CDC to recomend circumcision

[callmeclemens]

Obama supports not having weird penis's.
sorry guys.

If "wierd" is used in the standard sense of "not natural", then I have to say that this means all circumcised individuals have "wierd penises".

I'll live with that.

[dps]

Obama supports not having weird penis's.
sorry guys.

If "wierd" is used in the standard sense of "not natural", then I have to say that this means all circumcised individuals have "wierd penises".

If "wierd" is used in the sense of "out of the ordinary, not normal", then I have to say that in the U.S. uncircimcised males have "wierd penises".

[ulmont]

Obama supports not having weird penis's.
sorry guys.

If "wierd" is used in the standard sense of "not natural", then I have to say that this means all circumcised individuals have "wierd penises".

If "wierd" is used in the sense of "out of the ordinary, not normal", then I have to say that in the U.S. uncircimcised males have "wierd penises".

Maybe if you fuckers could spell "weird" we wouldn't be having this conversation.

[Agelastus]

Obama supports not having weird penis's.
sorry guys.

If "wierd" is used in the standard sense of "not natural", then I have to say that this means all circumcised individuals have "wierd penises".

If "wierd" is used in the sense of "out of the ordinary, not normal", then I have to say that in the U.S. uncircimcised males have "wierd penises".

Maybe if you fuckers could spell "weird" we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Whoops...

[Malthus]

http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/info/physiciansguide.html


Difficult (given the name of the webpage) to argue that it is not biased, but a very interesting read.

It is an interesting read.

In case the reader is wondering why all these bizarre excuses have been advanced to permit circumcision to continue, we offer our best explanation (hypothesis): Circumcision produces circumcisers. The loss of this normal body part is, in some instances, so profound that the person who has lost it is unwilling to admit that anything is wrong. If he becomes a doctor, he may not hesitate to perform circumcisions.

Another hypothesis goes further: Some who have been circumcised cannot stand that someone else might go through life intact. If that person is a doctor, he sees to it. If he is a father, he may insist that his sons be circumcised. A recent analysis stated that the most important factor associated with the decision to circumcise was whether or not the father was circumcised.27

We have the greatest admiration for those fathers and those physicians who, while circumcised themselves, say "No" to having their sons and patients circumcised.

What a wackjob. 

[Martinus]

ZOMG Obama supports mandatory male genital mutilation!!

Obama supports not having weird penis's.
sorry guys.

Weird penis's what?

[Martinus]

http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/info/physiciansguide.html


Difficult (given the name of the webpage) to argue that it is not biased, but a very interesting read.

It is an interesting read.

In case the reader is wondering why all these bizarre excuses have been advanced to permit circumcision to continue, we offer our best explanation (hypothesis): Circumcision produces circumcisers. The loss of this normal body part is, in some instances, so profound that the person who has lost it is unwilling to admit that anything is wrong. If he becomes a doctor, he may not hesitate to perform circumcisions.

Another hypothesis goes further: Some who have been circumcised cannot stand that someone else might go through life intact. If that person is a doctor, he sees to it. If he is a father, he may insist that his sons be circumcised. A recent analysis stated that the most important factor associated with the decision to circumcise was whether or not the father was circumcised.27

We have the greatest admiration for those fathers and those physicians who, while circumcised themselves, say "No" to having their sons and patients circumcised.

What a wackjob. 

I don't know who is more of a whackjob - him or someone mutilating their children's genitals in observance of some bizarre tribal moon-god ritual that offers no proven health benefits whatsoever.

I wouldn't go as far as to say that circumcision supporters should be forcibly sterilized, but I think we should seriously consider whether they are fit to have their parental rights left intact.

[Ed Anger]

I came for Marti's wild overblown rhetoric, and I finally got it.

Thank you.

[Martinus]

I came for Marti's wild overblown rhetoric, and I finally got it.

Thank you.

I always deliver.

[jimmy olsen]

that offers no proven health benefits whatsoever.

[Malthus]

I don't know who is more of a whackjob - him or someone mutilating their children's genitals in observance of some bizarre tribal moon-god ritual that offers no proven health benefits whatsoever.

I wouldn't go as far as to say that circumcision supporters should be forcibly sterilized, but I think we should seriously consider whether they are fit to have their parental rights left intact.

While I appreciate your good wishes, I take it you haven't read the article. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/24/health/policy/24circumcision.html?_r=1&hp

[Barrister]

I don't know who is more of a whackjob - him or someone mutilating their children's genitals in observance of some bizarre tribal moon-god ritual that offers no proven health benefits whatsoever.

I wouldn't go as far as to say that circumcision supporters should be forcibly sterilized, but I think we should seriously consider whether they are fit to have their parental rights left intact.

Were you aware that most north american circumcisions are not driven by any religious drive, and that there are proven health benefits (you know, the ones mentined by the CDC)?  That the legitimate debate over circumcision is whetehr or not those health benefits are "worth it"?

[Malthus]

I don't know who is more of a whackjob - him or someone mutilating their children's genitals in observance of some bizarre tribal moon-god ritual that offers no proven health benefits whatsoever.

I wouldn't go as far as to say that circumcision supporters should be forcibly sterilized, but I think we should seriously consider whether they are fit to have their parental rights left intact.

Were you aware that most north american circumcisions are not driven by any religious drive, and that there are proven health benefits (you know, the ones mentined by the CDC)?  That the legitimate debate over circumcision is whetehr or not those health benefits are "worth it"?

I guess Marti hasn't learned yet that the majority of North Americans are, in point of fact, not Jews. 

[DGuller]

I don't know who is more of a whackjob - him or someone mutilating their children's genitals in observance of some bizarre tribal moon-god ritual that offers no proven health benefits whatsoever.

I wouldn't go as far as to say that circumcision supporters should be forcibly sterilized, but I think we should seriously consider whether they are fit to have their parental rights left intact.

Were you aware that most north american circumcisions are not driven by any religious drive, and that there are proven health benefits (you know, the ones mentined by the CDC)?  That the legitimate debate over circumcision is whetehr or not those health benefits are "worth it"?

You're right, they're not driven by religious desire, they're driven by the fact that cut ones look better.

[crazy canuck]

that there are proven health benefits (you know, the ones mentined by the CDC)?

You mean the off chance that my sons might have unprotected sex with a woman in Africa...