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]