Regrowing Lost Body Parts Getting Closer All the Time

[TheBORG] writes "There are two stories on Yahoo! News about regrowing lost body parts. One is about regrowing lost fingers & limbs and the other one is about regrowing teeth. The story about regrowing lost fingers and limbs talks about the experimental use of powdered pig bladder to regrow fingers and eventually lost limbs for soldiers and others in need from information that Pentagon-funded scientists hopefully learn from studying the salamander. The story about regrowing teeth talks about how Japanese scientists used primitive cells and injected them into a framework of collagen. Once grown to a certain point, scientists implanted the growths into mice where the teeth developed normally."

Comments

I'm an idiot!

[BobPaul]

Once grown to a certain point, scientists implanted the growths into mice where the teeth developed normally.

On reading this I thought: "Why don't they just implant the teeth directly into people? Mice have tiny heads, and it would save a step!" D'OH!

Re:I'm an idiot!

[Anonymous Coward]

Somebody writes a message with the subject "I'm an idiot!" and gets moderated Insightful. I'm not quite sure what to make of that.

Re:I'm an idiot!

[Anonymous Coward]

Insightful provides karma points, funny doesn't. It's not uncommon to award "insightful" instead of "funny."

But, you're right. The irony is hilarious.

Re:I'm an idiot!

[pushing-robot]

"Socrates: The only true wisdom consists of knowing you know nothing." - Bill S. Preston, Esq.

Re:I'm an idiot!

[Barryke]

i knew that

Re:I'm an idiot!

[Anonymous Coward]

> Scientists implanted the growths into mice where the teeth developed normally.

only in academic science would the process of developing teeth in mice be considered "normal".

Re:I'm an idiot!

[Anonymous Coward]

If shitheads continue to abuse the moderation system like that, we might as well abandon "insightful", "informative", "trolling" and suchlike, and just replace it with "I want to give this person karma points" and "I want to hurt this person's karma score".

Pig parts?

[Apocalypse111]

I wonder how the Muslim and Jewish communities would react to this technology, as it involves materials taken from an animal that those religions traditionally view as "unclean". Would they reject it on those grounds?

Re:Pig parts?

[revlayle]

yes, and they will be the first to perish!

Re:Pig parts?

[biocute]

Maybe not. Muslim isn't supposed to be in contact with dogs, but I have seen Muslim dog handler for law enforcement and Search&Rescue purposes.

Re:Pig parts?

[jfengel]

At least for Jews, that problem has been faced and solved. Pig heart valves are now used regularly, and that's just fine for Orthodox Jews. The problem is eating pigs, but any other use of pig parts is just fine.

The Muslims, however, are still debating it, as far as I can tell.

Re:Pig parts?

[Keith Russell]

No, this proves that certain fundamentalist elements of certain faiths are "perverted and anti-progressive". Do be careful where you swing that broad brush.

Re:Pig parts?

[Planesdragon]

This just proves that religion is perverted and anti-progressive.

And you, sir, just provided all the proof anyone will ever need to stand up and argue for their religion.

The only religion that's by-nature perverted and anti-progressive is capital-A Atheism. Every other religion admits a discordance with what science can prove and what they believe. Only Atheism stands up and says "I know that you are wrong, and it's a scientific fact."

(I mean no disrespect to lowercase-a atheists, for whom the term "agnostic" was coined.)

Re:Pig parts?

[__aaxwdb6741]

Nope, sorry. Christianity (Any form of it), islam and judaism all swear that there is One True Book and that Every Answer Is Within This Book. While there, naturally, are people with more common sense than to surrender their entire life and thought process to a great fiction book, the tendency is clear all the way through.

Religion breeds fundamentalism breeds stupidity stops progress.

Re:Pig parts?

[Ziest]

I can't speak for Islamic law but there already has been a Rabbinic ruling on just this. Insulin used to be made from pigs. Since insulin is need by those suffering from diabetes it was ruled that the laws of kosher do not apply here. The preservation of life supersedes the laws of Kosher.

Re:Pig parts?

[__aaxwdb6741]

I'm a Nihilist, yet I accept that people have other views and takes on the world than mine.

There are dumb people everywhere - Also the ones who are atheist. I don't agree with them all. One of them even wrote a book. Now he, is a prime example of atheists being as dumb as religious people. Just because he has exclaimed himself to be the cult leader of all that is atheistic, doesn't mean other people are.

Re:Pig parts?

[$0.02]

Islam and Judaism are also against cannibalism. Human flesh is not clean either. Still, it is OK to get transplantation from another human.

Re:Pig parts?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a perfect example of how ridiculous superstition pervades faith. Reasonable people agree that there's no logical basis for the idea that a pig or a dog is "unclean," yet religious ideas like this are afforded respect of the highest honor. Whenever I hear these ideas I imagine if PETA were to go on the news and say "We love and respect all animals and all that has been given to us. Except pigs. Pigs are dirty. Trust us on this one. We heard that someone heard it from someone who wrote it down twelve thousand miles away three thousand years ago." Or Walt Disney advertising "All children are welcome to Disneyland! Except the Jews. Jew kids are Christ killers and are stained by sin and will burn in Hell. Please don't bring your Jew kids."

Religious moderates that overlook superstition of this type do so out of a "I don't fuck with you, you don't fuck with me" attitude, or more pointedly, "I don't tell you how ridiculous and illogical your 'unclean' ideas are, and you don't tell me the same about my 'holy trinity' ideas."

And so the wheel keeps turning...

Re:Pig parts?

[Anonymous Coward]

This just proves that religion is perverted and anti-progressive. If we didn't have religion to occupy and dim peoples minds, there would be SO many more bright heads out there who would turn into scientists instead of working towards a goal of non-development and ideological inbreed.

About 25% of Nobel prize recipients are Jews. Care to reconsider your statement?

Re:Pig parts?

[Sig.Baldi]

Actually the problem is if the muslims let the people bite a nail from a finger grown on a pig?!?

Re:Pig parts?

[Anonymous Coward]

Agnostics aren't atheists. Atheists believe there is no god.

Agnostics don't know and might not even think it matters (i.e. if there's a god, it doesn't naturally follow that there's an afterlife, and if there's no god it doesn't naturally follow that you should be anything other than a humanist, and if there's an Ori-like "worship me or go to hell" god then perhaps it's better go to go hell than live a life that favours blind worship over integrity and goodness).

There are basically, three flavours of agnostics. Those that don't know but suspect there isn't a god, those that don't know but suspect that there is, and those that don't know and refuse to even speculate.

Re:Pig parts?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you seriously believe that "every other religion admits a discordance with what science can prove and what they believe"? Do you seriously believe that positive atheism completely lacks a logical basis? Have you even bothered to read something like this or this?

You're contributing to mind pollution in a way worse than religion.

Re:Pig parts?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder how the Muslim and Jewish communities would react to this technology, as it involves materials taken from an animal that those religions traditionally view as "unclean". Would they reject it on those grounds?

I see religion as a tool to help people deal with their emotions and to make morally (or practically) "good" decisions. Most of the traditions that don't deal with moral issues were created to deal with practical issues -- keeping kosher, for example, was a good way to avoid eating spoiled food. I find the idea of "orthodox religion" -- that is, keeping to tradition simply because it's tradition -- absurd, and the people who follow it irrational.

So, my attitude in this case would be very simple: I don't care, and I think if they reject it, it's their problem. It's the same as rejecting any other medical treatment for any religious reason: perfectly within someone's freedom to choose, and perfectly foolish in my mind.

I know this seems sort of harsh, but I've seen too many stories about people who follow their religion so literally that they either kill people over it, do utterly foolish things, or die because they expected $DEITY to save them. IT's like the old joke:

A guy's in a house, and it's flooding. First a guy comes by in a canoe, offering him a ride. "No, my God will save me," he says. Next, after the water has filled the first floor of his house, a motorboat pulls up and offers to rescue him. "No, my God will save me," he says. Last, as the water is reaching the tip of the roof, a helicopter lowers a ladder down to him, and he still refuses. The water washes over him, he drowns, and he arrives at the Pearly Gates. "I thought you saved your believers!" he fumed to God. "I sent you a canoe, a motorboat, and a helicopter? What more do you want?!" responded God.

In other words, God can act through other humans.

Re:Pig parts?

