Posted on 03/20/2019 8:44:49 AM PDT by Ciaphas Cain
Because it is a healthy option?
"There is compelling evidence that male circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%. Three randomized controlled trials have shown that male circumcision provided by well trained health professionals in properly equipped settings is safe. WHO/UNAIDS recommendations emphasize that male circumcision should be considered an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention in countries and regions with heterosexual epidemics, high HIV and low male circumcision prevalence."
https://www.who.int/hiv/topics/malecircumcision/en/
Could be he doesn’t have much to spare.
Pull Your Wang for Yang
The Peter Puffer Demoncrap.
That there is the funniest thing I have read in ages.
He doesn’t have to worry about the Jews as he’s a dem. But his party’s enemy muslim base will not be happy about this.
It was started as a religious rite just like female genital mutilation.
The medical rationalization is just that. In the same category as “medical” marijuana.
There's no comparison. One destroys sensation, the other may reduce it somewhat.
LOLOLOLOL.
Dang. The Democrat candidates is the gift that keeps on giving...
—
LOL!
Yang says don’t cut the wang.
—
No Whack Wang Yang
I’ll never forget my 8-day old son’s scream and the look of terror on his face.
Wouldn’t allow it again, nor advise anyone else to.
Not sure the subject is presidential platform material, though.
Dem logic: It’s cool to kill a baby after birth and call it “abortion”. But it’s not cool to circumcise a baby boy.
—
yup
“There’s no comparison. One destroys sensation, the other may reduce it somewhat.”
How about not doing either then?
http://www.mgmbill.org/foreskin-man.html
I was circumcised as a baby. Couldn’t walk for a year after.
I doubt you really don't know the answer to your own question, so why are your asking it?
Hint - why don't you explain for us the operations on females and males, and then compare and contrast the long term effects of each.
Huh?
1) Prevent the female from experiencing pleasure during sex.
2) No real change in function, possibly reduced risk of some diseases.
How are those two reasons "pretty much the exact same"?
Why do either? Did God make us defective such that part of our anatomy needs getting rid of?
Did God make us defective such that our immune system is weak and we need vaccines, or medical care?
You must be an anti-vaccine Christian Scientist.
By your logic why on earth did God make us susceptible to smallpox, or rabies, or measles. And for that matter why did he make us susceptible to injury, or sickness, or allow the birth of people with defects? Do you think the cells in a cancerous tumor should not be removed?
Your logic is ridiculous.
My dog makes his own Vitamin C. I cannot. Who is the more efficient creation?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.