(June 12, 2016 at 9:21 am)robvalue Wrote: You could make a (weak) case for the removal of a huge number of body parts, with the argument that the removed part can no longer go bad in any way.
Of course, you then have to balance the likely damage such a removal causes.
If the medical community as a whole considered every single modification you could make as a general rule, and decided that it's foreskins and nothing else, I'd be surprised and suspicious. It just happens to correlate with what people have been doing for a long time for other reasons, mainly religious, or primitive hygiene.
I agree. And I don't see overwhelming evidence for recommending universal circumcision thus far. Penile cancer would probably be the only risk that might cause me to reconsider, but the study cited by the AAP did not take into account other risk factors for that particular type of cancer.
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Wiser words were never spoken.
