Which is crueler, umbilical cord or foreskin removal?

[Northland]

In the long history of the earth, umbilical cords have been repeately snipped off and cast asunder. How do we know what life might be like if care was taken to keep it attached?


Is it fair to slash off an umbilical cord which contains cells, and as we know from the foreskin, cells are filled with sensations. Why are we allowing this terrible action to be perpetrated on millions and millions of defenseless newborns? Shouldn't both practices be stopped?

 

[DiscoBoy]

You are absurd.

 

[tray22nc]

Well, these two items are EXTREMELY different. The umbilical cord is a means by which the mother gives nutrition and sustains life for her child. Once it is severed from the mother, eventually it would just turn black and fall off (as is what happens to the small amount left attached to the baby after it has been cut at birth). The foreskin, however, is actually part of an organ (the skin) that will not turn black and fall off (lets hope!!) after birth. There really is no medically backed evidence that suggests circumcision is needed. There are always cases that will necessitate a circumcision, but simply for cosmetic purposes, it is not needed.

 

[tray22nc]

You are absurd.

I wasn't gonna say it first! haha

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

Northland, I wish to pay tribute to you.
Only a mighty soul could be shaken by such a great purpose.

 

[scottredleter]

It would eventually shrivel up and fall off on its own. I guess it's an automatic outy, but it is no way anything remotely similar to circumcision.

 

[gymfresh]

The umbilical cord begins to die off as soon as the placenta end of it exits the mother.

Directly after birth, the blood vessels of the umbilical cord begin to collapse and close. As there are no nerve endings in the umbilical cord, its severance is not felt by the baby. The cord can be clamped and cut immediately after birth, or after it the blood vessels have shut down and there is no more pulsing (roughly 20 minutes).

In any event, there are no cases of an umbilical cord remaining attached to the baby for more than 3 days after birth, even if it's just left alone and never severed. It is not part of the baby. It is an oxygenated nutrient tube that functions only in utero.

The foreskin, in contrast, is an integral part of the penis and clitoris.

 

[Over-reaching]

Huh? The function of the umbilical cord is over once the baby is born. It will die and fall off anyway. Many animals actually chew it to sever it.

The foreskin continues to be living tissue and is part of the penis.

I'm not being pro- or anti-circumcision here (that is a different matter), but to liken circumcision to the clamping and removal of the umbilical cord is just silly, imho.

 

[Guardian100]

In the long history of the earth, umbilical cords have been repeately snipped off and cast asunder. How do we know what life might be like if care was taken to keep it attached?


Is it fair to slash off an umbilical cord which contains cells, and as we know from the foreskin, cells are filled with sensations. Why are we allowing this terrible action to be perpetrated on millions and millions of defenseless newborns? Shouldn't both practices be stopped?

Insert not sure if srs joker jpeg here.

 

[jonnyjinx]

The umbilical cord begins to die off as soon as the placenta end of it exits the mother.

Just imagine having your umbilical cord AND placenta hanging from your gut for the rest of your life! lol

 

[JTalbain]

In the long history of the earth, umbilical cords have been repeately snipped off and cast asunder. How do we know what life might be like if care was taken to keep it attached?


Is it fair to slash off an umbilical cord which contains cells, and as we know from the foreskin, cells are filled with sensations. Why are we allowing this terrible action to be perpetrated on millions and millions of defenseless newborns? Shouldn't both practices be stopped?

:lmao:Seriously? Wow....
I suppose the obvious thing to add is sincethe cord connects two people, and hence would affect (read: impair) both of their lives, it is quite reasonable to sever it.

Another thing to point out is that the umbilical cord would be hanging out of her vagina for the rest of her life. As well as permanently attaching her child to her crotch for the rest of his. Societies as we know them would rapidly become unable to function because the children would be unable to detach themselves from their mothers, and so no one could do anything by themselves. Work, home, and social life would all collapse into disorder.

Finally, having a child would pretty much preclude having sex ever again, due to the lack of privacy and the presence of the umbilical cord interfering with intercourse. Abortions would skyrocket where available, due to the increased freedom available in all areas to women with no children. This, coupled with the high likelihood of having only one child per couple, would lead to an abysmally low birthrate, incapable of sustaining the human population (2.1 children per couple on average are necessary for this).

