- Joined
- May 6, 2011
- Messages
- 14,697
- Reaction score
- 5,704
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
This is exactly what scares me about libs they want to take freedom of choice away.
This is exactly what scares me about libs they want to take freedom of choice away.
It also enhances the male sex drive as they get older.
Circumcision Can Reduce AIDS Risk, Study Says
Circumcision Can Reduce AIDS Risk, Study Says
What if you aren't religious but simply want to hedge your bets?
well i could cut off my boobs and reduce the risk of breast cancer. why would i do that. i like my boobs.
I get involved in topics like this once in awhile and then I ask myself why. We are never going to ban the procedure so it's really a waste of time to bother.
Ban it. And no, it's not all about the pain. It's also about...
1. The trauma that it may cause.
2. Relatively high risk of complications when done in infants, some of which may require corrective surgery.
3. High risk of changes or even dysfunction in sexual function (in fact, this is why we started doing it in the West - to try to stop boys from masturbating by make them less sensitive - it was NOT for hygiene reasons).
4. No significant advantages (the hygiene thing is total bogus, most boys' foreskins work just fine or can be made to with minor stretching, the STD claims are wildly exaggerated).
5. Removes as much as 80% of the nerve endings in the penis and finally...
6. It is performed on a NON-CONSENTING individual, and it cannot be undone. Even if none of the above were true I would still be against it for this reason.
Temporal is right; it's genital mutilation as much as FGM is. Why we still tolerate performing it on infants in this country is so beyond me.
@shanners
I concur, but, allowing an adult male to make up his own mind when it comes to surgically removing a part of his penis…it’s anarchy!
I still do not think we need a law, but, maybe black market circumcision is what the economy needs, eh?
I say, parents (not forced by law) should allow their son to grow into adulthood so he can make his own educated decision on circumcision.
If I was given a choice I would not have gone with circumcision but, some may find whatever was good for the ancient Egyptians is good for them.
OK, let me see how much controversy I can cause. With a measure on the ballot in San Francisco to ban male circumcision, let see what everybody's opinion is.
I never understood why female circumcision is not okay but male is. I'm against both and I consider both to be genital mutilation.
Because circumcision has mainly utilitarian function. Every uncircumcised man that has spent a couple of days at temperatures 40 C and above can tell you what happens with his dick (not a pretty picture, not a pleasant smell too). And with water supply hardly enough for drinking, you can imagine how men in that part of the world (Middle East, desert) could maintain hygiene.
The Lord of the Jews knew that, so he order circumcision for his flock to save it from trouble. It's that simple.
Sorry if I repeat somebody else, no time to read the whole thread.
We have a cure for it, though. It's called a shower.
You know, in the desert where people bath with sand, it wouldn't really work.
If all males were just aborted, it would take this issue off the table and solve many other problems.
.
This is exactly what scares me about libs they want to take freedom of choice away.
Wow. I question and check your sources. But this one is too fun. What is the one for this? Thanks!
You know what's so funny? In August of 2009, their President, Barack Obama, wanted to make male circumcision mandatory.
he did? i've never heard that. can you provide a link?