The Argument Against Arbitrary American Amputation
I am half American. Feel free to hate me for this. Feel free, furthermore, to sit and swivel. Anyroad, I was shocked to discover, a few years ago, that many American boys are circumcised, not for religious reasons, not due to deformity, but as a matter of course, after birth.
The primary argument for this spurious, outdated medical mutilation of the alledgedly superfluous flap of flesh adorning the newborn's penis is that if left intact, the foreskin can trap filth and smegma, leading to infection. Well, this is certainly true, but only for members who are not washed regularly. I am sure that many of a man's appendages would require surgical removal if his level of hygiene were consistently this poor.
Is the mere possibility of infection truly reason enough to continue this archaic and dangerous practice? By the same argument, boys direct from the freshly voided womb of their mothers would have their appendices removed, lest they at some time develop appendicitis; or have their vestigial tails cropped, against the day when fragments of shattered coccyx puncture the prostate.
Furthermore, even if ablutively misguided males do develop subcultures in this protective region, there is nothing to stop them... washing there and getting rid of it. Or... circumcising then, when it has become a problem. If the US developed an AIDS endemic, would government nurses visit infected communities and weld latex sheaths onto every new boy? It does not seem quite so implausible when faced with their illogical treatment of this insignificant danger.
It is high time that the needless clinical damage to the most psychologically significant and genetically creative organ of unconsenting male infants is ceased.
It just concerns me that this mindless pre-emption of monsters-under-the-bed that will only appear if the populace fails to maintain basic reserves of common sense is somewhat indicative of the governmental thought processes of my nation.