New Treatment from Turkey releasing next month

[big_head]

Much of our modern scientific treatments were developed using foreskin stem cells. There's such an excess of them that they've been put to good use. It's not like you're incentivizing circumcision. They'll just get thrown away otherwise.

They shouldn't be cut off, period. The fact that men support circumcision on baby males today is ****ing disgusting. "Oh they'll just be thrown away otherwise! Who cares?" It most certainly incentivizes circumcision when there is money to be made off of it. That's a part of my genitals I can never get back.

Would you support baby girls having their clitoral hoods removed or parts of their labia removed and "put to good use"?

 

[firstpost]

Anything groundbreaking from turkey = scam.

 

[Pray The Bald Away]

They shouldn't be cut off, period. The fact that men support circumcision on baby males today is ****ing disgusting. "Oh they'll just be thrown away otherwise! Who cares?" It most certainly incentivizes circumcision when there is money to be made off of it. That's a part of my genitals I can never get back.

Would you support baby girls having their clitoral hoods removed or parts of their labia removed and "put to good use"?

I see you are passionate about foreskin. I can respect that. But nobody is going to continue circumcising children for the sole purpose of some Turkish snake oil. It's the same thing with gelatin for capsules. I highly doubt there would be a sustainable business in raising animals just to rend the gelatin from their bones. They would develop somethig to replace gelatin in order to cut costly animals out of the equation. If it wasn't for the meat industry, it would also be impractical to make whey protein. It's simply a case of making good use out the byproduct of something, regardless of whether it is pleasant or not. You're forming an opinion grounded in emotion. Kelopesia won't advance the circumcision "industry".

 

[big_head]

I see you are passionate about foreskin. I can respect that. But nobody is going to continue circumcising children for the sole purpose of some Turkish snake oil. It's the same thing with gelatin for capsules. I highly doubt there would be a sustainable business in raising animals just to rend the gelatin from their bones. They would develop somethig to replace gelatin in order to cut costly animals out of the equation. If it wasn't for the meat industry, it would also be impractical to make whey protein. It's simply a case of making good use out the byproduct of something, regardless of whether it is pleasant or not. You're forming an opinion grounded in emotion. Kelopesia won't advance the circumcision "industry".

Bull****. The main reason hospitals push circumcision is they make money off of the act itself and at least in the past (and might still) make money off selling foreskins to labs. Foreskins are not just some piece of garbage to throw away. It should be illegal to circumcise baby boys, it's a complete violation of human rights. Shrugging your shoulders and going "oh well" isn't helpful.

 

[Pray The Bald Away]

Bull****. The main reason hospitals push circumcision is they make money off of the act itself and at least in the past (and might still) make money off selling foreskins to labs. Foreskins are not just some piece of garbage to throw away. It should be illegal to circumcise baby boys, it's a complete violation of human rights. Shrugging your shoulders and going "oh well" isn't helpful.

Citation needed.

 

[big_head]

Citation needed.

For which part? Google works wonders, do your own homework.

 

[Pray The Bald Away]

For which part? Google works wonders, do your own homework.

All I'm finding are accusations of Jewish conspiracy. The burden of proof is on the individual making the claim. If I were you, I'd be more angry at the parents agreeing to the circumcisions of their children.

 

[big_head]

The burden of proof is on the individual making the claim.

You have mistaken this for a court of law, there's no burden on me. You're clearly OK with circumcision so spending the time finding a bunch of evidence that hospitals do it for profit for you to simply shrug it off and go "lol whatever" is a big waste of time. I am not sure why you need convincing that a hospital would do a completely unnecessary procedure for profit either. Do you think they do it because it's fun or something?

 

[Pray The Bald Away]

You have mistaken this for a court of law, there's no burden on me. You're clearly OK with circumcision so spending the time finding a bunch of evidence that hospitals do it for profit for you to simply shrug it off and go "lol whatever" is a big waste of time. I am not sure why you need convincing that a hospital would do a completely unnecessary procedure for profit either. Do you think they do it because it's fun or something?

They do it because the parent decides to. The parent of the child is complicit in the procedure. I'm not understanding why you put the blame on the hospital. And I have given you no reason to think I'd just say "lol whatever". The reality is that using this byproduct is efficient. Your efforts would be useful if you switched your attention to the parents.

 

[big_head]

They do it because the parent decides to. The parent of the child is complicit in the procedure. I'm not understanding why you put the blame on the hospital. And I have given you no reason to think I'd just say "lol whatever". The reality is that using this byproduct is efficient. Your efforts would be useful if you switched your attention to the parents.

Except that the hospitals pressure the parents to do it. That's exactly what they did to my parents and while my mom was recovering/unsure they pushed that it was "cleaner" and had medical benefits. The parents are definitely to blame but so are the doctors and hospitals that push it. It should be completely illegal to perform these on babies and children. Most if not all western/first world countries have laws that make it illegal to perform any such acts to baby girl's genitals except in a case of some kind of life or death emergency- no such right for boys. Why? Mostly Jews, who claim that it's anti-semitic to ban the practice, but also hospitals and the medical field have a use for it.

Saying things like "using this byproduct is efficient" does nothing to help stop this. That attitude is placid and complacent. A boy's genitals aren't "efficient byproducts" and should never been seen as such. Thinking that way is exactly the way these companies and hospitals would want you to think.

Good thing the majority of the world's men aren't circumcised though. In countries like Sweden and the UK it's not the norm and rightfully considered ****ed up.

 

[Pray The Bald Away]

Except that the hospitals pressure the parents to do it. That's exactly what they did to my parents and while my mom was recovering/unsure they pushed that it was "cleaner" and had medical benefits. The parents are definitely to blame but so are the doctors and hospitals that push it. It should be completely illegal to perform these on babies and children. Most if not all western/first world countries have laws that make it illegal to perform any such acts to baby girl's genitals except in a case of some kind of life or death emergency- no such right for boys. Why? Mostly Jews, who claim that it's anti-semitic to ban the practice, but also hospitals and the medical field have a use for it.

Saying things like "using this byproduct is efficient" does nothing to help stop this. That attitude is placid and complacent. A boy's genitals aren't "efficient byproducts" and should never been seen as such. Thinking that way is exactly the way these companies and hospitals would want you to think.

Good thing the majority of the world's men aren't circumcised though. In countries like Sweden and the UK it's not the norm and rightfully considered ****ed up.

So don't you think your efforts would be better suited in educating parents rather than protesting a cream that utilizes a byproduct? Because not using this cream does nothing to stop the actual problem from occuring.

 

[big_head]

So don't you think your efforts would be better suited in educating parents rather than protesting a cream that utilizes a byproduct? Because not using this cream does nothing to stop the actual problem from occuring.

I do try to educate people. I'm not "protesting" the cream, but if it came directly from using stem cells harvested from little boys' dick skins, I want no part of it.

 

[Pavi]

It's just forskin..... I'm circumcised and I have no abnormalities or problems with the little guy lol

 

[big_head]

It's just forskin..... I'm circumcised and I have no abnormalities or problems with the little guy lol

You lose feeling. The foreskin has thousands of nerve endings that are forever gone. You also lose natural lubrication for the head, which is why circumcised guys have dry penis heads and have to use lotion to jerk off smoothly.

But at the heart of it is principle. Why is it ok to violate a baby boy's human rights?

 

[Pray The Bald Away]

You lose feeling. The foreskin has thousands of nerve endings that are forever gone. You also lose natural lubrication for the head, which is why circumcised guys have dry penis heads and have to use lotion to jerk off smoothly.

But at the heart of it is principle. Why is it ok to violate a baby boy's human rights?

Ask your parents. The same can be said for vaccinations. I'm glad I don't get smegma and PE.

 

[big_head]

The same can be said for vaccinations.

So you're conflating a completely destructive and pointless medical procedure on a non-consenting baby boy with something that saves childrens' lives? You realize the two things are not anywhere close to the same category, correct? One is a religious cosmetic procedure which bled into secular society thanks to religious zealots and the other is live saving procedures developed by the scientific and medical community to save people's lives. By cutting off a baby's penis skin, you are subjecting them to risky and unnecessary trauma which has absolutely no benefit.

I'm glad I don't get smegma and PE.

Um, you do realize you can take showers and not get smegma if you have foreskin, correct? Furthermore, I am not saying you shouldn't be able to get the surgery when you are 16 or 18 if you truly want to do it (people get plenty of pointless and stupid surgeries), but the fact that you think it's OK for parents to permanently alter their son's sex organ for absolutely no reason other than penile destruction is pretty ****ing sick dude.

Do you think we should start cutting off little girls' clitoral hoods or trimming down their outer labias? I'm seriously asking you. If you don't think we should, explain the differences.

 

[Pray The Bald Away]

So you're conflating a completely destructive and pointless medical procedure on a non-consenting baby boy with something that saves childrens' lives? You realize the two things are not anywhere close to the same category, correct? One is a religious cosmetic procedure which bled into secular society thanks to religious zealots and the other is live saving procedures developed by the scientific and medical community to save people's lives. By cutting off a baby's penis skin, you are subjecting them to risky and unnecessary trauma which has absolutely no benefit.



