I mean, from what I gather the clitoral hood isn’t a part of the urinary tract.
-
-
Replying to @_Undersized_ @Gregory_Malchuk and
Doesn't mean it can't get infected
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @KhazWolf @Gregory_Malchuk and
Not by a urinary tract infection. We’re using the same example in both boys and girls: a urinary tract infection. In boys, circumcision lowers the rate of further urinary tract infections. In girls, it doesn’t. Remember that boys get more complicated infections.pic.twitter.com/tx4odBYCYx
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @_Undersized_ @Gregory_Malchuk and
Why are you so set on urinary tract infections when they're generally very easily treatable, and women get them far more often than any man cut or not? :/
4 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @KhazWolf @_Undersized_ and
I'm surprised he is still alive if he wants to treat an infection with the ampuation of bodyparts: Otitis media? Amputation of the ear. Gingitivitis? Amputation of the tooth. Oh, wait - what i'm talking! According to his logic, ears and teeth are removed right after birth!
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Vegaytarier @KhazWolf and
Ok, time to stop wasting fuel on this guy. It's time to move on. Our job is to raise a mob, not argue with idiots.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Gregory_Malchuk @Vegaytarier and
But it has been interesting. All jokes aside I enjoyed the talk. I learnt a fair bit. You’ve also helped me really define my viewpoint on male circumcision. I agree, no religious reason is valid. But I disagree that a blanket ban on a recommended treatment is a smart move.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @_Undersized_ @Gregory_Malchuk and
The problem is it is so recommended, not even as a treatment but as prophylaxis. This isn't done for children who have recurring issues, this is done before there are even a chance for issues to form, it's done to infants in the first few days. Though you call it a strawman >>
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ReyosB @_Undersized_ and
2>
@Vegaytarier has valid points there, though poorly presented, removal of any body part that could lead to or become diseased will prevent that disease, but we draw the line on every other normal body part, until there is an issue that needs to be treated surgically. We don't>>1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ReyosB @_Undersized_ and
3> remove tonsils until there are issues of tonsillitis, or an appendix until appendicitis, there is no body part we routinely remove from someone who doesn't ask for it to be removed because they might get an infection except the foreskin, and the accepted rate is 1 UTI >>
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
4> prevented per over 100 circumcisions, this rate comes from the technical report behind the 2012 recommendation by @AmerAcadPeds, which is the most pro circumcision medical body. This means 99 infants that are circumcised see no UTI benefit for every 1 that is helped.
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.