[DigiShaman]

Actually, this religious dogma of "uncleanliness" has its roots in past health experiences. It's well known that humans will get infected from pig meet unless it's cooked very well from a wild source. Even if they're domesticated, the risk is just too high. Also, some forms of shell fish are dangerous too unless cooked well.

In the past, both Jews and Muslims were not knowledgeable in biology. What they did know however is that there's a "cause and effect". So rather trying to explain the science behind these issues, it was a lot simpler to tell your followers that "this is bad hmmm k, don't eat it". And so, the words enshrouded in religion because ever entrenched into their daily lives.

While religion has killed many lives through conflict, no doubt it also saved many lives.

Re:Pig parts?

[heinousjay]

Atheism is not a religion. There are no prescribed set of beliefs. Try not to disparage too harshly when you don't actually understand what it is you're disparaging.

Re:Pig parts?

[sabernet]

Agreed. I myself consider myself agnostic for those very reasons.

Re:Pig parts?

[rts008]

It seems to be which breed of dogs; Saluki's seem to be acceptable from what I've heard, then you have the Afghan Hounds....is it a sight hound thing?

Re:Pig parts?

[Anonymous Coward]

Jews by heritage not by belief.

Re:Pig parts?

[ZzzzSleep]

So if I'm dying for a bacon double cheeseburger it's okay?
</tongue in cheek>

Re:Pig parts?

[Lord Ender]

Well, from an evolutionary perspective, cultures that allow this medical technology will be "more fit" than those that do not. Additionally, those that reject this technology based on the anti-pig religious meme will likely spend more of their resources tending to the needs of disabled persons who would have been healed in cultures without this meme.

There is a religious sect in the USA which has a similar memetic restriction against blood transfusion. Also, a rather large percentage of the US population has the "cells-are-people-too" meme, which will prevent them from benefiting from stem cell tech.

If I may speculate: It seems to be true that at one point in human evolution, cultures which embraced religion were more successful than those that did not, because people who view themselves as part of the same religious group are more likely to help and share resources among their group (and not with others). But that time is passed. If medical technology continues to advance at the rate many predict, religious societies will be at ever-increasing economic and religious disadvantage vs. non-religious societies.

China and the more secular portions of Europe may well beat us all in the long run.

Oh Europe, why did you have to export all your religious crazies to the Americas???

Re:Pig parts?

[renegadesx]

Oh fuck you, Agnostics are fence sitters that dont know if there is a god or not and some dont even care. Athiests believe god does not exist, get your facts straight. And religious people stand up and say "I am right and you are wrong because thats my religious beliefs (or thats whats in the Bible)" and all that garbage. Religion in of itself is anti-progressive. Saw on YouTube this christian preacher with a bunch of 5 year old convincing that dinosaurs never existed because the earth is only 6000 years old and said "have any of you children ever seen a dinosaur?" If that is not anti-progressive enlighten me what the fuck is?

Re:Pig parts?

[Chacham]

Since insulin is need by those suffering from diabetes it was ruled that the laws of kosher do not apply here. The preservation of life supersedes the laws of Kosher.

While that is true, it is not applicable. The rules of Kosher food are for eating. Other applications are almost always allowed simply because nothing forbids it.

Re:Pig parts?

[Chacham]

In the past, both Jews and Muslims were not knowledgeable in biology.

Really? Please explain your sources for this.

Re:Pig parts?

[Lord Ender]

The only religion that's by-nature perverted and anti-progressive is capital-A Atheism.

You must be new to religious debate on the internet! So let's clear this up: Atheism is a religion like not-collecting-stamps is a hobby.

Yes, even the atheists who are convinced that religion is harmful to humanity, and actively work to dispel religious ideas (what you might mean when you say "capital A") are not religious--just as people who work to prevent communist or racist ideologies from spreading are not practicing religion when doing so.

Re:Pig parts?

[Lord Ender]

I don't care, and I think if they reject it, it's their problem.

Not in a democracy. If they can vote, they make the policy that affects YOUR life. So your options are either to overthrow your democratic government or to convince these people to abandon their anti-science religious ideas.

Re:Pig parts?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a classic - a self-described "Nihilist" Slashdotter, who believes in nothing, calling Richard Dawkins dumb.

This is not only absurd, it belies your claim that you "accept that people have other views and takes on the world than mine." You obviously think your own (nonexistent?) views are Truth(TM).

Re:Pig parts?

[DigiShaman]

I should have been more specific.

When I said "past", I meant within the last thousand years ago. And trust me; no civilization knew anything about biology such as cells, DNA, Viri, and bacteria during this time.

Re:Pig parts?

[Chacham]

I meant within the last thousand years ago. And trust me; no civilization knew anything about biology such as cells, DNA, Viri, and bacteria during this time.

Ah, i guess that puts a scientific spin on your statement. From a scientific viewpoint, religion did it for non-comlex scientific reasons. That much would be true...

Re:Pig parts?

[Anonymous Coward]

> no civilization knew anything about biology such as cells, DNA, Viri, and bacteria during this time.

But they knew how to form plurals in ancient languages pretty well!

Re:Pig parts?

[1u3hr]

I wonder how the Muslim and Jewish communities would react to this technology, as it involves materials taken from an animal that those religions traditionally view as "unclean".

They're using mice cells to regenerate mice teeth. For humans, they'd use human cells. Ideally, your own.

Re:Pig parts?

[1u3hr]

Woops -- I hadn't read the other story about fingers...

Re:Pig parts?

[jfengel]

But that time is passed.

Possibly. I think so myself. But I wouldn't count religion out yet. It's been around for a long, long time.

Religious people will tell you that secular societies have no heart or moral base, and that is itself maladaptive. If they do not take care of the weakest among them, for example, they'll miss out on important contributions by those who didn't happen to be fortunate or strong enough at some point.

More importantly, religion gives people a way to work together. You can dismiss it as cronyism, but it's very efficient to trust people who are trustworthy. Whether that's because they go to your church, or if it's because they believe that God will punish them for breaking their word, it can be helpful to put your faith in a co-religionist.

The counter-arguments are legion, and as atheists you and I agree on them, but I wouldn't declare religion to be completely maladaptive yet. It's had staying power, and when all else fails that's the way to bet.

Re:Pig parts?

[__aaxwdb6741]

your own (nonexistent?) views Typical flame from someone who doesn't have a clue.

Wikipedia:

Nihilism (From the Latin nihil, nothing) is a philosophical position which argues that the world, especially past and current human existence, is without objective meaning, purpose, comprehensible truth, or essential value. Nihilists generally assert some or all of the following: there is no reasonable proof of the existence of a higher ruler or creator, a "true morality" is unknown, and secular ethics are impossible; therefore, life has no truth, and no action is known to be preferable to any other. Atheists like Richard Dawkins believe that there is One Truth, and I despise that just as I despise religion, and the belief in a higher being.

Re:Pig parts?

[Hal_Porter]

Richard Dawkins isn't a cult leader, he's the One True God ;-)

Re:Pig parts?

[Anonymous Coward]

> Atheists like Richard Dawkins believe that there is One Truth, and I despise that just as I despise religion, and the belief in a higher being

So because you disagree with him, that makes him "dumb"?

Doesn't matter, you're still making a judgment on someone about their beliefs regarding a proposition whose truth or falsity you can't possibly know. Your own definition of nihilism denies your justification for making that judgment.

More likely you're just another sanctimonious asshole grasping for a moral high ground that permits you to condemn others.

Re:Pig parts?

[Anonymous Coward]

> I wonder how the Muslim and Jewish communities would react to this pig-based technology

Really doesn't matter as of now. There is a more pressing problem of xeno-infection, that is viruses, prions and bacteria transferring from animals to humans. Considering H5N1, mad cow disease and bubonic plague, all coming to you via animal vectors, it is utterly stupid to use animal parts and substances for human medical treatment.

If I remember correctly the UN WHO actually made an alarming declaration that xenotransplant practice (animal organ parts used in humans) should be discontinued ASAP, because it carries a solid risk of catalyzing major epidemics.

Scientists simply have no right to risk a new spanish flue sized worldwide epidemic (70 million people died between 1918-1921), just because they want to help a few.

Re:Pig parts?

[ady1]

Not really. You are confusing hindism with Islam.
Islam doesn't mark anything unclean. Except for eating of course (pigs and alcohal) but not for medical usage.

Re:Pig parts?

[operagost]

Looks like you're part of the religion that calls every concept you don't agree with a "meme".

Re:Pig parts?

