Who watched Oprah?

If true, aren’t hospitals doing something wrong by releasing the foreskins to the manufacturers? @WeighedDown @faseny

@faseny naw, babies didn't consent they can't,

@jackjjackson they sell them to cosmetics companies

@jackjjackson Circumcision is legal, so hospitals are simply disposing of what amounts to medical waste. It would be like selling mucus or pus if there was a market for that. However, the intactivist community is against circumcision, so Oprah gets heat for promoting this product.

I’m thinking that a patient would have to sign an informed consent prior to any body parts being sold. I have no objection to the use of body parts for good as long as informed consent is sought and obtained. @Lila15

@jackjjackson I don't think it works that way with circumcised foreskins if they're legally considered medical waste. I know that for a Jewish [i]brit milah[/i], the foreskin is supposed to be buried, but in a hospital, it's just disposed of. I suppose it would depend on the laws of your state. I think when someone has a limb amputated, they would have to make special arrangements if they wanted to bury it or have some kind of ceremony. The hospital is set up to handle it in the proper way and deviating from that is going to be a problem.

I've heard of people donating excess skin after weight loss surgery, to help burn victims.

Obviously, an infant can't give informed consent to any procedure. I think it's nuts that infant circumcision is allowed at all.

The cut off skin can’t at least morally be given away without the parents knowledge and consent for someone else to profit. You’re not advocating for that are you?@Lila15

@jackjjackson it is and always has been a religious ritual before a medical procedure, it is an irreversible religious ritual that is forced on people who have not chosen a religion. How can I have freedom of religion while carrying the scar of a god I will never believe in?

@Lila15 I'm not an intactivist I'm a circumcised man against circumcision, there is actully a difference.

@jackjjackson I don't think it can be [i]morally[/i] amputated, since infants can't give informed consent, so the entire process is wrong from the beginning. And of course, human body parts shouldn't be sold without their (former) owner's consent. What I'm saying is that since circumcision (unfortunately) is still legal, if amputated foreskins are considered medical waste, hospitals can [i]legally[/i] collect and sell them to cosmetics companies, regardless of how morally repugnant this may be.

@WeighedDown I thought Intactivism is the belief that circumcision should not be done to infants, and Intactivists include both circumcised and uncircumcised men. And women, since I certainly consider myself an Intactivist. Intactivists may of course differ on whether the incidence of circumcision should be reduced through educating parents on its negative aspects, or simply outlawing it as female genital mutilation is outlawed in many places.

Did you know that since the federal law against FGM was overturned in 2018, it's now legal in around 10 U. S. states that don't have state laws against it?

You do have the right to make sure any kids you have are not. Other than having an opinion that’s about as much control as you have. @Lila15

@Lila15 yes i knew all that intactivist, have no problems shaming and attacking circumcised men for merely accepting that which they can not change.. the vast majority of so-called intactivist have their foreskin intact. That's the proper terminology intact foreskin, they just say intact which means not castrated. The vast majority know everything about circumcision
Except what it's like to have the scar they pushed a circumcised man to suicide and then used his death to claim circumcision causes man to commit suicide, some don't think men should be allowed to make that decision for themselves if he wanted to or needed to. I have seen them shame men on their side for being circumcised, they intentionally try and trigger circumcised men, I'm against forced infant circumcision not it's victims so I'm not an intactivist.

@jackjjackson it's fucked up I can decide for my son but not myself.

@jackjjackson @WeighedDown I can also contribute to organizations that are dedicated to outlawing this barbaric practice, and that educate people so they can make an informed decision as to whether they should have their infant son's foreskin amputated.

I don't have any problem with adult men choosing to have themselves circumcised, although I think they should have all of the facts in hand before they commit to what amounts to irrevocable surgery. And I'm not aware of intact men shaming or insulting circumcised men, unless those men are pro-circ and opposed to outlawing the practice.

Andrew Yang was, to my knowledge, the first presidential candidate to discuss outlawing circumcision, although by the end of his campaign, he'd backed down. There's still a lot of resistance. So educating people is probably going to be more productive. Circumcision is already rare in Europe, and losing popularity in the U.S., with around a third of boys currently allowed to remain intact.

@Lila15 one example [image deleted]They don't do it intentionally but circumcised
Intactivist are watching this bothers us who feel mutilated more than those who are happy about it,
I seen it first hand and dude said a man with cancer that circumcision could remove should not be able to choose it. I agree with their message but not their methods.

there's not just a whole lot of us circumcised men in intactivist circles, we dont need to be reminded every day we're mutilated.