You alway hear Right To Lifers state that it is not a woman’s right to decide what happens to her body. She does not have the right to argue against the government FOR an abortion.
What would people here think if the goveremnet decided “based on health” all males would be circumcised and you do not have the right to say what happens to YOUR body. You must be clipped.
Is that honestly the best thought experiment you could come up with?
Please try again and think it through a tad bit more before hitting the submit button next time.
[quote]RoadWarrior wrote:
You alway hear Right To Lifers state that it is not a woman’s right to decide what happens to her body. She does not have the right to argue against the government FOR an abortion.
What would people here think if the goveremnet decided “based on health” all males would be circumcised and you do not have the right to say what happens to YOUR body. You must be clipped.[/quote]
Please, no.
Sorry. To be fair, this guy answers your question brilliantly.
[quote]RoadWarrior wrote:
You alway hear Right To Lifers state that it is not a woman’s right to decide what happens to her body. She does not have the right to argue against the government FOR an abortion.
What would people here think if the goveremnet decided “based on health” all males would be circumcised and you do not have the right to say what happens to YOUR body. You must be clipped.[/quote]
Equivalent to Female genital mutilation.
.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
RoadWarrior wrote:
You alway hear Right To Lifers state that it is not a woman’s right to decide what happens to her body. She does not have the right to argue against the government FOR an abortion.
What would people here think if the goveremnet decided “based on health” all males would be circumcised and you do not have the right to say what happens to YOUR body. You must be clipped.
Equivalent to Female genital mutilation.[/quote]
Someone’s pissed they have an ugly dick.
Your cutting bits off an infant.
Seems wrong to me.
How many abortion threads can we have? Damn. Your analogy is stupid. Foreskin is not an autonomous being, but for the record I got mine, perhaps I should come up with a name for that part.
I got it! Samson is the pole, Delilah is the hat!
Didn’t realize a baby had much say in the decision…
about the circumcision …
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Your cutting bits off an infant.
Seems wrong to me.[/quote]
My understanding is that genital mutilation (female circumcision) involves the clipping of the clitoris, thus removing most sexual response.
Male circumcision removes only the foreskin. A foreskin which, in more primitive times and areas is a haven for bacteria and diseases.
If male circumcision were more like female circumcision, it would remove the penis, except for perhaps the last inch (leaving an inch to piss).
[quote]RoadWarrior wrote:
You alway hear Right To Lifers state that it is not a woman’s right to decide what happens to her body. She does not have the right to argue against the government FOR an abortion.
What would people here think if the goveremnet decided “based on health” all males would be circumcised and you do not have the right to say what happens to YOUR body. You must be clipped.[/quote]
That’s the worst analogy I’ve yet to see and misses the lynchpin of the argument against abortion: that it’s murder. You may not agree with this, but you can’t just ignore it.
The violin analogy is much better:
In A Defense of Abortion, Thomson grants for the sake of argument that the fetus has a right to life, but defends the permissibility of abortion by appeal to a thought experiment:
You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist’s circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.[4]
Thomson takes it that you may now permissibly unplug yourself from the violinist even though this will cause his death
Even this is not truly the same situation because those who get pregnant chose to have sex and risk the consequences while in the ‘justifiable murder’ of the violinist, the person did not choose to be kidnapped and attached to the violinist.
[quote]pat wrote:
How many abortion threads can we have? Damn. Your analogy is stupid. Foreskin is not an autonomous being, but for the record I got mine, perhaps I should come up with a name for that part.
I got it! Samson is the pole, Delilah is the hat![/quote]
Hey there Delilah…
Women in the west have more rights than men,reproductive rights are one thing. Absolute freedom from any genital mutilation,conscription etc. is another.
There is no medical organization that recommends circumcision,but some recommend against it.
Organizations like the WHO are blatantly dishonest about involuntary cutting. They define the slightest pricking or cutting of female parts as mutilation but not the forced removal of the entire male foreskin. People only ever hear about the most drastic female mutilation and male cutting is presented as a matter of opinion.
Reasons:
-Fear of the response of powerful religions,or possibly religious figures being in charge.
-Money made from circumcisions and the added hospital time it takes to heal from the damages inflicted by the operation.
The removed skin is also used for research,grafts or even cosmetics.
-Women living out their castration fantasies in a legal manner (not suggesting this is common,but a possibility. Most circs are signed or/and performed by women in the US).
-Cut men trying to come to grips with their condition.
-Alleged benefits. Removal of anything has benefits because that which is no longer there cannot be infected or hurt. It also helps that some go out of their way to research the potential benefits of causing an injury to a male (normal surgery is not removing a healthy body part) while nobody would go out and find out how disposing of a female child’s bodily integrity could prevent some disease etc.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
RoadWarrior wrote:
You alway hear Right To Lifers state that it is not a woman’s right to decide what happens to her body. She does not have the right to argue against the government FOR an abortion.
What would people here think if the goveremnet decided “based on health” all males would be circumcised and you do not have the right to say what happens to YOUR body. You must be clipped.
That’s the worst analogy I’ve yet to see and misses the lynchpin of the argument against abortion: that it’s murder. You may not agree with this, but you can’t just ignore it.
The violin analogy is much better:
In A Defense of Abortion, Thomson grants for the sake of argument that the fetus has a right to life, but defends the permissibility of abortion by appeal to a thought experiment:
You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist’s circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.[4]
Thomson takes it that you may now permissibly unplug yourself from the violinist even though this will cause his death
Even this is not truly the same situation because those who get pregnant chose to have sex and risk the consequences while in the ‘justifiable murder’ of the violinist, the person did not choose to be kidnapped and attached to the violinist.[/quote]
Kind of a big hole in the analogy…
That all said, if a guy wants to get a circumcision when he’s old enough to decide (18? 21?) then that is his choice.
I hardly think parents have any right to perform unnecessary surgery on a child.
[quote]Alffi wrote:
The removed skin is also used for research,grafts or even cosmetics.[/quote]
Umm… what?
LMAO!
[quote]Otep wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Your cutting bits off an infant.
Seems wrong to me.
My understanding is that genital mutilation (female circumcision) involves the clipping of the clitoris, thus removing most sexual response.
Male circumcision removes only the foreskin. A foreskin which, in more primitive times and areas is a haven for bacteria and diseases.
If male circumcision were more like female circumcision, it would remove the penis, except for perhaps the last inch (leaving an inch to piss).[/quote]
An inch to piss… damn how am I meant to piss inside the bowl with just a stub to aim with?
Oh well… you can only piss with the cock you’ve got!