[ ARC forum 2 ]

Re: UTI's

Written by Rood at 21 Dec 2002 15:28:16:

As an answer to: More than a Little over the Top written by Ivan at 21 Dec 2002 04:48:07:

>>If anything, it has the same import as a memo from Herr Goebbels to the Auschwitz administration regarding a perceived flaw in the efficacy of the gas generators.
>I'm strongly against RIC, and generally think nearly all circumcisions of even adults are unwarranted, and I thoroughly agree that RIC is a gross violation of human rights, but it is quite excessive to compare circumcision to execution. Even if there were no cultural antecedents for RIC, and even if there were no arguments for a medical value to RIC (and of course, to the extent that there are, such as the UTI incidence in the 1st year, they are greatly overwhelmed by


The incidence of UTI's in the first year of life has virtually nothing to do with circumcision status. In studies conducted in 1998 and published in "Lancet", the differences proved to be statistically insignificant. The myth of a connection between the foreskin and UTI's was promulgated by one Thomas E Wiswell, a rabid circumcisionist. Female babies, for instance, get UTI's at far greater rates than male babies, and you don't hear anyone advocating surgery for them. UTI's can be treated advantageously with antibiotics and virtually prevented by breast feeding, proper hygiene and a healthy diet.

the negatives and the essential violation of rights), it still is quite a leap to equate RIC and systematic sustained mass murder. We weaken our position by such rhetorical extravagances. I know it seemed like a keen comparison, but the difference is so vast as to leave one aghast.


Answers: