Actually the thing I was reading isn't quite finished yet, here's a clinical trial still in progress for the rest of this year: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02854995 … Guess I'll keep an eye on that
-
-
Replying to @KhazWolf @_Undersized_ and
Another one, suggesting preputioplasty is a "good alternative" to circumcision: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0090429508008467 … And another! https://www.fimose.org/uploads/6/5/5/4/65544215/preputioplastyinchildren.pdf … "Preputioplasty is a faster, easier, relatively painless technique with excellent cosmetic results and lesser complications than" circ
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @KhazWolf @Gregory_Malchuk and
Nice, but the original recommended circumcision in cases of recurring infection, and the second recommended it in cases of scarring, so my point still stands. In those cases we would have to go back and circumcise you, but it would be banned- so your dick would drop off.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @_Undersized_ @Gregory_Malchuk and
I'm not saying it's impossible for a circumstance to occur where it could be an option, but it should be treated like cutting off an arm: an extreme solution to extreme problems when every other option has failed. Such would be absurdly rare. Routine circumcision is abhorrent
2 replies 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @KhazWolf @Gregory_Malchuk and
Only 77% of U.S. men are circumcised. It isn’t routine. It has multiple detailed, legitimate medical uses. So tell me if it fits the definition of mutilation? I’m still looking to have my mind changed here.
10 replies 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @_Undersized_ @Gregory_Malchuk and
Amputation of normal functional tissue is mutilation. That's why amputation is considered a last resort for treatment in general. Sometimes in extenuating circumstances it's required to "mutilate" the body to prevent even greater damage or death.
2 replies 2 retweets 10 likes -
Replying to @KhazWolf @_Undersized_ and
The point here is... The vast majority of American circumcisions are for no medical reason whatsoever. And the vast majority of circumcisions that ARE for a medical reason are for a reason that's invalid (preventing STDs), or a reason that can be cured with less invasive means.
2 replies 2 retweets 9 likes -
Replying to @KhazWolf @Gregory_Malchuk and
No. Circumcision was recommended in your medical paper as being for recurring infection or where tissue scarring occurs.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @_Undersized_ @Gregory_Malchuk and
These are the uses (excuses) that doctors have come up with for it in modern times. It's not the reason why it was originally prescribed in america, it's not the reason why it was prescribed in religion. Those were both about damaging sexual function:pic.twitter.com/SD11hqaBWR
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @KhazWolf @_Undersized_ and
Just imagine being one of these doctors when the sexual revolution of the past century hit. They made their careers on damaging kids sexually, and now suddenly that's a bad thing? They've been scrambling to justify it ever since, so people won't sue or try to get revenge or w/e
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes
General surgeons do more than just circumcision, they don’t need to justify their practices to keep their job, you can’t suggest that circumcision is a religious practice because it was originally religious.
-
-
Replying to @_Undersized_ @KhazWolf and
That's what they say about female circumcision.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.