3 ms·
You said "reduce/eliminate". It most certainly reduces, as far as I know. I also don't see your point in being pedantic. Both are procedures which do not benef
by BlargMcLarg 4y ago
You said "reduce/eliminate". It most certainly reduces, as far as I know.
I also don't see your point in being pedantic. Both are procedures which do not benefit the majority and are an active effort to make most lives worse (be it unknowingly or knowingly). The only case for male circumcision, is the extreme minority of men who would suffer otherwise.
Surely you're not going to make your case on this petty a detail.
- yucky 4y ago>It most certainly reduces, as far as I know. That would be news to hundreds of millions of men. >Surely you're not going to make your case on this petty a detail. I think any sane person would see removal of the clitoris to be quite different.
- Thiez 4y agoThere are several variants of FGM, and not all involve removal of the clitoris. The most benign forms involve a symbolic pin prick that is certainly less damaging to the genitals and future sexual pleasure than removal of the foreskin. And yet all types of "female circumcision" are literally referred to as mutilation, and considered bad. Will you argue in favor of allowing the pin-prick variant for baby girls, since you support a more traumatic operation for baby boys?
- verisimilitudes 4y ago>Surely you're not going to make your case on this petty a detail. It's called pilpul and he obviously will.