| R. Steve Walz 2006-04-14, 1:02 am |
| Jake Waskett wrote:
>
> On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 02:28:13 +0000, Dr. Lipschitz wrote:
>
>
> Perhaps. The exact percentage is unknown.
----------------------
Whatever is presented that is inconvenient to you, you merely demand
impossible levels of proof. That is the "Disingenous XXXXXXX's Usenet
Gambit."
>
> You're a century or so out of date there.
---------------------------
No, you ignore India and China at your peril, go do the math and
eat shit.
>
> False. They advise against *routine* circumcision, but as for
-----------------------------
Pandering to minorities doesn't make it as science.
> elective circumcision, they endorse the conclusion of the AAP that: "In
> circumstances in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the
> procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents
> should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an
> informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and
> unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this
> decision. If a decision for circumcision is made, procedural analgesia
> should be provided. "
>
>
> Mildly.
----------------------
In other words they sucked up. That's not science.
>
> False. See above.
--------------------------
No, a good number of Europeans and others are NOT cowards and
toadies like the Brits and US MDs.
>
> Nonsense. Anyone truly against circumcision would say "don't do it", not
> "parents should be given information so that they can make an informed
> decision".
----------------------------
Not if they are suck-up toadies.
Steve
|