Female circumcision 'should be allowed by law' - member of Ireland's Islamic Cultural Centre #FGMhttps://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/female-circumcision-should-be-allowed-by-law-member-of-irelands-islamic-cultural-centre-36585441.html …
Medically because in some cases the foreskin can grow too tight and cause pain, it prevents phimosis, uncircumcised are twice as likely to contract HPV, recent studies have proven circumcision helps reduce risk of HIV, cleanliness can be an issue...what doctors say anyway.
-
-
Phimosis is a condition that can be treated nonsurgically in 80% of cases, foreskin becomes retractile naturally as a boy ages, the average age being 10 years old. Forcing retraction before this causes damage and causes traumatic phimosis since the scarred tissue will no longer>>
-
Again, I rely on doctors for my medical opinions...that is what they say. Medical doctors also say one increases stimulation while one dramatically reduces stimulation. The Qur'an and Hadith both say it is to keep women from straying religiously. I'm not the medical expert.
-
Except they don't say it increases stimulation in men: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2006.06685.x …
-
Debatable, the jury is still out on that. Several conflicting studies.
-
Yes there are conflicting studies, at which point it should be left to the person who's body is being modified to decide which side they believe for benefits vs risks.
-
Not disagreeing with you on that one, and like I just said, I would be interested in our judicial system's interpretation.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
As for HPV, we have vaccines for that now, so if it were an issue, it is a pretty moot point. But we can very well let science speak on this one:https://www.healio.com/infectious-disease/stds/news/online/%7Bee2769c4-b9b0-4daa-8eef-943c7205ed6c%7D/circumcised-men-at-twice-the-risk-for-cancer-causing-hpv-study-shows …
-
Actually no, there are people who don't believe in the vaccine and the vaccine has a side effect list as long as your arm. Give it a few years to correct side effects, maybe.
-
Still if we put aside the vaccine, which we can blame Wakefield for the distrust of vaccines in general, we still have the study that finds circumcised men have twice the risk of HPV. Conflicting studies but the US medical system has an interest in protecting circumcision so >>
-
As an 1990;s Military Vet, I can attest to some vaccines can have harmful side effect. Science still haven't completely got the grasp of immune system vs some live and dead viruses. Some can cause "unknown neurological" disorders. Some viruses mutate. It's not perfect yet.
-
If we want to bring neurological conditions into the argument, we can look at the negative impact of RIC on the brain, or in fact of any traumatic experience, of which genital cutting is arguably the worst due to the sensitivity of the genitals: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10657682
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Above all else these are all benefits to adults, not infants. These are all conditions that are sexually transmitted diseases, or can't truly be said to exist util the penis is fully formed post puberty. These are benefits that do not exist until after the boy can make a choice>>
-
2> for himself, as is the argument it reduces penile cancer rates, one you didn't mention, which is a disease almost exclusive to men in their 40s and up, and an extremely rare condition anyways, at least than 1 in 100,000.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Recent studies have shown that there is no connection between circumcision and HIV, except for two studies in Africa which are relied on while others are ignored, like this one: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/3781/0070486930476b5d2e0e7c53ae7799d1f8d3.pdf …
-
If you actually look at the African studies, they made no attempt to determine the actual cause of infection (These areas are estimated to have a 20% non sexual infection rate) nor determine the seroconversion rates, which are what are needed to assess actual infection risk. >>
-
2> What they did do is take a 20 month period, during which the intervention (cut) cohort could not have sex for about two months due to healing (10% less time to be infected) and assume that all infections during that time were from sexual transmission. The difference was 1.3%>>
-
3> the 60% you hear is a difference in relative not absolute risk, And the studies also insisted that men still wear condoms, which would remove any benefit, if it truly existed, to HIV prevention. There are also two studies that found an inverse correlation between HIV and FGM.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.