RE: To circumcise or not to circumcise?
June 10, 2016 at 10:17 pm
(This post was last modified: June 10, 2016 at 10:47 pm by Homeless Nutter.)
(June 10, 2016 at 1:06 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I voted yes.
Why?
Because it looks better that way.
[...]
Ugh...
Yeah, of course you'd mutilate your child - supposedly created in the image of god - because you think it looks prettier that way.("perfect all-knowing creator" really f*cked that up, didn't he? Better "improve" on his work - he clearly wasn't thinking, when he created that flap of skin.). Not even for "medical" reasons, which are also bullsh*t, unless maybe you live in a tropical f*cking swamp, with no access to soap. Not even to discourage masturbation and diminish sexual pleasure. But simply, because cut d*ck is what makes you wet... Despicable.
And if you have a daughter - you'll probably have her 3 days old c*nt pierced, because them shiny things look sooo puhrty... Naturally - it won't do to wait and let your child decide for him-/her-self, whether or not to have their genitals mutilated, right? You wouldn't be able to play god then - something you're obviously entitled to and qualified for, since you let some dumbass squirt inside your vagina... And if your kid later decides he wants his foreskin back - he can just grow a new one, no harm done... smh
Personally - I think trimming dog's ears is barbaric and I wouldn't do that to a living being - let alone one of the most sensitive part of a human baby. But then - I'm not a shallow, over-privileged, self-centred Christian tw*t, with no imagination, or empathy, but with morality of a bronze age barbarian and a mandate from god to do evil, as long as it's the kind of evil endorsed in the bible...
I hope your kid thanks you one day. I really do.
"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." - George Bernard Shaw
