by The United Communist Solar Republic » Mon May 06, 2013 9:40 pm
by The Islands of Equality » Mon May 06, 2013 9:43 pm
by Saint Jade IV » Mon May 06, 2013 9:43 pm
by Vazdania » Mon May 06, 2013 9:43 pm
The United Communist Solar Republic wrote:I noticed this topic hasn't existed here since November, so I decided to bring it up again (Because we're desperately in need of a new thread not regarding Golden Dawn, Gun Control, Abortion, or Ebul Feminazi Obama Commie Murderers).
Anyway, so far the UN, the WHO, NPWJ, the DFF, ForwardUK, EqualityNow, etc. (this list could go on forever) have all recognised and condemned FGM (Female Gential Mutilation) as a human rights abuse, yet not one of these organizations have recognised circumcision as a human rights violation, even though it is easily comparable to FGM. It has been proven time and time again that having foreskin is more beneficial than being circumcised, and yet for some reason people still keep circumcising their babies. Then there's still the matter of consent, which a baby of course can not give, along with the matter of why people circumcise their children in the first place. I mean, unless you're a Jew, there should be no logical reason to do it. In the 1800's, it was done to stop teenagers from masturbating, but that obviously hasn't done it. Then there's the matter of females preferring circumcised penises over uncircumcised penises, but that can be turned back at them as if a man prefers mutilated viginas, people will think he's a monster, but if a woman prefers circumcised penises, it's considered okay.
TL;DR No logical reason to do circumcision, unless you're Jewish, and it provides no benefits except slightly less chance of infection.
So NSG, what's your opinion? I think you can already tell what mine is.
by Page » Mon May 06, 2013 9:44 pm
by Gideus » Mon May 06, 2013 9:46 pm
Torcularis Septentrionalis wrote:Everything you said is perfect.
by New haven america » Mon May 06, 2013 9:47 pm
by Uelvan » Mon May 06, 2013 9:47 pm
The United Communist Solar Republic wrote:I noticed this topic hasn't existed here since November, so I decided to bring it up again (Because we're desperately in need of a new thread not regarding Golden Dawn, Gun Control, Abortion, or Ebul Feminazi Obama Commie Murderers).
Anyway, so far the UN, the WHO, NPWJ, the DFF, ForwardUK, EqualityNow, etc. (this list could go on forever) have all recognised and condemned FGM (Female Gential Mutilation) as a human rights abuse, yet not one of these organizations have recognised circumcision as a human rights violation, even though it is easily comparable to FGM. It has been proven time and time again that having foreskin is more beneficial than being circumcised, and yet for some reason people still keep circumcising their babies. Then there's still the matter of consent, which a baby of course can not give, along with the matter of why people circumcise their children in the first place. I mean, unless you're a Jew, there should be no logical reason to do it. In the 1800's, it was done to stop teenagers from masturbating, but that obviously hasn't done it. Then there's the matter of females preferring circumcised penises over uncircumcised penises, but that can be turned back at them as if a man prefers mutilated viginas, people will think he's a monster, but if a woman prefers circumcised penises, it's considered okay.
TL;DR No logical reason to do circumcision, unless you're Jewish, and it provides no benefits except slightly less chance of infection.
So NSG, what's your opinion? I think you can already tell what mine is.
by Wind in the Willows » Mon May 06, 2013 9:47 pm
by Lucius Valentine » Mon May 06, 2013 9:48 pm
by Vazdania » Mon May 06, 2013 9:48 pm
Wind in the Willows wrote:The newborn can't consent to having his penis skin cut off.
by Gideus » Mon May 06, 2013 9:48 pm
New haven america wrote:Unless you medically(There are reasons), I don't get why people do it.
Torcularis Septentrionalis wrote:Everything you said is perfect.
by Gideus » Mon May 06, 2013 9:49 pm
Torcularis Septentrionalis wrote:Everything you said is perfect.
by The Islands of Equality » Mon May 06, 2013 9:50 pm
by Vazdania » Mon May 06, 2013 9:53 pm
Gideus wrote:Vazdania wrote:well neither can they consent to being burped....but we still do it.
That is a shitty comparison.
Cutting a part of their body off that will never grow back is completely different from burping a baby. That's like saying "Oh, well it's ok to cut his foot off without his consent because it's ok to give him CPR without his consent."
by Page » Mon May 06, 2013 9:53 pm
Vazdania wrote:Gideus wrote:
That is a shitty comparison.
Cutting a part of their body off that will never grow back is completely different from burping a baby. That's like saying "Oh, well it's ok to cut his foot off without his consent because it's ok to give him CPR without his consent."
perhaps a better comparison is getting your legal name...You can't consent to it being given to you but your parents choose it for you anyways....
by Haktiva » Mon May 06, 2013 9:54 pm
by Vazdania » Mon May 06, 2013 9:54 pm
Haktiva wrote:I'm pretty biased since I'm Hebrew. I actually have a few Gentile friends who are circumcised for health reasons. And it doesn't bug them.
It's not so bad. Besides, Jewish women wont touch anything that isn't 20% off.
by The Islands of Equality » Mon May 06, 2013 9:54 pm
Vazdania wrote:Gideus wrote:
That is a shitty comparison.
Cutting a part of their body off that will never grow back is completely different from burping a baby. That's like saying "Oh, well it's ok to cut his foot off without his consent because it's ok to give him CPR without his consent."
perhaps a better comparison is getting your legal name...You can't consent to it being given to you but your parents choose it for you anyways....
by Vazdania » Mon May 06, 2013 9:55 pm
by The Sector Union » Mon May 06, 2013 9:55 pm
by Uelvan » Mon May 06, 2013 9:55 pm
by Vazdania » Mon May 06, 2013 9:55 pm
The Islands of Equality wrote:Vazdania wrote:perhaps a better comparison is getting your legal name...You can't consent to it being given to you but your parents choose it for you anyways....
That's a decent comparison. Although there really isn't an option regarding naming your child, you kind of have to name your child, unlike circumscision which isn't necessary.
by Anachronous Rex » Mon May 06, 2013 9:58 pm
The Islands of Equality wrote:I don't have an official stance on the topic, it's up to the parents to decide on whether or not they want to circumcise their child or not.
by The Islands of Equality » Mon May 06, 2013 9:59 pm
Anachronous Rex wrote:The Islands of Equality wrote:I don't have an official stance on the topic, it's up to the parents to decide on whether or not they want to circumcise their child or not.
I don't think it should be up to parents as to whether to permanently alter a part of their child's body, especially their sexual organs (which, I hear, people play a tremendous role in many people's self-image), for no good reason.
I'm funny that way.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Google [Bot], Kaumudeen, So uh lab here, Statesburg, Tungstan, Utquiagvik
Advertisement