Religious removal of body parts

[KatieK]

"I'm still trying to figure out how you decided that the foreskin God created was a mistake so therefore it's okay to cut it off?

Maybe this will help. If whatever you cut off still allows you to have children, the purpose of the genitals most think, did it actually matter in the first place? Couldn't anything not related to making babies go no harm no foul?"

From another thread.

So, if you get rid of things and you can still have children, it's okay?

So, female genital mutilation is okay, because you can still have children?

What part makes it wrong? If they can both function why is one okay and one is not okay? Explain?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Male circumcision is done for hygienic reasons even atheists are circumcized.

In my best days, no way I would consider having sex with an uncircumcized male. I don't want cervical cancer that bad.

We invented soap and water for such things. And that's not a justification for removing body parts based on religious teachings now is it?

You Stalinists invented SOAP?

And you "invented" water?

 

[KatieK]

"I'm still trying to figure out how you decided that the foreskin God created was a mistake so therefore it's okay to cut it off?

Maybe this will help. If whatever you cut off still allows you to have children, the purpose of the genitals most think, did it actually matter in the first place? Couldn't anything not related to making babies go no harm no foul?"

From another thread.

why are you concerning yourself with something you're clueless about?

Clueless? Not in the slightest. Can you tell us why cutting parts from a boy is different than cutting parts from a girl, both done for purely religious reasons?

I am not going to educate you on the differences. or do you know anyone circumcized who can't have sex because of excruciating pain? women are not "circumcized" they are mutilated.

but thanks for comparing the two.

as I said, you're clueless.

Okay, I take perfectly normal boy parts and I cut them off. Now I take perfectly normal girl parts, and I cut them off. Explain the difference?

you need to stop mischaracterizing the foreskin as a "body part". and your repetition of that phrase does not make you sound any less ignorant.

It has a name, would you prefer we said you cut off part of the penis? That's not likely to strengthen your argument. Same as cutting off part of the labia.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Male circumcision is done for hygienic reasons even atheists are circumcized.

In my best days, no way I would consider having sex with an uncircumcized male. I don't want cervical cancer that bad.

Again, that is myth and not supported by medical fact. Circumcision does nothing to guard against infections, cancers, or anything else.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I oppose doing injury to children.

Not an answer. Guess you can't man-up.

It is indeed an answer. No one is required to play your childish game.

Sorry, still not an answer. Apparently you think it's fine to take a knife to genitals of a child for purely religious reasons. Game over (unless you can say differently).

So logical fallacy is as close to logic as you get?

No real surprise.

There's no fallacy there. Cutting part boy = good. Cutting part girl = bad. That is the fallacy.

Again, you are simply stupid. There is zero equivalency. One is about the same as cutting toenails, the other is like cutting your tongue out.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

"I'm still trying to figure out how you decided that the foreskin God created was a mistake so therefore it's okay to cut it off?

Maybe this will help. If whatever you cut off still allows you to have children, the purpose of the genitals most think, did it actually matter in the first place? Couldn't anything not related to making babies go no harm no foul?"

From another thread.

If you're unsure about the reasons for circumcision ... don't have one.

I'm unsure why it's okay to take a knife to the genitals of a male but not a female? They both still make babies after that so it can't be about function. Just religion at work.

Female genital mutilation has nothing to do with religion, any religion. Where did you get the idea that FGM was religious? It is cultural to remove the possibility of any female pleasure and prevent females from straying from their husbands. Male circumcision does not reduce male pleasure. They can certainly achieve satisfactory orgasm where as a circumcized female will never achieve orgasm.

Katie are you 10, 15? Do you not have any reasonable education other than nonsense platitudes.

 

[KatieK]

Male circumcision is done for hygienic reasons even atheists are circumcized.

In my best days, no way I would consider having sex with an uncircumcized male. I don't want cervical cancer that bad.

We invented soap and water for such things. And that's not a justification for removing body parts based on religious teachings now is it?

You Stalinists invented SOAP?

And you "invented" water?

A penis can be cleaned. It's a new thing.

 

[KatieK]

Not an answer. Guess you can't man-up.

It is indeed an answer. No one is required to play your childish game.

Sorry, still not an answer. Apparently you think it's fine to take a knife to genitals of a child for purely religious reasons. Game over (unless you can say differently).

So logical fallacy is as close to logic as you get?

No real surprise.

There's no fallacy there. Cutting part boy = good. Cutting part girl = bad. That is the fallacy.

Again, you are simply stupid. There is zero equivalency. One is about the same as cutting toenails, the other is like cutting your tongue out.

Both cut the genitals of children. Explain the difference? Afterwards they both still function and can make babies, right?

 

[jillian]

why are you concerning yourself with something you're clueless about?

Clueless? Not in the slightest. Can you tell us why cutting parts from a boy is different than cutting parts from a girl, both done for purely religious reasons?

