Circumcision without consent. Is it wrong?

[nPeace]

Irrelevant (although it does seem that atheists often have a more coherent and consistent moral framework than religionists).

Au contraire. You brought the subject up and asked "is that wrong?", so you are inviting replies.
But why would you even want to drive pins through your infant's soft flesh? Seems utterly bizarre.

Anyway, you do get told what is right and wrong by all sorts of people, including atheists. Or if an atheist copper stopped you for speeding, would you tell him that his lack of belief meant he had no authority over you?

Ah. Okay. So you have no problem with the pro-abortionists, anti-gays... etc. They are not bigots who need to mind their own business right.

My question was rhetorical, but I understand you can't read minds, so no problem.
Some agree with you. Some don't.
You don't get to decide they are wrong. Agreed?
That's a question.

 

[KWED]

Another strange and extreme conlusion you read too much into my words. I never said nor implied anything like this

Maybe below line you won't misinterpret:

I think it's best to stop circumcision completely, unless there is a medical necessity for it

I was just engaging the the same reductio ad absurdam as yourself.
I agree, no circumcision of minors unless a medical necessity is the only reasonable, rational and humane position.

 

[stvdv]

Ill-informed nonsense

Non sense reply

The medical consensus is that there is no "consciousness" before around 25 weeks.

Newspapers are filled when 'Putin' kills a few innocent children or terrorists. We are talking about maybe a number 10, when "hell beaks lose".

So, plenty is correct. As usual (third time, so I get used to it) your imagination seem to multiplily my words thousand? fold. Totally missing the point I was making

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I'm not saying you're definitely wrong, just that there's no way to know if you're actually right.

It's called conversations with women, and some men. I'm not experienced enough to know, but I have heard many times that uncut guys are easier to get off.
And it's a normal thing for women to not orgasm from vaginal penetration, which means efforts in other areas are needed.

 

[KWED]

And how many are killed by abortion? A much grimmer statistic.

So you consider a woman terminating an unwanted pregnancy at 10 weeks to be equivalent to the adoring parents of an infant dying after completely unnecessary surgery they forced on their child. Interesting.

 

[QuestioningMind]

It's called conversations with women, and some men. I'm not experienced enough to know, but I have heard many times that uncut guys are easier to get off.
And it's a normal thing for women to not orgasm from vaginal penetration, which means efforts in other areas are needed.

That may well be true... but who's to say that it's more pleasurable for a guy to get off more quickly?

 

[KWED]

Ah. Okay. So you have no problem with the pro-abortionists, anti-gays... etc. They are not bigots who need to mind their own business right.

Wow! That's quite the non sequitur.

My question was rhetorical, but I understand you can't read minds, so no problem.

It wasn't couched in rhetorical terms.

Some agree with you. Some don't.
You don't get to decide they are wrong. Agreed?

Of course I don't get to formulate legislation, but I have an opinion which I am allowed to express, as do you.

That's a question.

Ah, but is it rhetorical?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That may well be true... but who's to say that it's more pleasurable for a guy to get off more quickly?

He may enjoy more time, but it can also mean the giver's jaw gets sore and tired which becomes unpleasurable for the giver.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's called conversations with women, and some men. I'm not experienced enough to know, but I have heard many times that uncut guys are easier to get off.
And it's a normal thing for women to not orgasm from vaginal penetration, which means efforts in other areas are needed.

Reminds me of the old joke....
How does a man truly & deeply pleasure a woman to reach climax?

Spoiler: Answer

Who cares.

 

[KWED]

You're spelling is most cromulent.

Ewer to kind.

 

[England my lionheart]

It’s so wrong apart for medical reasons,I can see no argument for it to be done otherwise,male or female.

 

[KWED]

Non sense reply


Newspapers are filled when 'Putin' kills a few innocent children or terrorists. We are talking about maybe a number 10, when "hell beaks lose".

So, plenty is correct. As usual (third time, so I get used to it) your imagination seem to multiplily my words thousand? fold. Totally missing the point I was making

I have literally no idea what you are on about here.

 

[stvdv]

I think that laws do and should protect children (they must be fed and protected). The same laws should protect a fetus.

Would be ideal if all children could be protected by Law.

Reality is that Law can't even protect the born children. We all know that the tip of the iceberg is visible when we talk about for example incest, and molesting children. Even well educated people and priests endulge in it.

I think it's good the Law is clear that abortion should be done best sooner than later. Optimum solution is anti conception. So, I think they do what they can. It's a huge project, lot's of work

 

[Secret Chief]

You're

I'm not rising to the bait.

 

[Secret Chief]

I have too admit, you to are just two funny. But they're are some who won't like what you did their. There to uptight.

Your three kind.

 

[stvdv]

Abortion isn't like murdering a consciously aware person, especially when it is most frequently and typically performed. If these have "embodied souls," natural miscarriages terminate vastly more pregnancies than abortions do.

To be clear...I'm totally with you here (and before)

Circumcision is done on those who will eventually become aware of what was done to them.

You need not tell me, I know all about it

 

[KWED]

It's called conversations with women, and some men. I'm not experienced enough to know, but I have heard many times that uncut guys are easier to get off.
And it's a normal thing for women to not orgasm from vaginal penetration, which means efforts in other areas are needed.

The web is gushing with articles and studies clearly showing that women generally prefer more "outercourse" than just intercourse.
It is interesting that despite this, circumcised men still use the "we can bang away at you for hours love!" as some sort of justification for their condition.

 

[nPeace]

Irrelevant (although it does seem that atheists often have a more coherent and consistent moral framework than religionists).

Why do you imagine that?

 

[nPeace]

Wow! That's quite the non sequitur.

Sorry. I forgot the question mark.
So you have no problem with the pro-abortionists, anti-gays... etc. They are not bigots who need to mind their own business right?

It wasn't couched in rhetorical terms.

What does that look like?

Of course I don't get to formulate legislation, but I have an opinion which I am allowed to express, as do you.

Sure do. Wasn't stated as such.

Ah, but is it rhetorical?

Ah. Fair enough. Not this time.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The web is gushing with articles and studies clearly showing that women generally prefer more "outercourse" than just intercourse.

Why turn to the web when you can have conversations with real people, face to face, and actually interact with them?

It is interesting that despite this, circumcised men still use the "we can bang away at you for hours love!" as some sort of justification for their condition.

If that was the case I doubt I'd have seen so many "climax control" creams.