On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 21:08:26 +1000, atec77 > wrote:

>On 22/12/2010 3:03 PM, Cheryl wrote:
>> On 12/21/2010 1:27 PM, Dan Abel wrote:
>>> It was considered medically beneficial back when I was a baby. It was
>>> recommended by most doctors, and most baby boys back then had it done.
>>> (I was born in 1949). Sometime after that, it was determined that it
>>> wasn't medically necessary, but it wasn't medically harmful either.
>>> Most baby boys were circumcised, simply so they would look like daddy
>>> and the other little boys.
>>
>> Other than the religious reasons, isn't it more healthy?
>>
>Mutilation is never healthy


Of course it can be.