LogFAQs > #913300566

Aculo posted...

adjl posted...

Furthermore, being uncircumcised is not a guarantee of developing any of those, much like having teeth doesn't guarantee that you'll develop oral health problems. The logic you're employing here is literally the same as saying that it's a good idea to surgically remove people's teeth at birth so they never get cavities and are less likely to develop gingivitis. Sure, it's an effective prevention tactic, but it's also stupid.

except the overwhelming majority of people with those diseases still have their gross foreskin, ok?

And the overwhelming majority of people with cavities still have their teeth. That's a thoroughly meaningless statement when it comes to justifying removal of the body parts involved in undesirable conditions. To justify that, you need to demonstrate that there are no other effective treatment options, as well as that keeping the body part is very likely to continue causing the conditions. You have not only thoroughly failed to demonstrate that, but have in fact demonstrated the opposite in the case of balanitis.

Furthermore, even if you can demonstrate that causal link, it should still be the guy's decision, not a prophylactic treatment done at birth just in case a problem develops. Prophylactic amputations aren't a thing, and for good reason. Prophylactic amputations without the patient's consent are even worse, and yet somehow, circumcising newborns keeps being a thing.