Might have something to do with you broadcasting your "decisions" to the world on the Internets. |
Hey, I am 100 percent comfortable with my (non) decision to leave my children as they were born. Are you so comfortable with yours? |
1,000 percent, because mine is based in fact. My husband is behind me, laughing at you. Thanks for the fun start to our day! |
Are you this delusional in other areas of your life too? |
BTW, while you are reading up on circumcision, you might also want to take a remedial class in math so that you can better understand percentages. |
New pp here. I think you are crazy as well and just showed my DH the thread and your post and he thinks you are insane. Keep on spewing your bullshit lady. Whatever gets you through the day. |
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-57497265-10391704/declining-circumcision-rates-may-add-$4-billion-in-u.s-health-care-costs-researchers-say/ CBS News -- Circumcision rates in the United States have been falling among newborn males. Recent CDC figures show the circumcision rate fell from nearly 63 percent of newborn boys in the U.S. in 1999 to about 55 percent in 2010. But, back in the 1970s through the 1980s, circumcision rates were stable at about 79 percent of baby boys. The procedure has been tied to health benefits, including reduced risk for infections or sexually transmitted diseases like HIV. Now, a group of researchers from Johns Hopkins University say the declining male circumcision (MC) rates may be contributing to an uptick in medical problems, adding billions of dollars in additional U.S. health care costs. German doctors asked to cease circumcisions until court ruling clarified Circumcision tied to lower prostate cancer risk Circumcision rates slipping, says CDC: Why? "Our economic evidence is backing up what our medical evidence has already shown to be perfectly clear," study author Dr. Aaron Tobian, an assistant professor of epidemiology and pathology at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, said in a written statement. "There are health benefits to infant male circumcision in guarding against illness and disease, and declining male circumcision rates come at a severe price, not just in human suffering, but in billions of health care dollars as well." But what does HE know? He's only a doctor. |
Oh WOW...ONE doctor? Thats just overwhelming evidence for me. You know, I had a doctor once who prescribed me wrong meds and I had to go to the hospital. Apparently he did this with many other patients as well and ended up committing suicide due to all his malpractice lawsuits. I mean I guess no one should have questioned him though be he IS (or was) a doctor ![]() |
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-57395293-10391704/circumcision-tied-to-lower-prostate-cancer-risk/
Circumcision tied to lower prostate cancer risk (CBS News) To circumcise or not to circumcise? New research suggests circumcision may protect against prostate cancer, adding a new reported benefit to the procedure. Circumcision can help prevent inflammation and infection, including sexually transmitted infections that may cause prostate cancer, the study found. For the study, researchers tested about 3,400 men and found that men who had been circumcised before their first sexual intercourse were 15 percent less likely to develop prostate cancer than uncircumcised men. The study, led by researchers at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, is published in the journal Cancer. |
Let's take a look at some actual research in peer reviewed journals, shall we? You know, instead of linking to news articles. Here's one to get started (someone else posted this on the other thread):
From Pediatrics, the Journal of the AAP. "only 1 of the arguments put forward by the American Academy of Pediatrics has some theoretical relevance in relation to infant male circumcision; namely, the possible protection against urinary tract infections in infant boys, which can easily be treated with antibiotics without tissue loss. The other claimed health benefits, including protection against HIV/AIDS, genital herpes, genital warts, and penile cancer, are questionable, weak, and likely to have little public health relevance in a Western context, and they do not represent compelling reasons for surgery before boys are old enough to decide for themselves." http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/earl.../03/12/peds.2012-2896.abstract |
Yep. 100%. I was there for the circumcision. I know it did not cause my child pain or any damage. |
Male circumcision isn't acceptable just because it is "done as a covenant with God." This woman believed that her religion supported tatttooing her 3 year old son. Most of us would find that troubling. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/31/mother-tattoo-son_n_2591132.html. |
Glad that you are that confident. If the anesthesia and pain killers were appropriate I can see that your statement that it didn't cause pain may be accurate, but please don't kid yourself that it didn't cause damage. Your child's penis is no longer complete - part of it has been removed and it is scarred. Of course it caused damage. Obviously you think this damage is justifiable but don't kid yourself that it didn't cause damage to his body. If you meant emotional damage, that's an entire other topic. |
No anesthesia or pain killers. Just a little sweet ease. No scaring, either. He had an excellent doctor do the procedure. And no emotional damage. It is quite normal and appropriate. Really. People like you are so over the top and dramatic. My husband (who happens to be a doctor) insisted on it. He has taken care of some patients with some very nasty infections and other issues due to not being circumcised. |
How can you cut of skin and not have scarring? Was the procedure done by a magic unicorn, also, and rainbows came out when it was done? |