|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
God forbid that she win, but on the chance that she does, is she also willing to pay for his surgical restoration at some point in the future should he decide he wants his foreskin back?
I get so ****ing sick and tired of these women insisting that a male's foreskin be removed when they're not willing to undergo the equivalent procedure of having their clitoral hoods removed. And on top of that, they balk at the idea that they're morally responsible for paying for their sons' restoration should he ever desire it in the future.
Let's not mince words here: If she causes the damage, then the bitch is morally obligated to undo the damage.
"Existence exists. A is A." -Ayn Rand
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The mother is morally no better than a paedophile.
If women such as this want the freedom to deny a male the right to his own body, then why should we honor a woman's right to her body? Because it is politically "right"? This misses the crucial political point that abortion is morally unresolvable and must be transferred to the legal and political system for resolution.
I will support choice for women conditionally on their support of male reproductive rights, which include the right of a male to his own body. This is the absolute minimum: the right to intact genitalia. The right to uninterrupted sexual development.
This is the minimum.
If pro-choice advocates are unwilling to honor a moral commitment to men to leave their son's alone at a time when they are most vulnerable, I will support the repeal of Roe v. Wade.
I'm a Jew, and I support the right of every man to uninterrupted sexual development. If you give that up, then you've already lost. You've already willingly irreversibly sacrificed your masculinity. You're in the dark about reproduction, and determined to let others reshape your genitals for you, to define for you what it means to be male. You weak, contemptible mice!
If men's rights advocates disagree with me on the right to their own bodies, then I will leave them to their social confusion, and do nothing further to reverse the decline of males.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by n.j. on 06:05 PM June 15th, 2006 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
Most likely, this wouldnt mean only the hood. Also the inner labiae and the sensitive spot where they connect to the clit. Right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Most likely, this wouldnt mean only the hood. Also the inner labiae and the sensitive spot where they connect to the clit. Right?
Well then, if that's the exact female equivalent to male circumcision, then let his mother have it done to herself.
Otherwise she's nothing but a fucking hypocrite.
"Existence exists. A is A." -Ayn Rand
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
Roy writes "In a really extreme case of how ugly a divorce litigation can get, check out this article describing how a divorcing couple are using the threat of circumcizing their 8 year-old son’s penis as part of the psychotic Family Court warfare. The mom’s lawyer (female) wants the foreskin badly. The dad’s lawyers (female and male) want it preserved. This kid must be about ready to become a runaway ...
See