To circumcise or not to circumcise?

[Losty]

Most benefits shown seem to be in places, where hygiene standards are very low and infection rates very high. So - as I said before - perhaps for people, who live in a warm puddle in the middle of the jungle, it might be a useful procedure; better than doing nothing, anyway.

In a similar way , if you don't have modern antibiotics available - then perhaps immediate amputation may be the best treatment of an infection. But if a doctor did that in a modern hospital - he'd be considered a hack and a monster. Because WE HAVE BETTER OPTIONS AVAILABLE NOW. Of course - people who already had their limbs hacked off would probably attempt to glorify the "benefits" of  stumps in an attempt to rationalize a decision - because it's not like they have a choice now, do they? Might as well make yourself feel good about it...

Another good example - beating children. I don't care how many times someone tells me, that their father beating them bloody was a necessity, or even beneficial in some way. That still doesn't make it right...

They still do perform circumcision to treat some medical problems in modern hospitals.

I don't know the precise details but I know 2 people who've been circumcised during adulthood and I'm pretty sure one was std related and both were seemingly the recommended medical procedure given by doctors.

It was medically recommended by 3 separate doctors, one a urologist, to circumcise my son at 7 months old because his foreskin didn't retract. -_-