Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Cheesecat wrote:
Yeah, I think I'm looking too hard for info that confirms my own biases at this point and instead should look for other explanations as well.

Credit to you for taking such a reasonable approach to the thread.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:
Probably. Though I recall a documentary on body language talking about Thatcher, among other things, speaking in a deliberately deeper voice (as opposed to her naturally high, and rather annoying voice), with this being one of a number of carefully developed mannerisms seen as related to her political rise (not that of her party, of course, but her own rise in it). I'm not completely sure what that would indicate, but it's somewhat interesting trivia, I guess.

Our current Prime Minister is a lady and when they started grooming her for the job they got in all kinds of speach and mannerism experts to mould her into an election winning machine. The end result is a bizarre creation.

 DemetriDominov wrote:

Ballot Measure in San Francisco to Ban Circumcision. (2011). Midwifery Today, (98), 64.

Stupid copyright makes me have to paraphrase this but:

Recent articles tell that there is a correlation between long term health effects and circumcision. They have been repressed, omitted, and ignored intentionally by the CDC - the main database where virtually every traditional/mainstream medical opinion is based. Further evidence to how the healthcare system is intentionally ignoring this evidence when they can continue to make huge profits off of their prenatal and natal care units is the stigmatization and banishment of midwives from public health centers (who generally don't perform circumcision and help give successful births for far cheaper) even though the newborn mortality rate of the US is one of the worst in the developed world.

Its also a religious thing. Frazzled says back the feth off and quit trying to interpose yourself between doctors and patients.

"A man fights with his head, logic and reason, A woman fights with her heart, passion and fervor"

So no, woman are not morally superior, they just come at problems from a different angle, there are..of course.. Exceptions to this.

 Frazzled wrote:


Its also a religious thing. Frazzled says back the feth off and quit trying to interpose yourself between doctors and patients.

Circumcision is a religious thing, and I've already addressed that. Midwifery is as medical and prestigious as any hospital, it's also vastly cheaper, more patient orientated, and safer. I'm not saying that hospitals should abandon their practice - indeed, they are the undisputed experts when complications arise, but to have a monopoly over the healthcare system is limiting patient options, inducing harm in uncomplicated births, and costing the US massive amounts of money. This is simply another brick building the argument that women continue to take a back seat and that superstition, tradition, and ignorance continue to drive public opinion.

Edited 8 times because it's too dang early to think:

I for one, am kind of bothered by the fact that a part of me was cut off in the name of a religion I don't belong to.

Simply saying ‘it’s a religious thing’ is a rather risky reasoning as far as I’m concerned. After all female circumcision is also a religious thing but that’s still illegal and rightly so.

Personally I don’t think it should be legal to surgically remove any part of an infant’s body without proper medical reasons. Religion be damned.

 LuciusAR wrote:
Simply saying ‘it’s a religious thing’ is a rather risky reasoning as far as I’m concerned. After all female circumcision is also a religious thing but that’s still illegal and rightly so.

Personally I don’t think it should be legal to surgically remove any part of an infant’s body without proper medical reasons. Religion be damned.

Nonsense. Its a fundamental right to privacy issue.

 Frazzled wrote:


Nonsense. Its a fundamental right to privacy issue.

How is it a privacy issue?

 DemetriDominov wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


Nonsense. Its a fundamental right to privacy issue.

How is it a privacy issue?

It's also considered a "medical procedure", thus falls under the same protection.

If you don't give someone permission to cut off part of your dick, then they shouldn't be cutting off part of your dick. Even if they are your parents.

Chongara wrote:
If you don't give someone permission to cut off part of your dick, then they shouldn't be cutting off part of your dick. Even if they are your parents.

Erm... centuries of this practice man.

It ain't like your parents are turning their boyz into eunuch.

Chongara wrote:
If you don't give someone permission to cut off part of your dick, then they shouldn't be cutting off part of your dick. Even if they are your parents.

Interesting how that argument could be applied to abortion...

 whembly wrote:

 DemetriDominov wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


Nonsense. Its a fundamental right to privacy issue.

How is it a privacy issue?

It's also considered a "medical procedure", thus falls under the same protection.

No I understand the right to privacy, and I understand that circumcision is considered a medical procedure, what I don't see is how circumcision is a right to privacy.

 Frazzled wrote:

Chongara wrote:
If you don't give someone permission to cut off part of your dick, then they shouldn't be cutting off part of your dick. Even if they are your parents.

Interesting how that argument could be applied to abortion...

Yup.

Slippery slopes my man.

 Frazzled wrote:

Chongara wrote:
If you don't give someone permission to cut off part of your dick, then they shouldn't be cutting off part of your dick. Even if they are your parents.

Interesting how that argument could be applied to abortion...

If that abortion was performed after the third trimester or after you were born... I think we're stretching concepts here and going way off topic though.

 DemetriDominov wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 DemetriDominov wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


Nonsense. Its a fundamental right to privacy issue.

How is it a privacy issue?

It's also considered a "medical procedure", thus falls under the same protection.

No I understand the right to privacy, and I understand that circumcision is considered a medical procedure, what I don't see is how circumcision is a right to privacy.

Look up Roe Vs. Wade. Look up caselaw about it.

 Frazzled wrote:

Chongara wrote:
If you don't give someone permission to cut off part of your dick, then they shouldn't be cutting off part of your dick. Even if they are your parents.

