“Intactivists”–the nutty name anti-circumcision activists have given themselves–who aim to outlaw infant circumcision, claim that the procedure has no benefits and constitutes child abuse.
Baloney. There are at least mild health benefits for men, to the point that the American College of Pediatricians recommends that the choice of whether to circumcise be left to parental discretion.
Now, it seems that circumcision is also good for women’s health in the reduced transmission of STDs and other benefits. From The Lancet study:
Strong, consistent evidence was found for protection against cervical cancer (eight of nine studies involving women in multiple non-African settings), cervical dysplasia (four of five studies involving women in Africa and other continents), herpes simplex virus type 2 infection (six of six studies, including one RCT, involving women in Africa, Asia, and the USA), chlamydia (four of five studies, involving women in five continents), and syphilis (six of six studies, involving women in Africa and Asia).
There’s more, but I don’t want to risk eye-glazing.
The utter obsession some have about outlawing circumcision–whether undertaken for religious or health reasons–has always puzzled me.
But now we know that other than emotion and a bizarre belief expressed by some intactivists that sex isn’t as good for the circumcised, there appears no substantial reason to oppose the practice, much less outlaw it.