Class Action Lawsuit for Mass Infant Circumcision?

Back to /pol/

muslim/jew detected. back to middle east you primitive baby mutilating caveman.

>so it's not significantly worse, just slightly worse in a number of noticable little ways :^)
What you quoted says that only the studies with major flaws claimed adverse effects. But somehow you got this bullshit out of it. Delusional.

Point and laugh

>The worst part of /pol/ is the complete lack of self awareness. They think they hold some unique and controversial perspective unfamiliar to the majority of people when in reality the majority people just are politely choosing not to engage tired, old, defeated ideas.

Sure /pol/, you and you alone are redpilled. You're the special snowflake.

I'm a cutfag, have most of my frenulum left, but it doesn't feel any more sensitive than the rest of the head of my dick.

And it seems to me that stem cells will never deliver, and be perpetually "20 years away," just like nuclear fusion.

But you know you take what you get in life, I won't have my kids cut but I'm not gonna hold a grudge against my parents who only took advice that wasn't really questioned in the US until later on.

>SJWtard rants about another board out of nowhere
Bawww are you madposting because they cut your little willy and leave you scarred ? :(

Next time you'll need to cut your microdick completely and turn transgender since you're rebelling against well established ideas that are somehow /paul/

>out of nowhere
You were posting shitty /pol/ memes to slide the thread. You need to be far less obvious about it if you don't want to be called out.

How can someone be this unaware?

>scrotum reduction
Wut?!?

>whaaaaaa anything I dont like is pol and im gonna make everyone accept this "fact"

ssshhhh...deep breaths now you tiny SJWtard...your microdick pain will soon be over as you will lose a majority of the sensation in your quantum dick.

But if it's any consolation, you will never use your microdick in your entire life anyway ;)

>no effect on sexual function
>sexual function
Goalposts were shifted

I wish I was circumcised. Foreskin causes nothing but problems man.

>whaaaaaa anything I dont like is pol
>whaaaaaa anything I don't like is tumblr/SJW.
This unaware.

They remove a portion of the scrotum so that testis don't hang down as much and be in the way. It was popular with the Baby Boomers. So the generation they gave birth to had that done to them more than any other.

>hey let's mutilate our genitals!
>great idea!!!

Point and laugh

> point and laugh
> he's got a mutilated microdick
SJWtard resorted to repeat mode lmao

Tons of info and citations which points in a direction of your foreskin being good for your penis. How about we cut your eyelids off. You dont need them. Just dont walk out in a dust storm.

"In the male rat, removal of the penile sheath markedly interferes with normal penile reflexes and copulation. When circumcised rats were paired with sexually experienced females, they had more difficulty obtaining an erection, more difficulty inserting the penis into the vagina, and required more mounts to inseminate than did unaltered males." cirp.org/library/anatomy/ohara/

The goalposts were shifted by the post I'm replying to retard.

>Earrings are mutilated earlobes
>tattoos are mutilated skin
>removing wisdom teeth is a mutilation of the mouth

>people getting mad that they are less prone to infection disease

What in the fuck, you Gus are worse than flat earthers

>isn't a country of crazy muslims
>still mutilates babies

I don't understand you America

>Tons of info and citations which points in a direction of your foreskin being good for your penis.
How so?

>How about we cut your eyelids off. You dont need them. Just dont walk out in a dust storm.
Eyelids actually serve a significant function. The foreskin does not. Only a delusional ideologue would compare the two.

>"In the male rat, removal of the penile sheath markedly interferes with normal penile reflexes and copulation. When circumcised rats were paired with sexually experienced females, they had more difficulty obtaining an erection, more difficulty inserting the penis into the vagina, and required more mounts to inseminate than did unaltered males."
Oh you got me. If that happens to rats it must be the same for humans. Let's just ignore the studies on humans and only look at rats.

It really is amazing to me how defensive Americans can get over a penis-lopping ritual that accidentally found its way into their culture after being a weird, obscure Muslim/Jew thing for thousands of years

>penile sheath
Human foreskins are not penile sheaths. Most mammal dicks are completely retracted into the foreskin. Human dicks are not. This actually supports the fact that human foreskins are useless.

What's more interesting is the histrionics that many opponents of circumcision exhibit, calling it mutilation and torture when it really doesn't matter. These people seem far more mentally imbalanced than those who perpetuate an arbitrary cosmetic ritual.

>>Tons of info and citations which points in a direction of your foreskin being good for your penis.
>How so?
You could use their library..
cirp.org/library/

>The foreskin does not.
You could use their library instead of being misinformed
cirp.org/library/

>If that happens to rats it must be the same for humans.
There is a reason we test on rats.
indianapublicmedia.org/amomentofscience/how-humans-are-like-rats/

>Let's just ignore the studies on humans and only look at rats.
You are one ignoring the studies
cirp.org/library/

Being different does not support that foreskins are useless.

