Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson Thinks It's a Conservative Virtue to Mutilate the Genitals of Little Children

[AFrench2]

Sorry, it was ordered liberties. Not smart liberties.

we rely on ordered liberty. <-- article.

That's like the most left-wing thing to say ever.

Oh, yeah. From the Federalist article. It is a great phrase and sounds rather libertarian to me.
Unrestrained liberty is anarchy. The Federalist is a great source in my opinion.

Not necessarily.

Many anarchists believe in Corporate-Anarchy. No government, but rule by Corporate oligarchies.

Think Robocop.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

It's surgery...on the penis...and it's done to children with no consent.

Are you sure it's not genital mutilation? Because I'm pretty sure it is, dude.

Okay, this is a rabbit hole I will not go down but you could say the same
about removing a child's tonsils. Surgery without getting a child's permission.

Like I said I've done my research and circumcision reduces the incidence of penile cancer so for me
the issue is closed. Start a thread if you want but I won't be there.

 

[AFrench2]

Tonsils aren't genitals...isn't your topic about genital mutilation?

The **** are you talking about?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Not necessarily.

Many anarchists believe in Corporate-Anarchy. No government, but rule by Corporate oligarchies.

Think Robocop.

Okay. Something else I won't argue over but government by corporate oligarchies are not
anarchy either.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Tonsils aren't genitals...isn't your topic about genital mutilation?

The **** are you talking about?

It's called an "analogy". Look it up. I never implied even that tonsils were genitals.
Where do you get your ideas from? I even qualified how tonsils could be considered like
genitals for purposes of the discussion.

Wake up.

 

[Trickster]

It's surgery...on the penis...and it's done to children with no consent.

Are you sure it's not genital mutilation? Because I'm pretty sure it is, dude.

Okay, this is a rabbit hole I will not go down but you could say the same
about removing a child's tonsils. Surgery without getting a child's permission.

Like I said I've done my research and circumcision reduces the incidence of penile cancer so for me
the issue is closed. Start a thread if you want but I won't be there.

I doubt you have done any research at all because it is pretty obvious to me that you have just swallowed the general propaganda as you are using the average NPC-phrase of "it reduces penile cancer."

The fact of the matter is that no medical association recommends the procedure and all "benefits" are so minuscule it is not to be taken as a causation. You could use the same logic to advocate chopping off the arms of newborns to reduce the risk of arm cancer.

Pontetial and actual should never be confused. Circumcision only reduces a very unlikely potential and is therefore a purely irrational procedure.

Circumcision is by definition mutilation.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

I doubt you have done any research at all because it is pretty obvious to me that you have just swallowed the general propaganda as you are using the average NPC-phrase of "it reduces penile cancer."

Circumcision removes all (or part) of the foreskin. This procedure is most often done in infants, but it can be done later in life, too. Men who were circumcised as children may have a much lower chance of getting penile cancer than those who were not. In fact, some experts say that circumcision as an infant prevents this cancer. The same protective effect is not seen if circumcision is done as an adult. From the American Cancer Society.


The pro foreskin fetishists will come out of the woodwork to deny the health benefits of removing
the penis skin turtle neck you lunatics love so much but still the benefit is recognized by science
and actual doctors.
If you love your useless evolutionary relic by all means keep it. But just know your ilk spreads disinformation
that can actually hinder the saving of lives. So please crawl back under your rock now.

The fact of the matter is that no medical association recommends the procedure and all "benefits" are so minuscule it is not to be taken as a causation. You could use the same logic to advocate chopping off the arms of newborns to reduce the risk of arm cancer.

The American Cancer Society must not be a
medical association then in your blighted view.
The NIH states that circumcision can reduce the spread of AIDS.
And from the WHO: "Male circumcision is one of the oldest and most common surgical procedures worldwide, and is undertaken for many reasons: religious, cultural, social and medical. There is conclusive evidence from observational data and three randomized controlled trials that circumcised men have a significantly lower risk of becoming infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)."

