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:[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.

ok.

Should the state have the power to enforce the chemical alternative?

What would you think to voluntary castration, physical or chemical?

-- 
Neil