to nature”. Truly you are in denial. Your mind is not just closed, it is welded shut. And I used to be firmly opposed to circ, but had my eyes – and mind – opened by the evidence. Like a true denier you even deny being in denial. Trying to reason with you is a waste of time.

          • CircEsAdreim

            How pathetic that a person could allow themselves to be swayed away from respect for human rights and into the realm of such barbarity as genital mutilation. This reminds me of how Hitler was able to convince so many people that what he was up to had merit.

          • Stephen Moreton

            Being born without a foreskin is usually accompanied by hypospadias. Otherwise it is not a defect, but an entirely benign state that makes no difference to function, and confers the benefits of being circ’d, without the risks.

          • CircEsAdreim

            No, even without hypospadias it is considered a congenital abnormality .. i.e., a defect.

          • Stephen Moreton

            Considered by who? It is only a defect in the minds of those who think a foreskin is important. Otherwise it’s just a quirk of biology. In Islamic countries it is viewed positively, as legend has it that Mohammed was born without a foreskin.

          • CircEsAdreim

            Considered by normal biology. considered by the definition of defect. Even your usage of the word ‘quirk’ underscores that it’s not normal. :p

          • Stephen Moreton

            Normality is purely a statistical concept. It is not an indication of right or wrong, better or worse. It is not normal to have genius level IQ, or be an Olympic athlete. Nor is not having something necessarily a defect, especially if it confers either no harm, or even a benefit.

          • CircEsAdreim

            We’re not talking about intangible concepts like mental ability or inability. The foreskin is a physical, normal presence on all mammals. To be born lacking one is considered a defect, just as being born without a little finger would be. Or any other body part.

          • Stephen Moreton

            As I said, normal does not equal right, or better. Again you are indulging in a logical fallacy – the appeal to normality (in this case it’s just a variant of the appeal to nature fallacy you are so fond of). Some cave animals have blind eyes in various stages of vestigiality. It is normal. Yet those eyes are a vulnerability. Injury still means infection and death. It’s just that evolution has not had time yet to completely eliminate those, now redundant, but still vulnerable, eyes. If such an animal were to be born (or hatched) without any eyes at all then, by your definition, this would be a defect, and certainly not normal. But, in reality, such an individual would be at a selective advantage over its peers, as it was rid of a vulnerable, useless, feature. In some cave fish this has happened and they have no eyes left at all, or have just the tiniest vestiges. So what you call a defect turned out to be literally life-saving for their ancestors. Nature is full of such examples. Now what if the foreskin is an evolutionary relic? A protective cover useful for naked hominids on the Savannah, but now rendered redundant by the advent of clothing? To a naked hominid the protective benefit may easily outweigh the disadvantages. But remove that benefit and there is nothing left to counter the disadvantages. The absence of a foreskin then becomes analogous to the absence of eyes in blind cave animals and is a defect only in the mind of someone who does not understand evolution. Are you a creationist?

          • CircEsAdreim

            No, foreskin serves a purpose; its presence IS normal and natural on humans just as it is for all other mammals. Removing the protective barrier of the foreskin so that it can be rubbed against clothing and become calloused/keratinized/dried out serves no purpose and deprives men of fully functional genitalia. The ‘quirk’ of being born without a body part is a defect, no matter how much you try rationalize it otherwise in your mind.

          • Stephen Moreton

            Appeal to normality. Appeal to nature. Unsubstantiated claim about keratinization. You just can’t let go of these fallacies can you, not matter how often they are explained to you?

          • CircEsAdreim

            If one can’t appeal to the importance of valuing nature, morality, and ethics, savagery is what remains. That is what opens up the way for societies to to get away with barbarism under the guise of acceptability. Hitler comes to mind.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            It’s right there in the book. Everyone can read it. Rep. Clare Hoffman of Michigan thought the same sort of stuff about fluoridation. Why look here at this news article

            “Rep. Clare Hoffman (R. Mich) has stated, ‘A large number of Russian-born doctors recommend fluoridation.’
            Mrs. Nelson commented ‘Every strong supporter of fluoridation is on the federal, state, or municipal payroll.'”

            http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1368&dat=19570529&id=0F9QAAAAIBAJ&sjid=_g8EAAAAIBAJ&pg=2970,4284469

            & you say the WHO is an American front?

            What Rep. Hoffman was asserting was JEWISH doctors were recommending fluoridation. Is there any doubt about that in your mind. He was using coded language to damn Jews. Don’t you think him a bowl of cat urine, morally speaking? Come now. Speak.

          • CircEsAdreim

            It doesn’t say anywhere in the book that they recommend infant circumcision. You’re wrong.

          • LA

            Roxanne, let’s assume for a moment circumcision has these wonderful health benefits. Would you be open to medical studies to determine the health effects of removing various pieces of flesh from the female genitalia? It would stand o reason that if cutting off a fold of skin from the penis is beneficial that cutting off a fold or two from the vulva could be as well.

          • LAguy323

            You seem to be a desperately obsessed circumfetishist troll.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Intactivists refuse to deal with arguments. What they are left with is emotional appeals that lack any certain evidence. What they are arguing for is the spread of infectious disease.

          • CircEsAdreim

            No medical organization in the world recommends infant circumcision.

            What you are arguing for is the genital mutilation of infants and no respect for human rights. Fundamentally, the emotional appeal is all this should be based on anyway, just as it was for issues like slavery (despite the supposed economic ‘advantages’ to owning human beings).

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Again. Respond to the criticisms of the article you presented. If no medical organization in the world recommends circumcision, what about this pamphlet from the WHO?

            Since the mid-1980s, data from cross-sectional epidemiological studies have shown that circumcised men have a lower prevalence of HIV infection than uncircumcised men. And, over the past 5 years, three randomized controlled trials have convincingly demonstrated that male circumcision is effective in reducing female to male transmission of HIV.2, 3, 4 This opportunity for disease prevention has resulted in an increased demand for male circumcision in several countries of high HIV incidence. Guidance for adolescent and adult male circumcision services has been developed, but technical guidance is lacking on how early infant services can be safely expanded.

            There are significant benefits in performing male circumcision in early infancy, and programmes that promote early infant male circumcision are likely to have lower morbidity rates and lower costs than programmes targeting adolescent boys and men.

            http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2010/9789241500753_eng.pdf

            You are dead wrong. Opponents of public health measures usually are.

          • CircEsAdreim

            No medical organization in the world recommends infant circumcision. Not even the WHO. You are wrong.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Anyone can see that is a WHO publication. Anyone can. You are now behaving dishonestly.

          • CircEsAdreim

            No, I am not. The WHO does NOT recommend infant circ. You are behaving dishonestly by overlooking a key fact: “these considerations must be balanced by concerns about consent.”

            Additionally, the WHO is heavily funded by America – a country with a strong pro-cutting cultural bias. They may word their propaganda in such a way to make it seem like they’re saying something you want to see, but when you look beneath the gloss you see that they STILL don’t recommend routine infant circumcision.

            In fact, several medical organizations speak out against the practice.

          • Emma

            In 2007, WHO/UNAIDS recommended male circumcision as an HIV- preventive
            measure based on three sub-Saharan African randomised clinical trials
            (RCTs) into female-to-male sexual transmission. A related RCT
            investigated male-to-female transmission. However, the trials were
            compro- mised by inadequate equipoise; selection bias; inadequate
            blinding; problem- atic randomisation; trials stopped early with
            exaggerated treatment effects; and not investigating non-sexual
            transmission. Several questions remain unanswered. Why were the trials
            carried out in countries where more intact men were HIV-positive than in
            those where more circumcised men were HIV-positive? Why were men
            sampled from specific ethnic subgroups? Why were so many participants
            lost to follow-up? Why did men in the male circumcision groups receive
            additional counselling on safe sex practices? While the absolute
            reduction in HIV transmission associated with male circumcision across
            the three female-to-male trials was only about 1.3%, relative reduction
            was reported as 60%, but, after correction for lead-time bias, averaged
            49%. In the Kenyan trial, male circumcision appears to have been
            associated with four new incident infections. In the Ugandan male-to-
            female trial, there appears to have been a 61% relative increase in HIV
            infection among female partners of HIV-positive circumcised men. Since
            male circumcision diverts resources from known preventive measures and
            increases risk-taking behaviours, any long-term benefit in reducing HIV
            transmission remains uncertain.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Randomization takes care of virtually everything you mention in terms of bias. The other statements you would have to prove; were they of any significance the UN, not (as you appear to imply) a Jew dominated entity, would have abandoned the effort, which it has not. Circumcision is very cheap compared with other methods.

          • Robin-Frans Winkel

            Lower costs are relevant. Circumcisions at later age are expensive, especially if you are poor.

