I think banning circumcision runs you into many of the same problems that are encountered with banning abortion or gender transition. Or tattoos and ear piercings, for that matter. Or drinking.
You can scare physicians/professionals into refusing to perform it. But then you deal with all the amateurs and their consequences.
I think the point is that it’s not a great comparison because the main argument against circumcision is that it’s permanent and babies can’t consent to it, I don’t think many people try to say that no one should ever be allowed to get a circumcision.
Parents make a whole host of medical decisions for their kids that they don’t formally consent to
Just pounding on consent gets you in the same circle as the anti-vaxers
Frankly I somewhat sympathize with those people because physical/medical autonomy is a topic that deserves respect. The only reason ignoring their choices is justified is because vaccines vault over a high bar of being important for public health and avoiding the clear and significant harm of disease. Also because that’s again choices parents are making on behalf of their children in defiance of what is medically justifiable.
I see a desire to make false equivalency between two very different procedures, because they both have “circumcision” in the name.
They aren’t equivalent, but the difference is severity of harm, not the type of harm. Both procedures are intended and have the effect of inhibiting normal sexual function. If you want to only argue against FGM and draw the line at supporting a circumcision ban, that’s fine because the former is especially horrible and deserves special attention, I just think most arguments for this position are a little bit incoherent.
I think banning circumcision runs you into many of the same problems that are encountered with banning abortion or gender transition. Or tattoos and ear piercings, for that matter. Or drinking.
You can scare physicians/professionals into refusing to perform it. But then you deal with all the amateurs and their consequences.
Gender transition and abortion are also illegal to do without consent
They’re illegal to do with consent.
I think the point is that it’s not a great comparison because the main argument against circumcision is that it’s permanent and babies can’t consent to it, I don’t think many people try to say that no one should ever be allowed to get a circumcision.
Parents make a whole host of medical decisions for their kids that they don’t formally consent to.
Just pounding on consent gets you in the same circle as the anti-vaxers
I see a desire to make false equivalency between two very different procedures, because they both have “circumcision” in the name.
Frankly I somewhat sympathize with those people because physical/medical autonomy is a topic that deserves respect. The only reason ignoring their choices is justified is because vaccines vault over a high bar of being important for public health and avoiding the clear and significant harm of disease. Also because that’s again choices parents are making on behalf of their children in defiance of what is medically justifiable.
They aren’t equivalent, but the difference is severity of harm, not the type of harm. Both procedures are intended and have the effect of inhibiting normal sexual function. If you want to only argue against FGM and draw the line at supporting a circumcision ban, that’s fine because the former is especially horrible and deserves special attention, I just think most arguments for this position are a little bit incoherent.
Depends where, they are legal with consent in most western countries.