Talk:Aposthia: Difference between revisions
old vfd |
Sirkumsize (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
:Who decides when a birth defect is ''official'' and where is it ''registered''? [[User:Sirkumsize|Sirkumsize]] 21:24, 17 August 2005 (UTC) |
:Who decides when a birth defect is ''official'' and where is it ''registered''? [[User:Sirkumsize|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. [[User:Agentsoo|Soo]] 00:27, 18 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. [[User:Agentsoo|Soo]] 00:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC) |
||
:::News to me there was such a law. [[User:Sirkumsize|Sirkumsize]] 01:30, 4 September 2005 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 01:30, 4 September 2005
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 15 August 2005. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
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)
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)
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)
- 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)