Again, pathetic sophistry. Removal of the hood doesn’t impact ability to reproduce and it doesn’t remove the penis.
Neither does removing one testicle. It does reduce the likelihood of cancer. That is exactly equivalent to your claim.
Shame you can’t make a better argument than a liberal equating circumcision to a double mastectomy.
It is not equivalent, but it's certainly comparable as the cutting up of the sexual parts of people. One wonders why people are so insistent on inflicting this on children.
Call me crazy, but I oppose cutting up the sexual organs of children.
Neither does removing one testicle. It does reduce the likelihood of cancer. That is exactly equivalent to your claim.
Removing 1 testicle does most assuredly reduce your ability to reproduce. 2. it also impacts your other organs. 3. It causes major complication to your endocrine system. You are comparing a small amount of skin to a major organ.
It is not equivalent, but it's certainly comparable as the cutting up of the sexual parts of people. One wonders why people are so insistent on inflicting this on children.
Because the faster recovery, ease of surgery, and lifelong benefits.
Removing 1 testicle does most assuredly reduce your ability to reproduce. 2. it also impacts your other organs. 3. It causes major complication to your endocrine system. You are comparing a small amount of skin to a major organ.
It does not prevent you from reproducing. And I like how American Westoids say that "it's just skin, dude". You know why people have skin, right? And you know why scalping and flaying was done?
Because the faster recovery, ease of surgery, and lifelong benefits.
HAHA. "Faster recovery" when almost no one who is not mutilated voluntarily says: you know what, I'm going to cut off a part of my penis.
It's sick. And liberals may often be wrong, but they are correct in calling out conservatives for hypocrisy on this point. However, they are wrong in asserting that both these things are right, because they are both wrong.
It most definitely can as it drastically reduces semen levels to what is considered impotent.
You know why people have skin, right? And you know why scalping and flaying was done?
Yes and you know why doctors freeze off moles correct? It’s because that benign skin can cause complications.
HAHA. "Faster recovery" when almost no one who is not mutilated voluntarily says: you know what, I'm going to cut off a part of my penis.
Sorry would you like to actually debate me on the recovery time for an infant versus a pubescent human? Try going to the Philippines where they circumcise post puberty males and ask them if they would prefer it at infancy.
It most definitely can as it drastically reduces semen levels to what is considered impotent.
Not sure you want to bring up impotence in this context.,
Yes and you know why doctors freeze off moles correct? It’s because that benign skin can cause complications.
You still have protective skin after they 'freeze off moles'. Apparently, you would be fine with the removal of all the skin on your face, because IT'S JUST SKIN!
Sorry would you like to actually debate me on the recovery time for an infant versus a pubescent human?
I'm not going to debate "recovery time" for a deranged practice that should not exist. It's like saying that chopping off a baby's arm has a lower recovery rate, so we should do it at birth rather than at age 20.
Try going to the Philippines where they circumcise post puberty males and ask them if they would prefer it at infancy.
Try coming to Europe, or in any country where your own Slavic people live, and ask them about how they feel about getting their foreskins chopped off because you were zombified by American Westoid ideology (on this issue).
Neither does removing one testicle. It does reduce the likelihood of cancer. That is exactly equivalent to your claim.
It is not equivalent, but it's certainly comparable as the cutting up of the sexual parts of people. One wonders why people are so insistent on inflicting this on children.
Call me crazy, but I oppose cutting up the sexual organs of children.
Because the faster recovery, ease of surgery, and lifelong benefits.
It does not prevent you from reproducing. And I like how American Westoids say that "it's just skin, dude". You know why people have skin, right? And you know why scalping and flaying was done?
HAHA. "Faster recovery" when almost no one who is not mutilated voluntarily says: you know what, I'm going to cut off a part of my penis.
It's sick. And liberals may often be wrong, but they are correct in calling out conservatives for hypocrisy on this point. However, they are wrong in asserting that both these things are right, because they are both wrong.
It most definitely can as it drastically reduces semen levels to what is considered impotent.
Yes and you know why doctors freeze off moles correct? It’s because that benign skin can cause complications.
Sorry would you like to actually debate me on the recovery time for an infant versus a pubescent human? Try going to the Philippines where they circumcise post puberty males and ask them if they would prefer it at infancy.
Not sure you want to bring up impotence in this context.,
You still have protective skin after they 'freeze off moles'. Apparently, you would be fine with the removal of all the skin on your face, because IT'S JUST SKIN!
I'm not going to debate "recovery time" for a deranged practice that should not exist. It's like saying that chopping off a baby's arm has a lower recovery rate, so we should do it at birth rather than at age 20.
Try coming to Europe, or in any country where your own Slavic people live, and ask them about how they feel about getting their foreskins chopped off because you were zombified by American Westoid ideology (on this issue).