>>19
It's because of this quote:
"whatever jews give to excuse their actions. Yes, in the most basic sense, jews really have nothing to do with this topic. But since
>>17 brought them up, I responded.
>>20
The procedure is something that:
1. Hurts like fuck
2. Will alter the person's appearance for the rest of his life
3. Make sex less enjoyable
4. Makes nearly every man cringe (just thinking about it)
It has many of the negatives of female genital mutilation.
1 and
4. How do you know it hurts? From personal experience? I'm not in any pain. I don't remember being in any pain. Also, why is pain something to be feared or considered serious?
Pain in and of itself is not a crime. Pain is apart of life. If it's not being circumsized at 2 weeks, it's having a root canal when your 16 and got your K9 knocked out by a skinhead wielding a piece of wood. Or it could be having your wisdom teeth removed at 26. This is an invalid point unless you have personally and consciously endured this or unless pain is against the law.
Just because it's painful or
hypothetically makes one cringe doesn't mean it's inherantly wrong. I'm healthly, I'm strong, I'm able and here another clincher: The idea of circumcision doesn't make me cringe.
2. How is this relevant to anyone other than people who don't look the same as the other? How is this different from being white in Africa, or tall in Japan, or black in germany? This point is invalid because you personally don't like the idea of someone else being different from you. People who are 'pro-circumcision' can say the exact same thing. And you'd both be wrong.
3. I enjoy sex. This is an entirely subjective point, which makes it invalid. Unless you're one of those special individuals who got circumsized and then had his foreskin grow back, then you have no realistic basis for this claim.
Names are completely different. The child can adopt his own name later in life if he wants to, and the parents nor anyone else are likely to care. Names are also relatively painless when you compare it with male genital mutilation.
And male genital mutilation is relatively painless when you come compare it to chemo-therapy. What is your point? This is entirely subjective and thus, invalid. You have no way of knowing what impact a child's name can have on his life (even pain-wise) and you have absolutely no way of knowing if the parents would care or not.
Would you allow female genital mutilation without consent?
Female circumcision is not the same as male circumcision. Also: You must show me scientific or medical evidence that Female and Male circumcision are the same. Loss of foreskin does not prevent men from enjoying sex, functioning properly or having offspring.
And everything except the name is essentially uncontrollable. The decision to have a babies' genitals mutilated or not is something you can decide, and there is really no reason to do it, and every reason not to.
It's all uncontrollable. Being born "American" is a choice made for you by the government. Being black is a choice made for me by genetics. Having my foreskin cut, where I lived until I was 18, my name, decided by my parents. All of this is outside of my
initial control.
That's just great for you. Some people would rather keep their penises whole and non-mutilated though, believe it or not.
Since, I've been given a choice here. I'm going to say: Not. Generally speaking, this subject doesn't come up in America. Someone complaining about being circumcized is seen as exceptionally nuerotic and I don't think this is without reason. Being hung up on little details about your body is a bit shallow.
Anyways, the fact that it isn't done to slight you is really beside the point. If someone kills someone because they want to for some other reason, but not for the purpose of slighting the person, it is still wrong. Would it be our business if parents decided to stick their kids with a rusty needle over and over, against their will?
It's only beside the point if we were actually talking about killing people. We're not. We're talking about a piece of skin either remaining or being cut off at birth. We're not talking about shooting people in the face, we're not talking about rape, we're not talking about poking kids with rusty needles.
Finally, I want to point something out to you that you seem to avoid neglect.
1. Someone else's pain is not your concern.
2. Someone else's appearence should not be your concern.
3. How much someone else enjoys sex should not be your concern.
4. What makes people cringe or not cringe should not be your concern.
Now, the REASON these things should not being your concern is because
when it comes to male circumcision they do not effect your or the person's overall quality of life. If you continue to insist that this is not the case, then you have to provide examples that are not only peer-reviewed and scientifically true, but they have to be wide-spread effecting more than 3% of the population.
From what I've seen, circumcized or not, men are men. There are people who are circumcized and who aren't. It really doesn't mean anything. And paying so much attention to this differnce is well...
really weird and dare I even say
totally gay.