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.
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.
We are talking about the non consensual circumcision of infants. Of course if and 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 what needs to be banned.
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.
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.