How would you reply to this?

[Brittany93]

"Your wisdom teeth and your appendix are also there when you're born...So are predispositions for Cancer, Retardation etc. Does that mean we need those too?" this is what someone told me in response to my comment of "foreskin is there for a reason".

How would you response to something like that?

[Ruthla]

"Yes, we do."

The appendix is part of a healthy immune system. A strong, healthy mouth CAN hold all the teeth, including wisdom teeth. The problem is that many of us today are not completely healthy, and our jaw bones are inadequate- so we need to have healthy teeth removed to make our teeth fit properly.

Predispositions are just that- predispositions. They're not guarantees of anything. We also have predispositions for longevity, healthy weight, strong hearts, etc.

[Pumpkinheadmommy]

Originally Posted by Brittany93

"Your wisdom teeth and your appendix are also there when you're born...So are predispositions for Cancer, Retardation etc. Does that mean we need those too?" this is what someone told me in response to my comment of "foreskin is there for a reason".

How would you response to something like that?

It's kind of a weird argument. Most people aren't born with teeth at all, much less wisdom teeth. Is that what they meant to say? Wisdom teeth don't appear until late teens or early 20s and I think there is debate among dentists about whether or not to remove them to prevent problems. They don't always cause problems.

The appendix, on the other hand, is now thought to be beneficial in the digestive process. It's no longer removed as a prophylactic measure.

You can't remove a genetic predisposition for cancer and retardation, so why even argue it? Regardless, cancer kills, so even if you could you would need to weigh the risks/benefits of surgical removal against other preventive measures (like not smoking, etc.).

Retardation is a birth defect, so of course we don't "need" it. A foreskin, however, is not a birth defect.

[mjg013]

Um, we don't have a baby's appendix and wisdom teeth removed at birth either. Where is the point of that argument?

[lawmama1984]

Originally Posted by mjg013

Um, we don't have a baby's appendix and wisdom teeth removed at birth either. Where is the point of that argument?

:

And there is no need to remove those things as long as they are not causing problems. I, for one, have all my wisdom teeth and my appendix. Also, the foreskin has important biological and physiological functions, which are discussed on here ad nauseam, so I won't even go into that.

I'm not even sure I'd respond. There are just some arguments you can tell are going nowhere, and honestly, if someone threw that line at me, I would bet that any debate would be frustrating, time consuming, and ultimately a waste of energy.

[Storm Bride]

Originally Posted by mjg013

Um, we don't have a baby's appendix and wisdom teeth removed at birth either. Where is the point of that argument?

This. We don't remove the appendix at birth. It's removed if problems develop that require removal.

[leila1213]

Originally Posted by mjg013

Um, we don't have a baby's appendix and wisdom teeth removed at birth either. Where is the point of that argument?

very good response. we also don't have their breasts removed at birth if they have a predisposition to breast cancer.

[1littlebit]

they don't take either of those out unless they become a problem... they also used to take everyones tonsils out (literally.. everyone.. in like first grade or something i think) but then they realized you actually need them so now they try not to remove them unless its really necessary. i still have my tonsils, appendix, and wisdom teeth.. well i don't know about these... i have never had them removed but i don't reallly know if i have them... :shug

[bandgeek]

I don't "technically" need my clitoral hood, but I'm kind of fond of it. And I want my daughters to have the chance to enjoy theirs too. Now if I developed gangrene on it, I'd probably have it removed.

I guess I don't understand how people even consider these valid arguments? We don't "need" lots of body parts. People function fine with one kidney, missing one leg or an arm, earlobes are quite useless, ect. I know of people who have half their brain removed and go on with their lives as normal. Doesn't mean it's a good idea to go removing things willy-nilly.

[Fyrestorm]

DD was diagnosed with Polycystic Kidney disease when I was 28 weeks pregnant with her.

The perinatologist was discussing surgery immediately after birth to remove the affected kidney. I decided to wait and see if the kidney continued to develop or not. If it continued to develop, I agreed surgery might be necessary. If not, then why remove it? The Dr. had no answer to that other than, it's just what we do. (if it did not develop, all she would have is a small mass of completely non malignant cells where her kidney should have been)

Well, it did not develop. I would not agree to cutting her open on the remote possibility that another cyst (which would be no big deak anyway) might develop at some unknown point in the unknown future. The hospital staff could not understand my reasoning.

