The outcry over FGM can never be loud enough, but why is there no equal outrage over male circumcision, which is just as barbaric and just as utterly pointless?
-
Show this thread
-
"But there's no comparison between FGM and male circumcision." Wrong, idiots.pic.twitter.com/22soRu9KSf
84 replies 68 retweets 271 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @PrisonPlanet
The male one is sometimes absolutely necessary. If not done, the child could get permanent trauma due to chronic UTIs and Phimosis. Nothing to do with religion, but it’s necessary medical procedure for some.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @progressiverite @PrisonPlanet
Circumcision is not "necessary" for a healthy infant. No competent medical professional will tell you otherwise. UTIs are rare & treated w/out surgery when they do occur. Ditto for phimosis. Amputative surgery as prophylaxis is unethical. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2013/03/12/peds.2012-2896 …
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @cooney21 @PrisonPlanet
I am neither taking about healthy nor about infants. There are valid medical reasons why some young boys need to have it and it has nothing to do with religion. That’s all I am pointing out.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Glad you appreciate the distinction, but that's not at all how you put it ("if not done the child could get...") Circumcision as a necessary treatment for phimosis is extremely rare. Not sure it could ever be appropriate to treat UTIs when they are treated w/antibiotics.
-
Show additional replies, including those that may contain offensive content
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.