[operagost]

Speaking of cause-and-effect, your argument depends on the fallacy of questionable cause. You argue that the prohibition against unclean animals arose because of human observations, while the opposite possibility of the prohibitions being written before an actual consequence was observed is just as valid with the evidence on hand.

Re:Pig parts?

[Lord Ender]

meme: Any unit of cultural information, such as a practice or idea, that is transmitted verbally or by repeated action from one mind to another.

You are incorrect. I am quite fond of many. The use of the word "meme" in no way implies any sort of religion using any definition I know of.

Re:Pig parts?

[Anonymous Coward]

Should be no trouble. This is the year of the pig.

Re:Pig parts?

[juhaz]

Oh Europe, why did you have to export all your religious crazies to the Americas???

Hey, that's not fair! We only exported a few of them, your own fault for letting the stuff multiply.

Misleading headline

[gardyloo]

Phew! Upon first reading that headline, I got an image of disembodied bits, growing ever larger, shuffling closer inexorably. I was about ready to look for a shotgun, or at least a shovel.

Re:Misleading headline

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not misleading if you have a proper handle on the English language. You were thinking of "Regrown body parts getting closer all the time"

Re:Misleading headline

[gardyloo]

It's not misleading if you have a proper handle on the English language. You were thinking of "Regrown body parts getting closer all the time"

      Ah, yes. That totally deunobfuscated it for me. It's my damned shovels I want proper handles on, more now than ever.

Re:Misleading headline

[Anonymous Coward]

haha, i lol'd!

Question to a doctor I'd like to kill

[Stormwatch]

Can I have my foreskin back now, please?

Re:Question to a doctor I'd like to kill

[Anonymous Coward]

That aint gonna make it any bigger.

Re:Question to a doctor I'd like to kill

[sqrt(2)]

What I hate about people who complain about this is that they don't even know for sure what they're missing. You'd have to have experienced living both cut and uncut to know what was better, and men who get it done later in life don't count for various reasons. I'd suggest you don't spend so much time thinking about a rather insignificant fold of skin (previously) attached to your penis; the amount of fervor (on BOTH sides) amazes me.

Re:Question to a doctor I'd like to kill

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why I'm having my daughter excised. Oh what's that? Women are a protected class?

Re:Question to a doctor I'd like to kill

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a logical fallacy in this debate to equate males with females, you're not going to convince anyone of anything with such flawed arguments.

Re:Question to a doctor I'd like to kill

[couchslug]

"Sorry, your parents told me to keep the tip".

Thanks, I'll be here all night.

Re:Question to a doctor I'd like to kill

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you define which type of logical fallacy it is to equate removing part of one gender's genitals with the other? I eagerly await your answer. So why is it OK, even mandated, to circumsize boys, but a crime against humanity to do the same for girls? I'm sure I can find some BS "study" to show that it reduces cervical cancer...

Re:Question to a doctor I'd like to kill

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I know what you mean. Ever since I saw a news story about this terribly flawed scientific study, I don't trust ANY of those darn scientists! What do they know?

Re:Question to a doctor I'd like to kill

[snoyberg]

Because it is argued by those who perform the male circumcisions that the benefits for the child outweigh the detriments. I'm not aware of those recommending female circumcision making such claims.

Re:Question to a doctor I'd like to kill

[UnrefinedLayman]

Hi, I'd like to cut off part of your dick. May I? What do you mean, no? How do you know it isn't better until you've lived both ways? I promise I will only cut off an insignificant part of your dick.

We're talking about involuntary and medically unnecessary genital mutilation of infants. We're talking about cutting off part of your dick. That bears repeating: We're talking about taking a knife to your dick and cutting off part of your dick. The fact that you're not on your way to your nearest Rabbi right now to have part of your dick cut off entirely invalidates and undermines your position.

Not only that, but you say You can't complain without having experienced it both ways. Oh, and if you are one of the few men that have lived both ways, your opinion doesn't matter. QED.

What amazes me is people who say "What's the big deal?" If it's no big deal for it to happen (which requires time and effort and has no logical or medical basis) then it's certainly less of a deal not to do it at all (which requires neither time nor effort, and doing nothing does not require a reason), therefore the logical choice is not to do it. When someone is old enough to make a conscious decision to have their genitals mutilated they can feel free (can't you hear the stampede of men rushing to have it done?).

Just remember, your lack of knowledge and understanding of the issue of male genital mutilation does not make your position the right one. You clearly demonstrate your dearth of insight (bifurcation, believing the issue is only about the possession or not of a foreskin, logical self-contradiction), so before you so quickly dismiss and insult people passionate about the topic perhaps you should try learning a thing or two first.

Re:Question to a doctor I'd like to kill

[maxume]

I have had an intelligent friend blame the less-than-chaste behavior of an intact friend on his being intact. It is a long hill to climb.

Re:Question to a doctor I'd like to kill

[Anonymous Coward]

What I hate about people who complain about this is that they don't even know for sure what they're missing.

Huh? And that makes it alright? Hey, why not blind babies at birth, after all, they'll never know what they are missing?

You'd have to have experienced living both cut and uncut to know what was better, and men who get it done later in life don't count for various reasons.

Various reasons being "because I say so"?

Re:Question to a doctor I'd like to kill

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, some news for you: chicks don't like it either, no matter what your wife/girlfriend tells you.

Thank you for that insight into the personal tastes of three billion people you'll never meet.

Re:Question to a doctor I'd like to kill

[Anonymous Coward]

So if I argue that cutting off your head to reduce brain cancer outweighs the detriments, I can do it? Wow, I can re-shape the universe !!!

Hint: Arguing something doesn't make it so...

Re:Question to a doctor I'd like to kill

[Anonymous Coward]

I can tell you with certainty that I and every man I know would have it done had they not gotten it done right after birth. Why would I want to see something attached to my body that looks like a shriveled up turd every day? Also, some news for you: chicks don't like it either, no matter what your wife/girlfriend tells you. You're just jealous because your mom didn't spring for the extra features.

Now that's an insane argument. No matter what your wife/girlfriend tells you, they don't like a natural penis?
I'm from Europe and I have never even seen a circumsized dick in my life (or heard of anyone who has it). I guess there's not enough Jews around here anymore.
And I must say you have a problem with yourself if you think a natural penis looks like a "shriveled up turd".
Now I don't give a shit if you or your parents keep the Jewish tradition of cutting of parts of the penis, but don't assume that the rest of the world would also like to do it.
Personally I think it's seems like a weird tradition, but looking around the globe you will find tons of pointless illogical traditions being upheld because a grandfather did it, so whatever floats your boat I guess.
Just don't assume that the rest of the world looks upon a particular tradition of your culture as the norm or ideal.

Re:Question to a doctor I'd like to kill

[Anonymous Coward]

when you say "we're talking about involuntary and medically unnecessary genital mutilation of infants" you're wrong -- it's absolutely involuntary.

Re:Question to a doctor I'd like to kill

[Khanstant]

I'd rather have it done at birth where I don't have to pay for it, where I won't remember it being done, where I don't have to ever worry about maintaining it and where I don't have to grow up with a gross looking wiener. While some people might want it, it's certainly less hassle to have it done at birth. It's a hassle to keep it maintained. And mutilation is a loaded word, so before you dismiss people dismissing it, try choosing your words better. I'm aware I used some subjective words here, but it's clear it's my opinion. And the reason herds of men won't rush to have it done when they're older has a lot less to do with wanting it kept that way than you're making it out. Getting it done would be potentially embarrassing (they might not even be comfortable asking about the procedure), maybe painful, certainly stressful, there will be downtime for the thing, and having had some surgery done on my penis, it's certainly not a pleasant experience. People don't want surgery, especially not on their penises.

Re:Question to a doctor I'd like to kill

[Eskarel]

The logical fallacy is based around the fact that male circumcision and female circumcision are not comparable processes.

Male circumcision involves the removal of a small piece of skin which, supposedly reduces sensitivity and theoretically reduces the risk of cancer(though a lot of this seems to be related to cleanliness). It's possibly useless, and might do a slight amount of harm, but it's not really that big a deal, especially since any reputed side effects wouldn't be repaired by regrowing it anyway.

Female circumcision on the other hand involves the mutilation or removal of the clitoris in order to severely reduce or entirely eliminate the ability of the woman to feel pleasure from sex. The supposed benefit of this is that the woman won't be tempted by sex(since she won't enjoy it anyway).

