?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

More on the circumcision warfront...

I've been an active member of cf_hardcore for some time, a debate about which is better "cut or uncut" pulled me in. With the advances the MGM Bill (a bill [proposed law] which will completely outlaw circumcision in the United States for anyone under 18 years of age) has made in the past few months, I thought it would be a fun place to debate some of the issues behind the MGM Bill. Can you say "flame on!"?

It's simply amazing what happens when a proposed LAW is put on the agenda that threatens "the old ways" (whether Jewish or not!) Proof again that people resist change.

Thanks to ONE person in the group, tsorton, who wrote:

Wow, we finally hit a new level of hypocrisy.

To summarise:

Anyone who supports that bill is:

a) anti-semit, because no other religion but Judaism's requires breeders to mutilate their larvae for the glory of the gawd;

b) if not anti-semit then religiously intolerant arsehole (or both) because, you know, it's gazillion years old tradition and an "important religious ritual" and therefore it is good;

c) male chauvinist - because there is nothing wrong with mutilating male larvae (see above) and talking about it makes female circumcision less barbaric and is an attack on women (best WTF argument I have ever seen);

d) prejudiced against those fine folks who believe it's OK to mutilate male larvae because "it's aesthetically more pleasing" and "*I* like it that way";

Also, apparently it's OK to post news articles/blogs/etc about IDWIYO as long as it has nothing to do with circumcision, because (see all of the above).


You get the idea... If you want to see the entire thread of messages (you must be sooo bored), you can do so by clicking here.



Comments

mc4bbs
Jan. 29th, 2006 03:55 pm (UTC)
An anonymous pussy writes...
An anonymous reader from Kenoshi, WI, who's too chicken to sign in and/or use his own username for fear of retribution (who's a Road Runner customer at IP address 65.29.148.146 [please, don't hammer him!!]) writes:

uncut cocks look like shit....

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. If someone uncut grows up and chooses that they prefer to be circumcised, great for them! I chose to get circumcised in January 2005! But removing a part of a healthy baby boy in the name of what SOMEONE ELSE considers pretty or not is simply wrong.

Why would anyone cut off such a valuable body part?

The world origins of circumcision are unknown. However, circumcision began in the United States in the late 1800's largely because some doctors thought that it prevented masturbation, which at the time was thought to be harmful. But once that and other myths were proven wrong, new reasons were created to perpetuate circumcision, most notably that a circumcised penis is more "hygienic" than an intact penis. Other reasons that are used to justify circumcision include flawed studies suggesting that it protects against disease, that it makes boys look the same as their fathers or others in their community, and for religious reasons. Medicaid reimbursement for circumcision in thirty-four states also provides financial incentives for circumcision.

The unique nerve endings that are cut off during circumcision cannot be restored. However, other significant damage from circumcision can be reversed through a method called non-surgical foreskin restoration, which involves stretching the remaining shaft skin over the glans to grow new skin. By keeping the glans and remaining inner foreskin area covered and protected, the keratin that built up over the lifetime of the victim slowly peels away, resulting in a significant improvement to sexual sensitivity. The natural gliding mechanism can also be restored to some extent, provided that enough new skin can be regrown. -- But this is never the same as the "original equipment."

Latest Month

May 2018
S M T W T F S
  12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Tiffany Chow