Is it ethically permissible to remove healthy functional tissue from a nonconsenting minor?

Is it ethically permissible to remove healthy functional tissue from a nonconsenting minor?

Other urls found in this thread:

gnosis.org/naghamm/gth_pat_rob.htm
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

gas the jews and abolish their practices.

feels good man

Why are you talking about ethics like its a matter of objective fact?
It just depends where you live.

if boy, yes. if grill, NO, FUCK YOU THAT'S FUCKING CRUEL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11

Are you seriously suggesting not marking your token of covenant with God?

Without child mutilation where will we get male foreskins to eat?

Kill all Jews, all of them

Setting aside the fact that minors are unable to provide either consent or non-consent, the answer is most definitely yes.
Tumors are healthy functioning tissues, even though they are not desirable for humans, hair and fingernails are healthy functional tissues, and we trim them from babies. Perhaps you ought to stick to specific arguments against circumcision instead of going all generalization on us, OP. You will find the arguments against it pretty good.

it very much isnt. And its pointlss on top of it, as it doesnt work for anything its advertised. If only u could elect atheists for public offices

That's a barbaric practise that should be criminalized if done purely for aesthetic reasons on a non-consenting infant.

Is it a common thing to circumcise babies at hospitals in the US? OP's pic makes it seem that way.

Yes. Most male babies in the United States are circumcised.

in most states, it is standard practice unless a refusal is acquired in writing prior to birth

(in the womb), if you know anything about anatomy, the penis and the vagina start out as the same thing and then develope one way or another.

the foreskin, is basically the clittoral hood and the head of the penis, is essentially the clittoris

(give or take some of the internal erectile tissue or "butterfly wings" on the inside of the sides of the vagina) but no matter what, both males and females have a "head" and then the rest of the organ's body.
or

so there are foreskins, and clittoral hoods.


why do some women get this done? some women enjoy direct clittoral stimulation, some do not. while many women do not like direct clittoral stimulation, there are others that do but even those who do not can still have problems reaching their girl "bean" so to speak. since the clittoris can vary from very small to more generous sizes (and extra big in some special women) very good for them right? depending on the woman, and depending on the woman the clittoral hood can be larger or smaller, there are some women who fall into the category of small clit + large clittoral hood which leaves them in a tough situation where it is more difficult for them to get pleasure or successfully orgasm since the clittoris is so hidden. some women can't even reach their clittoris after trying to gently lift aside their clittoral hoods and often end up only being able to get and orgasm if they use a strong vibrator, and for some women even that doesn't work. there are alot of cases of women who are unable to reach orgasm. really sad and my heart goes out to them. everybody deserves the freedom to be able to enjoy that if they so choose.

just in case you're confused, involuntary female circumcision (clit REMOVAL without consent) (very evil) is NOT the same thing as a voluntary consensual clittoral hood reduction procedure done with a proffesional doctor. in some very bad places girls are sent to have their clits removed which is equal to a boy having the head of their penis removed. obviously, this is very very fucked up and just plain wrong since most of them never have an orgasm in their life after that and if they do have any, they don't feel that great.

so my point is that they don't remove the foreskin to reduce pleasure, they do it so that you can actually feel good by exposing the head of the penis for better access in regards to sexual activity, keeping things clean, using the bathroom, and so on. Imagine having a plastic bag over your penis constantly but you have to peel it back in order to pee, wash, or perform in a sexual activity.

people apply lotion to their skin on their whole body to keep it from getting dry right? why do people seem to have the problem where they apply lotion everywhere except the one place they claim to have so many dryness issues? if my hands become dry, I take care of it. if my elbows are dry, I take care of it. if my knees are dry, I take care of it. if my front or back is dry, I take care of it. but if any parts of my private areas are dry, even if they are parts that are not effected by circumcision, I just forget to take care of myself! so I'll blame the fact that I got circumcised.

do people assume that just because the foreskin is gone, that the rest of the penis (parts besides the head and foreskin region) that are always exposed regardless of if a circumcision has been done or not are somehow any more or any less likely to become dry and require lotion? I mean, any skin on the human body is capable of becoming dry. why shouldn't I apply lotion or oil where it's needed? (avoiding areas where lotion or oil shouldn't go) I take good care of myself and never have any issues. if you're going to take the effort and moisturize your hands and the rest of your body, why the hell wouldn't you make a small amount more effort compared to all the lotioning up you just did and get the one spot you missed? makes sense right?

...

fuck you, kike. it's as simple as this: in the USA boys DO NOT have the right to be born intact.

Faggot. Functioning societies are based on objective morality to keep people in line. It's a way to create cooperation between people, and achieve common goals

You're circumcised right? No uncut man would ever say that having your penis head exposed all the time "feels good"
Whenever I fap with lube it prevents my foreskin from retracting back over the head of my dick until I clean it thoroughly, and having the fabric of my underwear rubbing against the head of my dick is fucking UNBEARABLE.
The thought of having that happen constantly for years and years until whats supposed to be a protected sensitive organ is callused by constant abrasions makes me cringe just thinking about it, you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.

Yes.

that's why you wear soft underwear and moisturize with shea butter user. after watching tons of porn I can say that all uncut dicks are disgusting.

kys, kike

I don't have to wear soft underwear and moisturize with shea butter because my dick isn't mutilated.
No matter how soft your underwear is or how much shea butter you put on your dick it won't reverse the damage thats been done, years upon years of calluses due to friction have fucking destroyed the feeling in your dick and you don't even know any different because it had already been happening for years before you even had your first memory.

What's objective morality?

I got circumcised as an adult because of an accident. While I don't condone the practice for infants I can tell you that there is really no difference in sensation, there is no discomfort, no problems. At least for me.

What the majority of a population agrees it is. That's why religion is so useful as a tool of objective morality, because religion can be used to persuade people to agree with each other based upon what the church tells them.

So what you're saying is that it's subjective along populations then?

Yeah like agreeing to mutilate infants penises right after they're born.

from what i understand, you're in the minority, user

The difference might have been too subtle for you to notice like getting taller as you grow up but its statistically proven to lower your sensitivity, not really up for debate.

Well, I didn't notice any difference at least, and if it's too subtle to notice then it's not really something to kvetch about in my opinion. I get you guys are speaking out against the pretty sick practice of ritual circumcision, that's good. But with your angle, what you're actually doing is creating complexes in all the white guys who have been circumcised in circumstances beyond their control. It's like those manlet type things.

How do you measure peoples perceived sensations?

semmes weinstein monofilament test

...

It's ethical to harvest breast/vaginal secretions from preteens for longevity.

Except these "white guys who have been circumcised in circumstances beyond their control" are advocating for other people to mutilate their dicks because they don't even know what they've lost like this asshole:

Some are, most don't. Trying to frame it like you're some sort of dysfunctional monster and less of a man with a cut dick is just making people insecure. It's something they can't fix. I usually chime in because I have a subjective experience of a not noticeable difference. Does that mean no one have problems with it? Not at all, but even so the fact is that the norm is that you can have a completely normal and good sex life with a circumcised penis.

But that doesn't mean mutilating infants for no good reason is right. It's a twisted and strange practice and the why's of why that's so should be pretty obvious to anyone regardless, so I don't see the need for the "you're dysfunctional" angle.

I don't see how you equate having a callused dickhead with being a dysfunctional monster and less of a man, sounds to me like the insecurity is already there and it doesn't matter what I say.

It's just not healthy, user. Mutilating your dick might not decrease your quality of life but it is still a sick, brutal, unnatural, unnecessary procedure that needs to be abolished like the race that spawned it.

i wish we didn't need men like you, but you need more men like you. i'm circumcised, but from what i've been told, i'm "mostly intact". when flaccid, everything is covered except the piss-hole. apparently, i'm one of the lucky ones. i've heard people bitch about death grip and dryness, but that's never really been an issue for me.

having said that, when i have kids, if a doctor tries to cut my baby's foreskin off, i'll chop his fucking dick off

Bless your penis, good sire. May it reach ever higher.

