Halal, why should we put up with this?, If fox hunting with dogs is outlawed, why not Halal? Options

[newres]

Show me the data. Show me the 'reputable sites'. Try reading the WHO report, try reading the report from the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) who amongst others state that's it helps prevent HIV and some forms of cancer as well as relieving other physical conditions. Your position on this is under researched and based on ignorance and cant, not fact.

There is little evidence that circumcision is of any health benefit except in certain specific circumstances. To put an 8 day baby through a painful procedure that in many places is conducted without anaesthetic is quite simply abuse. It is done in the vast majority of cases for religious reasons. In my class at school only one boy had had it done. If I went to a Jewish school instead of a Catholic one that would have been very different. The only difference between FGM and circumcision on religious grounds is cultural acceptance. But once it was ok to bait bears and imprison homosexuals.

[Turin Machine]

There is little evidence that circumcision is of any health benefit except in certain specific circumstances. To put an 8 day baby through a painful procedure that in many places is conducted without anaesthetic is quite simply abuse. It is done in the vast majority of cases for religious reasons. In my class at school only one boy had had it done. If I went to a Jewish school instead of a Catholic one that would have been very different. The only difference between FGM and circumcision on religious grounds is cultural acceptance. But once it was ok to bait bears and imprison homosexuals.

So you haven't bother to read the reports and just continue to rely on ignorance and dogma.

[newres]

So you haven't bother to read the reports and just continue to rely on ignorance and dogma.

Post a link to the WHO report and I’ll read it. But if it’s evidence is limited I’d liken it to remove all children’s appendix’s or tonsils. Don’t forget at one time it was pretty common to have All ones teeth removed to prevent problems in the future.

[Turin Machine]

Post a link to the WHO report and I’ll read it. But if it’s evidence is limited I’d liken it to remove all children’s appendix’s or tonsils. Don’t forget at one time it was pretty common to have All ones teeth removed to prevent problems in the future.

The whole report is somewhat long but here's what they say about HIV prevention.
http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/

[Turin Machine]

Snippet, (pun intended) from another report.
"After an extensive evaluation of the scientific evidence, the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released draft policy recommendations in December 2014 affirming male circumcision (MC) as an important public health measure."

[newres]

The whole report is somewhat long but here's what they say about HIV prevention.
http://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/

So in a society that has a lot of HIV through heterosexual sex it reduces the risk to men. That doesn't apply in the west. So it's unnecessary on those grounds.

[newres]

Snippet, (pun intended) from another report.
"After an extensive evaluation of the scientific evidence, the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released draft policy recommendations in December 2014 affirming male circumcision (MC) as an important public health measure."

However:

In a recently published article, Frisch and Earp6 oppose the 2014 draft MC recommendations from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC),3 referring to what they believe are “numerous scientific and conceptual shortcomings.” Here, we quote these 7 criticisms by Frisch and Earp and provide our response to each criticism.

Failure to provide a thorough description of the normal anatomy and functions of the penile structure being removed at circumcision (i.e., the foreskin)Response: There seems to be no need for the CDC to provide a thorough description of the anatomy and functions of the foreskin.
Failure to consider the intrinsic value to some men of having an unmodified genital organResponse: While some men may believe there is “an intrinsic value to having an unmodified genital organ,” those men should be made aware of the risks posed by their foreskin.
Undue reliance on findings from sub-Saharan Africa concerning circumcision of adult males (as opposed to infants or children)Response: The evidence shows the CDC is correct in concluding that findings from sub-Saharan Africa concerning circumcision of adult males for protection against heterosexually-acquired HIV and certain other STIs also apply to men in the United States. The findings also apply to boys when they grow up. Moreover, the cumulative lifetime benefit is greatest if circumcision is performed early in infancy since early infant circumcision is simpler, more convenient, and carries lower risk than when performed later, and circumcision confers immediate protection against urinary tract infections, phimosis, balanitis, and, when older, specific STIs and genital cancers. MC also protects the female partners, as confirmed in randomized controlled trials.
Uncritical reliance on a prima facie implausible benefit-risk analysis performed by a self-described circumcision advocateResponse: The benefit-risk analysis used by the CDC is based on the best current evidence relevant to the United States, and the results are plausible.
Reliance on misreported statistics to downplay the problem of pain in the youngest of boysResponse: While procedural pain can occur during circumcision, the evidence cited by the CDC indicates that, with use of local anesthetic, pain is negligible in the first week of a boys life. Frisch and Earp misconstrue pain statistics to overplay the issue of pain.
Reliance on incomplete register data to assess the frequency of short-term post-operative complications associated with circumcision, leading to a likely underestimation of their true frequencyResponse: By selective citation and misrepresentation of findings, Frisch and Earp overstate the frequency of short-term postoperative complications associated with MC while ignoring data from large high-quality studies such as those published recently by CDC researchers.
Serious underestimation of the late-occurring harms of circumcision presenting months to years after the operation (most notably meatal stenosis).Response: Frisch and Earp selectively cite small, outdated, weak studies, often involving traditional circumcisers, and misrepresent data while ignoring large, high-quality studies. As a result, they overestimate the frequency of meatal stenosis occurring years after the MC procedure.

