I don’t believe it helps your argument to try to undermine the WHO approval of male circumcision in the manner you did. The WHO has a much higher integrity and exhibit a lot more professionalism than you credited them for. Have you followed the WHO reports on the subject since the one issued in 2007?

I will simply repeat what I wrote in reply to your argument in the other article: Case for male circumcision” (http://www.allvitalpoints.com/2012/case-for-male-circumcision). The following study clearly state the case for male circumcision : http://www.unfpa.org/sowmy/resources/docs/library/R313_KNBS_2010_Kenya_DHS_2009_final_report.pdf
Please go to page 220 of the report. Table 13.12 clearly and unarguably shown that the STI infection rate for circumcised men was 1% in a sample population of 2374, whereas it was 4% in uncircumcised men in a sample population of 354.

You appear to be motivated by other objectives other than getting to know the facts by examining the evidence. From what I have read, there is no doubt that male circumcision will benefit women.

Hugh Intactive appears to be motivated by other objectives other than getting to know the facts by examining the evidence. From what I have read, there is no doubt that male circumcision will benefit women.

“I’m safeguarding myself and my faithful partner from contracting hiv infections…” said Mupeni. Mupenis, implying that 1) he is NOT faithful and 2) he will be having unprotected sex. So he certainly isn’t safeguarding anybody.

It is not enough that circumcision “reduces the incidence” of this or that disease. From what, to what? By the circumcision advocates’ own figures, more than 100 circumcisions are wasted for every one that prevents a urinary tract infection, for example. That is a lot of pain, risk and inevitable damage for something that can be treated when it occurs – as it always is in girls, of course, who are at greater risk.

The “stupid argument” in the first paragraph doesn’t know what side it is on, doesn’t make any sense, and I doubt very much has ever been put up by anybody. Hair grows back. Nails grow back, piercings grow closed. Circumcision is permanent.

Infant circumcision is a human rights violation. It is a “cure” looking for a disease, an intervention in search of an excuse.

You are mistaken about about the Frisch study. The survey was a large random sample of the population, focusing on health issues. Here is a link to it. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=21672947

Also you are wrong to suggest that “Frisch M, Lindholm M, Grønbæk M. Male circumcision and sexual function in men and women: a survey-based, cross-sectional study in Denmark. Int J Epidemiol. 2011 Jun 14″ was a scientific evidence. It wasn’t. In fact they stated the method they used as the follows:
“Participants in a national health survey (n?=?5552) provided information about their own (men) or their spouse’s (women) circumcision status and details about their sex lives. Logistic regression-derived odds ratios (ORs) measured associations of circumcision status with sexual experiences and current difficulties with sexual desire, sexual needs fulfilment and sexual functioning.”

The survey was not a random sample of circumcised men. Was it not likely that those with sexual problems were the ones who were likely to respond to the survey? The survey did not compare the percentage of circumcised men against uncircumcised men with sexual health problems.

I do not agree with your opinion, especially when I consider that you have deliberately misquoted a survey methodology and ignored the all important World Health Organisation report on the matter.

The figure of 0.2-0.6% complications is conservative. A Richmond VA pediatrician had to repair 1600 in three years, suggesting a rate of more than 13%. Because circumcision is supposed to make the penis “low maintenance”, because it is often done for prudish reasons, and because the parts involved don’t come into their full function until 13-15 years later, circumcision may never get all the blame for all the problems it causes.

“No scientific evidence that compare the sexual health of men with circumcised pennies against those with uncircumcised pennies.”?
Frisch M, Lindholm M, Grønbæk M. Male circumcision and sexual function in men and women: a survey-based, cross-sectional study in Denmark. Int J Epidemiol. 2011 Jun 14.
“Conclusions: Our study shows hitherto unrecognized associations between male circumcision and sexual difficulties in both men and women….”

The Dutch conclusion is one-sided? Here is a link to the full 17-page policy in English. It has 54 references. http://www.circumstitions.com/Docs/KNMG-policy.pdf

“It is essential that doctors perform male circumcision only where this is demonstrably in the best interests of the child.” True.
“The responsibility to demonstrate that non-therapeutic circumcision is in a particular child’s best interest’s falls to his parents.”
False. The only “best interest” that can even claim to justify such a surgical intervention for no medical reason, is societal conformity. That is a fault of the society that demands it, not the child.

I Then checked my personal feed and noticed somebody sharing the link to this blog…

Have you ever considered about including a little bit more than just your articles? I mean, what you say is important and everything. But think about if you added some great images or videos to give your posts more, “pop”! Your content is excellent b…

Do you mind if I quote a couple of your posts as long as I provide credit and sources back to your webpage? My blog site is in the exact same niche as yours and my visitors would definitely benefit from some of the information you provide here. Please …

[...]Balanitis – inflammation of the head of the penis[...]…