[bjourne]

Read this article, it demolishes the "health benefits" argument: http://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2017/08/15/does-female-g... In short, if male circumcision has health benefits, then female circumcision has too and even African tribes' rituals in which they pull each others teeth out because it prevents tooth decay!

Regardless of that, and assuming that there are major health benefits to circumcision, the Jewish and Muslim communities that practiced it for millennia, couldn't possibly have been aware of any. Because they didn't perform any epidemiological studies measuring rates of penile cancer and HIV infections. But they must have noticed a lot of babies and boys getting fevers and dying from infections shortly after the procedure was performed on them. Clearly, the rite lived on because "God told them to" despite the adversarial effects it had on their children's health.

[throwanem]

Can you cite some substantiation for the claim of high morbidity and mortality historically resulting from circumcision of male neonates? I'm not tremendously in favor of the practice myself, as it seems unnecessarily traumatic, but I also think it's worth paying heed to the occasional fact, no matter how firmly you happen to be against it.

And I'm not especially impressed by that article you linked, either. Several of the sources it cites in support of its arguments, when examined, turn out to be tangentially related at best, and not at all supportive of the claims to which they're linked.