aka non consented circumcision is a human rights violations rule

  • Fox@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    The standard of care should be too take the least invasive approach possible, especially when the more radical option has lifelong consequences. Not sure how that position is obtuse. And if a child is too young to speak, nobody should be recommending this operation because any diagnosis of ‘phimosis’ at that age is plain bullshit.

    • Norah - She/They@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      …because any diagnosis of ‘phimosis’ at that age is plain bullshit.

      This is the position I believe is obtuse. Circumcision being abhorrent doesn’t mean that any medically necessary surgery in the area is “bullshit”. I’ll point out, again, that surgery for phimosis does not require circumcision, nor does it cause the same lifelong consequences. I’m not going to debate it with you further though.

      Edit: Under your logic, we should just let a baby with a congenital heart defect die instead of operate on them, because they can’t speak for themselves.

      • Fox@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Good thing that’s not at all my logic. A high risk heart condition and not being retractable at age three are not even slightly the same degree of compelling. Talk about being obtuse. You give an extremely common phenomenon that many boys grow out of and say that it necessitates surgery without any qualifiers. I say bullshit, that is basically the extent of it.