189
There's a joke to be made about this but I feel like I'd overstep some boundaries rule
(lemmy.blahaj.zone)
aka non consented circumcision is a human rights violations rule
I literally mentioned birth defects as a medically substiated reason, phimosis being one of them. Please read.
Phimosis isn't even a birth defect, it's not supposed to be pulled back for an infant. There's basically no medically justifiable reason, ever, to do this to a baby.
While I agree that most cases of phimosis would be better to wait until teenage/young adult years before intervention is considered, if it’s bad enough that their pee balloons under the foreskin, it requires surgery. However, that surgery does not require full circumcision either in babies or adolescents.
Ballooning can be harmless and doesn't mean that there's severe phimosis, much less severe enough to require surgery. The process of natural separation takes time.
Okay, I’m incredibly anti-circumcision, but you’re just being obtuse. The whole point of medical science is to prevent suffering. For example, we vaccinate babies to prevent harmful illnesses. They cannot speak for themselves so we have to make those decisions for them, but only in their best interests.
Even if there's phimosis going straight to circumcision is not medically defensible, first there's testosterone creme and mechanical stimulation. Don't have statistics at hand but the number of cases where that's not enough should be lower than that of intersex folks.
The standard of care should be too take the least invasive approach possible, especially when the more radical option has lifelong consequences. Not sure how that position is obtuse. And if a child is too young to speak, nobody should be recommending this operation because any diagnosis of 'phimosis' at that age is plain bullshit.
This is the position I believe is obtuse. Circumcision being abhorrent doesn’t mean that any medically necessary surgery in the area is “bullshit”. I’ll point out, again, that surgery for phimosis does not require circumcision, nor does it cause the same lifelong consequences. I’m not going to debate it with you further though.
Edit: Under your logic, we should just let a baby with a congenital heart defect die instead of operate on them, because they can’t speak for themselves.
Good thing that's not at all my logic. A high risk heart condition and not being retractable at age three are not even slightly the same degree of compelling. Talk about being obtuse. You give an extremely common phenomenon that many boys grow out of and say that it necessitates surgery without any qualifiers. I say bullshit, that is basically the extent of it.
Not just boys grow out of it. Hi, from a girl with a penis. Can you leave me alone now?
Phimosis in infants can lead to infections to the urinary tract, discomfort and/or pain and other related issues.
Phimosis is a medical condition and needs to be addressed as such, with parents/guardians taking well informed decisions backed with medical advice.
Addressing phimosis and other issues regarding the prepuce also does not require circumcision as other procedures can be done to rectify issues.
The removal of the prepuce for non medical reasons is an unnecessary, unjustifiable, unreasonable act, already considered to some degree as genital mutilation, as it has been shown it deprives feeling from the area and thus inhibits the sexual development and enjoyment.
Nobody takes you seriously either because you don't even finish reading the post and then act unnecessarily rude and obnoxious afterwards.
Sorry mate, wrong community, this isn't the circus here
Let’s compare this to tail-docking for dogs. There are plenty of legitimate medical reasons that a vet might dock a tail for, including the fact it can be basically impossible to heal a severe injury on one. But if you get your dogs tail docked just for the looks, that’s a shitty thing to do. That’s why where I live, it’s illegal to do it just for aesthetics.
Now, if you’re suggesting that the vast majority of circumcisions aren’t aesthetic, and are in fact a necessary preventative medical procedure. Well, firstly, we survived as a species for hundreds of thousands of years before we started doing it just fine. And secondly, you could just as easily make the argument that removing the testes is needed to prevent future cases of testicular cancer.
Oh wait, doctors do literally say and do this to Intersex babies, with literally no medical evidence to back up their claims. Then try to force a child that was born with external genitalia to grow up as a “girl” after cutting it off.
I don't think any doctor performs circumcision "just for looks." Hopefully not. I don't personally see anything wrong with an uncircumcised penis at all, in fact, it really should be up to the parents.
All I'm saying is that the reasons for doing it aren't designed to hurt kids or make them feel sexually unhappy. Same with a child that has male and female sexual characteristics - at some point there you as a parent will make a decision, to remove the male genitalia or allow the kid to be hermaphroditic - the choice you make isn't based on a desire to hurt the child, but on what you think will be a healthy benefit for them.
Exactly and it's a preventative for other possible disease also. I'm not saying a person MUST be circumcised, but it isn't abnormal to want your kid to have a healthy start in life, and frankly I don't think anyone can say for sure that an uncircumsised penis "feels more pleasure" than a circumcised one. All men have sensitive penises, so how could you know that for certain?