And why don't parents need to justify why keeping the labia is worth the higher rates of infection? You're promoting sexist double standards. ROUTINE INFANT CIRCUMCISION IS MEDICALLY UNNECESSARY.
You clearly didn't understand the paper. Circumcision causes twice as many infections as it ostensibly prevents.
-
-
You must have misunderstood. I said if they enforce circumcision like I’ve been saying they should (not often or for religious reasons, only when medically necessary) it would be a smaller number.
-
Regardless, 2 > 1, always
-
Not with percentages of different variables, clearly. Want to reword?
-
No need. I can't simplify it any further for you. Either you can get it or you can't.
-
Okay, clearly you need to take a step back and realise what you just said. I cannot understand broken maths. 2% of a small number should not be a bigger number than 1% of a far larger number.
-
It's simple: Circumcision causes more problems than it cures. Regardless of how many you do, you're always causing more harm than if you didn't.
-
If a man has recurring cancer in his shin at stage 3, do we cut it out or let it go to stage 4? If we give him a sore shin but save him from death, is it doing harm?
-
Another cool hypothetical. How about if it's a baby girl and it's her vulva? Chop it off, right?
- 2 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.