SkinEthic, the subsidiary of L'Oreal that develops the "artificial skin", has used human infant foreskins in their laboratories. In my view, infant genital mutilation is on par with animal testing (both parties are helpless, unable to consent and unable to escape). Therefore, Skinethic and L'Oreal should be boycotted on those grounds alone.
If we accept your premise: people who make decisions at insurance companies determined that their companies would fund infant genital mutilation.
Their choice to fund infant genital mutilation is not evidence that it the practice is ethically acceptable, it is only evidence that they consider it acceptable.
i prefer not engaging in this coversation as it is a personal opinion type situation. we are of different opinions in regards to this matter. i do not consider circumcision mutilation, nor does my husband. he feels that if it had not been done as a child, he would have had the procedure done as an adult.
>> [my husband does] not consider circumcision mutilation
That is a common opinion among people who were circumcised in infancy. To a person whose foreskin was taken from him in infancy, a circumcised penis is "normal".
>> he would have had the procedure done as an adult
And that would have been his choice to make, for his own body. Judging by the number of males who are horrified by the irreversible loss of their foreskin, and how many seek to restore what was taken from them without their consent, it is unethical to force cosmetic genital surgery on another person, no matter how small that person is.
sure. i know of uncircumcized males who, as adults, have gotten infections due to not being circumcized and who have had to get circumsized as adults to prevent recurring infections. when medical problems arise due to a procedure not being performed, i wouldn't consider the procedure cosmetic. when something is done to treat, diagnose, cure or prevent a medical condition, it is no longer considered cosmetic.
I've heard of this too. Although I am very torn on this issue myself for both reasons, I have known a small handfull of young men who have needed the procedure later in life due to infection.
Although, rigorous teaching on how to keep oneself clean can help this as well.
When I have kids, if one should be male, I will not circumsize, but I don't consider the procedure cosmetic (although some people probably do).
The vulvovaginal area produces much more smegma (and is much more prone to infection) than the area between the glans and the inner surface of the foreskin, yet we do not surgically carve away the inner labia of female infants in the way that we carve away the foreskin of male infants. It is a cultural practice which has only recently become cloaked in the language of medicine in order to justify its inherent barbarism.
Why would a young boy need "rigorous teaching" to learn how to wash his genitals? The foreskin is not some terrible, threatening menace that calls for "rigorous teaching" in order to prevent disaster. The foreskin is a natural part of the human body which requires no more special care in cleaning than the ears. No other body part is so maligned. No other body part is routinely, preventively amputated.
Consider that about 70% of the world's males are intact. Over 80% of all males in Europe, much of Asia, Central America, and South America are intact. There is not some terrible foreskin-related scourge in
( ... )
Ok, I'm going to put my little mod cap on for the first time. First of all, I love the amount of debate going on, it's great, but lets all move back onto the topic of veganism before we fill the OP's thread.
Infant circumcision isn't routinely done to treat or cure a medical condition, though - most parents tend to do it for religious reasons, or fear that their kid will get made fun of, or because they're convinced it's just what good parents do. I agree that the procedure can be medical or cosmetic, but when done on a kid at two weeks old, it's almost never for medical reasons.
As far as it being a preventative measure, we don't routinely remove appendixes and tonsils or the nails on people's big toes at birth, even though these are pretty frequently removed later on in life due to infection (appendicitis, tonsillitis, ingrown toenails), so why foreskins? For whatever it's worth, the last I heard, the American Academy of Pediatrics was also unconvinced that circumcision was medically necessary for young boys, too.
SkinEthic, the subsidiary of L'Oreal that develops the "artificial skin", has used human infant foreskins in their laboratories. In my view, infant genital mutilation is on par with animal testing (both parties are helpless, unable to consent and unable to escape). Therefore, Skinethic and L'Oreal should be boycotted on those grounds alone.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Their choice to fund infant genital mutilation is not evidence that it the practice is ethically acceptable, it is only evidence that they consider it acceptable.
Reply
Reply
That is a common opinion among people who were circumcised in infancy. To a person whose foreskin was taken from him in infancy, a circumcised penis is "normal".
>> he would have had the procedure done as an adult
And that would have been his choice to make, for his own body. Judging by the number of males who are horrified by the irreversible loss of their foreskin, and how many seek to restore what was taken from them without their consent, it is unethical to force cosmetic genital surgery on another person, no matter how small that person is.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Although, rigorous teaching on how to keep oneself clean can help this as well.
When I have kids, if one should be male, I will not circumsize, but I don't consider the procedure cosmetic (although some people probably do).
Reply
Why would a young boy need "rigorous teaching" to learn how to wash his genitals? The foreskin is not some terrible, threatening menace that calls for "rigorous teaching" in order to prevent disaster. The foreskin is a natural part of the human body which requires no more special care in cleaning than the ears. No other body part is so maligned. No other body part is routinely, preventively amputated.
Consider that about 70% of the world's males are intact. Over 80% of all males in Europe, much of Asia, Central America, and South America are intact. There is not some terrible foreskin-related scourge in ( ... )
Reply
Thanks everyone!
Reply
(sorry about that!)
Reply
Reply
Reply
As far as it being a preventative measure, we don't routinely remove appendixes and tonsils or the nails on people's big toes at birth, even though these are pretty frequently removed later on in life due to infection (appendicitis, tonsillitis, ingrown toenails), so why foreskins? For whatever it's worth, the last I heard, the American Academy of Pediatrics was also unconvinced that circumcision was medically necessary for young boys, too.
Reply
Leave a comment