| Started By | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
ag |
|||
|
Cutting the baby's balls will reduce the risk of testicular cancer. And as a bonus the baby will look exactly like the dads who don't object to
circumcision.
|
|||
Screerider |
|||
|
Well, you need your balls (if you plan on reproducing - which I'm hoping my boys do). The foreskin's like tonsils or the appendix.
|
|||
HoodooRhythmDevil |
|||
Screerider wrote:
More like the fingertips. You can live without them but you can sure feel things a whole lot better if you have them. |
|||
ag |
|||
|
Where are all the "should I remove my baby's tonsils" threads
|
|||
HoodooRhythmDevil |
|||
|
Oh, and don't we generally wait until the tonsils or appendix begin presenting some sort of problem before we just start ripping them out all willy nilly?
|
|||
Screerider |
|||
|
I'm sure performing tonsilectomies and appendectomies on babies is more risky than a snip.
|
|||
HoodooRhythmDevil |
|||
|
Yeah, whatever, baby-dick mutliator...
|
|||
Angela in WI |
|||
|
have we got to the throat slitting yet?
|
|||
HoodooRhythmDevil |
|||
|
No, but if he keeps it up, I may have to go there...
|
|||
Screerider |
|||
|
Well, you'd prefer gambling with their penile health later in life. I'm gambling with it on the outset. Either way there's a risk.
I'm thinking, thank God I was circumcized, as there's a possibility I might have come out of college with HIV otherwise. Dodged that bullet! Phew! |
|||
annie normas butt |
|||
Screerider wrote: Or breast tissue? Breasts have nothing to do with reproducing as long as we have similac
Just say NO to foreskin and boobies! |
|||
Screerider |
|||
|
It's like the gay marriage arguments all over again.
|
|||
pie123452001 |
|||
annie normas butt wrote: |
|||
HoodooRhythmDevil |
|||
Screerider wrote: I think you're operating from a flawed premise. You are significantly overstating the threat to "penile health later in life." That, and your breath smells like a fucking yak died in there. I mean...what the fuck did you eat? |
|||
Screerider |
|||
|
I'm not overstating it, as I really haven't even stated it (although I believe I did mention they were rare, which is hardly overstating anything).
Percentages to get those things exist. Or else, no one would get them, right?
|
|||
HoodooRhythmDevil |
|||
|
Show me any statistics that claim a greater chance of these afflictions among the uncircumsized.
You can't. Because you're a liar and an ass-sniffer. That's right...I went there. |
|||
Screerider |
|||
|
I can. Links have already been posted, yo. You can read, right?
|
|||
HoodooRhythmDevil |
|||
|
Your data do not support your contentions here.
Have you bothered to read any of the other links? ETA: In the links you provided, causal effect is implied but not indicated by the data. |
|||
Screerider |
|||
|
Of course, the 60% reduction in contracting AIDS in circumcized males versus uncircumcized could be due to something else. Like unicorns. Sorry for needlessly
impugning your excess flappage.
|
|||
HoodooRhythmDevil |
|||
|
In Africa and there's no causal effect indicated.
And keep your hands off my dick. |
|||