The most significant argument that has been put forth for circumcision is that it prevents cancer of the penis. This may be true, but even proponents of circumcision admit that there have been occurrences of penile cancer in men circumcised as infants. This is the same incidence as in the countries of Northern Europe, where infant circumcision is almost unknown. Therefore it is apparent that the variable of circumcision or non-circumcision is not the primary variable influencing the occurrence of penile cancer. No one seriously advocates removing the breasts of female infants to prevent this more common malignancy of breast cancer.
Circumcision is the only surgery which is used to prevent disease.
Yet, nobody seriously advocates removing the breasts of female infants to prevent this more common malignancy of breast cancer. Almost certainly such a proposal would be greeted by howls of outrage over such a mutilation of women to prevent breast cancer. Circumcision must be recognized as an equally serious mutilation of men with equally insubstantial justification for continuing the practice. Circumcision must be recognized as an equally serious mutilation of men with equally insubstantial justification for continuing the practice. Most often a poor surgical result is not recognized until years after the event.