Why is there still any debate among the masses as to whether circumcision of newborn males is a good thing, when there seems to be no debate among scientists and medical experts?
A new analysis of the studies conducted thus far on whether circumcision affects sexual function in any way concludes:
“The highest-quality studies suggest that medical male circumcision has no adverse effect on sexual function, sensitivity, sexual sensation, or satisfaction.”
This comes about a year after the American Academy of Pediatrics declared:
“According to a systematic and critical review of the scientific literature, the health benefits of circumcision include lower risks of acquiring HIV, genital herpes, human papilloma virus and syphilis. Circumcision also lowers the risk of penile cancer over a lifetime; reduces the risk of cervical cancer in sexual partners, and lowers the risk of urinary tract infections in the first year of life.”
The AAP went so far in its statement to suggest that, since the health benefits of infant male circumcision are so well-established, the procedure should be covered by insurance!
“The AAP believes the health benefits are great enough that infant male circumcision should be covered by insurance, which would increase access to the procedure for families who choose it.”
Then why do we still have some courts in Europe trying to ban circumcision? If it’s not for health reasons, then…?