31% say they support RIC and 69% say they don't! Thats pretty cool!
Here is my letter to MSNBC:
Quote:
| Infants aren't sexually active! There is no compelling reason to cosmetically alter a newborns sexual organs to an arbitrary reductive surgery known as circumcision. The foreskin is a highly sophisticated organ that serves to protect the meatus (where the pee comes out) and the glans from soiled diapers and foreign pathogens. The foreskin is tightly adhered to the glans just like the fingernail is to the finger. It isn't fully retractable until after his diaper days and sometimes not until he reaches puberty and thats perfectly normal. Circumcision is barbaric. Try ripping off your fingernail and place a clamp on your wound for 5 to 10 minutes while telling yourself, "This is not medically necessary". With or without pain relief, babies can feel that. More newborns die from complications during a circumcision than the .01 percent of men who might get penial cancer! Circumcised or not, there is no substitute for condom use. Females have a higher rate of UTI and other infections than her intact male peers and no one is suggesting to cut bits off her. Why? Because the American Medical Curriculum teaches how to care for an intact female while it only tells physicians how to amputate perfectly healthy tissue on newborn boys. Medical books only show pictures of circumcised males, even in utero! Medical students are brainwashed into thinking the foreskin is gross and ugly. This is beyond discrimination, this is ignorance and bigoted behavior! Circumcision is a human rights issue. Every child has an inherited right to an intact body. We should all keep our noses out of our children's future sex life! |
I should have wrote organ instead of tissue. Oh well, if I niced picked on my own writing all the time I'd never send anything in. I sort of did this one quicly anyways. Thanks for sharing the article.
I did not like this:
Quote:
| The findings were based on two trials in Africa involving more than 7,500 men and were halted early because the preliminary results were so striking. |
The studies were halted because of its methodically flaws and it was inconclusive. Their results had overly optimistic conclusions which means they stopped this study when they had what they wanted the study to show. This was their agenda to begin with. The push came to shove when the pro-circ's got worried about the drastic decline in circumcisions. I read an OB got angry about America funding circumcisions over seas but would not fund it here. He wanted to get paid more I guess.
:
: 
It is so amazing how a decision can empower someone!
DS2:
DD
: 
: 
ABSOLUTELY! I was just thinking the same thing!!!
