7 ms·
not disagreeing with your overall point of mutilation without consent but there is some evidence that circumcision lowers risk of HIV transmission[1] - so there
by hawk_ 5y ago
not disagreeing with your overall point of mutilation without consent but there is some evidence that circumcision lowers risk of HIV transmission[1] - so there might have been some health benefits at some point in history due to it. of course it should be criminal to practice it on children who can't decide on their own.
[1] - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17197879/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17197879/
- himinlomax 5y agoThe study is in Africa and involves poor populations with limited access to sanitation. In developed countries with proper sanitation and a low risk of HIV contamination to begin with, the risk/benefit is extremely unlikely to be comparable.
- hawk_ 5y agoYes I am not disagreeing, was just replying to a generalization > circumcision has zero benefits (health, hygiene, or otherwise), that while this may be true for wherever hn crowd resides, there are parts of the world where the risk/benefit isn't the same.
- xorfish 5y agoThe results can also be explained by the lack of sex after surgery. These studies shouldn't exists. They were highly unethical. There are effective ways to lower the risk of HIV transmission. Circumcision is not one of them.