Interesting how that argument could be applied to abortion...

A fetus isn't a person. A person has a right to not have a part of their dick chopped off because they're a person, and it's their dick. Nobody else's body is invovled. Similarly a woman has a right to scrape whatever she wants out of her uterus, because its' her uterus and nobody else's body is involved.

She doesn't have to tell anyone she scraped whatever out of her uterus.

You don’t' have to tell anyone you didn't have part of someone's dick chopped off. However, if it later comes to light somehow that you did get part of someone's dick chopped off (or did the chopping yourself) you should get in trouble. On account of having done dick-chopping. Unless the person was like "Bro. It's OK. Chop off part of my dick".

 whembly wrote:

Chongara wrote:
If you don't give someone permission to cut off part of your dick, then they shouldn't be cutting off part of your dick. Even if they are your parents.

Erm... centuries of this practice man.

It ain't like your parents are turning their boyz into eunuch.

Seriously, that's your argument.

"They're chopping off parts of people's dicks"
"They're not chopping the whole thing off"

Seriously, they shouldn't be chopping off parts of people's dicks.

Chongara wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Chongara wrote:
If you don't give someone permission to cut off part of your dick, then they shouldn't be cutting off part of your dick. Even if they are your parents.

Interesting how that argument could be applied to abortion...

A fetus isn't a person. A person has a right to not have a part of their dick chopped off because they're a person, and it's their dick. Nobody else's body is invovled. Similarly a woman has a right to scrape whatever she wants out of her uterus, because its' her uterus and nobody else's body is involved. .

Seriously... that's your argument? You're trying to have it both ways.

 whembly wrote:

Chongara wrote:
If you don't give someone permission to cut off part of your dick, then they shouldn't be cutting off part of your dick. Even if they are your parents.

Erm... centuries of this practice man.

It ain't like your parents are turning their boyz into eunuch.

Seriously, that's your argument.

"They're chopping off parts of people's dicks"
"They're not chopping the whole thing off"

Seriously, they shouldn't be chopping off parts of people's dicks.

So... all through out history, they were wrong?

I've been mutilated... and I'm still a horndog.

Chongara wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Chongara wrote:
If you don't give someone permission to cut off part of your dick, then they shouldn't be cutting off part of your dick. Even if they are your parents.

Interesting how that argument could be applied to abortion...

A fetus isn't a person. A person has a right to not have a part of their dick chopped off because they're a person, and it's their dick. Nobody else's body is invovled. Similarly a woman has a right to scrape whatever she wants out of her uterus, because its' her uterus and nobody else's body is involved.

She doesn't have to tell anyone she scraped whatever out of her uterus.

You don’t' have to tell anyone you didn't have part of someone's dick chopped off. However, if it later comes to light somehow that you did get part of someone's dick chopped off (or did the chopping yourself) you should get in trouble. On account of having done dick-chopping. Unless the person was like "Bro. It's OK. Chop off part of my dick".

 whembly wrote:

Chongara wrote:
If you don't give someone permission to cut off part of your dick, then they shouldn't be cutting off part of your dick. Even if they are your parents.

Erm... centuries of this practice man.

It ain't like your parents are turning their boyz into eunuch.

Seriously, that's your argument.

"They're chopping off parts of people's dicks"
"They're not chopping the whole thing off"

Seriously, they shouldn't be chopping off parts of people's dicks.

Define the difference between a fetus and a person. This will be fun.

 whembly wrote:

Seriously... that's your argument? You're trying to have it both ways.

A woman is person. She has control over her utureus. Nobody should be able to force her to remove a bunch of non-person cells from her body, or not remove a bunch of non-person cells from her body. If she wants to do it she can say "Sure, go ahead get that fetus out of here". She can also go "You know what, scoop out the whole thing and take the ovaries too".

A man (or boy as it were), is a person. He has control over his dick. Nobody should be able to force him to have part of it chopped off. If he wants he go "Yeah sure, chop part of it off" he can and they can chop part of it off. Hell he even go "You know what, chop the whole thing off - and take the balls too." and they can chop all of it off. She can also go "keep your mitts off my fetus, I'm going to turn that sucker into a baby".

In neither case should somebody be able to force these kinds of changes on someone, or keep them from making them. Just as nobody should be able to just chop off part of someone's dick. Assuming he can find someone willing to chop part of it off, nobody should be able to keep him from doing so of his own free will.

 whembly wrote:
So... all through out history, they were wrong?

I've been mutilated... and I'm still a horndog.

Yes. People have been wrong about all sorts of things for 1000s of years. You can't just sail through north America, illness isn't caused by demons or miasmas, the sun is at the center of the solar system, there are no witches with magic powers, you shouldn't chop off part of someone's dick without permission.

Congratulations, you're horny so are a lot of people.

 Frazzled wrote:


Define the difference between a fetus and a person. This will be fun.

Getting popcorn ready...

I notice you didn't define the difference between a fetus and a person. Still waiting.

 Frazzled wrote:
I notice you didn't define the difference between a fetus and a person.

He changed his wording from fetus to "bunch of non-person cells". :-\

 Alfndrate wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I notice you didn't define the difference between a fetus and a person.

He changed his wording from fetus to "bunch of non-person cells". :-\

He still didn't answer the question.

Whats the difference?

Derailed.