On Sat, 18 Dec 1999, Hans Kylberg wrote:

> If it was better without a foreskin on the penis, evolution would have
> made us that way.

Hmmm... not really.  There's nothing in neodarwinism to prevent
suboptimal but non-lethal traits from sticking around
indefinitely.

Personally, I see no good reason for routine circumcision,
despite being the beneficiary of the procedure myself.  There are
cases -- uncommon but not unheard of -- where the foreskin is in
fact too tight and this causes chafing and inflammation and
circumcision is therapeutic.  As far as I know such cases are too
uncommon to be a good reason for preventive circumcision.

At any rate, the statement quoted above is incorrect, even
according to neodarwinism.

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]