5 ms·
Look up phimosis. At two minute Google search could have found this. It's a valid medical reason for the operation. Not to mention the above mentioned. Not on
by tarkin2 9y ago
Look up phimosis. At two minute Google search could have found this.
It's a valid medical reason for the operation. Not to mention the above mentioned.
Not only do your facts not hold up to a brief Google, but the reputation of the people suggesting this could have made you think twice.
Twice about the possible motivations. And that could have given you again doubts.
And calling it mutilation implies those who have and want to have this engage in mutilation akin to FGM. It's irresponsible.
- wyager 9y agoPhimosis doesn't manifest until around puberty and can almost always be treated non-surgically. It's not a justification for permanent invasive surgery on babies. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0079408/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0079408/
- Mithaldu 9y agoHe made it pretty clear that he isn't talking about people with clear medical diagnosis indicating a need for it, also phimosis is usually not treated by removing the ENTIRE foreskin.
- jbtule 9y agoThe parent post, makes allowances for medical exceptions in their footnote. The point is there's no medical reason to circumcise en-mass or by default. Norway's ban is for ritual circumcision, which is not by a doctor.
- MaxfordAndSons 9y ago> And calling it mutilation implies those who have and want to have this engage in mutilation akin to FGM. It's irresponsible. It is akin to FGM when it's done nonconsensually (which it is, in the vast majority of cases for both sexes). Disclaimer: I understand that FGM is much more sexually debilitating and AFAIK never has a medical need behind it, but victims of circumcision are also being (usually needlessly) deprived of a functional part of their sexual organ.
- mickrussom 9y agoMGM (circumcision) = FGM. You can lie to yourself and others but the person being mutilated is being denied a choice when their lives are not in danger.
- bryondowd 9y agoI'm not aware of any adult women in a free society choosing to be mutilated, whereas it isn't uncommon for adult men to choose to be circumcised. That would seem to indicate that there is indeed a difference. FGM is evil, plain and simple. MGM/circumcision has interesting points on both sides, and while there might be a stronger argument against it than for, it's not strong enough to be a hill I'd choose to die on. But to each their own, I suppose.
- Mithaldu 9y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genital_modification_and_mutilation#Labiaplasty_and_vaginoplasty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genital_modification_and_mutil...
- bryondowd 9y agoThese elective surgeries have no relation to what is typically referred to as FGM, but perhaps I should have been more clear. I was referring to Types I-III as described here: http://www.endfgm.eu/female-genital-mutilation/what-is-fgm/ http://www.endfgm.eu/female-genital-mutilation/what-is-fgm/ Those are very clearly wrong, with no redeeming value and cause a great deal of harm to the woman, beyond any subjectivity. Nobody is signing up to have this done to them for aesthetic reasons. Compared to this, circumcision is only low-moderately invasive and damaging. If you are going to argue against circumcision, do so on its own merits, not by comparing it to something far worse.
- Mithaldu 9y agoThings can be in the same class but with different grades of strength within that class.
- spraak 9y agoIt IS mutilation to those who DON'T want it. A baby has no choice. Read my post again, most babies have no medical reason for it.