The tax payer pays for the roads we all drive on. The tax payer pays for public facilities that we all use. Have a look around you and have a good long hard think about all of those public facilities and services we each (rich and poor) use daily, which we take for granted, thanks to the tax payer. A civilised society looks after its ill because even if the public hospitals only benefit you in terms of the research knowledge they generate about illness and health, we will all one day find ourselves benefiting from public health services.

Furthermore, I do not perceive male circumcision as a cosmetic procedure!

I saw a comment that the new cervix anti cancer innoculation should be
given to uncircumsized boys. This because that is the source of the virus.

Has anyone else heard that ?

Why is non-medical circumcision even legal - it is unauthorized, unnecessary surgery, without the consent of the patient. If he wants someone to cut the the protective skin away from around the end of his penis he can get someone to do that when he is old enough.

It is an epitomizing sign of the times that the government pays for women to go to Africa to protest against female circumcision in a foreign country while all around this country little boys are getting the ends of their dicks cut off for no good reason - except to say, 'if this is what we are prepared to do to you when you havent done anything wrong, imagine what we are prepared to do to you if you cross us'

Some people seem to get rather het up about this.
I suspect the Jews woke up to this virus problem some thousands of years ago
and practised male circumcision to protect the women from the virus and cancer.
They either did not have an explanation or forgot why they do it.
It's like their practice of not eating pork. The arabs also do not eat pork.
Their reason for not eating pork was quite valid as they could not control the parasites.
However the Chinese worked out what the animal husbandry solution was
and they then could eat pork.
The Jews and the Arabs as usual were slow on the uptake and then let
religious dogma overide their original purpose.

what is the ladies' preference on that subject :-)

"Furthermore, I do not perceive male circumcision as a cosmetic procedure!"
Well, it is, whether you consider it or not. It is mutilation of a child who has no say in what is done to them and it will affect sexual response (http://www.infocirc.org/winn.htm). I don't get why religious people do it. Wouldn't they be against it... you know since "we are made in God's image".