Quote:
Originally Posted by MattyC
As a grown adult, is there a single visible part of your body that you would have removed for a slightly reduced risk of STDs, which can easily be attended to by the means of not cutting of this part? A finger? A chunk of your lip? A toe? A nipple? Those things are pretty useless. Would you undergoe an appendectomy just because there is a slight chance at you getting future appendicitis? I'm not sure, but I would suspect that appendicitis is much more common than any difference in STDs for uncircumsized people. Would you even take a monthly pill that may slightly reduce the chance of appendicitis? Or an STD of your choosing?
|
Firstly, you're downplaying the reduction in risk. It ranges per STD - I've posted several articles on it - but it's quite significant. The examples you've provided are not very good either. Removal of an appendix requires a very invasive surgery and multi-day hospital stay. A circumcision is done in a few moments and the baby forgets about it quickly.
The biggest argument you have against it is a cultural morality that you shouldn't make a permanent choice for your child. There are plenty of cultural reasons for allowing circumcisions as well.