• AbsolutelyClawless@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    45
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    Circumcision is and should only be a medically necessary procedure. I’ve never heard anyone say medically necessary circumcision is mutilation, but I’m from Europe where most men aren’t circumcised, so there’s that. Whoever says it’s mutilation when it’s medically justified is ignorant.

    • theolodis@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      21 hours ago

      I think the question is: who’s deciding what is medically necessary or justified? Because as far as I am aware there are health benefits associated with a circumcision, from reduced risk of AIDS infection to the reduced risk of infections.

      Is that enough to justify it? Some doctors will say yes, and some will say no. Some people will suffer negative consequences and some won’t.

      I think most of the negativity around it is because it’s being done on infants, and often for religious reasons. But to the intentions matter, when the action is in line with medicine?

      • oyo@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        12 hours ago

        Mastectomy reduces the risk of breast cancer. That’s clearly not a valid medical reason to perform it on everyone. The medical necessity that people are talking about here is obvious–a specific condition like phimosis that is directly harmful to the patient. The “risk of AIDS” bullshit can be totally mitigated by… washing up.