@ThreeOneThreeChris Body alterations like circumcision should be done in adulthood. They should be forbidden by law as a form of mutilation to be done for cosmetic or cultural reasons to children.

@matrix @RedTechEngineer

@NEETzsche @RedTechEngineer @matrix The reason it became a standard practice for newborns in the US, is to preemptively mitigate the risk of urinal tract infections, which could potentially be life-threatening for a newborn. I have no personal issues with circumcision, and I don’t associate it with Jewish ritual. I don’t think there is any law mandating the procedure for newborns, so neither do I think there should be any law forbidding it.

@ThreeOneThreeChris The reason there should be a law forbidding it, excepting medical necessity, is because it can’t be undone. It’s not like dying your child’s hair or something.

@RedTechEngineer @matrix

@NEETzsche @ThreeOneThreeChris @RedTechEngineer @matrix when the nurse asked me with my first son, i asked why would i want do that, what's the benefit. the nurse shrugged and ticked no on her clipboard. any benefit from the procedure is obsolete since running water and hygeine became a thing, its purely cosmetic except where there's an injury or deformity. funnily enough, the gov won't pay for any other cosmetic surgery in this country, even the top level health insurance policies won't do stuff not medically necessary. but a public hospital will mutilate ur boy for free no probs. fucken bizarre

@NEETzsche @ThreeOneThreeChris @RedTechEngineer @matrix as a medical procedure it can be a very necessary thing. but this is rare most pps do not need medical intervention

@ThreeOneThreeChris
Yes, impervious to being stimulated.
@RedTechEngineer@neckbeard.xyz

@matrix @RedTechEngineer No, impervious to fear of being seen or touched.

@ThreeOneThreeChris @matrix @RedTechEngineer Me too, except for lepers and Ebola carriers.