I am not going to educate you on the differences. or do you know anyone circumcized who can't have sex because of excruciating pain? women are not "circumcized" they are mutilated.

but thanks for comparing the two.

as I said, you're clueless.

Okay, I take perfectly normal boy parts and I cut them off. Now I take perfectly normal girl parts, and I cut them off. Explain the difference?

you need to stop mischaracterizing the foreskin as a "body part". and your repetition of that phrase does not make you sound any less ignorant.

It has a name, would you prefer we said you cut off part of the penis? That's not likely to strengthen your argument. Same as cutting off part of the labia.

that would be a lie as well... the foreskin, is not akin to the labia.

you keep repeating BS. what is your agenda and why do you take issue with the PEOPLE who circumcize. I'm pretty sure your objection has more to do with your objection to those people.

so come clean and stop posting garbage.

 

[jillian]

It is indeed an answer. No one is required to play your childish game.

Sorry, still not an answer. Apparently you think it's fine to take a knife to genitals of a child for purely religious reasons. Game over (unless you can say differently).

So logical fallacy is as close to logic as you get?

No real surprise.

There's no fallacy there. Cutting part boy = good. Cutting part girl = bad. That is the fallacy.

Again, you are simply stupid. There is zero equivalency. One is about the same as cutting toenails, the other is like cutting your tongue out.

Both cut the genitals of children. Explain the difference? Afterwards they both still function and can make babies, right?

it has been explained.

what is wrong with you? is English not your first language?

 

[KatieK]

"I'm still trying to figure out how you decided that the foreskin God created was a mistake so therefore it's okay to cut it off?

Maybe this will help. If whatever you cut off still allows you to have children, the purpose of the genitals most think, did it actually matter in the first place? Couldn't anything not related to making babies go no harm no foul?"

From another thread.

If you're unsure about the reasons for circumcision ... don't have one.

I'm unsure why it's okay to take a knife to the genitals of a male but not a female? They both still make babies after that so it can't be about function. Just religion at work.

Female genital mutilation has nothing to do with religion, any religion. Where did you get the idea that FGM was religious? It is cultural to remove the possibility of any female pleasure and prevent females from straying from their husbands. Male circumcision does not reduce male pleasure. They can certainly achieve satisfactory orgasm where as a circumcized female will never achieve orgasm.

Katie are you 10, 15? Do you not have any reasonable education other than nonsense platitudes.

Both are done purely for religious reasons, by tradition. Tell me how is one different than the other? Oh, right, one you accept and one you do not.

 

[frigidweirdo]

"I'm still trying to figure out how you decided that the foreskin God created was a mistake so therefore it's okay to cut it off?

Maybe this will help. If whatever you cut off still allows you to have children, the purpose of the genitals most think, did it actually matter in the first place? Couldn't anything not related to making babies go no harm no foul?"

From another thread.

So, if you get rid of things and you can still have children, it's okay?

So, female genital mutilation is okay, because you can still have children?

What part makes it wrong? If they can both function why is one okay and one is not okay? Explain?

What makes it wrong? Hmmm... let's see, you're doing unnecessary surgery to remove a body part that you were born with. Something that actually does something. Something that can give someone pleasure.

I mean, fuck it, if it's all about reproduction, we don't need legs, we don't need arms, we don't need breasts, we can reproduce with the bare minimum right, chop them all off. We can be like snails or something.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Male circumcision is done for hygienic reasons even atheists are circumcized.

In my best days, no way I would consider having sex with an uncircumcized male. I don't want cervical cancer that bad.

Again, that is myth and not supported by medical fact. Circumcision does nothing to guard against infections, cancers, or anything else.

Keep looking
Infectious disease: male circumcision for preventing HPV infection. - PubMed - NCBI

Male Infant Circumcision

 

[jillian]

Male circumcision is done for hygienic reasons even atheists are circumcized.

In my best days, no way I would consider having sex with an uncircumcized male. I don't want cervical cancer that bad.

Again, that is myth and not supported by medical fact. Circumcision does nothing to guard against infections, cancers, or anything else.

• Circumcision may result in a decreased incidence of urinary tract infections.
• Circumcision may result in a lower incidence of sexually transmitted diseases and may reduce HIV transmission.
• Circumcision may lower the risk for cancer of the cervix in sexual partners.
• Circumcision may decrease the risk for cancer of the penis.

Circumcision: Learn the Pros and Cons of This Procedure

 

[KatieK]

Clueless? Not in the slightest. Can you tell us why cutting parts from a boy is different than cutting parts from a girl, both done for purely religious reasons?

I am not going to educate you on the differences. or do you know anyone circumcized who can't have sex because of excruciating pain? women are not "circumcized" they are mutilated.

but thanks for comparing the two.

as I said, you're clueless.

