• orrk@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 months ago

    oh, the parents? for the most part unknowing, the doctor on the other hand? ya, hate him

    • NightAuthor@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Supposedly is super safe and has health benefits, I once compared it to female genital mutilation and ooh boy was I corrected.

      Edit: the above is far from an endorsement. Some of yall could use some practice critical reading.

      • TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        If you were uncircumcised now, would you choose to have it done at your current age? No. Then, why do it to a baby without their consent? It’s a bodily autonomy issue.

        • Sarmyth@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          11 months ago

          Not a real comparison. A baby is given some sugar water and already lives in diapers. They don’t even bleed after it’s done, and you just put some jelly on the front of the diaper for the first few weeks. They experience no discernable discomfort.

          An adult male has gone through puberty and has a life that doesn’t involve sleeping through 18 hours of it and getting changed every couple of hours. The risk of infection is greater because you are an adult who doesn’t get the luxury of having every single need met 24/7 and getting to rest through your entire recovery.

          • Cockmaster6000@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            11 months ago

            You are profoundly uninformed and clearly huffing copium to deal with the fact that you chose to mutilate your own newborn sons penis. Great work bro.

          • LillyPip@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            11 months ago

            It’s a totally valid comparison.

            Removing the foreskin has real ramifications for not only looks but sexual pleasure (which, by the way, was why it was popularised by puritan Christians in the US – the original point was to stop teenage boys from masturbating by making it less pleasurable).

            Cutting off the foreskin at birth takes something from a man that he can’t really restore later, whereas doing nothing gives him the bodily autonomy to make that decision later. You can always remove it if you want, but once it’s gone, you can’t just grow it back.

            A baby is at your mercy and has no choice in the matter.

            • Sarmyth@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              No, you only have a short window to make it a nothing surgery vs. a week+ recovery time.

              A baby will always be at their parents’ mercy. And if a parent feels the medical benefits outweigh the risks, they get to make that choice.

              Also, I don’t get why people keep bringing up Kellog and his ilk. It’s irrelevant. WHO and the CDC both cite benefits. That’s relevant enough for a person today without pretending the reasoning has to be based on old information.