In fact, it's easier to be more precise with an adult's fully developed & retractile penis than with infant #circumcision. Tessla nearly always manages to get it wrong. #i2
-
-
You really have zero idea about circumcision. Very plainly, doctors will admit that the procedure is much less risky and much easier to do on an infant. The infant has stem cells and can heal with almost no scars without stitches. Adults cannot.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @tesslatweets @eshu321 and
Very plainly, doctors say that w/out any basis for it b/c they're afraid they might get sued otherwise. "Stem cells"? "Almost no scars"? I guess next you'll be telling me you gave the twins magic beans that kept
#circumcision from harming them. Everyone can see your ignorance1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @cooney21
doctors use biology. I know u wouldn’t kno bcuz u don’t know a lot. But biology and evidence dictate their opinions. Stem cells are extractable from the foreskin. Naturally the young can heal faster and quicker because of their cellular advantage. Scars arise when circ is delayed
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @tesslatweets
Every cut penis has an obvious, discolored scar, whether
#circumcision is delayed or not. "Stem cells" won't magically change that. Most MDs - those who use biology & aren't "strongly culturally biased" - say#circumcision isn't worth the risks/harms.#i2 https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/pediatrics/131/4/796.full.pdf …1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cooney21
all that paper argues is “the skin has feeing so it matters” when it’s been proven that men have full sexual function circed. It also claims there is no evidence of STI reduction, when there is. American pediatricians understand the benefits outweigh the risks. They ain’t wrong
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @tesslatweets
You can't be a man with "full sexual function" if you no longer have a foreskin b/c you've zero feeling in it. It's illogical, ridiculous & only suggests you understand nothing about sex for you to imply otherwise. Do you honestly think sensation isn't a bodily function?
#i22 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @cooney21
There’s enough sensation left in the remaining skin, glans, and tissue that cut men respond to sexual stimuli the same way intact men do.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @tesslatweets
It is not for you to decide what amount of sensation is "enough." Any reduction in sensation is an impairment of sensation and thus functionality and is unethical. Cut men cannot possibly "respond to sexual stimuli the same way intact men do" b/c their sensation has been reduced.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cooney21
It’s factually proven. No credible study to date, for surgery older than history itself, has it ever proven to reduce sensation when the man is cut in the biblical way (during the neonate period). I’m sorry facts hurt your narrative. Intact is not the only or best way for all
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
There's also "no credible study" showing finger amputation won't reduce hand sensation. That's b/c it's common sense & the anatomical facts are irrefutable. What's incredible is your view that amputating innervated tissue won't affect sensitivity. Your argument is 2-1=2. #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.