re: Anti-Male Circumcision Group Protest

So many angry smelly dick motherfrickers on this thread

quote:

---

i'm anti-vagina myself after a traumatizing run in with a chick with a yeast infection

---

No, you're anti-vagina because you take cheese dicks up your arse.

quote:

---

You haven't posted any numbers. 

---

I don't know the exact number honestly.

I thought it reduced the risk of HIV by nearly half. And severely reduced the risk of HPV transfers.

quote:

---

Once again, arguing that the adverse effects are rare isn't the strongest of arguments.

---

You have a higher chance of bleeding to death or permamnent disfigurement during circumcision than getting dick cancer.

quote:

---

I'm the stereotypical bachelor. My current girlfriend weighs like 112 lbs, and for what it's worth (anecdotal evidence as it may be) she has vocalized her disgust with uncircumcised penises because of a traumatizing run-in with a cheese dick

---

I'll take the word of Amsterdam hookers over the cum dumpster you date.

quote:

---

Probably. I like the modest hygienic effects as well as the benefits it's given me in the dating market. I'm glad I don't have to make that decision. I will circumcise any male children of mine, unless the medical community recommendations change

---

advantages in the dating market? You put that in your tinder profile?

Mutilating your dick isn't going to help your height deficiency.

Or, ya know, the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Essentially, what I've been saying. The effects aren't dramatic, but there are benefits. Do it if you want.

LINK

quote:

---

The AAP report on circumcision: Bad science + bad ethics = bad medicine

For the first time in over a decade, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has revised its policy position on infant male circumcision. They now state that the probabilistic health benefits conferred by the procedure outweigh the known risks and harms. Not enough to positively recommend circumcision (as some media outlets are erroneously reporting), but just enough to suggest that whenever it is performed—for cultural or religious reasons, or sheer parental preference, as the case may be—it should be covered by government health insurance.

That turns out to be a very fine line to dance on. The AAP position statement is characterized by equivocations, hedging, and uncertainty; and the longer report upon which it is based includes a number of non-sequiturs, instances of self-contradiction, and cherry-picking of essential evidence (see analysis below).

The AAP appears to be out of tune with world opinion on this issue. On a global scale, medical authorities remain skeptical about whether circumcision of male minors confers any – let alone significant – net health benefits. Indeed, child health experts in Britain, Germany, Scandinavia, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and elsewhere are predominately of the view that non-therapeutic circumcision (NTC) confers no meaningful health benefits on balance (considered against drawbacks, harms, and risks), and that it should be neither recommended to parents nor funded by health insurance systems.

Nota bene: these cosmopolitan physicians and the medical boards on which they sit have access to the very same data as the AAP. They just don’t draw the same conclusions.

---

LINK


watcha got now fish boy?

NPR link

Haha, holy shite y'all are antvaxxers. The American Academy of Pediatricians changed there stance to recommend circumcision and y'all still disagree.

quote:

---

Awesome name

---

I would have gone with "The For Skins".

Circumcision will not prevent STD. Only a condom will

"Hey let me frick this chick unprotected who is HIV positive because I'm circumcised and the prevalence rate is lower"

Said no one ever

And also the US and Israel. According to Burt