J. Peterson implies that circumcision was valid in the past.

Thegalaxyrushman · 2019-07-26T23:48:52+00:00

I live in a extremely conservative area and people who think like JP always preach that there's some magical "practical" reason that justifies messing with the genitals of babies and not giving someone a choice to consent to such operations. And if you bring up botched ones they just pretend like it's not an issue.

carbot117 · 2019-07-26T17:33:56+00:00

Routine neonatal circumcision is a high order crime. That is the only logical conclusion that can be drawn. It is our duty as civilized human beings to look into this profound issue. To remain silent is an abuse in itself. This is a black and white topic. Either it is wrong or right and there is no wiggle room. Excising specialized genital structures routinely from a child could not fall further into the wrong side of things.

Razorbladekandyfan · 2019-07-26T17:15:07+00:00

Traditionalists always let men down.

J. Peterson implies that circumcision was valid in the past.

Crosspost "Jordan Peterson implies circumcision was valid in the past" from /r/ProMaleCollective:

Comments