Quote:
Originally Posted by wretched34
I mean, you could ask?
Isn't that what they are trying to prove? That circumcision has a lasting effect on a person?
So how does an MRI proving they react to physical stimuli, and the brain changed due too a traumatic experience actually relate back to the circumcision itself 20 years later, when the adult male has no recollection of the actual "traumatic event".
If the whole point of the study is to prove an adverse effect to the procedure later in life, why not target all the angry men who feel they've been mutilated against their will to more substantially prove a point, rather than cause more trauma to an infant, with no way to prove adverse effects?
|
Seems to make sense to have a baseline to me, maybe they will go and revisit later in life and see if there is a difference. I'm not the one conducting the study here so I'm just spitballing, the same as you.
Again, it is a bit ironic you are worried about the "additional trauma" that adds a bit to what that baby is about to face already, for no real reason. If there was such evidence for the benefits wouldn't the rest of the world be onboard?