JinxRake on 31 January 2013
| TheLastStarFighter said: I'm for it. Or rather, I'm for the option of parents to choose it. Mutilation is such a sexy word, but circumsision is not mutilation. It looks better, it has no negative side effects and it's much healthier. For it to be mutilation it would have to be a bad thing. It's like saying pulling wisdom teeth is mutalation because they occur naturally and the only reason you're taking them out is because it will keep your teeth straight. Or you shouldn't cut a child's hair until they are able to choos for themselves. Of all the girls I've ever talked to on the subject, at most 10% have ever said that they prefer uncut, and those are usually weird girls who don't shave their pits. Some are indifferent but most prefer cut, especially when giving head. Apparently it's just better. Anyway, I've never talked to a guy who was circumcised as an infant and regreted it. The only people who complain about the practice are those who weren't, or those who have alterior motives against people of Judeo-Christian beliefs. I would certainly have my son circumcised if I ever have one. Why not? If I can do something for my child that has no negative effects but will make him more sexually appealing and reduce his likely hood of contracting AIDS by at least 40% and other diseases such as HPV even more dramatically, I'm going to do it. Other people can like it or not, but I believe in staying out of others business and beliefs. |
Please never have children.
