Circumcision

[Hugh7]

I know someone who was not circumcised. As a child, he didn't know to keep "very clean" down there and it got infected. He was extremely embarassed about the infection and neglected to tell anyone. The infection got worse until he got really sick and eventually was forced to go to the doctor. It still embarasses him to this day.

This is the Fallacy of the Vivid Instance. You don't know the literally billions of men (seven out of ten of the world's men) who are intact and have never had any trouble, but you're prepared to recommend circumcising every baby on the basis of this one - who may not even have been circumcised, or needed it if he was. (US doctors are taught nothing about the foreskin except how to cut it off.) The real problem with this child is the exaggerated shame that prevented him seeking treatment. (And he might have concealed the problem because he'd heard about getting it cut off, or even been threatened with that.)

Studies show that there really is know medical reasons to be ...circumcised.

That in itself should be enough reason not to do it.

But it really doesn't matter because 1. 60% of American males ARE circumcised.

How does that make it not matter?

2. Infants don't remember the circumcision or the pain.

You could justify drug rape using that argument (and no, I'm not comparing them in any other way)

And 3. You're more likely to be made fun of in the locker room if you're uncircumcised.

With the rate down to 55%, no you're not. But that's just saying he must have part of his penis off to make him conform. And when he comes home and asks why he's different from the others, I'd rather be able to tell him that their parents had part of their peepees cut off and we didn't, than that they didn't and we did.

You clean a intact dick with soap and water it's not that hard.

It's even easier to clean if it is hard.

From what I hear it takes less time than to floss properly.

That's a good comparison. About as long as to floss between two or three teeth. And it's more fun. (See above.)

 

[JW Frogen]

I have no foreskin in this fight but still my glorious penis looks like an Evil Empire Storm Trooper!

All thanks to the the Dark Side of the circumcision.

 

[Anguille]

Studies show that there really is know medical reasons to be, or not to be, circumcised. But it really doesn't matter because 1. 60% of American males ARE circumcised. 2. Infants don't remember the circumcision or the pain. And 3. You're more likely to be made fun of in the locker room if you're uncircumcised.

1. And their undergoing an unnecessary operation makes your point how?

2. So the pain doesn't matter? Studies show children are very much influenced in how they will turn out later in life by what happens to them in the early years of life.

3. As if there arent unlimited reasons for being teased in a locker room. Never happen to my boyfriend.

 

[BrianH]

Studies show that there really is know medical reasons to be, or not to be, circumcised. But it really doesn't matter because 1. 60% of American males ARE circumcised. 2. Infants don't remember the circumcision or the pain. And 3. You're more likely to be made fun of in the locker room if you're uncircumcised.

1. And their undergoing an unnecessary operation makes your point how?

Didn't say it made a point. I'm saying it doesn't matter, because you can't ban it in the first place. If you were to try, you couldn't get enough support, because the majority of the people don't support it...not that it hasn't stopped recent presidents from passing things.

2. So the pain doesn't matter? Studies show children are very much influenced in how they will turn out later in life by what happens to them in the early years of life.

What study shows that an infant remembers being circumcised. Most kids don't remember past the age of 3 anyway. Do you remember coming out of the birth canal? I don't. And being circumcised has in no way affected me in life. I haven't turned to a life of cirme and I don't suffer from Post Traumatic Stress. LOL.

3. As if there arent unlimited reasons for being teased in a locker room. Never happen to my boyfriend.

Not my opinion...google circumcised vs. uncircumcised and you'll come up with a study by the University of Michigan.

 

[BrianH]

Do you think infant circumcision should be banned?

Should it be legal to physically hurt and permanently disfigure a baby who could not possibly consent to it.

The questionable medical benefits (STD protections mostly) can easily be substituted with a condom. So should this be considered infringing on a baby's rights?

The idea to ban circumcision is retarded. 1. Condom companies say they don't protect against STDs.
2. Having a circumcised penis is not having a "disfigurement."

I know someone who was not circumcised. As a child, he didn't know to keep "very clean" down there and it got infected. He was extremely embarassed about the infection and neglected to tell anyone. The infection got worse until he got really sick and eventually was forced to go to the doctor. It still embarasses him to this day.

Studies show that there really is know medical reasons to be, or not to be, circumcised. But it really doesn't matter because 1. 60% of American males ARE circumcised. 2. Infants don't remember the circumcision or the pain. And 3. You're more likely to be made fun of in the locker room if you're uncircumcised.