          • CrosbyTee

            You are a vile ignorant idiot.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Being a blackguard seldom improves ones image.

          • JesseKaellis

            That’s it? You can only call names? I know what you are, but what am I?

          • Stephen Moreton

            Thank you for a fine example of the ad hominem fallacy.

          • Stephen Moreton

            “Safe sex practices” aren’t working:

            http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.2989/16085906.2013.815406#.UnYjDKhFDIU

            but circumcision is:

            http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.1001509

            In the absence of an effective vaccine, and all we have are partial measures, it makes sense to promote all the partial measures we have. The “ABC” approach combined with circ is the way forward.

          • CircEsAdreim

            Safe sex practices do work. Circumcision doesn’t.

            In studies of general populations, there is no clear or consistent positive impact of circumcision on the risk of individual sexually transmitted infections. Consequently, the prevention of sexually transmitted infections cannot
            rationally be interpreted as a benefit of circumcision, and any policy of circumcision for the general population to prevent sexually transmitted infections is not supported by the evidence in the medical literature.

            http://www.hindawi.com/isrn/urology/2013/109846/

            Psychology Today Series on Circumcision

            Part 2 – Hygiene and STDs:
            http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201109/more-circumcision-myths-you-may-believe-hygiene-and-stds

            Circumcision and Acquisition of Human Papillomavirus Infection in Young Men:
            http://journals.lww.com/stdjournal/Abstract/2011/11000/Circumcision_and_Acquisition_of_Human.16.aspx

            Clinical presentation of genital warts among circumcised and uncircumcised heterosexual men attending an urban STD clinic.
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1195083/

            Human papillomavirus and circumcision: A meta-analysis
            http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/cancer/vanhowe2006b/

            Genital Warts Among 18- to 59-Year-Olds in the United States, National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1999-2004
            http://journals.lww.com/stdjournal/Fulltext/2008/04000/Seroepidemiology_of_Human_Papillomavirus_Type_11.8.aspx

            Prevalence of male circumcision and its association with HIV
            and sexually transmitted infections in a U.S. navy population:
            http://www.iasociety.org/Default.aspx?pageId=11&abstractId=2176002

            The use of male circumcision to ‘prevent’ HIV infection:.
            http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/info/HIVStatement.html

            When bad science kills, or how to spread AIDS:
            http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2012/05/when-bad-science-kills-or-how-to-spread-aids/

            Circumcision and HIV – Harm Outweighs ‘Benefit’
            http://www.circumcision.org/hiv.htm

            Circumcision and HIV infection – review of the literature
            and meta-analysis:
            http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/vanhowe4/

            Circumcision and HIV infection:
            http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/

            Circumcision and HIV:
            http://www.circumstitions.com/HIV.html

            Sub-Saharan African randomized clinical trials into male
            circumcision and HIV transmission – methodological, ethical, and legal concerns:
            http://www.salem-news.com/fms/pdf/2011-12_JLM-Boyle-Hill.pdf

            Male circumcision and HIV prevention – insufficient evidence and neglected external validity:
            http://www.davidwilton.com/files/ajpmgreenetal2010-pub1.pdf

            How the circumcision ‘solution’ in Africa will increase HIV infections:
            http://www.publichealthinafrica.org/index.php/jphia/article/view/jphia.2011.e4/html_9

            Flawed studies used to claim circumcision reduces HIV
            infection:
            http://www.salem-news.com/articles/december112011/circumcision-hiv-rg.php

            In a 2009 survey, USAID found that in 10 of 18 countries
            with data available, circumcised men were actually more likely to have HIV than intact men. They found that condom use, not circumcision status, was correlated with lower HIV. Here is the original document:
            http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/CR22/CR22.pdf

            This study found that women are more likely to contract HIV/AIDS from a circumcised partner:
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8082965?dopt=Abstract

            A study (published 11/9/12 in the Journal of Sexual
            Medicine) in the Caribbean has shown that circumcised men were actually more likely to have had an STI, HPV, and be infected with HIV.
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22897699

            Intact America – flawed African circumcision trials cannot be used to inform US circumcision debate:
            http://www.intactamerica.org/sites/default/files/Analysis%20of%20Flawed%20African%20Circumcision%20Trials.pdf

            “We assessed the association between circumcision status and self-reported history of STI/HIV infection using logistic regressions to explore whether circumcision conferred
            protective benefit.

            Compared with uncircumcised men, circumcised men have accumulated larger numbers of STI in their lifetime, have higher rates of previous diagnosis of warts, and were more likely to have HIV infection. Results indicate that being
            circumcised predicted the likelihood of HIV infection.”
            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2012.02871.x/abstract

          • Stephen Moreton

            Now you are attempting an underhand tactic normally associated with creationists (after one of whom it is named) – the Gish gallop. Batter your opponent with such a lengthy list of pseudoscientific codswallop that it would take hours for him to get through it all. I have seen this tactic used by you people over and over again as you cut and paste long lists of “scientific” studies to bolster your case, without mentioning the many criticisms of the studies you cite, that many are from unreliable and discredited sources (some are just internet ones, not peer-reviewed science), that there are many other studies that say the opposite, or that the few credible studies you cite don’t support your case. That some have been copied off anti-circ websites speaks volumes. I get mine off PubMed. How many of the articles you cite have you actually bothered to investigate? I spent a lot of time investigating the first this summer and found multiple flaws that totally negate the author’s (Van Howe) conclusions. More later.

            Your sloppiness, and that you have not bothered to read the studies you cite is evident from the fact that you manage a duplication. The last, and 3rd last, on your list are the same study, in Puerto Rico. Is this carelessness, or a ploy to inflate your Gish gallop further? Please also explain why you
            ignore the fact that the study was discredited here:

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23110304

            They’d failed to account for confounding factors.

            The USAID survey can be countered by the many epidemiological studies that find a strong inverse correlation between circ and HIV in Africa. So you are cherry-picking. Besides, in those countries that buck the trend, circ is done ritually by a shaman with a razor blade on youths who are
            already sexually active, and therefore often infected. If one lad in the line-up has HIV the implications for those that follow are obvious. It is MEDICAL circ that is protective.
            Ritual circ is much less so, and can even be a risk facter. So you are not telling the whole story (as usual for an intactivist).

            You cite Van Howe’s article claiming that circ will increase African HIV but ignore the debunking here:

            http://works.bepress.com/rwamai/9/

            And, before you try, do NOT bother me with ad hominems about the authors. I am interested only in the evidence itself. And while you are at it, tell me why you ignore it.

            The link to davidwilton.com is broken. But from your comment it is referring to this:

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20965388

            But note the two rebuttals that followed – which you ignore (as usual). Why do you ignore them?

            You cite Van Howe’s 1999 “meta-analysis” on HIV but ignore – as usual – the discrediting of it here:

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10726934

            Van Howe had fallen into a statistical trap called Simpson’s paradox. In fact so bad was his work that it has now
            become – literally – a textbook example of how NOT to conduct a meta-analysis (Barker & Carter, 2005, “Synthesising medical evidence: systematic reviews and meta-analyses”).

            Please explain why you ignore all this. Ignoring
            published critiques is becoming a pattern for you, isn’t it? In fact ignoring things that don’t suit the intactivists’ agenda is normal practice for them, and one reason I have come to totally distrust anything they say.

            Here are some more reliable meta-analyses on circ & HIV that find the circ is highly effective at preventing in female to male HIV transmission. Of course you ignore these (as usual):

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18705758

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11089625

            There are others, I just haven’t time to hunt them all out for you.

            Your 4th link:

            http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/cancer/vanhowe2006b/

            Is to another of Van Howe’s infamous “meta-analyses”. This time on HPV. As usual you ignore the thorough debunking of it by researchers from the highly respected Catalan Institute of Oncology:

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17433445

            It was so bad they concluded, “We believe that the paper by Van Howe should be retracted from the literature as it is based on inappropriate statistical methods suspiciously used to falsely show a lack of association between male circumcision and penile HPV, when we clearly prove a protective association using the same data.”

            So again, I ask, why have you ignored this?

