# If you are staunchly anti-circ would you surgically remove an extra digit?



## rootzdawta (May 22, 2005)

Say your child is born with 6 fingers on each hand instead of 5, would you opt to have the sixth finger removed or would you leave it?

I have the stub for a sixth finger on each hand. My mother had it removed as a baby and I'm glad she did. I think if my child is born with an extra digit, I'll have it removed too. But I'm having trouble with that decision based on my belief that circumcision is wrong. I mean, the two are different but I'd be removing the extra finger for cosmetic purposes really . . . so . . . opinions??

Oh, and the extra finger I had sticks out of the pinky and is usually removed by just tying a string or a suture around it until it falls off. But there are other examples of extra digits.


----------



## carriebft (Mar 10, 2007)

I am against the removal of healthy, normal tissue without the consent of the person whose body it is.

I would also think an extra finger would hamper fine motor development, though that's just a guess. (not educated in the area)

ETA: I would probably have to see what kind of extra finger it was (bone, no bone? etc) and go from there. Sometimes even I guess it's hard for them to tell which to remove and you have to be monitored for a while. By that time I might be able to get consent from the child. But if there was no bone or movement or anything then the decision would be easier.


----------



## Ione (Jul 22, 2002)

Apples and oranges. A 6th (or 7th or 8th) digit is a birth defect in human beings. A foreskin is a normal, useful body part.

(That said, I would not necessarily and automatically have a birth defect surgically corrected in an infant -- it depends on the defect, its placement, type of surgery required, risks vs. benefits of doing so, how the defect impacts (or does not impact) functioning and development, etc.)


----------



## Blu Razzberri (Sep 27, 2006)

Not if it wasn't necessary. If the child wanted it done when they're older, that's their perrogative. I wouldn't be opposed to allowing a teen to make that choice, either.

Though, if I remember being a kid; I think most kids would find a sixth finger cool.


----------



## Sijae (May 5, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ione* 
Apples and oranges. A 6th (or 7th or 8th) digit is a birth defect in human beings. A foreskin is a normal, useful body part.

(That said, I would not necessarily and automatically have a birth defect surgically corrected in an infant -- it depends on the defect, its placement, type of surgery required, risks vs. benefits of doing so, how the defect impacts (or does not impact) functioning and development, etc.)









:


----------



## rootzdawta (May 22, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ione* 
Apples and oranges. A 6th (or 7th or 8th) digit is a birth defect in human beings. A foreskin is a normal, useful body part.

LoL . . .so true . . . I was having a hard time putting this all together in my head and feeling kind of guilty for knowing that I will remove it if my baby's born with it. Thanks.


----------



## InDaPhunk (Jun 24, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *rootzdawta* 
I mean, the two are different but I'd be removing the extra finger for cosmetic purposes really . . . so . . . opinions??

A sixth finger (on one hand) is a birth defect. A foreskin is not.


----------



## kblackstone444 (Jun 17, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ione* 
Apples and oranges. A 6th (or 7th or 8th) digit is a birth defect in human beings. A foreskin is a normal, useful body part.

(That said, I would not necessarily and automatically have a birth defect surgically corrected in an infant -- it depends on the defect, its placement, type of surgery required, risks vs. benefits of doing so, how the defect impacts (or does not impact) functioning and development, etc.)

I couldn't have said it better myself.


----------



## JJMother (Oct 28, 2007)

The goal of removing abnormal body parts is to restore the body to normal and allow it to function better. A circumcision removes something normal and healthy and can negatively affect its function. Having said that, I would also weigh the pros and cons of any surgery performed on a baby.

From a medical standpoint, I think removing extra fingers/toes is ideally done in the infant stage because they can interfere with the development of fine motor skills and there is less scarring.


----------



## AstridS (Mar 9, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ione* 
Apples and oranges. A 6th (or 7th or 8th) digit is a birth defect in human beings. A foreskin is a normal, useful body part.

(That said, I would not necessarily and automatically have a birth defect surgically corrected in an infant -- it depends on the defect, its placement, type of surgery required, risks vs. benefits of doing so, how the defect impacts (or does not impact) functioning and development, etc.)









:

And also: I wouldn't have a birth defect corrected in an infant, if it wasn't medically necessary. Proper pain management is much easier and surgery is usually less risky in an older child or adult than in a newborn.


----------



## rmzbm (Jul 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ione* 
Apples and oranges. A 6th (or 7th or 8th) digit is a birth defect in human beings. A foreskin is a normal, useful body part.

(That said, I would not necessarily and automatically have a birth defect surgically corrected in an infant -- it depends on the defect, its placement, type of surgery required, risks vs. benefits of doing so, how the defect impacts (or does not impact) functioning and development, etc.)









:


----------



## bc1995 (Mar 22, 2004)

Both of my sons are intact. Ds2 was born with a sixth digit on one hand. We did have it removed. It was very small, and the surgeon simply tied suture around it. It fell off a few days later. Ds1 was born with webbed toes on one foot. We did not clip those, and feel stronly that it is his choice if he wants to have it done someday.


----------



## patronia (Nov 28, 2007)

If it didn't effect their ability to use their hands/legs I would leave it till they were old enough to choose for themselves.


----------



## Raelynn (Apr 7, 2007)

I saw a program on TV where a baby was born with 6th digits on each hand, they were like pinky toes sticking out the sides of her hand. The doctor said there was no bone/muscle in them that she would ever be able to control (ie use it as a normal finger), and that the extra digits could get caught on things or interfere with motor development.

I dont think that circ'ing and removing extra digits are the same at all, because like the PPs said, the foreskin isn't a birth defect.


----------



## Claire and Boys (Mar 27, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *patronia* 
If it didn't effect their ability to use their hands/legs I would leave it till they were old enough to choose for themselves.

I agree.


----------



## onelilguysmommy (May 11, 2005)

it would depend on where it was located and if its a working one or not, and what it would take to remove i or impact the child


----------



## LavenderMae (Sep 20, 2002)

Honestly I don't know what I would do but a foreskin isn't anything extra, it's not a birth defect. I don't think it's a good comaprison.


----------



## fruitful womb (Nov 20, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Blu Razzberri* 

Though, if I remember being a kid; I think most kids would find a sixth finger cool.

















:
Mee Too!!!

Personally, I wouldn't have removed it. Not long ago a baby was born will extra limbs. Born with 4 arms and 4 legs. The parents had them removed. If that were me I would have thought wow what a blessing! We're always joking about wishing we had extra hands for help.









The foreskin isn't just an extra digit. Its an important functional part of the human body. Its normal and to remove a sophisticated organ for someone else's sexual fetish is (wow, I can think of all kinds of things to say and they're annoyingly competing to be used so I'll just let you fill in the blank, ________







)


----------



## veganf (Dec 12, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ione* 
Apples and oranges. A 6th (or 7th or 8th) digit is a birth defect in human beings. A foreskin is a normal, useful body part.

Yeah that.


----------



## eepster (Sep 20, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *onelilguysmommy* 
it would depend on where it was located and if its a working one or not, and what it would take to remove i or impact the child

This is how I feel too. I think most of the time I would hoose to remove b/c in humans the extra digit is usually a no functional encumberance. In cats the sixth toe is usually fully developed and harmless, so if my childs extra digit was more like what is common in cats I would leave it.


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ione* 
Apples and oranges. A 6th (or 7th or 8th) digit is a birth defect in human beings. A foreskin is a normal, useful body part.

(That said, I would not necessarily and automatically have a birth defect surgically corrected in an infant -- it depends on the defect, its placement, type of surgery required, risks vs. benefits of doing so, how the defect impacts (or does not impact) functioning and development, etc.)









:


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

I would not. I don't think the issue of "defect" vs. "non-defect" is relevant here, because I believe the notion of "normal" and "defective" is mostly socially constructed and subjective.

I would not put a minor child through surgery or any kind of body modification unless it were necessary to preserve his or her health.


----------



## swellmomma (Jan 1, 2004)

I would correct a defect such as removing an extra finger. I would do it to make sure fine motor control etc were not hampered also to avoid the child being ridiculed etc. Kids are mean, yes they find somethig else to tease the child about but why give them foder. My boys are intact. But I did something to my girls that is purely cosmestic, I had their ears peirced at 3 month of age, my youngest just had it done the day before yesterday.


----------



## tlh (Oct 10, 2007)

probably not.Hound Dog Taylor a blues guitar player used his extra finger.

http://www.robertchristgau.com/get_a...e+Houserockers


----------



## MCatLvrMom2A&X (Nov 18, 2004)

If the digit presented a problem ie possibly getting torn loose I would have it removed. If it was not causing problems then I would leave it alone and let my child decide when they were older.

I dont see the comparison between circ and removing a extra digit or fixing a birth defect tho since the foreskin is ment to be there the others are not.


----------



## Demeter9 (Nov 14, 2006)

Foreskin isn't a genetic defect.

I would probably not remove an extra digit, unless it was likely to cause problems or did not work so was just in the way.

If the digit was functional, it would definately stay. Think of the amazing piano music they could create if they were musically inclined! The guitar riffs that no one else could replicate! Yep, it would definately stay.

Further, my son does have a "defect" in that he was born with a minor hypospadia and we have chosen to not have that "fixed" either. It does not cause any problems, and it is minor enough that it won't impact his fertility.

I do not believe in forcing unnecessary body altering surgery for trivial reasons. It isn't my body.


----------



## gridley13 (Sep 3, 2004)




----------



## Papai (Apr 9, 2007)

In order for these two to be equal, you have to view the foreskin as a birth defect.

I don't know what I would do in this situation, perhaps wait until the child is old enough to have a say in whether they want it removed or not? But it's a defect and the foreskin isn't so....


----------



## KBecks (Jan 3, 2007)

I don't know. I would probably research and figure that out if I was faced with it and I would wait a little while to contemplate a decision like that.


----------



## JustKiya (Feb 5, 2007)

If it would not interefere with fine motor development, I would leave it until the child was old enough to choose.


----------



## SeekingSerenity (Aug 6, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *fruitful womb* 
Personally, I wouldn't have removed it. Not long ago a baby was born will extra limbs. Born with 4 arms and 4 legs. The parents had them removed. If that were me I would have thought wow what a blessing! We're always joking about wishing we had extra hands for help.









Yes, but these were not functional limbs. The child could have never had a normal life. She'd have never walked, never had children of her own, never had any possibility of a normal existence.

"Lakshmi was born joined at the pelvis to a "parasitic twin" that stopped developing in her mother's womb. The surviving fetus absorbed the limbs, kidneys and other body parts of the undeveloped twin."

They were fused at the base of the spine, completely opposite one another. It's like she had another body, without a head or shoulders, hanging from the bottom of her own body. In a case like this, I believe it was completely appropriate to have that removed.

I agree that it is completely INappropriate to cut a normal, functioning, healthy part of a baby boy's anatomy off, for no other reason than cultural or societal influences. My boys are intact, and should I have another, he too will be intact. There is simply no other way.

If one of my children had an extra digit, extra limb or any kind of growth on their bodies that would impede their ability to grow and function normally, I believe it's my responsibility as a loving parent to remove that. If it's not going to harm them in any way, such as having a fully functional extra finger, then it would stay.

But if my child was born with an extra arm? Functional or not, I would not allow them to become a societal outcast, or be viewed as a "freak of nature" just to preserve their structural integrity. Removing such an appendage falls into the category of preserving their mental and emotional integrity, which is just as important. Children should be left as they are... if they can be a healthy individual that way.


----------



## llamalluv (Aug 24, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Demeter9* 
If the digit was functional, it would definitely stay. Think of the amazing piano music they could create if they were musically inclined! The guitar riffs that no one else could replicate! Yep, it would definitely stay.

LOL! When I was a little, little girl, my parents were friends with a couple that had a child with 6 fully functional fingers on each hand (well 5 fingers and a thumb,







)

They bought him a piano when he was 3.


----------



## DklovesMkandJK (Jun 18, 2007)

Really interesting thread!

I think it is really hard to say what you would do unless you are faced with a question like that. It is easy to think you would never put your child through a nonmedically necesary surgery, but when it is your own sweet baby that would take the abuse the thought process shifts.

My 19 month old son has a pre aucular skin tag. It is a piece of skin that looks like half a pikie finger that sticks out in front of his ear. The decision to remove it has weighed heavily on my mind since he was born. I am very opposed to circ and unneccesary pain as a whole but I do see many benefits to having it removed.
I am so used to it I don't even see it anymore but a few people have commented. One host at a restaurant made a 'joke' because M and I both had our bluetooth ear pieces in and J had his own 'homemade one" and children ask 'what's wrong with him?"
I have thought about letting him make the choice to have it removed himself -but I worry that by the time he is able to make that choice the damage will be done. Our pedi had the exact same tag (about the same size) and her parents could not afford to have it removed when she was a child. She encouraged us to remove it as early as possible to spare him the 'torture' she endured all through her childhood (her words)
DH is also very insistant that it be removed.

To be honest, I think I am leaning toward having it removed. I do however plan on waiting a while longer to make a decision. I hope to wait at least another year.

Also, unlike circ he will be fully sedated and given the appropriate pain medication.

So there you go!


----------



## ColoradoMama (Nov 22, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *fruitful womb* 
Personally, I wouldn't have removed it. Not long ago a baby was born will extra limbs. Born with 4 arms and 4 legs. The parents had them removed. If that were me I would have thought wow what a blessing! We're always joking about wishing we had extra hands for help.









Okay, I hope you're just being funny. That little girl couldn't walk and had absolutely no chance of a normal life with the limbs of her parasitic twin fused to her.


----------



## transylvania_mom (Oct 8, 2006)

Did it affect your sexual life in any way?


----------



## Organicavocado (Mar 15, 2006)

Its hard to say if you arent in the situation.

I THINK I would leave it until the child is older, so that I'm not making a quick judgmental decision... we would have time to analyze the extra part, and we would have the benefit of the best pain relief options.


----------



## mama2mygirl (Dec 14, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Blu Razzberri* 
Not if it wasn't necessary. If the child wanted it done when they're older, that's their perrogative. I wouldn't be opposed to allowing a teen to make that choice, either.

Though, if I remember being a kid; I think most kids would find a sixth finger cool.









My dd's friend has six toes on each foot and my dd is so sad that she doesn't as well.


----------



## Super Pickle (Apr 29, 2002)

Very thought-provoking question!

It is hard to know what one would do in such a situation, but I think I would probably not have an extra finger removed. Even though it's a birth defect, whereas the foreksin is supposed to be there, I would think that having a finger removed would be even more dangerous than circumcision, since they'd have to cut through a bone.

I knew a guy who had a minor birth defect on his feet that could have been very, very easily corrected. But it had never been corrected, and he certainly didn't seem to suffer for being a little different. He wore sandals and if anyone asked about it, he'd answer with no self-consciousness. I always thought it was really cool that his parents had decided just to leave him as he was born, since his difference wasn't going to impede him in any way. Everyone liked him, he liked himself, and people liked his feet because they were a special part of a special person.

Sorry for not having read the other responses yet.


----------



## katja (Apr 13, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Organicavocado* 
Its hard to say if you arent in the situation.

I THINK I would leave it until the child is older, so that I'm not making a quick judgmental decision... we would have time to analyze the extra part, and we would have the benefit of the best pain relief options.


Hey, I really was in that situation! I was born with an extra digit growing out of my pinky. My mom said that the doctor tied it off immediately after I was born, and it took a few days to fall off. I always wondered what it was like, if it would have worked, etc.

Twenty-nine years later, my dd was born with a similar extra digit. We left it on for a couple of weeks because I didn't want one of her first experiences to be pain. it was obvious that it was non-functioning and was likely to be torn off. Her ped tied a string around it and it didn't seem so traumatic. We definitely took pictures so she'll know what it was like.
A working extra digit would be a blessing, I think. A floppy little finger nub, not at all. I see nothing wrong with having it removed.
The only thing I think my parents could have done better would have been to have taken a picture of it, and to have waited longer to cut it off. It is nothing like circumcision. I think most of these extra digits have a very small point of attachment, and it's not a very sensitive area.


----------



## Arduinna (May 30, 2002)

You are comparing a normal body part all men are born with to a birth defect. Apples and Oranges IMO.


----------



## ~Megan~ (Nov 7, 2002)

A foreskin is normal and average, an extra digit is not. I'm not sure if I would have it removed or not but circumcision is not the same thing.


----------



## Ecstatic (Aug 13, 2007)

I would remove it. A 6th finger is not "natural" like foreskin is natural and normal. It's a defect.