>calling it mutilation and torture when it really doesn't matter. These people seem far more mentally imbalanced than those who perpetuate an arbitrary cosmetic ritual.

Okay, then lets circumcise your daughter

You don't get pleasure from your earlobe / it's not a vital reproductive organ
You don't get pleasure from your shoulder / it's not a vital reproductive organ
You don't get pleasure from your teeth / it's not a vital reproductive organ

SJWtards don't even get highschool biology ? Why are you idiots on a science board ?

The website is clearly biased. It selectively presents evidence that supports it's point without discussing other evidence and without discussing the relative quality or possible flaws in the studies it does present. I already gave a metastudy which shows that high quality studies ranging over tens of thousands of men showed no difference in sensitivity or sexual function. Yet amazingly not one word about this appears on the website. Why is that?

>indianapublicmedia.org/amomentofscience/how-humans-are-like-rats/
We test on rats because they have similarities to humans. But if they do not have similar foreskins then other similarities are irrelevant. Again, rat foreskins, like most non-human mammal foreskins, are penile sheaths. Human foreskins are not penile sheaths. The only purpose in posting a study on rat foreskins when talking about human foreskins is to mislead people.

Being fundamentally different destroys the argument that human foreskins serve the same purpose as other mammal's foreskins. So yes, it supports the fact that foreskins do not serve a purpose.

You can get all the piercings, tattoos and circumcisions you want once you are an adult. You can even chop your dick off and call yourself a female. But don't do this to your children.

>Okay, then lets circumcise your daughter
And once again we see the inability to argue honestly and make proportional comparisons. Mental imbalance exhibited.

>The foreskin is a vital reproductive organ
So circumcised men can't reproduce?

Uncircumcised guy here.

I don't how you circumcised guys do it, if you have your bare head rub against your underwear or pants then it must be so painful.

I've had one or two occasions where my foreskin has peeled back in my pants and just having the fabric braising along my head is enough to make me stop all movement.

I was wondering, is your penises that sensitive?

You realize Americans are circumcised because it reduces STD transmissions right? We started doing it during WW1 so when our soldiers would go rape women or have sex with prostitutes not everyone would get syphilis and shit. We're circumcised because the US army doesn't trust us with a penis

So getting your child's ear pierced should be illegal?

What decisions should parents be able to make for their children? After all, you can't change your own childhood development.

>Because the point of circumcision is to remove the parts that gets easily infected the most and keep it hygenic.
Not that user, but this is completely retarded reason to cut off a part of one's body.

t. uncutfag who cleans his dick like a civilized person

>a metastudy
"Searches identified 2,675 publications describing the effects of male circumcision on aspects of male sexual function, sensitivity, sensation, or satisfaction. Of these, 36 met our inclusion criteria of containing original data."
So ignoring most of the studies and cherry picking 36, totally couldnt come up with a unbiased conclusion. Just ignore all the 100s of sources pointing in the opposite direction.

>What decisions should parents be able to make for their children?

Muslim sexual mutilation? As it is in most civilised countries?

Cant defend it so you insult claiming it isnt proportional is nonsense. There are many different versions of female circumcision.

>So ignoring most of the studies and cherry picking 36, totally couldnt come up with a unbiased conclusion.
LOL it's right int he sentence you quoted. All the other studies used the same data as those 36. You can't use multiple studies with the same data in a metastudy, because then you are double-counting the data. Are you incapable of reading or just too stupid to understand why double-counting is not allowed?

>Being fundamentally different destroys the argument that human foreskins serve the same purpose as other mammal's foreskins. So yes, it supports the fact that foreskins do not serve a purpose.

fundamentally - in central or primary respects. They are not fundamentally different. They are both penises and they are both covered.

my understanding is that if you're uncut your dick(at least the glans) is moist, right?

I'm circumcised and my dick is as dry as my arm. I think it's called Keratinization

>Cant defend it so you insult claiming it isnt proportional is nonsense. There are many different versions of female circumcision.
Then what do you mean by female circumcision? As far as I'm aware it refers to removal of the clitoris, which is not in any sense analogous to the foreskin.

I just sent you a giant list of counter research.

Okay I am clearing arguing with someone that knows nothing about circumcision other than 1 article that you accept as your circumcision bible. Why dont you read and come back informed.

