Poll of the Day > My cat brought me a baby bunny

(+) Yeah! (+)

No you should be ashamed for handling your cat irresponsibly especially if you know they've been been in car accidents before, getting in fights with other pets/wild animals, killing native wildlife, getting disease/parasites. You're probably okay with infant circumcision.
---

Beveren_Rabbit posted...

You're probably okay with infant circumcision.

I actually don't really mind this, so...
---

Infant circumcision is wrong. Permanent often unnecessary medical procedure on someone who can't consent. Foreskin should be dealt with when it's unhealthy, not just routinely whenever a male is born. Phimosis and UTI are treatable. Safe sex is more effective in preventing STI than removal of the foreskin. People used to think that masks weren't necessary during pandemic.
---

Either way, I like my circumcised penis, and don't even remember the circumcision... So, still fine with it...
---

If you're circumcised and fine with it, then okay. There's people that are circumcised and not okay with it and there's not much they can do about it. Stop trying to normalize circumcision. It's people like you to make it difficult to make infant circumcision illegal. it should only be done if it's absolutely medically necessary.
---

This thread took a weird turn.

You guys turning a topic about cute bunnies into a topic about penises

---

Beveren_Rabbit posted...

If you're circumcised and fine with it, then okay. There's people that are circumcised and not okay with it and there's not much they can do about it.

True. Though, I heard they're looking for a way to basically either grow it back, or give it back to them...

Beveren_Rabbit posted...

Stop trying to normalize circumcision.

I don't care if it's normalized or not, tbh... Either way is fine with me... I mean, it doesn't change me or my SO's penis. Haha.

Beveren_Rabbit posted...

It's people like you to make it difficult to make infant circumcision illegal.

Since I don't think it should be illegal, that's also fine with me...
---

We're adult enough to have a discussion about human anatomy and the basic human right to bodily integrity. If you can't handle discussion about penises without making gay jokes or sex jokes then that's on you. Infant circumcision is a topic that needs more serious discussion. It shouldn't be a social stigma to be against it. It's not racist to be against circumcision. It's not homo-erotic or creepy to try to have a serious discussion about circumcision.

Do you also agree that all incels should just be killed?
---

Beveren_Rabbit posted...

If you can't handle discussion about penises without making gay jokes or sex jokes then that's on you.

I did neither of those things

---

Infant circumcision should be illegal. Having one baby die from an unnecessary medical procedure is one too many.
---

https://www.browardpalmbeach.com/news/lawsuit-its-unconstitutional-for-judge-sheriff-to-force-circumcision-of-4-year-old-6932863

If you're okay with it imagine the people in power that are okay with it and imagine how much power they have over parents/people that aren't okay with it.
---

Beveren_Rabbit posted...

Do you also agree that all incels should just be killed?

No. I dont know why you would think that, or what they had to do with my other comment...
---

Each year in the United States more than 100 newborn baby boys die as a result of circumcision and circumcision complications. This is the alarming conclusion of a study, published in the Journal of Boyhood Studies which examined hospital discharge and mortality statistics in order to answer two questions: (1) How many baby boys dies as a result of circumcision in the neonatal period (within 28 days of birth)? (2) Why are so few of these deaths officially recorded as due to circumcision?

The study, by researcher Dan Bollinger, concluded that approximately 117 neonatal deaths due directly or indirectly to circumcision occur annually in the United States, or one out of every 77 male neonatal deaths. This compares with 44 neonatal deaths from suffocation, 8 in automobile accidents and 115 from Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, all of which losses have aroused deep concern among child health authorities and stimulated special programs to reduce mortality. (Remember those red noses?) Why, the study asks, has the even greater number of deaths from circumcision not aroused the same response?