I was using logic and they were using the same reasoning that leads to the continued perpetration of the horror of circumcision.

Because they can.

[BlessedMommy2006]

Wisdom teeth and tonsils are not spare body parts either! I ran into a gal the other day whose wisdom teeth had grown in just fine and she was brushing them just fine and the dentist still wanted her to remove them! Huh?

I had two of mine taken out but that's because they were causing me problems. I don't believe in removing body parts unless they're causing problems. Period.

[vulturemom]

We don't remove any of those things at birth either (as a matter of fact Dh I and all our kids still have out appendix all but me and DD have their wisdom teeth). Then I would probably ask them if there was a point they were trying to make.

[Claire and Boys]

I'd really have to ask them if they plan on getting those removed at birth as well.

[serendipity22]

I'd really have to ask them if they plan on getting those removed at birth as well.

good point.

I find my wisdom teeth very useful.

Its extraordinarily arrogant to presume that because a function for a body part
(tonsils, appendix etc.) is not known then there is no function.

its a good thing pain-killers weren't discovered till the 1800s. Otherwise medieval barber-surgeons would have been removing all sorts of organs.

[perspective]

Originally Posted by Brittany93

"Your wisdom teeth and your appendix are also there when you're born...So are predispositions for Cancer, Retardation etc. Does that mean we need those too?" this is what someone told me in response to my comment of "foreskin is there for a reason".

How would you response to something like that?

You say, well like the foreskin, up until recently they thought the appendix ad no purpose and we could just remove that body part. Both these body parts, especially the foreskin (this is where you talk about the ACTUAL stuff the foreskin does, and its value, which should be the heart of your argument) have useful purposes to the body. The logic behind the "unneeded body parts" theory is that if you cut it off and and the person still lives, then there is no reason for it to be there in the first place. But using that argument you could say FGM is a good thing. Seeing as those outer folds of skin could be removed and the vagina could still function normally. Does that mean we should be cutting that off too?

Or think of a car. You could rip the rain wipers off the car, and break the locks. The car would still drive, but if those pieces serve some kind of benefit, and cause no direct problem, why remove them at all?

[nerdymom]

Originally Posted by bandgeek

I don't "technically" need my clitoral hood, but I'm kind of fond of it. And I want my daughters to have the chance to enjoy theirs too. Now if I developed gangrene on it, I'd probably have it removed.

I guess I don't understand how people even consider these valid arguments? We don't "need" lots of body parts. People function fine with one kidney, missing one leg or an arm, earlobes are quite useless, ect. I know of people who have half their brain removed and go on with their lives as normal. Doesn't mean it's a good idea to go removing things willy-nilly.

:

I think you should ask this person "would you remove your daughters clitoral hood or a portion of her labia if you were told that women with those parts have a higher risk of UTIs and yeast infections?" "Would you remove your breasts if you found out there was a history of breast cancer in your family?" And finally "You don't need your fingernails either, let's peel them back and chop them off at birth too."

[trmpetplaya]

That argument makes absolutely no sense at all for the reasons already stated. Anecdotally - My dh's wisdom teeth came in just perfectly fine and he's never had any problems with them. Neither has he ever had any problems with his foreskin. Why on earth would we have a dentist or surgeon remove either without a valid and immediate medical reason?

The standard that is used for every other part of the body should also be used for the foreskin. Simple as that

[Claire and Boys]

Originally Posted by nerdymom

:

I think you should ask this person "would you remove your daughters clitoral hood or a portion of her labia if you were told that women with those parts have a higher risk of UTIs and yeast infections?" "Would you remove your breasts if you found out there was a history of breast cancer in your family?" And finally "You don't need your fingernails either, let's peel them back and chop them off at birth too."

I've made this argument before. A woman with the breast cancer gene has something like an 80% chance of getting breast cancer. Yet no one is advocating that anyone BUT the woman herself decide on whether she gets to keep them. Just the same as with every other body part except the foreskin.

[Storm Bride]

Originally Posted by Fyrestorm

I was using logic and they were using the same reasoning that leads to the continued perpetration of the horror of circumcision.

Because they can.

Because they can...and because they see all these surgical procedures as benign. They don't look at it as a risk/benefit analysis, as far as I can tell, because they've already put an "X" over the risks in their heads. If they can identify a benefit...even a hypothetical benefit...to a surgical procedure, then it's benign.

It's weird and it freaks me out, but it seems to be very widespread.