lets talk about child mutilation

Circumcision is a truly barbaric Hebrew religious ritual designed to cause trauma in infants, and long term harmful effects as they develop into adults. This is clearly a form of trauma programming.

Based on MRI data collected throughout the process, the research team noted “significant trauma” in conjunction with the foreskin removal process, with the most pronounced brain changes occurring in the limbic system, which includes the amygdala and frontal and temporal lobes.

iaim.net...

Some more studies...

circumcision.org...

It directly decends from the Jewish practice of oral circumcision, metzitzah b’peh, which is basically a pedo ritual for their Cabal death god. I really can't believe it's legal and still done, definately shouldn't be in any form, but especially this one.

When a baby is circumcised, some ritual Jewish circumcisers (mohelim) do a practice called metzitzah b’peh. Metzitzah b’peh is when the mohel uses their mouth to suck blood away from the baby’s circumcision wound as part of the circumcision ritual. After metzitzah b’peh, some babies can get an infection.

link

Who the hell cuts off bits of children's genitals and thinks it's OK, what is wrong with these people, bunch of deviants.

a reply to: primalfractal

Thanks for the value add, oral circumcision...This gets weirder by the hour.

It's odd how people go chasing around Pizza gate when the stuff happens right under our nose, we just have to dare to take an honest and unbiased look.

a reply to: primalfractal
Babies have actually died of herpes because the rabbi sucks the blood away.

a reply to: nugget1

Circumcising your newborn is an option; it's not like anybody is being forced to have it done.

What??
The baby is forced........the newborn has no option.

a reply to: primalfractal

Circumcision is a truly barbaric Hebrew religious ritual designed to cause trauma in infants

It was not done to infants.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: nugget1

Circumcising your newborn is an option; it's not like anybody is being forced to have it done.

What??
The baby is forced........the newborn has no option.

I am hoping you have things to say about all the little kids and babies with piercings and tattoos now too.
No medical reason there.

originally posted by: angeltone
a reply to: Terpene
Gosh ... I have a fully working healthy foreskin

Well let me tell you something.... i have the best, most beautiful, greatest, longest, hardest, fantastic,
better than anyone elses, fully working, healthy, circumcised penis? WHO woulda of thought..

AND NO YOU CANT #ING SEE IT!! YOU NUT JOBS

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: nugget1

Circumcising your newborn is an option; it's not like anybody is being forced to have it done.

What??
The baby is forced........the newborn has no option.

By the parents choice. If it's wrong for parents to make that choice after reviewing all the information, then perhaps an activist group needs to form and work on getting the practice outlawed.

a reply to: Terpene

It's odd how people go chasing around Pizza gate when the stuff happens right under our nose, we just have to dare to take an honest and unbiased look.

True, yes it's the unbiased part that's difficult for most due to heavy conditioning on this and related topics, but once broken this evil is in plain view.

The skin cream thing isn't a rumour either, sounds like adrenochrome, but real.

That’s because foreskin fibroblasts are big business. A fibroblast is a piece of human skin that is used as a culture to grow other skin or cells -- like human yogurt kits. Human foreskin fibroblast is used in all kinds of medical procedures from growing skin for burn victims and for eyelid replacement, to growing skin for those with diabetic ulcers (who need replacement skin to cover ulcers that won’t heal), to making creams and collagens in the cosmetics industry (yes, the product that is injected into puffy movie-starlet lips).

thetyee.ca...

www.coriell.org...

While the trend is slowly growing popular, there are reports, according to a clinic in South Africa, which admitted to be actively involved in the business, as they were supplying an American market, that there were illegal circumcision clinics supplying them with the skins.

www.sundaynews.co.zw...

a reply to: SeaWorthy

It was not done to infants.

It's been done by Jews to infants since at least the 6th century BCE.

The notion of milah being linked to a biblical covenant is generally believed to have originated in the 6th century BCE as a product of the Babylonian captivity; the practice likely lacked this significance among Jews before the period.

en.wikipedia.org...

Every Jewish father is commanded to fulfill the Biblical precept (described in Genesis 17:10-14) to circumcise his son on the eighth day or to designate a qualified representative to do so on his behalf. 

"And God spoke to Abraham saying: ...This is my covenant which you shall keep between Me and you and thy seed after you - every male child among you shall be circumcised." (Gen. 17:12) For 3,500 years, since the time of our forefather Abraham, the Jewish people have observed the ritual of circumcision as the fundamental sign of the covenant between God and Israel

faculty.haas.berkeley.edu...