Part of the answer lies in the fact that most circumcision-related deaths are not officially as recorded as due to circumcision at all, but to the immediate cause, most commonly stroke, bleeding, infection or reactions to anaesthesia. Medical statistics are thus at fault in that they do not give the true cause of death at all. Previous studies have given wildly varying estimates the death toll from circumcision. In 1949 paediatrician Douglas Gairdner found that sixteen British boys died each year, while more recent estimates range from a low of two boys per year to a high of as many as 230. Some textbooks and most circumcision promoters claim that there have never been any deaths from circumcision in a modern clinical context (whatever may happen in the insanitary conditions of the Third World). For his study Bollinger collected data from hospital records and government sources to attempt to provide a more accurate estimate of the magnitude of the problem.

But another part of the answer lies in the unique place that circumcision occupies in American medical culture, as an entrenched cosmetic ritual that many parents feel they have to submit their baby boys to, and as a lucrative sideline that doctors are reluctant to abandon. American obstetricians cant seem to rid themselves of the notion that circumcision of boys is somehow an integral part of childbirth. The study points out that These boys died because physicians have been either complicit or duplicitous, and because parents ignorantly said Yes, or lacked the courage to say No. It further points out that because circumcision is a completely unnecessary operation, all these deaths are easily avoidable, and thus characterises the annual loss as neither a beneficial surgery nor a beneficent rite of passage, but as an unrecognized sacrifice of innocents.

Because circumcision is unnecessary surgery (there being no pathology to treat in a normal male baby), the old calculus of surgical risk vs benefit is not nearly enough. Risk assessment for an unnecessary surgery must be held to a higher standard than that for a life-saving surgery. We accept that a heart transplant carries with it a substantial risk of death, but without it there is a certainty of death. On the other hand, the risk from circumcision, which has no therapeutic value, needs to be zero for the infants sake, all the moreso because he is never consulted about whether he wishes to take his chances.

Bollinger argues that the scale of the problem remains unrecognised because of the inadequacies of the death-certificate system and unwillingness on the part of the doctors who performed the surgery or the hospitals where it took place to admit responsibility, or even to acknowledge that circumcision is a surgical operation which, like all surgery, carries real risks. Too often they have tried to blame incorrect care on the part of parents, or even the peculiarities of the boy himself. As well as analysing the figures, the study runs through some of the few prominent instances where circumcision was recognised as the true cause of death, including the Ryleigh McWillis case in Canada, and several United States deaths that somehow made it into the news.
---

Beveren_Rabbit posted...

https://www.browardpalmbeach.com/news/lawsuit-its-unconstitutional-for-judge-sheriff-to-force-circumcision-of-4-year-old-6932863

If you're okay with it imagine the people in power that are okay with it and imagine how much power they have over parents/people that aren't okay with it.

Probably shouldnt agree before she read about the procedure...
---

The first known reported circumcision-related deaths were in New York City, where circumcision was introduced. The first was Julius Katzenstein in 1856 and the second was one-week-old Myer Jacob Levy in 1858. Both boys were circumcised by a Dr. Abrahams, and the same coroner reviewed both deaths. The coroner found that Abrahams had performed the surgeries properly, and that the boys died from blood loss as a result of parental neglect. Neither boy had received a follow-up examination.

Allen Ervin, born 1985, was in a coma for more than six years before he died. He had been on life support after his brain was damaged from oxygen deprivation during his circumcision. Demetrius Manker was born in 1993 and died soon thereafter from blood loss. The coroners examination found a large, gaping wound on the underside of the boys penis extending almost to the scrotum. The coroner listed cause of death as blood loss due to penile circumcision; however, there is no mention of further action being taken. A West Virginia child, whose name was withheld, was born in 1996 without incident and circumcised prior to hospital release. A few days later, the parents rushed him to the emergency room because he was having seizures and his penis had turned green in color. He died the next day from septicemia.

Because the penis is highly vascularized, blood-loss is a risk even for boys circumcised past the neonatal period. In 2008, a 6-week-old Native American, Eric Keefe, died from massive blood loss. Hospital officials claimed that his circumcision was not to blame, but instead faulted the parents because they had administered over-the-counter pain medication that, they also claimed, thinned his blood.

Death sometimes occurs following repair of a circumcision complication. Dustin Evans Jr., was circumcised soon after being born in 1998. The surgeon took so much shaft skin that the scar healed as a tight collar around his penis, preventing him from urinating. When he was later given an anesthetic in order to repair the damage, he immediately died of cardiopulmonary arrest. His father lamented, You think, What could go wrong with a circumcision? The next thing I know, hes dead.
---

All because someone signs a paper without reading the fine print, it doesn't mean that human rights should be violated.
---

Beveren_Rabbit posted...

All because someone signs a paper without reading the fine print, it doesn't mean that human rights should be violated.

I mean, technically, it does. The only reason its a case is because its somebody else. And for the fame, I guess... Personally, I never sign something before reading the whole thing and knowing what Im signing. Especially since you legally are accountable for that... Even when I adopted my dog. I fully read The Who contract before signing. Apparently, I was one of only two people who did that...
---

The solution to the problem, Bollinger suggests, does not lie in improving surgical techniques or giving operator better training. The problem is this: circumcision is a killer of baby boys. No one, except for some human-rights activists, is trying to save them. It is unlikely that improving circumcision techniques would eliminate these deaths. No matter how skilled the physician is, some deaths will always occur. The only effective way to eliminate this death toll and save these boys is to admit that circumcision is unnecessary and potentially harmful surgery and stop performing it on neonates and minors. This would give all boys the chance to decide for themselves whether they wish to be circumcised, and (if they do) would allow them to choose it for themselves as adults, when the surgical risks are so much less severe.
---

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/mom-jailed-circumcision-dispute-agrees-proceedure/story?id=31235057

Wouldn't you try to do everything you could to protect your son from harm?
---

Beveren_Rabbit posted...

Wouldn't you try to do everything you could to protect your son from harm?

Sure. At the same time, I also would've read about the procedure BEFORE signing something. That being said, I also don't have a problem with circumcision, so...
---

You agree to circumcise your son, then you become convinced that circumcision is wrong and want to change your mind about getting your son circumcised.
---

Beveren_Rabbit posted...

You agree to circumcise your son, then you become convinced that circumcision is wrong and want to change your mind about getting your son circumcised.

I wouldn't change my mind. Haven't in over 30 years already. And in the end, once it's done, it's done... Can't change your mind after it's already happened...
---

You can change your mind about circumcision just like she did. She agreed to have her son circumcision because she believed it was the normal thing to do, then she had second thoughts about it. Don't be a boomer and think your old ways can never be changed. Being over the age of 30 doesn't justify being stubborn about never changing your views on anything.
---

Beveren_Rabbit posted...

You can change your mind about circumcision just like she did. She agreed to have her son circumcision because she believed it was the normal thing to do, then she had second thoughts about it. Don't be a boomer and think your old ways can never be changed. Being over the age of 30 doesn't justify being stubborn about never changing your views on anything.

Sure, I could. But I don't see that happening since I've read up on it before. And I still don't see a problem with it. She decided to read up after signing a contract when she should have done it before. I won't change my ind as I don't see anything wrong with it, nor will I.

And like I said, it wouldn't matter if I changed my mind after it's done, as there's nothing I can do about it at that point. And being over the age of 30 does mean a little. After knowing about circumcisions and the danger of poses for over half my life, and still being ok with it, I most likely won't change. Nothing you say in this topic will change my mind, either. So, yeah. I can be stubborn if I want to. You act like everyone has to change their mind to your way of thinking, but I don't have to. Ever...
---

People are opposed to circumcision. You may not think it it's a big issue now and continue to circumcision your sons and grandsons and great grand sons and great great grandsons. But one day circumcision will stop being the norm. Having a "If it's done, it's done" mentality is extremely toxic. The mentality should be

"It's unfortunate that it was done and maybe people shouldn't be so quick to get young boys routinely circumcised. More research should be done so that people that regret being circumcision can regain their foreskin and have any damage repaired" .

I may not be able to convince you now. Maybe in a few decades there will campaigns to try to seriously get circumcision banned and there be tons of adverts warning parents not to do it. Maybe even special episodes in programming and protests/strikes taken more seriously. Maybe one day you will see it's wrong and why it should be illegal. No one will convince you in this lifetime, but if you ever live to be here in 300 years surely you will change your mind. I'll be waiting.

