Hugh7 has left this comment on our post "Should men be circumcised?":

Hugh7 has left this comment on our post "Should men be circumcised?":

In the English-speaking world outside the US, circumcision rates are residual, not "one quarter". It was fashionable in the 1950s but since it did no good, we gave it up with no regrets.

If your figure for Urinary Tract Infections is correct, 397 circumcisions in 400 are wasted, 396 on boys who will never get them, and one on a boy who will get them anyway. Penile cancer is also very rare, rarer than male breast cancer.

The science claiming to show circumcision protects men against HIV infection from women is very shaky - many times more circumcised men dropped out of the studies, their HIV status unknown, than non-circumcised men were infected, for one thing. In at least six African countries, more of the circumcised men have HIV than the non-circumcised, according to the National Demographic and Health Surveys.

The main reason babies get circumcised is that they can't put up enough of a struggle against it.It is a human rights issue. Whose penis is it, anyway?

Original Story HERE
Thanks Hugh7