Quote:
Originally Posted by moeloubani
Poor you, can't even do a little research. All you know how to do is read the first line on a page and make assumptions based on that? Do you know what compelling evidence means when someone says it in the scientific community? It always is based on scientific studies. Always.
http://www.who.int/hiv/pub/malecircu.../en/index.html
And you're right about the condom protecting more than circumcision but the condom isn't as good as circumcision + condom. Sorry to break it to you but hard facts prove you to be wrong. Good parents will do things to give their children an advantage in life - not a disadvantage. Circumcision gives an advantage. This is fact. Accept it, accept that you're wrong and move on.
You started out saying it wasn't generally accepted that circumcision protected against STDs. You were wrong. Now you're just trying to dig yourself out of the hole you're in by saying more things that are just stupid and make no sense.You were wrong. It happens. Get over it. |
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Mark Twain
I believe the real core of the issue isn't if circumcision protects against STDs or not. That's simply the rationalization for the procedure.
The issue is doing major body modification on babies.
An adult modifying their body is fine, it's a personal choice. Wanna put a Prince Albert on your cock? Go ahead. Split it like a sausage? Hey, be happy. Chop it off? Rock on.
But subjecting a defenseless, helpless child to such a major procedure when the kid does not even possess the ability to wipe their own ass is at best misguided.
What's the big deal of letting the kid grow up and then make the decision for himself?