Assuming there were active societal pressures to do so, how much of a newborn infant can be surgically removed without jeopardizing the health of the child?
What body parts have been removed or altered on the extremely young by various human cultures throughout history?
How many of these procedures could be justified in some way as medically beneficial, and what justification was used?
You could cut off the arms, the legs, the outer ears, just look at, what we used to term, “freaks,” in my day and you can see such people exist and live.
If you’re unconcerned with any quality of life issues, there’s a lot more you could take off.
As to your first question, the organs a human can do without are one kidney, the appendix, and the Hammond B3. Male circumcision does not threaten the health of most circumcised males. Female “circumcision” is more likely to threaten the patient’s health.
On the second question, I have no further information.
The third question will get rather complicated. There is a plethora of heated controversy.
Statistics suggest that male circumcision lessens the risk of uterine cancer in the circumcised male’s sex partners. The traditional justification, long before anyone knew of a medical benefit, was that God commanded the procedure.
Female “circumcision” has no known medical benefits, and I have no information about the original justification.
Presumably because a woman who can’t get physical pleasure from sexual intercourse isn’t going to have any reason to have sex before or outside of marriage.
There are some fucking weird questions on this site sometimes.
Personally, I would have posted this one with “need answer fast” attached, but that’s because I have a sick sense of humor.
That made me laugh, you sick fucker.
Wait.
That means I’m…
Depends on exactly what is done.
The least extreme, a little nick is if anything less harmful than male circumcision, and like that is basically done “just because”. And if you haven’t heard of the essentially harmless version before, it’s probably because no one cares because it’s, well, essentially harmless.
The cutting off the clitoris version is about destroying sexual pleasure; it both makes her less likely to have sex with other men than her husband, and makes her less of a threat to older women ( one reason they often support it, and do it ).
The version that involves sewing a girl up is about preventing a man from having sex with her; classic guarding virginity stuff, and done for the benefit of men.
Why this, again…?:dubious:
I don’t think this particular question has been asked before.
And it is interesting to me to learn new things. Like, holy eff, what people used to chop out of their kids! Lots of things are removed, like tonsils or wisdom teeth. Maybe it’s better to do some of those when young?
So, barbecue doesn’t enter into it, then? :D:p
Egad! Not…
Baby Back Ribs!:eek: