It definitely stops the risk of urinary tract infections in baby boys, which can land them in the hospital.
-
-
Replying to @malkaavram @cooney21 and
No, it does not. Can still get UTIs.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @adkisojk @malkaavram and
It's essentially an argument between parental rights/ religious rights and children's rights, and realistically the medical benefits or otherwise aren't relevant, with the obvious exception of rare medical reasons.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @FULHAMFRENCHIE @malkaavram and
I draw the line at parents rights when it involves permanent harm. Religious rights belong to individuals. If we use the logic of "medical benefits" we could justify cutting many other parts.
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @adkisojk @malkaavram and
If you exclude medical reasons, you will leave children in severe pain for your ideology.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @FULHAMFRENCHIE @malkaavram and
Medical reason and benefit are two very different things. If the benefit is to address existing pain, that would be a reason, not just a benefit.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @adkisojk @malkaavram and
Then how would you decide if it's medical or religious if it's performed on a Jewish boy ? Considering that you have a mistrust of Doctors because of the £££s .
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @FULHAMFRENCHIE @malkaavram and
Shouldn't be done for religion. Thus, left with medical. Only medical need is acceptable. Born "male" is NOT a diagnosis.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @adkisojk @FULHAMFRENCHIE and
. No debate possible regarding religious circumcision Re medical reasons, 1/2 all men suffer foreskin-related problems in their lifetime, &billions of increased medical costs lost and projected accelerating due to declining circ rates Sooper resource http://www.circinfo.net/ pic.twitter.com/d7ooOPc0jZ
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @realChaim_Rubin @FULHAMFRENCHIE and
I hope you have more sources than Brian Morris. Here's one: "The cumulative risk of undergoing foreskin operation before 18 years of age was 1.7%." - https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/pediatrics/137/5/e20154340.full.pdf …
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
The evidence (not unfounded Mayo speculation) shows the risk of foreskin-related problems requiring any medical attn is much lower than 50%. Not all, or even most, such problems need #circumcision. The medical benefits are far too small to justify forcing it on a child. #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.