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.

  • morphballganon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    9 months ago

    Because not everyone wants to look like an anteater?

    You can ho hum all you want but circumcising me was 100% the right choice.

      • morphballganon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        There are plenty of medical choices that we make for children to make their lives easier/better, e.g. vaccines

          • morphballganon@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            9 months ago

            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?

            • ThisIsNecessary@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              Do you think parents also enjoy wiping baby butts and cleaning up vomit and other bodily functions of babies? It’s part of infant care and millions of people are able to accomplish this with no reason to surgically remove part of their babies body.

    • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      circumcising me was 100% the right choice

      if you weren’t circumcised as a child you would go get it done today?

      • morphballganon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        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.

        • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          9 months ago

          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.

          • morphballganon@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            9 months ago

            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?

            • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              9 months ago

              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”?

              • morphballganon@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                9 months ago

                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?

        • girl@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          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

          • morphballganon@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            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.

            • girl@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              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.

              • morphballganon@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                9 months ago

                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.