Jewish baby dies after circumcision

[Sternwallow]

baconeatingatheistjew wrote

I don't remember a thing. I didn't remember anything about it ever as far as I know. Not defending it, just making jokes. To me it really doesn't matter, except I heard from many chicks that they prefer cut rods to uncut ones. If my circumcision got me laid even once, it was well worth the non recollection of it.

Beaj, not to criticize or refute what you said, do you think that severe suffering is unimportant as long as it is not remembered afterward? Would deliberate torture be acceptable if an effective amnesia drug was administered to the victim afterward? How about the amnesia drug administered to the torturer? To the best of his knowledge, he didn't torture anyone. Isn't that innocence?

[Sternwallow]

The Unbrainwashed wrote

I think we're ranting against it not becuase of that one isolated incident, but rather because it's a ridicolous and unneeded practice whose sole motivation is religious.

And because it ignores the risk of disease and because it, even when benign, the ritual is dumbfoundingly primitive.

Sternwallow wrote

. . . the ritual is dumbfoundingly primitive.

Sternwallow's right. What those Jew-psychotics need is some sort of Electric Cock-Lopper to show people they've joined the modern age. Perhaps it could even use a laser! Although that might give the equipment a slightly burned appearance. And maybe they could replace the whole "old men sucking on a baby's dick" think with a surgical micro-vacuum. Unless God specified that an old man must put his lips around a baby's wang for the whole ceremony to be blessed. Everyone knows the two things God cares most about are what you put in your mouth, and where you put your cock. So when those come together, look out! It's time for the Lord of the Universe to issue a cock/mouth proclamation and/or clarification.

The studies of HIV in Africa were ended early supposedly for humanitarian reasons. It is speculated(based on numbers reported at an Aids conference and then in the Public Library of Science) though that the number of infected circumcised men was catching up with the number of infected intact men and they ended the study early before it became glaringly apparent. The men that were circumcised were told to abstain for 6 weeks and use condoms while the intact men had no such limitations. Also they have no idea if these men were even exposed to HIV at the same rate, we have no idea if their partners were infected or not.

There's Nocirc(National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers), they have groups throughout the U.S. and in some other countries. There is a Genital Integrity Awareness week that a group goes to D.C. and demonstrates. There's a group that is working to end medicaid funding of circumcison. There's NORM(National Organization of Restoring Men. There's NOHARMM (National Organization to
Halt the Abuse and Routine Mutilation of Males). There's D.O.C. (Doctors Opposing Circumcision). Can't forget Jews Against Circumcision. All working to end circumcision, even when there aren't headlines about dead Jewish babies.


Also circumcised men can and do get penile cancer, when the studies are corrected for age there's not really a difference in rates for status. More men get breast cancer than penile cancer.


I hope I haven't been rude just jumping in, I've been reading here for months. "What she/he said" just really didn't seem like a comment worth registering to post:). But circumcision is something I know about and have been debating online for about 10 years. It's nice to be at a place where discussing circumcision and religion in the same sentence won't get me banned.

Welcome to our forum! Of course your opinion is valued, don't hesitate to give it.

[calpurnpiso]

This fascination of Jews, Muslim and Christians with the PENIS and VULVA is rooted in the 5000 year old traditions of the Egyptian religion, clearly depicted in the Book of the Dead.

The penis was the CREATOR wand of the god Atun who at masturbating gave existence to ALL. The Creator Wand also was equated with the FIRST of its creations who was the SUN. Thus the PENIS-SUN became intertwined as a CREATOR. The Egyptian Pharohs during the Opet festival re enacted this creation myth by moving the god Amun ( the Hidden One) on a barge from his temple at Karnak to another one. Women exposed their Caves of Creation ( vaginas) along the route of the god and men let it all hung out exhibiting their own SYMBOLS of creation.

