680
If we can ban trans medical procedures, why haven't we banned circumcision? (lemmy.world)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/nostupidquestions@lemmy.world
322 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Was just talking at dinner with family, and it seems a logical action to ban circumcision, as in most cases, doesn't have consent, and is a major (genitals are important) body modification. Can we ban it at the state level? Just a thought.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 23 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

If your foot isn't cleaned well, it can get infected and potentially cause sepsis, which is very dangerous. Should we be removing children's feet?

No, obviously not. The time for invasive, nonconsentual medical intervention is when it is medically necessary, and circumcision does not fit the bill.

"The CPS does not recommend the routine circumcision of every newborn male."

"It is shown that the foreskin is more sensitive than the uncircumcised glans mucosa, which means that after circumcision genital sensitivity is lost." - Meaning circumcision is quite a damaging procedure, which means the justification for it must be high. And as a preventive measure for which the things being prevented won't happen for a decade and a half or longer, isn't justified.

If the foreskin isn’t cleaned well (challenging for toddlers)

Newborns should not have their foreskin pulled back for cleaning, as the separation can cause damage. IIRC it's only a bit before puberty that it is safe to gently (not forcibly) pull back the foreskin.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -15 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    Nah mate. They had to remove mine because is overgrew my gland and was so tight that I would have pee between the foreskin and the gland layong around, and it was impossible to unhook. The alternative would have been to cut it open and have dumbo's ear flapping everytime I'd take my dick out. No partner ever complained, and I don't give à shit about it.

    I wouldn't circumsize a kid if it wasn't necessary, but when an operation takes place specifically for medical reasons, it's because there is no other solution. Like when a foot id so gangrenous that you have to remove it or it will propagate the necrosis to the leg.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 18 points 2 years ago

    Are you trolling? Or just finding it very difficult to understand what you are replying to? I'm genuinely asking here.

    "Nah mate", to someone saying it has to be a medical necessity... Following it up with "it was a medical necessity in my case", and then arguing the same point of it needing to be a medical necessity... It's just a bit too on-the-nose, that it seems more likely to be intentional, than just... Well, what it looks like

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    I wouldn't circumsize a kid if it wasn't necessary

    We're (hopefully) obviously not talking about when its necessary. We're arguing against the systemic circumsion of infants. Liken it to an amputation, If we decided to systemically remove every infants pinky finger, and then people are arguing against it, people would probably not say "But babies could get the finger infected! The pinky can break really easily, its safer to remove it"

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent