Should Boys be Circumcised?

Recommend (0) Comments (3)

Milos ignores the massive evidence, and chooses an obscure, small study that deviates from the truth. I quoted the worldwide research published in reputable journals. So why is Milos saying "Morris's statistics" They are not mine but those from good published research by a large number of eminent scientists with far more credibility than Milos.

Scare-mongering used by Milos for her propaganda purposes should not fool most people. The fact is that lack of circumcision causes millions of deaths. Many of these are in the USA and include cervical cancer, penile cancer, AIDS, etc. Being uncircumcised also causes numerous other health, medical and sexual problems (www.circinfo.net).

Only to the likes of Milos are post-neonatal circumcisions unnecessary. It makes common sense to circumcise in infancy when it is simpler, cheaper, safer, quicker, and more convenient. It also confers the benefits sooner, so avoiding infant urinary tract infections that often cause permanent kidney damage.

All research has shown that circumcision  is cost-effective. If one adds up the costs of treating all of the diseases and other conditions caused by lack of circumcision in males and in their sexual partners the cost of not circumcising far exceeds the cost of circumcision.

What parent would allow their baby to risk all of these threats to his well-being, and the well-being of his future partners and spouse, by not having him circumcised? Circumcision is now regarded as a surgical vaccine, so that just as a traditional vaccine that most parents would not hesitate to permit for their child, they need to study the valid evidence and make an informed decision in their child's best interests, and not delay that decision.

I decry the anti-circ (or 'genital integrity) groups because of their lack of intellectual integrity. I am a scientist and deplore unscientific propaganda especially when it suits the dubious and in some cases questionable agendas of the perpetrators. I and others in the world of medical science promote scientific truth based on rock-solid scientific evidence. I am opposed to the fictitious statements of the anti-circ movement and see their agenda as intent on causes enormous damage to public health and the well-being of individuals.

The past several decades have witnessed a massive advance in knowledge about the benefits of circumcision. The statement to the contrary by Milos is purile nonsense in the extreme. Clearly she has now lost the plot and is resorting to outrageous lies to prop up her failed cause. Circumcision can be absolutely pain-free, confers a functional and cosmetic benefit to the pen.is, is legal, just as necessary as any vaccination and is one of the safest procedures that a parent could wish for their child.

If parents truly wish the very best for their infant son they will have him circumcised and not listen to the clap-trap and whining of the anti-circ proponents such as Milos.