CNN.com article, "Lab-created skin..."

[outlier]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/11/02...kin/index.html

This article doesn't mention circing at all, instead mentioning the use of foreskins in an "oh, by the way" kind of manner.

I wonder after reading this, would a person who has no concept of the value of intact genitals for men read this article and think the foreskin is unique in its ability to grow "four football fields of skin," and is therefore a great reason to circ? What would they think if the word "foreskin" was replaced with "earlobe" or "labia?" This makes it seem like the fact that people circ their babies is a happy coincidence since foreskin grows so well in the lab, when in reality plenty of other baby parts would grow like that.

[tennisdude23]

Originally Posted by noodsma

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/11/02...kin/index.html

This article doesn't mention circing at all, instead mentioning the use of foreskins in an "oh, by the way" kind of manner.

I wonder after reading this, would a person who has no concept of the value of intact genitals for men read this article and think the foreskin is unique in its ability to grow "four football fields of skin," and is therefore a great reason to circ? What would they think if the word "foreskin" was replaced with "earlobe" or "labia?" This makes it seem like the fact that people circ their babies is a happy coincidence since foreskin grows so well in the lab, when in reality plenty of other baby parts would grow like that.

In depends how you look at it. A person can also read this article, and say, hey that skin is pretty unique. Why would you cut it off then? I think an article such as this can get the ball rolling in multiple directions, and if there is a silver lining to all of this, it is that the skin is actually being used for something beneficial, at least something better than facial cream.