Okay, I take perfectly normal boy parts and I cut them off. Now I take perfectly normal girl parts, and I cut them off. Explain the difference?

you need to stop mischaracterizing the foreskin as a "body part". and your repetition of that phrase does not make you sound any less ignorant.

It has a name, would you prefer we said you cut off part of the penis? That's not likely to strengthen your argument. Same as cutting off part of the labia.

that would be a lie as well... the foreskin, is not akin to the labia.

you keep repeating BS. what is your agenda and why do you take issue with the PEOPLE who circumcize. I'm pretty sure your objection has more to do with your objection to those people.

so come clean and stop posting garbage.

Cutting genitals of boy is allowed. Cutting genitals of girls is not. Please do explain how they are different?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

"I'm still trying to figure out how you decided that the foreskin God created was a mistake so therefore it's okay to cut it off?

Maybe this will help. If whatever you cut off still allows you to have children, the purpose of the genitals most think, did it actually matter in the first place? Couldn't anything not related to making babies go no harm no foul?"

From another thread.

If you're unsure about the reasons for circumcision ... don't have one.

I'm unsure why it's okay to take a knife to the genitals of a male but not a female? They both still make babies after that so it can't be about function. Just religion at work.

Female genital mutilation has nothing to do with religion, any religion. Where did you get the idea that FGM was religious? It is cultural to remove the possibility of any female pleasure and prevent females from straying from their husbands. Male circumcision does not reduce male pleasure. They can certainly achieve satisfactory orgasm where as a circumcized female will never achieve orgasm.

Katie are you 10, 15? Do you not have any reasonable education other than nonsense platitudes.

Both are done purely for religious reasons, by tradition. Tell me how is one different than the other? Oh, right, one you accept and one you do not.

No. You are just wrong.

 

[KatieK]

Male circumcision is done for hygienic reasons even atheists are circumcized.

In my best days, no way I would consider having sex with an uncircumcized male. I don't want cervical cancer that bad.

Again, that is myth and not supported by medical fact. Circumcision does nothing to guard against infections, cancers, or anything else.

• Circumcision may result in a decreased incidence of urinary tract infections.
• Circumcision may result in a lower incidence of sexually transmitted diseases and may reduce HIV transmission.
• Circumcision may lower the risk for cancer of the cervix in sexual partners.
• Circumcision may decrease the risk for cancer of the penis.

Circumcision: Learn the Pros and Cons of This Procedure

So, God made a mistake giving males a foreskin then? And we must fix it, for religious reasons.

 

[KatieK]

"I'm still trying to figure out how you decided that the foreskin God created was a mistake so therefore it's okay to cut it off?

Maybe this will help. If whatever you cut off still allows you to have children, the purpose of the genitals most think, did it actually matter in the first place? Couldn't anything not related to making babies go no harm no foul?"

From another thread.

If you're unsure about the reasons for circumcision ... don't have one.

I'm unsure why it's okay to take a knife to the genitals of a male but not a female? They both still make babies after that so it can't be about function. Just religion at work.

Female genital mutilation has nothing to do with religion, any religion. Where did you get the idea that FGM was religious? It is cultural to remove the possibility of any female pleasure and prevent females from straying from their husbands. Male circumcision does not reduce male pleasure. They can certainly achieve satisfactory orgasm where as a circumcized female will never achieve orgasm.

Katie are you 10, 15? Do you not have any reasonable education other than nonsense platitudes.

Both are done purely for religious reasons, by tradition. Tell me how is one different than the other? Oh, right, one you accept and one you do not.

No. You are just wrong.

So, tell us how they are different? Male, okay to cut genitals. Female, not okay? Do tell.

 

[KatieK]

Sorry, still not an answer. Apparently you think it's fine to take a knife to genitals of a child for purely religious reasons. Game over (unless you can say differently).

So logical fallacy is as close to logic as you get?

No real surprise.

There's no fallacy there. Cutting part boy = good. Cutting part girl = bad. That is the fallacy.

Again, you are simply stupid. There is zero equivalency. One is about the same as cutting toenails, the other is like cutting your tongue out.

Both cut the genitals of children. Explain the difference? Afterwards they both still function and can make babies, right?

it has been explained.

what is wrong with you? is English not your first language?

If it had been explained you could explain why cutting the genitals of boy is okay for religious reasons but not that of a girl?

 

[jillian]

So logical fallacy is as close to logic as you get?

No real surprise.

There's no fallacy there. Cutting part boy = good. Cutting part girl = bad. That is the fallacy.

Again, you are simply stupid. There is zero equivalency. One is about the same as cutting toenails, the other is like cutting your tongue out.

Both cut the genitals of children. Explain the difference? Afterwards they both still function and can make babies, right?

it has been explained.

what is wrong with you? is English not your first language?

If it had been explained you could explain why cutting the genitals of boy is okay for religious reasons but not that of a girl?

who is cutting off boys' genitals?

crackpot