So is removing non functional sex organs, there’s far more data showing positive long term health outcomes from removing the foreskin than keeping it.
Ah yes, Men are too stupid to know what soap and condoms are, so the only solution is to cut off the perfectly healthy body parts of infants. You sound like a feminist.
Meissner’s corpuscles, the exact same type in your fingertips.
You say that like it changes something.
Anesthesia on Neonatals cause far more harm long term than short term pain that heals extremely quickly, in fact faster than any other point in a persons life, which is why they do it then
There is not a single good reason to do it at all, and so mutilating the genitals of defenseless infants who don't have a choice in order to make it easier on them later on is about as logical as dropping a nuke on a city full of people so they don't have to die of old age.
The “pain trauma” line is again sad copium done by John Money the pedophile.
Since we're throwing around pedophile comparisons with such irresponsible abandon, why is it so important to you that we continue to sanction the cosmetic genital mutilation of little babies?
Ah yes, Men are too stupid to know what soap and condoms are, so the only solution is to cut off the perfectly healthy body parts of infants. You sound like a feminist.
Sorry I must be mistaking the hilariously higher quality of life outcomes like lower rates of penile cancer and lower std rates with soap and condoms. Circumcision in Africa reduced the HIV risk from intercourse by 51-60%. Almost every sti/std rate is reduced by 28% or more when the male is circumcised. Also condoms completely negate the extra sensitivity of the foreskin….
There is not a single good reason to do it at all, and so mutilating the genitals of defenseless infants who don't have a choice in order to make it easier on them later on is about as logical as dropping a nuke on a city full of people so they don't have to die of old age.
I would say dropping HIV and STI/STD risk by 28-60% is a pretty good reason.
Since we're throwing around pedophile accusations with such irresponsible abandon, why is it so important to you that we continue to sanction the cosmetic genital mutilation of little babies?
Are you saying calling John Money a pedophile is “irresponsible abandon”? I would say citing any work done by him and his ilk without providing that caveat is the irresponsible abandon…
Circumcision achieves nothing that abstinence, condoms and regularly washing your genitalia with soap does not.
Comparing people who oppose mutilating the genitals of defenseless infants to a pedophile like John Money is not just irresponsible: it is ludicrous and fundamentally dishonest. You are not arguing in good faith.
Circumcision achieves nothing that abstinence, condoms and regularly washing your genitalia with soap does not.
That would be incorrect, you still run a far higher chance of penile cancer and worse health outcomes even if you were to be celibate your entire life.
Comparing people who oppose mutilating the genitals of defenseless infants to a pedophile like John Money is not just irresponsible: it is ludicrous and fundamentally dishonest. You are not arguing in good faith.
I’m sorry, the same people claiming trauma from circumcision using John moneys studies? It’s funny how you keep talking in circles while still not acknowledging that the “trauma” studies were hilariously fraudulent and pushed by the same collective of “scientists”.
Did you know the highest rates of STDs in America come from uncircumcised people (black/Hispanic)? Africa is used because it showcases impact despite lifestyle choice, which is far harder to prove in America since the question was begged after the procedure was normalized. You know, basic scientific method and such.
Ah yes, Men are too stupid to know what soap and condoms are, so the only solution is to cut off the perfectly healthy body parts of infants. You sound like a feminist.
You say that like it changes something.
There is not a single good reason to do it at all, and so mutilating the genitals of defenseless infants who don't have a choice in order to make it easier on them later on is about as logical as dropping a nuke on a city full of people so they don't have to die of old age.
Since we're throwing around pedophile comparisons with such irresponsible abandon, why is it so important to you that we continue to sanction the cosmetic genital mutilation of little babies?
Sorry I must be mistaking the hilariously higher quality of life outcomes like lower rates of penile cancer and lower std rates with soap and condoms. Circumcision in Africa reduced the HIV risk from intercourse by 51-60%. Almost every sti/std rate is reduced by 28% or more when the male is circumcised. Also condoms completely negate the extra sensitivity of the foreskin….
I would say dropping HIV and STI/STD risk by 28-60% is a pretty good reason.
Are you saying calling John Money a pedophile is “irresponsible abandon”? I would say citing any work done by him and his ilk without providing that caveat is the irresponsible abandon…
Circumcision achieves nothing that abstinence, condoms and regularly washing your genitalia with soap does not.
Comparing people who oppose mutilating the genitals of defenseless infants to a pedophile like John Money is not just irresponsible: it is ludicrous and fundamentally dishonest. You are not arguing in good faith.
That would be incorrect, you still run a far higher chance of penile cancer and worse health outcomes even if you were to be celibate your entire life.
I’m sorry, the same people claiming trauma from circumcision using John moneys studies? It’s funny how you keep talking in circles while still not acknowledging that the “trauma” studies were hilariously fraudulent and pushed by the same collective of “scientists”.
good thing we're not in africa
Did you know the highest rates of STDs in America come from uncircumcised people (black/Hispanic)? Africa is used because it showcases impact despite lifestyle choice, which is far harder to prove in America since the question was begged after the procedure was normalized. You know, basic scientific method and such.
doesn't excuse the industrial mutilation of baby boys on a daily basis.
Africa has a rape problem, not a lack-of-circumcision problem.
Funny, because circumcision did more to lower hiv spread than rape condoms