Talk:Aposthia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 15 August 2005. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
Contents |
[edit] Lamarck
I can't find a source for this: "Aposthia among jews was used as evidence for the now discredited Lamarckism theory of evolution. The idea was that circumcision of the parent was passed down to the offspring."
A circumcision would not be the kind of needs-based characteristic that Lamarck believed could be acquired. Jean-Baptiste Lamarck says: "Jews and other religious groups have been circumcising men for hundreds of generations with no noticeable withering of the foreskin among their descendants. However, Lamarck did not count injury or mutilation as a true acquired characteristic, only those which were initiated by the animal's own needs were deemed to be passed on."
Does anyone have a source, or mind if I delete it? SlimVirgin (talk) 23:00, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
- I've made those sentences invisible in the meantime. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:02, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
-
- Googling for aposthia turns up this reprinted article from the British Journal of Urology, which describes the Lamarckian claim and in turn cites Talbot ES. Inheritance of circumcision effects. Medicine 1898; 4: 473-5. Not necessarily a strong source, but it's out there. FreplySpang (talk) 13:48, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] If this article is deleted everyone loses
It seems clear to me that the POV battle over circumcision is coming to a head. If we are now at a point where medical terms are erased from wikipedia because of circumcision pushers, this spells the end of wikipedia as an unbiased, multiviewed source of general information. Sirkumsize 02:37, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Birth defect
Lots of anti-circumcision websites claim that aposthia is an official birth defect and must be registered as such, but I can't verify this anywhere else. I'll omit it unless someone can show otherwise. Soo 16:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
- Who decides when a birth defect is official and where is it registered? Sirkumsize 21:24, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
- Well, exactly. Presumably some defects must be recorded on the birth certificate by law (at least in the US). Is aposthia one of them? I don't know. Soo 00:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
- News to me there was such a law. Sirkumsize 01:30, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Me too, but that's what the article was claiming. I've not been able to verify it, so I removed it. Soo 13:12, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- It's wrong on the face of it. In the U.S. there isn't any single "law" about what goes on vital records. That's governed by the states. There isn't always uniformity within a state; for example, the New York City Department of Vital Records which is completely separate from the New York State department of vital records and they follow different rules. For example, New York City death certificates do not show a cause of death, but death certificates from anywhere else in the state do. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:45, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Me too, but that's what the article was claiming. I've not been able to verify it, so I removed it. Soo 13:12, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- News to me there was such a law. Sirkumsize 01:30, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Well, exactly. Presumably some defects must be recorded on the birth certificate by law (at least in the US). Is aposthia one of them? I don't know. Soo 00:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
There are a hundred thousand major and minor anomalies a baby can be born with. None of them are listed on birth certificates in any country I have ever heard of. Birth defects typically get listed on death certificates if they were a major contributing factor to the death. Aposthia is so rare I have never even heard of an actual case and I can promise you that in the absence of significant hypospadias, no doctor would ever consider it more than a minor, harmless curiosity. You people with circumcision obsessions have the most bizarre fantasies about what doctors do and think. alteripse 15:53, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Ki Tzetze?
The article mentions a Midrash of Ki Tzetze. Is this a typo? [?כי תצא] Tomertalk 00:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
- yeah, good eyes, TShilo! I've fixed it.
[edit] Shabbat vs Sabbath
Benami, am I mistaken in that an english word (Sabbath) is preferable to a transliterated hebrew word? I think that using Shabbat for the name for the tractate is correct, but where the concept of Shabbat is discussed, then the english term seems preferable. Your input on this is kindly requested. Ð’ntalk
