Actually, it is just a cosmetic surgery with (according to every major medical association in the western world) no significant benefits: https://www.hindawi.com/journals/isrn/2013/109846/ … https://www.healio.com/infectious-disease/stds/news/online/%7Bee2769c4-b9b0-4daa-8eef-943c7205ed6c%7D/circumcised-men-at-twice-the-risk-for-cancer-causing-hpv-study-shows … https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/moral-landscapes/201109/more-circumcision-myths-you-may-believe-hygiene-and-stds …https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0201445 …
-
-
You’re amazingly wrong. “Given the proven biological efficacy of (circumcision)” “Study does not seek to re-examine establishes causal relationship”pic.twitter.com/KgyUwPfki3
This media may contain sensitive material. Learn more
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @tesslatweets @cooney21 and
No in fact I am not. American researchers try to find connections to justify circumcision but that research hasn't been replicated by any other Western medical society; these medical societies often declare American research on this topic to be filled with cultural bias (1)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
They don’t need to justify it. They may speculate what the numbers represent but evidence is just evidence and it’s proven that circ reduces STI.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @tesslatweets @cooney21 and
Uh, again your facts are not there; nearly every Western European medical association has declared circumcision unnecessary and NOT a preventative for STIs; your saying otherwise does not refute that.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
No they say the benefit is not significant enough to override the potential patient’s future rights, which I disagree with. The benefit of circ against STI is not an immunity shield, but it is a boost.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @tesslatweets @eshu321 and
It's not a "potential" patient's "future" rights that are at stake. It's an actual patient's current right to keep the healthy body he's born with - a right you can't disagree with w/out turning your opposition to
#FGM into complete hypocrisy.1 reply 1 retweet 6 likes -
Replying to @cooney21
Anyone equating FGM to circ and defending it is a hypocrite who doesn’t give an iota about bodily integrity. Smoke on that
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @tesslatweets
You know perfectly well that (1) I'm not "defending"
#FGM, and (2) piercing or pricking genitalia as in Type IV#FGM is, by any objective assessment, not as extensive, invasive or harmful as male#circumcision, & so your opposition to Type IV#FGM shows YOUR hypocrisy.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cooney21
because you keep insisting on it, it’s no longer a rhetoric device. It’s advocacy. Also my argument remains sound because circ has inherent benefits, however high or low u may rank them. FGM does not and therefore should not be performed.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
The int'l medical consensus is that the medical "benefits" of #circumcision can't possibly justify its inherent risks & harms - just like all forms of #FGM. All non therapeutic child genital cutting is wrong, as I've always maintained.
Keep it up - your delusion is showing. #i2
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.