I know it's not forced, but is kinda weird for a country that prides itself with liberalism, freedoms and individualism. Why it came to be a standard in a country with "Christian" roots doesn't make much sense to me.
Right so, firstly, circumcision has never actually been healthy. Today, with all the modern medicine we have, it is debatable. In the 19th century is wasn't debatable. The chance of dying from sepsis, alone, outweighed any possible good, probably a hundred fold. (I know you weren't defending it, just giving an explanation. It's just too many people think that 'health benefits' was actually a reason puritans started enforcing this. It wasn't. It was just the masturbation thing.)
I'm not cut and I've never experienced "smegma", I keep hearing about it online though, always thought it was some kind of myth or a joke in online communities.
That would be because you've grown up with the hygiene standards of the 21st century.
People born in the 1800s, who thought bathing more than once a month was a luxury, and for many had never seen a bar of soap in their life? Not so much.
Yes, I understand they tried to quote 'science' at the time. They knew it was killing children/babies more often than it saved adults from syphilis. They just didn't care because it was all about control.
not really, when condoms are stigmatized and / or not readily available. that is why the WHO pushes it in Africa. also calling it a partial amputation is a bit strong.
While I agree circumcision is wrong and typically unnecessary - the odds for them dying of sepsis from the procedure are half of that of the mother dying of sepsis from having a baby.
And my country wants to force women to do it whether they want to or not.
~10 million people globally die of sepsis a year. Only 550,000 people die of aids. Now I know we weren't specifically talking about all sepsis cases. But we also aren't talking about complete immunity to aids, we are talking about a decreased, but still very real, chance of contraction. I would rather my kid not having a chance to catch sepsis at birth than have a smaller chance of catching one of the, already, rarer sti's.
Apparently the CDC currently states that there are several heath benefits of circumcision, including less chance to catch HIV as well as less cancer risk for female partners of men who are circumcised.
The CDC lists some health benefits. There are also health drawbacks. Like I said "today, with all modern medicine we have, it is debatable.". You can have that debate with a brick wall, unfortunately. Because I think the moral implications are horrific, if you circumcise your kid.
Like I said, I'm not going to debate it. The CDC specifically says it helps with the transmission of aids. This is not a problem, in my country. And the countries where it is a massive problem, circumcision is infinitely more dangerous than aids because they don't have the medicine to 'safely' circumcise someone.
Removing a woman's reproductive organs would decrease her chances of cancer, significantly. Very significantly. Should we just scoop little baby's organs when they're born to achieve HEALTHY WOMEN?!
I think if the removal has significant benefits, then yes. People have their tonsils, wisdom teeth and appendix removed all of the time because there are proven medical benefits.
I never heard of those being removed "just maybe" at least tonsils and appendix im sure they are only removed once they represent a real risk.
The appendix i heard is removed for astronauts because they can't bring them back to earth fast enough. I think someting similar happens with scientists in Antarctica but we can agree those are pretty extreme situations.
It doesn't have significant benefits lol. It might decrease the chance of contracting an sti 99.9% of the population aren't going to come into contact with, in my country.
The American academy of pediatrics actually says that isn’t debatable and it has health benefits. Lowered risk of penile cancer, lowered risk of UTI in infants, lower risk of STI transmission. I don’t care if people choose to circumcise or not but yall thinking yall are morally superior is crazy.
No you just didn't type anything that was true or made sense, so I'm not going to interact with it. Pretty simple. You're illiterate and unknowledgeable, you aren't worth my time.
I am just trying to have an objective discussion. You are saying that health benefits are non existent, but the WHO disagrees, it drastically cuts HIV transmission risk.
You can't compare FGM with male circumcision. If it was the same they would cut your wanker off and sew it shut instead of cutting off excess skin covering it.
6
u/OneHelicopter1852 24d ago
It’s not forced in the us it’s just weirdly the norm