Re: [Peckers_Pics] Banning Circumcision

No let the parents decide.

 

It is much more painful when you are older to be circumsized.

 

It has been proven that on the 8th day after birth a baby's natural immunity is at its height to fight off infecion (which was not known

3,700 years ago) and the risk of infection is lower then then late ron, and as I also said its more painful when you are older.

 

Even a few months or years older.

 

Butch

 

 

 

---

From: Miguel Campos <buddy4play@yahoo.com>
To: Peckers_Pics@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, April 3, 2011 4:47:08 PM
Subject: Re: [Peckers_Pics] Banning Circumcision

 

I think that you should find out how men who were circumcised as adults feel about this.  I, for one, being circumcised at 20 years of age am much happier with s-x, is cleaner and no longer has irritation .
 
Keep circumcising them!  Choice is always best, let the adult men decide for themselves if there is a question as to whether it should be done at birth or not.

--- On Sun, 4/3/11, granpetto <granpetto@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

From: granpetto <granpetto@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Re: [Peckers_Pics] Banning Circumcision
To: Peckers_Pics@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, April 3, 2011, 7:42 PM

 

With all dure respect to all and sundry on this topic,
     It feel it is unreasonable to want to pass a law to ban circumcision.  People should decide on their own.
     There are medical studies that say that the incidence of HIV in heterosexual men is far higher when the male is uncircumcised.  There are even programs in Africa to circumcize men in order to stop the infection from spreading.  I don't know if the same is true of homosexual sex.
     There are two major religions that prescribe circumcision, and while I am not at all religious, it is absurd to try to dictate "religious" doctrine in this country.
     Finally, esthetically, I think the circumcised penis is far more palatable.  Who knows what lurking under the foreskin, some of which are quite nasty looking to boot.
 

<style type="text/css"></style>
&nbsp;
<style type="text/css"></style>

From: stanley blanc <butch_blanc@yahoo.ca>
To: Peckers_Pics@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, April 3, 2011 11:33:10 AM
Subject: Re: [Peckers_Pics] Banning Circumcision

 

If you would have researched this issue much more thoroughly you would have found that not being circumsized can cause other spread of bacteria or infection and other diseases more easily etc. as per my first reply to your post etc.
Butch

From: medibolics_michael <michael@michaelmooney.net>
To: Peckers_Pics@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, April 2, 2011 11:55:10 PM
Subject: [Peckers_Pics] Banning Circumcision

 

OK guys, I researched this issue thoroughly and it turns out that circumcision DOES NOT reduce chances of HIV or STD infection. In fact, it increases them because foreskin produces immune factors like lysozymes that kill HIV and various invading organisms.

Additionally, uncircumcised guys are about four times more sensitive than circumcised because circumcision removes the most sensitive parts of the organ and over 20,000 nerve ending.

Lloyd Shofeld is putting banning circumcision on the ballot in San Francisco. I am proposing we echo his bill in West Hollywood. Stop mutilating baby boys!

To read the full story see:http://wehonews.com/z/wehonews/archive/page.php?articleID=5792.

This article is fully referenced from the published medical literature. This is not someone's opinion. I formed my opinion after reading several dozen studies.

Michael Mooney
www.michaelmooney.net
www.medibolics.com

Moderator: Thanks Michael. I notice you change on this from time to time. Michael, you know that many of your opinions i research and formed new opinion and even Amer. Mewdical Assoc has taken a different stance that agrees with you, etc. Some items have nopt been agreed to. Yes i know about corruption, etc.... However, i have read huge studies that show different opinions on circumcision. 1st of all, countries and ethnic that lead in HIV ingection, are usually un-circumcised.

However, I believe that some have a genetic make up that prevents infection (immunity). That is why so many guys in a long term relationship have found 1 of the 2 infected. So mnay of these cases demonstrate that these are couples who had 1 of 2 partners unknowingly carrying HIV for 1 or more decades, while the other partner, never tested positive. i have read hundreds, perhaps thousands of explanations.

Personally, if i had a new born son, i would not have him circumsized as it is painful, trumatic, etc.... to the infact. However, i repect religious consideration, etc.... I am not making blanket statement of what one should do.

....jake

__._,_.___

All members of "Peckers PICS" are requested to join our "Obama Biden 2008" group as it runs in conjunction to this group.  Both groups shall not repeat articles from one group to another.  However, to gain full knowledge of Gay rights, members must belong to the Obama group as well as this group.  Therefore, please accept your invitation to join. 

To join the Obama group please click (or copy and paste the link into your browser) @  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ObamaBiden2008/join

Thank you!
 

�Every gay and lesbian person who has been lucky enough to survive the turmoil of growing up is a survivor. Survivors always have an obligation to those who will face the same challenges.�

...Jake (Moderator)

Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___