Alex-
Many people agree with you Anthere, even
in the United States. This is an issue that has
become galvanized because of the supposed
"antisemite" connotations of circumcision (though
moslems also practice this form of male genital
mutilation as a religious right of the parents).
This is not the place for a circumcision flamewar. Many people feel that
in spite of lacking a foreskin, they are fully sexually functional, and
may even believe in the supposed medical benefits of the procedure. As a
matter of fact, there are some recent studies which promote the belief
that circumcision even prevents HIV. I say "promote the belief" because
these studies are fundamentally methodologically flawed, but it is easy to
see that people might believe them, given that they have been published in
peer reviewed (US) journals and have received widespread (international)
media attention.
There are people who believe just as forcefully that circumcision is
right, decent and proper as I believe that it is wrong, harmful and
pointless, and there are internally consistent arguments that can be made
for both sides. Few subjects are as eligible to turn into long lasting
flamewars as this one. Please do not encourage rants on this subject --
they do not really contribute to a debate about inclusion standards.
Wikipedia is not Usenet. It's not a place for advocacy of any kind. If
anything, we should talk about how to make the article [[circumcision]]
better, not about what's morally wrong with the procedure. Otherwise we
might as well talk about the international arms trade, social equality,
global warming and electronic voting machines, all very serious issues.
Regards,
Erik