LogFAQs > #913315979

Aculo posted...

it's a quick cut of barely anything that guys don't even remember happening, ok?

Right, because it's painless and heals instantly.

It's a traumatizing experience for the infant because only about 45% of doctors actually use anesthesia. Not to mention it doesn't last throughout the healing process, so there's that too.

Plus the risk of infection from having it covered in urine and feces on a daily basis.

It's not merely a "quick cut" as you say of "barely anything". It's removing a section of the most important organ in the human body (the skin) and it is without consent of the baby.

I'd be willing to bet you don't know very much, if anything, about the procedure other than "just a quick snip of useless skin, no harm no foul", which is hardly what I would call informed.

So, in your opinion, would it be okay to surgically remove the nipples of every infant boy? They literally don't serve any purpose, it's just a useless artifact remaining from when the baby was in the early developmental stage. Using the logic that "it's useless, it's just a quick cut of barely anything that guys won't even remember happening" fits pretty well here in your opinion.
Plus, let me repeat myself. Unlike the foreskin, they literally do not serve any purpose on a male other than maybe letting other people know when you're cold.

I mean..that's what you're saying isn't it? You're not removing anything vital, and we can finally squash that age old question of why guys have nipples.
---

I used to think my brain was my favorite part of my body...Then I realized what was making me think that!