I'm not trying to reach out to just you, but anyone reading these posts. They have to see and know that there are people against circumcision and why they are against it. They have to see the harm it causes.
---

and honestly how can you read through the horror stories of botched circumcisions and still be okay with it? Those men would still be here today if a culture didn't try to force an unnecessary medical procedure on them. For those that don't die from a botched circumcision they live their lives with a deformed penis.
---

And when it stops being the norm, I'll most likely be dead. So why would I care? And people already campaign. It just seems like nothing has happened still. I won't see it as wrong one day, as I don't see it as wrong already. And I don't see anything changing that. And I surely won't live to be 300. I have a couple decades, at best, left. So, no. I won't change mind mind... Ever... So, you can wait for as long as you like... And everyone already knows people are against it. I'm pretty sure you've seen some of the other circumcision topics before...

Beveren_Rabbit posted...

and honestly how can you read through the horror stories of botched circumcisions and still be okay with it? Those men would still be here today if a culture didn't try to force an unnecessary medical procedure on them. For those that don't die from a botched circumcision they live their lives with a deformed penis.

I've read them before and still hold my same thoughts on it, so... There are many people not here for unnecessary reasons, tbh...
---

you definitely have more than just a few decades left to live so you have plenty of time to have your mind changed.
---

wtf happened to this topic
---

Beveren_Rabbit posted...

you definitely have more than just a few decades left to live so you have plenty of time to have your mind changed.

I definitely don't. And no matter how many decades I live, I won't change my mind. That's my promise to you...
---

Krazy_Kirby posted...

wtf happened to this topic

It's worrying how normies believe that incels should be gathered and killed/tortured. People call incels monsters, but think it's okay to act like a monster toward them. Even when an incel seeks professional help and tries to do better they are met with a bullet to the head by normies thinking they are doing the world a favor. Young men already deal with the stigma with talking about their feelings, but to be killed/humiliated for wanting to seek professional mental health is downright disgusting. Normies are supposed to be the rolemodels of society, but they want their mentally ill to just suddenly stop acting like they are mentally ill.
---

Where does anybody talk about incels? I saw you mention it randomly once in another post. But where is all the other stuff you're talking about...
---

Maybe you have this person on ignore and that's why you can't see them. Someone being a virgin and young man struggling with depression and belonging doesn't mean they hate women and want to go on mass shootings. Can't just kill them cause 'it's better to gun them down before they bullied to the point where they want to gun us down". That's a very hurtful attitude to have and people shouldn't be okay with incels being bullied to the point they want to kill themselves.

how can you cheer whenever incel dies horrifically or from suicide and still think you're the good guy? Not all incels worship the alt+right.
---

Did I miss that somewhere? Are you talking about in this topic. I don't have anyone ignored or blocked, and I can see all the post. Which post or posts say stuff like that? Like number-wise. Because I must have somehow missed them...
---

lol derailment at its best

---

Beveren_Rabbit posted...

You're probably okay with infant circumcision.

That's a stretch.

Krazy_Kirby posted...

wtf happened to this topic

Stuff just happens.


---

Beveren_Rabbit posted...

No you should be ashamed for handling your cat irresponsibly especially if you know they've been been in car accidents before, getting in fights with other pets/wild animals, killing native wildlife, getting disease/parasites. You're probably okay with infant circumcision.

You posted a website to something that isn't even official and tried to claim cats are an invasive species using their own claims. It's obvious you're only posting about it like that because you have "Rabbit in your user name".

I bet you want to kill this cat.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9R8wY_La7c

LinkPizza posted...

Even when I adopted my dog. I fully read The Who contract before signing. Apparently, I was one of only two people who did that...

A lot of those are bullshit anyway. They should only care if you can take care of the pet. Like those idiotic shelters that won't let you adopt if you already have a pet or whatnot.
---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bD0SBTZc5lo

Shortly after the cat ate the mouse.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_predation_on_wildlife
http://www.iucngisd.org/gisd/species.php?sc=24
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/save-woodrat-conservationists-deal-invasive-species-first-house-cats-180960445/
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms2380
---

Revelation34 posted...

