Parental right is another topic for another debate.
IF everyone used protection when having sex, I would agree with you. However, reality dictates otherwise, so a circumcised population will have (and does have) noticeable reductions in HIV rates. One less case of HIV is still one less case, even if the odds are only 30% lower. Hell, that's not a small benefit buckeroo.also for the moot point as you wish you think that because if you are circumcised and have unprotected sex the small helath benefit makes it a good idea to be circumcised, i posit the following as FGM makes females not have sex unless their husband demands it, that should translate to a very strong protection against all venereal diseases.
It Remains A Stupid Idea And Thus a Moot Point.
So no. It isn't a moot point. It has a noticeable and recordable impact on HIV rates.
Yes they did think of that, which is why in their conclusion they state further studies should be done on a population where male circumcision is common. The study does not take into account individuals who received the procedure for reasons other than medical complications.they thought of that, also even if you get it late in life for a reason, circumcision solves the problem, i know because i know the reasons, and even if only they have problems that kinda indicates how stupid it is as they can compare.
I have had both. Normal non-phimosis penis until i was 24, developed all stages of phimosis during a year ( a small cut in the inner part of the foreskin didnt heal right wich caused the foreskin to enter a cycle of shrink, wich caused the wound to open again, shrink even more, and so on), then had it circumcised at 25 and i am 29 now. I can actually give a valid opinion of circumcision vs no-circumcision. Its not a big deal, but it lowers pleasure, it causes a dryness that is not supposed to be there in sexual organs wich can cause some skin problems and overall, i would prefer to still have the foreskin even when you need to clean it carefully (or it stinks, no big deal if you clean it when you shower) . Low phimosis and moderate phimosis werent that bad, would rather have the foreskin and live with it, when the phimosis is greater, just get circumcision, it can be very nasty.
My conclusion is that the foreskin is nice to have, avoids dryness, protects and is just a protective case (and actually provides pleasure not a lot, but it does present a difference), removing it without need is a bit stupid.
Except that hasn't been proven completely? There's been men who have gotten them later in life that say it's no different than previously was.
Honestly if the parents can let their son keep their foreskin/penis in good condition while growing up with foreskin more power to them and it's ok. I've seen some UGLY uncircumcised dicks out there though and I've seen some good looking ones and the ones that look fine were taken care of growing up. I'd hate to be in my teens/20's with some messed up looking junk.