Anonymous wrote:
I am the poster you quoted. I'm glad that you feel that you "know better" than all these doctors conducting the study, some of which come from the likes of Johns Hopkins and the rest. First, to equate circumcision to certain practices related to female genitalia mutilation is foolish and stupid. It is not the same thing and you know it.
Second, there is no government conspiracy for circumcizing boys. Think about it logically, why would the government care one way or another? Stop being so paranoid.
And third, circumcision done correctly is pretty much painless for babies and there are no reputable studies (key word REPUTABLE) that say there is a decrease in feeling, etc. So many of us weigh what we consider the risks (almost none) to the benefits (cited in the study) and make that decision.
Did you read the Canadian article? Why do you think it is that none of the rest of the world interprets the research the way the U.S. doctors do? This is not a rhetorical question. I'm not talking about conspiracy; I'm talking about cultural bias. Most of the doctors in this country are circumcised, so they have a strong bias for it. That means they are going to downplay risks, and present the benefits as much more weighty than they are. No other pediatric association in the world encourages circumcision; in fact they outright discourage it.
You literally have to search far and wide to find a pediatrician who will do a routine neonatal circumcision in countries like Canada, England, Norway, Germany, Italy, Mexico, etc. etc. Do you think they are simply not aware of the great benefits?
Can you name five risks of circumcision? Can you explain what is so potentially troublesome about a foreskin that it must be removed within hours of birth? I think many people circumcise more out of fear than any other reason, and they truly have not explored the risks, nor have they made any attempt to discover how the normal (intact) penis functions.