Should male cirumcision be outlawed?

[Adam]

new page!!!!!!!!!!!! 

[Squidusa]

Ok we're good.

Although I think those pics are almost an ADVERT for mandatory circumcision. 

[Peter]

Those look like yeast infections to me, especially the first and last one.

The first one is from a medical site where it was identified as smegma (incidental to the chief complaint of  dysuria resulting in maceration and inflammation of labia) and the second one looks like smegma that I've had on occasion (like not showering for 5 days or something).  The third one is smegma from some dirty bastard who's never washed or something.

[Squidusa]

I keep imagining what it would be like to give oral to those three people.

Urgh , I hate my brain.. i'm gonna go puke.

[Peter]

Has anyone ever noticed when giving head to a women that the taste and texture changes after a while, kind of as if there was a layer of something that got licked off?

[Pig]

I liked the pictures.

[Squidusa]

I liked the pictures.

Figured you would.

['Butterflies']

@Callaway. Youve misunderstood me. I mean that it would be wrong of us to force our kid to be aspie, either by abborting non-aspie babies, or having some sort of medical procedure to force the baby to be aspie.
This is hypothetical of course, as I douby if either option is possible.

The story you quoted isnt the one I was thinking about, so this must be more popular than I thought.
The story I was thinking of was a straight deaf ccouple, and I think they had a medical procedure done to raise the likelyhood of deafness.

In that hypothetical case, I agree with you.

That was the only deaf couple story I could find when I searched, but I'll have another look. 

OK, here's another one where a married deaf couple in the UK have one deaf child and want another baby, but need IVF and they want to select an embryo with the deafness gene, but they haven't had IVF yet as far as I can see:

Is it wrong to select a deaf embryo? 
By Clare Murphy
Health reporter, BBC News 


New fertility legislation will make it illegal to use embryos with a known genetic abnormality in IVF treatment when ones without the same defect are available.
 
For a long time, the debate about the genetic testing of embryos has focused on whether we should stop people creating the "perfect" person: blonde, blue-eyed, with athletic prowess and a high IQ.

The Nazi spectre of eugenics has frequently been invoked.

Now a deaf couple have turned this on its head: far from wanting a flawless child they actively want a baby which suffers the same hearing difficulties as they themselves.

The couple have become icons in a deaf movement which sees this impairment not as a disability but as the key to a rich culture which has its own language, history and traditions: a world deaf parents would naturally want to share with any offspring.

Moreover, they argue that to prefer a hearing embryo over a deaf one is tantamount to discrimination.

But to others - both those who can hear and those who cannot - deliberately bringing a child with a disability into the world when one without could be born verges on the morally repugnant.

Slippery slope?

Tomato Lichy and his partner already have one deaf child, for which they are profoundly grateful.

But they may eventually like another - and IVF, given the mother's age, may be the only option. 

Yet if the Human Embryology and Fertilisation Bill goes through as it stands, their chances of having a deaf child would be small.

If they produced only deaf embryos, they would be allowed to implant one of these. However it would be highly unlikely that there would not be one without one of the deaf genes.

If they chose to have their embryos screened, they would be obliged to to pick the embryo without the abnormality over the others. The screening would not however be obligatory, and they could take their chances in the hope that a deaf one is chosen.

But the fact that they cannot give the deaf child preference over the hearing, Mr Lichy contends, suggests that his life as a deaf person is not one worth living.

"Despite the fact that over time we have seen more and more rights for disabled people they are now seeking to establish a legal principle that deaf people are inferior."

Tomato Lichy

Follow link for full article.

Is the couple you were thinking of?

I think that's the people I was thinking of, but I'm not sure. I am sure it was a British couple, so it's probably them.

[Adam]

Fucking stupid

How can then compare it to choosing the kid's sex either? (although I also believe that to be wrong, but not for the same reason)

[eris]

i really dont agree with IV fertilization at all.

[eris]

^ yeah, i think I should probably explain what I mean by that.

I think it is unnatural, and that there are so many unwanted children on this earth that I think people should adopt instead of try to play god. Especially if the woman is over 45.

BUT

I'd never say someone shouldnt do it. I am a firm believer in personal freedoms, and the right to be a fuckup.

Same with abortion. I think it's horrible, I'd never ever do it But I will fight so that other people have the right to kill their babies if they want to.

[Adam]

If you think of it as killing babies then why do you support it?

I mean if it's killing babies, then it's more than just terminating an early pregnancy

I agree about IVF tho. there are enough kids in the world already. I can understand it though. It's something most people feel I guess, to want your own genetic  offspring. But a child can still be your own, and still be loved, whether it's biologically yours or not. I do sometimes feel shit that I cant have my own kids, but I don't know if I could do the surrogacy stuff or something. I do think it would be wrong, when there are kids out there that need adopting. But if I'm being honest, I would probably do the IVF stuff if my wife wanted to

When it comes down to it, having kids is inherently a selfish decision to make anyway, so really it's only one step worse to choose IVF

[Adam]

Oh and i also agree with abortion being legal. I just think if I saw it as killing babies then I'd feel differently

[eris]

because i dont think that my personal opinions should be universally accepted

[Adam]

But once they cross a certain line, they should. Like if someone murdered a baby after it was born

The reason I support legalised abortion (well one of the reasons) is because I don't see it as killing a "baby"