Was just talking at dinner with family, and it seems a logical action to ban circumcision, as in most cases, doesn’t have consent, and is a major (genitals are important) body modification. Can we ban it at the state level? Just a thought.

  • Ephera@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    9 months ago

    Banning medical procedures is never a good idea. Circumcision can be a necessary measure to improve someone’s genital health. Banning circumcision could also result in legal troubles for other surgeries where a scalpel needs to be brought into proximity of a penis.

    Compare this, for example, to cases where bans on abortion resulted in doctors unable to carry out obviously necessary steps: https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/16/health/abortion-texas-sepsis/index.html

    What could be banned, though, is mutilation of a minor, i.e. no consent and no recommendation for this procedure from a doctor.

    • Powerpoint@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Studies have shown that circumcision is typically not necessary. There are definitely extreme cases where the procedure may be required but the cleanliness aspect or for sti protection is make belief.

      • Ephera@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        Yeah, but we are talking about the extreme cases. Even if it only happens once in the history of mankind that a boy’s foreskin grows together at the tip and the boy needs to be cut open before he pops like a pee balloon, then you still want that to be legal. You don’t want the doctor telling you that she doesn’t know, if she’s allowed to help the boy, so she won’t do it.

    • waitmarks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      We are talking about the non consensual circumcision of infants. Of course if an adult wants one done, they should be allowed to go do it, or if it is actually deemed medically necessary. 99% of these circumcisions are not though in the US. That’s what needs to be banned.

      • dgmib@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        There’s a problem with the “if it’s medically necessary” part.

        All the states that have banned abortions have some sort of exemption for if it’s necessary to save the mom’s life but patients are still dying because doctors risk prison time if they make that decision and the state disagrees on if it was necessary. So patients clearly needing medically necessary abortions aren’t getting them early when they’re low risk, they’re getting them when they’re close to death and the surgery is high risk.

        You’re right that circumcisions usually aren’t necessary. But there are medical benefits to the procedure and it is a valid treatment for some medical conditions like phimosis which can lead to serious infections.

        Reducing medically unnecessary circumstances is a problem to fix with education not legislation.

        We need to let parents and doctors still make informed medical decisions without the state interfering.

      • Ephera@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        OP’s post very much sounds to me like they want to wholesale ban the procedure on the basis that it’s usually done without consent. Which is why I responded with what I wrote.

        As the other commenter said, “medically necessary” is tricky wording, but aside from that, I did write essentially the same in my last sentence.