One of the worst is "so he can look like his father."
Then go buy a f*%$ing wig, mustache, glasses, mole, etc to also make him look more like his father.
I was circumcised, but luckily avoided it for my two sons. During a prenatal visit, when our midwife first asked us if we wanted our first son circumcised, my wife and I looked at each other and said "ya, probably." We didn't know any better. All the males in both of our families are circumcised. We thought it was the normal thing to do. BUT, after about 2 minutes of research we both knew we did not want it done for our children.
Now "the CDC is currently debating whether or not to endorse routine circumcision for male newborns in an effort to help quell the spread of HIV."
"Products like Dermagraft-TC, which sells for about $3,000 per square foot, are grown from the cells in infant foreskins and used as a temporary wound covering for burn patients. One foreskin contains enough genetic material to grow 250,000 square feet of skin." http://www.foreskin.org/f4sale.htm
Follow the money.
Even if they make the assumption that HIV is real and causes aids and can be spread through sex, how is routine neonatal circumcision a solution. Infants don't have sex! Its absolutely ridiculous. Too bad the doctors, scientists, and so many parents won't do the 2 minutes of research you did and figure out the facts for themselves.
Penn & Teller dedicated an episode of their show Bulls*** on circumcision (Season 3, Episode 28). Very eye opening, luckily for us amputees it can be reversed with reasonable success. People should probably let the kid decide later in life. The religious argument is crazy. So, your telling me god created me perfect in every way except one.
I agree, its very easy to see how someone without any understanding of how to look at research (ie. most people) could be conned into thinking that if WHO say it, then it must be well-researched, and accurate.
I like some of the things WHO say, some of the time, but I do not believe they are particularly reliable for unbiased truth. I will never forget reading about Acrylamide on their website about 4-5 years ago. The biggest load of nonsense I ever heard. Basically saying that Acrylamide may be a potent carcinogen in humans, and there is clear evidence that acrylamide is found in higher than "safe" amounts in heated carbohydrate foods, but that there's no rationale for stopping heating carbohydrates. Furthermore they expected processed food companies, whose products had the highest levels, would regulate themselves on the matter. I didnt know whether to laugh or be totally baffled.
WHO and CDC often produce or perpetuate flawed myths. That they say something to the public, does not make me believe that it might be based on concrete evidence evidence, nor that it is true.
The only evidence available in this area is correllation. correllation is not evidence, and does not determine causation. You can correllate anything with anything if you interpret and present the results in the right way.
You're right, I am smart. Smart enough to know when there is proof, and when there is speculation. And smart enough to know not that not everything that comes from the CDC and WHO is based on any true science or rational thinking.
As far as I'm concerned, if foreskins increase the risk of any disease, including STD's, when living a natural lifestyle, then we would not have evolved to have foreskins. We would be naturally circumcised. The reality is that they serve a purpose.