I guess you didn't read my article thoroughly. All studies that have suggested that circumcision prevents or reduces STD's like HIV have been dismissed by medical authorities. It's not true.
The Council on Scientific Affairs of the American Medical Association says that ``circumcision cannot be responsibly viewed as `protecting' against such infections."
The American Medical Association also said, "The leading international statement of medical ethics is the European Convention on Human Rights and Bioethics, where Article 20(1) prohibits non-therapeutic tissue removal from those who do not have the capacity to consent. Children have a right to the protection of the security of their person and to protection from degrading treatment. Circumcision violates those human rights. Several authorities report that circumcision degrades the erectile function of the penis. Circumcision, therefore, must be regarded as degrading treatment. Degrading treatment is an additional violation of human rights."
So according to the highest international ethics standards circumcision violates a baby's human rights.
That's why it should be illegal. Case closed!
Michael Mooney
www.michaelmooney.net
www.medibolics.com
--- In
Peckers_Pics@yahoogroups.com, stanley blanc <butch_blanc@...> wrote:
>
> There are other infections and diseases that circumcision prevents or reduces.
>
> This issue has more than a few medical views/opinions on it.
>
> Also bacteria can hide in an uncircumsized foreskin and can be passed on to
> others or cause infection in the uncircumsized person himself.
>
> Als, why are gays now going to a right-wing typical American
> dictatorial method about doing something that parents should decide/
> That is whether it is a decision for medical or religious reasons.
>
> I am really getting fed up with hypocrisy.
> Yes and I mean especially from Americans whether gay or straight.
> Butch
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: medibolics_michael <michael@...>
> To:
Peckers_Pics@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Sat, April 2, 2011 11:55:10 PM
> Subject: [Peckers_Pics] Banning Circumcision
>
> Â
> OK guys, I researched this issue thoroughly and it turns out that circumcision
> DOES NOT reduce chances of HIV or STD infection. In fact, it increases them
> because foreskin produces immune factors like lysozymes that kill HIV and
> various invading organisms.
>
> Additionally, uncircumcised guys are about four times more sensitive than
> circumcised because circumcision removes the most sensitive parts of the organ
> and over 20,000 nerve ending.
>
> Lloyd Shofeld is putting banning circumcision on the ballot in San Francisco. I
> am proposing we echo his bill in West Hollywood. Stop mutilating baby boys!
>
> To read the full story
> see:
http://wehonews.com/z/wehonews/archive/page.php?articleID=5792.>
> This article is fully referenced from the published medical literature. This is
> not someone's opinion. I formed my opinion after reading several dozen studies.
>
> Michael Mooney
> www.michaelmooney.net
> www.medibolics.com
>
> Moderator: Thanks Michael. I notice you change on this from time to time.
> Michael, you know that many of your opinions i research and formed new opinion
> and even Amer. Mewdical Assoc has taken a different stance that agrees with you,
> etc. Some items have nopt been agreed to. Yes i know about corruption, etc....
> However, i have read huge studies that show different opinions on circumcision.
> 1st of all, countries and ethnic that lead in HIV ingection, are usually
> un-circumcised.
>
>
> However, I believe that some have a genetic make up that prevents infection
> (immunity). That is why so many guys in a long term relationship have found 1 of
> the 2 infected. So mnay of these cases demonstrate that these are couples who
> had 1 of 2 partners unknowingly carrying HIV for 1 or more decades, while the
> other partner, never tested positive. i have read hundreds, perhaps thousands of
> explanations.
>
>
> Personally, if i had a new born son, i would not have him circumsized as it is
> painful, trumatic, etc.... to the infact. However, i repect religious
> consideration, etc.... I am not making blanket statement of what one should do.
>
>
> ....jake
>
No comments:
Post a Comment