Um, you do realize you can take showers and not get smegma if you have foreskin, correct? Furthermore, I am not saying you shouldn't be able to get the surgery when you are 16 or 18 if you truly want to do it (people get plenty of pointless and stupid surgeries), but the fact that you think it's OK for parents to permanently alter their son's sex organ for absolutely no reason other than penile destruction is pretty ****ing sick dude.

Do you think we should start cutting off little girls' clitoral hoods or trimming down their outer labias? I'm seriously asking you. If you don't think we should, explain the differences.

So your agruement is that vaccines are beneficial and circumcision is just zealotry? Well you'll be happy to hear that the Mayo Clinic, a congregation of some of the worlds most respected specialists, has said that there are significant benefits of circumcision. They are as follows:
-Easier hygene.
-Decreased risk off urinary tract infection.
-Decreased risk of sexually transmitted infections.
-Prevention of penile phimosis.
-Decreased risk of penile cancer.
They even go on to say that a parent always has the decision to forgo the operation. Which means it's ENTIRELY THEIR FAULT. So what we've layed out is that there are very significant benefits to circumcision. This seems to directly invalidate your assertion that circumcision is a "pointless procedure". Why aren't you complaining that you couldn't consent to getting a vaccine? Your argument is baseless and just plain asinine. Oh and here's my citation, which is something you don't seem to know how to provide. http://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/circumcision/basics/why-its-done/prc-20013585

 

[big_head]

So your agruement is that vaccines are beneficial and circumcision is just zealotry? Well you'll be happy to hear that the Mayo Clinic, a congregation of some of the worlds most respected specialists, has said that there are significant benefits of circumcision. They are as follows:
-Easier hygene.
-Decreased risk off urinary tract infection.
-Decreased risk of sexually transmitted infections.
-Prevention of penile phimosis.
-Decreased risk of penile cancer.
They even go on to say that a parent always has the decision to forgo the operation. Which means it's ENTIRELY THEIR FAULT. So what we've layed out is that there are very significant benefits to circumcision. This seems to directly invalidate your assertion that circumcision is a "pointless procedure". Why aren't you complaining that you couldn't consent to getting a vaccine? Your argument is baseless and just plain asinine. Oh and here's my citation, which is something you don't seem to know how to provide. http://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/circumcision/basics/why-its-done/prc-20013585

All of those benefits would also come from that tenfold from cutting the penis completely off and replacing it with a plastic prosthetic. None of those are actual "benefits" that can't come from showers and doctor visits. They're afterthoughts made to defend a religious and cultural "right" where parents get to mutilate another human's body. I think it's funny you're willing to violate a male child's human rights and mutilate their sex organ for made up benefits. but you completely side stepped the question I asked about baby girls. The vast majority of men in the world- including first world countries like UK, Sweden and France- are not circumcised. Somehow they remain clean, don't die of penis cancer and don't get AIDS or STDs. Weird, huh?

And for the record, I do blame the parents, but it should not be left up to them in the first place. Religious rights and parental rights do not suspercede human rights to an intact sexual function. Again this argument holds water when you look at every first world country's stance on female genitals, as it is strictly illegal for doctors or parents to perform any cosmetic procedures on baby girls' genitals.

RE: vaccines, read my last post, I already explained the differences. My best friend is not circumcised, he's had a ton of sex and never got an STD, cancer nor does he have any problem with smegma. The benefits of vaccines are not dying and spreading diseases. The "benefits" of circumcision are having something permanently removed from your genitals so you have less feeling in your penis because religious zealots thought it would stop masturbation a long time ago. Anyone who supports circumcision, frankly, is a monster and a dunce.

BTW here is a great citation on how circumcision helps stop STDs: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/baby-d...l-circumcision-nyc-orthodox/story?id=15888618

OOPs actually I meant that it gave a baby herpes and killed him.

 

[Pray The Bald Away]

All of those benefits would also come from that tenfold from cutting the penis completely off and replacing it with a plastic prosthetic. None of those are actual "benefits" that can't come from showers and doctor visits. They're afterthoughts made to defend a religious and cultural "right" where parents get to mutilate another human's body. I think it's funny you're willing to violate a male child's human rights and mutilate their sex organ for made up benefits. but you completely side stepped the question I asked about baby girls. The vast majority of men in the world- including first world countries like UK, Sweden and France- are not circumcised. Somehow they remain clean, don't die of penis cancer and don't get AIDS or STDs. Weird, huh?

