Poll: Poll: If you ever have a daughter, will you have her circumcised?
- Thread starter BlindTom
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Circumcising males is inconvenient at the very worst, if I remember correctly, Female circumcision basically makes sex have not feeling, and thats just not a nice thing to do to anyone.
As shown by the New York, Idaho, Maine and Ohio courts, yes. Here's [http://www.naturisteducation.org/Toni_Egbert_Library/State_Supreme_Courts/NY_v_Santorelli/ny_v_santorelli.html] a link to the New York ruling. And who says Girls Gone Wild only makes crappy porn and exploits young women? They gave us more equality!maturin said:
Oops. Go Maine.Dags90 said:
Well, all the other states who disagree operate on the idea that male toplessness is different from female toplessness because of physical biological differences, making it a separate phenomenon requiring distinct treatment. I don't think anyone would seriously equate the removal of the foreskin with the removal of the clitoris.
You don't even have to. The federal statute specifiesmaturin said:
"Except as provided in subsection (b), whoever knowingly circumcises, excises, or infibulates the whole or any part of the labia majora or labia minora or clitoris of another person who has not attained the age of 18 years shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both."
I would certainly equate the removal of the foreskin with an excising of "the whole or any part" of the female genitalia. So we either allow partial or whole removal of both, or neither. Or we say "no non-medically necessary cutting of minors' genitalia, ever".
I haven't actually read about any states whose Supreme Court has actually defended laws against public boobies. Some of these didn't even make it to the State Supreme Court before the laws were struck down. I imagine it'd go to the Supreme Court if it was brought up and rigorously fought.
... awkward.
I would not allow that.
Was your point to argue that males also hav eno reason to get it? if so, whatever. i got it done, dont remember it, didn't have anything bad happen... not that big a deal. i really don't care and might just damn well put it up to a coin flip.
I would not allow that.
Was your point to argue that males also hav eno reason to get it? if so, whatever. i got it done, dont remember it, didn't have anything bad happen... not that big a deal. i really don't care and might just damn well put it up to a coin flip.
The term 'female circumcision' gives me the chills. The thought of someone subjecting me to that is horrifying and I cannot even imagine forcing it upon another person. No. Just no.
No, the reason there are more groups against female circumcision than there are against male circumcision is because 60% of the population of the world believe God told Abraham to circumcise males 4000 years ago. Oh, and doctors in Western countries are allowed to charge for male circumcision, but not for female circumcision, so there's that.Lilani said:
It's superstitious, profit-driven nonsense and it needs to stop.
The only "health benefits" to male circumcision are a statistically significant decrease in penile cancer (from 0.05 percent to 0.02 percent, hardly a reason to cut part of your dick off) and a statistically insignificant decrease in the incidence of urinary tract infections during the first 6 months of life.
There are literally more proven health benefits to female circumcision than there are for male circumcision (circumcised females have a drastically reduced incidence of sexually-transmitted diseases, mostly because they have an almost obliterated sex drive).
People who argue for either form have their head up their ass.
No cause first of all, it's mutilation and second it's forbidden by the law where I live (and thank god for that). Circumcising a women is amputating her of a part of her clitoris (a part which corresponds to the man's glans). It's horrible that such a practice even exists.