            You will (I hope) note that Van Howe has “history” when it comes to meta-analyses. His latest, that you began your Gish gallop with, is as bad as his previous. There has not been time for a published rebuttal yet (no doubt one will follow in due course) but it does not take an expert statistician to notice major problems with it. Here are some (not all) of my own observations, just on HPV alone:

            Van Howe ignores four published critiques of his “sampling bias” argument (Castellagué et al’s 2002 response to Travis 2002; Tobian et al’s 2009 response to Storms, 2009; Castellagué et al’s 2007 response to Van Howe, 2007; Auvert et al’s 2009 response to Van Howe, 2009). He ignores that previous authors have acknowledged the “sampling bias” argument and sought to address it in their work by comparing shaft and sulcus (Tobian et al, 2011). He ignores that Auvert et al (2009) included a nested study to test for sampling bias – and found none. He ignores that Auvert et al (2009) used a sampling method and site (urethra) very different to that of VanBuskirk et al (2011) so a “sampling bias” argument based on VanBuskirk’s method is inapplicable to Auvert et al. Likewise for the other study (Tobian, 2009) VanHowe applies it to which used glans/sulcus combined, not glans alone, and a different sampling method. He ignores the significance of flat lesions (Backes et al 2012). He ignores that the Johns Hopkins workers explained the non-reporting of shaft data as being due to lack of resources (Gray et al, 2010). They were subsequently reported (Tobian et al, 2011) – and ignored by Van Howe. He ignores the significance of lower rates of HPV and cervical cancer in female partners of circumcised men (Castellsagué et al, 2002; Wawer et al, 2011). He ignores the obvious clinical significance of faster clearance times, which are a clear benefit of circumcision. He ignores the implications of autoinoculation (Flores et al, 2008) which is likely to be greater in uncircumcised men in whom the virus may pass back and forth between glans and inner foreskin. He ignores that the protective effect for HPV was maintained, or even increased, after the initial measuring period and, therefore, cannot be attributed to lead time bias (Wawer et al, 2011; Gray et al, 2010). He ignores that for the South African and Ugandan trials, the authors gave reasons why, if anything, the protective effect on HPV may actually be underestimated (Auvert et al, 2009a; Wawer et al, 2011; Gray et al, 2010; Tobian et al, 2011; Tobian et al, 2012). And I haven’t even got on to the studies he should have included in his “meta-analysis” but didn’t. Shocking, isn’t it? Do you still think Van Howe is a credible source? I don’t.

            Refs:

            Auvert, B, et al (2009) Reply to Van Howe. J Infect Dis., 200(5), 833-4.

            Auvert et al (2009) Effect of Male Circumcision on the Prevalence of High-Risk Human Papillomavirus in Young Men: Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial Conducted
            in Orange Farm, South Africa. J Infect Dis, 199, 14-9.

            Backes et al (2012) Male circumcision is associated with a lower prevalence of human papillomavirus-associated penile lesions among Kenyan men. Int J Cancer. 130(8): 1888–97.

            Castellsagué, X. et al (2002) Male circumcision, penile human papilloma virus infection, and cervical cancer in female partners, New Engl J Med., 346(15), 1105-1112.

            Castellsagué, X. et al (2002) reply to Travis. New Engl J Med, 18, 1452-3.

            Castellsagué X, Albero G, Cleries R, Bosch FX. (2007) HPV and circumcision: a biased, inaccurate and misleading meta-analysis. J Infect. 55(1): 91–3

            Flores et al (2008) Correlates of Human Papillomavirus Viral Load with Infection Site in Asymptomatic Men, Cancer
            Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev., 17:3573-3576.

            Gray et al (2010) Male circumcision decreases acquisition and increases clearance of high risk human papillomavirus in HIV-negative men: a randomized trial in Rakai, Uganda. J Infect Dis, 201(10): 1455–1462.

            Storms, M. (2009) Male Circumcision for the Prevention of HSV-2 and HPV Infections, New Engl J Med, 361(3), 307

            Tobian et al (2009) Authors’ reply. New Engl J Med, 361(3), 307-8.

            Tobian et al (2009) Male Circumcision for the Prevention of HSV-2 and HPV Infections and Syphilis. New Engl J Med 360(13), 1298-1309.

            Tobian et al (2011) Male Circumcision and Anatomic Sites of Penile High-Risk Human Papillomavirus in Rakai, Uganda. Int J Cancer, 129(12): 2970–2975.

            Tobian et al (2012) Human papillomavirus incidence and clearance among HIV-positive and HIV-negative men in sub-Saharan Africa. AIDS, 26, 1555-65.

            Travis, J.W. (2002) Male Circumcision, Penile Human Papillomavirus Infection, and Cervical Cancer. Letter
            to the Editor, New Engl J Med, 18, 1452.

            VanBuskirk et al (2011) Circumcision and acquisition
            of HPV infection in young men. Sex Transm Dis. 38(11):
            1074–81.

            Van Howe, R.S. (2007) Human papillomavirus and circumcision: A meta-analysis. Journal of Infection (2007) 54, 490-6.

            Van Howe, R.S. (2009) Sampling Bias Explains Association between Human Papillomavirus and Circumcision. J Infec
            Dis., 200(5), 832.

            Wawer et al (2011) Effect of circumcision of HIV-negative men on transmission of human papillomavirus to HIV-negative women: a randomised trial in Rakai, Uganda. Lancet, 377, 209-11.

          • CircEsAdreim

            You really are a devoted fanatic of genital mutilation. Look at how desperately you attempt to dismiss and trivialize anything that refutes the modern-day justifications for the practice.

          • Stephen Moreton

            You mean I trashed your Gish-gallop with reams of peer-reviewed science, and exposed the dishonest and/or incompetent conduct of a leading intactivist at the same time. As Roxanne noted you just will not engage with the evidence will you?

          • CircEsAdreim

            You’ve trashed nothing … except your own humanity. Thankfully there are less of people like you and more who are no longer so willing to accept – or try to justify – this human rights violation.

          • Stephen Moreton

            You tried to Gish gallop me and I exposed many of the articles you cite as discredited nonsense. You still have not explained why you ignored the published debunkings I pointed you to. Why did you ignore them? As Roxanne said, you just will not engage with the evidence will you?

          • CircEsAdreim

            You didn’t expose anything, but merely posted a rambling mountain of blather.

          • Robin-Frans Winkel

            Syphilis sure is a deadly disease.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Actually, I also have evaluated the studies you have provisioned me. Let’s look at this study: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06685.x/full

            That’s the Sorrel study. Table 2’s univariate analyses do not show any real effect because 8 t tests were performed, meaning result with P > 0.01 could be due to chance. The two multivariate regressions displayed on table 3 are even more interesting. Note that both evaluations of circumcision show P > 0.025, meaning, again they might have been due to chance. Of greater interest, however, is the effect size itself. Being Hispanic, while also possibly chance related, produced a decrease in touch sensitivity that was about 6/5’ths that of being circumcized. Wearing briefs, however, produced an equally damaging effect on touch senisitivity, one, that was actually statisically significant, with P < 0.01 for both. Hence, any difference between circumcised & uncircumcised men is obliterated, for uncircumcised men with briefs, by the avoidance of briefs by the circumcised! Since briefs have not been discussed as a human rights violation before, you ought to bring this up at your intactivist meetings. The real difference, however, is good old fashioned age, of course. The older you are the more sensitive you get, at least if it is so that increased sensitivity is associated with a positive number. In fact, if increased sensitivity is associated with a negative number, Circumcision makes you more, not less, sensitive!

          • CircEsAdreim

            No, not really. Not once keratinization sets in. At any rate, once again – even if your pro-cutting claims were true (they aren’t), this still wouldn’t justify such a medically unethical human rights violation. Not that it has ever stopped pro-cutters from trying …

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Note that in the multiple regression analysis table, the effect of circumcision is the opposite of the effect of age. That may have been a typographical error on the part of the person putting the table up, but it sure is a bad typographical error. In any case, wearing briefs is supposed to produce an even larger effect. Just check the table. If I am wrong, show me by reference to the article you intactivists so focus. Show me where I am wrong. The paper is right there for you to see.

            Good heavens, you remind me of those blasted anti-flouride people. You can tell them again & again & again that cavities are prevented by adding flouride to the water. But no, they come up with all sorts of nonsense to prove flouride is actually harmful. So it is with circumcision. I have taken apart the articles you claim show something. I really have.

          • CircEsAdreim

            No, the only thing you’ve done is to continue perpetuating the backasswards notion that it’s OK to partially amputate a man’s penis by force on the off chance that something might happen to him in the future.

            If you want to make a consistent argument, you should apply the same ‘logic’ to all other body parts for both sexes. And yet pro-cutters fail to do this, choosing instead to focus only on the male genitalia. It reveals the true nature of their flawed thinking.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            You are not responding to evidence based evaluations of YOUR articles. What you say here does not respond to specific points made about the tables in Sorrel’s article. The most important points are that 1) the effect of circumcision might have been due to chance due to the number of evaluations performed, 2) even were the effect of circumcision statistically significant, the effect of wearing briefs is both definitely statistically significant & bearing of a larger point estimate.

            No one considers briefs a danger to the orgasm. Therefore, unless you have some response, your own study shows you are dead wrong.

