Originally Posted by GuillaumeBordeaux
Ah....excuse me? How are intactivists who stand up for equal protection under the law anti-semetic and abhorrent? Are not boys deserving of equal protection to their whole intact fully functioning and sensational genitalia? Is it not anti-Muslim for people to oppose female genital cutting when in the Hadith it is recommended for daughters as it's pleasing to Allah? Should we stand up for the right of parents to cut both male and female genitals, or should we stand up for protecting the children and their rights to genital integrity and religious freedom? Freedom of religion includes freedom FROM religion.
This was not intended to start a debate. I do not find Poole who are against circumcision abhorrent. I find people who make an Aryan, Jew-killing comic book superhero named "foreskin man" (look it up) abhorrent and mean.
Furthermore, while I in no way support female circumcision, I found your anti-Muslim tirade quite disturbing.
The first amendment reads:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
So no, there is no freedom from religion here. That's up to the individual.
Finally, lets talk about who always gets into arguments here. It's not the cut guys who could care less. It's the intactivists who feel they need to be vocal against every circumcised male on VT. Even though we make up more of the sites population, you make it seem like we're three freaks shoved in a corner.