So much for the idiotic claim that medical authorities want to hang onto the useless penis skin
you love so much. It's a lie! If the increased chance of AIDS, cancer and other diseases is minor (IF, I said)
then the risk is still great considering how AIDS and Cancer can kill and what a person risks
for such a pointless socially dismal flap of skin. It's crazy!


The more one does research the more your tiresome lies fall away and a ban in the capitol of Kookdom,
San Francisco, never got off the ground as as the turtle neck zealots attempt make the authoritarian
ban of circumcision into law failed miserably. Try to make an analogy between circumcision and
chopping off arms is so absurd and lame it doesn't deserve a reply except to say how asinine it is.

Pontetial and actual should never be confused. Circumcision only reduces a very unlikely potential and is therefore a purely irrational procedure.

Circumcision is by definition mutilation.

Tell the medical bodies I have cited that circumcision is pointless. They don't happen to agree with
mentally ill foreskin fetishists like yourself.
I only wish I could have had more sons so I could have had them circumcised too.
And like all kooks anti circumcision supporters are very low in numbers but high in zealous idiocy. They
want to tell others how to live and how to treat their own bodies...a sure sign of dogmatic fanaticism.

Keep your penis' turtle neck and any other vestigial relics you choose, including the increased risk of AIDS and cancer your fetish bequeaths to you. Leave other people alone and go about your absurd business without bothering others. Feck off!

 

[RealDave]

He is wrong, but this is a lie.

He never said that it was okay to mutilate the genitals of children.

This is bullshit.

Your complaint is bullshit! Just because Asa Hutchinson never used the actual words "genital mutilation"
doesn't change the fact that is exactly what he advocates for little children being forcibly transitioned
from Ray to Raylene, for instance. Get wise to your own foolishness.

Yet another example of "conservative" stupidity. Your ignorance drives this stupidity as you refuse to address the reality of a person's brain not aligning with their genitals.

You would agree that parents have the right to refuse medical treatment for their children for religious beliefs. Probably agree that parents can circumcise their children? As you force children to go through their childhood living as the wrong gender.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Yet another example of "conservative" stupidity. Your ignorance drives this stupidity as you refuse to address the reality of a person's brain not aligning with their genitals.

You would agree that parents have the right to refuse medical treatment for their children for religious beliefs. Probably agree that parents can circumcise their children? As you force children to go through their childhood living as the wrong gender.

Speaking of stupidity you totally dismiss the very real possibility of changing one's gender because it's
currently a popular and fashionable thing to do among some. There is much evidence
of this kind of regret.
If someone is truly body dismorphic because their brain and bodies do not align then waiting until a child
is able to make a more informed decision, that won't be deeply regretted later, is a sensible thing to do.

But fools like yourself don't think about that. You don't have to.

I have NOT said I would back parents refusing needed medical treatment for medical reasons so thanks for
imaging that lie. And Yes! A parent acts in the child's best interests when the child is circumcised.
But I'm not surprised that you are the sort of kook that is a fetishist for an evolutionarily pointless
flap of skin that cause all sort of health problems, according to medical experts.

Do I want to force children to go through life living as the wrong gender? That's another lie of yours if waiting until the age of fifteen equals an entire lifetime to fools like you.

 

[22lcidw]

Tonsils aren't genitals...isn't your topic about genital mutilation?

The **** are you talking about?

Progs and their comparisons to deflect realities.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Yet another example of "conservative" stupidity. Your ignorance drives this stupidity as you refuse to address the reality of a person's brain not aligning with their genitals.

I forgot what a miserable liar you were.
Now I remember. I believe waiting until a child is old enough to make an informed choice that will effect
the restof his/her life the intelligent way to go. No wonder you are against such an option preferring to chop.mutilate or permanently alter one's body when a child isn't even out of pre school yet. That's barbaric.

You would agree that parents have the right to refuse medical treatment for their children for religious beliefs.

I would not but thanks for answering for me. Feck off!

Probably agree that parents can circumcise their children?

Yes. For good health and safety reasons I certainly would. It figures you are one of those kooks that have fetish for a useless flap of skin that's an evolutionary relic.

As you force children to go through their childhood living as the wrong gender.

As already stated your assumptions are offensive and a lie.

 

[Trickster]

Circumcision removes all (or part) of the foreskin. This procedure is most often done in infants, but it can be done later in life, too. Men who were circumcised as children may have a much lower chance of getting penile cancer than those who were not. In fact, some experts say that circumcision as an infant prevents this cancer. The same protective effect is not seen if circumcision is done as an adult. From the American Cancer Society.

Yes, as I said then. Then text you have quoted only says that those who were circumcised "may have a lower chance" which implies there is either just no proof or that the data available is so insignificant it could just be coincidental.

If RIC truly prevented penile cancer it would mean no one who was circumcised at birth in the history of the procedure has ever been diagnosed with it and that is just not true.

Penile cancer is generally a very rare condition anyways. As I said, chopping off an infant's arms would prevent biceps cancer.

The pro foreskin fetishists will come out of the woodwork to deny the health benefits of removing
the penis skin turtle neck you lunatics love so much but still the benefit is recognized by science
and actual doctors.

I have no idea what a "pro-foreskin fetishist" is and the fact that you had to make this whole thing about sex is just disgusting. Why are you sexualizing newborns?

What is lunacy is to cut off your newborn's healthy body parts for no other reason that cultural and/or religious conformity. It is completely rooted in second-handedness, irrationality and whim. Science does not recognize its benefits because there are no such benefits that science can prove.

If you love your useless evolutionary relic by all means keep it. But just know your ilk spreads disinformation.

Most of us had no choice because our parents fell for disinformation.

That can actually hinder the saving of lives. So please crawl back under your rock now.

This is just pure and utter bullshit. Neonatal circumcision has nothing to do with "saving lives".

The American Cancer Society must not be a
medical association then in your blighted view.

Point to me where they recommend RIC.

The NIH states that circumcision can reduce the spread of AIDS.

Again, can which just, again, implies there is no data to support that. Does the US have lower HIV/AIDS rates than, say, Italy?

And from the WHO: "Male circumcision is one of the oldest and most common surgical procedures worldwide, and is undertaken for many reasons: religious, cultural, social and medical.

Oh, I guess that must mean it is right then.

"There is conclusive evidence from observational data and three randomized controlled trials that circumcised men have a significantly lower risk of becoming infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)."

Complete bs and it does not really matter what data from Third World countries where most communities have no access to clean water nor any knowledge of germ theory says.

So much for the idiotic claim that medical authorities want to hang onto the useless penis skin you love so much..

If there is anything that medical authorities actually say, it would be that that foreskin is not useless. It has a funcion and is thus, by definition, useful.

Where did I ever say I "love" foreskins? What I love is reason and RIC is very anti-reason.

It's a lie! If the increased chance of AIDS, cancer and other diseases is minor (IF, I said) then the risk is still great considering how AIDS and Cancer can kill and what a person risks
for such a pointless socially dismal flap of skin. It's crazy!

Slice up your daughter too then. You would not want her to get labia-cancer, would you?

Geez.

Why are you so passionate in your defence of a procedure that is clearly barbaric and pointless? Are you maybe looking for rationalizations to feel better about what was done to you?

The more one does research the more your tiresome lies fall away and a ban in the capitol of Kookdom,
San Francisco, never got off the ground as as the turtle neck zealots attempt make the authoritarian
ban of circumcision into law failed miserably. Try to make an analogy between circumcision and
chopping off arms is so absurd and lame it doesn't deserve a reply except to say how asinine it is.

The analogy is not absurd at all.

Tell the medical bodies I have cited that circumcision is pointless. They don't happen to agree with
mentally ill foreskin fetishists like yourself.

They already agree with me.

I only wish I could have had more sons so I could have had them circumcised too.

Well... That's weird. But, thanks for the information... I guess.

And like all kooks anti circumcision supporters are very low in numbers but high in zealous idiocy. They
want to tell others how to live and how to treat their own bodies...a sure sign of dogmatic fanaticism.

Clearly you are no able to have a civil discussion about the matter without resorting to name-calling. Calm down, dude.

Keep your penis' turtle neck and any other vestigial relics you choose, including the increased risk of AIDS and cancer your fetish bequeaths to you. Leave other people alone and go about your absurd business without bothering others. Feck off!

You don't have to worry, I was snipped too.

 

[RealDave]

Yet another example of "conservative" stupidity. Your ignorance drives this stupidity as you refuse to address the reality of a person's brain not aligning with their genitals.

I forgot what a miserable liar you were.
Now I remember. I believe waiting until a child is old enough to make an informed choice that will effect
the restof his/her life the intelligent way to go. No wonder you are against such an option preferring to chop.mutilate or permanently alter one's body when a child isn't even out of pre school yet. That's barbaric.

You would agree that parents have the right to refuse medical treatment for their children for religious beliefs.

I would not but thanks for answering for me. Feck off!

Probably agree that parents can circumcise their children?

Yes. For good health and safety reasons I certainly would. It figures you are one of those kooks that have fetish for a useless flap of skin that's an evolutionary relic.

As you force children to go through their childhood living as the wrong gender.

As already stated your assumptions are offensive and a lie.

Yet another example of "conservative" stupidity. Your ignorance drives this stupidity as you refuse to address the reality of a person's brain not aligning with their genitals.

I forgot what a miserable liar you were.
Now I remember. I believe waiting until a child is old enough to make an informed choice that will effect
the restof his/her life the intelligent way to go. No wonder you are against such an option preferring to chop.mutilate or permanently alter one's body when a child isn't even out of pre school yet. That's barbaric.

You would agree that parents have the right to refuse medical treatment for their children for religious beliefs.

I would not but thanks for answering for me. Feck off!

Probably agree that parents can circumcise their children?

Yes. For good health and safety reasons I certainly would. It figures you are one of those kooks that have fetish for a useless flap of skin that's an evolutionary relic.

As you force children to go through their childhood living as the wrong gender.

As already stated your assumptions are offensive and a lie.

You are either dumber than shit or just a liar in your claim that children are getting reassigment surgury.

 

[RealDave]

Yet another example of "conservative" stupidity. Your ignorance drives this stupidity as you refuse to address the reality of a person's brain not aligning with their genitals.

You would agree that parents have the right to refuse medical treatment for their children for religious beliefs. Probably agree that parents can circumcise their children? As you force children to go through their childhood living as the wrong gender.

Speaking of stupidity you totally dismiss the very real possibility of changing one's gender because it's
currently a popular and fashionable thing to do among some. There is much evidence
of this kind of regret.
If someone is truly body dismorphic because their brain and bodies do not align then waiting until a child
is able to make a more informed decision, that won't be deeply regretted later, is a sensible thing to do.

But fools like yourself don't think about that. You don't have to.

I have NOT said I would back parents refusing needed medical treatment for medical reasons so thanks for
imaging that lie. And Yes! A parent acts in the child's best interests when the child is circumcised.
But I'm not surprised that you are the sort of kook that is a fetishist for an evolutionarily pointless
flap of skin that cause all sort of health problems, according to medical experts.

Do I want to force children to go through life living as the wrong gender? That's another lie of yours if waiting until the age of fifteen equals an entire lifetime to fools like you.

You assfuck. I said go through their childhood.

Parents wanting their children to be the sex they are mentally is acting in their best interest.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Yes, as I said then. Then text you have quoted only says that those who were circumcised "may have a lower chance" which implies there is either just no proof or that the data available is so insignificant it could just be coincidental.

If RIC truly prevented penile cancer it would mean no one who was circumcised at birth in the history of the procedure has ever been diagnosed with it and that is just not true.

Penile cancer is generally a very rare condition anyways. As I said, chopping off an infant's arms would prevent biceps cancer.

You're like the know it all who scoffs and laughs at cigarette warnings that say "cigarettes MAY cause lung
cancer". But it is absolutely true. We know for a fact nicotine in fact DOES cause lung cancer.
But not every single person who ever smoked in fact winds up with lung cancer but that hardly invalidates
the warning.
You sound like someone who,for whatever reason, has a problem with the words MAY and WILL.
Only you know why.

I have no idea what a "pro-foreskin fetishist" is and the fact that you had to make this whole thing about sex is just disgusting. Why are you sexualizing newborns?

Ummm, that's YOU doing the sexualizing. You know newborns aren't the only people who have been
circumcised or live with the life long consequences of circumcision, right?

What is lunacy is to cut off your newborn's healthy body parts for no other reason that cultural and/or religious conformity. It is completely rooted in second-handedness, irrationality and whim. Science does not recognize its benefits because there are no such benefits that science can prove.

I actually quoted to you the opinions of several well known health and medical organizations
that DO recognize how circumcision LESSENS the chances of cancer and AIDS problems in later life
specifically because YOU asked for such expertise.
Like all zealots you simply cannot stand contradiction so when the WHO or American Cancer Society, for instance, both say yes, uncircumcised adults do run a greater risk of cancer than those who were
circumcised you simply refuse to accept the fact. So why am I wasting my time on you?

Most of us had no choice because our parents fell for disinformation.

"Disinformation" that you cannot scientifically dispute. That's why I say you have a "foreskin fetish".
It has nothing to do with infants, except to the degree you act like a petulant child when you
are told something you don't want to hear. Grow up. I've never missed my funny looking penile
turtle neck for even a nano-second even though I was never consulted on the matter.
Imagine that! Who has gotten to you and made you feel like your are missing something really great?
Are you gay by any chance?

This is just pure and utter bullshit. Neonatal circumcision has nothing to do with "saving lives".

Where did you get your medical degree, doctor? Just as NOT smoking lessens the chance
of lung cancer later in life (and therefore saves lives) so it is with circumcision. Do you not understand
the cause and effect of diseases? Christ!

Point to me where they recommend RIC.

Try reading the citations provided. That's why they are there.

Again, can which just, again, implies there is no data to support that. Does the US have lower HIV/AIDS rates than, say, Italy?

That's not implied at all. CAN only means it's not a guaranteed cause and effect but science
has proven a strong link which may or may not apply to you. I already covered this.

Oh, I guess that must mean it is right then.

It means what it says. It's impossible for me to deny the conclusion that you are a real
dumb ****** and a waste of my time and energy. Enjoy your education while it lasts, whether you appreciate
what you read or not. This is a one time deal for me.

Complete bs and it does not really matter what data from Third World countries where most communities have no access to clean water nor any knowledge of germ theory says.

Your pulled from your ass assumption is all this clinical data comes from third world sources.
Anything to deny and ignore what you don't want to read and cannot contradict. That's a sure sign of
a real ignorant jackass.

If there is anything that medical authorities actually say, it would be that that foreskin is not useless. It has a function and is thus, by definition, useful.

So the appendix, tailbone, wisdom teeth, ear muscles, goose bumps and tonsils all are "useful"
to you? That's weird. These are called "vestigial" organs and help to illustrate and prove what a jerk off you are.
Just because something exists doesn't make it indispensable or useful. Maybe to a dog or monkey
but to humans no. If it were useful in humans all the uncircumcised men in the world would miss these
turtle necks for penis' and of course that's bullshit.

Where did I ever say I "love" foreskins? What I love is reason and RIC is very anti-reason.

No, you are. What is RIC? And why is everything you post so easy to poke holes in?

Slice up your daughter too then. You would not want her to get labia-cancer, would you?

Geez.

Why are you so passionate in your defence of a procedure that is clearly barbaric and pointless? Are you maybe looking for rationalizations to feel better about what was done to you?

Do you actually know anything about male and female genital anatomy?
My last time saying this: There is nothing "barbaric" and "pointless" about making children less
likely to contract AIDS of cancer of the penis. Actually the absolute opposite of what you claim
is true so that's why I feel guilt free ridiculing your idiocy. It's like a public service.

The analogy is not absurd at all.

It absolutely is. The arms have a million functions. and cannot be replaced easily if at all.The foreskin is a vestigial organ that served man as an ape. If you circumcise a child, apart from the
improvement, you've lost nothing at all, foreskin lover.