The Romans had the right view of it, in some ways we have regressed as a civilization since then.

Classical, Hellenistic, and Roman culture widely found circumcision to be barbaric, cruel, and utterly repulsive in nature.

Results
A total of 339 participants with a median age of 25 years (IQR 22–29) were included in the study, of whom 116 (34.2%) were circumcised. The overall STIs prevalence was 27.4% (95% CI 22.8 to 32.6%) and was lower in the circumcised participants compared with those who were uncircumcised (15.5% vs 33.6%, respectively, p < 0.001). Both medical (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.34–0.95, p = 0.030) and traditional circumcision (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.13–0.86, p = 0.022)
bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com...

You did omit the conclusion of this study:

Conclusion: In this high-risk population in a mining town in South Africa, with a relatively high prevalence of STIs, and where one third of males are circumcised, both medical and traditional circumcision appear to be protective against STIs.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: Terpene

I seem to remember that it used to be done because people thought that it reduced the amount that boys masturbated.

From Wikipedia:

...
In her 1978 article The Ritual of Circumcision,[81] Karen Erickson Paige writes: "The current medical rationale for circumcision developed after the operation was in wide practice. The original reason for the surgical removal of the foreskin, or prepuce, was to control 'masturbatory insanity' – the range of mental disorders that people believed were caused by the 'polluting' practice of 'self-abuse.'"
"Self-abuse" was a term commonly used to describe masturbation in the 19th century. According to Paige, "treatments ranged from diet, moral exhortations, hydrotherapy, and marriage, to such drastic measures as surgery, physical restraints, frights, and punishment. Some doctors recommended covering the penis with plaster of Paris, leather, or rubber; cauterization; making boys wear chastity belts or spiked rings; and in extreme cases, castration."
...
At the same time circumcisions were advocated on men, clitoridectomies (removal of the clitoris) were also performed for the same reason (to treat female masturbators). The US "Orificial Surgery Society" for female "circumcision" operated until 1925, and clitoridectomies and infibulations would continue to be advocated by some through the 1930s. As late as 1936, L. E. Holt, an author of pediatric textbooks, advocated both circumcision and female genital mutilation as a treatment for masturbation.
...
A remedy which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision, especially when there is any degree of phimosis. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment, as it may well be in some cases. The soreness which continues for several weeks interrupts the practice, and if it had not previously become too firmly fixed, it may be forgotten and not resumed. If any attempt is made to watch the child, he should be so carefully surrounded by vigilance that he cannot possibly transgress without detection. If he is only partially watched, he soon learns to elude observation, and thus the effect is only to make him cunning in his vice.

a reply to: SeaWorthy

Yes these things need to be regulated too, kids need to be protected from their sick parents.
Something like an age of consent like for sexual interaction must be established.
before that age parents should not be alowed to do any invasive treatment unless live saving. After that every adult can do to his body as he pleases.

a reply to: carport

Appart from the sexual activity that might be affected by trauma, there could be another reason this happens.

When you compare the glans of adults, you'll notice that uncircumcised ones have a different structure. They look more porous, more like a tongue. It could be that the exposure to the friction sort of sands down the skin, and the microscaring closes the pores, therefore lesser STD are transmitted.

a reply to: starfoxxx

It's a perfectly fine reaction, I totally get your anger....

originally posted by: SeaWorthy

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: nugget1

Circumcising your newborn is an option; it's not like anybody is being forced to have it done.

What??
The baby is forced........the newborn has no option.

I am hoping you have things to say about all the little kids and babies with piercings and tattoos now too.
No medical reason there.

I believe in consent .......the actual person has to want it....not someone else (parent/guardian).
Do you have any links about newborns having tattoos? I believe it is illegal to tattoo a minor.

a reply to: SeaWorthy

Galatians 2:3, NIV: Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek.

originally posted by: Terpene
a reply to: CthruU

Ok...

At fault is the legislative that makes child mutilation legal, under the pretext of freedom of religion. The practitioner is paid by the patient, he gets to do what is asked. I wonder how this procedure, doesn't go against the hippocratic oath?

Why do you consider it unnecessary, and what moral standing do you consider questionable?

Perhaps they are offended you’ve pointed out male victimization. The only real victims are suppose to be women right?

Lot of people here that have no idea how circumcision is preformed these days I see.