This subject came up on the radio last night. But idiot hosts never touched on anything of substance. It all started from a court case between mom and dad over junior's unit. Junior never had his unit mutilated at birth by the doctors. Nine years later, and post-divorce, mom starts hearing all sorts of bad things that can go wrong from not having a circumcision. Mom insists junior get it hacked, but dad says leave it alone. Court rules the kid can decide when he is 18. Meanwhile, I am sure kid wasn't digging all the publicity. But that's another story.
Years ago something like 95% of boys were circumcized (sp). I think I heard it's something like 60% today. Two points in favor of male genital mutilation are: some have suggested infections are caused if the boy is not circumcized. This was never more true than for GIs in Vietnam. So it is possible, but I think that's highly unlikely with the slightest of hygene effort. Baths and showers would easily prevent that and a plethora of other nasties.
The other argument, religion aside, for mutilating a boy's genitals is vanity or to fit in. I would only ask those that would make such an argument one question: if the majority of men/boys did not get circumsized, would you still be in favor of circumcision? If you answered yes, it's obviously something more than looks. If you answered no, what other issues of health do you let the perception of others decide for you and your offspring?
Finally, if you are one that favors male genital mutilation do you also support female genital mutilation aka cliterectomy?
Years ago something like 95% of boys were circumcized (sp). I think I heard it's something like 60% today. Two points in favor of male genital mutilation are: some have suggested infections are caused if the boy is not circumcized. This was never more true than for GIs in Vietnam. So it is possible, but I think that's highly unlikely with the slightest of hygene effort. Baths and showers would easily prevent that and a plethora of other nasties.
The other argument, religion aside, for mutilating a boy's genitals is vanity or to fit in. I would only ask those that would make such an argument one question: if the majority of men/boys did not get circumsized, would you still be in favor of circumcision? If you answered yes, it's obviously something more than looks. If you answered no, what other issues of health do you let the perception of others decide for you and your offspring?
Finally, if you are one that favors male genital mutilation do you also support female genital mutilation aka cliterectomy?
but if I had a son I'm not sure I would have it done. 
uppy:
