By nickthetank - 31/12/2011 09:21 - Canada
Add a comment - Reply to : #
#53, even forgetting and ignoring the fact that mercury's toxic, did you never notice in those neat mercury thermometers that go as low as -40 degrees, that the mercury isn't frozen solid? Know why? Cause mercury doesn't change state into a solid from a liquid at that temperature, much more the warm temp of your mouth, you twit! With all the respect and love in the world, my young friend....you had an idiotic moment, and ended up sounding very stupid. Sorry, but true. :p
Ya let's mutilate all body parts that look useless off new born babies. Little toes, chop them off. Ears, they look funny and awkward. Off with them. Eye lids, well there is an awkward flap of skin. Let's cut them off too. Male nipples, why don't we mutilate these too? Do females need a clitoris? No not really, let's start chopping them off too.
227 - Here's the problem with that logic: by the time the guy is old enough to make the decision, he would require anesthesia and a surgeon to perform it. The alternative is to do it shortly after birth. I watched my son get circumcised at 1 day old with just a bit of numbing cream, and he never screamed or showed any hint of pain. And anyone who knows newborns know that they scream with minimal provocation.
Actually circumsision was brought around (old testimant times) because the forskin grew all kinds of nasty fungal stuff in there cuz nobody bathed too often. Now its just a matter of differentiating yourself from others and really isnt that big of a deal but honestly i think it looks cleaner and ask any girl. She'd perfer to not be faced with a hooded warrior. :p
229 - Yes, but either way, it's a man's choice whether or not to get circumcised, it shouldn't be made by his parents. That's just the same as removing a woman's clitoris. She doesn't have the choice, that isn't fair. It's considered mutilation when it's against women, but it's perfectly fine that my/your/his parents want to cut off a piece of their son's body.
229 - if someone really wants to take practice in a thousand year old Jewish tradition involving mutilation of their penis, then they should go ahead and do it when they are an adult. Parents have absolutely no right to remove body parts from their newborn for no medical reason, regardless of wether they can feel it or not.
227- I've done so many medical transcription reports of grown men having to get circumcised as adults because of infections. Would you honestly prefer that? Perhaps it could be considered one of the many things parents do that hurt their children for the short term to prevent future problems? Sort of like vaccinations.
254- no. That's a myth. The foreskin is analogous to the clitoral hood, not the clitoris. It's not an "organ", nor does it serve any real purpose. There are theories about its purpose, but despite years or research, nothing has been shown conclusively. It remains a choice. Saying that parents have "no right" is utter horse manure. If we didn't have a right to do it, it would be outlawed.
Strangely this is the same thing that happened to Quagmire