332
Genital mutilation should be illegal (lemmy.world)
submitted 3 years ago by to c/atheistmemes@lemmy.world
192 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4 points 3 years ago (2 children)

Having had that, it's extremely mild, a tiny bit of discomfort for a couple days. Not worth removing the foreskin for. We don't cut off people's ears because kids often get ear infections.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    And that's your experience and opinion. The article states that 5% have more than mild cases, and some should be medically removed for medical reasons.

    Everything has pros and cons, but I'm not making the choice for anyone else. That's their choice, but it should still be a choice.

    And I don't see how cutting off an ear would reduce ear infections, as it's typically the canal that's infected, not the ear. A lot more involved, and I can't find any benefits like I could for circumcision. Although, you could be onto something as I'm sure there is data for piecing infections? Is this the reason for changing topic?

    I've purely stated facts with supported links and haven't seen the same. Constructive discussion is great but that has yet to be seen yet. So I'm probaby gonna move along with my day and hope you have a great day as well.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago

    The point is removing body parts before they get infected, because there is a small chance they'll get infected is idiotic. There's plenty of downsides to being circumcised, like caratanized glans, leading to reduced sensitivity, and difficulty finishing. Not to mention the many times too much skin is taken off, which can make all erections for said dicks owner very painful.

    And a choice, sure, for adults, who've lived with their foreskins and understand what they are losing, not babies or young children who're not at an age to understand what's being taken away.

    As for the ear, not having an outer ear would make it easier to clean the ear canal, and for wax to drip out, so it would reduce canal infections. But we don;t do that, because it's better to just treat the few infections, than to remove someone's organs as a baby.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent