It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

San Francisco's anti-circumcision initiative faces court challenge

page: 2
9
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 12:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Klassified
 


Well, knowing what crawls in to the surgeries of GPs and hospitals in very large numbers......obviously basic male hygiene is not working for ya!




posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 01:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by bluemirage5

My guess is. most of you have never heard of balano-posthitis, phimosis, and paraphimosis.


The first one is from poor hygiene, and hygiene is a must for anyone, regardless of wether they are circumsized or not. The other two are so rare they barely even happen.



Cancer of the penis happens in 1 n 600 males yet occurs excusively among those who are uncircumcised. No man who was circumcised since birth has ever been diagnosed with cancer of the penis, ever!


Again, penile cancer is a result of not maintaining hygiene, and it can happen in circumsized men. And you are either a liar or just plain ignorant because circumsised men can get penile cancer, and have had penile cancer


Circumcised men get penile cancer at about the same tiny rate as intact men. Early studies that seemed to show a correlation had not been corrected for age; penile cancer is a disease of old men, and the old men with cancer in the studies had simply been born at a time when circumcision was less customary than when the younger men without cancer were born. When men of the same ages were compared, the correlation vanished.




Then we have male yeast infections & urinary tract infections (balantis) that affect 1 in every 50 uncircumcised boys & men. We also know there is a very stronger risk of STD's (especially gonorrhea) among uncircumcised males not to mention the connection between some STDs and cervical cancer.


Again. you are either making this up or just plain ignorant...


Among circumcised men, 23.4 percent reported having had any type of STD by age 32, compared to 23.5 percent of the uncircumcised men.

The most common STDs reported were genital warts, Chlamydia and genital herpes. There was no statistically significant difference in rates of STDs even after the researchers adjusted for sexual behavior and socioeconomic factors.


There is 0.1% difference....how is that a stronger risk?

And circumsised men get thrush too....again, you are full of crap


Yeast infection (caused by candida or thrush) is equally common in circumcised and uncircumcised men, although circumcised men are less likely to have symptoms with this infection so they are more likely to unknowingly pass on thrush to their sexual partners.


So there you, you can continue spreading thrush to your female partners




It's not my business whether or not a mother chooses to circumcise her sons.....but I do know my daughter won't be going anywhere near those who are not! We stick to our own, you stick to your own.


Petty, pathetic and extremely ignorant


And for the record, Im uncircumsised, have had none of the above things you just listed, neither have any of my partners caught anything from me or given me anything. And, even my current partner says its clean...and if its clean enough for her, than its obviously good enough for most.

Sure its your choice, but its astoundingly arrogant of you to "force" your daughter into dating only circumsised men, when you yourself are whining about being "forced" to not circumsise your son.....simply pathetic and hypocritical. No wonder this website is going down the drain



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 03:27 AM
link   
reply to post by OzWeatherman
 


I have'nt got time to read all your post (come back laters) but no one is denying me MY choice to circumcise my sons and no judge in any court of law will ever stop me or my people from doing likewise, not now not ever! Now how about that!



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 03:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by showintail
I will simply say, as a woman, I have a definate preference. And my son looks like his father.


I think this is a family decision. Not a state decision.


So you're saying that you forced a permanent cosmetic alteration on your son so that his penis would look more sexually appealing to you.

Weird.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 04:19 AM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


Circumision is no one's business except between the parent and the GP or religious bodies performing the procedure.

If you don't want to do it, no one if forcing you to. But you sure as hell not going to take my right away from circumcising my sons; not you, not your judges, no your senators, not your Presidents, no one! Now how do you like that?



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 04:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox

Originally posted by showintail
I will simply say, as a woman, I have a definate preference. And my son looks like his father.


I think this is a family decision. Not a state decision.


So you're saying that you forced a permanent cosmetic alteration on your son so that his penis would look more sexually appealing to you.

Weird.


Hoping your offspring have some of the positive attributes that made their other parent an attractive mate rarely equates to wanting to screw your kids but your mind went right there for some reason.

I just want to say that as a woman, uncircumcised is just not attractive. It looks like a flesh colored tube sock and no one wants to see that swinging around in the morning.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 04:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by bluemirage5
reply to post by OzWeatherman
 


I have'nt got time to read all your post (come back laters) but no one is denying me MY choice to circumcise my sons and no judge in any court of law will ever stop me or my people from doing likewise, not now not ever! Now how about that!


