Sign into an existing account

I've convinced multiple parents against circumcision who had previously been for it.

It's pretty common for them to think it's less risky to circumcise. Ironically, I use a somewhat scientific argument to tell them why that's ridiculous.

"Hey, you believe in evolution right?"

"Well, of course."

"And over long spans of time, any feature of an organism that becomes fixed and ubiquitous in a species is necessarily an adaptation, right? I mean, if it were meaningfully increasing health risks, it would have to be doing something really, really powerful in terms of increasing reproduction potential in order to justify the health risks."

"Yup."

"Well, the foreskin is a fixed and ubiquitous feature of male anatomy, but in this case doctors are doing better than nature? How likely is it that nature would favor ontogeny of the child that required any of the childs own anatomy to be surgically removed at birth? Remember, human beings didn't have sterile operatories or trained surgeons for 99% of our time on earth."

"Yeah, that seems right. But that doesn't mean it couldn't still confer a benefit."

"Okay, then next time you talk to your OBGYN, ask him to articulate a benefit that isn't just risk avoidance. I'll put $500 on: he can't do it."

The idea, really, is that, all else being equal, any feature an organism could have that meaningfully increased incidence of disease would be filtered out of existence by natural selection. (see my comment below) If having an intact foreskin represented a meaningful risk, it would have to be explained what survival/reproduction benefit this feature provides to the organism, otherwise you would not expect to see it fixed within that species. Of course, we know that foreskin is a fixed feature of both male and female anatomy. There is no consensus on the reason for it, but it is common to think it has sexual purposes (either to delay coitus or facilitate it, depending on what theory you go for). Whatever theory you like, the benefit is really* unlikely to outweigh the cost of any serious risk of infection. Virtually all male mammals have some kind of penile sheath. The idea that we serve nature by surgically removing anything normal from the body at birth is fucking insanity that only the mind of the jew could think up.

-------

So, if this doesn't work, I usually ask them if they have dogs and if they recall any veterinarian PSAs suggesting that people need to have their dogs circumcised because of health risks.

I also laugh at people who say, "But it requires more to keep it clean!" It would save us a little cleaning time if we got rid of the outer portions of our ears, too. But we don't fucking do that. It would save us time cleaning if we cut off every female's labia at birth, too. We don't fucking do that.

Canada dropped circumcision down to 8% over night when the failure of socialist medicine started charging extra for it. They charge extra for everything and now staff would rather euthanize people to save money on treatments. THe money saved has never gone to treating people. It goes to paying extortionist rates to globalcorp for equipment.

I will never be full dick but my son is thanks to the discussions. If my grandson is missing any part of his dick I will leave nothing for my son

Ask them if forced clitorectomies or labiaectomies are okay for infant girls.
(of course they aren't)

Circumcision removes the protective sheath and exposes the most sensitive skin on the human body. When it's rubbed raw to the point of becoming completely insensitive, erectile dysfunction happens prematurely and intimacy between partners is lost. Do they want their man to be able to 'make love' to them or get hate fucked every time into their old age?

Let them know there is big money in stem cell experiment research using the removed body parts. Same with Planned Parenthood.
That is big business for corporations.

When women buy "rejuvenating skin care" at the store, they are smearing hacked off penises and other women's dead babies on their face.

TRuSt tHe sCiEnCe!¡

Ok, name one.

Even though evidence clearly states this was done as an anti-masturbatory measure by a christ-cuck.

Interesting how they chose a Christian imagery for this

What are the Jews going to eat now?

The science that the foreskin remains fused to the glans until about 7 years old?

Who wrote the article