Present and Future Mothers: Circumcise your sons or not? WITH POLL
- Thread starter B_Bette
- Start date
SteveHd said:
are you freaking kidding????? I chose Fl because i just felt like it.....man you people are something else
Nothing is irrefutable. The scandal of medicine in North America is the linking of foreskins with every imaginable (incurable) disease for the last hundred and fifty years. In Marked in Your Flesh by Leonard Glick, his meta-analysis of all circ related research shows no statistical difference in longevity between cut and intact males.baseball99 said:
Meanwhile, those with their sensory organs intact enjoy a richer sexual experience through life. Even if there was a trade-off, I'd gamble a few years for that.
RIC is not a disease problem. Babies are not at risk for sexually transmitted diseases, AT ALL. Circumcision complications BEGIN with life around here. RIC is a social problem.
SteveHd said:
You're interested you do the math. I dont care to because again, i said i wouldnt recommend it.....are you having a hard time understanding that?
dxjnorto said:
Lots of things are irrefutable......if you have a serious myocardial infarct (hear attack) and receive TPA or anticoagultion therapy within a given amount of time your chance of survival increases....that is irrefutable no matter how small the number of people who survive is, the CHANCE increases.....its irrefutable
also, i didnt mention anything about longevity.....morbidity (even tho i didnt mention that either.....before you come up with some stupid claim that i did) is totally differet from longevity or mortality
SteveHd said:
909 according to Christakis DA, Harvey E, Zerr DM, et al.: A trade-off analysis of routine newborn circumcision. Pediatrics 105 (1 Pt 3): 246-9, 2000.
Happy? Why you were so adamant about a moot point is beyond me but if you really want a more in depth answer you can feel free to look it up yourself?
And just to put it into perspective for shits and giggles.....it takes 1500 vaccinations of polio to prevent one case
Yeah? and what does this have to do with cutting babies?baseball99 said:
So just cut out as much mucosa as possible for protection? Does this apply to vaginas? If it is irrefutable it certainly does.baseball99 said:
In noncircumcising cultures almost everyone prefers the sex organs they are born with.
As usual, the manyfold risks of lifestyle factors trump the risks you list every time. And as per usual, non-invasive protection is not cruel and debilitating to babies and the men they will become. Nor does it presume that they prefer some supposed, perhaps real, but very negligible protection of surgical scarring (which presupposes that they won't be able to make healthy sexual lifestyle choices in adolescence and adulthood.) Since almost no one would prefer this, we have to be socialized to prefer a cicatrix over having the full realization and use of our sex organs in adulthood.
As a medical pro, why do you conflate genital cutting and vaccination?baseball99 said:
Okay, but presuming you were trying to make a point, what do they have to do with each other?baseball99 said:
Attached is a picture of a guy named Jarett Fox that invisibleman posted a link to in the thread of the same name. He's a nice looking guy with a nice penis.
But it is difficult to fathom why any reasoning person would prefer the tight scar he shows to the elastic erogenous tissue that he lost through no fault of his own. Is it reasonable to believe that his scar will make him safer from STDs?
I reject Mattbrick's notion that there are two kinds of penises. Sure you make the best of what you've got (left), but there's only one kind of penis. That is the one you were born with.
Attachments
SteveHd said:
really? all vaccines are given to older children? last i remember some vaccines are given veryvery early...... but of course im sure you know better
SteveHd said:
by the way.....i do get a kick how you jump topics.....so adamant i post the number of circumcisions required to prevent penile cancer and when i finally do you shut up about it.....entertaining
Shut up about it!? You think that's fucking reasonable?!
Anyway, it's a rather meaningless statistical construct. The number of deaths from circ every year far exceeds the mortality from penile cancer. There's a couple dozen in the paper every year in South Africa alone. Not so many make the papers in North America--out of court settlements and gag orders being what they are.
Anyway, it's a rather meaningless statistical construct. The number of deaths from circ every year far exceeds the mortality from penile cancer. There's a couple dozen in the paper every year in South Africa alone. Not so many make the papers in North America--out of court settlements and gag orders being what they are.
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2006
- Posts
- 1,424
- Media
- 6
- Likes
- 319
- Points
- 403
- Location
- South Pacific
- Verification
- View
- Sexuality
- 100% Gay, 0% Straight
- Gender
- Male
The question was:
How many babies would you cut to save one hypothetical man from penis cancer, which is a treatable disease of old age?
The question wasn't "how many circumcisons would it take...?" it was "how many babies would you cut...?"
You could treat an awful lot of cases of penile cancer (which is rarer than BREAST cancer in MEN) and a whole lot of other diseases in the time you were cutting those other 908 babies. You'd also be saving those babies from the considerable risks and the inevitable losses of circumcision.
Polio vaccinations are a good deal quicker and cheaper and less harmful and more effective, so there really isn't any comparison.
How many babies would you cut to save one hypothetical man from penis cancer, which is a treatable disease of old age?
baseball99 said:
The question wasn't "how many circumcisons would it take...?" it was "how many babies would you cut...?"
You could treat an awful lot of cases of penile cancer (which is rarer than BREAST cancer in MEN) and a whole lot of other diseases in the time you were cutting those other 908 babies. You'd also be saving those babies from the considerable risks and the inevitable losses of circumcision.
Polio vaccinations are a good deal quicker and cheaper and less harmful and more effective, so there really isn't any comparison.
dxjnorto said:
interestingly i bolded where the previous research articles were published in that other post.....i made sure to get a couple from US and a few from the rest of the world
and the "shut up about it" was about no longer referring to it.....learn to read
Similar threads