Plus, I'd worry about normal development, how it would impede that, whether removing it later would be more of a problem, etc. So, obviously, I'd have to know all the information first. Chances are, though, my child would thank me for removing a 6th finger. I don't think anyone really wants "extra" body parts on them beyond those that are natural.

My step dad's daughter had a girl whose nose was quite deformed. She fixed it easily with a laser treatment, instead of waiting for her child to decide whether or not she wanted to live with a deformed nose. Plus, due to growth and development, it was a minor laser treatment for a newborn. It would have been a longer surgery later on. I kind of lump the 6th finger into such categories.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

This is kind of why I am uncomfortable with the "intactivist" movement. Even though I am very anti-RIC, I do not like this emphasis on the "normal" body. What about people with abnormal bodies? I don't think "normal" is intrinsically any better than "abnormal."


----------



## SeekingSerenity (Aug 6, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Brigianna* 
This is kind of why I am uncomfortable with the "intactivist" movement. Even though I am very anti-RIC, I do not like this emphasis on the "normal" body. What about people with abnormal bodies? I don't think "normal" is intrinsically any better than "abnormal."

I don't think that anyone means to argue that "normal" is _BETTER_ than "abnormal." I also think that, at least in terms of this argument, "abnormal" is referring to appendages and the like that would not, ordinarily, develop on the majority of babies. Such as the non-fuctional sixth finger or the large tag on the child's face. It's not to say the CHILD is abnormal, just that the growth of this extraneous digit or section of flesh is beyond the scope of what is generally considered normal.

As far as a foreskin being normal, it is considered as such because it develops on all male babies during the general course of gestation. It is not in any way unneeded or extraneous. Therefore, by removing it, you would then by definition create an "abnormal" body - not that it's seen that way in this country, since most baby boys are circ'd. (not mine, and not yours, lucky little guys!) And the intactivists, I think, are simply fervent in their desire to educate the people out there who otherwise have a circ performed out of ignorance, the incorrect belief that it's medically necessary.

Normal is what a child is used to. My sister's child was born with what was considered a birth "defect," foreshortened tendons in his arms and hands which had to be cut to prevent extreme pain as he grew. The end result is that he cannot use his hands without repeated surgeries and extensive physical therapy. He will never be able to use his fingers as other children do and will be qualified for federal disability benefits for his entire life. However, at the age of 7, he's just like every other little boy you'll meet, in terms of imagination, intelligence, personality and vitality. He can feed himself, put on his shoes, write and type. He just has adaped his "different" hands (as his Mama calls them) and has learned to work within the world he is presented with. He thinks he's "normal," when other adults whisper rudely, "What's wrong with him??"

The answer? Nothing. He's not "abnormal," he is different from the majority, as we all are in one way or another. And he'll never think anything is unusual about his condition until someone points it out to him. Normal, in terms of how we look, feel and function, depends on how we perceive ourselves, IMO.


----------



## snangel (Nov 27, 2006)

No I would not, I would leave it up to the child when they are old enough to make that decision then I would support them in that decision. As a matter of fact I am making this decision right now. My youngest son was born with no ears (and a multitude of other problems, he has a rare disorder called Goldenhar syndrome) anyhow...his ears are not considered a "medical" procedure. It will not do anything other then cosmetically "fix" his appearance. We have decided to leave his ears alone, and allow him to make that decision when he is old enough.
On the other hand...his foreskin is not a birth defect, so I didn't remove that either. I am not a huge fan of this argument, but for the sake of conversation...I do not believe it is ever OK to preform cosmetic surgery on someone who is not old enough to consent to it, and fully understand the ramifications of that surgery.


----------



## katja (Apr 13, 2004)

Yeah, but if it's likely to get torn off, it doesn't make sense to leave it there. Maybe I'll go dig up a picture of my daughter's so you can see what these things are like. It is pretty normal for one of those extra pinky digits. (And please don't compare this to unnecessary episiotomy, LOL.)


----------



## thixle (Sep 26, 2007)

katja said:


> Yeah, but if it's likely to get torn off, it doesn't make sense to leave it there.
> 
> 
> > I know a guy that got his finger torn off while putting shoes on a metal shelf at work. His ring caught on the shelf, and the finger just popped right off. Just saying, anything can get torn off of the human body...
> ...


----------



## eepster (Sep 20, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thixle* 
I know a guy that got his finger torn off while putting shoes on a metal shelf at work. His ring caught on the shelf, and the finger just popped right off. Just saying, anything can get torn off of the human body...

I've heard this exact same story before (I don't know the guy a person I met knew the guy.) I wonder if it's the same guy or if this has happened multiple times.


----------



## thixle (Sep 26, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *eepster* 









I've heard this exact same story before (I don't know the guy a person I met knew the guy.) I wonder if it's the same guy or if this has happened multiple times.

Lives in Kentucky, plays pool, drinks Bud Light? It happened at Shoe Carnival... And I think it happens more than I want to think about.


----------



## theretohere (Nov 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ione* 
Apples and oranges. A 6th (or 7th or 8th) digit is a birth defect in human beings. A foreskin is a normal, useful body part.

(That said, I would not necessarily and automatically have a birth defect surgically corrected in an infant -- it depends on the defect, its placement, type of surgery required, risks vs. benefits of doing so, how the defect impacts (or does not impact) functioning and development, etc.)