Not really. I can't say I have any insecurities about it, but I started thinking about it when coming in contact with you faggots who spam pseudoscientific infographic memes about how ruined you are if your dick is cut. If you haven't paid attention it's a running thread type theme on imageboards. It's pretty much just a variation of manlet threads and "innie outtie" threads for the ladies. Angry people who want other people to feel bad for shit they can't help.

I'm very "fortunate" that I was actually cut as an adult (frostbite accident) so I know there's no difference for me at least. Otherwise, yes, I would have become insecure by you guys and your talk about "callused dickheads."


Perhaps I was lucky too. My procedure was done here in Norway by a Norwegian surgeon, so I guess that can't be compared with some moihel with a razor. And I agree, I would never agree to something like that, not that it's something we really do in my country anyways.

See

also did you almost pull a Terje Bakken but only ended put freezing your foreskin?

Insecurity is like being offended, its taken not given.
I don't get insecure about being uncut because of faggots like this who say all uncut dicks are disgusting


Its not my job to walk on eggshells to avoid making people feel insecure about their bodies, spreading the word about how horrific circumcision is will benefit all the babies whos parents decide not to have them circumcised because of threads like these.

Yes, young teenagers give birth all the time. Doctors have to remove the healthy functioning tissue from the non-consenting minor's body after 9 months, and there is not a society on this planet that thinks it to be unethical

Of course it's not healthy. No one should do something like that to children. Understand what I'm trying to say, I'm completely against the ritual practice. But there's another side to this, the type of "manlet" thread phenomena.

Må ut på tur vettu :^)


Not exaggerating the problems isn't promoting circumcision, you kike. But do whatever you want. You're here with your perspective and I'm here with mine.

—–warning: redpill——–

I wouldn't mind it if they did it the old fashioned Greek way where they removed less foreskin. Now it's the excessive 'high and tight' cut that stretches pubes up your shaft.

The Gods didn't have foreskins and that's where this all originated from.

...

Your perspective ends with all the circumcised fathers circumcising their own children at birth because they were never told the downsides of circumcision since it might hurt their fee fees.

the gods were planets, you fucking retard

The clitoral hood keeps the clit moist and sensitive, just like foreskin.

I think this man has just explained the underlying cause of the obesity epidemic

That's a really dumb assertion. If you try to pull some shit like that again, you'll be shitting uncontrollably out your rectum for days.

Jesus christ what is this dialect? Surely it's no ordinary norsk?

Kong Sverre for livet

Ok, perhaps I have trouble understanding your situation. How common is circumcision in USA? I'll admit you got a point. But I think I do to, one of the things we need the least right now is demasculating men even more than they already are. If you tell people their dick don't work properly they're bound to start thinking it, even if it does. Also, your science (you as in the people creating these types of threads) often seem sketchy.

I think the angle that it's a completely redundant procedure should suffice. Potential for problems, surgery that can go wrong and so on. And even cost. There really is no reason or upside to circumcise so it should be easy to convince people just based on that. After all, everywhere in the western world except USA people would just look strangely at you if you even suggested it.

But as I said, I understand you got some problems over there too. It's a hard nut.

It's the trollspeak of the mountainhomes.

see:

That's terrible.

Protip: the tissue that connects the foreskin to the glans of an infant is the same type of tissue that connect fingernails to fingers. Want to know what a baby feels during a circumcision? Grab a pair of pliers and rip your fingernail off

indeed

Your skiers need more medication for their allergies :^) also less oljapengar

fucking hell, what kind of sandpaper underwear have some people been wearing that they have calluses on their dick? did their parents never teach them proper hygene and moisturizing? seriously what the fuck? people complain about underwear callussing up their dick head but what about their balls? my balls are sensitive and if I wear bad underwear they get irritated. if you aren't moisturizing and wearing nice soft underwear, cut or not, you're doing it wrong.

nice digits, user

which is exactly why you should read this thread.

Checked. We closterbol it up over here, bitch.

