Diogenes The Cynic: Would it be perverted if blood was sucked from a baby's knee?
Ehcks: Diogenes The Cynic: Would it be perverted if blood was sucked from a baby's knee?It would no longer be perverted, but it should still be banned because human saliva is simply THE most bacteria- and virus-infested bodily fluid. You should not put your mouth on someone else's open wound.
Wodan11: Tradition, in general, shows how supid the human race really is. If there's ever something you're doing just because it's tradition, that should be reason to consider not doing it.
ShobuZukuri: Any other group would be charged with performing a lude sexual act on a child/infant.
TreeHugger: What are the traditions of atheists, anyway?
Diogenes The Cynic: Unsung_Hero: Diogenes The Cynic: Tommy Moo: Not far enough. It needs to be banned. I don't give a flying fark if your religion commands you to give oral sex to a newborn. Eat shiat and die, orthodox Jews. You are a bunch of child molesting f*cks and I'll call you that to your faces.Well, you must be the edgiest 14 year old out there.Protip; if you read anything sexual into this, there is something wrong with the way you think.Sucking the blood from a baby's freshly cut penis is simply obviously sick and perverted, regardless of whether or not there is a sexual motivation behind it. The practitioners simply can't see it because religion.Would it be perverted if blood was sucked from a baby's knee?
John Buck 41: You have GOT to be kidding me. What's next? Anal rape to get rid of hemorrhoids?
djkutch: Anyone else glad they're cut? I can't imagine a turtle neck rubbing against the lad all the time.
cyberspacedout: No matter what they do, any form of circumcision is endangerment as well as child abuse. This is one reason there are activists of all major religions in this country trying to get it banned (or at least reduce its prevalence).
cyberspacedout: So how do they prove that any individual patient has benefitted from the operation? The AAP mentions nothing about a followup examination. If they can't provide any documentation, there's a possibility such claims of health benefits could be considered fraudulent.It's not difficult, in this day and age, to spin the results of an inconclusive or methodologically flawed study to draw a conclusion in favor of a predetermined course of action. That's been done in the studies quoted which make the case for the "benefits" being promoted. I know, this would also be a big argument, but it would be an even bigger argument to provide proof that any of these studies were rock solid - and I doubt we're going to see any proof.Note that in the full text of the policy statement at the page you've linked, they claim that these benefits are sufficient to "warrant third-party payment for circumcision of male newborns." In other words, they want insurance companies to cover the procedure. This shows a huge conflict of interest, and here's why: doctors get paid to do this.
Want to see behind the curtain? Try
It's how we feed the squirrel
Sign up for the Fark NotNewsletter!
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2018 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Feb 17 2018 16:33:16
Runtime: 0.259 sec (259 ms)