[Skybird]

The medical debate is about anaerobic versus aerobic bacterias, and is even linked lately to AIDS. But - that plays no role here. The argument given by relgions for circumcision is no medical one, but a religious one. Not to mention that the medical arguments for the most have been proven since long to be no arguments, but lousely examined excuses to construct an argument. Again there is nothing in the statistics letting it appear unreasonbale to ask why subjects are not allowed to wait to grow up and when they are 18 or older form a decision by themselves whether they want to undergo circumcision or not.

And even if it were true that it helps to lower AIDs infection rates, this is no issue a baby (Jews) or just 6 year old (was it six years for Muslims?) must be protected from, since at that age babies and kids have sexual intercourse only against their will and ability, and always to their disadvantage. - Where we again close the circle to religions: fatwas by Muslim clerics and namely Ayatollah Chomenei ruling that the penetration of a baby's openings by finger is okay as long as no penetration by penis takes place, or the massive ammount of personality deformations you see in the personell stock of Christian clerics, leading to high numbers of sexual child abuse there, and attempts by their higher offices to hide and cover that.