Any kind of constant friction will callus sensitive skin over the years, especially if its meant to be protected.
Imagine if your tongue was forced outside your mouth and just left there to dry out while you rub a piece of fabric back and forth against it for years on end, how could you think that would have no long term effects?

now don't get really fucking mad at me or anything because I may just be misunderstanding the chart, but it says "less sensitive" with an arrow pointing up implying that the higher the bars go the less sensitive it is.

this confuses the fuck out of me considering that the areas marked on the chart that imply are from circumcised people, have the lowest bars.

if a high bar = low sensitivity, then does a low bar = very high sensitivity?

circumcision RAISES sensitivity?

that chart is fucking broken, I'm misreading it, OR it's correct and is saying the circumcised people are more sensitive. if that's what it's implying then I'm not sure that even then do I agree considering that so many different people have different sensitivity factors even among different cut and uncut people.

don't immediately get pissed at me, just try to understand what I'm confused about.

Like the huge calluses old people have on their balls.

You forgot the part where almost all the most sensitive parts are amputated during circumcision.

This is one of those statements that sounds very sketchy to me. If it's true that the most sensitive parts are what is removed in a circumcision, how can I perceive no difference from before and after? Obviously bullshit imo.

wow you are stupid. figures some retard spewing forth garbage in the most screeching tone is actually the most clueless idiot here. you should have stayed in school moron, wikipedia is not a good substitute for a formal education.

I'm just saying the graph confuses the shit out of me. I don't understand it at all. if it's my fault I don't understand it, then it's my fault.

are you the user that got cut later in life?
this one?

if you say you feel the same before and after then I guess circumcision is okay, but it does piss me off that people do it to babies without permission.

I think you saying you perceive no difference whatsoever is obviously bullshit, I mean the main reason circumcision was a thing is to stop masturbation since it goes against religious bullshit.
How could you not feel the difference between having a foreskin going up and down over your dick as you fap and having to lube up your own hand instead to do it?

Yes. And I'm not saying circumcision is ok. It's a completely unnecessary and dangerous procedure that should only be done by medical necessity. But I'm also skeptical of all these people saying how your dick doesn't work because of it, because that doesn't fit with my own personal experience.


Well, I was talking about sex. Masturbation was a bit different in the technical aspect, but not any less intense or pleasurable by any means. Also, I was greatly surprised that women can't tell the difference.

Here's a detailed description of the foreskin.

Yes, it stops you from getting aids and helps the lube industry prosper.

Absolutely. Snip that shit.

Only if you're black.

I think this is a misunderstanding. It is not the most sensitive part that is amputated. It is the skin that covers the most sensitive part. If that skin is removed you have the most sensitive part rubbing on cloth all day long while someone un cut has that sensitive part covered by skin only revealed when the skin is pulled back or fully erect. When that part is not covered by the skin that sensitive part is very sensitive to touch very much like being ticklish. I expect if someone cut were to cover that part 24/7 and keep it clean that might regain that sensitivity.

Yes and this is why Christians are no better than Jews.

What about the fact that circumcision makes you only feel 1/4 of what you are suppose to.

Its why I can't cum from a BJ and have to just be fucking hard as Hell to cum. Circumcision ruins your dick!

No, the Meissner's corpuscles are in the foreskin. The head of the penis is the least pleasurable area of the penis (not the least sensitive, just the least pleasurable).
It apparently changes very little from suddenly becoming an external organ.
Restoring foreskin will never give you the nerves back but what it will do is restore the lubrication storage function during sex, which may or may not be preferable depending on whether you're into jackhammering that pussy or not.

Stanza (53)
(1) His disciples said to him: "Is circumcision beneficial, or not?"
(2) He said to them: "If it were beneficial, their father would beget them circumcized from their mother.
(3) But the true circumcision in the spirit has prevailed over everything."
/This matter is settled
gnosis.org/naghamm/gth_pat_rob.htm

chicken nuggets survive just fine without added ingredients

Humanity is fucking ridiculous. Ya'll are okay with dismembering babies and ripping them out of the womb just because the mother suddenly changed her mind but you throw a fit the moment somebody touch that dick.

Nice assumption there. Go back to tumblr.

It's a logical conclusion based on statistics, fucker.

...

fetuses, not babies :^)

If it was cancerous, yes.

according to op's picture, Germany is better than USA at something.
Fuck you, USA

All circumcised men need to be killed.

Public execution by headshot with a double barrelled shotgun.

Cicumcised men deserve death.

...

just kill everyone that has done one and all the rabbis