[July 4th]

Circumcision is just as barbaric as a clitoridectomy and was proven long ago to provide no health benefit.

1) It's nowhere near as barbaric, and certainly not done for the same purpose.

2) The health benefit that circumcision provided in two recent African HIV studies was so striking that doctors felt it unethical to keep the control group from having the procedure done.

[Squeako]

1) It's nowhere near as barbaric, and certainly not done for the same purpose.

2) The health benefit that circumcision provided in two recent African HIV studies was so striking that doctors felt it unethical to keep the control group from having the procedure done.

1) As barbaric as female "circumcision"? No, but equally as unnecessary.

2) Those studies also ended when the circumcised group started contracting HIV at the same rate as the intact group.

There is rarely any reason to preemptively remove perfectly healthy, specialized tissue. I don't hear advocates of routine infant circumcision promoting routine infant appendectomy, but it would make just as much, if not more sense.