Assertion: circumcision's benefit | /r/CapableOf | outweigh risk
Facets:
value: by half
type: OTHER
value: by 1
type: OTHER
value: marginally
type: DEGREE
Source sentences:
text: Since then they have amended their policy statements several times, with the current recommendation being that the benefits outweigh the risks, but they do not recommend it routinely.
text: We find e.g. not a single medical association that thinks that the benefits do outweight the risks.
text: While determining that the procedure’s benefits outweigh its risks, AAP does not go so far as to recommend universal newborn circumcision, saying instead that the decision should be left to parents
text: The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) says the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks.
text: The benefits, however, only marginally outweigh the risks, and the AAP was unable to recommend routine circumcision; the decision of whether to have the procedure performed was left to parents.
text: Overall, the benefits outweigh the risks.
text: The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) says the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks.
text: The medical community agrees: both the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) claim the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks, citing evidence that circumcision lowers a man’s
text: The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) says the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks.
text: The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) says the benefits of this surgery outweigh the risks.
text: This section is led by the following statement: "A 2014 review found that the benefits of circumcising an infant outweigh the risks of doing so by at least 100 to 1, and that over their lifetime, half of uncircumcised males will require treatment for a medical condition associated with retention of the foreskin.
text: How can this article claim to be neutral by having a key section such as the "Effects of circumcision" led simply by a sentence published by Brian Morris, known for his controversial pro-circumcision opinions, that the benefits outweigh the risks by 100 to 1 and HALF of uncircumcised males will require treatment for their foreskin?
text: The 2014 Morris "study" is clearly biased to the point where his absurd claims that the benefits outweigh the risks by 100:1 and HALF of uncircumcised males will require medical treatment for foreskin related problems are clearly so extreme that reasonably minded readers of this article will question the validity of the statement.
text: Many reliable sources claim that the benefits outweigh the risks, but as far as the "100 to 1" figure is concerned I'm not sure if that view is mainstream.
text: The CDC cited the AAP conclusion that the benefits of newborn circumcision outweigh the risks.
text: Even if you believe potential medical benefits outweigh the risks, does that justify doing an elective procedure to remove a piece of the child’s skin without his consent?
text: A recent analysis by the American Academy of Pediatrics concluded that the medical benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks.
text: In fact, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the benefits of the procedure outweigh the risks.
text: In 2012 the American Academy of Pediatrics stated that health benefits of non-therapeutic circumcision aren't great enough to recommend it for every newborn, and that the benefits outweigh the risks, so that the procedure may be done for families who choose it.
text: Do the benefits of male circumcision outweigh the risks?