“Tony” seems to have taken issue with a statement I made in a previous post, which spoke to his implied belief that Mike Gatto likes to cut up baby boys’ wieners with surgical instruments. While I will acknowledge that Tony never actually stated such a belief in so many words, it is my position that his distorted interpretation of California AB 768 provides ample justification to draw such a conclusion.
Nevertheless, Tony continues to demonstrate that he is a glutton for punishment by asking me to yet again critique his nonsensical arguments. So, in the interests of moving forward with my interview request, I’ll throw the dog a bone.
“With AB768, Mike Gatto introduced legislation stating that male circumcision in California can only be regulated at the state level. AB768 protects the practice of male circumcision and the exercise of parental authority to have a child circumcised for any reason throughout California. I stated that he believes male minors do not have the same rights to their bodies as every other citizen of California. I don’t even assume that he and his wife would have any sons circumcised. Maybe they would, maybe they wouldn’t. But he incorrectly believes he and every other parent has the valid authority to choose, and, in his capacity as a legislator, to protect that authority in law.”
To which I respond:
Of course parents have the authority to have their infant children circumcised. Do you really expect a newborn baby to make this decision for himself? Or do you think that every single male in the world should be forced to wait until they gain legal control over their own medical care to have their stinky, ugly foreskin snipped off? As the proud owner of a smooth, polished penis which multiple attractive women in their late teens and early twenties have described as “pretty” and “the nicest cock [they’ve] ever seen,” I can unequivocally state that my own experience with circumcision has been overwhelmingly positive, and that I’ve gotten to jizz on multiple hot chicks’ tits and faces because of it.
Parents have the legal right to make decisions about the medical care of their children until their children come of age. Otherwise, emergency rooms around the country would be filled with blubbering infants going “ga ga goo goo ooga bahfah fum” when doctors ask them whether or not they want their booster shots. This legal right necessarily extends to circumcision, and the only objections are coming from a small minority of extremist demagogues who erroneously believe that Mike Gatto’s protection of parental rights is tantamount to supporting genital mutilation. I see no reason to offer a more thorough explanation, as it is my firm belief that your argument critiques itself by its circular and misguided nature. It’s Sunday, I’m hung over, and I can’t be bothered to make an exhaustive list of the endless number of logical fallacies you’ve and your supporters have committed.
Now excuse me while I go wash my balls. I have a hot chick coming over to suck my beautiful circumcised dick in a little while.