Name One condom company that says they don't protect against STDs, I've heard birth control pill sellers say it all the time but not condom companies.

You clean a intact dick with soap and water it's not that hard. From what I hear it takes less time than to floss properly.

Anyway I'd say it's a disfigurement because there's no way the penis is going to look like that naturally and the foreskin won't come back by itself.

FDA Releases Draft Guidelines for Latex Condoms; Packages Would Say They "Greatly Reduce But Do Not Eliminate" Risk of HIV, Pregnancy - The Body

 

[Barb]

Do you think infant circumcision should be banned?

Should it be legal to physically hurt and permanently disfigure a baby who could not possibly consent to it.

The questionable medical benefits (STD protections mostly) can easily be substituted with a condom. So should this be considered infringing on a baby's rights?

It isn't only prevention of STDs, there's yeast infections that are easier to prevent (pretty much entirely) with a circumcision. Its harder to deal with once the kid reaches the age of consent, according to men who've had it done later in life, especially if there's a pretty nurse coming in and out of the room.... Still, I didn't want my son cut, and his father (my late ex-husband) knew it. He signed those papers when I was asleep. Poor kid. I woke up and there he was, a day old with a look on his face that said, "you let them hurt me."

 

[Anguille]

Anyone relying on being circumcised to prevent him from catching an STD is in trouble.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

The babies are too young for regular anesthesia. They cry out in pain.

How many circumcisions have you witnessed?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Sorry, the medical dictionary I had was from the 50's

Wow. Two whole posts in a row that make no frigging sense at all. You going for some sort of record here?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Well you don't get to decide for the entire population. .

This seems to be a trend when it comes to ignorant arguments.. You can' decide whether one can mutilate the genitals of a child. You can't decide whether someone may kill their child. Do people not realize that it's an anarchist argument that, logically extrpolated, argues for to abolition of all law?

Well, unfortunately for this little argument, circumcisions are often done for religious reasons, and the law of the land prohibits the infringement of religious practice. Show me someone having an abortion for religious reasons, and then we'll talk about the two being analogous.

 

[Father Time]

Well you don't get to decide for the entire population. .

This seems to be a trend when it comes to ignorant arguments.. You can' decide whether one can mutilate the genitals of a child. You can't decide whether someone may kill their child. Do people not realize that it's an anarchist argument that, logically extrpolated, argues for to abolition of all law?

Well, unfortunately for this little argument, circumcisions are often done for religious reasons, and the law of the land prohibits the infringement of religious practice. Show me someone having an abortion for religious reasons, and then we'll talk about the two being analogous.

Do satanists count? I could've sworn I heard of one being done for their religion although that may have just been a rumor.

 

[Cecilie1200]

This seems to be a trend when it comes to ignorant arguments.. You can' decide whether one can mutilate the genitals of a child. You can't decide whether someone may kill their child. Do people not realize that it's an anarchist argument that, logically extrpolated, argues for to abolition of all law?

Well, unfortunately for this little argument, circumcisions are often done for religious reasons, and the law of the land prohibits the infringement of religious practice. Show me someone having an abortion for religious reasons, and then we'll talk about the two being analogous.

Do satanists count? I could've sworn I heard of one being done for their religion although that may have just been a rumor.

Was this supposed to be your idea of a clever, substantive post?

 

[Father Time]

Well, unfortunately for this little argument, circumcisions are often done for religious reasons, and the law of the land prohibits the infringement of religious practice. Show me someone having an abortion for religious reasons, and then we'll talk about the two being analogous.

Do satanists count? I could've sworn I heard of one being done for their religion although that may have just been a rumor.

Was this supposed to be your idea of a clever, substantive post?

No an honest question.

 

[Hugh7]

Well you don't get to decide for the entire population. .

This seems to be a trend when it comes to ignorant arguments.. You can' decide whether one can mutilate the genitals of a child. You can't decide whether someone may kill their child. Do people not realize that it's an anarchist argument that, logically extrpolated, argues for to abolition of all law?

Well, unfortunately for this little argument, circumcisions are often done for religious reasons, and the law of the land prohibits the infringement of religious practice. Show me someone having an abortion for religious reasons, and then we'll talk about the two being analogous.