Do you see your logical fallacy here, male circumcision is a relatively minor alteration which has relatively minor reputed benefits and side effects. Female circumcision is a mutilation(usually performed primitively without proper tools or sterylization) designed to enforce an artificial morality on it's recipients.

If male cirucumcision involved having your member removed and a pump inserted so that you could impregnate women without any sort of enjoyment, then it might be comparable, but it doesn't. This doesn't take into account the fact that circumcision is still a parental decision not a government mandate.

In short, please actually understand what you're talking about before you open your mouth.

Re:Question to a doctor I'd like to kill

[Brad1138]

We're talking about involuntary and medically unnecessary genital mutilation of infants

Many circumcisions ARE medically necessary. My sons foreskin opening was to small to pull back over the head, making it very difficult if not impossible to clean in the created "pocket". If the opening didn't get any bigger as he got older it would create other issues. If we waited to see and then found out he needed to have it done in his teen it would be much more traumatic.

Re:Question to a doctor I'd like to kill

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it that when male genital mutilation (MGM) is compared with FGM it's always the worst for of FGM put up for the comparison? Not all forms of FGM involve the removal of the clitoris or infibulation.

I'm curious how you feel about just the removal of the clitoral hood, or maybe just a hood split. Is the comparison valid now?

Re:Question to a doctor I'd like to kill

[Tyler Durden]

Please read up on the subject before dismissing the foreskin as an "insignificant fold of skin". Ignorance is forgivable. But arrogantly displaying your ignorance as some kind of insight is not.

You don't necessarily have to experience both cut and uncut do know which is better. Instead we can easily deduce which is better by the fact that the foreskin contains about 10,000 nerve endings. Nerve endings for sensation. (This is why the first push for circumcision in the US was to prevent excessive masturbation). So if you, like me, have been circumcised that means we have never felt sex as it could have been, and never will. And because of ignorance spread by people like yourself, we were never given a choice in the matter either.

Re:Question to a doctor I'd like to kill

[Anonymous Coward]

You aren't looking at this issue objectively, it's plainly obvious even from the way you talk about the practice. For instance:

Male circumcision involves the removal of a small piece of skin

Female circumcision on the other hand involves the mutilation or removal of the clitoris

Now why are you throwing the word "mutilation" around? It's applicable to both cases, yet when it happens to the man, it's just "removal of a small piece of skin". More:

which, supposedly reduces sensitivity and theoretically reduces the risk of cancer

in order to severely reduce or entirely eliminate the ability of the woman to feel pleasure from sex.

Again, when it comes to the male, you qualify the claims with "supposedly" and "theoretically", yet feel no need to qualify your absolute claims regarding females.

Re:Question to a doctor I'd like to kill

[Anonymous Coward]

doing nothing does not require a reason.

But if you need a reason then you can always say "terrorism".

- GWB

Re:Question to a doctor I'd like to kill

[Anonymous Coward]

THANK YOU. It boggles my mind when I hear people defend the practice of cutting off parts of genitals.

Re:Question to a doctor I'd like to kill

[Eskarel]

I didn't defend either, hence the supposedly and theoretically. I just said that one is not the other.

Re:Question to a doctor I'd like to kill

[Eskarel]

The comparison is based on the meaning of the words. The vast majority of female circumcisions performed around the world involve heavy mutilation for the reasons specified above. The vast majority of male circumcisions involve removing the foreskin. There are probably places where women have hood splits and the like(though I've never heard of it), and there are probably places where men have much more barbaric things done to their genitals, but the meanings of the words are the previously mentioned procedures.

Re:Question to a doctor I'd like to kill

[jez9999]

It always makes me recoil in perplexity when I hear someone saying that a non-mutilated penis is a 'gross looking wiener'. It's a kind of Only In America statement. Think about if it was customary to cut off all girls' hair all the time; society would be saying girls with hair were 'gross'. Does that sound retarded? It's just as retarded as the circumcised club having a problem with a natural penis. And be in NO doubt; the rest of the world thinks you're weird for saying that. It's an American attitude.

Re:Question to a doctor I'd like to kill

[hesaigo999ca]

How about those countries that force their women and certain males to remove their genitalia
or somewhat scar it violently. They move to USA and after becoming at one with the population see that it isn't GREAT to not have testicles or a clitoris....so they go to a doctor who tells them there is a new procedure in place to help with such operations.

I just wish that some people who have no clue what goes on in the rest of the world and other cultures could live about a mile in the other person's shoes.

Read up on which country does this, and I might give you a cigar if you guess it right

Re:Question to a doctor I'd like to kill

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, there's your problem. Someone told you that you have to "clean in the pocket." Not true. Just leave it alone. If your son takes baths, that's all he needs. Eventually, he would have been able to pull it back, then soap and water in the shower would have been plenty. Poor kid.

Remember, American doctors have been cutting so long that they have no clue when presented with the whole thing. They give dangerous cleaning advice, premature retraction, that actually leads to infections. In small child, the foreskin is naturally adhered to the head of the penis like a fingernail to the finger. What would happen if you repeatedly tore back your fingernail? Same thing with the foreskin.

They also have no clue about normal development. They think that if a boy isn't retractable by age 2, there's a problem. Some think that boys are born retractable. All false. Boys are all different. Some retract early, some not until puberty. If a boy isn't retractable in puberty, there are steroid creams that can help break down the adhesions. Circumision is really a surgery of last resort - only doctors without a clue and/or a profit motive prescribe circumcision for a minor problem or as a routine thing.

Remember, somehow, 80% of the world's men are happily intact. There is nothing so odd about Americans that makes our foreskins inherently dangerous. Our doctors and culture are the problem, not our bodies.

Re:Question to a doctor I'd like to kill

[Kozz]

If one is writing "dick jokes",then by all means, call it a "dick". I know your nick is "UnrefinedLayman", but to be taken seriously when discussing an elective medical procedure, isn't it more useful to your argument to be brave enough to say "penis"?

Re:Question to a doctor I'd like to kill

[FangVT]

It always makes me recoil in perplexity when I hear someone saying that a non-mutilated penis is a 'gross looking wiener'. It's a kind of Only In America statement. Think about if it was customary to cut off all girls' hair all the time; society would be saying girls with hair were 'gross'. Does that sound retarded?

Actually, here in the U.S. I've heard plenty of comments about women being gross when they don't shave their armpits. To a lot of Americans many natural things are considered gross and wrong. Sadly, I think that says a lot about us.

Re:Question to a doctor I'd like to kill

[apathy maybe]

I have to agree. Over at revleft.com there was a discussion on the matter http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtop ic=61058 >, and this site http://www.circumstitions.com/One-liners.html >got linked. Basically circumcision comes down to abuse. It is abusive to hurt children in this manner. The site with one liners has responses to any crap that people will try and argue.

Re:Question to a doctor I'd like to kill

[Khanstant]

I don't really care about what the rest of the world, or even what the rest of America thinks. There are exactly two people I care about who think of what my penis in particular looks like. Again, mutilated is a blatantly loaded word. I think a "mutilated" penis looks better, and your "natural" ones look absurd.

Re:First elective use?

[BobPaul]

That's what "penis subincision" is for. Google it and be horrified.

Hmmmmmm...

[Anonymous Coward]

Regrowing Lost Body Parts Getting Closer All the Time

Should I be concerned that this story was submitted by someone named [TheBORG]?

Re:Hmmmmmm...

[noidentity]

"Should I be concerned that this story was submitted by someone named [TheBORG]?"

Your central processing unit seems to be malfunctioning. Please step into the nearest bay for regrowth.

Not as strange as you'd think.

[cfulmer]

Since at least the civil war, if patients have portions of their extremities cut off, doctors have been sewing the severed tip back into good flesh, so the extremity can regrow. An acquaintance lost about 1/2 an inch off the tip of his finger. The surgeon cut a slit in the palm of his hand, stuck the finger in there and sewed it back up. A few months later, presto! new finger.

Re:Not as strange as you'd think.

[flaming error]

Not so strange, you say? I'm not sure which I'd prefer: a severed fingertip growing out of my palm, or some alien organism based on powdered pig bladder growing out my fingertip.

Re:Not as strange as you'd think.

[BobPaul]

That's a little bit different. In your story they have the original body part that was severed and were just keeping it alive. In the article they are talking about if, say, a finger were completely lost. It was cut/blown off and couldn't be retrieved. Making a new finger requires bone, muscle, tendon, cartilage for joints, nerves, etc. Creating all of these from scratch is something we've wanted to be able to do for years, and it looks like we're making steady progress towards that end

Re:Not as strange as you'd think.

[noidentity]

"An acquaintance lost about 1/2 an inch off the tip of his finger. The surgeon cut a slit in the palm of his hand, stuck the finger in there and sewed it back up. A few months later, presto! new finger."

Only one problem, there's a finger sticking out of his palm now!

Re:Not as strange as you'd think.

[Anonymous Coward]

I have 5 fingers sticking out of my palm. And a wrist.

well

[JeanBaptiste]

in about 15 years or so, I'm going to need a new liver.

You guys wanna get on that? thx in advance.

Regrowing Teeth

[MBGMorden]

The regrowing teeth thing would be awesome. I am missing one of my molars due to a botched filling (and subsequent failed root canal after which the tooth had to be extracted). It sucks - my dental health is generally great except for one tooth missing. I've seen a local dental surgeon about getting an implant in (I'll be doing this as soon as I can get the funds set aside for the procedure - about $4k for the one tooth including the crown on the implant), but having a REAL tooth back there would be simply amazing. Not that this will hit common-man affordable levels anytime soon, but still cool :).

Re:Regrowing Teeth

[mastershake_phd]

I wonder if a dental implant would damage where the tooth goes, preventing you from regrowing one.

Re:Regrowing Teeth

[50000BTU_barbecue]

So I guess you have an Inconvenient Tooth, huh?

Re:Regrowing Teeth

[maxume]

*Waves hands*

Then they'll just do the whole jaw.

Re:Regrowing Teeth

[WillAdams]

Not only that, the incidence of complications with dental implants is significant --- 7% in one article I found --- it's almost scary to read through dental implant product literature where each one notes a different way that it reduces the risk of complications.

The OP is fortunate it's a molar, so doesn't justify a partial, which is a whole 'nother world of problems.

William

Pork Belly Futures?

[GIL_Dude]

Anyone? Darn - that was the first thing I thought of. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pork_belly I guess the price will be going up...

Not interested yet

[Freaky Spook]

Come back to me when they have worked out how to grow a new liver.

*Pours bourbon into coffee & gets on with another ISP support call*

Teeth.

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's work on regrowing teeth. I have a porcelain tooth and it sucks.

New Meaning.

[MBCook]

It seems to me, that if the product was created correctly, this could give new meaning to the phrase tooth paste.

Class clowns around the world are waiting in eager anticipation.

Re: Regrowing Lost Body Parts Getting Closer All

[Anonymous Coward]

Fun fact. Everything in the future is getting closer all the time.

Dirty Bene Tleilax

[INeededALogin]

If these people read Herbert... they would know that regrowing limbs will turn you into a short gnome creature that everyone hates.

Obligatory Monty Python Ref

[hobo sapiens]

the experimental use of powdered pig bladder to regrow fingers and eventually lost limbs for soldiers and others in need from

BEDEVERE: And that, my lord, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped.

ARTHUR: This new learning amazes me, Sir Bedevere. Explain again how sheep's bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes.

BEDEVERE: OF course, my Liege ...

Re:Obligatory Monty Python Ref

[Shai-kun]

Ha! That's exactly what I was thinking, except I would've paraphrased it to include "pig's bladder" and "amputation" or something to that effect. Referencing pop culture for fun and profit!

Further research areas

[imbaczek]

Further research, as pointed by scientists, should include regrowing brains in politicians. There are doubts, however, whether this is at all possible, as some researchers say indicated subjects don't have any brain to start with.

Re:Further research areas

[kanweg]

Sorry, twice the brain size makes them just twice as stupid. In that, they don't differ from regular people from, say, [state suppressed].

Bert

Overdue Oblig

[Tablizer]

I for one welcome our half-snorting overlords. (Please, no bacon jokes, it offends them.)

oh great...

[Anonymous Coward]

soon the tweakers will have pretty smiles again! if they can just steal enough radios....

I have a friend who may do research in this area..

[FooAtWFU]

Wake Forest University's got an Institute for Regenerative Medicine in their medical school. I have a friend (just a pre-med undergraduate) who might get to do some research there this summer and is really excited about the possibility. It's neat stuff.

John Wayne Bobbitt this is for you

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

I am sure Mr John Wayne Bobbitt will welcome this news and appreciate it greatly. :-)

Re:John Wayne Bobbitt this is for you

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

Ok if you are suddenly wondering whatever happened to them, here is the link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorena_Bobbitt

Hitchhikers Guide reference

[edwardpickman]

"I grew that one for you baby."

Sorry, but I can't resist...

[skoaldipper]

Spievack talking about the regrowth of his finger said, "it's a little hard, as if calloused, and there's a slight scar on the end. The nail continues to grow at twice the speed of his other nails."

John Bobitt, you reading this?

Getting Closer All the Time

[gone_bush]

Hmm, now let me see what else is getting "closer all the time". How about "Sun becomes a Red Giant - Mankind becomes extinct". Or "Politician keeps promise".

Wait a minute, one of those isn't getting any closer!

You can't make a purse from a sow's ear...

[Anonymous Coward]

...but aparrently, you can make a finger from its bladder.

Thank you for your recent enquiry regarding transp

[Anonymous Coward]

I am pleased to let you know that a procedure has been developed to restore a fully functioning foreskined penis via a pig-powder-enriched dental implant.

Please be advised that the procedure might require mandibular distraction to prevent airway obstruction as the implant develops.

Ambiguous title

[StrawberryFrog]

I read that as "Regrowing, Lost Body Parts Getting Closer All the Time" which is frankly nightmarish. I need more sleep. It should have been "Regrowing Lost Body Parts is Getting Closer All the Time"

Regrow foreskin?

[elsrod]

Just wondering how many might opt to do so...we took regeneration tech into consideration when debating circumcision for our son...

Re:First elective use?

[Ziest]

That is something I really did not want in my head. thanks dude for giving me a serious case of the willies

They're Getting CLOSER!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

RUN! Maybe we can lose 'em!

New way to do sex change

[WindBourne]

I wonder if this will be used in the long haul for sex change operations/transgender. May be easier and cheaper to biologically force the change.

Husbands rejoice...

[akunkel]

Now we have to figure out how to hide that we are growing a spare penis since our wives won't let us leave home with our primary pecker.

I heard....

[Dues]

I heard if you cut off an extremity it will grow back even bigger.... ...Don't believe it.

Re:I heard....

[skoaldipper]

Oh, man. Best one yet.

I don't know why but reading the comments in this one article from top to bottom had my belly hurting for minutes. Best laughs I had here on /. for a long time. You guys are great!

T-bag

[heffrey]

Just a shame this will come too late for the lovely Mr. Theodore Bagwell......

Thompson's Teeth

[barrkel]

... The only teeth strong enough to eat other teeth.

That's what I'm holding out for.

Could it be?

[Anonymous Coward]

Replacement limbs finally within arms reach?

Re:Could it be?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd give my right arm to grow another brain.

Re:Could it be?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why? You'll just waste it like you did the last one...

rip-off

[rawshark]

this is all based on work shamefully stolen from Dr Curt Connors of Empire State U.

Sounds familiar...

[Anonymous Coward]

.. from 2004, so casshern like http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0405821/

A better title would be...

[NoseBag]

..."The possibility of regenerating lost parts is growing."

Because it's not analogous.

[Grendel Drago]

Please read this list. Just because both procedures are labeled "circumcision" does not make them equivalent. The equivalent of "female circumcision" is, at the very least, removal of the entire penis.

Re:Because it's not analogous.

[__aaonkh7048]

i am growing weary of setting this record straight.

every time i hear someone say that FGM is 'worse' than MGM, i get sick to my stomach. NO baby deserves to be cut. NO child deserves to be cut. NO adult deserves to feel as if he/she is "less than" because they were NOT cut. NO one should be shamed or guilted into cutting themselves or their children.

there are forms of FGM that are analogous to MGM. there are forms of MGM that are as atrocious as the worst forms of FGM. and there are worse things people do to kids too.

i was clitoridectomized, hoodectomized, and nymphectomized (lost clitoris, hood and labia) to MDs in KANSAS in the 1950s. and i am a WASP female. i've written an entire book about it. "the rape of innocence" -- at amazon.

and i work with people to help them clear their fear, their trauma. so i personally don't think there's much point in debating the pros and cons and who wins the prize for the 'worst' genital cutting. i think it's all atrocious, barbaric, SO middle ages or even before, and needs to be STOPPED immediately. what on earth is a modern country doing, cutting babies genitals? i am beginning to think the 'kink' factor is far greater than the 'health' claims. who on earth is so obsessed with babies' genitals that they insist on cutting them? this is very, very sick stuff.

