I explained to you exactly why they're flawed. "Prove me wrong." The onus is on you. That's the burden of proof. You're the one arguing for invasive surgery, not me.
The risk of infection caused by circumcision is at least double the risk of infection by not circumcising. You literally cause more harm than you prevent.
-
-
Once again, the 2% of circumcised men is a smaller real number than 1% of the entire male population of earth
-
Once again, 0% of circumcised men is the smallest real number.
-
What did you mean by this?
-
It means that 100% of circucmsions cause guaranteed harm by ablating functional tissue, which you keep dangerously and dishonestly failing to include in your crappy cost-benefit analyses.
-
I just don’t think it’s ok to weigh up a baby’s life against some swollen tissue.
-
Show me a single baby who died because he wasn't circumcised. In contrast, I can show you many who died because they were: http://www.cirp.org/library/death/
-
9% to 36% mortality rate in infants https://www.medicinenet.com/sepsis/article.htm … and 20-30% of sepsis is from UTI
-
Stop deliberately misleading the statistics to claim things they don't claim. That mortality rate refers to sepsis in general, not from UTIs.
- 22 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.