 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Circumcision: pros and cons
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: frogprince Date: 18 Oct 05 - 11:09 PM One reaction to the Japan-based "anecdote"; how many males do any of you know who remember all the penises they've seen in that kind of detail? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: dianavan Date: 18 Oct 05 - 11:30 PM I don't want to speak for Littlehawk, but I took his comment to mean that when a baby cries during circumcision it would be easy to attribute the crying to something other than the pain, since the baby cannot speak. I too, wonder how parents can listen to their child cry as a result of a mutilation that they sanction. Anyone who says that it doesn't hurt the baby is in denial. As far as AIDS being related to the uncircumcised, why aren't the older generation effected? They aren't circumcised. You'll have to come up with better evidence than a map to prove a link to AIDS. The facts are on the table and people can choose according to their own conscience at this point. In the future, I am sure we will outlaw circumcision as a barbaric tradition. Until then, you can soothe your conscience any way you want. Personally, I think it is personal choice that should be made by the individual and nobody else. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: Clinton Hammond Date: 18 Oct 05 - 11:33 PM "In the future, I am sure we will outlaw circumcision as a barbaric tradition." Holy crap on a cracker I HOPE so! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: GUEST,Reactionary Date: 19 Oct 05 - 06:49 AM I've heard about some angry uprisings, where disaffected gangs of circumcised youths in Brooklyn are wreaking violent revenge on their circumcisers.There is a film about this - 'Boyz With No Hood'. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: *daylia* Date: 19 Oct 05 - 07:36 AM LOL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: *daylia* Date: 19 Oct 05 - 07:45 AM PS - from the link about male circumsion in Japan, where the surgery (oh yeah ... there is a difference between surgery and mutilation) is becoming more and more sought after- not only to curb the spread of diseases but because women are disgusted and repulsed by stinky-dinky. Plain and simple. There are astonishingly often essays (but no pictures!) on "tight foreskin" or "covered penis" (hokei) with the message that this is a problem for hygiene and the women detest the dirtyness Hear hear! And thank you for sharing your experiences, Mrzzy. All the best to you and your sons. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: *daylia* Date: 19 Oct 05 - 08:02 AM ANd re infant crying after circumcision: infants scream for a minute or two at the hospital during the surgery. The area is still tender for a day or so afterwards, but not enough to cause excessive crying. And after that, the only "pain" is suffered by the person changing the baby's diaper, who must learn how to wrap a tiny bit of medicated gauze around a slippery area about half the size of your smallest fingernail, tight enough so it won't rub off and loose enough so it doesn't cause pain. THe incision heals completely in about two weeks. And after that, the only related "pains" can avoided completely by ignoring the rants of misinformed third parties. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: Ebbie Date: 19 Oct 05 - 11:57 AM Is Michelangelo's David circumsized? Enough said. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: *daylia* Date: 19 Oct 05 - 12:34 PM Looks kinda hard to tell |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: frogprince Date: 19 Oct 05 - 12:43 PM I don't think so; and he would have a helluva time peeling that back to wash it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: Judge Mental Date: 19 Oct 05 - 12:56 PM Is Michelangelo's David circumsized? Enough said. Whether or not the representation of the penis on the statue is circumcized says more about Michelangelo than it does about David. The biblical King David would most certainly have been. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: Ebbie Date: 19 Oct 05 - 02:57 PM Good point, Judge. (no pun intended *G*) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: GUEST,Art Thieme Date: 19 Oct 05 - 03:13 PM Most pros are circumcised. Most cons aren't. That's it in a nutshell. Art |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: bobad Date: 19 Oct 05 - 10:42 PM What about those who are half cut? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: GUEST,*daylia* Date: 20 Oct 05 - 08:05 AM Half cut guys have to give it a bit more time and effort too. Aw. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: Peace Date: 20 Oct 05 - 02:47 PM William Shakespeare: Drink...provokes the desire, but it takes away the performance. Therefore much drink may be said to be an equivocator with lechery: it makes him and it mars him; it sets him on and it takes him off. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: GUEST,Visitor Date: 20 Oct 05 - 03:22 PM |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: GUEST,Visitor Date: 20 Oct 05 - 03:31 PM That dog of daylia was lucky not to get docked as a puppy, even aside from still having a tail to wag. After all, what dog would want to be living with someone who couldn't put up with a dog wagging its tail? