Are the Democrats the party of child genital mutilation?

[Dargil]

... sexually poisoning them and murdering them on the day of their birth?

As we say in the South, Ain't that special?

[Ez-Bri-Z_v2]

As we also say in the south, bless your heart you sweet summer child.

What on gods green earth are you talking about? Murdering babies upon their birth? Sexually poisoning?

Generally it's religious people (who tend to vote conservative) who mutilate their sons genitals by forcing a circumcision on them. Same conservatives who now want to enforce young girls to expose themselves to ensure they are biological girls just to play sports. That's the party you should be more concerned about.

Lay off the Fox News. It's rotting your brain

[Dargil]

***yawn***

[Ez-Bri-Z_v2]

Yeah thats the same reaction id have if I were watching Fox too.

[BCRanger10]

A few things here...

To your first point, as an Illinois state senator, Barack Obama voted against the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, which gave explicit legal protection to children born after failed abortions, TWICE. In 2023, Tim Walz removed the phrase "preserve the life and health of the born alive infant" from a series of Minnesota medical codes. And then there's Ralph Northam's 2019 interview when he talked about a baby being born, "kept comfortable", and "having discussions". So yes, there is at least precedent for for what Dargil orignally said.

To your second point, which "relgious conservatives" are you talking about? Christianity doesn't practice circumcision. Amongst Jews, the only major branch that is strongly conservative - theologically, politically, socially - are the Orthodox. The Conservative are more moderate and the Reforms are pretty liberal. Following from that, circumcision does not change the fundamental nature of the boy. It just cuts off a part of the foreskin, which can hardly be called "mutilation", especially considering that Orthodox Jewish families produce, on average, at least four children; the American national average is two.

And am I supposed to believe that there's a valid comparison between an ancient custom signifying God's first covenant with man and a sociopathic troll looking for clicks (i. e., Dylan Mulvaney), a creepy degenerate second-rate swimmer who couldn't hack it on the men's team and joined the women's team in order to outshine them... or have quick, easy access to naked college girls... or both, I don't know (i. e., Will Thomas... or "Lia", if that's how you know him), or similar situations? If so, I don't because there's not.

And on this point..."Same conservatives who now want to enforce young girls to expose themselves to ensure they are biological girls just to play sports."... if that is true (I'm skeptical), who pushed those politics to begin with?

[Ez-Bri-Z_v2]

To your first point: And? Show me the number of cases where a child was born and then aborted. I'll wait. Please provide a reputable site showing those numbers. I can tell you that the number of births where an abortion was performed PRE birth and then a child was born was only 143 over a 12 year period. I can't find a single case where the baby was born and then aborted. It's conservative media fodder for the gullible.

To your second point: it is absolutely mutilation. You are literally cutting off a piece of a human boy's body just for aesthetic reasons. It does affect sensation too. It's no different than doing the same to a girl which most people would find abhorrent. It's estimated that up to 6000 circumcisions go wrong each year as well. There is no point in doing one unless there is a known case of medical issues. Just because you are cut or used to seeing guys cut doesn't mean it's ok.

To your third point: How many trans athletes are there in the US at the college level alone? I'll give you the answer before something is just made up here. It's less than 10. Meanwhile the acting president of the US has literally bragged about walking into the dressing room of his pageants where women (and possibly teen girls) were in various states of dress and as I said, conservatives now want to look at younger girls genitals just for the sake of excluding a infintesimal number of trans athletes that are male to female. Not even female to male athletes are included here. Want to know what message this sends? That they think men are sexual predators. What kind of messaging is that? Are you a sexual predator? I would imagine not, but that's the stigma you are being assigned by this idea that somehow women need to be protected from "men".

As for the who:

[Ez-Bri-Z_v2]

Ohio House Bill 151 (2022): Pushed by Ohio House Republicans and sponsored by Representative Don Jones, this bill originally included a "gender verification" clause. It stated that if a student-athlete's biological sex was disputed, they would have to provide a physician's statement confirming their sex based on internal and external reproductive anatomy (genitalia), genetic testing, or testosterone levels. After intense public backlash and criticism from Democrats who labeled it "state-mandated sexual assault", the genital inspection language was stripped from the final version of the law.

This was all drummed up by conservative leadership who needed a distraction from their grift of the people of the US and to hide the Epstein files. This was then spearheaded by Trump and other leadership and then parroted by sycophant cultists around the country.

[exitseven]

@Ez-Bri-Z_v2 just wha\en you think democrats could not get any crazier they never seem to disappoint..
nypost.com/.../

[Ez-Bri-Z_v2]

So, your point (from a right wing source no less) is that those with terminal illness or severe mental/physical limitations should be born and suffer for whatever their life span may be just because it makes you feel icky?

Way too often even less severe cases are abandoned by unfit or unwilling parents and they are forced into group homes or health care facilities that are massively underfunded and not providing the full care these cases need. I would know from experience as we took in a an autistic girl for a while who could function somewhat but had the mentality of a 5 year old despite being a teen. We saw it happens way too often during our time being foster parents.

Anyway, the question was about abortions performed AFTER birth anyway, not before.

[Dargil]

Well antibiotics help?

[Ez-Bri-Z_v2]

With comfort while they die? No.

With preventing their death? Most likely not. Most are tragic things such as (and this happened to the parents of a friend of my nephew), where their baby had anencephaly which has no treatment.

[Dargil]

I have no doubt that that is true. That is why you have no clue of what is going on in the news. I'm sure that you listen to a lot of CNN and MSDNC. And that, IS rotting your brain.

[Ez-Bri-Z_v2]

Wrong. I dont watch tv

[BCRanger10]

First point - I did not say "post-birth abortion", nor, let alone, that it happened frequently. I said that Dargil's comment has precedent, which, admittedly I may have chosen a better term. Nevertheless, Democrats have pushed for the removal of legal protections for babies born alive after failed or botched abortions. And, for that matter, late-term abortions (currently allowed in 10 states and DC). And with the likes of Peter Singer, for instance, claiming that killing an infant and killing an adult are not the same since an infant does not have the characteristics of a person - self-awareness, will to live, etc. - coupled with euthanasia and IVF, I would not be surprised IF we see a type of what Dargil originally said. That does NOT mean "I think it'll happen" or "MARK MY WORDS, IT'S COMING!" It means I don't exclude the possibility.

Second point - Jewish circumcision was not for "aesthetic reasons". It was for covenantal reasons, which I already said; I'd think that someone who I presume believes herself to be more open-minded than most would know and understand that. As for sensitivity, 1) from what I've gathered, results vary and 2) sensitivity does not constitute who and what a man is. All told though, there are only about 2 million Orthodox Jews in the entire world. Of those, less than half are in America. And by the numbers, half... ish are men (and not all of them are circumcised anyway). So again, there is no valid comparison.

[BCRanger10]

Third point - For one thing, I wasn't going to "make a number up". You're welcome to think what you want, but I'm not that caricature that I presume you think I am. For another, Donald Trump, so far as I can tell, is not a transgender and doesn't claim to be, so I don't know where you're going with that one. With those out of the way, who are these conservatives that want to look at naked girls to make them prove who they are and why haven't I heard any podcasters or YouTubers I follow talk about it, whether it's to clarify or support? Especially since a lot of them are Catholic and there's no shortage of jokes or snarky comments about that these days, right?

And of course they're not doing the same thing for girls trying to compete on guys' teams, because males and females do not perform at the same level. So that there, I think, totally undermines transgenderism completely.

And... I'm sorry, but the Ohio legislation? THAT'S the proof? One state-level legislation from one state that required a statement from not some perverted randos (or a board thereof), but a licensed physician, meaning someone who spent years and who knows how much money studying to become a doctor? Wow.

[Ez-Bri-Z_v2]

Point 1: That comment was reserved for e7 who posted a link about legal terminology being removed for abortions up until birth. Nothing mentioning after birth like he and Dargil are suggesting.
Point 2: Nearly 50% of all born boys are circumcised. Sensitivity was mentioned in relation to a girl getting mutilated in the same type of regard. As you pointed out, the Jewish community doesn't make up for those numbers so that means the rest are doing it because of aesthetic reasons. That's a lot of mutilation for no reason.
Point 3: I appreciate that you didn't try to make a number up. I apologize for the presumption. Also, I never claimed he was transgender? Not sure where you even took that from. I am saying that he drummed up this controversy for purely selfish reasons. Please refer to my next post in that series for the who in Ohio and that was just ONE example.

[BCRanger10]

Point 1 - Fair enough. That does not, however, change the fact that, again, I would not be surprised if something like that does happen. And I will once again clarify that such does NOT mean that I'm convinced that it will definitely happen. Just that, as I said before, I do not exclude the possibility that it will happen.

Point 2 - If it's nearly 50% of all boys (which, for the record, I looked up and that was the first number that came up), then you can't pin it on religious people who vote for conservatives and Republicans. If it is in fact 50% or close to it, then it reasonably includes atheists and liberals, progressives, whatever they're called these days. It is, I believe, a mischaracterization and unfair smear, especially given the reasoning and context amongst those religions that do practice it, though I disagree with it myself.

Point 3 - It more just seemed out of context to bring Trump into it. The Will Thomas controversy (and I call him "Will", by his birth name) happened before the 2024 election. It was not manufactured or spun up by him. I remember hearing about it as far back as 2023.

And I did see the post about the Ohio law. Respectfully, I think you misunderstood the point I was trying to make (which, again, I'll blame on word choice). My point there was that it is not conservatives or Republicans who have been pushing, supporting, or defending the transgender agenda, defending or promoting "gender-affirming" care, surgery, whatever it is, or other such practices or ideologies that lead to the discussion in the first place' we're being called "transphobes" for a reason.

[Ez-Bri-Z_v2]

Point 2: Searching on this topic, I found this information: Some regional patterns show higher overall rates in more politically conservative areas like the Midwest compared to more liberal areas like the West Coast, researchers attribute these variations to broader cultural traditions, local hospital practices, and demographic breakdowns.

You are right that liberals do it, but conservative areas do it more which was my point. I also highly disagree with the practice.

Point 3: I think there is a disconnect here. I am saying the same thing as you are. Conservatives have been pushing for blocking transgender rights, and yes, acting like transphobes. They make a big deal out of pronouns (then ironically use them in sentences), claim that transgender people are predators (when then it's those same republicans who are the loudest, end up getting busted for things like child porn), and generally make transgender individuals harder by stripping away basic rights like healthcare, protections against rape in prisons (who suffer them at a much higher rate i might add. Look up v-coding.), or being kicked out of the military, just to name a few. Could you imagine if these things were being done to you just for being religious for example?

[BCRanger10]

Point 2 - There are conservatives in liberal areas and liberals in conservative areas. I did a Google search of whether conservatives or liberals get it more, and the result came back as inconclusive. Regardless though, there are various reasons why parents might do it to their sons and why, apparently, even grown men will procure one. It could be for comfort, medical, hygiene, or others. Either way, I'll come back to my ultimate point which is that circumcision and sex change surgery are fundamentally not the same thing and I think that your original point on it was in bad faith.

As for point 3? My argument all along is basically asking why the laws exist to begin with. As for transphobia? I'll need a solid definition of what it actually is. A key word in the definition of "-phobia" is "irrational". It is an IRRATIONAL fear, hate, dislike, or otherwise strong feeling against a person, place, or thing. Simply because someone has an intense feelings and thoughts against something does not necessarily mean it's irrational. So with that established, please define "transphobia". And bear in mind that a meme/snarky comment on the right is that to left-wingers, anything an inch to the right of Bernie Sanders is "right-wing" and that terms like "transphobia" are thrown around so loosely that is just makes it hard for guys like me to take them seriously.

I'm not going to split hairs on the remaining items (though I'm sure I wouldn't have to look far and wide to find additional context or facts or equally reprehensible examples by Democrats) except for the military. The reason for this is that there is a laundry list of reasons - medical, psychological, emotional - that could get someone barred or dismissed from military service, like "debilitating anxiety or depression" and personality disorders, for starters.

And I will say that we now have to have a word - "cisgender" - for what when I was growing up was just a man or a woman is, forgive my bluntness, insanely stupid.

