> The "medical case" is that the "marginal benefit" of nonconsensual penile
> excision consists of a lessened probability of contracting AIDS during each
> episode of unprotected sex with an HIV-positive African prostitute. There
> are no others. In view of the fact that it is inconceivable such a
> ridiculously "marginal" issue would lead the Official Health Authorities to
> even take up the subject were it not of such overwhelming importance to
> Islamic and Judaic Orthodoxy, "disdain for religion" could not be more
> appropriate.
The positions of the CDC and WHO as I understand them were based on evidence of lessened risk of HIV transmission to men in the absence of a condom. The goal in this case of these agencies is harm reduction where the social environment discourages condom use. I doubt whether the woman is a prostitute makes much difference. Some find the role of prostitutes in these findings significant for unexplained reasons. Perhaps their disreputable presence is supposed to invalidate the findings?
The AAP (not APA, sorry) position is based on more than that:
<quote>
Since the last policy was published, scientific research shows clearer health benefits to the procedure than had previously been demonstrated. According to a systematic and critical review of the scientific literature, the health benefits of circumcision include lower risks of acquiring HIV, genital herpes, human papilloma virus and syphilis. Circumcision also lowers the risk of penile cancer over a lifetime; reduces the risk of cervical cancer in sexual partners, and lowers the risk of urinary tract infections in the first year of life.
<unquote>
References are at the AAP site.
It is an interesting question whether the practice would be considered at all without its origin in religious tradition. But the origins of the practice have no bearing on whether it has any net benefit.
-- Andy