          • Stephen Moreton

            Roxanne. I admire your
            patience and stamina. It takes large of
            amounts of both when debating intactivists, and still you get nowhere. They are like creationists. I have been investigating their claims for
            years now and found the same cherry-picking, ignoring of criticisms, logical
            fallacies, fear-mongering and repeating of urban myths one gets in many other
            pseudosciences. No amount of evidence or
            reasoning will change their minds, but at least by putting your criticisms into
            the public arena they are there for all to see.
            I particularly appreciate your debunking of Sorrels and have copied it
            to my notes. I would add the following
            observations. There was a published
            rebuttal that exposed faulty statistics.
            A Bonferroni correction should have been applied, but wasn’t:

            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2007.07072_1.x/full#b1

            A response by Hugh Young followed:

            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2007.07072_1.x/full

            but he misunderstands
            the purpose of Waskett & Morris’ table, and is just wrong about the need
            for a correction. There is one p value
            for each hypothesis. There are multiple
            p values, thus multiple hypotheses. And
            other problems I haven’t space for here.

            Note there is now a meta-analysis showing that circumcision
            has no adverse effect on male sexual function.
            You won’t see intactivists citing this:

            http://www.asiaandro.com/news/upload/20131011-aja201347a.pdf

            Keep up the good work.
            Intactivism is the ugly sister of anti-vaccinationism and HIV/AIDS
            denialism (with which it has links). It
            is psychologically damaging to circ’d men by needlessly making them feel they
            have lost something important. And it
            endangers lives by undermining public health initiative in the war against AIDS
            (aw war we are losing, and in which condoms are proving inadequate).

            For the record I am a militant atheist with no religious
            reason to defend circ. I am a pragmatist,
            and base my position on evidence, not the dogmatic moral absolutism that
            typifies the anti-circ brigade, or the knee-jerk opposition to anything
            religious that leads some of my fellow atheists to seize on this issue as a
            convenient stick to beat religion with.
            It disturbs me to see intactivism creeping into the atheist and sceptical
            literature, as is happening, without any attempt to fact-check the claims. And I am also a happily circumcised man, done
            as an adult, with no regrets except that I’d rather it had been done in
            infancy.

          • http://www.circumstitions.com/ Hugh7

            “…without any attempt to fact-check the claims. ”
            There is no need for any “claims”. Leaving babies’ genitals alone is the default position. It is the claims of circumcisionists that need, and get, fact-checking, and they fail.

            Done as an adult? For what reason?
            “I’d rather it had been done in infancy.” i.e. “I’d rather my parents had read my mind and the future, and known what I was going to grow up to want.”
            Sorry, but that’s a rather far-fetched druther.

          • Stephen Moreton

            There is a very great need to fact-check intactivist claims when so many of them are speculations, half-truths and urban myths.
            “Leaving babies’ genitals alone is the default position”. I agree! Absolutely right. Same with any medical intervention. The onus is on the one wishing to carry it out to prove that it is in the recipient’s best interest. Most times that is easy. If the recipient has a pathology or injury that requires treatment, for example. Or in the case of vaccination, where the medical evidence is so overwhelmingly in favour that it is clear that vaccinating non-consenting infants is very much in their best interest. So we vaccinate non-consenting infants, violating their immune system integrity, and risking adverse reactions, because vaccination wins a cost/benefit analysis hands down. Applying the same reasoning to other interventions some things fail (like FGM and foot-binding) so we oppose them. But male circ is in that fuzzy area between things that clearly are not in the recipient’s interest, and things that are. The burden of proof is, rightly and properly, on the shoulders of those who advocate for it. And they are coming up with proof. Currently, in high HIV countries, the evidence is clear (except to intactivists). Circ, including of infants, wins a cost/benefit analysis comfortably, and so is justified. Elsewhere, although the evidence is drifting that way, there is no consensus, so it is understandable if you prefer to err on the conservative side. I have no quarrel with that, and I am not into advocacy anyway. But I do have a big quarrel with people who trick circ’d men into believing that they have been ruined for life, causing them psychological distress, and who undermine anti-HIV drives in Africa. It was known from the early 1990s that circ was effective against HIV, but anti-circ attitudes delayed the RCTs and subsequent implementation, and still hamper progress. In short intactivism has cost, and still costs, African lives. And that disgusts me, and is a large part of the reason I am resolutely opposed to it. I view intactivism the same way I view anti-vaccinationism and HIV denial – as dangerous and damaging pseudoscience.

          • LA

            Circumcision sure hasn’t made American penises any healthier than Scandinavian penises. Except it left a nasty scar and deprived the organ of a protective covering and many nerve endings.

            You don’t need medical proof in a study of keratinization–just take a look on the Internet at the supple texture of a glans that has been protected its entire existence and a glans that had been exposed its entire existence. Do the same for clitorises while you’re at it.

          • Stephen Moreton

            What is your evidence that American penises are no healthier than Scandinavian ones? Be sure to take into account confounding factors, before you answer, and back it all up with peer-reviewed studies.
            It is adult circs that tend to leave scars. The great majority of infant ones leave only a faint join mark, sometimes no trace at all. That does not stop intactivists cherry-picking (and possibly doctoring) photos to create the contrary impression.
            All skin contains nerve endings. Got any proof that those in the foreskin are in some way special?
            One DOES need proof of keratinization. One cannot tell how keratinized skin is just by looking at cherry-picked pictures off the internet. The only reliable way is to take actual samples, section them, stain them for keratin and look at them down a microscope. As I explained earlier (and which you ignore, like a typical, blinkered intactivist). The only study to have done this found no difference. There is NO evidence that circ leads to keratinization. A little drying certainly, but not keratinization. Get used to it.

          • LA

            Don’t look up cherry-picked pictures. There are plenty of pictures/videos on the internet of men posting their junk. You can tell the difference between a circumcised man’s glans and an uncircumcised man’s glans. Many, if not most, glans of uncircumcised men have a rich, deep color and supple appearance. You never see that with the glans of a circumcised man, the color and texture of which is typically closer to that of his shaft skin.

            The burden of proof is on you that American penises in the real world are healthier than Scandinavian penises. This would seem to be a very easy study as the respective test populations are so large, so it makes me wonder why circumcision advocates have to use studies in extremely controlled environments when, if these benefits were as real and huge as they claim, they could simply use real-world data between nations like the United States and Norway. You’d think that Scandinavian men’s penises would be falling off.

            I have a foreskin, and I can tell you that my foreskin has sensations of its own. I would definitely feel sexually mutilated and at a loss if I woke up tomorrow morning and it was gone. I know that I would experience less pleasure.

          • LA

            Why don’t you respond? Can’t handle the fact that most men in the world have all the genitals their DNA coded for them and are still perfectly healthy while you have to deal with less sensation and a desensitized glans that as a mucous membrane was meant to remain protected for life but was cruelly stripped of that protection by miseducated physicians?

            There’s a reason European doctors are calling bull on American physicians’ stance on circumcision.

          • Stephen Moreton

            1. This thread is large and old. Few will be reading it now, so no point wasting my time.
            2. Having seen the refusal of intactivists here to address the evidence it is a waste of time showing them it, especially when no one is likely to still be watching to see them being shown up.
            3. Following from no. 2, (and paraphrasing Mark Twain and Winston Churchill) I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
            For the record, my glans is just as sensitive as it was when laid bare 20 years ago at age 30 when I underwent the procedure voluntarily, and after thoroughly researching the subject and satisfying myself that the intactivists are full of bull.

          • psysaac

            the fact is, Stephen Moreton, that you are missing evidence. All of this would be obvious to you if you had the organ in question.

            What happens if you don’t have fingernails? What happens if you hike barefoot? The same thing that happens if you are missing the hood of the clitoris or the foreskin.

            Unlike shoes or nails the foreskin itself has nerves: How could you ask for “proof?” Just feel your foreskin!!

          • Stephen Moreton

            I had 30 years experience feeling my foreskin, and now 20 years without. I have not looked back. So you needn’t lecture me about what a foreskin is like I know. As for evidence, the best evidence from the scientific literature is clear. The foreskin is no more innervated than other areas of glabrous skin (in fact it is less so). It has few if any genital corpuscles (the crucial ones for sexual sensation, the Meissner’s ones intactivists harp on about are irrelevant). It is the glans and shaft that have these, and which are the most erogenous regions. Nor is there any evidence the bare glans gets keratinised. Dry certainly, but not keratinised. The ONLY attempt to compare cut vs uncut organs found no difference in keratinisation. The most recent meta-analysis found no significant different in male sexual function between cut & uncut. An independent review published shortly after found the same. Intactivists cherry-pick a few flawed studies, like Bronselaer’s Belgian one with its biased sample, and cite those, whilst ignoring the many others that don’t support their agenda. For this (amongst other) sins I have come to regard intactivism as pseudoscience. Because it also makes circ’d men feel needlessly miserable, and undermines public health initiatives in high HIV countries I also regard it as pernicious and damaging, so am now firmly opposed to it. I don’t care about infant circ, done clinically, and neither advocate for, nor oppose it. But I do target intactivism and its many false and harmful claims. Circ does not harm sexual function. Please stop telling men otherwise. It is false and cruel. And that is the case whether it is right or wrong that they were circ’d in the first place.

