• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Appendectomy at Birth

HardcoreRobot

HardcoreRobot

Lifer
Unlike the appendix, the foreskin arguably actually serves some value, yet it is removed at birth due to perceived risks.

The appendix serves no value to the human body and presents a risk in life should it get infected/inflamed etc.

Why do we not also remove this from our children at birth to prevent later health issues?
 
Because the foreskin is outside of the body, whereas an appendectomy is extremely invasive surgery that you really, really dont want to do on an infant.

Although I thought that was obvious.
 
Circumcision has nothing to do with health. It's a cultural phenomenon that most Americans perpetuate because *they* were circumcised. The appendix does have a purpose. So do tonsils.. Why do you think the rash of removals "just because" ended?
 
Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Circumcision has nothing to do with health. It's a cultural phenomenon that most Americans perpetuate because *they* were circumcised.
Click to expand...

Ummm.... how does it have nothing to do with health when not cleaning it properly can result in infections and possibly urethra problems?

EDIT: I see the point you're trying to make now. Most Americans are basically oblivious to the fact that circumcision has health benefits 😛
 
Originally posted by: Atomicus
Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Circumcision has nothing to do with health. It's a cultural phenomenon that most Americans perpetuate because *they* were circumcised.
Click to expand...

Ummm.... how does it have nothing to do with health when not cleaning it properly can result in infections and possibly urethra problems?

EDIT: I see the point you're trying to make now. Most Americans are basically oblivious to the fact that circumcision has health benefits 😛
Click to expand...

smegma.....mmmmmmmmmmm
 
Originally posted by: Atomicus
Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Circumcision has nothing to do with health. It's a cultural phenomenon that most Americans perpetuate because *they* were circumcised.
Click to expand...

Ummm.... how does it have nothing to do with health when not cleaning it properly can result in infections and possibly urethra problems?

EDIT: I see the point you're trying to make now. Most Americans are basically oblivious to the fact that circumcision has health benefits 😛
Click to expand...

There are a hell of a lot of uncircumcised people without infections and urethra problems.
We were born with foreskin, God made us that way, why should we go against His will(y)?
 
Here we go with the old circumcision debate again.. :roll:

Nothing to do with health MY ASS! Some of you people truely amaze me.
 
Originally posted by: Atomicus
Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Circumcision has nothing to do with health. It's a cultural phenomenon that most Americans perpetuate because *they* were circumcised.
Click to expand...

Ummm.... how does it have nothing to do with health when not cleaning it properly can result in infections and possibly urethra problems?

EDIT: I see the point you're trying to make now. Most Americans are basically oblivious to the fact that circumcision has health benefits 😛
Click to expand...

Not cleaning your ears can result in infections. Did your parents have your ears plugged with silicone?
 
Originally posted by: BrokenVisage
Here we go with the old circumcision debate again.. :roll:

Nothing to do with health MY ASS! Some of you people truely amaze me.
Click to expand...

The rest of the world with the exception of Israel gets along fine without circumcisions. The rest of the class mammalia too.
 
Some of you have never dealt with soldiers in the field who don't have the capability to clean themselves properly. While I agree that everyone need not be circumcised, there are benefits to certain people in certain professions. That can't be denied.

Case in point, my brother went for nearly 45 days in Iraq without a bath or shower. You can't tell me that such a situation isn't problematic for certain people.
 
Originally posted by: BD2003
Because the foreskin is outside of the body, whereas an appendectomy is extremely invasive surgery that you really, really dont want to do on an infant.

Although I thought that was obvious.
Click to expand...

You really would think that would be painfully obvious.
 
Originally posted by: Rogue
Some of you have never dealt with soldiers in the field who don't have the capability to clean themselves properly. While I agree that everyone need not be circumcised, there are benefits to certain people in certain professions. That can't be denied.

Case in point, my brother went for nearly 45 days in Iraq without a bath or shower. You can't tell me that such a situation isn't problematic for certain people.
Click to expand...

There are 1,259,000 active and reserve troops (what percentage men?) out of something like 130 million American males.
 
Before you get too far with this discussion - actually yes the Appendix does serve a purpose. It contains lymphoid tissue. We can do without our appendix the same way we can do without our tonsils.
 
Uncircumsized boys, greater risk of UTI:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer...ubMed&list_uids=93201839&dopt=Citation

But there is also stats that show circumsized guys have a higher rate of premature ejaculation.

I'm not against circumcision, but considering that infants are not numbed and go through a tremendous amount of pain, and, that pain at infancy has been linked with learning impairment later in life, I am trying to talk my wife into leaving our boys uncut until they reach puberty. At that point the procedure is rather painless and is only uncomfortable for a few weeks after (too much sensation at first), and they'll have more say in the matter by then.
 
Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Originally posted by: BD2003
Because the foreskin is outside of the body, whereas an appendectomy is extremely invasive surgery that you really, really dont want to do on an infant.

Although I thought that was obvious.
Click to expand...

You really would think that would be painfully obvious.
Click to expand...

You really would. 😛
 
Originally posted by: Warthog912
seems a little extreme to operate on an infant shortly after the exit of the womb...

could be just me though-
Click to expand...

It could easily be fatal. If you don't use enough anesthetic to numb the pain, the child could die of the extreme pain of cutting the body cavity open and sticking your fingers all around in there. If you DO use enough anesthetic to numb the body, you'd have to use more than the little body could handle and the baby wouldn't recover.
 
Originally posted by: Atomicus
Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Circumcision has nothing to do with health. It's a cultural phenomenon that most Americans perpetuate because *they* were circumcised.
Click to expand...

Ummm.... how does it have nothing to do with health when not cleaning it properly can result in infections and possibly urethra problems?

EDIT: I see the point you're trying to make now. Most Americans are basically oblivious to the fact that circumcision has health benefits 😛
Click to expand...

Cicumcision has health benefits if you aren't clean. My family doctor didn't cicumcise his son. It may have been a health benefit back when showers and daily washing was considered bad for you. It isn't necessary in America anymore.
 
foreskin removal has religious and healthwise implications.

the appendix would me considered major surgery since it can't be done on an outpatient basis.

Basically if it ain't broke, not fix it... while the foreskin is easily removed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top