[Ez-Bri-Z_v2]

Point 2: yes there are liberals in conservative areas, however, there are more conservatives than liberals otherwise every state would be blue because of their major cities. It isn't a far leap to conclude that more conservatives do it than liberals based on the second information that we have about blue states doing it less often.

And you are semi correct in saying they are not the same. A sex change surgery has the consent of the person getting the surgery. In absolutely most cases, the boy receiving the circumcision does not.

Circumcision is just mutilation for the sake of the parents. Not for the one receiving it. It would be no different than getting a baby a face tattoo because it's what you prefer for your child.

[Ez-Bri-Z_v2]

Point 3: conservatives hatred and fear of the trans community IS irrational fear drummed up by right wing media and lack of education about trans people in the first place. Conservatives have no reason to fear them and call them sexual predators when often the loudest ones who condemn trans people are the ones being caught with child porn, sexual assault charges, or caught looking up trans porn. Conservatives fall into two categories, those who are repressing internal desires or those conditioned by media to hate/fear those different than them. Trans people just want to live their life that is genuine to them and all they ask is for you to treat them politely, with respect, and to not strip them of their rights. If you can't even manage that much, then it says more about you as a believer in Christ's teachings than it does about the trans community.

Also this idea that left of Bernie Sanders is somehow right wing makes no sense otherwise how would people like Schumer and Jeffries even get elected?

Finally, all cisgender means is the same side as the gender assigned to them at birth. I have no problem with it, but for those that do, stop calling them trans because it's the same thing. Call them woman and man of their desired gender, as that's what they are. If you qualify one, than they get to qualify you back. If they aren't allowed to be offended by your rudeness, than you can't be offended by theirs. It's a two way street.

[BCRanger10]

I said to the RIGHT of Bernie Sanders..

Point 2 - I can give you that it's perhaps statistically more likely that conservatives get it than liberals. Again though, the hard data is either unavailable or inconclusive. Regardless, I stand by my point that the comparison is invalid, owing to the fact that circumcision does not change the fundamental nature of the person, whereas transgenderism does, or rather attempts to.

Point 3 - You have still not defined what transphobia is. You have not said what legitimate hatred or fear of transgenderism is. Is it disagreeing with transgenderism? Trying to dissuade someone from surgery? Perceiving issues with and debating transgender ideology and practice? As objectively and dispassionately as possible, I'm struggling to think of anything truly hateful or fearful - let alone irrationally so - in those.

Additionally, I'm struggling to think of times when I've heard transgenders en masse called "sexual predators". I'm sure there've been instances when specific people who are or at lease claim to be transgender have been, but not the community as a whole. Unless, that is, you're privvy to information that I'm not, though I have listened to a lot of conservative (or adjacent) media.

"Conservatives fall into two categories, those who are repressing internal desires or those conditioned by media to hate/fear those different than them." Try though you might, you won't convince me that I have some deeply repressed desire or something or other. Reassure yourself however you want, but all you're doing is undermining your own credibility and, as I've said before, acting in bad faith. It's basically my answer on this question of yours all over again...
Do you think that the phrase "every accusation is a confession/admission" is accurate? ↗

[BCRanger10]

And since you mentioned it (I wasn't going to), the more I see comments like this..."... it says more about you as a believer in Christ's teachings than it does about the trans community"... the more I'm convinced that those who say so don't know Christ or the Bible as much as they think they do. Yes, I a regular church-goer and have read the entire Bible, but I am also a certified catechist, formally approved and personally consecrated by a high-ranking cardinal in the Catholic Church. The bottom line here is that I know a lot more about Christ's teachings than I presume you think I do.

To tell you the story about my inner life and faith journey would be an entirely different discussion.

At any rate, Jesus Christ was (well, IS) not the pot-smoking socialist hippie that many people think. His entire mission and message ultimately focused on the soul, the supernatural, and eternity. He said more about Hell and damnation than anyone else anyWHERE else in the entire Bible combined. He told people to repent and change how they lived. True, He did not say "harass people unless they convert" (which, for the record, I have yet to see or experience), but neither did He say "let them do whatever the hell they want, no questions asked".