Freedom of religion is not unlimited. Plenty of religions have in the past provided for human sacrifice (in fact there's a remnant of that in Christianity) but that would not be allowed today. Surgical, sterile, minimal, anaesthetised female genital cutting is part of the religious practice of Malaysia and Indonesia - they just call it "circumcision" - yet that would not be allowed in most of the English-speaking world. A good rule is "My freedom to practice my religion ends where your body begins" and when the body modification involved is permanent, it seems reasonable to protect children as well, boys as we now do for girls, for the sake of their freedom of (and from) religion as adults.

 

[Cecilie1200]

This seems to be a trend when it comes to ignorant arguments.. You can' decide whether one can mutilate the genitals of a child. You can't decide whether someone may kill their child. Do people not realize that it's an anarchist argument that, logically extrpolated, argues for to abolition of all law?

Well, unfortunately for this little argument, circumcisions are often done for religious reasons, and the law of the land prohibits the infringement of religious practice. Show me someone having an abortion for religious reasons, and then we'll talk about the two being analogous.

Freedom of religion is not unlimited. Plenty of religions have in the past provided for human sacrifice (in fact there's a remnant of that in Christianity) but that would not be allowed today. Surgical, sterile, minimal, anaesthetised female genital cutting is part of the religious practice of Malaysia and Indonesia - they just call it "circumcision" - yet that would not be allowed in most of the English-speaking world. A good rule is "My freedom to practice my religion ends where your body begins" and when the body modification involved is permanent, it seems reasonable to protect children as well, boys as we now do for girls, for the sake of their freedom of religion as adults.

You are correct that freedom of religion is not unlimited, and must give way to things like the right to life of others. However, regardless of the personal enmity of some against male circumcision, the fact is that it is not comparable to things like abortion (which involves death) and female circumcision (which has no medical benefit whatsoever, and results in harmful damage of lack of proper function of the involved body parts). Therefore, there is not a sufficiently valid argument for overruling freedom of religion in this instance.

My suggestion is that those who don't like male circumcision follow the advice endlessly parroted with much less logic in abortion arguments: if you don't like circumcision, don't get one.

 

[Hugh7]

It isn't only prevention of STDs, there's yeast infections that are easier to prevent (pretty much entirely) with a circumcision.

Yeast infections are caused by a bacterial imbalance and can be corrected without surgery (as they can in women), for example by applying yoghurt, but they need to be eradicated in both partners at once to stop them passing back and forth.

Its harder to deal with once the kid reaches the age of consent, according to men who've had it done later in life, especially if there's a pretty nurse coming in and out of the room....

In Finland, where they know more about the foreskin than how to cut it off, the lifetime risk of circumcision is less than one in 6000.

Still, I didn't want my son cut, and his father (my late ex-husband) knew it. He signed those papers when I was asleep. Poor kid. I woke up and there he was, a day old with a look on his face that said, "you let them hurt me."

Jebus, what a betrayal - of you both! No wonder he's your ex. We call this "the adamant father syndrome".

 

[Hugh7]

Well, unfortunately for this little argument, circumcisions are often done for religious reasons, and the law of the land prohibits the infringement of religious practice. Show me someone having an abortion for religious reasons, and then we'll talk about the two being analogous.

Freedom of religion is not unlimited. Plenty of religions have in the past provided for human sacrifice (in fact there's a remnant of that in Christianity) but that would not be allowed today. Surgical, sterile, minimal, anaesthetised female genital cutting is part of the religious practice of Malaysia and Indonesia - they just call it "circumcision" - yet that would not be allowed in most of the English-speaking world. A good rule is "My freedom to practice my religion ends where your body begins" and when the body modification involved is permanent, it seems reasonable to protect children as well, boys as we now do for girls, for the sake of their freedom of religion as adults.

You are correct that freedom of religion is not unlimited, and must give way to things like the right to life of others. However, regardless of the personal enmity of some against male circumcision, the fact is that it is not comparable to things like abortion (which involves death) and female circumcision (which has no medical benefit whatsoever, and results in harmful damage of lack of proper function of the involved body parts).

Notice I specified "Surgical, sterile, minimal, anaesthetised female genital cutting" which does not meet your criteria. Malaysians and Indonesians believe their variety of FGC has medical benefits. Their name for it means "purification". They are just as devoted to it as Americans are to male circumcision.

