or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Msnbc This Morning - Page 2

post #21 of 99
i voted...the article brings up the New Zealand study - my personal pet peeve. I wrote the editor of MSNBC no less than 7 times with the link of the author's retraction - telling them to stop headlining that study..so I got to write again. the study is debunked - it should not be getting any more press. I do believe the journalists actually believe that if a study has been published, its TRUTH. They don't seem to understand that publishing only opens it up to peer review - and then follow up is needed....

anyway - I do like the way the poll is worded on the negative side - even summed up the argument that we don't cut off any other healthy body parts to prevent disease.
post #22 of 99
It was 51% against when I just voted.
post #23 of 99
post #24 of 99
It's 48/52 (yes winning)

I did notice that circers CAN'T agree on why but intactivists CAN. Yay go us!! We are united!! (72% of intactivists said ALL, whereas the circers 45% said health reasons, 43% said all, 5.4% conformity, 3.4 said religion)
post #25 of 99
I just voted, but procirc is leading now 52% Yikes!
post #26 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Treece View Post
It's 48/52 (yes winning)

I did notice that circers CAN'T agree on why but intactivists CAN. Yay go us!! We are united!! (72% of intactivists said ALL, whereas the circers 45% said health reasons, 43% said all, 5.4% conformity, 3.4 said religion)
they are just trying to make themselves feel better by saying its 'medical'.. I don't believe that at all. they use dubious medical reasons to justify being conformist. imho :
post #27 of 99
post #28 of 99
Oh no, we are down to 47%! Come on, Vote!
post #29 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by A&A View Post
"However, recent studies have prompted the group (the AAP) to review its policy on circumcision, with a decision expected within the next several months on whether changes need to be made."

And listen to the crap spewed by the AAP prez:

"These studies are just the latest to point to circumcision’s potential health benefits, says AAP president Dr. Jay E. Berkelhamer.
“There have probably been hundreds over the years showing that circumcised males have lower rates of urinary tract infections, penile cancer and a variety of STDs, including HIV,” says Berkelhamer."
I wonder if these "recent studies", of which there have "probably been hundreds" have been done on properly cared for intact penises - or on penises that have been traumatized by ignorant medical professionals who can't resist retracting a still-fused foreskin. ARRGH!!
post #30 of 99
i voted!
post #31 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Storm Bride View Post
I wonder if these "recent studies", of which there have "probably been hundreds" have been done on properly cared for intact penises - or on penises that have been traumatized by ignorant medical professionals who can't resist retracting a still-fused foreskin. ARRGH!!
And what's the "probably" all about? Is he just pulling a number ("hundreds") out of his rear-end?
post #32 of 99
I just voted. Now it is 55 Yes/45 No.
post #33 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Storm Bride View Post
I wonder if these "recent studies", of which there have "probably been hundreds" have been done on properly cared for intact penises - or on penises that have been traumatized by ignorant medical professionals who can't resist retracting a still-fused foreskin. ARRGH!!

and some of these studies - including some quoted in the article, have not held up under peer review, but are still being touted as proof of medical benefits. things don't look good from the AAP perspective. i feel so sorry for these US boys - and for us as a society as well.
post #34 of 99
“If it was something that was clearly beneficial such as immunizations, I’d agree that parents have the right to make the decision,” says Reiss, “but God made man with a foreskin for a reason.”

Oh well, I guess we all have our blind spots.


...The voting is fast and furious!
I went back to do it again, and see whether the number went up to be sure it was counted. Uh... the number went up by 18 in the few seconds it took me to go back and do it again.
post #35 of 99
I voted! bump!
post #36 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by A&A View Post
And what's the "probably" all about? Is he just pulling a number ("hundreds") out of his rear-end?
Yes.
post #37 of 99
UUUgghh.
What an annoying article in many ways...

Ok, did anyone see the pros/cons comparison... HORRIBLE, and sited from the AAP

And how the internet is rife with incorrect information by intactivists... just for once I'd like to know WHAT information is so incorrect and be able to respond- but no one ever says what the 'bad information' is.

And then the Gay Men's Health medical website that was on a recent post... argh, now that's some BAD information (clean w/ antibacterial soap) Yikes.

Jessica
post #38 of 99
"No" is down to 44%.

(If you close your browser and then re-open your browser, you can vote multiple times.)

I keep going back and forth between the voting page and this page:

http://www.tampontification.com/donate.php
post #39 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by sweetfiend View Post
MSNBC has an article about the controversy surrounding circ this morning and it comes with a poll! I was the first vote! Exciting to see that 100% against, until I realized it was only little ol' me.
Let's all vote together.
post #40 of 99
Unfortunately, this article is pretty biased. It all but leaves out information on the foreskin sexual function, particularly glaring is the ommission of that information in the side bar on disadvantages to circ.

In addition it makes the "protection" from AIDS sound way too positive. It ignores the qualifications of the protection.

It is no wonder to me that many people are still strongly in favor of circ. We still have a long way to go in just getting unbiased information out there.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Understanding Circumcision