436
Genital mutilation should be illegal
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Aug 2023
436 points (100.0% liked)
Atheist Memes
5564 readers
32 users here now
About
A community for the most based memes from atheists, agnostics, antitheists, and skeptics.
Rules
-
No Pro-Religious or Anti-Atheist Content.
-
No Unrelated Content. All posts must be memes related to the topic of atheism and/or religion.
-
No bigotry.
-
Attack ideas not people.
-
Spammers and trolls will be instantly banned no exceptions.
-
No False Reporting
-
NSFW posts must be marked as such.
Resources
International Suicide Hotlines
Non Religious Organizations
Freedom From Religion Foundation
Ex-theist Communities
Other Similar Communities
!religiouscringe@midwest.social
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
It's not that it doesn't have any benefits, but also doesn't offset the downsides but seems easier to keep proper hygene as I've heard horrible stories like guys who were never taught proper hygene.
https://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/conditionsandtreatments/circumcision
Fingernails cause problems too. Let's rip those off at birth.
Let's also take off the auricle, the outer part of the ear. If people aren't taught how to properly clean behind it, it can get dirty.
Read back, like I said several times I don't support circumcision. However, there are benefits that don't just disappear because of the cons. Everything has pros and cons that should be accounted for.
And the fact of bringing unrelated debate into it just makes it look unorganized and unfounded basis. But you can message me if you want to debate about finger nails and removing parts of the ear...
I think we're all on the same side here but I think that person's analogy is valuable because it demonstrates the disconnect in logic between the perceived value of the "health risks" that are being avoided versus the risks, harm, and morals of permanently modifying someone's body against their will under false pretenses.
And an infinitely increased risk of a baby getting an infection and dying from having a piece of their body cut off, yay!
I mean, like I said I nearly died and don't support it. Although, there are benefits and chance of infection is very low at least in a 1st world country. There are many other things with higher chance that could impact a child, like the high chance of foreskin infection.
And I guess its a common problem, go figure people and kids especially don't practice proper hygene.
https://www.londonchildrensurgery.co.uk/balanitis.php
Having had that, it's extremely mild, a tiny bit of discomfort for a couple days. Not worth removing the foreskin for. We don't cut off people's ears because kids often get ear infections.
And that's your experience and opinion. The article states that 5% have more than mild cases, and some should be medically removed for medical reasons.
Everything has pros and cons, but I'm not making the choice for anyone else. That's their choice, but it should still be a choice.
And I don't see how cutting off an ear would reduce ear infections, as it's typically the canal that's infected, not the ear. A lot more involved, and I can't find any benefits like I could for circumcision. Although, you could be onto something as I'm sure there is data for piecing infections? Is this the reason for changing topic?
I've purely stated facts with supported links and haven't seen the same. Constructive discussion is great but that has yet to be seen yet. So I'm probaby gonna move along with my day and hope you have a great day as well.
The point is removing body parts before they get infected, because there is a small chance they'll get infected is idiotic. There's plenty of downsides to being circumcised, like caratanized glans, leading to reduced sensitivity, and difficulty finishing. Not to mention the many times too much skin is taken off, which can make all erections for said dicks owner very painful.
And a choice, sure, for adults, who've lived with their foreskins and understand what they are losing, not babies or young children who're not at an age to understand what's being taken away.
As for the ear, not having an outer ear would make it easier to clean the ear canal, and for wax to drip out, so it would reduce canal infections. But we don;t do that, because it's better to just treat the few infections, than to remove someone's organs as a baby.
Terrible analogy, the outer part of the ear isn't what allows the infection to happen.
Lacking an outer ear would allow wax to drop out more easily, and make the canal easier to clean, so it should reduce infections.