Yabby, depicting an argument by representing only one side of the equation in a certain light is disingenuous.

You already know the answer, because the reason for the 'positive' effects described are not acceptable, i.e. the reduction of risky sexual behaviour by the significant desensitisation of the sexual organ, which has many detrimental effects as well.

This is not an equivalent argument for male circumcision, where there is a physiological reason for disease prevention (not behavioural) and no demonstrable desensitisation. The only risks that have been demonstrated are those related to the procedure itself, which are rapidly diminishing with advances in medical technology.

To many in the medical profession, the benefits outweigh the risks, and so this can be used as support for a parental choice for their child. There is no reason to ban it, nor indeed have it instituted as routine procedure, and I think that many parents should be allowed to choose. Don't like the practice? Simple, don't choose it for your children. But it's not a good enough argument to remove parental rights on the issue.

Poirot,

That is a cheap shot, and beside the point. The photo I got from google images and just happened to be the first one I clicked on. It in no way indicates that I am referring to any of their opinions or wack a doodle ideas. I assume that you have the IQ to understand the difference and are just being deliberately obtuse.

As for these "disturbing" items raised by Mr Brown, they are at worst inappropriate if undeclared. Compared to the blatant rorting by Williamson and Thomson, it is akin to trying to discredit a witness on a Jay walking offense in a murder trial.

Yabby,

Why not lean a little further to the ridiculous and suggest involuntary euthanasia for the elderly and disabled if the statistics support it?

It would be nice occasionally to see rational debate rather than emotive BS.

You missed the point, SM. Just because something might perhaps
have claimed health benefits, is not enough to make it such a good
idea. Good penile hygiene has health benefits too.

Circumcision rates have dropped dramatically in Australia, but when
I've asked parents as to why they had it done, its not health, but
usually that dad wants the young fella to look just like him.

The question of circumcision was something way out on the periphery of my life until I had a son at 41. Whereas this procedure had been performed widely in my own generation, by the time he was born in 2001, the practice had greatly diminished. In his generation it's probably now "unusual" in Australia to be circumcised.

The question didn't arise. It was something we didn't consider. Nor did the doctor raise it. My (nearly eleven year-old) son has had no trouble at all in maintaining all the bits he was born with.

In fact, the only mother I've heard who was dissatisfied with the decision not to circumcise her son, was a woman in my son's kindy class, who complained out loud after doing the rounds of doctors attempting to get her five year-old circumcised- her reason? She didn't like the look of it.

Yabby, Poirot,

Both of you are missing the point I am trying to make. I am not suggesting that circumcision should be compulsory. However, given that the benefits outweigh the risks, maybe marginally, that the choice be left to the parents and that the meddling busy bodies that feel they are obliged to enforce their opinions on others realize that they are doing this for themselves and not for the children.

I was present when the urologist did the procedure. He used an anesthetic cream and with a plastic implement removed the foreskin with the child hardly noticing. The antiseptic cream applied was removed in 4 days with not even a whimper. The emotive dialog is fabricated by those with no concept of the procedure.

Of the people that have had the procedure, I have yet to meet anyone that regrets it.