Circumcision

[Pappy13]

Sure you did and now you're just coming off stupid. You made a valid point, but had to wreck it.

Getting some foreskin lopped off isn't comparable to getting a scrape. The skin grows back in one case, not in the other. That's a HUGE difference considering that's the fundamental issue here.

The skin is replaced in a scrape.  The same skin doesn't simply come back, rather the opening in the skin is replaced with new skin.  In the case of circumcision there's no opening in the skin for the skin to be replaced.  In effect the incision is closed immediately.  There's very little loss of blood if any.  That's why the skin does not grow back.  I've had scrapes on my leg which oozed for days and took weeks to heal.  By comparision a circumcision is minor.

And you're missing the point.  The point is that he was trying to compare circumcision with removing a body part like a limb or an organ.  There is no comparision.  My comparison to scraping your arm to circumcision is actually a LOT closer than his comparing it to removing of a limb or an organ.  The fact that the skin does not grow back is not because it CAN'T, it's because it doesn't require it.

As an aside, I love the way both of you use the term "lopped off" to try to give it some added weight.  Now who's using exaggeration to make a point?

[fyo]

As an aside, I love the way both of you use the term "lopped off" to try to give it some added weight.  Now who's using exaggeration to make a point?

The skin is lopped off. That's not an exaggeration.

Something is REMOVED in a circumcision. It doesn't grow back. Nothing grows back.

It is "just" skin, though, so calling it a body part is clearly way off -- and I applauded your argument to that effect. However, you are ruining it by comparing circumcision to a scrape.

[Pappy13]

The skin is lopped off. That's not an exaggeration.

So the doctor gets a machete, holds it with both hands above his head and takes a swing while the nurse holds the infants penis on a table?  Is that how it's done?

Or perhaps they get one of those devices that removes the end of a cigar and they put your penis in that and snip!

No, that's not quite how it's done.  It's a surgical procedure which takes a few minutes.  The skin is removed using a scalpel while the penis itself is protected.  There's very little blood loss, the incision is closed almost immediately and it heals completely in a couple days.  No further care is required other than keeping the area clean so there's no infection.

Sure, it's not pretty to look at, but it's not exactly open heart surgery either.  I think the biggest problem people have with the procedure is the location.  It's a sensitive part of the body,  I get that.  I'm not promoting you have it done to your child.  I'm just saying that preventing me from having it done to mine is going too far.  It's really none of your business.  It's a decision that only the parents of the child should make.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

I think the biggest problem people have with the procedure is the location. 

Nah...it couldn't be the location. 

I bet people would be just as up in arms if we were to trim so excess skin off a baby's belly button when are born....oh wait....we do trim excess skin off of that body part and it doesn't grow back. 

Hmm... maybe you are onto something. 

[Dave Gray]

It's like cutting off an earlobe.  ...how about that comparison?
Bellybuttons are also a bad comparison.  Those fall off naturally.

This is more than just skin, though, because I believe that there are glands in foreskin that secrete stuff, and there are lots of nerve endings related to sexual pleasure.  It's not like skinning your knee that grows back.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

It's like cutting off an earlobe.  ...how about that comparison?

Nope.  Cutting off an earlobe would be about 50 times more skin. It is more like cutting small hole in an ear lobe. 

[Dave Gray]

From what I read, circumcision in an infant removes about "a half an inch, but no more" of foreskin, all the way around.  It is a double folded piece of skin.

[CF DolFan]

I realize this is off topic but this is an awful lot of posting about penises!

[fyo]

I bet people would be just as up in arms if we were to trim so excess skin off a baby's belly button when are born....oh wait....we do trim excess skin off of that body part and it doesn't grow back. 

Actually we don't, not that it is in any way relevant to the discussion at hand. The umbilical cord is part of the mother and is severed an inch or so away from the baby and either tied or clamped. This piece (which is, just to repeat myself, part of the mother) falls off naturally after a few weeks (varies a lot).

[Pappy13]

It's like cutting off an earlobe.  ...how about that comparison?

Let's say I agree, it's like cutting off an earlobe.  Not saying I agree, but for arguments sake lets say I do.

Do we really need earlobes?  Are people without earlobes disabled compared to people that have them?  Are they risking any long term medical problems by removing an earlobe?  Are there an other consequences?  Would people look at you different because you were missing an earlobe or possibly because you weren't?  What if you couldn't tell just by looking at someone that they were missing an earlobe, does that matter?  What if some people thought that ears without earlobes were more attractive, would it be ok for those people to have them cut off?  Even at birth?

Now let's ask the really tough questions.  What if the opposite was true.  What if some people believed that long earlobes were a sign of natural beauty or intellect and you were born with short earlobes, would it be okay to have a procedure that elongated your earlobes?  Let's say there's no cutting or stitching or anything, maybe all you have to do is hang a small weight on the ear overnight and it elongates. Wouldn't that too be body mutilation?  Would that okay?  If so, why?  If not, why not?

[Pappy13]

From what I read, circumcision in an infant removes about "a half an inch, but no more" of foreskin, all the way around.  It is a double folded piece of skin.

It's not the size, it's the thickness I think Hoodie was referring to.  The skin is very thin at least when you are born.  There's obviously more skin when you become an adult.

[Pappy13]

Actually we don't, not that it is in any way relevant to the discussion at hand. The umbilical cord is part of the mother and is severed an inch or so away from the baby and either tied or clamped. This piece (which is, just to repeat myself, part of the mother) falls off naturally after a few weeks (varies a lot).

How do you know where the mother stops and the infant begins?  Actually the mother is not attached to the other end of the umbilical cord, the placenta is, which is then "delivered" by the mother during childbirth.

And I have to point out that you used the word severed here when referring to the umbilical cord, but used the term lopped-off when referring to a circumcision.  I believe that both are cut with a scalpel.

[bsmooth]

I would have never thought I would see a multipage thread about circumcision on a sports site ever.

[Tenshot13]

It seems like y'all are splitting foreskins...er...splitting hairs on this one.

Lopped-off, removed, cut, severed...who cares, they're all synonymous with each other.

[fyo]

And I have to point out that you used the word severed here when referring to the umbilical cord, but used the term lopped-off when referring to a circumcision.  I believe that both are cut with a scalpel.

I'd be fine with "lopped off" wrt the umbilical cord.

And as to whether is mother or child, I was clearly suffering from dementia or something, 'cause everything after the placenta is the baby. DNA is very handy in determining which is which

Bottom line is, the umbilical cord falls off on its own... unless you have some horrible disease, I doubt your foreskin will.