Circumcision: A Jewish Conspiracy

If I understand it, this is considered elective surgery. Meaning that the parents have to give their approval and even pay for it ($500) as most if not all insurance will not pay for it. Maybe if parents were required to watch the procedure they would think twice before having it done on their next son. So this tells me that if the parents are giving their "Okie-Dokie" then in my mind they should be charged as Accessories to Child Abuse. The child has no say in this and is not given anything to prevent the pain.

eugene sant wrote:

Come on people, dont you care about all of those slaughtered foreskins.

Nope, don't care.

Was Kellogg a Jew? Didn't he push the circumcision policy in the US to stop proud Americans from obsessivley jerking off?

I thank my parents for circumcision! Uncircumcised penises look disgusting! Not to mention that they're hard to keep clean!

I agree, so I guess I should thank a jew. My thingy is cut and pretty.

Its ascthetics really, but it also slightly reduced the risks of STDs, which is good for christains who don't believe in condoms.

From a woman's prespective I think it's better to be with man who is cut! Uncut looks gross. Actually the royal families starting with Queen Victoria have circumcisied their male children to this day. In Latin America where the majority of the population is uncut the upperclass get their boys cut since its a way to distinguish themselves. Also many military academies require it.

eugene sant wrote:

Come on people, dont you care about all of those slaughtered foreskins.

Well, the medical world is against you right now because they're trying promote it as a possible cure for AIDS in Africa. It probably will take a long time to come to convince men to do this.

Are you mad about parents who pierce their daughters ears too? Just wondering, no piont intended.

What's your perspective on vaccines?

Beau99 wrote:

I thank my parents for circumcision! Uncircumcised penises look disgusting! Not to mention that they're hard to keep clean!

they're only hard to keep clean cause you only bathe twice a week. If you showered everyday...it wouldn't be a problem. Besides...are you gay or something? Looking at other penises or even care if another guy is circumcised or not? Weirdo.

Titus wrote:

I agree, so I guess I should thank a jew. My thingy is cut and pretty.
Its ascthetics really, but it also slightly reduced the risks of STDs, which is good for christains who don't believe in condoms.

You really are a hate-filled little b*st*rd aren't you? It must be miserable being you.

PS: "SpellCheck". Look into it.

Gamer wrote:

<quoted text>
they're only hard to keep clean cause you only bathe twice a week. If you showered everyday...it wouldn't be a problem. Besides...are you gay or something? Looking at other penises or even care if another guy is circumcised or not? Weirdo.

haha I totally agree. Why do all these guys care what other guys penises look like if they're not gay? Btw, the whole "it's cleaner" thing, is a myth. What, so uncircumsized people never have to clean their penis? And many women may not like the look of it, but studies have shown an uncircumsized penis has been proven to be more pleasurable to a female in sex. Not that it would matter to the gay dude up there.

My former, now deceased, Greek-born physician told me years ago that circumcisions skyrocketed beginning in 1947, in the wake of World War II, when Jewish doctors convinced the public that a boy having a circumcised penis would be cleaner and healthier. Their obvious motive was to confuse any future totalitarian despot from ever again instituting genocide against the Jewish people. He told me that soon circumcisions became so routine that parental consent was more and more often foregone and some pediatricians became so adept at performing the procedure on infant boys, that other more squeamish docs would gladly pay the circumcisors $5.00 (in the early 1960's) rather than perform the procedure themselves. When the circumcision accidents began to mount over the years, the procedure became elective in 1974 and parents began to wise up & not allow their sons to be mutilated. That is why my wife and I elected to not allow our son to be circumcised.
Think about it - none of us needs our appendix for anything either and appendicitis, which all of us are at risk for getting at any time in life, do not constitute a medical reason for a prophylactic appendectomy, especially in early infancy!!!!!

Actually, "Nastasia" you are wrong. Princess Diana did not circumcise William or Harry.

Circumcision doesn't bother me one way or the other, why should it - it's no skin of my nose. Boom - Boom.

andrew wrote:

If I understand it, this is considered elective surgery. Meaning that the parents have to give their approval and even pay for it ($500) as most if not all insurance will not pay for it. Maybe if parents were required to watch the procedure they would think twice before having it done on their next son. So this tells me that if the parents are giving their "Okie-Dokie" then in my mind they should be charged as Accessories to Child Abuse. The child has no say in this and is not given anything to prevent the pain.

When I had my son, the doctor convinced me to have the proceedure done (he's 20 and the bill was $650 back then). To this day I'm sorry I had that done to him.

After the briss, let's go have some brisket!

NotMyselfToday wrote:

<quoted text>
When I had my son, the doctor convinced me to have the proceedure done (he's 20 and the bill was $650 back then). To this day I'm sorry I had that done to him.

You shouldn't be, male circumcision drastically reduces the transmission of HIV and other STD's while causing no dysfunction otherwise.
*
"The most striking studies suggest that men can lower their own risk of infection by roughly two-thirds, and that infected men can reduce the odds of transmitting the virus to their partners by about 30 percent, simply by undergoing circumcision. Research suggests that the cells on the underside of the foreskin are prime targets for the virus and that tears and abrasions in the foreskin can invite the infection."
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/28/world/afric...

Carter Burke wrote:

<quoted text>
You shouldn't be, male circumcision drastically reduces the transmission of HIV and other STD's while causing no dysfunction otherwise.
*
"The most striking studies suggest that men can lower their own risk of infection by roughly two-thirds, and that infected men can reduce the odds of transmitting the virus to their partners by about 30 percent, simply by undergoing circumcision. Research suggests that the cells on the underside of the foreskin are prime targets for the virus and that tears and abrasions in the foreskin can invite the infection."
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/28/world/afric...

That is a rumor developed in Africa due to the high HIV infections. Look at the URL you posted, it's about Africa.
Some research suggests that circumcised men may be at a reduced risk for developing syphilis and HIV infections. However, the AAP policy states that behavioral factors continue to be far more important in determining a person’s risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases than circumcision status.

NotMyselfToday wrote:

<quoted text>
That is a rumor developed in Africa due to the high HIV infections. Look at the URL you posted, it's about Africa.

LOL! A rumor?
http://news.google.com/news...

Carter Burke wrote:

<quoted text>
LOL! A rumor?
http://news.google.com/news...

Funny...every one of the articles on your link, that are from the U.S. don't recommend the proceedure.

a quote from one site...""Dr Ball went on to express his concern at the recent push to use male circumcision as a weapon against the HIV/AIDS epidemic in Africa, "Reports are already coming through that some men are seeing circumcision as an alternative to condom use", he said, "this strategy will make the problem worse, not better, and PERMANENTLY leaving men with less sensitive genitals is a serious side effect that must not be ignored"."

Only in Africa are these "studies" saying it stops AIDS. The only thing that keeps you (100%) from getting AIDS is keep the thing in your pants... cut or uncut!