Re: Castration.

"Neil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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

No state or country should have the power to REMOVE a bodily organ of a
human
being period.... physical castration is cruel and unusual punishment.

>