Reply #39: well ... except that ... [View All]

.. all the "science and medicine" is very new. Male circumcision traditions predates the science by a just a bit.

The wikipedia page (I'm no expert) says in their history of circumcision page that its origin is disputed, except that everyone agrees "promoting good health had nothing to do with it."

And frankly I don't really have much faith in the oft-quoted studies. It makes about as much sense to me as advocating double mastectomies for teenage girls to prevent breast-cancer ... 99.99% effective! And before you think this is a silly argument (ok, it is, but ...) consider if double mastectomies were our tradition ... would people be quoting breast cancer stats to support continuing the practice?

And referring again to the wikipedia page ... "The major medical societies in the USA,<55> Britain,<56> Canada,<57> Australia and New Zealand<3> do not recommend routine non-therapeutic infant circumcision".

ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_male_circumcision

Btw, I'm really not trying to minimize the horror of female genital mutilation ... it turns my stomach. Just pointing out that we have our own rather amazing blind spots when it comes to our traditions.