>> Stan (**) wrote:
> 
>> : Look come into the 20 th century: There is no medical justification
>> : for circumcision. None. Zip. Zilch. Nada. That's why it's a dying
>> : practice. Indeed there are medical reasons for not doing it.
> 
> Now here we have an uninformed opinion.

I agree. 

Dr. Alexander Walker is Chair of the Department of Epidemiology
at the Harvard School of Public Health. Every year, he reviews
hundreds of published medical studies on all kinds of subjects.
He evaluated more than a dozen studies selected by Doctors
Wiswell and Denniston to support their opposing viewpoints. His
conclusion: "Overall, the medical literature comes down pretty
strongly and pretty consistently on the side of a net benefit for
routine circumcision in newborns. A lot of the data that we're
talking about has really evolved in the last 10 or 15 years. If
you look at the current data, the view that there's really no
medical benefit is really an outdated view." However, Dr. Walker
also makes it clear that the benefits of circumcision are
statistically quite small. [ABC-TV's 20/20, Jan 15, 1999]

Don

P.S. Parents who are interested in a rather thorough and
balanced presentation of the arguments for and against infant
circumcision may be interested in obtaining my article,
"Circumcision: the Pros, the Cons, and the Bottom Line." The
article is available via e-mail as follows:
1.) send an e-mail to the following address (reassembled):
secular at earthling dot net
[and please note that it is earthling, not earthlink]
2.) with the following subject line: send info