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 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.

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.

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.

[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.

[__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: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

[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.

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.