What do circumcision 'inactivists' think of this Mayo clinic article?

Hey charc "If it was left till 16 or 18 and every boy was allowed to make the decision for himself the practice would die out within a couple of generations." Not specifically 16 or 18 but some of us have the cajones to get it done as an adult.

It has nothing to do with property. Babies are the responsibility of their parents. Their parents should get them vaccinated and circumcised to protect them from disease (and er doggy penis look). If you are not anti-circumcision then you shouldn't get suckered by the activists. They only push that illogic because they know that things like circumcision and vaccination are less likely to be taken up when they have lost most of their benefit and for circumcision the recovery period goes up from 1 week to 6-8 weeks and everything else makes it harder too.

Still if more men knew how much chicks prefer cut men and knew that it makes sex feel better they might go ahead.

Mayo Clinic Circumcision

A review article written by three pro-circumcision activists, published in the journal of a clinic in a country where medical practitioners make millions performing circumcisions? I'm not impressed.

"...half of uncircumcised males will require treatment for a medical condition associated with retention of the foreskin".

I call BS on that one. I note that by far the largest contribution to this supposed risk comes from one paper written by two of the same authors.

If this is true then in Europe, where most men are not circumcised, there ought to be a pandemic of medical problems caused by it. There is not.

If having a foreskin posed such a risk evolution would have eliminated it. It didn't, therefore it either provides a benefit or it is risk-neutral.

I'm not anti-circumcision, I just think that babies are not the property of their parents. Circumcision is done on babies because they can't protest. If it was left till 16 or 18 and every boy was allowed to make the decision for himself the practice would die out within a couple of generations.

I'm not convinced one way or another, but I will say that I wish they'd taken just a little less off me.

Happy with the lack of funky odors,

but did they have to be so thorough.?

Read the fine print, that one in one hundred applies to 1% of the population meaning it is a benefit to one in 10,000 males , it's almost meaningless.

If nature wanted the male penis to have no foreskin, that is the way they would have been born..... Cutting off body parts for the sake of religion is just wrong.... Sorry... Just my opinion....Doubt if anyone cares what I think

Thats why atheists always say "Hold the Mayo" when ordering a sandwich.

I dont believe it for a second. Its well known that certian groups who have a religious interest in mutilating there babies controls the media and much of world medicine as well