Its became very political so researchers have backed down a little.
I spoke with a urologist. They said that 11 is a little old, but better than ever. he said that doesn't reccomend it on infants because the anestetic is bad for them. He also said a good amout of doctors do it on infants without anything to num the pain. that is a little much for me.
To keep things in prospetive, for most of the time that circumcisions have been done, no anestetic existed. All we knew was that boys had a birth defect and that they're better off without it.
He also said that the religions version only removes a little at the top, but the medicle one gives it the appearance of being diffrent colored on the top.
Being circumcised at 11
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
https://www.cancer.org/cancer/penile-cancer/causes-risks-prevention/prevention.html
--
techpc
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
That article literally says that it used to be a reason to recommend circumcision, and that studies/experts can go either way. Did you even read it?
--
tjenn90
2 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Its became very political so researchers have backed down a little.
I spoke with a urologist. They said that 11 is a little old, but better than ever. he said that doesn't reccomend it on infants because the anestetic is bad for them. He also said a good amout of doctors do it on infants without anything to num the pain. that is a little much for me.
To keep things in prospetive, for most of the time that circumcisions have been done, no anestetic existed. All we knew was that boys had a birth defect and that they're better off without it.
He also said that the religions version only removes a little at the top, but the medicle one gives it the appearance of being diffrent colored on the top.