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: GUEST,allie kiwi sans cookie Date: 21 Oct 05 - 06:54 AM I think if you live in a country/society where circumcision is considered the norm, then it may be quite difficult to see that others don't see why it should be the norm. New Zealand, where I live, had a 'bell curve' for circumcisions: prior to WW1 there were virtually none, and then post WW1 the number of cicumcisions rose dramatically (the tale is that the men in the desert furing the war had problems with sand where no man should have sand. Whether this is true or not I have no idea), so that by the 1960s approx 98% of men and boys were circumcised. Just as suddenly the rate of circumcision dropped. Now less than 5% of new born boys are circumcised. Doctors over here virtually won't do it unless there is a religious reason, or medical reason. I don't believe that 'I want him circumcised so he's like his father' is enough of a reason to cut it off. As the mother of a son who has a foreskin this poses a little bit of a problem. I never had one, my hubby is of the age where virtually everyone was circumcised so he doesn't have a foreskin (we have the reciept for when it was done - it cost £3 pounds). So... every so often I ponder when are you supposed to be able to pull it back to clean? Should it even pull back if you are only 6 years old? will it hurt if you attempt it at that age? And all that stuff that my husband can't answer. Anyway, I understand that there are still quite a number of cicumcisions done in Australia - in fact friends of mine have all had their sons circumcised and were puzzled when I was amazed that such a thing could be done in this day and age. So I suppose if you're having trouble tell a New Zealand from an Australia, you really only need to get him to drop his trousers and check. Allie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: GUEST,Pussy Date: 21 Oct 05 - 07:56 AM Yeah Visitor, you're right. She's such a bitch. Now she wants to get rid of me too! Said something about shedding. Or was it fleas? Or how I love jumping on her bed and licking her face after drinking from the toilet? And after all those half-digested bunnies I've left, just for her, right there in her boudoir too! Oh well. I won't miss that bitch either. Meow. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: michaelr Date: 21 Oct 05 - 08:06 PM Allie Kiwi, reread the thread. Your question about pulling it back to clean was answered quite a while ago. (Yes you can and should in most cases). Cheers, Michael |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: Little Hawk Date: 21 Oct 05 - 08:24 PM Ah, but if it were being done to female infants!!!! (and it is in some places...) Then you would hear the same voices here who approve it being done to males raising quite a hue and cry about it. Yes indeedy. It seems that there is a strong prejudice around these days in favour of seeing women as victims, but not men... Strange, isn't it? Must be an over-reaction to the past few thousand years of patriarchal rule, methinks. The most ironical part, as far as I'm concerned, is that we've probably all BEEN both male and female in various of our past incarnations...so why waste energy now on being prejudiced against either gender, just because you're stuck in one of them at the moment? * (those who do not believe in such stuff please just ignore that last paragraph...it'll save us both a lot of hot air if you do) ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: dianavan Date: 21 Oct 05 - 08:37 PM Littlehawk - Regardless of sex, ts easy to villify African customs and traditions but not as easy to condemn our own abusive customs and traditions. It seems to be a little easier to point the finger at others. Maybe. Just a thought. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: Little Hawk Date: 21 Oct 05 - 08:44 PM You betcha, Dianavan. ;-) It's always those filthy foreigners who do awful and capricious things, isn't it? We need to send over some Christian missionaries...and a whole lot of well-armed soldiers...and get those bloody heathens straightened out right quick. Tally ho, chaps! They'll thank us for it in the end. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: Cluin Date: 22 Oct 05 - 02:36 AM Toque or Helmet? I had a girlfriend once who said she was glad I was circed because she didn't like giving head to an uncut dink. And women never lie to their men about anything involving sex, do they? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: *daylia* Date: 22 Oct 05 - 07:24 AM During a private moment yesterday, I decided to Heart in mouth, I nervously watched as this little shadow passed over his features. THe seconds ticked by like hours, and then he finally said "Well, I haven't got anything to compare it to now, do I? So I can't really say ..." That IS the one thing I'd regret about it, if I were a man ... stab stab stab ... my heart sank ... and the Inner Accusers struck up this triumphant chorus "You ABUSER! Mutilator! Ignorant Savage!" and my motherly soul started wilting in grief ... till my son's voice broke the spell, and he finished his thought "... but girls like it better. I know that. A couple of my girlfriends have been with - you know, both kinds - and they told me they prefer it, uh, my way." Oh praise be! I asked if they told him why, and he said "Something about making it easier to, uh, you know ... OH FORGET IT, sMother! Enough!!" Yup, it was. Thank you sweet girlies, oh thank you .... eight years ago I'da had your pretty little heads but today? Thank you thank you ... and I do know EXACTLY where you're coming from! (no pun intended) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: bobad Date: 22 Oct 05 - 08:05 AM Now there's a great reason to mutilate your babies, ladies. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: *daylia* Date: 22 Oct 05 - 08:59 AM WOrks for me! ;-) There are vast differences in the biological and temporal "costs" of sex and reproduction for males and females in all but very few species of mammals. Simply put, Mother Nature's design is that females 'pay' maximum, males 'pay' minimum to pass on their genes. Click here for more info re natural gender differences in the "costs of sex" "In terms of time and energy, the male expends virtually nothing in sexual contact compared to the female (Trivers 1972; Dewsbury, 1981): a few tens to a few thousand calories per contact, depending on body size, and from as low as 2-3 seconds (the bluewhale) to a few hours (the giant tree sloth) (both figures are time from intromission to ejaculation; we won't count foreplay).(4) Females, on the other hand, have a far greater physical, physiological and temporal stake in the production of offspring, particularly among the mammals (Trivers 1972). In mammals the female must carry the fetus within her body, nourishing it with her own body tissues. She must withstand the not insubstantial rigors of birth. She must then continue to nourish and protect the offspring until it can support itself, often to puberty. All this can take a lot of time, from weeks to years, and burn millions of calories.(5) The difference in the amount of time and energy males and females must devote to reproduction leads to a difference in how they regard sex. (Bell, 1980; Calow, 1979; Daly, 1978, 1983; Ghiselin, 1974) This in turn leads to a difference in their reproductive strategies ... Most males are promiscuous (Bateman 1948; Leakey, 1978).(6) Genetically, it is the most practical course of action. The more females with which a male mates, the greater number of offspring containing his genes are possible. In addition, the cost of sex in terms of time and energy is considerably lower for the male than the female. It is therefore in the male's (and thus the male's genes') best interest for the male to mate with as many females as he can. In most species, females bear the brunt of the cost of sex in both time and energy: up to millions of calories and years of time. Among mammals, she must not only produce the young, she must rear them to the point of self-sufficiency. Thus, unlike the male, she doesn't have the choice of promiscuity, of creating as many offspring as possible as quickly as possible; she cannot abandon offspring as soon as they are born, or her genes die with the infant (Daly 1983)." Biologically speaking, men are 'designed' in a way that not only presents problems for hygiene, but makes promiscuity - and therefore spreading of deadly STD's - much more likely. So anything that helps make the experience safer, cleaner, and more pleasurable / satisfying for her - (and ultimately for him, too) - is well worth the aggravation imo. Quite possibly, the traditional 'sacrifice' made by men via circumcision (which does, imo, parallel in a very small way the physical sacrifices demanded of women simply through their biology) - was an important step forward in the social/sexual evolution of this species. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: Little Hawk Date: 22 Oct 05 - 12:11 PM I don't doubt that most girls prefer the circumsized variety... ;-) If they had never heard of such a thing, it wouldn't be a problem, would it? I mean, hell, in a culture where people are as afraid of "dirt" and "germs" as they are in this one it's inevitable, isn't it? Besides, they are accustomed to the idea of circumsized penises. Naturally they prefer them. For similar reasons, people prefer women to have shaven legs and shaven armpits. They think the hair looks coarse, dirty...whatever. Is that rational? No, it's culturally induced thinking. Anyway, Daylia, I wouldn't go around carrying a load of guilt about your sons being circumsized if I were you. There's absolutely NO use carrying guilt about things that can't be changed, so why bother? But you already knew that, right? You state that most males are promiscous. True. But it's all a bit annoying to hear that for those males who are not, specially when they have acquired some girlfriends in the past who ARE promiscuous! Then it's damned annoying. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: Mrrzy Date: 22 Oct 05 - 06:01 PM Most women I know prefer the uncircumcized one, if they've had both. And about comments that the shape of the AIDS belt in Africa "probably has a great deal to do with poverty, prostitution, and a promiscuous lifestyle among transient, underemployed workers" rather than circumcision, that's just it - proportions of poverty and prostitution and all that fun stuff has a completely different shape than the AIDS belt. The non-circumcision shape matches it exactly. I will try to find the reference. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: GUEST Date: 22 Oct 05 - 06:06 PM Then they should have the good sense to stay with the uncircumcized ones, shouldn't they. What a classless remark. