Father Time
I'll be Still Alive
- Nov 29, 2008
- 5,130
- 450
- 83
- Thread starter
- #61
strollingbones:is rare in all males, circumcised or not, rarer in non-circumcising Denmark than the US, rarer than male breast cancer. We could cut off boy babies' nipples to prevent that (they won't be needing them) but we don't.penile cancer
See www . circumstitions . com / Images / looklike.gif (no spaces)
That's a very rare condition (called BXO) which can be treated without surgery.
Huh?
midcan5:
This seems to be a variant of "Parents make many decisions for their children" Short answer: ... but no decision quite like this, about what parts of his own body he is allowed to keep.
A better analogy is: when the child is born, does the doctor ask us if we want his pinky fingertips, earlobes, tonguetip, eyelids, or her little clitoral hood, clitoris or labia trimmed? What's so special about his foreskin that parents even get asked? (In the rest of the English-speaking world, they used to, but they found circumcising doesn't do any good, so now they don't. In most of the world they've never done it. Seven out of ten men in the world are intact.)
No, on the contrary they improve with use and experience.
xotoxi:
belongs on the list at www . circumstitions . com / Stitions&refs.html .Boys should be circumcised as it is the only thing that distinguishes them from animals.
Bottom line: in the US, home of the free, all people should be allowed undisturbed ownership all of the healthy non-renewable parts of their bodies they were born with. If you don't own your own body, what do you own?
Sure thing, of course you only apply this to the babies that are not murdered before they are ever born right? Those that have a mother that for convenience seek decides carrying a baby full term will impact her life in a negative manner and so has a doctor murder the unborn baby, right?
So one must not circumcised at birth but can be terminated before birth just fine? Have I got your argument down about right?
Ladies and gentlemen this is what we call grasping at straws hugh has posted 3 things here and not one of them even mentioned abortion yet RGS is somehow able to psychically figure out that hugh's pro-choice?
Although even if he was that doesn't really address any of his arguments
This would be like assuming every pro-lifer was for the death penalty and then making them defend their dual positions before we discuss either.
Oh and I see little hypocritical about not giving fetuses rights (up to a point) because they're insignificant (the argument I hear most from pro-choicers) but giving newborns rights. For the most part they're not the same.