Male circumcision needs to be seen as barbaric and unnecessary – just like female genital mutilation

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • As the medical ethicist Brian Earp has pointed out, “A large proportion of the current medical literature purporting to show health benefits for male circumcision has been generated by doctors who were themselves circumcised at birth – often for religious reasons – and who have cultural, financial, or other interests in seeing the practice preserved.”
      Exakt. Das ist auch so ein "Elefant im Wohnzimmer".

      Wenn bei jeder Veröffentlichung zu dem Thema die Wissenschaftler ihre eigenen Vorhautstatus, bzw. bei Frauen den ihres Vaters, und den Vorhautstatus ihrer männlichen Kinder erklären würden - unter Conflict of Interests - statt einfach "non declared" - wäre blitzschnell klar, woher der Wind weht.

      There is no skin like foreskin