"circumcision" or whateve you care to call it, tortures and traumatizes everyone connected with it. even the practitioners have to steel their heats, close their hearts, so they can do it. nurses hate it. doctors hate it. parents have to go into denial. children protest, even tho adults will swear that the baby LIKED it... just like rapists, child abusers swear that the children they abuse liked it. it's childhood sexual abuse to the max.

everyone deserves to have a whole, healthy, functional body... males and females. everyone deserves to be safe and protected, loved and respected... males and females.

get with the program. protect babies. protect children. don't let anyone cut them. they don't deserve to be treated like that.

thank you for reading this rant. :)

Re:Because it's not analogous.

[Anonymous Coward]

Again... not all forms of "female circumcision" involve infibulation.

It seems to me that the foreskin is analogous to the clitoral hood. Since some cultures just remove/split the clitoral hood you would of course be fine with this.

Re:Because it's not analogous.

[Anonymous Coward]

There are many different kinds of female circumcision. The most minor form (practiced in Arab countries) involves only removal of the clitoral hood and sometimes also the outer labia; no more extreme than male circumcision. Yet the laws here in the US against FGM ban that too. Any surgical altering of a girl's genitalia is crime, while parents are free to continue mutilating their baby boys as they see fit. You don't see a double standard here?

Re:Because it's not analogous.

[glittalogik]

Your experience, whilst horrible, is hardly indicative of the industry at large. I was circumcised shortly after birth, and have no issues with it. My genitalia look fine (inasmuch as they generally can), function perfectly, every girl I've been with has stated an aesthetic preference for it (and I happen to agree), it's easier to keep clean, and apparently I have a greatly reduced risk of contracting AIDS and one or two other STIs due to reduced risk of membrane abrasion. Score!

I feel no sense of loss or deprivation, and although I'll willingly admit that I don't know what I'm missing, I don't much care either. I'm healthy, functional, and I don't feel like a victim in any way, shape or form. If I was offered a pain-free way to regrow my foreskin, I'd turn it down.

Female circumcision I'm against because I don't know of any valid reasons for it, medical or otherwise - aesthetic tastes are irrelevant until at least adolescence. I'll leave that to those who know more about it, but that's a pretty big brush you're painting with, it sure as hell doesn't apply to me, and the shameless mid-rant book plug has me wary of your motivations.

Re:Because it's not analogous.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, many women who were mutilated as girls also claim that there is nothing wrong with the practice and don't see what the big deal is.

Don't underestimate how the culture you're born into can affect how you view issues.

Re:Because it's not analogous.

[Mr2001]

it's easier to keep clean This one always makes me laugh. How difficult do you think it is - could it possibly be more complicated than washing behind your ears or between your toes? And would you really turn down an excuse to spend an extra two seconds touching yourself in the shower? ;)

I feel no sense of loss or deprivation, and although I'll willingly admit that I don't know what I'm missing, I don't much care either. As another poster pointed out, many women who were "circumcised" feel the same way. They don't know what they're missing, and they don't care. That's hardly an excuse for doing it, though - if you had been blinded at birth, you wouldn't know what you're missing either, but you still wouldn't be experiencing your full potential.

Female circumcision I'm against because I don't know of any valid reasons for it, medical or otherwise - aesthetic tastes are irrelevant until at least adolescence. The justifications for male circumcision are also irrelevant until at least adolescence, or until a problem actually presents itself. There's no valid reason to perform it at birth instead of (at the very least) waiting until the patient can express an opinion first.

Re:Because it's not analogous.

[vidarh]

every girl I've been with has stated an aesthetic preference for it (and I happen to agree)

Surprise. You live in a culture where circumcision is common, presumably. Every girl I've been that has expressed a preference thought that circumcised dicks looks weird. People at the very least get used to what is common in their culture, and often prefer that which they see as "normal".

it's easier to keep clean,

Whenever I hear this argument, it makes me want to stay ten feet away from whomever makes it, as that person clearly have problems understanding how water and soap works, and the entire concept of "washing"... Hint: It pulls back. One swift motion, and any hygiene "issues" are exactly the same as if it was circumcised. Do you also not wash behind your ears because it's hard to get to? Or clean your ass? Eww..

and apparently I have a greatly reduced risk of contracting AIDS and one or two other STIs due to reduced risk of membrane abrasion. Score!

And this time I worry on behalf of your sexual partners. The reduction in risk is so small that it makes no practical difference if you use a condom. If you're irresponsible enough to not use a condom... well then you deserve everything you'll likely get.

Re:Because it's not analogous.

[glittalogik]

I've seen risk reduction of up to 50% quoted, but I am not qualified medical professional and don't worry, I'm not counting it as an abrogation of responsibility.

As for hygiene, I'm perfectly aware of how soap and scrubbing works for me, but every now and then I stumble across something like this and shudder. Hardly a universal complaint, but I don't pretend to be an entirely rational being. You're right, cleaning isn't difficult, but there seem to be a fair few who can't handle it all the same. I suppose it's entirely possible that their ears and asses aren't fairing any better.

I'm not so sure about the culture thing in my case - I come from a Jewish family, but my mother converted to Sant Mat long before I was born, and I think my procedure was done to shut the rest of the family up. I was also baptised, so I dunno, maybe she was just keeping my options open? I grew up in South Africa, directly exposed to several highly divergent cultures, and I'd guess myself to be in the minority of my social circle with regards to being circumcised. That said, I've never made a habit of inspecting other guys' tackle, so granted that what I do see every day is what I'm going to accept as normal.

The main point (with which you seem to concur) that I was trying to make was that the GGP was being sensationalist, and there are shades of grey here. Not all of us think of themselves as victims of some genital holocaust.

I doubt I'll get my kids (if any) done - whilst I don't resent the decision having been made on my behalf, I don't see any reason to make it on theirs. The option's always there if they want it when they're old enough to consider it for themselves. Once it's voluntary, I don't see it as any more of an issue than piercing, tongue-splitting or any other form of body-modification.

Re:Because it's not analogous.

[__aaonkh7048]

honey, let's face it -- neither of us has a clue what a healthy, whole, functioning body is because we have both been altered. i had no idea for 50 years that i was not a normal, natural woman. now i wonder what it would have been like, to have had a natural body. i suspect i might have bonded with a man and have had a family and children.

if you ever had a lover who was circumcised, you might notice a big difference between her and other women. men used to tell me, "you're DIFFERENT from other women." i had no idea what they were talking about until i found out about my circumcision.

but i sure could tell the difference between men who had been cut and men who had intact bodies. the cut style didn't work for me at all; the intact did. i didn't understand then what the difference was ... now i do. there is a huge functional difference between the denuded glans and the natural penis with foreskin... a significant difference. on the doctorsopposingcircumcision.org website is a very eloquent explanation in video form under 'continuing education'.

so your girlfriends might say they prefer the cut style, but have they tried the uncut style? I think foreskin is the reason why europeans have a reputation for being great lovers. american and european porn, i understand, illustrates the difference. the men move very differently.

the cut penis only has sensors for pressure, heat and friction. glans sensitivity has been measured to be equivalent to the heel of the foot. the intact foreskin, on the other hand, contains tens of thousands of nerve endings that are similar to the nerve endings in the tips of the fingers and the lips. the cut man needs to push down to stimulate the foreskin remnant, the frenulum... the woman needs him to push up toward the clitoris. he needs to move hard and fast and that rubs her raw. i believe circumcision is the cause of an unnecessary 'war between the sexes'. it's tragic.

the prepuce/foreskin is similar to the eyelid, and you know how smart an eyelid is. it KNOWS when something is threatening it. and it QUICKLY moves to protect the eye. it keeps the eyeball moist and clean. an eyeball without its eyelid would soon dry out and lose its ability to see well.

the foreskin is very smart, like the eyelid. it senses where the man is in the act of intercourse, where the woman is, and it adjusts movements accordingly, so that sex works well for both lovers.

the foreskin is self-lubricating, like the eyelid. the inner foreskin has a mucosal surface. natural sex -- his mucosal tissue touching her mucosal tissue -- is much like french kissing. extremely sensuous -- electric.

you might like the equipment you have now. but if you ever start having trouble with it -- and a lot of men do start having trouble -- at different ages -- some very young -- then you might want to change your mind about foreskin restoration. it helps men who have lost their ability to feel or have erections or orgasms, to have the glans covered and to regenerate some of the nerve endings they have lost. it feels better for the woman too.

the most sensitive part of most men's penises is the frenulum remnant on the bottom of the glans... you were supposed to have fifteen square inches of skin with feelings that exquisite. men who have been intact, then cut as adults, then restore, say that they get most of it back. and many who were disabled in that way, regain their sexual health and happiness.

as for all the reasons you have heard to justify circumcision? do more research, please. i can find no legitimate medical reason for circumcising infants... and neither can any national medical organization in the world. each medical claim/excuse has been disproved -- one right after the other. 80% of the men in the world are intact and healthy. the US is 37th in the world in health, and it leads the industrialized nations in both circumcision AND HIV.

if you read leonard glick's chapter in 'understanding circumcision' (

Re:Because it's not analogous.