:


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *SeekingSerenity* 
I don't think that anyone means to argue that "normal" is _BETTER_ than "abnormal." I also think that, at least in terms of this argument, "abnormal" is referring to appendages and the like that would not, ordinarily, develop on the majority of babies. Such as the non-fuctional sixth finger or the large tag on the child's face. It's not to say the CHILD is abnormal, just that the growth of this extraneous digit or section of flesh is beyond the scope of what is generally considered normal.

As far as a foreskin being normal, it is considered as such because it develops on all male babies during the general course of gestation. It is not in any way unneeded or extraneous. Therefore, by removing it, you would then by definition create an "abnormal" body - not that it's seen that way in this country, since most baby boys are circ'd. (not mine, and not yours, lucky little guys!) And the intactivists, I think, are simply fervent in their desire to educate the people out there who otherwise have a circ performed out of ignorance, the incorrect belief that it's medically necessary.

Normal is what a child is used to. My sister's child was born with what was considered a birth "defect," foreshortened tendons in his arms and hands which had to be cut to prevent extreme pain as he grew. The end result is that he cannot use his hands without repeated surgeries and extensive physical therapy. He will never be able to use his fingers as other children do and will be qualified for federal disability benefits for his entire life. However, at the age of 7, he's just like every other little boy you'll meet, in terms of imagination, intelligence, personality and vitality. He can feed himself, put on his shoes, write and type. He just has adaped his "different" hands (as his Mama calls them) and has learned to work within the world he is presented with. He thinks he's "normal," when other adults whisper rudely, "What's wrong with him??"

The answer? Nothing. He's not "abnormal," he is different from the majority, as we all are in one way or another. And he'll never think anything is unusual about his condition until someone points it out to him. Normal, in terms of how we look, feel and function, depends on how we perceive ourselves, IMO.

Yes, but "normal" is quite socially constructed. For U.S.-born males of the mid-20th century, it is normal to be circumcised. That is the norm. It is not the biological norm, because male humans are born with a foreskin, and the circumcised status is the result of human intervention. So it is the biological norm for a boy to have a foreskin. If a child is born with an extra finger, the extra finger is also part of the biological norm for that child. It is not the result of human intervention. It is the way that person was born. It is his or her normative state.

The arguments for removing an extra digit that is not currently causing medical problems--the other kids will pick on him, he'll be an outcast, it might cause some type of medical problem at some later date--are the same arguments used to justify routine infant circumcision, to modify the child's body to cosmetically conform with the social (not biological) norm associated with his society.

The argument is that a foreskin, unlike an extra digit, is not a birth defect. But if the extra digit is not causing medical problems, what makes it a defect? It's a defect because our society says it's a defect. Just as our society says (or at least did say when most of us and our parents were kids) that a foreskin is a defect.


----------



## dinahx (Sep 17, 2005)

Agreeing with PPs. A foreskin and an extra digit don't have too much in common . . . Foreskins are beautiful and the essence of normal!

I also agree that I would attempt to minimize the impact/risks of any extra digit removal and I would even consider non-alteration . . .


----------



## kittywitty (Jul 5, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ione* 
Apples and oranges. A 6th (or 7th or 8th) digit is a birth defect in human beings. A foreskin is a normal, useful body part.

(That said, I would not necessarily and automatically have a birth defect surgically corrected in an infant -- it depends on the defect, its placement, type of surgery required, risks vs. benefits of doing so, how the defect impacts (or does not impact) functioning and development, etc.)









:


----------



## katja (Apr 13, 2004)

thixle said:


> katja said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, but if it's likely to get torn off, it doesn't make sense to leave it there.
> ...


----------



## thixle (Sep 26, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *katja* 
I would treat it as normal unless it was causing problems for the kid.

That's basically the way I feel about treating cosmetic birth defects, as in the case of an extra digit, no ears, or even dwarfism. I do not feel morally right about subjecting a child to non-consensual cosmetic surgery, especially if they are not old enough to understand why they are feeling pain. *katja*- in your and your daughter's cases, it sounds like the medical removal was less painful, possibly painless, than the (almost inevitable) chance of it being ripped off.

(For myself, I don't like the idea of surgery period. I am facing the posibility of a bowel resection, but I'm going to do everything I can to keep from having this complex surgery. I'm old fashioned- I don't want to be cut on _myself_ unless it is the last resort!)


----------



## Ellien C (Aug 19, 2004)

I believe there was someone on another (AP kinda) mailing list that I'm on who was discussing this very thing. Their child had the 6th digit and they had kept it until toddlerhood, where he indicated he wanted it removed and it bothered him. But then they ran into the issue of how old is old enough to decide for yourself. In the end they were happy with their decision to remove it - they were intact-non-vaxing sort of people.

My dad had a "harelip" (we aren't exactly certain what this was - colloquially). His parents did not have the money to have it corrected and it was the first thing he did when he was old enough to make money.

I don't know what I'd do, but I would lean on the side of changing something visible, like a finger, but perhaps not webbed feet or an extra toe.


----------



## Claire and Boys (Mar 27, 2007)

Harelip = cleft lip. That's what it's referred to where I come from more likely than not.


----------



## patronia (Nov 28, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *katja* 
Yeah, but if it's likely to get torn off, it doesn't make sense to leave it there. Maybe I'll go dig up a picture of my daughter's so you can see what these things are like. It is pretty normal for one of those extra pinky digits. (And please don't compare this to unnecessary episiotomy, LOL.)

Any finger or toe can be torn off in certain situations.


----------



## TovahNeryse (Jun 17, 2007)

I agree with everyone as far as the natural-not natural part of this topic. A defect is very different from a foreskin.... Unless it interfeared with the function of my childs hands, feet or whatever, or cause any other problem making it unwise to keep it attached.... I would leave it be.