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: Charlie Baum Date: 22 Oct 05 - 09:06 PM To the tune of "I wish I was a mole in the ground": I wish I was a mohel at your bris I wish I was a mohel at your bris If I was a mohel at your bris, I'd cut it off like this I wish I was a mohel at your bris Sandek wants a four-cornered shawl Sandek wants a four-cornered shawl Put in on his lap, In case the baby crawl Sandek wants a four-cornered shawl I cannot believe that the Mudcat has actually provided a thread that gives me the opportunity to post this parody, which I never thought I'd get a chance to share in public. Glossary: Bris or Brith milah is the Jewish circumcision ceremony, held when the male child is eight days old. Sandek is the person who holds the baby in his lap (or on the table, these days) during the bris. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: Little Hawk Date: 22 Oct 05 - 11:52 PM Opinions. There's nothin' else like 'em! They cling like barnacles, they WILL not give up, and they won't change for nothin'. They are ruthless, unforgiving, and impervious. Everybody's got a few and they won't part with 'em for love or money or if their life depended on it. They would much rather be "right" than be happy. They would much rather be "right" than be kind or merciful or understanding or loving or patient or helpful or any other given virtue. Find me a man or woman with no opinions. It would be so refreshing for a change. Such a person would either have to be totally innocent and free of all cultural brainwashing...or be a spiritual Master. I used to love it when they'd ask Mother Teresa her opinion on all kinds of political hassles and stuff (the kind of controversies that drive the news and employ legions of lawyers), and she'd shrug and say, "I don't know anything about that." And she'd get back to talking about what really matters. I'm not gonna try to tell you what that is. Go read about her yourself and find out. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: *daylia* Date: 23 Oct 05 - 05:27 AM Mother Teresa had opinions too, ie The greatest destroyer of peace is abortion because if a mother can kill her own child, what is left for me to kill you and you to kill me? There is nothing between |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: *daylia* Date: 23 Oct 05 - 07:50 AM PS I was just enjoying the drama there, LH, so not to worry about "guilt". Might be rewarding to bear the weight of thousands of years of tradition on these little shoulders though ... (not!) If they had never heard of such a thing, it wouldn't be a problem, would it? ??? People suffer diseases and dysfunctions whether they've heard of them or not, LH. WHy do men shave their faces? IS that a form of 'abuse' too? Self-inflicted every day because they've been conned into believing it looks better?? RE removing unwanted hair from legs and underarms - it seems silly to people with different customs or those who've never tried, but those who do soon discover they're more comfortable, less itchy, much less stinky, as well as more pleasing to the eye and to the touch. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: *daylia* Date: 23 Oct 05 - 08:10 AM And I just can't resist this ... The Holy Prepuce The Holy Prepuce, or Holy Foreskin (Latin præputium) is one of several relics purported to be associated with Jesus. At various points in history, a number of churches in Europe have claimed to possess it, sometimes at the same time. Various miraculous powers have been ascribed to it... There was also some theological dispute as to whether Jesus can really be said to have ascended wholly into Heaven if this part of his body was actually missing. This was resolved by noting that his foreskin was no more an obstacle to this than the hair and fingernails that he had cut throughout his life or the blood he shed... A related theological issue questions whether Jesus' foreskin was restored to him in his resurrected body ... According to 17th century theologian Leo Allatius, the Foreskin may have divinely ascended to become the rings of Saturn. Ah. Gives "around the world" a whole new meaning, don't it! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: Little Hawk Date: 23 Oct 05 - 11:35 AM I'm not saying Mother Teresa had NO opinions, I'm just saying she had fewer opinions on fewer things than most people do. ;-) Most people have an opinion on every f**king thing under the sun. Just ask 'em... (and then be sorry you did...) Since it is more comfortable and less smelly to shave the hairy areas of the body, I am now recommending that we ALL shave our heads nice and clean too! Yes indeed. Just like Jean-Luc Picard. No more dandruff or greasy, smelly hair. No more money spent uselessly on shampoo. You first, Daylia! I am going to see if I can talk Chongo Chimp into shaving himself all over. Think how much cleaner and nicer he will be then. What about Adam? (assuming the existence of such a being in the first place) Did Adam have a foreskin? Hmmmm. If not, where did it go? If so, did Eve find it objectionable? Did Eve shave those smelly, itchy legs and armpits???? Do I really care? Bigger "hmmmm". Ummm, well, no I guess not! LOL! Daylia, the fact is...almost everything we do is arbitrary...socially conditioned...and we make up a million reasons and excuses afterward for why it's such a good idea. Men's habit of shaving the face is definitely among such arbitrary customs. I do it simply because I am culturally accustomed TO doing it, and for no other reason whatsoever. It costs me money, it's not necessary, it's 100% arbitrary, and I KNOW it. I like it because I'm used to the idea. For the same reason, I wear trousers rather than a skirt or a kilt or a Roman toga or a zippered jumpsuit. For the same reason, I am willing to bare the upper half of my torso in public (in the right setting), but not the lower. For the same reason, I usually eat with cutlery...when it's clearly not necessary to do so. In India, people usually eat with their hands (well, one hand to be exact), and it is considered perfectly normal to do so. Almost none of this stuff actually MATTERS. People defend customs because it is customary to do so, and because those customs are a part of their own conscious (or unconscious) identity. To know this is to laugh at the pretentiousness and self-importance of the human mind in the face of the Great Mystery of Life, which it does not comprehend at all. We are playing games here. Kid's games. The pity of it is that everybody takes those games (and themselves) so damned seriously. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: Peace Date: 23 Oct 05 - 12:52 PM "WHy do men shave their faces? IS that a form of 'abuse' too? Self-inflicted every day because they've been conned into believing it looks better??" 1) I look like shit with facial hair. 2) Beards interfere with breathing apparatus masks. 3) Very often parts of our faces are exposed to tremendous heat, and hair goes up in a flash. 4) I have worn a beard and it bugged me because it itched and required almost as much time as shaving. FYI |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: Little Hawk Date: 23 Oct 05 - 12:59 PM I tried wearing one once too. It didn't look that great, it itched, and it bugged me as well. If I'd grown up as a traditional Sikh or Afghan tribesman, though, I would no doubt be wearing a full beard right now (scruffy in my case) and loving it. That's culture for you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: Peace Date: 23 Oct 05 - 01:31 PM Estimate the temperature at about 2000 degrees F. If that had happened with the guys inside, it would have killed them. The guys in the picture all made it out alive and unscathed. I imagine the bunker gear for two of them had to be replaced. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: Peace Date: 23 Oct 05 - 01:44 PM Also, the ladder is not positioned correctly--the angle is wrong. The angle at the foot of the ladder should be 75 degrees. It looks more like 40 degrees to me. "The phenomenon of flashover, in its generic sense, is a significant killer of firefighters. In the USA, for example, NFPA statistics recorded between 1985 and 1994 demonstrated a total of 47 US firefighters lost their lives to flashover." Sorry to have got off topic here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: Peace Date: 23 Oct 05 - 01:46 PM Also, the mind is a funny thing. For years I had accepted that our gear with air tanks weighed about 50 pounds. I found out recently that it really weighs between 65 and 72 pounds (depending on the type of air tank a guy uses). All of a sudden I feel weighed down. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: Cluin Date: 23 Oct 05 - 02:06 PM "All of a sudden I feel weighed down." You still have your foreskin, Bruce? ;) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: Peace Date: 23 Oct 05 - 02:10 PM I donated it to medical science--they were looking for a faster way to make politicians. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: Cluin Date: 23 Oct 05 - 02:13 PM Mom always liked you best. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: Peace Date: 23 Oct 05 - 02:18 PM Serious for a second: (whether or not I am circumcized is something I don't discuss): How the hell come I could manage two tanks in a row--once did three--yet after finding out the gear weighed more than I thought it did now makes the gear fell heavier? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: Mark Cohen Date: 23 Oct 05 - 08:56 PM So, Clinton, I'm still waiting for those references to the "reams and reams of medical opinion and research" that contradicts what I said about the medical benefits of circumcision. If you're going to make a statement like that, it would be helpful if you could back it up. By the way, Peace, your comment about the ladder reminds me of the summer job I had while I was in medical school, teaching CPR to firemen and running with the rescue squads--this was in 1974, when there was only one MICU and half a dozen paramedics in the entire city of Philadelphia. I spent a lot of time in firehouses that summer. One of the firemen's favorite TV shows was "Emergency!", later renamed "Emergency 911." I'd be watching the show with them, and would be saying things like, "Hey, you can't give that medication intramuscularly, it has to be given IV." And the firemen would say things like, "Hey, you'd never go into a building that size with a 2 1/2 inch hose...gotta be at least a 3 1/2!" Aloha, Mark (PS Note that I'm not saying that those medical benefits justify the procedure, only that they exist.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: Peace Date: 23 Oct 05 - 09:02 PM Yeah, Mark. We watch "Backdraft" every few years just to have a good laugh. Hollywood does misrepresent the true nature of emergencies, both in and out of the ER. Thanks for saying that. Got a kick out of it. True, too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: Peace Date: 23 Oct 05 - 09:11 PM No offense, but that was probably 1 1/2" and 2 1/2". LOL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Circumcision: pros and cons From: Peace Date: 23 Oct 05 - 09:13 PM However, I have never started an IV and I have no idea about needle sizes. Was only ever an EMR--like a low-level EMT in the US. (Advanced First Aid is comparable.) But, I liked your tale about the firehall. Thanks again. |
.jpg){kind=link}