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny how in every porn film that I have ever seen from all over the world, the guys ALWAYS have circumcised dicks. I cannot remember EVER seeing an uncircumcised dick in one of these films. This to me indicates a preference.

Re:Because it's not analogous.

[Anonymous Coward]

In US it's difficult to clean your ass, their showers are fixed, like here only in schools, so it make it more difficult to wash...

Re: Regrowing Lost Body Parts Getting Closer All

[maxume]

(only if the universe is closed)

Seconded!

[Grendel Drago]

Darn skippy. I'd like to get me some of those replacement teeth, too. A youthful addiction to gummi bears has left me with less-than-optimal chompers, and I'd be most interested in getting new ones, even if it meant being on a liquid diet for six months or a year or whatever.

I'm not impressed yet.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

1) The teeth were regrown using cells harvested from tooth buds - in other words, cells that were already programmed to make teeth, in the stage corresponding to the structure they intended to implant.

What's the improvement on just transplanting the tooth buds?
  - Can they make MORE teeth than the number of harvested buds? (That's good if true.)
  - Proving that they can grow teeth in an adult animal? (That's good, if true.)

But it doesn't look like any magic yet.

2) The finger tip in question was cut off just beyond the start of the nail bed.

I used to work for a fellow who had lost a finger just beyond the end of the nail bed. It grew back without any pig bladder extract. A little stubby, but a full, functional finger - nail fingerprint, feeling, and all.

He said the doctors told him that finger tips generally grow back just fine unless they are cut so far back that none of the nail bed is left.

Perhaps there's something to the pig bladder extract - say, in the military research on fingers cut off farther back. But this particular example doesn't show anything new that can't be done without it.

that's awesome!

[Anonymous Coward]

it's been really embarassing having to out in public without an appendix for the last seven years... :D

what the fuck?

[Anonymous Coward]

So one of you had doubts about permanently taking out part of your kid's erogenous tissue without asking his consent, and the other thought it was a bad idea.

But the one who wanted to take it out used the argument that "hey, even if this is a mistake, we can grow it back later?" Seriously, what the fuck?? You (or your spouse) seriously acknowledged the possibility it would be a mistake, but then dismissed that based on some kind of faith in Star Trek technology? This is your kid you're talking about, do you love him or do you treat him as some kind of bonsai plant to trim for your aesthetic pleasure?

You know I'm about to convert all my money into gold. And then I'm going to throw it off the golden gate bridge. You know, because on Star Trek they can replicate gold with no trouble at all. I mean, science today can make gold in infinitesimally small amounts with nuclear reactors, so hey, the replicator must be around the corner. Common sense out the window!

You are absolutely wrong.

[Belial6]

The pros and cons of circumcision can be debated all day long, but the statement of "medically unnecessary genital mutilation of infants." is just simply wrong. There is this thing called "skin adhesions" that happen between the shaft/foreskin and the head of the penis. In circumcised boys, this can be inconvenient. In extreme cases, it can lead to permanent minor disfigurement. In uncircumcised boys, the problems can be much worse, and are much more likely to take place. There are a whole group of medical problems that circumcision prevents, and there a many men who end up having to get them later in life when they are MUCH more traumatic because of them.

Re:You are absolutely wrong.

[UnrefinedLayman]

the statement of "medically unnecessary genital mutilation of infants." is just simply wrong

Pancreatic cancer has a 97% mortality rate for patients within five years of diagnosis (source). Therefore it is appropriate by your reasoning to remove the pancreas at birth.

Just because something can happen doesn't mean it is medically necessary to do something about it.

Re:You are absolutely wrong.

[Belial6]

I see by your comparison of pancreatic cancer to the problems associated with not being circumcised that you are fully aware that your statement about there being no medical reason to circumcise was untrue.

Notice that I neither said that circumcision was good nor bad. I even went so far as to say that the benefits and drawbacks can be debated. I only targeted one single point of your post that was untrue, and you validated it. In response, you made an absurd statement and tried to attribute it to me. This puts you in the camp of 'fanatic', as you ignore what you don't want to hear, and attempt to villify those that don't accept every detail of your argument. Even when it is clear that you know you are lying about some of them.

You also show dishonesty in your argument (another indication of fanaticisms) by comparing preventative treatment between a person having major surgery for an ailment that affects .0001% of the population with one that is minor surgery (not even requiring stitches) that affects as much as 10 percent of the population.

I will repeat again, in case you still have a hard time understanding, the benefits and drawbacks can be debated all day long, but the statement that there is no medical reason for for circumcision is unequivocally wrong.

Re:You are absolutely wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll say it again and again and again, much to your chagrin: preventative circumcision is not medically necessary. It is an optional procedure and you completely defeated yourself by admitting ailments that may occur without it would affect only 10% of the population.

Again: circumcision is not medically necessary in asymptomatic patients (just like removal of the pancreas, or any number of thousands of other procedures). I have never said there is no medical reason to perform it. The fact that you launch into a multi-paragraph diatribe railing against this indisputable fact is as ridiculous as the idea of circumcision itself.

Re:You are absolutely wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

your statement about there being no medical reason to circumcise was untrue.

He didn't make this statement. He said that it was medically unnecessary. There is a difference between having a reason to do something and it being necessary to do something. Risks of various things happening may be lower with circumcised penises. That may constitute a reason, depending on the weight you put on the risk and the values you have, but that doesn't make it necessary.

Quite frankly, your vitriolic attack on UnrefinedLayman while not bothering to read his comment properly (despite him/her pointing it out again) looks very much like you are over-sensitive about the issue. Taking whatever it is you are feeling out on a web forum isn't going to make those feelings go away.

Re:You are absolutely wrong.

[Half a dent]

"Pancreatic cancer has a 97% mortality rate for patients within five years of diagnosis (source). Therefore it is appropriate by your reasoning to remove the pancreas at birth."

No, a more appropriate comparison would be the Appendix.

BTW I'm a complete dick!

New wave of spam?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Increase the size AND NUMBER of your body parts..."

Re:New wave of spam?

[Patrik_AKA_RedX]

I think that line of research is going to make gangbang movies really hard to follow...

mmm bacon

[bl8n8r]

I hear they smell really good when you get a sunburn too.

Troll Moderation

[Lord Ender]

Re:Pig parts? (Score:-1, Troll)

Why is this man's opinion moderated as "Troll?" Why is it acceptable to question every conceivable human idea EXCEPT for religious ideas?

Moderators: Without criticism and questioning, there is no progress! Lets keep the Spanish Inquisition out of Slashdot moderation--even when the criticism is controversial and passionate!

This man's opinion about the effect of religion on medical technology was on-topic and relevant. Yes, it was stated strongly, but I have seen more emotive attacks in vi versus emacs debates! Quit abusing the moderation system!

Re:Troll Moderation

[glittalogik]

Yeah, I wasn't expecting that Spanish Inquisition either. *ducks*

Re:Troll Moderation

[Lord Ender]

I wasn't expecting that Spanish Inquisition

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our three major weapons are -1 Troll, -1 Flamebait, and -1 Overrated.

Re:Troll Moderation

[Anonymous Coward]

You could have played that so much better. You're not a true Python fan, are you?

Re:Troll Moderation

[operagost]

Why is this man's opinion moderated as "Troll?"

Because he's trolling.

Why is it acceptable to question every conceivable human idea EXCEPT for religious ideas?

It's not. You've been around here enough to realize that's not the case. The problem is that the average Slashdot poster opens a "discussion" with ad homs, straw men and other logical faux pas. And that's exactly what the GP poster has done. For example:

This just proves that religion is perverted and anti-progressive.

Negative tags that the poster does not attempt to qualify.

If we didn't have religion to occupy and dim peoples minds, there would be SO many more bright heads out there who would turn into scientists instead of working towards a goal of non-development and ideological inbreed.

Multiple ad homs: "dim," "ideological inbreed."

The real advance will be...

[Tavor]

...when they start regrowing sexual organs. Think of all the people who have had their (ovaries|testicles) be (damaged|removed), then think of how many of those people would give anything for kids. Of course, the flip side is people would also be able to have ... enhancements... grown too.

Fingernails

[phorm]

He said the doctors told him that finger tips generally grow back just fine unless they are cut so far back that none of the nail bed is left.

Makes sense. If you pull out a hair, but the root remains, the hair grows back. If you use the electroshock hair removal or other such things (which fries the hair hair down to the root) it doesn't come back.

Same with fingernails/toenails (and this one I have personal experience with). If you crush your toenail and there's some root left, it comes back. If - as I've experienced - you have a problem with ingrown nails (nail grows into the side of the toe/finger/etc), the doctor can cut it back to the root... no root and the nail doesn't grow back. In the case of ingrowns, they can just remove one side of the nail root and the middle part will grow back, but it won't grow out the side and thus cause painful ingrowths.

I've heard of people having wisdom teeth etc grow back too... sometimes I think I'm on my second set.

Re:Fingernails

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Yes, but in this case it wasn't just the nail but the whole finger tip - bone, prints, and all - that grew back.

Huh?

[gottabeme]

Uh, can you explain exactly what you mean? Did he sew the severed tip onto the palm, or did he sew the end of the existing finger onto the palm? Did the severed tip turn into a new finger growing out of his palm, or did a new tip magically appear on the end of the severed finger...inside the palm...? Or were you joking? 'Cause none of that makes any sense to me.

Re:Huh?

[cfulmer]

Sorry, I guess that wasn't all that clear.

The doctor sewed the end of the finger back into the palm. Effectively, this meant that he went around flashing a gang sign wherever he went.

Re:Huh?

[gottabeme]

Ok...but...did he just leave the tip in the palm forever? Why would anyone want a fingertip sticking out of their palm? This still doesn't make sense to me.

Re:Huh?

[cfulmer]

Argh. Push your middle finger into the fleshy part of your palm by your thumb-- that's how he looked. I have no idea what happened to the fingertip that came off -- it was probably just thrown away.

Regrowing Lost Body Parts Getting Closer...

[Digital Vomit]

Oh yeah, we'll be able to regrow a lost limb soon, but it'll probably cost an arm and a leg.

Re: Looks like you're about to get pwned. Yeah!

[nbritton]

They don't care, because god can spontaneously regenerate lost body parts at will... Oh that's right, he can't. Lame.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnQ22CsLMQo

Re: Regrowing Lost Body Parts Getting Closer All

[ispeters]

You've obviously never tried to deliver software. Time to delivery approaches a constant greater than zero....

Regrowing teeth is nice, but...

[GoMMiX]

One thing a lot of people overlook when considering this as a future option is that as they allow their teeth to rot it's not just their teeth rotting.

Many people put off getting proper dental care until they've waited too late -- once infection starts setting in it doesn't just rot the tooth - it also rots the bone the tooth is rooted in.

So if you've got issues with your teeth and you're thinking this may be a future option - make sure you properly care for your teeth now or you may not be able to take advantage of these future options so easily.

Having a genetically engineered tooth surgically placed is one thing - it's a totally new story when your surgeon has to grind down the damaged bone in order to create a proper rooting surface (A common practice for people getting posts when they let their teeth go bad for a prolonged period).

I have also read of people prone to sinus infections losing root surfaces.

I've always had chalky teeth -- and for several years now I've been following the progress in this area. One of the first things I learned was how important it was to preserve the root surface. So don't put off proper care.

Building adjacent cells

[v4vijayakumar]

If a cell contains all information about how to build the adjacent cells, and there are available all required ingredients (?!) to build adjacent cells, then the cell can start building the adjacent cells and so on. Is it right?!

Re:Testicular regeneration???

[Ustum]

While we're on the topic, here's a question: presuming that we're on the fast track to lab/host-grown organs, is there any reason why regrowing a testicle (or ovary for that matter) might be more difficult than regrowing other glands or organs? There's more than a few cancer survivors around who would love to return to being productive members of the gene pool...

Dorsal slit.

[Upaut]

The men in my family have had an odd genetic condition where our forskins do not grow fast enough, and cuts off circulation to the tip. So the men, since the procedure was developed, have had dorsal slits done. Except me. Because when I went to the table, the doctor got confused, not knowing the difference, and CUT IT ALL OFF (The foreskin, not the dick... ).

I agree, I want that bit of my dick back.

Re:Dorsal slit.

[MyIS]

Not to repeat the same argument over and over, but you represent an odd 0.001% of population. Does that warrant cutting the rest of people's genitals?

People seem to want to justify their existing condition... Feels eerily like Stockholm syndrome to me. Just like was pointed out before, it's probably not that big of a deal either way; however for all the respect we have for human rights, why is cutting a tiny baby penis justified by something that is "not a big deal"?

Powdered Pig's Bladder?

[eno2001]

That sounds like it's up there with Eye of Newt. WTF? Man that Harry Potter series really changed the world more than I would have ever imagined? What next? Will a troll be running for president in 2008 on the Republican ticket? The way those guys smooth over the truth, a troll would win out over that liberal Jesus Christ any day.

Old news, this was covered last year

[lcreech]

http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/06/2 9/0224200

Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

can we use this kind of treatment to , um, enhance some of our body parts?

OMG!!!!

[ady1]

Think of the wolverines beowulf clusters.

Re:OMG!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Submit comment that sense make please, some. Maybe will it be funny do if you; though not I suspect.

Yea! I cant wait to use my woodchipper again

[skeptictank]

and my threshing machine also.

Hope for some...

[Sierpinski]

Regrowing of lost teeth? Wow, I bet that's fantastic news to some of the sufferers of the horrific disease known as Meth Mouth.

Re: Regrowing Lost Body Parts Getting Closer All

[ded_guy]

Except, of course, viable fusion power.

Wistar mice already regenerate

[reyalpdemannu]

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,68962-0.htm l Are we inventing the wheel 100 times?

I wouldn't bet ...

[Ihlosi]

... my right arm on them being able to regrow and fully reattach complete limbs any time soon.

Dr Curt Connors' Reputation

[Dareth]

I hear Dr Curt Connors has a reputation for being cold-blooded.

Re:First elective use?

[apostrophesemicolon]

wouldnt you want two hands typing on keyboard, while two other are holding beer and hotdog?

hell, add two more to hold the remote and to scratch balls!

Great...

[jamrock]

Now all we need is for Michael Jackson to hear about this.

New life for Cystic Fibrosis Patients?

[PcolaLinuxDragon]

Quote :: "The ultimate goal of regenerative therapy, however, is to develop fully functioning bioengineered organs that can replace lost or damaged organs after disease, injury or aging." A question that comes to mind on this issue, is what the feasibility is of using this same technique to grow lungs. Furthermore, to correct the CF gene in the source genetic material prior to the growth. Idea being that new lungs can be grown from the same genetic material of a CF patient, but without having the CF gene, then reimplanted without the need for anti-rejection meds. This could save the lives of a great number of people, and improve the quality of life for many others.

THIS SHIT ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN TOMORROW!!

[Anonymous Coward]

To the parent poster:

Sorry dude, I don't understand your reply. that is probably because I didn't bother reading the conversation that lead to your reply. Judging by what you typed, it was a boring conversation anyway.

My point is:

The title of the article: Regrowing Lost Body Parts Getting Closer All the Time.. Can't we also write articles stating that:

Cure for Cancer Getting Closer All the Time,
Space Elevator Getting Closer All the Time,
Milkyway's Collision with the Andromeda Galaxy Getting Closer All the Time,
Intergalactic Travel Getting Closer All the Time,
Flying Cars Getting Closer All the Time,
Cold Fusion Getting Closer All the Time,

Come on, people!! Stop hyping this shit up like it's going to happen next week. Are you gonna write the same article in another 50 years when this shit still hasn't happened?