Therefore, there is not a sufficiently valid argument for overruling freedom of religion in this instance.

Who says male circumcision has to be as bad as abortion or African-style FGC before it is not protected by freedom of religion? If some religion mandated cutting off a baby's earlobe, we'd outlaw the practice in a moment.

My suggestion is that those who don't like male circumcision follow the advice endlessly parroted with much less logic in abortion arguments: if you don't like circumcision, don't get one.

That argument has no logic (in either debate).

 

[Cecilie1200]

Freedom of religion is not unlimited. Plenty of religions have in the past provided for human sacrifice (in fact there's a remnant of that in Christianity) but that would not be allowed today. Surgical, sterile, minimal, anaesthetised female genital cutting is part of the religious practice of Malaysia and Indonesia - they just call it "circumcision" - yet that would not be allowed in most of the English-speaking world. A good rule is "My freedom to practice my religion ends where your body begins" and when the body modification involved is permanent, it seems reasonable to protect children as well, boys as we now do for girls, for the sake of their freedom of religion as adults.

You are correct that freedom of religion is not unlimited, and must give way to things like the right to life of others. However, regardless of the personal enmity of some against male circumcision, the fact is that it is not comparable to things like abortion (which involves death) and female circumcision (which has no medical benefit whatsoever, and results in harmful damage of lack of proper function of the involved body parts).

Notice I specified "Surgical, sterile, minimal, anaesthetised female genital cutting" which does not meet your criteria. Malaysians and Indonesians believe their variety of FGC has medical benefits. Their name for it means "purification". They are just as devoted to it as Americans are to male circumcision.

We aren't talking about what behaviors are allowed in Malaysia and Indonesia. We're talking about religious freedom and medical science in the United States of America.

Therefore, there is not a sufficiently valid argument for overruling freedom of religion in this instance.

Who says male circumcision has to be as bad as abortion or African-style FGC before it is not protected by freedom of religion? If some religion mandated cutting off a baby's earlobe, we'd outlaw the practice in a moment.

Okay, this time when I say it, actually read and comprehend it, instead of spending the whole time thinking of whatever Mr. Clever Dick remark you can come up with to try to produce an "Aha!" moment.

The law says that male circumcision, and other religiously-mandated practices, have to meet a certain standard of unacceptability before the freedom of religion can be infringed. THAT is "who says".

We would outlaw cutting off a baby's earlobe for religious reasons because there is no connected medical benefit whatsoever to cutting off an earlobe. That is one reason why no form of female circumcision whatsoever is allowed in the US, despite the religions present here which practice it in other countries: because our medical establishment recognizes no concrete medical benefit. If Jews were just cutting off foreskins because they liked the way penises look without them, we wouldn't allow that, either.

Again, you can argue the extent of the medical benefits to male circumcision all you like. Certainly, the American Academy of Pediatrics has, which is why it is now viewed as elective surgery, rather than essential, and is not covered by Medicaid or most insurance carriers. But only a damned fool tries to pretend that they don't exist at all.

Now, if you require me to lay this out for you neatly and clearly one more time by your attempts to confuse and muddle the various issues together in order to make some sort of point that only impresses you, I will know that you either have nothing real and just want to be pugnacious, or that you need me to draw you pictures.

My suggestion is that those who don't like male circumcision follow the advice endlessly parroted with much less logic in abortion arguments: if you don't like circumcision, don't get one.

That argument has no logic (in either debate).

Incorrect. While it IS illogical to try to say that one can ignore the killing of other people as long as they aren't among them, it is completely logical to say that one can and should ignore a practice that is not, generally speaking, harming anyone at all and is therefore purely a matter of opinion and personal preference.

 

[Hugh7]

You are correct that freedom of religion is not unlimited, and must give way to things like the right to life of others. However, regardless of the personal enmity of some against male circumcision, the fact is that it is not comparable to things like abortion (which involves death) and female circumcision (which has no medical benefit whatsoever, and results in harmful damage of lack of proper function of the involved body parts).

Notice I specified "Surgical, sterile, minimal, anaesthetised female genital cutting" which does not meet your criteria. Malaysians and Indonesians believe their variety of FGC has medical benefits. Their name for it means "purification". They are just as devoted to it as Americans are to male circumcision.

We aren't talking about what behaviors are allowed in Malaysia and Indonesia. We're talking about religious freedom and medical science in the United States of America.

