This article points out that circumcision could be defined as torture, and that the questionable claims of health benefits followed the prudish fad of this in the US in the Victorian era to punish small boys for masturbating. i.e. lame excuses after the fact.
I know there is also an older religious excuse for it, but there is also a religious excuse for female genital mutilation in places like Africa, and in my opinion neither is healthy nor necessary. The female "circumcision" in particular waits till the girl is older, and removes the fun bits, and that must be supremely painful. Not to mention it's done pretty often with no antiseptic and with a rusty old razor or something, if it's some tribe in the bush. OWWWW!
In my book both are barbaric relics and should be abandoned. I cannot believe that a loving God as described in the Bible would want His children to suffer mutilation of any kind. He made us in His image, the foreskin is part of that image. He would not have made the boys wrong and then insist they all be mutilated to be made right.
Maybe I'm stepping on someone's religion. Sorry. I'm not going to be "PC" if it trumps common sense. The alternative would be that God is some kind of sadist. I don't think so.
It's not about health. It's not about God supposedly messing up the blueprint for the boys. It's about control, and perhaps even originally about someone (God or the circumcisor) absorbing the fear/pain energy from the victim for some kind of mojo. F**K that. F**K circumcision. If I have a son ever, he will not be circumcised. (Needless to say that also goes for any daughters. But they don't do that here anyway.)
There is a push right now to circumcise boys and men in Africa, supposedly to slow the spread of HIV. I question the would be circumcisors' statistics, and I hope the men and boys refuse to do it. You don't need to chop it off. Just wash it more. Duh.
The Path From Ferguson to Liberty: Limiting Federal Power
41 minutes ago