Talk:Aposthia

Shem and Female Aposthia

I believe legends say that Shem son of Noah was born with aposthia, which would be of importance as it predates the covenant with Abraham by almost 10 geneartions. Also, are there any examples of aposthia of the clitoris in women, either in islamic literature or in medical literature? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CensoredScribe (talk • contribs) 19:06, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

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)

That page says that "some authors believed that `aposthia' in Jewish males proved the effects of circumcision could be passed on in a Lamarckian-type hereditary transfer" - using Lamarckian to expain what they thought was a transfer, not using the 'transfer' as evidence for Lamarckism. So the claim still hasn't been sourced. ScrobDobbins (talk) 09:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, while the page for Lamarckism also has a sentence saying that Lamarckism has been discredited as an evolutionary influence, it is unsourced and the "Current views" section says that several recent studies actually provide support for the theory. Given that, the lack of a source, and that I don't see what the sentence really contributes to the article to begin with, it seems that it's unnecessary at best and factually inaccurate on it's two assertions at worst. ScrobDobbins (talk) 09:56, 30 September 2012 (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)

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)

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)

Ki Tzetze?

The article mentions a Midrash of Ki Tzetze. Is this a typo? [?כי תצא] Tomer^talk 00:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

yeah, good eyes, TShilo! I've fixed it.

I note that the Midrash also have Adam, Seth, Noah, and Job as well as being born Aposthic. Here is the reference.http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1391191/jewish/Was-Moses-Born-Circumcised.htm. Would it be OK to include them as well on the list? It seems to me that this genetic condition is passed on to certain generations. Is that true? Can a Rabbi answer? Thank you in advance for your responses. Monte Melkonian (talk) 00:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

What does it mean if one is born with this condition according to the Jewish faith? I note for David Levy, it was prophetic. Monte Melkonian (talk) 00:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

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’n^talk

Picture

Can someone supply a photo of an actual example of this condition? And one which is clearly differentiated from a circumcision.

This would help to resolve future disputes.

StewE17 17:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

According to an expert I have consulted on the matter the image supplied is of an ordinary circumcised penis - not aposthia at all. Freuchie (talk) 21:42, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Aposthia as a fiction versus real aposthia

Maybe there is no real aposthia? Aposthia often seems to be a real myth. 91.61.221.54 (talk) 08:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Eww

I didn't have to see that, I just clicked a link and there was a knob in my face! I know someone was saying they thought having an actual example would be good, but personally I'd prefer a diagram. SatansFeminist (talk) 20:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

The foreskin is not "missing" in aposthia, the skin is simply too short to cover the glans

Surely there must be a source available that doesn't make such an error. MeanMotherJr (talk) 05:28, 13 August 2022 (UTC)