It was you who started mentioning FGC (which was covered by Blue Cross Blue Shield in the US until 1977). I specified at the outset that I was talking about "Surgical, sterile, minimal, anaesthetised female genital cutting" which was done in the US for claimed medical benefits.

But you hopelessly confuse the issue by switching randomly between medical benefits and religious freedom. Holy Communion, Bar Mitzvah and Ramadan fasting have no medical benefits. (The fasting may even be harmful, but Muslims choose it individually for themselves. I'm not sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if children were exempt.) They are allowed because the US embodies the right to practice religion in its Consititution.

Circumcision is very different. It involves cutting a healthy, non-renewing erogenous part off somebody else.

The law says that male circumcision, and other religiously-mandated practices, have to meet a certain standard of unacceptability before the freedom of religion can be infringed. THAT is "who says".

It does? Where? What is the "certain standard of unacceptability". So far as I know the law is silent on the subject, and it is silent on the subject of circumcision.

It outlaws polygamy, however:

REYNOLDS v. UNITED STATES.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
98 U.S. 145
OCTOBER, 1878, Term

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the court.

... Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship, would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice? Or if a wife religiously believed it was her duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband, would it be beyond the power of the civil government to prevent her carrying her belief into practice?

So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed. Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? T[o] permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.

Polygamy, so far as I know, poses no health risks.

We would outlaw cutting off a baby's earlobe for religious reasons because there is no connected medical benefit whatsoever to cutting off an earlobe. That is one reason why no form of female circumcision whatsoever is allowed in the US, despite the religions present here which practice it in other countries: because our medical establishment recognizes no concrete medical benefit.

There you go again, mixing medical and religious in a purely arbitrary way (as I don't think anyone has done before you, and for the sake of sanity I hope nobody does again).

If Jews were just cutting off foreskins because they liked the way penises look without them, we wouldn't allow that, either.

Says who? Gentiles can and do (I think some have posted to that effect here), so it would be discriminatory to allow them and forbid Jews.

Again, you can argue the extent of the medical benefits to male circumcision all you like. Certainly, the American Academy of Pediatrics has, which is why it is now viewed as elective surgery, rather than essential, and is not covered by Medicaid or most insurance carriers. But only a damned fool tries to pretend that they don't exist at all.

Sure, cutting off any body part absolutely extinguishes the possibility of disease in that part, but that's about the end of it. You also have to look at the quantum of benefit, expressed in the Number Needed to Treat vs Number Needed to Harm, and circumcision ends up on the red side of the ledger.

My suggestion is that those who don't like male circumcision follow the advice endlessly parroted with much less logic in abortion arguments: if you don't like circumcision, don't get one.

That argument has no logic (in either debate).

Incorrect. While it IS illogical to try to say that one can ignore the killing of other people as long as they aren't among them,

At the risk of starting an abortion thread, to call abortion at every point in pregnancy from conception to birth "the killing of other people" is to beg a host of questions. Pregnancy is a process involving the most dramatic possible change in status. It is universally agreed that a born baby has full human status, including the right to security of the person, and equality of the sexes.

it is completely logical to say that one can and should ignore a practice that is not, generally speaking, harming anyone at all

But you cannot speak generally when it is done 1.2 million times a year in the US, and is unquestionably harming some of those people.

and is therefore purely a matter of opinion and personal preference.

YES, personal preference - the personal preference of the person on the other end of the penis. Why is that so difficult to understand?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Notice I specified "Surgical, sterile, minimal, anaesthetised female genital cutting" which does not meet your criteria. Malaysians and Indonesians believe their variety of FGC has medical benefits. Their name for it means "purification". They are just as devoted to it as Americans are to male circumcision.

We aren't talking about what behaviors are allowed in Malaysia and Indonesia. We're talking about religious freedom and medical science in the United States of America.

It was you who started mentioning FGC (which was covered by Blue Cross Blue Shield in the US until 1977). I specified at the outset that I was talking about "Surgical, sterile, minimal, anaesthetised female genital cutting" which was done in the US for claimed medical benefits.

Sorry, but no on both counts. I didn't introduce female circumcision into the conversation. I merely answered its insertion. Also, past decisions which have been revoked are as irrelevant as discussions of Malaysia and Indonesia are. Once upon a time, medicine also touted the "benefits" of bleeding people with leeches for all manner of illnesses. Then they learned better, and stopped.

