DescentBB

After a couple of Muslim doctor are found guilty of female genital mutilation ( the defense was: During a court hearing April 17, Nagarwala's defense attorney, Shannon Smith, told a judge the procedure did not involve cutting and was religious in nature,) It was then discovered that the doctors may have performed a 100 other procedures. In a knee jerk Islamophobic response the Michigan legislature is now passing a law banning this procedure (there wasn't one before). Please write letters or email them stating how this is a peaceful procedure with therapeutic benefits and we should not be interfering with Muslim religious practices.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/22/health/de ... index.html

http://www.freep.com/story/news/politic ... 101207480/

Guess they'd better pass a law banning circumcision.

Ferno wrote:Guess they'd better pass a law banning circumcision.

You do understand the difference (In terms of lasting effects) between the two, correct?

snoopy wrote:

Ferno wrote:Guess they'd better pass a law banning circumcision.

You do understand the difference (In terms of lasting effects) between the two, correct?

He has no clue- and what's worse- he willfully doesn't want to know. Such is the cognitive dissonance of a leftist brain.

snoopy wrote:

Ferno wrote:Guess they'd better pass a law banning circumcision.

You do understand the difference (In terms of lasting effects) between the two, correct?

The only difference is gender.

Nice try.

And thundetbunny? Awesome that you've pigeonholed me. So that makes me a leftist rage machine. Awesome. I'm surprised you haven't called me a feminist SJW yet.

No Ferno, there's a damn BIG difference. Female circumcision involves cutting off ALL the external parts of the genitalia, including the clitoris and labia minora. The equivalent act on a male would be to remove the entire sensitive tip of the penis plus part of the shaft, leaving the male with an sexually unresponsive stub. A woman can no longer have an orgasm after it's done and she's far more susceptible to constant urinary tract infections or even urinary incontinence. It's nothing but butchery meant to curb the sexual desires of the female and it's an extremely painful procedure usually done without anesthetic in most third world countries in unsanitary conditions. Severe infections are quite common, since it's hard to keep the area sterile. Even in a modern surgery setting, most sane self-respecting women would NEVER consider having such a barbaric act done on their bodies.

Circumcision is still a pretty barbaric practice aswell. Infants are known to contract herpes from oral contact, the procedure can affect mother-infant relationships, there's a marked decrease in sensitivity (sometimes resulting in anorgasmia), and lastly - death.

So yeah, both practices need to be stopped.

Tunnelcat wrote:The equivalent act on a male would be to remove the entire sensitive tip of the penis plus part of the shaft, leaving the male with an sexually unresponsive stub.

I wonder if the equivalent is done with kids' brains in the public school system- where they are basically lobotomized with ridiculous leftist propaganda and ideology until nothing is left in their skulls but an intellectually unresponsive stub.

Explains all of the SJWs that pour out of the (re)education system.

Nightshade wrote:

Tunnelcat wrote:The equivalent act on a male would be to remove the entire sensitive tip of the penis plus part of the shaft, leaving the male with an sexually unresponsive stub.

I wonder if the equivalent is done with kids' brains in the public school system- where they are basically lobotomized with ridiculous leftist propaganda and ideology until nothing is left in their skulls but an intellectually unresponsive stub.

Explains all of the SJWs that pour out of the (re)education system.

NS, what planet are you really from?

Nightshade wrote: I wonder if the equivalent is done with kids' brains in the public school system- where they are basically lobotomized with ridiculous leftist propaganda and ideology until nothing is left in their skulls but an intellectually unresponsive stub.

Explains all of the SJWs that pour out of the (re)education system.

What, jealous that no one ever bothered to educate you in the first place? Maybe then you wouldn't post stark-raving nonsense on a daily basis.

what the heck is meant in here about SJWs?
I mean, in the NYC personal ads, those are Single Jewish Women, and I don't think THAT is what NS referred to.

Social Justice Wankers….errrrr Warriors.

Spidey wrote:Social Justice Wankers….errrrr Warriors.

what oppressed group of snowflakes cooked up THAT term? I mean, is there something actually WRONG about young people seeking social justice?
Or, is it that they seek justice in some way which THREATENS someone's status quo? Because, social justice campaigns always upset someone's status quo. And, that the young are at the root is a fact going back a long ways. Far predating modern institutions of learning.

If we didn't have racists, bigots, xenophobes, nationalists, bullies, sexists, greed-mongers, scaremongers, hatemongers and all that common ilk, we wouldn't need social justice warriors.

Slick, it started as an insult on twitter in 2011 and something called "Gamergate" enshrined it. Now, most Trumptards consider themselves as "neo-nationalist culture warriors". Used as a pejorative, it's become a right-wing weapon usually lobbed as an insult towards those hated progressives and liberals. Right-wingers have now weaponized their grievances, just like all the lefties have done for years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice_warrior

callmeslick wrote:

Spidey wrote:Social Justice Wankers….errrrr Warriors.

what oppressed group of snowflakes cooked up THAT term? I mean, is there something actually WRONG about young people seeking social justice?
Or, is it that they seek justice in some way which THREATENS someone's status quo? Because, social justice campaigns always upset someone's status quo. And, that the young are at the root is a fact going back a long ways. Far predating modern institutions of learning.

SJW's took a good idea (equality for all) and perverted it into a form of behavioural control.

This video sums it up pretty well...

And this one, aswell.