Like those idiotic shelters that won't let you adopt if you already have a pet or whatnot.

There was a shelter that wouldnt let a guy adopt a cat because he was male. They asked if he was male or female. When he told them male, they asked if he was married or dating. When he said no, they wouldnt let him adopt the cat...
---

LinkPizza posted...

There was a shelter that wouldnt let a guy adopt a cat because he was male. They asked if he was male or female. When he told them male, they asked if he was married or dating. When he said no, they wouldnt let him adopt the cat...

I mean single people can adopt children so why not a cat? A cat doesn't require two people nor does it even require someone who works in theory. Providing it's fed and has somewhere safe to sleep cats don't care. That shelter is dumb.

---

same reason why restaurants and theaters have a "no singles" policy
---

wwinterj25 posted...

I mean single people can adopt children so why not a cat? A cat doesn't require two people nor does it even require someone who works in theory. Providing it's fed and has somewhere safe to sleep cats don't care. That shelter is dumb.

Apparently, it was more about him being a male, apparently...
---

LinkPizza posted...

Apparently, it was more about him being a male, apparently...

Oh silly me. Being male makes you a shitty pet owner....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiBs0wLQFDM

---

LinkPizza posted...

There was a shelter that wouldnt let a guy adopt a cat because he was male. They asked if he was male or female. When he told them male, they asked if he was married or dating. When he said no, they wouldnt let him adopt the cat...

That sounds really stupid at first, and it could be stupid, but it does make me wonder if it was just that cat, cats in general, or any animal that would apply to.

Thing is, if it's just that cat it's possible they either responded poorly to being around guys alone or was abused by a guy and they worried about the effect just a guy having them would have.

But they could have also been being stupid and just deciding a single guy can't have a cat.

Personally I don't feel like I know enough to make a call here.

wwinterj25 posted...

Oh silly me. Being male makes you a shitty pet owner....

Apparently. But I think they just did it for the cats...

ChaosAzeroth posted...

That sounds really stupid at first, and it could be stupid, but it does make me wonder if it was just that cat, cats in general, or any animal that would apply to.

Thing is, if it's just that cat it's possible they either responded poorly to being around guys alone or was abused by a guy and they worried about the effect just a guy having them would have.

But they could have also been being stupid and just deciding a single guy can't have a cat.

Personally I don't feel like I know enough to make a call here.

It wasnt for a particular cat. It was for all of them. And they also said they were going to call the other shelters to let the know, as well. Id understand if it was a certain cat. I had a friend that had a Boxer that didnt do well around males she didnt know. So, I would understand that.

But they basically said it was because he was a guy, and didnt want to adopt to him...
---

LinkPizza posted...

Apparently. But I think they just did it for the cats...

It wasnt for a particular cat. It was for all of them. And they also said they were going to call the other shelters to let the know, as well. Id understand if it was a certain cat. I had a friend that had a Boxer that didnt do well around males she didnt know. So, I would understand that.

But they basically said it was because he was a guy, and didnt want to adopt to him...

Okay thanks for clarifying.

Yeah that's dumb af.

LinkPizza posted...

There was a shelter that wouldnt let a guy adopt a cat because he was male. They asked if he was male or female. When he told them male, they asked if he was married or dating. When he said no, they wouldnt let him adopt the cat...

That's when people deserve to be called the word that gamefaqs bans.

LinkPizza posted...

And they also said they were going to call the other shelters to let the know, as well.

The fuck?
---

LinkPizza posted...

And they also said they were going to call the other shelters to let the know, as well.

How dare a single guy try and give a cat a loving home! I doubt other shelters are as dumb as this. As I said before single guys can even adopt a kids.

---

wwinterj25 posted...

How dare a single guy try and give a cat a loving home! I doubt other shelters are as dumb as this. As I said before single guys can even adopt a kids.

I would hope not. But many, if not all, were private...
---