But you hopelessly confuse the issue by switching randomly between medical benefits and religious freedom. Holy Communion, Bar Mitzvah and Ramadan fasting have no medical benefits. (The fasting may even be harmful, but Muslims choose it individually for themselves. I'm not sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if children were exempt.) They are allowed because the US embodies the right to practice religion in its Consititution.

I may have confused YOU, but I haven't confused the issue. Religion and religious freedom in the United States do not exist in a vacuum. Freedom of religion, like all freedoms here, exists within boundaries, and one of the biggest boundaries for any freedom is perceived harm to others. Those who make our laws are advised in their determination of that perception by the American medical community. Thus, we limit religious freedom in regards to procedures, like female circumcision, which our medical community deems to be harmful without any balancing benefit, and does NOT limit religious freedom in regards to procedures like male circumcision, which our medical community does not deem to be harmful and/or has balancing benefits.

It is YOU who continually tries to confuse the issue by introducing bullshit strawman arguments like "cutting off earlobes" and rituals that have nothing whatsoever to do with medicine or physical changes, such as Communion and fasting. (Although I will say you're mistaken about fasting being harmful or having no medical benefits. Many physicians believe that a period of fasting can actually have a beneficial cleansing effect on the body, undertaken properly.)

Circumcision is very different. It involves cutting a healthy, non-renewing erogenous part off somebody else.

There is no medical support for the idea that circumcision hampers the erogenous capabilities of the male genitals, and I can tell you from experience that it makes no noticeable difference to the female partner, so spare me. As for removal of body parts to improve health, until recently, tonsils and appendixes were routinely removed in order to improve the health of the patient, and I don't just mean when they became badly inflamed. It was once standard practice for a surgeon who was already working in that area of the body to go ahead and remove the appendix while he was there, to eliminate any chance of it becoming a problem later. Like male circumcision, such practice has fallen out of favor with medical authorities, but many doctors will still recommend appendectomies and tonsilectomies at the first sign of problems, even if it could be treated otherwise.

It does? Where? What is the "certain standard of unacceptability". So far as I know the law is silent on the subject, and it is silent on the subject of circumcision.

The law is NOT silent on the subject of circumcision, which is why it's LEGAL. Duhhh.

It outlaws polygamy, however:


Polygamy, so far as I know, poses no health risks.

There you go again, trying to confuse the issue with bullshit, unrelated straw men. Polygamy is not a medical prodedure, dumbass, so it's not judged according to health risks. If you're planning on wasting my time with crap like this, tell me now.

There you go again, mixing medical and religious in a purely arbitrary way (as I don't think anyone has done before you, and for the sake of sanity I hope nobody does again).

Again, the only confusion here is in your own head, and it's not my job to help you pretend to be sane by talking down to your perception capabilities. If you can't keep up, find a new subject that's your speed.

We are talking about a medical procedure. It is done, in many cases, because of religious beliefs. Thus, there is no "arbitrary mixing" involved. The two are connected on this subject. Don't blame me if you can't handle reality.

Says who? Gentiles can and do (I think some have posted to that effect here), so it would be discriminatory to allow them and forbid Jews.

What in the Hell are you babbling about? No one suggested letting Gentiles do something and forbidding Jews.

::sigh:: Try to follow this. Non-Jewish people get cicumcisions because they offer medical benefits. If they didn't, those people wouldn't get them, and there's a chance the law would also view it as an unacceptable religious practice where Jews are concerned. Where you got "If it were just cosmetic, we'd forbid Jews to do it . . . but we'd still let Gentiles" is beyond me.

Sure, cutting off any body part absolutely extinguishes the possibility of disease in that part, but that's about the end of it. You also have to look at the quantum of benefit, expressed in the Number Needed to Treat vs Number Needed to Harm, and circumcision ends up on the red side of the ledger.

Okay, really, why are you here discussing a topic you so clearly haven't bothered to get even the slightest grasp on beforehand? Males are not circumcised to prevent diseases of the FORESKIN, you ignoramus.

I'm not even going to waste my time explaining the medical benefits involved here, because I'm offended that you have wasted this much of my time without even vaguely educating yourself. Go look it up and come back when you have something intelligent to contribute. "Disease in that part." Honestly.