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.
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.
if you weren’t circumcised as a child you would go get it done today?
That’s a false equivalence. Doing it in adulthood inevitably includes a level of trauma that is avoided by having it done in infancy.
I cannot say for sure I would, as the prospect of doing it in adulthood would be intimidating.
Taking care of it in infancy is a kindness, to avoid putting men in that dilemma.
There’s no dilemma at all. Every consenting person who wants cosmetic surgery should be allowed to have it, and no one who can’t consent to cosmetic surgery should have it forced upon them.
Calling it cosmetic is a fallacy. Do you think parents like wiping pee out of the foreskin after every time their uncircumcised infant boy pees? Do you think 100% of parents do it consistently? Do you think boys deserve the inevitable irritation when it is not done?
What is the worse move, ethically: one procedure to eliminate that problem forever, or condemning your child to years of irritated foreskin until they’re able to pull it up?
you know that the entire rest of the world is full of baby boys with foreskins and parents who clean them, right? is your argument really gonna be “it’s inconvenient for parents to clean their kids so lets just cut off a part of their body”?
You are just assuming that all parents are 1. Still alive, and 2. Knowledgeable, capable and willing to do a thing multiple times every day, all of which could be avoided with one simple procedure that won’t be remembered anyway. Sounds pretty flimsy.
You think those other countries have 100% adherence? Of course not. Why make kids suffer for having absent/unaware/unable/unwilling parents?
Why do you believe there is no trauma to the infant, because they cant remember it? They still experience all of the pain, and they dont even know why it happened to them
ETA: infants and toddlers who experience physical and/or sexual abuse often dont remember the experience(s), but still suffer the effects of their trauma in adulthood. Remembering the event is not a requirement for being traumatized
What about the trauma of having a constantly irritated foreskin for the first couple years of life? You know how pee is corrosive? You think parents vigilantly clean the foreskin of pee immediately after every time their boy pees? It doesn’t happen. Leaving foreskin on causes greater discomfort when you look at the boy’s whole youth, compared to one quick act.
Girls experience similar discomfort when they arent cleaned well, as the labia can trap pee and toilet paper. You wanna start advocating that girls have their labia minora removed, or do you wanna recognize how flawed your argument is?
Edit: also, this isnt a problem in other countries lol, an epidemic of boys running around with pee-encrusted penises. They’re taught how to clean themselves, it really isn’t that difficult or complicated.
Seeing your other comments, if you are to remain faithful to your argument then you must advocate for female circumcision as well, since not all girls have parents, or parents who are willing to keep them clean every day. The labia can trap a lot of bacteria and can get very irritated if not thoroughly cleaned. This is high level female genital mutilation, but hey, at least they won’t remember the pain of irritated labia, right?
Even worse, this trapped bacteria is part of why girls have higher risk of UTI, which, if left untreated, can progress to a kidney infection, sepsis, and death! So let me know how fervently you support female genital mutilation with your newfound knowledge.
You are making it abundantly clear that you have no interest in arguing in good faith. Taking my concerns to farther extremes than I stated is an ad hominem fallacy.