It was never needed. Any supposed benefits are explicitly a lie and always have been, with the only exception being phimosis, an issue that doesn't present/become an issue until after puberty and therefore doesn't justify routine infant circumcision.
This isn't true. My kid sons are cut, my nephews were born in a hospital that considered it a cosmetic surgery. As babies, and toddlers my nephews had UTI's constantly while my sons had none. The original religious purpose sometimes has a common sense reason.
You may not like my experience, but my nephews probably liked being in the pain of all those UTI's even less. Every time I watched them I had to go crazy with bath times to help them.
Oh wow, anecdotal experience. Whew lads, I guess I was wrong despite all the evidence to the contrary, better keep up with the barbaric mutilation.
Tell me, why do we not cut off clitoral hoods? It's entirely analogous to a foreskin, yet we only mutilate one half of the population. Better yet, you're arguing in the name of hygiene, the only (minor) "benefit" of routine infant mutilation. So I ask you, will you be also advocating for the removal of newborn's ears since there are so many out there that do such a poor job of hygiene when it comes to their ears? Maybe we should also lop off young women's breasts once they develop as a preventative to breast cancer?
Or is it that we should only resort to such measures as a response, and not as a preventative since it's so utterly insane that you would actually defend mutilating children?
That's not even a comment in good faith. Take your loser self somewhere else. My sons are old enough to bring me edibles. Go make your own personal experiences which happens to be the beginning of of studies get enough data.
Speaking as someone who was circumcised as a baby:
I get it. I don't necessarily agree with you, but I get it.
I'd be fine if the practice was eventually outlawed.
It's a symbolic practice that is no longer needed due to Jesus dying for us. I never understood it anyway.
It was never needed. Any supposed benefits are explicitly a lie and always have been, with the only exception being phimosis, an issue that doesn't present/become an issue until after puberty and therefore doesn't justify routine infant circumcision.
This isn't true. My kid sons are cut, my nephews were born in a hospital that considered it a cosmetic surgery. As babies, and toddlers my nephews had UTI's constantly while my sons had none. The original religious purpose sometimes has a common sense reason.
You may not like my experience, but my nephews probably liked being in the pain of all those UTI's even less. Every time I watched them I had to go crazy with bath times to help them.
Oh wow, anecdotal experience. Whew lads, I guess I was wrong despite all the evidence to the contrary, better keep up with the barbaric mutilation.
Tell me, why do we not cut off clitoral hoods? It's entirely analogous to a foreskin, yet we only mutilate one half of the population. Better yet, you're arguing in the name of hygiene, the only (minor) "benefit" of routine infant mutilation. So I ask you, will you be also advocating for the removal of newborn's ears since there are so many out there that do such a poor job of hygiene when it comes to their ears? Maybe we should also lop off young women's breasts once they develop as a preventative to breast cancer?
Or is it that we should only resort to such measures as a response, and not as a preventative since it's so utterly insane that you would actually defend mutilating children?
That's not even a comment in good faith. Take your loser self somewhere else. My sons are old enough to bring me edibles. Go make your own personal experiences which happens to be the beginning of of studies get enough data.