Right, it's a foreskin - a useful and extremely nerve-rich portion of the penis, the loss of which is known to be blunting to sexual pleasure.
So what if the parents want to cut it off their kids?
What if the kid grows up and wants to have had one? Don't they have a right to their own bodies? Certainly we allow medical necessity to override bodily sovereignty when it comes to children - or adults, even, sometimes. But we don't allow cosmetic necessity to do so, and we shouldn't allow religious "necessity" to do so either.
Or is it just that you don't believe there's any such thing as a human right?
I don't believe there is any such thing as a human right except those established by a State, culture or society and those rights are peculiar to that State, culture or society.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
You guys are forgetting the most important part! Women LOVE a snipped penis. Ask 'em...they'll admit it.
Eveyone should have it done, it's a nicer presentation.
Actually I'm not sure that's entirely accurate. What I could say is that the companies that make lubricants (K-Y anyone?) probably sell a lot more to the snipped than the unsnipped. Perhaps you are alluding to the uncleaned being worse when unsnipped. That's a different topic. And we aren't talking condoms either....
To me it is a barbaric practice, not at all on the scale of female genital mutilation, but still a crude barbaric practice done only to keep the particular religious leaders in power happy.....
To me it is a barbaric practice, not at all on the scale of female genital mutilation, but still a crude barbaric practice done only to keep the particular religious leaders in power happy.....
Really? That's why people circumcise their kids? To keep the religious leaders in power happy?
You have spoken to every parent who ever circumcised their child...
And this is what you have found to be true?
Really?
What I could say is that the companies that make lubricants (K-Y anyone?) probably sell a lot more to the snipped than the unsnipped.
Obviouslymore Americans are circumcised than not.
But the need for lubricant has nothing to do with whether there is a foreskin or not.
More playing with words. Most people I know understand branding to be what ranchers do to their cattle, involving hot iron to leave permanent scarring.
If there is anyone who legitimatly didn't understand what I meant then I am sorry.
Giving a twin a tattoo for the purposes of identification is not the same thing.
More playing with words. Most people I know understand branding to be what ranchers do to their cattle, involving hot iron to leave permanent scarring.
My apologies. I thought you were speaking in a general sense of permanently marking a child for purposes of identification.
Intentionally burning children is considered a no-no in this locale.
Circumcision doesn't even come close to meeting the basic criteria for being classified as 'mutilation'.
And what of the few who HAVE had impaired use, disability, or destruction, or even death as a result?
Is it mutilation in that circumstance?
An argument may also be made that every circed male has impared use. The parts that are cut off have function. Just because we can get around that loss of function with modernity does not mean that it is not a loss.
Do you really think the only reason people have their children/get circumcised is out of 'a brutish old age superstition about making a war god happy'?
Yea. Or a cultural infestation rooted in exactly that.
There certainly is not practical or medical reason to do it.
To be fair, I could also add that some people may do it out of ignorance, believing that it is a cleanliness issue as is the popular myth.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
(1)
