You freaking weirdos make me laugh. The health stuff is pretty well documented. Do what you want, but if you are too lazy too look up facts, here’s a little from John Hopkins:
It is important to learn about the benefits and risks of circumcision. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has found that the health benefits of circumcision are greater than the risks. But the AAP also found that these benefits are not great enough to advise that all newborn babies be circumcised. Parents must decide what’s best for their baby.
…
There is a higher risk of urinary tract infection (UTI) in uncircumcised children. This is more so in babies younger than 1 year old. But the risk for UTI in all children is less than 1%.
Newborn circumcision does give some protection from cancer of the penis later in life. But the overall risk of penile cancer is very low in developed countries, such as the U.S.
Circumcised kids and adults have a lower risk for some sexually transmitted infections. This includes HIV.
Honestly, not enough reason to have a strong opinion about either way, but damn people get uptight about stupid shit.
It’s like you can’t read. Crazy. Or like you want to compare it to female genital mutilation which it isn’t even close to. I’m going to go out on a limb, and I’m happy to be wrong, but do you have an issue with childhood vaccinations? Just seems like it would fit your…uhh…cognition patterns.
Hmmm, doctors say that a procedure has benefits over not doing it. Slight, but still. You respond: Oh mY GOd, You’Re MutiLaTing KiDs. Yeah, someone is putting bait out there. I mean, jesus f’n christ, I even cited a source.
Dutch doctors have entirely different guidelines, emphasizing the possibility of complications of the procedure and no health benefits. Also citing the right to bodily integrity.
To be fair even this extract concedes that the medical benefits are barely significant. In general the convention is that you do not encourage a procedure if it does not have significant benefits, especially if it’s irreversible, especially on a subject who cannot consent to it. This one kind of gets the 3 strikes in term of medical ethics.
That being said it is very low-risk and generally done cleanly so i agree with you that it’s not the humanitarian thing that online circles want to make of it. It’s just one of those medical rituals.
Could just have parents that chose not to permanently disfigure their child.
Or wanted to keep their child a little more healthy.
What’s healthier about genital mutilation?
You freaking weirdos make me laugh. The health stuff is pretty well documented. Do what you want, but if you are too lazy too look up facts, here’s a little from John Hopkins:
Honestly, not enough reason to have a strong opinion about either way, but damn people get uptight about stupid shit.
Yeah. It’s really weird to not want to cut your kids for no clear benefit.
It’s like you can’t read. Crazy. Or like you want to compare it to female genital mutilation which it isn’t even close to. I’m going to go out on a limb, and I’m happy to be wrong, but do you have an issue with childhood vaccinations? Just seems like it would fit your…uhh…cognition patterns.
Fuck off with that bait.
Hmmm, doctors say that a procedure has benefits over not doing it. Slight, but still. You respond: Oh mY GOd, You’Re MutiLaTing KiDs. Yeah, someone is putting bait out there. I mean, jesus f’n christ, I even cited a source.
Dutch doctors have entirely different guidelines, emphasizing the possibility of complications of the procedure and no health benefits. Also citing the right to bodily integrity.
You can run the following through deepl: https://www.knmg.nl/actueel/dossiers/zorg-voor-mensen-in-een-kwetsbare-positie/jongensbesnijdenis. This is the official position of the Dutch society of medicine.
To be fair even this extract concedes that the medical benefits are barely significant. In general the convention is that you do not encourage a procedure if it does not have significant benefits, especially if it’s irreversible, especially on a subject who cannot consent to it. This one kind of gets the 3 strikes in term of medical ethics.
That being said it is very low-risk and generally done cleanly so i agree with you that it’s not the humanitarian thing that online circles want to make of it. It’s just one of those medical rituals.
How about this for an imaginary analogy:
“Studies found that when teachers are allowed to break the fingers of students who perform poorly, scores improve across all measures.”
Just because something that is unethical has practical benefits does not make it ethical.
What in the hell is the matter with you weirdos? What a reach and a fucking insane take on the issue.
Wow. I can’t believe how little you care about education. Maybe all that vaselline went to your brain.
Ah, yet another weird reach and asinine take. Got it.
You have an astounding inability to consider anyone else’s perspective for even a moment.
Have you ever had an incident with a railway spike?