>circumcised because it reduces STD transmissions
What a load of bullshit

JOURNAL OF SOCIAL HISTORY, Volume 27: Pages 737-757

In summary, it can be seen that doctors in English-speaking countries introduced widespread circumcision of male infants in the late nineteenth century. At the time this innovation was justified largely in terms of discouraging masturbation, then regarded as a serious disease in its own right and as the cause of many more, but this rationale was increasingly overlaid by others in the early twentieth century, including protection against syphilis and cancer, freedom from phimosis (seen as a problem mainly because it was thought to provoke masturbation), and a general contribution to both moral and physical hygiene. To justify circumcision on the ground that it discouraged masturbation was to acknowledge that the operation reduced the sensitivity of the penis and curtailed sexual pleasure, a powerful argument to use at a time when most respectable people believed that excessive sexual indulgence was morally wrong as well as physically harmful; mainstream paediatric and child care manuals continued to assert the value of circumcision as a disincentive to masturbation right up until the 1950s.

With the advance of the sexual revolution in the 1960s (by which time routine circumcision survived only in the USA, Canada and Australia) this ceased to be a strong selling point; if a doctor there wanted to persuade parents to let him amputate part of their baby's penis he now had to reassure them that the procedure would significantly increase health without noticeably reducing sexual functionality or pleasure, and the original logic of its introduction was lost in a welter of social, aesthetic and medical rationalisations.

I bet you dont even know there is different styles of male circumcision.

>fundamentally - in central or primary respects. They are not fundamentally different. They are both penises and they are both covered.
We are talking about the foreskin. Stating that rats and humans both have covered penises tells us nothing about the foreskin. Rat foreskins are penile sheaths. Human penises are not. This is simply a fact you will have to accept.

If you don't wipe your dick after you've pissed then it remains dry. I can see that its harder to wash but I've found my own methods of washing my dick easily.

Thanks to hair conditioner, not only does it smell great, but acts like a lubricant and does the job perfectly. No soap either so you don't burn your dick off unlike using soap or shampoo.

>I'm circumcised and my dick is as dry as my arm.

Holy fuck

I'm so sorry

Notice how he didn't even answer the question. What do you mean by female circumcision?

well which one is it

I dunno what normal dick anatomy is

Ignore since he's just proven himself to have shitty hygiene.

>penile sheath
"When unfolded, the prepuce is large enough to cover the length and circumference of the erect penis and acts as a natural sheath through which the shaft glides during coitus." (cirp.org/pages/anat/)

I have to school you on the basics of circumcision? I have to do all of your research for you?

It's not covered with a sheen of fluid or anything but it's supple and hydrated. Like the dry inside of your lip, I guess?

who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/
dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2309466/Circumcision-lowers-risk-HIV-sexually-transmitted-diseases-half-changes-bacteria-levels.html
cdc.gov/hiv/pdf/prevention_research_malecircumcision.pdf
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3036761/

turning a mucous membrane into a dried out husk will actually make it pretty protected against infection

that's why we should cut out our eyes

I guess that's the advantage of stretching the skin to grow a "fauxskin."

And you can just get circumcised again if you stem cells ever become a thing

That doesn't respond to what I said, retard. You're going around in circles. There is nothing biased about the metastudy I posted. It does not choose data based on the conclusion. Your website clearly does. The metastudy I posted distinguishes between studies based on their quality. The website you posted does not.

I can see several issues with the website you posted. For one, it focuses on many studies of adult circumcision, not infant circumcision. Many of the studies it uses to claim that circumcision causes impotency or premature ejaculation are based on insignificant sample sizes. And it contradicts itself by claiming that the foreskin is both the most sensitive part of the penis and protects the most sensitive part of the penis (leading to the conclusion that circumcision miraculously causes both premature and delayed ejaculation)

And then there's stuff like this
>Hooykaas et al. (1991) reported that immigrant (mostly circumcised) males have a greater tendency to engage in risky sexual behavior with prostitutes as compared with Dutch (mostly normal intact) males.
Well gee, I guess it must be the circumcision that causes more risky behavior! Yup, that's the only difference between the two groups right? Really laughable.

>Sue you parents.
Actually, parents are not given the option.

The human foreskin does not actually cover the whole length of the penis regardless of its unfolded length. Nice try though. Next time make sure what you're quoting actually says what you're trying to say instead of just including some words that look like other words.

And again you avoided the question. Reply only when you want to continue the discussion. Don't have a tantrum.

>Because the point of circumcision is to remove the parts that gets easily infected the most and keep it hygenic.

No, it's not. Circumcision is a religious practice for which people have tried to invent post hoc justifications.

>Doesn't want to spend five extra seconds in the shower cleaning
>Would rather cut off part of his penis

What country?

I can have my foreskin cover my whole head, but I'd need to lubricate it a bit first, in order to do that.

Never had a tat.
Never had a piercing.
Never had wisdom teeth removed.

Funny that.

Mine is all calloused and rough. I can't really feel a thing. Only a toothy blowjob can get me to cum and most chicks don't want to use their teeth because they think it must be hurting.

Permanent cosmetic physical should be illegal for either child or adult.

Let's get back to the main point: A study on rat circumcisions is irrelevant because direct studies on humans show no loss of sexual function.

Just get even with the jews and help bring forth the day of the rope, so vote Trump.

Mine is very smooth and fleshy.

I was just wondering since my head is hypersensitive and feels very uncomfortable when it's braising up against something like underwear.

MUH RELIGION
Will be an excuse for why it is ok. Of course those same christfags wont be ok with muslims doing it to girls.

Denmark released a massive study on circumcision and concluded that boys who were circumcised as a baby where 10% more likely to have autism. They tracked 400,000 boys from 1994-2014. Circumcision was popularized by Kellogg in the US to promote anti-masturbation norms. He was a known puritan who hated sex. He invented the Chasity belt to little boys from jerking off.

Source

>God created mammals
>Gives all mammals the suborgan foreskin
>Commands that humans cut off their foreskin
People actually think this shit makes sense.

>Engineer designs an airplane
>Includes a functional part, the windshield
>In his technical manual, states "the windshield must removed before flight."

>Programmer creates an open-source program
>includes a function that optimises the program, opt1(void)
>in the Read-Me, states that the user should open the source code and remove opt1(void) before running the program

>Chef bakes a cake
>Includes a delicious frosting on the cake's exterior
>The chef tells the waiter to scrape the icing off of the cake after he serves it to the table

>Student writes an essay
>Includes an introductory paragraph
>When he submits his essay, he tells his marker to rip the page to remove the introductory paragraph

Makes perfect sense, guys.

If to go correlation hunting like that it is a statistical necessity that you will find one. There is no causative mechanism between circumcision and autism.

>Sure your parents.

I looked into it but I couldn't. The statute is 1 year after you turn 18 in my state, and I couldn't find a lawyer for it in time between starting school and other stuff. Plus, I didn't have the money for my own car and went to school out of state, and my parents told me they'd kick me out/take the car if I sued them for it. I wasn't financially stable enough to risk no longer having a relationship with them until after the deadline to sue expired.

Abstract
Objective: Based on converging observations in animal,
clinical and ecological studies, we hypothesised a possible
impact of ritual circumcision on the subsequent risk of
autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in young boys.
Design: National, register-based cohort study.
Setting: Denmark.
Participants: A total of 342,877 boys born between 1994
and 2003 and followed in the age span 0–9 years between
1994 and 2013.
Main outcome measures: Information about cohort members’
ritual circumcisions, confounders and ASD outcomes,
as well as two supplementary outcomes, hyperkinetic disorder
and asthma, was obtained from national registers.
Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs)
associated with foreskin status were obtained using Cox
proportional hazards regression analyses.
Results: With a total of 4986 ASD cases, our study showed
that regardless of cultural background circumcised boys
were more likely than intact boys to develop ASD before
age 10 years (HR¼1.46; 95% CI: 1.11–1.93). Risk was particularly
high for infantile autism before age five years
(HR¼2.06; 95% CI: 1.36–3.13). Circumcised boys in non-
Muslim families were also more likely to develop hyperkinetic
disorder (HR¼1.81; 95% CI: 1.11–2.96). Associations
with asthma were consistently inconspicuous (HR¼0.96;
95% CI: 0.84–1.10).
Conclusions: We confirmed our hypothesis that boys who
undergo ritual circumcision may run a greater risk of
developing ASD. This finding, and the unexpected observation
of an increased risk of hyperactivity disorder among
circumcised boys in non-Muslim families, need attention,
particularly because data limitations most likely rendered
our HR estimates conservative. Considering the widespread
practice of non-therapeutic circumcision in infancy
and childhood around the world, confirmatory studies
should be given priority.

Ritual circumcision and risk of autism spectrum
disorder in 0- to 9-year-old boys: national cohort study
in Denmark

Exactly, if anyone gave their baby a tattoo or a piercing they would be publicly shot yet mutilating their penis is somehow okay. Fucking kike shills need to get the fuck out of this thread

Damn we really should start a class action lawsuit against whoever is at the most fault cutting the foreskin off my penis at birth. Im totally behind this.

Detecting irony. I'm simply asking about the validity. I would say the responsible hospital staff. I suppose in that case, just the physicians who performed them. Wouldn't be hard to track down, that info is recorded, correct? You cut the penises of these 5,000 babies - your licence is hereby revoked and you are charged with 100,000$ in damages for each case, paid directly to each patient.

Sounds reasonable to me desu senpai.

Circumcision makes sense if you lived in a desert 3000-6000 years ago when you had no access to regular bathing. It wasn't exclusively done by Jews, Egyptians did it too. Better to part with a small part of your dick than to risk infection and not reproducing at all.

Sue them after you are financially independent, then.

Babies get their ears pierced all the time.

Dont cut the umbilical cord either. It is BARBARIC!

False equivalency. Try again, retard.

>You don't get pleasure from your earlobe
Virgin detected