With that said, I do not have the knowledge or authority to condemn anyone, therefore I don't. But neither does that mean that I don't see actions and feel fear and sorrow for them. If I were either so conceited of myself or fearful of others' reactions, or even worse, if I were completely indifferent to the fate of one's soul, THAT is what would make me a bad Christian. If, however, having a genuine charity for souls and being a believing, practicing, orthodox Christian somehow makes me a bad one in your eyes, well then... so be it. I don't know what else to tell you and won't waste anymore of either of our time.

[Ez-Bri-Z_v2]

Sorry that was just a brain fart. I meant to say right and just typed left. My bad.

Point 2: it's more about consent than anything. Trans people DO want to fundamentally change what they have and that's fine. I mean, I got a breast aug and that isn't considered an issue, but they want to change themselves and somehow it's the end of civilization?

Point 3: you can be against trans logic. That's fine, the irrational part is where you go and actively try to make their lives hell just to make yourself feel better. That's an irrational fear of something fundamentally different than you. It goes beyond transphobia and right xenophobia though both phobias apply.

Conservatives are not trying to dissuade someone from getting surgeries. They are actively trying to stop them from happening at all. Taking away their medical options just because it doesn't make sense to them. How is that not irrational hate?

You obviously haven't listened to right wing media much then. The words groomers and pedophile are thrown around a lot when talking about trans people by both conservative leadership and media.

And I didn't say you specifically have those desires but you do hate/fear those that are different than you if you support these bans.

I dont deny you knowing more than me when it comes to the Bible, he just welcomed everyone even the sinners, can we agree with that? He believed everyone could be saved if they just repented their sins. Nowhere does it say (that im aware of) that being trans is a sin and even if it did, it also talks about not wearing mixed fabrics and talks about what you can and can't eat, does it not? Are people repenting for their wardrobe everytime they wear it or are they selectively choosing which rules they want to follow and criticizing others for what they do. Something something about casting the first stone.

[Ez-Bri-Z_v2]

And no, i am not accusing you of being a bad person. All I am saying is that there are conservatives out there who hide behind the bible, dont actually practice what is told in it and use it to condemn those they dont agree with. They aren't trying to save souls. They are just pushing an agenda.

[BCRanger10]

Point 2 - I don't think it is. And again, breast augmentation does not change your fundamental nature as a woman. I don't know why you did it (and I'd rather you didn't), but once again, it's not the same thing.

Point 3 - Where are you getting the idea that it's "just because they're different than me?" Or "us", since we're referring to the wider context of conservative politics and thinking? Likewise, what constitutes "making someone's life a living hell"? See Bri, the problem I have with a lot of what you've been saying this whole time is that there's an awful lot of presumption of - you guessed it - bad faith, ill intent on the part of guys like me. You're looking at these situations as "it's only either X or Y and there's no possible Z", which is a false dichotomy. There's a blurring of the lines between intention and action or a dismissal of important background and context (and I see this in a lot of places, not just this discussion here, so I'm not singling you out). I ask in all sincerity, have you put any degree of serious, honest thought into what guys like me think and why?

I mean... you say that it's "just to make ourselves feel better", but are you not doing the same thing here, that you've been doing all along? I think it is.

[BCRanger10]

Yes, we can agree on that. But like I said, He told them to repent and change their lives. In other words, He met them where they were. He did not leave them there. There are definitely a LOT of people who either think that He did though, or they fall back on "come on bro, it's 2026. Get with the program" or they'll claim something isn't sinful.

As for "it's not in the BIble"? The position of the Catholic Church is not and never has been that all matters of faith and morals must be clearly and explicitly stated in the Bible. The Catholic Church also believes in the authority of sacred tradition and what's called the Magisterium, or the Church's teaching authority, both of which, incidentally, are supported by the Bible.

As it regards these Old Testament practices and laws, these were what are called "pedagogical", meaning they were for the purpose of instruction and formation of the people and not moral laws, as evidenced by God's direct command to Peter to eat foods that had previously been declared "unclean", as documented in Acts 10. A few chapters later, Peter declares that previous rituals and practices were no longer required to be saved, one of them being... wait for it... circumcision.

