aka non consented circumcision is a human rights violations rule

    • Rachelhazideas@lemy.lol
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      11 months ago

      I literally mentioned birth defects as a medically substiated reason, phimosis being one of them. Please read.

      • Fox@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        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.

    • Soulg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      11 months ago

      Nobody takes you seriously either because you don’t even finish reading the post and then act unnecessarily rude and obnoxious afterwards.

    • Norah - She/They@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      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.