It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Circumcising kids or altering them hormonally. Which is worse and why?

page: 6
4
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 9 2017 @ 01:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Do you know it's more costly than treating cervical cancer?
There are already clinicians on site, simple cut and clean isn't it, could be loads cheaper than cervical cancer care.

You asked why they would not do it, I gave a plausible answer. I don't know the exact figures. Most of the time preventative care is actually more expensive.

www.reuters.com...




posted on May, 9 2017 @ 02:00 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Yep I appreciated your reply.
I'm just thinking budgets and mortality rates, and I wonder at the majority of developed world not advocating cutting thing.
Conspiracy then yeah?



posted on May, 9 2017 @ 02:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: jkm1864

Actually the clitoris is a small undeveloped penis which would grow into a penis with hormonal therapy so saying it has more nerve endings is kind of dumb.


The sad part is you totally missed my point and had to comment on only this...but any how, a simple Google search would do wonders for you..



The clitoris contains at least 8,000 sensory nerve endings. To put that into perspective, the penis has about 4,000. That makes this tiny area the most sensitive part of a woman’s erogenous zone.


I wonder who is feeling find of stupid right now...



posted on May, 9 2017 @ 08:33 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Correct.



posted on May, 9 2017 @ 08:39 PM
link   
While it does carry religious overtones, male circumcision is also a healthier secular choice. The extra folds of skin can harbor disease that would infect the female partner's vagina, and the extra blood vessels on the male foreskin are susceptible to sexually transmitted diseases from the partner. The less skin, the less likely to get infected.

Female circumcision however has no purpose I am aware of except to destroy sexual gratification for the female.



posted on May, 10 2017 @ 06:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Yep I appreciated your reply.
I'm just thinking budgets and mortality rates, and I wonder at the majority of developed world not advocating cutting thing.
Conspiracy then yeah?

I think it's less a conspiracy and more money > all else.



posted on May, 10 2017 @ 06:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Anyone who equates the two is a true fool.



posted on May, 10 2017 @ 07:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
The extra folds of skin can harbor disease that would infect the female partner's vagina, and the extra blood vessels on the male foreskin are susceptible to sexually transmitted diseases from the partner. The less skin, the less likely to get infected.


In a way though this could be turned around as the vagina is also composed of different folds "so to speak" of skin and is also susceptible to infections, mycosis etc...

I think that if a lady is able to maintain a correct hygiene when it comes to her genital organs then surely a male can maintain the same type of hygiene too no!?

Like I said in an earlier post, myself, my son and all male members of my family are unsnipped and have never experienced issues as we all maintain a high level of hygiene.

Warmest

Lags
edit on 10-5-2017 by Lagomorphe because: Word added



posted on May, 10 2017 @ 07:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Lagomorphe

Actually it's quite possible you DID experience problems and did not even know it. You can have HPV without knowing it.



posted on May, 10 2017 @ 07:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Lagomorphe

Actually it's quite possible you DID experience problems and did not even know it. You can have HPV without knowing it.


Like snipped guys too although of course a little higher risk in unsnipped : www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Warmest

Lags



posted on May, 10 2017 @ 07:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Lagomorphe

Yes, being cut offers protection.

No one is suggesting if you are not circumcised you automatically have problems and you never will if you are.

It's merely being pointed out being circumcised does convey a health benefit both to men and their partners.



posted on May, 10 2017 @ 08:19 AM
link   
Some of you are idiots and uniformed.

I'm an uncut male, 100% pure USDA GRADE A PLUS human being, unaltered and untouched.

Been healthy all my life, to include many 30 day field excercises in the Army, for all my active duty and veteran brothers and sisters, you already know.



posted on May, 10 2017 @ 08:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Lagomorphe

Yes, being cut offers protection.

No one is suggesting if you are not circumcised you automatically have problems and you never will if you are.

It's merely being pointed out being circumcised does convey a health benefit both to men and their partners.


I know Occams, I am just having a friendly prod at you...

Warmest

Lags



posted on May, 10 2017 @ 08:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Arnie123

What does uncut or cut have to do with your post? I fail to see the connection.



posted on May, 11 2017 @ 04:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
Yes, being cut offers protection.


It is an incidental benefit and a false economy. If you want protection, then wear a condom.

It's scrabbling around for excuses why something is good, when it is fundamentally bad.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join