You would think but it seems to be more complicated than that, probably because they are narcotics. And the companies that make them work hard to make sure they are not used for executions. Which only leads to more suffering when the executions take place anyway, so it’s super stupid.
Ivybug!
ivybug2
I agree. I have pointed out more than once that the ridiculousness of companies not letting these products be used is only causing more harm than good.
It seems like some people would rather these inmates suffer a worse death than they have to, in order to make a point about the death penalty. I don’t get it.
The best…
I’d rather have the law on my side than a company policy.
USPS is actually better for this because by law they cannot open your mail without a warrant. Fedex and UPS can do whatever the fuck they want with the packages you give them.
Well you are wrong again. Tradition and cosmetics are the main reasons it is done. It’s never been a medical necessity to circumcise infants.
“You claimed it’s supposed to be moist all the time and that the foreskin makes it so,”
My claim is based on 1) the type of tissue it is, which I am correct about. And 2) the…
“Well the science, studies, and anatomy I linked above disagree with this.”
No, it actually did not disagree with what I said about the type of tissue it is, or how the body works.
“any male experiencing the following would be recommended to have a circumcision:”
Yes, SOME males would have a problem. I don’t think MANY…
What I feel is really important is not cutting up someone genitals without permission. And no, I don’t think many would need to have anything done as adults.
It’s supposed to be moist both because of the type of tissue it is and because that’s the way the body works.
First off, I prefer to take people at their word when there is literally nothing else to go by. So when men say not having a foreskin (or just having a collar) leads to problems, I’m going to go with that. I believe the ones who say it doesn’t cause problems as well. For them, it didn’t. I’m not insisting it’s exactly…
Then I don’t know what your point even is. Thanks for wasting my time.
Different group have done it for different reasons. It absolutely was touted as an anti masturbation method in Victorian times, and that is when it gained popularity in England and the US.
Seriously, the skin of the glans becomes keratinized. How much feeling do you have in your hair and nails? It’s absurd to assume that has no effect on sensation.
You just keep on insisting that the foreskin serves no purpose.
I mean, not only do men say it causes desensitization problems, it just makes sense based on what all those body parts do. Do you even realize that the glans skin is like the inside of your mouth? That is is supposed to be moist all the time?
On what…
I don’t know why it is so hard for people to accept the the foreskin actually serves a purpose.
I’d say not all cosmetic surgeries because of the subjective nature of degrading appearance. I also would not say that circumcision is mutilation because of degraded appearance. It is mutilation because the foreskin has a function and when you cut it off, you lose that function. There is nothing subjective there.
“Espe…
Even a circumcision without complications can cause issues. Lack of a foreskin can lead to desensitization, just because the foreskin is not present, which is a proper circumcision.
I know they are different that’s why you don’t see me making any comparisons anywhere.
And male circumcision was also intended to reduce sexual pleasure, that’s why it was marketed as a way to decrease masturbation in boys. Does that happen to the same degree? No, but that doesn’t change facts.
First off, citation for what? You didn’t include anything I said so what the fuck are you even talking about? You think I’ve only made one post?
And secondly, it’s called Google. Use it.
IT is mutilation, even if you consent. That’s just the definition of mutilation. I also don’t care what people do to themselves.
That doesn’t mean any cosmetic surgery is mutilation, but a lot would qualify. So? What is wrong with that?
I’m insisting on using words correctly based on their definitions. If you don’t…
Yes it was originally a Jewish practice but it did not became a Christian practice until much later, and most of the west is Christian.