Originally Posted by SharonAnne
Please don't flame me, as I'm kinda new to the foreskin controversy. But....
If the foreskin has already been amputated (ICK), what's the harm in testing on it? This is an honest question, not trying to start a debate or anything. I really want an answer.
Let me turn the tables a little to something identical but slightly different. Your misunderstanding of the issue is common but this is an example I think you can understand.
The genital tissue of baby girls (the labia, clitoris and clotoral hood) could be used exactly the same way and would produce exactly the same material and results. Imagine if these companies were paying $50.00 for the genital "carvings" of little African girls. In actual practice, there would be no difference but our perception would be far different. Americans would be outraged and I can imagine the government would ban the importation of those products into the country as a moral and ethical message to those countries who mutilate the female genitals.
However, since males are regarded totally different in this country even though the damage and ethics are exactly identical, we (some Americans) over look this violation of males bodies and rights.
It's not an issue of whether the mutilation of the male or female genitals has already happened or not, it's that it happens at all. The fact that there is a cash bounty on the male genital parts is the unethical and shameful part. Any one offering a cash bounty on female genital parts in this country would be quickly imprisoned and most likely without bail bond being offered. That would be partly for their own protection because their life would be in danger. However, someone doing the exact same thing except for male genital parts will be interviewed on television, will recieve awards for their work and public recognition. That is sexism at it's purest but because of our conditioning, we not only don't usually recognize it, we even encourage it.
In reality, we could stirp the skin from baby cadavers to use to produce that product and it would be far more humane as there would be no pain or loss to a living, breathing human being. However, we can clearly see that that would be unethical and immoral even if the baby's organs had been donated and the skin system is the body's largest organ. Even at that, you have to give authorization for the organs to be used in this manner and the organs can not be sold. Human infant foreskins are not treated in this same way. They are taken, not given and they are sold for cash but the child or the parents get none of the money. If you donate a dead baby's body, you specify if it is going for organ donation or for medical research. It would be a rare bereaved parent who would donate their child's organs to a cosmetic company for testing cosmetics but this is exactly what is happening in this case and it is done without their knowledge or approval and the harvester is being paid for the "donation" from a live child. As mentioned above, the foreskin is useless if it has been contaminated with anesthetics so these babies suffer tremendous and extreme pain for their "donation" to the cosmetics industry.
Does that shed any light on the issue for you?