Elle, I’ve read your passionate attempts at a rebuke of Dave’s position.
And he asserted his point well.
But I think he could have done so more simply.
If a WHO study found that FGM reduced thrush by 25% say would you support elective infantile genital mutilation on girls?
I don’t think you would.
Because you and I both know there are a host of other factors that could produce a greater reduction of thrush in women.
Please. Just don’t.
The statement you so frequently cite suggests the health benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks of circumcision. That is not the same as same saying the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks of leaving everything alone…
And what’s the very first tenet of the Hippocratic Oath? ‘Do no harm’.
Unnecessary circumcision is an abrogation of a clinicians primary duty.
If I remove someone’s cervix at birth that reduces their risk of cervical cancer… right?!?!
That’s a logical fallacy you’ve fallen into. And one perpetuated by a country dominated by a private health industry who don’t perform circumcision for free.