If it is cleaner to have the foreskin removed, it can't possibly be significant. If you believe in evolution, then you understand that any trait which prevents an individual from reaching reproductive age, interferes with reproduction, or reduces reproduction will eventually be phased out. If foreskins made males unhealthier, they would not have foreskins. All mammals have foreskins. All human have foreskins. So how could they possibly be a medical problem?
And as all mammals have foreskins, this also indicates that the existence of foreskins is about more than random chance getting passed along with no benefit or detraction from survivability (like blond hair or blue eyes, like having freckles, or there being such a wide variety of hair textures, ear lobe shapes). If all mammals have foreskins, this is an indication that it serves a legitimate health and reproductive purpose. If you notice, each mammal's foreskin is a little different, depending on the life habits of the particular species.
This simple logic is enough to make me question any medical evidence indicating that removal of this evolutionary necessary equipment is a good idea.
How about eyelashes? Talk about an un-necessary piece of equipment. They fall out and get caught in the eye. They concentrate particles and debris and microorganisms, predisposing the eye to infection. It's far cleaner to expertly slice off the tiny bit of eye-lid that holds these follicles. Really, that's not extreme, it's just carrying the circumcision logic to a part of the body that is considered socially desirable (and is present in nearly all mammals).
In our culture we are so accustomed to the idea of modifying male genitalia, that it is normal, it is okay. It is desirable and necessary. Like brushing teeth or trimming a child's hair. So comparing it to a part of the body that we consider healthy and normal and needed seems extreme. But that is your cultural perspective, not reality.
that he was cir...
Follow Mothering