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.
Not if it implies cutting off parts of their body for no medically accepted reason.
If he has a medical issue and circumcision is the solution, sure. If it’s for the common bulshit reasons, hell no, why is that even a question?
Sure, sure, fair enough. But who gets to dictate if the reason is valid. You? Me? The government? I don’t think any of those is an acceptable answer. To me, the answer is the parents, and their medical practitioner. It shouldn’t be anyone else’s business.
Medical decisions are decided by a medical doctor. This is not hard.
… Right. So we agree.
The long and short of my argument is that the government shouldn’t have a say in any of it. Banning circumcision and banning gender affirming care are both stupid decisions. Anyone advocating for government intervention in personal matters is no better than all the bible thumpers injecting their religious beliefs into social policy. It’s a slippery slope when we vote to give the government power, as they seldom relinquish it. Just because the government exerts its power enforcing something you fundamentally believe in doesn’t mean it’s correct. The pendulum swings both ways, and just because it benefits your cause now does not mean it always will.
Furthermore, whatever you decide is a “common bullshit reason”, can be used against you and others down the road.
Anyway, I feel like I’m spinning my tires here. Vote on these things however you like, but if you or someone you love ever needs some sort of procedure that has been banned for a “common bullshit reason” in the eyes of whoever is deciding the policy, you will reap what you sow.
So, if a parent wants to perform unneeded plastic surgery on a baby (a nosejob, botox, etc) you think the government should stay out of it because it could end up with the government disallowing a needed surgery arbitrarily (burn victim). That is your argument?
Of course not, because a medical professional would advise against it.
Here’s an example of what I’m talking about: I had plastic surgery on my nose when I was a kid. I got into an accident which resulted in the near loss of my nose. I spent some time in the ER, and then had one of the best plastic surgeons in my area perform restorative work on my face.
If it wasn’t for this procedure, I likely wouldn’t have a nose today. Fortunately, because there was no law preventing a child from getting plastic surgery, I look completely normal as an adult.
Plastic surgery is a bit of a misnomer. There was no artificial material involved.
Do you see what I’m saying though? Giving plastic surgery to a kid sounds absolutely ridiculous, but there are its use cases, and if there was a flat ban on plastic surgery for children, it could harm people more than help, myself included.
The government often doesn’t understand the nuances of certain situations. In mine, the surgery was cosmetic, and the government could have deemed it unnecessary. I could have lived a happy life without a nose. Do I trust the government to make a logical argument for why my cosmetic surgery as a child is justified? Do I trust them to delineate between an unneeded surgery or not? Absolutely not.
Sometimes, it isn’t as black and white as Botox and burns.
I think you’re trying to create nuances where there aren’t any.
Sorry, but your case is far from being nuanced. You had an accident and it required reconstruction so it would look normal. Same way circumcision is acceptable when there’s, for example, a really bad case of phimosis.
Forget about your accident. Imagine your parents had shit for brains and no nose because of some sick family tradition. So they wanted a plastic surgeon to amputate your nose so you’d be like them. It’s their choice, right? They get to make that decision in your behalf, right?
Of course, in real life you wouldn’t even get near the scalpel and social services would be on them quicker than you could say “keep the government off my nose”.
I agree, it isn’t that nuanced. My point again, is just that the government should not be involved, legally speaking. Do you trust the government to allow circumcision under certain circumstances, but not others? I don’t.
I assume you’re in Europe or something. I’m in Canada, and our politicians are looking down south thinking they might have some pretty good ideas. Look at the bans on abortions in the USA, that are blanket bans, even when medically necessary. People literally have to flee their state to get an abortion. Their life being at risk is no consequence to these lawmakers.
I’m happy you believe you live in a place where you trust your politicians to make smart moves that benefit people. I don’t trust mine, and I will not be voting for anything that restricts personal autonomy. I can look down south and see how easily this can be weaponized against the population.
As a final note, I agree with the sentiment of the arguement. You should not be able to circumcise your kid just because you want to.
If this isn’t agreeable to you, we can agree to disagree and move on.
I appreciate the discussion regardless.