Limbs wrote: i don't think we need to compare circumcision to fgm in order to talk about whether it's okay or not. they're 2 separate issues imo, and the fact that something worse exists doesn't make a less bad thing ok
^
agreed. i hate how any discussion of one cant be had without involving the other. theyre separate issues w separate circumstances
Kit wrote: idk lol don't have strong opinions on it except 1. the comparison to fgm is a false equivalency n bad faith argument. like u can be against circumcision without implying that people who aren't support genital mutilation & honestly its a lil embarrassing to act like those two are completely equivalent things 2. the argument that circumcision is ok for medical reasons but not for religious reasons reads as .... idk a lil antisemitic to me. being anti circumcision is a much easier / less nuanced stance when ur a european gentile and it doesnt have any cultural or religious meanings for u. but it does for other people. 3. is there evidence that circumcision is explicitly harmful? not asking rhetorically like i don't believe there could be, but asking if there is and where i could find it ? bc i've genuinely never seen anything legitimately anti-circumcision that hasn't relied on the fgm comparison which i really don't think is legitimate or constructive
tbf, circumcision in the us happens in without there being any religious reasons. its remnants of an anti-masturbation campagin that for some reason stuck and is now so culturally engrained that circumcized peni is the norm. medically, there is an associated elevated risk of sids in circumcized infants. as with all surgical procedures there is a risk of infection and bleeding. the risk of utis doesnt really go down in circumcized children. the rate of penile cancer is actually lower in countries that don't have routinary circumsision. circumcision is not a significant factor in how stds are spread. circumcision.org/ is a good site for exploring more about sexual, social and medical effects on circumcision.
i am anti circumcision because it is a surgical procedure with no positive effects done on infants who cannot consent. it is archaic, it is uneeded. first of all, most claims of it reducing risks of stds and utis are completely wrong. second of all, why on earth would you preemptively amputate a body part in case something may happen to it? third of all, it is a surgical procedure and those will always bear risks. why willingly put your child at risk so that his penis can look like his fathers?
for what its worth, im against religious circumcision as well, for the aforementioned reasons. and while i recognize that it holds significant cultural and religious value for people, that shouldnt mean that hurtful stuff people do under the guise of cultural reasons should be without critique.
Kit wrote: idk lol don't have strong opinions on it except 1. the comparison to fgm is a false equivalency n bad faith argument. like u can be against circumcision without implying that people who aren't support genital mutilation & honestly its a lil embarrassing to act like those two are completely equivalent things 2. the argument that circumcision is ok for medical reasons but not for religious reasons reads as .... idk a lil antisemitic to me. being anti circumcision is a much easier / less nuanced stance when ur a european gentile and it doesnt have any cultural or religious meanings for u. but it does for other people. 3. is there evidence that circumcision is explicitly harmful? not asking rhetorically like i don't believe there could be, but asking if there is and where i could find it ? bc i've genuinely never seen anything legitimately anti-circumcision that hasn't relied on the fgm comparison which i really don't think is legitimate or constructive
To join the forums you need to be logged in.
General < General First | Previous | Page: 
21
To load new posts: activated
Private
Private
Private
0
0
0
0
