There are so many inaccuracies in this article's disorganized & blatantly disingenuous description of - & desperate attempt to justify - the non therapeutic amputation of a child's foreskin ("#MGM") that it's difficult to know where to begin. #circumcision #i2 #HisBodyHisChoice
-
-
Replying to @cooney21 @CMDANational
On the supposedly "Christian" nature of
#MGM: outside the US (you know, the other 95% of the world)#circumcision is virtually unheard of as a "Christian" act. It violates the Catholic Catechism's prohibition against non therapeutic & directly intended amputations#Catechism22971 reply 1 retweet 6 likes -
Replying to @cooney21 @CMDANational
On "benefits": lower risk of cancer & STD transmission don't find support in studies accepted by MDs outside the biased, pro-circumcision enclave that is the US. Even if they did, those conditions don't affect children & can't justify surgery on an infant. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/pediatrics/131/4/796.full.pdf …
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @cooney21 @CMDANational
On complications: the latest data indicate the
#circumcision complication rate for young children is 11.5%. http://spuonline.org/abstracts/2018/P21.cgi … The suggestion that the rate "escalates remarkably" when performed at a later age is untrue &, like the rest of the article, totally unsupported.1 reply 1 retweet 7 likes -
Replying to @cooney21 @CMDANational
#MGM, like#FGM, has many well-recognized, frequent complications, including meatal stenosis & infection. While death is not a "frequent" complication of either#FGM or#MGM, that it occurs at all is a sufficient reason all by itself to ban both#FGM &#MGM.#i2#HisBodyHisChoicepic.twitter.com/HEcQ6Xhpcm
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @cooney21 @CMDANational
On the inherent harm of
#MGM: The proposition that an intact prepuce doesn't give a man greater sexual pleasure requires the belief that the intact prepuce is, inherently & always, totally numb. This is absurd on its face, & calls Dr. Cranston's competence into serious doubt#i23 replies 2 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @cooney21 @CMDANational
The claim that "[t]here is little if any psychophysical damage inflicted" by
#MGM is patently false. One recent study shows 64% of males circumcised as neonates view it negatively, & for good reason. It destroys a unique anatomical structure comprised of smooth muscle tissue...1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @cooney21 @CMDANational
...nerves, blood vessels, skin & sebaceous glands that is an average of 15 square inches in an adult male. By denying that
#MGM "destroys useful, healthy tissue [and] inflict[s] immense pain," Dr Cranston reveals a degree of ignorance that is shocking to see in a licensed MD.1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @cooney21 @CMDANational
Intact men report that their foreskins give them sexual pleasure. Of course they do - it is an irrefutable anatomical fact that foreskins are highly innervated. They also make penises self-lubricating. Only those w/no understanding of sex think that's a bug & not a feature.
#i22 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @cooney21 @CMDANational
An intact foreskin protects the glans from becoming dried out & keratinized, from meatal stenosis and from injury. Only the most stubbornly in-denial pro-cutters refuse to recognize these are indisputably benefits that make the foreskin useful.
#i2#HisBodyHisChoice1 reply 0 retweets 7 likes
An intact penis is larger - & a circumcised penis smaller - than it otherwise would be. Dr Cranston might be about the only person left on the entire planet who thinks that's not a benefit to having a foreskin. #i2 #HisBodyHisChoice
-
-
Replying to @cooney21 @CMDANational
Many genital-cutting MDs won't give an infant ANY anesthetic for
#MGM. The resulting pain can be so excruciating that boys can vomit, suffer collapsed lungs or burst eardrums from screaming, or pass out from pain. But to Dr Cranston, these are just more facts he must ignore.#i21 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @cooney21 @CMDANational
On metzitzah b'peh: Dr Cranston's unsupported suggestion that sucking blood from an infant's circumcised penis could somehow "prevent scar formation" is as ridiculous as it is irresponsible. Care to explain the scientific basis for it, "Doctor"?
#quackery#i2#HisBodyHisChoice1 reply 1 retweet 7 likes - 11 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.