What about circumcision and pain relief for baby

"CBI" wrote in message
ink.net...


"Chotii" wrote in message
...

The problem is, I think most people really *don't* understand what it
IS.
Most people have no idea what the foreskin *is*, what its function is,
and
why its removal creates an unnatural situation.

I don't think anyone understands this.


Virtually no one understands
that the human penis is functionally an internal organ, intended to be
covered with protective skin right up to its tip, except when "in use";

Evolution does not "intend" anything. Some things provide an advantage in
propagation and some things just haven't been selected against.


nor
do they understand that the glans is a mucous membrane, meant to be
lubricated at all times, *not* dry.

That's not true.

I stand corrected. It is *not* the head of the penis which is mucosal in
nature, but rather the inner portion of the foreskin which customarily
covers the head. Being that I am not a doctor, I will let the authors of
this study (an MD and a pathologist) speak for themselves. That way I
neither exaggerate or speak incorrectly:
http://www.cirp.org/library/anatomy/taylor/.

However, I maintain that, given that the tissues that comprise the foreskin
are homologous (or analogous?) to the clitoral hood, one might expect to
find the intact male's glans to be naturally moist under its covering in the
same way that the clitoris is. I never hear anybody suggesting that baby
girls should have their clitoral-hood excised for any reason, least of all
cleanliness or appearance.

--angela

(Yes, CBI, I know you're no proponent, but as I had misspoken and
misrepresented, I felt I ought to correct myself, and provide a reference
that says what I thought I was saying.)

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 05:45:40 GMT, "Carol Ann"
wrote:

I have no ral experience in the matter. I am also having a daughter, but
still, would have the child circumsized if it were a boy (I think).

~Carol Ann

Other than religious reasons, why?


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

"Chotii" wrote in message
...
same way that the clitoris is. I never hear anybody suggesting that baby
girls should have their clitoral-hood excised for any reason, least of all
cleanliness or appearance.

I have. Those tribes that practice the less radical female circumsions do
it that way.

"toto" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 05:45:40 GMT, "Carol Ann"
wrote:

I have no ral experience in the matter. I am also having a daughter, but
still, would have the child circumsized if it were a boy (I think).

~Carol Ann

Other than religious reasons, why?

She's already told us. She thinks it's prettier.

"toypup" wrote in message
news8wEb.599814$Fm2.547203@attbi_s04...

"Chotii" wrote in message
...
same way that the clitoris is. I never hear anybody suggesting that baby
girls should have their clitoral-hood excised for any reason, least of
all
cleanliness or appearance.

I have. Those tribes that practice the less radical female circumsions do
it that way.

No doubt. Again, I should have been more clear: "I never hear anybody
suggesting" meaning here, in the newsgroups.

--angela

In . net,
CBI wrote:

*
*
*
*"Hillary Israeli" wrote in message
...
* *
* * Well, I agree, I think it should be called toe removal also -
* *
* *But the whole toe is not removed.
*
* Ok. I think it should be called P3 removal. But no one would know what I'm
* talking about, so I call it a "declaw," and then explain using a model or
* a drawing (depending on where I am) exactly what the procedure entails. My
* point remains that I don't really think the name of the procedure matters.
*
*Oh, I agree with you there. But if one is going to claim that the current
*term is a misnomer and suggest a new one then it would be best if the new
*term is accurate.

Yeah, yeah. Go ahead and confuse us with actual facts, why don't you.

--
hillary israeli vmd http://www.hillary.net
"uber vaccae in quattuor partes divisum est."
not-so-newly minted veterinarian-at-large

"Nan" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 05:42:50 GMT, "toypup"
wrote:


"toto" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 05:45:40 GMT, "Carol Ann"
wrote:

I have no ral experience in the matter. I am also having a daughter,
but
still, would have the child circumsized if it were a boy (I think).

~Carol Ann

Other than religious reasons, why?

She's already told us. She thinks it's prettier.

You just don't let up on the stupid comments, do you.

She said it, not me.

"Nan" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 18:47:01 GMT, "toypup"
wrote:


"Nan" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 05:42:50 GMT, "toypup"
wrote:


"toto" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 05:45:40 GMT, "Carol Ann"
wrote:

I have no ral experience in the matter. I am also having a
daughter,
but
still, would have the child circumsized if it were a boy (I think).

~Carol Ann

Other than religious reasons, why?

She's already told us. She thinks it's prettier.

You just don't let up on the stupid comments, do you.

She said it, not me.

So? Does that make your comment any less childish?

I'm just answering the poster's question about Carol Ann's reason. She's
stated her reason and that's what it was. If she restated her reason, you'd
have thought nothing of it. You just don't like it because I said it.

"Hillary Israeli" wrote in message
...

Yeah, yeah. Go ahead and confuse us with actual facts, why don't you.


It does seem to upset some.