Circumcision to be banned in San Francisco

Status
Not open for further replies.
Gotta say, it still weirds me out how prevalent this apparently is in the United States.
 
I stopped reading after:

"Other studies on penile sensitivity did not include testing the sensitivity of the foreskin. They were also subject to cultural bias, flawed testing methods, small number of subjects, or involved men who had penile medical problems."

My father was was an atheist medical doctor when he made the decision, and he decided not to have to procedure done on my brother. When I asked him why a few years ago he said:
"I don't really remember. I wish I had gone through with it though."

Sounds to me like you didn't have a good reason to stop reading, unless you didn't want to hear the truth.

I like how half of those were from an obviously biased website.

Check this out: Study

"Only 18% of the patients complained about loss of/or altered penile sensation, whereas 38% found better sensation (p = 0.01). "

"Sixty-one percent were satisfied with the circumcision (p = 0.04)."

The Majority are happy with their circumcision.

Obviously biased website?:lol:

The study you provide comes from the same website as one of the studies I cited.

You also left out these bits of info:

Only 13% reported improvement in premature ejaculation, whereas 33% found it worse.

The great majority of the men in this study had benign disease of the prepuce. The before and after comparison for most of the men compares the condition of having a diseased prepuce to the condition of having no prepuce. This study does not indicate the comparison of the condition having a healthy prepuce to the condition of having a no prepuce.]

So the men in this study had problems with a diseased/malfunctioning foreskin beforehand. Not really a good comparison, is it?

Also misses the point that children shouldn't be mutilated without their consent.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom