pro-choice vs anti-infant circumcision

a-man-from-earth · 2022-05-10T09:47:54+00:00

Allowing something because it can't be stopped is not a good argument.

The human right to bodily autonomy is a much stronger argument against both forced pregnancies and genital mutilation of children.

Unit_08 · 2022-05-10T15:22:18+00:00

There is a logical reason to have an abortion: to end a pregnancy. People are going to want to end pregnancies regardless of its legality. There is no logical reason to perform a circumcision. Without cultural and religious reasons, there would be no demand for it.

Developed countries banned similar procedures for female genitals, and there's no epidemic of secret underground unsafe FGM.

veddX · 2022-05-10T11:41:20+00:00

Criminalizing rape has possibly made rapists even more dangerous than they already are because because now the have a bigger incentive to "get rid" of the victims by killing them to not get reported but that doesn't mean we should legalize rape. That's an appeal to futility, Just because a law isn't 100% effective doesn't mean we should get rid of it.

Don't let perfect be the enemy of better.

2022-05-10T20:00:14+00:00

Not true. Circumcision has no purpose, and as such people aren't desperate for them. Once they fall out of favor, they will presumably never come back, because they were an arbitrary social norm. Nobody is desperate for a circumcision.

Abortion, on the other hand, is a procedure whose ease of access is incredibly important for women of reproductive ages the world over. A woman who is not ready to have a child will resort to an illegal abortion out of desperation, either for being too poor, too young, too sick, etc.

These two things aren't really comparable since one is a necessity (and ought to be a human right, in my opinion), and the other is a cosmetic procedure whose existence is predicated solely on religious nonsense.

hangfrog · 2022-05-10T17:40:53+00:00

You misunderstand the problem, there will always be illegal abortions because they are needed for basic economic and health reasons that trump the legal ramifications. To say there will always be circumcision performed on infants for the same reason is just wrong. Making the procedure illegal to perform on infants would have far fewer negative ramifications for people's quality of life, beyond religious based preferences, or for society in general.

Omoikane13 · 2022-05-10T08:54:01+00:00

Yes, infant circumcision is done on someone elses body, but if the point is making sure people aren't using unsafe procedures if you can't stop them by making them illegal, shouldn't it also apply to circumcision?

This feels a little different, partly due to abortion being the decision of a functioning adult, while infant circumcision has no input from the affected party. I think the idea of someone being able to want a medical procedure on themselves and to be able to consent to it is a massive factor that you're glossing over a bit.

In addition, there are far more consequences for "not getting an abortion" than there are for "not circumcising a baby", thus making "people will do it anyway" have a different level of severity for both scenarios.

EDIT: To hopefully clarify, not only can a pregnant woman actually consent to an abortion, but will almost certainly have more access to travel and a much higher impetus to seek out an abortion if desired. "Banning abortion just bans safe abortions" is not a rule, it's a practical consideration.

luminenkettu · 2022-05-11T01:02:42+00:00

we stopped female circumcision, why can this not happen with male circumcision? we just need to destroy the medical root & make the cultural root so weak no one cares to violate the law, and it's out.

ArtAutomatic5110 · 2022-05-10T11:17:58+00:00

I have to agree, there was a case in Ireland where an infant died due to unsafe circumcision because the parents couldn't get it done safely.

lastfreethinker · 2022-05-11T16:51:16+00:00

There's a very significant difference and let's cover it.

First of all, the act of seeking out an abortion when abortion is illegal is one of desperation, since because it is now a crime, those who are doing it or not going to be of the most medical professional standing. Legalizing it allows you to regulate those doing it and keep safe.

Making male genital mutilation illegal actually has the same effect. It allows you to ensure that the party involved is consenting to it, it will be handled by a medical professional who is fully trained and licensed in it. Whereas now in the United States as an example which is typically conducted by a gynecologist. Not someone trained in male anatomy. Also be performed by religious people who aren't actually medically trained in it, it's a vocation for them. Ensuring it is illegal also allows you to protect children from it by having clear evidence of a case and case there was a medical reason. Which by the way, extremely rare you would have it well document.

LakiL_ · 2022-05-13T12:29:37+00:00

There is a key difference here: abortion is actually justifiable. Circumcision on newborns is not.

Verybigduck69 · 2022-06-28T10:36:32+00:00

I’m the exact same. Both are pro-choice. Pro-choice on reproductive rights and pro-choice on people choosing to be circumcised themselves instead of mutilated without permission. Both opinions support bodily autonomy.

Alarming_Guide_5924 · 2024-07-28T00:26:47+00:00

u are pro bodily autonomy for women and males and females (FGM). great.

pro life ppl should want to protect male and female genitals.

Comments