Later cultures ADOPTED this religious tradition, thus in many cases representing the god as a NAKED BOY. This naked boy was the incarnation of HORUS who also represented the AIR-GOD, the PENIS-GOD, the SUN-GOD and the SOUL/SPIRIT-GOD.
Thousands of year later the EtruscanCivilization transformed the god into TAGES who was a NAKED boy that sprung from the fields but had the WISDOM of an old man!. The Romans depicted Saturn ( father time) as a young NAKED BOY with an erect penis laying on a bed of hay/pasture and also as an OLD man. This NAKED BOY was worshiped by all during the SATURNALIA FESTIVAL ( Dec 17 to 25th) culminating in his BIRTH been equated with the SUN ( Sol Invictus) the 25th. His penis was KISSED and venerated since the penis was equated with the CREATOR SUN. The retarded ignorant moronic superstitious Christians would ADOPT all of this after their creator Constantinous I TRANSFORMED the Cult of the GOD Iulius Caesar ( Divus Iulius) into what is known today as Christianity!

There is where the circumsicion practice come from! The PENIS-SUN GODHEAD had to be exposed!! The foresking HIDES the round spherical HEAD of the SUN-GOD. All of this is due to religious-psychosis induced delusions. Alas, we do NOT need this insanity in this 21st Century.

One can see that the ignorant clergy KISSED the feet and other parts of the BABY JESUS during the Middle Ages. This is clearly seen in RENAISSANCE paintings! Many of them are HIDDEN by the church..I wonder why!

The worship of PRIAPUS ( penis-sun) was also imitated by the Christian church. This is the reason, IMHO, pedophilia is ROOTED in the traditions of the Catholic church and they are so obsessed with SEX. This is also the reason many church fathers CASTRATED themselves. These ignorant retards were extremely CONFUSED and since they had NO IDEA of human biology due to their REJECTION of science and delusions acceptance, they view sex and things they did not understand as satanic.

http://kspark.kaist.ac.kr/Jesus/Chri...20Phallism.htm

Christians created pedophilia, immorality, sex as sin and rest of STUPID IDIOTIC BELIEFS plaguing humanity today. Retards!!. Let's have these nuts committed.

I know the Egyptians left proof but I believe people were cutting on genitals long before them. The aboriginals in Austrailia circumcise and some even do a subincision. I've also seen claims that the Hawaiians also did subincisions. There is a lot of conflicting information out there though.


There is a case going on right now in Oregon

"You have a unique opportunity to assist with a legal case in Oregon. An Oregon father, (an attorney), is planning on converting to Judaism and wants his now 12 year-old son, "Misha" of whom he has custody, circumcised against the child's express will. Sadly, a physician / congregant has already been found who is willing to ignore Misha's wishes and oblige the father. The rabbi insists on it. Misha is deeply afraid of his father. "

http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcisi...fo/appeal.html
if you want more information

calpurnpiso wrote

Christians created pedophilia, immorality, sex as sin and rest of STUPID IDIOTIC BELIEFS plaguing humanity today. Retards!!. Let's have these nuts committed.

*applaud*

Noprayersneeded wrote

The studies of HIV in Africa were ended early supposedly for humanitarian reasons. It is speculated(based on numbers reported at an Aids conference and then in the Public Library of Science) though that the number of infected circumcised men was catching up with the number of infected intact men and they ended the study early before it became glaringly apparent. The men that were circumcised were told to abstain for 6 weeks and use condoms while the intact men had no such limitations. Also they have no idea if these men were even exposed to HIV at the same rate, we have no idea if their partners were infected or not.

The latest study, which is just hot off the press, conducted the test over a two year period I believe. As I understand it, there were two separate groups, one from Uganda and the other from Kenya. The men in the respective groups were mostly of the same ethnic group and they were mostly from a community that did not widly practice circumcision. They were randomly assigned to circumcision or non-circumcision groups and then tracked. Of course the 6 weeks of circumcised men being sexually inactive may be a factor although it is difficult to determine exactly how big. I don't know if that would account for a 51-60% difference in infection rates.

The next step is to do some research on exactly how removal of the foreskin can reduce infection rates. One theory is that the foreskin contains many Langerhans cells and other immune cells, which are easy targets for HIV. Such is the irony of HIV, the very cells that are supposed to protect from disease are the ones that are most vulnerable to the virus. Also, the foreskin, which is a very tender tissue may more easily recieve micro cuts, making it easier for the virus to infect. Let's also not forget that the glans hardens, thickens and becomes more keratinized following circumcision, perhaps providing an additional barrier against infection.

