That it reduces urinary tract infection, whose cause is poor hygeine in the first place? If a baby is getting that many infection in his first year of life, then more than likely the culprit is that his parents don't know how to clean his foreskin; and why would they not know how to do that? Because they live in a society that is completely ignorant of the function of the foreskin.
Your comparison to circumcision being like a vaccination is completely and utterly flawed. Circumcision does not make you immune to any STD.
I have read more about doctors who don't perform circumcision properly (i.e. they make it too tight, don't remove enough of the foreskin, or the incision marks leave scarring that causes complications later) than I have about non-circumcised boys suffering terribly in life for having a foreskin.
I agree that it's the parents' choice over whether or not to have this procedure performed, but let's not delude ourselves into believing there are such overwhelmingly good reasons for doing it. The medical reasoning behind it is shaky at best, since most of the "risk" to men with a foreskin can be easily mitigated with proper hygeine. Most of the belief in circumcision stems from the religious crowd, or from the last medical generation that didn't even know what they were talking about. Both of those go hand in hand for why organizations like the UN advocate it so much.
The world's three largest religions, accounting for billions, all advocate for circumcision. Of course people think a circumcised penis looks attractive... because we have generations of people who have never seen what a natural penis even looks like. So of course that will establish an aesthetic norm.
"He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
My dick is so small that I only have a two-skin.
No red hearing at all. Circumcision does not match up with the definition of "mutilation" unless you read it in the most literalistic way possible, in that change of appearance = degradation of appearance. AND, if you read the definition in such a way, than all the things I listed above are ALSO mutiliation because they all change appearance as well. Now, you can say "Well, that's incredibly different", and yes, I'm not going to say that I think those things are the same as circumcision...but that's because I'm not using a literalistic definition for one thing and a looser definition for the other, but the same standard for them all. Others were not.More red herrings. You pull a tooth when the mouth is overcrowded, or when a cavity has progressed to becoming a potential abcess and is thus life threatening. Hair, nails, and the umbillical cord? Please tell me you are joking. You're a fine debater and even you must see that none of these things are comparable to a foreskin? A foreskin never grows back, and it is a functional part of the entire apparatus. Furthermore, its removal is painful and unnecessary. Maybe if you compared it to something irreplaceable, like cutting off a finger, you'd be closer to the mark.
"I am appalled that somebody who is the nominee...would take that kind of position"
"A court took away a presidency"
"...the brother of a man running for president was the governor of the state..."
It's horrifying because Trump is blunt instead of making overt implications.
Regardless, changing one's appearance in a manner that is NOT permanent is a tad different than cutting off a body part that cannot grow back.