Regarding your second follow-up comment, I agree that yes, there are some Christians who act that way. But there are plenty who don't and are much better than that. I'll point to what I said in the first of these two replies for further detail.

[Ez-Bri-Z_v2]

Point 2: and what if it does fundamentally change their lives for the better just as my breast aug did for me? Where is the harm in that?

Point 3: conservatives control all 3 branches of goverment. They are the ones trying to push for transgender protections to end. They want to push to take away medical care. Again I ask, if this were happening to you, would you not find that making your life hell?

So, then tell me in your own words, what is the issue with trans people? Why should they be treated as outsiders not deserving of basic rights that you and I enjoy?

No offense, but it also seems to me that the catholic church has been practiularly loose with their interpretation of what is "moral" for example the crusades or not openly condemning nazi's in order to save themselves. Even if they did decide to decry gay marriage or transgender individuals, what right does the church have in forcing their beliefs upon others. If we are truly sinners (in my case having a wife) then that is our choice, not the church to make for me on whether or not I can be gay or that transgender individuals can do what they need to fill whole. This country in particular is supposed to be about freedom and a separation of church and state. Religious beliefs are not supposed to be invading others lives. Practice on your own yes. Preach if you must, but the Bible also says to walk away from those who refuse to listen, not force your religious beliefs on them.

If you are saying that the church has decided to reject that passage then again, it's selective moral standing based on what man decides for the rest of us which I find as hypocritical. If it hasn't, then conservative leadership are not living up to the actual word of god and are fake believers (which I personally believe to be the case).

[BCRanger10]

"Selective moral standing"? What are you talking about? I provided two examples of "this is how it was under the Old Covenant, but this is how it is now under the New and everlasting Covenant with Jesus Christ." As for tradition and Magisterium, in 2nd Thessalonians, Paul says "hold to your traditions". In Matthew 16, Jesus gives Peter the authority to bind and loose. There is a handful of warnings in the New Testament against false teachers. John's Gospel was written to defend the divinity of Christ, because already, even in the first century, there were errors and heresies about the nature of Jesus.

Ask any biblical scholar, theologian, or philosopher (who actually knows what they're talking about, that is). Scott Hahn, Taylor Marshall, Trent Horn, Tim Gordon, Joe Heschmeyer, Brant Pitre, John Bergsma, for starters; they will all tell you literally the exact same things that I have, only better and smarter. Heck, call Catholic Answers and ask them. Every so often, they have segments when they only allow atheists, agnostics, or otherwise non-Catholics to call in anyway.

The Crusades and Nazis are 1) irrelevant to the conversation and 2) have other (MANY other) facts or context that your sources have conveniently omitted from their accounts. Therefore, I'm not responding to that.

In fact, I will end my response and the debate here. I'd love to share why I think the way I do, I truly would. But based on what I've seen, I don't know if I have good reason to anticipate good grace. We've been at this for four days, we're just dragging this on, and I can only repeat myself so many times. Plus, this two-part novel-length reply thing is getting exhausting (I spent two hours on one such instance yesterday), isn't it? I think we can each do more and better things with our time, especially on a Sunday.

I'm not "running away scared" or anything. I'm not saying you think I am, but if by chance you do, knock yourself out.

Enjoy the rest of your weekend!

[Ez-Bri-Z_v2]

I don't believe you are running away scared. I truly don't.

I would, however, love to hear why you seemingly condone what is happening to lgbt members by voting for (or at least supporting) conservatives.

C'est la vie

Have a great weekend as well!

[exitseven]

They are the party of abortion right up to the birth of the child so genital mutilation is no big deal for them

[Dargil]

Unless it was done to them. Especially the first part.

[exitseven]

Thanks for the MHO

[Ill_made_Knight]

Who is covering for all the pedos in the Epstein Files?

[Ill_made_Knight]

thanks

[msc545]

No, I guess we could probably say the Republicans are the party of murdering innocent fishermen.

[canamlusciouslad73]

You ARE special... especially nuts, pard !!!

[Anonymous]

Yeah, just look at the imports they defend (they can't see the imports are waiting to turn on them)

[BCRanger10]

Oh yeah.

[Twalli]

Short answer, no.

[Anonymous]

Yes they are