And a family history of diabetes is something to consider when deciding about circumcision, as sugar in the urine is one of the main causes of inflammation of the foreskin, IIRC, meaning you might want to consider the risk of repeated problems. On the other hand, that triple-incision preputial plasty also prevents the phimosis problem without removing the foreskin. Back to the baseline again, then.
Doctor Jackson - The logical fallacy is only in using one if-then as a proof or disproof of another if-then… as PROOF. It was using it as an analogy, not evidence (sorry if that wasn’t obvious). As an analogy, can you show me how they are not the same pattern? Can you show me how removing a body part prophylactically to prevent cancer in one case is fundamentally different from removing a body part prophylactically to prevent cancer in another case, as a standard practice? There simply is no other procedure that uses that pattern, none that would be considered rational medical practice … other than female circumcision (clitoral hood only, not talking excision or enfibulation here), which has the same reasons given for performing it (cleanliness, health, culture). Do you also support that practice as medically sound? There, the example is EXACTLY functionally the same - removing a ‘useless’ part, which has similar consequences for the individual (bleeding, infection, rare long-term pain or physical/sexual consequences, even rarer death), without consent of the individual in question. Same pattern, also just fine, without consent as a ROUTINE procedure?
A lot of the argument either way is based on an opinion about whether the parts in question are ‘useful’ or ‘useless’ - that is a value judgement on the part of the parents/adults/specialists. It has nothing to do with whether the parts have a function (which both do, even if we generally survive quite well without them), it has to do with how you esteem the parts (and the function), yourself.
The fact that no western (and few other) medical body(ies) considers routine prophylactic removal of any body part for prevention of cancer (or infection) a normal reaction in any other disease process makes the circumcision argument ‘for preventing cancer’ rather weak, IMHO. (Can you come up with one example otherwise? I couldn’t.) Especially when national cancer associations consider it an inappropriate prophylaxis, too. There isn’t any other routine procedure for infection prevention, either, that requires surgical intervention as a routine practice. That makes me wonder about the logical fallacies involved in promoting routine infant circumcision, myself.
BTW, I have absolutely no problem with individual people reviewing the research and deciding what is important to them, rationally and scientifically. And yes, that means that some people will chose other than what is recommended by the specialists, because they have specific concerns that are weighted differently (through personal experience, fear/anxiety, family history, or plain old ick-factor) than the weightings used by the ‘experts’. They may still make the decision based on factors that the child in question later finds apalling, but they are at least making a considered, informed decision. Quite honestly, I’ve never been horrified at someone making an informed decision, even if I’d tend the other direction, and I have provided research links for several friends to help them make up their own minds - some chose one way, others the other, based on what they considered risks they were willing to live with personally. I am puzzled by the ‘look like dad’ reason, that’s all. Deciding on a non-routine basis that circumcision is the appropriate choice for your child is not something that disturbs me (though I do want people to follow the recommendations for pain management, and it does disturb me rather a lot if they don’t…).
As for the groups who reviewed the research one way, and the groups that reviewed the research and came to the other conclusion, for pediatric standards, I tend to go with pediatric specialists, thanks. That makes the AAP a fairly rational group to side with (and the pediatric group in Canada, and all of the ones in Europe, etc.). Of course, siding with any expert just because they are experts is a logical fallacy, too…
Dr. J, I would rather that you had stated your position as clearly the first time (that you felt that examining the research and coming to your own conclusions for your own case was a rational approach), rather than it coming off as you supporting blanket circumcision for all and providing research to back that up, as if that was the answer for everyone. That is how it came across, if you weren’t aware.
Honestly, I don’t think we’re in fundamental disagreement - I don’t think (given your later responses) that you are espousing that everyone should have it done, just that there are enough medical plusses in some areas under some conditions that considering those areas more strongly than the negative issues as an individual does not make you irrational or stupid. That’s not quite how you came across the first time, though… And I’m afraid that I also didn’t come across accurately, either, partly because I thought I was responding to someone whose base assumption was that circumcision should be a routine procedure for everyone to have done in infancy. Unless I’ve misread you twice, and that really is your position?
Back to the OP. You asked where all the circumcised folks are? They’re in the US, or they are in areas with Jewish and Muslim populations. The rest of the world considers us strange, I think. But then, many days, so do I. 
