| 'Study: Male Circumcision Healthy...For Women' | Login/Create an Account | 20 comments |
Search Discussion
|
|
|
|
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
Mensactivism.org is not responsible for them in any way.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And the feminists will have a holiday with this one because it blames uncircumcised men for cervical cancer. Of course, later in the article, it also says that there are mitigating factors, such as use of a condom and hygiene. but I especially like Ron Goldman's quote near the end of the article: “Cutting off a normal healthy functioning body part to prevent an unlikely disease or infection would be like pulling healthy teeth to prevent tooth decay.” Methinks Goldman missed the point: the REAL problem isn't the foreskin; it's the entire penis! (he said in jest)
|
|
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
what if country A is in a poor economic state. as such, they don't have the doctors to perform the circumcisions nor the medical vigilance to prevent HPV. now consider country B which is in a relatively rich economic state. they circumcise often due to societal standards and they have otherwise pristine medical care.
if i were to take a statistical survey of these nations, i'd "find" that uncircumcised men cause an increase of cervical cancer. poo poo on that logic, new england journal of medicine. has the clammy grasp of fallacious logic held you so tight?
From propaganda101.com
It is common for arguments to conclude that one thing causes another. But the
relation between cause and effect is a complex one. It is easy to make a mistake.
In general, we say that a cause C is the cause of an effect E if and only if:
(i) Generally, if C occurs, then E will occur, and
(ii) Generally, if C does not occur, then E will not occur ether.
We say "generally" because there are always exceptions. For example:
We say that striking the match causes the match to light, because:
(i) Generally, when the match is struck, it lights (except when the match is dunked in water), and
(ii) Generally, when the match is not struck, it does not light (except when it is lit with a blowtorch).
Many writers also require that a causal statement be supported with a natural law. For example, the statement that "striking the match causes it to light" is supported by the principle that "friction produces heat, and heat produces fire".
The following are causal fallacies:
Post Hoc (Because one thing follows another, it is held to cause the other)
Joint Effect (A purported cause and effect are both the effects of a joint cause)
Insignificant (The purported cause is insignificant compared to others)
Wrong Direction (The direction between cause and effect is reversed)
Complex Cause (The cause identified is only part of the entire cause)
|
|
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
While the New England Journal of Medicine is at it, why don't they just go on to say "Women whose partner's sex organs were removed were 100% less likely to have an unwanted pregnancy than women whose partner's sex organs were intact."
The entire world has become one large male-bashing joke.
"Stereotypes are devices that save a biased person the trouble of learning."
|
|
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday April 11, @12:33PM EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
Studies show that sterilized women cannot become pregnant and give birth against a man's will, leading to less clinical depression and suicide in men. Therefore, all women should be sterilized at birth.
Why not? It's as logical as the "circumcise men for women's health" argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The risk for death in doing a circumcsion is 124 in 100,000. Does anyone know the risk for death in papilomma related cervical cancer? I'd bet fifties to doughnuts the circ risk is higher...
the Volksgaren Project: Intelligent Abuse Recovery, http://clix.to/support/, jaxom@amtelecom.net, 519-773-9644
|
|
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This seems a little backward. What is the ratio for carrying HPV between circumcised and uncurcumcised men who have not had multiple partners? It seems to me it is not the foreskin (or lack thereof) which is the controlling factor here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Did any of these researchers take into account the females personal hygiene habits in regard to regular douches?
The last time I went to Europe I noticed that the standard of personal hygiene between women there and here is completely different.
This could be the real culprit in the cause of cervical cancer. But of course the "mind set" is to blame anything negative that happens to the precious female gender just has to be linked to men in someway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually the removal of a basic part of the male genitals does make sense. So does a removal of a basic part of the female genitals.
The vagina is a far more fertile breeding grounds for disease than the males' foreskin.
By both those reasonings, why not just remove both genders' genitals?
|
|
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This
| Parent
]
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