Tunnelcat wrote:No Ferno, there's a damn BIG difference. Female circumcision involves cutting off ALL the external parts of the genitalia, including the clitoris and labia minora. The equivalent act on a male would be to remove the entire sensitive tip of the penis plus part of the shaft, leaving the male with an sexually unresponsive stub. A woman can no longer have an orgasm after it's done and she's far more susceptible to constant urinary tract infections or even urinary incontinence. It's nothing but butchery meant to curb the sexual desires of the female and it's an extremely painful procedure usually done without anesthetic in most third world countries in unsanitary conditions. Severe infections are quite common, since it's hard to keep the area sterile. Even in a modern surgery setting, most sane self-respecting women would NEVER consider having such a barbaric act done on their bodies.

TC, Ferno is trying once again to be a intellectual by defending his gay friends and blow jobs. I suggest he looks up the benefits of male circumcision:

A reduced risk of some sexually transmitted diseases in men. Protection against penile cancer and a reduced risk of cervical cancer in female sex partners. Prevention of balanitis (inflammation of the glans) and balanoposthitis (inflammation of the glans and foreskin).

Circumcision: Get the Facts, Benefits, Risks & More - WebMD

Ferno's statement like he posts here show a terrible lack of knowledge and his willingness to post before he really bothers to do a little research.:

Procedures can cause severe bleeding and problems urinating, and later cysts, infections, as well as complications in childbirth and increased risk of newborn deaths.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/

I wonder why just the doctors are going to jail. How about the parents? Where's Child Protective Services?

your state, Woody. What does YOUR local news say about the matter?

woodchip wrote:

Tunnelcat wrote:No Ferno, there's a damn BIG difference. Female circumcision involves cutting off ALL the external parts of the genitalia, including the clitoris and labia minora. The equivalent act on a male would be to remove the entire sensitive tip of the penis plus part of the shaft, leaving the male with an sexually unresponsive stub. A woman can no longer have an orgasm after it's done and she's far more susceptible to constant urinary tract infections or even urinary incontinence. It's nothing but butchery meant to curb the sexual desires of the female and it's an extremely painful procedure usually done without anesthetic in most third world countries in unsanitary conditions. Severe infections are quite common, since it's hard to keep the area sterile. Even in a modern surgery setting, most sane self-respecting women would NEVER consider having such a barbaric act done on their bodies.

TC, Ferno is trying once again to be a intellectual by defending his gay friends and blow jobs. I suggest he looks up the benefits of male circumcision:

A reduced risk of some sexually transmitted diseases in men. Protection against penile cancer and a reduced risk of cervical cancer in female sex partners. Prevention of balanitis (inflammation of the glans) and balanoposthitis (inflammation of the glans and foreskin).

Circumcision: Get the Facts, Benefits, Risks & More - WebMD

Ferno's statement like he posts here show a terrible lack of knowledge and his willingness to post before he really bothers to do a little research.:

Procedures can cause severe bleeding and problems urinating, and later cysts, infections, as well as complications in childbirth and increased risk of newborn deaths.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/

dahahahaha oh god that's funny. I love how your mind went straight to gay sex. Something you're not telling us? Oh, and let me know when the benefits outweigh death. Go ahead. I'll wait.

woodchip wrote:

Tunnelcat wrote:No Ferno, there's a damn BIG difference. Female circumcision involves cutting off ALL the external parts of the genitalia, including the clitoris and labia minora. The equivalent act on a male would be to remove the entire sensitive tip of the penis plus part of the shaft, leaving the male with an sexually unresponsive stub. A woman can no longer have an orgasm after it's done and she's far more susceptible to constant urinary tract infections or even urinary incontinence. It's nothing but butchery meant to curb the sexual desires of the female and it's an extremely painful procedure usually done without anesthetic in most third world countries in unsanitary conditions. Severe infections are quite common, since it's hard to keep the area sterile. Even in a modern surgery setting, most sane self-respecting women would NEVER consider having such a barbaric act done on their bodies.

TC, Ferno is trying once again to be a intellectual by defending his gay friends and blow jobs. I suggest he looks up the benefits of male circumcision:

A reduced risk of some sexually transmitted diseases in men. Protection against penile cancer and a reduced risk of cervical cancer in female sex partners. Prevention of balanitis (inflammation of the glans) and balanoposthitis (inflammation of the glans and foreskin).

Circumcision: Get the Facts, Benefits, Risks & More - WebMD

Woody, you sound like you're quoting age old mainstream medical dogma. Male circumcision has become a huge money maker for doctors. I don't know if this is the case nowadays in the U.S., but it used to be done routinely, without the permission of the parents and without anesthetics for the infant. Plus, another painful fact I didn't know about when I did some looking was that in a newborn, the foreskin is actually fused to the head of the penis like a fingernail is to the nail bed of the finger. It has to be cut and ripped away before it can be removed by one of several methods. It made me cringe just thinking about it.

My husband hates the fact that he was involuntarily circumcised as a baby. He had no choice and no say in the matter and neither did his parents. In fact, I think his dad got royally ticked off at the doctors about it. As it was, they removed too much of the foreskin when they did the procedure, so whenever he has an erection, it actually pulls up skin from the scrotum. Plus he hates the fact that he no longer has that nice protective skin shield around the most sensitive area of his body that sits and rubs in his pants all day. There's a good reason nature gave males a foreskin, despite what doctors say and despite the probable cancer issues. It would be the same crazy idea as requiring the removal of a woman's mammary glands as a child because sometime in the future, they may get cancer.

And if the issue really is about cancer, HPV vaccine says hello. STD's? Condoms say hi.

I found this gem in my searching. The background and history on circumcision is very interesting. Who knew?

http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/boyle6/