Drlee wrote:From what I recall of the post-war period,the issue of circumcision in the UK was about STI's,which gave rise to the increase in infant circumcision throughout the 1950-60's period.
No. It was about a combination of preference, religious belief and leftover 19th century myths. In fact, the practice declined in the UK during the 50's-60's.
The introduction of the NHS was the main reason for the decline, as despite being, 'FREE at the point of use', the NHS(rightly)turned away parents wanting it done, of the few exceptions being allowed,were MUSLIMS.
This was a throwback to 'Clive' of India,whereby the English were only allowed to trade if the representatives of the East India Company had,without exception,to prove that they had been cut & a large payment was made to seal the contract to trade.
Before the NHS, the practice was more widespread,supported by doctors,as well as the Army,but after the creation of the NHS doctors were actively against the practice as they did not & still do not see it as 'therapeutic'.
This change by doctors is the main reason for it's decline,otherwise, with the 'treatment' being 'free' on the new NHS,it may well have escalated into what we now experience as a 'financial crisis' in the NHS.
Statistics on the prevalence of the practice are sketchy,as well as anecdotal, no 'official' stats exist,but between the wars when it was paid for, the incidence was higher,this would most likely have persisted without the NHS or until doctors saw the light,as opposed to the income from doing such work.
Fairly reliable sources from peer publications mention the highest level as being approx 30%, declining to just under 16% & currently ,around 10%.
Post war-years between the early 1950-1990's saw the largest increase in STI's after which they fell,but have been climbing since,surprisingly in the older age groups,which may be related to divorce rates & consequent 'lifestyle' changes.
Drlee wrote:No it actually doesn't. It says nothing about it.
So, you don't think that STI's are the result of poor hygeine before & after coitus?
I strongly disagree, it's a well known FACT, that wherever bacteria are present on genital areas of the body, so too can viruses which cause diseases, particularly from coitus.
Wrong again. You have presented no evidence that circumcision is "contrary to the interest...." and I have presented evidence that it may be in their best interest.
The medical profession has already proven that for the simplest of reasons, that infantile circumcision before the age of sexual activity is not in any way justifiable, after all, doctors 'treat' patients for existing ailments.
Innoculations are one of the few 'preventative' ways to avoid diseases, hardly justifiable reason to do so on an infant just a few days old, nor is it 'therapeutic' either.
Silly. Just silly.
I was making a point that the level of arrogance posessed by people in deciding the 'interest' of vulnerable creatures such as their own infants, do not make the basis for good judgements, even when the advice is given by self-interested experts.
]Read what I posted last time about this. I see you chose not to respond to the facts again. I understand that you do not like religion but what you like is not at issue here. Nor is it evidence.
Clear enough for you now?
'Religion' is the main reason that is used to 'justify' the clinical barbarity of inflicting a knife to cut an infant's body.
Take that as you will, it's a FACT.