That topic is far more nuanced and complicated than the naturalist cults like to portray, and I will aggressively reject any and all “appeals to nature”.
The human body is not remotely perfect, which is why the entire field of medicine exists. When it comes to circumcision there are legitimate health and hygiene considerations to be made. It is not arbitrarily “cultural” or “cosmetic”, though it is often portrayed as such.
I love how you’ve looked to dismiss the idea that cutting skin off of a babies genitals is damaging and inherently wrong, outside of medical emergencies, as an appeal to nature fallacy. Even if that was how it worked, it’s an informal fallacy.
will aggressively reject any and all “appeals to nature” as to the health effects of someone being beheaded!
If my foreskin was pulled back over the head of my penis, due to the sensitivity of the head, that would be quite uncomfortable for me. If I wanted to walk, I would have to adjust myself or I would be in a lot of discomfort. Yet, that’s how it is for someone who was circumcised without their consent.
The only conclusion is that there would have to be a significant desensitisation of that part of the penis. That desensitisation would also have to apply to the feeling during sex.
How is it that people in the 21st century still need to be told to leave babies genitals alone and not to cut bits off of them? Bonus points if you did it because yahweh like the smell of them rotting.
The only health reasons given are “In the future you are going to be too dirty to wash your dick and you will get an infection. We are gonna cut that dick … you filthy unwashed animal”
That topic is far more nuanced and complicated than the naturalist cults like to portray, and I will aggressively reject any and all “appeals to nature”.
The human body is not remotely perfect, which is why the entire field of medicine exists. When it comes to circumcision there are legitimate health and hygiene considerations to be made. It is not arbitrarily “cultural” or “cosmetic”, though it is often portrayed as such.
I love how you’ve looked to dismiss the idea that cutting skin off of a babies genitals is damaging and inherently wrong, outside of medical emergencies, as an appeal to nature fallacy. Even if that was how it worked, it’s an informal fallacy.
will aggressively reject any and all “appeals to nature” as to the health effects of someone being beheaded!
If my foreskin was pulled back over the head of my penis, due to the sensitivity of the head, that would be quite uncomfortable for me. If I wanted to walk, I would have to adjust myself or I would be in a lot of discomfort. Yet, that’s how it is for someone who was circumcised without their consent.
The only conclusion is that there would have to be a significant desensitisation of that part of the penis. That desensitisation would also have to apply to the feeling during sex.
How is it that people in the 21st century still need to be told to leave babies genitals alone and not to cut bits off of them? Bonus points if you did it because yahweh like the smell of them rotting.
The only health reasons given are “In the future you are going to be too dirty to wash your dick and you will get an infection. We are gonna cut that dick … you filthy unwashed animal”