In places like Africa, circumcision may be an effective preventative measure mainly because in Africa, a very large percentage of the population is very poorly educated (I believe that a woefully huge percentage is in fact illiterate). In Western Europe, North America etc. though, I doubt it will significantly reduce rates. If you compare Western Europe and Canada, where circumcision is not widely practiced, with the United States, you'll find that HIV infection rates are similar. Studies conclusively show that wearing a condom is the second best preventative measure against contracting STDs (the best being abstinence). So, if condoms are worn, a man's status with regard to circumcision is effectively moot.

Some studies have shown that circumcision reduces sexual pleasure however. I believe a couple of studies found no significant difference, but several more concluded that there was. As a person who is not circumcised, I don't see how circumcision could not reduce pleasure/sensitivity. The glans of an uncut man is usually covered by the foreskin and thus very sensitive. It's not a pleasurable feeling when the foreskin rolls up and the glans touches a piece of clothing, but in a circumcised male, the glans is constantly in contact with clothing. Also the glans hardens and keratinizes in circumcised men, whereas in uncut men, the glans remains smooth and soft with a noticeably different feel from the rest of the penis and normal skin. Also, the foreskin itself contains a lot of errogenous tissue, the removal of which would surely reduce sexual pleasure.

Basically, my take on it is: if it ain't broke then don't fix it. The majority of men on the planet are not circucmised and most of them do not have major health problems resulting from their foreskins. Can problems arise due to the foreskin? Yes. But then problems can arise in almost any part of the body. Clearly, the overwhelming majority of men do not have problems resulting from their foreskins. I believe that removing the foreskin reduces sexual pleasure and let's also not forget that having a foreskin makes wanking/handjobs a lot easier.

While the probability of contracting HIV may be lower if one is circumcised, you will still probably get infected if you practice unprotected sex with multiple partners. Use of a condom pretty much makes circumcision or lack thereof irrelevant with regards to contracting HIV. Like I said earlier though, circumcision may be an effective preventative measure in places like Africa. It is very difficult to educate about safe sex due to the socioeconomic conditions there. Of course, it's not going to be easy to begin implementing widespread circumcision either. It has many potential dangers if not done by trained professionals who use proper asceptic techniques. Then, it also conflicts with cultural norms and such.

Finally, it's also a matter of consent. Clearly, a newborn baby cannot give informed consent to the procedure, which can be very painful. I have the choice of being circumcised if I wish it, but it's something that I do not wish to do. I can say that I have a choice and people who were circumcised as adults or at least later in life, can say that they had a choice. Those who were circumcised as infants never had a choice. They might have (and probably would have) preferred to keep their foreskins if they had been allowed to have a say in the matter.

[Sternwallow]

Gathercole wrote

Everyone knows the two things God cares most about are what you put in your mouth, and where you put your cock.

Don't forget the foreskins themselves. God has an absolute letch for lots and lots of foreskins. See Little David, see Little David run to the king carrying 200 foreskins.

! Samuel 18
...David arose and went, he and his men, and slew of the Philistines two hundred men; and David brought their foreskins, and they gave them in full tale to the king...

[Sternwallow]

Release all captive foreskins in captivity!

MrsMoe wrote

Hun, not only is he fat, fug and bald, he's an asshole. He's the sort of person that makes female skin crawl, and as a result he has a grudge against the world. Don't waste your breath with this one.

Edited to add - hell you know, I bet he doesn't even HAVE a dick that sticks out, considering his BMI is through the roof. Those fat fucks not only can't get it up, they can't find it.


ROFL :lol:

What the cunt is your problem?

Sternwallow wrote

Beaj, not to criticize or refute what you said, do you think that severe suffering is unimportant as long as it is not remembered afterward? Would deliberate torture be acceptable if an effective amnesia drug was administered to the victim afterward? How about the amnesia drug administered to the torturer? To the best of his knowledge, he didn't torture anyone. Isn't that innocence?

Severe suffering is bad. If I were to suffer severe suffering, I would expect to be rewarded for it, if I wasn't asking for it.

baconeatingatheistjew wrote

What the cunt is your problem?

Don't worry BEAJ, MrsMoe seems to have a problem with people who speak up.
I find offensive and disgusting the way she attacked you.

I think you're a very kind and sweet guy and if I were not lesbian I'd beg you to bang me day and night. :heart: :kiss: