#i2 Actually If you look at the science from Australia, since circumcision ended in the 1970's Australian children have become healthier with fewer health problems and lower infant mortality, if what you said were true the health data would be opposite to what it is? u r debunked
-
-
guess he's close to a collapsing short circuit breakdown
-
Infant health is better everywhere. Circumcision is listed nowhere as a factor for any of it. Pretty simple really. I’d argue that circumcision is safer now than ever.
-
"Not listed in my sources" is not the same as "isn't a factor". All it means is that your sources either missed it or didn't want to mention it. The source I've already provided you shows that there IS a connection whether your sources are aware or not:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326040454_Factors_associated_with_early_deaths_following_neonatal_male_circumcision_in_the_United_States_2001-2010 …
-
StatsCan doesn’t have circumcision in their top 12 causes of infant death even, but I’ll keep looking for you........
-
Okay so just assuming you're not lying, are you saying everything that's not a top 12 cause of infant death doesn't matter? If some parents decided to shoot their kids in the leg with a gun at birth, and the death rate from that didn't make the top 12, you'd sign off on it?
-
I wish you read the thread from the start. Our friend’s argument suggested that Australia’s circ rate had a huge impact on infant mortality rates. That’s false.
-
You've given no proof that it's false, only conjecture based on a hand-picked list of institutions NOT mentioning it. That doesn't prove anything.
-
Lol. The burden of proof goes both ways my friend. Find a source that says circumcision is a major cause of infant death then will ya.
- 6 more replies
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.