Kedikat
Posts: 680
Joined: 4/20/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Rule
quote:
ORIGINAL: Kedikat
I disagree with the concept of it being room for elongation.
In that case people - and land mammals - with a non-mutilated penis should still have a foreskin when their penis is in erection, shouldn't they? However, they do not for in erection the foreskin becomes part of the skin of the shaft of the penis. Your thesis thus is contradicted by observable fact. I trust that you will agree with this conclusion, as you seem to be a rational man.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Kedikat
Consider the sensitivity of the penises head! Nature would have created a cover for it, to protect it. Few women have a clitoris that protrudes all the time.
This is a good argument. However, eyes and lips and fingertips and sometimes nipples also are extremely sensitive and vulnerable, yet they are not protected by folds of skin. Admittedly, skin has a protective function. It protects against dehydration and against heat loss and against infection. When subjected to excessive abrasion it will develop a callosity, a hardenend and thickened part of skin. Since the foreskin lacks such a callosity, it may be assumed that it does not serve to protect the glans from physical harm.
The organ that is excessively protected from physical harm is the brain, which is encased completely in bone. The foreskin is skin, though, not bone.
As for protecting the sensitivity of the glans, you may have a point. Removing the foreskin then would be stupid, wouldn't it be?
quote:
ORIGINAL: Kedikat
The comment of foreskin enhancing evolution is ridiculous.
According to the Law of Murphy then, it must be correct. People used to say that the concept of Earth being spherical was ridiculous, because if it was, then people on the nether side of the Earth would fall off. Lots of theories have been called ridiculous that eventually were accepted as true - the movement of continents hypothesis by Alfred Wegener for example.
I expect that upon reconsideration that you will agree that your antithesis is not an argument, but an opinion.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Kedikat
We have naturally lost many things during evolution, that in some circumstances could be useful, but nature itself found to be not worth the effort to continue. Maybe you could have a doctor surgically reinstall what used to be of your appendix, that nature so brutally robbed you of.
This idea is caused by a misconception about the way natural selection works. Anything that evolution has no use for is lost relatively faster than lightning strikes. If nearly everbody and every mammalian species has an innate organ or a piece of an organ, though, you may bet that it is extremely useful to that organism. The appendix, for example, is a refuge for useful bacteria and is surrounded my tiny immunologically active organs. Luckily the human body has some inbuild (or is it inbuilt?) redundancy. I expect, though, that it is safer to remove a redundant finger than a redundant appendix.
Thus evolution theory proclaims that the foreskin is an extremely useful organ.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Kedikat
And I am curious if you have ever used any of the benifits of medical science? Isn't it more natural for you to die of gangrene from a minor cut? Do you wear glasses? Shouldn't you just die due to accident of poor sight? Etc.....
Unfortunately, yes. In my - in this case very subjective - opinion, the best physician is a dead physician.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Kedikat
The foreskin is most obviously a protective covering.
Yes, obviously. Obviously the Earth is flat. Obviously the Moon consists of Swiss cheese. That some things are obvious, does not make them true. Recall this variant of the Law of Murphy: Anything that a human deems obvious, is obviously false.
Generally all your counters are weak. Some only supported by the science of Prof Murphy and the like. Some are nicely circular in logic. I just stand by what I said. And live perfectly well with the observable facts of being circumcised.
I am curious if there are people born with little or no foreskin. Nature being so various. If there are, should we fix it as a deformity at birth?
After all that, I still think it is a choice. I think it is less dramatic/traumatic a thing than is spoken here. Except when done under terrible circumstances.
< Message edited by Kedikat -- 6/14/2006 12:44:36 PM >
|
RE: Need a health answer(about sircumcision) - 
Profile
. 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread