Pro-Genital mutilation sickos

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Status
Not open for further replies.
http://pimppreacher.com/post/85718036780/jewish-rabbis-have-now-infected-14-babies-with
This is a thread on those sick bastards who believe genital mutilation is a good thing. Fucking rabbis giving kids herpes?
http://jezebel.com/328601/african-doctor-is-female-circumcision-so-awful
Women even get their lady part cut off.
Dr Richard Shweder says "'First World' feminist issues and political correctness and activism have triumphed over the critical assessment of evidence."
Why would you do this shit? Why is god so obsessed with dick skin? Saul wanted a bag of 100 foreskins as a dowry.
 
Click to expand...
PurpleMonkeyDishwasher said:
Basically, I can normally roll my foreskin back, but if I have an erection it is harder to do. Generally rolling back my foreskin results in an erection, and the foreskin gets kind of tight around my penis. It doesn't particularly hurt, but it is fairly tight. Also, various diagrams I've seen show the foreskin rolled behind the glans and up the shaft a ways, but mine bunches up and doesn't go much further than the bottom of the glans. I'm not sure if this is a problem or not.
Click to expand...

Being unable to roll back your foreskin can be symptomatic of phimosis. This can typically be corrected with certain medications or a routine circumcision that is completely normal and healthy for a man of any age, race, religion, gender, creed, economic status, sexual orientation, species, and party identification.
 
*Asterisk* said:
Since I was advocating neither reason and instead advocating on health grounds, I fail to see how this proves your point.

Go on. . . .


Interesting. I always thought there were 3 in 50 million deaths over a generation compared to the thousands of deaths from penile cancer. But surely your blatant sensationalism is worth more than the opinions of actual doctors, right?

Because if it wasn't, you'd look awfully foolish.



That's funny. Let's actually look at what the AAP has to say:



Any other points you'd like to make, buddy boy?
Click to expand...
The (apparently controversial) health benefits are largely irrelevant in my opinion, you shouldn't be performing any procedure that isn't necessary on a newborn because they cannot consent and there is inherent risk in any surgical procedure.
The scramble to find benefits seems to be mainly motivated by wanting to justify the procedure for cultural reasons.
I'm sure you can lop off other bits of the body and find health benefits for that too, doesn't mean you should do it categorically to a person who is unable to give consent.
 
Massif said:
The (apparently controversial) health benefits are largely irrelevant in my opinion, you shouldn't be performing any procedure that isn't necessary on a newborn because they cannot consent and there is inherent risk in any surgical procedure.
The scramble to find benefits seems to be mainly motivated by wanting to justify the procedure for cultural reasons.
I'm sure you can lop off other bits of the body and find health benefits for that too, doesn't mean you should do it categorically to a person who is unable to give consent.
Click to expand...
Everything people do to infants lacks consent. That's not what dictates proper infant care. What dictates proper infant care is our responsibility to do the best we can to insure their health so they'll be able to reach the point where they can live as adults.

The controversy's being fostered by intactivists, which is what I originally started that old circumcision thread about. It went to hell because too few people actually wanted to have a reasonable discussion compared to going in a panic.
 
*Asterisk* said:
Everything people do to infants lacks consent. That's not what dictates proper infant care. What dictates proper infant care is our responsibility to do the best we can to insure their health so they'll be able to reach the point where they can live as adults.

The controversy's being fostered by intactivists, which is what I originally started that old circumcision thread about. It went to hell because too few people actually wanted to have a reasonable discussion compared to going in a panic.
Click to expand...
Most other similarly drastic things done to infants are done out of immediate medical necessity not alleged future health benefits.
As far as I'm aware there is no other surgical procedure which is routinely performed for prophylactic purposes on infants and conspicuously enough the only one which is has strong cultural motivations associated with it.
 
Massif said:
Most other similarly drastic things done to infants are done out of immediate medical necessity not alleged future health benefits.
As far as I'm aware there is no other surgical procedure which is routinely performed for prophylactic purposes on infants and conspicuously enough the only one which is has strong cultural motivations associated with it.
Click to expand...
Most surgical procedures are a fairly recent medical advancement. It's also very difficult to perform most of them on infants since anesthesia's so tricky to perform on any living thing that small.

That said, there are still similar procedures which are performed on infants which are done on things they can still live with. Hare lip, for instance. You can live with it, but it's definitely better to immediately operate without waiting for the infant's consent. Tongue tie as well. We don't ask for infants consent on that, either.
 
*Asterisk* said:
Most surgical procedures are a fairly recent medical advancement. It's also very difficult to perform most of them on infants since anesthesia's so tricky to perform on any living thing that small.

That said, there are still similar procedures which are performed on infants which are done on things they can still live with. Hare lip, for instance. You can live with it, but it's definitely better to immediately operate without waiting for the infant's consent. Tongue tie as well. We don't ask for infants consent on that, either.
Click to expand...
Those are birth defects and have other complications associated with them, the foreskin isn't and doesn't.
Anyway I'm done with this.
 
*Asterisk* said:
Most surgical procedures are a fairly recent medical advancement. It's also very difficult to perform most of them on infants since anesthesia's so tricky to perform on any living thing that small.

That said, there are still similar procedures which are performed on infants which are done on things they can still live with. Hare lip, for instance. You can live with it, but it's definitely better to immediately operate without waiting for the infant's consent. Tongue tie as well. We don't ask for infants consent on that, either.
Click to expand...
Explain why rabbis give those boys herrpes by sucking blood out of their baby weiners? Why is this even a thing?
 
This is the worst thread I have seen in months.

You know, since the last dick skin thread. For some reason foreskins have this magical power that turns grown-ass adults into babbling pants-shitters.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom