accually you only think human babys are worth more because you are human. if you were a cat you would think kittens are worth moreAnimals and human babies aren't morally equivalent, genius.
Results 41 to 60 of 83
no the absolute, beating up or hurting a child in a sadistic way shouldnt be tolerated, and i think 90% of people think that. on the other hand, a parent should be able to decide for his child, depending the age of the child what is good or not for him/her.
until a certain age humans are in a developpement phase and cant be constantly stressed to decide everything for themselves.
WHY kléber, WHY!!!!!!!
accually you only think human babys are worth more because you are human. if you were a cat you would think kittens are worth moreAnimals and human babies aren't morally equivalent, genius.
Your parents ought to have done it earlier like when you were a baby. This also happens to illustrate my point that circumcisions should be done when you're a baby.
Jesus Christ! It's just a FREAKING PIECE OF SKIN!!! It isn't child abuse to nick it off. But I do agree with your sentiment on one area: abortion.
2+2=4
Circumcision reduces a boy's chance of getting AIDS by 50%.
http://www.aegis.com/NEWS/AFP/2007/AF070284.html
But that's just according to the aforementioned report. I think if it could save the lives of children, it should be done. But if the report is a load of bollocks (hehe), then I don't think it should be imposed on children.
[FONT="Georgia"]Kingston wuttup[/FONT]
But decent sex ed and condoms reduce it by much more so why don't we do that instead of snipping bits of people's bodies off without even asking them?and also, for those who end up with problems as a result of it:
Enough to justify not doing it to a child. Most of the natural lubrication is gone (this can affect intercourse too), and the main mode of masturbation (pulling the foreskin over the head of the penis) becomes useless. Some cruel parents use circumcision as a means of detering masturbation.
No, it doesn't. When the results were not favorable to their circumcision hypothesis, the people in charge of this study completely scrapped their data and bullshitted it all.
+ YouTube Video
I am uncircumcised, and I oppose it.
I do not really buy into all the BS about it being healthier, more protection against AIDS,, cleaner or any of that bullshit.
Also, revolution doesn't care for any noxious "traditions", so I don't care if some people who see it as part of their "culture" are offended if we do away with it. The idea that you should cut up some infant's genitals because God told you to is not only ridiculous, it's abhorrent.
I agree. Female circumcision, as some people noted already, has it's own political relevance and warrants the making of its own thread. Any volunteers?
I don't think there is anything to discuss regarding female circumcision. I think even the most dogmatic cappies here will be in agreement that it is unacceptable, so it probably isn't worth making a thread over.
Actually, I think the two need to be discussed in tandem, for there are no societies which practice female circumcision which don't practice male circumcision. Contrary to popular belief, a lot of female circumcision involves just removing some skin--the severing of the clitoris occurs only in the most extreme practices. Although it is not directly comparable, botched circumcisions of male infants often result in horribly deformed and scarred penises.
All this genital mutilation crap is a carryover from a backwards age and must stop.
I think that most of us agree that circumcision in general is not a viable practice. Female circumcision, however, has had a campaign of Western cultural imperialism launched against it which has been used to portray African women as a homogeneous whole (all infibulated of course) that are excessively marginalized victims of their cultures. Male circumcision- while generally on par in terms of actual procedure- lacks that completely, so I think it's an interesting topic of discussion in regard to cultural imperialism. Though not necessarily in the opposing ideologies section.
Well, certainly "cultural imperialism" would be an interesting and worthy topic of discussion, though I don't think it ought to be limited to campaigns waged against non-invasive circumcision or infibulation, since its manifestations obviously extend infinitely beyond this single issue.
I'm grateful to my parents that they had the wisdom to have me circumcised. Personal opinion: The idea of having bits of slack skin at the end of my knob, which you apparently have to 'pull back' (*wince*) while bathing in order to clean and stop the build-up of dirt, grosses me out at a deep level.
How is non-invasive circumcision even possible? To the best of my knowledge, the foreskin cannot be removed without cutting some skin. Is there some sort of cream that makes it shrivel up or something that I don't know about?
Is it ironic that you'd be so strongly opposed to circumcision with a name like Ultra Cheese?
Circumcision: prevents your knob-end smelling like mature cheddar (apparently).
We were meant to have foreskin. Dirt doesn't "build up" because there is a constant flow of urine (sterile water) washing out the inside.
It's funny that you think it's so gross to have a natural penis, but you don't wince at the brutal cruelty in factory farms toward intelligent beings. seriously, wtf?
Blast it! My true motive has been discovered!Is it ironic that you'd be so strongly opposed to circumcision with a name like Ultra Cheese?
Circumcision: prevents your knob-end smelling like mature cheddar (apparently).
Err, I don't support factory-farming humans.
I don't care about what's 'natural'.
