so if you actually critically look at those studies you will see that most of it is flawed. "90% percent of circumcised men dont like milk, therefore circumcision ruins your taste for milk". its just absurd. also at the end of this "study"..cont>..
All of those claims have been repeatedly discredited - hygiene isn't an excuse to cut flesh off of an infant. UTIs & phemosis are preventable in other ways that don't involve cutting off flesh. Circumcision doesn't actually decrease the risk of STDs.
-
-
Human papilloma virus and smegma have been implicated in the aetiology of penile cancer, making it also preventable by means other than circumcision. It also happens to be extremely rare to begin with.
-
To advocate routine neonatal genital cutting on the basis of any of those arguments, or even all of them together, is barbaric.
-
and i respect your opinion.
-
That's all well and good, but it's not an opinion. Infant boys are the only instance in which this kind of hysterical response to the possibility of having to bathe properly is medically promoted.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
well, that is from mayo clinic. so you will have to take it up with them.
-
Actually, I don't. The U.S. Navy's research discredited the research that the Mayo clinic is relying on for its HIV claim. http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a458066.pdf … You've made a fallacious appeal to authority. A source for a claim doesn't validate cutting infants' flesh off for easier hygeine.
-
You should be able to recognize bad methodology. The studies on which the claim that circumcision reduces HIV risk are based attributed the benefits of post-procedure abstinence & condom use to the procedure rather than those behaviors, which are already proven preventatives.
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.