How can we explain the statistics showing a low risk associated with circumcision?

Circumcision makes a man less likely to use a condom for two reasons:
- He is misled by the media into thinking he is immune from STDs (even though 450,000 US men who were cut at birth have died of AIDS), and
- His impaired sensitivity makes further desensitization by covering himself very undesirable.

Infants don’t have sex. Infant circumcision is risky cosmetic surgery on an unconsenting minor. To cut an infant, one must first tear the still-fused foreskin away from the glans and then contend with working on a very small-scale specimen where every mm of imprecision will be magnified as the victim grows. Nobody could know how much the victim will grow, so every infant circumcision yields a mystery result later, which the victim didn’t choose. About one in five infant circumcisions give distinctly unintended results. A good number cause real damage like curvature, glans gouges, skin bridges, adhesions, bulgy veins, numb zones, jagged scars, skin tags, etc. http://www.noharmm.org/IDcirc.htm. Hundreds die every year.

A condom costs the U.N. about 3 cents to give away. How many condoms could one distribute for the cost of a medicalized circumcision?

Every mammal on earth and in the sea evolved a foreskin before there was surgery or even soap. It shows remarkable arrogance to be of a mind that this creation can be improved upon.

By the way, Dr. Tonar, a circumcised penis is never described as intact. To learn more about the natural penis in 20 minutes than US med students have been told upon graduation, view this video: http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/video/prepuce.html

HIS body, HIS decision.