----------



## katja (Apr 13, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *patronia* 
Any finger or toe can be torn off in certain situations.

Honey, something dangling from a thread of flesh is far more likely to be torn off than a finger or toe.


----------



## Rebecca (Dec 4, 2002)

I would remove the nonfunctional birth defect. Foreskin is not a birth defect and has a function. The decision is simple for me.


----------



## phdmama06 (Aug 15, 2007)

Probably yes. A sixth finger is considered a birth defect and could potentially (depending on where it is) affect the development of a child's motor skills. A foreskin is not a birth defect.


----------



## mommy2maya (Jun 7, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *fruitful womb* 







:
Mee Too!!!

Personally, I wouldn't have removed it. Not long ago a baby was born will extra limbs. Born with 4 arms and 4 legs. The parents had them removed. If that were me I would have thought wow what a blessing! We're always joking about wishing we had extra hands for help.










You did watch the video you linked, right? CAuse that child, with the parasitic twin still attached, would have been seriously handicapped. I don't think she had an extra set of usable hands at all. I completely agree with her parents decision for surgery, for a chance at a normal life.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

What is so great about a normal life?









ETA: I certainly understand surgery if the parts are causing pain, infections, injuries, etc. But just to have a normal life? I do not understand that, and the concept frightens me.


----------



## mommy2maya (Jun 7, 2003)

Normally functioning, as in being able to walk, use the bathroom independently, dress independently, and be mobile. Why is that concept so frightening?


----------



## kblackstone444 (Jun 17, 2007)

I know a woman online who's three year old daughter has a facial cleft, a cleft palet and a cleft lip. To those of you who don't know, it's kinda like a cleft lip, or a cleft palet, but it goes all the way up her face, a big line, a big opening. Up the middle of her mouth, up the side of her nose, through her eye, which, did not develope, by the way, so it's just an empty socket, and up the side of her forhead. The cleft lip and palet was fixed shortly after birth- she needed it to eat. Technically, she can function normally with her cleft face, and she does have one eye, so she's not blind, but the psychological damage of having an gaping line up her face and an empty eye socet, well, I wouldn't wish that on anyone, especially not a child. Her parents have opted for several reconstruction surgeries for her over the past several years. The line up her face has been fixed together, skin has been stretched, her eye socket had a small "eye" put in it, with a larger one periodically, to enarge it. Her most recent surgery was to reconsturct her eye socket and put in a prosthetic eye. She will never look fully "normal", but she will no longer look "scary", either. (No, I'm not saying that to be mean, I'm saying it because, no child that young should be upset because other children are afraid of how her face looks.) Her parents had a very important decision to make, one most parents can't even imagine having to make. Put her through the pain of reconstructive surgeries or put her through the pain of lifelong (or at least until they considered her "old enough" to decide, which might be schoolage, teen years or older) emotional pain of being considered an outcast because of how she looks. I can't imagine the pain the parents went through having to make a decision like that- no one wants their child to suffer in any way, emotional, physical, any way. I think whatever the birth defect is, it should be thought over very carefully what and how much to "fix" it, but "fixing" it should not be ruled out just because it's "not your body". Know what I mean?


----------



## fruitful womb (Nov 20, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mommy2maya* 
You did watch the video you linked, right? CAuse that child, with the parasitic twin still attached, would have been seriously handicapped. I don't think she had an extra set of usable hands at all. I completely agree with her parents decision for surgery, for a chance at a normal life.


Quote:


Originally Posted by *SeekingSerenity* 
Yes, but these were not functional limbs. The child could have never had a normal life. She'd have never walked, never had children of her own, never had any possibility of a normal existence.

"Lakshmi was born joined at the pelvis to a "parasitic twin" that stopped developing in her mother's womb. The surviving fetus absorbed the limbs, kidneys and other body parts of the undeveloped twin."

They were fused at the base of the spine, completely opposite one another. It's like she had another body, without a head or shoulders, hanging from the bottom of her own body. In a case like this, I believe it was completely appropriate to have that removed.

I agree that it is completely INappropriate to cut a normal, functioning, healthy part of a baby boy's anatomy off, for no other reason than cultural or societal influences. My boys are intact, and should I have another, he too will be intact. There is simply no other way.

If one of my children had an extra digit, extra limb or any kind of growth on their bodies that would impede their ability to grow and function normally, I believe it's my responsibility as a loving parent to remove that. If it's not going to harm them in any way, such as having a fully functional extra finger, then it would stay.

But if my child was born with an extra arm? Functional or not, I would not allow them to become a societal outcast, or be viewed as a "freak of nature" just to preserve their structural integrity. Removing such an appendage falls into the category of preserving their mental and emotional integrity, which is just as important. Children should be left as they are... if they can be a healthy individual that way.


Quote:


Originally Posted by *ColoradoMama* 
Okay, I hope you're just being funny. That little girl couldn't walk and had absolutely no chance of a normal life with the limbs of her parasitic twin fused to her.


To answer your question, I didn't watch that video. I'm really embarrassed about posting what I did without getting the entire story straight. I saw her picture in my local news paper. The picture I saw did not look like her extra limbs would hinder her growth but rather usable. My opinion has changed since watching the video. In her case surgery was needed.
And no, I wouldn't be funny about someone's misfortune. It was a misunderstanding on my part. Sorry.


----------



## moonfirefaery (Jul 21, 2006)

Personally I really like being able to walk. But that's just me.

ETA - I think _my_ two year old really likes it, too.


----------



## ananas (Jun 6, 2006)

I probably would. A foreskin is not an abnormality.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mommy2maya* 
Normally functioning, as in being able to walk, use the bathroom independently, dress independently, and be mobile. Why is that concept so frightening?

