Correction To Circumcision ACC

The original title of the essay was “Circumcision: Harms, Benefits, Ethics”. I wanted to have all the titles in the same format, as questions, so I titled my post “Is Circumcision Ethical?” Then lots of people got upset because the essay included focused on harms and benefits as much as (or more than) ethics.

This was totally my fault, not the fault of the authors. Sorry. For the sake of voting, please pretend the post had been titled “Circumcision: Harms, Benefits, Ethics”.

You can see my proposed titles for the other collaborations here; if any authors are unhappy with how I’ve phrased them, please let me know.

9 thoughts on “Correction To Circumcision ACC

  1. zzzzort

    I’ve generally seen it as ‘foreskin restoration’ but I guess ‘correction to circumcision’ works as well.

      1. disposablecat

        After reading the comments on the ACC and doing a little digging, only to realize some of my minor gripes with my sexual function may in fact be fixable, I’d be pretty interested in “foreskin restoration: much more than you wanted to know”.

  2. kipling_sapling

    What about, “Do the benefits of circumcision outweigh its harms?” That seems more directly to be the question the essayists were addressing, more than just “what are the benefits, harms, and ethics?”

    1. Ralf

      “Circumcision: Benefit & Harms”
      “Circumcision: Pro/Con”
      “Circumcision: Yes/No”
      “Circumcision: Holy covenant with God or barbaric genital Mutilation?”
      “Circumcision: Too much information”
      “Circumcision: Why European boys don’t need to hide lube in their room”

        1. Edward Scizorhands

          Over on the Original Thread, someone said “People seem to be surprised that the conclusion for circumcision is so clear-cut” and I just couldn’t believe everyone was letting it lay there.

Comments are closed.