Circumcision - "It's necessary for health reasons"

It is certainly worthwhile to note that the majority of the world does not routinely circumcise infant boys. In fact the USA is the only country that circumcises infant boys for non-religous reasons. The couple of other countries with higher (higher in general, USA has the higest circumcision rates) circumcision rates, infants are only circumcised for religious reasons and often boys are cut when they are older either as a coming of age ritual, for religious reasons or at puberty for the supposed std benefits. If the foreskin caused as many problems as pro-circ'ers claim, why are 80% of the men elsewhere in the world intact and perfectly happy to be so?

Supposed health benefits to circumcision -

• A decreased risk of urinary tract infections.  
• This is actually close to the opposite of the truth. One major function of the foreskin is to protect the glans from infection by both covering the glans and by producing smegma which has antibacterial properties. By removing the foreskin, this shield is removed and bacteria has easier access to the urinary tract.
• The majority of urinary tract infections are easily treatable with antibiotics or natural remedies
• Females have much higher rates of uti's than do males across the board, any age group, whether males are cut or intact (the exception being that circumcised infant boys have a much higher rate of uti than males of any other age or females of any age - it is generally accepted that this is due to the trauma to the penis during surgery, general infections to the surgery site contaminating the diaper and that the boys "grow out of it" once their body adjusts to no longer having the foreskin as protection). Going back to the "cleaner" post, our solution for women is not to cut up their genitals, why should this be the answer for men?
• The commonly quoted statistic is that uti's occur in 0.1% of males and that circumcision "prevents" one percent of uti's. This means that for every 1,000 boys, circumcision is said to prevent 11. So we cut off 989 foreskins for no good reason because the 11 we "saved" 
• #1 may never have gotten a uti to begin with had his foreskin been left in place to protect him
• #2 could have been treated with much less drastic measures than amputation

• A reduced risk of sexually transmitted diseases in men.
• IMO all the arguments both supporting and debunking research and studies regarding std/hiv rates in circumcised vs. intact males is COMPLETELY irrelevant. I know of no newborn boy out screwing around, contracting and passing std's on to their partners. If a young man is too irresponsible to use protection when he comes of age and chooses to believe that getting circumcised is going to protect him, I fully support his decision to get cut at that time. Until then this argument is irrelevant.
• (for those of you who may be tempted to argue the "It's better when cut as an infant" please hold that thought and save it for the next installment of this series)

• Protection against penile cancer and a reduced risk of cervical cancer in female sex partners.
• Obviously removing the foreskin will prevent cancer of the foreskin but it does not prevent cancer of the penis in general
• Penile cancer statistics are pretty even among circumcised vs. intact men
• Penile cancer is more rare than male breast cancer - do we remove mammary tissue from infant boys to prevent future breast cancer?
• Breast cancer in males is minuscule compared to breast cancer in women - do we remove mammary tissue in infant girls to prevent future breast cancer?
• Cervical cancer in female partners - see above section on std's.

• Prevention of balanitis (inflammation of the glans) and balanoposthitis (inflammation of the glans and foreskin).
• and
• Prevention of phimosis (the inability to retract the foreskin) and paraphimosis (the inability to return the foreskin to its original location).
• Both of these are legitimate problems. However
• They are treatable with much less extreme measures than amputation
• They are rare to the point that, in countries that do not regularly circumcise, less than 2% of males experience problems so severe that circumcision is deemed necessary.
• It is also worthwhile to note that these problems, as well as the ever popular "infections" that are cited as reasons to circumcise baby boys, are caused by
• Forcible retraction
• As mentioned in the "It's Cleaner" post, at birth the foreskin is fused to the glans much like the fingernail is fused to the finger. As the boy grows up, his foreskin should naturally release anywhere between 2yrs to puberty. If forced apart before ready, many problems occur including balantitis, balanoposthitis, phimosis, adhesions, infections, damage to the foreskin which certainly might only be fixed by surgeries down the line and sexual dysfunction in adulthood.
• Improper hygiene
• A boy who does not wash is going to have problems whether he is intact or cut. Teaching him to wash is the best solution. Once he is old enough to decide for himself, if he would rather have his foreskin amputated than wash it, I think he's slightly messed up but, hey, it's his body, it's his choice.

Next up - "It's better to have it done while they are infants than to have to do it as an adult"