An extra digit doesn't usually inhibit that; if it does, that is a medical issue. If there is a medical issue where the extra part is causing pain, limited mobility, infections, injuries... then yes, surgery should be an option. But just to be "normal"? What is so great about being "normal"? What is so wrong with an abnormality (that isn't causing medical problems) that it necessitates surgery on a nonconsenting minor?

I do think the social emphasis on "normalcy" even to the point of surgery has frightening implications for all of the people who won't be able to fit into that "normal" box.


----------



## moonfirefaery (Jul 21, 2006)

The statement about being able to walk normally was pertaining to the young girl with two extra legs and arms whom we were discussing when the "normal life" comment to which you responded was made, not to a situation where the defect was only an extra digit.


----------



## eepster (Sep 20, 2006)

This discussion prompted me to look up this subject further. There was such a huge range of different sixth digits. The most common kind that just hangs off the side of the pinky it seemed like a very good idea to remove. Then there was the less common functional kind with bone and everything.

There was a page by a group of plastic surgeons who were experts at "correcting" the less common kind with bones and ligaments. They described how sometimes the surgery basically rejoined two only partially functional fingers to make a single functional finger, this seems most common on the thumb side. To me this seemed like a good idea for some cases and I would consider doing it.

However, then they started to talk about the removal of a basically functional sixth finger. The biggest argument they had for doing this complex painful surgery that can result in a _less_ _functional_ _but typical appearing_ hand before 1 year of age was that *older patient were more likely to be unhappy with the results.*

This really made me think of the do the circ when he's a baby so he won't remember it arguement.

In some cases removing the extradigit is not at all like choosing circ. It is a legitamit medical treatment that improves the childs well being. In these cases it would be more like agreeing to use the foreskin flap to repair a hypospadia that was sever enough that the child had problems with function. However, it seems that some parent do choose to remove fully functional sixth digits in a painful proceedure that results in a loss of function for purely cosmetic reasons, in these cases it would seem very similar to RIC.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery* 
The statement about being able to walk normally was pertaining to the young girl with two extra legs and arms whom we were discussing when the "normal life" comment to which you responded was made, not to a situation where the defect was only an extra digit.

Well, I was really responding to all of the posts about surgery to be "normal"... and that the difference between that and circ was that a foreskin was "normal" while an extra digit was not. If the extra part is seriously impeding functioning, or causing pain, or causing any kind of medical problem--that is very different than doing it because it's a "defect" or an "abnormality." So again, what is so great about being normal? Or so wrong with being abnormal, provided the abnormality isn't causing serious medical problems? What message does it send to our children when we surgically alter them to make them "normal"?


----------



## moonfirefaery (Jul 21, 2006)

Foreskins and defects are not comparable. Nature intends males to have foreskins. It does not intend for us to have extra digits.

I understand your logic--that you wouldn't consent to surgery for the sake of making your child normal. Likewise I would not remove a foreskin for the sake of normalcy.

I would, however, remove an extra digit for the sake of normalcy. There is a big difference between keeping something attached that has a purpose and function and is part of the human design for the sake of normalcy--and removing an extra digit, that has no function or purpose and is not part of the human design, for that sake.

I was taunted as a child, and it didn't make me a stronger person. It made me a very lonely and unhappy little girl. I can only imagine the taunting that a child with an extra digit might get, particularly early on from children who don't understand and are afraid. It's not worth it to me to risk my child possibly being lonely and unhappy for the sake of an extra digit, to uphold some principal about "being yourself."

I want my children to know not to change who they are for the sake of normalcy. An extra digit is not part of who they are. Normalcy is a real thing that has a real effect on life. When you are outside of the norm there are consequences. The question is: are those consequences worth it? Here are the messages I want to send: be who you are, don't try to be normal but don't try not to be, and consider the consequences of your actions.

The message I want to send to my children is that I _care_ about their feelings more than I care about principals relating to normalcy. I doubt they would long for an extra digit that was removed more than they would long to be accepted by their peers. Some may feel acceptance is unimportant, but many people do want acceptance--and there's nothing wrong with that.


----------



## Brigianna (Mar 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery* 
Foreskins and defects are not comparable. Nature intends males to have foreskins. It does not intend for us to have extra digits.

I understand your logic--that you wouldn't consent to surgery for the sake of making your child normal. Likewise I would not remove a foreskin for the sake of normalcy.

I would, however, remove an extra digit for the sake of normalcy. There is a big difference between keeping something attached that has a purpose and function and is part of the human design for the sake of normalcy--and removing an extra digit, that has no function or purpose and is not part of the human design, for that sake.

I was taunted as a child, and it didn't make me a stronger person. It made me a very lonely and unhappy little girl. I can only imagine the taunting that a child with an extra digit might get, particularly early on from children who don't understand and are afraid. It's not worth it to me to risk my child possibly being lonely and unhappy for the sake of an extra digit, to uphold some principal about "being yourself."

I want my children to know not to change who they are for the sake of normalcy. An extra digit is not part of who they are. Normalcy is a real thing that has a real effect on life. When you are outside of the norm there are consequences. The question is: are those consequences worth it? Here are the messages I want to send: be who you are, don't try to be normal but don't try not to be, and consider the consequences of your actions.

The message I want to send to my children is that I _care_ about their feelings more than I care about principals relating to normalcy. I doubt they would long for an extra digit that was removed more than they would long to be accepted by their peers. Some may feel acceptance is unimportant, but many people do want acceptance--and there's nothing wrong with that.

How is an extra digit not part of them, if they are born with an extra digit?