[Turin Machine]

But if you'd have read it, you'll see each of their objections fully rebutted.

[Turin Machine]

So in a society that has a lot of HIV through heterosexual sex it reduces the risk to men. That doesn't apply in the west. So it's unnecessary on those grounds.

It does apply in the west, most certainly so. The incidence is lower but the risk is the same.

[newres]

NHS page

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/circumcision-in-men/

Basically it is usually done on religious grounds. I guess if you think it's ok to remove body parts for your sky fairy, who am I to argue? Just as long as you don't kill animals by one method instead of another (unless it's Kosher).

[TallDarkAndHands...]

NHS page

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/circumcision-in-men/

Basically it is usually done on religious grounds. I guess if you think it's ok to remove body parts for your sky fairy, who am I to argue? Just as long as you don't kill animals by one method instead of another (unless it's Kosher).

Have you converted yet? You seem in love with Islam. Best off you find a madrassa in Afghanistan. Im sure you would be welcomed with open arms. I'll look forward to the release of the video.😂

[Turin Machine]

NHS page

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/circumcision-in-men/

Basically it is usually done on religious grounds. I guess if you think it's ok to remove body parts for your sky fairy, who am I to argue? Just as long as you don't kill animals by one method instead of another (unless it's Kosher).

Now you've lost the argument and you know it. The absolute refusal to acknowledge the facts as laid out be THE leading health authorities is brushed away in a fit of pique and abuse. It's usually how liberals react when they lose any argument.

[Andy Capp]

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/circumcision-in-boys/

It says right at the beginning that “This page focuses on circumcision in boys for medical reasons.” so not exactly a representative article,

[je suis Charlie]

It says right at the beginning that “This page focuses on circumcision in boys for medical reasons.” so not exactly a representative article,

He was told there was no medical imperative for MC, the NHS page proved otherwise. Problem?

[newres]

He was told there was no medical imperative for MC, the NHS page proved otherwise. Problem?

Er, no. There are medical reasons but they are very specific and pretty rare. I don't object to it on medical grounds in the same way I don't object to kidneys being removed on medical grounds. However if kidneys were removed from humans without their consent on tribal grounds I'd say that was wrong. Even if it did mean they'd never get kidney disease which seems to be Turin's argument here.

[x2lls]

Well if you think it's acceptable for parents to remove apiece of a child's body on religious grounds I can't see why you object to FGM if it's done safely.

FGM done SAFELY?
OH my dear GOD.
You are the most repugnant person in my life right now. You absolutely SHOCK me.

[newres]

FGM done SAFELY?
OH my dear GOD.
You are the most repugnant person in my life right now. You absolutely SHOCK me.

What a narrow life you lead.

[x2lls]

Now you've lost the argument and you know it. The absolute refusal to acknowledge the facts as laid out be THE leading health authorities is brushed away in a fit of pique and abuse. It's usually how liberals react when they lose any argument.

You have to have something in order to lose it.

[x2lls]

What a narrow life you lead.

You agree with FGM?

[Andy Capp]

He was told there was no medical imperative for MC, the NHS page proved otherwise. Problem?

Yes. I believe newres objects to all medical procedures on religious grounds, not medical. The majority of MCs are done for religious or cultural reasons. Do you agree with that?