The argument that IMC protects against STIs is accurate/unbiased, but lacks crucial nuance. Before puberty no males are at risk of STIs & ALL of the STI risks related to foreskin can be mitigated by good hygiene practices.https://www.skeptic.org.uk/society-culture/the-first-cut/does-science-support-infant-circumcision/ …
-
-
Replying to @Galvaxatron @MindOfHollis and
Likewise for urinary tract infections. We could make a similar case for mutilating parts of the labia for hygiene/health purposes, but we don't. Instead we leave it up to the individual to maintain good hygiene. At the end of the day it should come down to informed consent.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @Galvaxatron @MindOfHollis and
A toddler cannot give informed consent to have a body part mutilated.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Galvaxatron @adkisojk and
Right, but we don't always care about consent. People against circumcision don't seem to care about infant ear piercing or having things like birth marks removed. You might dismiss the comparison, but intact is intact, cosmetic is cosmetic, and choice is choice...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MindOfHollis @adkisojk and
Can't say I am for ear piercings for toddlers, but I can say no one argues for them for religious or medical reasons, so the comparison falls short. Moles are be tricky. Some are a clear cancer threat, some are disfiguring and could cause lifelong social issues.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Galvaxatron @MindOfHollis and
At the end of the day, the religious argument for circumcision is stupid, and the medical argument is incredibly dubious, at best. Not saying circumcision should be banned, just that it shouldn't be done on toddlers.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Galvaxatron @adkisojk and
The thing is, it's not a religious argument, it's a religious practice. You can't have an expectation of fact or rationale with a religious practice. At the same time, the freedom to practice said religion is safeguarded (here in the US) when it's not dangerous or detrimental.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MindOfHollis @Galvaxatron and
And with that, people can cry about circumcision all they want, but there is no logical argument against it...at least not when you're fine with literally all other elective and cosmetic surgeries done to babies/todlers.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MindOfHollis @Galvaxatron and
except that circumcision has no medical benefit and is designed to ruin adult sexual pleasure.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @peaceniky @Galvaxatron and
That has no basis in fact. It's a talking point, but circumcision has no ill effect on sexual pleasure. We know this already...saying otherwise is just as bad as saying vaccines cause autism.
7 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
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.