Re: Castration.

P Diddy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message:
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: 

> 
> "Neil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> P Diddy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message: news:RGSwb.28321
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>>
>> >
>> > "Yin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> What do you think about castration for sex offenses?
>> >
>> > Do you mean chemical or physical?
>>
>> What do you think of either?
>>
>> -- 
>> Neil
> 
> I would think pyhsical would be worse than chemical. If it was
> physical, that in effect would take away some of your masculinity,
> wouldn't it? Chemical would mean you'd still have your penis...just
> not a lot of blood going up there...I think.

Hmmm.

Still, you almost got there - physical castration is effectively 
irreversible, whereas chemical castration shouldn't be.

But saying that one is "worse" doesn't really tell me what you think - 
should sex offenders get the 'worst', or do you think they lose a right 
to their masculinity?

-- 
Neil