Law banning female genital mutilation ruled unconstitutional!

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: Xtrozero

Reading the article provided I see that the judge is against female genital mutilation but he is also against incorrect power given to the US Congress and that this issue is according to the Constitution a states responsibility to legislate.

I'm sure that this judge, just like me and I think you and most others hope to see each and every state ban this ugly practice. Immediately.

Maybe...

It is funny when people go to jail because the refused to give medical treatment to one of their sick children due to religious beliefs... Just wondering where this sits in all that...

a reply to: Kurokage

What do circumcisions have to do with God?

When I was growing up, the women always laughed at uncircumcised teedlers, so did the guys, even guys who weren't circumcised laughed about it. Same with wieners that were bent.

a reply to: Kurokage

Posting a website does nothing to dispel scientific evidence. Try harder. It's not a topic up for debate it's settled science.

a reply to: LSU2018

Jewish and Muslim men and mostly African and Muslim women are circumcised because of their religious beliefs.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04


Try reading said website first, the article is written by Darcia F. Narvaez Ph.D. Instead you push American rubbish as scientific evidence.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04
If it made such a difference then the majority of the developed world's healthcare systems would do it for the cost benefit.
Tax funded healthcare looks at what is likely to happen so is a procedure worth the cost? Cutting male babies is not deemed needed in the EU, that's like 500 million people man.
If cutting saved the NHS money then it would be done, it is not, just in your crazy cat country, it's barbaric.

a reply to: Kurokage

Hahaha I read your source ...

Myth: Circumcision prevents HIV/AIDS.

She's a quack, it's not even a debateable topic. The evidence is overwhelming. It's like saying the sun warms the earth is a myth.

originally posted by: LSU2018
a reply to: Xtrozero

What's the point of removing her clit? That's terrible.

Apparently weak, insecure, cruel, paranoid, vengeful and controlling hateful men thought it was a good idea to keep "THEIR" women celibate.

I never thought they would get a way with this here. But here we are. Of course, I never thought the don would be elected *president* either, so there's that.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

I just sourced a Canadian meta analysis, you know the country with NHS. America has nothing to do with this. Try again. The health benefits are not up for debate it's settled science.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04


It's very debateable in this day and age as most of what is written is at least 30 years old. My first reply to you proved that with a link to another site with proof to how out of date most "beliefs" are.

a reply to: Kurokage

Canadian meta analysis and the who = America.

Oh wait just because your ignorance is so hilarious...

The UK NHS is American rubbish too.

There's evidence that circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexual men acquiring HIV.

It's encouraged as part of HIV prevention programmes in some African countries with high rates of HIV.

www.nhs.uk...

Keep believing that quack that was linked.

I do not agree at all with these people mutilating themselves and their kids. But I also do realize that people do have rights to do this kind of stuff as long as it does not negatively effect other people in the country. I see a lot of people pushing their distorted beliefs on others and it is causing problems in our society. People have the right to believe what they want but it is their actions that cause harm to others. If it is their own families, I see no reason why we should get involved, they are not hurting us with this procedure.

I have to say that I do not agree that this practice of mutilation is good, neither are breast plants and plastic surgeries or people getting sex changes. Those examples are actually the same things, that nose job is a mutilation. We should not have to pay because someone has their butt enhanced, but we do not have the right to stop them either. It is their money and their life.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04
Lol like I said, we'll never find agreement on this if our experiences of having a foreskin or not are different, never ever.
You don't know what you are missing maybe?

a reply to: Kurokage

Sorry nothing is 30 years old. Try 2005.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

I know research has been done into what is missing and the answer is nothing.

I don't care about your skin or your choice. Just don't lie about facts. You make your decision, I make mine, we respect that, and we keep facts as facts.

a reply to: rickymouse

This is not self mutilation, this is the mutilation of others with permanent negative consequences.

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: OccamsRazor04
Lol like I said, we'll never find agreement on this if our experiences of having a foreskin or not are different, never ever.
You don't know what you are missing maybe?

Yeah, we should be focusing on whether people being obsessed with sexual pleasure is even normal. I know no difference from getting my foreskin clipped, it is normal to me. A person with the foreskin has no way of knowing if cutting it made it less pleasurable either, humans have the ability to compensate and I do not trust in science on this, people's perception is skewed by their beliefs. Scientists interpretations of evidence can be skewed by their beliefs and that is common.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Yep. And the notoriety and hate that has been spilled on this judge should, once the true nature of his ruling comes to light, spur each and every state to take up this cause. It maybe that many states did not act on the legality of the issue due to believing that the Federal Government had already taken care of it.

Are they sure they want to be using this logic on the Constitution? According to that logic then states have no authority to regulate guns. The Commerce clause would reserve that right to the federal government then.

Catch 22.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Male circumcision is beneficial and cultural.

OccamsRazor takes on a whole new meaning.