the EVIDENCE that GOD exists is the FACT that EXISTENCE EXISTS

[Kagatob]

Originally Posted by Daldolma [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

it's abuse when it's harmful and/or malicious. circumcision is neither

Yeah you keep thinking that, meanwhile every medical professional in any field directly or indirectly related to the consequences of such barbaric practices will vehemently disagree with you. Outside of the Jeudeo-Christian community of course. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Eliseus]

Originally Posted by Kagatob [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Yeah you keep thinking that, meanwhile every medical professional in any field directly or indirectly related to the consequences of such barbaric practices will vehemently disagree with you. Outside of the Jeudeo-Christian community of course. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

What? Anything and everything I've ever read has said circumcision is healthier then non circumcision for you. I mean EVERYTHING. I mean, I am assuming there is stuff out there that could say otherwise, but I'm sure the argument is not very strong if it is not really out there.

For some reason I just envisioned some kid going on a killing spree and blaming it on him being circumcised as a baby after arguing with you.

[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by Kagatob [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Yeah you keep thinking that, meanwhile every medical professional in any field directly or indirectly related to the consequences of such barbaric practices will vehemently disagree with you. Outside of the Jeudeo-Christian community of course. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

http://www.circinfo.net/socio_sexual_aspects.html

the vast majority of studies find that circumcision is either a minor benefit or has no significant impact either way. the WHO even recommends it for large portions of africa because it significantly lowers the rate of HIV transmission

it's only "barbaric" because you're a bigot, not because there's anything inherently brutal or uncivilized about a minor surgical procedure that produces minor health benefits and significantly preferred aesthetics in many societies

again, go bitch about body piercings. there are fewer benefits, more pain, and greater risk of complication. i have a feeling you don't consider a little girl getting her ears pierced barbaric though

[Kagatob]

Originally Posted by Daldolma [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

again, go bitch about body piercings. there are fewer benefits, more pain, and greater risk of complication. i have a feeling you don't consider a little girl getting her ears pierced barbaric though

Again an unnecessary jump. Why would you compare the two?
Circumcision is almost always done to an infant who is unable to say no to such a procedure, granted there are parents who will pierce the ears of their infant daughters (a practice I also disagree with) but the number of parents who don't far outweighs that number.
Invalid comparison altogether.

[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by Kagatob [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Again an unnecessary jump. Why would you compare the two?
Circumcision is almost always done to an infant who is unable to say no to such a procedure, granted there are parents who will pierce the ears of their infant daughters (a practice I also disagree with) but the number of parents who don't far outweighs that number.
Invalid comparison altogether.

what are you talking about? a significant portion of american girls have their ears pierced before they're 6 months old. a majority have them pierced before they're 10. they can't say no and it doesn't matter if they do. almost no girl waits until an age of legal consent

and circumcision is safer as a neonate or infant. complication rates quadruple for young children as opposed to infants. it's medically preferable to perform the surgery on an infant instead of waiting until they're old enough to give an opinion that a parent would disregard anyway

[Kagatob]

Originally Posted by Daldolma [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

what are you talking about? a significant portion of american girls have their ears pierced before they're 6 months old. a majority have them pierced before they're 10. they can't say no and it doesn't matter if they do. almost no girl waits until an age of legal consent

After about 10 minutes of searching for statistics I gave up trying to find any statistics to back up your claim. The closest I came up with was a site stating that it's extremely common in latin-american culture to pierce girls as babys.
Regardless I've stated that I'm against the practice.
My girlfriend has 24 piercings and counting and she is against the practice of piercing a child against their will.

Originally Posted by Daldolma [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

and circumcision is safer as a neonate or infant. complication rates quadruple for young children as opposed to infants. it's medically preferable to perform the surgery on an infant instead of waiting until they're old enough to give an opinion that a parent would disregard anyway

Do you have any idea at all what you're talking about?
Yeah asking a 6 year old if they want the end of their dick cut off while you've been pushing ideas into their undeveloped mind that they are "dirty" because they have it counts as consent.
You're just pitiful.

[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by Kagatob [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Yeah asking a 6 year old if they want the end of their dick cut off while you've been pushing ideas into their undeveloped mind that they are "dirty" because they have it counts as consent.

um, no, it doesn't -- that's the point i just made. it's not consent until they're of legal age to consent, so what difference does it make if you do it when they're an infant or when they're an 8-year old? none.

almost no girls in america wait until they're of legal age to consent before getting their ears pierced.

it's a fine comparison. their 10-year old consent to getting their ears pierced isn't consent at all

[Kagatob]

Originally Posted by Daldolma [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

almost no girls in america wait until they're of legal age to consent before getting their ears pierced.

it's a fine comparison. their 10-year old consent to getting their ears pierced isn't consent at all

That's because they ask their parents for permission to do it because it's a body choice they want to make. Next you'll be saying the same is true about intact boys begging their parents to have their foreskin stripped. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You're an idiot, please stop posting.