They already agree with me.

Aside from some nut jobs in San Francisco give me citation from some expert that supports your idiocy.

Clearly you are no able to have a civil discussion about the matter without resorting to name-calling. Calm down, dude.

Pointing out your dogmatic fanaticism is not name calling. It is properly identifying
your bizarre obsession. I've yet to run into some pro foreskin loser who does not have a screw loose.

You don't have to worry, I was snipped too.

So who convinced you you've been mutilated and robbed of something precious?
Did he also sell you on a time share in New Jersey? Just skip the numerous insults if you like.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

You assfuck. I said go through their childhood.

Parents wanting their children to be the sex they are mentally is acting in their best interest.

And what if children get older and then greatly regret mutilating themselves?
Think about that......assfuck!

 

[Meathead]

Asa Hutchinson Doubles Down On Genital Mutilation For Minors Under The Guise Of 'Limited Government'

Gov. Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas is back at it again, wielding "limited government" and Ronald Reagan to qualify chemical castration of children.

thefederalist.com

Pretending to speak for Ronald Reagan and William F. Buckley Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson twists logic and reason around like a pretzel until he would have you believe chemically castrating small children is a conservative value, if you were actually dumb enough to believe in such garbage.

“Are we going to be a narrow party that expresses ourself [sic] in intolerant ways, or are we going to be a broad-based party that shows conservative principles but also compassion in dealing with issues that parents face, that individuals face?” Hutchinson said. “I’ve got to remind my wonderful Republican colleagues that we are the party of Ronald Reagan that believes in the role of limited government.”

The question is, is it actually "intolerant" to make life changing decisions for children too young
to understand and appreciate what transexual genital mutilation will mean to children for the rest of their lives?
Or should children be spared the trauma of sexual reassignment until they are old enough to judge for
themselves, since it actually are the children themselves that will bare the brunt of decisions made by
leftist parents for them?

And these parents are to girls and boys in Santa Monica, Berkeley and New York what the Taliban are to little girls in Afghanistan, India and Sudan. Which makes the better parent, Governor?
The one that wants to join in a destructive faddish movement that would alter the lives of young children
in ways they might regret the rest of their years?
Or the parent who will let the child decide for themself when more mature and with a better
perspective on his or her own body?


Why is Asa Hutchinson trying to make sexual reassignment procedures in young children a sign of "conservative principles"? When that is the craziest stretch most anyone, except the deranged governor
of Arkansas, could ever make.
You know what's even a more sacred value for conservatives, you lunatic? Protecting the youngest and
most vulnerable among us from the idiocy of those that would abuse and mistreat them.
When are you coming out in favor of female genital mutilation, Governor Hutchinson?

Tell us how Ronald Reagan and William F. Buckley would be the first in favor of that? Your "limited
government" bullshit belongs in a yurt in the mountains of Afghanistan where a little frightened girl
is being permanently deformed by monsters like yourself.

You mean after they're born?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

You are either dumber than shit or just a liar in your claim that children are getting reassigment surgury.

Children are being chemically neutered and altered. Sex-change treatment for kids on the rise
And kids as young as eight are being surgically mutilated. Read and learn stupid bastard.
Go back to wherever you just came back from (likely Hell but people don't usually come back from
that).

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

You mean after they're born?

What? Context helps.

 

[Darkwind]

He is wrong, but this is a lie.

He never said that it was okay to mutilate the genitals of children.

This is bullshit.

Your complaint is bullshit! Just because Asa Hutchinson never used the actual words "genital mutilation"
doesn't change the fact that is exactly what he advocates for little children being forcibly transitioned
from Ray to Raylene, for instance. Get wise to your own foolishness.

Yet another example of "conservative" stupidity. Your ignorance drives this stupidity as you refuse to address the reality of a person's brain not aligning with their genitals.

You would agree that parents have the right to refuse medical treatment for their children for religious beliefs. Probably agree that parents can circumcise their children? As you force children to go through their childhood living as the wrong gender.

you're a classic example of "progressive" stupidity. You only follow what you're told to follow and believe what you are told to believe.