If Mort Divine ruled the world

[HamburgerBoy]

No it isn't, "genius". Do you think there were medical experts evaluating male circumcision and its protection from STDs 300 years ago? It's a cultural artifact, and one that didn't apply to women because the Bible didn't say anything about that. You could probably find medical benefits of an intact hymen though if you asked a doctor with the right biases. Or avoiding shellfish. Just look at the tobacco industry if you honestly think legality of ANYTHING is decided on a purely objective basis by scientists.

Do you deny that male circumcision is more than aesthetic? Any place you read will tell you that it permanently cuts through (i.e. destroys) most nerve endings associated with sexual pleasure.

 

[CiG]

Breast cancer research funding is not a better example of female privilege. It's entirely warranted and if you're saying it is a privilege in comparison to the funding for prostate cancer, I didn't know you were an MRA.

Breast cancer is the much deadlier of the two cancers by quite a margin so I think the uneven funding is not really an example of privilege but rather of intelligent allocation of funds.

Edit: Anyway, this has been pure insanity and I respect you a lot less now, for whatever little that is worth. How a rube such as myself can see that clearly it's not a case of more choice as a baby can't choose anything but rather that very little value is put on a male infant's right to an in tact body is beyond me. It should be illegal. I'm out.

 

[Einherjar86]

I respect myself a lot less. It was like going to bed with the really trashy girl at the party.

Breast cancer is the much deadlier of the two cancers by quite a margin

I'm done arguing, but this isn't accurate.

EDIT: I can quote famous thinkers too -

 

[CiG]

I agree with the quote you posted. So...

Prostate cancer has a higher mortality rate especially around the age of 60 and + whereas breast cancer overwhelmingly affects women much younger and I suppose I'd personally put an ethical emphasis on the health of younger people.

I respect myself a lot less. It was like going to bed with the really trashy girl at the party.

All you've been doing is whining and bitching and moaning and insulting, if you're going to stop debating, do it before you lose all credibility you dork.

 

[Baroque]

What preventative reasons are those? Preventing masturbation, and the ensuing blindness, insanity, hairy palms, and various other maladies that come with it? That's how circumcision became commonplace in America. Doctors have been coming up with new reasons for it ever since the original justification ceased to make sense.



So, if the parents want a girl because they already have several boys, should they be able to have sexual reassignment surgery performed on their male infant? After all, it's their property to with as they will, apparently.

The parents should have the decision to make on circumcision, not the government. The example you chose is obviously far more extreme than circumcision, it's not a fair analogy.

 

[Einherjar86]

Prostate cancer has a higher mortality rate especially around the age of 60 and + whereas breast cancer overwhelmingly affects women much younger and I suppose I'd personally put an ethical emphasis on the health of younger people.

Ah. Well see, that's different.

Ok, I'm done now.

 

[rms]

i thought circumcision was a jewish thing, hence why the Brits don't do it since they kicked em all out?

 

[arg]

i bet you're all uncircumcised faggots

 

[Vilden]

Lol posted that right before bed. Massive argument when I wake up.
Sadly I must agree with CIG here, alot of you have demonstrated (imo) really shitty opinions that makes me respect you guess alot less. Thank god for the sane people like CIG, Serjeant and HBB (didin't think the day would come were I call HBB sane).

Health is certainly a good reason. As far as religious/cultural well how about piercings and tattoos? Also it's really up to the parents how they want their child to be. The infant has no opinion or say on the matter, or any matter, they're an infant. It's more dangerous and painful for them to get it done later in life.

Not gonna a start this all up again I just have to be sure I'm not reading this right. Are you actually saying you should be allowed to tattoo your babies? If you do that, then I think the goverment should forcibly take them from you.

 

[Baroque]

Lol posted that right before bed. Massive argument when I wake up.
Sadly I must agree with CIG here, alot of you have demonstrated (imo) really shitty opinions that makes me respect you guess alot less. Thank god for the sane people like CIG, Serjeant and HBB (didin't think the day would come were I call HBB sane).

Not gonna a start this all up again I just have to be sure I'm not reading this right. Are you actually saying you should be allowed to tattoo your babies? If you do that, then I think the goverment should forcibly take them from you.

No, he mentioned body mutilation for religious/cultural reasons, and i said piercings and tattoos are another example of them in general. People do give their babies ear piercings all the time. I don't think a tattoo is any reason to remove someone's child from them either btw. Not saying I would personally have a child tattooed.

Also, tattoos can be removed.. yet they're somehow more shocking to you than piercings or circumcision?

"allowed" is such an authoritarian word. It belies submissiveness of yourself to your government also. I don't think we'll see eye to eye on any of this. No I do not think I should be "allowed" to do things, i should just do them if i wish and have no consequences except the natural effects of my actions. The government should only intervene in extreme cases.

 

[Vilden]

It was me you quoted and I mentioned cultural reasons as a bad reason for it, that's why I asken this . I also think ear piercings on babies should be banned.

 

[Baroque]

It was me you quoted and I mentioned cultural reasons as a bad reason for it, that's why I asken this . I also think ear piercings on babies should be banned.

How about, you simply don't have your own children pierced, and not try to tell other people how to live their lives or raise their children?

 

[CiG]

America is the only western nation that circumcision still survives as a cultural norm in and from all the polls I've seen the main reason parents circumcise is because they prefer their baby resemble their father. There's a strong correlation between circumcised fathers and circumcised sons, as there is with uncircumcised fathers and uncircumcised sons.

You bastards need to catch up with the rest of the civilised world on this issue.

(didin't think the day would come were I call HBB sane).

The government should only intervene in extreme cases.

Many would argue that circumcision on an infant is an extreme case.

 

[Serjeant Grumbles]

There's a strong correlation between circumcised fathers and circumcised sons, as there is with uncircumcised fathers and uncircumcised sons.

Fortunately, my parents spared me that fate even though my dad was circumcised. I guess it's because they ceremonially predicted my distress that my prepuce has not been carved with an iron knife. Let no man lay it bare. While the waning moon wanders, let not misled men remove it.

 

[Vilden]

How about, you simply don't have your own children pierced, and not try to tell other people how to live their lives or raise their children?

Yeah that mind set usually works really well... do you have the same opinion on parents beating their children?

 

[HamburgerBoy]

The parents should have the decision to make on circumcision, not the government. The example you chose is obviously far more extreme than circumcision, it's not a fair analogy.

Why should parents have a right to make a permanent surgical decision with lifelong negative consequences to solve a problem that can already be avoided a dozen different ways? Even hardcore libertarians believe in the principle of "My right to swing my fist ends where your face begins".

 

[CiG]

Circumcision on an infant most certainly violates the NAP.

 

[Baroque]

Why should parents have a right to make a permanent surgical decision with lifelong negative consequences to solve a problem that can already be avoided a dozen different ways? Even hardcore libertarians believe in the principle of "My right to swing my fist ends where your face begins".

It is your opinion that the consequences are negative, it is not a fact. And you're supposed to be the model of a healthy sexual individual?

Do you want me to tell you what you should and shouldn't do with your kids? Oh wait you don't have kids yet you want to tell other people about theirs.

There are obviously different standards between a parent and child than between an adult and another adult.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

debates over dick-skin ... lol, you gotta love this place.

 

[Serjeant Grumbles]

The parents should have the decision to make on circumcision, not the government. The example you chose is obviously far more extreme than circumcision, it's not a fair analogy.

Where do you draw the line as to what cosmetic surgeries are acceptable to be performed on non-consenting infants?