There are many different kinds of acceptance... when I was a kid I didn't really care whether my peers accepted me, but I did crave the acceptance of the adults in my life. And although I was not born with any extra body parts, I still wasn't normal... and every time they tried to fix me, tried to normalize me--all for the noble purpose of protecting me from peer ridicule--I received the clear message that I was not acceptable as I was. That I needed to change myself in order to be protected from cruelty. I don't think that is a healthy message for any child. To say "we have to cut off your extra finger to keep others from persecuting you," is blaming the victim. Even if the extra finger is non-functional, defective, unsightly and the child hates it. It's not about the finger. It's about telling a child "the reason you are persecuted is because of something wrong with _you_. The kids who bully you are right--you are intrinsically unacceptable as you are. The problem is solved by fixing you, not them." I believe that is the message of performing cosmetic surgery on children. I have never had a child with an extra digit, but I do have children who are "different," and when people are unkind to them because of their differences, I try to make my kids understand that those people are wrong. That they (my kids) are perfectly worthy of acceptance exactly as they are. And if I had one with an extra digit which was not causing physical problems, I would do the same thing. The same if I had one with birthmarks, acne, whatever. There is nothing wrong with wanting acceptance, but I do think there is something wrong with giving a child the message that he has to have permanent alteration of his body in order to be worthy of acceptance.


----------



## thixle (Sep 26, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Brigianna* 
There is nothing wrong with wanting acceptance, but I do think there is something wrong with giving a child the message that he has to have permanent alteration of his body in order to be worthy of acceptance.

It just needed to be repeated.


----------



## moonfirefaery (Jul 21, 2006)

Acceptance isn't about "worthiness." It's about society's willingness to be accepting.

When you have two paths, you must consider which is best. When you have two priorities that collide, you must decide which is higher on your list. Which is more important: the extra digit--or being normal? We can say also, what is more important: being yourself, or being normal? Obviously being yourself is being normal, but your body is not who you are.

Your body is not who you are, and I will never, ever let my children believe otherwise. I won't try to pretend that people's perceptions of us are not at all based on our bodies, though, because that would be wrong. If I dyed my hair pink, it wouldn't be part of who I am in the very least, but ignorant, close-minded folk would still judge me for it. I would still get the odd looks, possibly be treated differently, and knowing how wrong it is wouldn't make it any less frustrating. I'd have to chose, is my hair being the color I want it worth those consequences?

My children will be taught that it is wrong to be unkind for being different, but I assure you that knowing that doesn't make it any more painful to be cast out. I can also assure you that it won't make a three year old feel any better to know that it's wrong for other children not to play with her because there is something "unusual" about her. And you know what else? Knowing that it's rude and wrong to stare doesn't make an adult feel any better about having people stare at them, or try to avoid staring at them, because of some minor defect. Your body isn't who you are, but it affects how you're perceived and received.

You can do what you will if you ever have a child with an extra digit. I will not judge you for your choice. I would make a different one and say good day to you as we head down seperate paths. I would especially do so if my child hated it and wanted it removed, being that it is his body. I don't believe doing so is saying "Something is wrong with you." It's saying "You don't need that, it has no function, and it isn't worth the cruelty you might face to keep it."

ETA

If it were a functioning digit though, I would probably leave it intact, because hands are very useful--and to me, it's not worth having a less functional hand, impeding our ability to do manual things such as feed ourselves with a spoon, to be accepted.


----------



## Mommiska (Jan 3, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery* 
You can do what you will if you ever have a child with an extra digit. I will not judge you for your choice. I would make a different one and say good day to you as we head down seperate paths. I would especially do so if my child hated it and wanted it removed, being that it is his body. I don't believe doing so is saying "Something is wrong with you." It's saying "You don't need that, it has no function, and it isn't worth the cruelty you might face to keep it."


I totally agree with this.

I also agree with the person that said this comparison is like apples and oranges.

Correcting an easily correctable birth defect is not _at all_ comparable to removing a normal, healthy functional part of a person's genitals.

There is just no comparison at all, in my book. The two issues aren't even on the same page.

Especially when you consider that an extra finger would be something everyone would see every day, while - seriously - how often does anyone see someone else's penis?


----------



## kimkabob5 (Oct 25, 2002)

The penis is designed with a foreskin. It is not a defect. So to compare it to a situation where someone is born with extra digits is not valid. The human body was designed to have five digits on each hand.

To remove the extra digits or not? I honestly don't know what I would do as a parent since I have not been in that situation. Not as a newborn, certainly. I think I would have them removed but only after the age of proper anesthesia and after care pain management.

But I guess that brings up the moral dilemma if the choice should be the person who owns the body. For instance, my older son had a raised and very prominent strawberry mark on his left eye lid. I had strangers coming up to me in the street, horrified, saying "what happened to his eye???"

It went away on its own. If it hadn't, I'd have left it up to him whether or not he wanted to discuss removal or not. Okay, now that I think about it, I'd be that way with anything other than a defect that could have negative consequences on the child's health and well being.

Tissue that the human body was designed to have....how to compare to varieties? Can't.


----------



## Meg_s (Apr 13, 2006)

not unless my child asked me to, and we talked about it.


----------



## MilkTrance (Jul 21, 2007)

An intact penis is normal and functional.

Six fingers is abnormal. May or may not be functional. Would removal of the sixth finger DECREASE functionality of the hand or increase it? Probably the latter, since we were designed to use five digits on each hand.

I would remove it.

Quote:

Correcting an easily correctable birth defect is not at all comparable to removing a normal, healthy functional part of a person's genitals.
I guess that's it in a nutshell.


----------

