Cutting off the clitoris (female circumcision) does nothing against a woman's fertility. All it does is remove a lot of the ability to feel pleasure during sex, which is exactly why women are circumcised in some parts of the world (which I find a horrid practice, especially because it's usually done in an unsage manner and regularly goes wrong)
Yeah it is possible and they do it in many 3rd world countries as @yimmye said as a weird practice and it's extremely painful and they don't have any anesthetic either . You can't just remove ovaries from a woman, you can however cut off the fallopian tubes that prevent her from becoming pregnant as it stops the egg from reaching the uterus where it can grow. So yeah pretty much 'female castration' is just manipulating the clit so sex is extremely painful therefore they can't do it.
deleted
· 6 years ago
You know that one xray from Mortal Kombat X where your balls get crushed? Just do that to a woman's ovaries.
That would crush the whole pelvis tho ahah
Guys balls hang out of the body whereas the ovaries are almost just below the stomach so you'd crush everything
Jesus, those idiots are crazy. In México people are actually afraid of not vaxxing their babies, everyone vaccinates their babies completely, lol kids used to brag about their "scar" while it only was the mark after their first vaccination lol.
That's not how this works, that's not how ANY of this works
People really need to be educated on a biological level how vaccines work so they can stop killing their children
oh hell yeah vaccines are bad for you like why would you want your child to live
by that logic you can throw em in a fire and then say that if you put out the fire, or removed the kids from the fire then they would have ended up worse
6Reply
deleted
· 6 years ago
"I think the vax would have made it worse for him" I don't actually know what happens if you vaccinate a child against an illness if they are currently suffering from that illness. The additional viruses, although dead and fragmented, might give the already weakened and hard working immune system another hit, slimming the chances of survival. What would help is if they would inject antibodies to cure the disease but I believe that has another term
Edit: why is this getting downvoted? A vaccine wouldn't do shit at that point, you need to inject the antibodies directly because the child doesn't produce them itself. This wouldn't give it immunity, but it would combat the disease. Afterwards, the child can still be vaccinated if necessary
Vaccines are preventing the disease beforehand so yes I don't think it would do much if the kid already had the disease, by then you need proper medication etc. Vaccines actually work by injecting a weakened version of the virus into the immune system so the bodies natural antibodies recognise it and then destroy it, this is the primary response. So once the kid is then exposed to the virus again the antibodies know what it is and can destroy it quicker, the secondary response. So the antibodies in us kind of have a little library and each virus they destroy for the first time is added to it.
^^^
Agreed. I hate the gov. Saying you HAVE to do a certain thing but I do think it should be something that doctors talk about and the statistics etc.
They're saying that it should be an option and a societal norm, but not a law. However, due to the importance of vaccination, they conclude that there should be some kind of strong encouragement for people to vaccinate, like doctoral advice and pressure from family and society, which we already have to some degree. (Just my interpretation)
The problem with just leaving it a societal norm is that societal norms change. In the case of vaccination, it's not a cultural issue...it's literal life or death for MANY, not just the unvaccinated. If the non-vaccination rate goes below a certain percentage of the population, you're looking at potential breakouts of diseases and TONS of deaths or permanent disabilities. With that much illness going around even vaccinated individuals are at risk, as are the people who for medical reasons want to get vaccinated but can't. So unfortunately, peer pressure and societal norms aren't enough when it comes to stopping the literal plagues that used to be a regularity. People forget just HOW common death from these diseases were because simply because they were rampant.
Yeah I know. But it's the whole principle of the government saying you HAVE to do something for your kids. It's a tricky thing.
1
deleted
· 6 years ago
Pretty sure the government also says that you have to feed your child. Should that also just be the parents' choice? No, because not feeding your children is child abuse. In my opinion, not vaccinating is also child abuse, so I think the government should take a stand against it.
I agree that it's abuse not to, but the point is it's a fine line between these things. Where does it stop? Where does the government's say in how you raise your child stop?
1
·
Edited 6 years ago
deleted
· 6 years ago
Do you think that the government should prohibit child abuse? Because if you do, by that logic they should prohibit not vaccinating
I'd say the government should have the right to prohibit you from harming your child. If it does not harm the child, the government should have no say in it.
Vaccinations shouldn't be forced. And it's one thing to make an informed desicion against it. However, this moron is clearly in the "hurr durr, vaccines are bad" camp, did no research, and has no fucking logical reason for not vaccinating her kid.
Some kids immune systems can't handle the vaccines, and some aren't necessary. Example being the one for cervical cancer unless you're sexually active.
I agree that vaccination should not be enforced by the gov. But dont bitch and moan when your child dies from a disease when there is a counter measure agaisnt said disease.
Guys balls hang out of the body whereas the ovaries are almost just below the stomach so you'd crush everything
People really need to be educated on a biological level how vaccines work so they can stop killing their children
by that logic you can throw em in a fire and then say that if you put out the fire, or removed the kids from the fire then they would have ended up worse
Edit: why is this getting downvoted? A vaccine wouldn't do shit at that point, you need to inject the antibodies directly because the child doesn't produce them itself. This wouldn't give it immunity, but it would combat the disease. Afterwards, the child can still be vaccinated if necessary
Agreed. I hate the gov. Saying you HAVE to do a certain thing but I do think it should be something that doctors talk about and the statistics etc.
I'd say the government should have the right to prohibit you from harming your child. If it does not harm the child, the government should have no say in it.