          • psysaac

            Despite your claim I simply cannot believe that you are telling the truth although I do believe you think you are. Yes the bare glans gets keratinized, for you to say “there is no evidence” goes directly against what i have seen with my own eyes, and not just for the penis. Despite your attempt to keep feelings amicable for those already damaged I am afraid that you are making the ridiculous claim that the skin on the end of the penis has less nerves than the rest. Your argument that the intactivist argument should not be expounded because it hurts people’s feelings Is ludicrous because we could just as easily avoid the homeless problem other human rights violations the same way. My former argument still stands, you have not had a foreskin in twenty years and require a book to tell you if it ever had nerves in it (??), also you have done (biased) research whilst claiming to have “never looked back.” Your argument reeks of a form of denial that is personal to you and that I am *once again* done with.

          • Stephen Moreton

            People have “seen with their own eyes” flying saucers full of little green men. I prefer peer-reviewed science based on actual, objective measurements. For example:

            No difference in keratinisation between cut & uncut: http://www.bmj.com/content/320/7249/1592

            Foreskins have fewer (and smaller) fine-touch receptors (Meissner’s corpuscles) than 7 other areas of glabrous (hairless) skin: http://medind.nic.in/jae/t08/i1/jaet08i1p30.pdf They also tend to disappear by middle-age (but those studies are in Chinese so I can’t get beyond the English abstracts).

            I never said there were NO nerves in foreskins. All skin contains nerves. The nerves which matter are genital corpuscles. These are the ones responsible for sexual sensation leading to orgasm. They are richly present in the glans and shaft – exactly the areas men rank as the most erogenous, they rank the foreskin last: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19245445

            There is little evidence that foreskins contain genital corpuscles. Just a couple of very old German studies that found a very few, but which could not be replicated: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/13295637
            I could continue with many more papers but have not time or space. My position is evidence-based. Yours’ is subjective opinion-based. Mine is therefore the stronger position, and you are the one in denial. Telling circ’d men that they are damaged is false as well as psychologically damaging. So it IS causing distress, and that distress is needless. If the claims were true then you’d have a point. It would indeed be “ridiculous” to object to them. The problem is that the claims are false. The distress is, therefore needless, and I am right to object.

          • psysaac

            I am afraid that no matter how many studies you look at about people’s experiences with sensation before and after adult circumcision, they are all case studies and a vast majority of them disagree with yours.
            I know specifically what the head of my dick feels like with a foreskin and without because I have a human nervous system. Yes it would toughen up and lose a lot if the hood were removed. The inside if the foreskin is a mucosal membrane and lines the glans the way the inside of the mouth lines the tongue. The glans is very well adapted for sensation, hence the thick double sided and very sensitive foreskin (especially the inside) to protect it.
            You are claiming my position is not evidence based, but if I were to bust out the sources it would be for academia and not this thread. The real evidence is simply in the way it feels. I really feel like you are saying that the fingertips wouldn’t harden without nails or the tongue wouldn’t harden without a mouth. If you think your evidence is infallible, then maybe you need to look at a bible thumper and realize it is the mirror. No epistemology would exist at all without the nervous system, you can deny the importance of the foreskin all you want, it is easy for you because you don’t have one.
            If this is damaging to your ego, then please reflect on the rather stupid choice you made to have part of your dick chopped off. P.S. are you getting the same reaction from everyone?

          • Emma

            If you remove the eye lid, it will harm eye function. If you remove a toe, it will harm mobility. State all the studies you want, and the simple facts will remain the same. If you remove the most sensitive part of a man’s genitalia, you will certainly harm sexual function.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            They do remind me of creationists, come to think of it.

          • CrosbyTee

            You are a troll.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Better a troll than someone who hates fluoridated water because it violates “bodily integrity”, viz: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qr2bSL5VQgM

          • Emma

            I think evolutionists are what we intactivists are, more likely. Whatever has come along in the long process of evolutionary time to give us pleasure and sensation, we believe in keeping. If that is a religion, then I’ll get myself baptized.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Intactavistas are much like anti-vaccine & anti-fluoride persons. Had God meant vaccines to be used, God would have given us immune systems like God did to cats & dogs.

          • CrosbyTee

            Nice to see you admit your bias.

          • Stephen Moreton

            “once keratinization sets in” you say. Evidence please.

          • CircEsAdreim
          • Stephen Moreton

            You still have not provided evidence for keratinization. Your link just repeats the mantra, but does not provide any evidence. Mere repetition is not evidence. Please provide evidence, i.e. actual measurement of keratin thickness on glans skin from circ’d vs uncir’d organs. Unless you can provide this all you have to offer is anecdote and cherry-picked pictures off the internet.

          • CircEsAdreim

            I did provide evidence for keratinization; the picture is clear, the accounts of men who deal with it is compelling (except for pro-cutters, of course). I can’t help if you refuse to accept it.

            It’s quite telling that anti-cutters are expected to provide ‘proof’ to support their pro-human rights arguments. It should be a given that you don’t cut healthy body parts off non-consenting people. Not in the mind of the cutter though.

          • Stephen Moreton

            No you did NOT provide evidence for keratinization. You provided a link to an anti-circ website that merely repeated the mantra. To determine the extent of keratinization it is necessary to take a physical skin sample, section it, stain it for keratin, and measure it down a microscope. Anecdotes and unsupported assertions will not do. Please come up with proper evidence, as described, based on actual measurements, and published in a peer-reviewed journal. I challenge you.

          • CircEsAdreim

            Pictures speak a thousand words. The keratinization on a cut penis is clear to see. As are the accounts of men who deal with the issue on a daily basis.

          • Stephen Moreton

            Pictures can be cherry-picked and/or photoshopped. And “accounts of men…” are nothing but anecdotes and can be countered by anecdotal accounts from men circ’d as adults and relating how wonderful it is. Cherry-picked, and possibly photoshopped, pictures, and anecdotes (whether for or against), are NOT evidence. Actual measurements of actual samples, published in the peer-reviewed literature is evidence. You haven’t got any. The only peer-reviewed publication that actually compares the two types of organ found no difference in keratinisation: Szabo & Short (2000) How does male circumcision protect against HIV infection? Brit. Med. J., 320(7249), 1592-4. You have no evidence. I do. I win.

          • CircEsAdreim

            No, such things are the very real result of circumcision for many, many men. And when some of those men decide to undergo foreskin restoration, the keratinization problem largely goes away. There’s a lot you don’t seem to be aware of with regard to real-life ramifications of this procedure – not just with regard to how violating it is and medically unethical – but also the problems that many victims of MGM are dealing with. But I wouldn’t expect anything less from someone so entrenched in trying to use ‘science’ to support the violation of infants in this manner.

          • Stephen Moreton

            You have go NO evidence that keratinization occurs. Accounts of restorers are subjective and anecdotal, and influenced by placebo effect. Besides, some have gone and got circ’d again. That you persist in making your keratinization claim without a jot of evidence, and in the face of some evidence against, proves that your stance is not evidence-based. Unlike mine.

          • CircEsAdreim

            Keratinization does occur and image results are not ‘placebo’ effect. The skin is noticeably improved, appearing more like it is supposed to be as an intact male. You can dismiss these as irrelevant or ‘fake’ if you wish, but it’s a growing trend and eventually even the supposedly ‘reputable’ scientists will take note.

          • B. Maurene White

            Men who do foreskin restoration report significant amounts of callous like tissue, desquamation from the glans penis once it has been covered for a few days to a few weeks. You are correct, a system of collecting this evidence is needed to provide skeptics such as yourself that the process exists. On the other hand, setting up scientific studies is costly. Anecdotes suffice for many to get started on a 1.5 – 2 yr restoration process.

