(Original post by jsk800)
A decreased risk of urinary tract infections.
What is that decrease in risk amongst men who practice good hygiene?
A reduced risk of some sexually transmitted diseases in men.
Irrelevant as they should be wearing condoms anyway.
In fact, this is a negative because some men will forego condoms because they believe that it protects them, thus increasing the spread of STIs.
Protection against penile cancer
Correlates with a history of phimosis. Circumcision post childhood actually increases the risk.
and a reduced risk of cervical cancer in female sexpartners.
Studies show that sexualy behaviour and safe sex practices are the important factors.
Prevention of balanitis (inflammation of the glans) and balanoposthitis (inflammation of the glans and foreskin).
Again, simple good hygiene avoids this.
Prevention of phimosis (the inability to retract the foreskin) and paraphimosis (the inability to return the foreskin to its original location).
Medically necessary circumcision is not an issue.
Your argument seems to be based on carrying out a surgical procedure because it may provide a slight redusction in the risk of contracting certain conditions.Appendectomy 100% reduces the risk of appendicitis. Do you support this procedure being carried out on all children.
Double mastectomy eliminates the risk of breast cancer. Presumably you think that all women should have both breasts remove once they have finished puberty.
Circumcision also makes it easier to keep the end of the penis clean.
So you support mutilating the genitals of infants because it makes washing a bit easier!