Congratulations. Your suggestion has just obliterated the human race. That's the difference between the umbilical cord and the foreskin. Have a nice day. :smile:

 

[Novaboy]

Just when you think you've heard everything........Good lord!

 

[eurotop40]

In the long history of the earth, umbilical cords have been repeately snipped off and cast asunder. How do we know what life might be like if care was taken to keep it attached?


Is it fair to slash off an umbilical cord which contains cells, and as we know from the foreskin, cells are filled with sensations. Why are we allowing this terrible action to be perpetrated on millions and millions of defenseless newborns? Shouldn't both practices be stopped?

What a stupid analogy.

 

[D_Sparroe Spongecaques]

The umbilical cord begins to die off as soon as the placenta end of it exits the mother.

Directly after birth, the blood vessels of the umbilical cord begin to collapse and close. As there are no nerve endings in the umbilical cord, its severance is not felt by the baby. The cord can be clamped and cut immediately after birth, or after it the blood vessels have shut down and there is no more pulsing (roughly 20 minutes).

In any event, there are no cases of an umbilical cord remaining attached to the baby for more than 3 days after birth, even if it's just left alone and never severed. It is not part of the baby. It is an oxygenated nutrient tube that functions only in utero.

The foreskin, in contrast, is an integral part of the penis and clitoris.

Quite correct however the cord takes longer than 3 days to shrivel and drop off.

OP is looking for a reaction thats all

 

[Northland]

You are absurd.

I wasn't gonna say it first! haha

In fairness, the entire thing was meant more as a joke to the people who rant about circumcision being a deadly sin, equal only in the insanity of the pro-circers, who wail that an uncircumcised penis is 'filthy and stinky'.

Northland, I wish to pay tribute to you.
Only a mighty soul could be shaken by such a great purpose.

It has kept me up nights (well, figuring the wording has (not).

Huh? The function of the umbilical cord is over once the baby is born. It will die and fall off anyway. Many animals actually chew it to sever it.

Canibalism!

:lmao:Seriously? Wow....
I suppose the obvious thing to add is sincethe cord connects two people, and hence would affect (read: impair) both of their lives, it is quite reasonable to sever it.

Another thing to point out is that the umbilical cord would be hanging out of her vagina for the rest of her life. As well as permanently attaching her child to her crotch for the rest of his. Societies as we know them would rapidly become unable to function because the children would be unable to detach themselves from their mothers, and so no one could do anything by themselves. Work, home, and social life would all collapse into disorder.

Finally, having a child would pretty much preclude having sex ever again, due to the lack of privacy and the presence of the umbilical cord interfering with intercourse. Abortions would skyrocket where available, due to the increased freedom available in all areas to women with no children. This, coupled with the high likelihood of having only one child per couple, would lead to an abysmally low birthrate, incapable of sustaining the human population (2.1 children per couple on average are necessary for this).

Congratulations. Your suggestion has just obliterated the human race. That's the difference between the umbilical cord and the foreskin. Have a nice day. :smile:

Thank you, that made me laugh harder than my original post, I appreciate that JT.

 

[helgaleena]

The reason for not circumcising is that there is pain involved. Umbilicals have no nerve endings and neither I nor my child felt anything during its removal from between us.

Slapping babies to make them breathe went out of fashion, thank goodness.

 

[deleted3782]

I still have my cord. In fact, I am stroking it right now. Oh ya...

 

[JTalbain]

Thank you, that made me laugh harder than my original post, I appreciate that JT.

My pleasure. :biggrin1:

 

[B_Nick8]

I would have severed it with my own teeth if it meant having to stay attached to my mother, liking her as I do, assuming I'd been born with any and hoping this is a purely rhetorical question.

 

[SirConcis]

Circumcision with plastibel works in the same principle as the clamp on the umbilical cord. It stops any blood flow to the foreksin and it darkens and falls off within a week (about the same time as the clamp on umbilical cord falls off).

It is however correct to state that left alone, the umbilical cord will fall off while the foreksin won't.