          • Stephen Moreton

            Accounts of restorers are purely anecdotal. As a skeptic I am familiar with anecdotal evidence. Anecdotes for the efficacy of homeopathy, that Jesus changed someone from gay to straight, that aliens abducted and probed people during their sleep … Accordingly, I reject anecdotal evidence as unreliable. I am also aware of the placebo effect. Drill it into someone that a procedure has wonderful benefits, and many who try the procedure will dutifully report these wonderful benefits. The more effort involved, and the greater the emotional commitment, the greater the placebo effect, and there is a lot more effort and emotional commitment involved in attaching devices to one’s organ, than in popping a pill, so the placebo will be especially strong. There is a complete absence of proper, peer-reviewed research on restoration, no objective measurements, no before & after satisfaction surveys (we only hear of the “successes”, not of those disappointed, or who went and got circ’d again – as some have). I suspect that restorers, being unfamiliar with what a covered glans is like, are simply confusing dry vs moist with keratinized vs not. The lack of proper studies on keratinization is also surprising, given that it is not very challenging – take samples from cadavers, section & stain for keratin and measure under a microscope, preferably done double-blind. I can find only one study which did this: http://www.bmj.com/content/320/7249/1592 and they found no difference! It has weaknesses: small sample size, no actual figures, and doesn’t say if it was blind. But it’s all there is, and it goes against the anti-circ position. I maintain there is no credible evidence keratinization occurs, and what little evidence there is points the other way. For intactivists to persist in the keratization claim is unjustified and unscientific, they should desist forthwith, and I am right to criticize them for failing to do so. Note also the way CircEsAdreim here reacted to my criticism on this point – a steadfast refusal to address the evidence. Elsewhere intactivists use offensive personal abuse – even to the point of calling their opponents paedophiles. This behaviour only hardens my own attitude towards the anti-circs. Some may be thoughtful and appreciate the need for evidence (you perhaps) but many are irrational, ignorant and dogmatic, have no interest in evidence, and are causing great harm with their bogus and cruel claims. The more I see of this behaviour the more it convinces me that intactivism is pernicious pseudoscience, and the more opposed to it I become.

          • Emma

            It’s a very simple act of logic to understand keratinization. The glans is meant to be covered by the foreskin, unless erect, and constantly moisturized by smegma, which the foreskin also provides. If you remove this natural protective moist covering, the glans becomes dry and the skin naturally becomes less sensitive because it is now an outside organ.

          • CrosbyTee

            Re tard

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            Somehow your odd orthography does not appear to provision answer to a quantitative argument. Why is this?

          • Graeme Tucker

            Probably straight afterwards yes, but 40 years later, no, not a snowballs chance! But sure if you want to get yourself circumcised, feel free!

          • Emma

            I would like to know how you can remove 20,000 nerve endings and make the man MORE sensitive?

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            This classic article, by virtue of its beautiful figures & lucid writing, incites pleasure for the wise:

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1248918/pdf/janat00553-0197.pdf

            Does food touching nerves exposed by lost enamel generate sexual climax? Nerves in fingertips enable object manipulation; in the nose, smell; in the tongue, taste; in the retina, sight; & in the foreskin, lunacy among intactivistas.

          • Joebug4

            It didn’t work that well when the Greeks and Romans banned it so you are in a fine tradition

          • CircEsAdreim

            Easy access to Information and the power of social media weren’t factors back in the day. They are now. Which is why the practice is in decline.

          • Joebug4

            Yes of course the twitter mob should control what we think, backed up by the dominant discourse, here the god of “science”. What the Greeks did in some way give us though is the seeds of ideas of liberal democracy, which is not about the majority view controlling others but the right of individuals to dissent. Information is not a neutral term as you so naively imply. The Soviets had “Information” on the madness of dissenters just as the Greeks did on the “barbarism” of Judaism. You need to read some Isaiah Berlin and then again carefully about how convinced you are about what terms like information and power really might mean in your argument.

          • CircEsAdreim

            Easier access to information makes it harder to be fooled by the pro-cutting agenda. Again, this is why the practice of male genital mutilation is on the decline.

          • Joebug

            You are just repeating your previous point. You are right that “information” is readily available but on the other hand in Greece everyone knew that Jews are barbarians even without the internet. So its an issue of what information and how that information is interpreted. Can you engage with my points?

          • CircEsAdreim

            It bears repeating because it plays heavily into the reasons why this practice is on the decline. A practice that never should have started to begin with.

          • Joebug4

            Ok just unreasoned demagoguery then, oh dear

          • CircEsAdreim

            Routine infant circ = unreasoned demagoguery.

          • CircEsAdreim

            It’s also an issue of people waking up to the fact that they’ve been fooled for decades into thinking it’s acceptable to partially amputate the penises of their sons.

          • CircEsAdreim

            None of that is pertinent to the subject of male genital mutilation and why it should end.

          • Joebug4

            Are you able to argue why you think that rather than just stating it?
            Jews believe that this is how their children enter a covenant with God and this act is the foundational act of normative Judaism. Even if you have evidence of harm, unless that harm is highly significant (and of course what that term means can be debated and has been in this forum although notably without clear conclusion), then from a religious perspective your argument does not hold. Now of course you can discount a religious perspective, but you need to recognise that doing so is an act of religious suppression. Fine if you want to hold that position but you need to hold it openly and admit to it.

          • Graeme Tucker

            Utter rubbish! Most of the boys butchered in America have parents of no religious bent! Only 1.0% of the USA population are Muslim and 2.0% of the population Jewish, I read somewhere? It doesn’t matter if it’s only 1 boy in the entire population, it’s 1 boy too many!

            Persecution, what rubbish, most Jewish people do not follow Jewish religious law, when was the last time you sacrificed a creature for the atonement of sin? Where in your book of religious law does your god command such abandonment of law? If anything is killing off Jewish religious law practices it’s the Jewish people themselves by not following thousands of laws of your god!

            Jewish people do not need to sacrifice parts of boys penises at 8 days of life to be Jewish, they don’t have to sacrifice parts of boys penises at all, if Moses’ example is worth anything!

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            You intactivistas are quite similar to the anti-fluoridation fiends. In both cases, this movie clip applies.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qr2bSL5VQgM

          • Graeme Tucker

            What’s it about, it’s probably offensive, you’re not exactly someone who has any degree of moral fiber, who can be relied upon.

          • bsr

            Excellent point, well made.

          • RoxanneRoxanadana

            It’s fascinating to learn your mind on things. One item is absolutely clear. Intactivists think the circumcised male organ is a deformity, one in need of surgical correction. That Jewish men are deformed is a fascinating thought, which will be pursued in good time. A good prelude, however, is to remember the Roma part of the Holocaust. Now the Jewish part, the Shoah, was the most important because the Nazi’s made the elimination of the Jews their primary goal from day 1, but the other parts are vital to understanding the Nazi nature. Originally, the Roma were viewed as one of the European peoples, not extermination material. Rudolf Hoss expressed great dismay at the status change, but, orders were orders, & so the Roma had to all be gassed. Why? Nazi “science” proved theme predisposed to things like petty theft, homelessness, & prostitution. Not true (Hoss makes that point early on), but assume for a minute that it is true. Who kills homeless people? Does anyone admire Jack the Ripper for cleaning London of prostitutes? O Porrajmos shows the Nazis, at their best, were Jack the Rippers! & what, after all, are these things but moral deformities? Thus, this view of deformity can lead to mass murder. A false view, indeed, but a moral process that can never be forgotten. We’ll continue this fascinating discourse.

          • CircEsAdreim

            You’ve got that backwards. It’s pro-cutters who illogically think the intact penis is a deformity in need of surgical correct. A cut penis is one that is unnatural and permanently damaged, but no surgical correction can fix what was stolen.

            The rest of your nonsense is just blather intended to divert attention away from what people like you support – forced genital cutting – and what you don’t support – the inherent human right to genital integrity. This is closer to the mentality of Nazism and Jack the Ripper and any other group or person who thinks such barbarity is acceptable.

          • Stephen Moreton

            “A cut penis is one that is unnatural” The appeal to nature fallacy again. You people are really fond of that particular logical fallacy aren’t you? “and permanently damaged”. Barring a few rare cases where it has been botched, NO, it is NOT damaged. It makes no difference to male sexual function as recent meta-analysis shows:

            http://www.asiaandro.com/news/upload/20131011-aja201347a.pdf

          • CircEsAdreim

            Yes, permanently damaged. The genitalia will never have full functionality, as nature intended.

            Functions of the foreskin
            http://www.circumcision.org/foreskin.htm

            http://www.sexasnatureintendedit.com/eBook/SANII_by_chapters_in_pdf.html

            Male circumcision decreases penile sensitivity
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23374102

            And it’s not a logical fallacy to argue that the practice of infant cutting is unnatural.

            You people are really fond of justifying the human rights violation of genital mutilation aren’t you?

          • Stephen Moreton

            You are fond of citing discredited “studies” aren’t you? The alleged “functions” are largely speculation, and the Bronselaer study is worthless. Why do you ignore the round of criticism and counter-criticism that followed it? This habit of ignoring published criticisms is common – and dishonest – behaviour I have observed over and over again amongst you people. Please justify it. And while you are at it address the issue of the bias in Bronselaer’s self-selected data set.? 22.6 % cir’d as opposed to 15% of the Belgian population (his own figures). And 12.1 % of them gay. Hardly a representative sample! Read about “participant bias”.

          • CircEsAdreim

            You are fond of dismissing the unethical and violating aspect of this issue, aren’t you? I’ve already indicated that even if the claims of medical benefit are true (they aren’t), it still doesn’t justify cutting off healthy, functional body parts by force.

          • Stephen Moreton

            Then don’t cut them off “by force”. Surgery is rarely forceful (at least where bones are not involved), and certainly not circ. Your dismissal of the medical benefits is pure denialism, and your adherence to the notion that those benefits, even if true, don’t justify circ is just stubborn dogmatism. You people remind me of creationists (whom I’ve also spent a lot of time debunking). Like creationists you start with your conclusion (in your case that infant circ is wrong) and then distort, deny and cherry-pick the evidence to fit your desired conclusion. I start with the evidence and see where it leads. It leads to the following key conclusions. Done properly, medical circ:
            1. Does not adversely affect sexual function.
            2. Confers significant protection against a wide range of maladies.
            3. The optimal time for cost, maximal benefit, practicality, cosmetic outcome and risk is infancy.
            Those are just brute facts about which intactivists, like yourself, are stuck firmly in denial.
            Given these facts the debate then centres on whether circ wins a cost/benefit analysis. i.e. whether a male is better off circ’d or not circ’d. In high HIV countries it wins easily. Elsewhere there is no consensus yet, as the professional bodies are divided. So I do not advocate for routine infant circ, but equally I will not stand in the way of parents choosing it for their sons, provided it is done to a high medical standard. Intactivists, on the other hand, are bent on making circ’d men feel miserable, undermining public health initiatives (like against African HIV) and making it hard to have sensible discussions on the topic as you flood the internet with misleading claims, discredited studies, and nonsense. I have come to regard you lot as no better than anti-vaccinationists and HIV deniers, many of whom, I may add, are intactivists. Whatever the rights or wrongs of circumcising infants, intactivism is pernicious pseudoscience.

          • http://www.circumstitions.com/ Hugh7

            Circumcision is always “by force” where the individual being circumcised has not consented.

            Ah yes,”Done properly”. The escape hatch. There is no definition of “properly”, no dotted line, no “right” amount to remove. And circumcisions are commonly assigned to junior or trainee surgeons “for practice”.

            And what is the basis for your claim that “the optimal time.. is infancy” – especially when any tiny mistake in infancy is magnified several times in adulthood?

            Don’t talk to us about “brute facts”. The real brutes are staring us in the face here.

          • Stephen Moreton

            The brutes are those who lie to circ’d males making them miserable. The brutes are those who delay and undermine anti-HIV drives in Africa, costing lives. The brutes are those who launch cyber-attacks on cancer-researchers, vilify academics who point to evidence the brutes don’t like, call people “paedophiles” and fill the internet with their irrational hysteria.
            Circumcision need not be forceful. You are employing an emotive word, like you do with “mutilation” to score points.
            Done properly means using appropriate pain-killing and hygienic precautions, by well-trained clinicians, and aiming for a good cosmetic outcome. It does not mean ritual circs or, for that matter, assigning it to juniors without proper supervision (a valid point, even intactivists have been known to make them – occasionally).
            There are multiple reasons why infancy is the optimal time. I could refer you to the literature, but being an intactivist you’d probably just dismiss it on ad hominem grounds because one of the authors is Australian.

          • CircEsAdreim

            There are no benefits to cutting off healthy body parts from someone by force – i.e. a person who has NOT consented. Infant circumcision IS done without the consent of the patient involved – i.e., BY force. Your dismissal of the human rights violations involved reflects a profound disrespect for the child’s right to genital integrity.

          • Stephen Moreton

            By your argument vaccination is done to non-consenting patients by force. Your dogmatic adherence to the doctrine of “genital integrity” dressed up as “human rights” reflects a profound, and callous, disrespect for the child’s right to good health, even life. So rigid is your commitment to this dogma that even if it can be proven that circ would protect said child from serious diseases, you would still deny that child such protection. In short you would sacrifice the lives of others on the altar of “genital integrity”. That is despicable, and confirms how right I am to fight intactivism.

          • CircEsAdreim

            Your rabid adherence to the doctrine of pseudo-‘science’ over medical ethics and human rights reflects a hatred for humanity that rivals even that of some of the worst tyrants of our time. It reinforces my resolve to fight for the protection of infants against this barbarity so that they can be shielded from the physical result of such an evil mindset.

          • Stephen Moreton

            I am the one citing evidence. You use logical fallacies, repeat mantras and make unsubstantiated claims. You repeatedly refuse to engage with the evidence, or explain why you ignore so much of it. When your fallacious reasoning, and false claims are exposed, you respond with abuse. Your mind is not just closed, it is welded shut. You have the nerve to accuse me, yet you are the one who would risk the lives of others for the sake of your dogma. Shame on you.

          • CircEsAdreim

            No, my mind used to accept the practice as something that was necessary. I’ve since learned otherwise. And I won’t stop speaking out against the barbaric practice of genital mutilation or those who support it until children are protected from people like you who promote surgical rape under the guise of ‘health’.

          • beth

            The circumcised child will be a Jew too, and healthy, happy, and able to orgasm and procreate. And his wife won’t die of cancer.

          • CircEsAdreim

            The intact child will be a Jew, healthy with a while penis, happy he’s whole, and have a sex life as nature intended. And his wife won’t die of cancer.

          • beth

            You’re not much of an arguer. You simply dismiss other people’s comments. I sure don’t want YOU deciding my child’s wellbeing as a result.

            The wife very well may die of cancer. Studies show a substantially higher risk. That’s only for one thing that’s been studied and not all the other possiblities we haven’t correlated yet.

          • CircEsAdreim

            There is no comment legitimate enough to excuse the forced genital mutilation of children. Studies do not ”show a substantially higher risk”.

            http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/cancer/

            In fact, no medical organization in the world – not even the American Cancer Society – recommends routine infant circumcision.

            Cutting off healthy body parts by force in order to prevent the possibility of an issue is not only medically unethical and a violation of human rights but it’s nonsensical. Using your logic, we should be cutting the breast tissue from baby girls too. The rate of breast cancer is much higher than cervical cancer.

          • beth

            Yes there are legimate reasons to circumicise. You aren’t having a discussion. Youre an emotionally charged person using emotionally charged words to manipulate a conversation. Which in my experience, makes for poor researcher and over the top data than when investigated by someone more neutral, turns out to be largely false.

            I’m not spending my time on more of this. I did my research already.

          • CircEsAdreim

            There are zero legitimate reasons to forcibly circumcise someone’s normal, natural, healthy, functional genitalia. It’s an easy conclusion to arrive at after research coupled with common sense and a basic understanding of human rights and medical ethics. It’s not rocket science.

          • beth

            There are many medical professionals that scientifically support reads to circumcise. I recommend anyone reading start with the WHO and continue from there. Rather than reading this “no, yes, no, yes” vapid silliness here.

          • CircEsAdreim

            No medical organization in the word recommends routine infant circumcision. Not even the WHO.

          • beth

            Yet WHO doesn’t recommend routine infant circumcision. They also have a bunch of studies referenced on their site to support their reasoning.

          • CircEsAdreim

            Oh look. She’s back again – how many times is it now? – after twice declaring an exit.

            Studies that are largely based on the flawed ”studies” coming out of Africa. And again. No medical organization in the world recommends routine infant circumcision.

          • beth

            So you’ve decided 1) That the studies are flawed without having a research related degree (it’s obvious). 2) Yet don’t look for flaws in studies you like. 3) Decided the WHO isn’t a medical organization, after all it’s not like they use doctors or anything.

            And you’ve decided if someone is grossed out enough to leave, but answers again — that somehow is meaningful. Only if you are flawed in how you assess someone’s value.

            Goodbye. Again.

          • CircEsAdreim

            The studies are flawed as anyone who knows anything substantial about this subject is aware. And the WHO still doesn’t recommend routine infant circumcision so your comment is once again moot.

            Your continued return after the exit declarations of before again paint you as a liar.

          • beth

            The WHO points out significant benefits to circumision with many men lined up for it. They recommmend that parents decide for themselves for their children. Which is my position as well.

            The WHO studies (multiple) show an amazing amount of effectivness of circumisicion at preventing serious sexually transmitted diseases. Your claim of flaw in some study is not born out.

            You bear out only that you’ve manipulated info.

            “Your continued return after the exit declarations of before again paint you as a liar.”

            Do you know how ridiculously stupid that sounds? There’s no one who thinks change of mind is “a lie.”

            You are being this manipulative on this — just makes it more evident how manpulative you are in general.

