Circumcision finally may become a criminal act in the UK

[Rightguide]

In the scheme of things circumcision is much less destructive than sucking a living fetus out of a uterus, yet that is quite common.

...or chopping of a head which will be the new medical marvel in Britain soon.

 

[Wilson23]

...or chopping of a head which will be the new medical marvel in Britain soon.

How traditional!

 

[Saint_Ann]

...or chopping of a head which will be the new medical marvel in Britain soon.

Or a new reality of getting stoned.

 

[TastySuckToy]

part of pre-Darwinian evolutionary theory.

IE: Not claims made by evolutionary theory.

 

[Wilson23]

IE: Not claims made my evolutionary theory.

Made by Lamarck, an evolutionist before Darwin. He was the one who thought giraffes got long necks by stretching to reach the leaves at the tops of the trees.

 

[Chernosoth]

Can a brain be circumcised? Some of the posters here must have had something done there.

 

[colddiesel]

Doctors are paid a fee for circumcisions. That is the sole religious basis for the practice, payment of fees to impoverished medics; think of it as a tip (off).

 

[Bray123]

"Side window" according to liberal logic:

View attachment 2589414

Of course, individuals like Bray are so ignorant, they don't know her side window was rolled down during the incident.

You really are a useless fuckwit.
One through the corner of the front windscreen, two through the open side window that Jonathan E. Ross had been talking to her through.

 

[Wilson23]

Doctors are paid a fee for circumcisions. That is the sole religious basis for the practice, payment of fees to impoverished medics; think of it as a tip (off).

Are mohels paid?

 

[TastySuckToy]

Made by Lamarck

Then why did you mention Darwin?

Don't know if that ever occurred to Darwin or Lamarck.

 

[Wilson23]

Then why did you mention Darwin?

Because Darwin was CORRECTING Lamarck.

 

[John_von_Neumann]

Leave it to Saint_Ken to turn a thread about alleged child abuse into a thread about the aesthetics of cock.

What a creepy pedo.

 

[TastySuckToy]

Because Darwin was CORRECTING Lamarck.

So when you say Darwin corrected Lamarck, but you wonder if the issue ever occurred to Darwin, your argument is what? Darwin accidently corrected Lamarck? What unaware of Lamarck's work and incorrect conclusions?

 

[Wilson23]

So when you say Darwin corrected Lamarck, but you wonder if the issue ever occurred to Darwin, your argument is what? Darwin accidently corrected Lamarck? What unaware of Lamarck's work and incorrect conclusions?

Oh, he was aware. Didn't we all learn about this history in high school bio?

 

[TastySuckToy]

Oh, he was aware. Didn't we all learn about this history in high school bio?

So then why did you say you wondered if it ever occurred to Darwin, and in the next breath said he was aware?

 

[Wilson23]

So then why did you say you wondered if it ever occurred to Darwin, and in the next breath said he was aware?

I was wondering of the implications of CIRCUMCISION as an acquired characteristic ever occured to Darwin -- or to Lamarck. Bio text didn't say.

 

[TastySuckToy]

I was wondering of the implications of CIRCUMCISION as an acquired characteristic ever occured to Darwin -- or to Lamarck. Bio text didn't say.

Why would you wonder that when both theories axiomatically answer this? And why would circumcision be of any specific interest when there is endless possible body modification scenarios?

 

[Wilson23]

Why would you wonder that when both theories axiomatically answer this? And why would circumcision be of any specific interest when there is endless possible body modification scenarios?

Because circumsision is under discussion here.

But Lamarck might also have noted that no African is born with lips pierced for a saucer.

 

[Saint_Ann]

Leave it to Saint_Ken to turn a thread about alleged child abuse into a thread about the aesthetics of cock.

What a creepy pedo.

"Mommy, why does daddy's penis look differently from mine?"

"Well, my dear, the State decided daddy's penis is no longer socially acceptable. "

 

[TastySuckToy]

Because circumsision is under discussion here.

And evolution wasn't. You brought up the subject here, and specifically, Darwin and Lamarck.

I'm not suggesting you shouldn't do so. It just seems like an extremely...odd tangent targeting the subject of evolution, in a thread you know wasn't discussing that topic in the first place.

 

[Wilson23]

"Mommy, why does daddy's penis look differently from mine?"

"Because Daddy is white, dear. I'll explain when you're older."

 

[colddiesel]

Are mohels paid?

I thought they were little black critters that made tunnels underground?

 

[Wilson23]

I thought they were little black critters that made tunnels underground?

No, those are goblins.

 

[BobRocket]

"Mommy, why does daddy's penis look differently from mine?"

"Well, my dear, the State decided daddy's penis is no longer socially acceptable. "

You don’t get it do you. It’s about imposing Your on will on someone else’s body. And that can be an aesthetic will or a religious will. It’s not about banning it for consenting adults. The word here is consent- which babies don’t give.

Children should not be forced to be Christian or Jewish or Muslim or Hindu or Buddhist until they are taught what that actually means and decide that they believe that way if life is for them. so imposing a religious belief on them that involves cutting off a part of their body is quite simply child abuse.

If as an adult they want to cut off a highly sensitive part of the genitals purely for aesthetic reasons then great - go for it. They can continue to keep the NA personal lubricant market in business.

 

[BobRocket]

...or chopping of a head which will be the new medical marvel in Britain soon.

I think you watch too much Fox News.