I'm not saying it's impossible for a circumstance to occur where it could be an option, but it should be treated like cutting off an arm: an extreme solution to extreme problems when every other option has failed. Such would be absurdly rare. Routine circumcision is abhorrent
-
-
No, you’re getting off-track here. My argument was with a self-proclaimed “intactivist” about whether or not it’s genital mutilation or a medical procedure. I then showed evidence that it was a medical procedure, not mutilation. I disagree with doing it for no reason.
-
A procedure is only labeled as 'medical' when said procedure is medically indicated. Since, if left alone most intact men have no issues with their foreskins, if done prior to any issues being apparent, it's mutilation.
-
Removing a woman's breasts for no reason would be mutilation. Having a double mastectomy because you have a genetic profile that virtually guarantees early and terminal breast cancer is a medical procedure.
-
And even if that case, we don't do that surgery until a woman is old enough to legally consent to it.
-
Phimosis can be detected early. Preputioplasty would be harder than circumcision for babies. Balanitis infections can be really dangerous for babies, and if they’re one of the 11% of clinical attendees or catch it from another child, circumcision can prevent it from recurring.
-
Phimosis is not even diagnosable until early to mid teens. The AVERAGE age of retraction is 10 years old.
-
You’re not mentioning balanitis. That was the main part of the statement there.
-
You are continuing to argue minutia, and I'm off to bed. There seem to be an awful lot of people that want to 'what about if' with this issue. Don't cut babies. Educate medical staff on alternatives to circumcision. Let men choose. Goodnight.
- 6 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.