content: MRA COWARDS are AFRAID to have  I guess I'll volunteer.  The American Academy of Pediatrics on Monday announced its first major shift on circumcision in more than a decade, concluding that the health benefits of the procedure clearly outweigh any risks.  And the Canadian Paediatric Society says otherwise.  you'll never even remember it  I guess rape and kidney harvesting are okay too, just make sure they don't remember it. From the Barbara Kay article:  Mr. Doughart that Jews, myself included, would unequivocally renounce the ritual of male circumcision if scientists provide a causal link between circumcision and increased risk for morbidity. But after 5,000 years of what is essentially a massive controlled study of Jewish and Muslim men, from which no negative effects can be ascribed to male circumcision  Lol.  The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends male circumcision on the basis of irrefutable evidence  Considering many refute it, I'd say it is refutable. Please note that Ms. Barbara never links to or says any specific study. I guess we're supposed to just take her word that those studies exist and say what she says they do.  Passing to the moral realm, the argument of “informed consent” is easily demolished by the fact that we routinely vaccinate our children against disease without their consent for their own good.  Vaccines do not lead to permanent organ modifications.  Even before we knew of the HIV connection, amongst those circumcising their sons, health and hygiene were always the reason  I seriously doubt the desert nomads in the iron ages were 100% concerned with hygiene and not at all with religious practices.  STDs are much more common in uncircumcised men, and circumcision causes a 12-fold reduction in the incidence of urinary tract infections  [citation needed]  is a “mutilation” and the obscene canard that it is the equivalent of sexist FGM  According to dictionary.com, mutilation is: "to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging part". I fail to see how removal of healthy tissue of the penis does not fall under that definition. I also fail to see how FGM is inherently sexist.  disgusting word to apply to the excision of a non-essential bacteria trap  Looks like she has something personal against foreskin. I'd hardly call this an unbiased, objective analysis that Ms. Barbara is trying to portray this article as.  Set aside the rights-based rhetoric  So disregard arguments that are inconvenient to you?  It’s about sex: Circumcised men have greater pre-orgasmic endurance; non-circumcision permits more frequent ejaculations  [citations very needed]  matters most to the anti-circumcision activists is their diminished pleasure with frequently changing sexual partners, as befits an era where the number of conquests is a more common metric of romantic success than long-term relationships  So is she admitting in a round about way that anti-circ people are right in that it reduces sexual pleasure?  Our legislators have better things to worry about than this.  Like the Yes Means Yes act, right?