It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Judge rules in genital mutilation case on kids

page: 4
23
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 21 2018 @ 06:18 AM
link   
a reply to: LordAhriman

turtle necks are for people like that jock, bruce jenner.
edit on 21-11-2018 by MrPopularity because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 21 2018 @ 06:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: LordAhriman

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
Genital mutilation is wrong in whatever form it comes in if it is forced. It still baffles me that people are ok with circumcision. If the argument is that a female should be allowed to make the decision themselves at 18 then why is there a double standard when it comes to baby boys? Are they not allowed to make a decision themselves?


Personally, I'm happy to not be sporting a turtleneck.

Personally, I'd like the rest of my anatomy back. Have you seen botched circumcisions? They're pretty common. Mine wasn't done quite correctly, but it's not too bad. I've definitely seen some terrible ones though. I'd prefer to have all of my nerve endings though. There's a reason we're built the way we are.

I'm actually considering being recircumcized. Imagine that... But I'm afraid to do it. I'm circumcised in a way that makes sex painful (sometimes). Whereas the foreskin serves a useful purpose. The worst part is that neither of my parents believe in it for religious purposes, rather it's just the norm in this region.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

This is what I'm saying. It shouldn't be acceptable for males nor females.

Female circumcision is especially cruel.
edit on 21-11-2018 by sine.nomine because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2018 @ 06:39 AM
link   
Even the judges are afraid of mu-slums, Imagine that.




posted on Nov, 21 2018 @ 08:53 AM
link   
This will be upheld, and years from now they will use it as an example of institutionalized oppression of wamen



posted on Nov, 22 2018 @ 07:17 PM
link   
I thought judges were suppose to protect innocent people, not condemn them.

Pathetic ruling, getting tired of bad rulings from these guys.



posted on Nov, 22 2018 @ 07:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue_Jay33




I thought judges were suppose to protect innocent people, not condemn them.
They are supposed to rule according to law. It is the law that is supposed to protect people. In this case, it was not sufficient to do so.

However, there are still felony charges pending even if the decision is not appealed by the government.

edit on 11/22/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics
 
23
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join