Im not denying your right to have a choice at all

Im saying that your assumptions and attitude towards uncircumsised men is stupid. You have no idea at all. I take it you are circumsised. As I mentioned before, I am not and Ive had none of the problems you associate with men that arent uncircumsised. I also assume that we are not clean as well, and I can tell you that, that is not the case...Ive never once had a complaint about my penis being dirty (or disgusting to look at either, in fact some women do prefer uncircumsised men)



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 04:49 AM
link   
Reply to post by Cecilofs
 


No it is not virtually the same. Do some research.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 04:51 AM
link   
reply to post by OzWeatherman
 


Hey skippy......I don't know what you do over there in the sticks of WA
Don't tell me your problems; never seen one nor do I want to.

I don't care if you circumcise or you don't. I'm not going to force circumcision on you anymore than you are going to try taking away my religious belief to do so.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 04:54 AM
link   
reply to post by bluemirage5
 


Im not telling you my problems

Im just trying to understand why you have such an attitude towards uncircumsised men. Fine, you have a choice to do it to your kids, I have no problem with that, but why make uncircumsised men out to be filthy, disease ridden people? None of what u said had to be said



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 04:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh
 


There are various kinds of female circumcision. Type Ia (removal of the clitorial hood) is analogous to male circumcision.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 04:57 AM
link   
reply to post by OzWeatherman
 


I don't know....maybe you have special soap and water in Perth?



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 04:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by bluemirage5
reply to post by OzWeatherman
 


I don't know....maybe you have special soap and water in Perth?


WTF is that supposed to mean?

Resorting to personal attacks now



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 05:01 AM
link   
As for the thread topic, it is good that this issue is coming to light, because some parents seem to believe they own their children and can do whatever they want to them, provided they disguise it as a freedom of religion. I dont have any opinion formed this law yet, but I do consider routine neonatal circumcision to be barbaric and immoral practice.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 05:02 AM
link   
reply to post by OzWeatherman
 


It's a joke, lighten up.

(Must be the pressures of the RWC getting closer?)



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 05:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
There are various kinds of female circumcision. Type Ia (removal of the clitorial hood) is analogous to male circumcision.


This is the point that pro-circumcision advocates are either ignorant of, or intentionally dishonest about, when they try to distance male circumcision from female circumcision.

Female circumcision ( or 'female genital mutilation'', if you prefer ) is an umbrella term which incorporates at least a dozen procedures which range from the mild to the extreme.

Obviously, the most severe forms of female circumcision are far worse than removing a boy's foreskin, but the moderate varieties, such as the partial or complete removal of the clitoral hood or labia minora, are, as you say, pretty much analogous with the usual procedure that is carried out on young boys.

The most mild varieties of ''female genital mutilation'' include pricking and piercing of a girl's private parts - procedures which a lot of women voluntarily opt to have performed on them - are actually less extreme than the removal of a boy's foreskin.

The simple fact of the matter is that some people will just accept cultural norms without critically thinking about them. This is why a large number of people are apparently ''OK'' with mutilating a young boy's penis, yet are repulsed by the thought of cutting up a young girl's genitalia.

The disgust at needlessly altering a child's genitals should be the same, regardless of whether the child is a boy or a girl. Yet, people will just mindlessly accept the primitive tribal ritual of male circumcision because it's considered to be a social or cultural norm.


edit on 24-6-2011 by Sherlock Holmes because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 05:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by bluemirage5
I'm not going to force circumcision on you anymore than you are going to try taking away my religious belief to do so.


But why would God create foreskin in the first place, only to instruct people to remove it from their sons immediately after birth ?



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 05:32 AM
link   
Always gives me a chuckle the circumcision debate, as it's usually the religious ones who are all for it. I thought God created us all in his own image


It's pretty simple science really - roll it back and wash it.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 05:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by MikeNice81
reply to post by Klassified
 


Maybe I am a bit ignorant but isn't this a violation of the freedom of religion? What about the jewish faith that requires circumcision for a boy child to be accepted in to the culture?


It simply does not require circumcision but the religious practice also involves Rabbis sucking the blood and penises of infants after they are circumcised. Do you also agree with this pedophilia?



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 05:35 AM
link   

Heads up



This being ATS and all, we expect people to discuss such issues in an adult and civilised manner without resorting to personal attacks, stupidity or childishness.

If you - for whatever reason - can't meet those standards then there are plenty of other playgrounds for you on the internet and we suggest you visit them.

This is a first and only warning. Please heed it.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join