And for the record, I do blame the parents, but it should not be left up to them in the first place. Religious rights and parental rights do not suspercede human rights to an intact sexual function. Again this argument holds water when you look at every first world country's stance on female genitals, as it is strictly illegal for doctors or parents to perform any cosmetic procedures on baby girls' genitals.

RE: vaccines, read my last post, I already explained the differences. My best friend is not circumcised, he's had a ton of sex and never got an STD, cancer nor does he have any problem with smegma. The benefits of vaccines are not dying and spreading diseases. The "benefits" of circumcision are having something permanently removed from your genitals so you have less feeling in your penis because religious zealots thought it would stop masturbation a long time ago. Anyone who supports circumcision, frankly, is a monster and a dunce.

BTW here is a great citation on how circumcision helps stop STDs: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/baby-d...l-circumcision-nyc-orthodox/story?id=15888618

OOPs actually I meant that it gave a baby herpes and killed him.

Oh so the Mayo clinic is in on the conspiracy? Nice to know. And cutting the penis off would mean no more reproducing or sexual activity. Thats a clear exaggeration that does nothing to further your arguement. Your whole post can be summed up as "Mayo clinic wrong, me right". Then you offer up a one in a million occurrence of someone getting an STD because of unsafe practices and act like it's a legitimate point. The benefits of circumcision are obvious. I am immensely glad that I underwent the operation as a child. Religion has nothing to do with me feeling this way. It just seems like you have a personal vendetta against organized religion so you have to stand fervently against anything associated with it. Thats why you keep referring to it as zealotry when that has nothing to do with most peoples decision of having their kid circumcised.

 

[big_head]

Oh so the Mayo clinic is in on the conspiracy? Nice to know.

Conspiracy? Their stance is "Hey this basically won't KILL your kid, so go nuts!" It's part of the culture that respects religious rights even if said rights stamp on human rights. If you speak out against circumcision like Russel Crowe did, yes, you get shut up by Jews. They called him anti-semitic even though he never mentioned Jews at all.

And cutting the penis off would mean no more reproducing or sexual activity.

It would not end reproduction, just sexual activity. But so what? TECHNICALLY the risks of STDs and penile cancer would plummet, so the benefits are even clearer, and hey, it's the parents' decision right??

Thats a clear exaggeration that does nothing to further your arguement.

Except it points out how flimsy your "benefits" are since it's using unecessary destruction to solve a problem that has easier solutions. The benefits were literally made up to rationalize the religious practice.

Your whole post can be summed up as "Mayo clinic wrong, me right".

Or, I think for myself and don't need the Mayo clinic to decide what is right and wrong? I can cite you plenty of doctors and medical groups that are against circumcision. Do you think these citations will change your mind all of the sudden?

Then you offer up a one in a million occurrence of someone getting an STD because of unsafe practices and act like it's a legitimate point.

So it's OK that baby died for a religious practice that includes oral sex after slicing his dick skin off? You're defending a practice that involved a guy sucking a baby's dick which resulted in the baby dying from herpes...seriously? Hey, gotta break a few eggs to make an omelette right?! (by the way, he gave other babies herpes too)

On a personal note, my baby nephew also got a serious infection because of his botched circumcision at a hospital. OOOPS! Another clean circumcision to protect him, right?

The benefits of circumcision are obvious.

Yes, keratinized penis head, decreased sexual feeling and function, and a big ugly scar, turkey neck, tight penis skin, hair growing up the shaft...benefits!

I am immensely glad that I underwent the operation as a child.

And I am not. And I CAN'T get my foreskin back, I had no say in the matter. That's the difference, you are happy with your mutilation (which is what that is) and I am not. I don't get a second chance.

Religion has nothing to do with me feeling this way. It just seems like you have a personal vendetta against organized religion so you have to stand fervently against anything associated with it. That's why you keep referring to it as zealotry when that has nothing to do with most peoples decision of having their kid circumcised.

I have a problem with people mutilating their children's penises because it's ****ing sick. How do you feel about someone mutilating their baby girl's vagina? You keep dodging that one because you know that'd be sick, and rightfully so. You're indoctrinated by a stupid cultural practice that came from silly superstitions. You got your penis sliced up for no real reason.

Thankfully circumcision is dropping in the USA and other countries. In 100 years it will only exist among the religious extremists who enjoy watching grown men mutilate and then suck their baby boy's penis (sane people, according to you).