If someone showed that removing the top half of the aureole of a newborn girl's nipples reduced her risk of breast cancer and a couple other diseases by half, my guess is that it would be normal medical procedure.
Oh please.
Removing the breast tissue of girls born in families with a pre-disposition of breast cancer would greatly reduce their chances of ever developing the disease. And yet, we don't remove the breast tissue of young girls born with the pre-disposition for the illness. We let them grow up and decide for themselves if they want to undergo such surgery.
See the difference there?
Pulling perfectly healthy wisdom teeth already is. And there is no small amount of suffering involved in that.
Again, you are discussing something that consenting adults decide to do for themselves.
Very different to this current discussion.
In the eons before clothing, the foreskin protected. Now it's a germ nursery and infection target.
My goodness! There's a stretch of fact and truth.
But your comment raises an important note.
Are people in the West circumcising their son's because they are unable to practice normal hygiene and actually bath or educate their son's on how to clean their penis? Since you know, you are declaring the uncircumcised penis as "it's a germ nursery and infection target"?
I have two sons, both uncircumcised. None of my male relatives are circumcised, even the Muslim ones. None of the males in my circle of friends are circumcised, nor are their male off-spring and so forth. And I have yet to hear of or know of a single male in my acquaintance circle who has developed an infection of any sort on their uncircumcised penal gland. Perhaps it's because they know how to wash themselves? Could that be it?
Perhaps you could try it sometime?:shrug: Just clean it with water. You don't even need soap.
The only people I know of whom I have met a few times is the friends of my ex's friend's wife. Both sons were circumcised "because Jesus was circumcised" and both ended up being rushed to hospital with fairly severe infections after the surgical removal when they were a few days old and all done without anything to dull the pain.
There are reasons for removing it, in other words, that might be considered adequate by reasonable people.
The only time it should be removed is if becomes cancerous (very rare) or if it is too tight and cannot retract, this is usually spotted at birth as the child may be unable to pee properly and sometimes when the child grows up and is unable to get a proper erection due to it being too tight. Usually doctors will check for such things when you take your child in for a complete check-up.. If it is healthy and the penis functions as it should function, why remove it? Just like your breast commentary before. If a baby girl's nipple is healthy, why would you remove it? Because it might become diseased in the future?
Now to me, a reasonable person will take the option of 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it', in that if it is healthy and there are no problems with it, why would you put your newborn son through so much pain of removing his foreskin without any anaesthetic (it's done in the raw) and then increasing his chance of getting an infection in his penis once the clamp is in place to kill off the foreskin tissue or once the snip is made (through a ritualistic religious ceremony for example)?
If the only arguments we have for the German law - which seems pretty directly aimed at the new ethnics as well as the old targets of Germanic mental disorder - are that male circumcision is a horror on a par with FGM or needless radical mastectomy, spread by Jewish doctors with nefarious agenda, then the matter seems settled. That's a bad law.
Nonsense.
It is more in line with reducing the number of
unnecessary surgical procedures. Much like passing laws preventing doctors from encouraging women to undergo c-sections when there is no medical necessity for it.