            Good bye. Maybe this time when I came back, you won’t say something so hateful or creepy that it compells me to reply, just to correct the record. Good luck with that.

          • Joshua Shaffer

            you don’t need “a research related degree” to see how flawed that horrifically manipulated that study is. A high school student could tear it apart.

            A simple example being, every single participant that contracted HIV could have gotten it through needle sharing, They only have the participant’s word and there is no possible way they could identify the method of entry.

            It wouldn’t have even needed to be all of them, just the one or two intact men that happened to skew the results in the obviously within margin-of-error numbers.

            ALSO completely ignoring the fact that the USA has been conducting this study for decades, yet it hasn’t seen a single purported effect of HIV prevention despite millions of men having already been mutilated, most HIV positive people HAVE ALREADY BEEN CUT. Instead of seeing this imagined/manipulated 60% reduction, we actually see higher than normal rates compared to other developed nations in the USA.

            At absolute best it has no benefit, at worst it puts men at risk.

          • beth

            Funny how you don’t take good bye for a good bye.

            As I explain in another comment — you’ve moved into the “abusive intolerance” stage of discussion with a hateful person. When you start twisting basic definitions like HARD LEFT and pretend they don’t have the definitions that I used.

            Since the WHO doesn’t depend on a single study, and it’s conclusions were developed by a multitude of doctors — I’m not going to bother finding you singular thing you can attack, while ignoring all the rest of the stuff out there.

          • Joshua Shaffer

            the WHO has a vested interest, it was lead by many Jewish people, and many Americans as well.

            Of course it’s going to find that sexual abuse of infant males is beneficial, it’s not capable of being objective.

          • Bret Furlong

            For Americans, forget the WHO, they specifically said to use circumcision only where AIDS is an epidemic, putting them aside since no where outside of Africa falls into that category, One of the problems we face as a society today is religious harm, it comes in all forms and is sometimes disguised as science.

            Take the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Centers for Disease Control recent publications surrounding circumcision.

            The CDC guidelines are based on a sharply criticized 2012 policy statement by the American Academy of Pediatrics. The 2012 statement was condemned by a large group of physicians, medical organizations, and ethicists from European, Scandinavian, and Commonwealth countries as “culturally biased” and “different from [the conclusions] reached by physicians in other parts of the Western world, including Europe, Canada and Australia” (Frisch et al., 2013).

            The new CDC guidelines highlight methodologically flawed studies from Africa that have no relevance to the United States. They chose to ignore studies that were conducted in the United States and show no link between circumcision and the risk of sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV (Thomas et al., 2004).

            But what does this have to do with religious harm, Dr. Tom Frieden, Director of the CDC since 2009, is Jewish. Prior to his role at the CDC, he was New York City’s Health Commissioner. In this role, he refused to take a strong stance against metzitzah b’peh, the practice among some Jewish communities of the mohel (ritual circumciser) sucking the blood from the wound with his mouth, during these rituals some babies contracted STIs and have lifelong damage a couple even died from disease.

            4 of the 7 members of the AAPs Taskforce on Circumcision are Jewish, not believing these members are not only culturally but religiously biased would be naïve: It is inconceivable that the AAP could have objectively concluded that the benefits of the procedure outweigh the risks when the ‘true incidence of complications’ isn’t known.” Instead, as the AAP stated in a later publication—after drawing considerable fire from pediatric and statistical experts —their main conclusion was based on a “feeling.” One of the authors of this statement, Dr. Andrew Freedman, revealed in an interview that he had previously circumcised his own son on his parents’ kitchen table. “But I did it for religious, not medical reasons,” Freedman reported. “I did it because I had 3,000 years of ancestors looking over my shoulder.” So we can see that both scientific and non-scientific factors can influence people’s attitudes toward circumcision—including people who are charged with setting policy.

            We have a duty as Atheists and Agnostics and even Christians, to not fall for pseudoscience, and keeping archaic blood sacrifice rituals away from our children.


            http://m.pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2013/03/12/peds.2012-2896.full.pdf

            http://www.skeptic.org.uk/magazine/onlinearticles/articlelist/711-infant-circumcision

            https://www.academia.edu/10553782/A_CDC-requested_Evidence-based_Critique_of_the_Centers_for_Disease_Control_and_Prevention_2014_Draft_on_Male_Circumcision_How_Ideology_and_Selective_Science_Lead_to_Superficial_Culturally-biased_Recommendations_by_the_CDC

            http://m.psychologytoday.com/blog/moral-landscapes/201501/circumcision-s-psychological-damage

            http://notyourstocut.com/2015/01/01/cdc-director-is-jewish-physician-who-formerly-flip-flopped-on-metzitzah-bpeh-issue-during-his-tenure-as-the-nyc-health-commissioner/

          • beth

            To anyone else who happens to read — I suggest you research for youself and not take this person at his word.

            He’s already said Jews are to be hated.

            So he doesn’t come from a neutral place when reading. He twists things. And it gets boring to dig up his stuff to counter it. Instead — look at the WHO site yourself.

            A lot of what he posts is what people with his view wish were so, but isn’t actually proven by any research. It’s what they ASSUME MUST be true, not what research has SHOWN.

            He posts a lot of hateful words constantly.

            So when he post more of the same in response to this — and he will, you can read through my prior posting to know my replies.

            Once I have to explain the obvious, that hard left is far left, it’s wasting my time completely.

            He ignored most of my actual reasoning — since he didn’t want to focus the exchange on what I offered.

            Instead he wanted to dengrate me — so scanned through for what he felt he could and focused only on doing that. That’s manipulation. And it’s not what I’ll be party to.

            Adios again…

          • CircEsAdreim

            You keep saying ”goodbye” but you keep returning, which proves again and again that you’re a liar. One doesn’t need a research related degree to understand the flaws in the studies. And who said the WHO isn’t a medical organization? You? Well, that’s interesting. Do you even know what you’re saying anymore? Again: no medical organization in the world recommends routine infant circumcision. Not even the WHO.

          • beth

            CEA – “proves again and again that you’re a liar.”

            Only in the world of fruitcake that you are.

            Normal people call it changing mind. I already said this. You’ve now choosen to ignore that — proving that you dont’ have a thoughtful reply so you go to 10 year old repeating yourself instead of actually replying.

            *by fruitcake just to be clear, I am in no way implying any sexuality preferences. It’s refering to thought process only.

            The WHO is a medical organization. I don’t know what you are blubbering about.

            WHO points out advantages to circumcision and recommends the parents decide for their child. Your attempt is a twisting of their views by omission.

          • beth

            The WHO studies were overwhelmingly effective. The claims of weakness are twisted misreprsentations of the studies. Such as claiming they were ended early SO there’s no way to judge the results. When in fact they were ended early BECAUSE the results were ALREADY so clear that it was unethical for them to keep the option withheld from the control groups.

            Oh, and for fun.

            Good bye.

            Good bye.

            Good bye.

            I think you underestimate how your twisting of things effects the normal person, such as myself.

          • CircEsAdreim

            I know they don’t recommend routine infant circumcision. Thanks for underscoring my original comment.

          • beth

            WHO recommends that there are significant benefits to consider, and parent’s should decide.

            That’s my position and has been from the beginning.

            Your ignoring that and twisting into some other set of words — well that’s your problem.

            Your comment isn’t your original – -it’s merely a false twisted bit of nonsense at my original comment. That’s trying to camouflage the WHO’s actual position, by omission.

          • beth

            typo: meant to type: parents should decide themselves.

          • CircEsAdreim

            No, the person who has the penis should decide themselves.

          • beth

            -See my other posts to this person — who really, really wants to engage me — because my leaving just bugged him, oh so much.

            Andto go with you — I’ve already answered to & proved false everything he posts. Problem is — he just reposts it. Until you are bored silly.

          • beth

            What’s the matter – see me on disqus and want to goad me into this nonsensical exchange again?

            To others, see my other posts to this person — who really, really wants to engage me — because my leaving just bugged him, oh so much.

            And to go with it — I’ve already answered to & proved false everything he posts. Problem is — he just reposts it. Until you are bored silly.

            ——————–

            A few concepts:

            — Men getting circumcised in high risk areas, are telling their friends to do it. So it’s obviously not hindering their “after” sex experiences.

            — Parents decide things about their children’s bodies all the time from vaccines to medications to surgery, that are permanent.

            — WHO has found this was so effective at preventing HIV transmission that they stopped the studies because it’d be immoral to withhold circumsion from the control group.

            — Anti-sites tend to claim that studies were stopped so results can’t be known, which is the opposite and a big lie (goes with the rest of their sites)

            — Medicine is finding multiple viruses that circumsicion reduces the transmission of to women, and from women (as well as with male to male partners)